Hmm. Interesting conversation, and for the most part, I agree with the majority of the PP, that a lot of us who are/were overweight/obese, got that way because we had "broken" internal satiety indicators. What I don't agree with, is the book's conclusion that, because our satiety indicators can be tricked by some external cues (essentially, by manipulation of the size of the container or the size of the serving) that this means all of these people have broken or at least dysfunctional satiety indicators. I mean, in what area of life are we NOT influenced to some degree by the comparators? Don't we also get manipulated into thinking 2 lines are different lengths if they're bracketed by < > instead of > < (a common optical illusion)? What about thinking a room is hotter than it really is because we've just stepped in from a snowstorm, versus that same room temperature when it's 90 outside? To me, these psychology studies of appetite simply reprove what should be obvious- humans are not robots, and we can be influenced by many extraneous variables. So, sure, let's stack the deck as much in our dieting favor as possible - both those of us with "broken" internal satiety indicators, and those of us with relatively intact ones.
|
