On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 11:16:57 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

Dogman quoted:

"I am a physician in the Western US. I have read your book and am in
awe: you have really opened up a can of worms here—and I couldn’t be
happier!

"Among my duties as a doctor is to perform pre-operative assessments
on overweight patients who want to undergo bariatric surgery, a.k.a.
gastric bypass, gastric sleeve, laparoscopic band procedure, etc. All
of these procedures involve surgery to promote weight loss and
avoid/prevent/avert the complications of obesity, such as diabetes and
heart disease, although, for many people, it is vanity-based: They can
buy fake nails and color their hair and wear fancy jewelry, but they
can’t hide their weight. As the volume of patients and the volume of
the patients (i.e. waist circumference) being evaluated for these
procedures continues to rise in our community, I find myself in an
ethical dilemma: How can I, in good conscience, help these patients
undergo an invasive procedure to lose weight when the same and even
better outcome could be achieved by eliminating wheat?

Wheat is addictive for some. High glycemic foods incluing wheat are
addictive for more. Thus eating them is rewarded by the body. With
diet alone there's no physical punishment for eating the wrong thing.
Lap band surgery adds that physical punishment.

Positive punishment, to really be effective, must occur almost
immediately following that which is to be punished. For example, smoke
a cigarette, immediately get violently ill. **** into the wind, etc.

Positive reenforcement works better than negative reenforcement.

Not really. It all depends on the application.

Negative reinforcment (R-) is very effective in training dogs, for
example, and works much faster than using positive reinforcment (R+)
alone.

The dog is first taught that he is in total control of the collar's
stimulation. The collar is stimulated by the trainer, then the trainer
gives a command, and the dog knows that the faster he obeys, the
faster the stimulation goes away. This is a very powerful way to
LEARN, but it has its limitations. So does positive reinforcment,
positive punishment (P+) and negative punishment (P-).

With addictive foods the positive reenforcement is physical and immediate.
Negative reenforcement is only available in slower behavioral form.

Yes, timing is everything when it comes to operant conditioning. But
R- doesn't need to be "slower," as illustrated above. I'm pretty sure
that if I could get you to wear an electronic collar, I could get you
to eat only the foods that are "good" for you. In fact, I bet I could
get you to eat dog feces to get that collar turned off.

To me that's the key of why diets fail such a high percentage of the time -
Too much immeditate link between behavior and physical reward; too much
delayed link between behavior and psychological punishment.

Very true! Which is why I recommend that newbies focus on their diets
at first and forego a lot of exercise (other than cardio). Going on a
diet and watching your weight go up (or not come down) can be
extremely nonproductive.

Until there is some product that offers physical punishment for eating
the wrong food no voluntary diet system is going to work for certain
people. With lap band someone can make the voluntary choice to put
punishment in place. Then it's not voluntary until reversal surgery is
done. Terrible but it's the only working alternative available.

Well, I'll admit that surgery is sometimes a rational option, but
given the potential for serious side effects, and the many
alternatives that should be fully explored first, I'm not a fan.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman