Saturday, June 13, 2015

Can Blender Food Help Us Lose Body Fat?

I use the blender for weight control as do a lot of people, but I've been very careful about tracking my results and I've found that I've had  varying success using the blender as a weight control tool.    I think I've discovered some of the reasons for the variance.   I'm not interested in motivational stories or anecdotes or testimonials  or selling recipes or blenders here, I'm interested in the specifics of what makes the blender a useful tool for weight control and what makes it less useful in some cases.   

The main ingredients in a smoothie intended for weight control are fruits and vegetables.  Protein powders often figure in recipes but I want to consider them separately because in most cases they are not used for weight control specifically.  There are exceptions to that such as protein-sparing fasts, but it is the fruits and vegetables that most advocates of blender foods are talking about for the most part. 

In general we think of fruits and vegetables as healthy.  Not much to argue with there, but I want to first examine the basis of this idea so we have a clear understanding of what we are talking about because in this case the details matter and not just the general principle that fruits and vegetables are mostly very healthy food.   

In general we tend to accept the assumption that fruits and vegetables are healthy compared to most of what most people eat.  The most convenient and least expensive foods and ones we value most tend to be the least healthy in general.  Compared to those, fruits and vegetables are clearly more conducive to good health.  

There are two important points of contention though:

  1. "Smoothies" often contain ingredients for flavor that are not just blended fruits and vegetables and maybe some protein powder.  They can contain a lot of added sugar, and significant added fats because  those often make the drink a lot more appealing.  However that is a concern mainly if you buy commercial drinks or  if you are careless about the recipes you use.

  1. There is also evidence that drinking food can sometimes have completely different effects on satiety than eating it.  This is a much more important concern to me and one that I want to examine in more detail.  The tricky part is that the effects of drinking calories can be good or bad depending on other things. 

For the moment let's assume we are intelligently blending fruits and vegetables, and that the resulting drink is healthier in most ways than commercial soft drinks.   That assumption is probably not too much of a stretch.  The question I'd like to address is specifically whether we can generalize that adding daily smoothies to our diet can improve our ability to regulate our weight, whether it can be a detriment, or whether it tends to be a neutral or indeterminate factor.       

First, let's get a scientific handle on fatness.  The problem of obesity at a population level has a lot of complicated aspects and the biology of metabolism is also very complex, but advocates of various products and services have often used that complexity to distract us from what are fairly simple overall facts of the matter.  So let's start by taking a very simple high level cut at the problem of human fatness from a biological perspective.

Kelly Brownell, an expert in nutrition and weight disorders, describes the overall situation as clearly as any problem description can be stated:

"The simple story is that biology seeks out an energy-dense diet, the environment provides it, and we have runaway obesity." [1] (p. 35)

This is sometimes known as the "mismatch" framework because it reflects our observation that our environment has become less well matched over time with our biology in some ways.  We have made great strides in exploiting the widespread animal evolutionary selection for efficiency in the form of preferring an energy dense diet when it is available.  We seek out sugar, fat, variety, and the flavors we associate with fats and carbohydrates especially.  Our cultural environment exploits this in selling food.    That's the simple truth of why so many of us are fat.  Our stable biology preferring energy dense foods  provides a vulnerability that our environment has come to exploit. 

Obesity, or runaway excess fat tissue, is relatively uncommon outside of humans, the companion animals of humans, and the animals domesticated by humans.  In general when animals have equally unpalatable or equally unpalatable choices of different macronutrients, they tend to balance them pretty well rather than becoming malnourished or overnourished.    Under conditions of their natural environment, animal preferences in food tend to serve them well most of the time, just as we would expect.  Weight is regulated in a very stable way under those conditions.     Animals evolved to eat in a way that helps them survive in their natural habitat, by taking advantage of the food sources available to them.  

The bad news is that something relatively uncommon in nature is now very common in human environments:  abundance in the form of an amount and variety of energy dense foods that was very rare in earlier times.  The seemingly good intake regulation animals do in natural environments, where scarcity is the rule, is easily overridden by simply making greater amounts and greater variety of foods available of the sort we tend to prefer. 

We are not wired to regulate our weight, we are wired to thrive in natural environments by strongly preferring energy dense foods in order to take advantage of them when we find them, and there is apparently no natural mechanism that effectively compensates for that preference by eating less of them under those conditions. 

In experiments with rats, the preference is so strong that they eat themselves into protein deprivation when either more fats or more carbohydrates or both are provided than proteins.  [2]  Rats may seem pretty far removed from us in some ways, but the pattern is suspiciously familiar in human environments as well.  Greater availability of higher energy density foods leads to eating more of those and neglecting other sources of nutrition, to the detriment of our health.

So we don't need to look at a lot of complicated issues in nutrition to see why fruits and vegetables are offered as favored foods for weight control.  However I think we do need to be suspicious of whether simply adding more of  those to our diet will have the desired effect of competing successfully with the higher energy density foods that make us fat.  Will drinking more green smoothies lead to eating less loaded fries and mega burgers and drinking less gargantuan soft drinks?  That's the promise of the blender as a weight control tool, at least in the ads for smoothies and blenders and smoothie recipes. 

We have clear-cut evidence that fruits and vegetables are in general less energy dense and yet are still satisfying sources of nutrition compared to most of the food that comprises the average American diet.  The strategy of reducing energy density in general has been supported by research and argued by leading experts in weight regulation such as Barbara Rolls :

"A growing body of laboratory-based, clinical, and epidemiological data suggests that low-energy-dense diets are associated with better diet quality, lower energy intakes, and body weight. Dietary energy density can be lowered by adding water-rich fruits, vegetables, cooked grains, and soups to the diet, and by reducing the diet’s fat content." [3] p. S98 

So the argument for replacing at least some portion of our energy dense foods filled with added sugars and fats with satisfying but far less energy dense foods like fruits and vegetables appears to be very defensible, so long as we are also somehow still getting the nutrients we need that might not be easily found in fruits and vegetables.  The advocates of smoothies rarely suggest that they should entirely replace other foods with smoothies, so that doesn't seem like a big concern to me so long as people are not relying entirely on smoothies for their nutrition.

Replacing some of our energy dense convenience foods with less energy dense fruits and vegetables certainly seems reasonable.  So we might well agree in principle that adding fruits and vegetables to our diet can help regulate our weight.  But does it actually work that way if we simply add fruits and vegetables to diet otherwise filled with convenience foods?   Do we actually start eating less of other things if we somehow get ourselves to eat more fruits and vegetables?  Or do we end up just adding more "healthy" calories on top of what we already eat?

The question is not just the trivial one of whether forcing ourselves to eat tons of veggies temporarily prevents us from eating a cheeseburger, or whether that would be a good strategy.  The question is whether adding fruits and vegetables in some enjoyable way actually  helps us eat less of other things in the long run in a way that causes us to take in less total energy.   That would be a legitimate aid to weight control. 

Or are green smoothies a minor convenience that still relies on brute force self-control to replace the more attractive foods we crave? 

And if eating more fruits and veggies does help, does it still help if the fruits and vegetables are eaten as a liquid?  There is a real possibility that it might make a difference.    These are the real questions I want to explore.

Phrased this way, many of the vast complexities of nutrition and metabolism are mostly irrelevant.  What I want to know is whether smoothies can actually help with weight control, which means the ultimate deciding factor is whether adding them to our diet causes us to take in less energy overall, without taking other measures.  That's a strongly stated but relatively common version of the claim made for why smoothies are supposed to be useful for weight control.

Fruits and vegetables are low in energy density mostly because of their high water content and their low fat content.  Their fiber content contributes as well, but to a lesser and more variable extent.  The low energy density due to high water content and low fat content also seems to be the primary reason why fruits and vegetables are relatively high in satiety (we  tend to compensate for eating them by eating less later) as well as satiation (we tend to find smaller amounts satisfying  and stop eating sooner).   [4] p. 6

If fruits and vegetables are generally useful in regulating our weight, the best argument I can find is that they replace higher density nutrition with lower energy density nutrition without motivating us to eat more to compensate.  If we ended up more hungry a few hours later as a result of taking in less energy dense foods now, we would still be relying on our willpower to lose weight and the fruits and vegetables would not actually be helping us lose weight in the strongly stated sense. 

So do fruits and vegetables have this effect of helping us take in less energy while not compensating later? 

And do they still have this effect if prepared in a blender first?

In the latter 20th century, the rate of obesity rose dramatically and unexpectedly along with the amount of money we spent marketing and buying convenient foods that are very high in added sugars, added fats, enhanced flavors, portion sizes, and energy.   It is very unlikely that this was a coincidence.  We started eating more because  foods that exploited our preferences became more readily available and appealed particularly to our decision making by appealing to our taste preferences and our preference for economic value.  Nor did we compensate for the increased intake by moving more.  If anything technology changes have led us to move less and exert less physical effort in our daily lives.  As a result the environment came to overwhelm our ability to regulate our own weight. 

Popular theories that preferentially blame fats or carbohydrates for obesity are mostly missing the point.  We became fat when we started eating more of everything, and we did that because of increased availability of high energy foods that suit our natural preferences, not simply because fats or carbohydrates are fattening.      

The crux of the problem of fatness is increased intake, not whether we eat "healthy" foods.  That's why the question of whether fruits and vegetables help us eat less is crucially important.  We eat more now across all of the major food groups, not just the "unhealthy" foods, so we can't lay the blame for obesity entirely on those.  The increased intake that led to increased obesity included fruits and vegetables, not just French Fries  and soft drinks.   Adding fruits and vegetables to our diet in general as a population has not by itself magically pushed out junk food or reduced our overall calorie intake, and there is little population evidence to suggest that it should.   The evidence that simply adding fruits and vegetables to our diet would compensate for overeating is not terribly compelling at a population level.    But what about experimental evidence? 

Considering how commonly it is recommended, there is surprisingly little direct evidence regarding the effect on weight control of adding fruits and vegetables to our diet.  Most research where higher energy density foods were replaced with fruits and vegetables was relatively short term and also included explicit instructions and assistance in avoiding compensating for the added calories.  So we don't really know whether (or how much) adding fruits and vegetables really helps us eat less or helps us eat less in a later meal.  We strongly suspect it is at least a factor though because low energy density foods do tend to result in both higher satiety and higher satiation.   The fiber content of those foods may also play a secondary role. 

For the most part when we are not relying on external cues for how much to eat and we make use of internal sensation, it is the  weight and volume of what we eat that makes the difference in how much we eat rather than the amount of energy it contains or the glycemic loading, so long as it has the right sensory properties that we experience it as substantial food. [5]   Surprisingly, since so much diet advice mentions glycemic index, it does not appear that carbohydrate content or glycemic index are reliable predictors of satiation or satiety compared to energy density and fiber content.   For example, boiled potatoes, which are relatively high in glycemic index, are also particularly satiating.  

The available evidence from intervention studies seems to support the idea that adding fruits and vegetables to meals can assist in weight control by adding water and fiber and reducing energy density, increasing satiation and satiety, and helping us to eat less overall while still getting good nutrition.  Supporting this idea, restricting high energy density foods while allowing unlimited amounts of fruits and vegetables has sometimes been a successful weight control strategy.  [3] 

This doesn't necessarily tell us that that adding fruits and vegetables to our diet causes us to eat less of other things, but it does tell us that we tend not to overeat fruits and vegetables, which suggests that many people find them either relatively satiating or relatively unpalatable.   So it leaves the door open to the possibility that they can be useful for weight control for those who do find them palatable as well as satiating. 

So let's assume for now that fruits and vegetables do help us with weight control by helping us eat less of other things.  That being the case does this still apply when the fruits and vegetables are prepared in a blender?

The answer to this might seem obvious depending on how you think about satiation and satiety.  The counter-intuitive reality though is that some foods increase in satiety when in liquid form and some foods decrease in satiety in liquid form.  The case is most clearly established for high sugar drinks, which have been unambiguously established to have very low satiation and satiety and are believed by obesity researchers to be an important  contributor to obesity.  The case is more equivocal for liquid meals that also contain more satiating ingredients such as fiber and protein.   In those cases, the variation in outcomes may be because the behavioral context plays a crucial role in their effect on intake. 

First, on the plus side, the water content of foods is one of the main things that increases how well they satisfy our appetite.  This happens by increasing their volume and their weight.  When you make a soup out of ingredients, you are getting both a greater weight and greater volume of food than when you eat the ingredients without the liquid, and in general that tends to increase the satiation of the same food without increasing the energy intake.  More interestingly, and more surprisingly, it can also increase the satiety of the same energy-equivalent of food, causing us eat less later.  [6]  For foods that are already satiating, adding water while still making them palatable and perceived as food, tends to increase satiation and satiety. 

The same effect is not seen simply by drinking water with a meal or before a meal as when the water is part of the food.  Hunger and thirst are regulated separately in the body, the satiating effect of fluids are because we  experience the food as heavier and higher volume (and as food!), not simply because there is more water in our stomach. 

Blending fruits and vegetables into a drink obviously increases the water content, and they are already satiating, so we have reason to suspect it might increase the satiety and satiation.  Assuming we experience it more as food rather than more as water.  So the case for losing weight with green smoothies seems plausible scientifically. 

On the minus side, we don't seem to regulate our own intake as well with a liquid diet as we do with a solid food diet. 

Under controlled conditions, where we are not inundated with abundance, variety, and other cues that tell us eat more, we tend to regulate our intake from one meal to the next during the day  to eat relatively the same amount from day to day, and we also seem to regulate out intake to some extent from day to day.    This is especially true of the volume of food we eat, but under some conditions it is also true of calories

Given the same weight and volume of solid food, we also tend to eat more or less from meal to meal to take in about the same amount of energy every day.    In experiments, secretly adding more calories to the same amount of food each day results in people eating less in subsequent meals.  This phenomenon of energy-specific satiety is sometimes known as dietary compensation.  [7],[8]    The argument against liquid diets is based on the finding that dietary compensation seems to be much weaker with liquid meals than with solid meals.  [9]  However this is mostly based on findings regarding fruit juices vs. fruit and sugary drinks vs. sugary solid foods, and almost entirely based on liquid vs. solid carbohydrate intake.  Liquid diets have also been used successfully for weight control under some conditions.  [10]

This means that different forms of a food (at least a carbohydrate) can alter its satiety and satiation, and the liquid form of carbohydrates in general seem to bypass our tendency to compensate by eating less.  With fruit for example, the case is quite clear, the liquid form is considerably less satisfying to our hunger when used as a "preload" just before eating.[11]    As usual, the energy density plays a big role, and fiber plays a smaller role, but simply drinking calories rather than eating them seems to have an independent effect on satiation as well.  This may be due to structural factors involved in eating and digestion or it may be due to expectations we have regarding how satisfying the food will be and the context in which we are eating. 

We probably don't expect fruit juice to satisfy our hunger as well as fruit, and that may in part be why it doesn't.  Do we expect smoothies to satisfy our hunger?  That might tell us whether they can serve us in weight control by helping us eat less in total. 

One strategy for eating less is sequencing.  Starting a meal with a low energy density food (as an appetizer or "pre-load") seems to reliably help us reach satiation with less total energy intake, but starting with solid low energy density food seems significantly more effective than starting with liquid low energy density food, regardless of fiber content.   This is in direct contrast to the popular advice to drink water prior to eating in order to fill up.  That seems relatively ineffective even if we replace the water a high fiber carbohydrate drink. 

Using a blender to conveniently add fruits and vegetables to our diet seems a reasonable strategy for weight control, by providing satisfying nutrition at lower energy intake, but the way we use it probably matters a lot.  It appears that blender meals are best used as weight control aids when: 

  1. We enjoy them and find them palatable and satisfying  and expect them to be satisfying while still keeping them at low energy density. 
  2. We do not make them energy-dense with sugars and fats, even "healthy" ones.
  3. We use them to replace rather than just add more intake to higher energy density sources
  4. They contain satiating ingredients such as high fiber carbohydrates and lean protein
  5. We don't rely on them as our only strategy for getting good nutrition while taking in less energy


[1](2004) Brownell, Kelly and Katherine Battle Horgen, "Food Fight: The Inside Story of the Food Industry, America's Obesity Crisis, & What We Can Do About It." McGraw-Hill

[2]  Michael G. Tordoff  (2002) "Obesity by choice: the powerful influence of nutrient availability on nutrient intake" 

American Journal of Physiology - Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology Published 1 May 2002 Vol. 282 no. 5, R1536-R1539 DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.00739.2001  URL:  From

[3] (2005) BARBARA J. ROLLS, PhD; ADAM DREWNOWSKI, PhD; JENNY H. LEDIKWE, PhD "Changing the Energy Density of the Diet as a Strategy for Weight Management"  Supplement to the Journal of the AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION, May 2005 S98-S103

 [4]  (2004) Barbara J. Rolls, Ph.D., Julia A. Ello-Martin, M.S., and Beth Carlton Tohill, Ph.D., M.S.P.H.  "What Can Intervention Studies Tell Us about the Relationship between Fruit and Vegetable Consumption and
Weight Management?"  Nutrition Reviews , Vol. 62, No. 1 January 2004: 1–17 URL:

[5]  (2005) Tohill, Beth Carlton, "Dietary intake of fruit and vegetables and management of body weight," World Health Organization , ISBN 92 4 159284 2 URL:

[6]   (1998) Barbara J Rolls, Victoria H Castellanos, Jason C Halford, Arun Kilara, Dinakar Panyam, Christine L Pelkman, Gerard P Smith, and Michelle L Thorwart    Am J Clin Nutr 1998;67:1170–77.
"Volume of food consumed affects satiety in men"  URL:

[7]"Short Term Dietary Compensation in Free-Living Adults"
F. McKiernan, J.H. Hollis, and R.D. Mattes
Physiol Behav. 2008 March 18; 93(4-5): 975–983.

[8] "Dietary compensation in response to covert imposition of negative energy
balance by removal of fat or carbohydrate"
Gail R. Goldberg*, Peter R. Murgatroyd, Aideen P. M. McKenna, Patricia M. Heavey
and Andrew M. Prentice
British Journal of Nutrition (1998), 80, 141–147

[9] (2000) "Liquid versus solid carbohydrate: effects on food intake and body weight"
International Journal of Obesity (2000) 24, 794±800
DP DiMeglio and RD Mattes

[10] (2007) "Liquid calories, sugar, and body weight"
Adam Drewnowski and France Bellisle
Am J Clin Nutr March 2007 vol. 85 no. 3 651-661

[11]  (2009) Julie E. Flood-Obbagy and Barbara J. Rolls "The effect of fruit in different forms on energy intake and satiety at a meal"   Appetite. 2009 April ; 52(2): 416–422. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2008.12.001.

Sunday, May 03, 2015

Book Review: Secrets from the Eating Lab

Book Review: Secrets from the Eating Lab by Dr. Traci Mann

Review on Amazon

How our well-meant attempts to address the health implications of our increasing body fat are making the problem even worse.

This is a very well written and uniquely informative book in a field glutted with opinions and weak and conflicting advice. It is not a how-to book on losing weight, although it has a few solid behavioral suggestions for making modest healthy changes. This is primarily an interpretation of much of the available evidence regarding obesity and health by psychologist who runs an eating lab at the University of Minnesota and publishes a lot of scholarly peer reviewed work in the field.

Although she is a researcher, Dr. Mann takes pains to distinguish herself from obesity researchers with a public health focus who are motivated to warn people about the dangers of increasing body fat. Her interpretation of the data is often the opposite in some ways from theirs, she sees the growing incidence of body fat and she sees the growing incidence of adult onset diabetes, but she reports that the link between body fat and health problems is far weaker than is implied by the rhetoric of most obesity researchers and much weaker than the popular impression has become. In addition, our efforts to fight obesity have, she concludes, actually become counter-productive because of the manner in which we typically attempt to fight our own biology by restricting calories and exercising in ways that increase our stresses and increase our preoccupation with food, and that both of these things feed back into exacerbating the original problem.

The book starts off ripping into both the commercial diet industry and the focus of a lot of articles by doctors and obesity researchers by announcing that their "3 pillars" are all simply false:

1. That some diets work for losing weight

2. That some diets are healthy for losing weight

3. That obesity itself is deadly 

Among the central and most compelling aspects of this book is where Mann observes that our ideal body image often tends to be outside of the range that we can reasonably sustain. And this becomes confused with health concerns and fed by commercial interests. We could transform our bodies potentially through diet and exercise, but at the cost of altering or entire lives in the service of that goal and experiencing extended self-denial and obsession with food.

And the clincher for her argument is that all this self-denial and obsession would be mostly serving our aesthetic ideal rather than actually improving health. She finds that according to best available evidence upon close inspection mortality is not significantly improved by losing weight, unless you are already extremely obese and still have a long life ahead of you. The population in that category is far smaller than the one targeted by both the diet and fitness industries and most obesity researchers.

Mann finds that diets consistently fail in two ways: (1) only a tiny percentage of dieters retain their weight loss, regardless of which diet it is, and (2) even when people lose enough weight to satisfy the goals of improving their risk profile, they rarely lose enough to satisfy their aesthetic preference. This means that according to the person themselves, their diet failed even when for health purposes it succeeds. Our aesthetic goals trump our health goals for the purpose of satisfaction with the diet.

If we should want to attempt small changes that help us regulate our own eating so we can maintain a sustainably lower body weight, Mann offers several well-tested behavioral suggestions along the lines of "nudges" that help us avoid being triggered to eat excessively.

I think her principles seem sound and her use of evidence is compelling. I do have one criticism of her otherwise superb and unique exposition though. She argues for a set point model of body weight regulation that maintains our weight within a fairly narrow range but she doesn't really address the obvious question of why people are statistically getting fatter if we are so consistent at maintaining our weight in such a narrow range.
She puts most of her focus on obesity not being as deadly as it appears except at the extreme, and she explains why people can't simply diet away unwanted body fat, but she doesn't at all dive into the reasons for our growing bodies. That's a big topic and it isn't her area of research so I can understand leaving it to others to try to explain, but for me it left a logical hole in her argument that begs to be filled and should have been addressed with at least some general thoughts.

Thursday, January 01, 2015

Book Review: "Are We All Scientific Experts Now?"

Highly recommended.  Brief book with a very high level argument relying a lot on his experience but I think it has some deep insights into how science is done, our shifting conception of how it is done, and the way it is communicated. 

Three big ideas are covered in this book.  First, a three wave conception of how science has been conceived since the mid-20th century:

(1) idealistic deference to science focusing selectively on fairy tale versions of its history and overly focusing on the heroic successes,

(2) cynical deconstruction of science as nothing special and decloaking of experts by adopting a symmetry of explanations regarding what is true and what is false, making science just another storytelling activity and focusing selectively on failures and controversies and social and political influences on science, and

(3) a more realistic wave that accepts the messy processes of doing scientific work and the requirements for doing it well along with the ethos that makes sincere inquiry into nature legitimately special. This is where we need to be now in his view, and I agree strongly with him.
The second wave Collins associates with the problem of "default expertise," the idea that since it is nothing special we can all directly understand scientific ideas and primary sources, learn from them, and make competent and useful evaluations of them, without any specialist knowledge or skills.  He ultimately finds the concept untenable and a notion drawn from significantly overreaching the real insights that were drawn from the second wave that revolted against the privileged scientific priesthood.

Second big idea, a model of different kinds of expertise and its relationship to tacit knowledge, recognizing especially the difference between things we pick up ourselves and things we pick up by interacting deeply and systematically with other people.

Third big idea, distance lends enchantment.  The farther we get from being researchers directly discussing their work with each other in a field day to day, the more the conversation changes and becomes more idealized regarding how it might be applied and the farther we get from actually understanding it.

My summary from the review:

"We are all ubiquitous experts but we are not all scientific experts in the sense that not only are we not all domain specialists in the fields we want to think about but we don't even widely share the ethos of inquiry that is common to scientists. Even specialist scientists vary in how highly they value aspects of that ethos.

The conclusion is that it is vital to both protect the scientific ethos and have a more realistic understanding of the kinds of expertise and the messy processes that make it work and cloud our communications about it when we go to make decisions from scientific work.

This kind of nuanced, important thinking about science and expertise is a wonderful gift from Collins that I truly hope we don't squander."

Full review on Amazon:

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Book Review:  Ungifted by Scott Barry Kaufman

Todd I. Stark  5/29/2013

Link to review on Amazon

Intelligence turns out to be a difficult topic, for reasons that aren’t at all obvious at first. Our understanding of mental ability has been captured in several independent threads of research that are surprisingly oblivious of each other for the most part.  Our stereotypes of the gifted and the ungifted often miss the details of what is going on.  The study of individual differences in general, while useful, doesn’t just de-emphasize, but actually systematically misses some of the most important things going on when people become exceptionally successful contributors.  

The author of Ungifted is well situated to make an important contribution to our understanding of intelligence.  He has made a deep academic study of a wide span of existing research programs, he has worked directly in collaboration with many of the leading researchers in several related fields and he has passionately engaged these ideas since childhood when he became  painfully aware of the academic sorting process for giftedness, and he himself is a wonderful example of many of the principles that emerge in his new book.  This is not another book that just starts out with a vague progressive vision of education and ability that everyone is a potential “genius” and then fills it in with wishful thinking.  No, this is a book that dives very deeply and realistically into the literature of psychometrics, heritability, cognitive neuroscience, and expertise.  It looks closely at patterns from the span of phenomena of human differences, including savantism, prodigy, autism, schizophrenia, personality, g factor, motivation, and creativity.

Ungifted is so compelling, rich, and significant a book for me that most of it was well worn by the end of the first day it arrived. What makes this book so rich is the unique combination of personal passion, strong but not intrusive scholarship, deep domain expertise, clear analysis, and all tied together with an original new and constructive perspective. Hard to ask for more than that from a non-fiction book. Every chapter is a stimulating lesson in an important topic that brings together a broad range of data, ever heading toward the book’s conclusion, nothing less than a complete rethinking of human intellectual ability, consistent with considerable evidence gathered along the way.

The most impressive and distinctive aspect of the author's thinking is his consistent and effective use of perspective-taking. In each case where a controversy is identified, each side is explored with great depth and sympathy to understand what its advocates understand that those on the other side seem to miss. It isn't difficult to do that for the side of an argument we agree with but it is an impressive achievement to do it for different sides and then to synthesize the perspectives into an overlapping understanding. This ability is particularly relevant to topics like IQ, giftedness, and learning disabilities, where sharp controversy shapes conversations at every turn.

Ungifted is about how we conceive of mental ability in general. Some people manage to accomplish much more with their mind than others do. There’s no escaping that basic observation, nor the fact that it has immense significance for political and educational thinking. What is the difference that makes a difference? The answers we get depend on the kinds of questions we ask.

Ungifted is in part the story of how the important questions have changed over time and why. There seem to be two tragic errors that we’ve fallen into historically. For one, we’ve often ignored the differences between us and tried to force everyone into cookie-cutter educational molds that well serve only a minority of the people they are intended to serve. Most of us appreciate this personal plight, as does the author in his "subjective" voice and personal experience throughout the book.

The other tragic error is ironically the reverse. In trying to appreciate the differences between people we’ve taken the opposite extreme of becoming obsessed with stable, predictive individual differences. We test ourselves and compare ourselves with each other and we look for the numbers that tell us who deserves what because we assume we are identifying potential. The author appreciates the motives and sometimes successes of this approach when done well, but the focus of Ungifted is on how we can do better.

It is the tragedy of our obsession with individual differences that Ungifted in the author's "objective" voice most eloquently addresses. We assume that testing people against each other will tell us how to best teach each person by identifying what makes people different. Ungifted describes in great detail and punctuated by the author’s own personal life story why that well-intended approach has failed us time and time again.

It isn’t simply as many politically motivated accounts would have it, that IQ has no meaning, or is too culture bound, or just measures test taking ability. IQ and similar kinds of tests when given and interpreted intelligently provide a useful and well-validated way of identifying the lion’s share of variation in human intellectual ability across a wide range of situations and this has some very real correlations with meaningful life outcomes. The problem is not that the tests are useless but that they have come to be misconstrued as if they measure a single stable ability that resides in each person and predicts what that person is capable of accomplishing. People who do well in IQ tests do tend to be smart people in general. But so are many people who do more poorly in IQ tests, and doing well in IQ tests doesn’t provide any guarantee that we also have persistence, motivation, or other qualities so important to making the best of our abilities.

A number of theorists have made useful additions to the body of well validated tests, but these are still tests of static abilities and they don't solve the most basic problem identified in Ungifted. The reasons the individual differences approach has failed us in the broad global sense that we have tried to apply it are that while effectively explaining variation between people in the same population, it has not taken broader environments into account, it has not taken the course of development into account, and it has not taken the dynamic differences into account that make the most difference in human lives over time.

A number of fundamental misunderstandings of heritability, genetics, development, and psychometric research have been exploited, often through politically motivated movements, to obscure the larger vision of intellectual ability. Ungifted makes a serious bid to help correct these fundamental misunderstandings.

Do some people have more of a critical trait or traits from the start, or do some people learn more from their experience, and in either case how much can we influence our abilities over the course of our life? The traditional dialectic of nature vs. nurture seems to have its own unavoidable groove in our thinking that we rarely manage to escape. Yet as long as we have been studying human ability scientifically, there has been evidence that the dichotomy is inadequate. 21st century research has given us some useful insights into the specifics. Ungifted summarizes the most important lessons from a wide range of data about human abilities, and the author is particularly careful to distinguish his subjective passion for the subject (which is often in evidence) from his more detached coverage of the data in the various fields.

Ungifted starts out with a concise summary of principles of the 21st century picture of development, setting the background for the rest of the book. The concept of traits is explored, and the patterns by which they develop.

Then we have a tour of the ways we have tried to measure human mental ability and our reasonable motivations for the various testing innovations over time. From the measurement of ability, we then see how measurement slides into the sorting of people into categories for practical purposes and the allocation of finite educational resources. We see the well-motivated practical reasons for labeling people, but we also get a sense of the often tragic real world limitations of that way of thinking.

We are introduced in an understandable but expert way to the real strengths and weaknesses of IQ testing, and to the best available model of how its scales map to specific cognitive abilities. This prepares us to begin to understand the different ways that "giftedness" has been defined and measured and why we are still so far behind where we need to be to cultivate the best in every individual. We also are given enough background to begin to appreciate the unique challenges of being different, whether perceived as higher or lower in ability than others around us. Ungifted artfully blends a sympathetic understanding of the needs of researchers and testers with those of teachers, and the diverse individuals just striving to do their best.

Then we are introduced to the core concept that distinguishes this developmental reframing of human mental ability, the concept of engagement. Engagement brings together the factors that distinguish the learnable, experiential aspects of intelligence from those that seem particularly stable. Engagement is the hinge that swings the big door to individual potential. Engagement is built on a number of factors that are particularly malleable and context-dependent, so it is of particular interest to the way education is done. Once we have a sense of what engagement is about, we take a fresh look at human abilities in terms of what is known about their development over time. The role of engagement over time in development begins to become clearer as we tour through the critical concepts of intelligence, creativity, talent, and expertise, and begin to see how they each relate to development over time. At the end, the key points learned along the way are summarized to give the outline of a new theory of intelligence.

For me the theory of intelligence introduced here is distinguished by two critical characteristics: (1) it emphasizes what happens in the individual over time rather than differences between people, and in so doing draws on different kinds of data, and (2) it is synthetic in spirit, emphasizing multiple ways of achieving the same outcomes by drawing on different resources, rather than looking for additional ways of distinguishing the abilities of different people. These two characteristics make this theory very different from most of the alternatives that are intended to address some of the same gaps in our intelligence models, alternatives such as “multiple intelligences,” “emotional intelligence,” and so on. Rather than just identifying more things that we think might be missed by IQ testing, and turning them into new sources of labeling and categorizing, the personal developmental theory of intelligence assumes that there are many different components to be identified, but places them into an overarching biological framework where ability is developed over time by identifying, selecting, modifying, and constructing niches suited to the thriving of the individual.

Several important shifts of emphasis emerge:

1.      Away from reliance on studying stable individual  differences and toward the details of person-centered development

We have focused primarily on measuring stable individual differences, whether “general intelligence” or other kinds of “intelligence” or personality in order to support research and allocate finite educational resources.  What this approach misses is the details of development within each individual over time.  It turns out that these two approaches, individual differences and person-centered, are not just different but produce incompatible results.  So this is a very important source of new information about how mental ability arises.  It is common for authors to point out that nature and nurture are an archaic dichotomy and that it is the interaction that matters, but the details are generally left vague.  There’s a need for specific research programs that focus on the development of ability over time.  The developmental approach is not just a detail, it is a separate source of crucial empirical data.

2.      Away from viewing the positive manifold of abilities on tests (“g”)  as a single ability in each person, and toward understanding its value in conveniently capturing most of the variation an array of mental abilities that collectively underlie many different kinds of tests.    

3.      Away from seeing intelligence as a number or even a trait, and toward seeing it as the adaptive fit between the individual and their environment by finding, selecting, shaping, and creating niches they can thrive in.

4.      Away from focusing on cognitive skills in isolation, and toward consideration of the motivations, strategies, and experience that turn those skills into practical abilities over time.

5.      Away from the focus on being able to measure abilities that represent potential in a brief test, and toward finding the best way to engage and cultivate each person.  Active engagement with the world and ability are inseparably intertwined in a mutual feedback process over time.

6.      Away from focus solely on controlled cognitive processes underlying reasoning, and toward better understanding of the role of both controlled and spontaneous processes in intelligence.  Being smart involves flexible use both controlled and spontaneous mental processes, and using the right resources when needed, rather than relying on one to the exclusion of the other.

7.      Away from fixed rules about how long it should take to become good at something or what special levels of ability provide thresholds, and toward seeing our “readiness for engagement” as a better indicator of potential.

8.  Away from seeing intelligence and expertise as independent (and one inborn and the other learned), and toward seeing the overlaps between them as cognitive abilities,personality, and motivation support the acquisition of expertise, and cognitive expertise is part of what shows up in testing for ability.  One of the most remarkable findings in the book that links intelligence and expertise is that chunking in memory, a key aspect of organizing knowledge in memory involved in expertise, activates the brain structures involved in fluid reasoning, a central component measured by tests.  

The resulting view of intelligence doesn’t see everyone as equal by any means, it seems unavoidable that some people will not be able to excel at some things relative to other people.  Stable individual differences do not somehow disappear because we shift emphasis to the person and their development.  However we do begin to see the real value of changing the nature of education to focus on the fit between people and niches rather than selecting people for special treatment via brief tests and subjective judgments of merit.  Several practical working examples of programs that successfully accomplish this change are described in the book.

I place this book alongside two others in a trilogy that for me represents a broad understanding of the nature of mental ability as it is best envisioned at the current time.

1. "Surpassing Ourselves" is about how outstanding performers learn differently.  It shows expertise as a distinctive way of learning rather than just an endpoint of domain specialization. By comparing the same person over time as they develop, rather than just comparing novices with experts, we get an understanding of the process by which people become smarter.  This is very similar to the shift made with intelligence in Ungifted, but applied specifically to expertise and shows again how the shift to a process perspective captures additional important information.  Surpassing ourselves also introduces  the reinvestment perspective, which looks at the growth of ability in terms of becoming more efficient over time and then reinvesting the saved time and energy in new learning, which seems to be a big part of how people who ultimately become exceptional learn differently from those who do not.

2. "Outsmarting IQ" is about learnable intelligence.  It shows how experience, stable cognitive abilities, and strategies work together to navigate realms of knowledge and let us apply our knowledge.  It gives a good account of the role of strategies, including learnable strategies and cognitive expertise, in trading off between cognitive abilities in order to make the best of our existing stable cognitive abilities.

3. "Ungifted" combines the intrapersonal process perspective with a developmental model and an overall hierarchical model of cognitive abilities, consistent with the other two books in this list and yet going way beyond them to explain in much greater detail where “IQ” and other tests scores come from and what they tell us, and how stable cognitive abilities, expertise, creativity, and personality all interact to produce intelligence.

Update 5/29/13 1PM:  Link to abbreviated GoodReads version of review:

Ungifted: Intelligence RedefinedUngifted: Intelligence Redefined by Scott Barry Kaufman
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

View all my reviews

Sunday, April 07, 2013

A New Look at Perception (Thank You, El Greco)

I'm struggling with your concept of "literal perception" vs. what people think they perceive. Or is it possible that this work suggests a different way of thinking about perception? That "literal perception" is not a useful way of thinking about how stimuli are interpreted, and that the process of creating interpretations of the sensory world does not involve a "literal perception" step? Perhaps beliefs don't affect "literal perception" because it just refers to the earliest stages of handling stimuli, and that they do affect later stages of interpretation. Then we assign special significance to early stages as "literal perception" because they seem so tightly constrained to us whereas cognition seems less constrained.

Is it possible that the way we intuitively assume perception to work may be what is misleading rather than the role of expectancy and belief on perception?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Review of "Surpassing Ourselves" - A profound vision of a problem solving culture

My recent review of Carl Berieter and Marlene Scardamalia's wonderful 1993 book "Surpassing Ourselves" on Amazon. 

It is about how the underlying concept of expertise needs to be rescued from our inaccurate commonsense epistemology and  from the negative connotations of speciallization and elitism and instead applied more broadly to processes and groups to make our education and culture in general become more supportive of better thinking and problem solving.  It builds from the individual psychology of ability, creativity, and wisdom to the application of the same principles to groups and culture.

This is a remarkable book: deep in its insights, prophetic in its foresight, and profound in its implications. The most amazing thing is that this book was published in 1993, the same year the first commercial browser became available. That was long before science writers had popularized the research on expertise and long before most people had any idea what sort of thing a "social network" might be. Yet this book captures some of the most promising ideas of the modern information age, such as the use of technology to facilitate knowledge-building communities and the possibility of a wider problem solving culture. Having only the relatively limited technology examples of the time to draw from by today's standards, such as desktop computers with local databases, the authors express their vision in terms of concepts and processes rather than getting caught up in the details of technology. That turns out to be what makes this book most useful I think, because it makes the arguments very general.

A lot of my enjoyment of this book is admittedly because I had come to many of the same conclusions independently and felt reassured to see the same ideas expressed so eloquently. I do think they get a lot right here and that their core concepts have only become more plausible and more important over time since the book was written.

The driving themes of this book all revolve around a single idea: an expanded concept of expertise. I think this is a bigger leap of faith for most people than is at first obvious. Expertise has come to have very strong connotations in popular culture with specialization and elitism, which is exactly the opposite of the message in this book. The book is about how everyone can benefit from what we know about expertise, and how necessary it is to have schools and a broader culture suited to solving increasingly complex and difficult problems. It is not at all about specialization or elitism.

The disconnect between the expanded concept of expertise and the popular is not just about the politics and economics of specialization. It is also about how the research on expertise is interpreted. For practical reasons, most expertise research has focused on the difference between novices and high performers in a given domain and how much time and deliberate practice is required to make that journey. The authors recognize that body of work and draw from it, but they also recognize, critically, that there are other ways to look at expertise. We can also compare experienced high performers with experienced low performers. And we can compare novices who later become high performers with novices who later become experienced low performers.

The authors expand and elaborate on the concept of expertise in several ways:

1. Think of expertise not as an end state of ability but as an ongoing process of knowledge acquisition at increasingly high levels of performance rather than as an end state of high performing relative to other people.

2. Think of the expertise process as being a cycle of learning at one level until it requires less cognitive effort, and then reinvesting the surplus cognitive effort in reformulating the questions and addressing them at a higher level of difficulty and complexity, always working at the edge of our current ability.

3. Think of experts as people who actively engage in the process of expertise rather than as high performers, so we have expert (or "expert-like") learners even when they are novices.

4. Think of expertise as something that is done by groups as well as individuals.

5. Think of creativity as a particular kind of expertise, where we take greater leaps and risks in working at the edge of our competence and in building and drawing on our knowledge of what options are most promising.

6. Think of wisdom as another particular kind of expertise, drawing on our knowledge of human beings and what sorts of things are most promising in human lives.

The result is a vision of individual ability, education, and culture that is profoundly progressive in what it takes on, nothing less than creating the conditions for every student and citizen to either become or participate constructively with expert learners, to everyone's benefit, resulting in a broader culture of problem solving rather than one of stagnant political and philosophical stances. This is a 1993 vision for the challenges that beset us today, asking us to make better use of technology we already have available at this point, even though we did not at the time the book was written.

The authors recognize that even in 1993, most of these ideas were known and accepted by many educators, but they were very rarely put into practice effectively. The authors theorize that this is because of how self-sustaining the usual educational systems and in comparison how much constant vigilance and effort is required on the part of teachers and administrators to maintain a different sort of environment, what they call a "second order environment" that sustains the process of expertise for both individuals and groups.

One valuable prototype for second order environments is the research community, in which shared objectives and various intrinsic social rewards drive the team members to work together to increasingly more knowledge of their subject and tacking increasingly more difficult problems.

Compare this self-sustaining, actively learning expertise process with the simple use of technology to connect people to share knowledge. The difference is profound. Simply using technology to connect more people has some limited value, but it is a long way from the expertise process. The authors predicted this long before the "Personal Learning Network" became a promising but so often unimpressive reality. The gap between connecting people and knowledge bases, and people actually striving to make increasingly better use of available resources can be huge, and that is what the authors of "Surpassing Ourselves" identified in 1993, the way we use the technology and the way we communicate is critical as well, we can't just connect ourselves and our databases and expect to use all that potential effectively without facilitating and maintaining the process of expertise.

Does the term "expertise" itself limit our ability to make better use of these ideas because of its negative connotations? The authors point out how terms like "excellence" and "quality" have often been used for essentially the same idea, but those have their own misleading or easily abused connotations and limitations as well, and they lack the depth of individual psychological research found in the expertise literature. In the end, what we call it doesn't matter so much as whether we understand how it happens and how to create the conditions for supporting it.

Further Reading:

The books of David N. Perkins offer various proposals with a very similar and consistent vision to the one in "Surpassing Ourselves." "Outsmarting IQ" for example offers an expanded vision of individual expertise that in some ways builds on that of "Surpassing Ourselves" by providing a model of expertise as the process of navigating intersecting realms of knowledge, using the principles of far transfer to generalize expertise among domains and identifying some of the conditions for acquiring it. "Smart Schools" suggests a way to transform education along these lines. "Making Learning Whole" looks in more detail at the common process of expert learning at all levels of ability.
Outsmarting IQ: The Emerging Science of Learnable Intelligence
Smart Schools
Making Learning Whole: How Seven Principles of Teaching Can Transform Education

In "Rethinking Expertise," Harry Collins looks more specifically at the social dimension of knowledge underlying the group process of expertise.
Rethinking Expertise

In "Dialogue Gap," Peter Nixon elaborates on what is distinct about the sort of communication that brings out the different knowledge of each individual and in so doing facilitates what "Surpassing Ourselves" considers the group process of expertise, as opposed to simply arguing or conversing on a less constructive level.
Dialogue Gap: Why Communication Isnt Enough and What We Can Do About It, Fast

Maria Konnikova's "Mastermind" explores the role of a specific critical factor in individual process of expertise allowing us to work continually at the edge of our current ability. This is the ability to focus attention in a particular way in order to actively engage our thinking rather than just passively observe the same things in the same way. "Surpassing Ourselves" describes this only in the abstract as actively engaging higher levels of problems, but the concept of mindfulness offers a possible way of modeling the process in more detail.
Mastermind: How to Think Like Sherlock Holmes

Saturday, May 19, 2012

How I Lost the Beach Ball

How I Lost the Beach Ball

This is how I got back into control of my weight, in case it might be of value to anyone else.

In my 30's my weight was stable at a dumpy but manageable 220 lbs.

My adult weight from late 20's to late 30's: 220 lbs

Sometimes in martial arts practice I would suspect that an injury was partly due to my excess weight, so I would try to lose a bit to lighten the load on my joints, but it never stayed off for very long, I dropped as low as 180 for a few months but I always came back to 220. 

In those days, the most successful technique I had found was relying on the prepackaged convenience foods from NutriSystem and combining that with a lot of low intensity activity.  Those were never permanent habits though and when I stopped them the weight came right back. 

Then in my late 30's, I started gaining steadily again beyond the previous 220 and when I hit about 260, all hell started breaking loose with my health.  My wife Sue would tell me my breathing was stopping during sleep, I had almost constant reflux sensations, and even more frightening, my feet started getting sores that weren't healing.  One night I woke up choking on my own reflux and it terrified me to the point that I pretty much assumed I was going to die soon if I didn't lose a lot of weight. I don't have a picture of myself at 260 and I'm not sure I want to see one.  Here is me at 240.  This is gross enough to give the sense of where I was headed.  I was 260 pounds in June of 2005 at the age of 46.

240 lbs.  20 pounds less than my heaviest 
Age 38: 240 lbs - I swallowed a Beach Ball and was still growing!

Being that obese and motivated that strongly, it wasn't terribly difficult to lose about 70 pounds over the next 4 months.  However my strategy this time was long term.  Based on the fact that I had been so successful with NutriSystem, I came up with a strategy based on what I thought was the principle that made NutriSystem so successful temporarily.  I combined convenient rationed meals with new activity habits. 

I came up with small set of convenient meals that I liked which I felt I could turn into permanent habits rather than a temporary weight loss strategy.  Things that I wouldn't mind shopping for, preparing, and eating indefinitely.  My criteria were that the portions had to be reasonable yet satisfying, and not things that triggered me to eat huge amounts, and other than a limit of about 400 cals per meal, the only nutritional guidelines I gave myself were to keep the overall glycemic load as low as possible and to include as much protein and fiber as possible.  These were intended as satiety factors that prevented me from being hungry while on a calorie deficit as well as being intended to help address the insulin resistance I was pretty sure was responsible for a lot of my health problems as well as being a factor in my weight gain. These rules still guide my every meal, they have become easier and easier to apply, and now I don't even think about them and I don't feel like I'm dieting.  I also splurge once a week on high glycemic foods just so I have a day set aside to break the rules and in theory maybe re-calibrate my leptin levels.  Mostly just so I have a day set aside for special treats and I strictly avoid hedonic or trigger eating at other times.

I established new sustainable eating habits, and started walking a lot in the park, which I love. I also fasted periodically because it gave me a motivational boost to realize I had gotten so much control over my eating habits and it gave me the sense that I could make the scale move virtually by force of will if I needed to.  That sense of control was I think one of the big success factors in the long run, not just the fact that I was fasting or just eating less. When I started adding exercises to my walks it also helped me feel like I was in a lot more control. I could see my strength and mobility improving as well as my weight diminishing.

Losing the Beach Ball:  June 2005 through December 2006

By the time the sleep apnea study I had scheduled came around, that problem was already gone and my dropping Hemoglobin A1C was evidence that my insulin sensitivity was probably improving.  My triglycerides and HDL also improved dramatically.  For me at least this pretty much cinched the conclusion that health and obesity were directly related and kept me motivated to maintain the habits I'd established if I found myself starting to drift from them.  Here's what I look like at 190, not exactly lean but I've at least lost the beach ball and my health is a world better. And still improving.

I've been continuing to track my bodyweight for the past few years to help maintain a longer range perspective.  These dramatically show the struggle of trying to bring bodyweight down when it is NOT terribly high to begin with.  It's a whole different problem.  You can see the constant fluctuations and the slow overall progress over time as well as the occasional slip ups.  But over time, the right sustainable habits keep dragging the weight down kicking and screaming.  It looks nothing like the dramatic progress I was able to see when I shifted from terrible habits to good ones and lost the beach ball.  But it still shows gradual progress.  And that's fine with me right now.

Here's a short term graph showing what my weight fluctuations typically look like when I have good control of my eating and activity habits for about a month and a half.  If I were focusing on the short term only, this would probably be pretty discouraging I think. However it is actually a progression.  

Short term relative stability over a month and a half
Watch what happens if I expand the graph out to about 9 months.  You still see the local stability and constant ups and downs, but you also begin to see the overall trend over time.  One of the reasons people give up is that they expect to keep making dramatic changes, they don't realize they are still making slow progress and they get discouraged.  Or they try radical changes rather than manageable new habits and they find them unsustainable.  This is actually a sustained degrading trend of about a pound a month on average.  It just isn't a continuous one, it has constant fluctuations in different time scales.  And there is plenty of backsliding.  But the trend never stops because the habits are maintained and altered over time experimentally to work better.  It isn't an optimal loss rate but it is a successful one in the long term because there is nothing about it that isn't permanently sustainable.

And here's what it looks like if I throw away the good habits for a few months.  My weight goes right back into the stratosphere.  A natural experiment that happened when I got involved in a particularly challenging project, and gave into the stress by minimizing my workouts and going back to eating whatever I wanted to comfort myself.

Lessons Learned

1.  Being fat as a result of poor eating and activity habits was rapidly, though not easily, reversed by creating new healthier habits.

2.  I deliberately devised a small set of convenient meals that I enjoyed but which also contained large amounts of protein and fiber and fluids for satiety, added reasonable amounts of fats (mostly unsaturated) while keeping total calories at about 400 per meal and kept overall glycemic load of every meal very low.

3.  I kept glycemic load low by avoiding breads and pastas almost entirely, except in small amounts along with protein and fiber.  

4.  When I need a snack, it is almost always lean protein or a small amount of nuts for friendly fats. Never sugars or starches, which I find makes me feel hungrier.  Sometimes if I'm really hungry between meals but I want to maintain a calorie deficit I'll have a "Zone" style snack of protein, low glycemic carbs, and friendly fats.  That usually satisfies me for a while.

5.  When I had a large calorie deficit all week, it seemed to help to add a cheat day a week, which put a few pounds back on but which were then quickly lost again the weight dropped even further.

6.  I added routine varied activities every day that I enjoy and whenever possible do them first thing in the morning.

7.     I remind myself that I'm in control of my habits by fasting for 24 hrs once a week.

8.  I don't fight myself, I leverage habits that I enjoy but also take me closer to my goals.

9.  I remember that the long term is what matters, not the daily fluctuations.  I don't let daily changes throw me off track once I establish new habits that work.  I track things on a daily basis but I don't react to them on a daily basis, and if I see a problem I adjust my routines every week or two based on the trend.  I use moving averages and trends to measure progress, and how my clothes fit, rather than reacting to the scale every day.

10.  Losing weight further became a different problem than initially losing massively excess weight.  Maintaining the same habits caused progress to slow but not stop.  I would probably have to create a new set of different habits to drop significantly more weight more rapidly.  My body eventually adapted to my initial changes.