How to Navigate Contentious Conversations

BY PETER BOGHOSSIAN & JAMES LINDSAY

In this excerpt, taken from Chapter 5 of How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide, we provide some tools to help people navigate contentious conversations.

Keep Rapoport’s Rules

The Russian-born American game theorist Anatol Rapoport had a list of rules for offering disagreement or criticism in conversations. These rules are now known as Rapoport’s Rules, and they have been described by the American philosopher Daniel C. Dennett as “the best antidote [for the] tendency to caricature one’s opponent.” Dennett neatly summarizes Rapoport’s Rules in his book Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking. If your goal is to engage someone successfully, take these steps in this order:

• Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
• List any points of agreement.
• Mention anything you have learned from your target.
• And only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

Adhering to Rapoport’s Rules can be difficult, especially in a heated discussion, but it will significantly advance the civility and effectiveness of your conversations.

Avoid Facts

Christian fundamentalist and Biblical Creationist Ken Ham is responsible for the Ark Encounter, a 510-foot (155 meters) full-size Noah’s ark in Grant County, Kentucky. Ham is the perfect example of someone who cannot be swayed by facts. He believes the Genesis flood narrative literally and incorrigibly. In a public debate with science popularizer Bill Nye in February 2014, both Ham and Nye were asked what would change their minds about creationism and evolution. Nye said “Evidence,” and Ham said, “Nothing.” Ham has explicitly stated that there’s no evidence that would cause him to revise his beliefs. Ham is not missing a piece of evidence that would cause him to change his mind; rather, he cannot be swayed by evidence, including rigorous peer-reviewed scientific studies. For him, the issue is settled. To engage someone like Ham, you have to avoid facts.

This certainly does not mean that you should disregard evidence or encourage others to do so. It does mean that introducing facts into a conversation could backfire unless done at the correct moment and with great care. Few people form their beliefs on the basis of rigorous consideration of reasoned arguments. Complicating matters, most people believe they do have evidence supporting their beliefs because they consider only those points that support what they already believe.

As well, the backfire effect redoubles a believer’s commitment to her beliefs, increases your frustration, and often results in a wasted conversational opportunity. Facts are the main culprit in eliciting the backfire effect.

So, what should you do? Here are a few tips […]

Read the complete excerpt

Foods That Shut Off Hunger Fast

from the Eat This, Not That e-zine

There's a crybaby in your gut. It's called ghrelin, otherwise known as the "I'm hungry" hormone. When your stomach is empty—or thinks it is—it secretes ghrelin, which causes hunger by sending signals to the brain, urging it on to a search-and-destroy mission aimed at any nearby bag of Doritos. Your belly's babysitter: Leptin, an appetite suppressor that signals to your brain when you're full and tells it to stop eating. But just as we can develop an insensitivity to another food-related hormone, insulin, so too can we become inured to the power of leptin, researchers say. The result: your hunger doesn't shut off naturally, and you continue to eat even when you're full. That's where natural remedies that reduce ghrelin come in.

The same factors that lead to insulin resistance—high-sugar, high-calorie foods lacking in protein and fiber—can also cause our brain's appetite-suppression mechanisms to go awry. But, fortunately, some foods have the opposite effect, improving our hunger management not just in the short-term, but over the long haul as well. To whittle your middle down to a flat belly, eat more of these nine best foods that turn off the appetite tap fast, and keep it off for hours.
1). Eggs: Waking up to a protein-rich meal can set your fat-burning pace for your entire day. In a study of men published in the journal Nutrition Research, half were fed a breakfast of bagels while half ate eggs. The egg group were observed to have a lower response to ghrelin, were less hungry three hours later and consumed fewer calories for the next 24 hours! Bonus: Egg yolks contain choline, a nutrient with powerful fat-burning properties that make for a great start to your day.

 2). Artichokes: Ghrelin is suppressed when your stomach is full, so eating satiating high-fiber foods is a no-brainer when you're trying to reduce ghrelin levels. Leafy greens are an excellent choice but don't overlook the humble artichoke, which contains almost twice as much fiber as kale (10.3 g per medium artichoke, or 40% of the daily fiber the average woman needs). Artichokes are also one of the foods highest in the prebiotic inulin, which feeds your good gut bacteria, a.k.a. probiotics. (When your gut health goes awry, so do your leptin and ghrelin levels.) Other foods high in inulin that reduce ghrelin: Garlic, onions, and leeks.

3). Oats: According to research published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition, eating oatmeal results in greater feelings of satiety than cold breakfast cereal. Why? The belly-filling power of insoluble fiber. By tucking into a bowl, you also trigger your gut to produce butyrate, a fatty acid that reduces inflammation throughout the body. In a Canadian study, researchers discovered that those whose diets were supplemented with insoluble fiber had lower levels of ghrelin. To make yourself a decadent breakfast, cook up some quick oats, then toss in some dark chocolate shavings, some berries, some nuts, and a dash of cinnamon.

4). Boiled Potatoes: White potatoes are the New Jersey of carbs: not nearly as bad as their reputation. Frying or buttering the spuds is the nutritional deal-breaker. As no-frills as it sounds, plain boiled potatoes are the most filling food there is, according to the Satiety Index of Common Foods, an Australian study published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. To maximize their flat-belly benefits, throw 'em in the refrigerator and make a potato salad. The cooling process will crystallize the tubers into resistant starch, which takes longer to break down in your intestine, producing fat-burning butyrate and delaying hunger pangs.

5). Halibut: Fish has a ton of flat-belly benefits—it's high in omega-3 acids, which reduce inflammation throughout the body and allow leptin to communicate efficiently with the brain—and halibut is especially great. The Satiety Index of Common Foods ranks halibut the #2 most filling food (bested only by those boiled potatoes). The study's authors attribute that to halibut's high protein content and levels of tryptophan; the latter produces serotonin, one of the hormones that curbs hunger. Halibut is also one of the best sources for methionine, a nutrient that reverses the genes for insulin resistance and obesity.

6). Red Apples: Apples are an excellent source of hunger-busting fiber, so don't feel constrained by the whole "one-a-day" thing. A study at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center found that for every additional 10 grams of soluble fiber eaten per day, a study subject's belly fat was reduced by 3.7 percent over five years. And a study at the University of Western Australia found that the Pink Lady variety ranked among the highest level of antioxidant flavonoids of any apple, making them tops in fighting inflammation and protecting heart health. Other stars: Red Delicious, Northern Spy, Cortland, Mutsu, Macintosh.

7). Apple Cider Vinegar: White vinegar's sassier cousin is composed mostly of acetic acid, which has been shown to delay gastric emptying and slow the release of sugar into the bloodstream, according to a study published in the journal BMC Gastroenterology. One study among pre-diabetics found the addition of 2 tablespoons of apple cider vinegar to a high-carb meal reduced the subsequent rise in blood sugar by 34 percent! ACV is a key ingredient in vinaigrette dressing. Mix up a batch for your salads and you'll have enough delicious, additive-free dressing for multiple servings.

American Cosmic: UFOs, Religion, Technology

More than half of American adults and more than 75 percent of young Americans believe in intelligent extraterrestrial life. This level of belief rivals that of belief in God. American Cosmic examines the mechanisms at work behind the thriving belief system in extraterrestrial life, a system that is changing and even supplanting traditional religions. Over the course of a six-year ethnographic study, Dr. Pasulka interviewed successful and influential scientists, professionals, and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who believe in extraterrestrial intelligence, thereby disproving the common misconception that only fringe members of society believe in UFOs. She argues that widespread belief in aliens is due to a number of factors including their ubiquity in modern media like The X-Files, which can influence memory, and the believability lent to that media by the search for planets that might support life. American Cosmic explores the intriguing question of how people interpret unexplainable experiences, and argues that the media is replacing religion as a cultural authority that offers believers answers about non-human intelligent life. Pasulka and Shermer also discuss:

• the definition of religion
• fictional religions and historical religions
• Jediism as a religion
• new religious movements and cults
• Mormonism and Christianity
• Scientology as a UFO religion
• how to be spiritual without religion
• Nietzsche, Jung, and archetypes
• scientific truths and mythical truths
• astronomical observatories and medieval cathedrals
• UFOs as Sky Gods for Skeptics; aliens as deities for atheists, and
• the rise of the Nones and the future of growth of new religions.

Diana Pasulka is a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, and chair of the Department of Philosophy and Religion. Her current research focuses on religious and supernatural belief and practice and its connections to digital technologies and environments. She is the author and co-editor of numerous books and essays, the most recent of which are Believing in Bits: Digital Media and the Supernatural, co-edited with Simone Natalie and forthcoming from Oxford University Press, and Posthumanism: the Future of Homo Sapiens, co-edited with Michael Bess (2018). She is also a history and religion consultant for movies and television, including The Conjuring(2013) and The Conjuring II (2016).

Watch or listen now

You Are What Your Grandparents Ate: What You Need to Know About Nutrition, Experience, Epigenetics and the Origins of Chronic Disease

In this wide ranging conversation Judith Finlayson reviews the research she writes about in her new book that takes conventional wisdom about the origins of chronic disease and turns it upside down. Rooted in the work of the late epidemiologist Dr. David Barker, it highlights the research showing that heredity involves much more than the genes your parents passed on to you. Thanks to the relatively new science of epigenetics, we now know that the experiences of previous generations may show up in your health and well-being. Shermer and Finlayson discuss:

• epigenetics and the link to epidemiology
• why it is so difficult determining causality in medical sciences
• why correlation is not necessarily causation, but how it can be used to advise on diet and lifestyle changes
• How many of the risks for chronic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and dementia, can be traced back to your first 1,000 days of existence, from the moment you were conceived?
• the association between these diseases and the experiences parents and even grandparents had
• fruits and vegetables or meat and fat?
• how poverty effects epigenetics, and
• epigenetic exaggerations and incautious extrapolations — no miracles promised!

Judith Finlayson is a bestselling author who has written books on a variety of subjects, from personal well-being and women’s history to food and nutrition. She is a former national newspaper columnist for The Globe and Mail, magazine journalist and board member of various organizations focusing on legal, medical and women’s issues. Judith lives in Toronto, Canada.

Watch or listen now

What You Should Know About The Different Types Of Movement:

Focusing on each type of movement can score you even more benefits, from strength gains to flexibility.
By Gabrielle Kassel

Do you train for strength regularly, but feel totally unmotivated after doing the same moves week after week? Are you hitting a plateau and not seeing any new results? Your first instinct might be to add some fancy new exercises to your routine. While, sure, complex exercises can spice things up, you can actually work your muscles in a fresh way if you just pay attention to training an exercise in its various ranges. If you're scratching your head thinking, "Ranges!?" keep reading.

Believe it or not, every strength-training exercise (whether bodyweight or heavy lifting) can be broken down into three main parts: the concentric (flexing/lifting) portion, the eccentric (lengthening/lowering) portion, and the isometric (stationary) portion of the movement.
"The concentric portion happens when the muscle contracts, the eccentric portion happens when the muscle lengthens, and the isometric portion happens when the muscle doesn't move at all," explains physical therapist Grayson Wickham, D.P.T., C.S.C.S.,

Nine times out of 10, you're going to do an entire squat/deadlift/push-up. However, training each part of the movement separately does have its benefits. Below you’ll learn more about the concentric vs. eccentric movements, what isometric exercises are, and the benefits of training them together or separately.

Concentric Movement: The concentric portion of a movement occurs when the tension in the muscle increases and the muscle fibers shorten or contract, explains Wickham. The easiest example of a concentric movement is the bicep curl. Think about bringing the dumbbell from hip height up to your shoulder. "As the weight gets closer to your shoulder, the biceps muscle is shortening and the tension in the muscle increases," he explains.
Other common concentric movements include:
   Lifting an object off the ground (or the first half of a deadlift)
   Pressing to the top in a push-up
   Standing up during a squat
   Hamstring curl
   Upward motion of a sit-up

The Benefits of Concentric Movement Training: "The concentric portion of a movement lends itself to increased power, speed, and strength," says Wickham. However, this portion doesn'tstrengthen the muscles as much as the eccentric portion of a lift does.

You'll get more on why below, but it's helpful to understand that in order for a muscle to get stronger, you actually need to damage the muscle. "You need to create microtears in the muscle that the body repairs and rebuilds even stronger than before," explains Wickham. Concentric movements don't damage the muscle as much eccentric movements do. While this means less strength gains per rep, it also means less delayed onset muscle soreness (aka DOMS), faster recovery, and less added muscle mass, he explains.

There's not much benefit to training *just* the concentric portion of a movement, according to Wickham. But there are three times when you might want to focus on the concentric portion such as, before a competition or race when you're worried about being sore, if you're a serious sprinter, or If you're trying to dial-in form.

The bottom line on concentric training: "Unless there's a specific reason you don't want to be sore the next day, it's best to train the concentric portion with the eccentric portion," says Wickham.

Eccentric Movement: Also known as 'the negative,' the "eccentric movement involves lengthening the muscle fibers," says Ally McKinney, ACSM-certified personal trainer. Usually, this means returning the weight to start position. For instance, during the biceps curl, the eccentric movement happens while you're lowering the weight down to hip level.
Typically, "eccentric training" refers to training that emphasizes that portion of the movement. Think:
   Slowly standing up during a squat
   Lowering the dumbbell as slowly as possible during a row
   Slowly rolling back during a Pilates roll-up
   Slowing allowing the weight to return to the start position of a triceps extension

The Benefits of Eccentric Training: "Eccentric training places a greater demand on your muscles and central nervous system, so it's going to take you longer to recover from doing eccentric movements," says Wickham—but it's worth it. Remember: Eccentrics (lengthening) damage your muscle more than concentric (shortening) movements do.

"There are so, so many benefits of eccentric training," says McKinney. In addition to strengthening your muscles, eccentric training helps strengthen your tendons and ligaments, which decreases your risk of injury, she says. In fact, one review found that eccentrics may help reduce the risk of muscle strain and tears, which is huge.

"Eccentric contractions can also literally make your muscle fibers grow, making the muscle itself physically longer," says McKinney. "Longer muscles means greater flexibility, and greater flexibility means greater injury prevention." Wondering if you would benefit from eccentric training? "The better question is who wouldn't benefit," says McKinney .

Isometric Exercises: “During an isometric move, you're literally holding completely still at a particular angle so that there is no lengthening or shortening of the muscle," says McKinney. Not every exercis will include an isometric portion—but you can add an isometric portion to most by adding a pausing mid-movement.

Let's return once again to the biceps curl: Image curling your bicep to 90 degrees, so that your forearm is parallel to the floor, and then holding the weight there for ten seconds. That's isometric training. "Any movement that entails holding completely still might be considered an isometric hold," says Wickham.

That might look like sitting in the bottom of a squat, holding your weights with arms outstretched for 10 seconds or holding chair pose in yoga. There are also some exercises that are isometric by nature. Think:
   Plank hold
   Wall sit|
   Hanging from the pull-up bar
   Front loaded kettlebell hold

The Benefits of Isometric Training: If you've ever done a wall sit or sat in the bottom of a squat, you won't be surprised to hear that even though you're not actually moving, "Isometrics still force you to engage your muscles, and therefore can help make you stronger," says McKinney. Because holding still requires you to really engage your core, isometrics can be used to increase balance and body control, too, she adds.

Isometrics can also help you break through a strength plateau. You're weakest in your end ranges of motion, explains Wickham. Think about a heavy back squat for example: pushing the weight up from the very bottom is typically where most folks struggle. But sitting in the bottom of your squat with a weighted barbell on your back can help you develop the strength you need to stand the weight back up and hit a new level, he says. The same concept applies to the push-ups or bench press, he says. Holding your body an inch or two above the ground during a push-up, will help make the entire movement easier.

"While you can't only do isometrics from now on and expect to get stronger, isometrics are great for anyone trying to break through a strength plateau or improve their mobility," says Wickham.

Yes! "If you use concentrics to build strength through the entire range of motion, eccentrics to build stronger and more resilient muscle tissue, and isometrics to increase strength at your end range of motion, you'll be a force to be reckoned with," says McKinney.

Still, you should only do this sometimes. You can't only train the parts, says Wickham. "You need to train the movement in full." Because as Aristotle once said, "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts."

Insomnia Linked To Refined Carbs: Research Suggests That Refined Carbs & Sugar Can Lead To Sleep Problems

by IDEA Editorial Staff

A new study on insomnia in postmenopausal women suggests that consuming refined carbohydrates may keep you awake. The findings were published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Investigators analyzed food diaries from more than 50,000 participants in the Women’s Health Initiative and looked at whether women with a higher dietary glycemic index were more likely to develop insomnia.

Previously, researchers have been unable to confirm whether refined carbs trigger insomnia or whether insomnia causes individuals to eat more sweets. In this study, investigators sought to determine the role of carbs in creating sleep problems by looking for the emergence of insomnia across different types of diet.

The link they discovered between high glycemic diets and insomnia can be attributed to the quick spike in blood sugar after eating highly refined carbohydrates, like added sugars, white bread, white rice and soda. An increase in blood sugar causes the body to release insulin and other hormones—such as adrenaline and cortisol—that interfere with sleep.

The study also found that women whose diets contained higher amounts of vegetables, fiber and whole low-glycemic fruits were less likely to develop insomnia.

“Whole, low-glycemic fruits contain sugar, but the fiber in them slows the rate of absorption to help prevent spikes in blood sugar,” said the study’s senior author, James Gangwisch, PhD, assistant professor of clinical psychiatric social work at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, in a ScienceDaily press release “This suggests that the dietary culprit triggering the women’s insomnia was the highly processed foods that contain larger amounts of refined sugars that aren’t found naturally in food.”

While the research focuses primarily on postmenopausal women, the effects of carbs on blood sugar are true for most people and suggest the study has broader applications.
“Based on our findings, we would need randomized clinical trials to determine if a dietary intervention, focused on increasing the consumption of fresher whole foods and complex carbohydrates, could be used to prevent and treat insomnia,” said Gangwisch.

Calorie Deficits Made Simple(r)

Is fat loss complicated? You could say yes or no. It depends on how you look at it. The law of energy balance says that if you eat fewer calories than you burn, you have a calorie deficit (negative energy balance), and you will lose weight. That still leaves some questions like how to make sure the weight lost is fat, not muscle, and how large of a deficit, (which you'll learn below), but overall, the calorie deficit concept is pretty simple on the surface, right?

Well, some years ago, scientists from the UK dug as far down into the research as they could and came up with something called an obesity systems map. It illustrated what they described as, "A complex web of societal and biological factors that have, in recent decades, exposed our inherent human vulnerability to weight gain."

In the middle, the chart showed energy balance, surrounded by over 100 variables - biological, psychological, environmental and social - which all directly or indirectly influence that equation (how many calories you eat and how many calories you burn). Given that, losing body fat suddenly sounds complicated!

The diagram - which was shared all over the weight loss community - made getting fat look so easy and likely, and losing fat look so hard and unlikely, and the whole process look so thorny and convoluted, it was enough to make some people say, "If it's so complicated and the odds so stacked against us, then why even try?"

Some people who questioned the energy balance concept looked at it and said, "See - it's not just about calories!" Others wondered, "Do we really even know for sure how weight loss works?" Actually, yes we do, and today, we know better than ever because thousands of studies prove it. 

Fat loss works on a basic law of thermodynamics: A calorie deficit causes weight loss.

Consider this: On the obesity systems map, showing endless loops of cause and effect, "Energy balance" was still right there in the middle, and everything pointed back to it. The scientists who created the model were not saying weight loss isn't based on the simple concept of having a calorie deficit, they were confirming it.

They were not trying to discourage you either, only communicate the idea that if you really want to deep dive into the science and psychology, obesity can certainly appear complex, and there are dozens of factors that can affect whether you achieve and maintain a calorie deficit (and many of them stack the deck against you).

They were also telling us that energy balance is dynamic. Part of the challenge is that a calorie deficit can be a moving target that's hard to hit if you don't have a good system for knowing how much to eat, how much to exercise - and how to adjust your nutrition and training plan over time.

I'm not trying to say obesity isn't a complex problem or imply that solving it is easy, but I am here to show you that if you want to lose fat, you don't have to worry about knowing all the underlying mechanisms because fat loss can be broken down to the most important priorities and fundamentals and turned into a simple, practical action plan. Sure, there may be 100 different factors involved, but the basic concept of the calorie deficit and how to set your deficit for fat loss is simple and can be explained in 3 steps.

Step 1. Acknowledge that a consistent calorie deficit is what causes fat loss. 

Until you acknowledge that the calories in versus calories out equation is what determines whether you gain or lose weight, and you organize your nutrition and training strategies around that premise, you will struggle to get lean and stay lean, and always feel frustrated and confused about it.

A common scenario is, someone loses the fat with their diet of choice, but never knows the real reason it worked. They attribute their success to the wrong cause, and perhaps, spread that mistaken information to others (becoming one of those "weird, annoying, unscientific fad diet people").

Many fad diet promoters come up with novel ideas about why their programs work. "It's the specific foods you eat, not how many calories you eat," and "It's hormones, not calories" are common themes. These hooks are necessary to sell a diet, because "just eat less than you burn" isn't marketable. "Magical or exotic foods and hormonal manipulation" are.

The irony is that when a diet strategy does affect hormones, it's still a matter of calories in the end. For example, if your nutrition (or lifestyle) strategies reduce hunger hormones, you end up eating less. Hormones were involved, but guess what? You ate less, so you've come full circle back to the calories in versus calories out equation.

If an ill-advised crash diet tactic lowers your metabolism-stimulating hormones, what "lower metabolism" means is that you burn fewer calories. Again, it's full circle to energy balance. Hormones can change the equation, but the equation is still there.

If you improve the quality of the food you eat, that's fantastic, but if you eat fewer refined foods, and eat more natural foods, you almost always eat fewer calories automatically because of your better food choices. Food choices do matter - for health and fat loss - but for the fat loss part, again, it comes full circle back to the calorie equation.

For perspective, remember also that it's harder to overeat unprocessed food, but you can still get fat eating 100% healthy food if you're in a calorie surplus. And conversely, there are many cases studies of people losing fat on junk food diets that were low in calories (confirmed deficit).

Many diet gurus will tell you that calories don't matter for fat loss and they explicitly instruct you not to count calories, but then they turn around and give you a list of diet rules and restrictions which end up putting you in a deficit anyway, even though you didn't track your calorie intake. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but that's also not saying calories don't matter. Whether you count calories and achieve a calorie deficit, or you don't count calories and achieve a calorie deficit, either way, the result is the same – a calorie deficit, and fat loss.

Maybe even more concerning than the calorie denialism, fad diets are notorious for demonizing and banning all kinds of foods without a scientific reason. This has brought us an epidemic of eating disorders, orthorexia, and fear of food. The amount of carbo-phobia out there, alone, is disturbing.

Different people have success on a wide variety of diets. Low carb diets for example, are still trending and may work well. The danger is in assuming that popular diets have magical properties or their effectiveness has nothing to do with calories. This leads to the continued spread of myths and misinformation (such as "carbs turn to fat") and is why nutrition confusion is rampant.

The table below illustrates these points. I'm not posting this to pick on any particular diet or discourage anyone from trying different approaches to find the eating style that works best for them. But advocates of popular diets would do themselves and others more good by realizing how their diet is helping them control their calories. When diets work, they work because they create a calorie deficit.

How Popular Diets Work For Fat Loss:
Diet Name	Why People Think It Works	Why It Really Works
Ketogenic Diet	Cuts carbs so low that ketosis is reached, which puts you in fat burning mode.	Creates a calorie deficit
Low Carb Diet	Lowers insulin levels which stops fat storage & allows fat to be released from cells.	Creates a calorie deficit
Low Fat Diet	Dietary fat is stored as body fat so eating less fat leads to lower body fat.	Creates a calorie deficit
Intermittent Fasting	Releases growth hormone, improves insulin sensitivity, increases metabolism.	Creates a calorie deficit
Paleolithic Diet	Modern processed foods turn to fat, eating foods our ancestors ate burns fat.	Creates a calorie deficit
Gluten-Free, Wheat-Free Diet	Wheat & gluten-containing foods convert to body fat more easily, create hormone imbalances.	Creates a calorie deficit
Weight Watchers	Using a point system leads to guaranteed fat loss.	Creates a calorie deficit
Nutri-System	Eating special pre-packaged meals increases fat loss.	Creates a calorie deficit
Meal Replacement Shakes	Special supplemental drinks burn more fat.	Creates a calorie deficit

2. To find a good starting point for finding a deficit customized for your needs, use the percentage method (minus 15% - 30%) 

The first step is to calculate your maintenance level calories. This is easy to estimate by plugging your height, weight, and activity stats into any calorie calculator (The Harris Benedict calculator, for example, is one of the most popular). You can also figure out (or confirm) your actual maintenance level with a short period of strict food tracking and weighing yourself.

Once you know your maintenance (usually averages 2100 to 2300 per day for women, and 2600 to 2900 for men - a little higher for big and heavy folks), you drop your calorie intake target below your maintenance, to create your deficit.

How much of a calorie deficit do you need? The general answer is, not too small, or your weight loss will be slow and frustrating, but not too big, or your weight loss will be fast, but cause suffering and side effects.

The old way to set a deficit is based on the 3500 calories in a pound of fat model. If this figure is accurate, then to lose a pound a week, you need to cut your calories below maintenance by 500 calories per day (3,500 per week). To lose two pounds per week, you need to cut your calories by 1000 per day below maintenance (7000 per week).

This classic formula can be useful for estimating the size of calorie deficit you need to lose certain amount of weight each week, but the downside is that it's not customized. Using the old "minus 500" or "minus 1000" method could cause some people to choose a deficit that's too big and others to choose a deficit too small. In relative terms, a 1000-calorie deficit could be an unhealthy starvation diet for one person, or perfectly reasonable and healthy for another.

For example, if you're a large and highly active male with a 3400-calorie per day maintenance level, then a 1000-calorie deficit means a daily caloric intake of 2400 calories per day, a 30% deficit (aggressive, but well within reason).

If you're a petite, inactive female with a maintenance level of only 1900 calories per day, then a 1000-calorie deficit means a caloric intake of 900 calories per day, a 53% deficit (semi-starvation).

The solution is simple. Instead of using absolute deficits like minus 500 or 1000 calories, use a percentage deficit. This way, your deficit is relative to your total calorie expenditure, and it's customized for you.

Based on decades of research on safe, sustainable, and healthy rates of fat loss, a deficit between 15% and 30% below maintenance is ideal.

15-20% below maintenance calories = conservative deficit
20-25% below maintenance calories = moderate deficit
25-30% below maintenance calories = aggressive deficit

Within this range, you can decide for yourself whether you want to eat little less and go for faster weight loss by choosing an aggressive deficit, or eat a little more and be content with slower weight loss using a more conservative deficit. If you're not sure either way, then looking at your body fat level can help you choose.

If your starting body fat is high, then you have lower risk of losing lean tissue so it's okay to choose a more aggressive deficit and go for faster weight loss. (This is also why very heavy and obese people can lose weight faster - because they can more easily create a large deficit).
If you have a low starting body fat (ie, a lean person trying to get even leaner), then you're at higher risk of losing lean tissue, so it's safer to use a more conservative deficit and lose weight more slowly. (This is why bodybuilders intentionally lose weight slowly, usually aiming for only a pound a week when prepping for competitions).

Someone who is very overweight or obese might be able to handle a deficit between 30% and 40% under maintenance, but that's very aggressive, and there's more risk of negative side effects from such severe calorie restriction, including being unpleasant (more hunger and low energy can be problems). Deficits of 50% are so extreme, they're classified as semi-starvation diets and are potentially muscle-wasting and unhealthy if not medically supervised (not recommended).

Progressive resistance weight training and high protein intakes help protect lean body mass when you're in a deficit, but always keep in mind that the more extreme the deficit, the higher the risk of muscle loss.

When choosing your deficit, you could also take into account how much urgency you have to reach a fat loss goal by a certain deadline. If you have a specific date when you need to look your leanest and that date is closing in, then it makes sense to take the more aggressive calorie deficit. If you don't have a deadline, then there's no need to feel rushed and accept higher risks and suffer more hunger - it makes more sense to take a more modest deficit.

3. Always use a measurement system and adjust your calorie deficit based on your actual weekly results. 

Once you've done your initial calorie calculations and established a baseline, it's vitally important to understand that this calorie level is only your starting point. Once you're off and running, from week to week, you need to measure and track your progress (weight, body composition and appearance), and adjust your calories in and calories out according to your actual real world results.

Learning how to adjust caloric intake (nutrition) and caloric expenditure (training) week to week based on results is a critical skill to learn, because this is how you handle that conundrum we mentioned earlier about energy balance being dynamic.

The amount of calories you require today may not be the same three or six months from now. If your activity level changes substantially, your calorie needs will change. It could go up or down. When you've been in a deficit a long time, your metabolic rate can decrease so you don't burn as many calories, even at rest (known as adaptive thermogenesis).

If your body weight changes substantially, your calorie needs will also change. In general, as you lose weight, your calorie needs go down because it takes fewer and fewer calories to move and maintain a smaller body.

After a typical 40-pound weight loss, you will need 300 to 350 fewer calories to maintain your weight than when you started, if all else remains equal. This means your rate of weight loss will automatically decrease by two-thirds of a pound per week if you fail to adjust your calories consumed (eat less) or increase your calories burned (exercise more) according to your new body size. Researchers call this "The energy gap" and it explains slow weight loss, it partially explains fat loss plateaus, and it largely explains why it's hard to keep weight off after you lose it.

On the other hand, knowing that your calorie needs can change doesn't mean you should re-calculate them every day. Instead, do your calculations once at the beginning of your fat loss phase when you're initially setting up your program. Follow your prescribed calorie level with extreme diligence for the first week or two, to establish a baseline. After that, adjust your plan (how many calories you eat and how many calories you burn) according to your weekly results. This is known as the Burn The Fat, Feed the Muscle "Feedback Loop Method."

If you get the results you wanted and expected, don't change a thing in your plan. Keep using the same plan as long as it keeps working.

If two weeks go by with no visible or measurable fat loss, or your fat loss is slower than you predicted, that means you did not have a calorie deficit or you lost part of your calorie deficit. The question is why?

To answer that, the first thing you do is an honest assessment of your compliance rate (were you following your plan strictly enough?) This is actually the cause of most plateaus - you lost some or all of your calorie deficit because you exercised less and or you ate more than you planned. You may be aware that you made these mistakes or they may have been unconscious, but the result is the same either way - slow fat loss or no fat loss.

When you're looking back at your compliance level, remember that you have to maintain your deficit over time to see the fat loss accumulate to a visible and measurable amount. If you're in a small deficit on the weekdays, but in a big surplus on the weekends, you can end up with no deficit at all for the whole week and you're starting from scratch on Monday. 
It's easy to fool yourself by remembering five days of good discipline and thinking that was good compliance, but never forget that one weekend or even a single day of big mistakes can wipe out a whole week of progress. Consistency is everything.

If you realize low compliance was the problem, you get stricter about following your plan, start tracking your calories and macros more meticulously, and get back to work another week.

After an honest assessment, if you're sure you followed your original plan (good compliance), but still didn't lose fat, or you lost less than you predicted, it means your body has adapted or your energy balance equation has changed. You're not burning as many calories as you used to, and you don't have the deficit you used to.

In this case, you reduce your calories in (eat less), increase your calories out (exercise more), or use a combination of both. This will put you back into a calorie deficit.

There are some occasions, usually after prolonged diet phases, where your body has become very depleted and your metabolism suppressed, when your best bet is to stop dieting and go back to maintenance calories for a while. But the harsh reality is, you can almost always count on needing to eat less, exercise more, or both as the months pass on a fat loss diet program. You rarely reach a long-term fat loss goal without having to make these adjustments along the way.

Summing It Up, Simply: You must have a calorie deficit to lose fat, period. 

Your optimal calorie deficit could be anywhere from 15-30% below maintenance and this is the official recommendation for fat loss. Setting your deficit based on a percentage instead of on an absolute number like minus 500 or minus 1000 below maintenance is more customized and less likely to give you a deficit that might be too big or too small.

There's no one-size-fits-all deficit. Deficits should be customized. When you're calculating your deficit, you can take into account your starting body fat, your personal goals, your risk tolerance for muscle loss, and the time available to reach your goal, to help you decide if you want a larger (more aggressive) deficit, or a smaller (more conservative deficit).

Once you set your initial deficit, be ultra-meticulous about tracking your calories during the first week or two so you can establish a baseline and make sure your estimated calorie target is really your actual intake. Adjust as necessary. Continue to adjust calories eaten versus calories burned as needed based on your results each week. Keep repeating this process and you're virtually guaranteed to reach your fitness goals.

Civilized to Death: The Price of Progress

Most of us have instinctive evidence the world is ending — balmy December days, face-to-face conversation replaced with heads-to-screens zomboidism, a world at constant war, a political system in disarray. We hear some myths and lies so frequently that they feel like truths: Civilization is humankind’s greatest accomplishment. Progress is undeniable. Count your blessings. You’re lucky to be alive here and now. Well, maybe we are and maybe we aren’t. Civilized to Death counters the idea that progress is inherently good, arguing that the “progress” defining our age is analogous to an advancing disease. Prehistoric life, of course, was not without serious dangers and disadvantages. Many babies died in infancy. A broken bone, infected wound, snakebite, or difficult pregnancy could be life-threatening. But ultimately, Ryan argues, were these pre-civilized dangers more murderous than modern scourges, such as car accidents, cancers, cardiovascular disease, and a technologically prolonged dying process? In Civilized to Death, Ryan makes the claim that we should start looking backwards to find our way into a better future. Ryan and Shermer also discuss:

• human nature: peaceful or violent?
• humans: spectrum or binary?
• what hunter-gatherers were really like and why it is so hard to know
• hunter-gatherers and…children, women, the elderly, sex, religion, politics and economics
• how egalitarian were hunter-gatherers?
• why hunter-gatherers don’t think of work as “work” in the way we do
• the lottery test: if you won the lottery would you work at your job, live in your neighborhood, live your life?
• was civilization the biggest mistake humans ever made?
• the “Big Gods” theory of religion vs. the communal theory of religion, and
• how we can learn from our ancestors to lead more balanced and healthier lives.

Christopher Ryan, Ph.D., and his work have been featured on MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, NPR, The New York Times, The Times of London, Playboy, The Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, The Atlantic, Outside, El Pais, La Vanguardia, Salon, Seed, and Big Think. A featured speaker from TED to The Festival of Dangerous Ideas at the Sydney Opera House to the Einstein Forum in Pottsdam, Germany, Ryan has consulted at various hospitals in Spain, provided expert testimony in a Canadian constitutional hearing, and appeared in well over a dozen documentary films. Ryan puts out a weekly podcast, called Tangentially Speaking, featuring conversations with interesting people, ranging from famous comics to bank robbers to drug smugglers to porn stars to authors to plasma physicists.

Watch or listen now

Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who We Trust and What We Believe

Not Born Yesterday explains how we decide who we can trust and what we should believe — and argues that we’re pretty good at making these decisions. Hugo Mercier demonstrates how virtually all attempts at mass persuasion — whether by religious leaders, politicians, or advertisers — fail miserably. Drawing on recent findings from political science and other fields ranging from history to anthropology, Mercier shows that the narrative of widespread gullibility, in which a credulous public is easily misled by demagogues and charlatans, is simply wrong.

Why is mass persuasion so difficult? Mercier uses the latest findings from experimental psychology to show how each of us is endowed with sophisticated cognitive mechanisms of open vigilance. Computing a variety of cues, these mechanisms enable us to be on guard against harmful beliefs, while being open enough to change our minds when presented with the right evidence. Even failures — when we accept false confessions, spread wild rumors, or fall for quack medicine — are better explained as bugs in otherwise well-functioning cognitive mechanisms than as symptoms of general gullibility. In this lively and provocative conversation Shermer and Mercier discuss:

• If we’re not as gullible as we’ve been led to believe, then why do so many people apparently believe in ESP, astrology, the paranormal, the supernatural, conspiracy theories, and the like?
• Epistemic Vigilance and skepticism
• why most Germans did not believe in Nazi ideology
• honest signaling, costly signaling, and virtue signaling
• Malcolm Gladwell’s book Talking to Strangers and why the “default to truth” theory is wrong.
• folk biology and why creationism is intuitive and evolutionary theory counterintuitive
• conspiracy theories and why we believe them (or not)
• the real meaning of conformity experiments in which people appear to go along with the group
• why people join cults … or ISIS.
• why people belong to religions, and
• why we are not living in a post-truth era, and why access to accurate information has never been so good.

Hugo Mercier is a cognitive scientist at the Jean Nicod Institute in Paris and the coauthor of The Enigma of Reason. He lives in Nantes, France. Twitter @hugoreasoning

Watch or listen now