I recently completed the HCG diet. For those not familiar with it, dieters take sublingual drops three times a day (or there are shots you can do at a clinic) and adhere to a very low calorie diet (500 cals a day). The drops are made from a chemical found in women only during pregnancy which is why a woman who is pregnant can endure bouts of starvation (e.g. in a third world country) without damaging the fetus (eventually, starvation gets the fetus, too, but only if prolonged). The HCG in a woman’s body directs nutrition to the fetus first, even taking that nutrition from stored fat in the mother’s body.
First I should clarify that I’m not obese. The diet is usually for those are are obese, and the minimum amount you have to need to lose is 15 pounds. I just barely qualified on that basis after gaining some unwanted weight in my move around the world. For practical reasons, as a tall woman living in Asia, just going out and buying a new career wardrobe wasn’t a great option. Asian retail workers, most of whom wear the US equivalent of a child’s size 14, feel free to comment on my personhood in unflattering ways, and most clothing here doesn’t have a “tall” option. Losing weight the traditional way wasn’t working for me because there are so few fat free or low fat foods here, and with my travel schedule it was difficult to know the calories in things or to have regular access to a scale or to control the times of day I eat. So I chose a three week period (the diet is 21 days minimum) during which I would not travel or go to any work dinners to do the diet.
Many of our friends in our Arizona ward successfully lost 15-30 or even more pounds on the HCG diet. Among them was a urologist friend who lost a noticeable amount of weight and kept it off. Our ward lost hundreds of pounds collectively. Every week people were coming in looking slim and trim. My husband also successfully did the HCG diet with some of his work colleagues and lost over 20 pounds in less than a month. So I knew this diet was fast and effective.
My colleagues expressed strong opinions about the diet. There were some who felt I didn’t need to lose weight, a flattering idea, but I always suspect peers just want to lower the social bar when they encourage you to help yourself to more parmesan truffle fries. Others questioned the safety of the drops – wouldn’t it have side effects? Another friend warned I should just do the diet by itself but not take the drops, a valid suggestion, but I was concerned about plateauing (the body can go into starvation mode and quit losing weight), being too hungry (which truly was a benefit of the drops – I didn’t feel hungry), and burning muscle vs. fat (ketone strips can be used to test your urine to see if you are burning fat; while they aren’t available here, my husband used them when he did the diet the first time, and the ketones confirmed the diet’s claims). The other concern was “you’ll just put it right back on.” Thanks for the vote of confidence! I suppose if they are right, then I’m no worse off than I was before.
I went online and read review after review to hear what the negative side effects were and also what doctors were saying. A Mayo Clinic site summed it up like this: “Dream on, fatty. It’s not safe, and it doesn’t work. There is no easy fix for the fat suit you’ve eaten your way into. It will take you years to lose weight and keep it off if you don’t die of diabetes before then.” By contrast, the reviews by those who actually did the diet talked about how quick and easy it had been. A few reported some side effects. Some couldn’t control their hunger and broke the diet. But most of them completed the diet and loved their results.
The burning question, one that I still wonder even after successfully completing the diet is whether the drops are a placebo. One study showed that the same results were achieved using placebo drops and the 500 calorie diet; a different study done later disagreed with those findings and measured a broader range of criteria such as mood and sleep which both affect the ability to complete a diet. Obviously, the 500 calories are where the weight loss is coming from. If I didn’t do the HCG diet, that’s what I would have had to do anyway, just on my own. But do the drops make it more effective, less harmful (fat reduction vs. muscle), and well, just plain easier? Perhaps.
I can’t help but draw a parallel between the diet and church:
- A lot of the requirements are common to many diets. Obviously eating less, drinking lots of water, not eating late at night, cutting out sugars and starches (entirely during HCG – ouch), and changing your eating habits to be healthier are common to nearly all diets. All diets benefit people by changing habits that got bad results into habits that will get better results. Or as we’ve heard at General Conference, making bad men (or habits) good and good men (or habits) better! So do all churches, or no one would join them. If it’s not an upgrade in your life, you would not convert.
- Oddly specific restrictions are often not explained, yet lend credence to its claims through their uniqueness. The daily diet includes: 2 fruits, 2 vegetables, 2 meats. But only specific fruits, vegetables and meats are allowed, sometimes despite the fact that some prohibited fruits have lower sugar or calories; there is also no mixing of vegetables allowed (different protocols vary slightly – just like different wards do). You cannot repeat a food in the same day. Lotions are prohibited as are make up products containing oils (even the appearance of evil, or in this case fat?) You are strictly warned that you might gain weight (the horror!) if you deviate one iota from the protocol. Sounds quite a bit like the Word of Wisdom, and also some other prohibitions we have as Mormons (R-rated movies, garments, modesty, etc.). Why can’t we drink tea, for example? Nobody knows. It’s not like tea drinkers become raging tea-aholics or croak at 40 (in fact, inhabitants of Okinawa drink loads of tea and are the longest living people on the planet). So, following both requires an act of faith and for some, a clutching fear about the consequences of lost control.
- Regular check-ins create commitment and accountability. While we had to do the protocol (HCG likes to say “protocol” which sounds scientific rather than “diet” which just sounds depressing) on our own, most go to a clinic for regular checks of their vitals and progress. The church also has a lot of regular check-ins, such as temple recommend interviews and the involvement of being asked to serve in callings. In both cases, people are all up in your business, which makes you more accountable to the community or to authorities like the bishop (church) or nurse (diet). Personally, I think a disappointed nurse interrogating you Gestapo-like about your dieting transgressions would be more intimidating.
- The price is high, so you don’t want to cheat. Doing the diet at a clinic often costs hundreds of dollars. We did the homeopathic version because we don’t live in the US which was under $100, so we got off light. Still, how much would you pay to lose 15 to 20 pounds in less than a month? Likewise, tithing is a lot of money. Nearly identical to the amount of money our non-LDS friends typically spend on alcohol in a year. As we’ve seen in the news recently, less than 50% of evangelical preachers even think tithing is an important concept. No pain, no gain.
- Routine keeps you on track. When you know exactly what to expect at what times, it’s easier to keep on the diet. The church also likes to keep us on a busy little track: daily scriptures, weekly family home evening, monthly home/visiting teaching, weekly church meetings, mutual weekly, etc.
- There are detractors and proselyters. Some people are fanatically devoted to this as the miracle diet to end all diets. Others say it’s a hoax, don’t waste your money, it’ll ruin your health, it won’t work. Some detractors have expertise in certain fields or have done studies. Some have negative testimonials to back their claims. This should all sound pretty familiar to Mormons. There are plenty who are hell-bent on pointing out that the church isn’t what it claims or it’s damaging or it’s unnecessary; there are competing religions who work hard to illegitimize Mormonism as a religion so they don’t lose their own congregations to Mormon missionary efforts. There are some who have left the church and feel happier than ever. There are some members who think the church is 100% perfect and will fight to the death (but in a Christlike way of course) anyone that sees a flaw. It’s hard to find an unbiased perspective.
- It’s a lot easier to do with close friends or your spouse. When my husband did the protocol before, he and some colleagues did it together. Every day they would share their results and talk about how it was going. There was a sense of comaraderie in the dieting trenches. Because I didn’t need to lose at the time, he’d come home and find I had bought mini cupcakes slathered with an inch of buttercreme frosting on top. Now that we are doing the diet together, we are keeping each other on track. Truth is, if I decided the diet was stupid or decided to quit, it would be easier for him to quit it with me than to continue without me. Although it’s possible if he quit it, I’d stubbornly stick with it, resenting him all the way for his weakness and lack of support. With dieting, as with the church, it’s much easier to be in it together, grumbling and rejoicing side by side.
What if the church is a placebo? Does that make it less effective? Can you get all the benefits of membership without attending church, paying tithing, obeying the Word of Wisdom, going to the temple?
My own feelings are (with church and the diet), do what works. If the church gets me the results I’m looking for (a community of people I relate to as well as some that amuse me, opportunities to serve others, a standard of living that works for me and my family), that’s good enough for me. On some level, I don’t need to prove its claims because I know from experience what works for me.
And if it’s a placebo or its claims not true? Placebos can in fact get the same results for a variety of things because the mind is convinced. Does it matter so long as the result is the same? Studies have shown that prayers on behalf of other people do in fact help them to heal, but only if they know about it. To me, that’s the power of a placebo. Perhaps it’s also the key to spirituality: the power of the mind and belief over matter.
I don’t like to knock other methods that are out there. One size does not fit all. I know someone who did the HCG diet and had sudden hair loss. That’s an uncommon but reported side effect. The diet was definitely not for her (although she did lose a bunch of weight, and not just in hair, and is apparently considering trying the diet again). Some people never need to diet their whole lives. Some people don’t care what they weigh. To them, I say hats off and wish them well. The skeptics at Mayo can say what they want (in fact I noted that they do say essentially the same thing about every diet out there – perhaps in this church analogy they are The Slate) but I know my results and my choices, and I’m comfortable with them.
Discuss.
**All photos in this OP are from Google images; none are my own, although I did lose 15 pounds in 3 weeks, and look and feel great again!
Wheat & Tares 
“homeopathic version” — the one where the water was once exposed to some HCG molecules? In which case, you had a successful placebo effect.
Chiropractors locally have been selling it. 95% failure rate, FYI, vs. the actual substance.
Congratulations on it working for you, though the protocol of constantly shifting what you eat and the flavors you eat works for some people without the water.
As does the real HCG. Bodybuilders across the country have been complaining about dieters soaking up the supply of the drug. 😉
I should say I know some OA-HOW members who embrace the no flour, no sugar, no caffeine, three meals a day and nothing in between.
They eat one cup of cooked vegetables and one cup of raw vegetables and a protein source for meals. Nothing else for many of them, some eventually add some fruit.
It is interesting to watch the interaction between OA-HOW and the traditional OA (Overeaters Anonymous, a 12 step program) in that from what I read about the schism, OA-HOW works, OA kinda does.
Yet many prefer the version that doesn’t work as well, but does not require as much.
Makes me reflect about rigid guidelines and religion and preferences.
Actually, I’m not sure whether our version was homeopathic or the real deal, but it did work regardless. I lost 15 pounds in 21 days.
I’ve been steadily losing weight with Seth Robert’s Shangri-La Diet. He talks about the non repetition of foods and how it helps a person lose weight (although his diet doesn’t require that), at the end of his book he goes into the studies that talk about it. You should check it out, it’s much less of an effort and I’ve been losing weight steadily (sorry, I don’t know the pounds, I just go by the belt notches – 2 so far). Doesn’t work for everyone, but it’s been doing me fine, much better than weight watchers (and no, I’m not obese either, well, 40 lbs heavier than I wanted to be).
As for the church, if it is a placebo then imagine how much better the real thing would be? Personally, I like to believe it isn’t a placebo. I spend a lot of time and effort with it.
Well, you’re right about one thing: we tend to stick with what works. If the church is working for us, we stay and generally thrive. If it isn’t, there’s plenty of dissonance until we can’t take the dissonance anymore and then leave.
With the chuch, there’s plenty more guilt associated with leaving than with a diet, particularly for those who have grown up in the culture (or so it seems).
But in both cases (diet and church) we advocate that the proof is in the doing. Not sure where that spiritual feeling comes in in the diet, however.
It is interesting to compare this missionary programs that revolve around the Book of Mormon. That people have a witness of the book does not necessarily tie them to a particular church.
One could treat the book as a metatruth that is independent of (but made more useful by) the various restoration Churches, much like modern HCG diets use elements of Seth Roberts, Gary Taubes and others.
As an aside, SLD led me to lose sixty pounds (the amount I lost and kept off). To stay lower takes additional steps.
But the SLD seems to only work for about 50% of those who try it. More interesting are the subset it works for but who walk away from it anyway. That has been fascinating to follow.
People who drop something that works are a fascinating study.
Legitimate medicine is supported by statistically significant, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-control trials published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. Conversely, user testimonials and anecdotes are widely presented as evidence for products, cures and treatments involving “alternative” modalities such as homeopathy, acupuncture, therapeutic touch, naturopathy and so forth.
So often, we hear over the testimony pulpit, “I prayed to find my missing car keys and then found them. Ergo, I know the church is true.”
With the above in mind, is it unfair to suggest that your comparison between the HCG diet and the church might extend to the acceptability of unfalsifiable anecdotal evidence as valid confirmation of truth?
“Oddly specific restrictions are often not explained, yet lend credence to its claims through their uniqueness.”
Surely not. Restrictions do not make something MORE valid by virtue of being oddly specific or unique. This is the same logic employed all those clearly legit Google ads “Dermatologists hate her – 50 year old single mom looks 30 using three simple WEIRD tricks.”
Furthermore, the presence of a large number of restrictions gives you a larger number of ways to retrospectively explain why something hasn’t worked, particularly when absolute adherence is required.
In fairness, Bruce, I think you’re drawing quite a line from “I prayed to find car keys” and “I know the church is true.” Most often when I hear those stories, the conclusion is, “I therefore know God answers prayer.” (And in my experience those stories are most often told by young people who are developing their faith.)
But your comment regarding testimonials vs. double-blind testing is probalby valid.
In the case of the church, many would call the difference faith.
I agree with Paul, science is not religion since religion doesn’t work off of empirical data. Since, as mormons, we believe in a natural God that does things naturally (i.e., He is able to do things that we might not be able to explain now but as we’re given more knowledge on how things work people will be able to explain them eventually). Since we believe in a natural God there is no way prove the existence of God beyond Him coming down and being video taped and showing us how he does stuff. Or having a loved one come back in the spirit and being video taped, poked and prodded, etc. Even the experiences that people experience can be explained away by science and psychology, etc.
So religion is based on a belief system and science is based on empirical data and logic and reason. It is interesting, most people’s politics are based on belief rather than empirical and logical data also.
Timothy Mouse: C’mon, fly! Open them ears! The magic feather was just a gag!
Most adults can do practically any diet w/o harm for a short period of time. Whether the HCG is truly a “magic bullet” or a placebo to instill dietary discipline is inconclusive. Hard to argue with results.
I DON’T recommend what was used to cure my morbid obesity: Gastric Bypass Surgery. Unless the alternative is a likely early dirt nap and you’re willing to live with the restrictions. Regardless of dietary method, you must change your eating habits and lifestyle; else, you will likely regain weight and then some. There ain’t no free lunch.
The analogies to the Gospel should be obvious.
Given that you didn’t use real hCG, you probably were lucky not to do too much damage. Males should especially stay clear of hCG. http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ijo2011188a.html
@ Jon (10.)
“Religion is based on a belief system and science is based on empirical data and logic and reason.”
I don’t think that religion is either illogical or unreasonable. Furthermore, in practise, empirical data is very important in the faith of most church members:
A testimony of the power of the priesthood might be rooted in the recovery of health following a priesthood blessing. Receiving a salary raise the month after paying a full tithe might be the basis of a conviction in the law of tithing.
A fundamental component of everything from testimony meetings to general conference is the notion that empirical experiences are a foundation of faith.
It seems to me that the concept of non-overlapping magisteria fails in practise – science and religion simply differ with regard to the validity of this empirical data as evidence of truth.
Bruce,
I don’t necessarily believe religion to be illogical or unreasonable either, but I also recognize there is no way to prove it, at least it hasn’t be empirically proven to me.
Just because someone gets a priesthood blessing and recovers doesn’t mean it was because of it, it could have happened anyways regardless of the blessing. You would need to actually prove that the blessing worked. Like have ten bodies that are clinically dead, use the priesthood to revive all of them, that would be empirical proof.
Receiving a raise after paying tithing doesn’t equate to proof either, it is a belief that that was the cause, but, if you hadn’t paid tithing it might have happened regardless. Proof would be that everyone that pays tithing monetary become rich.
The aren’t empirical experiences since there was no empiricism, it was just “I prayed” or “I felt this way” and then this happened. How many people have similar stories where they prayed and then it didn’t happen? See, it is based on a belief system.
I would like that an angel would come down and talked to me to prove that it is all true. Maybe one day it will, until then I will believe but I will have no proof.
Thank you Hawkgrrl.
Reading posts like this, from active church members, who seems to be intelligent and still open minded and… well, thinking, is extremely helpful for me.
I am a convert and have recently been struggling with some of the “oddly specific restrictions”, the amount of “regular check-ins”, and the daily grind… wait, no “routine” that is asked of us.
Lately, I don’t feel the spirit at church. Not even a bit. The temple has always made me uneasy. And all the “stuff”, the callings and outside of church responsibilities and requirements (though my husband is quick to point out they aren’t really requirements… they are optional and suggested… but let’s be honest, that is not how church people treat it) just stress me out.
Growing up catholic (not Easter and Christmas Catholics but every going every Sunday, and taking catechism classes Catholic) we were “active members” going on Sunday (1 hr btw) and maybe staying for donuts afterwards.
As a kid I hated church. (We always missed the top 3 songs of the Sunday countdown) But I have fond memories sitting with my sister’s and fooling around. Watching the evil eye stare from mom because were too loud and leaning on my dad’s shoulder. I think I learned (what I consider) the important stuff… God exists, you can pray to him, ask him for help, comfort, and there is life after this so you don’t need to be constantly afraid.
Even if none of that is true, even if it is a “placebo” or religion is just a crutch as my non religious friends like to say… isn’t it one you’d like to have? I sure want my kids to have it. I want them to feel safe….always. To take comfort when they are scared knowing they aren’t alone and that God is watching, and they can pray and ask for anything. I want them to think that our family will be together forever and death isn’t so scary because there is life after. I want them to believe in that part of the doctrine, true or false, and it is worth it to me to go to give them that gift. But the “prohibitions” we have as mormons… some doctrine (Word of Wisdom) some cultural (r rated movies, swimming on sunday, caffeine) I don’t know if I want them to believe in that and I don’t know if I can fake that I do. My side of the family are not members, but amazing people. I don’t ever want them to see grandpa drinking a glass of wine and thinking “he’s wrong or bad” or even just “he shouldn’t be doing that”. I don’t want them to look at their gay aunt and pass judgement.
So often, I take diets, and I tweak them. I’ll give myself that glass of orange juice in the morning even though the diet says only oranges are okay. Give myself an extra serving of dairy or veggies or (gasp) carbs. I’ll do it, knowing that I am working out and the diet, as written may work, but for my purposes, my version of the diet will too. It will get me where I need and want to go.
Can I do that with the church? (And don’t say yes, as long as I don’t want to go to that top kingdom!)
If my goal, if that end result, is just like yours, can I tweak it and still be an active member?
You are very right. “One size does not fit all” in diets, in workouts, in any aspect that I know of life. And no one, well, no educated person, shakes their head at someone who modifies their diet to work for them. Who changes the workout to fit their needs and abilities. We applaud them for making the effort to get in shape and be healthy. Why can’t church be like that?
Organized religion… it just seems too organized to me.
Sorry, got a bit off topic I guess, kind of came full circle in the end I hope. That is what your post made me think of.
By empiricism, I am not referring to full rigorous application of the scientific method. I am simply referring to basing knowledge on experimentation and observation.
For instance, when Alma invites experimentation on his words, he describes how faith grows based on the observation of the seed swelling and sprouting. Of course the analogy is figurative, but the concept is clearly empirical and is found in several instances in the BoM in particular.
You and I both agree that a raise does not constitute valid scientific proof of the law of tithing, but I have argued that a majority of members do see these experiences as evidence for the truth of principles they attach to them. With specific reference to tithing, the Lord instructs, “prove me now herewith,” inviting experimentation and observation. When we receive a witness after the trial of our faith, that *is* empiricism, even when it is clearly not valid proof.
If faith is not based on experience and observation, what is it based on?
I was going to ask about how a female hormone was going to work with men but someone else brought it up first. 😀
That’s an important part of the analogy for me — the oddball. Since I’ve been an insulin-dependent diabetic since 1962, my “diet” isn’t really about weight, it’s about balancing the carbs going in my mouth with the insulin being injected under my skin. So a diet that “worked” for other people might actually do me great harm. Churches can do that, too, so I’m a lot more comfortable with a church that avoids saying it’s the ONLY true church. We wierdos are around, you know. 😀
Just to clarify, you aren’t actually taking a hormone on the diet, and there are no negative effects for men. Going on a diet eliminates man boobs; it doesn’t cause them.
And I’m not 100% sure whether our drops were the real deal or not as stated in #2.
sidneyrose – great comments. I keep coming back to triangulating on these 3 things: belief (possibly placebo effect), focusing on outcomes (does it work for me?), and rationale (why does it work?). If I have to place them in a hierarchy, I would put outcomes ahead of belief and rationale. Rationale (for something like religion or a diet) would come last. I think you have to go with what works. Failing that, you have to go with what you believe works. 😉
What do you mean you aren’t taking a hormone? I’m glad you were only taking water placebo drops, but anyone else out there considering taking the real thing should ask a real weight loss physician before wasting their money or potentially damaging their health. Human chorionic gonadotropin is a hormone! It has significant effects. In males, prostate cells can produce the HCG receptor, and overstimulation can lead to prostate tumors. Some males with enlarged breasts or with breast cancer have also been shown to produce higher levels of the HCG receptor.
With all due respect, I would be very cautious about the HCG diet. “It’s reckless, irresponsible, and completely irrational,” says Pieter Cohen, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. “Can you lose weight on it? Of course, but that’s mainly because you’re hardly consuming any calories. And any benefit is not going to last.”
It’s reckless, irresponsible, and completely irrational,” says Pieter Cohen, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. “Can you lose weight on it? Of course, but that’s mainly because you’re hardly consuming any calories. And any benefit is not going to last.”
It’s reckless, irresponsible, and completely irrational,” says Pieter Cohen, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. “Can you lose weight on it? Of course, but that’s mainly because you’re hardly consuming any calories. And any benefit is not going to last.”
The regimen isn’t without risks. The hormone is known to cause headaches, blood clots, leg cramps, temporary hair thinning, constipation, and breast tenderness. The FDA has received at least one recent report of an HCG dieter developing a pulmonary embolism, a potentially fatal blood clot in the lung, says agency spokesperson Shelly Burgess.
There’s no question that 500 calories a day is tantamount to malnutrition—dieters should never dip below 1,200, say experts—and federal dietary guidelines recommend more than three times the amount of calories the diet prescribes for women ages 19 to 30. Moreover, extremely low-calorie diets can cause severe bone and muscle loss, electrolyte imbalances, gallstones, and even death. “I’ve heard a lot of people say the side effects of this diet are overwhelming,” says registered dietitian Keri Gans, a spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association.
I Have heard enough. Any recommendation to use this diet should be withdrawn.
I have nothing but happiness for Hawkgirl. HCG works for some, not everyone in the whole world.
The HCG diet is completely irrational, potentially dangerous, perpetrated by those trying to bilk money from the desperate or ignorant. I hope no one draws those parallels with the Church…
OK all, move along, nothing to see here. Just move along, let people do what they will, live and let live.
Driving is potentially dangerous and 10s of thousands of people die every year from it. Please, everyone, don’t drive, you’ll die! I’m telling you all the “experts” out there know you can die from it. For that matter, you should stop living in houses mad with wood, only cement will do, lot’s of people die from their house burning down, don’t do it guys!
Look, we all take risks, for whatever we do, just going to a doctor and having surgery is fairly dangerous because of potential infections. There’s so many dangers out there, let people take the risk they think is necessary for themselves and leave well enough alone. What we should truly worry about is the millions of people that are dying because of our false belief in the state that they worship as their god.
interesting metaphor… ya 500 calories a day will definitely make you lose weight… Like Chris mentioned that’s basically malnutrition. I was doing a contractor gig in Iraq and only eating at the chow hall twice a day due to inconvenience and long hours… I came back looking like a crackhead…
I’m simply going to say that it’s not malnutrition if you are using your stored fat to derive energy, which is what happens when a starving pregnant woman’s baby thrives. This is the premise of the diet.
Regardless, a person can do just about anything for 3 weeks without long-term ill effects. This is not intended to be a long-term diet. The first person I knew who did the diet is a urologist. All due respect, I’ll listen to a urologist who is a friend before I listen to random people who aren’t doctors and haven’t done the diet but think it sounds dangerous. I’ll also listen to a known and trusted friend who is a doctor before I listen to other doctors who are openly denouncing the diet while freely admitting no experience with it.
I’m not recommending it, nor advocating it. I’m just sharing that it worked for me, and that there is a parallel between that 100% subjective experience with a diet that is controversial and unproven and with the experience of joining the church despite warnings from those who’ve not experienced it or who disbelieve its claims.
Ultimately, we do what works. We do what we believe will work.
#26: Hawkgrrrl,
“I’m not recommending it, nor advocating it”.
You are.
“I’m just sharing that it worked for me”.
No, you have told many stories of it working for others.
“I’ll listen to a urologist who is a friend before I listen to random people”.
You do not lisen to the World of nutritionist who disagree with you.
” Ultimately, we do what works…”. No often we make the wrong call and die.
Bob, to quote Monty Python, that’s not an argument. It’s just contradiction.
Once again, I’ll point out that you sound just like an exchange with an anti-Mormon:
“I’m not advocating you join the church.”
You are. Your church has a huge missionary program.
“I’m just sharing what works for me.”
And testimonies of other people it’s worked for.
“I’ll listen to someone I know and trust over strangers.”
You’ll ignore theologians and archaeologists who’ve debunked the BOM and biographers who’ve painted JS as a fraud.
“We do what works.”
You’ll go to hell for believing in the wrong Jesus. Your very soul is at stake!
Very alarming rhetoric, I’m sure.
#26: hawkgrrrl
A diet does not have to be a 100% subjective experience. Properly controlled clinical trials are very effective at firmly establishing whether a medicinal modality works or not. When a diet is not proved to work or proved not to work, we can’t conclude that it does work, based on anecdotal testimonial. If it is legitimately controversial, all we can conclude is that more research and better studies are required to establish a valid consensus.
Ultimately, people don’t always do what works. This is abundantly evident when it comes to health and medicine! To pick just one example from very, very many, some parents choose not to vaccinate their children – they may believe this will work, but that belief doesn’t protect their children against disease. We see deaths from measles, mumps, pertussis and polio, directly linked to refusal to vaccinate.
Bruce B – In the post, I linked to 2 trials of HCG. The first one had a negative conclusion (that the diet is a placebo). The second contradicted it and measured a more comprehensive array of results (fat loss vs. muscle, etc.). I certainly agree with you that scientific research can conclusively prove a diet’s claims, but the other axiom is “stats lie and liars do stats.” You get different conclusions depending on what you measure and how you conduct your trials.
However, when something is not yet proven scientifically, we do what we choose based on our belief with what little data we have. We are left to rely more on personal experience (outcomes) and the word of trusted individuals.
Bruce B – sorry I failed to respond to a point you made earlier: “Restrictions do not make something MORE valid by virtue of being oddly specific or unique. . . Furthermore, the presence of a large number of restrictions gives you a larger number of ways to retrospectively explain why something hasn’t worked, particularly when absolute adherence is required.” Oddly specific restrictions don’t make a thing more valid in reality – just more psychologically credible.
Your additional point about providing a confusing number of fail points is intriguing. With so many restrictions, you really have to test them one at a time to negate them. And before you know it, your 21 days are over, and you’ve lost the weight.
#30: hawkgrrrl
I think we are in agreement here. It is possible to manipulate trials or data to fit your desired outcome. Thus, it is always important to assess the quality of studies in question. I am not qualified to do in this case, though I do sense some mixed messages from the second study you cite. In their discussion and conclusion, the authors state:
“In 1974, the FDA banned the use of hCG in the US based on a series of studies maintaining that weight loss was similar both in the Placebo and hCG-treated groups. Our study corroborates those previous findings.”
#31: hawkgrrrl
The existence of many failure points is always interesting. There was an archaic form of divination called Cleidomancy, defined as “divination by interpreting the movements of a key suspended by a thread from the nail of the third finger on a young virgin’s hand while one of the Psalms was recited.”
If a cleidomancer failed to make an accurate prediction, it would be very easy to assert that:
A ring should be used in place of a key.
Twine should be used in place of thread.
The index finger should be used in place of the third.
The damsel’s virginity should be called into question.
The number of failure points is certainly not an argument that something doesn’t work. It’s just makes it easy to explain away a negative result. There are perhaps some unfortunate church analogies to be made here.
hawkgrrrl,
I grew up with on girls taking Amphetamines as diet pills.
I remember all the girls at my office taking Fin Fan for diets.
Then there were the sad days of Thalidomide (not for diet).
I would guess, in my life, I have been on every yo-yo diet that came along. I know of few that were useful and not bad for your health.
Bob,
Walk away from the computer. Come back another post. This one’s not for you.
Alternatively, reread the post title and the post. Get PAST the “HCG diet” part that you seem really hung up on and to the “Metaphor for church” part that you have heretofore completely ignored. Do you have anything to say about that? If so, carry on. If not, see ya another day.
Thank you Andrew S (35) and of course Hawkgrrl (for multiple attempts) to bring it back (my fav being 28).
I was so bummed it turned into a HCG post because I thought the drawn parallels and comparisons to doing a diet were spot on and interesting. I was looking forward to reading people’s opinion on that part.
This is why I like Seth Roberts, he debunks the myth of the doctor and clinical trials and puts the onerous on what works for the individual. Lest we forget all the doctors that push statin drugs, that have been shown through clinical trials not to work and actually be dangerous all for but the most severe of cases. Also, lest we forget, all the kids that are put on psychedelic drugs for being normal and not being able to sit still in a boring class all day?
Jon,
That last comment of yours…what does it have to do with the topic?
Keep in mind, *everyone*, this is not a post about a diet. It’s a post about a diet as a metaphor for church.
Well, the scriptures seem to compare church to feasting, not dieting…
Ji,
Isn’t it interesting how we can have multiple analogies, seemingly incompatible to one another but actually simply appealing to different dimensions of the things being analogized?
Yes, quite. We should be able to handle it.
Andrew @38: I think a main reason people keep bringing up various points about the validity of the specific diet in question because they feel that it can lead to very negative conclusions about the church if we keep digging into the metaphor.
If there are those whose research indicates that the hCG diet is a dangerous scam promoting harmful practises (like the severe caloric restriction), then where the diet is used as a metaphor for the church, those same characteristics must be transposed accordingly, and that can be a disturbing thought.
Perhaps in the actual diet as well as the analogy, it’s a case of risk versus reward: going beyond the individual to the overall trend, does it reliably deliver enough of what it promises to be worth the investment?
Indiana,
That is a fair point, but notice how you can talk about that point *from the perspective of talking about the metaphor to the church.*
I’ll go further: you say it’s a disturbing thought that certain aspects of the diet can be possibly transposed onto the church as a result of comparison. Why not discuss that? I think that aspect is PRECISELY why the analogy is really good…because you DO have a number of people both who have been in the church and those who have never been on the church who have the same suspicions and poor sentiments regarding the church as many have expressed about this diet in particular. You have many people who point to empirical data against the church, many who point to empirical data for the church, many who want to prioritize subjective experience over all, many who want to point out it could be a placebo, others who will respond, “so what? It clearly works for me!”
So why NOT dig deeper into the metaphor?
I think your final question is a really good one…I feel like I should write more about it, but it would probably take me a post to do justice to it.
#41: Indiana
Very well put.
Andrew,
Here you go, I’ll tie it in. People, like those who denounce this diet, appeal to authority rather than what works for them and they forget that authority figures can be mistaken or plain wrong. Likewise, in the church, people look to the leaders for their salvation rather than God and refuse to think critically for themselves and determine what works for themselves unto salvation. They also tend to criticize the decisions of others and demean them, but in reality, we are all working out our own salvations and should be a little less critical when, in the end, it doesn’t matter that much. Of course, for certain things, it truly is important to point out mistakes/flaws, but most of the the time, live and let live if they are not hurting anyone else.
Jon,
Cool.
I’ll push back though. Do you think it’s possible that some people who denounce this diet (or other diets similar) do so because not only did it not work for them (or others that they knew), but that it caused harm to them or those others? In this case, can someone criticize this diet not because of an authority figure, but rather because of personal experience?
I think how you’ve compared to the church is a bit confused. In the diet example, the authority figures you’re saying people appeal to are those who are critical of the diet (e.g., scientific studies, medical professionals, etc.,) But in the church example, the authority figures you’re saying people appeal to are the church leaders (who actually support the church.)
I think one thing with respect to the church is that, if we listen to the leaders (and, I’m really intrigued by everyone who’s been saying so recently that we should just listen to leaders less, etc., when many people’s experience with the church really emphasizes the importance of trusting leaders, listening to them, etc.,) then we get the message that it really DOES matter that much what we do unto our salvation.
Live and let live is a good mantra, but in many cases, people worry that someone *is* being harmed. Whether an individual personally, or someone else.
#35: Andrew:,
Why pick on me? I am not the only one talking about the diet. If you follow back through my comments, you will see they were all responses to Harkgirrrl’s speaking of her diet, not her metaphor. But I will drop out.
I wonder if, for those who really dislike (the detractors) the HCG diet, if for the purpose of discussion you could substitute HCG (the diet Hawkgrrrl happened to be doing) with another diet (Atkins, Detox, Eat Clean, Paleo, etc) and still draw the same parallels to discuss. The vast majority have them.
Indiana (41) I think you are spot on (and I’d like to give others the benefit of the doubt that that is what they were trying to say just failing) but like Andrew S says… that is (at least my) goal of this discussion.
*A lot of the requirements are common to many diets.
*Oddly specific restrictions are often not explained, yet lend credence to its claims through their uniqueness.
*Regular check-ins create commitment and accountability.
*The price is high, so you don’t want to cheat.
*Routine keeps you on track.
*There are detractors and proselyters.
*It’s a lot easier to do with close friends or your spouse.
Placebo Effect. One Size Fits All…..
Jon (44) “Live and Let Live if they are not hurting anyone else”. Do you think our church believes that? That we teach that? I know there are individuals in the church that do of course, but do you think that is the message that we send to our people?
My husband always quotes some version of this: “In the Catholic church everyone says the pope is infallible but nobody believes it; …. The Mormons teach that their prophet is fallible, but none of them believe it”
So, adding in Andrew S…
If we know that people are fallible, therefore our leaders are, is it okay to make a personal decision against something they say or requirements they ask of us? Can we pray about something, for ourselves, our family, etc and if we get a different answer or feeling…. are we still following the same God that the church teaches about?
Great post, HG. Reading through the thread has been interesting…it seems to support one purpose of the post, besides the details of the diet itself.
Some argue for it, others argue there is scientific evidence it is dangerous. Some focus on experience and share testimonies, others focus on data, some don’t care much as it doesn’t interest them.
There is no one way. We are all different on how we make life choices.
Is the Church different? Is there one way for all, and those who disagree will one day see they were wrong? What is truth?
My opinion is since I take a very pragmatic approach to church, I see it similar to the diet. Results will support if it is good for me or not, and I don’t assume what works for me will work for everyone. Others on different diets/lifestyles might be just fine without any knowledge/experience I may have that works for me.
I think the only limitation of this analogy, is the diet is about mortal bodies and the physical realm of weight loss through thoughts, actions, and chemicals.
Religion and Church is about spiritual things and things in the next life and the spirit world, which takes it to another level of uncertainty because I can’t just rely on results I see now…what if there are results in the eternities?
However, this could be a valid parable in our day, much more applicable than Olive Trees which I know little about.
Andrew: I see no reason not to delve into the metaphor, for the very reasons you describe. I just think that for those who see the church as a force for good (or with the potential for good), the negative conclusions drawn from the metaphor when the hCG diet is taken skeptically (and I don’t use that term pejoratively) can ring false or be hard to stomach. In essence: which of us really likes to think we’ve been deceived whatever the positive consequences we see along the way? It’s all very well to say “I don’t care if it’s the placebo effect; I’m happy”, but will we later negate that happiness in our recollections if we feel betrayed by those we trusted – whether it’s the propagators of the diet or friends, family, and GAs?
I suppose I’ve got onto a tangent, but the question stands for the time being.
Indiana,
It seems to me that this would apply JUST the same to a diet — HCG or otherwise. Those who see the diet as a force for good, or who perhaps HAVE achieved their various goals with the diet, would see critical or skeptical evaluations of said diet as ringing false or being hard to stomach.
You ask, “Which of us really likes to think we’ve been deceived whatever the positive consequences we see along the way?” But isn’t there something more to that question: after all, there ARE “positive consquences to be seen along the way”. So, whether it relates to the diet or the church, the two need to be reconciled some way: the positive consequences that we may see along the way…with the negative conclusions others may draw as well.
I think this is something that depends on the person — because whether it is church or a diet, different people have different reactions upon “leaving” or “quitting”. I guess my follow-up question to your question would be: what would it mean to “negate that happiness in our recollections”? What would that say about us, especially with respect to the possible placebo/personal/subjective nature of happiness itself?
I am coming late to the discussion but I think that the metaphor works if you can get past the debate regarding the effectiveness of the HCG diet.
It does make me think. Most diets are unnecessary if you have a healthy lifestyle generally. If you are active and eat nutritious food, then it is likely that you will have no need to go on a particular diet. Does this mean then that if we are moderate, and have a healthy lifestyle that the church is redundant? If you live a good life generally then you don’t need the church?
I think that just plays on the dual-meaning of the word “diet.” In one sense, a diet is a temporary thing, following certain rules you normally wouldn’t to get to some goal.
But in a second thing, a diet is permanent. In other words, I may not be on a diet, but I certainly have a diet. If I eat nutritious foods, then my diet is probably better than if I don’t…
I think this fits in with the church analogy. Is church something one gets “on” as a temporary measure to reach some goal of goodness, or is it meant to represent something more permanent in one’s life?
What I was thinking of, when I said “negate that happiness in our recollections” is the idea that – to use a cliche – one bad apple ruins the bunch. Though we may experience an event (say, a party) as a positive thing, how often do we later say the whole night is ruined if, for example, you miss a bus you need to get home, or ruin an outfit, or get into an argument?
That is to say, if we feel that the testimony we gained was based on what we later decide were the false pretences of others, do we poison the whole memory and say we were never happy or never believed or got no benefit at all? Or do we admit that there were positive experiences and good memories, but that those can’t continue once a feeling of betrayal sets in?
If we can do the latter, perhaps the cheerful acceptance of the possibility of a placebo effect isn’t a harmful notion. Because, even if we’re disaffected, we don’t lose the happiness we had before, we simply have to look for it somewhere else from then on. Have I phrased that clearly enough?
Diet does have a duel meaning, however, generally when people use it, it is used in the first way rather then to describe our permanent eating habits.
If you play on the dual meaning though, a good temporary diet should be about changing habits and getting you to a permanent way of life and lead to a healthy permanent diet. In a similar fashion the church should be about getting people to a permanent state of goodness.
In contrast a fad diet such as Atkins, HCG, may produce dramatic superficial results, but it never deals with the underlying factors. Short term change, for short term results. But it is not that simple as a dramatic change may be the catalyst and motivation for a longer change. So even a temporary measure can help achieve permanency.
Indiana,
Once again, I think different people will answer differently, but for the most part, I don’t see a lot of people who will say, “I never believed” if they feel that they did. That is different, btw, than people coming to regard “belief” as something different than what they once did, and then concluding that they never believed in the sense they now understand the word to mean.
But I digress.
I think that is often the case.
As this is phrased, I don’t disagree. I just think that the issue is that the disaffected person, in many cases, doesn’t want to have to look for what they had before elsewhere…because up until that point, they had thought that what they were getting was the real deal — which wouldn’t be dependent on a sort of placebo effect. But post-disaffection, they can’t go back to the way things used to be.
To put it in another way, those who advocate dieting methods and those who advocate the church generally do so by arguing that it is the real deal, and will work for you no matter what your subjective state regarding it is.
But if it’s just a placebo, then this isn’t so. It’s only effective while you believe the placebo. So, someone who’s disillusioned may recognize the placebo’s former effectiveness, but can’t ever go BACK to it. And that’s a lot of the pain of disillusionment/disaffection in the first place.
…if that makes any sense?
#54 – Jake makes an excellent point. “Fad” diets CAN work, at least temporarily, because they “sell” well enough that the dieter follows it with belief, buying into what is often a questionable premise. Naturally, no credible doctor can endorse it, not only due to medical orthodoxy but also because they’ve seen these fad diets come and go and understand the underlying causes. As Jake pointed out, they often deal with the problem superficially. Now, if you’re dealing with a minor overweight issue like what Hawkgrrl described (15 lbs, probably about 8% to 10% of her total body weight prior to the diet regimen), there’s little likehood of harm because most adults in good health can deal with this short-term self-inflicted punishment. The “real” test will be will she succeed in keeping the “excess” (to her it’s excess, anyway, what I prefer on a gal’s bones is irrevelant…) off long-term. The reality is that most dieters gain their weight back, and often put on even more. The “true” cure, temporary diet notwithstanding, is diet, exercise, nutrition, and lifestyle, and it takes a holistic and multidisciplinary approach and not a small amount of work! Look, following RnY surgery, (and I’d already dropped 40 lbs. prior as part of the “commitment” that Kaiser wanted before they’d do the procedure), I went from 280 at surgery on 5 Mar 2007 to 178 by the end of 2007 (and most of it in the first five months). Was it all “hunky-dory”? Well, better than most as far as surgical complications, and I was back at my regular job in two weeks and doing my side job (pizza schlepping) in another two weeks. But I still had issues with frequent vomiting, exhaustion, and muscle mass loss. It wasn’t until six months post-surgery I could hit the gym full bore. Now, I’m steady at 205, but wearing a trouser size less than even at my lowest weight.
The point of elaborating on my weight loss experience is that there are quite a few approaches to dealing with excess weight, and most are controversial to some extent or another. As long as basic principles are observed however, who is to judge as to which method is best?
Where this has a Gospel analogy, methinks, is that even the “true” Gospel can be taken in a faddish or even fanatical approach. The overall idea is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of the soul in question. Ah…but what is “the” way? There seems to be as many interpretations even amongst the Saints as there are Saints! This is probably WHY we get spoon-fed the “basics” over and over ad nauseam…if only the Church as a whole would master them first! (me included!!)
Andrew:
that does make sense. And I do agree; once the idea is accepted that our former happiness was the result of a placebo effect, we can’t bring ourselves to go back to the way things were. Whatever fulfilment we need must come from an entirely different paradigm.
This has turned into a fascinating discussion. Thanks, Andrew S and all. I tend to agree that if one discovers conclusively that the church was a placebo, it will no longer work for them. However, while still in doubt, one can have effective, results-producing faith in what may ultimately be a placebo. It’s like those prayer studies that show that people who knew they were prayed for healed faster, but if they didn’t know, they didn’t heal faster. So the prayer was a placebo, but the faith was the medicine.
The other comments I found interesting were those about authority and whether we trust authority more than our own experience. Again, this metaphor works well between the diet and the church. I was skeptical of the authority of those who promoted the diet (because they had a stake in it, either financially or via their reputation). That would be like how we might view the church leaders’ perspectives on the church. But those not promoting the diet decried it as dangerous with no experience with it and no conclusive proof. When pressed, one doctor on Web MD who had sternly warned against HCG as an ineffective fad diet actually admitted she had never had a patient who did the diet, and she wanted the person who had asked and was going to do the diet despite her warning to share her results with her. It’s less risky for a doctor to caution against a diet than to promote it when people sometimes do crazy things and then sue doctors. So to me, the detractor doctors also had low credibility when they were admitting no experience with the diet and no scientific trial to the contrary, just a stock answer that fad diets are dangerous. To me, that’s like those who criticize the BOM but haven’t read it or the church but don’t even know any Mormons or our basic doctrines. Which includes the majority of anti-Mormons.
So that leaves me with those who did the diet and either recommended it or didn’t. Those who said it didn’t work (and I read dozens of reviews) all broke the diet rules and therefore didn’t lose. They said it was too hard. Those who followed it did lose the weight quickly and almost none had side effects worse than a headache the first 2 days. Again, this is like with the church although there are more reasons the church doesn’t work for people than just their lack of fortitude. There are sometimes weird side effects, such as family conflicts or local ward issues. But there are plenty of people it seems to work for based on self-reporting. And I was one of them, both with the diet and the church.
Here’s an observation that I didn’t see. maybe I missed it.
In order for a diet to be effective, whether the short term or long term kind, it requires action. One must first believe in the diet and then be willing to follow it, incorporate it into their lives and live it. or else it does not work. It is not enough just to have faith in the diet.
As is with Church, it is not enough just to have faith. One must live it to actually reap the benefits. And when you become unwilling to do that, for whatever reason, the benefits go away.
Jeff,
I’d counter that observation with another observation.
I think the big point around “placebo” or “not placebo” hinges upon this observation: a non-placebo treatment works *even when you don’t first believe in it.*
I completely agree that action is necessary. But it’s only with placebos where you have to believe it will work before it actually will.
Andrew,
“But it’s only with placebos where you have to believe it will work before it actually will.”
Not always. In the usual useage of placebo, its intended use is to demonstrate a control on a group of people not taking a particular substance. In some cases, the mental belief that a person taking the placebo causes it to function as if the person took the real thing. However, it is not the intend of the placebo to have that desired effect. it is merely to provide that control group of those not taking the substance.
In the case of Church, what is the control and what is the substance?
Jeff,
I would go a bit deeper with that characterization of placebo methodology. After all, there are multiple control groups…positive and negative. You can create a negative control group by giving one group in a test situation no treatment at all. In that case, you would evaluate the difference of effect between the group who had no treatment (because here, you expect that there should be no effect) and the group who had some treatment.
But the placebo sets up a positive control…where both the groups that receive the placebo and the groups that receive treatment EXPECT some effect. The difference between results is not the difference between null and treatment effectiveness…but rather the difference between the psychological expectation of treatment (and that is the placebo effect) and actual treatment effectiveness.
(Then again, I’m not a doctor…so if anyone thinks I have it wrong, feel free to correct me. haha)
So, what I’m saying is that it would be difficult to create an effective positive control test to tease out the placebo effect of the church, because the church *itself* emphasizes that it won’t work unless you believe it will.
To make some kind of positive control, you’d have to develop certain actions that the church advocates will produce certain effects, and then find people who will do these objects without thinking that they have to believe in these actions’ effectiveness first-hand. It’s tough for me to imagine such a case…
Actually, Andrew, I think a study could be set up whereby you compared the quality of lives of various religious adherents against the placebo or control of an Atheist.
I suppose it would be qualitative rather than a qualitative study, but it could be interesting.
Jeff, even there you’d have to develop two kinds of studies.
One study would be to compare the quality of lives of strict religious adherents to those of non-observant/non-religious people (this is the negative control.) In this study, you could probably get even more granular…people who attend and are very active on a very regular basis…vs. those who are less active…vs. though who are basically only Christmas/Easter adherents (or whatever the equivalent would be.) To those who never attend any religious service or are involved in any religious rituals.
Then, another study would be to compare the quality of strict religious adherents *who are believers* to strict religious adherents *who are not believers* (this is the positive control/placebo.) You’d probably have to come up with an operating definition of what being a “religious adherent” really means (e.g., if I don’t drink coffee/tea — but for non-spiritual reasons, if I donate 10% of my income to a secular organization, if I do all these things that make my life look Mormon…does that make me religious?) and that would be controversial, but you could do it.
It would be a qualitative study, for sure, but I don’t see any problem with that.
I for one think that each study would produce some interesting reactions.