New research about different diets
Options
Replies
-
Yes it was great. I vehemently don't care how any of you lose your weight or maintain it. Ode's paleo, always paleo answer was just the right thing.
Wish more of you kind of "get" what is being said with that answer. For me this thread delivered. Thanks all, ciao!0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »I think a lot of obese people who come here for info get discouraged and quit because they believe that these claims you read here constantly are 100% true:
1- You have to lose slowly or you're destined to regain. (Pretty discouraging if you have hundreds of pounds to lose and want to get out of obese BMI and be healthier before next summer.)
2- If you don't lift free weights in the gym, you will just be skinny fat if you do succeed. (Pretty discouraging if you're so large you can't fathom walking in a gym, much less heading into the free weights).
3- If you don't weigh all your foods, you're doing it wrong. (Pretty discouraging especially if you believe you have to do this for years.)
How many of those people decide, "It's too much, I can't do all that."
You do make good points. I am not discouraged, but I have read these things. Actually, point 1 is better for me. If I get too hungry I will give up so it is more manageable, for me personally, to lose at a slower rate.
I wish it was easier to find groups. They add another layer.0 -
I love it when someone who posts contrary to mfp-group think is suddenly labeled as defensive or openly hostile. But if someone belonging to the "in-crowd" posts dancing cats, eye-roll gifs, or other negativity it's ok. Calling those out as openly hostile results in one of the following responses:
"Oh noes, someone's feelings are hurt"
"Must be time for a mean-people thread"
"Welcome to the internet"
"You're stupid because science."
By the way OP, I totally agree with this article. There is not one shred of evidence that shows "slow and steady" is in any way superior to rapid weight loss. I dropped 10 lbs/month for my first three months, 5 lbs/month for the next two and have steadily maintained in my desired weight range.
I didn't lose hair. I didn't die. I don't look skinny fat. On the other hand, I handled all of my digestive issues and knocked them out quick. I'm more active and can do much more at 140 than at 180. And I never lost motivation because I was hitting my targets every month. Why people are so venomous to this style of weight loss is beyond me.-2 -
Have a good night.emily_stew wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
THAT seemed hostile to you? interesting.emily_stew wrote: »Siege_Tank wrote: »^ venom. Sticks and stones, love.
And keep arguing with data, that'll change it.
You seem unreasonably hostile.
Read my edit. Defensive might be a better word. He was on the defensive almost immediately from the beginning of his OP. Whether that's justified or not is another story, but it's not the best way to start a discussion.
It's late, and I'm tired and getting cranky, so Im'a peace out now.
0 -
The important thing to note is that the participants in the study were obese (BMI 30 or higher) and lost enough to be in the overweight category. So, we're talking about people with plenty of fat reserves to live off of when they consume a VLCD diet. The health effects of being that heavy are probably worse than going on a VLCD for a limited amount of time. Also, with such a high amount to lose, they may need the encouragement of losing faster. The danger is that those who are in the merely overweight category, or even those who are at a24-25 BMI and want to get to an 18-20, see this article, and decide that eating 450-800 calories a day is a good idea.0
-
In your article they stated that they ALL gained it back. I have no intention of trying to find the weight I lost again that's why even though I am at goal weight, I keep logging in every day.0
-
No one intends to gain it back.hearthwood wrote: »In your article they stated that they ALL gained it back. I have no intention of trying to find the weight I lost again that's why even though I am at goal weight, I keep logging in every day.
0 -
What I've read from NIH studies is that any weight loss program - slow or fast - works pretty well. What is hard is KEEPING it off. For everyone.
To keep it off you need to change your eating habits, exercise, and keep paying attention to the same things that allowed you to lose. Doesn't matter what that was. But it has to be sustainable (i.e., nutritionally sound and not too much trouble).
Anyone can lose maintaining means you've changed your ways. Much tougher.0 -
What I've read from NIH studies is that any weight loss program - slow or fast - works pretty well. What is hard is KEEPING it off. For everyone.
To keep it off you need to change your eating habits, exercise, and keep paying attention to the same things that allowed you to lose. Doesn't matter what that was. But it has to be sustainable (i.e., nutritionally sound and not too much trouble).
Anyone can lose maintaining means you've changed your ways. Much tougher.
Well said.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
No one intends to gain it back.hearthwood wrote: »In your article they stated that they ALL gained it back. I have no intention of trying to find the weight I lost again that's why even though I am at goal weight, I keep logging in every day.What I've read from NIH studies is that any weight loss program - slow or fast - works pretty well. What is hard is KEEPING it off. For everyone.
To keep it off you need to change your eating habits, exercise, and keep paying attention to the same things that allowed you to lose. Doesn't matter what that was. But it has to be sustainable (i.e., nutritionally sound and not too much trouble).
Anyone can lose maintaining means you've changed your ways. Much tougher.
These are excellent points.
0 -
-
I don't do diets anymore. Their too boring. I'd much rather eat everything in moderation. Working so far. Have kept 46lb off for 2.5 years.-1
-
I've been saying this for a while. Honestly, I know people who tell this to people with eating disorders mean well (that they'll 'gain all the weight back plus more if they eat less than x calories a day'), but as someone who has struggled with an ED... it does way more harm than good. That fear actually fueled my eating disorder, and still does fuel it sometimes. As I lost a substantial amount of weight in a short time, and was told by many people that I would 'gain it all back plus more'. There are actually some people in my life who are pretty much still expecting me to. Which, yes, is not helpful at all.
I think a large part of what causes dieters to gain their weight back is not how much they restrict their calories... but their own feelings regarding the diet, their diet, and food. I know of many people in my life who have tried dieting, and tried to lose weight. Always unsuccessfully, because they always gain the weight back (and sometimes plus more). It's not because of how fast or slowly they lost the weight, but because they either believe they're destined to be overweight and passively accept that, or miss eating 'junk food' too much, stating that they could lose weight if food wasn't so good. It's all about attitude in many cases.
And the fact that people are spreading the whole... '90% of dieters gain the weight back, plus more', causing people to believe they will gain the weight back even when they want to try to lose it. .-1 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
All that shows is that lots of credentials and peer reviewing doesn't mean you're going to end up with a reasonably designed study.
OP's description says the "goal" was to lose 15% of body weight in 12 weeks, yet one group was set up with a 500 calorie a day (3500 calorie week, or approximately one pound a week) deficit, meaning they could be expected to lose 12 pounds over the course of the study. All participants were obese. How many obese individuals do you know for whom 12 pounds is 15% of their body weight? In other words, how many obese individuals do you know who weigh 80 pounds? So essentially, they designed a study which guaranteed failure for one of the two groups. How does that prove anything?
Then, apparently, they either started with too few participants, or the methods they chose for both groups are less likely to achieve long term success than the methods used by dieters as a whole. There are dieters who have successfully maintained their losses (see the National Weight Control Registry, for example, http://www.nwcr.ws/http://nwcr.ws/). To say that their two groups were equally unsuccessful in maintaining losses suggests that they didn't start with a large enough group to make it likely that there would be any successes (e.g., if successful maintainers are about 2% of the population of dieters, and they only had 10 people in each group, the odds were that they wouldn't find any successful dieters, and they would really need a much larger group to be able to turn up any statistically significant difference between the two subgroups in chances for successful maintenance).
0 -
If you're weak and tired all the time or you're getting dizzy, you've probably dropped your calories too low and should slow down your weight loss.
If you feel good and strong, can exercise and all that, I don't see why you should lose weight slower just for the sake of going slower.
Whether or not you regain the weight has everything to do with how you eat after you're done losing. I think it's a good idea to keep that end in mind while you lose, working toward whatever food and health goals you have yourself while you lose.
Everyone is unique, though. We all have to walk our own path on the weight loss journey.
There is no One, True Way to lose.
COULD NOT AGREE MORE! Thank you!
0 -
you quoted the Daily Mail as a reputable source of information
bwahahahahaaa
suggest you google Daily Mail Story Generator or Daily Mail Headline Generator-1 -
Too bad they didn't have your expertise on their peer review panel to set them all straight. Stupid Lancet Journal of Diabetes and Endocrinology, doing it wrong.lynn_glenmont wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
All that shows is that lots of credentials and peer reviewing doesn't mean you're going to end up with a reasonably designed study.
-2 -
Personally I think that the issue is more of nutrition than anything else. Crash diets do work, that's why people use them. But, for most people, it's not sustainable long term and even if it were, you're likely not getting good nutrition.
I see nothing wrong however using it in the short term to kick start your weight loss or get back on track. I personally am not good at it, but if you are, why would it affect me if you do a crash diet?
People are WAY too judgemental0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
All that shows is that lots of credentials and peer reviewing doesn't mean you're going to end up with a reasonably designed study.
OP's description says the "goal" was to lose 15% of body weight in 12 weeks, yet one group was set up with a 500 calorie a day (3500 calorie week, or approximately one pound a week) deficit, meaning they could be expected to lose 12 pounds over the course of the study. All participants were obese. How many obese individuals do you know for whom 12 pounds is 15% of their body weight? In other words, how many obese individuals do you know who weigh 80 pounds? So essentially, they designed a study which guaranteed failure for one of the two groups. How does that prove anything?
Then, apparently, they either started with too few participants, or the methods they chose for both groups are less likely to achieve long term success than the methods used by dieters as a whole. There are dieters who have successfully maintained their losses (see the National Weight Control Registry, for example, http://www.nwcr.ws/http://nwcr.ws/). To say that their two groups were equally unsuccessful in maintaining losses suggests that they didn't start with a large enough group to make it likely that there would be any successes (e.g., if successful maintainers are about 2% of the population of dieters, and they only had 10 people in each group, the odds were that they wouldn't find any successful dieters, and they would really need a much larger group to be able to turn up any statistically significant difference between the two subgroups in chances for successful maintenance).
I was literally just about to type this exact paragraph out.
12 weeks at a 1lb a week deficit isn't going to get an obese person to a 15% weight loss. If they wanted to prove something about "sticking to it" or whatever, they should have made it a longer study for the weight loss period to give that group an actual chance to make it to 15%.
Also, the fact that everyone regained isn't surprising. The stats are not in your favor when it comes to maintaining a loss, no matter how you lose it. Everyone knows that. This isn't brand new information. I don't get what they were trying to prove here.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions