Guide to making claims based on research
Replies
-
I find it fascinating that the person that was refusing to post the studies to begin with is the one with a profile page completely dedicated to providing studies and links to 1200 calorie diets, VLCD and so on not being dangerous.
I put all that in my profile because I was so tired of you and others constantly posting that 1200 was always dangerous. And you know what? Since I put all that there and directed people to it in threads a few times, the 1200 b.s. has scaled way back.
I'm sorry you still see 1200 as "VLCD" though. It's really not. VLCD is generally considered 800 and lower. MFP itself recommends 1200 all day long. Kind of odd if it's VLCD, which they don't promote.
A couple years ago you could hardly read a thread without reading "you can't eat below your BMR!!" Enough of us bashed heads long enough that that myth finally slinked off into the shadows with the EM2WL crowd.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »I find it fascinating that the person that was refusing to post the studies to begin with is the one with a profile page completely dedicated to providing studies and links to 1200 calorie diets, VLCD and so on not being dangerous.
I put all that in my profile because I was so tired of you and others constantly posting that 1200 was always dangerous. And you know what? Since I put all that there and directed people to it in threads a few times, the 1200 b.s. has scaled way back.
I'm sorry you still see 1200 as "VLCD" though. It's really not. VLCD is generally considered 800 and lower. MFP itself recommends 1200 all day long. Kind of odd if it's VLCD, which they don't promote.
A couple years ago you could hardly read a thread without reading "you can't eat below your BMR!!" Enough of us bashed heads long enough that that myth finally slinked off into the shadows with the EM2WL crowd.
It's scaled back because most of the posters who advocated against this just/... stopped posting. Not because of your profile. I still post here, and I still pretty much never advocate 1200 calories unless it's clear that this person is really small and this is genuinely close to their TDEE-20%.
So it's not because people stopped believing in a "myth" but becayse they got fed up with MFP's forum and other changes.0 -
Or, they're like me, and realize people posting about 1200 and lower just want validation.
So validate like a valet parking ticket.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »I find it fascinating that the person that was refusing to post the studies to begin with is the one with a profile page completely dedicated to providing studies and links to 1200 calorie diets, VLCD and so on not being dangerous.
I put all that in my profile because I was so tired of you and others constantly posting that 1200 was always dangerous. And you know what? Since I put all that there and directed people to it in threads a few times, the 1200 b.s. has scaled way back.
I'm sorry you still see 1200 as "VLCD" though. It's really not. VLCD is generally considered 800 and lower. MFP itself recommends 1200 all day long. Kind of odd if it's VLCD, which they don't promote.
A couple years ago you could hardly read a thread without reading "you can't eat below your BMR!!" Enough of us bashed heads long enough that that myth finally slinked off into the shadows with the EM2WL crowd.
Now you've truly caught not only caught my attention but spurred me to action. I'm just a regular user of MFP and read a lot of the messages boards, where I stumbled upon both the "VLCD" and "EM2WL" arguments.
As I came across posts about these opposing themes I found myself becoming very confused as a lot of what was being said was not like anything I'd heard before from either the MFP articles, from my doctor, or other research I had done .... and I wondered if I had stumbled upon something that might help explain why I had so much trouble maintaining weight loss and such an easy time of regaining lost weight.
Now you are debunking what I thought I was starting to understand and have been trying to apply to myself. No ... I am not a youthful person trying to tone my body or get into the newest fashions sized 4 ... I am an old fat lady who is trying to hold on to whatever health and vigor she has left so that she (I) can look forward to having the dwindling years of my life expectancy as independent and active as possible.
But now, thanks to what you just said, I feel like perhaps I should slink off into the shadows. .... And I'm not so happy about having this emotion. So ... no thank you.
0 -
Oh god, don't read the MFP articles, they're horrid twaddle.0
-
Are you saying you think 1200 is a dangerous VLCD and the way to lose is to 'eat more to weigh less'? And that links in my profile poked a hole in those beliefs, which makes you angry at me? You can see that no where in there does it say that anyone *has to* eat at any certain deficit or level, right? Just that if you choose to, the odds of hurting yourself are probably slim.WalkingAlong wrote: »I find it fascinating that the person that was refusing to post the studies to begin with is the one with a profile page completely dedicated to providing studies and links to 1200 calorie diets, VLCD and so on not being dangerous.
I put all that in my profile because I was so tired of you and others constantly posting that 1200 was always dangerous. And you know what? Since I put all that there and directed people to it in threads a few times, the 1200 b.s. has scaled way back.
I'm sorry you still see 1200 as "VLCD" though. It's really not. VLCD is generally considered 800 and lower. MFP itself recommends 1200 all day long. Kind of odd if it's VLCD, which they don't promote.
A couple years ago you could hardly read a thread without reading "you can't eat below your BMR!!" Enough of us bashed heads long enough that that myth finally slinked off into the shadows with the EM2WL crowd.
Now you've truly caught not only caught my attention but spurred me to action. I'm just a regular user of MFP and read a lot of the messages boards, where I stumbled upon both the "VLCD" and "EM2WL" arguments.
By the way, when I posted all that there, I repeatedly asked proponents for studies that said 1200 IS dangerous, so I could post them there, too. No one ever offered anything.
But this is getting way off topic.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »I find it fascinating that the person that was refusing to post the studies to begin with is the one with a profile page completely dedicated to providing studies and links to 1200 calorie diets, VLCD and so on not being dangerous.
I put all that in my profile because I was so tired of you and others constantly posting that 1200 was always dangerous. And you know what? Since I put all that there and directed people to it in threads a few times, the 1200 b.s. has scaled way back.
I'm sorry you still see 1200 as "VLCD" though. It's really not. VLCD is generally considered 800 and lower. MFP itself recommends 1200 all day long. Kind of odd if it's VLCD, which they don't promote.
A couple years ago you could hardly read a thread without reading "you can't eat below your BMR!!" Enough of us bashed heads long enough that that myth finally slinked off into the shadows with the EM2WL crowd.
It's scaled back because most of the posters who advocated against this just/... stopped posting. Not because of your profile. I still post here, and I still pretty much never advocate 1200 calories unless it's clear that this person is really small and this is genuinely close to their TDEE-20%.
So it's not because people stopped believing in a "myth" but becayse they got fed up with MFP's forum and other changes.
Didn't you just join a couple months ago? Do people report to you that they're leaving and why?
I like the new software. I miss the ignore function is all.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Are you saying you think 1200 is a dangerous VLCD and the way to lose is to 'eat more to weigh less'? And that links in my profile poked a hole in those beliefs, which makes you angry at me? You can see that no where in there does it say that anyone *has to* eat at any certain deficit or level, right? Just that if you choose to, the odds of hurting yourself are probably slim.WalkingAlong wrote: »I find it fascinating that the person that was refusing to post the studies to begin with is the one with a profile page completely dedicated to providing studies and links to 1200 calorie diets, VLCD and so on not being dangerous.
I put all that in my profile because I was so tired of you and others constantly posting that 1200 was always dangerous. And you know what? Since I put all that there and directed people to it in threads a few times, the 1200 b.s. has scaled way back.
I'm sorry you still see 1200 as "VLCD" though. It's really not. VLCD is generally considered 800 and lower. MFP itself recommends 1200 all day long. Kind of odd if it's VLCD, which they don't promote.
A couple years ago you could hardly read a thread without reading "you can't eat below your BMR!!" Enough of us bashed heads long enough that that myth finally slinked off into the shadows with the EM2WL crowd.
Now you've truly caught not only caught my attention but spurred me to action. I'm just a regular user of MFP and read a lot of the messages boards, where I stumbled upon both the "VLCD" and "EM2WL" arguments.
By the way, when I posted all that there, I repeatedly asked proponents for studies that said 1200 IS dangerous, so I could post them there, too. No one ever offered anything.
But this is getting way off topic.
No, that's not what I am saying at all. I'm not angry with you for what you said, and I don't much care if you eat 200 calories or 4200 calories a day. What I'm concerned about is that you got agressive in your response to ' - -" and by how your wording in your retort threw criticism to others who don't follow the same path as you do .... and that it made me confused. That's all. And .. what topic was this on anyway? I thought it was about how to post evidence of research.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Are you saying you think 1200 is a dangerous VLCD and the way to lose is to 'eat more to weigh less'? And that links in my profile poked a hole in those beliefs, which makes you angry at me? You can see that no where in there does it say that anyone *has to* eat at any certain deficit or level, right? Just that if you choose to, the odds of hurting yourself are probably slim.WalkingAlong wrote: »I find it fascinating that the person that was refusing to post the studies to begin with is the one with a profile page completely dedicated to providing studies and links to 1200 calorie diets, VLCD and so on not being dangerous.
I put all that in my profile because I was so tired of you and others constantly posting that 1200 was always dangerous. And you know what? Since I put all that there and directed people to it in threads a few times, the 1200 b.s. has scaled way back.
I'm sorry you still see 1200 as "VLCD" though. It's really not. VLCD is generally considered 800 and lower. MFP itself recommends 1200 all day long. Kind of odd if it's VLCD, which they don't promote.
A couple years ago you could hardly read a thread without reading "you can't eat below your BMR!!" Enough of us bashed heads long enough that that myth finally slinked off into the shadows with the EM2WL crowd.
Now you've truly caught not only caught my attention but spurred me to action. I'm just a regular user of MFP and read a lot of the messages boards, where I stumbled upon both the "VLCD" and "EM2WL" arguments.
By the way, when I posted all that there, I repeatedly asked proponents for studies that said 1200 IS dangerous, so I could post them there, too. No one ever offered anything.
But this is getting way off topic.
I just tried searching in my university's database, I either don't know what search term to use or there just isn't muhc available in my school's database. I found one, which I cannot find an access link to unfortunately
NUTRITION NOTES. Source:
RN; Jan90, Vol. 53 Issue 1, p80-101, 1/3p
Abstract:
Presents updates on nutrition as of January 1990. Dangers of a hypo-allergenic diet in children; Risk faced by obese patients on a very low-calorie diet.
Otherwise, I can't find any articles that specifically talk about long-term adherence to VLCDs. I've found some studies that seem to demonstrate that in terms of weight loss and maintaining weight are concerned, and only these elements, starting with a VLCD or normal deficit doesn't change results. However, I don't know if any of these papers discuss attrition rates of VLCDs versus normal CR, and I have yet to try looking for articles that discuss negative effects of low calorie diets on lean body mass and adherence to diets. Or whether those who use VLCD, and thus more likely to drop out, are the ones gaining weight back.
VLCD versus LCD in long-term treatment of obesity.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term effects of three different programs including initial 6 weeks (V)LCD diets 420kcal/d, 530 kcal/d, 880 kcal/d) on sustained weight loss, attrition and obesity associated conventional cardiovascular risk factors. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized clinical 52 weeks trial. Two weeks of a booster (V)LCD period after week 26. SETTING: University outpatient obesity clinic. SUBJECTS: Ninety-three middle-aged obese patients (30 men), initial mean BMI 38.7 kg/m², age 20-65y, from the waiting list. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Weight loss pattern, attrition, reported side effects, blood pressure, blood glucose and serum lipid levels. Repeated frequent measurements up to week 26, intermittently up to final measurements at week 52. RESULTS: One year attrition (30-45%), sustained weight loss (8-15% of initial body weight) and changes in obesity associated risk parameters were similar in all three group. Fewer adverse events were reported in the LCD group. CONCLUSION: The results compare favorably with most previous reports of similar design. VLCD (420 kcal or 530 kcal/ d and LCD 880 kcal/d) were equally effective in long term treatment of obesity. The tendency to less side effects with LCD suggests that such preparations deserve further attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
The evolution of very-low-calorie diets: An update and meta-analysis
Objective: Very-low-calorie diets (VLCDs), providing <800 kcal/d, have been used since the 1970s to induce rapid weight loss. Previous reviews of the literature have disagreed concerning the relative efficacy of VLCDs vs. conventional low-calorie diets (LCDs) for achieving long-term weight loss.
Research Methods and Procedures: We sought to update findings on the clinical use, safety, and efficacy of VLCDs and to perform a meta-analysis of randomized trials that compared the long-term efficacy of LCDs and VLCDs. Original research articles were retrieved by a Medline search and from prior reviews of VLCDs. Trials were included only if they were randomized comparisons of LCDs and VLCDs and included a follow-up assessment at least I year after maximum weight loss. Data were abstracted by both authors regarding: duration of VLCD, total length of treatment, attrition, short- and long-term weight loss, changes in weight-related comorbidities, and adverse effects.
Results: Six randomized trials were found that met inclusion criteria. VLCDs, compared with LCDs, induced significantly greater short-term weight losses (16.1 +/- 1.6% vs. 9.7 +/- 2.4% of initial weight, respectively; p = 0.0001) but similar long-term losses (6.3 +/- 3.2% vs. 5.0 +/- 4.0%, respectively; p > 0.2). Attrition was similar with VLCD and LCD regimens.
Discussion: VLCDs did not produce greater long-term weight losses than LCDs. In the United States, the use of liquid meal replacements as part of a 1000 to 1500 kcal/d diet may provide an effective and less expensive alternative to VLCDs. In Europe, VLCDs are used with less intensive medical supervision than in the United States, which reduces the cost of this approach.
Long-Term Beneficial Effect of a 16-Week Very Low Calorie Diet on Pericardial Fat in Obese Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients.
(no comparison/control grou pusing just a normal calorie restriction, though)
Pericardial fat accumulation has been associated with an increased cardiovascular risk. A very low calorie diet (VLCD) improves the cardiovascular risk profile in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), by improving the metabolic profile, heart function, and triglyceride (TG) stores in (non)adipose tissues. However, long-term effects of a VLCD on pericardial fat volume and tissue-specific TG accumulation have not been documented. The aim of this study was therefore to assess the effects of a 16-week VLCD and of subsequent 14 months follow-up on a regular diet on pericardial fat in relation to other TG stores in obese T2DM patients. We included 14 obese patients with insulin-treated T2DM (mean ± s.e.m.: age 53 ± 2 years; BMI 35 ± 1 kg/m2). Pericardial fat and other (non)adipose TG stores were measured using magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and proton spectroscopy before and after a 16-week VLCD and after a 14-month follow-up without dietary interventions. A 16-week VLCD reduced body weight, pericardial fat, hepatic TG content, visceral and subcutaneous abdominal fat volumes to 78, 83, 16, 40, and 53% of baseline values respectively, (all P < 0.05). After an additional 14 months of follow-up on a regular diet, the reduction in pericardial fat volume sustained, despite a substantial regain in body weight, visceral abdominal fat, and hepatic TG content (respectively 90, 83 and 73% of baseline values). In conclusion, VLCD-induced weight loss in obese T2DM patients is accompanied by a substantial decrease in pericardial fat volume, which is sustained even after subsequent weight regain. ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR
0 -
The rest
A dietary and behavioural programme for the treatment of obesity. A 4-year clinical trial and a long-term posttreatment follow-up.
Abstract. Lantz H, Peltonen M, Ågren L, Torgerson JS (Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden). A dietary and behavioural programme for the treatment of obesity. A 4-year clinical trial and a long-term posttreatment follow-up. J Intern Med 2003; 254: 272–279. Objectives. To evaluate weight loss maintenance after 4 years of nonpharmacological, nonsurgical obesity treatment, including a very low calorie diet (VLCD), diet and behavioural support. Furthermore, to assess weight development amongst completers and noncompleters beyond the active 4-year treatment period. Design. Clinical trial. Setting. Two Swedish county hospitals. Subjects. A total of 113 patients were randomized to a 2-year treatment programme with or without an initial VLCD period. The 87 patients who completed the 2-year programme were offered the chance to continue a support programme for another 2 years. A total of 55 patients completed the entire 4-year programme. Interventions. All the patients took part in a comprehensive support programme, including a hypocaloric diet and behavioural support, either as single treatment (non-VLCD group) or following the VLCD period (VLCD group). Results. Significant 4-year weight losses were found in both groups, 7.6 ± 12.2 kg (VLCD group) and 6.3 ± 8.5 kg (non-VLCD group), (P < 0.01, n.s. between groups). The completers (n = 55) had maintained a weight loss of 3.3 ± 10.7 kg (P < 0.05) 8 years after randomization. After 6 years, the noncompleters (n = 58) had gained 3.2 ± 9.7 kg compared with baseline (P < 0.05). The difference in weight change between completers and non-completers was highly significant (P < 0.01). Conclusions. Highly significant weight losses can be maintained after a 4-year comprehensive treatment programme, including a hypocaloric diet and behavioural support. An initial VLCD period did not significantly affect the long-term weight loss. The posttreatment long-term weight loss was larger amongst completers than amongst patients who did not complete the treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Long-term effects of a very low calorie diet (Nutrilett®) in obesity treatment. A prospective, randomized, comparison between VLCD and a hypocaloric diet+behavior modification and their combination.
(in this one they did not sustain a VLCD, only initially started on one. So it would be interesting to compare participants who remained on a VLCD until they reached goal weight/required weight loss to participants who started on VLCD and then went to a normal diet, and then compare them to a group that was only on a normal deficit)
OBJECTIVES. To compare weight loss on a balanced hypocaloric diet to that of a Very Low Calorie Diet (VLCD) after two months of treatment and to further compare 26 months of weight maintenance and safety with or without VLCD assistance in obese patients. DESIGN. Prospective, randomized, controlled intervention trial, initially with two and later with three parallel groups. SETTING. Swedish University out-patient obesity clinic. SUBJECTS. Eighty-one obese patients of both gender with a BMI≥30 kg/m² from the waiting list participated in a structured weight reduction+weight maintenance programme. INTERVENTION. Twenty-seven patients (group A) were randomized to a balanced diet of 6720 kJ/d (1600 kcal/d) during the whole treatment period. The other patients (n=54) were randomized to VLCD (Nutrilett®) 1764 kJ/d (420 kcal/d) diet during the first two months. The VLCD treated patients were rerandomized after the initial treatment to the well balanced hypocaloric diet (6720 kJ/d) with (group C) or without (group
1 MJ of VLCD to be taken during the evening. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES. During the first two-month period, the mean body weight loss in the VLCD group was 18.9±7.1 kg compared to 7.2±4.8 kg in the diet treated group, with a similar relative fat loss assessed by bioimpedance of 68% and 76% respectively. The maintained weight loss in all groups after 28 months of treatment was 10.9±10.2 kg in the 52% who completed the programme. Weight losses and drop-out rates were similar in all three groups. CONCLUSIONS. Twenty-four months weight maintenance and drop out rates are independent of whether the initial treatment commences with VLCD or a hypocaloric diet. One MJ nutrition powder taken freely does not affect 24 months weight maintenance on a hypocaloric (6.7 MJ/d) diet. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
On lean body mass:
VLCD compliance and lean body mass.
Very low calorie diets (VLCD) have many advantages, as they are inexpensive, safe and easy to comply with, and give rapid and encouraging weight loss. On the other hand, many patients complain of hunger and constipation. We have shown that these drawbacks can be reduced by the supplementation of 30 g of dietary fibre to VLCD. By the use of a VLCD which provides approximately 60 g of protein for women and approximately 70 g for men, the dietary regimen is safe and no excessive loss of lean body mass seems to occur during VLCD in obese patients. However, the changes in body composition that may occur after cycles of weight loss and regain have not been clarified. After weight cycles with weight losses obtained by conventional diets, obese women have lower lean body mass than obese non-dieting controls. Hence, more information about the changes in body composition during dieting on conventional diets and VLCD are needed.
This is an older article thouhg:
Effects of weight cycling on body composition.
It is frequently claimed that weight cycling, or "yo-yo" dieting, causes an inappropriate and permanent loss of lean body mass (LBM). Data are presented from a rural African population that undergoes profound weight cycling caused by an annual hungry season. No detrimental effect on LBM was observed. Data are also presented from an 18-wk prospective study of moderately obese British women who underwent three cycles of VLCD-induced weight loss and subsequent relapse. The proportion of weight lost as LBM was no greater than predicted. A review of the published results from experimental weight cycling in small animals also shows a high level of consensus that cycling does not significantly alter body composition. We conclude that, although weight cycling may affect growth of young animals, metabolic efficiency, and health, these effects are not mediated through permanent alterations in body composition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
But I REALLY do wish that the studies would study non-obese individuals because retention of LBM in obese individuals eating very low calorie probably is not identical to those who are lean or simply at a healthy weight.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Are you saying you think 1200 is a dangerous VLCD and the way to lose is to 'eat more to weigh less'? And that links in my profile poked a hole in those beliefs, which makes you angry at me? You can see that no where in there does it say that anyone *has to* eat at any certain deficit or level, right? Just that if you choose to, the odds of hurting yourself are probably slim.WalkingAlong wrote: »I find it fascinating that the person that was refusing to post the studies to begin with is the one with a profile page completely dedicated to providing studies and links to 1200 calorie diets, VLCD and so on not being dangerous.
I put all that in my profile because I was so tired of you and others constantly posting that 1200 was always dangerous. And you know what? Since I put all that there and directed people to it in threads a few times, the 1200 b.s. has scaled way back.
I'm sorry you still see 1200 as "VLCD" though. It's really not. VLCD is generally considered 800 and lower. MFP itself recommends 1200 all day long. Kind of odd if it's VLCD, which they don't promote.
A couple years ago you could hardly read a thread without reading "you can't eat below your BMR!!" Enough of us bashed heads long enough that that myth finally slinked off into the shadows with the EM2WL crowd.
Now you've truly caught not only caught my attention but spurred me to action. I'm just a regular user of MFP and read a lot of the messages boards, where I stumbled upon both the "VLCD" and "EM2WL" arguments.
By the way, when I posted all that there, I repeatedly asked proponents for studies that said 1200 IS dangerous, so I could post them there, too. No one ever offered anything.
But this is getting way off topic.
No, that's not what I am saying at all. I'm not angry with you for what you said, and I don't much care if you eat 200 calories or 4200 calories a day. What I'm concerned about is that you got agressive in your response to 'WalkingAlong" and by how your wording in your retort threw criticism to others who don't follow the same path as you do .... and that it made me confused. That's all. And .. what topic was this on anyway? I thought it was about how to post evidence of research.
She's referring to another thread titled Alternate Day Diet.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I find it fascinating that the person that was refusing to post the studies to begin with is the one with a profile page completely dedicated to providing studies and links to 1200 calorie diets, VLCD and so on not being dangerous.
I put all that in my profile because I was so tired of you and others constantly posting that 1200 was always dangerous. And you know what? Since I put all that there and directed people to it in threads a few times, the 1200 b.s. has scaled way back.
I'm sorry you still see 1200 as "VLCD" though. It's really not. VLCD is generally considered 800 and lower. MFP itself recommends 1200 all day long. Kind of odd if it's VLCD, which they don't promote.
A couple years ago you could hardly read a thread without reading "you can't eat below your BMR!!" Enough of us bashed heads long enough that that myth finally slinked off into the shadows with the EM2WL crowd.
It's scaled back because most of the posters who advocated against this just/... stopped posting. Not because of your profile. I still post here, and I still pretty much never advocate 1200 calories unless it's clear that this person is really small and this is genuinely close to their TDEE-20%.
So it's not because people stopped believing in a "myth" but becayse they got fed up with MFP's forum and other changes.
Didn't you just join a couple months ago? Do people report to you that they're leaving and why?
I like the new software. I miss the ignore function is all.
I've been here for 6 months. And it's been openly discussed that many people have gotten fed up with the forums/MFP.0 -
1. "woe be unto you' was used in this thread
2. Sara may or may not have real abs, I vote we fly to Cali and find out
3. Dr Peale was quoted
4. I was 'caught' in the Science section of Barnes and Noble this weekend.
That is all.0 -
-
Only overweight category BMI, not obese. Somewhat discussion of loss of LBM, but more what it means to lowered TDEE and RMR beyond that loss.
So more about potential for adherence if required to eat much more lower than possibly could have been.
Metabolic and Behavioral Compensations in Response to Caloric Restriction: Implications for the Maintenance of Weight Loss
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004377
0 -
This thread is like a what *not* to stickie after school special :laugh:
Cat gifs
Drama from a recent thread dragged in here
Year old drama dragged in here
Posters not interested in being bullies
Posters feeling berated into participating on forum
Lynch mobs0 -
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »I find it fascinating that the person that was refusing to post the studies to begin with is the one with a profile page completely dedicated to providing studies and links to 1200 calorie diets, VLCD and so on not being dangerous.
I put all that in my profile because I was so tired of you and others constantly posting that 1200 was always dangerous. And you know what? Since I put all that there and directed people to it in threads a few times, the 1200 b.s. has scaled way back.
I'm sorry you still see 1200 as "VLCD" though. It's really not. VLCD is generally considered 800 and lower. MFP itself recommends 1200 all day long. Kind of odd if it's VLCD, which they don't promote.
A couple years ago you could hardly read a thread without reading "you can't eat below your BMR!!" Enough of us bashed heads long enough that that myth finally slinked off into the shadows with the EM2WL crowd.
January 1st is less then 2 months away. 1200 will be back just like flowers in Spring.
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I find it fascinating that the person that was refusing to post the studies to begin with is the one with a profile page completely dedicated to providing studies and links to 1200 calorie diets, VLCD and so on not being dangerous.
I put all that in my profile because I was so tired of you and others constantly posting that 1200 was always dangerous. And you know what? Since I put all that there and directed people to it in threads a few times, the 1200 b.s. has scaled way back.
I'm sorry you still see 1200 as "VLCD" though. It's really not. VLCD is generally considered 800 and lower. MFP itself recommends 1200 all day long. Kind of odd if it's VLCD, which they don't promote.
A couple years ago you could hardly read a thread without reading "you can't eat below your BMR!!" Enough of us bashed heads long enough that that myth finally slinked off into the shadows with the EM2WL crowd.
January 1st is less then 2 months away. 1200 will be back just like flowers in Spring.
Or resolutionists in the gym.0 -
Wow, 9 pages over a day or two, this was a slugfest, lol. I figure if you're interested in a subject, find the proper studies online yourself! The library provides a free link to all published studies in any field (at least in Canada they do).0
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
_Terrapin_ wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I find it fascinating that the person that was refusing to post the studies to begin with is the one with a profile page completely dedicated to providing studies and links to 1200 calorie diets, VLCD and so on not being dangerous.
I put all that in my profile because I was so tired of you and others constantly posting that 1200 was always dangerous. And you know what? Since I put all that there and directed people to it in threads a few times, the 1200 b.s. has scaled way back.
I'm sorry you still see 1200 as "VLCD" though. It's really not. VLCD is generally considered 800 and lower. MFP itself recommends 1200 all day long. Kind of odd if it's VLCD, which they don't promote.
A couple years ago you could hardly read a thread without reading "you can't eat below your BMR!!" Enough of us bashed heads long enough that that myth finally slinked off into the shadows with the EM2WL crowd.
January 1st is less then 2 months away. 1200 will be back just like flowers in Spring.
Or resolutionists in the gym.
And starvation mode!0 -
emily_stew wrote: »
It's a good one. It was originally described as: PVP in Dark Souls.0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I don't expect MFP threads to be the equivalent of a PHD dissertation or something..but if you are going to try and link a certain diet to reduced instances of cancer, then be prepared to back it up with some kind of peer reviewed study that you have actually read...
And if you've read it in books? You go back to the library and get the books, find the passages that say it (even if the three books very prominently claim it throughout), find the citations the books used, find them online to link to or re-type all the written citations, and post them here for opponents to then tear apart as invalid?
Then you're expected to defend the original researchers and the authors, who are doctors or respected experts in their fields, from the "MFP peer review panel" of English 101 graduates and other self-appointed experts?
Good luck with that.
If the studies support your assertion, why would it be torn apart as invalid?
It happens all the time on these forums. Peer reviewed studies deemed 'invalid' or 'biased' or 'flawed' or the assertion that another study 'debunked' this one, etc. The fact that experienced, trained scientists performed and reviewed the study seemingly means nothing. A nice set of abs and the ability to type trumps all, even if you provide no proof that the abs are yours.
I've been trying to stay out of this, but I can't anymore.
A lot of studies ARE flawed. That's the reality of science. They do their best to test a hypothesis, but there are real world constraints that make studies have flaws. (This is especially true in weight loss studies, because they are either long term and based on self-reporting, or they isolate the study participants and they are short term.) That's why new theories are tested many times in many different ways before they are accepted as true. Each individual study doesn't mean much, it's the collective that matters.
That's how science works!
Understanding the flaws in the study is very important. It helps to interpret the real life implications of the findings. Just because they are flawed, doesn't mean the findings don't have real world implications. Or maybe it just needs to be studied more with different controls in place to prove it's findings. Or maybe it's just bunk. You need to understand the flaws in a study to understand it's significance.
One example is calorie counting. CI<CO will result in weight loss. However, no matter how precise the individual is in measuring, food calorie counts can be off by a certain percentage because of the tolerance (using engineering definition of tolerance, not making a political statement) allowed to manufacturers or the inherent variety in the food (ie not all cuts of beef will have the exact muscle/fat ratio due to the fact that different animals are different). That's an inherent flaw built into calorie counting. Doesn't make calorie counting invalid, but it should be somewhere in the back of your mind.
Yes, many studies are flawed, but I would argue that the majority of posters on this (or any other forum) are not qualified to make that sort of determination. One thing I have seen thrown around quite a bit on these forums is discrediting studies with small sample sizes. A small sample size doesn't automatically mean that it's not a solid study, especially if it's strategic sample that has been controlled. However, I have seen in some other threads studies of this nature dismissed because a small sample = flaw research. Now, the research could be flawed in other ways and a small sample size might contribute to those flaws, but unless a poster has had significant research training in that particular therapeutic topic then I don't think they are qualified to make that judgment.
Taking a class in qualitative or quantitative research in college or graduate school doesn't make anyone qualified to determine the short-comings or flaws of any piece of research without significant experience within that research's therapeutic area.0 -
emily_stew wrote: »canadjineh wrote: »Wow, 9 pages over a day or two, this was a slugfest, lol. I figure if you're interested in a subject, find the proper studies online yourself! The library provides a free link to all published studies in any field (at least in Canada they do).
They do?! Sweet! Off to the library..I love knowledge and stuff.
I'm in Canada, and no... they definitely do not provide a free link to all published studies in any field. I just searched a paper i'm using in one of my assignments, "Religion priming differentially increases prosocial behavior among variants of the dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) gene" and it did not come up on the epl.ca website. Unless this poster is referring to a different library link, such as, like.. thier own university website's library. Which requires a university account.0 -
NikkoBrutus wrote: »I joined MFP in April, 2014. I have never before posted in the forums. I don't use MFP as a resource for advice, research, or information. I only use it as a tool to track nutrition/calories. I don't have a weight problem and I have other resources for getting coaching on meeting my fitness goals. I do, however, generally take a minute or two to read over posts for amusement. However, this thread just seemed so extreme to me. As far as I know, the OP isn't a site administrator or even a moderator; she's just another site user. There seem to be a handful of the same people who support her position. I believe there are a large number of people who use this site, so the number of people who seem to be willing to actively post support of the OP's position is statistically fairly small.
I don't understand why anybody would take it upon themselves to try and control other people's actions by posting a set of rules/guidelines when they have no authority. In my mind, it's roughly the equivalent of a long time gym member posting a list of rules for other gym members aimed at controlling their workout protocol. It seems to me that it doesn't matter if other peoples workout protocols are better or not, a gym member has no business posting rules/guidelines in someone else's gym. I would respectfully suggest that you form a group that agree to follow these guidelines and leave the rest of the members alone.
I do see your point. I happen to find the original post a bit intimidating.
This is the way I see it. I am pretty new.
There are a number of guides posted on how to measure food, calculate goals, and other things. They aren't by administrators and are not new guidelines. You don't have to read them or follow them, but it may make things easier if you do. Like, you don't have to search before asking questions, but sometimes you will get the answer just by looking.
This is one of those guides. If you are going to post research results it will help everyone to know what people mean by do you have any evidence to support that claim. I haven't used the free sites before and am usually limited to abstracts, but that is something new to me.
I guess it would be like someone suggesting people rerack weights or wipe down benches after workouts. It is more so you know what people expect.0 -
MFP's servers are down all the time during the week. lol.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
0 -
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I don't expect MFP threads to be the equivalent of a PHD dissertation or something..but if you are going to try and link a certain diet to reduced instances of cancer, then be prepared to back it up with some kind of peer reviewed study that you have actually read...
And if you've read it in books? You go back to the library and get the books, find the passages that say it (even if the three books very prominently claim it throughout), find the citations the books used, find them online to link to or re-type all the written citations, and post them here for opponents to then tear apart as invalid?
Then you're expected to defend the original researchers and the authors, who are doctors or respected experts in their fields, from the "MFP peer review panel" of English 101 graduates and other self-appointed experts?
Good luck with that.
Books tend towards bias. Which is why peer reviewed journal publications are considered better. And then, yes, those journal publications can and will be critiqued. Because that's how its done in a scientific discussion.
I think part of this is a disagreement about what kind of discussion some of these discussions are.
For example, when someone says: "sugar is evil and makes people gain weight, regardless of how many calories they eat," I read that as a factual claim and think it's fair game to challenge it. Indeed, I think it should be challenged. Some others (not in this discussion, perhaps) seem to think that that's just an expression of personal feeling and thus that it's mean to challenge it and people should be supportive (yes! I agree! sugar sucks!) or stay quiet. I personally find it frustrating that people confuse personal feelings (X worked for me and I felt good doing it) and more general claims.
On the other hand, when someone says "why would anyone do something so stupid as IF" (exaggeration for effect) and someone else answers that "because there are some studies that it has some good effects, etc.," I don't read that as a scientific claim about the merits of the studies in that context (although I'd be interested in such as a separate discussion, perhaps). I read it as an answer to the question "why would someone do X." And, to be totally open here, to what seems to me the implied suggestion that anyone who would do X rather than the preferred approach of the majority (which happens to be my preferred approach too) must be a moron. Maybe that latter wasn't meant, but there does sometimes seem to be a burden of proof to show that something you do that is different than the majority is worthwhile even when no claim is made of the generally applicable type.
For example, I don't do IF, but if someone asked me why I (hypothetically) did, I could see saying that I read about it in a book and there were some studies saying it had good effects and it seemed possibly an easy way to achieve a deficit given my own eating quirks, so I figured why not try it. That seems like how lots of people live their lives, and I don't think someone who says that is necessarily interested in defending the scientific merits of those studies or claiming that anyone else in the world should do IF if they don't want to.
Under those circumstances, I think it's totally reasonable to say "you know, getting into a debate isn't something I have the interest in doing now, but for my personal decision to try something I thought the study seemed reputable enough. If you want to analyze it on your own go for it, but at this point this is working for me so I don't really care."
That's kind of the reverse of how I feel about meal timing. Even if there are studies that show it matters, I know there are others that show it doesn't and--more important to me--it doesn't seem to matter that much for me and eating the way I do now is a lot more sustainable than mini meals would be. For me.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions