Adopting healthy habits: It's not just about losing weight
Replies
-
What I find fascinating, at least according to the graph, is that those in the "Healthy" BMI range actually had larger mortality with 1 or 2 healthy habits than those with 0 healthy habits.
I'm sure it's just "noise" in their results. In other words, the graph is showing what happened in their study of a fixed number of people. It doesn't mean that having 1-2 healthy habits is worse for you than having 0. It just means that the mortality of the individuals in the study who happened to have 1-2 healthy habits was worse than the individuals in the study with 0 healthy habits.
In statistical terms, the number of people in each group of healthy habits probably wasn't large enough to be 100% credible. If you have 1-2 healthy habits taking up smoking isn't going to make you live longer.0 -
I think a lot of people who eat in ways I can't anymore are much younger than I am and happily getting away with it for now while being active and feeling great. Middle age will be a wake up call for some of these youngsters. But stay active no matter how much crap you eat and how bad your other habits are, it might help you when you do hit middle age.
Also, get off my lawn!0 -
mburgess458 wrote: »What I find fascinating, at least according to the graph, is that those in the "Healthy" BMI range actually had larger mortality with 1 or 2 healthy habits than those with 0 healthy habits.
I'm sure it's just "noise" in their results. In other words, the graph is showing what happened in their study of a fixed number of people. It doesn't mean that having 1-2 healthy habits is worse for you than having 0. It just means that the mortality of the individuals in the study who happened to have 1-2 healthy habits was worse than the individuals in the study with 0 healthy habits.
In statistical terms, the number of people in each group of healthy habits probably wasn't large enough to be 100% credible. If you have 1-2 healthy habits taking up smoking isn't going to make you live longer.
You are right. The statistical significance doesn't differentiate between 0 and (1 or 2) but certainly between 0 and 3 or 2 and 4. Doesn't mean there isn't a difference, just that the study didn't find it.
When BMI is removed it is significant at each healthy habit level.Number of Healthy Habits Hazard Ratio 95% Confidence Interval
BMI ≥18.5 to <25
0 2.18 1.25–3.81
1 2.70 1.90–3.83
2 2.11 1.57–2.83
3 1.39 1.07–1.82
4 Reference group —
BMI ≥25 to <30
0 3.72 1.53–9.07
1 2.45 1.65–3.67
2 1.63 1.29–2.05
3 1.16 0.89–1.52
4 1.08 0.81–1.46
BMI ≥30
0 6.69 3.67–12.2
1 3.26 2.03–5.24
2 1.76 1.34–2.30
3 1.65 1.12–2.42
4 1.05 0.66–1.67
↵* Sample size = 11,761 unweighted (133,700,723 weighted). Adjusted for age, sex, race, education, and marital status. Healthy habits include consumption of ≥5 fruits or vegetable/day, regular exercise >12 times/month, moderate alcohol consumption (up to 1 drink/day for women, up to 2/day for men), and not smoking.
BMI, body mass index.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »beemerphile1 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Motivation to lose weight varies immensely but health seems to be an important driver. "I want to get healthy" or "I want to live to see my grandchildren" or "I want to get of these medications/fear getting sicker." or "I want to be able to do things!"....
Excellent post. It is very frustrating when I read other threads on here when a poster is thrashed for daring to state that someone's favorite food/beverage isn't healthy. Healthy nutrition and eating goes far beyond only counting calories.
Well, one does wonder why someone else's favorite food or beverage is any of your business. I don't think Melville's (local restaurant) deep dish pizza is super healthy, but I really like it and so I choose to eat it on occasion. The idea that doing that somehow prevents me from being healthy is pretty absurd.
Beyond that, I actually think it's the people who insist that eating health means eliminating whatever their scapegoat food of choice is are the ones missing the big picture. So often you'd think health was all about whether you eat pasta or not (or "added sugar" or not) and not quantities or the rest of one's diet. Far more than the eliminationists, the moderates here argue that what's important is having an overall healthy diet that gets adequate nutrients and avoids excess calories. So often the eliminationists choose to ignore that, in favor of a made-up story about people wanting to eat Twinkies or donuts only.
Even more significantly, often the eliminationists seem to think that lower calorie is always better (one benefit often mentioned of eliminating "added sugar" is that it makes lower calories easier). But lower calorie may not be better, for example, if you become more active you may need more calories. One reason I started eating some ice cream after dinner from time to time after giving it up for a while was that I was doing lots of distance running and biking and always had excess calories.
Now, sure, I could eat cheese instead, or I dunno, sweet potatoes or whatever higher calorie food you think is not "unhealthy," but given my overall diet and health I see zero reason why eating some ice cream (or pizza) on occasion is going to make me an unhealthy person.
Care to respond?
I have seen where someone will start a thread saying that eating XXX is terrible and they feel much better after stopping. All of a sudden, the XXX lovers pile on and ridicule the OP saying that they have an unhealthy obsession and an eating disorder.
No they don't, they are just sharing their opinion and what worked for them and because they were foolish enough to share, they got attacked. The long time members that do those attacks need to accept responsibility that they are running people off of the forum.
Insert your favorite indulgence for the XXX.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
I'm not interested in hijacking this thread. I know how this plays out...I name two or three foods that are not good for you. You then demand studies to prove this. Then you find some imagined flaw in every study...like it was done on animals, or included self-reported data, or was released on a Tuesday, or was carried out by a scientist named Jim...as if any of that invalidates the results...it doesn't. Then your "junk food is healthy and MUST be eaten by everyone daily otherwise the world will come to an end" friends jump in and we have 200 posts which accomplish nothing. No thank you.herrspoons wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Certain foods are absolutely linked with certain medical conditions regardless of weight. Being overweight does not directly cause diseases, though it is also linked with many. Both play a role, and to deny that is what is silly.herrspoons wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
The post you're agreeing with advocates eliminating things because we might get a medical issue.
Which is silly. People don't get medical issues from foods. They get them from gross overconsumption of those foods.
Such as? Please specify the quantities involved at which point they become a problem.
There is more than enough evidence to convince me and most educated people that what you eat matters as much as how much you eat in terms of long term health. We are never going to agree on this, so let's save 200 posts and just agree to disagree.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Certain foods are absolutely linked with certain medical conditions regardless of weight. Being overweight does not directly cause diseases, though it is also linked with many. Both play a role, and to deny that is what is silly.herrspoons wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
The post you're agreeing with advocates eliminating things because we might get a medical issue.
Which is silly. People don't get medical issues from foods. They get them from gross overconsumption of those foods.
In for examples of this.
Probably already given in the pages yet unread, right?
ETA: Alas, no. Guess I will continue in my ignorance of what foods are inherently unhealthy in any quantity...only because those with the knowledge are unwilling to exert the effort necessary even to list them dooming me to an earlier grave. How do some of you people sleep at night?0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Certain foods are absolutely linked with certain medical conditions regardless of weight. Being overweight does not directly cause diseases, though it is also linked with many. Both play a role, and to deny that is what is silly.herrspoons wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
The post you're agreeing with advocates eliminating things because we might get a medical issue.
Which is silly. People don't get medical issues from foods. They get them from gross overconsumption of those foods.
In for examples of this.
Probably already given in the pages yet unread, right?
Trans fats.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »QuintinVAbrams wrote: »Very good. I have decided that for me, this journy is not only about loosing weight, it is also the healthy aspect. I have taken to increasing water intake and have cut out all fizzy drinks.....that was hard!!! The benefits are extrodinary!!
While increasing water and or reducing fizzy drinks may or may not improve your personal health the research posted focuses on the need for other lifestyle modifications which include exercise and overall dietary considerations with more produce particularly vegetables/fruit.
0 -
Our perspectives often need a good looking at as well. I can change my perspective with very little effort, if only I want to do so. In my opinion, perspective is the first change to be made. Change your mind, change your life.0
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »mburgess458 wrote: »What I find fascinating, at least according to the graph, is that those in the "Healthy" BMI range actually had larger mortality with 1 or 2 healthy habits than those with 0 healthy habits.
I'm sure it's just "noise" in their results. In other words, the graph is showing what happened in their study of a fixed number of people. It doesn't mean that having 1-2 healthy habits is worse for you than having 0. It just means that the mortality of the individuals in the study who happened to have 1-2 healthy habits was worse than the individuals in the study with 0 healthy habits.
In statistical terms, the number of people in each group of healthy habits probably wasn't large enough to be 100% credible. If you have 1-2 healthy habits taking up smoking isn't going to make you live longer.
You are right. The statistical significance doesn't differentiate between 0 and (1 or 2) but certainly between 0 and 3 or 2 and 4. Doesn't mean there isn't a difference, just that the study didn't find it.
When BMI is removed it is significant at each healthy habit level.Number of Healthy Habits Hazard Ratio 95% Confidence Interval
BMI ≥18.5 to <25
0 2.18 1.25–3.81
1 2.70 1.90–3.83
2 2.11 1.57–2.83
3 1.39 1.07–1.82
4 Reference group —
BMI ≥25 to <30
0 3.72 1.53–9.07
1 2.45 1.65–3.67
2 1.63 1.29–2.05
3 1.16 0.89–1.52
4 1.08 0.81–1.46
BMI ≥30
0 6.69 3.67–12.2
1 3.26 2.03–5.24
2 1.76 1.34–2.30
3 1.65 1.12–2.42
4 1.05 0.66–1.67
↵* Sample size = 11,761 unweighted (133,700,723 weighted). Adjusted for age, sex, race, education, and marital status. Healthy habits include consumption of ≥5 fruits or vegetable/day, regular exercise >12 times/month, moderate alcohol consumption (up to 1 drink/day for women, up to 2/day for men), and not smoking.
BMI, body mass index.
Nice detective work. I would think they should have put those error bars on the chart, but maybe it is better elucidated in the text.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
beemerphile1 wrote: »I have seen where someone will start a thread saying that eating XXX is terrible and they feel much better after stopping. All of a sudden, the XXX lovers pile on and ridicule the OP saying that they have an unhealthy obsession and an eating disorder.
It seems like you are referring to the thread where someone claimed that soda was a filthy and disgusting habit, and the reaction there was rather predictable given how rude that post was.
I haven't seen any other threads that fit that model.
I've seen a number where the OP says that some dietary restriction or another is really miserable and hard or that she is struggling with it and lots of people saying that it's not necessary, depending on why she's doing it.
I've also seen various "sugar is a devil" posts, of course, and the predictable (and quite reasonable) response.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
prettykitty1515 wrote: »Unfortunately, Americans are consuming 22 and 30 teaspoons of the sweet stuff each day.
All of us? Really? Did Congress pass a law? (I'm sure it was Obama's fault.)
To what is this relevant?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »Unfortunately, Americans are consuming 22 and 30 teaspoons of the sweet stuff each day.
All of us? Really? Did Congress pass a law? (I'm sure it was Obama's fault.)
To what is this relevant?
I now have a mental image of SWAT breaking down my door and forcing me to consume sugar. Thanks for the giggle!0 -
To put this in numbers that I'm used to tracking, that equates to 36g of added sugar for men and 20g of added sugar for women. Additionally, AHA only is concerned about added sugars. They even point out that sugars are not harmful but excess sugar can cause weight gain (shocking).prettykitty1515 wrote: »I'll go with the American Heart Association. "The American Heart Association recommends limiting intake of added sugar to 5 teaspoons for women and 9 teaspoons for men. For reference, one 12-ounce can of cola contains about 8 teaspoons of added sugar, for about 130 calories. Most American women should eat or drink no more than 100 calories per day from added sugars, and most American men should eat or drink no more than 150 calories per day form added sugars. Unfortunately, Americans are consuming 22 and 30 teaspoons of the sweet stuff each day.
"Although sugars are not harmful to the body, our bodies don’t need sugars to function properly. Added sugars contribute additional calories and zero nutrients to food. "
"Reducing the amount of added sugars we eat cuts calories and can help you improve your heart health and control your weight." - AHA - Sugar 101 )
0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »Are you joking?
Yes, obviously, since it seems irrelevant to anything and you constantly post as if there was some movement on MFP to require everyone to drink sugary soda when almost the only person talking about sugary soda is you. I've never seen anyone claiming it was a good thing to drink, but you are weirdly obsessed with it. (Not good does not mean that it's necessarily bad in moderation if you really like it, but for most people I assume the calories are generally not worth it.)Why is it relevant? Because the prior poster mentioned sugar being called "the devil." Apparently, to the AHA, it is the devil if you consume too much.
I mentioned that, and nothing about "too much" is ever added to clarify, so nice try but major fail. Also, of course, I'm reasonably sure sugar is in lots of food items besides soda, so why your mind always goes to soda (or donuts) is beyond me. Many people (probably a majority around here) drink no sugar in soda. It's a common sense thing to drop for many when losing weight (or before).
Also, please show me where the AHA refers to sugar in any amount as "the devil."
No one has said that it's impossible to eat excessive amounts of sugar or that Americans on average eat super healthy diets. (Given how obsessed with it you are, perhaps you do and should stop worrying so much about the diets of other people. Or just go whole hog and get out on the street corner with a megaphone.)0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »I'll go with the American Heart Association. "The American Heart Association recommends limiting intake of added sugar to 5 teaspoons for women and 9 teaspoons for men. For reference, one 12-ounce can of cola contains about 8 teaspoons of added sugar, for about 130 calories. Most American women should eat or drink no more than 100 calories per day from added sugars, and most American men should eat or drink no more than 150 calories per day form added sugars. Unfortunately, Americans are consuming 22 and 30 teaspoons of the sweet stuff each day.
So they are saying it's ok to have some added sugar.jofjltncb6 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Certain foods are absolutely linked with certain medical conditions regardless of weight. Being overweight does not directly cause diseases, though it is also linked with many. Both play a role, and to deny that is what is silly.herrspoons wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
The post you're agreeing with advocates eliminating things because we might get a medical issue.
Which is silly. People don't get medical issues from foods. They get them from gross overconsumption of those foods.
In for examples of this.
Probably already given in the pages yet unread, right?
Trans fats.
Except I have yet to see a thread were someone suggests that eliminating trans fat isn't a general good idea. There's research that suggests that some natural trans fats might have positive effects but in general, they are globally condemned. So really doesn't enter into the debate of foods that people are posting about reducing and someone else says "don't need to". Reducing nitrates is likely a good idea too.
On the other hand we have people posting about eliminating added sugar (someone even suggested eliminating oranges today), eliminating oil, soda, carbs, fats, meat, milk, sodium as some sort of "general recommendation". It's unnecessary.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »I'll go with the American Heart Association. "The American Heart Association recommends limiting intake of added sugar to 5 teaspoons for women and 9 teaspoons for men. For reference, one 12-ounce can of cola contains about 8 teaspoons of added sugar, for about 130 calories. Most American women should eat or drink no more than 100 calories per day from added sugars, and most American men should eat or drink no more than 150 calories per day form added sugars. Unfortunately, Americans are consuming 22 and 30 teaspoons of the sweet stuff each day.
So they are saying it's ok to have some added sugar.jofjltncb6 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Certain foods are absolutely linked with certain medical conditions regardless of weight. Being overweight does not directly cause diseases, though it is also linked with many. Both play a role, and to deny that is what is silly.herrspoons wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
The post you're agreeing with advocates eliminating things because we might get a medical issue.
Which is silly. People don't get medical issues from foods. They get them from gross overconsumption of those foods.
In for examples of this.
Probably already given in the pages yet unread, right?
Trans fats.
Except I have yet to see a thread were someone suggests that eliminating trans fat isn't a general good idea. There's research that suggests that some natural trans fats might have positive effects but in general, they are globally condemned. So really doesn't enter into the debate of foods that people are posting about reducing and someone else says "don't need to". Reducing nitrates is likely a good idea too.
On the other hand we have people posting about eliminating added sugar (someone even suggested eliminating oranges today), eliminating oil, soda, carbs, fats, meat, milk, sodium as some sort of "general recommendation". It's unnecessary.
Oh I know no one is defending trans fat, it was just too easy to pass up. But when the research proving it's harmful was new, I bet there was plenty of scoffing and scarfing trans fats all day. Added sugars could be the next trans fats. Time will tell.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »I'll go with the American Heart Association. "The American Heart Association recommends limiting intake of added sugar to 5 teaspoons for women and 9 teaspoons for men. For reference, one 12-ounce can of cola contains about 8 teaspoons of added sugar, for about 130 calories. Most American women should eat or drink no more than 100 calories per day from added sugars, and most American men should eat or drink no more than 150 calories per day form added sugars. Unfortunately, Americans are consuming 22 and 30 teaspoons of the sweet stuff each day.
So they are saying it's ok to have some added sugar.jofjltncb6 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Certain foods are absolutely linked with certain medical conditions regardless of weight. Being overweight does not directly cause diseases, though it is also linked with many. Both play a role, and to deny that is what is silly.herrspoons wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
The post you're agreeing with advocates eliminating things because we might get a medical issue.
Which is silly. People don't get medical issues from foods. They get them from gross overconsumption of those foods.
In for examples of this.
Probably already given in the pages yet unread, right?
Trans fats.
Except I have yet to see a thread were someone suggests that eliminating trans fat isn't a general good idea. There's research that suggests that some natural trans fats might have positive effects but in general, they are globally condemned. So really doesn't enter into the debate of foods that people are posting about reducing and someone else says "don't need to". Reducing nitrates is likely a good idea too.
On the other hand we have people posting about eliminating added sugar (someone even suggested eliminating oranges today), eliminating oil, soda, carbs, fats, meat, milk, sodium as some sort of "general recommendation". It's unnecessary.
Oh I know no one is defending trans fat, it was just too easy to pass up. But when the research proving it's harmful was new, I bet there was plenty of scoffing and scarfing trans fats all day. Added sugars could be the next trans fats. Time will tell.
In the sense that more research has been done on sugar than trans fats and that we actually metabolize sugar well, I'd put my money and my degree on sugar not being the next transfat. Transfat is going to be banned in many countries. On the other hand - is there evidence that sugar to certain excess is not a good idea - oh, yeah. Will it be banned? I really don't think it is likely.
Curing, smoking and certain chemical pickling methods are higher on "watch list" of things that might have a benefit/risk ratio leading to future reductions.
I mean according to current recommendations basically getting 5% of your daily cals from added sugar is considered a good limit. And for trans-fats? Woops. Yeah 5-6% of total cals. So maybe added sugar IS the next trans-fat, at least perception-wise.
Maybe I shouldn't make that bet?
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »I'll go with the American Heart Association. "The American Heart Association recommends limiting intake of added sugar to 5 teaspoons for women and 9 teaspoons for men. For reference, one 12-ounce can of cola contains about 8 teaspoons of added sugar, for about 130 calories. Most American women should eat or drink no more than 100 calories per day from added sugars, and most American men should eat or drink no more than 150 calories per day form added sugars. Unfortunately, Americans are consuming 22 and 30 teaspoons of the sweet stuff each day.
So they are saying it's ok to have some added sugar.jofjltncb6 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Certain foods are absolutely linked with certain medical conditions regardless of weight. Being overweight does not directly cause diseases, though it is also linked with many. Both play a role, and to deny that is what is silly.herrspoons wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
The post you're agreeing with advocates eliminating things because we might get a medical issue.
Which is silly. People don't get medical issues from foods. They get them from gross overconsumption of those foods.
In for examples of this.
Probably already given in the pages yet unread, right?
Trans fats.
Except I have yet to see a thread were someone suggests that eliminating trans fat isn't a general good idea. There's research that suggests that some natural trans fats might have positive effects but in general, they are globally condemned. So really doesn't enter into the debate of foods that people are posting about reducing and someone else says "don't need to". Reducing nitrates is likely a good idea too.
On the other hand we have people posting about eliminating added sugar (someone even suggested eliminating oranges today), eliminating oil, soda, carbs, fats, meat, milk, sodium as some sort of "general recommendation". It's unnecessary.
Oh I know no one is defending trans fat, it was just too easy to pass up. But when the research proving it's harmful was new, I bet there was plenty of scoffing and scarfing trans fats all day. Added sugars could be the next trans fats. Time will tell.
In the sense that more research has been done on sugar than trans fats and that we actually metabolize sugar well, I'd put my money and my degree on sugar not being the next transfat. Transfat is going to be banned in many countries. On the other hand - is there evidence that sugar to certain excess is not a good idea - oh, yeah. Will it be banned? I really don't think it is likely.
Curing, smoking and certain chemical pickling methods are higher on "watch list" of things that might have a benefit/risk ratio leading to future reductions.
I mean according to current recommendations basically getting 5% of your daily cals from added sugar is considered a good limit. And for trans-fats? Woops. Yeah 5-6% of total cals. So maybe added sugar IS the next trans-fat, at least perception-wise.
Maybe I shouldn't make that bet?
^^^^This guy... is really smart.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
- 424 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