Interesting article on weight
Options
eveedance
Posts: 77
Maybe weight loss advice shouldn't be as simple as "eat less, move more".
Although this is a step in the right direction, maybe it should be thought of as a more complex issue
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2004-0906
Although this is a step in the right direction, maybe it should be thought of as a more complex issue
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2004-0906
0
Replies
-
Oh,herrspoons wrote: »Or maybe you should keep your facile trolling to one topic?
Evidence. Jesus.
Oh right, sorry, using different threads for different topics totally goes against forum rules. Oh. wait. No it doesn't.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »Or maybe you should keep your facile trolling to one topic?
Evidence. Jesus.
Did you just say "Evidence. Jesus."??? I'm sorry maybe I misinterpreted. There must be dust on my computer screen.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »Or maybe you should keep your facile trolling to one topic?
Evidence. Jesus.
QFT!0 -
herrspoons wrote: »Trolling does though. I'll let the mods judge that one, mind.
Trolling. The word with infinite meanings. A new one has just been added. Posting things that people simply don't want to see/hear/learn about because of it doesn't jive with what they tell themselves.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »Trolling does though. I'll let the mods judge that one, mind.
Trolling. The word with infinite meanings. A new one has just been added. Posting things that people simply don't want to see/hear/learn about because of it doesn't jive with what they tell themselves.
And what exactly do they tell themselves?0 -
0 -
Maybe weight loss advice shouldn't be as simple as "eat less, move more".
Although this is a step in the right direction, maybe it should be thought of as a more complex issue
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2004-0906
No. Address the majors first. Focus on the minor elements if and when needed.
And that paper is a pretty poor review of current state of the art.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Maybe weight loss advice shouldn't be as simple as "eat less, move more".
Although this is a step in the right direction, maybe it should be thought of as a more complex issue
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2004-0906
No. Address the majors first. Focus on the minor elements if and when needed.
And that paper is a pretty poor review of current state of the art.
Great! Then post some papers that you think are better! I'm certainly open to exchanging article for article. That's how we learn.
Article for "I don't feel that is right"/"No! that's just wrong"/"Quit trolling"/"You're obviously confusing this with that"/"Stop"/"borderline funny gif" is amusing. But not useful.0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »
hahaha0 -
herrspoons wrote: »Or maybe you should keep your facile trolling to one topic?
Evidence. Jesus.
Are you taking issue with the results of the Experimental Obesity in Man study (admitedly almost 40 years old), or the Liebel Changes in Energy Expenditure with Altered Body Weight http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199503093321001#t=articleResults ? Or do you think rat studies have no applicability to humans (objecting to the other studies quoted in this literature review)?
I'm not seeing how this literature review is not presenting evidence for the opinions expressed...and some of what is proposed is consistent with what I see posted by those working on losing weight. I don't think anyone's journey directly reflects 3500 calories deficit (as determined by a formula like MFP uses) = 1 lb lost, which is consistent with what is expressed in Experimental Obesity. The idea that losing 10% of bodyweight can result in energy expenditure that is 15% less than would be predicted is not new, or even controversial, as written in Liebel ...
Debate over the existence of a "set point" or a movable set point, and how the body would maintain one has been the topic of interest in several threads.
The reality is that many people have to go beyond using online calculators and use personal experience to figure out what approach to weight loss (amount of calories, specific diet choices, macros, exercise), and weight maintenance works for them.0 -
0
-
Maybe weight loss advice shouldn't be as simple as "eat less, move more".
Although this is a step in the right direction, maybe it should be thought of as a more complex issue
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2004-0906
I found the article very interesting. Thank you.0 -
Did the OP even read the article? It fully supports "eat less, move more" and CICO."...there can no longer be any debate about whether adiposity-negative feedback is necessary for normal energy homeostasis."0
-
-
Maybe weight loss advice shouldn't be as simple as "eat less, move more".
Although this is a step in the right direction, maybe it should be thought of as a more complex issue
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2004-0906
I found the article very interesting. Thank you.
No prob.0 -
You said maybe it shouldn't be so simple, but rather just a step in the right direction. But your article is supporting, basically, that it is that simple.
It "tries" to push that other issues come into play that may overrule CICO, but even that failed. Along with the push for pills/medication that would start messing around with neurological functions or hormones in an attempt to basically get you to not eat in order to lose weight. (In other words, increasing the deficit...which comes back to CICO).
TL;DR - despite hormonal imbalances, etc - it's still going to come down to CICO.0 -
Maybe weight loss advice shouldn't be as simple as "eat less, move more".
Although this is a step in the right direction, maybe it should be thought of as a more complex issue
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2004-0906
See, I'm not reading anything in any of these articles you are posting that supports why you say you are posting it.
To me, this article says - There is a lot of talk about set points, but if they exist, why are so many people obese? Here are some theories as to why. We don't really know, but someone should really study this further.
Regardless, how does that refute "eat less, move more"? I don't think it does.0 -
He sure did.
The article says it *is* as simple as "eat less, move more". That's what "adiposity-negative feedback" means.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K 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
- 395 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 957 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions