Calorie counting doesn't work according to a new study. Apparently.
Replies
-
I eat the same dang foods that I ate when I was obese, just less of them.JustAnotherGirlSuzanne wrote: »It does make sense to me that if you eat foods that allow your gut bacteria to thrive which in turn causes your body to function at an optimal level that you may be able to manage a higher caloric maintenance.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Correct me if I'm wrong, Sandy, but you're at MFP so the way it's used at MFP is relevant, as opposed to the way it's used in some obscure book.TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I don't think I'm disagreeing with you.
Then your statement below...TimothhFish wrote:The statement actually deals with the fact that a runner who is making good nutritional choices will tend to out perform a runner who is not." is false?
... is wrong. You can outrun a "bad" diet. Because people typically think bad = processed foods such as pizza and mcdonalds. There are many factors that affect the performance of one athlete. And as demonstrated by people like Michael Phelps, diet isn't as big of a factor.
What I was disagreeing with in that statement was that "bad diet" as meant by the "You can't outrun a bad diet" assertion has anything to do with calories. "Bad diet" is talking about nutrition.
interpretation is subjective.
I always took that to mean you can exercise all you want but if you are not in a deficit you won't lose weight.
Agreed. In fact, I rarely have ever seen it referenced in regards to nutrition but rather if your diet is crap, you won't lose weight.
In Phil Gaimon's book, "Pro Cycling on $10 a Day: From Fat Kid to Euro Pro", he discusses a conversation he had with another cyclist, in which a similar statement was used that was very clearly about nutrition, rather than weight. As I recall, the context included something along the lines of, "You aren't going to win races while eating nothing but cookies." When doing a Google search, I find pages of articles in which the statement is used, along with a discussion of eating too much sugar. It is only when it gets translated into MFP speak that it becomes about calories, because the focus of MFP is on calories, rather than on nutrition.
Why should it matter what MFP the company thinks? They are software developers, not nutrition writers.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I eat the same dang foods that I ate when I was obese, just less of them.JustAnotherGirlSuzanne wrote: »It does make sense to me that if you eat foods that allow your gut bacteria to thrive which in turn causes your body to function at an optimal level that you may be able to manage a higher caloric maintenance.
So do I. I was just musing. There's no way I'm giving up my ice cream.
0 -
Because that's the location of the discussion and that's how that's how it's used here.TimothyFish wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Correct me if I'm wrong, Sandy, but you're at MFP so the way it's used at MFP is relevant, as opposed to the way it's used in some obscure book.TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I don't think I'm disagreeing with you.
Then your statement below...TimothhFish wrote:The statement actually deals with the fact that a runner who is making good nutritional choices will tend to out perform a runner who is not." is false?
... is wrong. You can outrun a "bad" diet. Because people typically think bad = processed foods such as pizza and mcdonalds. There are many factors that affect the performance of one athlete. And as demonstrated by people like Michael Phelps, diet isn't as big of a factor.
What I was disagreeing with in that statement was that "bad diet" as meant by the "You can't outrun a bad diet" assertion has anything to do with calories. "Bad diet" is talking about nutrition.
interpretation is subjective.
I always took that to mean you can exercise all you want but if you are not in a deficit you won't lose weight.
Agreed. In fact, I rarely have ever seen it referenced in regards to nutrition but rather if your diet is crap, you won't lose weight.
In Phil Gaimon's book, "Pro Cycling on $10 a Day: From Fat Kid to Euro Pro", he discusses a conversation he had with another cyclist, in which a similar statement was used that was very clearly about nutrition, rather than weight. As I recall, the context included something along the lines of, "You aren't going to win races while eating nothing but cookies." When doing a Google search, I find pages of articles in which the statement is used, along with a discussion of eating too much sugar. It is only when it gets translated into MFP speak that it becomes about calories, because the focus of MFP is on calories, rather than on nutrition.
Why should it matter what MFP the company thinks? They are software developers, not nutrition writers.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Correct me if I'm wrong, Sandy, but you're at MFP so the way it's used at MFP is relevant, as opposed to the way it's used in some obscure book.TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I don't think I'm disagreeing with you.
Then your statement below...TimothhFish wrote:The statement actually deals with the fact that a runner who is making good nutritional choices will tend to out perform a runner who is not." is false?
... is wrong. You can outrun a "bad" diet. Because people typically think bad = processed foods such as pizza and mcdonalds. There are many factors that affect the performance of one athlete. And as demonstrated by people like Michael Phelps, diet isn't as big of a factor.
What I was disagreeing with in that statement was that "bad diet" as meant by the "You can't outrun a bad diet" assertion has anything to do with calories. "Bad diet" is talking about nutrition.
interpretation is subjective.
I always took that to mean you can exercise all you want but if you are not in a deficit you won't lose weight.
Agreed. In fact, I rarely have ever seen it referenced in regards to nutrition but rather if your diet is crap, you won't lose weight.
In Phil Gaimon's book, "Pro Cycling on $10 a Day: From Fat Kid to Euro Pro", he discusses a conversation he had with another cyclist, in which a similar statement was used that was very clearly about nutrition, rather than weight. As I recall, the context included something along the lines of, "You aren't going to win races while eating nothing but cookies." When doing a Google search, I find pages of articles in which the statement is used, along with a discussion of eating too much sugar. It is only when it gets translated into MFP speak that it becomes about calories, because the focus of MFP is on calories, rather than on nutrition.
Why should it matter what MFP the company thinks? They are software developers, not nutrition writers.
Not the company - the community.
99% of the time on MFP "you can't outrun..." is a reference to caloric intake, not nutritional content.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Commenting without having read thru all the comments -
Research on the gut microbiome (much like research on epigenetics) is in its infancy. We simply don't know enough to be making any kind of recommendations. The fact is, there are more NON-human cells in our body than there are human ones. So the notion that out "gut bugs" influence our health (and quite possibly our weight) in a significant way is not a totally off-the-wall notion. That said, we don't know (yet) what the optimum gut microbiome looks like, nor do we know how to get there. Some foods seem beneficial (fermented foods, like yogurt, sauerkraut, kieifer, etc) and others appear more harmful (refined carbohydrates), but like I said, it's just too soon into this field of study to be making recommendations to the general public. Theories are great in the world of science and academia. But for practical applications in the real world, we need more concrete evidence of what to do in order to obtain "optimal" gut bacteria. Until then, the best advice is to do the best you can with the info you actually have - we know that calorie restriction (however you happen to go about it) and increased activity works. It's not fun. It's not glamorous. Its doesn't sell newspapers. But it will work. And until science gives us something more concrete to work with, everything else is just snake oil.
Yup. Sick to death of the media jumping on preliminary speculative findings and then the internet gurus running away with it.
I predict the "gut flora diet" will be the next big thing. Everyone will be eating lacto-fermented veggies and yogurt to lose weight.
It already kinda is. Mercola is all over it! Ferment your own veggies so you don't get fat and die of cancer and Alzheimer's!
And it is sad, because the research IS really fascinating. I would suspect gut flora does play a role in weight management, due to how it might affect satiety, digestive ease, and nutrient absorption, not by magically making you fat or skinny. I read something that vaguely suggests it is our gut flora that causes specific food cravings. So maybe it's not a little devil on my shoulder, telling me to eat the whole bag of chips. It is my not-diverse-enough-gut-bacteria! Of course it's still me sticking my hand back in the bag
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I don't think I'm disagreeing with you.
Then your statement below...TimothhFish wrote:The statement actually deals with the fact that a runner who is making good nutritional choices will tend to out perform a runner who is not." is false?
... is wrong. You can outrun a "bad" diet. Because people typically think bad = processed foods such as pizza and mcdonalds. There are many factors that affect the performance of one athlete. And as demonstrated by people like Michael Phelps, diet isn't as big of a factor.
What I was disagreeing with in that statement was that "bad diet" as meant by the "You can't outrun a bad diet" assertion has anything to do with calories. "Bad diet" is talking about nutrition.
interpretation is subjective.
I always took that to mean you can exercise all you want but if you are not in a deficit you won't lose weight.
I've always understood it to mean that merely increasing exercise won't cause you to lose weight.
Which is not always true.
Exactly. Same here. Most people I recall that have brought it up on their own went on to absolutely clarify that they didn't feel exercise was a legitimate method of creating a deficit that would cause weight loss
0 -
skysiebaby wrote: »IMO rubbish like this is part of the reason we have an obesity epidemic- the public are constantly told by the media its not always their own fault they are fat.
Can't have it both ways. If people have a "choice", then it's not all science. If it is all science, they don't have anything but the illusion of choice and - yeah - it's not really their "fault".
But do you not think that all the media hype and confusion in what they choose to publish surrounding issues like weight loss have probably not helped the situation? Genuinely interested in other peoples opinions on this. I took the time to educate myself and not just believe in the next fad that comes along, but a lot of people don't. I believe in CICO, its worked for me, but in real world conversations no one wants to hear it.
I mentioned in an earlier post about an ITV documentary that was shown last week here. Media is where a lot of the general public get their information, whether its 100% accurate or not and that annoys me.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Because that's the location of the discussion and that's how that's how it's used here.TimothyFish wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Correct me if I'm wrong, Sandy, but you're at MFP so the way it's used at MFP is relevant, as opposed to the way it's used in some obscure book.TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I don't think I'm disagreeing with you.
Then your statement below...TimothhFish wrote:The statement actually deals with the fact that a runner who is making good nutritional choices will tend to out perform a runner who is not." is false?
... is wrong. You can outrun a "bad" diet. Because people typically think bad = processed foods such as pizza and mcdonalds. There are many factors that affect the performance of one athlete. And as demonstrated by people like Michael Phelps, diet isn't as big of a factor.
What I was disagreeing with in that statement was that "bad diet" as meant by the "You can't outrun a bad diet" assertion has anything to do with calories. "Bad diet" is talking about nutrition.
interpretation is subjective.
I always took that to mean you can exercise all you want but if you are not in a deficit you won't lose weight.
Agreed. In fact, I rarely have ever seen it referenced in regards to nutrition but rather if your diet is crap, you won't lose weight.
In Phil Gaimon's book, "Pro Cycling on $10 a Day: From Fat Kid to Euro Pro", he discusses a conversation he had with another cyclist, in which a similar statement was used that was very clearly about nutrition, rather than weight. As I recall, the context included something along the lines of, "You aren't going to win races while eating nothing but cookies." When doing a Google search, I find pages of articles in which the statement is used, along with a discussion of eating too much sugar. It is only when it gets translated into MFP speak that it becomes about calories, because the focus of MFP is on calories, rather than on nutrition.
Why should it matter what MFP the company thinks? They are software developers, not nutrition writers.
Obviously, one way it is used here is to talk about excess calories. But as many people have demonstrated, you can exercise and lose weight and just because you increase exercise doesn't mean that you are going to eat a lot more. So, with that understanding, the assertion in question is, at best, a rule of thumb and can't be said to be true all the time. But when it comes to bad nutrition, no amount of exercise is going to correct that, because the body is missing some of the building blocks it needs.0 -
blargh. These articles are awful. Folks don't want to be responsible for doing work to get the results. Ppl ask me how I lost the weight and when I say truthfully "count calories and exercise like a maniac" their faces fall and they say "oh" and then "well do you have to keep counting and working out?" And I say YES unless I want to gain it all back, I count cals and I continue working hard. Then they say "OH." and they walk away. OK then, stay fat, whatever... not my problem lol0
-
In...for fat-shaming of imaginary creatures0
-
This content has been removed.
-
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I don't think I'm disagreeing with you.
Then your statement below...TimothhFish wrote:The statement actually deals with the fact that a runner who is making good nutritional choices will tend to out perform a runner who is not." is false?
... is wrong. You can outrun a "bad" diet. Because people typically think bad = processed foods such as pizza and mcdonalds. There are many factors that affect the performance of one athlete. And as demonstrated by people like Michael Phelps, diet isn't as big of a factor.
What I was disagreeing with in that statement was that "bad diet" as meant by the "You can't outrun a bad diet" assertion has anything to do with calories. "Bad diet" is talking about nutrition.
interpretation is subjective.
I always took that to mean you can exercise all you want but if you are not in a deficit you won't lose weight.
Agreed. In fact, I rarely have ever seen it referenced in regards to nutrition but rather if your diet is crap, you won't lose weight.
In Phil Gaimon's book, "Pro Cycling on $10 a Day: From Fat Kid to Euro Pro", he discusses a conversation he had with another cyclist, in which a similar statement was used that was very clearly about nutrition, rather than weight. As I recall, the context included something along the lines of, "You aren't going to win races while eating nothing but cookies." When doing a Google search, I find pages of articles in which the statement is used, along with a discussion of eating too much sugar. It is only when it gets translated into MFP speak that it becomes about calories, because the focus of MFP is on calories, rather than on nutrition.
Odd.
I'd heard that phrase for decades before ever coming to MFP. I've never heard it said in reference to nutrition, a specific food item, or cycling until just now.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Because that's the location of the discussion and that's how that's how it's used here.TimothyFish wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Correct me if I'm wrong, Sandy, but you're at MFP so the way it's used at MFP is relevant, as opposed to the way it's used in some obscure book.TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I don't think I'm disagreeing with you.
Then your statement below...TimothhFish wrote:The statement actually deals with the fact that a runner who is making good nutritional choices will tend to out perform a runner who is not." is false?
... is wrong. You can outrun a "bad" diet. Because people typically think bad = processed foods such as pizza and mcdonalds. There are many factors that affect the performance of one athlete. And as demonstrated by people like Michael Phelps, diet isn't as big of a factor.
What I was disagreeing with in that statement was that "bad diet" as meant by the "You can't outrun a bad diet" assertion has anything to do with calories. "Bad diet" is talking about nutrition.
interpretation is subjective.
I always took that to mean you can exercise all you want but if you are not in a deficit you won't lose weight.
Agreed. In fact, I rarely have ever seen it referenced in regards to nutrition but rather if your diet is crap, you won't lose weight.
In Phil Gaimon's book, "Pro Cycling on $10 a Day: From Fat Kid to Euro Pro", he discusses a conversation he had with another cyclist, in which a similar statement was used that was very clearly about nutrition, rather than weight. As I recall, the context included something along the lines of, "You aren't going to win races while eating nothing but cookies." When doing a Google search, I find pages of articles in which the statement is used, along with a discussion of eating too much sugar. It is only when it gets translated into MFP speak that it becomes about calories, because the focus of MFP is on calories, rather than on nutrition.
Why should it matter what MFP the company thinks? They are software developers, not nutrition writers.
Obviously, one way it is used here is to talk about excess calories. But as many people have demonstrated, you can exercise and lose weight and just because you increase exercise doesn't mean that you are going to eat a lot more. So, with that understanding, the assertion in question is, at best, a rule of thumb and can't be said to be true all the time. But when it comes to bad nutrition, no amount of exercise is going to correct that, because the body is missing some of the building blocks it needs.
I hear what you're saying, and it is logical and reasonable.
But this is MFP
and we have no time for reasonable logicality! 0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Commenting without having read thru all the comments -
Research on the gut microbiome (much like research on epigenetics) is in its infancy. We simply don't know enough to be making any kind of recommendations. The fact is, there are more NON-human cells in our body than there are human ones. So the notion that out "gut bugs" influence our health (and quite possibly our weight) in a significant way is not a totally off-the-wall notion. That said, we don't know (yet) what the optimum gut microbiome looks like, nor do we know how to get there. Some foods seem beneficial (fermented foods, like yogurt, sauerkraut, kieifer, etc) and others appear more harmful (refined carbohydrates), but like I said, it's just too soon into this field of study to be making recommendations to the general public. Theories are great in the world of science and academia. But for practical applications in the real world, we need more concrete evidence of what to do in order to obtain "optimal" gut bacteria. Until then, the best advice is to do the best you can with the info you actually have - we know that calorie restriction (however you happen to go about it) and increased activity works. It's not fun. It's not glamorous. Its doesn't sell newspapers. But it will work. And until science gives us something more concrete to work with, everything else is just snake oil.
Yup. Sick to death of the media jumping on preliminary speculative findings and then the internet gurus running away with it.
I predict the "gut flora diet" will be the next big thing. Everyone will be eating lacto-fermented veggies and yogurt to lose weight.
It already kinda is. Mercola is all over it! Ferment your own veggies so you don't get fat and die of cancer and Alzheimer's!
And it is sad, because the research IS really fascinating. I would suspect gut flora does play a role in weight management, due to how it might affect satiety, digestive ease, and nutrient absorption, not by magically making you fat or skinny. I read something that vaguely suggests it is our gut flora that causes specific food cravings. So maybe it's not a little devil on my shoulder, telling me to eat the whole bag of chips. It is my not-diverse-enough-gut-bacteria! Of course it's still me sticking my hand back in the bag
At least there are actual benefits to taking care of your gut, though the ones with solid evidence are immunological in nature and not so much weight-related.0 -
asflatasapancake wrote: »skysiebaby wrote: »skysiebaby wrote: »IMO rubbish like this is part of the reason we have an obesity epidemic- the public are constantly told by the media its not always their own fault they are fat.
Can't have it both ways. If people have a "choice", then it's not all science. If it is all science, they don't have anything but the illusion of choice and - yeah - it's not really their "fault".
But do you not think that all the media hype and confusion in what they choose to publish surrounding issues like weight loss have probably not helped the situation? Genuinely interested in other peoples opinions on this. I took the time to educate myself and not just believe in the next fad that comes along, but a lot of people don't. I believe in CICO, its worked for me, but in real world conversations no one wants to hear it.
I mentioned in an earlier post about an ITV documentary that was shown last week here. Media is where a lot of the general public get their information, whether its 100% accurate or not and that annoys me.
It's because CICO is not the latest, greatest, coolest thing. It's too easy of a solution in plan. And much too hard for a lot of people in practice. Everyone, including myself, are always looking for an easier way to do things. Trying to be more efficient. The "obesity epidemic" makes it easy for media/companies/marketing groups to run with whatever to solve the problem. Also, the whole social media explosion over the last few years has made it far too easy to get things out there that may not hold a shred of truth to them, but people believe because, why would someone put it on the internet if it wasn't true? I remember something that, of all people, Marilyn Manson said that I find very true. The media/government want people to be afraid. The idea is "Fear, fear, fear". Then "Consume, consume, consume."
Whatever the reason, there are a lot of people who aren't going to track their calories, even if they are convinced that it works. In looking at the obesity problem, that's something to take into consideration as well. It does not good to have a solution that works if no one follows it. The CDC has been preaching diet and exercise for years, but if they're going to make an impact on the problem the solution needs to be one that people can do without thinking about it.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
It's also not a good solution if it's a product of fantasy. Short of some drug that completely alters the situation, obese people are going to stay obese if they're sitting around waiting for an approach that will succeed without thinking about it.TimothyFish wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »skysiebaby wrote: »skysiebaby wrote: »IMO rubbish like this is part of the reason we have an obesity epidemic- the public are constantly told by the media its not always their own fault they are fat.
Can't have it both ways. If people have a "choice", then it's not all science. If it is all science, they don't have anything but the illusion of choice and - yeah - it's not really their "fault".
But do you not think that all the media hype and confusion in what they choose to publish surrounding issues like weight loss have probably not helped the situation? Genuinely interested in other peoples opinions on this. I took the time to educate myself and not just believe in the next fad that comes along, but a lot of people don't. I believe in CICO, its worked for me, but in real world conversations no one wants to hear it.
I mentioned in an earlier post about an ITV documentary that was shown last week here. Media is where a lot of the general public get their information, whether its 100% accurate or not and that annoys me.
It's because CICO is not the latest, greatest, coolest thing. It's too easy of a solution in plan. And much too hard for a lot of people in practice. Everyone, including myself, are always looking for an easier way to do things. Trying to be more efficient. The "obesity epidemic" makes it easy for media/companies/marketing groups to run with whatever to solve the problem. Also, the whole social media explosion over the last few years has made it far too easy to get things out there that may not hold a shred of truth to them, but people believe because, why would someone put it on the internet if it wasn't true? I remember something that, of all people, Marilyn Manson said that I find very true. The media/government want people to be afraid. The idea is "Fear, fear, fear". Then "Consume, consume, consume."
Whatever the reason, there are a lot of people who aren't going to track their calories, even if they are convinced that it works. In looking at the obesity problem, that's something to take into consideration as well. It does not good to have a solution that works if no one follows it. The CDC has been preaching diet and exercise for years, but if they're going to make an impact on the problem the solution needs to be one that people can do without thinking about it.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
TimothyFish wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »skysiebaby wrote: »skysiebaby wrote: »IMO rubbish like this is part of the reason we have an obesity epidemic- the public are constantly told by the media its not always their own fault they are fat.
Can't have it both ways. If people have a "choice", then it's not all science. If it is all science, they don't have anything but the illusion of choice and - yeah - it's not really their "fault".
But do you not think that all the media hype and confusion in what they choose to publish surrounding issues like weight loss have probably not helped the situation? Genuinely interested in other peoples opinions on this. I took the time to educate myself and not just believe in the next fad that comes along, but a lot of people don't. I believe in CICO, its worked for me, but in real world conversations no one wants to hear it.
I mentioned in an earlier post about an ITV documentary that was shown last week here. Media is where a lot of the general public get their information, whether its 100% accurate or not and that annoys me.
It's because CICO is not the latest, greatest, coolest thing. It's too easy of a solution in plan. And much too hard for a lot of people in practice. Everyone, including myself, are always looking for an easier way to do things. Trying to be more efficient. The "obesity epidemic" makes it easy for media/companies/marketing groups to run with whatever to solve the problem. Also, the whole social media explosion over the last few years has made it far too easy to get things out there that may not hold a shred of truth to them, but people believe because, why would someone put it on the internet if it wasn't true? I remember something that, of all people, Marilyn Manson said that I find very true. The media/government want people to be afraid. The idea is "Fear, fear, fear". Then "Consume, consume, consume."
Whatever the reason, there are a lot of people who aren't going to track their calories, even if they are convinced that it works. In looking at the obesity problem, that's something to take into consideration as well. It does not good to have a solution that works if no one follows it. The CDC has been preaching diet and exercise for years, but if they're going to make an impact on the problem the solution needs to be one that people can do without thinking about it.
When I read this I think of laziness.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I don't think I'm disagreeing with you.
Then your statement below...TimothhFish wrote:The statement actually deals with the fact that a runner who is making good nutritional choices will tend to out perform a runner who is not." is false?
... is wrong. You can outrun a "bad" diet. Because people typically think bad = processed foods such as pizza and mcdonalds. There are many factors that affect the performance of one athlete. And as demonstrated by people like Michael Phelps, diet isn't as big of a factor.
What I was disagreeing with in that statement was that "bad diet" as meant by the "You can't outrun a bad diet" assertion has anything to do with calories. "Bad diet" is talking about nutrition.
interpretation is subjective.
I always took that to mean you can exercise all you want but if you are not in a deficit you won't lose weight.
I've always understood it to mean that merely increasing exercise won't cause you to lose weight.
Which is not always true.
Exactly. Same here. Most people I recall that have brought it up on their own went on to absolutely clarify that they didn't feel exercise was a legitimate method of creating a deficit that would cause weight loss
Which it most certainly CAN be.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
TimothyFish wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »skysiebaby wrote: »skysiebaby wrote: »IMO rubbish like this is part of the reason we have an obesity epidemic- the public are constantly told by the media its not always their own fault they are fat.
Can't have it both ways. If people have a "choice", then it's not all science. If it is all science, they don't have anything but the illusion of choice and - yeah - it's not really their "fault".
But do you not think that all the media hype and confusion in what they choose to publish surrounding issues like weight loss have probably not helped the situation? Genuinely interested in other peoples opinions on this. I took the time to educate myself and not just believe in the next fad that comes along, but a lot of people don't. I believe in CICO, its worked for me, but in real world conversations no one wants to hear it.
I mentioned in an earlier post about an ITV documentary that was shown last week here. Media is where a lot of the general public get their information, whether its 100% accurate or not and that annoys me.
It's because CICO is not the latest, greatest, coolest thing. It's too easy of a solution in plan. And much too hard for a lot of people in practice. Everyone, including myself, are always looking for an easier way to do things. Trying to be more efficient. The "obesity epidemic" makes it easy for media/companies/marketing groups to run with whatever to solve the problem. Also, the whole social media explosion over the last few years has made it far too easy to get things out there that may not hold a shred of truth to them, but people believe because, why would someone put it on the internet if it wasn't true? I remember something that, of all people, Marilyn Manson said that I find very true. The media/government want people to be afraid. The idea is "Fear, fear, fear". Then "Consume, consume, consume."
Whatever the reason, there are a lot of people who aren't going to track their calories, even if they are convinced that it works. In looking at the obesity problem, that's something to take into consideration as well. It does not good to have a solution that works if no one follows it. The CDC has been preaching diet and exercise for years, but if they're going to make an impact on the problem the solution needs to be one that people can do without thinking about it.
People are going to stay obese, then, for a very long time.0 -
Yes. "I want it just to happen. Automagically."yopeeps025 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »skysiebaby wrote: »skysiebaby wrote: »IMO rubbish like this is part of the reason we have an obesity epidemic- the public are constantly told by the media its not always their own fault they are fat.
Can't have it both ways. If people have a "choice", then it's not all science. If it is all science, they don't have anything but the illusion of choice and - yeah - it's not really their "fault".
But do you not think that all the media hype and confusion in what they choose to publish surrounding issues like weight loss have probably not helped the situation? Genuinely interested in other peoples opinions on this. I took the time to educate myself and not just believe in the next fad that comes along, but a lot of people don't. I believe in CICO, its worked for me, but in real world conversations no one wants to hear it.
I mentioned in an earlier post about an ITV documentary that was shown last week here. Media is where a lot of the general public get their information, whether its 100% accurate or not and that annoys me.
It's because CICO is not the latest, greatest, coolest thing. It's too easy of a solution in plan. And much too hard for a lot of people in practice. Everyone, including myself, are always looking for an easier way to do things. Trying to be more efficient. The "obesity epidemic" makes it easy for media/companies/marketing groups to run with whatever to solve the problem. Also, the whole social media explosion over the last few years has made it far too easy to get things out there that may not hold a shred of truth to them, but people believe because, why would someone put it on the internet if it wasn't true? I remember something that, of all people, Marilyn Manson said that I find very true. The media/government want people to be afraid. The idea is "Fear, fear, fear". Then "Consume, consume, consume."
Whatever the reason, there are a lot of people who aren't going to track their calories, even if they are convinced that it works. In looking at the obesity problem, that's something to take into consideration as well. It does not good to have a solution that works if no one follows it. The CDC has been preaching diet and exercise for years, but if they're going to make an impact on the problem the solution needs to be one that people can do without thinking about it.
When I read this I thing of laziness.
Rarely works for gaining muscle. Or getting an education. Or getting a better job. Or accumulating wealth. Or anything else. There's no reason to expect it to work for obesity. Improvement generally takes effort. That's a bitter pill to swallow for a lot of people, but reality doesn't care about your feelings.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Commenting without having read thru all the comments -
Research on the gut microbiome (much like research on epigenetics) is in its infancy. We simply don't know enough to be making any kind of recommendations. The fact is, there are more NON-human cells in our body than there are human ones. So the notion that out "gut bugs" influence our health (and quite possibly our weight) in a significant way is not a totally off-the-wall notion. That said, we don't know (yet) what the optimum gut microbiome looks like, nor do we know how to get there. Some foods seem beneficial (fermented foods, like yogurt, sauerkraut, kieifer, etc) and others appear more harmful (refined carbohydrates), but like I said, it's just too soon into this field of study to be making recommendations to the general public. Theories are great in the world of science and academia. But for practical applications in the real world, we need more concrete evidence of what to do in order to obtain "optimal" gut bacteria. Until then, the best advice is to do the best you can with the info you actually have - we know that calorie restriction (however you happen to go about it) and increased activity works. It's not fun. It's not glamorous. Its doesn't sell newspapers. But it will work. And until science gives us something more concrete to work with, everything else is just snake oil.
Yup. Sick to death of the media jumping on preliminary speculative findings and then the internet gurus running away with it.
I predict the "gut flora diet" will be the next big thing. Everyone will be eating lacto-fermented veggies and yogurt to lose weight.
It already kinda is. Mercola is all over it! Ferment your own veggies so you don't get fat and die of cancer and Alzheimer's!
And it is sad, because the research IS really fascinating. I would suspect gut flora does play a role in weight management, due to how it might affect satiety, digestive ease, and nutrient absorption, not by magically making you fat or skinny. I read something that vaguely suggests it is our gut flora that causes specific food cravings. So maybe it's not a little devil on my shoulder, telling me to eat the whole bag of chips. It is my not-diverse-enough-gut-bacteria! Of course it's still me sticking my hand back in the bag
At least there are actual benefits to taking care of your gut, though the ones with solid evidence are immunological in nature and not so much weight-related.
True. So while folks who jump on this bandwagon might not lose any weight, at least they will get sick less! Puts it ahead of detoxes 0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Yes. "I want it just to happen. Automagically."yopeeps025 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »skysiebaby wrote: »skysiebaby wrote: »IMO rubbish like this is part of the reason we have an obesity epidemic- the public are constantly told by the media its not always their own fault they are fat.
Can't have it both ways. If people have a "choice", then it's not all science. If it is all science, they don't have anything but the illusion of choice and - yeah - it's not really their "fault".
But do you not think that all the media hype and confusion in what they choose to publish surrounding issues like weight loss have probably not helped the situation? Genuinely interested in other peoples opinions on this. I took the time to educate myself and not just believe in the next fad that comes along, but a lot of people don't. I believe in CICO, its worked for me, but in real world conversations no one wants to hear it.
I mentioned in an earlier post about an ITV documentary that was shown last week here. Media is where a lot of the general public get their information, whether its 100% accurate or not and that annoys me.
It's because CICO is not the latest, greatest, coolest thing. It's too easy of a solution in plan. And much too hard for a lot of people in practice. Everyone, including myself, are always looking for an easier way to do things. Trying to be more efficient. The "obesity epidemic" makes it easy for media/companies/marketing groups to run with whatever to solve the problem. Also, the whole social media explosion over the last few years has made it far too easy to get things out there that may not hold a shred of truth to them, but people believe because, why would someone put it on the internet if it wasn't true? I remember something that, of all people, Marilyn Manson said that I find very true. The media/government want people to be afraid. The idea is "Fear, fear, fear". Then "Consume, consume, consume."
Whatever the reason, there are a lot of people who aren't going to track their calories, even if they are convinced that it works. In looking at the obesity problem, that's something to take into consideration as well. It does not good to have a solution that works if no one follows it. The CDC has been preaching diet and exercise for years, but if they're going to make an impact on the problem the solution needs to be one that people can do without thinking about it.
When I read this I thing of laziness.
Rarely works for gaining muscle. Or getting an education. Or getting a better job. Or accumulating wealth. Or anything else. There's no reason to expect it to work for obesity. Improvement generally takes effort. That's a bitter pill to swallow for a lot of people, but reality doesn't care about your feelings.
Exactly nothing in life really comes easy so why should weight management be any different?0 -
What the hell did I just read.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
TimothyFish wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »skysiebaby wrote: »skysiebaby wrote: »IMO rubbish like this is part of the reason we have an obesity epidemic- the public are constantly told by the media its not always their own fault they are fat.
Can't have it both ways. If people have a "choice", then it's not all science. If it is all science, they don't have anything but the illusion of choice and - yeah - it's not really their "fault".
But do you not think that all the media hype and confusion in what they choose to publish surrounding issues like weight loss have probably not helped the situation? Genuinely interested in other peoples opinions on this. I took the time to educate myself and not just believe in the next fad that comes along, but a lot of people don't. I believe in CICO, its worked for me, but in real world conversations no one wants to hear it.
I mentioned in an earlier post about an ITV documentary that was shown last week here. Media is where a lot of the general public get their information, whether its 100% accurate or not and that annoys me.
It's because CICO is not the latest, greatest, coolest thing. It's too easy of a solution in plan. And much too hard for a lot of people in practice. Everyone, including myself, are always looking for an easier way to do things. Trying to be more efficient. The "obesity epidemic" makes it easy for media/companies/marketing groups to run with whatever to solve the problem. Also, the whole social media explosion over the last few years has made it far too easy to get things out there that may not hold a shred of truth to them, but people believe because, why would someone put it on the internet if it wasn't true? I remember something that, of all people, Marilyn Manson said that I find very true. The media/government want people to be afraid. The idea is "Fear, fear, fear". Then "Consume, consume, consume."
Whatever the reason, there are a lot of people who aren't going to track their calories, even if they are convinced that it works. In looking at the obesity problem, that's something to take into consideration as well. It does not good to have a solution that works if no one follows it. The CDC has been preaching diet and exercise for years, but if they're going to make an impact on the problem the solution needs to be one that people can do without thinking about it.
People are going to stay obese, then, for a very long time.
That is likely true, but it wasn't that many years ago that schools started providing lunches for children, because their parents weren't feeding them enough. The fact that we went from one extreme to the other is an indication that there might be such a solution.0 -
What is "such a solution" for getting rid of obesity? Government-mandated boxed meals? I'm not clear on the connection you're trying to draw here or what such a solution might even conceivably look like.TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »skysiebaby wrote: »skysiebaby wrote: »IMO rubbish like this is part of the reason we have an obesity epidemic- the public are constantly told by the media its not always their own fault they are fat.
Can't have it both ways. If people have a "choice", then it's not all science. If it is all science, they don't have anything but the illusion of choice and - yeah - it's not really their "fault".
But do you not think that all the media hype and confusion in what they choose to publish surrounding issues like weight loss have probably not helped the situation? Genuinely interested in other peoples opinions on this. I took the time to educate myself and not just believe in the next fad that comes along, but a lot of people don't. I believe in CICO, its worked for me, but in real world conversations no one wants to hear it.
I mentioned in an earlier post about an ITV documentary that was shown last week here. Media is where a lot of the general public get their information, whether its 100% accurate or not and that annoys me.
It's because CICO is not the latest, greatest, coolest thing. It's too easy of a solution in plan. And much too hard for a lot of people in practice. Everyone, including myself, are always looking for an easier way to do things. Trying to be more efficient. The "obesity epidemic" makes it easy for media/companies/marketing groups to run with whatever to solve the problem. Also, the whole social media explosion over the last few years has made it far too easy to get things out there that may not hold a shred of truth to them, but people believe because, why would someone put it on the internet if it wasn't true? I remember something that, of all people, Marilyn Manson said that I find very true. The media/government want people to be afraid. The idea is "Fear, fear, fear". Then "Consume, consume, consume."
Whatever the reason, there are a lot of people who aren't going to track their calories, even if they are convinced that it works. In looking at the obesity problem, that's something to take into consideration as well. It does not good to have a solution that works if no one follows it. The CDC has been preaching diet and exercise for years, but if they're going to make an impact on the problem the solution needs to be one that people can do without thinking about it.
People are going to stay obese, then, for a very long time.
That is likely true, but it wasn't that many years ago that schools started providing lunches for children, because their parents weren't feeding them enough. The fact that we went from one extreme to the other is an indication that there might be such a solution.
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