Calorie counting doesn't work according to a new study. Apparently.
Replies
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »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.
Mandatory strength training?
What I really want to see and it needs to be talked about is since these obesity rates are so high, what are the statistic increases of diseases?0 -
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.
And they still do, because there are still malnourished children in the United States.
There are overweight and obese children as well.
The two do not cancel each other out.0 -
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 think of laziness.
That's demonstrably not correct, most of the time. Most obese people in my life are hard working dedicated professionals, for whom the word "laziness" is about as incorrect description as you could find. That "laziness" is the word people jump to says more about the person using the word, frankly, than about the people being labelled as such.
Calorie counting is a method that will 100% work 100% of the time if adhered to. But the reality is that most people find it difficult to adhere to. So Fishman is right - a better approach is needed.
0 -
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 think of laziness.
That's demonstrably not correct, most of the time. Most obese people in my life are hard working dedicated professionals, for whom the word "laziness" is about as incorrect description as you could find.
Did you read what I quoted? Context?
0 -
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.
Most likely, yes.
0 -
That's demonstrably not correct, most of the time. Most obese people in my life are hard working dedicated professionals, for whom the word "laziness" is about as incorrect description as you could find.
I definitely agree here. I also think it's pretty myopic to believe that people who are obese or who are unable to adhere to a given method are "lazy".
Could it be accurate for some people? Probably. But I wouldn't apply that to everyone.Calorie counting is a method that will 100% work 100% of the time if adhered to. But the reality is that most people find it difficult to adhere to. So Fishman is right - a better approach is needed.
I don't mean to be pedantic but I disagree with the bold.0 -
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.
The bold is 100% false. If you read any of our post, you will see we start with calories (because the controls loss/gain/maintenance), but advocate getting 80-90% of your diet from nutrient dense foods.
Also, if I am a pro cyclist, I would include gummy bears in my diet, especially while riding as it's mainly dextrose (fasted converting sugar) which can help replenish glycogen fast. But that is just me personally.
Also, i haven't read the book, so if that is where you automatically draw our information from, it would be hard to put that in context. But my general context has always been about losing weight, particularly in the area of getting abs/flat stomachs.
I want to know why, if every other part of the world besides MFP supposedly interprets the phrase "you can't outrun a bad diet" to be about nutrition, every single headline stemming from that BSJ article on exercise not being enough to counter obesity said EXACTLY that.
0 -
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 think of laziness.
That's demonstrably not correct, most of the time. Most obese people in my life are hard working dedicated professionals, for whom the word "laziness" is about as incorrect description as you could find. That "laziness" is the word people jump to says more about the person using the word, frankly, than about the people being labelled as such.
0 -
Seriously, how come this tread is not even closed yet, definatly qualifies as NSFW with all the food porn on McDonalds
I've been thinking about this thread all morning and the 'challenge' that was put forth to eat only Mcds for year. I mentioned it to my husband (as were sitting in drive through for Arbys), and he was really interested in seeing what would happen if I actually did the challenge. He knows how I eat (fast food on a regular basis), and also how I've been so successful not only with my weight, but also with improving my health.
We got brainstorming and I'm going to do a pitch to corporate Mcds-I used to be a blogger (I've actually been on national tv/magazine back in the day, related to my old blog), and I could start a blog to record myself eating a year of Mcds, to prove that I can maintain a healthy weight, and also continue to be in good health. They'd get some publicity, and in return they pay for the food They probably won't take me up on it, but I'm going to try-who knows, I could be the next Twinkie guy lol.0 -
That's demonstrably not correct, most of the time. Most obese people in my life are hard working dedicated professionals, for whom the word "laziness" is about as incorrect description as you could find.
I definitely agree here. I also think it's pretty myopic to believe that people who are obese or who are unable to adhere to a given method are "lazy".
Could it be accurate for some people? Probably. But I wouldn't apply that to everyone.Calorie counting is a method that will 100% work 100% of the time if adhered to. But the reality is that most people find it difficult to adhere to. So Fishman is right - a better approach is needed.
I don't mean to be pedantic but I disagree with the bold.
There is a difference between someone who try there hardest to accomplish weight loss for example even if they failed or took them longer to do then someone putting in no effort hoping the world finds some way that you could take something and boom you are magically x amount of pounds down with no effort. You would not call the latter being lazy?
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »That's demonstrably not correct, most of the time. Most obese people in my life are hard working dedicated professionals, for whom the word "laziness" is about as incorrect description as you could find.
I definitely agree here. I also think it's pretty myopic to believe that people who are obese or who are unable to adhere to a given method are "lazy".
Could it be accurate for some people? Probably. But I wouldn't apply that to everyone.Calorie counting is a method that will 100% work 100% of the time if adhered to. But the reality is that most people find it difficult to adhere to. So Fishman is right - a better approach is needed.
I don't mean to be pedantic but I disagree with the bold.
There is a difference between someone who try there hardest to accomplish weight loss for example even if they failed or took them longer to do then someone putting in no effort hoping the world finds some way that you could take something and boom you are magically x amount of pounds down with no effort. You would not call the latter being lazy?
The latter could potentially be lazy.
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
OMG... MERCOLA.... of course he would jump on preliminary findings and start preaching conclusive gospel.
I agree, it IS fascinating, but I suspect that it's an extraordinarily complex issue to find anything conclusive about given all of the possible variables involved in individual dietary choices and how they might react with individual biology.
0 -
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.
I.... see your point. I don't necessarily share your vision, but, ever consider a career in public health?
Your comments make me think of adding Fluorine to water, or something. No one has to think about that. Like some have asked, I'm just not sure what the equivalent for obesity would be. They've tried soda taxes and such which went down like a lead balloon, or health related benefits from corporations which I'm not sure make much of an impact at all
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »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 think of laziness.
That's demonstrably not correct, most of the time. Most obese people in my life are hard working dedicated professionals, for whom the word "laziness" is about as incorrect description as you could find. That "laziness" is the word people jump to says more about the person using the word, frankly, than about the people being labelled as such.
That's not laziness, that's prioritization.
0 -
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 think of laziness.
That's demonstrably not correct, most of the time. Most obese people in my life are hard working dedicated professionals, for whom the word "laziness" is about as incorrect description as you could find. That "laziness" is the word people jump to says more about the person using the word, frankly, than about the people being labelled as such.
Calorie counting is a method that will 100% work 100% of the time if adhered to. But the reality is that most people find it difficult to adhere to. So Fishman is right - a better approach is needed.
No, SEVERAL options are needed. There can never be a one-size fits all approach. Different people, different things will click.
This whole idea that there will be one "right" answer is just wrong-headed.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »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 think of laziness.
That's demonstrably not correct, most of the time. Most obese people in my life are hard working dedicated professionals, for whom the word "laziness" is about as incorrect description as you could find. That "laziness" is the word people jump to says more about the person using the word, frankly, than about the people being labelled as such.
That's not laziness, that's prioritization.
now we are back to playing word games again..
you can be a hard worker and then be lazy and not workout because you would rather sit on the couch after work.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »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 think of laziness.
That's demonstrably not correct, most of the time. Most obese people in my life are hard working dedicated professionals, for whom the word "laziness" is about as incorrect description as you could find. That "laziness" is the word people jump to says more about the person using the word, frankly, than about the people being labelled as such.
Calorie counting is a method that will 100% work 100% of the time if adhered to. But the reality is that most people find it difficult to adhere to. So Fishman is right - a better approach is needed.
No, SEVERAL options are needed. There can never be a one-size fits all approach. Different people, different things will click.
This whole idea that there will be one "right" answer is just wrong-headed.
That's what I said, and have said repeatedly.
And usually when I do, you disagree with me - so....welcome to the club.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »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 think of laziness.
That's demonstrably not correct, most of the time. Most obese people in my life are hard working dedicated professionals, for whom the word "laziness" is about as incorrect description as you could find. That "laziness" is the word people jump to says more about the person using the word, frankly, than about the people being labelled as such.
That's not laziness, that's prioritization.
Lazy=averse or disinclined to work, activity, or exertion; indolent
no it's laziness per it's definition...
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »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 think of laziness.
That's demonstrably not correct, most of the time. Most obese people in my life are hard working dedicated professionals, for whom the word "laziness" is about as incorrect description as you could find. That "laziness" is the word people jump to says more about the person using the word, frankly, than about the people being labelled as such.
Calorie counting is a method that will 100% work 100% of the time if adhered to. But the reality is that most people find it difficult to adhere to. So Fishman is right - a better approach is needed.
No, SEVERAL options are needed. There can never be a one-size fits all approach. Different people, different things will click.
This whole idea that there will be one "right" answer is just wrong-headed.
That's what I said, and have said repeatedly.
And usually when I do, you disagree with me - so....welcome to the club.
I've never disagreed with you when you said several different approaches are needed because people are different and different things work for different people.
I disagree with you about just about everything else.
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »That's demonstrably not correct, most of the time. Most obese people in my life are hard working dedicated professionals, for whom the word "laziness" is about as incorrect description as you could find.
I definitely agree here. I also think it's pretty myopic to believe that people who are obese or who are unable to adhere to a given method are "lazy".
Could it be accurate for some people? Probably. But I wouldn't apply that to everyone.Calorie counting is a method that will 100% work 100% of the time if adhered to. But the reality is that most people find it difficult to adhere to. So Fishman is right - a better approach is needed.
I don't mean to be pedantic but I disagree with the bold.
There is a difference between someone who try there hardest to accomplish weight loss for example even if they failed or took them longer to do then someone putting in no effort hoping the world finds some way that you could take something and boom you are magically x amount of pounds down with no effort. You would not call the latter being lazy?
If you do things right, there is no "try" in weight loss, it happens naturally with very little effort.
Statistics show different. My personal experience shows way different. If it was easy then 9 times out of 10 this site would not exist.
0 -
Way too many pages of responses to bother with on a study that hasn't even been peer reviewed. But it is an interesting, though not exactly new, concept. And from the few blurbs I could find on the book, it's not really saying that calories don't matter for weight loss. It seems to be more saying that your gut microbes can throw off the 'calories in' side of the equation to the point that trying to count calories becomes useless.
But, I haven't read the book (is it even published yet?) and the media always adds it's own spin.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »That's demonstrably not correct, most of the time. Most obese people in my life are hard working dedicated professionals, for whom the word "laziness" is about as incorrect description as you could find.
I definitely agree here. I also think it's pretty myopic to believe that people who are obese or who are unable to adhere to a given method are "lazy".
Could it be accurate for some people? Probably. But I wouldn't apply that to everyone.Calorie counting is a method that will 100% work 100% of the time if adhered to. But the reality is that most people find it difficult to adhere to. So Fishman is right - a better approach is needed.
I don't mean to be pedantic but I disagree with the bold.
There is a difference between someone who try there hardest to accomplish weight loss for example even if they failed or took them longer to do then someone putting in no effort hoping the world finds some way that you could take something and boom you are magically x amount of pounds down with no effort. You would not call the latter being lazy?
If you do things right, there is no "try" in weight loss, it happens naturally with very little effort.
Statistics show different. My personal experience shows way different. If it was easy then 9 times out of 10 this site would not exist.
Or maybe it's just being done in away that makes it more difficult. Based on the current advice taken.
I was actually going to agree that some people are just doing in wrong. I can admit that past attempts at weight loss were done the wrong way.0 -
People seem willing to do far less pleasant things to lose weight... as long as they believe that it is only a temporary thing to do. If you say that the change has to be permanent then suddenly people lose interest. Even if I explain that it will only suck for a while but then when you get stronger and you can wear cute clothes it doesn't feel horrible working out any more, and once you know how to prepare high nutrient low cal foods with plenty of flavor that becomes easy too. It seems far less bad getting over the initial change than clanging down horrible, expensive "detox" drinks and fasting on only liquids for a week.0
-
DeguelloTex 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.
This.
But having an excuse that it's not their fault allows them to do so.
Even if you go along with what seems to be Mr. Knight's view--that we have no will, so no control in a real sense over how much we eat or exercise--it seems quite likely that the belief that you can change something will lead to circumstances in which you take those actions, whether they are in reality willed or not.0 -
I would also like to add to the topic.
It's funny how everyone is debating "calories" Very little mention of calories in the original posts. It talks about gut bacteria, not so much calories. As dicussed on my first post on this topic, due to the illness I had, I did a lot of research on the gut. It's probably the most critical thing for human health. It controls pretty much everything in the body, most hormones are the result or lack of food which is all controlled by the gut. T3,Gherlin,Insulin, GH,Leptin, etc... are all gut related. Eat food, many hormones go up, and some go down, fast, some hormones go up, and others go down. It all starts in the gut.
In regards to the calorie thing, people believe that it's all about calories. If this was true, then if people ate at lets say a 400 calorie deficit they should all experience the same amount of weight loss. WHich frankly isn't the case.
Insulin resistant and insulin sensitive people where put on a 400 calorie deficit diet. They tested Low Carb diets and high carb diets in both cases. The insulin resistant people lost most weight on a low carb diet compared to a high carb diet, the insulin sensitive people lost more weight on a high carb diets vs a low carb diet.
If calories where the only thing that matters, the results would be the same across the board, which they are not.
"Insulin-sensitive women on the HC/LF diet lost 13.5 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW, whereas those on the LC/HF diet lost 6.8 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001; p < 0.002 between the groups). In contrast, among the insulin-resistant women, those on the LC/HF diet lost 13.4 +/- 1.3% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 +/- 1.4% (p < 0.001) lost by those on the HC/LF diet (p < 0.04 between two groups). These differences could not be explained by changes in resting metabolic rate, activity, or intake. Overall, changes in Si were associated with the degree of weight loss (r = -0.57, p < 0.05)."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479
inulin resistance has what do with the original topic? Derailing again, I see..
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »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 think of laziness.
That's demonstrably not correct, most of the time. Most obese people in my life are hard working dedicated professionals, for whom the word "laziness" is about as incorrect description as you could find. That "laziness" is the word people jump to says more about the person using the word, frankly, than about the people being labelled as such.
That's not laziness, that's prioritization.
now we are back to playing word games again..
you can be a hard worker and then be lazy and not workout because you would rather sit on the couch after work.
People probably have a natural limit on how much difficult stuff or stressful stuff or stuff requiring will power they can make themselves do absent real necessity. So someone might choose to (or be in a situation where they feel they have to) use it up on one part of life (like work) vs. others.
Also, if you enjoy working out choosing to go do it requires less willpower (and can be consistent with laziness) than if you don't. That's one reason why I've generally been most successful when I find ways to be active that I perceive as recreational activity and, especially, when I can make them social in some sense or have friends who reinforce the activities.
If I blow off work on a Saturday to go for a bike ride, that's good for my health and weight, but doesn't necessarily make me less lazy.
(I don't deny that I have lazy tendencies, although I also work really hard at other times, but in a theoretical sense I think it's more complicated.)
However, I still don't buy that it's not subject to choice in some sense--that our chosen actions won't affect our weight. Of course they will, unless you just want to say all perceived choice is illusion, in which case none of this matters.0 -
So having read through this whole debacle I have a few thoughts.
First - while you can't escape the realities of creating a calorie deficit, it seems short-sighted, at best, to think that all those millions upon billions of creatures living in our intestines (lovely thought, huh) couldn't possibly have an impact on our health or weight. That said we really don't know *what* that impact might be, how it would work, or how best to "optimize" the number and type of bacteria in our intestines. Those who are jumping the gun and recommending specific diets to improve intestinal flora are charlatans.
Second - we may very well find that optimizing our intestinal bacteria has a significant impact on weight loss (be it due to improved satiety, improved digestion, reduced craving, whathaveyou). But that still seems pretty low on the totem poll. First and foremost a calorie deficit must be created - eating less, exercising more. Then I can see playing around with macros to find what works best for a given individual to allow them to maintain a deficit without feeling hungry - different macro ratios can dramatically impact satiety, but it is highly individual. Then a focus on micros - making sure your nutritional needs are adequately met - is warranted, not for weight loss so much as for optimal health and nutrition. Finally, AFTER one has done all of that, maybe looking towards ways of improving one's gut bugs could help. This article was basically putting the cart before the horse, trying to skip the (boring) work that needs to be done before one gets to put the icing on the cake (as it were).
As for "you can't outrun a bad diet", I'll go ahead and say that I can see both meanings - no amount of exercise will help you lose weight unless you are in a calorie deficit is obviously true. But I've also heard it stated in regards to nutrition, especially when talking about "skinny-fat" people. Yeah, you can exercise and be thin and in great shape, outwardly, but if you are eating mostly crap (the definition of which, right, wrong, or indifferent, varies from one person to the next, unfortunately), you may still be unhealthy (high cholesterol, high blood glucose, high BP, etc). Both sentiments are accurate. I'd love to see someone of a normal weight with good blood markers switch from a mostly "healthy" diet to one comprised of mostly "junk" (or vice versa) to see what would happen to their blood markers, holding their weight constant through the switch.
Oh, and call me a terrible person, but fat unicorns are hilarious!0 -
I would also like to add to the topic.
It's funny how everyone is debating "calories" Very little mention of calories in the original posts. It talks about gut bacteria, not so much calories. As dicussed on my first post on this topic, due to the illness I had, I did a lot of research on the gut. It's probably the most critical thing for human health. It controls pretty much everything in the body, most hormones are the result or lack of food which is all controlled by the gut. T3,Gherlin,Insulin, GH,Leptin, etc... are all gut related. Eat food, many hormones go up, and some go down, fast, some hormones go up, and others go down. It all starts in the gut.
In regards to the calorie thing, people believe that it's all about calories. If this was true, then if people ate at lets say a 400 calorie deficit they should all experience the same amount of weight loss. WHich frankly isn't the case.
Insulin resistant and insulin sensitive people where put on a 400 calorie deficit diet. They tested Low Carb diets and high carb diets in both cases. The insulin resistant people lost most weight on a low carb diet compared to a high carb diet, the insulin sensitive people lost more weight on a high carb diets vs a low carb diet.
If calories where the only thing that matters, the results would be the same across the board, which they are not.
"Insulin-sensitive women on the HC/LF diet lost 13.5 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW, whereas those on the LC/HF diet lost 6.8 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001; p < 0.002 between the groups). In contrast, among the insulin-resistant women, those on the LC/HF diet lost 13.4 +/- 1.3% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 +/- 1.4% (p < 0.001) lost by those on the HC/LF diet (p < 0.04 between two groups). These differences could not be explained by changes in resting metabolic rate, activity, or intake. Overall, changes in Si were associated with the degree of weight loss (r = -0.57, p < 0.05)."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479
inulin resistance has what do with the original topic? Derailing again, I see..
It's about calories (I am bring the focus back on to the topic, please don't derail threads)
ummm no, I don't recall OP mentioning insulin resistance anywhere in here OP ....0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions