Is Your Metabolism Working Against You? For those that have not seen this.
Replies
-
0 -
Then I would take the red pill and the blue pill at the same time and see what happened?
0 -
The caffeine just makes a lot of people feel better. A little boost can make a big difference in your workout experience imho. More pleasant to do, so you're more likely to keep at it. IDK about the whole "pulses" thing because I'm prediabetic and thus have to be really careful about how many carbs I eat at a time, and how many I eat in total as well. Those pulses are starchy which makes me have to limit them no matter how good they taste.
So I can't experiment with that as much as others might. I was told to eat whole grains because the glycemic index is lower and those things stay in your digestive system longer, keeping you feeling satisfied longer, not to mention fiber and regularity. IDK, have some of the pulses, have some whole grains. and of course good ol' protein. People are always writing books and looking to make "breakthroughs" and names for themselves but if you stick to certain nutritional guidelines, pretty much what your doctor will tell you to do, and mind your calories and work out, you'll improve your health overall. 0 -
Caffeine being a stimulant would help increase heart rate and provide a boost to physical activity. It's been used in diet pills for years because of that. That doesn't mean it has a large enough effect to be of practical effective use, and the dose where it would be a significant boost would probably be dangerous to people.
As for produce and whole foods vs processed foods, I'd wonder if sodium content isn't a factor and if they controlled for that. Honestly, I don't see anything in the OP's article's suggestions that is way off-base or magical, but they don't connect the dots between those suggestions and eating at a deficit to achieve weight loss.
Regarding the produce v processed foods the increase was with regard to DIT (or TEF) - thermogenic effect of food. The conclusions in the article are misleading imo (assuming I am not reading the study incorrectly) - the 50% difference was the postprandial amount of energy expenditure above BMR - not as the article implies - burning 50% more in total. The study was very limited - a single meal
And that is my issue with all of the points made - a lack of context given so that the impact is over-stated - or at least, people reading it will think that the impact is more significant than it actually is.
Using your comment re connecting the dots - the list of 'metabolism boosters' also does not seem to be connected to the initial discussion regarding diet induced thermogenesis.
The studies also seem to have some confirmation bias. For example, the green tea one - there are quite a few studies that show there to be no or minimal impact over and above just basis caffeine:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20725062
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19445822
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20372175
0 -
UltimateRBF wrote: »physioprof wrote: »LOL...okay, random person on the internet. I concede that you know more than those of us with advanced degrees and research experience in human metabolism. You win! It's all a myth we perpetuate just to mess with folks. I'm eagerly awaiting your next manuscript.
Ooh, look kids, this logical fallacy is called "the appeal to authority".
Ah, so now everyone's opinions are equally valid regardless of area of expertise? Great, I'll just bring my car to my neighbor next time the Check Engine light comes on. Can you go ahead a prescribe me something for allergies? Also, I need someone to administer some vaccination boosters to my dog. So if you have a minute...then I wouldn't need to go to a vet.
0 -
Wow...that was some edit!!0
-
I totally missed something, didn't I? big ol edit? Green tea = caffeine, guarana, all that stuff, same deal.... it just gives you a little boost so you feel more energetic for your workout. I guess I'm accustomed to articles, books, etc overstating the value of certain foods or nutritional elements. I feel like the idea of balance is ultimately going to do the most good for the most people. Right now many ppl's diets are way, way out of balance with their needs and folks don't even know where to start. Sometimes I wonder if the book and article publishers are trying to make it easy so that people can stick to the program and not give up, and so they oversimplify things, or if they are just out to make money by claiming something "new" that totally isn't new and by making mountains out of molehills nutritionally. I tend to do the eyeroll about foods that are claimed as "metabolism boosters." That just ain't right. Those foods may be nutrient rich but it's not like they're going to do the workout for you. :P0
-
-
This content has been removed.
-
Wow...that was some edit!!
50% reduction in snark.
It's important to be critical, but some of this is just ridiculous. At least you posted some articles.
The thing is, the main points of the article --drink more water, choose less processed foods with more fiber, ingest caffeine--that's all sound advice. Multiple studies have been done in rodents using processed versus standard chow with a variety of macronutrient ratios, and the processed diets are more obesogenic. Obviously processing the food--I mean mechanically and chemically to make it more digestible--reduced the TEF. Applying it to humans, it's really about activating satiety centers by way of distension and chemical signals, hence increasing the volume of food without increasing caloric density, and providing things like fiber and protein. Caffeine is a stimulant, and just because EGCG is only *as* effective as caffeine doesn't make it *ineffective*. If you read the analysis on these articles, the authors plainly state that these effects need to be cumulative, which is what I stated above. One dose isn't going to do anything. But repeated bouts--just like exercise--can have an additive effect.0 -
0
-
physioprof wrote: »Wow...that was some edit!!
50% reduction in snark.
It's important to be critical, but some of this is just ridiculous. At least you posted some articles.
The thing is, the main points of the article --drink more water, choose less processed foods with more fiber, ingest caffeine--that's all sound advice. Multiple studies have been done in rodents using processed versus standard chow with a variety of macronutrient ratios, and the processed diets are more obesogenic. Obviously processing the food--I mean mechanically and chemically to make it more digestible--reduced the TEF. Applying it to humans, it's really about activating satiety centers by way of distension and chemical signals, hence increasing the volume of food without increasing caloric density, and providing things like fiber and protein. Caffeine is a stimulant, and just because EGCG is only *as* effective as caffeine doesn't make it *ineffective*. If you read the analysis on these articles, the authors plainly state that these effects need to be cumulative, which is what I stated above. One dose isn't going to do anything. But repeated bouts--just like exercise--can have an additive effect.
I do not have an issue with most of the points (the green tea one is dubious), it's the weight the article implies that irritates me. It makes no mention of other significant factors - exercise being one.
I totally agree with the caffeine comment, which is why I did not call that one out - however, the article noted that EGCG was more effective than caffeine - and there are studies that indicate it is not.
While I agree with the fact that increasing volume can increase satiety, that is not the topic of the article.
Could you link the studies you note - I would be interesting in having a look.
My other issue is - as the effects are basically overstated in the way that the article is written, people could focus on these, at the detrimental effect of things that are more helpful - adherence and sustainability. It's focusing on the 1% when most people should focus on the 99%.
ETA: I did not read the article the same way as you obviously - I did not see them 'plainly state' that the 'effects' need to be cumulative. It just seemed like the usual article with links all over the place to other articles from the same author. However, at least the studies the author referred to were linked.0 -
I totally missed something, didn't I? big ol edit? Green tea = caffeine, guarana, all that stuff, same deal.... it just gives you a little boost so you feel more energetic for your workout. I guess I'm accustomed to articles, books, etc overstating the value of certain foods or nutritional elements. I feel like the idea of balance is ultimately going to do the most good for the most people. Right now many ppl's diets are way, way out of balance with their needs and folks don't even know where to start. Sometimes I wonder if the book and article publishers are trying to make it easy so that people can stick to the program and not give up, and so they oversimplify things, or if they are just out to make money by claiming something "new" that totally isn't new and by making mountains out of molehills nutritionally. I tend to do the eyeroll about foods that are claimed as "metabolism boosters." That just ain't right. Those foods may be nutrient rich but it's not like they're going to do the workout for you. :P
Caffeine has been shown to boost your metabolism outside exercise. However, the direct effect is minor. The biggest impact is the one you mention - the increased energy and therefore better workouts, which in turn increases your TDEE.0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »
lol...it was more a comment about the post being totally rewritten - normally posts are edited to fix grammar or reduce snark, but the meat stays the same.0 -
physioprof wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »physioprof wrote: »LOL...okay, random person on the internet. I concede that you know more than those of us with advanced degrees and research experience in human metabolism. You win! It's all a myth we perpetuate just to mess with folks. I'm eagerly awaiting your next manuscript.
Ooh, look kids, this logical fallacy is called "the appeal to authority".
Ah, so now everyone's opinions are equally valid regardless of area of expertise? Great, I'll just bring my car to my neighbor next time the Check Engine light comes on. Can you go ahead a prescribe me something for allergies? Also, I need someone to administer some vaccination boosters to my dog. So if you have a minute...then I wouldn't need to go to a vet.
The point... you're completely missing it.
You're dismissing mamapeach as some random person on the Internet, but guess what? That's all you are. And it isn't like anyone has ever misrepresented themselves or information on the Internet. /sarcasm
Also, the ability to read and interpret studies doesn't require official fancy book learnin'. So, you're just coming off as a pompous know-it-all stranger on a message board.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
physioprof wrote: »
Wish I'd seen it, as now I don't know if it was aimed at me.The thing is, the main points of the article --drink more water, choose less processed foods with more fiber, ingest caffeine--that's all sound advice.
You are missing the point. If the reasons given are false or misleading, that's incredibly important. I think eating veggies is great, but telling people (hypothetically) that it will double their metabolism or burn fat or that they can't lose weight without doing so are all lies, and the fact that eating veggies is good for other reasons (nutrition, fiber, satiation in many) does NOT justify the lie.
That's why merely saying it's not bad advice doesn't justify a claim that doing certain things speeds up metabolism. The question is whether it speeds up metabolism, and so far I'm not seeing actual evidence that any of these things do (as discussed in my post and with the exception of caffeine for a time). (Varying TEF is somewhat different an an effect on metabolism in my mind, although a real thing, also as discussed in my post.)
Also, there are serious limits on how much "drink more caffeine" is good advice.
0 -
Sometimes I wonder if the book and article publishers are trying to make it easy so that people can stick to the program and not give up, and so they oversimplify things, or if they are just out to make money by claiming something "new" that totally isn't new and by making mountains out of molehills nutritionally. I tend to do the eyeroll about foods that are claimed as "metabolism boosters." That just ain't right. Those foods may be nutrient rich but it's not like they're going to do the workout for you. :P
I'm in a cynical mood, perhaps, but I think the making money/mountains out of molehills point is the right one, or why claim something that's beyond what's actually true. Nutrition is really just common sense and not nearly so complicated as people like to try to make it, and I think most people already know what they should do. Eating a balanced meal with some protein and veggies and don't eat too much, especially not of low nutrient foods, is simply way more boring than "eat these 5 super foods with magic properties!" Between the threads from people scared of fruit or convinced they must cut out stuff because they watched some dumb documentary and the one worried she must drink Shakeology I've about lost patience with all this garbage.0 -
Okay, so tell us your credentials and why you're so much better than everyone else.physioprof wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »physioprof wrote: »LOL...okay, random person on the internet. I concede that you know more than those of us with advanced degrees and research experience in human metabolism. You win! It's all a myth we perpetuate just to mess with folks. I'm eagerly awaiting your next manuscript.
Ooh, look kids, this logical fallacy is called "the appeal to authority".
Ah, so now everyone's opinions are equally valid regardless of area of expertise? Great, I'll just bring my car to my neighbor next time the Check Engine light comes on. Can you go ahead a prescribe me something for allergies? Also, I need someone to administer some vaccination boosters to my dog. So if you have a minute...then I wouldn't need to go to a vet.Wow...that was some edit!!
Damn, I missed it.
It appears someone doesn't know what the flag feature is for.
Isn't it for you to collect more stars for your chart?? I wonder what the reward is when it's full...
(I haven't had a new flag in ages ) 0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »physioprof wrote: »
Wish I'd seen it, as now I don't know if it was aimed at me.
Not aimed at you
0 -
green tea is being looked at for reasons other than caffeine (ie polyphenols)
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/129.abstract
http://www.jissn.com/content/12/1/1
there's some evidence for all those recommendations, i don't know why everyone here freaks out whenever someone suggests eating more vegetables.
with that said, taking all that advice on board at once is going to make at least some people gastrically uncomfortable.0 -
green tea is being looked at for reasons other than caffeine (ie polyphenols)
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/129.abstract
http://www.jissn.com/content/12/1/1
there's some evidence for all those recommendations, i don't know why everyone here freaks out whenever someone suggests eating more vegetables.
with that said, taking all that advice on board at once is going to make at least some people gastrically uncomfortable.
Like others said, eating more vegetables is great, but the reasoning the article gave for eating said vegetables was misinformation.0 -
green tea is being looked at for reasons other than caffeine (ie polyphenols)
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/129.abstract
http://www.jissn.com/content/12/1/1
there's some evidence for all those recommendations, i don't know why everyone here freaks out whenever someone suggests eating more vegetables.
with that said, taking all that advice on board at once is going to make at least some people gastrically uncomfortable.
No one is freaking out with a suggestion to eat more vegetables - if they have I missed it - could you point me to all these posts?.
Re green tea: there is also some evidence for not bothering with them. The second study linked did not have a caffeine control. One of the ones I linked did. The first one links to an abstract that does not give much details, but does conclude "However, to date, evidence from human studies to support these adaptations is lacking. Clearly, more studies have to be performed to elucidate the effects of GTE on fat metabolism as well as improve our understanding of the underlying mechanisms."
My point being - it seems to be given a lot of weight in the article for some not very well supported or clear/meaningful benefits.
I am not saying not to use it - its not exactly a bother (unless you do not like it) or spendy - but lets not give it too much weight on affecting your metabolism.0 -
galgenstrick wrote: »green tea is being looked at for reasons other than caffeine (ie polyphenols)
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/129.abstract
http://www.jissn.com/content/12/1/1
there's some evidence for all those recommendations, i don't know why everyone here freaks out whenever someone suggests eating more vegetables.
with that said, taking all that advice on board at once is going to make at least some people gastrically uncomfortable.
Like others said, eating more vegetables is great, but the reasoning the article gave for eating said vegetables was misinformation.
What misinformation? It's not like nutrition's a settled science. There is evidence for some things, other evidence against, hopefully over time it'll work itself out. The author alluded to particular studies. She didn't cite them because (annoyingly) it's not the convention in magazine writing (though that would have been better, of course).0 -
This content has been removed.
-
green tea is being looked at for reasons other than caffeine (ie polyphenols)
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/129.abstract
http://www.jissn.com/content/12/1/1
there's some evidence for all those recommendations, i don't know why everyone here freaks out whenever someone suggests eating more vegetables.
with that said, taking all that advice on board at once is going to make at least some people gastrically uncomfortable.
No one is freaking out with a suggestion to eat more vegetables - if they have I missed it - could you point me to all these posts?.
Re green tea: there is also some evidence for not bothering with them. The second study linked did not have a caffeine control. One of the ones I linked did. The first one links to an abstract that does not give much details, but does conclude "However, to date, evidence from human studies to support these adaptations is lacking. Clearly, more studies have to be performed to elucidate the effects of GTE on fat metabolism as well as improve our understanding of the underlying mechanisms."
My point being - it seems to be given a lot of weight in the article for some not very well supported or clear/meaningful benefits.
I am not saying not to use it - its not exactly a bother (unless you do not like it) or spendy - but lets not give it too much weight on affecting your metabolism.
I just meant the culture of the forum in general is inclined to veggie freakouts. Very often, suggesting attending to nutrition is met with derision.
Green tea: yeah, I don't think anything's definitive on that yet, but there's been a lot of work so far. I've also read though (can't find the study, might be the same one the author used) that the minimum amount that made a difference was 5 cups a day. I don't know who's going to go for it, but hey, if they're up for it, why not.
Yeah these kinds of articles do tend to make firm recommendations based on on one or two studies per point, that's just what health magazines do. Still, it's not like she's promoting anything actively harmful. On the contrary0 -
Haha. I meant health "websites". Forgot what year it was, lol
But this is a whole subgenre of popular health writing, got to take it for what it is.0 -
green tea is being looked at for reasons other than caffeine (ie polyphenols)
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/129.abstract
http://www.jissn.com/content/12/1/1
there's some evidence for all those recommendations, i don't know why everyone here freaks out whenever someone suggests eating more vegetables.
with that said, taking all that advice on board at once is going to make at least some people gastrically uncomfortable.
No one is freaking out with a suggestion to eat more vegetables - if they have I missed it - could you point me to all these posts?.
Re green tea: there is also some evidence for not bothering with them. The second study linked did not have a caffeine control. One of the ones I linked did. The first one links to an abstract that does not give much details, but does conclude "However, to date, evidence from human studies to support these adaptations is lacking. Clearly, more studies have to be performed to elucidate the effects of GTE on fat metabolism as well as improve our understanding of the underlying mechanisms."
My point being - it seems to be given a lot of weight in the article for some not very well supported or clear/meaningful benefits.
I am not saying not to use it - its not exactly a bother (unless you do not like it) or spendy - but lets not give it too much weight on affecting your metabolism.
I just meant the culture of the forum in general is inclined to veggie freakouts. Very often, suggesting attending to nutrition is met with derision.
Green tea: yeah, I don't think anything's definitive on that yet, but there's been a lot of work so far. I've also read though (can't find the study, might be the same one the author used) that the minimum amount that made a difference was 5 cups a day. I don't know who's going to go for it, but hey, if they're up for it, why not.
Yeah these kinds of articles do tend to make firm recommendations based on on one or two studies per point, that's just what health magazines do. Still, it's not like she's promoting anything actively harmful. On the contrary
No I don't get that vibe
What I get is kickback against the pervasive you must eat ONLY these types of foods and must NEVER eat these things. And the inevitable ridiculousness of the strawman " live on Twinkies only" diet vs "eat your vegetables"
When people spout crap and rules about "good nutrition" and incorporate their sugar is debil, carbs are bad and only whole foods rules they deserve to have the truth pointed out to them
The truth being that others have found a way that ensures good nutrition and no food demonisation
I actual think the "harm" is in the psychological build up of every journalistic story, diet book and plan being around the edges of weight loss with marginal impact. Making people ignore the big fundamentals in favour of the minutiae which may, or may not, have adequate scientific backing
So I'm grateful for every single MFPer who has made me realise that when one gets the CICO and macros right, looks to the micros and ensures adequate overall nutrition...the outskirts are totally up to you and if you choose to focus on boosting / supplementing / miracle fooding rather than ice cream and crisps then that's your decision.0 -
green tea is being looked at for reasons other than caffeine (ie polyphenols)
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/129.abstract
http://www.jissn.com/content/12/1/1
there's some evidence for all those recommendations, i don't know why everyone here freaks out whenever someone suggests eating more vegetables.
with that said, taking all that advice on board at once is going to make at least some people gastrically uncomfortable.
No one is freaking out with a suggestion to eat more vegetables - if they have I missed it - could you point me to all these posts?.
Re green tea: there is also some evidence for not bothering with them. The second study linked did not have a caffeine control. One of the ones I linked did. The first one links to an abstract that does not give much details, but does conclude "However, to date, evidence from human studies to support these adaptations is lacking. Clearly, more studies have to be performed to elucidate the effects of GTE on fat metabolism as well as improve our understanding of the underlying mechanisms."
My point being - it seems to be given a lot of weight in the article for some not very well supported or clear/meaningful benefits.
I am not saying not to use it - its not exactly a bother (unless you do not like it) or spendy - but lets not give it too much weight on affecting your metabolism.
I just meant the culture of the forum in general is inclined to veggie freakouts. Very often, suggesting attending to nutrition is met with derision.
Green tea: yeah, I don't think anything's definitive on that yet, but there's been a lot of work so far. I've also read though (can't find the study, might be the same one the author used) that the minimum amount that made a difference was 5 cups a day. I don't know who's going to go for it, but hey, if they're up for it, why not.
Yeah these kinds of articles do tend to make firm recommendations based on on one or two studies per point, that's just what health magazines do. Still, it's not like she's promoting anything actively harmful. On the contrary
Perhaps you should make it clear you are referring to the forums and not the thread specifically, however, that being said, I have not seen these posts you refer to. I have seen a lot of posts that point out that you do not have to eat nutritionally dense foods all the time - that 'treats' are fine in moderation.
My issue with the article, is that while there is nothing directly harmful, misinformation (either by way of false facts or implying greater importance) can actually detrimental to someone as a whole. Just because an article is not promoting something actively harmful does not mean its a good or necessarily beneficial.0 -
This content has been removed.
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