article: "5 really simple new rules for weight loss"
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »The key term here is "long term". While counting calories works well for weight loss, that doesn't mean it works well for long term maintenance. Realistically, I don't see myself logging everything I eat for the rest of my life, so either I'm going to do something else, or I'll gain weight
That's making the assumption that just because you have success with counting and logging calories with an app like this the no one will have success with now being aware of the calories and macros in foods without having to track day in and day out. There are people that do have continued success.
I don't know what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could edit for grammar, so we all know what you are trying to say.mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »The key term here is "long term". While counting calories works well for weight loss, that doesn't mean it works well for long term maintenance. Realistically, I don't see myself logging everything I eat for the rest of my life, so either I'm going to do something else, or I'll gain weight
FOR YOU. Again, generalizing doesn't work.
There's no one solution. For some people, continued counting/logging works very well.
I've got no problem with that. I'm just pointing out that not everyone is going to count calories for the rest of their lives, so we shouldn't discount what the article says, just because some of the MFP community think they will count calories from now on. Not everyone is like you.
But the study has NOTHING to do with calorie counting.
I wouldn't know, since I haven't seen the study, but Dr. Mozaffarian, who authored the study seems to think it did. I tend to think the people who did a study are more likely to know what they did than someone who has just read their work.
Wait, you are arguing about a study you haven't read or seen - because the senior investigator said something something?
You are aware that he isn't the primary investigator? That he didn't do the research, or the analysis? That at best he funded, review the work and set guidelines?
That the comment he made is nowhere to be seen in the publication?
The comment he made in the article is one that interprets what he believes the study indicates, along with some other studies, which he didn't name, so we have no way of knowing which ones he had in mind. I'm not ready to say he is wrong without additional information, but some of the comments in this thread indicate that some people want to say he is wrong, pretty much because it doesn't match what they believe to be true and because they don't like the guy. I think that what we have to consider is that beyond the short period when they are trying to lose weight, it is very hard for some people to remain vigilant in their weight management efforts. Does the study in question have anything to do with that problem? I don't know, but I do see counting calories as something that not everyone will continue long term. So, counting calories is probably not the ideal solution to the obesity problem.
So you are accusing people of having bias based on your self-reported unsupported bias. Ok.
Here is a thought - there is no 'ideal solution' to the 'obesity problem'. There are a bunch of different tools and approaches, some work for some people some of the time. Anyone stating x doesn't work fails to see that actually x (whatever x maybe) works for some people.
The obesity problem that I was referring to is the fact that 78 million American adults and I don't know how many world wide are obese. Most of these people either have no desire to lose weight or are unsuccessful.
Yes. We can work with that definition. A bunch of people all over the world are obese and may not want to lose or are unsuccessful. What does he say about that? Not much since he's looking at preventive behavior.
He actually states that calorie counting "will work" - and for those that don't count or in the absence of calorie control "low carb" is a better strategy than "low fat".
It's interesting to note that the glycemic index stuff shows results of what type improvement? 1/2lb to 1lb change per YEAR for 50 units of difference in Glycemic Load (in other words the difference between the top 20% and bottom 20% population.
All this noise about 1 lb a year by avoiding (maybe) a bunch of foods like potatoes. Much ado about nothing.
The video presentation is very interesting worth listening to and stopping to look at the data here and there.
Also, focusing on GL ignores obvious correlations which may have more relevance.
Do people who eat lots of potatoes tend to gain weight because potatoes have high GL and so they get you to eat more or some such? Or if we look more carefully will we see that a large portion of those eating lots of potatoes also don't eat non-starchy vegetables and that a large portion of those people tend to eat most of their potatoes in chip or french fry form? If you focus on other sorts of potatoes, the correlation with gaining weight mostly goes away.
Apparently not - the correlation seemed to remain. Remember this is observational - causality is going to be very open to interpretation. I'm not taking that leap.
The stats I saw before indicated that most of it went away, but I need to hunt them down again, I guess.
I understand you aren't taking the leap; I'm just arguing against some of the common leaps as unsupported.But that isn't the conclusion the researchers are making. They are basically saying - replace "eat less, move more" with "eat less, eat better, move more" and look at preventive measures such as less processed (in terms of higher fiber, lower GI), lower carb might influence CICO as a preventive element rather than focus only on total cals, low fat, no added sugar or eat anything but in moderation. I have to say it's close to my bias of "eat variety, high in local produce - including high veg/fruits".
Yes, and I don't have a problem with this. I have a problem with the way the study is prevented in the news media.
Well, I also do have a problem with the focus on GL as I don't think it's likely to add much to the traditional advice of eat veggies, enough protein, whole grain where possible, etc. Is the benefit of this really because of GL? I am skeptical, and I think GL makes it more complicated and results in people doing dumb things like cutting out roasted potatoes as a "white food" or freaking out about the dangers of fruit.
But anyway I should watch the video you summarized that was linked.
I completely agree with the risks you online with regards to dumbing down things.
I do not think that focusing on GL is a good thing.
One of the articles mentioned in the video deserves its own thread:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10171712/diet-quality-macros-may-affect-metabolism-during-weight-loss?new=10 -
TimothyFish wrote: »The key term here is "long term". While counting calories works well for weight loss, that doesn't mean it works well for long term maintenance. Realistically, I don't see myself logging everything I eat for the rest of my life, so either I'm going to do something else, or I'll gain weight
True.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »The key term here is "long term". While counting calories works well for weight loss, that doesn't mean it works well for long term maintenance. Realistically, I don't see myself logging everything I eat for the rest of my life, so either I'm going to do something else, or I'll gain weight
Logging is great for now, maybe even for the next year or so, but I sure as heck don't see myself doing it until I croak of old age. I don't believe for one second that just because I stop logging and counting calories I'm just going to eat all the foods and become obese. Some of us forget that there are millions of people out there that have never heard of MFP or thought of counting calories who are fit and healthy and balanced.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »The key term here is "long term". While counting calories works well for weight loss, that doesn't mean it works well for long term maintenance. Realistically, I don't see myself logging everything I eat for the rest of my life, so either I'm going to do something else, or I'll gain weight
Logging is great for now, maybe even for the next year or so, but I sure as heck don't see myself doing it until I croak of old age. I don't believe for one second that just because I stop logging and counting calories I'm just going to eat all the foods and become obese. Some of us forget that there are millions of people out there that have never heard of MFP or thought of counting calories who are fit and healthy and balanced.
For me, counting calories for a period of time calibrates my brain on portion control. So I could stop counting calories during maintainance and still maintain. If I start slipping, then it's time to count again. That said, if you count and know exactly how many calories you're eating along with macros, you can reach your goals much much faster.
There are definitely people that are in great shape that have never heard of MFP, a lot of the athletes before MFP or who don't use MFP will stick to a meal plan and eat the same thing every day, essentially counting calories. Others stick to restrictive diets; the primal blueprint for example, which focus on low calorie density foods, so essentially regulating calories.
Whatever you end up doing, you need to regulate how much energy you put in your body, be it from MFP, some fad diet, or from portion control. CICO applies to everyone.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
TimothyFish wrote: »tekkiechikk wrote: »For some of us, counting calories is the only guarantee for success. It's like saying 'Don't worry about whether or not you have enough money in your checking account; if you think you do then just spend freely until you think you've maxed out your debit card.' What could possibly go wrong with that kind of thinking, right?
That only works if you're living paycheck to paycheck. For people with a savings in their bank account, they aren't going to spend until they max out their debit card and they have a better idea of the impact of an individual purchase. Another approach relies on the fact that we are creatures of habit. As long as we have enough money in the bank account to handle fluctuations, it isn't necessary to track each purchase, because we tend to spend about the same amount each month and as long as it is less than we average bringing in, there won't be an overdraft.
What?
Sometimes I wonder if you live in the same reality the rest of us do, with the assumptions you make about other people and what they do.
We have savings. We track everything. We are creatures of habit, but life happens. Our expenses vary.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »The key term here is "long term". While counting calories works well for weight loss, that doesn't mean it works well for long term maintenance. Realistically, I don't see myself logging everything I eat for the rest of my life, so either I'm going to do something else, or I'll gain weight
That's making the assumption that just because you have success with counting and logging calories with an app like this the no one will have success with now being aware of the calories and macros in foods without having to track day in and day out. There are people that do have continued success.
I don't know what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could edit for grammar, so we all know what you are trying to say.mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »The key term here is "long term". While counting calories works well for weight loss, that doesn't mean it works well for long term maintenance. Realistically, I don't see myself logging everything I eat for the rest of my life, so either I'm going to do something else, or I'll gain weight
FOR YOU. Again, generalizing doesn't work.
There's no one solution. For some people, continued counting/logging works very well.
I've got no problem with that. I'm just pointing out that not everyone is going to count calories for the rest of their lives, so we shouldn't discount what the article says, just because some of the MFP community think they will count calories from now on. Not everyone is like you.
No, I'm not discounting what the article has to say because it's an alternative to calorie counting.
<snip>
For some people, sure, eating in a certain way will probably give them a good way to achieve energy balance. But it's NOT, as the article asserted, THE answer.
There is no "THE" answer.
I believe there is. The "THE" answer is CICO. However, there is no EASY answer because, although brilliantly effective, counting calories for the rest of your life requires effort and commitment.
The easy answer will only come when a miracle pill is finally invented that only allows a certain # of calories to be absorbed each day, regardless of what you eat. Oh, and also has no side effects.
Now *that* would be easy.
I'm sure your miracle pill would make people in the wealthy countries very happy, but it would have a detrimental effect on the world's food supply. If we all weren't so wealthy, we would be concerned about where our next meal would come from, so the ideal situation would be for us to be able to do more with less food. Wealth has caused us to think that what we need is a way we can eat as much as we like.
This might be the silliest thing I have heard in a long time.
So explain how someone who experiences poverty also experiences obesity. There are very inexpensive ways to eat at a calorie surplus.
Additionally the idea that there is global hunger and that it has anything to do with the wealthy eating more of their share instead of it being a systemic problem of lack of access is absolutely preposterous. If a wealthy person eats less that does not equal out to more food in the mouth of an impoverished person.
What you have to realize is that we have a skewed sense of poverty. In wealthy countries, many of the people in poverty own automobiles and televisions, and they can afford to take their families to a fast food restaurant at least once a week. In much of the world, poverty doesn't look like that. In much of the world, if a person has a bowl of rice, he's doing good. Transportation isn't going out and climbing into the family's SUV, but climbing into the back of a pickup owned by someone wealthier than you, or riding a rusty bicycle, or just walking. If poverty in wealthy countries looked anything like poverty in the rest of the world, we wouldn't see much obesity among the impoverished.
Can you imagine what would happen if 313 million Americans could eat two or three times what they do now without gaining weight? About half of what American farmers grow is exported. Those exports would end to satisfy the lusts of Americans.
I don't believe how western countries eat has anything to do with poverty in the rest of the world...that is due to incompetent government, corruption, and terrible policies in those countries. However, I DO agree with you that we do not have poverty in the US like they have in other parts of the world. Here, poor people have food stamps and other public assistance as well as soup kitchens, food banks, etc. That's part of why so many American poor are obese. This is not true in most of the world.
I have traveled to many developing countries...and very poor people in most of the world are absolutely NOT obese. They are stick thin, clearly underweight in many cases, and many of them are sleeping on the streets. This is true of many places I've been...like India and much of non-developed Asia. You haven't seen real poverty until you've been to India or some place like it. The American poor do have struggles, but they are much better off than the poor in the developing world.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »The key term here is "long term". While counting calories works well for weight loss, that doesn't mean it works well for long term maintenance. Realistically, I don't see myself logging everything I eat for the rest of my life, so either I'm going to do something else, or I'll gain weight
That's making the assumption that just because you have success with counting and logging calories with an app like this the no one will have success with now being aware of the calories and macros in foods without having to track day in and day out. There are people that do have continued success.
I don't know what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could edit for grammar, so we all know what you are trying to say.mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »The key term here is "long term". While counting calories works well for weight loss, that doesn't mean it works well for long term maintenance. Realistically, I don't see myself logging everything I eat for the rest of my life, so either I'm going to do something else, or I'll gain weight
FOR YOU. Again, generalizing doesn't work.
There's no one solution. For some people, continued counting/logging works very well.
I've got no problem with that. I'm just pointing out that not everyone is going to count calories for the rest of their lives, so we shouldn't discount what the article says, just because some of the MFP community think they will count calories from now on. Not everyone is like you.
No, I'm not discounting what the article has to say because it's an alternative to calorie counting.
<snip>
For some people, sure, eating in a certain way will probably give them a good way to achieve energy balance. But it's NOT, as the article asserted, THE answer.
There is no "THE" answer.
I believe there is. The "THE" answer is CICO. However, there is no EASY answer because, although brilliantly effective, counting calories for the rest of your life requires effort and commitment.
The easy answer will only come when a miracle pill is finally invented that only allows a certain # of calories to be absorbed each day, regardless of what you eat. Oh, and also has no side effects.
Now *that* would be easy.
I'm sure your miracle pill would make people in the wealthy countries very happy, but it would have a detrimental effect on the world's food supply. If we all weren't so wealthy, we would be concerned about where our next meal would come from, so the ideal situation would be for us to be able to do more with less food. Wealth has caused us to think that what we need is a way we can eat as much as we like.
This might be the silliest thing I have heard in a long time.
So explain how someone who experiences poverty also experiences obesity. There are very inexpensive ways to eat at a calorie surplus.
Additionally the idea that there is global hunger and that it has anything to do with the wealthy eating more of their share instead of it being a systemic problem of lack of access is absolutely preposterous. If a wealthy person eats less that does not equal out to more food in the mouth of an impoverished person.
What you have to realize is that we have a skewed sense of poverty. In wealthy countries, many of the people in poverty own automobiles and televisions, and they can afford to take their families to a fast food restaurant at least once a week. In much of the world, poverty doesn't look like that. In much of the world, if a person has a bowl of rice, he's doing good. Transportation isn't going out and climbing into the family's SUV, but climbing into the back of a pickup owned by someone wealthier than you, or riding a rusty bicycle, or just walking. If poverty in wealthy countries looked anything like poverty in the rest of the world, we wouldn't see much obesity among the impoverished.
Can you imagine what would happen if 313 million Americans could eat two or three times what they do now without gaining weight? About half of what American farmers grow is exported. Those exports would end to satisfy the lusts of Americans.
I don't believe how western countries eat has anything to do with poverty in the rest of the world...that is due to incompetent government, corruption, and terrible policies in those countries. However, I DO agree with you that we do not have poverty in the US like they have in other parts of the world. Here, poor people have food stamps and other public assistance as well as soup kitchens, food banks, etc. That's part of why so many American poor are obese. This is not true in most of the world.
I have traveled to many developing countries...and very poor people in most of the world are absolutely NOT obese. They are stick thin, clearly underweight in many cases, and many of them are sleeping on the streets. This is true of many places I've been...like India and much of non-developed Asia. You haven't seen real poverty until you've been to India or some place like it. The American poor do have struggles, but they are much better off than the poor in the developing world.
Not poverty, food supply.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
TimothyFish wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »The key term here is "long term". While counting calories works well for weight loss, that doesn't mean it works well for long term maintenance. Realistically, I don't see myself logging everything I eat for the rest of my life, so either I'm going to do something else, or I'll gain weight
That's making the assumption that just because you have success with counting and logging calories with an app like this the no one will have success with now being aware of the calories and macros in foods without having to track day in and day out. There are people that do have continued success.
I don't know what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could edit for grammar, so we all know what you are trying to say.mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »The key term here is "long term". While counting calories works well for weight loss, that doesn't mean it works well for long term maintenance. Realistically, I don't see myself logging everything I eat for the rest of my life, so either I'm going to do something else, or I'll gain weight
FOR YOU. Again, generalizing doesn't work.
There's no one solution. For some people, continued counting/logging works very well.
I've got no problem with that. I'm just pointing out that not everyone is going to count calories for the rest of their lives, so we shouldn't discount what the article says, just because some of the MFP community think they will count calories from now on. Not everyone is like you.
No, I'm not discounting what the article has to say because it's an alternative to calorie counting.
<snip>
For some people, sure, eating in a certain way will probably give them a good way to achieve energy balance. But it's NOT, as the article asserted, THE answer.
There is no "THE" answer.
I believe there is. The "THE" answer is CICO. However, there is no EASY answer because, although brilliantly effective, counting calories for the rest of your life requires effort and commitment.
The easy answer will only come when a miracle pill is finally invented that only allows a certain # of calories to be absorbed each day, regardless of what you eat. Oh, and also has no side effects.
Now *that* would be easy.
I'm sure your miracle pill would make people in the wealthy countries very happy, but it would have a detrimental effect on the world's food supply. If we all weren't so wealthy, we would be concerned about where our next meal would come from, so the ideal situation would be for us to be able to do more with less food. Wealth has caused us to think that what we need is a way we can eat as much as we like.
This might be the silliest thing I have heard in a long time.
So explain how someone who experiences poverty also experiences obesity. There are very inexpensive ways to eat at a calorie surplus.
Additionally the idea that there is global hunger and that it has anything to do with the wealthy eating more of their share instead of it being a systemic problem of lack of access is absolutely preposterous. If a wealthy person eats less that does not equal out to more food in the mouth of an impoverished person.
What you have to realize is that we have a skewed sense of poverty. In wealthy countries, many of the people in poverty own automobiles and televisions, and they can afford to take their families to a fast food restaurant at least once a week. In much of the world, poverty doesn't look like that. In much of the world, if a person has a bowl of rice, he's doing good. Transportation isn't going out and climbing into the family's SUV, but climbing into the back of a pickup owned by someone wealthier than you, or riding a rusty bicycle, or just walking. If poverty in wealthy countries looked anything like poverty in the rest of the world, we wouldn't see much obesity among the impoverished.
Can you imagine what would happen if 313 million Americans could eat two or three times what they do now without gaining weight? About half of what American farmers grow is exported. Those exports would end to satisfy the lusts of Americans.
I don't believe how western countries eat has anything to do with poverty in the rest of the world...that is due to incompetent government, corruption, and terrible policies in those countries. However, I DO agree with you that we do not have poverty in the US like they have in other parts of the world. Here, poor people have food stamps and other public assistance as well as soup kitchens, food banks, etc. That's part of why so many American poor are obese. This is not true in most of the world.
I have traveled to many developing countries...and very poor people in most of the world are absolutely NOT obese. They are stick thin, clearly underweight in many cases, and many of them are sleeping on the streets. This is true of many places I've been...like India and much of non-developed Asia. You haven't seen real poverty until you've been to India or some place like it. The American poor do have struggles, but they are much better off than the poor in the developing world.
Not poverty, food supply.
I don't believe global food supply is impacted by how much Americans eat. Do you realize that the US government actually pays farmers to NOT grow crops in some cases? We have more than enough ability to grow all the food we need and export plenty to other countries. The only reason we don't is because of screwed up agricultural policies.0 -
galgenstrick wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »Since being on MFP and counting calories, and counting exercise, I have lot 18 pounds. Doesn't seem like a lot, about a pound a week, but prior, I had lost another 9 pounds. It's going slowly, but it's going. I find that personally, when I stop exercising, that my weight doesn't budge, as though exercise fuels my metabolism. If CICO doesn't work, I don't know what does. I delete "friends" when they don't log on for more than 20 days because it indicates they have given up. If they come back, I'll be glad to accept them as friends again.
Bottom line: Stop trying, and start doing. CICO works.Nony_Mouse wrote: »
Trying you are... Doing you are not.
Yoda was way more cool before we learned Jedis were just priests in a pretty screwed up religion.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »The key term here is "long term". While counting calories works well for weight loss, that doesn't mean it works well for long term maintenance. Realistically, I don't see myself logging everything I eat for the rest of my life, so either I'm going to do something else, or I'll gain weight
That's making the assumption that just because you have success with counting and logging calories with an app like this the no one will have success with now being aware of the calories and macros in foods without having to track day in and day out. There are people that do have continued success.
I don't know what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could edit for grammar, so we all know what you are trying to say.mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »The key term here is "long term". While counting calories works well for weight loss, that doesn't mean it works well for long term maintenance. Realistically, I don't see myself logging everything I eat for the rest of my life, so either I'm going to do something else, or I'll gain weight
FOR YOU. Again, generalizing doesn't work.
There's no one solution. For some people, continued counting/logging works very well.
I've got no problem with that. I'm just pointing out that not everyone is going to count calories for the rest of their lives, so we shouldn't discount what the article says, just because some of the MFP community think they will count calories from now on. Not everyone is like you.
No, I'm not discounting what the article has to say because it's an alternative to calorie counting.
<snip>
For some people, sure, eating in a certain way will probably give them a good way to achieve energy balance. But it's NOT, as the article asserted, THE answer.
There is no "THE" answer.
I believe there is. The "THE" answer is CICO. However, there is no EASY answer because, although brilliantly effective, counting calories for the rest of your life requires effort and commitment.
The easy answer will only come when a miracle pill is finally invented that only allows a certain # of calories to be absorbed each day, regardless of what you eat. Oh, and also has no side effects.
Now *that* would be easy.
I'm sure your miracle pill would make people in the wealthy countries very happy, but it would have a detrimental effect on the world's food supply. If we all weren't so wealthy, we would be concerned about where our next meal would come from, so the ideal situation would be for us to be able to do more with less food. Wealth has caused us to think that what we need is a way we can eat as much as we like.
This might be the silliest thing I have heard in a long time.
So explain how someone who experiences poverty also experiences obesity. There are very inexpensive ways to eat at a calorie surplus.
Additionally the idea that there is global hunger and that it has anything to do with the wealthy eating more of their share instead of it being a systemic problem of lack of access is absolutely preposterous. If a wealthy person eats less that does not equal out to more food in the mouth of an impoverished person.
What you have to realize is that we have a skewed sense of poverty. In wealthy countries, many of the people in poverty own automobiles and televisions, and they can afford to take their families to a fast food restaurant at least once a week. In much of the world, poverty doesn't look like that. In much of the world, if a person has a bowl of rice, he's doing good. Transportation isn't going out and climbing into the family's SUV, but climbing into the back of a pickup owned by someone wealthier than you, or riding a rusty bicycle, or just walking. If poverty in wealthy countries looked anything like poverty in the rest of the world, we wouldn't see much obesity among the impoverished.
Can you imagine what would happen if 313 million Americans could eat two or three times what they do now without gaining weight? About half of what American farmers grow is exported. Those exports would end to satisfy the lusts of Americans.
I don't believe how western countries eat has anything to do with poverty in the rest of the world...that is due to incompetent government, corruption, and terrible policies in those countries. However, I DO agree with you that we do not have poverty in the US like they have in other parts of the world. Here, poor people have food stamps and other public assistance as well as soup kitchens, food banks, etc. That's part of why so many American poor are obese. This is not true in most of the world.
I have traveled to many developing countries...and very poor people in most of the world are absolutely NOT obese. They are stick thin, clearly underweight in many cases, and many of them are sleeping on the streets. This is true of many places I've been...like India and much of non-developed Asia. You haven't seen real poverty until you've been to India or some place like it. The American poor do have struggles, but they are much better off than the poor in the developing world.
Not poverty, food supply.
What the...? Did a bunch of posts get deleted here? I just hit the refresh button, and whoa...
I find this exchange strange because it actually seems like MoiAussi was agreeing with the point that was made about truly poor people not being obese
0 -
galgenstrick wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »Since being on MFP and counting calories, and counting exercise, I have lot 18 pounds. Doesn't seem like a lot, about a pound a week, but prior, I had lost another 9 pounds. It's going slowly, but it's going. I find that personally, when I stop exercising, that my weight doesn't budge, as though exercise fuels my metabolism. If CICO doesn't work, I don't know what does. I delete "friends" when they don't log on for more than 20 days because it indicates they have given up. If they come back, I'll be glad to accept them as friends again.
Bottom line: Stop trying, and start doing. CICO works.Nony_Mouse wrote: »
Trying you are... Doing you are not.
Yoda was way more cool before we learned Jedis were just priests in a pretty screwed up religion.
Those prequels don't count.0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »galgenstrick wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »Since being on MFP and counting calories, and counting exercise, I have lot 18 pounds. Doesn't seem like a lot, about a pound a week, but prior, I had lost another 9 pounds. It's going slowly, but it's going. I find that personally, when I stop exercising, that my weight doesn't budge, as though exercise fuels my metabolism. If CICO doesn't work, I don't know what does. I delete "friends" when they don't log on for more than 20 days because it indicates they have given up. If they come back, I'll be glad to accept them as friends again.
Bottom line: Stop trying, and start doing. CICO works.Nony_Mouse wrote: »
Trying you are... Doing you are not.
Yoda was way more cool before we learned Jedis were just priests in a pretty screwed up religion.
Those prequels don't count.
I haven't watched any of them. I can rely on memories of the original movies (on I think VHS, or if it was in a theater, definitely around VHS peak use, to date myself). Or on meme / web culture and everyone I know rehashing it to bits forever and ever.
I mean it was a good bunch of movies and all, but so sticky, culturally! Make other things, filmmakers!0 -
re the topic, the pattern of eating described by low-gi served me well when i could do a lot of exercise. i ate that way about 70-80% of the time, and counted, for my initial loss. i stopped counting while in maintenance, and it was fine. activity and mostly choosing foods with quality in mind (a mutually reinforcing relationship imo) kept me in shape.
regain due to injuries that meant i couldn't sustain the same level of activity, and i think the lack of activity led to a bit of a downward slide wrt food choices.
with the calorie balance changed, i think i'll have to count for a while. which is kind of depressing - it's annoying to be vigilant in this way. however, it works. i sometimes lapse on weekends, or during periods of acute illness, but counting (even imperfectly) keeps me mindful about food quantity. and i think it does support better choices (better from a nutritional POV, because that always helps me stick to the numbers better anyway).0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »The key term here is "long term". While counting calories works well for weight loss, that doesn't mean it works well for long term maintenance. Realistically, I don't see myself logging everything I eat for the rest of my life, so either I'm going to do something else, or I'll gain weight
That's making the assumption that just because you have success with counting and logging calories with an app like this the no one will have success with now being aware of the calories and macros in foods without having to track day in and day out. There are people that do have continued success.
I don't know what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could edit for grammar, so we all know what you are trying to say.mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »The key term here is "long term". While counting calories works well for weight loss, that doesn't mean it works well for long term maintenance. Realistically, I don't see myself logging everything I eat for the rest of my life, so either I'm going to do something else, or I'll gain weight
FOR YOU. Again, generalizing doesn't work.
There's no one solution. For some people, continued counting/logging works very well.
I've got no problem with that. I'm just pointing out that not everyone is going to count calories for the rest of their lives, so we shouldn't discount what the article says, just because some of the MFP community think they will count calories from now on. Not everyone is like you.
But the study has NOTHING to do with calorie counting.
I wouldn't know, since I haven't seen the study, but Dr. Mozaffarian, who authored the study seems to think it did. I tend to think the people who did a study are more likely to know what they did than someone who has just read their work.
Wait, you are arguing about a study you haven't read or seen - because the senior investigator said something something?
You are aware that he isn't the primary investigator? That he didn't do the research, or the analysis? That at best he funded, review the work and set guidelines?
That the comment he made is nowhere to be seen in the publication?
The comment he made in the article is one that interprets what he believes the study indicates, along with some other studies, which he didn't name, so we have no way of knowing which ones he had in mind. I'm not ready to say he is wrong without additional information, but some of the comments in this thread indicate that some people want to say he is wrong, pretty much because it doesn't match what they believe to be true and because they don't like the guy. I think that what we have to consider is that beyond the short period when they are trying to lose weight, it is very hard for some people to remain vigilant in their weight management efforts. Does the study in question have anything to do with that problem? I don't know, but I do see counting calories as something that not everyone will continue long term. So, counting calories is probably not the ideal solution to the obesity problem.
So you are accusing people of having bias based on your self-reported unsupported bias. Ok.
Here is a thought - there is no 'ideal solution' to the 'obesity problem'. There are a bunch of different tools and approaches, some work for some people some of the time. Anyone stating x doesn't work fails to see that actually x (whatever x maybe) works for some people.
The obesity problem that I was referring to is the fact that 78 million American adults and I don't know how many world wide are obese. Most of these people either have no desire to lose weight or are unsuccessful.
Yes. We can work with that definition. A bunch of people all over the world are obese and may not want to lose or are unsuccessful. What does he say about that? Not much since he's looking at preventive behavior.
He actually states that calorie counting "will work" - and for those that don't count or in the absence of calorie control "low carb" is a better strategy than "low fat".
It's interesting to note that the glycemic index stuff shows results of what type improvement? 1/2lb to 1lb change per YEAR for 50 units of difference in Glycemic Load (in other words the difference between the top 20% and bottom 20% population.
All this noise about 1 lb a year by avoiding (maybe) a bunch of foods like potatoes. Much ado about nothing.
The video presentation is very interesting worth listening to and stopping to look at the data here and there.
I don't think that's a charitable read of what researchers took from the Harvard study, or their recommendations. Lower weight was correlated with an overall pattern of eating, with an emphasis on, it turned out, more or less lower-GI foods - in combination, obviously; I bet few were just not eating potatoes. They were, mostly, eating nuts, yogurt, leaner and less processed meats, whole grains, veg and fruit, and staying active. That's a winning combination both health and weight-wise in most places it's seen. It's not a fad or crash diet (though it's been packaged that way by some), it promotes satiety, and at least some people find it a sustainable way to eat. And even the faddish presentation has stuck around for a long time, because it works (for those for whom it works. Which is no small number.)0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »The key term here is "long term". While counting calories works well for weight loss, that doesn't mean it works well for long term maintenance. Realistically, I don't see myself logging everything I eat for the rest of my life, so either I'm going to do something else, or I'll gain weight
That's making the assumption that just because you have success with counting and logging calories with an app like this the no one will have success with now being aware of the calories and macros in foods without having to track day in and day out. There are people that do have continued success.
I don't know what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could edit for grammar, so we all know what you are trying to say.mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »The key term here is "long term". While counting calories works well for weight loss, that doesn't mean it works well for long term maintenance. Realistically, I don't see myself logging everything I eat for the rest of my life, so either I'm going to do something else, or I'll gain weight
FOR YOU. Again, generalizing doesn't work.
There's no one solution. For some people, continued counting/logging works very well.
I've got no problem with that. I'm just pointing out that not everyone is going to count calories for the rest of their lives, so we shouldn't discount what the article says, just because some of the MFP community think they will count calories from now on. Not everyone is like you.
No, I'm not discounting what the article has to say because it's an alternative to calorie counting.
<snip>
For some people, sure, eating in a certain way will probably give them a good way to achieve energy balance. But it's NOT, as the article asserted, THE answer.
There is no "THE" answer.
I believe there is. The "THE" answer is CICO. However, there is no EASY answer because, although brilliantly effective, counting calories for the rest of your life requires effort and commitment.
The easy answer will only come when a miracle pill is finally invented that only allows a certain # of calories to be absorbed each day, regardless of what you eat. Oh, and also has no side effects.
Now *that* would be easy.
I'm sure your miracle pill would make people in the wealthy countries very happy, but it would have a detrimental effect on the world's food supply. If we all weren't so wealthy, we would be concerned about where our next meal would come from, so the ideal situation would be for us to be able to do more with less food. Wealth has caused us to think that what we need is a way we can eat as much as we like.
This might be the silliest thing I have heard in a long time.
So explain how someone who experiences poverty also experiences obesity. There are very inexpensive ways to eat at a calorie surplus.
Additionally the idea that there is global hunger and that it has anything to do with the wealthy eating more of their share instead of it being a systemic problem of lack of access is absolutely preposterous. If a wealthy person eats less that does not equal out to more food in the mouth of an impoverished person.
What you have to realize is that we have a skewed sense of poverty. In wealthy countries, many of the people in poverty own automobiles and televisions, and they can afford to take their families to a fast food restaurant at least once a week. In much of the world, poverty doesn't look like that. In much of the world, if a person has a bowl of rice, he's doing good. Transportation isn't going out and climbing into the family's SUV, but climbing into the back of a pickup owned by someone wealthier than you, or riding a rusty bicycle, or just walking. If poverty in wealthy countries looked anything like poverty in the rest of the world, we wouldn't see much obesity among the impoverished.
Can you imagine what would happen if 313 million Americans could eat two or three times what they do now without gaining weight? About half of what American farmers grow is exported. Those exports would end to satisfy the lusts of Americans.
I don't believe how western countries eat has anything to do with poverty in the rest of the world...that is due to incompetent government, corruption, and terrible policies in those countries. However, I DO agree with you that we do not have poverty in the US like they have in other parts of the world. Here, poor people have food stamps and other public assistance as well as soup kitchens, food banks, etc. That's part of why so many American poor are obese. This is not true in most of the world.
I have traveled to many developing countries...and very poor people in most of the world are absolutely NOT obese. They are stick thin, clearly underweight in many cases, and many of them are sleeping on the streets. This is true of many places I've been...like India and much of non-developed Asia. You haven't seen real poverty until you've been to India or some place like it. The American poor do have struggles, but they are much better off than the poor in the developing world.
Not poverty, food supply.
What the...? Did a bunch of posts get deleted here? I just hit the refresh button, and whoa...
I find this exchange strange because it actually seems like MoiAussi was agreeing with the point that was made about truly poor people not being obese
The funniest thing about that exchange is that it was a fight over whether a hypothetical pill that allowed people to eat as much as they want without absorbing calories over their TDEE would be a good thing or have terrible awful effects on the world.
Personally, I think both sides should write competing alternative history novels. I will read both and decide which one rings truer.
On the general issue of demand in the US and food supply worldwide I agree with MoiAussi.0 -
but counting (even imperfectly) keeps me mindful about food quantity. and i think it does support better choices (better from a nutritional POV, because that always helps me stick to the numbers better anyway).
This is my experience, that they work together.
I think counting really casually--like focusing on portion size and meal make-up/balance--can serve the same purpose much of the time, but if you are trying to lose and can't up activity is when either counting more precisely or needing to get more restrictive seems to be needed for me too.
My problem with the focus on "low GI" is that it means little when you actually look at food combinations. I'd never eat just a potato--and the people who eat the most calories from potatoes aren't eating just potatoes, but potatoes with lots of fat and usually some protein--so its GI seems irrelevant.
What I think is more likely true is that eating certain broad diets that are considered healthy--either consistent with US dietary advice or a Med diet or just focusing on eating lots of plant foods tends to both have good health results AND happens (somewhat coincidently) to be lower GI overall.
Similarly, people who eat lots of veggies, lean meat, and yogurt are probably much more likely to be health conscious than those who never eat veggies and eat lots of processed meat and refined grains. Is the better health/weight results because of the diet or because of the overall focus on health which the diet also reflects?
I think it's probably a combination.
My diet was much more nutritious and low GI than the SAD when I was getting fat (and yet I managed to gain lots of weight quite easily, for various reasons), but even more so when losing weight, not because that was necessary, but because I was more motivated to think about it when I was also focused on losing weight. We run into trouble when we start trying to attribute causation, IMO.0 -
ashdawg8790 wrote: »I'm concerned that they advise to load up on nuts for protein... My personal opinion is that too many people believe nuts are a healthy choice (go, healthy fats!), so they eat too many to stay within their daily calorie allotment if they aren't counting calories. I could eat a whole lot of mixed nuts (like, a half a container...) and still be ready for dinner in an hour. Just a minor take-away from the article...
I NEVER found any kind of nuts to be satisfying, with the exception of eating something with peanut butter - like a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup when I was starving and it was 2 hours till I could eat a meal - that could take the edge off enough for me to tide me over....but eating a random handful of nuts here or there? No....never worked for me. I was still starved after eating the serving size....
0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ4yd2W50No
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
- 176K 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
- 96.4K 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