Mainstream Diet Myths Debunked
Replies
-
"Apple cider vinegar / lemon juice / etc in water balance your body's pH."
That is just one of the many lies the likes of Food Babe and Dr Oz tell.
If anything altered your pH, it would kill you.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
Chrys, your source is not reliable because it's just a biased newspaper article without any linked studies.
My apologies. Here is the link to the study and I will add it to my original post. I thought the newspaper article was more interesting as it included comments from other experts on the study.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
The study says it's not worse (for maintenance, no other assertions are made) and the article made "It's more effective" out of that...0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
[Edit: this is the study referenced in the article above:]
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
The study's participants were far too few for those conclusions to be meaningful.
See here:
"I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here's How."
http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800
Thank you.
It's hardly comparable. The chocolate 'study' had 16 subjects. The crash dieting study had 200.
But I thought it interesting how the chocolate story made the point that even well-funded, serious research into weight-loss science is confusing and inconclusive.
200 is very few, especially the even smaller percentage who lost weight then went on to the maintenance diet.
We need a meta-study of good quality studies of thousands of participants. I'm certainly open to new evidence.
Cheers.
Noooooo. Bad science.
I've been watching this little side discussion.
1) even if Chrysalid might have used a poor source it doesn't discount her argument.
2) n=200 is not very few. It depends on what you are trying to prove and study design.
3) meta studies and thousand participant studies are NOT good science. Meta studies can be some of the worst evaluation and really require much review. Huge participant observational studies are useless without smaller interventional, crossover studies. It's not about the the number of participants alone.
Finally, Chrysalid is right. There is a place for rapid weight loss, however often the benefits outweigh the risks. Rapid weight loss shouldn't be recommended without specific caviats and most likely medical follow-up of some kind.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
Chrys, your source is not reliable because it's just a biased newspaper article without any linked studies.
My apologies. Here is the link to the study and I will add it to my original post. I thought the newspaper article was more interesting as it included comments from other experts on the study.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
The study says it's not worse (for maintenance, no other assertions are made) and the article made "It's more effective" out of that...
The study was designed to look at maintenance, but as a 'side effect' they discovered that the people on the rapid weight loss diet were more successful at losing the weight in the first place (31% more successful).
After phase 1, 51 (50%) participants in the gradual weight loss group and 76 (81%) in the rapid weight loss group achieved 12·5% or more weight loss in the allocated time and started phase 2.
(Phase 1 being the weight loss phase of the study and Phase 2 being the maintenance phase).0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
Chrys, your source is not reliable because it's just a biased newspaper article without any linked studies.
My apologies. Here is the link to the study and I will add it to my original post. I thought the newspaper article was more interesting as it included comments from other experts on the study.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
The study says it's not worse (for maintenance, no other assertions are made) and the article made "It's more effective" out of that...
The study was designed to look at maintenance, but as a 'side effect' they discovered that the people on the rapid weight loss diet were more successful at losing the weight in the first place (31% more successful).
After phase 1, 51 (50%) participants in the gradual weight loss group and 76 (81%) in the rapid weight loss group achieved 12·5% or more weight loss in the allocated time and started phase 2.
(Phase 1 being the weight loss phase of the study and Phase 2 being the maintenance phase).
Yeah but phase 1 was only 36 weeks for the slow losers (12 weeks for rapid losers).
(It took me 52 weeks to lose 50 lbs [slowly and utterly painlessly])0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
Chrys, your source is not reliable because it's just a biased newspaper article without any linked studies.
My apologies. Here is the link to the study and I will add it to my original post. I thought the newspaper article was more interesting as it included comments from other experts on the study.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
The study says it's not worse (for maintenance, no other assertions are made) and the article made "It's more effective" out of that...
The study was designed to look at maintenance, but as a 'side effect' they discovered that the people on the rapid weight loss diet were more successful at losing the weight in the first place (31% more successful).
After phase 1, 51 (50%) participants in the gradual weight loss group and 76 (81%) in the rapid weight loss group achieved 12·5% or more weight loss in the allocated time and started phase 2.
(Phase 1 being the weight loss phase of the study and Phase 2 being the maintenance phase).
Which method increases the likelihood of gallstones, adrenal fatigue, hormonal issues, depression, eating disorders ?
As Steve notes: Lbm retention? Osteoporosis risk? Hair loss? Nutrient deficiencies?0 -
If phase 1 only takes a third of the time for that group, that would be expected.
I'd be more reserved in calling it "better" than the slower weight loss if I'm not taking into account things like LBM retention during the loss though.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
Chrys, your source is not reliable because it's just a biased newspaper article without any linked studies.
My apologies. Here is the link to the study and I will add it to my original post. I thought the newspaper article was more interesting as it included comments from other experts on the study.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
The study says it's not worse (for maintenance, no other assertions are made) and the article made "It's more effective" out of that...
The study was designed to look at maintenance, but as a 'side effect' they discovered that the people on the rapid weight loss diet were more successful at losing the weight in the first place (31% more successful).
After phase 1, 51 (50%) participants in the gradual weight loss group and 76 (81%) in the rapid weight loss group achieved 12·5% or more weight loss in the allocated time and started phase 2.
(Phase 1 being the weight loss phase of the study and Phase 2 being the maintenance phase).
Yeah but phase 1 was only 36 weeks for the slow losers (12 weeks for rapid losers).
(It took me 52 weeks to lose 50 lbs [slowly and utterly painlessly])
12 weeks sounds way better than 52 weeks. Not sure why you use this as an argument?0 -
I'm talking about Cochrane reviews.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
[Edit: this is the study referenced in the article above:]
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
The study's participants were far too few for those conclusions to be meaningful.
See here:
"I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here's How."
http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800
Thank you.
It's hardly comparable. The chocolate 'study' had 16 subjects. The crash dieting study had 200.
But I thought it interesting how the chocolate story made the point that even well-funded, serious research into weight-loss science is confusing and inconclusive.
200 is very few, especially the even smaller percentage who lost weight then went on to the maintenance diet.
We need a meta-study of good quality studies of thousands of participants. I'm certainly open to new evidence.
Cheers.
Noooooo. Bad science.
I've been watching this little side discussion.
1) even if Chrysalid might have used a poor source it doesn't discount her argument.
2) n=200 is not very few. It depends on what you are trying to prove and study design.
3) meta studies and thousand participant studies are NOT good science. Meta studies can be some of the worst evaluation and really require much review. Huge participant observational studies are useless without smaller interventional, crossover studies. It's not about the the number of participants alone.
Finally, Chrysalid is right. There is a place for rapid weight loss, however often the benefits outweigh the risks. Rapid weight loss shouldn't be recommended without specific caviats and most likely medical follow-up of some kind.
But I agree with your last sentence.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
Chrys, your source is not reliable because it's just a biased newspaper article without any linked studies.
My apologies. Here is the link to the study and I will add it to my original post. I thought the newspaper article was more interesting as it included comments from other experts on the study.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
The study says it's not worse (for maintenance, no other assertions are made) and the article made "It's more effective" out of that...
The study was designed to look at maintenance, but as a 'side effect' they discovered that the people on the rapid weight loss diet were more successful at losing the weight in the first place (31% more successful).
After phase 1, 51 (50%) participants in the gradual weight loss group and 76 (81%) in the rapid weight loss group achieved 12·5% or more weight loss in the allocated time and started phase 2.
(Phase 1 being the weight loss phase of the study and Phase 2 being the maintenance phase).
Yeah but phase 1 was only 36 weeks for the slow losers (12 weeks for rapid losers).
(It took me 52 weeks to lose 50 lbs [slowly and utterly painlessly])
12 weeks sounds way better than 52 weeks. Not sure why you use this as an argument?
I suffered not at all during my loss. I ate just a shade under maintenance, felt fuelled and energized for the increase in activity that improved my overall quality of life on multiple levels, didn't feel deprived at all. I dunno if those things are accounted for in the study mentioned?0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
Chrys, your source is not reliable because it's just a biased newspaper article without any linked studies.
My apologies. Here is the link to the study and I will add it to my original post. I thought the newspaper article was more interesting as it included comments from other experts on the study.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
The study says it's not worse (for maintenance, no other assertions are made) and the article made "It's more effective" out of that...
The study was designed to look at maintenance, but as a 'side effect' they discovered that the people on the rapid weight loss diet were more successful at losing the weight in the first place (31% more successful).
After phase 1, 51 (50%) participants in the gradual weight loss group and 76 (81%) in the rapid weight loss group achieved 12·5% or more weight loss in the allocated time and started phase 2.
(Phase 1 being the weight loss phase of the study and Phase 2 being the maintenance phase).
Yeah but phase 1 was only 36 weeks for the slow losers (12 weeks for rapid losers).
(It took me 52 weeks to lose 50 lbs [slowly and utterly painlessly])
I don't have access to the full study, but in The Telegraph article where they interviewed one of the authors she stated that adherence was better for the rapid weight loss group.
“However, our results show that achieving a weight loss target of 12.5 per cent is more likely, and drop-out is lower, if losing weight is done quickly." The researchers suggest that losing weight quickly motivates dieters to stick with their programme because they see rapid results.
As we all know adherence is one of the main problems with any diet proposed on these pages. So I think it comes down to what best suits the personality––some people (like yourself) are better at adherence if they take it slowly, and others (it would seem possibly a greater proportion) aren't.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
Chrys, your source is not reliable because it's just a biased newspaper article without any linked studies.
My apologies. Here is the link to the study and I will add it to my original post. I thought the newspaper article was more interesting as it included comments from other experts on the study.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
The study says it's not worse (for maintenance, no other assertions are made) and the article made "It's more effective" out of that...
The study was designed to look at maintenance, but as a 'side effect' they discovered that the people on the rapid weight loss diet were more successful at losing the weight in the first place (31% more successful).
After phase 1, 51 (50%) participants in the gradual weight loss group and 76 (81%) in the rapid weight loss group achieved 12·5% or more weight loss in the allocated time and started phase 2.
(Phase 1 being the weight loss phase of the study and Phase 2 being the maintenance phase).
Yeah but phase 1 was only 36 weeks for the slow losers (12 weeks for rapid losers).
(It took me 52 weeks to lose 50 lbs [slowly and utterly painlessly])
I don't have access to the full study, but in The Telegraph article where they interviewed one of the authors she stated that adherence was better for the rapid weight loss group.
“However, our results show that achieving a weight loss target of 12.5 per cent is more likely, and drop-out is lower, if losing weight is done quickly." The researchers suggest that losing weight quickly motivates dieters to stick with their programme because they see rapid results.
As we all know adherence is one of the main problems with any diet proposed on these pages. So I think it comes down to what best suits the personality––some people (like yourself) are better at adherence if they take it slowly, and others (it would seem possibly a greater proportion) aren't.
good point, i'm sure you're right0 -
I'm talking about Cochrane reviews.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
[Edit: this is the study referenced in the article above:]
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
The study's participants were far too few for those conclusions to be meaningful.
See here:
"I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here's How."
http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800
Thank you.
It's hardly comparable. The chocolate 'study' had 16 subjects. The crash dieting study had 200.
But I thought it interesting how the chocolate story made the point that even well-funded, serious research into weight-loss science is confusing and inconclusive.
200 is very few, especially the even smaller percentage who lost weight then went on to the maintenance diet.
We need a meta-study of good quality studies of thousands of participants. I'm certainly open to new evidence.
Cheers.
Noooooo. Bad science.
I've been watching this little side discussion.
1) even if Chrysalid might have used a poor source it doesn't discount her argument.
2) n=200 is not very few. It depends on what you are trying to prove and study design.
3) meta studies and thousand participant studies are NOT good science. Meta studies can be some of the worst evaluation and really require much review. Huge participant observational studies are useless without smaller interventional, crossover studies. It's not about the the number of participants alone.
Finally, Chrysalid is right. There is a place for rapid weight loss, however often the benefits outweigh the risks. Rapid weight loss shouldn't be recommended without specific caviats and most likely medical follow-up of some kind.
But I agree with your last sentence.
Then say Cochrane reviews. Not all meta analysis are CRs, in fact, the vast majority aren't. Also CRs are excellent but they aren't some sort of magical truth - quite a few get withdrawn.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
Chrys, your source is not reliable because it's just a biased newspaper article without any linked studies.
My apologies. Here is the link to the study and I will add it to my original post. I thought the newspaper article was more interesting as it included comments from other experts on the study.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
The study says it's not worse (for maintenance, no other assertions are made) and the article made "It's more effective" out of that...
The study was designed to look at maintenance, but as a 'side effect' they discovered that the people on the rapid weight loss diet were more successful at losing the weight in the first place (31% more successful).
After phase 1, 51 (50%) participants in the gradual weight loss group and 76 (81%) in the rapid weight loss group achieved 12·5% or more weight loss in the allocated time and started phase 2.
(Phase 1 being the weight loss phase of the study and Phase 2 being the maintenance phase).
Which method increases the likelihood of gallstones, adrenal fatigue, hormonal issues, depression, eating disorders ?
As Steve notes: Lbm retention? Osteoporosis risk? Hair loss? Nutrient deficiencies?
The rapid weight loss group wasn't so stupidly fast as to cause all those problems, though. We are talking 12.5% over 12 weeks, so that's well below the 1.5% per week rate that is apparently the upper limit of healthy weight loss.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
Chrys, your source is not reliable because it's just a biased newspaper article without any linked studies.
My apologies. Here is the link to the study and I will add it to my original post. I thought the newspaper article was more interesting as it included comments from other experts on the study.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
The study says it's not worse (for maintenance, no other assertions are made) and the article made "It's more effective" out of that...
The study was designed to look at maintenance, but as a 'side effect' they discovered that the people on the rapid weight loss diet were more successful at losing the weight in the first place (31% more successful).
After phase 1, 51 (50%) participants in the gradual weight loss group and 76 (81%) in the rapid weight loss group achieved 12·5% or more weight loss in the allocated time and started phase 2.
(Phase 1 being the weight loss phase of the study and Phase 2 being the maintenance phase).
Yeah but phase 1 was only 36 weeks for the slow losers (12 weeks for rapid losers).
(It took me 52 weeks to lose 50 lbs [slowly and utterly painlessly])
I don't have access to the full study, but in The Telegraph article where they interviewed one of the authors she stated that adherence was better for the rapid weight loss group.
“However, our results show that achieving a weight loss target of 12.5 per cent is more likely, and drop-out is lower, if losing weight is done quickly." The researchers suggest that losing weight quickly motivates dieters to stick with their programme because they see rapid results.
As we all know adherence is one of the main problems with any diet proposed on these pages. So I think it comes down to what best suits the personality––some people (like yourself) are better at adherence if they take it slowly, and others (it would seem possibly a greater proportion) aren't.
also re motivation - i was not scale-focused in the least, my metrics were related to the process itself (cardio-driven well-being; seeing improvements in fitness performance), the actual weight loss was more of an afterthought. i agree that that is probably less common than people wanting to see pounds lost on the scale, people do post here about getting frustrated when they stop seeing the numbers change0 -
Just lol@ that article, not because it debunks myths at all but because of the way has written it.
Nice one OP for taking a lot of it out of context , failing to go with the proviso in virtially every argument, which is about moderation so it can suit your point.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
Chrys, your source is not reliable because it's just a biased newspaper article without any linked studies.
My apologies. Here is the link to the study and I will add it to my original post. I thought the newspaper article was more interesting as it included comments from other experts on the study.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
The study says it's not worse (for maintenance, no other assertions are made) and the article made "It's more effective" out of that...
The study was designed to look at maintenance, but as a 'side effect' they discovered that the people on the rapid weight loss diet were more successful at losing the weight in the first place (31% more successful).
After phase 1, 51 (50%) participants in the gradual weight loss group and 76 (81%) in the rapid weight loss group achieved 12·5% or more weight loss in the allocated time and started phase 2.
(Phase 1 being the weight loss phase of the study and Phase 2 being the maintenance phase).
Yeah but phase 1 was only 36 weeks for the slow losers (12 weeks for rapid losers).
(It took me 52 weeks to lose 50 lbs [slowly and utterly painlessly])
12 weeks sounds way better than 52 weeks. Not sure why you use this as an argument?
I suffered not at all during my loss. I ate just a shade under maintenance, felt fuelled and energized for the increase in activity that improved my overall quality of life on multiple levels, didn't feel deprived at all. I dunno if those things are accounted for in the study mentioned?
OK, I get it, satiety and adherence can be problems in fast weight loss, but not always. And if you do concomitantly increase activity, then yes, large cuts may be emotionally and physically taxing. But surely for some people, 8-12 weeks of rapid loss makes sense over a year (or more) of not seeing a big dent - it's not about my (or your) personal experience but about what makes sense for a person within their overall medical, mental and environmental factors.
When I trained as a cyclist sometimes a rapid loss made absolute sense - no one had time for 6 months to make weight, we also had medical support (and in my team all had med/physio ed)- but that personal experience doesn't matter when addressing others here - we can point out risks, show plus/minus of paths, not adhere to absolute truths that aren't.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
Chrys, your source is not reliable because it's just a biased newspaper article without any linked studies.
My apologies. Here is the link to the study and I will add it to my original post. I thought the newspaper article was more interesting as it included comments from other experts on the study.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
The study says it's not worse (for maintenance, no other assertions are made) and the article made "It's more effective" out of that...
The study was designed to look at maintenance, but as a 'side effect' they discovered that the people on the rapid weight loss diet were more successful at losing the weight in the first place (31% more successful).
After phase 1, 51 (50%) participants in the gradual weight loss group and 76 (81%) in the rapid weight loss group achieved 12·5% or more weight loss in the allocated time and started phase 2.
(Phase 1 being the weight loss phase of the study and Phase 2 being the maintenance phase).
Which method increases the likelihood of gallstones, adrenal fatigue, hormonal issues, depression, eating disorders ?
As Steve notes: Lbm retention? Osteoporosis risk? Hair loss? Nutrient deficiencies?
The rapid weight loss group wasn't so stupidly fast as to cause all those problems, though. We are talking 12.5% over 12 weeks, so that's well below the 1.5% per week rate that is apparently the upper limit of healthy weight loss.
If they want to talk about what's better, they'd still have to check for them, even if you think that it should be fine.
Even that mythical 10% extra TDEE loss that some people like to mention after a 10% loss might be different depending on how fast you lost.0 -
Isulo, they're saying its OK in moderation.
But thanks for making me check. The article quoted Joseph Mercola, who should never be trusted about anything, but the rest of it was good.
Well, next to appeal to authority, we have shooting the messenger as a logical fallacy.
I don't like Mercola's bias but what he said in that article is just plain basic biology. It isn't about trusting him.
What do you see wrong with what he stated?
"The truth is, saturated fats from animal and vegetable sources provide the building blocks for cell membranes and a variety of hormones and hormone-like substances, without which your body cannot function optimally," says Dr Joseph Mercola.
This is just accurate, state of knowledge, biology. Even a broken clock ....0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
Chrys, your source is not reliable because it's just a biased newspaper article without any linked studies.
My apologies. Here is the link to the study and I will add it to my original post. I thought the newspaper article was more interesting as it included comments from other experts on the study.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
The study says it's not worse (for maintenance, no other assertions are made) and the article made "It's more effective" out of that...
The study was designed to look at maintenance, but as a 'side effect' they discovered that the people on the rapid weight loss diet were more successful at losing the weight in the first place (31% more successful).
After phase 1, 51 (50%) participants in the gradual weight loss group and 76 (81%) in the rapid weight loss group achieved 12·5% or more weight loss in the allocated time and started phase 2.
(Phase 1 being the weight loss phase of the study and Phase 2 being the maintenance phase).
Which method increases the likelihood of gallstones, adrenal fatigue, hormonal issues, depression, eating disorders ?
As Steve notes: Lbm retention? Osteoporosis risk? Hair loss? Nutrient deficiencies?
The rapid weight loss group wasn't so stupidly fast as to cause all those problems, though. We are talking 12.5% over 12 weeks, so that's well below the 1.5% per week rate that is apparently the upper limit of healthy weight loss.
a) if the actual loss rate was truly 1-1.5% then it would not be "rapid weight loss" the rapid weight loss group had the lower cut off at 12.5%. This was not their weight loss rate. It was 12.5% OR MORE.
ii) can't tell change rate over time, it could have been fast with a slow taper.
3) lots of other research have studied risks of rapid weight loss. They exist. That they were not studied or reported in the abstract doesn't mean they were not present or a real risk of RWL.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
a) if the actual loss rate was truly 1-1.5% then it would not be "rapid weight loss" the rapid weight loss group had the lower cut off at 12.5%. This was not their weight loss rate. It was 12.5% OR MORE.
Ah yes, I see; thank you for pointing that out. So the actual rate of loss could have been higher than 1.5% per week and possibly have adverse side effects as you and Stephen mentioned.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
a) if the actual loss rate was truly 1-1.5% then it would not be "rapid weight loss" the rapid weight loss group had the lower cut off at 12.5%. This was not their weight loss rate. It was 12.5% OR MORE.
Ah yes, I see; thank you for pointing that out. So the actual rate of loss could have been higher than 1.5% per week and possibly have adverse side effects as you and Stephen mentioned.
Or it might not show up in a study not designed to track that.
That's always the thing about quoting a single study. What is it intended to show?
What is the overall picture painted by your general knowledge and what you see elsewhere?
Take an example - morbidly obese man, followed by physician, with various medical issues, weighing 450lbs is told to lose weight quickly or will have cardiac issues. Has a history of trying slow diets, is discouraged. Doc recommends a rapid loss diet. Runs blood panels. Rapid loss might very well be the best solution - friends, family and Mfp should let the relationship between the man and his doctor work it out. OR it might very well be that a 1% loss is too much and leads to issues.
Recommendations should be that, guidelines not absolutes.0 -
Thank you Orphia for a great idea! I love the original post and I get the frustration with all the broscience/urban mythology circulating in the forums.
(Edited out a paragraph here because in my ore-coffee state I missed 4 pages of the thread and was getting irrelevant)
I am off to hunt on the interwebs
I can also see the beginning of may be a personal list of sources for debunked myths forming up... Thanks again for the great post and idea!
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
a) if the actual loss rate was truly 1-1.5% then it would not be "rapid weight loss" the rapid weight loss group had the lower cut off at 12.5%. This was not their weight loss rate. It was 12.5% OR MORE.
Ah yes, I see; thank you for pointing that out. So the actual rate of loss could have been higher than 1.5% per week and possibly have adverse side effects as you and Stephen mentioned.
Take an example - morbidly obese man, followed by physician, with various medical issues, weighing 450lbs is told to lose weight quickly or will have cardiac issues. Has a history of trying slow diets, is discouraged. Doc recommends a rapid loss diet. Runs blood panels. Rapid loss might very well be the best solution - friends, family and Mfp should let the relationship between the man and his doctor work it out. OR it might very well be that a 1% loss is too much and leads to issues.
Recommendations should be that, guidelines not absolutes.
Yes, I agree.
I've seen people post on MFP saying their doctor recommended a 900-calorie diet and people quickly jumping in to tell them to find another doctor or that GPs don't know anything about nutrition.
Or telling someone like the man you just described that he shouldn't be losing more than 1-2 pounds per week.
"A little learning..."0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
a) if the actual loss rate was truly 1-1.5% then it would not be "rapid weight loss" the rapid weight loss group had the lower cut off at 12.5%. This was not their weight loss rate. It was 12.5% OR MORE.
Ah yes, I see; thank you for pointing that out. So the actual rate of loss could have been higher than 1.5% per week and possibly have adverse side effects as you and Stephen mentioned.
Take an example - morbidly obese man, followed by physician, with various medical issues, weighing 450lbs is told to lose weight quickly or will have cardiac issues. Has a history of trying slow diets, is discouraged. Doc recommends a rapid loss diet. Runs blood panels. Rapid loss might very well be the best solution - friends, family and Mfp should let the relationship between the man and his doctor work it out. OR it might very well be that a 1% loss is too much and leads to issues.
Recommendations should be that, guidelines not absolutes.
Yes, I agree.
I've seen people post on MFP saying their doctor recommended a 900-calorie diet and people quickly jumping in to tell them to find another doctor or that GPs don't know anything about nutrition.
Or telling someone like the man you just described that he shouldn't be losing more than 1-2 pounds per week.
"A little learning..."
On the flip side there are many doctors who know nothing about nutrition and weight loss beyond what the regular tabloid reader does
Particularly primary care physicians who are general practitioners, for instance I have often had to argue the toss with our doctors about my husband's chronic condition...I have far more knowledge through personal research and living with it and specialists for decades than a general practitioner who is new to his file would
It is only my parents generation who take doctors words as law ...you quickly realise how much of modern medicine is hypothesis, trial and error0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
[Edit: this is the study referenced in the article above:]
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
A quote from the first article you posted
"Very low calorie crash diets also usually cut out carbohydrates, which usually fuels the body and therefore forces the body to burn fat more quickly."
So the anti carbers are onto something?0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
[Edit: this is the study referenced in the article above:]
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
A quote from the first article you posted
"Very low calorie crash diets also usually cut out carbohydrates, which usually fuels the body and therefore forces the body to burn fat more quickly."
So the anti carbers are onto something?
Interesting article, thanks for sharing!
"The challenge is not losing weight but sustaining weight loss,” That's the truth!0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
a) if the actual loss rate was truly 1-1.5% then it would not be "rapid weight loss" the rapid weight loss group had the lower cut off at 12.5%. This was not their weight loss rate. It was 12.5% OR MORE.
Ah yes, I see; thank you for pointing that out. So the actual rate of loss could have been higher than 1.5% per week and possibly have adverse side effects as you and Stephen mentioned.
Take an example - morbidly obese man, followed by physician, with various medical issues, weighing 450lbs is told to lose weight quickly or will have cardiac issues. Has a history of trying slow diets, is discouraged. Doc recommends a rapid loss diet. Runs blood panels. Rapid loss might very well be the best solution - friends, family and Mfp should let the relationship between the man and his doctor work it out. OR it might very well be that a 1% loss is too much and leads to issues.
Recommendations should be that, guidelines not absolutes.
Yes, I agree.
I've seen people post on MFP saying their doctor recommended a 900-calorie diet and people quickly jumping in to tell them to find another doctor or that GPs don't know anything about nutrition.
Or telling someone like the man you just described that he shouldn't be losing more than 1-2 pounds per week.
"A little learning..."
Wait. The person whose doctor recommended a 900 calorie diet? Weighed 154 pounds or thereabouts. She was not morbidly obese. She was at a stall.
You are taking that thread WAY out of context. You are taking a lot of threads way out of contexts. A lot of people told they shouldn't be losing that much don't have that much to lose.
Anyone who comes on here who has a lot to lose is told that it's okay to lose at a higher rate, with the exception of that one success story post where that man was told that he was losing weight too quickly. His case WAS strange.
0 -
There exists a weight loss "secret".
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
[Edit: this is the study referenced in the article above:]
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
A quote from the first article you posted
"Very low calorie crash diets also usually cut out carbohydrates, which usually fuels the body and therefore forces the body to burn fat more quickly."
So the anti carbers are onto something?
I wouldn't have worded it quite that way... but if you're interested in trying or learning more about low-carb there's a dedicated group for that on MFP--come on over and check it out!
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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