Personalized dieting?? Maybe we really are all special snowflakes ;)
Options
Replies
-
missblondi2u wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
That's why, as others said, it's majoring in the minors.missblondi2u wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I went from normal weight to class II obese and back down to normal. Is it likely that my gut bacteria started behaving differently at the exact same moment I started eating in a deficit? Seems pretty unlikely.
I don't think this study leads to the conclusion that gut bacteria is the only (or even primary) factor is weight loss. Of course you lost weight because you were eating at a deficit.
I get what you're saying, but I just don't think health is a minor issue. If all a person cares about is weight loss, I suppose this research would mean little to them.
I just don't think that gut bacteria plays as much of a role in overall health as you're giving it credit for. Yes, health is important, but again, focus on the larger picture and fix the big problems. Once you've addressed major health issues, worry about the small tweaks to optimize your health.0 -
We've been healthy -- or not -- for tens of thousands of years. I think too much is being made of this by about eleventy jillion percent. I guess we'll see.missblondi2u wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
That's why, as others said, it's majoring in the minors.missblondi2u wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I went from normal weight to class II obese and back down to normal. Is it likely that my gut bacteria started behaving differently at the exact same moment I started eating in a deficit? Seems pretty unlikely.
I don't think this study leads to the conclusion that gut bacteria is the only (or even primary) factor is weight loss. Of course you lost weight because you were eating at a deficit.
I get what you're saying, but I just don't think health is a minor issue. If all a person cares about is weight loss, I suppose this research would mean little to them.
0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
That's why, as others said, it's majoring in the minors.missblondi2u wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I went from normal weight to class II obese and back down to normal. Is it likely that my gut bacteria started behaving differently at the exact same moment I started eating in a deficit? Seems pretty unlikely.
I don't think this study leads to the conclusion that gut bacteria is the only (or even primary) factor is weight loss. Of course you lost weight because you were eating at a deficit.
I get what you're saying, but I just don't think health is a minor issue. If all a person cares about is weight loss, I suppose this research would mean little to them.
It's mostly useless for health too. As others have said, the best way to reduce your risk of heart disease, diabetes and all that, is not being overweight. Moi Aussi saying "There's many people at normal weight who've got it too!" is comparable to saying "there's non-smokers with lung cancer, so let's put all our research into reasons apart from the by far #1 reason for getting it."0 -
Listen, I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak. I'm not a scientist in any way, shape, or form. I just think that the research is interesting and that it's too early to be dismissive of it.0
-
When it's unproven is exactly the time for us to be dismissive of it. There may turn out to be something to it -- which isn't affected by one iota if I dismiss it today -- but there isn't now.missblondi2u wrote: »Listen, I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak. I'm not a scientist in any way, shape, or form. I just think that the research is interesting and that it's too early to be dismissive of it.
I mean, fusion may turn out to be totally awesome as a power source, but if someone wanted me to invest in it today, I think I'd pass. That doesn't mean I think people should abandon the research. It just means that talk about the potential benefits are somewhat premature.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
When it's unproven is exactly the time for us to be dismissive of it. There may turn out to be something to it -- which isn't affected by one iota if I dismiss it today -- but there isn't now.missblondi2u wrote: »Listen, I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak. I'm not a scientist in any way, shape, or form. I just think that the research is interesting and that it's too early to be dismissive of it.
I mean, fusion may turn out to be totally awesome as a power source, but if someone wanted me to invest in it today, I think I'd pass. That doesn't mean I think people should abandon the research. It just means that talk about the potential benefits are somewhat premature.
Dismissive is defined as "feeling or showing that something is unworthy of consideration." I think this is worth considering.0 -
As a someone with a few autoimmune issues, one being celiac disease, I there can be a range of what foods are best for what individual. This is based on age, gender, penicillan use, environmental exposures, chronic health issues, etc.
Saying food type doesn't matter doesn't seem to make sense to me. It's like saying everyone needs shoes so everyone should get the exact same shoes regardless of foot size, terrain, temperature and activity level.0 -
Dismissive also has context. That I can think something is unworthy of my consideration is not saying it is unworthy of anyone's consideration. I thought I made very clear the difference between my consideration and the researchers', but I guess not.missblondi2u wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
When it's unproven is exactly the time for us to be dismissive of it. There may turn out to be something to it -- which isn't affected by one iota if I dismiss it today -- but there isn't now.missblondi2u wrote: »Listen, I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak. I'm not a scientist in any way, shape, or form. I just think that the research is interesting and that it's too early to be dismissive of it.
I mean, fusion may turn out to be totally awesome as a power source, but if someone wanted me to invest in it today, I think I'd pass. That doesn't mean I think people should abandon the research. It just means that talk about the potential benefits are somewhat premature.
Dismissive is defined as "feeling or showing that something is unworthy of consideration." I think this is worth considering.
So, I dismiss it because it has no practical use to me at this point. I don't say that researchers should dismiss it because they might find practical uses (even apart from the idea that I don't dictate what's important to them). We clear on the difference, now?
0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »It's majoring in the minors. May have some small effect, but most people struggling with weight loss are just eating too much. No point in tweaking until you've got the big stuff right.
Cosigned0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
That's why, as others said, it's majoring in the minors.missblondi2u wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I went from normal weight to class II obese and back down to normal. Is it likely that my gut bacteria started behaving differently at the exact same moment I started eating in a deficit? Seems pretty unlikely.
I don't think this study leads to the conclusion that gut bacteria is the only (or even primary) factor is weight loss. Of course you lost weight because you were eating at a deficit.
I get what you're saying, but I just don't think health is a minor issue. If all a person cares about is weight loss, I suppose this research would mean little to them.
I just don't think that gut bacteria plays as much of a role in overall health as you're giving it credit for. Yes, health is important, but again, focus on the larger picture and fix the big problems. Once you've addressed major health issues, worry about the small tweaks to optimize your health.
+10 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »I kind of take issue with the "obesity is a symptom of a health problem." Obesity is a symptom of eating more calories than you burn for an extended time period. Health problems can affect how much your body burns, but you still wouldn't become obese without the excess calories.
Moi - I think it's a leap because we know obesity plays a large role in those health issues yet we don't know a) the extent to which blood sugar plays a role in causing diabetes and heart disease (although I'm open to reading up on it you have material to the contrary), b) whether there even are significant differences in our individual metabolic processes related to blood sugar, and c) if those differences do exist, whether they are great enough to cause a change in the probability of a person coming down with those diseases.
It's all speculation at this point when it comes to "special snowflake hypothesis*" whereas we know that controlling weight will lower a person's likelihood of diabetes and heart problems.
*I'm not actually calling anyone a special snowflake; I'm just using the term for convenience.
There are a lot of thin people with diabetes, so it seems obvious that there is more to this than simply weight. That's why the research continues...to get a better understanding of ALL the relevant factors and how they interact.
It seems extremely short sighted to ignore the research just because every question has not yet been answered.
There were people with diabetes before the current period, of course. The issue right now is that the rate has gone way up, almost certainly due to the obesity rate. What percentage of people with diabetes currently aren't obese or overweight? It would be interesting to compare that to the more traditional rate of diabetes in this society (and perhaps in some others)?
Also, how is the diabetes rate in societies with a traditional low fat/high carb diet, like Japan? (And no, pointing to changes related to countries adopting a more western diet isn't the issue, I'm asking about with their traditional diet.)
Given the wide range of traditional diets and macro percentages -- more higher carb than very low carb -- I think the endless obsession at MFP with macro percentage being all that and the preaching about low carb being healthier is tiresome. If it works for you, great. More likely the reason low carb seems healthier for some is that it helps them eat a healthier and more calorie appropriate diet within the context of the current environment, and not some inherent problem with carbs (which is basically to say with plant-based foods).
This thread is not about low carb diets at all, so I'm honestly not sure what your response is even about or how to respond to it.
The thread is not, but I perceived your comment to be -- specifically the comment about special diets being necessary for specific people with certain family histories and the focus on diabetes.
There's no one perfect diet, of course, but what we also know is that a huge range of different diets seem to lead to positive health outcomes for human populations. Therefore, I doubt there's any need to worry about an ideal diet for health. For pleasure and sustainability, sure, but the human body is on the whole more forgiving that you are giving it credit for -- humans can adjust and thrive on a wide range of diets (although the SAD, at least as typically defined, may not be one such example).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »I kind of take issue with the "obesity is a symptom of a health problem." Obesity is a symptom of eating more calories than you burn for an extended time period. Health problems can affect how much your body burns, but you still wouldn't become obese without the excess calories.
Moi - I think it's a leap because we know obesity plays a large role in those health issues yet we don't know a) the extent to which blood sugar plays a role in causing diabetes and heart disease (although I'm open to reading up on it you have material to the contrary), b) whether there even are significant differences in our individual metabolic processes related to blood sugar, and c) if those differences do exist, whether they are great enough to cause a change in the probability of a person coming down with those diseases.
It's all speculation at this point when it comes to "special snowflake hypothesis*" whereas we know that controlling weight will lower a person's likelihood of diabetes and heart problems.
*I'm not actually calling anyone a special snowflake; I'm just using the term for convenience.
There are a lot of thin people with diabetes, so it seems obvious that there is more to this than simply weight. That's why the research continues...to get a better understanding of ALL the relevant factors and how they interact.
It seems extremely short sighted to ignore the research just because every question has not yet been answered.
There were people with diabetes before the current period, of course. The issue right now is that the rate has gone way up, almost certainly due to the obesity rate. What percentage of people with diabetes currently aren't obese or overweight? It would be interesting to compare that to the more traditional rate of diabetes in this society (and perhaps in some others)?
Also, how is the diabetes rate in societies with a traditional low fat/high carb diet, like Japan? (And no, pointing to changes related to countries adopting a more western diet isn't the issue, I'm asking about with their traditional diet.)
Given the wide range of traditional diets and macro percentages -- more higher carb than very low carb -- I think the endless obsession at MFP with macro percentage being all that and the preaching about low carb being healthier is tiresome. If it works for you, great. More likely the reason low carb seems healthier for some is that it helps them eat a healthier and more calorie appropriate diet within the context of the current environment, and not some inherent problem with carbs (which is basically to say with plant-based foods).
This thread is not about low carb diets at all, so I'm honestly not sure what your response is even about or how to respond to it.
The thread is not, but I perceived your comment to be -- specifically the comment about special diets being necessary for specific people with certain family histories and the focus on diabetes.
There's no one perfect diet, of course, but what we also know is that a huge range of different diets seem to lead to positive health outcomes for human populations. Therefore, I doubt there's any need to worry about an ideal diet for health. For pleasure and sustainability, sure, but the human body is on the whole more forgiving that you are giving it credit for -- humans can adjust and thrive on a wide range of diets (although the SAD, at least as typically defined, may not be one such example).
I'm not sure where I commented on family history. I did say that this research might be more important for diabetes as opposed to obesity.0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »I kind of take issue with the "obesity is a symptom of a health problem." Obesity is a symptom of eating more calories than you burn for an extended time period. Health problems can affect how much your body burns, but you still wouldn't become obese without the excess calories.
Moi - I think it's a leap because we know obesity plays a large role in those health issues yet we don't know a) the extent to which blood sugar plays a role in causing diabetes and heart disease (although I'm open to reading up on it you have material to the contrary), b) whether there even are significant differences in our individual metabolic processes related to blood sugar, and c) if those differences do exist, whether they are great enough to cause a change in the probability of a person coming down with those diseases.
It's all speculation at this point when it comes to "special snowflake hypothesis*" whereas we know that controlling weight will lower a person's likelihood of diabetes and heart problems.
*I'm not actually calling anyone a special snowflake; I'm just using the term for convenience.
There are a lot of thin people with diabetes, so it seems obvious that there is more to this than simply weight. That's why the research continues...to get a better understanding of ALL the relevant factors and how they interact.
It seems extremely short sighted to ignore the research just because every question has not yet been answered.
There were people with diabetes before the current period, of course. The issue right now is that the rate has gone way up, almost certainly due to the obesity rate. What percentage of people with diabetes currently aren't obese or overweight? It would be interesting to compare that to the more traditional rate of diabetes in this society (and perhaps in some others)?
Also, how is the diabetes rate in societies with a traditional low fat/high carb diet, like Japan? (And no, pointing to changes related to countries adopting a more western diet isn't the issue, I'm asking about with their traditional diet.)
Given the wide range of traditional diets and macro percentages -- more higher carb than very low carb -- I think the endless obsession at MFP with macro percentage being all that and the preaching about low carb being healthier is tiresome. If it works for you, great. More likely the reason low carb seems healthier for some is that it helps them eat a healthier and more calorie appropriate diet within the context of the current environment, and not some inherent problem with carbs (which is basically to say with plant-based foods).
This thread is not about low carb diets at all, so I'm honestly not sure what your response is even about or how to respond to it.
The thread is not, but I perceived your comment to be -- specifically the comment about special diets being necessary for specific people with certain family histories and the focus on diabetes.
There's no one perfect diet, of course, but what we also know is that a huge range of different diets seem to lead to positive health outcomes for human populations. Therefore, I doubt there's any need to worry about an ideal diet for health. For pleasure and sustainability, sure, but the human body is on the whole more forgiving that you are giving it credit for -- humans can adjust and thrive on a wide range of diets (although the SAD, at least as typically defined, may not be one such example).
I'm not sure where I commented on family history. I did say that this research might be more important for diabetes as opposed to obesity.
You didn't. That was addressed to Moi Aussi--is the quoting messed up?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »I kind of take issue with the "obesity is a symptom of a health problem." Obesity is a symptom of eating more calories than you burn for an extended time period. Health problems can affect how much your body burns, but you still wouldn't become obese without the excess calories.
Moi - I think it's a leap because we know obesity plays a large role in those health issues yet we don't know a) the extent to which blood sugar plays a role in causing diabetes and heart disease (although I'm open to reading up on it you have material to the contrary), b) whether there even are significant differences in our individual metabolic processes related to blood sugar, and c) if those differences do exist, whether they are great enough to cause a change in the probability of a person coming down with those diseases.
It's all speculation at this point when it comes to "special snowflake hypothesis*" whereas we know that controlling weight will lower a person's likelihood of diabetes and heart problems.
*I'm not actually calling anyone a special snowflake; I'm just using the term for convenience.
There are a lot of thin people with diabetes, so it seems obvious that there is more to this than simply weight. That's why the research continues...to get a better understanding of ALL the relevant factors and how they interact.
It seems extremely short sighted to ignore the research just because every question has not yet been answered.
There were people with diabetes before the current period, of course. The issue right now is that the rate has gone way up, almost certainly due to the obesity rate. What percentage of people with diabetes currently aren't obese or overweight? It would be interesting to compare that to the more traditional rate of diabetes in this society (and perhaps in some others)?
Also, how is the diabetes rate in societies with a traditional low fat/high carb diet, like Japan? (And no, pointing to changes related to countries adopting a more western diet isn't the issue, I'm asking about with their traditional diet.)
Given the wide range of traditional diets and macro percentages -- more higher carb than very low carb -- I think the endless obsession at MFP with macro percentage being all that and the preaching about low carb being healthier is tiresome. If it works for you, great. More likely the reason low carb seems healthier for some is that it helps them eat a healthier and more calorie appropriate diet within the context of the current environment, and not some inherent problem with carbs (which is basically to say with plant-based foods).
This thread is not about low carb diets at all, so I'm honestly not sure what your response is even about or how to respond to it.
The thread is not, but I perceived your comment to be -- specifically the comment about special diets being necessary for specific people with certain family histories and the focus on diabetes.
There's no one perfect diet, of course, but what we also know is that a huge range of different diets seem to lead to positive health outcomes for human populations. Therefore, I doubt there's any need to worry about an ideal diet for health. For pleasure and sustainability, sure, but the human body is on the whole more forgiving that you are giving it credit for -- humans can adjust and thrive on a wide range of diets (although the SAD, at least as typically defined, may not be one such example).
I'm not sure where I commented on family history. I did say that this research might be more important for diabetes as opposed to obesity.
You didn't. That was addressed to Moi Aussi--is the quoting messed up?
Ok, I see. Carry on!0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Dismissive also has context. That I can think something is unworthy of my consideration is not saying it is unworthy of anyone's consideration. I thought I made very clear the difference between my consideration and the researchers', but I guess not.missblondi2u wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
When it's unproven is exactly the time for us to be dismissive of it. There may turn out to be something to it -- which isn't affected by one iota if I dismiss it today -- but there isn't now.missblondi2u wrote: »Listen, I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak. I'm not a scientist in any way, shape, or form. I just think that the research is interesting and that it's too early to be dismissive of it.
I mean, fusion may turn out to be totally awesome as a power source, but if someone wanted me to invest in it today, I think I'd pass. That doesn't mean I think people should abandon the research. It just means that talk about the potential benefits are somewhat premature.
Dismissive is defined as "feeling or showing that something is unworthy of consideration." I think this is worth considering.
So, I dismiss it because it has no practical use to me at this point. I don't say that researchers should dismiss it because they might find practical uses (even apart from the idea that I don't dictate what's important to them). We clear on the difference, now?
Crystal clear, sir. I guess I'm just not as selective as to what's worthy of my own personal consideration
0 -
On topic, I'm skeptical of the individualized diet thing just because for health I think the guidelines are general enough that they should work for everyone. Of course there will be foods that specific people react poorly to--allergies or intolerances and the like, and it does seem like individual diabetics have different blood sugar reactions to different foods, and people with health conditions will have special diets. However, I don't think that means it's important to have individualized diets or that that's going to be how to optimize health (vs. using judgment like we do now). It really sounds like a future money-making scheme: get analyzed to be told how you should eat.
Re gut bacteria, they change depending on what you eat anyway, which is one reason humans can so easily adjust to different ways of eating.0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
When it's unproven is exactly the time for us to be dismissive of it. There may turn out to be something to it -- which isn't affected by one iota if I dismiss it today -- but there isn't now.missblondi2u wrote: »Listen, I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak. I'm not a scientist in any way, shape, or form. I just think that the research is interesting and that it's too early to be dismissive of it.
I mean, fusion may turn out to be totally awesome as a power source, but if someone wanted me to invest in it today, I think I'd pass. That doesn't mean I think people should abandon the research. It just means that talk about the potential benefits are somewhat premature.
Dismissive is defined as "feeling or showing that something is unworthy of consideration." I think this is worth considering.
Bingo.0 -
I take it, then, that's you've considered this idea. What are your action items as a result of that consideration?Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
When it's unproven is exactly the time for us to be dismissive of it. There may turn out to be something to it -- which isn't affected by one iota if I dismiss it today -- but there isn't now.missblondi2u wrote: »Listen, I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak. I'm not a scientist in any way, shape, or form. I just think that the research is interesting and that it's too early to be dismissive of it.
I mean, fusion may turn out to be totally awesome as a power source, but if someone wanted me to invest in it today, I think I'd pass. That doesn't mean I think people should abandon the research. It just means that talk about the potential benefits are somewhat premature.
Dismissive is defined as "feeling or showing that something is unworthy of consideration." I think this is worth considering.
Bingo.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »On topic, I'm skeptical of the individualized diet thing just because for health I think the guidelines are general enough that they should work for everyone. Of course there will be foods that specific people react poorly to--allergies or intolerances and the like, and it does seem like individual diabetics have different blood sugar reactions to different foods, and people with health conditions will have special diets. However, I don't think that means it's important to have individualized diets or that that's going to be how to optimize health (vs. using judgment like we do now). It really sounds like a future money-making scheme: get analyzed to be told how you should eat.
Re gut bacteria, they change depending on what you eat anyway, which is one reason humans can so easily adjust to different ways of eating.
I think general food rules do apply to everyone (eat some greens, get some protein and carbs during the day, etc.), but the amounts of what a body needs will vary from person to person. That's why I always suggest to new people that there is no one magic diet for everyone, they have to experiment and come up with a way of eating that works best for them.
I do agree with this becoming another money-making scheme in the long run. A lot of people just want someone to tell them what to eat so they can lose weight or feel better and don't want to work it out for themselves. Maybe some people feel that unless a professional signs off on something it isn't valid? I dunno, but I would prefer people do that and go to a licensed dietitian and get a personalized diet that they can live with than try fad diet after fad diet with no result. At least that way, they can get help finding out what works best for them and if a professional signed off on it, maybe they'll stick with it and be healthier in the long run.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »On topic, I'm skeptical of the individualized diet thing just because for health I think the guidelines are general enough that they should work for everyone. Of course there will be foods that specific people react poorly to--allergies or intolerances and the like, and it does seem like individual diabetics have different blood sugar reactions to different foods, and people with health conditions will have special diets. However, I don't think that means it's important to have individualized diets or that that's going to be how to optimize health (vs. using judgment like we do now). It really sounds like a future money-making scheme: get analyzed to be told how you should eat.
Re gut bacteria, they change depending on what you eat anyway, which is one reason humans can so easily adjust to different ways of eating.
I think general food rules do apply to everyone (eat some greens, get some protein and carbs during the day, etc.), but the amounts of what a body needs will vary from person to person. That's why I always suggest to new people that there is no one magic diet for everyone, they have to experiment and come up with a way of eating that works best for them.
I do agree with this becoming another money-making scheme in the long run. A lot of people just want someone to tell them what to eat so they can lose weight or feel better and don't want to work it out for themselves. Maybe some people feel that unless a professional signs off on something it isn't valid? I dunno, but I would prefer people do that and go to a licensed dietitian and get a personalized diet that they can live with than try fad diet after fad diet with no result. At least that way, they can get help finding out what works best for them and if a professional signed off on it, maybe they'll stick with it and be healthier in the long run.
Good point, especially considering the recent Johns Hopkins study that showed doctor support was a contributing factor to weight loss.
http://hub.jhu.edu/2015/08/24/weight-loss-doctor-support0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 941 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions