Don't always believe what you read on the internet............
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alluminati wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »While I agree with the subject line and most of your post, I think using MFP as a "resource" for knowledge is dangerous. There is a lot of nonsense on here. I'd suggest people take everything read on MFP with a grain of salt. It would be wise to verify everything through a reliable referenced source.
I would agree with this as well. We are fortunate to have some users who do research topics thoroughly and share information, however many things in diet, fitness, and nutrition come down to personal preference of one concept supported by science vs. another concept also supported by science.
It's important to figure out what your goals are and what is feasible for your lifestyle, not just doing what someone else suggests because "science!" It doesn't matter how much science is behind a concept, if it's not something you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good.
I'd generally agree with everything but the last (bolded) sentence.
It absolutely matters how much science is behind a concept. Integrating concepts into your life that have no science behind them aren't going to do you a lick of good either.
That last sentence is not always true. There are a number of things that can do good that have not been studied or studied fully enough to say "this is good". Science can prove/suggest something is good, but it doesn't make it good.
Do you have examples?
Is that a serious request or will you just come back that I have no proof the thing(s) are good?
But, an example would be that exercise was good for us long before science proved it was good. Either you believe we know everything there is to know about what is good for us, or we assume that there are still things that are good for us that have yet to be proved.
I don't ever recall a time where the question of exercise being beneficial was in doubt...0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alluminati wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »While I agree with the subject line and most of your post, I think using MFP as a "resource" for knowledge is dangerous. There is a lot of nonsense on here. I'd suggest people take everything read on MFP with a grain of salt. It would be wise to verify everything through a reliable referenced source.
I would agree with this as well. We are fortunate to have some users who do research topics thoroughly and share information, however many things in diet, fitness, and nutrition come down to personal preference of one concept supported by science vs. another concept also supported by science.
It's important to figure out what your goals are and what is feasible for your lifestyle, not just doing what someone else suggests because "science!" It doesn't matter how much science is behind a concept, if it's not something you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good.
I'd generally agree with everything but the last (bolded) sentence.
It absolutely matters how much science is behind a concept. Integrating concepts into your life that have no science behind them aren't going to do you a lick of good either.
That last sentence is not always true. There are a number of things that can do good that have not been studied or studied fully enough to say "this is good". Science can prove/suggest something is good, but it doesn't make it good.
Do you have examples?
Is that a serious request or will you just come back that I have no proof the thing(s) are good?
But, an example would be that exercise was good for us long before science proved it was good. Either you believe we know everything there is to know about what is good for us, or we assume that there are still things that are good for us that have yet to be proved.
I don't ever recall a time where the question of exercise being beneficial was in doubt...
No, I don't imagine you were alive then. How about essential oils?0 -
People falsely attribute accidental success (from staying in a calorie deficit) to something like mealtime adherence or a PM eating cutoff. Spreading that misconception creates additional confusion. Simply shrugging and saying that everyone has a different viewpoint may feel good, but it does nothing to help a person understand that it was the deficit, not the myth, that led to the success.0
-
tincanonastring wrote: »People falsely attribute accidental success (from staying in a calorie deficit) to something like mealtime adherence or a PM eating cutoff. Spreading that misconception creates additional confusion. Simply shrugging and saying that everyone has a different viewpoint may feel good, but it does nothing to help a person understand that it was the deficit, not the myth, that led to the success.
100% agreed. Many people (I was included in this group) are hoping for accidental success rather than buckling down to the basics (CICO).
0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »People falsely attribute accidental success (from staying in a calorie deficit) to something like mealtime adherence or a PM eating cutoff. Spreading that misconception creates additional confusion. Simply shrugging and saying that everyone has a different viewpoint may feel good, but it does nothing to help a person understand that it was the deficit, not the myth, that led to the success.
Sometimes I'm sure that's true. But sometimes the success isn't accidental and things like meal timing is exactly what made staying in a deficit possible.0 -
Just a note...recently did a 5K last weekend and thought it was funny when i noticed a fellow runner suck on a cigarette 10 mins before the race. I guess he needed it. Remember when they said smoking was good for you and doctors in the ads said certain brands helped with less throat irritation.0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »Conversely, it doesn't matter how much you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good if the science doesn't support it. Doing something because you can manage to do it isn't enough.
Good point. There's no right way to do a wrong thing.
That's not entirely true. There's no science that supports stopping eating at a particular time, or eating meals at certain times, as directly impacting weight loss, i.e. your body does not shut down when you go to sleep or stop burning calories if you don't eat every few hours to keep your metabolism going, which are the typical supposedly science-based explanations for doing that.
But both strategies can be helpful to an individual for dietary adherence, which can help keep a calorie deficit. So not directly supported by science, but not exactly wrong either. Wrong is pretty much in the eye of the beholder when it comes to weight loss and exercise. For some people, the learning process is more important than the scale number, so while you might find something to be a waste of time, someone else might gain a skill that will help them later on. There's no "right" way to go about this process.juggernaut1974 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Conversely, it doesn't matter how much you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good if the science doesn't support it. Doing something because you can manage to do it isn't enough.
Good point. There's no right way to do a wrong thing.
That's not entirely true. There's no science that supports stopping eating at a particular time, or eating meals at certain times, as directly impacting weight loss, i.e. your body does not shut down when you go to sleep or stop burning calories if you don't eat every few hours to keep your metabolism going, which are the typical supposedly science-based explanations for doing that.
But both strategies can be helpful to an individual for dietary adherence, which can help keep a calorie deficit. So not directly supported by science, but not exactly wrong either. Wrong is pretty much in the eye of the beholder when it comes to weight loss and exercise. For some people, the learning process is more important than the scale number, so while you might find something to be a waste of time, someone else might gain a skill that will help them later on. There's no "right" way to go about this process.
Well....yeah. No duh (if I may be so blunt)
The science in your example is behind the concept of a calorie deficit. Science isn't needed to 'bless' every method of achieving the calorie deficit...just the fact that one maintains the deficit.
However, if one stops eating at a certain time of day (because one has bought into derp about metabolism shutting down) but doesn't maintain a deficit, it won't do them a lick of good.
So using your example, the science is extremely important and pertinent.
My thoughts exactly...0 -
mattyc772014 wrote: »Just a note...recently did a 5K last weekend and thought it was funny when i noticed a fellow runner suck on a cigarette 10 mins before the race. I guess he needed it. Remember when they said smoking was good for you and doctors in the ads said certain brands helped with less throat irritation.
Teddy Roosevelt was supposed to smoke to treat his asthma. Strangely, when he took up exercise, he found that to be a much better treatment...0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »People falsely attribute accidental success (from staying in a calorie deficit) to something like mealtime adherence or a PM eating cutoff. Spreading that misconception creates additional confusion. Simply shrugging and saying that everyone has a different viewpoint may feel good, but it does nothing to help a person understand that it was the deficit, not the myth, that led to the success.
Sometimes I'm sure that's true. But sometimes the success isn't accidental and things like meal timing is exactly what made staying in a deficit possible.
No disagreement on that point...But that doesn't mean the first piece of advice out of my mouth would be 'meal timing for weight loss'.
Personally, I believe it much more beneficial to those actively seeking weight loss advice to focus on the deficit (the "science") and let each person figure out for him/herself how to best achieve that deficit, rather than to advise one method and hope they accidentally succeed.0 -
mattyc772014 wrote: »Just a note...recently did a 5K last weekend and thought it was funny when i noticed a fellow runner suck on a cigarette 10 mins before the race. I guess he needed it. Remember when they said smoking was good for you and doctors in the ads said certain brands helped with less throat irritation.
Or this ad
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »People falsely attribute accidental success (from staying in a calorie deficit) to something like mealtime adherence or a PM eating cutoff. Spreading that misconception creates additional confusion. Simply shrugging and saying that everyone has a different viewpoint may feel good, but it does nothing to help a person understand that it was the deficit, not the myth, that led to the success.
Sometimes I'm sure that's true. But sometimes the success isn't accidental and things like meal timing is exactly what made staying in a deficit possible.
Yet there's a difference that gets ignored. In those cases, the person is using the meal timing to adhere to a calorie deficit versus stumbling into a calorie deficit due to meal time adherence. The person is consciously making the decision to use tools (meal timing) to achieve the science (calorie deficit).0 -
Nonsense will get countered by those who can support better information. And the most reliable people will use legitimate research to back them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »While I agree with the subject line and most of your post, I think using MFP as a "resource" for knowledge is dangerous. There is a lot of nonsense on here. I'd suggest people take everything read on MFP with a grain of salt. It would be wise to verify everything through a reliable referenced source.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Nonsense will get countered by those who can support better information. And the most reliable people will use legitimate research to back them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »While I agree with the subject line and most of your post, I think using MFP as a "resource" for knowledge is dangerous. There is a lot of nonsense on here. I'd suggest people take everything read on MFP with a grain of salt. It would be wise to verify everything through a reliable referenced source.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Hear hear
Until the reliable people are silenced of course0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »Conversely, it doesn't matter how much you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good if the science doesn't support it. Doing something because you can manage to do it isn't enough.
Good point. There's no right way to do a wrong thing.
That's not entirely true. There's no science that supports stopping eating at a particular time, or eating meals at certain times, as directly impacting weight loss, i.e. your body does not shut down when you go to sleep or stop burning calories if you don't eat every few hours to keep your metabolism going, which are the typical supposedly science-based explanations for doing that.
But both strategies can be helpful to an individual for dietary adherence, which can help keep a calorie deficit. So not directly supported by science, but not exactly wrong either. Wrong is pretty much in the eye of the beholder when it comes to weight loss and exercise. For some people, the learning process is more important than the scale number, so while you might find something to be a waste of time, someone else might gain a skill that will help them later on. There's no "right" way to go about this process.
Sure, like in the green tea thread, I told the OP if it was working for her who cares if science doesn't support it. (While someone did post a study that supported green tea and weight loss, that was a minority view.)
That OP was not trying to get a paper published or get FDA approval.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Conversely, it doesn't matter how much you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good if the science doesn't support it. Doing something because you can manage to do it isn't enough.
Good point. There's no right way to do a wrong thing.
That's not entirely true. There's no science that supports stopping eating at a particular time, or eating meals at certain times, as directly impacting weight loss, i.e. your body does not shut down when you go to sleep or stop burning calories if you don't eat every few hours to keep your metabolism going, which are the typical supposedly science-based explanations for doing that.
But both strategies can be helpful to an individual for dietary adherence, which can help keep a calorie deficit. So not directly supported by science, but not exactly wrong either. Wrong is pretty much in the eye of the beholder when it comes to weight loss and exercise. For some people, the learning process is more important than the scale number, so while you might find something to be a waste of time, someone else might gain a skill that will help them later on. There's no "right" way to go about this process.
Sure, like in the green tea thread, I told the OP if it was working for her who cares if science doesn't support it. (While someone did post a study that supported green tea and weight loss, that was a minority view.)
That OP was not trying to get a paper published or get FDA approval.
But drinking the green tea wasn't helping that OP lose weight...it helped adhere to CICO which is the science...I could drink black coffee and get teh same effects...or imagine water.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »While I agree with the subject line and most of your post, I think using MFP as a "resource" for knowledge is dangerous. There is a lot of nonsense on here. I'd suggest people take everything read on MFP with a grain of salt. It would be wise to verify everything through a reliable referenced source.
I would agree with this as well. We are fortunate to have some users who do research topics thoroughly and share information, however many things in diet, fitness, and nutrition come down to personal preference of one concept supported by science vs. another concept also supported by science.
It's important to figure out what your goals are and what is feasible for your lifestyle, not just doing what someone else suggests because "science!" It doesn't matter how much science is behind a concept, if it's not something you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good.
Being able to find bad science to support your position doesn't mean that using science is a bad metric.
It just means that you need to be discerning and know the difference between good and bad science and know exactly what you're reading.
There's a lot of misused science on these forums for people supporting their positions, and your post here is doing nothing but pointing that out.
As for detox diets? I don't believe this statement:To the best of our knowledge, no randomised controlled trials have been conducted to assess the effectiveness of commercial detox diets in humans. This is an area that deserves attention so that consumers can be informed of the potential benefits and risks of detox programmes.
is a call for further research so much as "buyer beware". I think the implication in the phrases "deserving attention" and "deserving further study" and the context in which this was used and which "deserving further study is usually used really matter here.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Conversely, it doesn't matter how much you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good if the science doesn't support it. Doing something because you can manage to do it isn't enough.
Good point. There's no right way to do a wrong thing.
That's not entirely true. There's no science that supports stopping eating at a particular time, or eating meals at certain times, as directly impacting weight loss, i.e. your body does not shut down when you go to sleep or stop burning calories if you don't eat every few hours to keep your metabolism going, which are the typical supposedly science-based explanations for doing that.
But both strategies can be helpful to an individual for dietary adherence, which can help keep a calorie deficit. So not directly supported by science, but not exactly wrong either. Wrong is pretty much in the eye of the beholder when it comes to weight loss and exercise. For some people, the learning process is more important than the scale number, so while you might find something to be a waste of time, someone else might gain a skill that will help them later on. There's no "right" way to go about this process.
Sure, like in the green tea thread, I told the OP if it was working for her who cares if science doesn't support it. (While someone did post a study that supported green tea and weight loss, that was a minority view.)
That OP was not trying to get a paper published or get FDA approval.
Except "it's" not actually working for her. What's working is the calorie deficit. An OP confusing correllation for causation does not mean the nonsense is actually working.0 -
Nonsense will get countered by those who can support better information. And the most reliable people will use legitimate research to back them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »While I agree with the subject line and most of your post, I think using MFP as a "resource" for knowledge is dangerous. There is a lot of nonsense on here. I'd suggest people take everything read on MFP with a grain of salt. It would be wise to verify everything through a reliable referenced source.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Sometimes it will0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Conversely, it doesn't matter how much you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good if the science doesn't support it. Doing something because you can manage to do it isn't enough.
Good point. There's no right way to do a wrong thing.
That's not entirely true. There's no science that supports stopping eating at a particular time, or eating meals at certain times, as directly impacting weight loss, i.e. your body does not shut down when you go to sleep or stop burning calories if you don't eat every few hours to keep your metabolism going, which are the typical supposedly science-based explanations for doing that.
But both strategies can be helpful to an individual for dietary adherence, which can help keep a calorie deficit. So not directly supported by science, but not exactly wrong either. Wrong is pretty much in the eye of the beholder when it comes to weight loss and exercise. For some people, the learning process is more important than the scale number, so while you might find something to be a waste of time, someone else might gain a skill that will help them later on. There's no "right" way to go about this process.
Sure, like in the green tea thread, I told the OP if it was working for her who cares if science doesn't support it. (While someone did post a study that supported green tea and weight loss, that was a minority view.)
That OP was not trying to get a paper published or get FDA approval.
Except "it's" not actually working for her. What's working is the calorie deficit. An OP confusing correllation for causation does not mean the nonsense is actually working.
I also don't agree with the, "what's the harm if they THINK it works for them even if we all know it doesn't" philosophy. Too many people then start espousing the approach as the end all be all to weight loss, without mentioning the true cause of calorie deficit, and others then buy into it, drink the tea, take the raspberry ketones, use the wraps, whatever.... and the next thing you know they are on here complaining that they can't lose the weight and they don't know why.
It is important to distinguish between something that is a correlation and actual causation. Pointing out that it's not harmful to drink the Green Tea is fine, but that isn't actually what is causing the weight loss, the calorie deficit (ie the science) is; is not mean.
0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Conversely, it doesn't matter how much you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good if the science doesn't support it. Doing something because you can manage to do it isn't enough.
Good point. There's no right way to do a wrong thing.
That's not entirely true. There's no science that supports stopping eating at a particular time, or eating meals at certain times, as directly impacting weight loss, i.e. your body does not shut down when you go to sleep or stop burning calories if you don't eat every few hours to keep your metabolism going, which are the typical supposedly science-based explanations for doing that.
But both strategies can be helpful to an individual for dietary adherence, which can help keep a calorie deficit. So not directly supported by science, but not exactly wrong either. Wrong is pretty much in the eye of the beholder when it comes to weight loss and exercise. For some people, the learning process is more important than the scale number, so while you might find something to be a waste of time, someone else might gain a skill that will help them later on. There's no "right" way to go about this process.
Sure, like in the green tea thread, I told the OP if it was working for her who cares if science doesn't support it. (While someone did post a study that supported green tea and weight loss, that was a minority view.)
That OP was not trying to get a paper published or get FDA approval.
Except "it's" not actually working for her. What's working is the calorie deficit. An OP confusing correllation for causation does not mean the nonsense is actually working.
I think very often the "how" is as (or more) important as the "what".
As someone pointed out above psychology plays a role in weight loss. Often a fairly significant role. Insisting that phisiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.0 -
Opposing sides will always try their best to support their POV, however those with legitimate research and resources will probably garner more attention. While there are ways where some will try to manipulate information (formaldehyde formation from diet soda drinking was a good one), those that are "in the know" would be able to counter.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Nonsense will get countered by those who can support better information. And the most reliable people will use legitimate research to back them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »While I agree with the subject line and most of your post, I think using MFP as a "resource" for knowledge is dangerous. There is a lot of nonsense on here. I'd suggest people take everything read on MFP with a grain of salt. It would be wise to verify everything through a reliable referenced source.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Sometimes it will
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Especially when it comes to weight loss. It's a billion dollar industry and many a company will purport having the best diet/product out there to help you attain it backing it by testimonials, "clinical" study and pseudoscience.
It's so easy to be enticed by promises of fast weight loss, trim waistlines, losses of 10lbs or more in a week (which is possible with just calorie deficit alone) and experiences from friends and relatives.
Use MFP to help you research information from lots of members who not only have great knowledge from actual research, but use those applications to weight loss themselves. Many have backgrounds in medical and scientific method, so they aren't just passing on information that's not unsupported by actual science.
Be wary of programs that are exorbitant in cost and method (restrictive) because while they may help achieve weight loss, it's usually not going to be a program that one can adhere to and that money you spent could have been used more efficiently.
Overall realize that weight loss is DIRECTLY dependent on sustaining a calorie deficit on a consistent basis and that ALL diet and weight loss programs have to apply it or they won't work.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
A great book about this is "Diet Cults" which @lemurcat12 recommended to me.
From the national bestselling author of Racing Weight, Matt Fitzgerald exposes the irrationality, half-truths, and downright impossibility of a “single right way” to eat, and reveals how to develop rational, healthy eating habits.
From “The Four Hour Body,” to “Atkins,” there are diet cults to match seemingly any mood and personality type. Everywhere we turn, someone is preaching the “One True Way” to eat for maximum health. Paleo Diet advocates tell us that all foods less than 12,000 years old are the enemy. Low-carb gurus demonize carbs, then there are the low-fat prophets. But they agree on one thing: there is only one true way to eat for maximum health. The first clue that that is a fallacy is the sheer variety of diets advocated. Indeed, while all of these competing views claim to be backed by “science,” a good look at actual nutritional science itself suggests that it is impossible to identify a single best way to eat. Fitzgerald advocates an agnostic, rational approach to eating habits, based on one’s own habits, lifestyle, and genetics/body type. Many professional athletes already practice this “Good Enough” diet, and now we can too and ditch the brainwashing of these diet cults for good.0 -
BUT.....BUT.... it has to be true! I read it on the internet!0
-
kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Conversely, it doesn't matter how much you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good if the science doesn't support it. Doing something because you can manage to do it isn't enough.
Good point. There's no right way to do a wrong thing.
That's not entirely true. There's no science that supports stopping eating at a particular time, or eating meals at certain times, as directly impacting weight loss, i.e. your body does not shut down when you go to sleep or stop burning calories if you don't eat every few hours to keep your metabolism going, which are the typical supposedly science-based explanations for doing that.
But both strategies can be helpful to an individual for dietary adherence, which can help keep a calorie deficit. So not directly supported by science, but not exactly wrong either. Wrong is pretty much in the eye of the beholder when it comes to weight loss and exercise. For some people, the learning process is more important than the scale number, so while you might find something to be a waste of time, someone else might gain a skill that will help them later on. There's no "right" way to go about this process.
Sure, like in the green tea thread, I told the OP if it was working for her who cares if science doesn't support it. (While someone did post a study that supported green tea and weight loss, that was a minority view.)
That OP was not trying to get a paper published or get FDA approval.
green tea does absolutely zero for enhancing weight loss.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Conversely, it doesn't matter how much you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good if the science doesn't support it. Doing something because you can manage to do it isn't enough.
Good point. There's no right way to do a wrong thing.
That's not entirely true. There's no science that supports stopping eating at a particular time, or eating meals at certain times, as directly impacting weight loss, i.e. your body does not shut down when you go to sleep or stop burning calories if you don't eat every few hours to keep your metabolism going, which are the typical supposedly science-based explanations for doing that.
But both strategies can be helpful to an individual for dietary adherence, which can help keep a calorie deficit. So not directly supported by science, but not exactly wrong either. Wrong is pretty much in the eye of the beholder when it comes to weight loss and exercise. For some people, the learning process is more important than the scale number, so while you might find something to be a waste of time, someone else might gain a skill that will help them later on. There's no "right" way to go about this process.
Sure, like in the green tea thread, I told the OP if it was working for her who cares if science doesn't support it. (While someone did post a study that supported green tea and weight loss, that was a minority view.)
That OP was not trying to get a paper published or get FDA approval.
green tea does absolutely zero for enhancing weight loss.
Is there science to back up this statement?0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Conversely, it doesn't matter how much you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good if the science doesn't support it. Doing something because you can manage to do it isn't enough.
Good point. There's no right way to do a wrong thing.
That's not entirely true. There's no science that supports stopping eating at a particular time, or eating meals at certain times, as directly impacting weight loss, i.e. your body does not shut down when you go to sleep or stop burning calories if you don't eat every few hours to keep your metabolism going, which are the typical supposedly science-based explanations for doing that.
But both strategies can be helpful to an individual for dietary adherence, which can help keep a calorie deficit. So not directly supported by science, but not exactly wrong either. Wrong is pretty much in the eye of the beholder when it comes to weight loss and exercise. For some people, the learning process is more important than the scale number, so while you might find something to be a waste of time, someone else might gain a skill that will help them later on. There's no "right" way to go about this process.
Sure, like in the green tea thread, I told the OP if it was working for her who cares if science doesn't support it. (While someone did post a study that supported green tea and weight loss, that was a minority view.)
That OP was not trying to get a paper published or get FDA approval.
Except "it's" not actually working for her. What's working is the calorie deficit. An OP confusing correllation for causation does not mean the nonsense is actually working.
I believe we call that a placebo effect.
Personally, its fine that one can believe the xx or yy is working but if you are promote your belief as science it definitely needs to be addressed. Like i stated in a thread earlier, its how the information is presented.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Conversely, it doesn't matter how much you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good if the science doesn't support it. Doing something because you can manage to do it isn't enough.
Good point. There's no right way to do a wrong thing.
That's not entirely true. There's no science that supports stopping eating at a particular time, or eating meals at certain times, as directly impacting weight loss, i.e. your body does not shut down when you go to sleep or stop burning calories if you don't eat every few hours to keep your metabolism going, which are the typical supposedly science-based explanations for doing that.
But both strategies can be helpful to an individual for dietary adherence, which can help keep a calorie deficit. So not directly supported by science, but not exactly wrong either. Wrong is pretty much in the eye of the beholder when it comes to weight loss and exercise. For some people, the learning process is more important than the scale number, so while you might find something to be a waste of time, someone else might gain a skill that will help them later on. There's no "right" way to go about this process.
Sure, like in the green tea thread, I told the OP if it was working for her who cares if science doesn't support it. (While someone did post a study that supported green tea and weight loss, that was a minority view.)
That OP was not trying to get a paper published or get FDA approval.
Except "it's" not actually working for her. What's working is the calorie deficit. An OP confusing correllation for causation does not mean the nonsense is actually working.
I also don't agree with the, "what's the harm if they THINK it works for them even if we all know it doesn't" philosophy. Too many people then start espousing the approach as the end all be all to weight loss, without mentioning the true cause of calorie deficit, and others then buy into it, drink the tea, take the raspberry ketones, use the wraps, whatever.... and the next thing you know they are on here complaining that they can't lose the weight and they don't know why.
It is important to distinguish between something that is a correlation and actual causation. Pointing out that it's not harmful to drink the Green Tea is fine, but that isn't actually what is causing the weight loss, the calorie deficit (ie the science) is; is not mean also necessary.
FTFY - If you're going to give the feelz, you've also got to correct the inaccurate information. Otherwise, you are actively fostering their misconception.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Conversely, it doesn't matter how much you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good if the science doesn't support it. Doing something because you can manage to do it isn't enough.
Good point. There's no right way to do a wrong thing.
That's not entirely true. There's no science that supports stopping eating at a particular time, or eating meals at certain times, as directly impacting weight loss, i.e. your body does not shut down when you go to sleep or stop burning calories if you don't eat every few hours to keep your metabolism going, which are the typical supposedly science-based explanations for doing that.
But both strategies can be helpful to an individual for dietary adherence, which can help keep a calorie deficit. So not directly supported by science, but not exactly wrong either. Wrong is pretty much in the eye of the beholder when it comes to weight loss and exercise. For some people, the learning process is more important than the scale number, so while you might find something to be a waste of time, someone else might gain a skill that will help them later on. There's no "right" way to go about this process.
Sure, like in the green tea thread, I told the OP if it was working for her who cares if science doesn't support it. (While someone did post a study that supported green tea and weight loss, that was a minority view.)
That OP was not trying to get a paper published or get FDA approval.
green tea does absolutely zero for enhancing weight loss.
Is there science to back up this statement?
yes, and you can locate it on your own.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Conversely, it doesn't matter how much you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good if the science doesn't support it. Doing something because you can manage to do it isn't enough.
Good point. There's no right way to do a wrong thing.
That's not entirely true. There's no science that supports stopping eating at a particular time, or eating meals at certain times, as directly impacting weight loss, i.e. your body does not shut down when you go to sleep or stop burning calories if you don't eat every few hours to keep your metabolism going, which are the typical supposedly science-based explanations for doing that.
But both strategies can be helpful to an individual for dietary adherence, which can help keep a calorie deficit. So not directly supported by science, but not exactly wrong either. Wrong is pretty much in the eye of the beholder when it comes to weight loss and exercise. For some people, the learning process is more important than the scale number, so while you might find something to be a waste of time, someone else might gain a skill that will help them later on. There's no "right" way to go about this process.
Sure, like in the green tea thread, I told the OP if it was working for her who cares if science doesn't support it. (While someone did post a study that supported green tea and weight loss, that was a minority view.)
That OP was not trying to get a paper published or get FDA approval.
Except "it's" not actually working for her. What's working is the calorie deficit. An OP confusing correllation for causation does not mean the nonsense is actually working.
I also don't agree with the, "what's the harm if they THINK it works for them even if we all know it doesn't" philosophy. Too many people then start espousing the approach as the end all be all to weight loss, without mentioning the true cause of calorie deficit, and others then buy into it, drink the tea, take the raspberry ketones, use the wraps, whatever.... and the next thing you know they are on here complaining that they can't lose the weight and they don't know why.
It is important to distinguish between something that is a correlation and actual causation. Pointing out that it's not harmful to drink the Green Tea is fine, but that isn't actually what is causing the weight loss, the calorie deficit (ie the science) is; is not mean also necessary.
FTFY - If you're going to give the feelz, you've also got to correct the inaccurate information. Otherwise, you are actively fostering their misconception.
Thank you, I did word that poorly. I absolutely agree that correcting the misconception is necessary, even if someone feels that something is working for them...0 -
Some just need to argue0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 437 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions