Don't always believe what you read on the internet............
Options
Replies
-
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.
The "science-based" explanations for doing those things are junk and have been debunked. However, there's no science indicating that they're "wrong" to do within the context of satiety, adherence or maintaining a caloric deficit 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.
There is a most definitely a right way to go about the process...maintain a caloric deficit. There are a lot of parameters that can be tweaked within that framework for individual preference, body composition/fitness/performance goals, but without a deficit you're not going to lose anything.
Saying that "wrong is pretty much in the eye of the beholder" is misleading. Somebody who takes raspberry ketones, green tea, green coffee bean extract and drinks Snakeoilogy while doing detoxes/cleanses and not maintaining a deficit isn't going to gain any skills to help them later on, nor are they going to lose weight. Somebody who considers "strength training" as doing triceps kickbacks with little pink dumbbells on a bosu ball isn't doing anything beneficial and they're not going to see any appreciable results from it, despite some article in a women's magazine raving about it being the way to a "lean, toned body!!!1!1!"
There are many things you can tweak that are not necessarily "wrong" - but if you read through the forums here, you'll see a lot of people who suggest things that demonstrate either a profound misunderstanding (or total lack of understanding) of basic diet and fitness principles. Some of them are MLM scammers with a product to sell, but many of them are just people who've been mislead by the scummy diet/supplement/fitness industry which, to paraphrase Ninerbuff in the OP, is a multi-billion dollar industry based upon pseudoscience, hype and fraud, which preys upon desperate and poorly informed individuals.0 -
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?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.
The science actually says you can eat after a certain time and it doesn't hurt your weight loss as long as you are in a calorie deficit
adherence to a calorie deficit is not science is a personal choice...
So the science in that example does matter...CICO is the science how you apply it is a choice.
Wrong is wrong.....1+1=3 is wrong where as 1+1=2 is right...why science....no matter who the beholder is.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
this is especially pertinent with new years coming up where all kinds of folks will be peddling cleanses, detoxes, exercise programs, machines, and everything else under the sun that will purport to make one lose weight "fast"...0 -
The web is a great resource as are health books, CDC, My Plate, Fitness Pal, etc. But I agree, you have to use health tools wisely. One thing I have learned...live healthy - what ever that means to you. For me it is eating my veggies (lots of them!), drinking my H20, staying positive, and being outdoors to walk, run, hike and just enjoy life. This is what keeps me healthy and happy.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
this is especially pertinent with new years coming up where all kinds of folks will be peddling cleanses, detoxes, exercise programs, machines, and everything else under the sun that will purport to make one lose weight "fast"...
Hush now
It might not happen this year0 -
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.
Your post might be accurate, but it certainly doesn't pertain to the statement, "There's no right way to do a wrong thing." Wrong things would be dietary modes like VLCD, or Juice cleanses, or detoxes.
As I said, wrong is in the eye of the beholder. Not everyone views science the same way. Some people need clinical evidence to believe something works, others view a lack of definitive clinical evidence as a reason to explore something for themselves. As far I know, there are little or no peer-reviewed journal studies about juicing and weight loss one way or the other. VLCDs can be doctor-supervised, so giving an absolute label of "wrong" is subjective at best.
About detoxes, I found a recent study on pubmed that states that there is very little clinical evidence to support their use, but there were some clinical studies that did show liver detoxification (it was pointed out that these studies has some methodology flaws of concern), and that it was an area that deserved further study. Stating that it needs further study says to me that the researchers aren't outright dismissing the claims as "wrong." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25522674
Note: I don't want this discussion to go off into an argument about whose approach is right or wrong, I just wanted to make the point that different people are going to have different approaches and viewpoints. I think people need to find what works for them as an individual and not feel pressure to follow approaches that are not realistic for them just because someone else does it or someone links up a journal article. I'm not going to argue about cleanses, detoxes, the above article, or anything other "if you're not doing X, you're doing it wrong" type debate, and I'm not going to respond to any posts heading down that path. So basically, I'm out, enjoy the discussion.
0 -
lilyrunner wrote: »The web is a great resource as are health books, CDC, My Plate, Fitness Pal, etc. But I agree, you have to use health tools wisely. One thing I have learned...live healthy - what ever that means to you. For me it is eating my veggies (lots of them!), drinking my H20, staying positive, and being outdoors to walk, run, hike and just enjoy life. This is what keeps me healthy and happy.
The 'web and MFP can be a great asset or completely useless, depending upon how well you're able to sort through the chaff. There's a lot more garbage and woo on the 'web than there is useful information.rabbitjb wrote:Hush now
It might not happen this year
LOL. Snort.
0 -
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.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.
That something is not required doesn't mean it can't be helpful.
I find it helpful not to snack, others find it helpful to eat lots of mini-meals (which would make me miserable). The problem is if someone confuses "these are strategies that might help with compliance" with "this will make a difference in how many calories you burn" or worse (and oh so common on in the world of dieting woo) "this is necessary to lose weight."
For example, even something so stupid as the military diet is, in reality, a form of IF, which can work for people as a way to cut calories. The problem is the military diet gets promoted as about the magical effect of hotdogs plus ice cream plus canned tuna or whatever it is and people think they are losing weight because of food combinations and not because they are reducing calories. They think they need someone to tell them what to eat because they think it's far, far more complicated than it is.
If I bought into dieting lore, I might have thought I had to eat lots of mini meals or eat dinner before 7 (which is impossible for me, I'm never home that early), and I can see trying and failing and getting frustrated and deciding my life makes losing weight impossible. But by knowing it's claptrap and that instead I can focus on what psychologically makes a deficit easier for me, I was able to easily maintain a deficit. Sadly, the advice niner seemed to be talking about never is "here's a tactic that might help you, try it and see if you like it" but instead "never do this, you must do this instead!"0 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 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
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions