Don't always believe what you read on the internet............
Replies
-
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.
^This. Is it better for that poster to remain ignorant to the facts of what is happening with her body? Nothing wrong with drinking green tea if you like it, but she should understand what's happening for her or she won't be able to form healthy habits. Green tea will become a magic potion fix it all. How is that helpful?0 -
Need2Exerc1se 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 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 physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.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.
Yep so much this.
I doubt anyone gives a rat's patootie what someone else personally thinks is working for himself...whether it's due to science, placebo effect, accident or simply correlation.
The distinction to note is when one starts proferring that method as advice to others, THAT'S when the science is called for.
If someone is drinking green tea, and losing weight, I would never ask them for the science proving it.
If someone makes a post on MFP saying "Drink green tea and you'll lose weight", then I would ask for the science (and despite some people's belief, their n=1 personal anecdotes are not science).0 -
Will have to check out the book.kshama2001 wrote: »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.
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 -
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.
Nonsense0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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 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 physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.
And tying this back into my last post, I wouldn't bother asking you to prove scientifically why those "number of things" worked for you.
However, if you start evangelizing that those things are what cause weight loss and advised that if others just "did those things" they'll lose weight, then yes, people would want to see more than n=1 proof.0 -
I too believe that psychological aspect should have attention when someone is working on self improvement in any way.kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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 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 physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.
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 -
Please, let's not derail this thread. How without understanding why is pointless.
You can have your psychological house all in order and if you're still eating too damned much, none of it matters.
I can't see why this is a nit worth picking.
There are two separate subjects being discussed here. Weight loss often does require a multi-faceted approach. I will definitely agree with that.
Bottom line, though? If you don't eat less than you burn, you can do a lot of other stuff and none of it will matter.
As evidence, I will present as proof every single "HALP! I eat clean, 3 meals and 2 small snacks of whole organic food a day. I don't eat sugar or anything white or processed. I work out 5 times a week, twice with weighs, and 3 times doing HiIT. And I've gained 5 pounds/can't lose weight/lost one pound and then nothing for months!!!!! What's wrong???" posts.
Way too many people focus on how instead of what. The prevailing media culture of quick fixes, sound bites, the voices of a hundred bloggers, sensationalized two minute morning news segments, and screaming women's magazine covers reinforces the how ad nauseum.
There's inverted thinking here on mfp that people who bang on about CICO and moderation and science are somehow in the majority that makes me a laugh. In the world of dieting, we're the outliers.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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 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 physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.
And tying this back into my last post, I wouldn't bother asking you to prove scientifically why those "number of things" worked for you.
However, if you start evangelizing that those things are what cause weight loss and advised that if others just "did those things" they'll lose weight, then yes, people would want to see more than n=1 proof.
Sure, which is why I have not and will not
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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 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 physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.
And tying this back into my last post, I wouldn't bother asking you to prove scientifically why those "number of things" worked for you.
However, if you start evangelizing that those things are what cause weight loss and advised that if others just "did those things" they'll lose weight, then yes, people would want to see more than n=1 proof.
Sure, which is why I have not and will not
Right...I wasn't implying that you had or would...my apologies if you took it that way.
I was just using your example to point out the distinction I was trying to make.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
There's a lot to weed through here in MFP, and yes, some of it is nonsense. How many threads are there about 'low carb', 'clean eating', 'vegan', 'paleo'?...I can go on and on. We all know it's CICO and if some people feel they can achieve that better by eating like a caveman, then more power to them - but the key to weight loss is all about them calories.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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 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 physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.
And tying this back into my last post, I wouldn't bother asking you to prove scientifically why those "number of things" worked for you.
However, if you start evangelizing that those things are what cause weight loss and advised that if others just "did those things" they'll lose weight, then yes, people would want to see more than n=1 proof.
Sure, which is why I have not and will not
If you could just convince every other user of this, we could cut down on a lot of arguing on these threads. :flowerforyou:0 -
juggernaut1974 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.
Yep so much this.
I doubt anyone gives a rat's patootie what someone else personally thinks is working for himself...whether it's due to science, placebo effect, accident or simply correlation.
The distinction to note is when one starts proferring that method as advice to others, THAT'S when the science is called for.
If someone is drinking green tea, and losing weight, I would never ask them for the science proving it.
If someone makes a post on MFP saying "Drink green tea and you'll lose weight", then I would ask for the science (and despite some people's belief, their n=1 personal anecdotes are not science).
Well said. If I had expressed myself better and taken my thought to its logical conclusion, this is what I would have said.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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 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 physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.
And tying this back into my last post, I wouldn't bother asking you to prove scientifically why those "number of things" worked for you.
However, if you start evangelizing that those things are what cause weight loss and advised that if others just "did those things" they'll lose weight, then yes, people would want to see more than n=1 proof.
I am complete agreement with this. But saying "this worked for me" is not an untrue statement if it did indeed work for you. Even if you are talking about green tea.
Meal timing worked for me. It's what made keeping a deficit easy. What made has made it sustainable so far and I believe will continue to do so. For me to share that without science to back it up (though there is some data on it) is not 'woo'*. Saying it didn't help is incorrect.
* I don't think it's woo. Honestly I'm a little confused by the whole woo usage on these forums.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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 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 physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.
I agree with this, but I think it's also important that you and I understand that those things are not necessary for weight loss and will differ based on different personalities and lifestyles.
Some of the things I am currently focusing on to get interested in losing again (as well as some of the things I did to maintain for a while without logging and to lose the weight) would be actively unhelpful for others, just like some of the things others do would not help me. So while the how is important on an individual basis, confusing it with the what -- which is all too common on MFP -- can be harmful, and can lead to advice that is detrimental to others if framed as something that one MUST do.
(Edit: and I see that this point was basically made already and that you agreed with it, as I expected.)0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I am complete agreement with this. But saying "this worked for me" is not an untrue statement if it did indeed work for you. Even if you are talking about green tea.
Meal timing worked for me. It's what made keeping a deficit easy. What made has made it sustainable so far and I believe will continue to do so. For me to share that without science to back it up (though there is some data on it) is not 'woo'*. Saying it didn't help is incorrect.
* I don't think it's woo. Honestly I'm a little confused by the whole woo usage on these forums.
If you are saying that you must only eat at certain times, or you will not lose weight, or eating after certain times will always make you gain weight, that is "woo."
Saying that restricting your eating times makes it easier for you to maintain a deficit is not. It's the method you use to help yourself maintain a deficit.0 -
VykkDraygoVPR wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I am complete agreement with this. But saying "this worked for me" is not an untrue statement if it did indeed work for you. Even if you are talking about green tea.
Meal timing worked for me. It's what made keeping a deficit easy. What made has made it sustainable so far and I believe will continue to do so. For me to share that without science to back it up (though there is some data on it) is not 'woo'*. Saying it didn't help is incorrect.
* I don't think it's woo. Honestly I'm a little confused by the whole woo usage on these forums.
If you are saying that you must only eat at certain times, or you will not lose weight, or eating after certain times will always make you gain weight, that is "woo."
Saying that restricting your eating times makes it easier for you to maintain a deficit is not. It's the method you use to help yourself maintain a deficit.
Exactly!0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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 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 physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.
And tying this back into my last post, I wouldn't bother asking you to prove scientifically why those "number of things" worked for you.
However, if you start evangelizing that those things are what cause weight loss and advised that if others just "did those things" they'll lose weight, then yes, people would want to see more than n=1 proof.
I am complete agreement with this. But saying "this worked for me" is not an untrue statement if it did indeed work for you. Even if you are talking about green tea.
It still comes down to context though.
"X Worked for me" as a simple statement...meh, I have no real issues with that.
"X Worked for me" as a reply to an OP asking "How do I lose weight"...probably borderline. The implied sentiment there is "and it will work for you too". I'd probably call that out.
"X Worked for me...so if you do it you WILL lose weight too"...yeah that's gonna get called out.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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 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 physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.
And tying this back into my last post, I wouldn't bother asking you to prove scientifically why those "number of things" worked for you.
However, if you start evangelizing that those things are what cause weight loss and advised that if others just "did those things" they'll lose weight, then yes, people would want to see more than n=1 proof.
I am complete agreement with this. But saying "this worked for me" is not an untrue statement if it did indeed work for you. Even if you are talking about green tea.
Meal timing worked for me. It's what made keeping a deficit easy. What made has made it sustainable so far and I believe will continue to do so. For me to share that without science to back it up (though there is some data on it) is not 'woo'*. Saying it didn't help is incorrect.
* I don't think it's woo. Honestly I'm a little confused by the whole woo usage on these forums.
This is again where correlation and causation get mixed up, and where people confuse the implementation of the science for the actual science
If you phrased your second paragraph about meal timing exactly that way, essentially that it was a sustainable way to help you maintain satiety while in a calorie deficit, then no one would have any issues.
Saying that Green Tea worked for me implies that it was the Green Tea that caused the weight loss, instead of, "I found green tea to be an enjoyable thing to consume while in a calorie deficit, it helped keep me full and aided in avoiding water retention".
Slight variation in wording would help avoid a lot of arguments!
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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 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 physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.
And tying this back into my last post, I wouldn't bother asking you to prove scientifically why those "number of things" worked for you.
However, if you start evangelizing that those things are what cause weight loss and advised that if others just "did those things" they'll lose weight, then yes, people would want to see more than n=1 proof.
I am complete agreement with this. But saying "this worked for me" is not an untrue statement if it did indeed work for you. Even if you are talking about green tea.
Meal timing worked for me. It's what made keeping a deficit easy. What made has made it sustainable so far and I believe will continue to do so. For me to share that without science to back it up (though there is some data on it) is not 'woo'*. Saying it didn't help is incorrect.
* I don't think it's woo. Honestly I'm a little confused by the whole woo usage on these forums.
This is again where correlation and causation get mixed up, and where people confuse the implementation of the science for the actual science
If you phrased your second paragraph about meal timing exactly that way, essentially that it was a sustainable way to help you maintain satiety while in a calorie deficit, then no one would have any issues.
Saying that Green Tea worked for me implies that it was the Green Tea that caused the weight loss, instead of, "I found green tea to be an enjoyable thing to consume while in a calorie deficit, it helped keep me full and aided in avoiding water retention".
Slight variation in wording would help avoid a lot of arguments!
That seems nitpicky. It's like when people say exercise doesn't work for weight loss because you have to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight.
Maybe less nitpicking would help avoid a lot of arguments. 0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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 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 physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.
And tying this back into my last post, I wouldn't bother asking you to prove scientifically why those "number of things" worked for you.
However, if you start evangelizing that those things are what cause weight loss and advised that if others just "did those things" they'll lose weight, then yes, people would want to see more than n=1 proof.
I am complete agreement with this. But saying "this worked for me" is not an untrue statement if it did indeed work for you. Even if you are talking about green tea.
Meal timing worked for me. It's what made keeping a deficit easy. What made has made it sustainable so far and I believe will continue to do so. For me to share that without science to back it up (though there is some data on it) is not 'woo'*. Saying it didn't help is incorrect.
* I don't think it's woo. Honestly I'm a little confused by the whole woo usage on these forums.
This is again where correlation and causation get mixed up, and where people confuse the implementation of the science for the actual science
If you phrased your second paragraph about meal timing exactly that way, essentially that it was a sustainable way to help you maintain satiety while in a calorie deficit, then no one would have any issues.
Saying that Green Tea worked for me implies that it was the Green Tea that caused the weight loss, instead of, "I found green tea to be an enjoyable thing to consume while in a calorie deficit, it helped keep me full and aided in avoiding water retention".
Slight variation in wording would help avoid a lot of arguments!
That seems nitpicky. It's like when people say exercise doesn't work for weight loss because you have to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight.
Maybe less nitpicking would help avoid a lot of arguments.
But nitpicking speeds up your metabolism. I know it's true because I read it on the internet!
0 -
strong_curves wrote: »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.
I try to tell people this all the time and they just don't believe it's that simple or even true. Why even ask how I lost weight and then think I'm lying to you when I say "eating less than I burn"?!?!?
This. I mean, I sort of get why people won't believe at first. It is SO SUPER SIMPLE, and I think that everyone has this idea it's complicated cause of all the crap that comes up on google when your search "how to lose weight". It just sounds like a lie because it's so simplistic and you're trained to think it's complicated.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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 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 physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.
And tying this back into my last post, I wouldn't bother asking you to prove scientifically why those "number of things" worked for you.
However, if you start evangelizing that those things are what cause weight loss and advised that if others just "did those things" they'll lose weight, then yes, people would want to see more than n=1 proof.
I am complete agreement with this. But saying "this worked for me" is not an untrue statement if it did indeed work for you. Even if you are talking about green tea.
Meal timing worked for me. It's what made keeping a deficit easy. What made has made it sustainable so far and I believe will continue to do so. For me to share that without science to back it up (though there is some data on it) is not 'woo'*. Saying it didn't help is incorrect.
* I don't think it's woo. Honestly I'm a little confused by the whole woo usage on these forums.
This is again where correlation and causation get mixed up, and where people confuse the implementation of the science for the actual science
If you phrased your second paragraph about meal timing exactly that way, essentially that it was a sustainable way to help you maintain satiety while in a calorie deficit, then no one would have any issues.
Saying that Green Tea worked for me implies that it was the Green Tea that caused the weight loss, instead of, "I found green tea to be an enjoyable thing to consume while in a calorie deficit, it helped keep me full and aided in avoiding water retention".
Slight variation in wording would help avoid a lot of arguments!
That seems nitpicky. It's like when people say exercise doesn't work for weight loss because you have to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight.
Maybe less nitpicking would help avoid a lot of arguments.
Amongst the regular users, you're probably right.
But for the newbie type posters who may not have the info and background a lot of us do, I think it's necessary to point out the nits, as to ensure the most complete and accurate information gets into their hands.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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 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 physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.
And tying this back into my last post, I wouldn't bother asking you to prove scientifically why those "number of things" worked for you.
However, if you start evangelizing that those things are what cause weight loss and advised that if others just "did those things" they'll lose weight, then yes, people would want to see more than n=1 proof.
I am complete agreement with this. But saying "this worked for me" is not an untrue statement if it did indeed work for you. Even if you are talking about green tea.
Meal timing worked for me. It's what made keeping a deficit easy. What made has made it sustainable so far and I believe will continue to do so. For me to share that without science to back it up (though there is some data on it) is not 'woo'*. Saying it didn't help is incorrect.
* I don't think it's woo. Honestly I'm a little confused by the whole woo usage on these forums.
This is again where correlation and causation get mixed up, and where people confuse the implementation of the science for the actual science
If you phrased your second paragraph about meal timing exactly that way, essentially that it was a sustainable way to help you maintain satiety while in a calorie deficit, then no one would have any issues.
Saying that Green Tea worked for me implies that it was the Green Tea that caused the weight loss, instead of, "I found green tea to be an enjoyable thing to consume while in a calorie deficit, it helped keep me full and aided in avoiding water retention".
Slight variation in wording would help avoid a lot of arguments!
That seems nitpicky. It's like when people say exercise doesn't work for weight loss because you have to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight.
Maybe less nitpicking would help avoid a lot of arguments.
Amongst the regular users, you're probably right.
But for the newbie type posters who may not have the info and background a lot of us do, I think it's necessary to point out the nits, as to ensure the most complete and accurate information gets into their hands.
Are there many people who truly don't know you must be a calorie deficit to lose weight? I always think people are implying that someone is stupid or simple when they point that out.0 -
You'd be surprised. I've had many a client who changed their eating habits, exercised consistently and couldn't figure out why no weight loss occurred. Lol, one even told me she went from eating chips (double serving bag for one) to eating natural organic peanut butter................a half jar a day.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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 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 physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.
And tying this back into my last post, I wouldn't bother asking you to prove scientifically why those "number of things" worked for you.
However, if you start evangelizing that those things are what cause weight loss and advised that if others just "did those things" they'll lose weight, then yes, people would want to see more than n=1 proof.
I am complete agreement with this. But saying "this worked for me" is not an untrue statement if it did indeed work for you. Even if you are talking about green tea.
Meal timing worked for me. It's what made keeping a deficit easy. What made has made it sustainable so far and I believe will continue to do so. For me to share that without science to back it up (though there is some data on it) is not 'woo'*. Saying it didn't help is incorrect.
* I don't think it's woo. Honestly I'm a little confused by the whole woo usage on these forums.
This is again where correlation and causation get mixed up, and where people confuse the implementation of the science for the actual science
If you phrased your second paragraph about meal timing exactly that way, essentially that it was a sustainable way to help you maintain satiety while in a calorie deficit, then no one would have any issues.
Saying that Green Tea worked for me implies that it was the Green Tea that caused the weight loss, instead of, "I found green tea to be an enjoyable thing to consume while in a calorie deficit, it helped keep me full and aided in avoiding water retention".
Slight variation in wording would help avoid a lot of arguments!
That seems nitpicky. It's like when people say exercise doesn't work for weight loss because you have to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight.
Maybe less nitpicking would help avoid a lot of arguments.
Amongst the regular users, you're probably right.
But for the newbie type posters who may not have the info and background a lot of us do, I think it's necessary to point out the nits, as to ensure the most complete and accurate information gets into their hands.
Are there many people who truly don't know you must be a calorie deficit to lose weight? I always think people are implying that someone is stupid or simple when they point that out.
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 -
tracyannk28 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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 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 physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.
And tying this back into my last post, I wouldn't bother asking you to prove scientifically why those "number of things" worked for you.
However, if you start evangelizing that those things are what cause weight loss and advised that if others just "did those things" they'll lose weight, then yes, people would want to see more than n=1 proof.
I am complete agreement with this. But saying "this worked for me" is not an untrue statement if it did indeed work for you. Even if you are talking about green tea.
Meal timing worked for me. It's what made keeping a deficit easy. What made has made it sustainable so far and I believe will continue to do so. For me to share that without science to back it up (though there is some data on it) is not 'woo'*. Saying it didn't help is incorrect.
* I don't think it's woo. Honestly I'm a little confused by the whole woo usage on these forums.
This is again where correlation and causation get mixed up, and where people confuse the implementation of the science for the actual science
If you phrased your second paragraph about meal timing exactly that way, essentially that it was a sustainable way to help you maintain satiety while in a calorie deficit, then no one would have any issues.
Saying that Green Tea worked for me implies that it was the Green Tea that caused the weight loss, instead of, "I found green tea to be an enjoyable thing to consume while in a calorie deficit, it helped keep me full and aided in avoiding water retention".
Slight variation in wording would help avoid a lot of arguments!
That seems nitpicky. It's like when people say exercise doesn't work for weight loss because you have to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight.
Maybe less nitpicking would help avoid a lot of arguments.
But nitpicking speeds up your metabolism. I know it's true because I read it on the internet!
How I would I log that?0
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