The science of weight loss and why it's unhelpful
Replies
-
roblloyd89 wrote: »Do you think our ancestors gave a damn about macros?
We are designed to live in a world where the only stress we have is worrying about predators, scarcity of food and warmth.
I appreciate we can't go back to these times unfortunately, but replicate as best we can our natural requirements, exercise, weight training and natural food, and stick as best you can to your your calorie requirements.
It's that simple, for most people, everything outside of this is jargon, designed to confuse and adds little benefit.
I don't think anyone wants to replicate scarcity of food and warmth.0 -
We have an obesity epidemic because we have time and labour saving devices, no need to forage for food, and can acquire excellently tasting food in vast quantities for less money than you can shake a stick at.
Point out to me the ancestor who day in/day our could find 5000 calories to gobble for less than a half hour's worth of effort.
Because we can and DO!0 -
roblloyd89 wrote: »roblloyd89 wrote: »Do you think our ancestors gave a damn about macros?
We are designed to live in a world where the only stress we have is worrying about predators, scarcity of food and warmth.
I appreciate we can't go back to these times unfortunately, but replicate as best we can our natural requirements, exercise, weight training and natural food, and stick as best you can to your your calorie requirements.
It's that simple, for most people, everything outside of this is jargon, designed to confuse and adds little benefit.
Did your ancestors have your life expectancy and health markers or even your dental health?
I find this a weird contention Rob
No they didn't, modern science took care of that, I'm not anti science! !
We have an obesity epidemic, I'm not talking about other areas of science.
So your issue is with the proliferation of highly palatable, easily accessed food and the sedentary lifestyle we have developed as there is no longer any need to catch, grow, prepare our own foodstuffs hence our activity levels are far lower naturally
Our physiology certainly developed to move a heck of a lot more than we do and eat a heck of a lot less
And science is unhelpful with this complete change in circumstance because?
Because I believe the varying degrees in diets, fitness plans and opinions to confuse us when we could just apply ockams razor were applicable.
Education is key but but the average person doesn't need complex information0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »So rather than understanding weightloss to the greatest degree in order to provide people with the best information and options to suit them, you think the science is pointless and everyone should just do exactly what you do instead?
Why does the the average person need to understand beyond CICO?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »roblloyd89 wrote: »Do you think our ancestors gave a damn about macros?
We are designed to live in a world where the only stress we have is worrying about predators, scarcity of food and warmth.
I appreciate we can't go back to these times unfortunately, but replicate as best we can our natural requirements, exercise, weight training and natural food, and stick as best you can to your your calorie requirements.
It's that simple, for most people, everything outside of this is jargon, designed to confuse and adds little benefit.
I don't think anyone wants to replicate scarcity of food and warmth.
Obviously not! I didn't say that!0 -
We have an obesity epidemic because we have time and labour saving devices, no need to forage for food, and can acquire excellently tasting food in vast quantities for less money than you can shake a stick at.
Point out to me the ancestor who day in/day our could find 5000 calories to gobble for less than a half hour's worth of effort.
Because we can and DO!
Is that true?
Nothing to do potentially with being insulin resistance from unnatural levels of sugar we eat?
0 -
roblloyd89 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »So rather than understanding weightloss to the greatest degree in order to provide people with the best information and options to suit them, you think the science is pointless and everyone should just do exactly what you do instead?
Why does the the average person need to understand beyond CICO?
Because in the day and age of a glut of choice, CICO equals weight loss but health and nutrition go beyond that? Because people should strive for knowledge? Because ignorance is only bliss while it works in your favour? And what you've argued above is far different to CICO, so i fail to see your point.0 -
roblloyd89 wrote: »
Yes obesity is modern. Do you know what our ancestors had? Starvation. They were not these super healthy super humans you think they are. They were often starving, sick, many died as children because of it or because of a cold.
And btw. our bodies are "designed" to digest pretty much everything that is even remotely edible. That's how we're so good at surviving despite having had many times of famine.0 -
roblloyd89 wrote: »roblloyd89 wrote: »roblloyd89 wrote: »Do you think our ancestors gave a damn about macros?
We are designed to live in a world where the only stress we have is worrying about predators, scarcity of food and warmth.
I appreciate we can't go back to these times unfortunately, but replicate as best we can our natural requirements, exercise, weight training and natural food, and stick as best you can to your your calorie requirements.
It's that simple, for most people, everything outside of this is jargon, designed to confuse and adds little benefit.
Did your ancestors have your life expectancy and health markers or even your dental health?
I find this a weird contention Rob
No they didn't, modern science took care of that, I'm not anti science! !
We have an obesity epidemic, I'm not talking about other areas of science.
So your issue is with the proliferation of highly palatable, easily accessed food and the sedentary lifestyle we have developed as there is no longer any need to catch, grow, prepare our own foodstuffs hence our activity levels are far lower naturally
Our physiology certainly developed to move a heck of a lot more than we do and eat a heck of a lot less
And science is unhelpful with this complete change in circumstance because?
Because I believe the varying degrees in diets, fitness plans and opinions to confuse us when we could just apply ockams razor were applicable.
Education is key but but the average person doesn't need complex information
I agree, the extra information can be a little daunting for someone who just needs to focus on losing weight at a healthy rate (1% of body weight per week, source unavailable) The macro information is helpful when people are evaluating satiety, it seems. So in that way, it's helpful that MFP is tracking that, but I don't get the impression it ever enforces new users to choose a ratio. Maybe I skimmed over that, though...0 -
roblloyd89 wrote: »We have an obesity epidemic because we have time and labour saving devices, no need to forage for food, and can acquire excellently tasting food in vast quantities for less money than you can shake a stick at.
Point out to me the ancestor who day in/day our could find 5000 calories to gobble for less than a half hour's worth of effort.
Because we can and DO!
Is that true?
Nothing to do potentially with being insulin resistance from unnatural levels of sugar we eat?
No. Calories make you obese. We can get a lot of calories without doing much.
You know, occam's razor.0 -
If using certain bits of technology don't resonate with you, then don't use them, but don't pan the concept. Sometimes those things are the very thing a person needs to keep them motivated.
Also, look at the lifespans of our ancestors. Then tell me why we should do what they did? They weren't the paragons of health that some people seem to think they are.0 -
roblloyd89 wrote: »punkrockgoth wrote: »roblloyd89 wrote: »punkrockgoth wrote: »Where's the science? Did I miss it somewhere? You have an opinion. That's fine, but don't be confusing that with science because it's not.
Lol what?
Did you Even bother to read the thread?
You've completely missed the point.
Yup. Did read the thread. I see you have an opinion. I don't see your point and I don't see the science. You said something about we can't go back to how things were a long time ago. You say something about the fitness industry just trying to confuse things, which again, isn't science. So I'm not sure what you're trying to advocate here. Again, none of this is science. The name of the thread is "the science of weight loss and why it's unhelpful".
No, I didnt say half of what you mention.
Dont worry, if you don't get it now, no point explaining.
Okhams razor, let's leave it at that.
Because if someone doesn't get what you're saying, it must be because THEY'RE stupid?
Look, coming into the forums with an opinion, even an unpopular one, is fine. But insulting others because they don't agree/don't see your point (which, to be fair, isn't exactly laid out very well), won't make you many friends around these parts.
0 -
I also don't really understand the point of this thread. And I don't think it's helpful to tell dissenting voices 'way to completely miss my point'. That is defeatist and counterproductive.
I absolutely heap plaudits onto health and fitness experts who discover new and exciting ways for us to track, monitor, and improve our health. If someone wants a fitbit and hrm, and these are tools that they use to aid them in achieving their goals, that's awesome - why knock that?
What I would state, is that the workout/fitness routine/eating plan that works, is the one that you follow consistently and one that adheres to basic, irrefutable principles and facts. That I'm totally able to get on board with, and I suspect that was your main thesis, right?
Everybody has a different journey. I am guilty of researching new habits or purchases or whatever to death before I take the plunge. So sure, there is information overload out there, and it can get confusing, and at some point you have to see which themes and what factual content emerge and reemerges and stay relevant, and are espoused by reliable sources, and then you just get your head down, cut out all the noise, and get on with it.
Happy healthy-ing!0 -
I also don't really understand the point of this thread. And I don't think it's helpful to tell dissenting voices 'way to completely miss my point'. That is defeatist and counterproductive.
I absolutely heap plaudits onto health and fitness experts who discover new and exciting ways for us to track, monitor, and improve our health. If someone wants a fitbit and hrm, and these are tools that they use to aid them in achieving their goals, that's awesome - why knock that?
What I would state, is that the workout/fitness routine/eating plan that works, is the one that you follow consistently and one that adheres to basic, irrefutable principles and facts. That I'm totally able to get on board with, and I suspect that was your main thesis, right?
Everybody has a different journey. I am guilty of researching new habits or purchases or whatever to death before I take the plunge. So sure, there is information overload out there, and it can get confusing, and at some point you have to see which themes and what factual content emerge and reemerges and stay relevant, and are espoused by reliable sources, and then you just get your head down, cut out all the noise, and get on with it.
Happy healthy-ing!
/thread0 -
Science of weight loss can be unhelpful because the reasons for persons becoming unhealthy and or over weight are many and various. Underpinning some of the modern science moving towards the attainment of good health which can be for some defined as weight loss, is many of us have systems driven by various inflammations causing our personal health issues. Some of us have needed to get past the cico to be able to redress the poor balance our bodies have deteriorated into because of over use of medications instead of ensuring we take care of the amalgamation of organisms we actually are, that have evolved within us.
Our immune systems are vital to our good health keeping this in good order is vital to being a healthy weight too little scientific medical input has been directed in my life towards helping me know what was best for myself. Our ancestors ate what was available when it was available and probably were unable to maintain adequate nutrition on a daily basis we on the other hand have every advantage of out of season foods either because they have been preserved by freezing, as preserves or being grown out of season near home or imported. In times gone by a preference for sweetness was evolutionarily needed to provide empty calories just to keep us going, now we have industries making regular appeals to this our Achilles heal. The amounts we can get away with at a younger age is much less than we can cope with as we age.
Too much dependence on additionally sweetened foods is bad for us. The person who said some protein, carbs and fats at a sitting is correct, our skill must come for learning and then knowing what is right for us as individuals but paramount is passing the correct learned experience on to our children so they too can learn to live well. Digestive disturbance is not a natural state it comes from over use of something creating digestive imbalances.0 -
That said I do agree, in a way
Calories in vs calories out
Why complicate it?
The benefit to me is it keeps me focused and interested, same reason I forum mainly. Yes I get pleasure helping people,and being forced to consider new things and twisting my head around the things my cerebral crushes say to approximate an understanding
, but the overriding aspect is keeping me focused on my own CICO 0 -
I'm intrigued by this subject, and I truly believe the OP has a point. I think the disharmony in this thread stems partly from semantics. Can't explain any better than this - maybe language doesn't correspond to this area good enough yet.
One of the most helpful "tricks" for me in my weight management, is to "emulate a more natural environment". With that I mean not keeping large amounts of hyperpalatable foods around. Instead "go hunting" for a great variety of nutrient dense, fresh foods that I can easily turn into tasty, balanced dishes. I have a lot more variety and much more nutrition avaliable than the average stone age woman, or even any decadent *kitten* rich Roman. Cooking, agriculture and breeding has provided us with more calories and a more reliable food access. This is thought (Michael Pollan etc) to be part of the reason why our brains evolved so dramatically, and I (and Jared Diamond, maybe more) believe, how civilisation developed. My greatest concern now is not how to keep warm or avoid predators or get enough to eat, but to not be tempted to overeat! Our steady food supply is indeed a two-edged sword. But my evolved brain has the ability to navigate this food environment, if I engage it and let it, and take care of it. This is where will power, stress management and environment control meet.0 -
roblloyd89 wrote: »roblloyd89 wrote: »roblloyd89 wrote: »Do you think our ancestors gave a damn about macros?
We are designed to live in a world where the only stress we have is worrying about predators, scarcity of food and warmth.
I appreciate we can't go back to these times unfortunately, but replicate as best we can our natural requirements, exercise, weight training and natural food, and stick as best you can to your your calorie requirements.
It's that simple, for most people, everything outside of this is jargon, designed to confuse and adds little benefit.
Did your ancestors have your life expectancy and health markers or even your dental health?
I find this a weird contention Rob
No they didn't, modern science took care of that, I'm not anti science! !
We have an obesity epidemic, I'm not talking about other areas of science.
So your issue is with the proliferation of highly palatable, easily accessed food and the sedentary lifestyle we have developed as there is no longer any need to catch, grow, prepare our own foodstuffs hence our activity levels are far lower naturally
Our physiology certainly developed to move a heck of a lot more than we do and eat a heck of a lot less
And science is unhelpful with this complete change in circumstance because?
Because I believe the varying degrees in diets, fitness plans and opinions to confuse us when we could just apply ockams razor were applicable.
Education is key but but the average person doesn't need complex information
About Occam's (Ockham's) razor, it seems you are misusing it by applying it to a mixed set of causes and consequences. I.e. you are confusing the cause (the simplest sufficient explanation about the obesity epidemic is we eat more, move less) with some of the corrective measures (while losing weight, track macros to maintain muscle mass, etc).
"Our ancestors" did "track macros" as best they could by valuing meat and fat more than vegetables and potatoes nutritionally (I am looking back at early 20th century rural people living in the temperate climate zone, working their fields by hand and living from the harvests because those are the only ancestors I knew personally so I could ask them what their life was like). Heck, they even paid attention to micros too - early spring was the time of stinging nettle and other wild greens to replensih essential micronutrients after winter - we do essentially the same thing with better knowledge available and from the sources availabale tofay, and for the lifestyles we necessarily have today.
You are obviously not the first to wish for simpler times when confronted with something that seems too complex to handle. But from the title of your post one expects some actual science? Or at least an actual, logical or evidential, proof why science is unhelpful for weight loss? Or at least a list of the changes and actions you propose for returning to that elusive simplicity, especially since apparently they must be simpler and more helpful than CICO through food journaling, which is the main method advocated by this site
Otherwise, if you just wanted to vent a little about the seeming complexity of weight loss and maintaining a healthy body, I understand. But venting won't solve the problem. Practical and reasonable actions will.0 -
The biggest problem here and the OP doesn't seem to claim responsibility for is that the claim — "The science of weight loss and why it's unhelpful" is that there is absolutely no citation of scientific research or points and further citation to debunk it - which is what the click baity headline of the post was meant to do.
Also, can we stop with the "cavemen didn't eat all this XYZ" stuff — human physiology has evolved since then and life expectancy has more than doubled. If you want to take on why science is unhelpful, can you please specify what exactly and what evidence you have that shows that those areas of concern are "unhelpful."0 -
We are however, meant to move around. Without it, all manner of things start to go wrong. Do everything you can not to be sedantary. He says, tapping this out sitting in his living room.....0
-
roblloyd89 wrote: »Well I'd rather eat organic food than twinkies, cos as my thread pointed out, going back to the natural way AS BEST WE CAN, man
That's great, for you. But a lot of us prefer to have a balance and fit those twinkies in if we fancy them. Well we don't have twinkies here in the UK, but insert available cakey-snack thing here 0 -
I don't get this romanticization of our "ancestors". There is plenty of evidence that they suffered pretty much the same things we suffer from right now, and actually fared way worse in terms of vitamin and mineral deficiencies. In fact I could bet that if doughnuts grew on trees our ancestors would have been all over them. To replicate that way of life I would have to walk around the streets for the majority of my waking hours to replicate foraging, and then burst into random sprints to replicate running away from danger with uncombed hair and unbrushed teeth (I wonder what the people in the street would think.)
Why do we care about macros and micros? Because our ancestors did not have the tools or the knowledge to care. Why do we care about calories? Because it's a very useful discovery that helps us balance the decreased physical activity and increased food availability. I could imagine an ancient human telling the kids "back in my day we did not use tools for hunting or fire for cooking. You lazy younglings don't have the stamina or the strength to apprehend a prey without tools, with your cooked junk food and animal skin apparel"0 -
roblloyd89 wrote: »
So do I, but our bodies are not designed for modern food.
Our bodies aren't designed by anyone for anything.
You I like.
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »I don't get this romanticization of our "ancestors". There is plenty of evidence that they suffered pretty much the same things we suffer from right now, and actually fared way worse in terms of vitamin and mineral deficiencies. In fact I could bet that if doughnuts grew on trees our ancestors would have been all over them. To replicate that way of life I would have to walk around the streets for the majority of my waking hours to replicate foraging, and then burst into random sprints to replicate running away from danger with uncombed hair and unbrushed teeth (I wonder what the people in the street would think.)
Why do we care about macros and micros? Because our ancestors did not have the tools or the knowledge to care. Why do we care about calories? Because it's a very useful discovery that helps us balance the decreased physical activity and increased food availability. I could imagine an ancient human telling the kids "back in my day we did not use tools for hunting or fire for cooking. You lazy younglings don't have the stamina or the strength to apprehend a prey without tools, with your cooked junk food and animal skin apparel"
Where can I get myself one of those doughnut trees?
Great post.0 -
SilverRose89 wrote: »roblloyd89 wrote: »Well I'd rather eat organic food than twinkies, cos as my thread pointed out, going back to the natural way AS BEST WE CAN, man
That's great, for you. But a lot of us prefer to have a balance and fit those twinkies in if we fancy them. Well we don't have twinkies here in the UK, but insert available cakey-snack thing here
I'm from the UK0 -
Ladies and gentlemen'
1. Eat whole foods as best you can.
2. Exercise as best you can
3. Lift weights to build a strong body, as best you can.
4. Stick to your calorie goal through the simple CICO formula.
For most people on this board, that will be sufficient.
Sorry for any misunderstanding, it really wasn't deigned to be.
And sorry for offending anyone0 -
That said I do agree, in a way
Calories in vs calories out
Why complicate it?
The benefit to me is it keeps me focused and interested, same reason I forum mainly. Yes I get pleasure helping people,and being forced to consider new things and twisting my head around the things my cerebral crushes say to approximate an understanding, but the overriding aspect is keeping me focused on my own CICO
I do love you sometimes k0 -
roblloyd89 wrote: »Ladies and gentlemen'
1. Eat whole foods as best you can.
2. Exercise as best you can
3. Lift weights to build a strong body, as best you can.
4. Stick to your calorie goal through the simple CICO formula.
For most people on this board, that will be sufficient.
Sorry for any misunderstanding, it really wasn't deigned to be.
And sorry for offending anyone
I like this explanation much better0 -
thorsmom01 wrote: »roblloyd89 wrote: »Ladies and gentlemen'
1. Eat whole foods as best you can.
2. Exercise as best you can
3. Lift weights to build a strong body, as best you can.
4. Stick to your calorie goal through the simple CICO formula.
For most people on this board, that will be sufficient.
Sorry for any misunderstanding, it really wasn't deigned to be.
And sorry for offending anyone
I like this explanation much better
I'm really bad at explaining things my bad
0 -
thorsmom01 wrote: »roblloyd89 wrote: »Ladies and gentlemen'
1. Eat whole foods as best you can.
2. Exercise as best you can
3. Lift weights to build a strong body, as best you can.
4. Stick to your calorie goal through the simple CICO formula.
For most people on this board, that will be sufficient.
Sorry for any misunderstanding, it really wasn't deigned to be.
And sorry for offending anyone
I like this explanation much better
Same. THIS makes sense to me.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions