IIFYM vs Harvard (& potatoes)
anemoneprose
Posts: 1,805 Member
"The researchers evaluated changes in multiple specific lifestyle factors and weight gain every four years over 12 to 20 years of follow-up in three separate large cohorts, the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS II), and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS). The final analyses included 50,422 women in the NHS, 47,898 women in NHS II, and 22,557 men in HPFS, all of whom were free of obesity or chronic diseases at the beginning of the study. Study participants gained an average of 3.35 lb during each four-year period, which corresponded to a weight gain of 16.8 lb over the 20-year period.
When relations of lifestyle changes with weight gain were evaluated, the findings were strikingly similar in all 3 studies.
For example, the foods associated with the greatest weight gain over the 20-year study period included potato chips (for each one increased daily serving, +1.69 lb more weight gain every 4 years), other potatoes (+1.28 lb), sugar-sweetened beverages (+1.00 lb), unprocessed meats (+0.95 lb), and processed meats (+0.93 lb). Of note, several foods associated with less weight gain when their consumption was actually increased, including vegetables (+0.22 lb), whole grains (+0.37 lb), fruits (+0.49 lb), nuts (+0.57 lb) and yogurt (+0.82 lb). Evaluating all changes in diet together, participants in the lower 20% of dietary changes gained nearly 4 lbs more each 4 years than those in the top 20% —an amount equivalent to the average weight gain in the population overall.
For diet, focusing only on total calories may not be the most useful way to consume fewer calories than one expends, say the researchers. Other yardsticks, such as content of total fat, energy density, or sugars, could also be misleading. Rather, they found that eating more healthful foods and beverages—focusing on overall dietary quality—was most important.
The most useful dietary metrics for preventing long-term weight gain appeared to be:
Focus on improving carbohydrate quality by eating less liquid sugars (e.g. soda) and other sweets, as well as fewer starches (e.g. potatoes) and refined grains (e.g. white bread, white rice, breakfast cereals low in fiber, other refined carbohydrates).
Focus on eating more minimally processed foods (e.g. fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, yogurt) and fewer highly processed foods (e.g. white breads, processed meats, sugary beverages)."
Go!
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/diet-lifestyle-weight-gain/
When relations of lifestyle changes with weight gain were evaluated, the findings were strikingly similar in all 3 studies.
For example, the foods associated with the greatest weight gain over the 20-year study period included potato chips (for each one increased daily serving, +1.69 lb more weight gain every 4 years), other potatoes (+1.28 lb), sugar-sweetened beverages (+1.00 lb), unprocessed meats (+0.95 lb), and processed meats (+0.93 lb). Of note, several foods associated with less weight gain when their consumption was actually increased, including vegetables (+0.22 lb), whole grains (+0.37 lb), fruits (+0.49 lb), nuts (+0.57 lb) and yogurt (+0.82 lb). Evaluating all changes in diet together, participants in the lower 20% of dietary changes gained nearly 4 lbs more each 4 years than those in the top 20% —an amount equivalent to the average weight gain in the population overall.
For diet, focusing only on total calories may not be the most useful way to consume fewer calories than one expends, say the researchers. Other yardsticks, such as content of total fat, energy density, or sugars, could also be misleading. Rather, they found that eating more healthful foods and beverages—focusing on overall dietary quality—was most important.
The most useful dietary metrics for preventing long-term weight gain appeared to be:
Focus on improving carbohydrate quality by eating less liquid sugars (e.g. soda) and other sweets, as well as fewer starches (e.g. potatoes) and refined grains (e.g. white bread, white rice, breakfast cereals low in fiber, other refined carbohydrates).
Focus on eating more minimally processed foods (e.g. fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, yogurt) and fewer highly processed foods (e.g. white breads, processed meats, sugary beverages)."
Go!
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/diet-lifestyle-weight-gain/
0
Replies
-
Seems like sensible advice to me.
I'm not sure why you are broaching the idea that somehow the advice is contrary to IIFYM (which I don't follow myself.) It does not say that sugars or starches are to be eliminated from a person's diet, rather reduced and clearly outweighed by whole foods.
IIFYM does pretty much that and allows you a small discretionary calorie allowance for treats (10 - 20% of total intake usually).
People are generally saying the same things, just in different ways.0 -
I know. I'm procrastinating.0
-
Wow I was surprised by the potato chips one! Dunno why, it kinda made sense. It appears though that everyone in the study put on weight (even those eating veggies), so I think calorie counting is still important if you want to lose weight. I'm guilty of gorging on high fibre cereals (gone through half a box today already *ahem*) and foods that are considered healthy, and whilst it's probably better than eating the same quantity of chocolate I don't think it will ever take away from the value of portion control and monitoring nutrient intake.
For example, the foods associated with the greatest weight gain over the 20-year study period included potato chips (for each one increased daily serving, +1.69 lb more weight gain every 4 years), other potatoes (+1.28 lb), sugar-sweetened beverages (+1.00 lb), unprocessed meats (+0.95 lb), and processed meats (+0.93 lb). Of note, several foods associated with less weight gain when their consumption was actually increased, including vegetables (+0.22 lb), whole grains (+0.37 lb), fruits (+0.49 lb), nuts (+0.57 lb) and yogurt (+0.82 lb). Evaluating all changes in diet together, participants in the lower 20% of dietary changes gained nearly 4 lbs more each 4 years than those in the top 20% —an amount equivalent to the average weight gain in the population overall.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/diet-lifestyle-weight-gain/0 -
These were not isocalorie studies. Correlation is not causation.
Yes, those that eat chips gained more bu t most likely because those chip eaters are less likely to eat within a calorie boundary of maintenance not because "chips" is
0 -
These were not isocalorie studies. Correlation is not causation.
Yes, those that eat chips gained more bu t most likely because those chip eaters are less likely to eat within a calorie boundary of maintenance not because "chips" is
I was wondering about that, but my coffee hasn't kicked in yet.
I also wondered if the people eating the yogurt, veggies, etc were more likely to have an active lifestyle, exercise, etc.0 -
Wow I was surprised by the potato chips one! Dunno why, it kinda made sense. It appears though that everyone in the study put on weight (even those eating veggies), so I think calorie counting is still important if you want to lose weight. I'm guilty of gorging on high fibre cereals (gone through half a box today already *ahem*) and foods that are considered healthy, and whilst it's probably better than eating the same quantity of chocolate I don't think it will ever take away from the value of portion control and monitoring nutrient intake.
For example, the foods associated with the greatest weight gain over the 20-year study period included potato chips (for each one increased daily serving, +1.69 lb more weight gain every 4 years), other potatoes (+1.28 lb), sugar-sweetened beverages (+1.00 lb), unprocessed meats (+0.95 lb), and processed meats (+0.93 lb). Of note, several foods associated with less weight gain when their consumption was actually increased, including vegetables (+0.22 lb), whole grains (+0.37 lb), fruits (+0.49 lb), nuts (+0.57 lb) and yogurt (+0.82 lb). Evaluating all changes in diet together, participants in the lower 20% of dietary changes gained nearly 4 lbs more each 4 years than those in the top 20% —an amount equivalent to the average weight gain in the population overall.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/diet-lifestyle-weight-gain/
And, btw, those numbers should be negative for the increase in portions that resulted in weight loss (as per the study appendix found here: http://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296/suppl_file/nejmoa1014296_appendix.pdf)
the actual study can be found here: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC&#t=articleMethods
And while the name of the unversity, the size of the study are both impressive - the study design (a questionnaire twice a year) allows for a lot of questions to be posed...We excluded participants with obesity, diabetes, cancer, or cardiovascular, pulmonary, renal, or liver disease at baseline; those for whom baseline data on lifestyle habits were missing; those with an implausible energy intake (<900 or >3500 kcal per day); those with more than nine blank responses on the diet questionnaire
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC&#t=articleBackground
People, in general and as a population, gain weight when eating calorie dense food. Who knew?
This has nothing to do with IIFYM nor does a cohort study allow one to boil down to individual recommendations.
Yes, if on top of your current calories, you add/replace a daily portion of french fries, you are going to gain weight. If you add/replace by a portion of fruit or something that is satiating but less calorie rich, you are likely to lose weight.
What a huge waste of effort to open unlocked doors.0 -
That, and if you're trying to fill up on yogurt and veg, gluck without getting a bad tummy after (particularly if they're low fat).These were not isocalorie studies. Correlation is not causation.
Yes, those that eat chips gained more bu t most likely because those chip eaters are less likely to eat within a calorie boundary of maintenance not because "chips" is
I was wondering about that, but my coffee hasn't kicked in yet.
I also wondered if the people eating the yogurt, veggies, etc were more likely to have an active lifestyle, exercise, etc.0 -
The lack of controls (monitored and controlled intakes), of 100% accountability to keep everything the same, etc etc makes me really hesitant to bother reading through the full study...
I don't know who said it, but they said it very simply...
Correlation is not causation.
Fat people eat ice cream... this doesn't mean ice cream makes you fat.0 -
^^This^^These were not isocalorie studies. Correlation is not causation.
Yes, those that eat chips gained more bu t most likely because those chip eaters are less likely to eat within a calorie boundary of maintenance not because "chips" is
I was wondering about that, but my coffee hasn't kicked in yet.
I also wondered if the people eating the yogurt, veggies, etc were more likely to have an active lifestyle, exercise, etc.
The average IQ of smokers is lower than non smokers. Does smoking make you stupid or do stupid people smoke?0 -
I'm still going to eat chips.0
-
There's more funding if you promote correlation......and Harvard loves correlations......their food pyramid is based on that flawed logic, imo.
Wow I was surprised by the potato chips one! Dunno why, it kinda made sense. It appears though that everyone in the study put on weight (even those eating veggies), so I think calorie counting is still important if you want to lose weight. I'm guilty of gorging on high fibre cereals (gone through half a box today already *ahem*) and foods that are considered healthy, and whilst it's probably better than eating the same quantity of chocolate I don't think it will ever take away from the value of portion control and monitoring nutrient intake.
For example, the foods associated with the greatest weight gain over the 20-year study period included potato chips (for each one increased daily serving, +1.69 lb more weight gain every 4 years), other potatoes (+1.28 lb), sugar-sweetened beverages (+1.00 lb), unprocessed meats (+0.95 lb), and processed meats (+0.93 lb). Of note, several foods associated with less weight gain when their consumption was actually increased, including vegetables (+0.22 lb), whole grains (+0.37 lb), fruits (+0.49 lb), nuts (+0.57 lb) and yogurt (+0.82 lb). Evaluating all changes in diet together, participants in the lower 20% of dietary changes gained nearly 4 lbs more each 4 years than those in the top 20% —an amount equivalent to the average weight gain in the population overall.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/diet-lifestyle-weight-gain/
And, btw, those numbers should be negative for the increase in portions that resulted in weight loss (as per the study appendix found here: http://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296/suppl_file/nejmoa1014296_appendix.pdf)
the actual study can be found here: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC&#t=articleMethods
And while the name of the unversity, the size of the study are both impressive - the study design (a questionnaire twice a year) allows for a lot of questions to be posed...We excluded participants with obesity, diabetes, cancer, or cardiovascular, pulmonary, renal, or liver disease at baseline; those for whom baseline data on lifestyle habits were missing; those with an implausible energy intake (<900 or >3500 kcal per day); those with more than nine blank responses on the diet questionnaire
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC&#t=articleBackground
People, in general and as a population, gain weight when eating calorie dense food. Who knew?
This has nothing to do with IIFYM nor does a cohort study allow one to boil down to individual recommendations.
Yes, if on top of your current calories, you add/replace a daily portion of french fries, you are going to gain weight. If you add/replace by a portion of fruit or something that is satiating but less calorie rich, you are likely to lose weight.
What a huge waste of effort to open unlocked doors.0 -
The lack of controls (monitored and controlled intakes), of 100% accountability to keep everything the same, etc etc makes me really hesitant to bother reading through the full study...
I don't know who said it, but they said it very simply...
Correlation is not causation.
Fat people eat ice cream... this doesn't mean ice cream makes you fat.
Of course, correlation =/= causation. It's impossible to make firm causal statements about pretty much *any* epidemiological study. (and there's not an epidemiologist in the world who'd say you could). Just points to relationships, is all.
The size of the effect of whatever relationships can be glimpsed from this, per year, sure, small; cumulatively, big diff, I think.
But you can't say the sample size is too small
I also think it's neat that potatoes are on there a million times.0 -
What's with the IIFYM non sequitur?0
-
What's with the IIFYM non sequitur?
I was up for 34 hours straight when I posted. Also, I put potatoes on the wrong side of the vs.0 -
The study simply says that people who eat more calorie-dense food tend to gain more weight than people who eat food with less caloric density, while on average every participant gained weight regardless of what they ate.
If you have no intention of losing weight, simply switching to veggies, fruits, nuts, yogurt, etc. will slow your inevitable weight gain. If you want to maintain or lose weight, then calorie counting or some type of diet is necessary.0 -
This is only valid if you assume nobody is ever capable of counting calories, or it's illegal or something. OF COURSE when people eat more energy-dense food without counting they are going to consume more calories than they would by eating less energy dense foods when not counting. I mean seriously, DUH. For their next act did this team discover that punching themselves in the face resulted in pain?For diet, focusing only on total calories may not be the most useful way to consume fewer calories than one expends, say the researchers. Other yardsticks, such as content of total fat, energy density, or sugars, could also be misleading. Rather, they found that eating more healthful foods and beverages—focusing on overall dietary quality—was most important.0 -
The lack of controls (monitored and controlled intakes), of 100% accountability to keep everything the same, etc etc makes me really hesitant to bother reading through the full study...
I don't know who said it, but they said it very simply...
Correlation is not causation.
Fat people eat ice cream... this doesn't mean ice cream makes you fat.
Of course, correlation =/= causation. It's impossible to make firm causal statements about pretty much *any* epidemiological study. (and there's not an epidemiologist in the world who'd say you could). Just points to relationships, is all.
The size of the effect of whatever relationships can be glimpsed from this, per year, sure, small; cumulatively, big diff, I think.
But you can't say the sample size is too small
I also think it's neat that potatoes are on there a million times.
I agree, the sample size is not too small...0 -
I'm still going to eat chips.
French fries or chips. Can't tell with you, Canadians, eh?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K 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