Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

If a calorie is a calorie, why do we see this?

124

Replies

  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Posts: 13,696Member Member Posts: 13,696Member Member
    (snip for reply length)
    This does remind me though that this morning I saw Menno showing a study that showed on long term predictions of weight maintenance seems to do with variability in weight.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31949298
    Menno felt with his clients the less variability in weight, the more the life style they're doing is a maintainable one instead of reactionary.

    Reading only the abstract (since the article appears to be behind a paywall): Maintainability, perhaps (which I assume is equivalent to sustainability, in this context?); or perhaps just extent of personal commitment to change at that point. I support the idea of research to substantiate common sense, and this seems like it might be that sort of thing. To put it in MFP-common lingo I don't really believe in, are we saying that people who fall off the wagon more often along the way are less successful in the long run?

    This is not a diss of anyone for "lack of commitment", BTW: I've tried to change many times, in many ways. When I decide to change, I change, as long as the relevant factors are under my control. I've often mused about what it is that makes that switch flip: If I could consciously control it completely in all cases, that would be useful. People say all kinds of things about discipline and determination and motivation, but those are somewhat-circular abstractions, IMO, so not very satisfying as explanations.
  • bmeadows380bmeadows380 Posts: 1,551Member Member Posts: 1,551Member Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    (snip for reply length)
    This does remind me though that this morning I saw Menno showing a study that showed on long term predictions of weight maintenance seems to do with variability in weight.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31949298
    Menno felt with his clients the less variability in weight, the more the life style they're doing is a maintainable one instead of reactionary.

    Reading only the abstract (since the article appears to be behind a paywall): Maintainability, perhaps (which I assume is equivalent to sustainability, in this context?); or perhaps just extent of personal commitment to change at that point. I support the idea of research to substantiate common sense, and this seems like it might be that sort of thing. To put it in MFP-common lingo I don't really believe in, are we saying that people who fall off the wagon more often along the way are less successful in the long run?

    This is not a diss of anyone for "lack of commitment", BTW: I've tried to change many times, in many ways. When I decide to change, I change, as long as the relevant factors are under my control. I've often mused about what it is that makes that switch flip: If I could consciously control it completely in all cases, that would be useful. People say all kinds of things about discipline and determination and motivation, but those are somewhat-circular abstractions, IMO, so not very satisfying as explanations.

    This is exactly my problem! I know I need to lose weight, get healthier, etc, but I will try and fail time and time again, until suddenly, I'm successful doing the exact same thing I had tried and failed at before. And it works for a few months until suddenly it isn't working anymore, even though I keep trying to do what I had done before. I plateaued for 18 months and kept trying to get back into what had worked before with no success until suddenly, the switch slid back to the on position, and its working again. I'd love to know what is flipping that switch on and off in my brain and learn to control the darn thing myself!

    Perhaps my problem is that it's not so much a switch as it is a wind up key to a music box? You know when they get to winding down, they'll grind to a stop, and then if you tap them, they start up again for a little while?
  • Amber_DawnnAmber_Dawnn Posts: 10Member Member Posts: 10Member Member
    I was always told to eat more food early in the day and less at dinner so you're not overlapping sleep with digestion.
  • magnusthenerdmagnusthenerd Posts: 1,061Member Member Posts: 1,061Member Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    (snip for reply length)
    This does remind me though that this morning I saw Menno showing a study that showed on long term predictions of weight maintenance seems to do with variability in weight.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31949298
    Menno felt with his clients the less variability in weight, the more the life style they're doing is a maintainable one instead of reactionary.

    Reading only the abstract (since the article appears to be behind a paywall): Maintainability, perhaps (which I assume is equivalent to sustainability, in this context?); or perhaps just extent of personal commitment to change at that point. I support the idea of research to substantiate common sense, and this seems like it might be that sort of thing. To put it in MFP-common lingo I don't really believe in, are we saying that people who fall off the wagon more often along the way are less successful in the long run?

    This is not a diss of anyone for "lack of commitment", BTW: I've tried to change many times, in many ways. When I decide to change, I change, as long as the relevant factors are under my control. I've often mused about what it is that makes that switch flip: If I could consciously control it completely in all cases, that would be useful. People say all kinds of things about discipline and determination and motivation, but those are somewhat-circular abstractions, IMO, so not very satisfying as explanations.

    I'm thinking the fluxation is more a symptom of many possible things than a cause.
    Leaving it at falling off the wagon still feels proximal; it feels like it leaves it at willpower. I think the hypothesis Menno would push is the fall offs represents not a lack of will, but setting up changes that use up too much willpower to sustain. Or maybe I'm putting words in Menno's mouth unfairly. I'd say that is how I would hypothesize the study.
  • SnifterPugSnifterPug Posts: 252Member Member Posts: 252Member Member
    SnifterPug wrote: »

    Why We Eat (Too Much) by Dr Andrew Jenkinson


    As for Jekinson, I'm not sure what his book says, but isn't bariatric surgery predicated on the idea that the amount of food matters to weight? Most weight loss surgery causes an inability to take in large amounts of high fiber foods, the ones usually agreed upon as "healthy", good for you, and "necessary" for weight loss by people claiming clean eating is needed, not counting calories.

    Jenkinson's book was inspired by the stories of his patients and is not about bariatric surgery (though it touches on the fact that the more modern methods such as the bypass and sleeve) are much more effective long term because they either trigger early release of satiety hormones or remove the cells that secrete ghrelin and thus reduce appetite).

    He was struck by how many people tell exactly the same story - namely that they have tried CICO and yoyo dieted for years, and now feel they are useless, have no willpower, and that surgery is the only course left open to them. So he wondered if there is a genetic aspect to obesity (apparently there is) but his main theory is that the body has what he calls a weight set point in terms of how much fat it wants to carry. If you give it the necessary signals then you can affect that set point up or down. The body will ultimately force you to get to its own set point by altering your appetite and metabolism, much as it regulates your water levels by altering thirst and urine production to maintain homeostasis. In the case of a crash dieter the body reckons you are in a famine and if you force your body below its fat storage set point it will learn from that and prepare you better to survive a future famine (by means of laying down even more reserves of fat the minute it has a chance).

    There's loads of really interesting stuff in there, including how the food industry has much to answer for, given that the obesity crisis only really kicked off in the 80s after we all started getting told to eat low fat.

  • SnifterPugSnifterPug Posts: 252Member Member Posts: 252Member Member
    @lemurcat2 - quite so. And a big nail you have hit the head of, so far as the Jenkins book is concerned, is the word "products". He has a big downer on processed foods (which also mushroomed in the 80s along with all the possibly spurious government health advice).
  • cmriversidecmriverside Posts: 29,522Member Member Posts: 29,522Member Member
    If I remember correctly, "lowfat" was also about Baby Boomers getting into their forties and starting to worry about heart disease. Fat was bad for that. That huge demographic included people who were hitting the natural middle-aged "spread." We were working indoors at desks and driving everywhere and using TV as the leisure activity. Heck, there were even remote controls! What scorcery is this!?

    edited February 1
  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Posts: 13,696Member Member Posts: 13,696Member Member
    SnifterPug wrote: »
    SnifterPug wrote: »

    Why We Eat (Too Much) by Dr Andrew Jenkinson


    As for Jekinson, I'm not sure what his book says, but isn't bariatric surgery predicated on the idea that the amount of food matters to weight? Most weight loss surgery causes an inability to take in large amounts of high fiber foods, the ones usually agreed upon as "healthy", good for you, and "necessary" for weight loss by people claiming clean eating is needed, not counting calories.

    Jenkinson's book was inspired by the stories of his patients and is not about bariatric surgery (though it touches on the fact that the more modern methods such as the bypass and sleeve) are much more effective long term because they either trigger early release of satiety hormones or remove the cells that secrete ghrelin and thus reduce appetite).

    He was struck by how many people tell exactly the same story - namely that they have tried CICO and yoyo dieted for years, and now feel they are useless, have no willpower, and that surgery is the only course left open to them. So he wondered if there is a genetic aspect to obesity (apparently there is) but his main theory is that the body has what he calls a weight set point in terms of how much fat it wants to carry. If you give it the necessary signals then you can affect that set point up or down. The body will ultimately force you to get to its own set point by altering your appetite and metabolism, much as it regulates your water levels by altering thirst and urine production to maintain homeostasis. In the case of a crash dieter the body reckons you are in a famine and if you force your body below its fat storage set point it will learn from that and prepare you better to survive a future famine (by means of laying down even more reserves of fat the minute it has a chance).

    There's loads of really interesting stuff in there, including how the food industry has much to answer for, given that the obesity crisis only really kicked off in the 80s after we all started getting told to eat low fat.
    There's a misnomer I don't like there. A lot of people tend to use CICO and calorie counting interchangeably, which makes understanding where they are wrong is at. CICO is how all weight loss happens - arguably not in the case of water or limbs lost, but if someone wants to raise that kind of pedantry, I'll double down on the pedantry with those things do contain calories too. So people that literally argue against CICO think perpetual motion machines are real and the human body is one.
    Calorie counting, done correctly, will become CICO. We humans tend to be poor at the counting when starting, and we never get as good as a metabolic ward or some doubly labeled water.

    I think setpoint is a fair enough approximation for what a combination of the hormone systems and environment plus habits do when we look at hunger. It doesn't work when the theory is some vague hand waving that accepts people are generating energy from nowhere, which I think some people need to clarify it is not what they mean. I think people avoid admitting they don't mean that in some cases because they don't want to be forced into admitting the observed failures of "CICO" are really just cases of people failing at calorie counting. I think that comes from the idea that people view failures of calorie counting as some kind of competence or moral failing, which is a bit unfair burden to put on themselves or others. I believe that we'd get a lot further at treating and understanding the obesity crisis if we avoided worrying about blame on a personal level - it ironically pushes people away from understanding the things that will actually let them fix it.

    Oh, man: That knife-edge between feeling personal blame, and taking personal responsibility! :lol:
  • JthanmyfitnesspalJthanmyfitnesspal Posts: 2,184Member, Premium Member Posts: 2,184Member, Premium Member
    Well, this is a preliminary study of 93 females with average BMI ~30. They were split into two groups and tracked for 12 weeks. The "big breakfast" group lost more weight than the "big dinner" group. I note that, due to the difficulties of logging, you can't be sure that the "big breakfast" group didn't just plain eat less overall than the "big dinner" group.

    Preliminary studies such as these are very important for scientific progress, but larger

    Also, never confuse the mean with the individual: If you don't seem to mind skipping breakfast and it helps you lose weight, you should still do that.
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Posts: 4,476Member Member Posts: 4,476Member Member
    If I remember correctly, "lowfat" was also about Baby Boomers getting into their forties and starting to worry about heart disease. Fat was bad for that. That huge demographic included people who were hitting the natural middle-aged "spread." We were working indoors at desks and driving everywhere and using TV as the leisure activity. Heck, there were even remote controls! What scorcery is this!?

    As I recall, when we got the remote control it was constantly disappearing much like the occasional single sock from the dryer. My dad was constantly convinced someone took or hid it. I consider that some kind of jokster sorcerer, for sure.
  • mullanphylanemullanphylane Posts: 47Member Member Posts: 47Member Member
    What did they do after eating? Resting calorie burn? Too many unaddressed variables to say why and that render the study pretty much useless.
  • J72FITJ72FIT Posts: 5,394Member Member Posts: 5,394Member Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    SnifterPug wrote: »
    @lemurcat2 - quite so. And a big nail you have hit the head of, so far as the Jenkins book is concerned, is the word "products". He has a big downer on processed foods (which also mushroomed in the 80s along with all the possibly spurious government health advice).

    Let me be more pointed, as someone who was alive, adult, and paying attention in the 1980s: It wasn't about processed food per se, or about government advice, in the 80s, it was about behavior.

    The 1980s also saw the rise of the internet, increased workplace and home automation, increased ubiquity of prepared convenience food available 24/7 with negligible effort, a boom in screen-based entertainment options' popularity (gaming, burgeoning cable TV choices, computer), increased portion sizes, changes in social behavior regarding things like carrying an XL sugared drink around to sip steadily, and much more.

    On average, it takes something like 200 calories per person per day above maintenance to explain the obesity crisis, and that can be a combination of reduced activity and increased eating.

    There was processed food before 1980. That got rolling in the 1940s-50s, and kept growing. The inflection point in the population bodyweight curve in the 1980s is all about eating more (of anything and everything) and moving less.

    It's facile to blame the government or food companies, but we demonstrably ignore the government advice, and the food companies only give us what we vote with our dollars to tell them we want. If single-serve, organic, calorie-appropriate ecologically-packaged roasted Brussels sprouts were what we voted for, they'd be available in every drive-through and convenience store everywhere, and food companies would be falling all over themselves to make their brand the most cost-effective and the top of consumer taste tests. We prefer soda, cookies, burgers, fries, coffee-spiked hot milkshakes and candy.

    Walt Kelly's Pogo said it best (though in a different context): "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

    I can't love this post enough... BRAVO!
  • yogacat13yogacat13 Posts: 124Member Member Posts: 124Member Member
    SnifterPug wrote: »
    SnifterPug wrote: »

    Why We Eat (Too Much) by Dr Andrew Jenkinson


    As for Jekinson, I'm not sure what his book says, but isn't bariatric surgery predicated on the idea that the amount of food matters to weight? Most weight loss surgery causes an inability to take in large amounts of high fiber foods, the ones usually agreed upon as "healthy", good for you, and "necessary" for weight loss by people claiming clean eating is needed, not counting calories.

    Jenkinson's book was inspired by the stories of his patients and is not about bariatric surgery (though it touches on the fact that the more modern methods such as the bypass and sleeve) are much more effective long term because they either trigger early release of satiety hormones or remove the cells that secrete ghrelin and thus reduce appetite).

    He was struck by how many people tell exactly the same story - namely that they have tried CICO and yoyo dieted for years, and now feel they are useless, have no willpower, and that surgery is the only course left open to them. So he wondered if there is a genetic aspect to obesity (apparently there is) but his main theory is that the body has what he calls a weight set point in terms of how much fat it wants to carry. If you give it the necessary signals then you can affect that set point up or down. The body will ultimately force you to get to its own set point by altering your appetite and metabolism, much as it regulates your water levels by altering thirst and urine production to maintain homeostasis. In the case of a crash dieter the body reckons you are in a famine and if you force your body below its fat storage set point it will learn from that and prepare you better to survive a future famine (by means of laying down even more reserves of fat the minute it has a chance).

    There's loads of really interesting stuff in there, including how the food industry has much to answer for, given that the obesity crisis only really kicked off in the 80s after we all started getting told to eat low fat.

    I've read Jenkinson's book - I found it quite well-researched and persuasive. I'm using some of the steps it suggests now, like avoiding sugar, considering the glycemic load each time I eat (which is basically ensuring that I never eat carbs on their own but always with some protein of some sort), and getting a handle on the Omega 3/6 ratio in the fats I consume. It seems to be helping, and I have to say avoiding sugar has resulted in a significant improvement in my day to day energy levels. All in all, I would say his book is worth a read.
  • saintor1saintor1 Posts: 282Member Member Posts: 282Member Member
    I was always told to eat more food early in the day and less at dinner so you're not overlapping sleep with digestion.

    Well it turns out that those who told you so might be *correct*, even if the reason might not be.



  • paperpuddingpaperpudding Posts: 5,383Member Member Posts: 5,383Member Member
Sign In or Register to comment.