Calorie Counter

Message Boards Debate: Health and Fitness
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

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

12467

Replies

  • magnusthenerdmagnusthenerd Member Posts: 1,198 Member Member Posts: 1,198 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 Member Posts: 411 Member Member Posts: 411 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 Member Posts: 411 Member Member Posts: 411 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 Member Posts: 30,514 Member Member Posts: 30,514 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
  • JthanmyfitnesspalJthanmyfitnesspal Member, Premium Posts: 2,463 Member Member, Premium Posts: 2,463 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 Member Posts: 5,729 Member Member Posts: 5,729 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 Member Posts: 171 Member Member Posts: 171 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.
  • yogacat13yogacat13 Member Posts: 124 Member Member Posts: 124 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 Member Posts: 314 Member Member Posts: 314 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 Member Posts: 6,109 Member Member Posts: 6,109 Member
  • bmeadows380bmeadows380 Member Posts: 2,870 Member Member Posts: 2,870 Member
    saintor1 wrote: »
    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.



    There's nothing correct about the idea that sleep and digestion shouldn't happen at the same time. In fact, as you're ignoring, it's already been pointed out that this would be pretty much impossible, as digestion takes place over a few days and humans require sleep and food on a schedule that would make separation of the two impossible.

    well, I wouldn't say impossible but certainly improbable, uncomfortable, and unhealthy. That would be some extreme version of IF, though!
  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Member Posts: 8,354 Member Member Posts: 8,354 Member
    saintor1 wrote: »
    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.



    There's nothing correct about the idea that sleep and digestion shouldn't happen at the same time. In fact, as you're ignoring, it's already been pointed out that this would be pretty much impossible, as digestion takes place over a few days and humans require sleep and food on a schedule that would make separation of the two impossible.

    well, I wouldn't say impossible but certainly improbable, uncomfortable, and unhealthy. That would be some extreme version of IF and prolonged periods of sleeplessness, though!

    FIFY
Sign In or Register to comment.