40 years of federal nutrition research fatally flawed

2»

Replies

  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    considering how many MFP members complain about doing everything right and it still not working, underestimating 25-40% sounds about right

    Then how comes that it's worked for so many people, if we're all underestimating our calorie intake by 25-40%?

    The comment specifically references people for whom it is *not* working.
  • SnicciFit
    SnicciFit Posts: 967 Member
    considering how many MFP members complain about doing everything right and it still not working, underestimating 25-40% sounds about right

    Then how comes that it's worked for so many people, if we're all underestimating our calorie intake by 25-40%?

    Honestly, for me, it wasn't about calories. It was macros and food quality.

    so you can eat more calories than you burn, have great macros and food quality, and still lose weight??

    Possibly. I think it depends on if you're talking strictly about weight loss or if you're getting into fat loss vs. weight loss. But, I might have been in a deficit anyway (hard to know for sure since everything is just an estimate as far as calorie intake & burn goes), but I didn't concentrate on reducing calories. I concentrated on macros and food quality.
  • SnicciFit
    SnicciFit Posts: 967 Member
    I may be rather sleep deprived yet I'm still baffled.

    How is the science flawed? Exactly how a misreported calorie intake remotely has anything to do with thermogenesis?

    Your NHANES sounds like a nation-wide Family Feud, nothing but a big survey. A survey that no one cared enough to do the math and crosscheck until now. Must be a big relief that the real science revolves around lab reports and cross-disciplinary knowledge rather than hearsay.

    I think the point is that these "results" are what all nutrition education is based on. Pretty scary, IMO.
  • TigerBite
    TigerBite Posts: 611 Member
    I dont really listen to the government or media or strangers for what to eat though.

    I go by sesame street rules.

    I make sure that most of the plate is vegetables and that i get all my vitamins and minerals, and that i have all my food groups and my food is a variety of colors, that sweets and desserts are special and not for all the time or everyday, eat within normal serving sizes, eat when im hungry, eat a good breakfast on days when i have to use my brain a lot, and dont swim on a full stomach.

    and Im healthy and fit - so I think it is working.

    tumblr_m3g8rjeV5Q1ruikyvo3_250.gif

    Sesame Street FTW!
  • brower47
    brower47 Posts: 16,356 Member
    considering how many MFP members complain about doing everything right and it still not working, underestimating 25-40% sounds about right

    Then how comes that it's worked for so many people, if we're all underestimating our calorie intake by 25-40%?

    Honestly, for me, it wasn't about calories. It was macros and food quality.

    so you can eat more calories than you burn, have great macros and food quality, and still lose weight??

    :laugh: That's what I got from that too.
  • SnicciFit
    SnicciFit Posts: 967 Member
    considering how many MFP members complain about doing everything right and it still not working, underestimating 25-40% sounds about right

    Then how comes that it's worked for so many people, if we're all underestimating our calorie intake by 25-40%?

    Honestly, for me, it wasn't about calories. It was macros and food quality.

    so you can eat more calories than you burn, have great macros and food quality, and still lose weight??

    :laugh: That's what I got from that too.

    Again:

    Possibly. I think it depends on if you're talking strictly about weight loss or if you're getting into fat loss vs. weight loss. But, I might have been in a deficit anyway (hard to know for sure since everything is just an estimate as far as calorie intake & burn goes), but I didn't concentrate on reducing calories. I concentrated on macros and food quality.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    considering how many MFP members complain about doing everything right and it still not working, underestimating 25-40% sounds about right

    Then how comes that it's worked for so many people, if we're all underestimating our calorie intake by 25-40%?

    Honestly, for me, it wasn't about calories. It was macros and food quality.

    so you can eat more calories than you burn, have great macros and food quality, and still lose weight??

    :laugh: That's what I got from that too.

    Again:

    Possibly. I think it depends on if you're talking strictly about weight loss or if you're getting into fat loss vs. weight loss. But, I might have been in a deficit anyway (hard to know for sure since everything is just an estimate as far as calorie intake & burn goes), but I didn't concentrate on reducing calories. I concentrated on macros and food quality.

    well I disagree..if you have perfect macros and eat quality food but still eat 500 calories over maintenance a day, you will gain weight, and you will gain fat, even if you are training like a beast....if you are not training like a beast, then you will really pack em on...
  • I may be rather sleep deprived yet I'm still baffled.

    How is the science flawed? Exactly how a misreported calorie intake remotely has anything to do with thermogenesis?

    Your NHANES sounds like a nation-wide Family Feud, nothing but a big survey. A survey that no one cared enough to do the math and crosscheck until now. Must be a big relief that the real science revolves around lab reports and cross-disciplinary knowledge rather than hearsay.

    I think the point is that these "results" are what all nutrition education is based on. Pretty scary, IMO.

    I must say, under-reporting of energy intake is well known (and well published on) and as much as possible, is adjusted for. This recent article explains it in relation to the NHANES data. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/97/4/848.full#T1
    Underreporting seems to be most prevalent in those with a higher BMI.

    It's important to note that caloric intake is a very minor aspect of the NHANES study, which you can access here. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/about_nhanes.htm They also use it for childrens' growth charts, micronutrient status etc etc.

    It is absolutely not correct to say that the results discussed in the PLOS One article (ie. raw caloric intake data) is what all nutrition education is based on. In fact, NHANES data (on many different measures) makes up only a very small aspect of the evidence used for developing for example, the Australian Dietary Guidelines, which is promoted as best practice in nutrition education here in Australia.

    My take is that the Primal Docs article was being a little dramatic about something that is well known and certainly accepted as a flaw in epidemiological studies such as these. To say that "It is only now, after 40 years, however, that the robustness of the survey itself and the data obtained from it, has been seriously looked at." is incorrect. It's certainly been looked at, analysed and accepted as a flaw.