The Worst Nutrition Advice in History (article)

likitisplit

Just think about it… the nutrients in a whole egg contain all the building blocks needed to turn a single fertilized cell into an entire baby chicken.

Good only if you are a baby chicken. Same with milk, only good if you are a calf.

This is not how nutrition works.

Seaweed, only good if you are a manatee.
Bananas, only good if you are an orangutan.
Fish, only good if you are a dolphin.
Coconuts, only good if you're stranded on a desert island.

No.

Well, we eat chicken and calves, so shouldn't eating the pre-chicken or pre-calf get us some of the same nutritional benefits?

I think there is some confusion here, as I agree with you :P

I think it was the "Well" in my answer. My intention was to add-on rather than refute

sandy2622

I agree with the article!! Food needs to be REAL and WHOLESOME, and there are good calories and empty calories. Eat good fats, lean proteins, complex carbs, and loads of veggies and you can eat pretty much as much as you need to be full (reasonably saying! No gorging!) and still stay within your calorie guidelines for the day. As for the eggs....If you are eating say three scrambled eggs for breakfast, eat two yokes.....if you are like me that eats a LOT of eggs in a week, I might use a two white to one yolk ratio....

lindsey1979

Someone posted this on another thread and it's quite interesting. It talks about how after weight loss, people become much more efficient and burning calories and the brain's and body's response to that lower weight. Essentially, they burn 10-20% less than would be expected at the lower body weight, which is part of their hypothesis of how/why so many people regain their lost weight. Pretty interesting stuff...

http://youtu.be/2i_cmltmQ6A

likitisplit

Someone posted this on another thread and it's quite interesting. It talks about how after weight loss, people become much more efficient and burning calories and the brain's and body's response to that lower weight. Essentially, they burn 10-20% less than would be expected at the lower body weight, which is part of their hypothesis of how/why so many people regain their lost weight. Pretty interesting stuff...

http://youtu.be/2i_cmltmQ6A

I know - even at the same lean mass as people who were never obese. Moot for me, I guess. Still, that's the CO part of the equation and it just means that I need to keep my activity level up.

QuietBloom

Someone posted this on another thread and it's quite interesting. It talks about how after weight loss, people become much more efficient and burning calories and the brain's and body's response to that lower weight. Essentially, they burn 10-20% less than would be expected at the lower body weight, which is part of their hypothesis of how/why so many people regain their lost weight. Pretty interesting stuff...

http://youtu.be/2i_cmltmQ6A

Yep. The effects might not be permanent though.

lindsey1979

Someone posted this on another thread and it's quite interesting. It talks about how after weight loss, people become much more efficient and burning calories and the brain's and body's response to that lower weight. Essentially, they burn 10-20% less than would be expected at the lower body weight, which is part of their hypothesis of how/why so many people regain their lost weight. Pretty interesting stuff...

http://youtu.be/2i_cmltmQ6A

Yep. The effects might not be permanent though.

I really hope they aren't permanent, but that's what the doctors said. Unfortunately, there were no links/references to any of the studies from which they based their opinions.

likitisplit

There are a number of people on here who have lost significant weight and kept it off for a long time. Their experiences provide a good basis for questioning the assumptions of the doctors in the video.

nohaynicknamesdisponibles

I don't care much about nutrition advices. I avoid junk food with exception of pizza with ham and cheese once a month. Actually all what I eat is - my nutrition is really strange - said to be bad if you are on the weight-loss trip and I have lost 17 kilos so far :drinker:

lindsey1979

There are a number of people on here who have lost significant weight and kept it off for a long time. Their experiences provide a good basis for questioning the assumptions of the doctors in the video.

I'm not sure that makes a difference one way or the other. They didn't say it was impossible, just that most that did so made up the difference in regimented exercise. Essentially that a person that lost 10% or more of their body weight would have a lower TDEE than someone of the same body weight and composition who never had been heavier before -- so to make up the difference they either would have to eat less or move more to account for this difference. And that they may fight extreme cravings and hunger because the body was trying to send signals to increase intake to gain the weight back.

likitisplit

There are a number of people on here who have lost significant weight and kept it off for a long time. Their experiences provide a good basis for questioning the assumptions of the doctors in the video.

I'm not sure that makes a difference one way or the other. They didn't say it was impossible, just that most that did so made up the difference in regimented exercise. Essentially that a person that lost 10% or more of their body weight would have a lower TDEE than someone of the same body weight and composition who never had been heavier before -- so to make up the difference they either would have to eat less or move more to account for this difference. And that they may fight extreme cravings and hunger because the body was trying to send signals to increase intake to gain the weight back.

Except that the people on this site who have lost weight and kept it off for a substantial amount of time have not had to fight extreme cravings and hunger.

Ask them.

geebusuk

I believe his claims are that the human body "wants" to be a specific weight.
There's certainly plenty of stuff suggesting this is often true of naturally slim people who are over-fed, who can often be found fidgeting more, not hungry and so on.

I don't think people on here having kept weight off is good evidence against his claims.

I can't find any decent detail on it, but one thing I've seen discussed on here is that while it was generally thought your fat cell count stayed constant after puberty, it's now been shown that if you put on loads of weight later, they can increase. It's been suggested that as cells regenerate (which generally takes five years or so), if you're back to a lower weight, the number of fat cells reduce to this.

I've had a look for research backing up the specific claims made in the video, but haven't found anything useful so far.
In the end, if you're fairly active, a 20% loss in BMR isn't exactly massive overall. If we're talking 300 calories, that's maybe half an hour's extra exercise.

For me, the figures still match up to maintaining at a TDEE of around 3000 calories while doing weights at around 170lb body weight (but without any other cardio which would be extra.) I'm confident enough that if this could be an issue for me, it's not a big one .

likitisplit

I believe his claims are that the human body "wants" to be a specific weight.
There's certainly plenty of stuff suggesting this is often true of naturally slim people who are over-fed, who can often be found fidgeting more, not hungry and so on.

I don't think people on here having kept weight off is good evidence against his claims.

I can't find any decent detail on it, but one thing I've seen discussed on here is that while it was generally thought your fat cell count stayed constant after puberty, it's now been shown that if you put on loads of weight later, they can increase. It's been suggested that as cells regenerate (which generally takes five years or so), if you're back to a lower weight, the number of fat cells reduce to this.

I've had a look for research backing up the specific claims made in the video, but haven't found anything useful so far.
In the end, if you're fairly active, a 20% loss in BMR isn't exactly massive overall. If we're talking 300 calories, that's maybe half an hour's extra exercise.

For me, the figures still match up to maintaining at a TDEE of around 3000 calories while doing weights at around 170lb body weight (but without any other cardio which would be extra.) I'm confident enough that if this could be an issue for me, it's not a big one .

It's not that they've kept the weight off. It's that they aren't fighting craving and hunger while doing it. They might be fidgeting a little more than they would have before they got fat. But otherwise Lilbeesmommy and ItsCasey and Troglicious and the other people on this site who have lost a third of their mass aren't walking around famished all the time.

lindsey1979

I believe his claims are that the human body "wants" to be a specific weight.
There's certainly plenty of stuff suggesting this is often true of naturally slim people who are over-fed, who can often be found fidgeting more, not hungry and so on.

I don't think people on here having kept weight off is good evidence against his claims.

I can't find any decent detail on it, but one thing I've seen discussed on here is that while it was generally thought your fat cell count stayed constant after puberty, it's now been shown that if you put on loads of weight later, they can increase. It's been suggested that as cells regenerate (which generally takes five years or so), if you're back to a lower weight, the number of fat cells reduce to this.

I've had a look for research backing up the specific claims made in the video, but haven't found anything useful so far.
In the end, if you're fairly active, a 20% loss in BMR isn't exactly massive overall. If we're talking 300 calories, that's maybe half an hour's extra exercise.

For me, the figures still match up to maintaining at a TDEE of around 3000 calories while doing weights at around 170lb body weight (but without any other cardio which would be extra.) I'm confident enough that if this could be an issue for me, it's not a big one .

It's not that they've kept the weight off. It's that they aren't fighting craving and hunger while doing it. They might be fidgeting a little more than they would have before they got fat. But otherwise Lilbeesmommy and ItsCasey and Troglicious and the other people on this site who have lost a third of their mass aren't walking around famished all the time.

Sure, but isn't that what we consider anecdotal evidence? I think anecdotes are great, but when you see a huge study like this done in controlled condition (which sadly, we don't see so much), I think it's important to acknowledge it -- especially as it may help with the long run.

We know that a lot of people lose and regain weight over and over again -- this isn't news, by any stretch. This may help explain why, even if they haven't figured out solutions to it. That it isn't sheer laziness or lack of focus necessarily, but a serious biological condition. Just knowing that alone may help people be better equipped for maintenance.

Just because some people haven't had these struggles doesn't invalidate the existence of those that have.

likitisplit

I believe his claims are that the human body "wants" to be a specific weight.
There's certainly plenty of stuff suggesting this is often true of naturally slim people who are over-fed, who can often be found fidgeting more, not hungry and so on.

I don't think people on here having kept weight off is good evidence against his claims.

I can't find any decent detail on it, but one thing I've seen discussed on here is that while it was generally thought your fat cell count stayed constant after puberty, it's now been shown that if you put on loads of weight later, they can increase. It's been suggested that as cells regenerate (which generally takes five years or so), if you're back to a lower weight, the number of fat cells reduce to this.

I've had a look for research backing up the specific claims made in the video, but haven't found anything useful so far.
In the end, if you're fairly active, a 20% loss in BMR isn't exactly massive overall. If we're talking 300 calories, that's maybe half an hour's extra exercise.

For me, the figures still match up to maintaining at a TDEE of around 3000 calories while doing weights at around 170lb body weight (but without any other cardio which would be extra.) I'm confident enough that if this could be an issue for me, it's not a big one .

It's not that they've kept the weight off. It's that they aren't fighting craving and hunger while doing it. They might be fidgeting a little more than they would have before they got fat. But otherwise Lilbeesmommy and ItsCasey and Troglicious and the other people on this site who have lost a third of their mass aren't walking around famished all the time.

Sure, but isn't that what we consider anecdotal evidence? I think anecdotes are great, but when you see a huge study like this done in controlled condition (which sadly, we don't see so much), I think it's important to acknowledge it -- especially as it may help with the long run.

We know that a lot of people lose and regain weight over and over again -- this isn't news, by any stretch. This may help explain why, even if they haven't figured out solutions to it. That it isn't sheer laziness or lack of focus necessarily, but a serious biological condition. Just knowing that alone may help people be better equipped for maintenance.

Just because some people haven't had these struggles doesn't invalidate the existence of those that have.

Anecdotal evidence = observations that provide a lead for interesting new research.

From what I'm hearing, there aren't any actual references to this huge controlled study and reading it is kind of critical. I don't know whether the thing about the cravings is something they actually measured...or whether it is something they extrapolate from the mechanism they hypothesize causes the change.

lindsey1979

Anecdotal evidence = observations that provide a lead for interesting new research.

From what I'm hearing, there aren't any actual references to this huge controlled study and reading it is kind of critical. I don't know whether the thing about the cravings is something they actually measured...or whether it is something they extrapolate from the mechanism they hypothesize causes the change.

I take it that you didn't watch the video. Perhaps the study will be published soon (or already has been published) -- lets see if Google can help out with it.

As for cravings, they took surveys of the folks in the studies as well as tracked certain hormonal responses and brain activity. It seems like that's about as much as one can track such things.

likitisplit

Anecdotal evidence = observations that provide a lead for interesting new research.

From what I'm hearing, there aren't any actual references to this huge controlled study and reading it is kind of critical. I don't know whether the thing about the cravings is something they actually measured...or whether it is something they extrapolate from the mechanism they hypothesize causes the change.

I take it that you didn't watch the video. Perhaps the study will be published soon (or already has been published) -- lets see if Google can help out with it.

As for cravings, they took surveys of the folks in the studies as well as tracked certain hormonal responses and brain activity. It seems like that's about as much as one can track such things.

The doctors have done studies for YEARS that have included HUNDREDS of participants...

Sigh.

likitisplit

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=leibel+rosenbaum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23555620 - There is a single study that shows that food cues are heightened in obese. There is nothing that supports constant hunger/cravings.

LiftAllThePizzas

I believe his claims are that the human body "wants" to be a specific weight.
There's certainly plenty of stuff suggesting this is often true of naturally slim people who are over-fed, who can often be found fidgeting more, not hungry and so on.

I don't think people on here having kept weight off is good evidence against his claims.

I can't find any decent detail on it, but one thing I've seen discussed on here is that while it was generally thought your fat cell count stayed constant after puberty, it's now been shown that if you put on loads of weight later, they can increase. It's been suggested that as cells regenerate (which generally takes five years or so), if you're back to a lower weight, the number of fat cells reduce to this.

I've had a look for research backing up the specific claims made in the video, but haven't found anything useful so far.
In the end, if you're fairly active, a 20% loss in BMR isn't exactly massive overall. If we're talking 300 calories, that's maybe half an hour's extra exercise.

For me, the figures still match up to maintaining at a TDEE of around 3000 calories while doing weights at around 170lb body weight (but without any other cardio which would be extra.) I'm confident enough that if this could be an issue for me, it's not a big one .

It's not that they've kept the weight off. It's that they aren't fighting craving and hunger while doing it. They might be fidgeting a little more than they would have before they got fat. But otherwise Lilbeesmommy and ItsCasey and Troglicious and the other people on this site who have lost a third of their mass aren't walking around famished all the time.

I wonder how "having a craving" is objectively defined.

I have had what I would call cravings for foods during my entire life. And that was just as common before I had ever been overweight and had a BMI of 19-20. (I would put them on par with the nicotine cravings I had when I was a smoker and when quitting smoking.)

Did they also find out how many "not fat" people have cravings and do any sort of comparison, or do they just assume that only fat people or ex-fat people have cravings?

lindsey1979

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=leibel+rosenbaum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23555620 - There is a single study that shows that food cues are heightened in obese. There is nothing that supports constant hunger/cravings.

I'm pretty sure that's how he described in the video. I'm not sure it's constant, but increased (when compared to the cravings they had when they were heavier).

lindsey1979

I believe his claims are that the human body "wants" to be a specific weight.
There's certainly plenty of stuff suggesting this is often true of naturally slim people who are over-fed, who can often be found fidgeting more, not hungry and so on.

I don't think people on here having kept weight off is good evidence against his claims.

I can't find any decent detail on it, but one thing I've seen discussed on here is that while it was generally thought your fat cell count stayed constant after puberty, it's now been shown that if you put on loads of weight later, they can increase. It's been suggested that as cells regenerate (which generally takes five years or so), if you're back to a lower weight, the number of fat cells reduce to this.

I've had a look for research backing up the specific claims made in the video, but haven't found anything useful so far.
In the end, if you're fairly active, a 20% loss in BMR isn't exactly massive overall. If we're talking 300 calories, that's maybe half an hour's extra exercise.

For me, the figures still match up to maintaining at a TDEE of around 3000 calories while doing weights at around 170lb body weight (but without any other cardio which would be extra.) I'm confident enough that if this could be an issue for me, it's not a big one .

It's not that they've kept the weight off. It's that they aren't fighting craving and hunger while doing it. They might be fidgeting a little more than they would have before they got fat. But otherwise Lilbeesmommy and ItsCasey and Troglicious and the other people on this site who have lost a third of their mass aren't walking around famished all the time.

I wonder how "having a craving" is objectively defined.

I have had what I would call cravings for foods during my entire life. And that was just as common before I had ever been overweight and had a BMI of 19-20. (I would put them on par with the nicotine cravings I had when I was a smoker and when quitting smoking.)

Did they also find out how many "not fat" people have cravings and do any sort of comparison, or do they just assume that only fat people or ex-fat people have cravings?

I think the idea was that they were linking it to the body's signal to eat at the reduced weight. I think they were studying the same people before and after the weight change. Whether people that had been thin all their life had strong cravings, however you define that, didn't seem that helpful to the study. Or at least that wasn't the point because they were focusing on changes during/after weight loss and in maintenance. Those that never needed to lose weight wouldn't be that helpful to study for that purpose.

likitisplit

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=leibel+rosenbaum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23555620 - There is a single study that shows that food cues are heightened in obese. There is nothing that supports constant hunger/cravings.

I'm pretty sure that's how he described in the video. I'm not sure it's constant, but increased.

He described it as increased during a low-calorie diet and leptin as helping to control it (in the low calorie diet). Even the woman they interviewed mentioned that she was able to figure out how to balance her eating.

I mean, I've lost 20% of my body weight and maintained for 6 months without logging. I have friends with different experiences, but its not like this is a death sentence.

Harder, yes, especially if you lost weight by cutting out foods you enjoy instead of learning how to fit them in or tried a drastic technique.

lindsey1979

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=leibel+rosenbaum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23555620 - There is a single study that shows that food cues are heightened in obese. There is nothing that supports constant hunger/cravings.

I'm pretty sure that's how he described in the video. I'm not sure it's constant, but increased.

He described it as increased during a low-calorie diet and leptin as helping to control it (in the low calorie diet). Even the woman they interviewed mentioned that she was able to figure out how to balance her eating.

I mean, I've lost 20% of my body weight and maintained for 6 months without logging. I have friends with different experiences, but its not like this is a death sentence.

Harder, yes, especially if you lost weight by cutting out foods you enjoy instead of learning how to fit them in or tried a drastic technique.

Sure, I just think it's really interesting and at least supports a theory as to why many people have a very hard time maintaining their weight despite changes in diet and lifestyle. Sure, the ones that go back to how they were eating before are definitely going to regain the weight, but it looks like that there may be some biological drive to do just that -- or that's what the study is hypothesizing through the leptin levels.

And, can be really helpful in people calculating TDEE levels. Some say the BMR calculators are true for 98% of the population and that looks not to be the case for folks that have lost a lot of weight --- their TDEEs are 20% or lower than would be expected. Just a lot more variance out there. And perhaps the more we can figure out about such processes, the greater chance can be had for more people. So, that not only working hard, they can work smart as well.

likitisplit

But that only matters if you rely heavily on calculators (which aren't that great for individuals anyway). If you use if as a general guide and then tweak based on your actual results, it doesn't matter what the average person needs.

It might be helpful to know that you are more likely to need to track long term...and this isn't because you are a glutton or something.

LiftAllThePizzas

I believe his claims are that the human body "wants" to be a specific weight.
There's certainly plenty of stuff suggesting this is often true of naturally slim people who are over-fed, who can often be found fidgeting more, not hungry and so on.

I don't think people on here having kept weight off is good evidence against his claims.

I can't find any decent detail on it, but one thing I've seen discussed on here is that while it was generally thought your fat cell count stayed constant after puberty, it's now been shown that if you put on loads of weight later, they can increase. It's been suggested that as cells regenerate (which generally takes five years or so), if you're back to a lower weight, the number of fat cells reduce to this.

I've had a look for research backing up the specific claims made in the video, but haven't found anything useful so far.
In the end, if you're fairly active, a 20% loss in BMR isn't exactly massive overall. If we're talking 300 calories, that's maybe half an hour's extra exercise.

For me, the figures still match up to maintaining at a TDEE of around 3000 calories while doing weights at around 170lb body weight (but without any other cardio which would be extra.) I'm confident enough that if this could be an issue for me, it's not a big one .

It's not that they've kept the weight off. It's that they aren't fighting craving and hunger while doing it. They might be fidgeting a little more than they would have before they got fat. But otherwise Lilbeesmommy and ItsCasey and Troglicious and the other people on this site who have lost a third of their mass aren't walking around famished all the time.

I wonder how "having a craving" is objectively defined.

I have had what I would call cravings for foods during my entire life. And that was just as common before I had ever been overweight and had a BMI of 19-20. (I would put them on par with the nicotine cravings I had when I was a smoker and when quitting smoking.)

Did they also find out how many "not fat" people have cravings and do any sort of comparison, or do they just assume that only fat people or ex-fat people have cravings?

I think the idea was that they were linking it to the body's signal to eat at the reduced weight. I think they were studying the same people before and after the weight change. Whether people that had been thin all their life had strong cravings, however you define that, didn't seem that helpful to the study. Or at least that wasn't the point because they were focusing on changes during/after weight loss and in maintenance. Those that never needed to lose weight wouldn't be that helpful to study for that purpose.

Well it stands to reason that someone who is eating a larger amount of food every day is going to have fewer cravings than when they are eating less food every day. Just like I would have few or no nicotine cravings when I was smoking all the time.

I think it's important to try to account for the fact that someone who eats a lot, to the point that their sense of "normal" includes never experiencing hunger, might report 'excessive hunger' or 'cravings' when they are experiencing what someone else might just consider a normal everyday thing.

I would suspect those things (when they are a new part of someone's life) are more psychologically difficult to deal with until the person adjusts their sense of normal. But that wouldn't necessarily mean someone who lost a bunch of weight is objectively experiencing more hunger or more cravings than other people or that they're at some sort of disadvantage beyond what anyone experiences when adjusting to a new lifestyle/habits.

So IMO it's important to know how they went about measuring these things.

likitisplit

I linked to the pubmed page that has all their stuff. It was long term in-patient controlled etcetera.

lindsey1979

Sure, it's important how they measure it. From what was discussed on the video, it looks like they look at several markers, including hormonal cues and brain activity. That seems about as much as one is likely to find for such areas. And, I'm not sure if their idea of hunger is necessary that far off considering they been at a much larger deficit previously to lose the 10+% of body weight in the first place.

The part I found most fascinating was the fact that when someone had lost 10% of their body weight, their metabolic rate was considerably lower than what would be expected for someone of the same bodyweight and body composition. And, from what the doctor said from his studies, is that it appeared to be a permanent effect. I just really hope he's wrong about that permanent effect part.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

likitisplit

Sure, it's important how they measure it. From what was discussed on the video, it looks like they look at several markers, including hormonal cues and brain activity. That seems about as much as one is likely to find for such areas. And, I'm not sure if their idea of hunger is necessary that far off considering they been at a much larger deficit previously to lose the 10+% of body weight in the first place.

The part I found most fascinating was the fact that when someone had lost 10% of their body weight, their metabolic rate was considerably lower than what would be expected for someone of the same bodyweight and body composition. And, from what the doctor said from his studies, is that it appeared to be a permanent effect. I just really hope he's wrong about that permanent effect part.

Is your BMR really that low?

LiftAllThePizzas

This is with only 10% bodyweight loss? I lost 15%. Lots of people on here lost more than 10%.

I'd bet the vast majority of users on here who started out overweight are trying to lose more than 10% of their body weight.

I know I'm only a single sample but my TDEE before exercise didn't go down. But again, I lost fat and added some lean mass. I would suspect body composition would play a significant role.

likitisplit

I lost 20% and my BMR is still 1750, which forces me to fight MFP for enough calories every time I change my goals. But that's all anecdotal...