The Worst Nutrition Advice in History (article)
Options
Replies
-
This stuff isn’t food, it’s a combination of chemicals that looks and tastes like food
May I ask what you propose food is made of? This is a personal pet peeve of mine.
FOOD IS CHEMICALS!! EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE IS CHEMICALS!!
Get used to it.
Hopefully it isn’t necessary to explain the distinction between the chemicals naturally occurring in food, the artificial ingredients added by food producers, and all other chemicals in the known universe that have absolutely no relevance to food consumption every time we have this sort of discussion0 -
This stuff isn’t food, it’s a combination of chemicals that looks and tastes like food
May I ask what you propose food is made of? This is a personal pet peeve of mine.
FOOD IS CHEMICALS!! EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE IS CHEMICALS!!
Get used to it.
Hopefully it isn’t necessary to explain the distinction between the chemicals naturally occurring in food, the artificial ingredients added by food producers, and all other chemicals in the known universe that have absolutely no relevance to food consumption every time we have this sort of discussion
That would be nice. But it's like the whole muscle weighs more than fat semantic foolishness. Some folks think that they're super clever by being so literal. It's rather silly.0 -
To offer a convincing argument refuting CICO, you'd have to show that the body sometimes stored energy as fat in preference to using it to meet immediate metabolic needs.
Why? I know I'm getting theoretical here, but we know that muscle is much harder to create than lose, why don't you think it's possible that the converse may be true for fat -- that perhaps it's easier to build than to lose? From an evolutionary standpoint, you'd think those that developed systems like that would have an advantage as food in abundance is a very modern change in our environment. So, it would seem in times of deprivation, those that could impede the loss of fat stores would have an advantage. Or the fact that most processes have an efficiency limitation -- some are highly efficient and some are highly inefficient. Why not think that weight loss (or fat loss) has some sort of such factor that isn't considered fully in CICO?
Otherwise, I just don't know how you make sense of the studies where there is dramatically different weight loss on calorically equal diets (like the one one I cited)? If it's all about calories in and calories out, there should have been relatively similar results (at least on the same macronutrient diets). And, yet, that wasn't the case.
The diets, regardless of their macro balance, had a calculated to a 400 cal deficit for the participants, over 16 weeks. With the deficit, they were expected to lose 6.1 kg -- which all of them did -- however, some lost considerably more and the authors can't account for it due to changes in RMR, intake or activity. The insulin sensitive women on a high carb diet lost 13.5% (average of 11.31 kg) of the bodyweight whereas their high fat counterparts lost 6.8% of their bodyweight (6.16 kg). They saw the inverse for those with insulin resistance. The insulin resistant women on a high fat diet lost 13.4% (11.11 kg) and the high carb version lost 8.6% (7.42 kg). How do you reconcile that? Perhaps a different mixture of muscle versus fat lost as they were comparing weight rather than fat or LBM losses? But, if that were the case, then the type of calories (macro balance) would make a dramatic difference in weight loss.
The study specifically speaks of greater expression of the FOXC2 gene in those groups that lost considerably more weight and that may impact either weight loss or energy expenditure, but freely admit that investigation into FOXC2 expression is in its infancy (and mostly in mice thus far) and needs to be explored further.
I notice that all the strict CICO folks have not addressed this other than to simply declare it impossible, despite evidence to the contrary. Unless the study is fundamentally flawed, how do you reconcile that?
Here's the study again, if you're interested: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/pdf
It was interesting, but it was a small study and the results need to be confirmed in more controlled setting and on a larger scale.
A couple of things to note:
*They measured body fat % at the beginning of the study but not at the end? At least, they didn't report a final bf% number. Was the fat:lbm loss ratio the same in all cohorts?
*Those who lost the least weight (IS on LC/HF and IR or HC/LF) lost about 6 kg over the 16 weeks, exactly as predicted by a strict calorie in/calorie out model. The authors do mention this and even say that this supports "a well established concept that low caloric intake produces weight loss". So they are NOT using this study to argue against CICO. The other groups lost more than was predicted.
*If this study is correct, then people with normal insulin sensitivities lose more weight on a high carb diet than on a low carb diet. Just a shout out to the ketosis fans out there
I'm not going to deny that different foods could affect hormone levels (for example) differently, which translates to different rates of weight loss. But this study, while adding an interesting twist, does not directly refute CICO.0 -
Calories in calories out does not necessarily = weight loss. We've known this for 3-4 years. Problem is, it's hard to make money selling a diet of healthy, less processed foods. First article references a study by Harvard, link is in the article if you want to read it yourself. Second one was published in a medical journal.
I'm not posting this to debate the point. I'm posting this because I am tired of hearing so many say eat at a deficit and you'll lose weight as though it is a law of physics. You can read or not read these, and believe as you choose. Just thought that some people may want to take a look. Especially if they are doing everything "right" and still not losing weight. These are both well respected medical institutions and journals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
Neither of these studies actually refute CICO. The one in NY Times link said that people who eat lots of french fries gain weight faster than people who eat vegetables. Well, duh. French fries are high in calories. People were simply reporting what they ate, and how much they weighed. There was no specific calorie counting going on.
The second one was looking at resting metabolic rate with different diets during maintenance after weight loss.0 -
The article isn't taking on calorie counting, it's taking on the mindset of people who think that calories are the only thing that matters. Eating junk just isn't very good for you, even if you only eat a little bit of it.
True, but "not good for you" has nothing to do with weight loss.
People need to stop shoving weight loss and nutrition together, because really they are two separate things.
TRUE^^^0 -
This stuff isn’t food, it’s a combination of chemicals that looks and tastes like food
May I ask what you propose food is made of? This is a personal pet peeve of mine.
FOOD IS CHEMICALS!! EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE IS CHEMICALS!!
Get used to it.
Hopefully it isn’t necessary to explain the distinction between the chemicals naturally occurring in food, the artificial ingredients added by food producers, and all other chemicals in the known universe that have absolutely no relevance to food consumption every time we have this sort of discussion
You mean like Copper arsenate? It was used to recolor used tea leaves for resale. It also caused two deaths when used to color a dessert in 1860.
Oops! That was more than 150 years ago. How time flies!!!
Also, is that an artificial ingredient or a naturally occurring substance?0 -
There is no scenario possible where a true deficit exists, and the person does not lose weight eventually.
Yeah that's hard to argue with. However would you concede that there are scenarios where a true calorie surplus exists and the person does not gain weight eventually
Nope.0 -
Holy cow.... yall should all be nutritionists and scientists.
I agree with the article, however, I thought most of the 5 points were old news and general knowledge. I didn't know anyone still thought a low-fat, high-carb diet is healthy, or that fake butter is better than real, or that corn and soybean oils are healthy.
Just eat real food.
Some of us are...0 -
If you don't understand the difference between man-made chemicals that have only been eaten by man for the last 100 years, and the compounds that have been in our food since the beginning of time, you are really missing some critical thinking skills.This stuff isn’t food, it’s a combination of chemicals that looks and tastes like food
May I ask what you propose food is made of? This is a personal pet peeve of mine.
FOOD IS CHEMICALS!! EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE IS CHEMICALS!!
Get used to it.
A sucrose molecule is the same whether it comes from beets, the cane plant, or is made in a lab. Google it. :flowerforyou:0 -
They put arsenic in flour to whiten it.
I don't eat white flour/bread/rice... I do eat smart taste pasta which is still white pasta, but it was a compromise in my house because my husband won't eat the wheat pasta. I eat the wheat pasta when he's not around, though.
They don't do that anymore because it's toxic. But, if you read up on how people used to adulterate food 200 years ago, you run into some pretty scary stuff. They weren't as, um, hippie as you'd expect.
They also plastered their faces with lead based paints and powders. :frown:0 -
To offer a convincing argument refuting CICO, you'd have to show that the body sometimes stored energy as fat in preference to using it to meet immediate metabolic needs.
Why? I know I'm getting theoretical here, but we know that muscle is much harder to create than lose, why don't you think it's possible that the converse may be true for fat -- that perhaps it's easier to build than to lose? From an evolutionary standpoint, you'd think those that developed systems like that would have an advantage as food in abundance is a very modern change in our environment. So, it would seem in times of deprivation, those that could impede the loss of fat stores would have an advantage. Or the fact that most processes have an efficiency limitation -- some are highly efficient and some are highly inefficient. Why not think that weight loss (or fat loss) has some sort of such factor that isn't considered fully in CICO?
Otherwise, I just don't know how you make sense of the studies where there is dramatically different weight loss on calorically equal diets (like the one one I cited)? If it's all about calories in and calories out, there should have been relatively similar results (at least on the same macronutrient diets). And, yet, that wasn't the case.
The diets, regardless of their macro balance, had a calculated to a 400 cal deficit for the participants, over 16 weeks. With the deficit, they were expected to lose 6.1 kg -- which all of them did -- however, some lost considerably more and the authors can't account for it due to changes in RMR, intake or activity. The insulin sensitive women on a high carb diet lost 13.5% (average of 11.31 kg) of the bodyweight whereas their high fat counterparts lost 6.8% of their bodyweight (6.16 kg). They saw the inverse for those with insulin resistance. The insulin resistant women on a high fat diet lost 13.4% (11.11 kg) and the high carb version lost 8.6% (7.42 kg). How do you reconcile that? Perhaps a different mixture of muscle versus fat lost as they were comparing weight rather than fat or LBM losses? But, if that were the case, then the type of calories (macro balance) would make a dramatic difference in weight loss.
The study specifically speaks of greater expression of the FOXC2 gene in those groups that lost considerably more weight and that may impact either weight loss or energy expenditure, but freely admit that investigation into FOXC2 expression is in its infancy (and mostly in mice thus far) and needs to be explored further.
I notice that all the strict CICO folks have not addressed this other than to simply declare it impossible, despite evidence to the contrary. Unless the study is fundamentally flawed, how do you reconcile that?
Here's the study again, if you're interested: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/pdf
From the paper: " although we cannot definitively rule out differences in energy intake as the etiology for the differences in weight loss, differences in energy expenditure seem to be a more plausible explanation."
Depending on their medical condition, the output side of the equation was effected. My wild guess? Those eating appropriately for their condition, felt better and moved more, resulting in more weight lost.0 -
To offer a convincing argument refuting CICO, you'd have to show that the body sometimes stored energy as fat in preference to using it to meet immediate metabolic needs.
Why? I know I'm getting theoretical here, but we know that muscle is much harder to create than lose, why don't you think it's possible that the converse may be true for fat -- that perhaps it's easier to build than to lose? From an evolutionary standpoint, you'd think those that developed systems like that would have an advantage as food in abundance is a very modern change in our environment. So, it would seem in times of deprivation, those that could impede the loss of fat stores would have an advantage. Or the fact that most processes have an efficiency limitation -- some are highly efficient and some are highly inefficient. Why not think that weight loss (or fat loss) has some sort of such factor that isn't considered fully in CICO?
Otherwise, I just don't know how you make sense of the studies where there is dramatically different weight loss on calorically equal diets (like the one one I cited)? If it's all about calories in and calories out, there should have been relatively similar results (at least on the same macronutrient diets). And, yet, that wasn't the case.
The diets, regardless of their macro balance, had a calculated to a 400 cal deficit for the participants, over 16 weeks. With the deficit, they were expected to lose 6.1 kg -- which all of them did -- however, some lost considerably more and the authors can't account for it due to changes in RMR, intake or activity. The insulin sensitive women on a high carb diet lost 13.5% (average of 11.31 kg) of the bodyweight whereas their high fat counterparts lost 6.8% of their bodyweight (6.16 kg). They saw the inverse for those with insulin resistance. The insulin resistant women on a high fat diet lost 13.4% (11.11 kg) and the high carb version lost 8.6% (7.42 kg). How do you reconcile that? Perhaps a different mixture of muscle versus fat lost as they were comparing weight rather than fat or LBM losses? But, if that were the case, then the type of calories (macro balance) would make a dramatic difference in weight loss.
The study specifically speaks of greater expression of the FOXC2 gene in those groups that lost considerably more weight and that may impact either weight loss or energy expenditure, but freely admit that investigation into FOXC2 expression is in its infancy (and mostly in mice thus far) and needs to be explored further.
I notice that all the strict CICO folks have not addressed this other than to simply declare it impossible, despite evidence to the contrary. Unless the study is fundamentally flawed, how do you reconcile that?
Here's the study again, if you're interested: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/pdf
From the paper: " although we cannot definitively rule out differences in energy intake as the etiology for the differences in weight loss, differences in energy expenditure seem to be a more plausible explanation."
Depending on their medical condition, the output side of the equation was effected. My wild guess? Those eating appropriately for their condition, felt better and moved more, resulting in more weight lost.
Except that they specifically said it couldn't be accounted for by activity. From what I read, they chalked it up to NEAT, not any activity/movement as they saw no appreciable difference.0 -
They put arsenic in flour to whiten it.
I don't eat white flour/bread/rice... I do eat smart taste pasta which is still white pasta, but it was a compromise in my house because my husband won't eat the wheat pasta. I eat the wheat pasta when he's not around, though.
They don't do that anymore because it's toxic. But, if you read up on how people used to adulterate food 200 years ago, you run into some pretty scary stuff. They weren't as, um, hippie as you'd expect.
They also plastered their faces with lead based paints and powders. :frown:
Essentially, our ancestors were us. They made all the same quick-fix, convenient, tasty choices that we do. They just had fewer options available.
However, they did the best they could do to screw up their bodies with the selection they had.0 -
Because if that were true, the human body would be a perpetual motion machine.To offer a convincing argument refuting CICO, you'd have to show that the body sometimes stored energy as fat in preference to using it to meet immediate metabolic needs.
Why? I know I'm getting theoretical here, but we know that muscle is much harder to create than lose, why don't you think it's possible that the converse may be true for fat -- that perhaps it's easier to build than to lose?0 -
This thread is a perpetual motion machine.0
-
This thread is a perpetual motion machine.
Oh come on. It hasn't even rolled once.0 -
To offer a convincing argument refuting CICO, you'd have to show that the body sometimes stored energy as fat in preference to using it to meet immediate metabolic needs.
Why? I know I'm getting theoretical here, but we know that muscle is much harder to create than lose, why don't you think it's possible that the converse may be true for fat -- that perhaps it's easier to build than to lose? From an evolutionary standpoint, you'd think those that developed systems like that would have an advantage as food in abundance is a very modern change in our environment. So, it would seem in times of deprivation, those that could impede the loss of fat stores would have an advantage. Or the fact that most processes have an efficiency limitation -- some are highly efficient and some are highly inefficient. Why not think that weight loss (or fat loss) has some sort of such factor that isn't considered fully in CICO?
Otherwise, I just don't know how you make sense of the studies where there is dramatically different weight loss on calorically equal diets (like the one one I cited)? If it's all about calories in and calories out, there should have been relatively similar results (at least on the same macronutrient diets). And, yet, that wasn't the case.
The diets, regardless of their macro balance, had a calculated to a 400 cal deficit for the participants, over 16 weeks. With the deficit, they were expected to lose 6.1 kg -- which all of them did -- however, some lost considerably more and the authors can't account for it due to changes in RMR, intake or activity. The insulin sensitive women on a high carb diet lost 13.5% (average of 11.31 kg) of the bodyweight whereas their high fat counterparts lost 6.8% of their bodyweight (6.16 kg). They saw the inverse for those with insulin resistance. The insulin resistant women on a high fat diet lost 13.4% (11.11 kg) and the high carb version lost 8.6% (7.42 kg). How do you reconcile that? Perhaps a different mixture of muscle versus fat lost as they were comparing weight rather than fat or LBM losses? But, if that were the case, then the type of calories (macro balance) would make a dramatic difference in weight loss.
The study specifically speaks of greater expression of the FOXC2 gene in those groups that lost considerably more weight and that may impact either weight loss or energy expenditure, but freely admit that investigation into FOXC2 expression is in its infancy (and mostly in mice thus far) and needs to be explored further.
I notice that all the strict CICO folks have not addressed this other than to simply declare it impossible, despite evidence to the contrary. Unless the study is fundamentally flawed, how do you reconcile that?
Here's the study again, if you're interested: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/pdf
From the paper: " although we cannot definitively rule out differences in energy intake as the etiology for the differences in weight loss, differences in energy expenditure seem to be a more plausible explanation."
Depending on their medical condition, the output side of the equation was effected. My wild guess? Those eating appropriately for their condition, felt better and moved more, resulting in more weight lost.
Except that they specifically said it couldn't be accounted for by activity. From what I read, they chalked it up to NEAT, not any activity/movement as they saw no appreciable difference.
NEAT stands for Non Exercise Activity. So if you felt better, you moved around more (in my example).
"NEAT comprises the energy expenditure of daily activities such as standing, walking, talking and sitting––all activities that are not considered planned physical activity of a person’s daily life."
http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/NeatLK.html0 -
From the paper: " although we cannot definitively rule out differences in energy intake as the etiology for the differences in weight loss, differences in energy expenditure seem to be a more plausible explanation."
Depending on their medical condition, the output side of the equation was effected. My wild guess? Those eating appropriately for their condition, felt better and moved more, resulting in more weight lost.
Except that they specifically said it couldn't be accounted for by activity. From what I read, they chalked it up to NEAT, not any activity/movement as they saw no appreciable difference.
NEAT stands for Non Exercise Activity. So if you felt better, you moved around more (in my example).
"NEAT comprises the energy expenditure of daily activities such as standing, walking, talking and sitting––all activities that are not considered planned physical activity of a person’s daily life."
http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/NeatLK.html
True, true. That just seems like a huge difference from casual moving around more -- the equivalent of 400 calories. I realize they basically have to drop it into NEAT to stick with the current understanding of CICO. But, that's not very convincing for me. I wish there were more similar studies -- and perhaps there are -- I just haven't ran across them in my casual research.0 -
From the paper: " although we cannot definitively rule out differences in energy intake as the etiology for the differences in weight loss, differences in energy expenditure seem to be a more plausible explanation."
Depending on their medical condition, the output side of the equation was effected. My wild guess? Those eating appropriately for their condition, felt better and moved more, resulting in more weight lost.
Except that they specifically said it couldn't be accounted for by activity. From what I read, they chalked it up to NEAT, not any activity/movement as they saw no appreciable difference.
NEAT stands for Non Exercise Activity. So if you felt better, you moved around more (in my example).
"NEAT comprises the energy expenditure of daily activities such as standing, walking, talking and sitting––all activities that are not considered planned physical activity of a person’s daily life."
http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/NeatLK.html
True, true. That just seems like a huge difference from casual moving around more -- the equivalent of 400 calories. I realize they basically have to drop it into NEAT to stick with the current understanding of CICO. But, that's not very convincing for me. I wish there were more similar studies -- and perhaps there are -- I just haven't ran across them in my casual research.
It's not that big a difference if you look at the fidgeting studies.0 -
NEAT stands for Non Exercise Activity. So if you felt better, you moved around more (in my example).
"NEAT comprises the energy expenditure of daily activities such as standing, walking, talking and sitting––all activities that are not considered planned physical activity of a person’s daily life."
http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/NeatLK.html
True, true. That just seems like a huge difference from casual moving around more -- the equivalent of 400 calories. I realize they basically have to drop it into NEAT to stick with the current understanding of CICO. But, that's not very convincing for me. I wish there were more similar studies -- and perhaps there are -- I just haven't ran across them in my casual research.
It's not that big a difference if you look at the fidgeting studies.
Sure, between fidgeters and non-fidgeters. But, it's pretty crazy to think that the ones that were IS HC and IR HF all of sudden became fidgeters at the time of this trial. That's really stretching it to me.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions