The Worst Nutrition Advice in History (article)

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.

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...

lindsey1979

I don't know about others. I imagine that there are exceptions and it's far from a definitive study, but that's what they found. That apparently among others of the same body weight and composition, that the ones that had lost weight as opposed to those that always had been that lesser weight, their overall expenditure was 10-20% less -- that their muscles had become more efficient at energy expenditure so they burned less calories as a result.

I wonder if this is the reason that some hit plateaus -- that think they should be in a deficit by simply calculating for the expected BMR/TDEE for that lower body weight. But, it's actually 20% or so lower -- and why they need to drop their calories even more to get into a true deficit. I just wonder if 20% is the limit. Would it drop even lower if you lost more weight (i.e. 20%+ or bodyweight)? Also, I wonder if this holds true for those that gained weight to hormonal balances initially -- whether it's thyroid issues, adrenal issues, etc.

Obviously, more study needs to be done, but it's definitely interesting and would help explain why so many people struggle with maintenance and regain weight.

likitisplit

The thing is, smoking has about the same recidivism than obesity...about 90%.

HOWEVER, former smokers now outnumber current smokers in the U.S. More than half of all smokers do, in fact, eventually quit.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-progress/sgr50-chap-1.pdf

Hard =/= guaranteed failure.

As a matter of fact, the 90% failure that gets seen in obesity studies, might have a lot to do with sampling bias:

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/25/health/95-regain-lost-weight-or-do-they.html

lindsey1979

Smoking has a 90% recidivism rate? Wow. I didn't realize it was nearly that high. I guess I've known a few smokers that have quit and I didn't think it was nearly that high.

likitisplit

Smoking has a 90% recidivism rate? Wow. I didn't realize it was nearly that high. I guess I've known a few smokers that have quit and I didn't think it was nearly that high.

I've quit smoking. Trust me, keeping the weight off is nowhere near the challenge.

lindsey1979

Well, I imagine that's the case for you, Vardaemi, and others may have considerably different experiences. I've known three that went cold turkey on smoking and haven't had any relapses (though, one was due to some pretty dire circumstances).

I imagine there are some that find keeping weight off equally hard or harder and some manage getting off the cancer sticks not as big of a deal. It really varies on the person --- both seem to be very difficult for many people.

likitisplit

Well, I imagine that's the case for you, Vardaemi, and others may have considerably different experiences. I've known three that went cold turkey on smoking and haven't had any relapses (though, one was due to some pretty dire circumstances).

I imagine there are some that find keeping weight off equally hard or harder and some manage getting off the cancer sticks not as big of a deal. It really varies on the person --- both seem to be very difficult for many people.

What I'm saying is that it was VERY difficult for me. It's very difficult for the vast majority of the people who quit. You didn't mention how many times your friends quit before they quit for good.... And yet we did all quit. There are more former smokers than smokers.

Just because maintaining a healthy weight might be slightly more challenging for the formerly obese (and the video was definitely overstating the attention to portion and exercise that would be required), it's still more than "doable."

lindsey1979

Well, I imagine that's the case for you, Vardaemi, and others may have considerably different experiences. I've known three that went cold turkey on smoking and haven't had any relapses (though, one was due to some pretty dire circumstances).

I imagine there are some that find keeping weight off equally hard or harder and some manage getting off the cancer sticks not as big of a deal. It really varies on the person --- both seem to be very difficult for many people.

What I'm saying is that it was VERY difficult for me. It's very difficult for the vast majority of the people who quit. You didn't mention how many times your friends quit before they quit for good.... And yet we did all quit. There are more former smokers than smokers.

Just because maintaining a healthy weight might be slightly more challenging for the formerly obese (and the video was definitely overstating the attention to portion and exercise that would be required), it's still more than "doable."

I think both are "doable", but the amount of effort required for either varies considerably based on the individual. That's all. Some will find maintaining a healthy weight more difficult. Others will find staying smoke-free more difficult.

I just wouldn't want to minimize someone else's struggle simply because I personally find it not that hard. That's all.