The Worst Nutrition Advice in History (article)

Options
12357…17

Replies

  • geebusuk
    geebusuk Posts: 3,348 Member
    Options
    and neither Alan or Eric cherry pick their research or have a bias view!!

    That's fact and there are studies to prove it (although I do not think they are peer reviewed).
    I do not believe they do 'cherry pick' their research - their conclusions certainly seem to make sense when I search for reasarch.

    Also, note while they have "a bias", it is a "biased view" - don't think American is different to English in that manner :).

    Anyway, yes, they do seem to have a bias... for the truth, from what I've seen :).
    Which would make sense for someone wishing to be educated to provide their clients with the best possible results as far as body composition and so on goes. Rather than trying to sell books on their chosen fad, their profits are likely based on how their views translate into real world results for real world people.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Options
    and neither Alan or Eric cherry pick their research or have a bias view!!

    That's fact and there are studies to prove it (although I do not think they are peer reviewed).
    I do not believe they do 'cherry pick' their research - their conclusions certainly seem to make sense when I search for reasarch.

    Also, note while they have "a bias", it is a "biased view" - don't think American is different to English in that manner :).

    Anyway, yes, they do seem to have a bias... for the truth, from what I've seen :).
    Which would make sense for someone wishing to be educated to provide their clients with the best possible results as far as body composition and so on goes. Rather than trying to sell books on their chosen fad, their profits are likely based on how their views translate into real world results for real world people.

    LOL.

    That's the exact same answer I would use for something/someone that fitted in with my belief system.

    Also - sorry to break the news but Eric and Alan are both peddling their own books about their chosen fad. :smile:
  • sarab99
    sarab99 Posts: 134 Member
    Options
    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
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Options
    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

    The people who are "doing everything right" but not losing weight are not ACTUALLY doing everything right.

    Calories in, calories out is physically correct.
    Agree.

    Maybe the confusion is the interpretation of cal in, cal out.

    Exactly how are you proposing it works?

    Most people may be agreeing with you and we just do not know it.
  • BrainyBurro
    BrainyBurro Posts: 6,129 Member
    Options
    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

    ummm... it is actually a law of physics.

    but thanks for playing. we have a nice consolation prize for you. :flowerforyou:
  • lindsey1979
    lindsey1979 Posts: 2,395 Member
    Options
    The problem with CICO is that it's an over simplification of an extremely complex system. Even when you get down to the basics of thermodynamics, the equation is still quite complex and the out side of the equation is incredibly difficult to quantify in precise numbers. Lyle McDonald does a good job of explaining the various aspects for those that like to nerd out (link below). But, even then, there are a considerable amount of assumptions in those equations having to do with biochemical reactions in the body, many of which we know about and many of which we're still investigating. And, when one of those important assumptions ends up being false for an individual, it throws off the entire equation. It doesn't make the equation wrong, but merely impacts the application of the equation in an individual circumstance. That's where most of the true error comes in -- not in the equation but in people's incorrect application of the equation in specific circumstances.

    Easy examples of things that change assumptions and throw off application of the equation would be a thyroid issue, a glucose metabolism issue like insulin resistance, adrenal issue, etc. And, like many things, these usually exist on a spectrum -- they are not on-off phenomena. People with severe issues usually end up eventually diagnosed with them. But, people with minor issues may never get diagnosed, but the application of their energy equation isn't quite functioning as optimally as it may be for others.

    But, so many people don't want to acknowledge this, likely either because it simply hurts their brain, they're literally incapable of understanding it or it conflicts with their need for simplicity. So, they declare it not to exist.

    CICO is a good guideline and works for many people for good reasons. But it is just a guideline, with certain exceptions. Different macros will affect weight loss as well as body composition. Making the differentiation between nutrition and weight loss or body composition and weight loss seems silly to me as there is overlap since weight loss is affected by the composition of tissue lost (i.e. lean body mass vs. adipose).

    It's like the same semantic game some play about muscle weighing more than fat. Some think that means one lb of fat weighs more than one lb of muscle. The statement is comparing volume not weight. The comparison of weight is useless as 1 lb of anything equals 1 lb of anything else. The whole point is that the same VOLUME of fat weighs less than the same VOLUME of muscle because muscle is more dense. But, man, will you see that same stupid semantic war rage on forever.

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html
  • Dewymorning
    Dewymorning Posts: 762 Member
    Options
    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.

    It depends what your goal is. If it is just to lose weight, that is one thing. But if you are like me and your goal was 'To be healthier' and you realised that to be healthier you needed to lose weight, then they are related.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Options
    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

    The people who are "doing everything right" but not losing weight are not ACTUALLY doing everything right.

    Calories in, calories out is physically correct.
    Agree.

    Maybe the confusion is the interpretation of cal in, cal out.

    Exactly how are you proposing it works?

    Most people may be agreeing with you and we just do not know it.
    I think I understand your approach now. You don't really have valid opinions based on results from application, instead, your intention appears to be to say things to contradict someone or entice a debate for the purpose of a debate. Not actually to make points. Makes sense now.

    No I have my opinions of how things work.

    What I find is that a lot of people don't quite explain their understanding of things properly and sometimes argue about things that primarily there is agreement on.

    I would love for everyone to accept that there is not definite right answer and actually discuss different approaches to the same target, but certain sections of MFP have a very narrow mind set and believe that there is only one answer (theirs) and that they must be correct.
  • craftywitch_63
    craftywitch_63 Posts: 829 Member
    Options
    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

    The people who are "doing everything right" but not losing weight are not ACTUALLY doing everything right.

    Calories in, calories out is physically correct.
    Agree.

    +1. It's working for me.
  • jim180155
    jim180155 Posts: 769 Member
    Options
    Good post, Lindsey. That's some of what I was getting at, but you said it much better.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Options
    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

    The people who are "doing everything right" but not losing weight are not ACTUALLY doing everything right.

    Calories in, calories out is physically correct.
    Agree.

    Maybe the confusion is the interpretation of cal in, cal out.

    Exactly how are you proposing it works?

    Most people may be agreeing with you and we just do not know it.

    Burn 2500 calories a day
    Eat 2000 calories a day
    500 calorie deficit
    You lost weight

    Makes sense.

    Would you agree that the 2000 calories you eat are not all used in the 2500 calories burnt and therefore the deficit is actually higher?
  • craftywitch_63
    craftywitch_63 Posts: 829 Member
    Options
    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

    ummm... it is actually a law of physics.

    but thanks for playing. we have a nice consolation prize for you. :flowerforyou:

    Seriously, flowers as a consolation prize? Not even a home version of the game? Or kitty gif? Just . . . FLOWERS??
  • lindsey1979
    lindsey1979 Posts: 2,395 Member
    Options
    Good post, Lindsey. That's some of what I was getting at, but you said it much better.

    Thanks, Jim. I've had some of the same arguments here on similar things, and with some of the same people even. And as Tennisdude noted, oftentimes, they're really much closer in agreement than disagreement. It seems like some people just get very rigid or narrow minded in some things, and I don't understand it. But, for the most part, this has been one of the most respectful discussion on this sort of topic I've seen -- so I think that's a good thing.
  • 460beast
    460beast Posts: 1
    Options
    the article isn't "dissing" calorie counting but showing the importance in tracking macros while counting calories. I believe they both go hand in hand. I count my calories, but adjust my diet so that my macros stay within a certain area and Im getting the most of my macros.

Categories