The Worst Nutrition Advice in History (article)

lindsey1979

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.

It's not narrow mindedness. The problem is the people that want to claim they are doing everything right when in fact they are not. Then they get questioned and there are glaring reasons as to why they are failing but no matter how much they are told they need to fix things they would prefer to think they are snowflakes instead of admitting they have been doing things wrong. The majority of the people preach calories in vs calories out are ones that have been successful while they ones claiming nothing is working are the ones citing articles and random studies or have been trying for just a few weeks or months.

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Personally, I find your response a great irony as it exemplifies the very rigidity and narrow-mindedness (and perhaps pathological need to feel "right") that you are explicitly disclaiming. Too funny.

SezxyStef

Yup another CICO for weight loss and macros and nutrients for health debate with almost all the regular players...

how did I know this was gonna go this way.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

geebusuk

The problem with CICO is that it's an over simplification of an extremely complex system.

I don't think it's a problem particularly. If you use a random program on a website to guess your figures, then more to guess the figures of the food you eat, then take that as fact; sure that causes problems and "why aren't I losing" threads.

Personally, I'd suggest working out a decent average of your change in weight and using THAT to understand what your CICO equation comes out at. If that's vastly different to what an average person should suggest, it's time to look at the figures and further, to consider if it may be worth getting a medical opinion, or maybe a BMR test and so on.

tennisdude2004

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?

Not unless you eat all 2000 calories in the same sitting. Think competitive eaters, their body can't use all 60 hot dogs they eat (or whatever number). I don't know if all calories are used, but the key is eat less than you burn and you lose weight, 100% of the time.

Man the way I ate I think I could have been a competitive eater.

My though process is that of the 2000 calories consumed a significant amount does not make it into our bodies for fuel (to fuel the 2500 burn) but are used or lost else where. The first 20 - 40g (160 calories) of protein we eat each day is used by our bodies as structural proteins to maintain and repair muscle and not used to fuel the burn.

The same goes for a percentage of the fat we consume, are going to be taken up by cell membrane and again not used as fuel.

Also some calories will be lost post digestion and not used as fuel. Resistance starches for example can lose up to 85% post digestion.

So the deficit of 500 calories from what we eat to what we burn is actually higher, The deficit is fuelled by the body breaking down fat cells to generate ketones, as well as gluconeogenesis.

So realistically some of our calories out today could have been calories in from months ago.

I think it's a lot more complex than that, but the concept of calories in, calories out for weight lose is not as simple as what you eat today compared to what you burn today.

Although the concept of eating less calories eat day is a good one.

lindsey1979

The problem with CICO is that it's an over simplification of an extremely complex system.

I don't think it's a problem particularly. If you use a random program on a website to guess your figures, then more to guess the figures of the food you eat, then take that as fact; sure that causes problems and "why aren't I losing" threads.

Personally, I'd suggest working out a decent average of your change in weight and using THAT to understand what your CICO equation comes out at. If that's vastly different to what an average person should suggest, it's time to look at the figures and further, to consider if it may be worth getting a medical opinion, or maybe a BMR test and so on.

I agree with you. I think it's a good starting point and a good guideline. And if you're doing all of that "right" and it's not working out, probably something else is up that needs to be investigated. The issue I've seen is how rarely that advice is given on these forums (for the short duration I've been here) -- far too many are so quick to be cruel, call someone a liar, delusional, etc. rather than conceive of the notion that something else might be up -- because for most of those people, they can't conceive of these other issues as their world is very black and white.

geebusuk

The thing is, I suspect, that for say 95% of people, actually they aren't the 'special fairies' and just aren't doing it right - the 5% suffer because people get tired of the 95% looking for a magic bullet.

lindsey1979

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Personally, I find your response a great irony as it exemplifies the very rigidity and narrow-mindedness (and perhaps pathological need to feel "right") that you are explicitly disclaiming. Too funny.

I don't feel the need to always be right and am constantly trying to learn more. Maybe if more people stopped thinking they were so special and thinking that there is no way they are doing things wrong we wouldn't have the same threads over and over that turn into 5 page debates when the OP keeps insisting they are doing everything right. Apparently in the MFP the ones with metabolic disorder, in starvation mode or can defy science are the majority.

I guess I'd prefer a more balanced approach. Recognition that rules are rules for a reason, but that there are also some exceptions too (also for a reason). It's not that people defy science, it's that there are more facts that those applying the science are unaware of or incorrect about. Special snowflakes, in certain contexts, aren't as rare as some would like others to believe. And having such a rigid view of that leaves you blind to many legitimate contributory areas in my opinion.

lindsey1979

The thing is, I suspect, that for say 95% of people, actually they aren't the 'special fairies' and just aren't doing it right - the 5% suffer because people get tired of the 95% looking for a magic bullet.

Could be, but I suspect it is much greater than 5%. For example, I know something about both thyroid issues and insulin resistance -- and they combined affect a lot more than 5% of the population. The American Thyroid Association estimates that 20 million Americans have a thyroid condition, 60% of which are undiagnosed -- and that 12% of the population will have a thyroid disorder at some point in their lives. Insulin resistance is estimated at 80 million Americans or 25% of the population. Those are big numbers. Then you throw in things like PCOS, adrenal issues, diabetes, etc. -- the numbers are greater. And a lot of those issues I listed contribute to or cause significant weight gain when untreated. So, it's totally possible that a significant number of overweight (especially greatly overweight/obese) people may have an underlying condition and is likely greater than 5%.

Now, that's not to say that we throw the baby out with the bathwater and let the exceptions swallow the rule. I think starting to look at calories consumed in an accurate way (weighing and logging everything) is a first step to start to rule things out and get a clear picture of what is happening. And, advising people to do so is good advice in my book. But, it's not the only advice. And when you have people that insist that they're doing just that and appear to have reasonable calculations for energy out expenditure, then perhaps it's important to dig deeper for greater explanations. However, I've seen quite a few zealots on this site not understand or appreciate this and often going into a condescending rant about special snowflakes (special fairies is a new one for me). That is rarely ever helpful, frustration or not.

QuietBloom

The thing is, I suspect, that for say 95% of people, actually they aren't the 'special fairies' and just aren't doing it right - the 5% suffer because people get tired of the 95% looking for a magic bullet.

Could be, but I suspect it is much greater than 5%. For example, I know something about both thyroid issues and insulin resistance -- and they combined affect a lot more than 5% of the population. The American Thyroid Association estimates that 20 million Americans have a thyroid condition, 60% of which are undiagnosed -- and that 12% of the population will have a thyroid disorder at some point in their lives. Insulin resistance is estimated at 80 million Americans or 25% of the population. Those are big numbers. Then you throw in things like PCOS, adrenal issues, diabetes, etc. -- the numbers are greater. And a lot of those issues I listed contribute to or cause significant weight gain when untreated. So, it's totally possible that a significant number of overweight (especially greatly overweight/obese) people may have an underlying condition and is likely greater than 5%.

Now, that's not to say that we throw the baby out with the bathwater and let the exceptions swallow the rule. I think starting to look at calories consumed in an accurate way (weighing and logging everything) is a first step to start to rule things out and get a clear picture of what is happening. And, advising people to do so is good advice in my book. But, it's not the only advice. And when you have people that insist that they're doing just that and appear to have reasonable calculations for energy out expenditure, then perhaps it's important to dig deeper for greater explanations. However, I've seen quite a few zealots on this site not understand or appreciate this and often going into a condescending rant about special snowflakes (special fairies is a new one for me). That is rarely ever helpful, frustration or not.

But even for these people, it is still CICO. They just might have to trial and error to figure out the out part of the equation, and the simple formulas available online may not apply to them.

lindsey1979

But even for these people, it is still CICO. They just might have to trial and error to figure out the out part of the equation, and the simple formulas available online may not apply to them.

It could be, and if it works for them, then there wouldn't be any problem and they likely would never be diagnosed as they'd have no obvious symptoms. But, for some, it doesn't -- especially those with glucose metabolism issues. For example, telling people who are hypothyroid or insulin resistant to just keep cutting calories until they lose isn't really a good solution to their problem -- and to cut the sort of calories to see a significant weight loss result likely would cause detrimental impact in other areas of their body and leave them feeling terrible. So, although that may be one solution, it's probably not a very good one for many with such issues.

lindsey1979

The thing is, I suspect, that for say 95% of people, actually they aren't the 'special fairies' and just aren't doing it right - the 5% suffer because people get tired of the 95% looking for a magic bullet.

Could be, but I suspect it is much greater than 5%. For example, I know something about both thyroid issues and insulin resistance -- and they combined affect a lot more than 5% of the population. The American Thyroid Association estimates that 20 million Americans have a thyroid condition, 60% of which are undiagnosed -- and that 12% of the population will have a thyroid disorder at some point in their lives. Insulin resistance is estimated at 80 million Americans or 25% of the population. Those are big numbers. Then you throw in things like PCOS, adrenal issues, diabetes, etc. -- the numbers are greater. And a lot of those issues I listed contribute to or cause significant weight gain when untreated. So, it's totally possible that a significant number of overweight (especially greatly overweight/obese) people may have an underlying condition and is likely greater than 5%.

Now, that's not to say that we throw the baby out with the bathwater and let the exceptions swallow the rule. I think starting to look at calories consumed in an accurate way (weighing and logging everything) is a first step to start to rule things out and get a clear picture of what is happening. And, advising people to do so is good advice in my book. But, it's not the only advice. And when you have people that insist that they're doing just that and appear to have reasonable calculations for energy out expenditure, then perhaps it's important to dig deeper for greater explanations. However, I've seen quite a few zealots on this site not understand or appreciate this and often going into a condescending rant about special snowflakes (special fairies is a new one for me). That is rarely ever helpful, frustration or not.

I don't consider people with health problems as part of the special snowflake group though. I don't think anyone does when we talk about special snowflakes, as thyroid issues are a valid reason why the person is not losing weight

I agree with you, but what about the ones that don't know they have those issues? As I said, for thyroid issues alone, they believe 60% of those are undiagnosed. I personally went over 10 years without a diagnosis after seeing my first doctor with my suspicions. Sadly, our medical system is not set up to encourage optimal health for individuals, but merely correct or save the worst situations. So a lot of people don't get help until it's really bad.

lindsey1979

The thing is, I suspect, that for say 95% of people, actually they aren't the 'special fairies' and just aren't doing it right - the 5% suffer because people get tired of the 95% looking for a magic bullet.

Could be, but I suspect it is much greater than 5%. For example, I know something about both thyroid issues and insulin resistance -- and they combined affect a lot more than 5% of the population. The American Thyroid Association estimates that 20 million Americans have a thyroid condition, 60% of which are undiagnosed -- and that 12% of the population will have a thyroid disorder at some point in their lives. Insulin resistance is estimated at 80 million Americans or 25% of the population. Those are big numbers. Then you throw in things like PCOS, adrenal issues, diabetes, etc. -- the numbers are greater. And a lot of those issues I listed contribute to or cause significant weight gain when untreated. So, it's totally possible that a significant number of overweight (especially greatly overweight/obese) people may have an underlying condition and is likely greater than 5%.

Now, that's not to say that we throw the baby out with the bathwater and let the exceptions swallow the rule. I think starting to look at calories consumed in an accurate way (weighing and logging everything) is a first step to start to rule things out and get a clear picture of what is happening. And, advising people to do so is good advice in my book. But, it's not the only advice. And when you have people that insist that they're doing just that and appear to have reasonable calculations for energy out expenditure, then perhaps it's important to dig deeper for greater explanations. However, I've seen quite a few zealots on this site not understand or appreciate this and often going into a condescending rant about special snowflakes (special fairies is a new one for me). That is rarely ever helpful, frustration or not.

See now you are taking your argument the route of insulin resistance and thyroid issues when those are actual medical conditions. You don't think I ever dig into the stories I hear and ask if those problems exist? If they've had their blood work check? Don't sit here and try and say I'm calling people with actual medical conditions snowflakes. I'm calling that 20 or 25 year old person who knows they don't have those issues and is constantly coming around with claims of eating 1200 calories and no weight loss. You take the approach you'd like and coddle those poor souls while calling me closed minded for being skeptical of their accuracy.

Dude, chill out. I'm not referencing you in particular. I don't know what you personally go around telling people or not. I've only referenced specific statements you've made in this thread. The universe doesn't revolve around you.

tennisdude2004

The thing is, I suspect, that for say 95% of people, actually they aren't the 'special fairies' and just aren't doing it right - the 5% suffer because people get tired of the 95% looking for a magic bullet.

Could be, but I suspect it is much greater than 5%. For example, I know something about both thyroid issues and insulin resistance -- and they combined affect a lot more than 5% of the population. The American Thyroid Association estimates that 20 million Americans have a thyroid condition, 60% of which are undiagnosed -- and that 12% of the population will have a thyroid disorder at some point in their lives. Insulin resistance is estimated at 80 million Americans or 25% of the population. Those are big numbers. Then you throw in things like PCOS, adrenal issues, diabetes, etc. -- the numbers are greater. And a lot of those issues I listed contribute to or cause significant weight gain when untreated. So, it's totally possible that a significant number of overweight (especially greatly overweight/obese) people may have an underlying condition and is likely greater than 5%.

Now, that's not to say that we throw the baby out with the bathwater and let the exceptions swallow the rule. I think starting to look at calories consumed in an accurate way (weighing and logging everything) is a first step to start to rule things out and get a clear picture of what is happening. And, advising people to do so is good advice in my book. But, it's not the only advice. And when you have people that insist that they're doing just that and appear to have reasonable calculations for energy out expenditure, then perhaps it's important to dig deeper for greater explanations. However, I've seen quite a few zealots on this site not understand or appreciate this and often going into a condescending rant about special snowflakes (special fairies is a new one for me). That is rarely ever helpful, frustration or not.

See now you are taking your argument the route of insulin resistance and thyroid issues when those are actual medical conditions. You don't think I ever dig into the stories I hear and ask if those problems exist? If they've had their blood work check? Don't sit here and try and say I'm calling people with actual medical conditions snowflakes. I'm calling that 20 or 25 year old person who knows they don't have those issues and is constantly coming around with claims of eating 1200 calories and no weight loss. You take the approach you'd like and coddle those poor souls while calling me closed minded for being skeptical of their accuracy.

On a resent post (for food addiction) you made it very clear that food addiction was not real - AT ALL.

Then BOOM CyberEd drops his very real story of FOOD addiction. Proof that it's not a snowflake thing.

So maybe it is time to admit that things might not be how you think they are. It's okay not to have all the answers.

LiftAllThePizzas

.

BrainyBurro

calories in vs. calories out is scientific fact. it cannot be disputed. it's in agreement with the laws of physics.

that said, each of us is different. so when we "model" ourselves as a system, we have to take into account those differences.

medical conditions don't disprove the model, they simply affect the "calories out" part of the system.

that's what lindsey refuses to understand.

if a healthy person has an average daily BMR of 1500 at a given weight and a thyroid condition slows that by 20%, then we account for that for that particular person within their model. once that's done, and all such adjustments that need to be made are made, then the conclusion still applies for EVERYONE... if you eat less than your TDEE, you'll lose weight because your body cannot create energy from nothing and therefore must convert existing body mass to meet that extra energy need. that's a law of physics and it is inviolate.

what is different for all special snowflakes is simply their TDEE calculations compared to the rest of us who can get a reasonable estimate from some well-known equations, but the calorie in vs. calorie out rule is still 100% valid.