The Worst Nutrition Advice in History (article)
Replies
-
I would estimate my current TDEE at around 3000 calories before cardio (but including weights).I just think that the error margin for some people is a LOT greater than a mere 10%. I'm happy that hasn't been the case for you. I'm just glad you can acknowledge that there is an error margin or at least error margin in application. Some cannot.
If you count that as 'exercise 3x a week' a calculator says around 2500, if you don't 2150 (realistically I'm moving some metal up and down 45 times in a session + warmup, I'm barely covering an orange's worth of calories from the actual exercise).
Eating an average of around 2000 calories a day before eating back cardio, I'm losing around 2lb/week.
So for me, certainly more than 10%. Generally it seems less likely, however, that people calculating things correctly go the other way. When I tested my RMR a while ago, the day after a weights session, it came out at 2400 calories. Which is congruent with the rest.0 -
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.
So, when someone takes a medication that causes dramatic weight gain, do you think it causes their metabolism to immediately slow down?
again, the laws of physics are facts. that medication is likely leading to excessive fluid retention which is not weight gain in the sense that we are discussing, but for the sake of argument...
if i eat 1500 calories a day and maintain my weight.
and then start taking a medication that causes no peripheral issues such as fluid retention that can be confused for weight gain.
and i now begin to gain fat while still eating 1500 calories, then yes, that medication has affected my metabolism such that 1500 is now more than my body needs to maintain my weight and is storing the extra calories in as fat.
if that's the only variable that has changed, then the medication is the culprit.
Well, if that's the case, then why doesn't the medication have that effect on everyone?
Uh... You have a degree in biology. Or so you said. You should know the answer to this.0 -
Have known for a very long time that egg yolks are super nutritious. :P0
-
0 -
Can you name a medication that causes people to be able to create new lipid molecules de novo without having ingested any of the energy used in these novel molecules?
Still waiting to hear how this magic works.0 -
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.
So, when someone takes a medication that causes dramatic weight gain, do you think it causes their metabolism to immediately slow down?
again, the laws of physics are facts. that medication is likely leading to excessive fluid retention which is not weight gain in the sense that we are discussing, but for the sake of argument...
if i eat 1500 calories a day and maintain my weight.
and then start taking a medication that causes no peripheral issues such as fluid retention that can be confused for weight gain.
and i now begin to gain fat while still eating 1500 calories, then yes, that medication has affected my metabolism such that 1500 is now more than my body needs to maintain my weight and is storing the extra calories in as fat.
if that's the only variable that has changed, then the medication is the culprit.
Well, if that's the case, then why doesn't the medication have that effect on everyone?
Uh... You have a degree in biology. Or so you said. You should know the answer to this.
Oh, I see. You were asking a rhetorical question. It doesn't matter where the calories come from if there is an excess, there is an excess and the body will store it as glycogen and fat. That happens to every body, not just insulin resistant people. That is CICO. If someone feels better eating fewer carbs and more fat, great. Do it. But the calorie amounts still have to be less than they burn for weight loss to happen. CICO. There is no magic that makes fat appear while one is in a calorie deficit. Right? Do you agree?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.
So, when someone takes a medication that causes dramatic weight gain, do you think it causes their metabolism to immediately slow down?
again, the laws of physics are facts. that medication is likely leading to excessive fluid retention which is not weight gain in the sense that we are discussing, but for the sake of argument...
if i eat 1500 calories a day and maintain my weight.
and then start taking a medication that causes no peripheral issues such as fluid retention that can be confused for weight gain.
and i now begin to gain fat while still eating 1500 calories, then yes, that medication has affected my metabolism such that 1500 is now more than my body needs to maintain my weight and is storing the extra calories in as fat.
if that's the only variable that has changed, then the medication is the culprit.
Well, if that's the case, then why doesn't the medication have that effect on everyone?
Uh... You have a degree in biology. Or so you said. You should know the answer to this.
hey that's not fair, I have a degree in biology too but we didn't cover much pharmacology in any classes
Hmm. OK, you're right, I take it back. I sort of forgot that I worked in pharmacology for a few years after graduation.
Nice knee btw.0 -
I'm just wondering what the next potshot will be. Will they tell me I'm ugly? Or stupid? And that people don't like me? Sometimes this site just cracks me up.
That's the best you got Lindsey? To try and whip up some drama? OK.0 -
@ rocbola A low fat diet is a low fat diet. It doesn't make a difference if the low fat diet is from all whole foods. That's just absurd. So the fats in whole foods become super fats in order to compensate for the lack of dietary fat?
don't waste your time with him. it's like arguing philosophy with a dung beetle.
HaHAHAhaaaaa0 -
A calorie is simply a unit of measure – compare it to a mile, another simple unit of measure. Is a mile always a mile? Sure, in a 1 dimensional sense. But is traveling a mile under water the same as traveling a mile through the air? Is running a mile uphill in the snow the same as running a mile on an indoor track? Of course not – the world isn’t just a flat surface on a map, nor are the chemical complexity\ies of different foods just numbers on a label on the side of a food container that can be entirely accounted for using simple math.0
-
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.
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.
Agree.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.
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.
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.
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.
Well said Lindsey. For this thread and many others!0 -
It's not a very well written article, but the advice isn't bad.
I think her point about calories was that if you focus more on protein and less on foods that don't create the same amount of satiety, you likely won't eat as much. That point didn't come across very well, however.
And aside from that section, all other points are sound. Certainly not the worst nutrition advice ever.
To translate: finding a way to limit your calories without actively counting them can be as effective as counting them and might feel easier to some people. So?0 -
So far she hasn't addressed this particular aspect of the conversation. I'm still waiting to hear how this works, too.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.
So, when someone takes a medication that causes dramatic weight gain, do you think it causes their metabolism to immediately slow down?
again, the laws of physics are facts. that medication is likely leading to excessive fluid retention which is not weight gain in the sense that we are discussing, but for the sake of argument...
if i eat 1500 calories a day and maintain my weight.
and then start taking a medication that causes no peripheral issues such as fluid retention that can be confused for weight gain.
and i now begin to gain fat while still eating 1500 calories, then yes, that medication has affected my metabolism such that 1500 is now more than my body needs to maintain my weight and is storing the extra calories in as fat.
if that's the only variable that has changed, then the medication is the culprit.
Well, if that's the case, then why doesn't the medication have that effect on everyone?
Uh... You have a degree in biology. Or so you said. You should know the answer to this.
Oh, I see. You were asking a rhetorical question. It doesn't matter where the calories come from if there is an excess, there is an excess and the body will store it as glycogen and fat. That happens to every body, not just insulin resistant people. That is CICO. If someone feels better eating fewer carbs and more fat, great. Do it. But the calorie amounts still have to be less than they burn for weight loss to happen. CICO. There is no magic that makes fat appear while one is in a calorie deficit. Right? Do you agree?0 -
A calorie is simply a unit of measure – compare it to a mile, another simple unit of measure. Is a mile always a mile? Sure, in a 1 dimensional sense. But is traveling a mile under water the same as traveling a mile through the air? Is running a mile uphill in the snow the same as running a mile on an indoor track? Of course not – the world isn’t just a flat surface on a map, nor are the chemical complexity\ies of different foods just numbers on a label on the side of a food container that can be entirely accounted for using simple math.
But, the miles and miles are close enough that a marathon is the same difference no matter where it's held. There are faster courses and slower courses, but, as far as I know, 95% of the training will be the same.0 -
I get kinda tired of some kind of newsflash about some food that generally was accepted as good and now someone comes out and claims its not.
I'm going to do what works for me.
the lastest news I heard on the news this week is that people that are vegetarians are not so healthy. I guess this is based on they dont get the nutrients from meat and supplements dont do the same as eating the real food.
So now, vegetarians are being dissed. sheesh. You would think that vegetarians would have the healthiest health. but no, says the news.
I'm not going to do everything that everyone comes out with.. im going to do what works for me.0 -
I agree that calorie counting is not as important as eating foods with high nutritional value. But I definitely needed it to eat healthier, because even when I started eating healthy and exercising I wasn't losing weight. And it was because I didn't know how to coordinate my diet to balance it out. For example, I ate waaaay too much fruit and I didn't know just how much sugar that had in it. Another thing is that I ate too much carbs, I learned to cut portions on bread and rice. Protein was also an issue whenever I ate protein foods because it would take up more than half my plate. Counting calories is important, if you do it right. I don't use it to count how much junk food I can eat, I use it to balance my meals and my carbs, fats and proteins. I eat way better now and have actually lost weight.0
-
Sure, just go ahead and ignore the Lorentz contraction, if you are satisfied with an approximation.A calorie is simply a unit of measure – compare it to a mile, another simple unit of measure. Is a mile always a mile? Sure, in a 1 dimensional sense. But is traveling a mile under water the same as traveling a mile through the air? Is running a mile uphill in the snow the same as running a mile on an indoor track? Of course not – the world isn’t just a flat surface on a map, nor are the chemical complexity\ies of different foods just numbers on a label on the side of a food container that can be entirely accounted for using simple math.
But, the miles and miles are close enough that a marathon is the same difference no matter where it's held. There are faster courses and slower courses, but, as far as I know, 95% of the training will be the same.0 -
Sure, just go ahead and ignore the Lorentz contraction, if you are satisfied with an approximation.A calorie is simply a unit of measure – compare it to a mile, another simple unit of measure. Is a mile always a mile? Sure, in a 1 dimensional sense. But is traveling a mile under water the same as traveling a mile through the air? Is running a mile uphill in the snow the same as running a mile on an indoor track? Of course not – the world isn’t just a flat surface on a map, nor are the chemical complexity\ies of different foods just numbers on a label on the side of a food container that can be entirely accounted for using simple math.
But, the miles and miles are close enough that a marathon is the same difference no matter where it's held. There are faster courses and slower courses, but, as far as I know, 95% of the training will be the same.
Lol
" This effect is negligible at everyday speeds, and can be ignored for all regular purposes. Only at greater speeds does it become relevant."
So, basically - if you are a body builder or have a metabolic disorder, you need to pay attention to the details. For the rest of us, calorie = calories is good enough.0 -
Sure, you can ignore it if you're one of those special slowflakes who never approach the speed of light.
Sure, just go ahead and ignore the Lorentz contraction, if you are satisfied with an approximation.A calorie is simply a unit of measure – compare it to a mile, another simple unit of measure. Is a mile always a mile? Sure, in a 1 dimensional sense. But is traveling a mile under water the same as traveling a mile through the air? Is running a mile uphill in the snow the same as running a mile on an indoor track? Of course not – the world isn’t just a flat surface on a map, nor are the chemical complexity\ies of different foods just numbers on a label on the side of a food container that can be entirely accounted for using simple math.
But, the miles and miles are close enough that a marathon is the same difference no matter where it's held. There are faster courses and slower courses, but, as far as I know, 95% of the training will be the same.
Lol
" This effect is negligible at everyday speeds, and can be ignored for all regular purposes. Only at greater speeds does it become relevant."
So, basically - if you are a body builder or have a metabolic disorder, you need to pay attention to the details. For the rest of us, calorie = calories is good enough.0 -
I'm still trying to figure out what law of physics cico applies to....energy? Thermodynamics? If it's thermodynamics, then entropy is a fascinating glitch in the argument.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
I'm still trying to figure out what law of physics cico applies to....energy? Thermodynamics? If it's thermodynamics, then entropy is a fascinating glitch in the argument.
conservation of energy0 -
I'm still trying to figure out what law of physics cico applies to....energy? Thermodynamics? If it's thermodynamics, then entropy is a fascinating glitch in the argument.
the human body is not a closed system
Yes, yes, I'm aware. Also believe cico is correct. But I don't think cico is a law of physics as quoted in this thread.
No worries...move on. This is great entertainment.0 -
So, medication can affect people differently, but not food, not calories? Those are the same with the same effects for everyone?
now you're being silly. if there is a medicine that affects your metabolism, then it affects your TDEE. i don't know what medicines would do that, but let's assume such medicines exist. you simply adjust your TDEE accordingly and the calories in vs. calories out model is still accurate.
if you decide to eat 3lbs of meat per day and want to account for the TEF of protein as part of your TDEE, then you can do that too. i think it's relatively insignificant, but if you want to try and be exact on that one variable while not being as exact on all of the others, you're not going to have any effect on the overall error margin of the model. but if that makes you sleep better at night then go ahead and do it. the calories in vs. calories out model is still accurate.
what you seem to not understand is that we're not saying that everyone has a TDEE of 1689 and therefore if you eat less than 1689 you'll lose weight and if you eat more than 1689 you'll gain weight... what we're saying is that if you eat less than TDEE you'll lose weight and if you eat more than TDEE you'll gain weight. that's the calorie in vs. calorie out model. your TDEE and my TDEE will be different. it just so happens that i can get reasonable estimates of my TDEE from standard equations. you may need to adjust your TDEE results from those equations to account for your medical problems, etc. but once you know your TDEE within a reasonable accuracy, then losing weight is simply a matter of eating less than that amount by a sufficient margin to account for all of the intrinsic errors in these approximate calculations.
I was being silly, but for a reason. If we can agree that medications affect people differently, why do you think it could not be the same as food? Or at least types of food? That there is something intrinsically important with food other than it's mere caloric value? Caloric value is important, but is it the ONLY important thing when referencing weight loss? That's the point I was getting at.
There are many medications that have a side effect of weight loss or weight gain, oftentimes for reasons that are not clearly understood. And, of course, some people react well to certain medications and others don't. That's what leads me to believe that it's either not all about TDEE or at least our current understanding of how to calculate TDEE is inaccurate or incomplete because there are many other mechanism involved that are not readily apparent which explain such phenomena as these.
So, the oversimplification of CICO is useful, to a point. But, at least in regards to practical application to weight loss, it has its limits and isn't quite as simple as the thermodynamic oversimplification may at first appear.
The idea that food effects people differently isn't theoretical. Food definitely effects different people differently. Think food allergies. A tree nut allergy can cause anaphylactic shock, among other things, but not in everyone with a tree nut allergy. Sometimes it manifests as a rash. A friend of mine feels a tingling in her lips and mouth when she eats spinach. True allergy? Probably not but she definitely reacts to something in the spinach. People with celiac disease cannot eat wheat gluten and those with phenylkentonuria cannot ingest foods with phenylalanine (not just Equal sweetener. Things like ham, most cuts of beef, lamb catfish and turkey have high levels too.)0 -
CICO is not a law of physics.I'm still trying to figure out what law of physics cico applies to....energy? Thermodynamics? If it's thermodynamics, then entropy is a fascinating glitch in the argument.
the human body is not a closed system
Yes, yes, I'm aware. Also believe cico is correct. But I don't think cico is a law of physics as quoted in this thread.
No worries...move on. This is great entertainment.
What I was asking is if a human body contains X amount of calories in lipid/CHO/protein molecules, and then later comes to contain a larger total calorie content of those molecules, without having ingested any, then please explain how this occurs, and do so in a way that does not violate the known laws of physics.
Because this is what whatshername was suggesting happens as a result of someone taking medication:So, when someone takes a medication that causes dramatic weight gain, do you think it causes their metabolism to immediately slow down?0 -
No sense arguing about the article. Use what works for you and move on. :-)0
-
No sense arguing about the article. Use what works for you and move on. :-)
Um, discussing it was the point of posting it. there is lots of great information is being shared here.... keep it up guys!0 -
Some people will never understand health. My poor grandma looked at me surprised when I was 8-10 years old or so and told her I would prefer no margarine and she told me its fat free! And I replied with what about all the additives and sugar they put in there that actually makes fat?
she thought I was small because I only ordered the fries when she took me to McDonald's haha I just wasn't that hungry and we never did too much fast food...personally the burgers at McDonald's don't have nearly enough flavor for how bad they are...
And where do people get off knocking on th yolk??? Omega 3sss hello! It's GOOOD chesteral0 -
This content has been removed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions