The Worst Nutrition Advice in History (article)

QuietBloom

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.

True. This is why most of us who have been here for any length of time, usually ask to have the diary made public, and for any medical conditions to be disclosed.

kgeyser

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.

Ed does have a real story of food addiction. And if you read it, Ed had a lot of issues going on independent of food for which he sought treatment in order to conquer his compulsions with food. His story is different from the people on here who claim that opening a package of cookies means they have to eat the entire thing, because they are "addicted." And who are able to conquer their addiction by simply not buying cookies. Ed put a hell of a lot of work in to get where he is and he shouldn't be lumped in with people who want to throw around the word addict willy-nilly to let themselves off the hook for eating half a dozen cupcakes.

geebusuk

It could be,

Just to be clear; it IS 'cico', no 'could be' about it .
If they aren't losing weight over time (to account for water fluctuations etc), their calories in are not less than their calories out.
The reason behind that may be their body isn't burning very many, they may not be counting one side correctly on the basics and so on, but it must still apply (unless they are real fairies that use pixie dust as an energ..... nope actually, that's just on the 'CI' side :P)

lindsey1979

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?

lindsey1979

It could be,

Just to be clear; it IS 'cico', no 'could be' about it .
If they aren't losing weight over time (to account for water fluctuations etc), their calories in are not less than their calories out.
The reason behind that may be their body isn't burning very many, they may not be counting one side correctly on the basics and so on, but it must still apply (unless they are real fairies that use pixie dust as an energ..... nope actually, that's just on the 'CI' side :P)

Okay, how do you account for people with metabolic issues with glucose that store a disproportionate amount of carbs as fat? Just wondering how these problems are solved...

It would be really nice if things were this simple because then we'd never have to worry about such situations...it could ALL be corrected merely by sheer caloric numbers.

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.

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.

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.

Ed does have a real story of food addiction. And if you read it, Ed had a lot of issues going on independent of food for which he sought treatment in order to conquer his compulsions with food. His story is different from the people on here who claim that opening a package of cookies means they have to eat the entire thing, because they are "addicted." And who are able to conquer their addiction by simply not buying cookies. Ed put a hell of a lot of work in to get where he is and he shouldn't be lumped in with people who want to throw around the word addict willy-nilly to let themselves off the hook for eating half a dozen cupcakes.

I totally agree Ed's post was very open and I salute him.

I also agree that the term food addiction is misused by MOST people who use it.

What I do not agree with is the fact that food addiction does not exist. Just on the thread from earlier Ed alone proved it does.

I find it amazingly arrogant and ignorant when certain people post suggestions that it is not a real addiction.

Still everyone is entitled to their opinion and I am entitled to think of those people as A&I.

lindsey1979

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?

ironanimal

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 affect on everyone?

Everyone's physiology is slightly different. Hormonal levels are within a range, same for blood pressure, heart rate etc. Not everyone is allergic to the same things - some people aren't allergic to anything. Interactions will vary slightly per person.

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.

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 affect on everyone?

what medication are you talking about? and even if this hypothetical medication affects some but not others in the same way, it doesn't change the calories in vs. calories out model. it simply affects each person's "calorie out" side of the equation differently.

lindsey1979

Well, if that's the case, then why doesn't the medication have that effect on everyone?

what medication are you talking about? and even if this hypothetical medication affects some but not others in the same way, it doesn't change the calories in vs. calories out model. it simply affects each person's "calorie out" side of the equation differently.

So, medication can affect people differently, but not food, not calories? Those are the same with the same effects for everyone?

Charlottesometimes23

What do I think of the article?

Not much.

The author is a blogger who touts the anti-sugar, grains are bad approach. http://authoritynutrition.com/low-carb-diet-meal-plan-and-menu/

He is fab at cherry-picking articles and links to support his narrow dietary approach. He uses appeal to authority for credibility "I'm a medical student" and I've read a lot and pretty much everyone is wrong, except for me of course...blah blah.

Regarding the article.

1 and 4 are currently accepted in main stream dietetics, so I wonder who is supposedly gives out the 'bad' advice.

2 Diabetics CAN eat a high carb diet if they choose, however, if insulin dependent, they should adjust their insulin accordingly. If not insulin dependent, they should distribute their carbs and avoid carbs that will spike their insulin. Diabetes should fit around the lifestyle of an individual, not the other way around.

3. A calorie is a calorie. Food quality is important with regard to nutrients. They can co-exist.

5. Margarine is absolutely not laden with trans fats (certainly not in my country anyway) and those enriched with plant sterols have been shown to reduce total and LDL cholesterol levels by 10%.

lindsey1979

Just an interesting read for different macro nutrient diets having different effects on obese insulin sensitive and obese insulin resistant women. The insulin sensitive women lost twice as much bodyweight with a high carb/low fat diet (whcih I think they defined as 60% CHO, 20% fat, 20% protein). Whereas it was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women -- they lost twice as much bodyweight with a high fat/low car diet (which I think was 40% CHO, 40% fat, 20% protein -- though I don't think that's what most on MFP would consider a LCHF diet). The caloric deficit is presumably the same, but the results are considerably different -- and the authors think the difference in weight loss may be due to NEAT as they can't see any other reason for it. And, they freely admit that there are some flaws/limitations of their study (i.e. not in metabolic ward, among others)

Interesting stuff...and suggests to me that things may not be as simple as calories in-calories out, or at least the application of such can vary so much, that the oversimplification isn't that helpful for everyone.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/pdf

BrainyBurro

Well, if that's the case, then why doesn't the medication have that effect on everyone?

what medication are you talking about? and even if this hypothetical medication affects some but not others in the same way, it doesn't change the calories in vs. calories out model. it simply affects each person's "calorie out" side of the equation differently.

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.

LiftAllThePizzas

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?

If someone gains a dramatic amount of fat, under any circumstances, do you believe that any of this newly-stored energy came from a source other than the food they ingested?

If so, could you please tell us what that source might be and how it doesn't violate the laws of physics?

mgorham13

I like the article, mostly correct IMO.

Looking forward to seeing where this thread goes - as it totally disses calorie counting (which I personally think works).

I have no idea why people diss calorie counting at a calorie-counting website. It's like dissing 12-steps at an AA meeting.

Dissing calorie counting= the 13th step!

csuhar

What do you all think about this article? (See link to is at bottom of post)

---

The truth is… calories are important, but that doesn’t mean we need to count them or even be consciously aware of them. Humans were the healthiest and leanest way before they knew that calories existed.

I've never understood this proposition. When were humans healthiest then, 2000 years ago when life expectancy was 30? Victorian times when life expectancy was 40? How about the early 20th century when cigarettes were endorsed due to their appetite-suppressing powers?

One of the other things I think this approach misses is that there has been a DRAMATIC change in the availability of food in the intervening time. Supermarkets, along with the ability to consume a lot of calories cheaply, are relatively recent developments.

That's why I say counting calories matters- not because type of food doesn't matter, but because it's VERY easy to buy and/ or otherwise find a lot of calories.

It used to be you had to go out to your coop, pick a chicken you spent money on to raise it to adulthood, kill it, and prepare it. If you didn't have that, you had to make a dedicated trip to a butcher's shop and pick from whatever they had on hand, and you were competing with everyone else in town for those offerings. On top of that, you didn't do much stocking up because you couldn't keep it fresh very long. That meant it was more difficult to obtain those meat calories compared to now where you can go to a super store, buy your underwear, pick up some office supplies, and grab a couple 10-packs of chicken breasts to throw in your freezer.

Calories, whether "healthy" or "unhealthy" are much more available these days because there are companies out there whose goal is to sell you as much as they can. And those companies hire other companies to make you want even MORE.

That's why counting calories is important- we did not evolve in such caloric abundance as we have available, and counting calories helps make sure we don't over-indulge.

lindsey1979

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.