Is 'eating at deficit' enough?
Replies
-
Some things that stuck out to me when I skimmed the article:
That participants were selected based on their ability to stick to a strict diet. 11 out of 40 some odd participants didn't complete the diet. And while results on TEE and REE are given, I don't necessarily see one on total weight lost among the three groups as well as initial weights, calories consumed , etc. I probably just missed it - likely included in one of the attached tables - because this is pretty important information to provide in a study such as this.
I like this portion of the article, I think it's consistent with sustainability concerns previously mentioned on this thread:
"Main study limitations are the relatively short duration of the test diets and the difficulty extrapolating findings from a feeding study to a more natural setting, in which individuals consume self-selected diets. In particular, the very low-carbohydrate diet involved more severe carbohydrate restriction than would be feasible for many individuals over the long term. Therefore, the study may overestimate the magnitude of effects that could be obtained by carbohydrate restriction in the context of a behavioral intervention. In addition, participants in the study were selected for ability to comply with the rigors of a 7-month feeding protocol and may not represent overweight and obese individuals in the general population. Although we could not assess participant adherence during the outpatient phases of the study, good maintenance of weight loss throughout the test phase provides some reassurance on this point"0 -
If you look through the forums there is always talk about 'eating at deficit'. But, really it's more than just eating fewer calories than you burn. It's also about what you eat. Your body needs fuel. You can eat garbage and be at a calorie deficit, but you aren't going to feel good and it will probably hinder your weight loss/fitness goals.
Pay attention to those macro's and work on adding veggies and lean protein. Drink lots of water and move your body. If you 'eat at deficit' and the scale still isn't moving then it may not be how much you are eating but what you are eating that is holding you back.
Nice post! Go and be awesome today!0 -
And I don't believe they'd be serving anything healthy in those places either
They don't serve meat and vegetables at Brazilian steakhouses? I could've sworn the pounds of meat and vegetables I ate came from somewhere.....
I also washed it down with wine and Caramel Pecan Cheesecake.
Cooking methods and what's added to the food determine it's nutritional and health giving value. Vegetables that are charred and drowning in vegetable oil are no longer the health giving foods they were when they were fresh.
Oh see, that's perfect because I was referring to the salad bar.
As far are what is added to the food... you're telling me that adding in additional flavors, spices, oils and such makes the food devoid of nutrients then?
A salad that is drowning in vegetable oil or mayonnaise is far less healthy than one made at home with a little olive oil. What an absolutely pointless argument. I said people don't binge on healthy foods such as a home made meal with healthy fats, vegetables and meat. I don't think at any point I referred to "healthy" foods that you find in fast food restaurants that are nothing of the sort.
Who the hell puts mayonnaise on their salads?
BRB switching to eating lettuce only like a rabbit so i can be considered healthy.
Mayonnaise contains highly processed vegetable oil. That is not healthy. So if you're gorging on coleslaw you are not binging on healthy foods. You can do what you want to your salads, that doesn't mean it's healthy if it's 300 calories of fat and causing inflammation in your body.0 -
After seeing how everyone was jumping on the OP, I was going to step in and try to give some validation to some of the points she made.
But I decided to check out her diary first, and NAHHHHH, she is on her own with this one.
In my opinion, Shakeology would fall under the garbage category. And I think even Jonny -'McDonalds'-than eats more veggies than OP does,
I don't see many jumping but because of this post I did look at her diary...
I want to find that bacon that is 69 calories for 1.5 slices...:laugh:
The kind I usually get is 80 calories for 2 slices
Yes I'm in here defending OP :smokin:
That must be those extra-thick slices. :bigsmile:0 -
And I don't believe they'd be serving anything healthy in those places either
They don't serve meat and vegetables at Brazilian steakhouses? I could've sworn the pounds of meat and vegetables I ate came from somewhere.....
I also washed it down with wine and Caramel Pecan Cheesecake.
Cooking methods and what's added to the food determine it's nutritional and health giving value. Vegetables that are charred and drowning in vegetable oil are no longer the health giving foods they were when they were fresh.
Oh see, that's perfect because I was referring to the salad bar.
As far are what is added to the food... you're telling me that adding in additional flavors, spices, oils and such makes the food devoid of nutrients then?
A salad that is drowning in vegetable oil or mayonnaise is far less healthy than one made at home with a little olive oil. What an absolutely pointless argument. I said people don't binge on healthy foods such as a home made meal with healthy fats, vegetables and meat. I don't think at any point I referred to "healthy" foods that you find in fast food restaurants that are nothing of the sort.
First, who the hell puts mayonnaise on their salads?
Second, you're under the assumption that I had littered it with some sort of fatty dressing.
Third, I don't think the quality of meat at a Brazilian Steakhouse is anywhere near what would you'd find at a fast food restaurant. And even then, it still makes no difference. As long as you're consistent with meeting your macro goals and calories it will not impact the outcome as it relates to body composition.
BRB switching to eating lettuce only like a rabbit so i can be considered healthy.
Were you "binging" on that salad?? Were you uncontrollably binging on a lb of steak? Come on.0 -
I see your icecream edit. The point is based on CICO I can make the numbers work and wouldn't need a lecture on "body fueling" foods to lose weight. Once a week, once a day, nothing but icecream, once every three weeks. It wouldn't matter so long as I was eating all of it in a caloric deficit.
And your point is? Different foods affect how many calories you expend. Fact. That's it. What I said about the ice cream related to emotional attachment.
"My point is" that "emotional attachment" or not, if you eat your icecream in a caloric deficit, you will lose an appreciable amount of weight. Would you have slightly better results eating only "healthy" foods? Maybe. But it's generally not sustainable over time, and not even necessary. So why complicate things when you can adjust your own individual lifestyle slightly and still lose weight?
I don't know what your point is anymore. I did not say that emotional attachment means you can't create a deficit of lose weight. And as I said, I don't know why it would be unsustainable to take eating ice cream from once a day to once a week. Honestly, if it's unsustainable to do that then you have a real bad relationship with food. Once you have gotten out of the habit of eating ice cream every day then it becomes second nature NOT to eat it all the time and that becomes your new way of eating and therefore it is sustainable because you have accepted your new lifestyle. How on earth is that unsustainable?? I would agree that it would be unsustainable to never ever eat ice cream again for most people, but to cut down on it? No. Any excuse is just that, an excuse. And you know why I believe it is sustainable? Because I have done it myself. I wanted to improve my health, I realised the junk had to go, I changed my eating habits from having dessert every night to once a week. I thought I'd never be able to stop having sugar in my tea but guess what? I'm now used to tea without sugar and I don't need it. Ever. So please explain to me how my new way of eating is unsustainable if I am perfectly happy with it?
So you adjusted your own lifestyle the way you wanted and lost weight? Congrats! It seemed like you were saying that you needed to get rid of items that are frequently demonized as "bad foods" in order to lose weight. You don't. And if you still eat delicious foods like icecream then we're on the same page
Yes actually I did need to get rid of those foods to lose weight because they wreak havoc on my blood sugar and make me feel like crap and they do not keep hunger at bay. The highly rewarding nature of them made the emotional attachment with food even stronger and I could not lower my food intake whilst they were in my diet every day. So when I switched to having them once a week at most I felt better, lost weight easier and had plenty more energy. Now I will have something once a week if I feel like it, but I absolutely do not NEED it in my diet. I don't see any benefit to having highly rewarding foods in your diet every day that are so low in nutrients and just make you want to eat more and more and more when I can replace them with nutrient dense foods that will naturally satisfy me.
I must say this is a very empowering post. You do you, girl! 0 -
Yes actually I did need to get rid of those foods to lose weight because they wreak havoc on my blood sugar and make me feel like crap and they do not keep hunger at bay. The highly rewarding nature of them made the emotional attachment with food even stronger and I could not lower my food intake whilst they were in my diet every day. So when I switched to having them once a week at most I felt better, lost weight easier and had plenty more energy. Now I will have something once a week if I feel like it, but I absolutely do not NEED it in my diet. I don't see any benefit to having highly rewarding foods in your diet every day that are so low in nutrients and just make you want to eat more and more and more when I can replace them with nutrient dense foods that will naturally satisfy me.
I eat chocolate nearly every morning, and it makes me very happy. I feel like the little chocolate chips are cheering as I pour them into my yogurt; happy that they made the cut and are still on my meal plan. I've tried to keep up with the argument but have failed...what were you getting at? Eating foods you like but don't need means you won't lose weight?0 -
Anytime you start proclaiming something is always "healthier" it's pretty likely that you're overreaching. A salad heavy in olive oil may be worse for someone that's looking to lose weight and doesn't have the calories to spare, but if that salad is your one meal of the day and you need that olive oil to get sufficient calories, suddenly you're better off with the oil to get your calories (and plenty of meat for your daily protein as well). Since a dainty little salad with a spritz of oil could put you at an overly aggressive caloric deficit, the richer salad is the "healthier" option in that hypo. And that's the problem with generically talking about "healthier" foods - unless you define "healthy" foods as foods that are more likely to fit the nutritional needs of the average person, it really is a pretty meaningless term.
Honestly I don't disagree with the emphasis on fresh foods, cooking can of course affect the nutritional content of the food (but that doesn't mean I eat everything raw), macros are important... but at the end of the day, caloric intake is still the most important factor for weight management and anything beyond that is really just optimizing your diet.0 -
Some things that stuck out to me when I skimmed the article:
That participants were selected based on their ability to stick to a strict diet. 11 out of 40 some odd participants didn't complete the diet. And while results on TEE and REE are given, I don't necessarily see one on total weight lost among the three groups as well as initial weights, calories consumed , etc. I probably just missed it - likely included in one of the attached tables - because this is pretty important information to provide in a study such as this.
I like this portion of the article, I think it's consistent with sustainability concerns previously mentioned on this thread:
"Main study limitations are the relatively short duration of the test diets and the difficulty extrapolating findings from a feeding study to a more natural setting, in which individuals consume self-selected diets. In particular, the very low-carbohydrate diet involved more severe carbohydrate restriction than would be feasible for many individuals over the long term. Therefore, the study may overestimate the magnitude of effects that could be obtained by carbohydrate restriction in the context of a behavioral intervention. In addition, participants in the study were selected for ability to comply with the rigors of a 7-month feeding protocol and may not represent overweight and obese individuals in the general population. Although we could not assess participant adherence during the outpatient phases of the study, good maintenance of weight loss throughout the test phase provides some reassurance on this point"
Yeah well I wasn't claiming low carb is the way to go for everyone, was I? I was showing that different diets affect everyone differently. I did not link to it to show anything about weight loss, just that those diets were changing each person's RMR and TDEE because that's what's being contested here. And yes, the tables all show the different calories consumed and burned etc.0 -
Again, "realistically" if you were in it for the long haul and logging properly, changes are you're 50 calories off some days (over, as well as under). Denying any emotional attachment to food is when the restrictions come in. If anything, after eating whatever I want the foods become normal and don't necessarily have some immense pull.
As for 2000 calories of twinkies being processed differently than 2000 calories of veggies and thus causing different rates of loss for similar individuals, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Everyone has told you that people with medical conditions are more or less out of scope for this discussion. I mean think of a person whom even when eating veggies laden with sodium swells up the following morning. Are veggies then bad? Is that what you're saying that if you have a medical condition you probably can't or shouldn't eat certain foods in order to have a lower scale weight? If so, agreed!!!
Well I wasn't saying you're 50 cals off because you're not logging correctly, but because you cannot determine how your body is processing each type of food and some days you might expend more whilst other days you expend less. If foods have no immense pull to you then that's great for you. Not everyone has an emotional attachment to food and those that don't will find it easier to lose weight.
Saying we'll have to agree to disagree on how the body processes different foods is saying you disagree with science, because what I've said is supported by science. I quoted a study which proves that peoples BMRs and TDEE changes depending on what they eat, which directly disproves what you believe. But hey, I'm only studying nutrition and been researching for years on the subject so what do I know? Honestly, it's up to you what you wish to believe because beliefs are just that - beliefs, not fact. Anyone who wants to deny facts is absolutely entitled to do so, I just hope they won't be passing around advice to others on the subject...
TEF is minimimal and has been show to be so with respect to increasing metabolism...
unless you manage to find the study that you mentioned early and never posted….
I did post it, you obviously missed it. But here it is again: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
^^ So it looks like that someone who has a varied diet with a "moderate" macro ratio, TEF changes would be negligible.0 -
Were you "binging" on that salad?? Were you uncontrollably binging on a lb of steak? Come on.
You missed the boat. Your original statement was that those types of foods would not be served at that type of restaurant.
I reckon I did binge on the steak. That whole night in general. I better binge if I'm paying $75 per person.0 -
Yes actually I did need to get rid of those foods to lose weight because they wreak havoc on my blood sugar and make me feel like crap and they do not keep hunger at bay. The highly rewarding nature of them made the emotional attachment with food even stronger and I could not lower my food intake whilst they were in my diet every day. So when I switched to having them once a week at most I felt better, lost weight easier and had plenty more energy. Now I will have something once a week if I feel like it, but I absolutely do not NEED it in my diet. I don't see any benefit to having highly rewarding foods in your diet every day that are so low in nutrients and just make you want to eat more and more and more when I can replace them with nutrient dense foods that will naturally satisfy me.
I eat chocolate nearly every morning, and it makes me very happy. I feel like the little chocolate chips are cheering as I pour them into my yogurt; happy that they made the cut and are still on my meal plan. I've tried to keep up with the argument but have failed...what were you getting at? Eating foods you like but don't need means you won't lose weight?
The m&ms in my cupboard are happy they end up in my mouth instead of in the trash can! Yay!0 -
not super relevant- but Farmland makes great bacon- Love that stuff.
0 -
Some things that stuck out to me when I skimmed the article:
That participants were selected based on their ability to stick to a strict diet. 11 out of 40 some odd participants didn't complete the diet. And while results on TEE and REE are given, I don't necessarily see one on total weight lost among the three groups as well as initial weights, calories consumed , etc. I probably just missed it - likely included in one of the attached tables - because this is pretty important information to provide in a study such as this.
I like this portion of the article, I think it's consistent with sustainability concerns previously mentioned on this thread:
"Main study limitations are the relatively short duration of the test diets and the difficulty extrapolating findings from a feeding study to a more natural setting, in which individuals consume self-selected diets. In particular, the very low-carbohydrate diet involved more severe carbohydrate restriction than would be feasible for many individuals over the long term. Therefore, the study may overestimate the magnitude of effects that could be obtained by carbohydrate restriction in the context of a behavioral intervention. In addition, participants in the study were selected for ability to comply with the rigors of a 7-month feeding protocol and may not represent overweight and obese individuals in the general population. Although we could not assess participant adherence during the outpatient phases of the study, good maintenance of weight loss throughout the test phase provides some reassurance on this point"
Yeah well I wasn't claiming low carb is the way to go for everyone, was I? I was showing that different diets affect everyone differently. I did not link to it to show anything about weight loss, just that those diets were changing each person's RMR and TDEE because that's what's being contested here. And yes, the tables all show the different calories consumed and burned etc.
My bad. My only interest is in weight loss. All the acronyms are pointless to me if they're not leading to a lower # on the scale. This was a seven month study I believe so it should have been able to easily show that0 -
Yes actually I did need to get rid of those foods to lose weight because they wreak havoc on my blood sugar and make me feel like crap and they do not keep hunger at bay. The highly rewarding nature of them made the emotional attachment with food even stronger and I could not lower my food intake whilst they were in my diet every day. So when I switched to having them once a week at most I felt better, lost weight easier and had plenty more energy. Now I will have something once a week if I feel like it, but I absolutely do not NEED it in my diet. I don't see any benefit to having highly rewarding foods in your diet every day that are so low in nutrients and just make you want to eat more and more and more when I can replace them with nutrient dense foods that will naturally satisfy me.
I eat chocolate nearly every morning, and it makes me very happy. I feel like the little chocolate chips are cheering as I pour them into my yogurt; happy that they made the cut and are still on my meal plan. I've tried to keep up with the argument but have failed...what were you getting at? Eating foods you like but don't need means you won't lose weight?
No I didn't say you can't eat what you like and lose weight. I'm getting pretty bored of the whole argument though so if you can't read the posts and follow a conversation I'm not going to repeat myself.0 -
Is anyone here familiar with the concept of mental *kitten*0
-
[No I didn't say you can't eat what you like and lose weight. I'm getting pretty bored of the whole argument though so if you can't read the posts and follow a conversation I'm not going to repeat myself.
whoops, I apologize, now I'm really confused. I thought repeating yourself was what you've been doing for the last 8 or so pages. I'm getting lost in all the quotes.0 -
InoriteIs anyone here familiar with the concept of mental *kitten*0 -
A bit of meat, fat and veg is enjoyable for many when eating out of hunger but it is not highly rewarding and does not make you want to eat and eat and eat. People don't binge on meat, veg and healthy fat.
^^ Speak for yourself.
This looks highly rewarding to me:
0 -
Anytime you start proclaiming something is always "healthier" it's pretty likely that you're overreaching. A salad heavy in olive oil may be worse for someone that's looking to lose weight and doesn't have the calories to spare, but if that salad is your one meal of the day and you need that olive oil to get sufficient calories, suddenly you're better off with the oil to get your calories (and plenty of meat for your daily protein as well). Since a dainty little salad with a spritz of oil could put you at an overly aggressive caloric deficit, the richer salad is the "healthier" option in that hypo. And that's the problem with generically talking about "healthier" foods - unless you define "healthy" foods as foods that are more likely to fit the nutritional needs of the average person, it really is a pretty meaningless term.
Honestly I don't disagree with the emphasis on fresh foods, cooking can of course affect the nutritional content of the food (but that doesn't mean I eat everything raw), macros are important... but at the end of the day, caloric intake is still the most important factor for weight management and anything beyond that is really just optimizing your diet.
You're confusing health with weight loss. Going over your calories doesn't make you unhealthy. Being fat makes you unhealthy. So eating that one tablespoon of olive oil might make an ever so slight dent in your weight loss progress, but it will positively affect your health. And what's wrong with planning your meals to allow for that olive oil? We need fat in our diets so why wouldn't you budget for it? And if you eat that salad alone with no fat you won't absorb all the nutrients either so I'd say you're always better off with the olive oil than without. You can make up for the extra 100 calories with exercise or the next day. Easy.
The term healthy really isn't as ambiguous as you make out. Either something is nutrient dense and contributes to health or it doesn't.0 -
A bit of meat, fat and veg is enjoyable for many when eating out of hunger but it is not highly rewarding and does not make you want to eat and eat and eat. People don't binge on meat, veg and healthy fat.
^^ Speak for yourself.
This looks highly rewarding to me:
You gonna binge on that all day long and eat thousands upon thousands of calories?0 -
And I don't believe they'd be serving anything healthy in those places either
They don't serve meat and vegetables at Brazilian steakhouses? I could've sworn the pounds of meat and vegetables I ate came from somewhere.....
I also washed it down with wine and Caramel Pecan Cheesecake.
Cooking methods and what's added to the food determine it's nutritional and health giving value. Vegetables that are charred and drowning in vegetable oil are no longer the health giving foods they were when they were fresh.
"Health-giving value" sounds totally made-up. Nutrients are what they are.0 -
Were you "binging" on that salad?? Were you uncontrollably binging on a lb of steak? Come on.
You missed the boat. Your original statement was that those types of foods would not be served at that type of restaurant.
I reckon I did binge on the steak. That whole night in general. I better binge if I'm paying $75 per person.
No my original statement was that people don't generally binge on healthy food. I stand by that. People rarely "binge" in public for that matter. I think you are getting confused with the meaning of the word binge.0 -
A bit of meat, fat and veg is enjoyable for many when eating out of hunger but it is not highly rewarding and does not make you want to eat and eat and eat. People don't binge on meat, veg and healthy fat.
^^ Speak for yourself.
This looks highly rewarding to me:
You gonna binge on that all day long and eat thousands upon thousands of calories?
What? That would be - MAYBE - 900-1000 calories right there, so maybe 40% of total calories for one day. And that would be just dinner. After a while, it would not be so tasty. (I like my dinner hot)0 -
And I don't believe they'd be serving anything healthy in those places either
They don't serve meat and vegetables at Brazilian steakhouses? I could've sworn the pounds of meat and vegetables I ate came from somewhere.....
I also washed it down with wine and Caramel Pecan Cheesecake.
Cooking methods and what's added to the food determine it's nutritional and health giving value. Vegetables that are charred and drowning in vegetable oil are no longer the health giving foods they were when they were fresh.
Oh see, that's perfect because I was referring to the salad bar.
As far are what is added to the food... you're telling me that adding in additional flavors, spices, oils and such makes the food devoid of nutrients then?
Yep. The addition of vegetable oil causes the nutrients to fly out of the food, presumably to Mars.
0 -
A bit of meat, fat and veg is enjoyable for many when eating out of hunger but it is not highly rewarding and does not make you want to eat and eat and eat. People don't binge on meat, veg and healthy fat.
^^ Speak for yourself.
This looks highly rewarding to me:
You gonna binge on that all day long and eat thousands upon thousands of calories?
http://www.healthylivingheavylifting.com/how-clean-eating-made-me-fat-but-ice-cream-and-subway-got-me-lean/
"[...] With the Paleo diet, there are no rules on how much you can eat. By that, I mean you’re not given a set calorie or macronutrient goal to hit each day, as the theory behind Paleo eating is that the low-carb, high-protein nature of the diet leads you to feeling naturally full, and prevents over-eating.
Well, say hello to the incredible eating machine. Also known as “bottomless pit Samuels,” or “the human bin.” I don’t seem to have a full setting. When I’m not given a set amount to eat, I just eat."0 -
You've clearly never been taken on a date to a Brazilian steakhouse.
I have to get in a 10 mile run before I go anywhere near a Brazilian Steakhouse. I can do some SERIOUS damage there.
I want to go to one! We have American steak houses Japanese steak houses here, no Brazilian ones. Oh, who am I kidding, I can't afford steak at the grocery store! *kicks rock*
Carry on...0 -
Again, "realistically" if you were in it for the long haul and logging properly, changes are you're 50 calories off some days (over, as well as under). Denying any emotional attachment to food is when the restrictions come in. If anything, after eating whatever I want the foods become normal and don't necessarily have some immense pull.
As for 2000 calories of twinkies being processed differently than 2000 calories of veggies and thus causing different rates of loss for similar individuals, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Everyone has told you that people with medical conditions are more or less out of scope for this discussion. I mean think of a person whom even when eating veggies laden with sodium swells up the following morning. Are veggies then bad? Is that what you're saying that if you have a medical condition you probably can't or shouldn't eat certain foods in order to have a lower scale weight? If so, agreed!!!
Well I wasn't saying you're 50 cals off because you're not logging correctly, but because you cannot determine how your body is processing each type of food and some days you might expend more whilst other days you expend less. If foods have no immense pull to you then that's great for you. Not everyone has an emotional attachment to food and those that don't will find it easier to lose weight.
Saying we'll have to agree to disagree on how the body processes different foods is saying you disagree with science, because what I've said is supported by science. I quoted a study which proves that peoples BMRs and TDEE changes depending on what they eat, which directly disproves what you believe. But hey, I'm only studying nutrition and been researching for years on the subject so what do I know? Honestly, it's up to you what you wish to believe because beliefs are just that - beliefs, not fact. Anyone who wants to deny facts is absolutely entitled to do so, I just hope they won't be passing around advice to others on the subject...
TEF is minimimal and has been show to be so with respect to increasing metabolism...
unless you manage to find the study that you mentioned early and never posted….
I did post it, you obviously missed it. But here it is again: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
^^ So it looks like that someone who has a varied diet with a "moderate" macro ratio, TEF changes would be negligible.
For starters the TEF is not the only thing I was referring to when I talked about how our body processes different foods. You'll see from that study that they note that leptin and thyroid levels were highest on a high carb diet. And leptin and thyroid levels affect rates of weight loss.
Secondly, I'm assuming your statement is based on the averages of the study which I said previously is not relevant when you are looking at individuals. You can't take a study of say 100 people with an average weight loss of 3lbs per person and then say that from this study you can conclude that everyone will lose 3lbs. Some will have lost more and some will have lost less, and that is what my argument has been based on. That we are not all the same and we do not process foods in the same way. Some people had negligible changes while others had significant changes.0 -
To lose weight yes. To change your overall physique and tone up muscle no. Nutritional values do matter, but eating "healthy" doesn't ensure health since there other factors that are included to determine this. What is important is to try to get in the right macros you need and sustain an eating plan that you can do for life.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Some things that stuck out to me when I skimmed the article:
That participants were selected based on their ability to stick to a strict diet. 11 out of 40 some odd participants didn't complete the diet. And while results on TEE and REE are given, I don't necessarily see one on total weight lost among the three groups as well as initial weights, calories consumed , etc. I probably just missed it - likely included in one of the attached tables - because this is pretty important information to provide in a study such as this.
I like this portion of the article, I think it's consistent with sustainability concerns previously mentioned on this thread:
"Main study limitations are the relatively short duration of the test diets and the difficulty extrapolating findings from a feeding study to a more natural setting, in which individuals consume self-selected diets. In particular, the very low-carbohydrate diet involved more severe carbohydrate restriction than would be feasible for many individuals over the long term. Therefore, the study may overestimate the magnitude of effects that could be obtained by carbohydrate restriction in the context of a behavioral intervention. In addition, participants in the study were selected for ability to comply with the rigors of a 7-month feeding protocol and may not represent overweight and obese individuals in the general population. Although we could not assess participant adherence during the outpatient phases of the study, good maintenance of weight loss throughout the test phase provides some reassurance on this point"
Nice catch! I recall SideSteel stating something similar. Sending him a FR early on was the smartest thing I've done on my gurney so far...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions