Science of What Works For Me Works For You

odusgolp

I seriously wish I was made of Jam right now.

Escloflowne

Also this was the actual quote:

You guys are all wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFhndH1RdEk

Yeah! We got it!

Carry on!

Clearly, if there's still a discussion, then I don't think you guys got it lol But to add something of value, correlation does not imply causation. Just because you smoke marijuana does not imply you drink alcohol, nor does following a 'Paleo diet' imply fat loss. Everybody's body is different, and what may work for one person may not work for another person

You are "all wrong", it's science, what works for me will work for another human unless they have a medical issue. It's very basic stuff, most of the time the people who say "it doesn't work for me" are just doing it wrong, don't blame the system, it's user error...

k8blujay2

Usually when things don't work it is usually user error... it's true with techonology and it's true here too.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

devil_in_a_blue_dress

I don't understand the OP. Here's a taco.

odusgolp

Y'all a bunch of Kia haters.

BarbieAS

Studies to prove what? That the laws of physics aren't specific to each individual? I don't understand.

This.

Also, I would firmly agree that what works for me may NOT work for you. But, that's going to come down to 99% adherence. For example, low carb might work for you and not for me. But, that wouldn't be because of science. That would be because you're better at sticking to low carb because you enjoy it and it fits your lifestyle while I hate it and so therefore am more likely to cheat or give up or reduce my activity, stuff like that. People are vastly different, but that's not because science is different from person to person, it's because people have varying preferences and responses to situations.

maab_connor

so long as you are homo sapiens sapiens, you're going to fit within certain parameters. this is known as "human biology" b/c "human" is the term we commonly use in English for the species homo sapiens sapiens and "biology" is the study of living things.

are you homo sapiens sapiens AKA human? if yes, then you will fit within the basic parameters of that species when it comes to nutrition and fitness.


Source: my fourth grade biology book.

Cranquistador

criticaltodd

We are all using the interenet. Try and have a little respect for science and a little less reliance on your own dumb, poorly thought out, "feelings."

What this is in reference to? I'm not talking about feelings. I'm talking about science. I just want to see it, not see discussion about it.

I find it funny that there's this underlying tone that I must be butthurt to be asking questions and looking for answers. Or that I don't respect science. Or I must have dumb, poorly thought out "feelings". As if whatever I feel, dumb or smart, has anything to do with it. Or if I was butthurt. So what? Does that make my question not worth answering?

Funny thing is, all I am asking is for proof for an assertion. I haven't even stated if I agree with said assertion or not, but most of the responses take aim at me as if I had attacked something. This shouldn't be that hard.

I get that ultimately it's thermodynamics but since the food we eat must be processed before thermodynamics kick in, there's more to it than that, right? Or wrong? I don't know.

Of course, I can and do search the internet myself but I figured that since this assertion is made so often on here, people might have the resources more readily available and, frankly, save me some time. Maybe I was wrong.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

QueenBishOTUniverse

"science" is easy to abuse though...

for instance:

"vegans and vegetarians are out of their minds"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3466124/

Good book, 10/10 would read again. And the basic logic fallacies used work for all "belief" subjects.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

maidentl

Funny thing is, all I am asking is for proof for an assertion. I haven't even stated if I agree with said assertion or not, but most of the responses take aim at me as if I had attacked something. This shouldn't be that hard.

I think the bigger problem is you haven't told us what the assertion is. "People say you're doing it wrong, prove it."

Well, what is "it?"

QueenBishOTUniverse

Usually when things don't work it is usually user error... it's true with techonology and it's true here too.

The problem exists between the chair and the keyboard.

neandermagnon

What you have to understand is that there are some ways in which all humans (and for that matter some ways in which, all mammals, all animals and all life) are the same. And there are other ways in which all humans (mammals, animals, life...) vary.

Living things do not break the laws of physics, so calories in v calories out is true for all living things. How they get their calories may vary, and plants get calories from sunlight and convert them into glucose, but the law of energy balance holds true, just in very different ways.

On the other hand, clearly living things do vary. I mean humans are nothing like plants. And humans are all different in some ways and similar in others.

The key to answering this question is to know which factors show variation, and which ones don't. Some things there is no variation because a mutation in the genes that control it result in the egg not being able to survive long enough to even become a chemical pregnancy. So they get eliminated from the gene pool pretty much as soon as they arise. On the other hand, where things *can* vary, i.e. variation does not result in failure to live, then they tend to vary a lot, because variation increases a species chances of survival, i.e. the more variation there is, the more likely it is that some members of the species will survive a radical change in the environment.

In terms of fat loss, energy balance isn't even about genetics or evolution, it's about energy balance. All living things follow the laws of physics. Energy isn't created or destroyed.. energy taken in by the human body that's not used for keeping the body alive or for daily activity is stored as fat. There are medical conditions that can mean that either side of the energy in v energy out equation are not where they should be... for example someone could be eating loads but their gut isn't absorbing it so they're basically crapping it all out again, well in this case the energy isn't actually going into the body (it doesn't count as "in" until it's been absorbed into the blood) so they may well be eating thousands of calories a day and losing weight (but if this is happening this is actually a very serious medical situation that needs treatment or they'll die).... it's also the case that some conditions like hypothyroidism slow down the body's metabolic processes so that someone with this condition will gain fat eating the number of calories that wouldn't usually cause fat gain in someone their height and weight... but in both these cases, calories in still equal calories out and no-one's body is breaking the laws of physics.

In terms of what varies for fat loss... well, there are many different ways to create a calorie deficit, for example a lot of people find that eating paleo means they end up in a calorie deficit because the foods allowed on paleo are not all that calorie dense. Others count calories, but so long as the person is eating at a deficit, they will lose weight. If they're not losing weight then they're not eating at a deficit (and in a small number of cases that might be due to a medical condition that puts the "calories out" side of their equation below where it should be) - so when it comes to *how* you create the deficit, there is room for individualisation, although some approaches work better than others. Some will be fine and happy eating a restrictive diet like paleo - and so long as they're not miserable or experiencing episodes of overeating on the forbidden foods or periods of not being able to stick with it, then that's fine. Calorie counting will work for everyone so long as they do the maths right. Failure to make calorie counting work is because of not doing the maths right, e.g. guesstimating portion sizes, miscalculating TDEE, etc. Some people's body won't burn the number of calories that the TDEE calculators predict... it may take trial and error to find the right number if that's the case, but it will work for everyone.... whether everyone actually wants to count calories is a different matter, and if people can't stick to it consistently, then it's going to fail because none of these methods work if you don't actually do them. Some people may find it easier to stick to a restrictive diet like paleo than be consistent counting calories... if they're getting the results they want then that's great.

Anyway, no you won't find specific studies that cover this question as a whole question, studies answer more specific questions, and also, anything that's basically physiology 101 the place to look is university textbooks - which summarise decades of research to give an overview of the basics of how the human body works. Jumping straight to specific studies and peer reviewed articles without having that basic foundation first is like trying to run before you can walk.

geebusuk

All very well when it's something like the evils of sugar - I've taken the time to read the studies when people do post them and rarely find any decent proof.

When it's a case of someone who claims 'CICO' isn't appropriate for them, I'd suggest that they likely misunderstand some of the basic tenants of 'science' and need to go back to first year high school, to start from the basics again. Definitely a bit of 'hurr durr' in those cases.

criticaltodd

so long as you are homo sapiens sapiens, you're going to fit within certain parameters. this is known as "human biology" b/c "human" is the term we commonly use in English for the species homo sapiens sapiens and "biology" is the study of living things.

are you homo sapiens sapiens AKA human? if yes, then you will fit within the basic parameters of that species when it comes to nutrition and fitness.


Source: my fourth grade biology book.

But what about variance within those "basic parameters"? I think the "same for me as for you" idea would say that there isn't any, outside what we already know about metabolism, and diabetes. Is this correct?

richardheath

OP - I think what you are looking for is a basic Biochemistry or Physiology text book.

criticaltodd

When it's a case of someone who claims 'CICO' isn't appropriate for them, I'd suggest that they likely misunderstand some of the basic tenants of 'science' and need to go back to first year high school, to start from the basics again. Definitely a bit of 'hurr durr' in those cases.

Fair enough. Of course, I'm not questioning "CICO".

yopeeps025

We are all using the interenet. Try and have a little respect for science and a little less reliance on your own dumb, poorly thought out, "feelings."

What this is in reference to? I'm not talking about feelings. I'm talking about science. I just want to see it, not see discussion about it.

I find it funny that there's this underlying tone that I must be butthurt to be asking questions and looking for answers. Or that I don't respect science. Or I must have dumb, poorly thought out "feelings". As if whatever I feel, dumb or smart, has anything to do with it. Or if I was butthurt. So what? Does that make my question not worth answering?

Funny thing is, all I am asking is for proof for an assertion. I haven't even stated if I agree with said assertion or not, but most of the responses take aim at me as if I had attacked something. This shouldn't be that hard.

I get that ultimately it's thermodynamics but since the food we eat must be processed before thermodynamics kick in, there's more to it than that, right? Or wrong? I don't know.

Of course, I can and do search the internet myself but I figured that since this assertion is made so often on here, people might have the resources more readily available and, frankly, save me some time. Maybe I was wrong.

You know do in research that you will find information about something and find just as much refuting it. If that was not the case where is the number one best seller on hear how to lose weight 100% proven for every human. There is no such thing. If you notice some of my older post I was being attacked for outlandish claims I make that work for me. I forgot my day streak but am 20 pounds down with the streak I am on.

Achrya

Proof of what, exactly? That science works? That people are doing it wrong?

I'm confused.

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

When it's a case of someone who claims 'CICO' isn't appropriate for them, I'd suggest that they likely misunderstand some of the basic tenants of 'science' and need to go back to first year high school, to start from the basics again. Definitely a bit of 'hurr durr' in those cases.

Fair enough. Of course, I'm not questioning "CICO".

Oh. Well then what are you questioning? I believe CICO is the "what works for me" that "will work for you" unless I misunderstood. Which is possible.

yopeeps025

Proof of what, exactly? That science works? That people are doing it wrong?

I'm confused.

He is saying that if you are doing weight loss correctly there should never be a plateau. That when people get stuck it is there fault and not other things.

criticaltodd

There are medical conditions that can mean that either side of the energy in v energy out equation are not where they should be...

Thanks for the long response. Now, what if someone has a condition that throws the energy equation out of balance, but it's simply not severe enough to call attention to itself? What if someone's energy equation isn't massively out of balance but only a bit out of whack?

yopeeps025

There are medical conditions that can mean that either side of the energy in v energy out equation are not where they should be...

Thanks for the long response. Now, what if someone has a condition that throws the energy equation out of balance, but it's simply not severe enough to call attention to itself? What if someone's energy equation isn't massively out of balance but only a bit out of whack?

Im sure it happen. How about people with more muscle. Muscles burns more calories than fat at rest. So muscular people eat more to balance it out.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

maab_connor

so long as you are homo sapiens sapiens, you're going to fit within certain parameters. this is known as "human biology" b/c "human" is the term we commonly use in English for the species homo sapiens sapiens and "biology" is the study of living things.

are you homo sapiens sapiens AKA human? if yes, then you will fit within the basic parameters of that species when it comes to nutrition and fitness.


Source: my fourth grade biology book.

But what about variance within those "basic parameters"? I think the "same for me as for you" idea would say that there isn't any, outside what we already know about metabolism, and diabetes. Is this correct?

if you are human, then yes.

nutrition and fitness are about meeting caloric goals first and macro and micro nutrient goals after that. best to be done with a variety of foods and while avoiding foods which give you a histamine response. and moving around in a way that is challenging but not injuring.

i'm failing to understand what you find confusing about human = human = human. please be specific.

criticaltodd

He is saying that if you are doing weight loss correctly there should never be a plateau. That when people get stuck it is there fault and not other things.

No, I'm not.

Sorry to all if I haven't been clear enough but that's not it. And it's not about calories in versus calories out. I was more driving at this:

Person A says that they do better with less/more/no carbs/protein/fat.

Person B says Person A is doing it wrong, hooray science.

Is Person A just doing it wrong? What is the science behind it? Is it JUST thermodynamics?

pinkyslippers

Datta, M., Jackson, M.D. & Datta, R. (2011) 'Of mice and men: Their diet, metabolism, and weight change', Chemical Engineering Science, 66 (20), pp.4510-4520.
Hall, K.D., Sacks, G., Chandramohan, D., Chow, C.C., Wang, Y.C., Gortmaker, S.L. & Swinburn, B.A. 'Quantification of the effect of energy imbalance on bodyweight', The Lancet, 378 (9793), pp.826-837.
Riera-Crichton, D. & Tefft, N. (2014) 'Macronutrients and obesity: Revisiting the calories in, calories out framework', Economics & Human Biology, 14 (0), pp.33-49.
Schoeller, D.A. & Buchholz, A.C. (2005) 'Energetics of obesity and weight control: Does diet composition matter?', Journal of the American Dietetic Association; Obesity: Etiology, Treatment, Prevention, and Applications in Practice, 105 (5), pp.24-28.
Tremblay, A. & Chaput, J. (2012) 'Obesity: The allostatic load of weight loss dieting', Physiology & Behavior; Allostasis and Allostatic Load, 106 (1), pp.16-21.