Dieting WTFs?

Options
123468

Replies

  • PayneAS
    PayneAS Posts: 669 Member
    Options
    Same could be said for raspberry ketones, huh? :laugh:

    Raspberry ketones haven't been scientifically proven to work. There have actually been studies about it and all of the (legitimate) ones I've seen have shown that they don't work.
  • BSchoberg
    BSchoberg Posts: 712 Member
    Options
    According to a Dr Oz website, potassium is an essential enzyme???? "Potassium is an essential enzyme for the body's growth and maintenance tasked with managing the normal water balance between cells..."

    Had to re-read it a few times to make sure I was reading it right... Not really sure if I would believe anything on that site given that potassium is an element and not made of protein!

    Potassium is an essential enzyme.

    Different link for you but it explains Potassium and its importance :)

    http://www.livestrong.com/article/370138-what-is-the-purpose-of-potassium-in-the-human-body/

    Potassium is not an enzyme. Potassium is a mineral. Potassium is needed for the human body to create certain enzymes, but Potassium itself is not an enzyme.

    Also, livestrong tends to be a terrible source for information, quite honestly. It's usually very poorly written.

    Tiger - you should know by now that people don't bother to understand the actual definitions of the words they use. That is how "conversate" became a real honest-to-God word. The powers that be have decided that common usage validates a word's definition. I mourn...
  • gauchogirl
    gauchogirl Posts: 467 Member
    Options
    God, if I hear another Paleo/Atkins/HFLC zealot rave about how you can eat 5,000 + calories of animal protein and dark leafy greens and NEVER gain weight, I'll eat my hat.
    To be honest, I've never seen more dieting WTF's than right here. "Not losing weight? Eat more!"

    At least get your (exaggerated) "facts" right before you skip straight to the sarcastic, judgmental tone. Nowhere have I seen paleo adherents suggest eating an excess of calories on purpose. I eat paleo/primal, I don't try to eat low-carb specifically, I just eat REAL, ACTUAL foods. You know, meat, vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds? When you're eating high-quality food, you are satisfied with an appropriate amount. So saying "eat all you want" just means you stop when you're satisfied. I log calories, just so I have an idea where I stand and guess what? "Eat all you want" means I am satisfied AND LOSING WEIGHT, around 1600-2000 calories (most days.)

    And the "Not losing weight? Eat more!" folks aren't suggesting you eat in excess to your needs either. Just more than the sub-minimal "don't go above 1,200 calories or you'll never lose weight" group. THAT is what I consider the most ridiculous diet I've ever heard. How 'bout we take responsibility for our own health needs and treat our bodies the way they are meant to be treated? With appropriate amounts of REAL, quality food and REAL movement?
  • poppyloganriley
    poppyloganriley Posts: 44 Member
    Options
    From years ago there was a Grapefruit and Cottage Cheese diet...sure you lost weight...but you gained back twice as fast after going off it.

    My mom told me about that... she was on it (not sure why, she's always been thin-but I think it must have been cool!) in the 70's. She said the same thing, everybody lost weight and then people who lost the most ballooned back up to heavier than they started within months.
  • poppyloganriley
    poppyloganriley Posts: 44 Member
    Options
    God, if I hear another Paleo/Atkins/HFLC zealot rave about how you can eat 5,000 + calories of animal protein and dark leafy greens and NEVER gain weight, I'll eat my hat.
    To be honest, I've never seen more dieting WTF's than right here. "Not losing weight? Eat more!"

    At least get your (exaggerated) "facts" right before you skip straight to the sarcastic, judgmental tone. Nowhere have I seen paleo adherents suggest eating an excess of calories on purpose. I eat paleo/primal, I don't try to eat low-carb specifically, I just eat REAL, ACTUAL foods. You know, meat, vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds? When you're eating high-quality food, you are satisfied with an appropriate amount. So saying "eat all you want" just means you stop when you're satisfied. I log calories, just so I have an idea where I stand and guess what? "Eat all you want" means I am satisfied AND LOSING WEIGHT, around 1600-2000 calories (most days.)

    And the "Not losing weight? Eat more!" folks aren't suggesting you eat in excess to your needs either. Just more than the sub-minimal "don't go above 1,200 calories or you'll never lose weight" group. THAT is what I consider the most ridiculous diet I've ever heard. How 'bout we take responsibility for our own health needs and treat our bodies the way they are meant to be treated? With appropriate amounts of REAL, quality food and REAL movement?

    I have tried the eating real foods thing, and it works for me most days. Some days I am honestly too busy to prepare and I go off the "real" food thing but I have definitely found that I am STUFFED eating hardly any calories on days I eat real. :)
  • redhousecat
    redhousecat Posts: 584 Member
    Options
    I kind of :noway: and :huh: at the daily Dr Oz diet. None of his suggestions could ever work for me. But evidently, he has a cult following that swears by his every word.
  • SpazzyMal
    SpazzyMal Posts: 276 Member
    Options
    Blood type diet... I don't know, that one just seems wacky to me. The ones that pretend to be SCIENCEEEEE are the ones that make me shake my head the most.
  • almostatgoalweight
    almostatgoalweight Posts: 234 Member
    Options
    Potassium is an essential enzyme.

    Different link for you but it explains Potassium and its importance :)

    http://www.livestrong.com/article/370138-what-is-the-purpose-of-potassium-in-the-human-body/

    Potassium is not an enzyme. It is an element, and is in the molecule Adenosine triphosphate (an enzyme) in the above link.
  • almostatgoalweight
    almostatgoalweight Posts: 234 Member
    Options
    Did Atkins twice and you do lose the weight but very hard to keep up. Thus gained it back

    Okay, I'm just wondering how gaining it back was the fault of Atkins. I've seen this type of statement before and I don't understand it.
  • ZugTheMegasaurus
    ZugTheMegasaurus Posts: 801 Member
    Options
    Did Atkins twice and you do lose the weight but very hard to keep up. Thus gained it back

    Okay, I'm just wondering how gaining it back was the fault of Atkins. I've seen this type of statement before and I don't understand it.
    I think these sorts of statements are saying that Atkins is not conducive to sustainability in the long term. So while it is effective if you stay on it, the rules of the program make it difficult to do exactly that.
  • almostatgoalweight
    almostatgoalweight Posts: 234 Member
    Options
    Okay, I'm just wondering how gaining it back was the fault of Atkins. I've seen this type of statement before and I don't understand it.
    I think these sorts of statements are saying that Atkins is not conducive to sustainability in the long term. So while it is effective if you stay on it, the rules of the program make it difficult to do exactly that.

    Yes I accept that some diets are hard to maintain, but if you stop eating the diet and regain, why is the fault of the diet?
  • cloud2011
    cloud2011 Posts: 898 Member
    Options
    To be honest, I've never seen more dieting WTF's than right here. "Not losing weight? Eat more!"

    Well, that one works!
  • almostatgoalweight
    almostatgoalweight Posts: 234 Member
    Options
    To be honest, I've never seen more dieting WTF's than right here. "Not losing weight? Eat more!"

    Well, that one works!

    I simply cannot believe it. I asked for research articles on the concept in another thread and no one had any.
  • ZugTheMegasaurus
    ZugTheMegasaurus Posts: 801 Member
    Options
    Okay, I'm just wondering how gaining it back was the fault of Atkins. I've seen this type of statement before and I don't understand it.
    I think these sorts of statements are saying that Atkins is not conducive to sustainability in the long term. So while it is effective if you stay on it, the rules of the program make it difficult to do exactly that.

    Yes I accept that some diets are hard to maintain, but if you stop eating the diet and regain, why is the fault of the diet?
    Because the diet is basically set up in such a way that quitting at some point is likely to happen. That's why there's that common bit of weight loss advice, "Do something you can keep doing for the rest of your life." Basically think of the likelihood to maintain a diet forever as a part of its efficacy.
  • eviegreen
    eviegreen Posts: 123 Member
    Options
    The Cookie Diet!

    And I'm completely serious: http://www.cookiediet.com/index-en.html

    "The plan is simple. You eat nine specially-formulated cookies (just 60 calories each) throughout the day to keep hunger away, plus a substantial 500 to 700 calorie meal. It all adds up to 1,000 to 1,200 daily calories and, at that calorie level, there are NO failures. Everyone loses weight."

    :sick:
  • mcarter99
    mcarter99 Posts: 1,666 Member
    Options
    Same could be said for raspberry ketones, huh? :laugh:

    Raspberry ketones haven't been scientifically proven to work. There have actually been studies about it and all of the (legitimate) ones I've seen have shown that they don't work.

    Eating more calories also hasn't been scientifically proven to improve weight loss. The opposite is what has been proven. Sure, you can LOSE WEIGHT at a slight deficit. You can't lose more weight at a slight deficit than you can at a higher deficit. 3500 calories = 1 lb.
  • almostatgoalweight
    almostatgoalweight Posts: 234 Member
    Options
    Because the diet is basically set up in such a way that quitting at some point is likely to happen. That's why there's that common bit of weight loss advice, "Do something you can keep doing for the rest of your life." Basically think of the likelihood to maintain a diet forever as a part of its efficacy.

    Okay, but I've been off and on a low carb diet at least 5 times in the last 3 years (I can only tolerate in for 2-3 months it seems) but I've never had more than a 2kg gain after leaving it, and that was caused by an increase in water due to the glycogen effect.
  • DanaDark
    DanaDark Posts: 2,187 Member
    Options
    Okay, I'm just wondering how gaining it back was the fault of Atkins. I've seen this type of statement before and I don't understand it.
    I think these sorts of statements are saying that Atkins is not conducive to sustainability in the long term. So while it is effective if you stay on it, the rules of the program make it difficult to do exactly that.

    Yes I accept that some diets are hard to maintain, but if you stop eating the diet and regain, why is the fault of the diet?

    Much of the initial weight of the diet comes from water loss. In the first couple of weeks, a person will lose significant weight in water on a low carb diet. Once they resume a normal eating pattern, they will ingest more carbs and thus more water will be retained, thus adding more to weight.

    The part that "works" on a low carb diet is the simple act of restricting a food choice. By restricting carbs at 4 cal a gram, you are forced to eat more protein at the same amount 4 cal per gram, but protein satiates more and causes you to be less hungry throughout the day. The down side is that you also end up eating more fat than you probably should.
  • ladyraven68
    ladyraven68 Posts: 2,003 Member
    Options
    To be honest, I've never seen more dieting WTF's than right here. "Not losing weight? Eat more!"

    Well, that one works!

    I simply cannot believe it. I asked for research articles on the concept in another thread and no one had any.

    What research do you need?

    You eat at less than your TDEE and you lose weight - that is the basis of all weight loss isn't it?
  • almostatgoalweight
    almostatgoalweight Posts: 234 Member
    Options

    Eating more calories also hasn't been scientifically proven to improve weight loss. The opposite is what has been proven. Sure, you can LOSE WEIGHT at a slight deficit. You can't lose more weight at a slight deficit than you can at a higher deficit. 3500 calories = 1 lb.

    Actually if you do experiments with people eating more (or less) in identical situations, there is some variation in how much people gain (or lose), even if they are the same weight. A good documentary on this effect is Why thin people are not fat. You can watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPsKpnu0-X4 go to 48 minutes and see what the difference in peoples bodies are due to eating double what they normally eat. Also go to 3:30 and see an overeating experiment where people in prison ate heaps, and then some stopped gaining weight.

Categories