7 Practices That Aren't As Healthy As You Thought

Ashwee87

Was checking the weather at Weather.com and saw this article, so I clicked it. The first one had me going, "wait, what!?" o.O

"MYTH: Small Tweaks Pay BIG Dividends
Reality: The human body easily adapts to changes, so the study suggests small steps to cut calories doesn't have the same effect over time."

Am I reading that right? Is it saying that by cutting calories, in the long run it is pointless because it loses its effect? Or am I just reading this wrong?

http://www.weather.com/health/diet-myths-busted-20130202?pageno=2

concordancia

*small* changes don't always have the advertised effect. For example, you often see advice to take the stairs once a day, the extra ten calories adds up to a pound a year! More likely, your body adapts to the extra ten calories. If, on the other hand, you work on the twentieth floor, and leave the building for lunch...

CristinaL1983

Anytime you cut some amount of calories, your body starts to run more efficiently. Pretty much any study on weight loss shows a temporary reduction in BMR during weight loss. It typically goes back to normal after you start eating at maintenance again and it isn't enough to negate a deficit of 20% or so but a long term deficit of 5% could potentially be negated by metabolic adaptation.

The largest change shown was 10% and that was during the Minnesota Starvation Experiment while subjects were literally starved for 6 months. So in all likelihood, if you reduce your calories by 10% it is extremely unlikely that you would experience such a huge metabolic adaptation. However, even a smaller adaptation would lead you to not lose weight at exactly the "expected" rate.

I'm pretty sure that this is what it's talking about. If you only cut your calories by 1% or another small amount by just making healthier choices but not really tracking calories, metabolic adaptation could pretty easily negate that change.

KANGOOJUMPS

i like the big changes.

Koldnomore

Considering there was not any explanation given for any of the 'myths' I don't put a lot of credence in the article anyway. For me "small changes" is how I am losing my weight. I stopped using cream/sugar in my coffee, I started walking to and from work (its 30 min round trip) I stopped snacking at night. Those are all small changes.. That's been good for almost 50 lbs of weight gone. I think those who change everything drastically all at once are more likely to fail - and given the number of people who have come in here guns blazing, changing everything and then 3 months later completely disappearing I'd say that people who make small changes are more likely to stick around to reach and maintain their goals. YMMV - everyone is different.

iAMsmiling

So one small change is insignificant. Shocking.

How about you look through out your life for all the opportunities for small change? Still insignificant? I don't think so. I think you now have big change that leads to more change.

blu_meanie_ca

I read the full article somewhere else. It wasn't much more in depth.
But, one small change equals not so much.
20 small changes is a lifestyle over-haul, and therefore a big change.

wikitbikit

That was a frustrating "article" in general.

"The authors cite studies that..." Who are the authors? What are the studies? Why am I getting health advice from weather.com?

CristinaL1983

OOPS

tigerblue

Anytime you cut some amount of calories, your body starts to run more efficiently. Pretty much any study on weight loss shows a temporary reduction in BMR during weight loss. It typically goes back to normal after you start eating at maintenance again and it isn't enough to negate a deficit of 20% or so but a long term deficit of 5% could potentially be negated by metabolic adaptation.

The largest change shown was 10% and that was during the Minnesota Starvation Experiment while subjects were literally starved for 6 months. So in all likelihood, if you reduce your calories by 10% it is extremely unlikely that you would experience such a huge metabolic adaptation. However, even a smaller adaptation would lead you to not lose weight at exactly the "expected" rate.

I'm pretty sure that this is what it's talking about. If you only cut your calories by 1% or another small amount by just making healthier choices but not really tracking calories, metabolic adaptation could pretty easily negate that change.

Interesting. I've wondered about this, since there are many people/plans/websites out there that advocate having a very small deficit. (I think of Fat2Fit, at least if you are close to your goal). Specifically, would it be better to have a larger deficit andlose the weight more quickly (thus eating at a deficit for a shorter time)? That way perhaps you could avoid metabolic adaptation? Or do we eat at a small deficit, which would mean taking months for me to lose the 6 or so pounds I've gained. So by eating at a deficit for months (some of these sites have me taking 6-8 months or more to lose the pounds), don't I increase the chance of metabolic adaptation more than just getting it done more quickly with a larger deficit?

I've given this a good bit of thought, especially since maintenance has prove to be at least as difficult as losing was! I guess I'm a little freaked out because I can't seem to lose what I never should have gained in the first place (ha-true for us all I guess!!). And I gained averaging just above 1200 net calories a day!! that can't be right even for a small gal like me.

I've just reset my cals to what MFP calls maintenance to give myself al least a mental break. (BTW the maintenance cals for MFP are less than the cals recommended for loss on Fat2Fit.). I'm terrified that the weight will go up and up and up because this is at least 100 more net calories than when I started gaining!

Any experts out there want to weigh in on the metabolic adaptation thing and whether long and slow, or get it done and start back on maintenance is better?

Ashwee87

Yeah I thought it was pretty bogus honestly. The rest of them made me roll my eyes. It is on weather.com so I don't expect much. :yawn:

Thank you all for the replies.

hpsnickers1

http://thatpaleoguy.com/2012/12/19/calorie-rants-and-ketosis-part-1/

http://thatpaleoguy.com/2012/12/24/calorie-rants-and-ketosis-part-2/

Yes the body adapts easily to changes. But that doesn't mean you HAVE to take small steps. Some people have success with big leaps (like me - I jumped into Primal Blueprint full force and reaped immediate benefits - I'm still reaping the benefits two years later - I was told at a healthy weight you can't lose fat but when I went Primal at 120lbs I dropped another 7lbs the first six weeks - I had alreay been dieting/exercising for 6 months).

Others might need to make one change at a time. It's what works best for you. Be your own scientist and find your own N=1.

The reason most people fail with a sudden BIG diet change (restricting calories and increasing exercise) is because it goes completely against the way the body works - increase in energy expenditure will just make the body respond by "demanding" you replace that energy (i.e. exercise will make you hungry). And today's Standard America Diet full of frankenfoods (created by food scientists/companies with the sole purpose of making you want to keep eating their products and never fill up) and grains (wheat is a known appetite stimulant and it is in EVERYTHING for that reason....learn more about this on gnolls.org). I mean c'mon they now have a cereal called Crave and they even claim it to be good for you. BigFood is throwing it right in our faces.

And the word is homeostasis. It has nothing to do with how big or little the change is. The body will adapt to big or small changes. And it can adapt in a good way or bad way. (todays high-carb diet might not make everyone fat or diabetic but what we call "normal aging" is actually the long-term effects of that diet. What we call "tummy troubles" is actually the effects of all the grains we eat over the course of our life (the more indigestible fiber you eat the more you need to eat to keep things moving. We are not supposed to be pooping logs)

Obesity is a broken metabolism, not a behavioral problem. There is nothing wrong with a child sitting in school all day or sitting reading a book but if they are sitting playing video games or watching TV then they are "lazy". And their obesity is blamed on inactivity.

Good luck!!

nokanjaijo

That was a frustrating "article" in general.

"The authors cite studies that..." Who are the authors? What are the studies? Why am I getting health advice from weather.com?

This is the study they are talking about, I'm pretty sure.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1208051

Here is an article on the study from NYT
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/myths-of-weight-loss-are-plentiful-researcher-says/

mfpcopine

Considering there was not any explanation given for any of the 'myths' I don't put a lot of credence in the article anyway. For me "small changes" is how I am losing my weight. I stopped using cream/sugar in my coffee, I started walking to and from work (its 30 min round trip) I stopped snacking at night. Those are all small changes.. That's been good for almost 50 lbs of weight gone. I think those who change everything drastically all at once are more likely to fail - and given the number of people who have come in here guns blazing, changing everything and then 3 months later completely disappearing I'd say that people who make small changes are more likely to stick around to reach and maintain their goals. YMMV - everyone is different.

Don't have time to pull up the article, but it sounds like a variation on a New York Times article I posted a month ago. That article focused on why there were myths. The bottom line was that there aren't enough studies. It then discussed myths, true statements, and theories for which there is currently insufficient support.

I think that Cristina's explanation above is probably the basis for the assertion that it is a myth that small changes always help.
A site like The Weather Channel is not doing original reporting; it repackages the material of other media outlets.

wikitbikit

This is the study they are talking about, I'm pretty sure.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1208051

Here is an article on the study from NYT
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/myths-of-weight-loss-are-plentiful-researcher-says/

Thank you! Put into this context, the information is much more useful and less discouraging.

"This is a weight loss 'truth.' I decided to test it, and found out that it isn't always true." On one level or another, most of us already know that, but now he's set down a scientific placemat. I'm ok with that.