The Worst Nutrition Advice in History (article)

I will say that I agree - what works for some people doesn't work for everyone. Everyone has their own methods for weight loss, and it's awesome when you find the one that works for you. It's just my personal perspective that maintaining a healthy weight and proper nutrition is just as important as losing the weight in the first place, and it's easier to transition from weight loss to weight/nutrition maintenance if you have been practicing all along. I guess that's what I'm really trying to get at.

I'm amazed by how much this article seems to be angering some people... I agree with it completely,

How can you agree with it completely though when parts of it have been proven to be untrue?

"Humans were the healthiest and leanest way before they knew that calories existed."

They simply were not. That is completely made up

True. Until recently people died at what we would consider a fairly young age. For example, in Shakespeare's time, the life expectency for a male in England was about 35 years.

Edited to add: I don't think this is a peer-reviewed article, but I believe it's pretty accurate anyway.

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/londondisease.html

I'm amazed by how much this article seems to be angering some people... I agree with it completely,

How can you agree with it completely though when parts of it have been proven to be untrue?

"Humans were the healthiest and leanest way before they knew that calories existed."

They simply were not. That is completely made up

True. Until recently people died at what we would consider a fairly young age. For example, in Shakespeare's time, the life expectency for a male in England was about 35 years.

Edited to add: I don't think this is a peer-reviewed article, but I believe it's pretty accurate anyway.

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/londondisease.html

I'm not going to spend all day debating this... this is going to be my last post on the matter. There were people who were malnourished back then, just as there are today, but there are other reasons why people died at an earlier age back then... many of which are pointed out in your article (which, by the way, doesn't say anything in regards to nutrition). Some of those include:

- Dirty, unsanitary living conditions (this seems to be the biggest contributing factor as to how all of these diseases broke out).
- Knowledge of medicine back then is NOTHING compared to what it is now. There were no medications to help fight off these diseases, and the medical professionals didn't even know what these diseases were initially, or how they were being caused.
- Knowledge of "safe sex" didn't exist in those days either.

I'm not going to say that people didn't die from malnutrition, but the quality of the foods that average people were consuming in those days was better than the quality of the foods that are on the market today. Of course, you can argue that the quality of the food that peasants were eating was not up to pay with food quality today, but that's a different point entirely. That goes along with standards of cleanliness.

OK, I'm done for today

I'm amazed by how much this article seems to be angering some people... I agree with it completely, and that's from personal experience. I have tried pretty much every type of "diet" under the sun, and I've failed miserably. I believe the reason for that was because I was not getting the proper nutrition. My new mantra is that DIET FOODS ARE NOT HEALTHY FOODS.
A lot of people on here seem to be having a very difficult time understanding that weight loss and nutrition SHOULD go hand in hand. Everyone seems to be saying "well they're completely different", but they don't have to be. You can lose weight eating nutritious foods because when your body is getting the proper nutrition, you don't need to eat as much to feel satisfied. It seems to me like a lot of people try to justify eating junk, and "diet" junk in order to lose weight. It's true... calorie deficit results in weight loss, but try maintaining a lifestyle where you're eating butter substitutes, light bread, light yogurt, and other diet foods long term. You'll feel like crap because you're not getting the nutrients that you need to STAY HEALTHY.
You don't need to starve yourself or severely limit foods that are actually good for you in order to lose weight. My husband and I have been eating this way for over a month now (I know it's not a long time, but for people who have literally tried EVERYTHING, we have finally found something that we feel we can stick with for the rest of our lives). We don't feel like we're going without. We don't even miss some of the things we've given up. I am counting calories because that is my personal preference and I want to keep an eye on what I am eating, but he hasn't been counting and he is doing just fine! We're not eating "clean" (we still enjoy our deli meats for lunches and the occasional ice cream), we are just eating much healthier than we were before, and we're limiting a lot of the processed foods that we were eating. We're keeping the junk food and the trigger foods out of the house. Basically our new rule is that if a food has no nutrition value whatsoever, we don't even bother with it (unless it's something we're really craving, and in that case we just have a very small amount). I know this post is very long, but I'm just trying to share what my/our personal experience has been and how it's working for us.

And I'm not new at this... I lost 145 lbs several years ago by doing it the "wrong" way by eating low fat/low carb/chemical laden processed foods, and I lost the weight but I had several issues. I felt faint regularly and passed out several times, I had no muscle mass, and when it came to maintenance time I had no idea how to maintain my weight and eat a healthy balanced diet. I just want other people to hear what I have to say so that they don't fall into the same trap.

That is awesome for you! I'm glad that you have discovered how a healthy, balanced diet can support an active lifestyle - it will be great for you in the long run.

The rebuttal is that there are people on this website who have gained weight eating nothing but healthy, unprocessed food because they didn't limit their portion sizes for one reason or another.

I agree with you on the portion size thing... it's something that has always been a huge problem for me. That is why I'm continuing to track and measure out portions so that I can re-train myself so that I don't have to count calories for the rest of my life. I never was taught what a proper sized portion of meat was, or anything else for that matter. My family just didn't eat that way (as a lot of families don't). That's why I'm educating myself now to be able to live a "normal" life in the future. MFP has been an extremely valuable tool for me in that I'm holding myself accountable and measuring out portions to see what I SHOULD be eating.

I'm really happy with the support MFP provides for balanced eating. I did Weight Watcher years ago - it worked, but I think the MFP does a better job with driving you toward foods with a lot of micronutrients and exercise.

I will say that I agree - what works for some people doesn't work for everyone. Everyone has their own methods for weight loss, and it's awesome when you find the one that works for you. It's just my personal perspective that maintaining a healthy weight and proper nutrition is just as important as losing the weight in the first place, and it's easier to transition from weight loss to weight/nutrition maintenance if you have been practicing all along. I guess that's what I'm really trying to get at.

Well I thought this was going to develop into an argument - thankfully not as it looks like we are almost in agreement.

The only thing I would disagree on there is the paragraph 'and it's easier to transition from weight loss to weight/nutrition maintenance if you have been practicing all along' as unfortunately this isn't the case for me (I concede that I am in a tiny minority here)

I deliberately cycle my weigh throughout the year - almost always discouraged by the experts (yoyo dieting?)

So at any given time in a year I could be 100% eating healthy and exercising manically, or I relax my eating and exercise habits so that I put on a little extra weight. I probably fluctuate about 10-14 lbs a year between my ideal and my heaviest. It has worked for the past 7 or so years though.

Tried getting to my ideal weight and then maintaining, but it just doesn't work for me

I'm toying with doing a bulk/cut cycle through the year. You'd be exercising manically during the bulk, so it's a little different than what you are doing, but it might make a bit more sense for you.

I will say that I agree - what works for some people doesn't work for everyone. Everyone has their own methods for weight loss, and it's awesome when you find the one that works for you. It's just my personal perspective that maintaining a healthy weight and proper nutrition is just as important as losing the weight in the first place, and it's easier to transition from weight loss to weight/nutrition maintenance if you have been practicing all along. I guess that's what I'm really trying to get at.

Well I thought this was going to develop into an argument - thankfully not as it looks like we are almost in agreement.

The only thing I would disagree on there is the paragraph 'and it's easier to transition from weight loss to weight/nutrition maintenance if you have been practicing all along' as unfortunately this isn't the case for me (I concede that I am in a tiny minority here)

I deliberately cycle my weigh throughout the year - almost always discouraged by the experts (yoyo dieting?)

So at any given time in a year I could be 100% eating healthy and exercising manically, or I relax my eating and exercise habits so that I put on a little extra weight. I probably fluctuate about 10-14 lbs a year between my ideal and my heaviest. It has worked for the past 7 or so years though.

Tried getting to my ideal weight and then maintaining, but it just doesn't work for me

I'm toying with doing a bulk/cut cycle through the year. You'd be exercising manically during the bulk, so it's a little different than what you are doing, but it might make a bit more sense for you.

A little different yeah. Although not too different.
I wasn't exercising manically during my 'off season' but I was lifting heavy down the gym so although I put on weight, it was some muscle/some fat

Now I'm back giving it 100% (hence back wasting time on MFP!) so I'm still lifting heavy (for me) and doing much more cardio

I joked with my wife that I was in a 'bulking' phase before although in all honesty I was just cutting down on cardio and eating more!

They put arsenic in flour to whiten it.

I don't eat white flour/bread/rice... I do eat smart taste pasta which is still white pasta, but it was a compromise in my house because my husband won't eat the wheat pasta. I eat the wheat pasta when he's not around, though.

It's not 'any number of things' though. There are many things that can effect either side of the equation, yes. But the equation is still valid. Calories in must be less than calories out in order to lose weight. That is the simple beauty of it. It is so simple, that it confounds many people.

Yes. It's so simple it obviously confounds you.

CICO is not an equation. An equation would be CI - CO = CD (where CD is Caloric Deficit).

You admit that other things can factor either side of the "equation," yet you fail to see that CICO is incomplete. If other things can affect the equation, those things are factors, and they ought to be factored in to the equation. To ignore them is to have an incomplete equation.

I stand by what I said earlier: We should follow CICO (or CI - CO = CD). IF it doesn't work for some of us, we should try to find out why, because there is some other unaccounted for factor messing up the simple equation.

And the rest of us should not be judging those people having trouble or trying to impose our simpleton ideas on others.

I have made many posts pointing out that the different sides of the equation (and yes, I know what an equation is, and CICO is an equation, despite my not having implicitly typed out any mathematical symbols) will vary depending on the person. Varying a simple equation does not make it less simple. Figuring out the in and out sides of the simple equation may take some trial and error.

Actually, wouldn't the equation be CI < CO = CD? After all, you're trying to show that the calories out (CO) are greater than the calories in (CI). THAT'S what equals the calorie deficit. If the equation is calories in minus calories out equals calorie deficit, it's not necessarily true, unless the CI is less than the CO, which would leave a negative number.

Example: 1200 calories in - 300 calories out = 900 calories, which is not a deficit, so this is not a true statement.
of course, it COULD be 1200 calories in - 1500 calories out = deficit, which is true but not necessarily, depending upon the variables.

But, for CI < CO = CD, CI must be a smaller number than CO to make the statement true.
Example 1200 calories in < (less than) 1500 calories out = a deficit of 300 calories, which is also a true statement.

In your first example, neither of those can be true. If you end up with a deficit, the person will lose weight. The same for your second example. There is no scenario possible where a true deficit exists, and the person does not lose weight eventually.

This stuff isn’t food, it’s a combination of chemicals that looks and tastes like food

May I ask what you propose food is made of? This is a personal pet peeve of mine.

FOOD IS CHEMICALS!! EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE IS CHEMICALS!!

Get used to it.

Dihydrogen monoxide. If you found that on a packet would you worry it was a 'harmful chemical'? Especially if I told you that everybody who has consumed this particular chemical has died. It's H2O. Water.

It's easy to see how statements can be skewed to generate mistrust of certain (natural) compounds. This same logic is constantly used in all pseudo-science I've seen, enabling people to preach to the scientifically illiterate and justifying wild claims, even if supported by possibly one study from one lab.

Science is not "proven" if there are no repeats - that's simply bad science (a book by Ben Goldacre I thoroughly recommend). Simply because one paper claims something does not automatically make it true. It is the accumulation of evidence throughout many years that on the whole reaches a certain conclusion.

I say this because I am currently studying Physiology at university and my degree requires me to understand the physiological impacts of nutrition and I can safely say that calories are the ultimate way of controlling weight. It is a simple input:output ratio. If you consume more calories than you burn, you will lay down the extra calories as fat stores. If you eat less than you burn, you will break down the fat stores and use them to supply the required energy, resulting in decreased body fat.

I could go on, but I think it's probably time to end my rant here!! Sorry for going on so much, but I really think it's important for people to understand how to approach articles sporting miraculous claims that go against many of the scientific discoveries over the last century.

This stuff isn’t food, it’s a combination of chemicals that looks and tastes like food

May I ask what you propose food is made of? This is a personal pet peeve of mine.

FOOD IS CHEMICALS!! EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE IS CHEMICALS!!

Get used to it.

To offer a convincing argument refuting CICO, you'd have to show that the body sometimes stored energy as fat in preference to using it to meet immediate metabolic needs.

Why? I know I'm getting theoretical here, but we know that muscle is much harder to create than lose, why don't you think it's possible that the converse may be true for fat -- that perhaps it's easier to build than to lose? From an evolutionary standpoint, you'd think those that developed systems like that would have an advantage as food in abundance is a very modern change in our environment. So, it would seem in times of deprivation, those that could impede the loss of fat stores would have an advantage. Or the fact that most processes have an efficiency limitation -- some are highly efficient and some are highly inefficient. Why not think that weight loss (or fat loss) has some sort of such factor that isn't considered fully in CICO?

Otherwise, I just don't know how you make sense of the studies where there is dramatically different weight loss on calorically equal diets (like the one one I cited)? If it's all about calories in and calories out, there should have been relatively similar results (at least on the same macronutrient diets). And, yet, that wasn't the case.

The diets, regardless of their macro balance, had a calculated to a 400 cal deficit for the participants, over 16 weeks. With the deficit, they were expected to lose 6.1 kg -- which all of them did -- however, some lost considerably more and the authors can't account for it due to changes in RMR, intake or activity. The insulin sensitive women on a high carb diet lost 13.5% (average of 11.31 kg) of the bodyweight whereas their high fat counterparts lost 6.8% of their bodyweight (6.16 kg). They saw the inverse for those with insulin resistance. The insulin resistant women on a high fat diet lost 13.4% (11.11 kg) and the high carb version lost 8.6% (7.42 kg). How do you reconcile that? Perhaps a different mixture of muscle versus fat lost as they were comparing weight rather than fat or LBM losses? But, if that were the case, then the type of calories (macro balance) would make a dramatic difference in weight loss.

The study specifically speaks of greater expression of the FOXC2 gene in those groups that lost considerably more weight and that may impact either weight loss or energy expenditure, but freely admit that investigation into FOXC2 expression is in its infancy (and mostly in mice thus far) and needs to be explored further.

I notice that all the strict CICO folks have not addressed this other than to simply declare it impossible, despite evidence to the contrary. Unless the study is fundamentally flawed, how do you reconcile that?

Here's the study again, if you're interested: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/pdf

The article isn't taking on calorie counting, it's taking on the mindset of people who think that calories are the only thing that matters. Eating junk just isn't very good for you, even if you only eat a little bit of it.

True, but "not good for you" has nothing to do with weight loss.
People need to stop shoving weight loss and nutrition together, because really they are two separate things.

There is no scenario possible where a true deficit exists, and the person does not lose weight eventually.

Yeah that's hard to argue with. However would you concede that there are scenarios where a true calorie surplus exists and the person does not gain weight eventually

This stuff isn’t food, it’s a combination of chemicals that looks and tastes like food

May I ask what you propose food is made of? This is a personal pet peeve of mine.

FOOD IS CHEMICALS!! EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE IS CHEMICALS!!

Get used to it.

If you don't understand the difference between man-made chemicals that have only been eaten by man for the last 100 years, and the compounds that have been in our food since the beginning of time, you are really missing some critical thinking skills.