The Worst Nutrition Advice in History (article)

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

From the paper: " although we cannot definitively rule out differences in energy intake as the etiology for the differences in weight loss, differences in energy expenditure seem to be a more plausible explanation."

Depending on their medical condition, the output side of the equation was effected. My wild guess? Those eating appropriately for their condition, felt better and moved more, resulting in more weight lost.

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.

They don't do that anymore because it's toxic. But, if you read up on how people used to adulterate food 200 years ago, you run into some pretty scary stuff. They weren't as, um, hippie as you'd expect.

They also plastered their faces with lead based paints and powders. :frown:

Essentially, our ancestors were us. They made all the same quick-fix, convenient, tasty choices that we do. They just had fewer options available.

However, they did the best they could do to screw up their bodies with the selection they had.

This thread is a perpetual motion machine.

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

From the paper: " although we cannot definitively rule out differences in energy intake as the etiology for the differences in weight loss, differences in energy expenditure seem to be a more plausible explanation."

Depending on their medical condition, the output side of the equation was effected. My wild guess? Those eating appropriately for their condition, felt better and moved more, resulting in more weight lost.

Except that they specifically said it couldn't be accounted for by activity. From what I read, they chalked it up to NEAT, not any activity/movement as they saw no appreciable difference.

NEAT stands for Non Exercise Activity. So if you felt better, you moved around more (in my example).

"NEAT comprises the energy expenditure of daily activities such as standing, walking, talking and sitting––all activities that are not considered planned physical activity of a person’s daily life."
http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/NeatLK.html

From the paper: " although we cannot definitively rule out differences in energy intake as the etiology for the differences in weight loss, differences in energy expenditure seem to be a more plausible explanation."

Depending on their medical condition, the output side of the equation was effected. My wild guess? Those eating appropriately for their condition, felt better and moved more, resulting in more weight lost.

Except that they specifically said it couldn't be accounted for by activity. From what I read, they chalked it up to NEAT, not any activity/movement as they saw no appreciable difference.

NEAT stands for Non Exercise Activity. So if you felt better, you moved around more (in my example).

"NEAT comprises the energy expenditure of daily activities such as standing, walking, talking and sitting––all activities that are not considered planned physical activity of a person’s daily life."
http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/NeatLK.html

True, true. That just seems like a huge difference from casual moving around more -- the equivalent of 400 calories. I realize they basically have to drop it into NEAT to stick with the current understanding of CICO. But, that's not very convincing for me. I wish there were more similar studies -- and perhaps there are -- I just haven't ran across them in my casual research.

It's not that big a difference if you look at the fidgeting studies.

It's just one example of how NEAT activity can add up to considerable calorie difference

Where does nutrition advice come from? I thought it was based upon what was then the most up to date science.

(Does anyone recall that scene is a very old Woody Allen movie where after being in a deep freeze for a hunger years he's awakened and they feed him twinkies and marbled steak cause their up to date science proves that the old up to date science was totally wrong?)

Where does nutrition advice come from? I thought it was based upon what was then the most up to date science.

(Does anyone recall that scene is a very old Woody Allen movie where after being in a deep freeze for a hunger years he's awakened and they feed him twinkies and marbled steak cause their up to date science proves that the old up to date science was totally wrong?)

"Sleeper" from 1973. Thanks for pointing out that it is "very old" because it came out when I was 10.

I'm confused by where it's going really... it sort of tries to use science to claim science is incorrect. Makes no sense.

The claims that the article calls bad were not based on science. They were based on popular perception and faulty logic.
Science is proving them false. That's the point.

Take that one about eggs for example: Long before anybody did any science on the matter, somebody somehow decided that saturated fat causes heart disease. The American Heart Association did a study to prove this idea; the study came back with no correlation whatsoever. At about the same time, somebody else was testing a drug that lowered cholesterol. That study showed a correlation between taking the drug and lower heart disease. It also showed a correlation between taking the drug and lowering cholesterol. So AHA made the logic leap to say that the drug lowered the risk for heart disease BECAUSE it lowered cholesterol, never considering that it may have done something else as well. That's the basis of the advice to eat less cholesterol to reduce heart disease. There was never any evidence.

It was years later that they completed the Women's Health Initiative which showed no correlation between eating cholesterol and heart disease.

I realize my experience is nothing but an anecdote, but does illustrate some of the issues brought up in the thread. I am one of those people who "magically" started gaining weight without changing anything. In fact, my first post here was about that. My daily calories were only slightly different when I went from losing steadily to gaining steadily. My weight chart looked like a perfect "V". The difference WAS medication for me - the understanding of how medications cause weight gain is really complex and in its infancy, and the mechanisms behind each are somewhat unique.

Being frustrated with "doing everything right" and not losing, I got my RMR tested. It was substantially lower than what is predicted for me, even taking into account body comp. So no, I wasn't doing everything right. Garbage in, garbage out, and my numbers for predicted calorie burn were absolute garbage for me. I was eating in a surplus or at best maintenance because formulas don't always work for people with medical conditions. Does that change the validity of CICO? Of course not. It just means I didn't have my equation balanced. I realize that I am in a very small minority, but having done testing throughout my attempts to control my weight, I have learned that in some rare cases, medications can dramatically and quickly change your RMR and thus calorie requirements. Eating a relatively small amount of calories already, that difference can be catastrophic in weight loss attempts.

Something else I never noticed, but was only pointed out to me by family, was that my NEAT was entirely different on and off medications. I have always been prone to fidgeting, but on my medications that was all but eliminated. It is not something I ever consciously noticed, but as others have said those calories really do add up in your TDEE.

In a study like the one mentioned for insulin resistant people and different macro distributions, is it not possible that low carb = better hormone levels = more energy for little movements throughout the day? That would being up TDEE, creating a larger deficit, which would account for extra weight loss. I didn't read the study as my computer won't load it for some reason, but I find it very hard to believe that it isn't prone to a LOT of confounding factors, especially since they were not in a metabolic ward. Sure, it brings up some interesting questions, but really doesn't prove anything until it is replicated with better control over variables - multiple times.

Basically what I am getting out is that it STILL comes down to CICO, however the equation is complex - if it's not working for you, you simply aren't in a deficit. THAT part is simple, the WHY behind the lack of a deficit is where is becomes hairy, especially for those with extra issues mucking things up.

I realize my experience is nothing but an anecdote, but does illustrate some of the issues brought up in the thread. I am one of those people who "magically" started gaining weight without changing anything. In fact, my first post here was about that. My daily calories were only slightly different when I went from losing steadily to gaining steadily. My weight chart looked like a perfect "V". The difference WAS medication for me - the understanding of how medications cause weight gain is really complex and in its infancy, and the mechanisms behind each are somewhat unique.

Being frustrated with "doing everything right" and not losing, I got my RMR tested. It was substantially lower than what is predicted for me, even taking into account body comp. So no, I wasn't doing everything right. Garbage in, garbage out, and my numbers for predicted calorie burn were absolute garbage for me. I was eating in a surplus or at best maintenance because formulas don't always work for people with medical conditions. Does that change the validity of CICO? Of course not. It just means I didn't have my equation balanced. I realize that I am in a very small minority, but having done testing throughout my attempts to control my weight, I have learned that in some rare cases, medications can dramatically and quickly change your RMR and thus calorie requirements. Eating a relatively small amount of calories already, that difference can be catastrophic in weight loss attempts.

Something else I never noticed, but was only pointed out to me by family, was that my NEAT was entirely different on and off medications. I have always been prone to fidgeting, but on my medications that was all but eliminated. It is not something I ever consciously noticed, but as others have said those calories really do add up in your TDEE.

In a study like the one mentioned for insulin resistant people and different macro distributions, is it not possible that low carb = better hormone levels = more energy for little movements throughout the day? That would being up TDEE, creating a larger deficit, which would account for extra weight loss. I didn't read the study as my computer won't load it for some reason, but I find it very hard to believe that it isn't prone to a LOT of confounding factors, especially since they were not in a metabolic ward. Sure, it brings up some interesting questions, but really doesn't prove anything until it is replicated with better control over variables - multiple times.

Basically what I am getting out is that it STILL comes down to CICO, however the equation is complex - if it's not working for you, you simply aren't in a deficit. THAT part is simple, the WHY behind the lack of a deficit is where is becomes hairy, especially for those with extra issues mucking things up.

Thank you!

Just think about it… the nutrients in a whole egg contain all the building blocks needed to turn a single fertilized cell into an entire baby chicken.

Good only if you are a baby chicken. Same with milk, only good if you are a calf.

Fantastic argument for eating ALL the foodz!

NEAT stands for Non Exercise Activity. So if you felt better, you moved around more (in my example).

"NEAT comprises the energy expenditure of daily activities such as standing, walking, talking and sitting––all activities that are not considered planned physical activity of a person’s daily life."
http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/NeatLK.html

True, true. That just seems like a huge difference from casual moving around more -- the equivalent of 400 calories. I realize they basically have to drop it into NEAT to stick with the current understanding of CICO. But, that's not very convincing for me. I wish there were more similar studies -- and perhaps there are -- I just haven't ran across them in my casual research.

It's not that big a difference if you look at the fidgeting studies.

Sure, between fidgeters and non-fidgeters. But, it's pretty crazy to think that the ones that were IS HC and IR HF all of sudden became fidgeters at the time of this trial. That's really stretching it to me.

Well, the participants were overweight already, so anything they did burned more calories than a non-obese person. According to my FitBit, my calorie burns on non-exercise days can range from 150 to 350, depending on whether I was sitting on the couch all day, or cleaning house and doing laundry, or walking around WalMart shopping. On days I work, if I'm sitting at my desk all day, I barely burn 200 over a sedentary setting. If I'm in the lab running experiments on my feet all day, I'll burn about 400. If I was a good deal heavier, those numbers would be quite a bit larger. So I can see how most, if not all the extra calories in the 'out' side of the equation could have been attributed to NEAT.

Where does nutrition advice come from? I thought it was based upon what was then the most up to date science.

(Does anyone recall that scene is a very old Woody Allen movie where after being in a deep freeze for a hunger years he's awakened and they feed him twinkies and marbled steak cause their up to date science proves that the old up to date science was totally wrong?)

"Sleeper" from 1973. Thanks for pointing out that it is "very old" because it came out when I was 10.

Don't feel too bad--I was 20.

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.

many chemicals that people on here complain about are derived from natural sources. I can't bring any specifically into the argument but I've seen many threads about them

The main example that springs to my mind is monosodium glutamate, or MSG, which is heralded as being a terrible man-made chemical put in food but is found in abundant quantities in nature. (Just an aside, I do agree that too much is bad for you, but too much of anything is bad for you!)

Also, I did find this today, which I think summarises what I was trying to say in my previous post about being wary of sources:
http://www.compoundchem.com/2014/04/02/a-rough-guide-to-spotting-bad-science

Hemlock could be grown organically. Botulism is as naturally occurring as yogurt.

Man made =/= bad

Natural =/= good

And the human species has probably been using food additives for 5000 years.