The Worst Nutrition Advice in History (article)

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.

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.

This is not how nutrition works.

Seaweed, only good if you are a manatee.
Bananas, only good if you are an orangutan.
Fish, only good if you are a dolphin.
Coconuts, only good if you're stranded on a desert island.

No.

Well, we eat chicken and calves, so shouldn't eating the pre-chicken or pre-calf get us some of the same nutritional benefits?

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.

This is not how nutrition works.

Seaweed, only good if you are a manatee.
Bananas, only good if you are an orangutan.
Fish, only good if you are a dolphin.
Coconuts, only good if you're stranded on a desert island.

No.

Well, we eat chicken and calves, so shouldn't eating the pre-chicken or pre-calf get us some of the same nutritional benefits?

I think there is some confusion here, as I agree with you :P