New research about different diets
Options
Replies
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
All that shows is that lots of credentials and peer reviewing doesn't mean you're going to end up with a reasonably designed study.
OP's description says the "goal" was to lose 15% of body weight in 12 weeks, yet one group was set up with a 500 calorie a day (3500 calorie week, or approximately one pound a week) deficit, meaning they could be expected to lose 12 pounds over the course of the study. All participants were obese. How many obese individuals do you know for whom 12 pounds is 15% of their body weight? In other words, how many obese individuals do you know who weigh 80 pounds? So essentially, they designed a study which guaranteed failure for one of the two groups. How does that prove anything?
Then, apparently, they either started with too few participants, or the methods they chose for both groups are less likely to achieve long term success than the methods used by dieters as a whole. There are dieters who have successfully maintained their losses (see the National Weight Control Registry, for example, http://www.nwcr.ws/http://nwcr.ws/). To say that their two groups were equally unsuccessful in maintaining losses suggests that they didn't start with a large enough group to make it likely that there would be any successes (e.g., if successful maintainers are about 2% of the population of dieters, and they only had 10 people in each group, the odds were that they wouldn't find any successful dieters, and they would really need a much larger group to be able to turn up any statistically significant difference between the two subgroups in chances for successful maintenance).
Sorry to quote you again, but there is so much truth to what you typed out.
For them to even have a chance at seeing a statistically significant difference, they would have to have 1000's of people in this study.
This is just another of a myriad of examples where studies are done with no understanding of adequate sample sizes. Seriously, don't take every study at face value. Many times the people performing the studies don't have an adequate understanding of statistics (this is from someone who has worked in research and knows a lot of people who do research).0 -
I'm glad it worked for you. And...ketosis works for others...CICO works for others...low-carb works for others...surgery works for others and praying to the magical weight loss gods works for others.
And there's a study for every.single.one.-1 -
There are many studies that showed the same result, some with thousands of participants.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1208051#t=articleResults
Though I guess if you believe that PhDs in the field and peer review panels don't understand science or statistics and are publishing drivel, there is your hole to punch in them all.-3 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Too bad they didn't have your expertise on their peer review panel to set them all straight. Stupid Lancet Journal of Diabetes and Endocrinology, doing it wrong.lynn_glenmont wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
All that shows is that lots of credentials and peer reviewing doesn't mean you're going to end up with a reasonably designed study.
I
you. -1 -
Sorry to quote you again, but there is so much truth to what you typed out.
For them to even have a chance at seeing a statistically significant difference, they would have to have 1000's of people in this study.
This is just another of a myriad of examples where studies are done with no understanding of adequate sample sizes. Seriously, don't take every study at face value. Many times the people performing the studies don't have an adequate understanding of statistics (this is from someone who has worked in research and knows a lot of people who do research).
So, the fact that they didn't have enough money to do the study properly (because to get the kind of sample size you want, with the accuracy you demand, would require something like paying a large group of people enough money to get them to agree to stay in a controlled setting, to *actually* measure food intake, because without that, food intake is self reported, and therefore completely suspect.)
In my mind, any data set is going to be better than no data set at all.
But that's just me. We know what we don't know, and we know that we're wrong (some of us anyways). We just don't have the money to throw at an all inclusive, accurate study right now.
Edited to fix quote boxes.
-1 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »There are many studies that showed the same result, some with thousands of participants.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1208051#t=articleResults
Though I guess if you believe that PhDs in the field and peer review panels don't understand science or statistics and are publishing drivel, there is your hole to punch in them all.
My point is that this particular study has statistics issues with sample size. It's a valid point.
People should use caution when using studies because there are lazy PhDs out there who don't understand statistics, just like there are incompetent in any field. That doesn't mean that they ALL are, but you need to actually read the studies and use your brain in interpreting them. Just because I don't trust this study, doesn't mean I don't believe in science. (It's the same thing as thinking that every doctor is always right just because they have the MD).
There have been larger studies (like the National Weight Control Registry) that all confirm that maintenance is the problem. I would be much more interested in a study that focuses on different maintenance techniques.
0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »There are many studies that showed the same result, some with thousands of participants.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1208051#t=articleResults
Though I guess if you believe that PhDs in the field and peer review panels don't understand science or statistics and are publishing drivel, there is your hole to punch in them all.
My point is that this particular study has statistics issues with sample size. It's a valid point.
I guess I'd have to chime in and say that I don't think you understood, that article quoted *several* different new studies. Some were more dee dee dee than others, but all had data.. and we know the dee dee dee studies when we see them.
Am I wrong in my conclusion that a lot of people are out there just trying to look for a way to discredit and discount new information as coming from a flawed study, and therefore they can continue to believe what they want to believe?
-1 -
This one was a meta-analysis that aggregated results from 29 other studies, and thousands of participants.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11684524-2 -
I find this very interesting. My biggest concern for eating less than 1200 calories a day is that I will damage my metabolism by not giving it enough to burn, but if that's not the case than great, less to worry about I guess if I'm under.-1
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »This one was a meta-analysis that aggregated results from 29 other studies, and thousands of participants.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11684524
What I find interesting in that study is that the group with the highest amount of weight lost and the highest maintenance average (53.8%!) is the higher exercise group. Points to the importance of an exercise regimen when maintaining weight. I think that's important info to know.
ETA: Sorry, that's not in the abstract, only in the full text.
0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »There are many studies that showed the same result, some with thousands of participants.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1208051#t=articleResults
Though I guess if you believe that PhDs in the field and peer review panels don't understand science or statistics and are publishing drivel, there is your hole to punch in them all.
There have been larger studies (like the National Weight Control Registry) that all confirm that maintenance is the problem. I would be much more interested in a study that focuses on different maintenance techniques.
But the study isn't about maintenance techniques. It is a study comparing how you get to maintenance and the effect of that with regards to long term success. There is an oft-quoted mantra on MFP that slow weight loss = successful weight loss. This study provides a different perspective on that.0 -
brntwaffles27 wrote: »I find this very interesting. My biggest concern for eating less than 1200 calories a day is that I will damage my metabolism by not giving it enough to burn, but if that's not the case than great, less to worry about I guess if I'm under.
The data seems to show that, if you are obese or overweight, calorie reductions have little effect on metabolic activity over the long term. No data supports the notion that starvation causes damage to the human metabolism, lowering it permanently. The data does show that ANY weight loss, even though unhealthy in the short term, improves every measure we have of "Healthy" From body mass index to blood pressure to blood glucose levels to cholesterol.
Even the starvation guy from the 1970's who ate nothing (under doctor's supervision) in the 1970's as a last ditch effort to lose weight doesn't have any lasting damage to his metabolism today. He's above his lowest weight after his 380 day fast, but he still didn't go back up to obese. He's overweight now, like most of us.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/
Several others who tried to duplicate his success died when it came time for them to start refeeding, but the point is, his metabolism isn't damaged. We haven't replicated the results with a larger sample because who wants to do a study that very well might cost human lives?
Ramadan and other, shorter fasts all improve our markers for health, on almost every level.
I just don't know why what I just said can't be part of the discussion. Aren't we looking for truth, and what *actually* works, as opposed to what we *believe* will work best?
I'm not saying lets all fast, I'm saying let's stop saying that fasting and eating less will damage metabolisms. Because that statement is grounded in misinformation.
Edited to correct spelling.0 -
I think people need to do what feels good to them and what is sustainable to them. If you don't think you could do what you are doing for the rest of your life, then it's probably not gonna work in the long run.0
-
Siege_Tank wrote: »
Sorry to quote you again, but there is so much truth to what you typed out.
For them to even have a chance at seeing a statistically significant difference, they would have to have 1000's of people in this study.
This is just another of a myriad of examples where studies are done with no understanding of adequate sample sizes. Seriously, don't take every study at face value. Many times the people performing the studies don't have an adequate understanding of statistics (this is from someone who has worked in research and knows a lot of people who do research).
So, the fact that they didn't have enough money to do the study properly (because to get the kind of sample size you want, with the accuracy you demand, would require something like paying a large group of people enough money to get them to agree to stay in a controlled setting, to *actually* measure food intake, because without that, food intake is self reported, and therefore completely suspect.)
In my mind, any data set is going to be better than no data set at all.
But that's just me. We know what we don't know, and we know that we're wrong (some of us anyways). We just don't have the money to throw at an all inclusive, accurate study right now.
Edited to fix quote boxes.
That's just not true. Too small of a sample size skews the data and is considered (by many) to be unethical. (Too large can also be a problem if you're doing something like a placebo group because you're denying care to a group that needs it. This is not necessarily a problem in weight loss studies unless you're trying something extreme.)
Here's a few links for further reading:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493004/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12117401
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8017747But the study isn't about maintenance techniques. It is a study comparing how you get to maintenance and the effect of that with regards to long term success. There is an oft-quoted mantra on MFP that slow weight loss = successful weight loss. This study provides a different perspective on that.
I'm not arguing about the efficacy of VLCD vs slow weight loss. I've seen enough studies to understand that it really doesn't matter which method you use. It's your preference. What matters is your long term maintenance. My issue with this study is about the statistics of it, not the premise.
I understand this study wasn't about maintenance techniques, which is why I would like to see one on maintenance techniques.0 -
Siege_Tank wrote: »
Sorry to quote you again, but there is so much truth to what you typed out.
For them to even have a chance at seeing a statistically significant difference, they would have to have 1000's of people in this study.
This is just another of a myriad of examples where studies are done with no understanding of adequate sample sizes. Seriously, don't take every study at face value. Many times the people performing the studies don't have an adequate understanding of statistics (this is from someone who has worked in research and knows a lot of people who do research).
So, the fact that they didn't have enough money to do the study properly (because to get the kind of sample size you want, with the accuracy you demand, would require something like paying a large group of people enough money to get them to agree to stay in a controlled setting, to *actually* measure food intake, because without that, food intake is self reported, and therefore completely suspect.)
In my mind, any data set is going to be better than no data set at all.
But that's just me. We know what we don't know, and we know that we're wrong (some of us anyways). We just don't have the money to throw at an all inclusive, accurate study right now.
Edited to fix quote boxes.
No.
You know what "any data set" gets you? Years of effort and millions of dollars wasted chasing phantom rabbits down holes. And then double that as later Investigators spend time and money disproving the initial erroneous studies.
Meanwhile, the media has run with whatever popular science version of the original studies exist and the next thing you know, taking vitamin C by the bucket-load cures cancer, or some other such crap.-2 -
Siege_Tank wrote: »
Sorry to quote you again, but there is so much truth to what you typed out.
For them to even have a chance at seeing a statistically significant difference, they would have to have 1000's of people in this study.
This is just another of a myriad of examples where studies are done with no understanding of adequate sample sizes. Seriously, don't take every study at face value. Many times the people performing the studies don't have an adequate understanding of statistics (this is from someone who has worked in research and knows a lot of people who do research).
So, the fact that they didn't have enough money to do the study properly (because to get the kind of sample size you want, with the accuracy you demand, would require something like paying a large group of people enough money to get them to agree to stay in a controlled setting, to *actually* measure food intake, because without that, food intake is self reported, and therefore completely suspect.)
In my mind, any data set is going to be better than no data set at all.
But that's just me. We know what we don't know, and we know that we're wrong (some of us anyways). We just don't have the money to throw at an all inclusive, accurate study right now.
Edited to fix quote boxes.
No.
You know what "any data set" gets you? Years of effort and millions of dollars wasted chasing phantom rabbits down holes. And then double that as later Investigators spend time and money disproving the initial erroneous studies.
Meanwhile, the media has run with whatever popular science version of the original studies exist and the next thing you know, taking vitamin C by the bucket-load cures cancer, or some other such crap.
Or saying that vaccines cause autism even though the one and only study that showed a link was retracted.0 -
I've maintained my weight through two things...logging once a week, and eating mostly the same things everyday. Changing it up weekly. The reason I log only once a week, is because I mostly eat the same stuff. That way I don't get paranoid, and I still know I'm doing good without having to log.
Most low calorie diets are just too boring for me. Can you imagine eating the same meals for months on end to lose 50+ pounds? Some people might, but I can't. I become bored with the meals too quickly.
Don't think I myself will give that a try any time soon again.-2 -
No.
You know what "any data set" gets you? Years of effort and millions of dollars wasted chasing phantom rabbits down holes. And then double that as later Investigators spend time and money disproving the initial erroneous studies.
Meanwhile, the media has run with whatever popular science version of the original studies exist and the next thing you know, taking vitamin C by the bucket-load cures cancer, or some other such crap.
Or saying that vaccines cause autism even though the one and only study that showed a link was retracted.
You miss the point of science completely. Even a wrong answer provides information and direction on where or which direction the right answer lies.
With your vaccine thing.. The original study was flawed right when it came out, and several people denounced it for what it was. Only zealots took the study and tried to blame their child's autism on vaccines laced with a small amount of mercury (used as a preservative) as a result.
Now there are plenty of different studies, all done in different countries that now definitively answer that there is no link between autism and vaccines.
And you have no way of knowing just WHAT the scientific community learned from having that discussion.
Because of that false assumption and bad study, it spurred everyone else to test and retest the saftey and effectiveness of our vaccines.
Why is that a bad thing? Don't we, as humans, learn from our mistakes? And isn't that one of the only ways we really learn?
And dare I ask why my posts get flagged for abuse?-1 -
SingRunTing wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
All that shows is that lots of credentials and peer reviewing doesn't mean you're going to end up with a reasonably designed study.
OP's description says the "goal" was to lose 15% of body weight in 12 weeks, yet one group was set up with a 500 calorie a day (3500 calorie week, or approximately one pound a week) deficit, meaning they could be expected to lose 12 pounds over the course of the study. All participants were obese. How many obese individuals do you know for whom 12 pounds is 15% of their body weight? In other words, how many obese individuals do you know who weigh 80 pounds? So essentially, they designed a study which guaranteed failure for one of the two groups. How does that prove anything?
Then, apparently, they either started with too few participants, or the methods they chose for both groups are less likely to achieve long term success than the methods used by dieters as a whole. There are dieters who have successfully maintained their losses (see the National Weight Control Registry, for example, http://www.nwcr.ws/http://nwcr.ws/). To say that their two groups were equally unsuccessful in maintaining losses suggests that they didn't start with a large enough group to make it likely that there would be any successes (e.g., if successful maintainers are about 2% of the population of dieters, and they only had 10 people in each group, the odds were that they wouldn't find any successful dieters, and they would really need a much larger group to be able to turn up any statistically significant difference between the two subgroups in chances for successful maintenance).
Sorry to quote you again, but there is so much truth to what you typed out.
For them to even have a chance at seeing a statistically significant difference, they would have to have 1000's of people in this study.
This is just another of a myriad of examples where studies are done with no understanding of adequate sample sizes. Seriously, don't take every study at face value. Many times the people performing the studies don't have an adequate understanding of statistics (this is from someone who has worked in research and knows a lot of people who do research).
Ding ding ding! The study set out to prove that folks could not achieve an aggressive weight loss goal on a moderate deficit (regardless of what the study claims to investigate), and proves this hypothesis correct, within a sample size so small that any results could reasonably be considered statistical outliers to the general population's expected results.-2 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »This one was a meta-analysis that aggregated results from 29 other studies, and thousands of participants.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11684524
Like others here, I'm not really in disagreement that VLCDs work to lose weight. I mean, yes you'll lose more LBM than if you had a smaller deficit, but that's not nearly as much of a problem if you're obese than if you're close to healthy weight.
But these studies are just overall pretty poor. Frankly, it's hard to find one in nutritional sciences that isn't. And a meta-analysis of a bunch of poorly done studies is not going to improve the quality of the findings.-2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions