New research about different diets
Options
Replies
-
So 'decades of poorly done studies' done by the experts in the fields carry less weight than the vast knowledge of the MFP forum people, who because they have read a thousand times in the forums that a shallow deficit is the best for all people, refuse to believe evidence to the contrary. Despite that no one is suggesting that they themselves diet differently, just that they perhaps consider that their way is not the one correct way.
Fortunately I think most readers see the oddness in that and draw their own conclusions.
-2 -
Siege_Tank wrote: »
I don't know why this topic brings out so much venom in people, but it's time we stopped with the supposition and correlations and instead, honestly look for the truth, admitting we could be wrong about our ideas, and testing them to check for accuracy.
There isn't anything wrong with always questioning assumptions; that is the foundation of research. Not everyone, however, is a researcher. They want to cling to what they believe is true no matter the cost. Obvisiously, you are finding what works for you.
I notice a couple of flags for your post. Some people will flag you for saying the sky is blue when it is. Ignore them. Good luck.-2 -
You know, this article is kind of freeing for me. I am morbidly obese. Not only have I crossed that BMI line of 30.....I exceeded it. Now part is because of genetics and PCOS. But the other reason is because of emotional eating, binging when younger, and poor food choices. I get it. I lost 60 pounds last year. I lost 12 pounds this summer. I have struggled to drop another pound over the last 2.5 months. I play the calorie games, trying to reduce my calories in order to drop more weight, but fearful of losing muscle. So for me this says, "go ahead, be extreme in your calorie cutting for a short time its going to be ok" Then I can go back to eating at your BMR. This gives permission to experiment a little more to find what works. My lifestyle has changed. I am much healthier than I was last month, three months ago, and a year ago. So, its going to be a long drawn out process, but I don't have to stick to any rules, just focus on making healthy choices in food, exercise, and learn to listen to my body. That is Awesome!0
-
dangie2002 wrote: »You know, this article is kind of freeing for me. I am morbidly obese. Not only have I crossed that BMI line of 30.....I exceeded it. Now part is because of genetics and PCOS. But the other reason is because of emotional eating, binging when younger, and poor food choices. I get it. I lost 60 pounds last year. I lost 12 pounds this summer. I have struggled to drop another pound over the last 2.5 months. I play the calorie games, trying to reduce my calories in order to drop more weight, but fearful of losing muscle. So for me this says, "go ahead, be extreme in your calorie cutting for a short time its going to be ok" Then I can go back to eating at your BMR. This gives permission to experiment a little more to find what works. My lifestyle has changed. I am much healthier than I was last month, three months ago, and a year ago. So, its going to be a long drawn out process, but I don't have to stick to any rules, just focus on making healthy choices in food, exercise, and learn to listen to my body. That is Awesome!
I thought the same thing! Glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »So 'decades of poorly done studies' done by the experts in the fields carry less weight than the vast knowledge of the MFP forum people, who because they have read a thousand times in the forums that a shallow deficit is the best for all people, refuse to believe evidence to the contrary. Despite that no one is suggesting that they themselves diet differently, just that they perhaps consider that their way is not the one correct way.
Fortunately I think most readers see the oddness in that and draw their own conclusions.
Most psychologists nowadays reject the findings and some even completely dismiss Freud. Why? Because case studies are no longer considered an adequate way to come to a scientific conclusion.
As someone who works in political science, I have no problem saying that the "science" portion of political science is weak at best. Routinely, papers are published on either case studies or a "model" is made up and countries are found to fit said model. What does this tell us? Honestly, not a whole lot. Sometimes they're interesting and make you go, "Huh, ok, that's interesting" but scientifically, they're basically worthless.
I feel that in a lot of nutritional studies, they have reached the, "Huh, ok, that's interesting," but scientifically worthless stage. Hopefully, as more people become interested in both the field of study itself and researching it from a scientific vantage point, we will start seeing robust studies.
TL;DR: It's ok that the scientific study of nutrition is in its infancy since they all have to start somewhere. But let's stop pretending that a sample size of 20 is enough to say anything scientifically. Is it interesting? Yup - just not scientifically helpful at this point.
-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
I'm just super entertained that this post got flagged. While there is a perfect world for statistics, we don't live in it. Rare genetic disease could never be studied. EVER. Let alone all sorts of things that you have to control for. Studies are designed as best as they can with the resources they have. That's the real world. You read the study, you assess it's limitations and interpret the results accordingly. All of that is taken into account during peer review.
Lyle McDonald discusses in his book rapid fat loss, and it seems that a lot of people fail weight loss for different reasons. Because eating at a high deficit will give you fast results, it can boost your willpower to keep going. Essentially, you diet fast and hard. Then maintain for a while, diet fast and hard again. A lot of people use his method to make weight for competitions, but I could see how people who hate restricting for long periods would also like it.
No matter how you get there, keep it off is the hardest part it seems, and some people go with the "keep the habits I learned while keeping it slow and steady", others just choose an activity level for their maintenance/goal weight once they get there, and how they maintain may look nothing like what they did to lose.
Personally, I go through spurts of having good will power versus not, so I try to optimize those periods to lose "as much as possible" during those times. I'm not all that hardcore or low though. Good weight loss periods for me are only about 2lbs per week, and that's eating about 2000 calories a day.0 -
I stopped reading the link after sentence #3: "Losing weight any faster than 2lb a week has been linked to problems such as gallstones (because it upsets the balance of cholesterol in the body)"
Hogwash. Gallstones occur because very low calorie diets cause the gallbladder to excrete less bile. The bile becomes too concentrated in the gallbladder and this is what causes the stones to form. It has nothing to do with a cholesterol "imbalance" in the body.0 -
I stopped reading the link after sentence #3: "Losing weight any faster than 2lb a week has been linked to problems such as gallstones (because it upsets the balance of cholesterol in the body)"
Hogwash. Gallstones occur because very low calorie diets cause the gallbladder to excrete less bile. The bile becomes too concentrated in the gallbladder and this is what causes the stones to form. It has nothing to do with a cholesterol "imbalance" in the body.
Uhh, that was quoting the NHS website, and they quoted it to show how the new research said the opposite of most of the advice on government websites..
-1 -
See link above with thousands of participants across 29 studies.WalkingAlong wrote: »So 'decades of poorly done studies' done by the experts in the fields carry less weight than the vast knowledge of the MFP forum people, who because they have read a thousand times in the forums that a shallow deficit is the best for all people, refuse to believe evidence to the contrary. Despite that no one is suggesting that they themselves diet differently, just that they perhaps consider that their way is not the one correct way.
Fortunately I think most readers see the oddness in that and draw their own conclusions.
Most psychologists nowadays reject the findings and some even completely dismiss Freud. Why? Because case studies are no longer considered an adequate way to come to a scientific conclusion.
As someone who works in political science, I have no problem saying that the "science" portion of political science is weak at best. Routinely, papers are published on either case studies or a "model" is made up and countries are found to fit said model. What does this tell us? Honestly, not a whole lot. Sometimes they're interesting and make you go, "Huh, ok, that's interesting" but scientifically, they're basically worthless.
I feel that in a lot of nutritional studies, they have reached the, "Huh, ok, that's interesting," but scientifically worthless stage. Hopefully, as more people become interested in both the field of study itself and researching it from a scientific vantage point, we will start seeing robust studies.
TL;DR: It's ok that the scientific study of nutrition is in its infancy since they all have to start somewhere. But let's stop pretending that a sample size of 20 is enough to say anything scientifically. Is it interesting? Yup - just not scientifically helpful at this point.
See lack of *any* study posted anywhere that shows the opposite-- that shallow deficits cause better maintenance.
You have the right to ignore authorities. You even have the right to claim to be more authoritative yourself, based only on the passionate belief that you are. But you don't have the right to attack others for choosing to believe the actual authorities over the simply opinionated.
-2 -
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.
That's the problem everywhere. Too many are religiously tied to their own way and will "SMH" at you for doing it "wrong". They all work, but the one that works best is the one you stick with. Except crack. Crack is bad.-1 -
well Im all for fast weight loss but 400 cals a day for an adult male is pretty wacko.
My salads have more calories than that.-1 -
mcspiffy88 wrote: »well Im all for fast weight loss but 400 cals a day for an adult male is pretty wacko.
My salads have more calories than that.
^^^This
I personally am not interested in a VLCD. I got too hungry on 1200 calories. It is discouraging that people usually gain the weight back no matter how they lose it.
-1 -
mcspiffy88 wrote: »well Im all for fast weight loss but 400 cals a day for an adult male is pretty wacko.
My salads have more calories than that.
^^^This
I personally am not interested in a VLCD. I got too hungry on 1200 calories. It is discouraging that people usually gain the weight back no matter how they lose it.
Yeah, really. All this did was convince me that I'm doomed either way, so I may as well just go finish the 5 lbs of Halloween candy sitting on my table at home.
0 -
Siege_Tank wrote: »
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?
Err.
You altered my post. I didn't say anything about vaccines and autism - that data was fraudulent and we weren't discussing falsified research. Only the bit on vitamin C was mine, and I used it because that fallacy still has its supporters today.
And I don't miss the point of science at all. It's my field. When I critique research scientists, I'm critiquing myself as well.
I know exactly what the fields of biological sciences learn when they do this garbage. They learn that if they'd just done the study properly in the first place, they would have come to the correct conclusion sooner. They would have narrowed their field of drug targets, or feasible cancer treatments, or discovered that unfortunate side effect before a pharmaceutical hits the market. They might even have results that were *gasp* reproducible.0 -
It is discouraging that people usually gain the weight back no matter how they lose it.mcspiffy88 wrote: »well Im all for fast weight loss but 400 cals a day for an adult male is pretty wacko.
My salads have more calories than that.
It really is a sobering thought, isn't it?0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
See link above with thousands of participants across 29 studies.WalkingAlong wrote: »So 'decades of poorly done studies' done by the experts in the fields carry less weight than the vast knowledge of the MFP forum people, who because they have read a thousand times in the forums that a shallow deficit is the best for all people, refuse to believe evidence to the contrary. Despite that no one is suggesting that they themselves diet differently, just that they perhaps consider that their way is not the one correct way.
Fortunately I think most readers see the oddness in that and draw their own conclusions.
Most psychologists nowadays reject the findings and some even completely dismiss Freud. Why? Because case studies are no longer considered an adequate way to come to a scientific conclusion.
As someone who works in political science, I have no problem saying that the "science" portion of political science is weak at best. Routinely, papers are published on either case studies or a "model" is made up and countries are found to fit said model. What does this tell us? Honestly, not a whole lot. Sometimes they're interesting and make you go, "Huh, ok, that's interesting" but scientifically, they're basically worthless.
I feel that in a lot of nutritional studies, they have reached the, "Huh, ok, that's interesting," but scientifically worthless stage. Hopefully, as more people become interested in both the field of study itself and researching it from a scientific vantage point, we will start seeing robust studies.
TL;DR: It's ok that the scientific study of nutrition is in its infancy since they all have to start somewhere. But let's stop pretending that a sample size of 20 is enough to say anything scientifically. Is it interesting? Yup - just not scientifically helpful at this point.
See lack of *any* study posted anywhere that shows the opposite-- that shallow deficits cause better maintenance.
You have the right to ignore authorities. You even have the right to claim to be more authoritative yourself, based only on the passionate belief that you are. But you don't have the right to attack others for choosing to believe the actual authorities over the simply opinionated.
Or you could accept that questioning the validity of a study with 20 participants is part of the scientific process and the use of 20 participants to make generalizations across populations is discouraged in Statistics 101 and this doesn't make someone anti-science or having a zealot's mentality or ignoring authority.
But you can do you and I'll do me.
0 -
OP was not being hostile or defensive. The story is interesting- and it makes sense...when you lose weight faster--you are more encouraged than going at it slower.
Quit barking at him.-4 -
It is discouraging that people usually gain the weight back no matter how they lose it.mcspiffy88 wrote: »well Im all for fast weight loss but 400 cals a day for an adult male is pretty wacko.
My salads have more calories than that.
It really is a sobering thought, isn't it?
I was 375 pounds. Now I am 282 and still dropping. Honestly, if I can get under 200 and stay in that realm, I will likely have extended my life (and improve the quality of it) to a significant degree. Re-gaining sucks, I have done it (from 285 down to 215 and back to 375) but I feel like I personally have learned too much and have reached a better place in my life, to ever get back up there again. Frankly, I'd settle for overweight over a BMI of 55.
0 -
nicsflyingcircus wrote: »
It is discouraging that people usually gain the weight back no matter how they lose it.mcspiffy88 wrote: »well Im all for fast weight loss but 400 cals a day for an adult male is pretty wacko.
My salads have more calories than that.
It really is a sobering thought, isn't it?
I was 375 pounds. Now I am 282 and still dropping. Honestly, if I can get under 200 and stay in that realm, I will likely have extended my life (and improve the quality of it) to a significant degree. Re-gaining sucks, I have done it (from 285 down to 215 and back to 375) but I feel like I personally have learned too much and have reached a better place in my life, to ever get back up there again. Frankly, I'd settle for overweight over a BMI of 55.
55? Surely you meant to type some other number. That's a typo, right? (Edit: I didn't read it properly and thought you were aiming for 55. Sorry.)
I'm just trying to be serious about it. Committed, determined, sensible. Try not to fall into the trap of being cocky, lazy or stupid. If I can manage that and have a little luck, I will not gain it back. That's my plan so far. I know it needs more work.
Everyone has to do it their own way.-1 -
I do tend to think that lots of people on these forums are very judgmental about how people may chose to lose weight.
I have a food problem and have tried all sorts of ways to lose weight inc. MFP but have ended up giving up or getting back into old habits.
I'm currently going through my most successful stage of weight loss by doing a VLCD and having 600kcal per day (via shakes and bars) and have lost 54lb in 2 months. It's not for everyone but as an individual it is working for me. I know it's not a long term thing, hence reading all I can about how I can maintain using MFP, portion control, more exercise, etc.
To be honest I feel the best I have in such a long time and am now the lowest weight I have been for over 10 years. The fact that I consistently lose 4-5lb a week is one of the things that is helping keep me motivated, as the research pointed out.
Anyhow - the point I am making is that no form of weight loss is "right" for everyone.-1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions