New research about different diets
Replies
-
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Or saying that vaccines cause autism even though the one and only study that showed a link was retracted.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 -
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: »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 -
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: »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 -
In for picking out sections.0
-
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.
And I got flagged for saying the sky is blue in this post.
You didn't say sky blue-2 -
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.
It could be that, but also concern that people are doing this safely. That is great progress. You told me a little about the program before. That sounds better than something someone is doing on their own, when you check in regularly. At least to me.-1 -
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?
Just wanted to clarify an additional point. I'd have added it in my earlier post, but, you know ... work.
What I find funny about this whole post is the bolded bit. Of all the examples to use ...
Yes, I know exactly what the scientific community learned from the discussions about vaccines and autism. I know because my current field of research is Immunology. About a third of our faculty are involved in vaccine research. I've spent 5 years working on a major NIH grant studying basic immunological effects of various vaccines with an aim to use that knowledge to improve efficacy.
I know that we learned that it is incredibly difficult to convince parents to vaccinate their children against real threats like mumps and chicken pox and hepatitis when they are afraid that they might cause their child to become autistic. I know that children have died because of that fear. My guess is that this fear will never entirely go away.-1 -
i couldn't agree more with the OP/article.-1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions