article: "5 really simple new rules for weight loss"

Why should it be ridiculed? Because it doesn't say what you want it to say? No one study should be considered the be all and end all, but this is one piece of the puzzle and adds to the body of knowledge.

Yeah, that strikes me as an odd finding to highlight. Even if the focus is on "long term weight management" I think it's hard to argue against the bennifits of knowing what you've put into your body (counting calories). Downplaying the importance of that knowledge in weightloss is silly. Thanks for sharing it!

This content has been removed.

crazyjerseygirl wrote: »

(Try to read this in the most pleasant voice possible, I couldn't get it to sound less snarky!)

Just because something works doesn't mean it's the most effective way to do something in a population. CICO works, but long term how many ppl keep it up? I want to, I know I have to, but will I? Maybe not. I'm great at rationalizing my own stupidity.
I think scientists try to find something that the majority of ppl can really stick with and after that gets filtered through "science journalism" you get lists like this. The scientists know it's CICO, but they also know that it doesn't work if you don't keep on top of the numbers.

This doesnt sound snarky to me at all..

The analysis given by the article writers, at least, is not very good.

The study is a longterm series of correlations between particular self-reported diets and weight (and other health issues often). It is one of many from the data kept on various health professionals (most famously the Nurses Study), and this specific one has been discussed here before, with an actual link to the study itself, if memory serves.

The article ignores that the analysis also found a link between red meat and processed meat (i.e., bacon) and weight gain, which is funny given how often it seems to be used by pro low carb types lately. Also, the list of foods correlated with weight loss--yogurt, chicken breast, seafood--are foods commonly eaten by people trying to control calories (vs. those who don't care). Also, of course, people motivated to follow health advice.

The biggest problem is the conclusion that eating these foods vs. counting calories makes more difference or that counting calories is not effective. The analysis doesn't support that at all. For all we know the reason people ate in certain ways vs. others was that they were counting calories or there is a correlation between those likely to eat healthy and those likely to care about weight.

Is it likely that people who choose to eat lots of veggies and lean meats tend to eat lower calorie diets or diets more in tune with their activity levels than those who tend to eat lots of fast food and what is often termed junk food? Sure, but that doesn't seem especially surprising and it doesn't tell us much about the direction of the causal factors.

Personally, if you look at my diet when I've been my fattest and when I've been my thinnest, my diet when thin is better. Is that because my diet caused me to be thinner (beyond calories)? Or is it because I tend to eat better (and also am more active) when I care about staying thin or being healthy? And thus I also do other things that are in tune with those goals also.

Tl;dr - link to the actual study (probably) mentioned in the article at the bottom.

ETA: EvgeniZyntx has beaten me to it, and he found the one in AJCN. Bonus - we know have two studies to discuss...
/ETA

This article is entirely useless since it's written in magazine-speak. Useless to defend because it's not clear what it says and useless to "ridicule" even if someone was inclined to (I refuse to take that part of OP's post seriously), because it would be ridiculing/attacking a straw man. If you want to have a real discussion about their findings, link to the study!

To save you the work, I tried to find it - he has many publications but the one that comes closest in terms of number of participants and timeline was actually published in a different journal, here is the link below, I am assuming that is what the article is referring to:

Changes in Diet and Lifestyle and Long-Term Weight Gain in Women and Men

Notice that the article is misleading already in the title - apparently they did not study weight loss but weight gain, or the lack of it, long-term. Huuuuuuuge difference right there.

I haven't read it yet but it am going to now. Enjoy.

Wiseandcurious wrote: »

This article is entirely useless since it's written in magazine-speak. Useless to defend because it's not clear what it says and useless to "ridicule" even if someone was inclined to (I refuse to take that part of OP's post seriously), because it would be ridiculing/attacking a straw man. If you want to have a real discussion about their findings, link to the study!

I think it's totally fair to ridicule the reporting of the study and not the study itself.

I find the correlation analyses of the Nurse's and other related data quite interesting.

I also find the way it's reported to be typically incorrect or even ridiculous.

MrM27 wrote: »

All of the above tactics matter more. “Most interestingly, the combination of foods seems to make a big difference,” said senior author Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, in a statement. “Our study adds to growing new research that counting calories is not the most effective strategy for long-term weight management and prevention.”


I wonder how they can say what is or isn't the most effective strategy when at the end of the day thesuccess rate with any approach is very poor.

^This. I don't think there's any one most effective strategy. People are different. What clicks for one won't click for someone else. Promoting the idea that there's probably a magic bullet and that they're onto it is the most ridiculous thing in that piece.

Counting calories is NOT the best approach for a lot of people because it does not suit their personality and they won't adhere to it. Clearly, for them, some sort of dietary approach would be best.

Nothing will work if you can't stick with it.

I'm concerned that they advise to load up on nuts for protein... My personal opinion is that too many people believe nuts are a healthy choice (go, healthy fats!), so they eat too many to stay within their daily calorie allotment if they aren't counting calories. I could eat a whole lot of mixed nuts (like, a half a container...) and still be ready for dinner in an hour. Just a minor take-away from the article...

PolythenePam910 wrote: »

Once again, the news, which is supposed to be our source of up to date facts and truth...

News has NEVER been - nor was it ever meant to be - "our source of up to date facts and truth".

crazyjerseygirl wrote: »

It

PolythenePam910 wrote: »

I dream of a day when the experts will finally agree on something and we can all live in harmony.

Its called "Medicine"

Two doctors, three opinions.

Nope....

The key term here is "long term". While counting calories works well for weight loss, that doesn't mean it works well for long term maintenance. Realistically, I don't see myself logging everything I eat for the rest of my life, so either I'm going to do something else, or I'll gain weight

TimothyFish wrote: »

The key term here is "long term". While counting calories works well for weight loss, that doesn't mean it works well for long term maintenance. Realistically, I don't see myself logging everything I eat for the rest of my life, so either I'm going to do something else, or I'll gain weight

FOR YOU. Again, generalizing doesn't work.

There's no one solution. For some people, continued counting/logging works very well.

CICO for weight management is like abstinence for birth control. Obviously it works, but it only works if you actually do it, or in the case of abstinence, it works if you don't "do it". Clearly for the vast majority of people, calorie counting is not something which is long term sustainable For them. I'm happy for scientists to carry on looking at other ways which have a better compliance rate.