article: "5 really simple new rules for weight loss"
Options
Replies
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »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
That's making the assumption that just because you have success with counting and logging calories with an app like this the no one will have success with now being aware of the calories and macros in foods without having to track day in and day out. There are people that do have continued success.
I don't know what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could edit for grammar, so we all know what you are trying to say.mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
I've got no problem with that. I'm just pointing out that not everyone is going to count calories for the rest of their lives, so we shouldn't discount what the article says, just because some of the MFP community think they will count calories from now on. Not everyone is like you.
But the study has NOTHING to do with calorie counting.
This can't be stressed enough.
These observational studies are disease prevalence studies. Not dietary strategy studies.
Consider the questionnaires for Nurses Health (included in the meta analysis):
http://www.channing.harvard.edu/nhs/?page_id=246
How many questionnaires can you find that even mention calorie counting?
Consider a technique x in population y. If only a very small percent of the population is even trying the technique - it could be much more successful within this group - but it will be statistically insignificant because of infrequency of use. Or it can be drowned out by reported use due to question bias - "Have you ever counted calories for weight loss?" Yeah, I tired it for a week, didn't work - gets reported as "yes" - oh, did t lose weight? Calorie counting doesn't work!
These studies are next to useless in post study analysis of this type. They aren't intended for this.
It's also why the are so bad communicating results about: people that eat yogurt lost weight or people that eat cheese gained weight. No the yogurt/cheese aren't causing the loss or gain but one is likely part of the cornocopia of someone trying to eat healthy (those commercials on active culture of yogurts really sell "health") and cheese is, in a lot of American recipes, an add on to other primary meal elements (pasta, burgers, etc) served in sauces, melted, etc... The study only points to people eating with more sauces, etc. The same type of evaluation of French diet (where cheese is recognized as a more stand alone food) doesn't show the same population with weight gain...
Based on these type of studies, having a Dean of Nutrition state that "calorie counting doesn't work" is a nice sound bite, but both spacious and a disservice to patients.
do you mean specious?
anyway, let's him speak:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHTsJR0fuIs
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »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
That's making the assumption that just because you have success with counting and logging calories with an app like this the no one will have success with now being aware of the calories and macros in foods without having to track day in and day out. There are people that do have continued success.
I don't know what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could edit for grammar, so we all know what you are trying to say.mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
I've got no problem with that. I'm just pointing out that not everyone is going to count calories for the rest of their lives, so we shouldn't discount what the article says, just because some of the MFP community think they will count calories from now on. Not everyone is like you.
But the study has NOTHING to do with calorie counting.
I wouldn't know, since I haven't seen the study, but Dr. Mozaffarian, who authored the study seems to think it did. I tend to think the people who did a study are more likely to know what they did than someone who has just read their work.
Wait, you are arguing about a study you haven't read or seen - because the senior investigator said something something?
You are aware that he isn't the primary investigator? That he didn't do the research, or the analysis? That at best he funded, review the work and set guidelines?
That the comment he made is nowhere to be seen in the publication?
The comment he made in the article is one that interprets what he believes the study indicates, along with some other studies, which he didn't name, so we have no way of knowing which ones he had in mind. I'm not ready to say he is wrong without additional information, but some of the comments in this thread indicate that some people want to say he is wrong, pretty much because it doesn't match what they believe to be true and because they don't like the guy. I think that what we have to consider is that beyond the short period when they are trying to lose weight, it is very hard for some people to remain vigilant in their weight management efforts. Does the study in question have anything to do with that problem? I don't know, but I do see counting calories as something that not everyone will continue long term. So, counting calories is probably not the ideal solution to the obesity problem.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »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
That's making the assumption that just because you have success with counting and logging calories with an app like this the no one will have success with now being aware of the calories and macros in foods without having to track day in and day out. There are people that do have continued success.
I don't know what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could edit for grammar, so we all know what you are trying to say.mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
I've got no problem with that. I'm just pointing out that not everyone is going to count calories for the rest of their lives, so we shouldn't discount what the article says, just because some of the MFP community think they will count calories from now on. Not everyone is like you.
But the study has NOTHING to do with calorie counting.
I wouldn't know, since I haven't seen the study, but Dr. Mozaffarian, who authored the study seems to think it did. I tend to think the people who did a study are more likely to know what they did than someone who has just read their work.
Wait, you are arguing about a study you haven't read or seen - because the senior investigator said something something?
You are aware that he isn't the primary investigator? That he didn't do the research, or the analysis? That at best he funded, review the work and set guidelines?
That the comment he made is nowhere to be seen in the publication?
The comment he made in the article is one that interprets what he believes the study indicates, along with some other studies, which he didn't name, so we have no way of knowing which ones he had in mind. I'm not ready to say he is wrong without additional information, but some of the comments in this thread indicate that some people want to say he is wrong, pretty much because it doesn't match what they believe to be true and because they don't like the guy. I think that what we have to consider is that beyond the short period when they are trying to lose weight, it is very hard for some people to remain vigilant in their weight management efforts. Does the study in question have anything to do with that problem? I don't know, but I do see counting calories as something that not everyone will continue long term. So, counting calories is probably not the ideal solution to the obesity problem.
I believe that the negative comments of Mamapeach were referred to Dr Ludwig, this one:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/david-ludwig/
Dr Mozaffarian is this one:
http://www.nutrition.tufts.edu/dean/bio
who also teaches at Harvard:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/dariush-mozaffarian/0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »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
That's making the assumption that just because you have success with counting and logging calories with an app like this the no one will have success with now being aware of the calories and macros in foods without having to track day in and day out. There are people that do have continued success.
I don't know what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could edit for grammar, so we all know what you are trying to say.mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
I've got no problem with that. I'm just pointing out that not everyone is going to count calories for the rest of their lives, so we shouldn't discount what the article says, just because some of the MFP community think they will count calories from now on. Not everyone is like you.
But the study has NOTHING to do with calorie counting.
I wouldn't know, since I haven't seen the study, but Dr. Mozaffarian, who authored the study seems to think it did. I tend to think the people who did a study are more likely to know what they did than someone who has just read their work.
Wait, you are arguing about a study you haven't read or seen - because the senior investigator said something something?
You are aware that he isn't the primary investigator? That he didn't do the research, or the analysis? That at best he funded, review the work and set guidelines?
That the comment he made is nowhere to be seen in the publication?
The comment he made in the article is one that interprets what he believes the study indicates, along with some other studies, which he didn't name, so we have no way of knowing which ones he had in mind. I'm not ready to say he is wrong without additional information, but some of the comments in this thread indicate that some people want to say he is wrong, pretty much because it doesn't match what they believe to be true and because they don't like the guy. I think that what we have to consider is that beyond the short period when they are trying to lose weight, it is very hard for some people to remain vigilant in their weight management efforts. Does the study in question have anything to do with that problem? I don't know, but I do see counting calories as something that not everyone will continue long term. So, counting calories is probably not the ideal solution to the obesity problem.
So you are accusing people of having bias based on your self-reported unsupported bias. Ok.
Here is a thought - there is no 'ideal solution' to the 'obesity problem'. There are a bunch of different tools and approaches, some work for some people some of the time. Anyone stating x doesn't work fails to see that actually x (whatever x maybe) works for some people.0 -
I started doing this based upon the recommendation of a nurse with my insurance company, who took me on as my health coach. I gained 50 pounds after taking care of parents before they died and completely letting myself go. I am not doing so well with losing the weight (and only just started, really). But even though I've been upset about my weight my entire life (even when I was pretty close to the ideal BMI) and have counted calories and been on every diet invented, for nearly a decade I have not. I thought I had a rough idea of what I eat, but logging for me has been eye opening about how much in denial I have been. What is true is that not much works if you don't do it and all lifestyle change programs have pretty dismal statistics. But some people do manage to change their behavior. While I do think there are people who through medicines or metabolism or genes have great difficulty losing weight even on very few calories, I thought I knew where my weight came from and knew it was poor food choices. I love the New York Times health section, but most of these kinds of articles are really, really depressing because what you want when you're trying to make a change is encouragement, I think. But yes, other than issues with metabolism, etc., whether one is on an Adkins diet, a Mediterranean diet, the paleo diet, cutting out higher glycemic index foods, or the alcoholic's diet of booze and very little nutrition, those who eat fewer calories will almost always be thinner than those who eat more--all else about their activity and fat-burning capacity being roughly even. It's hard to get there however one tries to get there--for those of us who have to struggle with it. And unfortunately, I have seen many people succeed with Lite for Life (LGI), Adkins, gastric bypass, and lap bands, and I have also seen all of these fail. Whatever is limited requires choices. Not choosing is also a choice, I have found, but inertia is easier than effort. But nothing is worse than giving in?0
-
The best part here is that what they really are saying is eat less calories. Just do it our way, not by counting calories like you are a peasant or something equally as foul. They keep refereing to 'people eating this...' without giving us any idea of which people it is. There is no link to the study, so we can't verify the data, look at method or even read their conclusion.
1 - grains, starches, and sugars tend to be high in calories. Eating less of them means less calories.
2 - protein-rich foods tend to fill me up quickly, so less calories.
3 - full-fat dairy...eh...
4 - eat your vegetables. oh, and red meat for some reason? why specifically red meat you say? No idea.
5 - don't worry about calories, you can eat as much as you want as long as it's doesn't have a high glycemic load.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »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
That's making the assumption that just because you have success with counting and logging calories with an app like this the no one will have success with now being aware of the calories and macros in foods without having to track day in and day out. There are people that do have continued success.
I don't know what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could edit for grammar, so we all know what you are trying to say.mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
I've got no problem with that. I'm just pointing out that not everyone is going to count calories for the rest of their lives, so we shouldn't discount what the article says, just because some of the MFP community think they will count calories from now on. Not everyone is like you.
But the study has NOTHING to do with calorie counting.
This can't be stressed enough.
These observational studies are disease prevalence studies. Not dietary strategy studies.
Consider the questionnaires for Nurses Health (included in the meta analysis):
http://www.channing.harvard.edu/nhs/?page_id=246
How many questionnaires can you find that even mention calorie counting?
Consider a technique x in population y. If only a very small percent of the population is even trying the technique - it could be much more successful within this group - but it will be statistically insignificant because of infrequency of use. Or it can be drowned out by reported use due to question bias - "Have you ever counted calories for weight loss?" Yeah, I tired it for a week, didn't work - gets reported as "yes" - oh, did t lose weight? Calorie counting doesn't work!
These studies are next to useless in post study analysis of this type. They aren't intended for this.
It's also why the are so bad communicating results about: people that eat yogurt lost weight or people that eat cheese gained weight. No the yogurt/cheese aren't causing the loss or gain but one is likely part of the cornocopia of someone trying to eat healthy (those commercials on active culture of yogurts really sell "health") and cheese is, in a lot of American recipes, an add on to other primary meal elements (pasta, burgers, etc) served in sauces, melted, etc... The study only points to people eating with more sauces, etc. The same type of evaluation of French diet (where cheese is recognized as a more stand alone food) doesn't show the same population with weight gain...
Based on these type of studies, having a Dean of Nutrition state that "calorie counting doesn't work" is a nice sound bite, but both spacious and a disservice to patients.
do you mean specious?
anyway, let's him speak:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHTsJR0fuIs
Do you mean let?
(Yes, I misspelled specious).
There is actually a pretty good resume of his position on the Tuft site - he focuses on evidence that Glycemic Index choices might correlate weight gain/loss.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »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
That's making the assumption that just because you have success with counting and logging calories with an app like this the no one will have success with now being aware of the calories and macros in foods without having to track day in and day out. There are people that do have continued success.
I don't know what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could edit for grammar, so we all know what you are trying to say.mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
I've got no problem with that. I'm just pointing out that not everyone is going to count calories for the rest of their lives, so we shouldn't discount what the article says, just because some of the MFP community think they will count calories from now on. Not everyone is like you.
No, I'm not discounting what the article has to say because it's an alternative to calorie counting.
<snip>
For some people, sure, eating in a certain way will probably give them a good way to achieve energy balance. But it's NOT, as the article asserted, THE answer.
There is no "THE" answer.
I believe there is. The "THE" answer is CICO. However, there is no EASY answer because, although brilliantly effective, counting calories for the rest of your life requires effort and commitment.
The easy answer will only come when a miracle pill is finally invented that only allows a certain # of calories to be absorbed each day, regardless of what you eat. Oh, and also has no side effects.
Now *that* would be easy.
0 -
I think this might be the study:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/101/5/897.full
But I am not paying $25 to find out.
EDIT: On second look, it might not be it. This is confusing.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »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
That's making the assumption that just because you have success with counting and logging calories with an app like this the no one will have success with now being aware of the calories and macros in foods without having to track day in and day out. There are people that do have continued success.
I don't know what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could edit for grammar, so we all know what you are trying to say.mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
I've got no problem with that. I'm just pointing out that not everyone is going to count calories for the rest of their lives, so we shouldn't discount what the article says, just because some of the MFP community think they will count calories from now on. Not everyone is like you.
But the study has NOTHING to do with calorie counting.
I wouldn't know, since I haven't seen the study, but Dr. Mozaffarian, who authored the study seems to think it did. I tend to think the people who did a study are more likely to know what they did than someone who has just read their work.
Wait, you are arguing about a study you haven't read or seen - because the senior investigator said something something?
You are aware that he isn't the primary investigator? That he didn't do the research, or the analysis? That at best he funded, review the work and set guidelines?
That the comment he made is nowhere to be seen in the publication?
The comment he made in the article is one that interprets what he believes the study indicates, along with some other studies, which he didn't name, so we have no way of knowing which ones he had in mind. I'm not ready to say he is wrong without additional information, but some of the comments in this thread indicate that some people want to say he is wrong, pretty much because it doesn't match what they believe to be true and because they don't like the guy. I think that what we have to consider is that beyond the short period when they are trying to lose weight, it is very hard for some people to remain vigilant in their weight management efforts. Does the study in question have anything to do with that problem? I don't know, but I do see counting calories as something that not everyone will continue long term. So, counting calories is probably not the ideal solution to the obesity problem.
So you are accusing people of having bias based on your self-reported unsupported bias. Ok.
Here is a thought - there is no 'ideal solution' to the 'obesity problem'. There are a bunch of different tools and approaches, some work for some people some of the time. Anyone stating x doesn't work fails to see that actually x (whatever x maybe) works for some people.
The obesity problem that I was referring to is the fact that 78 million American adults and I don't know how many world wide are obese. Most of these people either have no desire to lose weight or are unsuccessful.0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »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
That's making the assumption that just because you have success with counting and logging calories with an app like this the no one will have success with now being aware of the calories and macros in foods without having to track day in and day out. There are people that do have continued success.
I don't know what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could edit for grammar, so we all know what you are trying to say.mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
I've got no problem with that. I'm just pointing out that not everyone is going to count calories for the rest of their lives, so we shouldn't discount what the article says, just because some of the MFP community think they will count calories from now on. Not everyone is like you.
No, I'm not discounting what the article has to say because it's an alternative to calorie counting.
<snip>
For some people, sure, eating in a certain way will probably give them a good way to achieve energy balance. But it's NOT, as the article asserted, THE answer.
There is no "THE" answer.
I believe there is. The "THE" answer is CICO. However, there is no EASY answer because, although brilliantly effective, counting calories for the rest of your life requires effort and commitment.
The easy answer will only come when a miracle pill is finally invented that only allows a certain # of calories to be absorbed each day, regardless of what you eat. Oh, and also has no side effects.
Now *that* would be easy.
I'm sure your miracle pill would make people in the wealthy countries very happy, but it would have a detrimental effect on the world's food supply. If we all weren't so wealthy, we would be concerned about where our next meal would come from, so the ideal situation would be for us to be able to do more with less food. Wealth has caused us to think that what we need is a way we can eat as much as we like.0 -
Lukyanenko wrote: »I think this might be the study:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/101/5/897.full
But I am not paying $25 to find out.
EDIT: On second look, it might not be it. This is confusing.
No, the study he discussed is this one - http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2015/04/08/ajcn.114.100867.abstract
(He mention it in the video at 38 min)
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »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
That's making the assumption that just because you have success with counting and logging calories with an app like this the no one will have success with now being aware of the calories and macros in foods without having to track day in and day out. There are people that do have continued success.
I don't know what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could edit for grammar, so we all know what you are trying to say.mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
I've got no problem with that. I'm just pointing out that not everyone is going to count calories for the rest of their lives, so we shouldn't discount what the article says, just because some of the MFP community think they will count calories from now on. Not everyone is like you.
No, I'm not discounting what the article has to say because it's an alternative to calorie counting.
<snip>
For some people, sure, eating in a certain way will probably give them a good way to achieve energy balance. But it's NOT, as the article asserted, THE answer.
There is no "THE" answer.
I believe there is. The "THE" answer is CICO. However, there is no EASY answer because, although brilliantly effective, counting calories for the rest of your life requires effort and commitment.
The easy answer will only come when a miracle pill is finally invented that only allows a certain # of calories to be absorbed each day, regardless of what you eat. Oh, and also has no side effects.
Now *that* would be easy.
I'm sure your miracle pill would make people in the wealthy countries very happy, but it would have a detrimental effect on the world's food supply. If we all weren't so wealthy, we would be concerned about where our next meal would come from, so the ideal situation would be for us to be able to do more with less food. Wealth has caused us to think that what we need is a way we can eat as much as we like.
Most people that can afford to eat, eat for pleasure as much as to fuel the body. Even people who have limited funds for food don't automatically make the best nutritional choices with their limited resources. Look to the obesity epidemic at *all* socio-economic levels in North America for evidence of that.
So even if a pill was developed that allows us to "do more with less food," add in the human factor of food-as-pleasure, and, unfortunately, we're back to square one.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »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
That's making the assumption that just because you have success with counting and logging calories with an app like this the no one will have success with now being aware of the calories and macros in foods without having to track day in and day out. There are people that do have continued success.
I don't know what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could edit for grammar, so we all know what you are trying to say.mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
I've got no problem with that. I'm just pointing out that not everyone is going to count calories for the rest of their lives, so we shouldn't discount what the article says, just because some of the MFP community think they will count calories from now on. Not everyone is like you.
But the study has NOTHING to do with calorie counting.
I wouldn't know, since I haven't seen the study, but Dr. Mozaffarian, who authored the study seems to think it did. I tend to think the people who did a study are more likely to know what they did than someone who has just read their work.
Wait, you are arguing about a study you haven't read or seen - because the senior investigator said something something?
You are aware that he isn't the primary investigator? That he didn't do the research, or the analysis? That at best he funded, review the work and set guidelines?
That the comment he made is nowhere to be seen in the publication?
The comment he made in the article is one that interprets what he believes the study indicates, along with some other studies, which he didn't name, so we have no way of knowing which ones he had in mind. I'm not ready to say he is wrong without additional information, but some of the comments in this thread indicate that some people want to say he is wrong, pretty much because it doesn't match what they believe to be true and because they don't like the guy. I think that what we have to consider is that beyond the short period when they are trying to lose weight, it is very hard for some people to remain vigilant in their weight management efforts. Does the study in question have anything to do with that problem? I don't know, but I do see counting calories as something that not everyone will continue long term. So, counting calories is probably not the ideal solution to the obesity problem.
So you are accusing people of having bias based on your self-reported unsupported bias. Ok.
Here is a thought - there is no 'ideal solution' to the 'obesity problem'. There are a bunch of different tools and approaches, some work for some people some of the time. Anyone stating x doesn't work fails to see that actually x (whatever x maybe) works for some people.
The obesity problem that I was referring to is the fact that 78 million American adults and I don't know how many world wide are obese. Most of these people either have no desire to lose weight or are unsuccessful.
Yes. We can work with that definition. A bunch of people all over the world are obese and may not want to lose or are unsuccessful. What does he say about that? Not much since he's looking at preventive behavior.
He actually states that calorie counting "will work" - and for those that don't count or in the absence of calorie control "low carb" is a better strategy than "low fat".
It's interesting to note that the glycemic index stuff shows results of what type improvement? 1/2lb to 1lb change per YEAR for 50 units of difference in Glycemic Load (in other words the difference between the top 20% and bottom 20% population.
All this noise about 1 lb a year by avoiding (maybe) a bunch of foods like potatoes. Much ado about nothing.
The video presentation is very interesting worth listening to and stopping to look at the data here and there.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »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
That's making the assumption that just because you have success with counting and logging calories with an app like this the no one will have success with now being aware of the calories and macros in foods without having to track day in and day out. There are people that do have continued success.
I don't know what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could edit for grammar, so we all know what you are trying to say.mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
I've got no problem with that. I'm just pointing out that not everyone is going to count calories for the rest of their lives, so we shouldn't discount what the article says, just because some of the MFP community think they will count calories from now on. Not everyone is like you.
But the study has NOTHING to do with calorie counting.
I wouldn't know, since I haven't seen the study, but Dr. Mozaffarian, who authored the study seems to think it did. I tend to think the people who did a study are more likely to know what they did than someone who has just read their work.
Wait, you are arguing about a study you haven't read or seen - because the senior investigator said something something?
You are aware that he isn't the primary investigator? That he didn't do the research, or the analysis? That at best he funded, review the work and set guidelines?
That the comment he made is nowhere to be seen in the publication?
The comment he made in the article is one that interprets what he believes the study indicates, along with some other studies, which he didn't name, so we have no way of knowing which ones he had in mind. I'm not ready to say he is wrong without additional information, but some of the comments in this thread indicate that some people want to say he is wrong, pretty much because it doesn't match what they believe to be true and because they don't like the guy. I think that what we have to consider is that beyond the short period when they are trying to lose weight, it is very hard for some people to remain vigilant in their weight management efforts. Does the study in question have anything to do with that problem? I don't know, but I do see counting calories as something that not everyone will continue long term. So, counting calories is probably not the ideal solution to the obesity problem.
So you are accusing people of having bias based on your self-reported unsupported bias. Ok.
Here is a thought - there is no 'ideal solution' to the 'obesity problem'. There are a bunch of different tools and approaches, some work for some people some of the time. Anyone stating x doesn't work fails to see that actually x (whatever x maybe) works for some people.
The obesity problem that I was referring to is the fact that 78 million American adults and I don't know how many world wide are obese. Most of these people either have no desire to lose weight or are unsuccessful.
Yes. We can work with that definition. A bunch of people all over the world are obese and may not want to lose or are unsuccessful. What does he say about that? Not much since he's looking at preventive behavior.
He actually states that calorie counting "will work" - and for those that don't count or in the absence of calorie control "low carb" is a better strategy than "low fat".
It's interesting to note that the glycemic index stuff shows results of what type improvement? 1/2lb to 1lb change per YEAR for 50 units of difference in Glycemic Load (in other words the difference between the top 20% and bottom 20% population.
All this noise about 1 lb a year by avoiding (maybe) a bunch of foods like potatoes. Much ado about nothing.
The video presentation is very interesting worth listening to and stopping to look at the data here and there.
Also, focusing on GL ignores obvious correlations which may have more relevance.
Do people who eat lots of potatoes tend to gain weight because potatoes have high GL and so they get you to eat more or some such? Or if we look more carefully will we see that a large portion of those eating lots of potatoes also don't eat non-starchy vegetables and that a large portion of those people tend to eat most of their potatoes in chip or french fry form? If you focus on other sorts of potatoes, the correlation with gaining weight mostly goes away.
So is it GL? Or is it that there's a correlation between eating lots of fast food and gaining weight?
(This same kind of argument is the problem with the saturated fat conclusions from studies like these too.)
In any case, it goes farther--as Tim noted, the obesity issue involves many people who don't care that much about losing weight and those who can't. Are those who, for whatever reason, eat fast food a LOT and don't eat non starchy veggies likely to be disproportionally in the group of those who don't care that much about watching their diet, given that they are acting contrary to prevailing health advice? Seems likely to me. And if not, isn't it at least likely that something else is going on that makes them unable to follow health advice or people who choose not to?
So to conclude from this that the answer is to make it even more complicated and have them focus on GL, as if the problem were that current health advice is bad as opposed to people having trouble (or not wanting to) follow health advice seems wrong.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »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
That's making the assumption that just because you have success with counting and logging calories with an app like this the no one will have success with now being aware of the calories and macros in foods without having to track day in and day out. There are people that do have continued success.
I don't know what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could edit for grammar, so we all know what you are trying to say.mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
I've got no problem with that. I'm just pointing out that not everyone is going to count calories for the rest of their lives, so we shouldn't discount what the article says, just because some of the MFP community think they will count calories from now on. Not everyone is like you.
No, I'm not discounting what the article has to say because it's an alternative to calorie counting.
<snip>
For some people, sure, eating in a certain way will probably give them a good way to achieve energy balance. But it's NOT, as the article asserted, THE answer.
There is no "THE" answer.
I believe there is. The "THE" answer is CICO. However, there is no EASY answer because, although brilliantly effective, counting calories for the rest of your life requires effort and commitment.
The easy answer will only come when a miracle pill is finally invented that only allows a certain # of calories to be absorbed each day, regardless of what you eat. Oh, and also has no side effects.
Now *that* would be easy.
I'm sure your miracle pill would make people in the wealthy countries very happy, but it would have a detrimental effect on the world's food supply. If we all weren't so wealthy, we would be concerned about where our next meal would come from, so the ideal situation would be for us to be able to do more with less food. Wealth has caused us to think that what we need is a way we can eat as much as we like.
This might be the silliest thing I have heard in a long time.
So explain how someone who experiences poverty also experiences obesity. There are very inexpensive ways to eat at a calorie surplus.
Additionally the idea that there is global hunger and that it has anything to do with the wealthy eating more of their share instead of it being a systemic problem of lack of access is absolutely preposterous. If a wealthy person eats less that does not equal out to more food in the mouth of an impoverished person.
What you have to realize is that we have a skewed sense of poverty. In wealthy countries, many of the people in poverty own automobiles and televisions, and they can afford to take their families to a fast food restaurant at least once a week. In much of the world, poverty doesn't look like that. In much of the world, if a person has a bowl of rice, he's doing good. Transportation isn't going out and climbing into the family's SUV, but climbing into the back of a pickup owned by someone wealthier than you, or riding a rusty bicycle, or just walking. If poverty in wealthy countries looked anything like poverty in the rest of the world, we wouldn't see much obesity among the impoverished.
Can you imagine what would happen if 313 million Americans could eat two or three times what they do now without gaining weight? About half of what American farmers grow is exported. Those exports would end to satisfy the lusts of Americans.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »
Thanks for posting that.
It is a very interesting presentation and puts some meat and counters the misquotes of the linked OP article.
My notes:
19' - calories matter more than composition for 1 year loss. Calorie counting "will work".
21' - "can't count" then low carb gave better results in absence of calorie control.
29' - looking at weight gain prevention evaluated dietary habits every 2 yrs in these studies [therefore should not be used for weight loss or short term control discussions - absolutely not about weight loss with calorie counting] certainly more focused about maintenance and lifestyle changes.
30' - 35' increase in serving counts of certain foods shows weight change (up for potatoes/fries, down for veggies, yogurt) [yet fails to consider that these increase in servings are offsetting foods or that there is a satiety factor]
37' - exercise is an important and independent factor to weight maintenance.
38' - covers the smith article in the OP - 1/2-1 lb change per year per 50 units GL??? [lol]
39' - the focus of his work is to look at carb quality - carbs make up about 50% of diet and 90% tend to be 'poor' [according to him] so how to define a metric for carb quality. Glycemic Index, Solid, Whole Grain, High fiber. With possibly the biggest focus on fiber and GI.
42' - no evidence that there is any difference between added sugar from natural sugar [ I like this guy]
44' an excellent take home: look at ratio of carbs to fiber: < 5:1 excellent choice.
47' - protective association between diary and diabetes (esp. yogurt and cheese)
52' - present whole food mixing or associations (not necessarily intra meal) [unfortunately doesn't spend too much time here - and let's be realists the scale is 1 to 2 lbs per 4 years (lololo)]
57' - higher metabolism during weight loss at low GL and higher Fat - ebbed in get al JAMA 2012 [oh, worth checking out...]
101 - diet quality influences weight gain & metabolism - not just eat less but eat better, conventional wisdom misleading: it's not just total cals, fat content, energy density, added sugars or eat what you want in moderation.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »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
That's making the assumption that just because you have success with counting and logging calories with an app like this the no one will have success with now being aware of the calories and macros in foods without having to track day in and day out. There are people that do have continued success.
I don't know what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could edit for grammar, so we all know what you are trying to say.mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
I've got no problem with that. I'm just pointing out that not everyone is going to count calories for the rest of their lives, so we shouldn't discount what the article says, just because some of the MFP community think they will count calories from now on. Not everyone is like you.
No, I'm not discounting what the article has to say because it's an alternative to calorie counting.
<snip>
For some people, sure, eating in a certain way will probably give them a good way to achieve energy balance. But it's NOT, as the article asserted, THE answer.
There is no "THE" answer.
I believe there is. The "THE" answer is CICO. However, there is no EASY answer because, although brilliantly effective, counting calories for the rest of your life requires effort and commitment.
The easy answer will only come when a miracle pill is finally invented that only allows a certain # of calories to be absorbed each day, regardless of what you eat. Oh, and also has no side effects.
Now *that* would be easy.
I'm sure your miracle pill would make people in the wealthy countries very happy, but it would have a detrimental effect on the world's food supply. If we all weren't so wealthy, we would be concerned about where our next meal would come from, so the ideal situation would be for us to be able to do more with less food. Wealth has caused us to think that what we need is a way we can eat as much as we like.
This might be the silliest thing I have heard in a long time.
So explain how someone who experiences poverty also experiences obesity. There are very inexpensive ways to eat at a calorie surplus.
Additionally the idea that there is global hunger and that it has anything to do with the wealthy eating more of their share instead of it being a systemic problem of lack of access is absolutely preposterous. If a wealthy person eats less that does not equal out to more food in the mouth of an impoverished person.
What you have to realize is that we have a skewed sense of poverty. In wealthy countries, many of the people in poverty own automobiles and televisions, and they can afford to take their families to a fast food restaurant at least once a week. In much of the world, poverty doesn't look like that. In much of the world, if a person has a bowl of rice, he's doing good. Transportation isn't going out and climbing into the family's SUV, but climbing into the back of a pickup owned by someone wealthier than you, or riding a rusty bicycle, or just walking. If poverty in wealthy countries looked anything like poverty in the rest of the world, we wouldn't see much obesity among the impoverished.
Can you imagine what would happen if 313 million Americans could eat two or three times what they do now without gaining weight? About half of what American farmers grow is exported. Those exports would end to satisfy the lusts of Americans.
Just.....no. I live in England, a wealthy country. Do you know what poverty looks like over here? Food banks. Walking everywhere because you can't even afford the bus. Selling your soul to the council who will shack you up in a dilapidated, mould infested s*** hole just so you at least have a roof over your head.
If anyone needs to re-evaluate their skewed sense of poverty, that would be you. Until you have lived it, don't judge it, or you are going to offend a lot of people.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »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
That's making the assumption that just because you have success with counting and logging calories with an app like this the no one will have success with now being aware of the calories and macros in foods without having to track day in and day out. There are people that do have continued success.
I don't know what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could edit for grammar, so we all know what you are trying to say.mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
I've got no problem with that. I'm just pointing out that not everyone is going to count calories for the rest of their lives, so we shouldn't discount what the article says, just because some of the MFP community think they will count calories from now on. Not everyone is like you.
But the study has NOTHING to do with calorie counting.
I wouldn't know, since I haven't seen the study, but Dr. Mozaffarian, who authored the study seems to think it did. I tend to think the people who did a study are more likely to know what they did than someone who has just read their work.
Wait, you are arguing about a study you haven't read or seen - because the senior investigator said something something?
You are aware that he isn't the primary investigator? That he didn't do the research, or the analysis? That at best he funded, review the work and set guidelines?
That the comment he made is nowhere to be seen in the publication?
The comment he made in the article is one that interprets what he believes the study indicates, along with some other studies, which he didn't name, so we have no way of knowing which ones he had in mind. I'm not ready to say he is wrong without additional information, but some of the comments in this thread indicate that some people want to say he is wrong, pretty much because it doesn't match what they believe to be true and because they don't like the guy. I think that what we have to consider is that beyond the short period when they are trying to lose weight, it is very hard for some people to remain vigilant in their weight management efforts. Does the study in question have anything to do with that problem? I don't know, but I do see counting calories as something that not everyone will continue long term. So, counting calories is probably not the ideal solution to the obesity problem.
So you are accusing people of having bias based on your self-reported unsupported bias. Ok.
Here is a thought - there is no 'ideal solution' to the 'obesity problem'. There are a bunch of different tools and approaches, some work for some people some of the time. Anyone stating x doesn't work fails to see that actually x (whatever x maybe) works for some people.
The obesity problem that I was referring to is the fact that 78 million American adults and I don't know how many world wide are obese. Most of these people either have no desire to lose weight or are unsuccessful.
Yes. We can work with that definition. A bunch of people all over the world are obese and may not want to lose or are unsuccessful. What does he say about that? Not much since he's looking at preventive behavior.
He actually states that calorie counting "will work" - and for those that don't count or in the absence of calorie control "low carb" is a better strategy than "low fat".
It's interesting to note that the glycemic index stuff shows results of what type improvement? 1/2lb to 1lb change per YEAR for 50 units of difference in Glycemic Load (in other words the difference between the top 20% and bottom 20% population.
All this noise about 1 lb a year by avoiding (maybe) a bunch of foods like potatoes. Much ado about nothing.
The video presentation is very interesting worth listening to and stopping to look at the data here and there.
Also, focusing on GL ignores obvious correlations which may have more relevance.
Do people who eat lots of potatoes tend to gain weight because potatoes have high GL and so they get you to eat more or some such? Or if we look more carefully will we see that a large portion of those eating lots of potatoes also don't eat non-starchy vegetables and that a large portion of those people tend to eat most of their potatoes in chip or french fry form? If you focus on other sorts of potatoes, the correlation with gaining weight mostly goes away.
So is it GL? Or is it that there's a correlation between eating lots of fast food and gaining weight?
(This same kind of argument is the problem with the saturated fat conclusions from studies like these too.)
In any case, it goes farther--as Tim noted, the obesity issue involves many people who don't care that much about losing weight and those who can't. Are those who, for whatever reason, eat fast food a LOT and don't eat non starchy veggies likely to be disproportionally in the group of those who don't care that much about watching their diet, given that they are acting contrary to prevailing health advice? Seems likely to me. And if not, isn't it at least likely that something else is going on that makes them unable to follow health advice or people who choose not to?
So to conclude from this that the answer is to make it even more complicated and have them focus on GL, as if the problem were that current health advice is bad as opposed to people having trouble (or not wanting to) follow health advice seems wrong.
-1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 392 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 929 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions