article: "5 really simple new rules for weight loss"
Options
Replies
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
More to follow...
Thanks for the cliffs, don't have time to watch right now.
-1 -
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.
Hah! YES! YES! YES! It has to be a total lifestyle change and not a "weigh your food and make sure you're not eating too much today", "Do I have enough calories 'banked' that I can eat that cookie?" kind of mindset.
If you have to obsess over every morsel you put in your mouth, you are doomed to either complete and total failure or a complete and totally abysmal life, never allowing yourself to just live without the anchor of worrying about what you eat and whether you should or not!
A WAY of life and not a WEIGH of life!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.
Tim, don't quantify poverty.
You're equating what's considered the poverty threshold by the government for reporting purposes with a real state of living and are subscribing to a really ugly myth.
A lot of Americans DO live in poverty.
-1 -
NoIdea101NoIdea wrote: »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.
But do you see much obesity among those who are walking because they can't afford the bus? I was asked to explain why there is obesity among poor people.0 -
PolythenePam910 wrote: »Once again, the news, which is supposed to be our source of up to date facts and truth, publishes something like this. The fifth rule instructs to quit obsessing over counting calories. “Our study adds to growing new research that counting calories is not the most effective strategy for long-term weight management and prevention.”
WAT?
I am posting this article for you to gawk at and ridicule. I in no way endorse it.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/simple-rules-weight-loss/story?id=31243000
PolythenePam910 thanks for sharing this news link that is based on the current medical evidence about a healthy eating lifestyle. The new book by the title, The World Turned Upside Down supports this article with science.
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.
Honestly you are arguing just to argue. Then you make sweeping generalized statements about how you think everything is or should be.
You never answered the question, do you think there are people of here that have lost the weight while on MFP and still continue to log during maintenance?
Honestly, I have no intention of answering the question. If you have something to say, by all means, say it. Please don't try to make your point by asking me questions.0 -
For some of us, counting calories is the only guarantee for success. It's like saying 'Don't worry about whether or not you have enough money in your checking account; if you think you do then just spend freely until you think you've maxed out your debit card.' What could possibly go wrong with that kind of thinking, right?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.
Apparently not - the correlation seemed to remain. Remember this is observational - causality is going to be very open to interpretation. I'm not taking that leap.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.
But that isn't the conclusion the researchers are making. They are basically saying - replace "eat less, move more" with "eat less, eat better, move more" and look at preventive measures such as less processed (in terms of higher fiber, lower GI), lower carb might influence CICO as a preventive element rather than focus only on total cals, low fat, no added sugar or eat anything but in moderation. I have to say it's close to my bias of "eat variety, high in local produce - including high veg/fruits".0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
Thanks for this. I will actually put in the time to watch now that there's some indication it may be worth it.0 -
tekkiechikk wrote: »For some of us, counting calories is the only guarantee for success. It's like saying 'Don't worry about whether or not you have enough money in your checking account; if you think you do then just spend freely until you think you've maxed out your debit card.' What could possibly go wrong with that kind of thinking, right?
Straw man arguments are always best, don't you think?0 -
ReeseG4350 wrote: »If you have to obsess over every morsel you put in your mouth, you are doomed to either complete and total failure or a complete and totally abysmal life, never allowing yourself to just live without the anchor of worrying about what you eat and whether you should or not!
If this is how you are using MFP, IMO you are doing it wrong.
I don't think "calorie counting" in all of its various forms means agonizing about every morsel you put in your mouth. I think there's a certain personality type that tends to do that, regardless of the strategy chosen, and also a certain disordered way of thinking about food (often associated with eating well makes me "good" and eating poorly makes me "bad" that very often goes along with it.
I don't think that is especially associated with calorie counting.
Telling yourself that being aware of what you are eating must be so burdensome and tedious is a good way to be self-defeating, though.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
Apparently not - the correlation seemed to remain. Remember this is observational - causality is going to be very open to interpretation. I'm not taking that leap.
The stats I saw before indicated that most of it went away, but I need to hunt them down again, I guess.
I understand you aren't taking the leap; I'm just arguing against some of the common leaps as unsupported.But that isn't the conclusion the researchers are making. They are basically saying - replace "eat less, move more" with "eat less, eat better, move more" and look at preventive measures such as less processed (in terms of higher fiber, lower GI), lower carb might influence CICO as a preventive element rather than focus only on total cals, low fat, no added sugar or eat anything but in moderation. I have to say it's close to my bias of "eat variety, high in local produce - including high veg/fruits".
Yes, and I don't have a problem with this. I have a problem with the way the study is prevented in the news media.
Well, I also do have a problem with the focus on GL as I don't think it's likely to add much to the traditional advice of eat veggies, enough protein, whole grain where possible, etc. Is the benefit of this really because of GL? I am skeptical, and I think GL makes it more complicated and results in people doing dumb things like cutting out roasted potatoes as a "white food" or freaking out about the dangers of fruit.
But anyway I should watch the video you summarized that was linked.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »NoIdea101NoIdea wrote: »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.
But do you see much obesity among those who are walking because they can't afford the bus? I was asked to explain why there is obesity among poor people.
I wouldn't know as I don't go around asking obese people how poor they are, and I very much doubt you do either; you are just making statements based on your own assumptions with no real evidence to back it up. If you can provide evidence, then great, I would love to see it. But until then, these are merely your assumptions.0 -
tekkiechikk wrote: »For some of us, counting calories is the only guarantee for success. It's like saying 'Don't worry about whether or not you have enough money in your checking account; if you think you do then just spend freely until you think you've maxed out your debit card.' What could possibly go wrong with that kind of thinking, right?
That only works if you're living paycheck to paycheck. For people with a savings in their bank account, they aren't going to spend until they max out their debit card and they have a better idea of the impact of an individual purchase. Another approach relies on the fact that we are creatures of habit. As long as we have enough money in the bank account to handle fluctuations, it isn't necessary to track each purchase, because we tend to spend about the same amount each month and as long as it is less than we average bringing in, there won't be an overdraft.0 -
PolythenePam910 wrote: »Once again, the news, which is supposed to be our source of up to date facts and truth, publishes something like this. The fifth rule instructs to quit obsessing over counting calories. “Our study adds to growing new research that counting calories is not the most effective strategy for long-term weight management and prevention.”
WAT?
I am posting this article for you to gawk at and ridicule. I in no way endorse it.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/simple-rules-weight-loss/story?id=31243000
Your first mistake is believing that the news is supposed to be our source of up to date facts and truth. It's just another form of entertainment.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHTsJR0fuIs
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
- 387 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
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions