Mainstream Diet Myths Debunked
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »+1
Addition is not a myth.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
[Edit: this is the study referenced in the article above:]
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
why is not shocking that you would advocate for VLCD diets….0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »+1
Addition is not a myth.
I laughed harder at this than I should have.
0 -
Just lol@ that article, not because it debunks myths at all but because of the way has written it.
Nice one OP for taking a lot of it out of context , failing to go with the proviso in virtially every argument, which is about moderation so it can suit your point.
I would agree, this thread has went wayyyyy by the wayside.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
a) if the actual loss rate was truly 1-1.5% then it would not be "rapid weight loss" the rapid weight loss group had the lower cut off at 12.5%. This was not their weight loss rate. It was 12.5% OR MORE.
Ah yes, I see; thank you for pointing that out. So the actual rate of loss could have been higher than 1.5% per week and possibly have adverse side effects as you and Stephen mentioned.
Take an example - morbidly obese man, followed by physician, with various medical issues, weighing 450lbs is told to lose weight quickly or will have cardiac issues. Has a history of trying slow diets, is discouraged. Doc recommends a rapid loss diet. Runs blood panels. Rapid loss might very well be the best solution - friends, family and Mfp should let the relationship between the man and his doctor work it out. OR it might very well be that a 1% loss is too much and leads to issues.
Recommendations should be that, guidelines not absolutes.
Yes, I agree.
I've seen people post on MFP saying their doctor recommended a 900-calorie diet and people quickly jumping in to tell them to find another doctor or that GPs don't know anything about nutrition.
Or telling someone like the man you just described that he shouldn't be losing more than 1-2 pounds per week.
"A little learning..."
Wait. The person whose doctor recommended a 900 calorie diet? Weighed 154 pounds or thereabouts. She was not morbidly obese. She was at a stall.
You are taking that thread WAY out of context. You are taking a lot of threads way out of contexts. A lot of people told they shouldn't be losing that much don't have that much to lose.
Anyone who comes on here who has a lot to lose is told that it's okay to lose at a higher rate, with the exception of that one success story post where that man was told that he was losing weight too quickly. His case WAS strange.
And triple this.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
a) if the actual loss rate was truly 1-1.5% then it would not be "rapid weight loss" the rapid weight loss group had the lower cut off at 12.5%. This was not their weight loss rate. It was 12.5% OR MORE.
Ah yes, I see; thank you for pointing that out. So the actual rate of loss could have been higher than 1.5% per week and possibly have adverse side effects as you and Stephen mentioned.
Take an example - morbidly obese man, followed by physician, with various medical issues, weighing 450lbs is told to lose weight quickly or will have cardiac issues. Has a history of trying slow diets, is discouraged. Doc recommends a rapid loss diet. Runs blood panels. Rapid loss might very well be the best solution - friends, family and Mfp should let the relationship between the man and his doctor work it out. OR it might very well be that a 1% loss is too much and leads to issues.
Recommendations should be that, guidelines not absolutes.
Yes, I agree.
I've seen people post on MFP saying their doctor recommended a 900-calorie diet and people quickly jumping in to tell them to find another doctor or that GPs don't know anything about nutrition.
Or telling someone like the man you just described that he shouldn't be losing more than 1-2 pounds per week.
"A little learning..."
Wait. The person whose doctor recommended a 900 calorie diet? Weighed 154 pounds or thereabouts. She was not morbidly obese. She was at a stall.
You are taking that thread WAY out of context. You are taking a lot of threads way out of contexts. A lot of people told they shouldn't be losing that much don't have that much to lose.
Anyone who comes on here who has a lot to lose is told that it's okay to lose at a higher rate, with the exception of that one success story post where that man was told that he was losing weight too quickly. His case WAS strange.
And triple this.
Good grief, the typos. I'm embarrassing without caffeine.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Well this tread went downhill quickly.0
-
Actually surprised that skipping breakfast is a myth
The large clinical trial showed:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2014/06/05/skipping-breakfast-may-not-be-so-bad-for-weight-loss-study-finds/
"In the new study, dieters who ate breakfast lost no more weight than people who skipped breakfast. But keep in mind that the study only looked at weight outcomes – not at any other aspect of health, like cardiovascular or metabolic health. So, the take-home message is that skipping breakfast may be OK for weight loss, but how it affects health overall is still up for grabs."
right, you said "skipping breakfast is a terrible idea" - it is, for a lot of people!
When it made in the context of a blanket statement, which it often is - then it is an incorrect statement (as blanket statements invariably are).
A blanket statement which makes itself incorrect. Paradox!
</pedantry>
0 -
teresa_garcia29 wrote: »You can drink alcohol and still lose weight does not work for me.
Not sure if I've understood you but I drink alcohol and lose weight, so saying that people can't lose weight if they drink alcohol is false. Individual results may vary of course.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
a) if the actual loss rate was truly 1-1.5% then it would not be "rapid weight loss" the rapid weight loss group had the lower cut off at 12.5%. This was not their weight loss rate. It was 12.5% OR MORE.
Ah yes, I see; thank you for pointing that out. So the actual rate of loss could have been higher than 1.5% per week and possibly have adverse side effects as you and Stephen mentioned.
Take an example - morbidly obese man, followed by physician, with various medical issues, weighing 450lbs is told to lose weight quickly or will have cardiac issues. Has a history of trying slow diets, is discouraged. Doc recommends a rapid loss diet. Runs blood panels. Rapid loss might very well be the best solution - friends, family and Mfp should let the relationship between the man and his doctor work it out. OR it might very well be that a 1% loss is too much and leads to issues.
Recommendations should be that, guidelines not absolutes.
Yes, I agree.
I've seen people post on MFP saying their doctor recommended a 900-calorie diet and people quickly jumping in to tell them to find another doctor or that GPs don't know anything about nutrition.
Or telling someone like the man you just described that he shouldn't be losing more than 1-2 pounds per week.
"A little learning..."
Wait. The person whose doctor recommended a 900 calorie diet? Weighed 154 pounds or thereabouts. She was not morbidly obese. She was at a stall.
You are taking that thread WAY out of context. You are taking a lot of threads way out of contexts. A lot of people told they shouldn't be losing that much don't have that much to lose.
Anyone who comes on here who has a lot to lose is told that it's okay to lose at a higher rate, with the exception of that one success story post where that man was told that he was losing weight too quickly. His case WAS strange.
And triple this.
Good grief, the typos. I'm embarrassing without caffeine.
Well that's what you get for being addicted to caffeine.
If it's wrong, I don't want to be right.
Kind of like with ice cream.
0 -
mumblemagic wrote: »Actually surprised that skipping breakfast is a myth
The large clinical trial showed:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2014/06/05/skipping-breakfast-may-not-be-so-bad-for-weight-loss-study-finds/
"In the new study, dieters who ate breakfast lost no more weight than people who skipped breakfast. But keep in mind that the study only looked at weight outcomes – not at any other aspect of health, like cardiovascular or metabolic health. So, the take-home message is that skipping breakfast may be OK for weight loss, but how it affects health overall is still up for grabs."
right, you said "skipping breakfast is a terrible idea" - it is, for a lot of people!
When it made in the context of a blanket statement, which it often is - then it is an incorrect statement (as blanket statements invariably are).
A blanket statement which makes itself incorrect. Paradox!
</pedantry>
Oh, snap. And lol.
0 -
Here's a list of common diet myths that have been debunked by science.
NOTE, THESE ARE MYTHS!- Saturated fat is bad
- A low-fat diet is better for health
- Salt is the devil
- Sugar is the dietary devil with its empty kilojoules
- Eggs are evil
- Multiple small meals beats three square meals
- Low fat dairy is better for health and weight loss
- Cooking with olive oil is bad
- Skipping breakfast is a terrible idea
- Fasting slows your metabolism and increases cortisol
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/top-10-mainstream-diet-myths-debunked-20150213-13e1bo.html
What other debunked myths are there? Add them to the list. Preferably with sources.
Thanks for sharing the great link. Sounds like science is making some headway as to how to eat for health.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Fat = poor health; thin = good health. Risks, schmisks. You can't tell how healthy someone is just by looking at them.
These are all good points and good posts. I think that one of the most important things is "everything in moderation." If you eat too much fat, it's not good for you. If you eat too much sugar, it's not good for you. But there is nutritional value and a purpose in both of these things and anything else people say "you need to cut this entirely out of your diet because it's bad for you." No one nutritional value is inherently good or bad for you. They just need to be consumed in moderation and with balance. That's why they call it a "balanced diet."0 -
galgenstrick wrote: »Well this tread went downhill quickly.
@galgenstrick Nah, it got to 4 pages before the backlash. I'm counting it as a win. 0 -
Well.. the idea that your body needs you to cleanse it with expensive teas(as mentioned).
Starvation mode ***
And I second an earlier comment about eating frequent meals, it doesn't work for everyone. Just generally believing that a certain diet or lifestyle suits everyone and is healthy. We live in culture obsessed with food, in my opinion any diet or lifestyle that only revolves around exercise and food doesn't sound healthy or sane.
* I don't endorse low calorie diets, but I think people use the term starvation mode too loosely. Starvation mode is when your body actually starts shutting down. Meaning you have problems getting out of a bed, let alone walk around more than 5 minutes at a time. ..And that you're probably very close to organ failure.
If you're sitting on a laptop somewhere in the western world you're probably not gonna starve to death anytime soon.0 -
Salt water flushes.
*Shudders*0 -
0
-
The Paleo Diet is how paleolithic people eat and/or is required for weight loss.0
-
galgenstrick wrote: »Well this tread went downhill quickly.
@galgenstrick Nah, it got to 4 pages before the backlash. I'm counting it as a win.
LMAO!
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Googled PSMF, sounds like Optifast with solid food?0
-
This content has been removed.
-
asflatasapancake wrote: »
It's the very low fat that stood out to me. I was in a drug trial for the liquid diets, and lost my gall bladder because of it (so do did about half the other kids in my group), because of the low fat aspect. Presumably they've changed it some since then, or they'd have been sued out of existence by now.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
What are the rewards?
Lyle McDonald's version of it recommends basically no cardio if you are doing it, which IMO would be a major negative even if it didn't already sound unappealing.0 -
"Detox waters"
Since we don't have a liver and kidneys...0 -
I agree with (almost) everything that was mentionned.
In my day to day life, I find the breakfast and the whole "chrononutrition" myths to be the strongest.
Another myth you can't lose weight without exercising.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions