BBC on calorie counting
yarwell
Posts: 10,477 Member
Starts with the public not giving calorie counting a good rap, followed by an anti-sugar campaigning cardiologist who at least has moved on from fear of fat and slags off the Eatwell Plate.
Prompted by editorial on BMJ Open Heart titled "It is time to stop counting calories, and time instead to promote dietary changes that substantially and rapidly reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality." (server struggling at time of writing)
https://youtu.be/yQG7k7OOZ_I
Prompted by editorial on BMJ Open Heart titled "It is time to stop counting calories, and time instead to promote dietary changes that substantially and rapidly reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality." (server struggling at time of writing)
https://youtu.be/yQG7k7OOZ_I 0
Replies
-
I'm all for positive dietary changes, buuuuut... I thought it was pretty well established that your best bet at avoiding all of those, is just not being overweight, no? Or has there been studies showing overweight/obese people with a healthy diet (but at a surplus) had less chance of CVD than someone at healthy amounts of bodyfat but with a less than ideal diet at maintenance?
And that doctor talks like it's a foregone conclusion that calorie counting leads you to regain the weight while his mediterranian diet is the be-all end-all that makes you healthy, fit and lean, not even acknowldeding that you can GET fat from that just as much because in the end, no matter if you count or not, it's still about the calories.0 -
I wouldn't exactly say the thread title is accurate. A spokesperson for an organization called "Action on Sugar" doesn't exactly represent the BBC.0
-
Interesting link, thanks for sharing. I've skimmed the BMJ piece and will read it more carefully tomorrow.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »I'm all for positive dietary changes, buuuuut... I thought it was pretty well established that your best bet at avoiding all of those, is just not being overweight, no? Or has there been studies showing overweight/obese people with a healthy diet (but at a surplus) had less chance of CVD than someone at healthy amounts of bodyfat but with a less than ideal diet at maintenance?
From the paper:
Similarly, changes in diet can rapidly improve outcomes of cardiovascular disease (CVD), as demonstrated by several randomised trials. In the DART trial, 2033 survivors of myocardial infarction who were advised to eat fatty fish had a significant 29% reduction in all-cause mortality compared with control patients, with survival curves separating within months. Likewise, in the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarcto Miocardico (GISSI)-Prevention trial, 1 g of Ω-3 fatty acids significantly reduced all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality in 11 324 myocardial infarction survivors. Moreover, survival curves separated early, with a significant reduction in total mortality after just 3 months of treatment (p=0.037).5
The PREvencion con DIeta MEDiterranea (PREDIMED) primary prevention randomised controlled trial found that an energy unrestricted diet supplemented with extra virgin olive oil or nuts achieved an impressive 30% reduction in major cardiovascular events (NNT=61) in over 7500 high risk individuals initially free of CVD. This reduction occurred within 3 months.6 Furthermore, this solid RCT evidence builds on a wealth of existing data from observational, cohort and secondary prevention intervention studies.7 ,8 It also provides further strong causal evidence that simple diet interventions can rapidly and powerfully reduce CVD outcomes
[...]
a key finding from analysis of PREDIMED subgroups: dietary intervention achieved consistently large reductions in CVD risk irrespective of weight.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'm all for positive dietary changes, buuuuut... I thought it was pretty well established that your best bet at avoiding all of those, is just not being overweight, no? Or has there been studies showing overweight/obese people with a healthy diet (but at a surplus) had less chance of CVD than someone at healthy amounts of bodyfat but with a less than ideal diet at maintenance?
From the paper:
Similarly, changes in diet can rapidly improve outcomes of cardiovascular disease (CVD), as demonstrated by several randomised trials. In the DART trial, 2033 survivors of myocardial infarction who were advised to eat fatty fish had a significant 29% reduction in all-cause mortality compared with control patients, with survival curves separating within months. Likewise, in the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarcto Miocardico (GISSI)-Prevention trial, 1 g of Ω-3 fatty acids significantly reduced all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality in 11 324 myocardial infarction survivors. Moreover, survival curves separated early, with a significant reduction in total mortality after just 3 months of treatment (p=0.037).5
The PREvencion con DIeta MEDiterranea (PREDIMED) primary prevention randomised controlled trial found that an energy unrestricted diet supplemented with extra virgin olive oil or nuts achieved an impressive 30% reduction in major cardiovascular events (NNT=61) in over 7500 high risk individuals initially free of CVD. This reduction occurred within 3 months.6 Furthermore, this solid RCT evidence builds on a wealth of existing data from observational, cohort and secondary prevention intervention studies.7 ,8 It also provides further strong causal evidence that simple diet interventions can rapidly and powerfully reduce CVD outcomes
That doesn't really answer my question. A good diet reduces risk of CVD, but is it more than if those high risk individuals were just getting to a normal weight?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'm all for positive dietary changes, buuuuut... I thought it was pretty well established that your best bet at avoiding all of those, is just not being overweight, no? Or has there been studies showing overweight/obese people with a healthy diet (but at a surplus) had less chance of CVD than someone at healthy amounts of bodyfat but with a less than ideal diet at maintenance?
From the paper:
Similarly, changes in diet can rapidly improve outcomes of cardiovascular disease (CVD), as demonstrated by several randomised trials. In the DART trial, 2033 survivors of myocardial infarction who were advised to eat fatty fish had a significant 29% reduction in all-cause mortality compared with control patients, with survival curves separating within months. Likewise, in the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarcto Miocardico (GISSI)-Prevention trial, 1 g of Ω-3 fatty acids significantly reduced all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality in 11 324 myocardial infarction survivors. Moreover, survival curves separated early, with a significant reduction in total mortality after just 3 months of treatment (p=0.037).5
The PREvencion con DIeta MEDiterranea (PREDIMED) primary prevention randomised controlled trial found that an energy unrestricted diet supplemented with extra virgin olive oil or nuts achieved an impressive 30% reduction in major cardiovascular events (NNT=61) in over 7500 high risk individuals initially free of CVD. This reduction occurred within 3 months.6 Furthermore, this solid RCT evidence builds on a wealth of existing data from observational, cohort and secondary prevention intervention studies.7 ,8 It also provides further strong causal evidence that simple diet interventions can rapidly and powerfully reduce CVD outcomes
That doesn't really answer my question. A good diet reduces risk of CVD, but is it more than if those high risk individuals were just getting to a normal weight?
they say that on the PREDIMED the reduction in CVD risk was irrespective of weight
0 -
Yes, yes I get that, the diet reduced the risk, regardless if they were fat or not. I'm asking how much the risk would be reduced if the ones who were fat were going down to a lower weight instead, more than that 30% or less?.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »Yes, yes I get that, the diet reduced the risk, regardless if they were fat or not. I'm asking how much the risk would be reduced if the ones who were fat were going down to a lower weight instead, more than that 30% or less?.
I also get your point, I think there is no doubt that being overweight is per se one of the main high risk factors. I believe, though, that everyone should learn to eat healthily.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'm all for positive dietary changes, buuuuut... I thought it was pretty well established that your best bet at avoiding all of those, is just not being overweight, no? Or has there been studies showing overweight/obese people with a healthy diet (but at a surplus) had less chance of CVD than someone at healthy amounts of bodyfat but with a less than ideal diet at maintenance?
From the paper:
Similarly, changes in diet can rapidly improve outcomes of cardiovascular disease (CVD), as demonstrated by several randomised trials. In the DART trial, 2033 survivors of myocardial infarction who were advised to eat fatty fish had a significant 29% reduction in all-cause mortality compared with control patients, with survival curves separating within months. Likewise, in the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarcto Miocardico (GISSI)-Prevention trial, 1 g of Ω-3 fatty acids significantly reduced all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality in 11 324 myocardial infarction survivors. Moreover, survival curves separated early, with a significant reduction in total mortality after just 3 months of treatment (p=0.037).5
The PREvencion con DIeta MEDiterranea (PREDIMED) primary prevention randomised controlled trial found that an energy unrestricted diet supplemented with extra virgin olive oil or nuts achieved an impressive 30% reduction in major cardiovascular events (NNT=61) in over 7500 high risk individuals initially free of CVD. This reduction occurred within 3 months.6 Furthermore, this solid RCT evidence builds on a wealth of existing data from observational, cohort and secondary prevention intervention studies.7 ,8 It also provides further strong causal evidence that simple diet interventions can rapidly and powerfully reduce CVD outcomes
[...]
a key finding from analysis of PREDIMED subgroups: dietary intervention achieved consistently large reductions in CVD risk irrespective of weight.
A 30% reduction in risk, within 3 months, is huge.
(Interesting [to me] anecdote: my mother did a little mini experiment last month. She's got high cholesterol. Someone told her about this wacky home remedy of drinking 1/2 a cup of olive oil with 1/2 a cup of fresh lemon juice in the morning before eating. [Yeah I know, I rolled my eyes too, and I think that's disgusting as a beverage first thing in the morning, or really any time.] She wanted to see what would happen to her cholesterol levels, so she tested it before doing this and a month later. It went from 7.35 to 6.85 with no other changes to diet. [Her regular diet is fairly Mediterranean friendly, though she does like cured meats and the occasional donut.] )0 -
These topics often baffle me.. why is it hard to comprehend that people can reduce their calories AND pay attention to the nutritional quality of their food? The two things are not mutually exclusive.0
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »These topics often baffle me.. why is it hard to comprehend that people can reduce their calories AND pay attention to the nutritional quality of their food? The two things are not mutually exclusive.
I don't think it's hard to comprehend, it's just that people want to be thin (or buff) and they want to eat what they like to eat and not feel bad about it. I think it's an easier way of navigating weight loss in our society, it's a coping mechanism. It isn't the best for health imo, I agree.0 -
.0
-
What stood out to me in that video was the woman doctor saying that calories matter when it is preferred to lose weight quickly. The diet that the male doctor was advocating is a long term plan for health. In the past I counted calories to lose weight and of course it worked. I am currently not counting, and that's working too. What I have changed is more whole foods and how I combine them. I only eat high fat paired with low carb and high carb together with low fat. I include protein in every meal but do not count calories, just eat until I'm satisfied. It is slower loss, but is changing what I eat rather than just restricting myself. I feel like this is what will work for me for the long term and realize that each of us needs to find that for ourselves.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'm all for positive dietary changes, buuuuut... I thought it was pretty well established that your best bet at avoiding all of those, is just not being overweight, no? Or has there been studies showing overweight/obese people with a healthy diet (but at a surplus) had less chance of CVD than someone at healthy amounts of bodyfat but with a less than ideal diet at maintenance?
From the paper:
Similarly, changes in diet can rapidly improve outcomes of cardiovascular disease (CVD), as demonstrated by several randomised trials. In the DART trial, 2033 survivors of myocardial infarction who were advised to eat fatty fish had a significant 29% reduction in all-cause mortality compared with control patients, with survival curves separating within months. Likewise, in the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarcto Miocardico (GISSI)-Prevention trial, 1 g of Ω-3 fatty acids significantly reduced all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality in 11 324 myocardial infarction survivors. Moreover, survival curves separated early, with a significant reduction in total mortality after just 3 months of treatment (p=0.037).5
The PREvencion con DIeta MEDiterranea (PREDIMED) primary prevention randomised controlled trial found that an energy unrestricted diet supplemented with extra virgin olive oil or nuts achieved an impressive 30% reduction in major cardiovascular events (NNT=61) in over 7500 high risk individuals initially free of CVD. This reduction occurred within 3 months.6 Furthermore, this solid RCT evidence builds on a wealth of existing data from observational, cohort and secondary prevention intervention studies.7 ,8 It also provides further strong causal evidence that simple diet interventions can rapidly and powerfully reduce CVD outcomes
That doesn't really answer my question. A good diet reduces risk of CVD, but is it more than if those high risk individuals were just getting to a normal weight?
The piece argues that diabetics can't/won't reliably lose weight, so seems to be an alternative approach. (Which to me seems like a much worse one than losing weight.)
It goes on to argue less convincingly that low carb is a more effective way to lose weight.
Edit: oh, never mind, this is a different piece.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »These topics often baffle me.. why is it hard to comprehend that people can reduce their calories AND pay attention to the nutritional quality of their food? The two things are not mutually exclusive.
Yes, this.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'm all for positive dietary changes, buuuuut... I thought it was pretty well established that your best bet at avoiding all of those, is just not being overweight, no? Or has there been studies showing overweight/obese people with a healthy diet (but at a surplus) had less chance of CVD than someone at healthy amounts of bodyfat but with a less than ideal diet at maintenance?
From the paper:
Similarly, changes in diet can rapidly improve outcomes of cardiovascular disease (CVD), as demonstrated by several randomised trials. In the DART trial, 2033 survivors of myocardial infarction who were advised to eat fatty fish had a significant 29% reduction in all-cause mortality compared with control patients, with survival curves separating within months. Likewise, in the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarcto Miocardico (GISSI)-Prevention trial, 1 g of Ω-3 fatty acids significantly reduced all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality in 11 324 myocardial infarction survivors. Moreover, survival curves separated early, with a significant reduction in total mortality after just 3 months of treatment (p=0.037).5
The PREvencion con DIeta MEDiterranea (PREDIMED) primary prevention randomised controlled trial found that an energy unrestricted diet supplemented with extra virgin olive oil or nuts achieved an impressive 30% reduction in major cardiovascular events (NNT=61) in over 7500 high risk individuals initially free of CVD. This reduction occurred within 3 months.6 Furthermore, this solid RCT evidence builds on a wealth of existing data from observational, cohort and secondary prevention intervention studies.7 ,8 It also provides further strong causal evidence that simple diet interventions can rapidly and powerfully reduce CVD outcomes
That doesn't really answer my question. A good diet reduces risk of CVD, but is it more than if those high risk individuals were just getting to a normal weight?
The piece argues that diabetics can't/won't reliably lose weight, so seems to be an alternative approach. (Which to me seems like a much worse one than losing weight.)
It goes on to argue less convincingly that low carb is a more effective way to lose weight.
Here's what it says:
However, simply focusing on weight loss in obese subjects misses a key finding from analysis of PREDIMED subgroups: dietary intervention achieved consistently large reductions in CVD risk irrespective of weight. Furthermore, weight loss interventions are rarely sustained. The weight loss industry, which emphasises calorie restriction over good nutrition, generates $58 billion in revenue annually in the USA, even though long-term follow-up studies reveal that the majority of individuals regain virtually all of the weight that was lost during treatment irrespective of whether they maintain their diet or exercise programme.12 Shifting focus away from calories and emphasising a dietary pattern that focuses on food quality rather than quantity will help to rapidly reduce obesity, related diseases and cardiovascular risk.13 ,14
It's less than clear, but from context I think what they mean is that traditional weight loss interventions that rely on calorie restriction are rarely sustained.
0 -
kristieritter1 wrote: »What stood out to me in that video was the woman doctor saying that calories matter when it is preferred to lose weight quickly. The diet that the male doctor was advocating is a long term plan for health. In the past I counted calories to lose weight and of course it worked. I am currently not counting, and that's working too. What I have changed is more whole foods and how I combine them. I only eat high fat paired with low carb and high carb together with low fat. I include protein in every meal but do not count calories, just eat until I'm satisfied. It is slower loss, but is changing what I eat rather than just restricting myself. I feel like this is what will work for me for the long term and realize that each of us needs to find that for ourselves.
What is inconsistent about counting calories and changing your diet, though? Not saying you need to, but it's not like one can only count calories without changing foods and with a feeling of restriction.
Years ago I lost weight by changing my diet and focusing on portion control (pretty fast, too). That was easy since at the time I wasn't cooking at home much--my job included lots of paid-for restaurant meals and I'd never really learned to cook properly (although I did at least like "healthy" foods and vegetables, etc.). Eventually I regained the weight without dramatically changing how I ate -- although I did stress eat some and fall back into the habit of being overly-indulgent when I went out, but still I mostly ate in a way that would be considered "healthy," but for the calories. So I started counting calories and playing around with macros (mainly because it's fun--I think I could have lost again with just the portion control stuff). So for me separating the two doesn't make sense -- changing the diet is great, but doing what works for weight loss is good too (and probably more important overall). Ideally you do both, but some people may want to approach one at a time, depending on what feels more possible initially.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'm all for positive dietary changes, buuuuut... I thought it was pretty well established that your best bet at avoiding all of those, is just not being overweight, no? Or has there been studies showing overweight/obese people with a healthy diet (but at a surplus) had less chance of CVD than someone at healthy amounts of bodyfat but with a less than ideal diet at maintenance?
From the paper:
Similarly, changes in diet can rapidly improve outcomes of cardiovascular disease (CVD), as demonstrated by several randomised trials. In the DART trial, 2033 survivors of myocardial infarction who were advised to eat fatty fish had a significant 29% reduction in all-cause mortality compared with control patients, with survival curves separating within months. Likewise, in the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarcto Miocardico (GISSI)-Prevention trial, 1 g of Ω-3 fatty acids significantly reduced all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality in 11 324 myocardial infarction survivors. Moreover, survival curves separated early, with a significant reduction in total mortality after just 3 months of treatment (p=0.037).5
The PREvencion con DIeta MEDiterranea (PREDIMED) primary prevention randomised controlled trial found that an energy unrestricted diet supplemented with extra virgin olive oil or nuts achieved an impressive 30% reduction in major cardiovascular events (NNT=61) in over 7500 high risk individuals initially free of CVD. This reduction occurred within 3 months.6 Furthermore, this solid RCT evidence builds on a wealth of existing data from observational, cohort and secondary prevention intervention studies.7 ,8 It also provides further strong causal evidence that simple diet interventions can rapidly and powerfully reduce CVD outcomes
That doesn't really answer my question. A good diet reduces risk of CVD, but is it more than if those high risk individuals were just getting to a normal weight?
The piece argues that diabetics can't/won't reliably lose weight, so seems to be an alternative approach. (Which to me seems like a much worse one than losing weight.)
It goes on to argue less convincingly that low carb is a more effective way to lose weight.
Here's what it says:
However, simply focusing on weight loss in obese subjects misses a key finding from analysis of PREDIMED subgroups: dietary intervention achieved consistently large reductions in CVD risk irrespective of weight. Furthermore, weight loss interventions are rarely sustained. The weight loss industry, which emphasises calorie restriction over good nutrition, generates $58 billion in revenue annually in the USA, even though long-term follow-up studies reveal that the majority of individuals regain virtually all of the weight that was lost during treatment irrespective of whether they maintain their diet or exercise programme.12 Shifting focus away from calories and emphasising a dietary pattern that focuses on food quality rather than quantity will help to rapidly reduce obesity, related diseases and cardiovascular risk.13 ,14
It's less than clear, but from context I think what they mean is that traditional weight loss interventions that rely on calorie restriction are rarely sustained.
Yeah, I was referring to a different piece that was posted about this morning and was supposedly making news in the UK. (I wrongly assumed that's what Yarwell would be talking about.)
For the record, a piece I've been recommending lately: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/science-compared-every-diet-and-the-winner-is-real-food/284595/
I don't buy that the usual approach to weight loss is just focused on calories vs. food quality.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'm all for positive dietary changes, buuuuut... I thought it was pretty well established that your best bet at avoiding all of those, is just not being overweight, no? Or has there been studies showing overweight/obese people with a healthy diet (but at a surplus) had less chance of CVD than someone at healthy amounts of bodyfat but with a less than ideal diet at maintenance?
From the paper:
Similarly, changes in diet can rapidly improve outcomes of cardiovascular disease (CVD), as demonstrated by several randomised trials. In the DART trial, 2033 survivors of myocardial infarction who were advised to eat fatty fish had a significant 29% reduction in all-cause mortality compared with control patients, with survival curves separating within months. Likewise, in the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarcto Miocardico (GISSI)-Prevention trial, 1 g of Ω-3 fatty acids significantly reduced all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality in 11 324 myocardial infarction survivors. Moreover, survival curves separated early, with a significant reduction in total mortality after just 3 months of treatment (p=0.037).5
The PREvencion con DIeta MEDiterranea (PREDIMED) primary prevention randomised controlled trial found that an energy unrestricted diet supplemented with extra virgin olive oil or nuts achieved an impressive 30% reduction in major cardiovascular events (NNT=61) in over 7500 high risk individuals initially free of CVD. This reduction occurred within 3 months.6 Furthermore, this solid RCT evidence builds on a wealth of existing data from observational, cohort and secondary prevention intervention studies.7 ,8 It also provides further strong causal evidence that simple diet interventions can rapidly and powerfully reduce CVD outcomes
That doesn't really answer my question. A good diet reduces risk of CVD, but is it more than if those high risk individuals were just getting to a normal weight?
The piece argues that diabetics can't/won't reliably lose weight, so seems to be an alternative approach. (Which to me seems like a much worse one than losing weight.)
It goes on to argue less convincingly that low carb is a more effective way to lose weight.
Here's what it says:
However, simply focusing on weight loss in obese subjects misses a key finding from analysis of PREDIMED subgroups: dietary intervention achieved consistently large reductions in CVD risk irrespective of weight. Furthermore, weight loss interventions are rarely sustained. The weight loss industry, which emphasises calorie restriction over good nutrition, generates $58 billion in revenue annually in the USA, even though long-term follow-up studies reveal that the majority of individuals regain virtually all of the weight that was lost during treatment irrespective of whether they maintain their diet or exercise programme.12 Shifting focus away from calories and emphasising a dietary pattern that focuses on food quality rather than quantity will help to rapidly reduce obesity, related diseases and cardiovascular risk.13 ,14
It's less than clear, but from context I think what they mean is that traditional weight loss interventions that rely on calorie restriction are rarely sustained.
Yeah, I was referring to a different piece that was posted about this morning and was supposedly making news in the UK. (I wrongly assumed that's what Yarwell would be talking about.)
For the record, a piece I've been recommending lately: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/science-compared-every-diet-and-the-winner-is-real-food/284595/
I don't buy that the usual approach to weight loss is just focused on calories vs. food quality.
Thanks for the link, will check it out
Yeah, I wish they'd taken a little more care in outlining what exactly they meant, there0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »I wouldn't exactly say the thread title is accurate. A spokesperson for an organization called "Action on Sugar" doesn't exactly represent the BBC.
the BBC is a broadcaster, as its name implies, it doesn't have a position on calories. "BBC item on calorie counting" would have been better I guess.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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