Looking for other pro science people on here
Replies
-
forwardmoving wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Look for people with jailbars over their avatar.
LOL but sadly true too many times.
What is that about anyway...is it mfp probation? I never found any of those people offensive. If anything, too straightforward for other's likings.
Science ftw! Only thing that has truly helped me. Gah I HATE those "ItWorks" crap!! Along with any other gimmick...and sadly there are many0 -
I mentioned the Well blog because it's something a lot of people can read without a library subscription to the scientific literature. (Most is behind a paywall now, if you want more than the abstract.) Here's today's column, which quotes a doctor at the Harvard School of Public Health and gives links to studies (alas, the abstract).
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/the-fats-you-dont-need-to-fear-and-the-carbs-that-you-do/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=mini-moth®ion=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below&_r=0
I don't always agree with the New York Times, but I think most would consider it more reliable than Dr. Oz.
I diet and maintain based on CICO, so am part of the CICO crowd myself. I don't mean that everyone is disparaging, but there have been times that I've read posts on mfp from discouraged people, and I think that the responses could have been gentler and more encouraging. I doubt that there really are many people out there who didn't already know that they gained weight because they were eating more calories than they were expending.
0 -
I mentioned the Well blog because it's something a lot of people can read without a library subscription to the scientific literature. (Most is behind a paywall now, if you want more than the abstract.) Here's today's column, which quotes a doctor at the Harvard School of Public Health and gives links to studies (alas, the abstract).
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/the-fats-you-dont-need-to-fear-and-the-carbs-that-you-do/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=mini-moth®ion=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below&_r=0
I don't always agree with the New York Times, but I think most would consider it more reliable than Dr. Oz.
I diet and maintain based on CICO, so am part of the CICO crowd myself. I don't mean that everyone is disparaging, but there have been times that I've read posts on mfp from discouraged people, and I think that the responses could have been gentler and more encouraging. I doubt that there really are many people out there who didn't already know that they gained weight because they were eating more calories than they were expending.
I agree wholeheartedly.
0 -
I mentioned the Well blog because it's something a lot of people can read without a library subscription to the scientific literature. (Most is behind a paywall now, if you want more than the abstract.) Here's today's column, which quotes a doctor at the Harvard School of Public Health and gives links to studies (alas, the abstract).
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/the-fats-you-dont-need-to-fear-and-the-carbs-that-you-do/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=mini-moth®ion=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below&_r=0
I don't always agree with the New York Times, but I think most would consider it more reliable than Dr. Oz.
I diet and maintain based on CICO, so am part of the CICO crowd myself. I don't mean that everyone is disparaging, but there have been times that I've read posts on mfp from discouraged people, and I think that the responses could have been gentler and more encouraging. I doubt that there really are many people out there who didn't already know that they gained weight because they were eating more calories than they were expending.
You'd be surprised. I just saw a post last night in which the person claimed they were eating more than TDEE and losing weight (not logging food, but she's sure of it) and not a day goes by without the special snowflake threads (I'm eating 1200 calories and running for 2 hours a day and I'm not losing). People don't always understand the concept and, in many cases, refuse to learn it even after their approach has failed. When people are being deliberately obtuse, I don't see a problem with bluntness.0 -
Biochemist here.
However, I would caution pro science people that we don't necessarily have the big picture about why some people are overweight and some people aren't, or why there is an obesity epidemic. Just telling people to eat less and exercise more doesn't seem to be ending the epidemic, though it has worked for me personally.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »I mentioned the Well blog because it's something a lot of people can read without a library subscription to the scientific literature. (Most is behind a paywall now, if you want more than the abstract.) Here's today's column, which quotes a doctor at the Harvard School of Public Health and gives links to studies (alas, the abstract).
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/the-fats-you-dont-need-to-fear-and-the-carbs-that-you-do/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=mini-moth®ion=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below&_r=0
I don't always agree with the New York Times, but I think most would consider it more reliable than Dr. Oz.
I diet and maintain based on CICO, so am part of the CICO crowd myself. I don't mean that everyone is disparaging, but there have been times that I've read posts on mfp from discouraged people, and I think that the responses could have been gentler and more encouraging. I doubt that there really are many people out there who didn't already know that they gained weight because they were eating more calories than they were expending.
You'd be surprised. I just saw a post last night in which the person claimed they were eating more than TDEE and losing weight (not logging food, but she's sure of it) and not a day goes by without the special snowflake threads (I'm eating 1200 calories and running for 2 hours a day and I'm not losing). People don't always understand the concept and, in many cases, refuse to learn it even after their approach has failed. When people are being deliberately obtuse, I don't see a problem with bluntness.
Being blunt is one thing. Mocking and derogatory are another. Not meaning you, btw. I haven't encountered it in your posts that I recall.
0 -
goldthistime wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »I mentioned the Well blog because it's something a lot of people can read without a library subscription to the scientific literature. (Most is behind a paywall now, if you want more than the abstract.) Here's today's column, which quotes a doctor at the Harvard School of Public Health and gives links to studies (alas, the abstract).
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/the-fats-you-dont-need-to-fear-and-the-carbs-that-you-do/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=mini-moth®ion=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below&_r=0
I don't always agree with the New York Times, but I think most would consider it more reliable than Dr. Oz.
I diet and maintain based on CICO, so am part of the CICO crowd myself. I don't mean that everyone is disparaging, but there have been times that I've read posts on mfp from discouraged people, and I think that the responses could have been gentler and more encouraging. I doubt that there really are many people out there who didn't already know that they gained weight because they were eating more calories than they were expending.
You'd be surprised. I just saw a post last night in which the person claimed they were eating more than TDEE and losing weight (not logging food, but she's sure of it) and not a day goes by without the special snowflake threads (I'm eating 1200 calories and running for 2 hours a day and I'm not losing). People don't always understand the concept and, in many cases, refuse to learn it even after their approach has failed. When people are being deliberately obtuse, I don't see a problem with bluntness.
Being blunt is one thing. Mocking and derogatory are another. Not meaning you, btw. I haven't encountered it in your posts that I recall.
What!?! I'll have to step up my mockery game!
I do agree, though, that a person should not be attacked. A ridiculous idea, however, deserves to be ridiculed!0 -
lithezebra wrote: »Biochemist here.
However, I would caution pro science people that we don't necessarily have the big picture about why some people are overweight and some people aren't, or why there is an obesity epidemic. Just telling people to eat less and exercise more doesn't seem to be ending the epidemic, though it has worked for me personally.
And isn't that the issue, though? Whenever it comes down to the individual level, a person exercising more and eating less, i.e. in a calorie deficit, invariably loses the weight. I've yet to hear of someone without a medical condition where that wasn't the case.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »Biochemist here.
However, I would caution pro science people that we don't necessarily have the big picture about why some people are overweight and some people aren't, or why there is an obesity epidemic. Just telling people to eat less and exercise more doesn't seem to be ending the epidemic, though it has worked for me personally.
And isn't that the issue, though? Whenever it comes down to the individual level, a person exercising more and eating less, i.e. in a calorie deficit, invariably loses the weight. I've yet to hear of someone without a medical condition where that wasn't the case.
But the real question is HOW to stay in a calorie deficit for an extended period of time, and how to stay in balance forever after. No simple answers there IMO.
PS I should have probably started with "I love science too". Love reading and considering the actual studies. Love logical respectful discussion. I don't even have to be right to be happy. Just need to have learned something.
0 -
goldthistime wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »Biochemist here.
However, I would caution pro science people that we don't necessarily have the big picture about why some people are overweight and some people aren't, or why there is an obesity epidemic. Just telling people to eat less and exercise more doesn't seem to be ending the epidemic, though it has worked for me personally.
And isn't that the issue, though? Whenever it comes down to the individual level, a person exercising more and eating less, i.e. in a calorie deficit, invariably loses the weight. I've yet to hear of someone without a medical condition where that wasn't the case.
But the real question is HOW to stay in a calorie deficit for an extended period of time, and how to stay in balance forever after. No simple answers there IMO.
PS I should have probably started with "I love science too". Love reading and considering the actual studies. Love logical respectful discussion.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean about how to stay in a deficit. Depending on sex, age, & height, your TDEE could get low enough where a significant calorie deficit would put your intake too low to achieve optimum nutrition, but most everybody can achieve enough of a calorie deficit to lose weight slowly without hitting that lower limit.
Maintenance is still just a balance of CI vs CO. It may be difficult to figure out what the CO is from a maintenance standpoint, but trial and error should get you there.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »Biochemist here.
However, I would caution pro science people that we don't necessarily have the big picture about why some people are overweight and some people aren't, or why there is an obesity epidemic. Just telling people to eat less and exercise more doesn't seem to be ending the epidemic, though it has worked for me personally.
And isn't that the issue, though? Whenever it comes down to the individual level, a person exercising more and eating less, i.e. in a calorie deficit, invariably loses the weight. I've yet to hear of someone without a medical condition where that wasn't the case.
But the real question is HOW to stay in a calorie deficit for an extended period of time, and how to stay in balance forever after. No simple answers there IMO.
PS I should have probably started with "I love science too". Love reading and considering the actual studies. Love logical respectful discussion.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean about how to stay in a deficit. Depending on sex, age, & height, your TDEE could get low enough where a significant calorie deficit would put your intake too low to achieve optimum nutrition, but most everybody can achieve enough of a calorie deficit to lose weight slowly without hitting that lower limit.
Maintenance is still just a balance of CI vs CO. It may be difficult to figure out what the CO is from a maintenance standpoint, but trial and error should get you there.
I LOVE your optimism! The fact that you don't see it as difficult at all suggests to me that you personally are unlikely to regain your weight. And I agree that losing weight slowly is a big part of the answer. But the "how" is often "how to stay focused", through good times and bad.
0 -
goldthistime wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »Biochemist here.
However, I would caution pro science people that we don't necessarily have the big picture about why some people are overweight and some people aren't, or why there is an obesity epidemic. Just telling people to eat less and exercise more doesn't seem to be ending the epidemic, though it has worked for me personally.
And isn't that the issue, though? Whenever it comes down to the individual level, a person exercising more and eating less, i.e. in a calorie deficit, invariably loses the weight. I've yet to hear of someone without a medical condition where that wasn't the case.
But the real question is HOW to stay in a calorie deficit for an extended period of time, and how to stay in balance forever after. No simple answers there IMO.
PS I should have probably started with "I love science too". Love reading and considering the actual studies. Love logical respectful discussion.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean about how to stay in a deficit. Depending on sex, age, & height, your TDEE could get low enough where a significant calorie deficit would put your intake too low to achieve optimum nutrition, but most everybody can achieve enough of a calorie deficit to lose weight slowly without hitting that lower limit.
Maintenance is still just a balance of CI vs CO. It may be difficult to figure out what the CO is from a maintenance standpoint, but trial and error should get you there.
I LOVE your optimism! The fact that you don't see it as difficult at all suggests to me that you personally are unlikely to regain your weight. And I agree that losing weight slowly is a big part of the answer. But the "how" is often "how to stay focused", through good times and bad.
I may have overstated my confidence!
I see the argument over CICO as boiling down to a disagreement over complexity vs. difficulty. The concept of CICO is not complex; "eat less than you burn" is a relatively simple statement. Practicing CICO in a disciplined manner over a long timeframe is difficult. Learning the intricacies of TDEE, sticking with a calorie goal, and finding the self-motivation to stick with your goals is decidedly not easy.0 -
lithezebra wrote: »Just telling people to eat less and exercise more doesn't seem to be ending the epidemic, though it has worked for me personally.
Because that's not what people WANT to hear, isn't instantaneous, and requires work on their part.
0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »Biochemist here.
However, I would caution pro science people that we don't necessarily have the big picture about why some people are overweight and some people aren't, or why there is an obesity epidemic. Just telling people to eat less and exercise more doesn't seem to be ending the epidemic, though it has worked for me personally.
And isn't that the issue, though? Whenever it comes down to the individual level, a person exercising more and eating less, i.e. in a calorie deficit, invariably loses the weight. I've yet to hear of someone without a medical condition where that wasn't the case.
But it seems to be a hell of a lot harder for some people. I was a binge eater, and hypothyroid, and still stayed within my healthy weight range. I'm not especially prone to being overweight.0 -
Careful your beliefs about religion into what could simply be a good scientific fitness thread.
Just sayin'.0 -
I'm more simple mathematics when it comes to weight loss rather than science. Burn more calories than you consume and the result is weight loss. No fad diets needed. Feel free for anybody to add me if they want to.0
-
As a pharmacologist, I highly approve of this thread! One thing I'd just say, as experienced over my 20+ years in science, is that even well-respected peer-reviewed scientific facts can be countered/debunked on a regular basis. Something that was accepted science fact even just a very short time ago can become very old-fashioned thinking, and way behind the curve of modern medicine and new innovative discoveries. You have to be very careful in what you're researching as part of your 'diet myth debunk', and exactly how current the information is. Biological science is evolving constantly.
But yeah, CICO works, and regular exercise contributes to a healthy body long-term - science facts, people!0 -
Add me if you want! I have a master's in public health. I'm aaaaallll about the science. I love it (not) when people think that some whiffle ball off the street who has just published some weird diet MUST know more than the medical community with years and years of research (same argument I have with anti-vaxxers, but I digress). So, you know, don't eat more than your body needs, move around, eat stuff that occurs in nature. Yay science!0
-
I just slammed my students with the "you're not the astrological sign you think you are" this afternoon
newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/13/horoscope-hang-up-earth-rotation-changes-zodiac-signs/
Several of them are ticked off; one girl even has a tattoo of Scorpio.... and realizes she's "actually" a Virgo.... teehee!!0 -
Science rocks.0
-
Been here almost year and the mathematical stance of actually counting the calories is what works and logging it (CICO).. Call it rocket science if you want to... LOL
0 -
For me, I find many people want to find the "best" way to lose weight, or gain muscle or strength. What they don't realize is that there are many paths to Dublin. What works for one person, may not work for another. And yet, because it worked for "me", I must have stumbled upon the holy grail of weight loss and thus am not open minded to other methods. Just my 2 cents.0
-
lithezebra wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »Biochemist here.
However, I would caution pro science people that we don't necessarily have the big picture about why some people are overweight and some people aren't, or why there is an obesity epidemic. Just telling people to eat less and exercise more doesn't seem to be ending the epidemic, though it has worked for me personally.
And isn't that the issue, though? Whenever it comes down to the individual level, a person exercising more and eating less, i.e. in a calorie deficit, invariably loses the weight. I've yet to hear of someone without a medical condition where that wasn't the case.
But it seems to be a hell of a lot harder for some people. I was a binge eater, and hypothyroid, and still stayed within my healthy weight range. I'm not especially prone to being overweight.
It's simple, not easy.
Geneticist and firm believer in CICO. :flowerforyou:0 -
lithezebra wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »Biochemist here.
However, I would caution pro science people that we don't necessarily have the big picture about why some people are overweight and some people aren't, or why there is an obesity epidemic. Just telling people to eat less and exercise more doesn't seem to be ending the epidemic, though it has worked for me personally.
And isn't that the issue, though? Whenever it comes down to the individual level, a person exercising more and eating less, i.e. in a calorie deficit, invariably loses the weight. I've yet to hear of someone without a medical condition where that wasn't the case.
But it seems to be a hell of a lot harder for some people. I was a binge eater, and hypothyroid, and still stayed within my healthy weight range. I'm not especially prone to being overweight.
It's simple, not easy.
Geneticist and firm believer in CICO. :flowerforyou:
There is more than just calories in and calories out, when it comes to how much people want to eat, how much energy they actually use, and why some people eat too much. There are also an alarming number of studies showing that people almost invariably regain the weight they lose. If you want science that helps people with obesity and all the health problems associated with it, you can't stop at CICO, no matter how fervently you believe in it, and no matter how well it works for people who aren't overweight anyway, because it hasn't helped enough of the people who really need it.
0 -
lithezebra wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »Biochemist here.
However, I would caution pro science people that we don't necessarily have the big picture about why some people are overweight and some people aren't, or why there is an obesity epidemic. Just telling people to eat less and exercise more doesn't seem to be ending the epidemic, though it has worked for me personally.
And isn't that the issue, though? Whenever it comes down to the individual level, a person exercising more and eating less, i.e. in a calorie deficit, invariably loses the weight. I've yet to hear of someone without a medical condition where that wasn't the case.
But it seems to be a hell of a lot harder for some people. I was a binge eater, and hypothyroid, and still stayed within my healthy weight range. I'm not especially prone to being overweight.
It's simple, not easy.
Geneticist and firm believer in CICO. :flowerforyou:
There is more than just calories in and calories out, when it comes to how much people want to eat, how much energy they actually use, and why some people eat too much. There are also an alarming number of studies showing that people almost invariably regain the weight they lose. If you want science that helps people with obesity and all the health problems associated with it, you can't stop at CICO, no matter how fervently you believe in it, and no matter how well it works for people who aren't overweight anyway, because it hasn't helped enough of the people who really need it.
Also, why people consume more energy than they use, to such extremes, IS a physical science question, a physiology question, not just a social science question, a psychology question, or a moral failing that 2/3 of the population has. Overeating is clearly at least partly hormonally driven, and mediated by the hypothalamus.
0 -
Engineer here, mind if I squeeze in? Promise that I'm not going to try to sell you MLM crap 0
-
0
-
I'm going to bookmark this thread! Science for the win! I'm really tired of the people who claim they can't possibly eat some really ridiculously low number, like 1000, calories a day because they are 'too full' but they weigh like 300 lbs. ummm....0
-
lithezebra wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »Biochemist here.
However, I would caution pro science people that we don't necessarily have the big picture about why some people are overweight and some people aren't, or why there is an obesity epidemic. Just telling people to eat less and exercise more doesn't seem to be ending the epidemic, though it has worked for me personally.
And isn't that the issue, though? Whenever it comes down to the individual level, a person exercising more and eating less, i.e. in a calorie deficit, invariably loses the weight. I've yet to hear of someone without a medical condition where that wasn't the case.
But it seems to be a hell of a lot harder for some people. I was a binge eater, and hypothyroid, and still stayed within my healthy weight range. I'm not especially prone to being overweight.
It's simple, not easy.
Geneticist and firm believer in CICO. :flowerforyou:
There is more than just calories in and calories out, when it comes to how much people want to eat, how much energy they actually use, and why some people eat too much. There are also an alarming number of studies showing that people almost invariably regain the weight they lose. If you want science that helps people with obesity and all the health problems associated with it, you can't stop at CICO, no matter how fervently you believe in it, and no matter how well it works for people who aren't overweight anyway, because it hasn't helped enough of the people who really need it.
Most people do fail at dieting, but honestly, the worst case scenario that gets thrown out of 90% comes from a study done in the 1950s - where they used the then cutting edge method of giving people a pamphlet with diet recommendations, sent them home, and then checked on them 1 year or so later.
Trying to deal with obesity as an epidemic involves complex policy decisions that are too political for MFP's general forums, and aren't really useful at the individual level. At the individual level, adherence to a calorie deficit is guaranteed to produce results, and personal responsibility will make it happen. Admittedly, not everyone wants to do that.0 -
Hooray for science!!
I'm currently training to become a doctor and all of the fads out there are crazy. Some just ridiculous, others pure dangerous!!
Feel free to add for sensible talks 0
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 427 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