Don't always believe what you read on the internet............
Options
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Conversely, it doesn't matter how much you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good if the science doesn't support it. Doing something because you can manage to do it isn't enough.
Good point. There's no right way to do a wrong thing.
That's not entirely true. There's no science that supports stopping eating at a particular time, or eating meals at certain times, as directly impacting weight loss, i.e. your body does not shut down when you go to sleep or stop burning calories if you don't eat every few hours to keep your metabolism going, which are the typical supposedly science-based explanations for doing that.
But both strategies can be helpful to an individual for dietary adherence, which can help keep a calorie deficit. So not directly supported by science, but not exactly wrong either. Wrong is pretty much in the eye of the beholder when it comes to weight loss and exercise. For some people, the learning process is more important than the scale number, so while you might find something to be a waste of time, someone else might gain a skill that will help them later on. There's no "right" way to go about this process.
Sure, like in the green tea thread, I told the OP if it was working for her who cares if science doesn't support it. (While someone did post a study that supported green tea and weight loss, that was a minority view.)
That OP was not trying to get a paper published or get FDA approval.
Except "it's" not actually working for her. What's working is the calorie deficit. An OP confusing correllation for causation does not mean the nonsense is actually working.
I think very often the "how" is as (or more) important as the "what".
As someone pointed out above psychology plays a role in weight loss. Often a fairly significant role. Insisting that physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.
And tying this back into my last post, I wouldn't bother asking you to prove scientifically why those "number of things" worked for you.
However, if you start evangelizing that those things are what cause weight loss and advised that if others just "did those things" they'll lose weight, then yes, people would want to see more than n=1 proof.
I am complete agreement with this. But saying "this worked for me" is not an untrue statement if it did indeed work for you. Even if you are talking about green tea.
It still comes down to context though.
"X Worked for me" as a simple statement...meh, I have no real issues with that.
"X Worked for me" as a reply to an OP asking "How do I lose weight"...probably borderline. The implied sentiment there is "and it will work for you too". I'd probably call that out.
"X Worked for me...so if you do it you WILL lose weight too"...yeah that's gonna get called out.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Conversely, it doesn't matter how much you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good if the science doesn't support it. Doing something because you can manage to do it isn't enough.
Good point. There's no right way to do a wrong thing.
That's not entirely true. There's no science that supports stopping eating at a particular time, or eating meals at certain times, as directly impacting weight loss, i.e. your body does not shut down when you go to sleep or stop burning calories if you don't eat every few hours to keep your metabolism going, which are the typical supposedly science-based explanations for doing that.
But both strategies can be helpful to an individual for dietary adherence, which can help keep a calorie deficit. So not directly supported by science, but not exactly wrong either. Wrong is pretty much in the eye of the beholder when it comes to weight loss and exercise. For some people, the learning process is more important than the scale number, so while you might find something to be a waste of time, someone else might gain a skill that will help them later on. There's no "right" way to go about this process.
Sure, like in the green tea thread, I told the OP if it was working for her who cares if science doesn't support it. (While someone did post a study that supported green tea and weight loss, that was a minority view.)
That OP was not trying to get a paper published or get FDA approval.
Except "it's" not actually working for her. What's working is the calorie deficit. An OP confusing correllation for causation does not mean the nonsense is actually working.
I think very often the "how" is as (or more) important as the "what".
As someone pointed out above psychology plays a role in weight loss. Often a fairly significant role. Insisting that physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.
And tying this back into my last post, I wouldn't bother asking you to prove scientifically why those "number of things" worked for you.
However, if you start evangelizing that those things are what cause weight loss and advised that if others just "did those things" they'll lose weight, then yes, people would want to see more than n=1 proof.
I am complete agreement with this. But saying "this worked for me" is not an untrue statement if it did indeed work for you. Even if you are talking about green tea.
Meal timing worked for me. It's what made keeping a deficit easy. What made has made it sustainable so far and I believe will continue to do so. For me to share that without science to back it up (though there is some data on it) is not 'woo'*. Saying it didn't help is incorrect.
* I don't think it's woo. Honestly I'm a little confused by the whole woo usage on these forums.
This is again where correlation and causation get mixed up, and where people confuse the implementation of the science for the actual science
If you phrased your second paragraph about meal timing exactly that way, essentially that it was a sustainable way to help you maintain satiety while in a calorie deficit, then no one would have any issues.
Saying that Green Tea worked for me implies that it was the Green Tea that caused the weight loss, instead of, "I found green tea to be an enjoyable thing to consume while in a calorie deficit, it helped keep me full and aided in avoiding water retention".
Slight variation in wording would help avoid a lot of arguments!
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Conversely, it doesn't matter how much you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good if the science doesn't support it. Doing something because you can manage to do it isn't enough.
Good point. There's no right way to do a wrong thing.
That's not entirely true. There's no science that supports stopping eating at a particular time, or eating meals at certain times, as directly impacting weight loss, i.e. your body does not shut down when you go to sleep or stop burning calories if you don't eat every few hours to keep your metabolism going, which are the typical supposedly science-based explanations for doing that.
But both strategies can be helpful to an individual for dietary adherence, which can help keep a calorie deficit. So not directly supported by science, but not exactly wrong either. Wrong is pretty much in the eye of the beholder when it comes to weight loss and exercise. For some people, the learning process is more important than the scale number, so while you might find something to be a waste of time, someone else might gain a skill that will help them later on. There's no "right" way to go about this process.
Sure, like in the green tea thread, I told the OP if it was working for her who cares if science doesn't support it. (While someone did post a study that supported green tea and weight loss, that was a minority view.)
That OP was not trying to get a paper published or get FDA approval.
Except "it's" not actually working for her. What's working is the calorie deficit. An OP confusing correllation for causation does not mean the nonsense is actually working.
I think very often the "how" is as (or more) important as the "what".
As someone pointed out above psychology plays a role in weight loss. Often a fairly significant role. Insisting that physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.
And tying this back into my last post, I wouldn't bother asking you to prove scientifically why those "number of things" worked for you.
However, if you start evangelizing that those things are what cause weight loss and advised that if others just "did those things" they'll lose weight, then yes, people would want to see more than n=1 proof.
I am complete agreement with this. But saying "this worked for me" is not an untrue statement if it did indeed work for you. Even if you are talking about green tea.
Meal timing worked for me. It's what made keeping a deficit easy. What made has made it sustainable so far and I believe will continue to do so. For me to share that without science to back it up (though there is some data on it) is not 'woo'*. Saying it didn't help is incorrect.
* I don't think it's woo. Honestly I'm a little confused by the whole woo usage on these forums.
This is again where correlation and causation get mixed up, and where people confuse the implementation of the science for the actual science
If you phrased your second paragraph about meal timing exactly that way, essentially that it was a sustainable way to help you maintain satiety while in a calorie deficit, then no one would have any issues.
Saying that Green Tea worked for me implies that it was the Green Tea that caused the weight loss, instead of, "I found green tea to be an enjoyable thing to consume while in a calorie deficit, it helped keep me full and aided in avoiding water retention".
Slight variation in wording would help avoid a lot of arguments!
That seems nitpicky. It's like when people say exercise doesn't work for weight loss because you have to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight.
Maybe less nitpicking would help avoid a lot of arguments. 0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Conversely, it doesn't matter how much you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good if the science doesn't support it. Doing something because you can manage to do it isn't enough.
Good point. There's no right way to do a wrong thing.
That's not entirely true. There's no science that supports stopping eating at a particular time, or eating meals at certain times, as directly impacting weight loss, i.e. your body does not shut down when you go to sleep or stop burning calories if you don't eat every few hours to keep your metabolism going, which are the typical supposedly science-based explanations for doing that.
But both strategies can be helpful to an individual for dietary adherence, which can help keep a calorie deficit. So not directly supported by science, but not exactly wrong either. Wrong is pretty much in the eye of the beholder when it comes to weight loss and exercise. For some people, the learning process is more important than the scale number, so while you might find something to be a waste of time, someone else might gain a skill that will help them later on. There's no "right" way to go about this process.
Sure, like in the green tea thread, I told the OP if it was working for her who cares if science doesn't support it. (While someone did post a study that supported green tea and weight loss, that was a minority view.)
That OP was not trying to get a paper published or get FDA approval.
Except "it's" not actually working for her. What's working is the calorie deficit. An OP confusing correllation for causation does not mean the nonsense is actually working.
I think very often the "how" is as (or more) important as the "what".
As someone pointed out above psychology plays a role in weight loss. Often a fairly significant role. Insisting that physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.
And tying this back into my last post, I wouldn't bother asking you to prove scientifically why those "number of things" worked for you.
However, if you start evangelizing that those things are what cause weight loss and advised that if others just "did those things" they'll lose weight, then yes, people would want to see more than n=1 proof.
I am complete agreement with this. But saying "this worked for me" is not an untrue statement if it did indeed work for you. Even if you are talking about green tea.
Meal timing worked for me. It's what made keeping a deficit easy. What made has made it sustainable so far and I believe will continue to do so. For me to share that without science to back it up (though there is some data on it) is not 'woo'*. Saying it didn't help is incorrect.
* I don't think it's woo. Honestly I'm a little confused by the whole woo usage on these forums.
This is again where correlation and causation get mixed up, and where people confuse the implementation of the science for the actual science
If you phrased your second paragraph about meal timing exactly that way, essentially that it was a sustainable way to help you maintain satiety while in a calorie deficit, then no one would have any issues.
Saying that Green Tea worked for me implies that it was the Green Tea that caused the weight loss, instead of, "I found green tea to be an enjoyable thing to consume while in a calorie deficit, it helped keep me full and aided in avoiding water retention".
Slight variation in wording would help avoid a lot of arguments!
That seems nitpicky. It's like when people say exercise doesn't work for weight loss because you have to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight.
Maybe less nitpicking would help avoid a lot of arguments.
But nitpicking speeds up your metabolism. I know it's true because I read it on the internet!
0 -
strong_curves wrote: »Overall realize that weight loss is DIRECTLY dependent on sustaining a calorie deficit on a consistent basis and that ALL diet and weight loss programs have to apply it or they won't work.
I try to tell people this all the time and they just don't believe it's that simple or even true. Why even ask how I lost weight and then think I'm lying to you when I say "eating less than I burn"?!?!?
This. I mean, I sort of get why people won't believe at first. It is SO SUPER SIMPLE, and I think that everyone has this idea it's complicated cause of all the crap that comes up on google when your search "how to lose weight". It just sounds like a lie because it's so simplistic and you're trained to think it's complicated.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Conversely, it doesn't matter how much you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good if the science doesn't support it. Doing something because you can manage to do it isn't enough.
Good point. There's no right way to do a wrong thing.
That's not entirely true. There's no science that supports stopping eating at a particular time, or eating meals at certain times, as directly impacting weight loss, i.e. your body does not shut down when you go to sleep or stop burning calories if you don't eat every few hours to keep your metabolism going, which are the typical supposedly science-based explanations for doing that.
But both strategies can be helpful to an individual for dietary adherence, which can help keep a calorie deficit. So not directly supported by science, but not exactly wrong either. Wrong is pretty much in the eye of the beholder when it comes to weight loss and exercise. For some people, the learning process is more important than the scale number, so while you might find something to be a waste of time, someone else might gain a skill that will help them later on. There's no "right" way to go about this process.
Sure, like in the green tea thread, I told the OP if it was working for her who cares if science doesn't support it. (While someone did post a study that supported green tea and weight loss, that was a minority view.)
That OP was not trying to get a paper published or get FDA approval.
Except "it's" not actually working for her. What's working is the calorie deficit. An OP confusing correllation for causation does not mean the nonsense is actually working.
I think very often the "how" is as (or more) important as the "what".
As someone pointed out above psychology plays a role in weight loss. Often a fairly significant role. Insisting that physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.
And tying this back into my last post, I wouldn't bother asking you to prove scientifically why those "number of things" worked for you.
However, if you start evangelizing that those things are what cause weight loss and advised that if others just "did those things" they'll lose weight, then yes, people would want to see more than n=1 proof.
I am complete agreement with this. But saying "this worked for me" is not an untrue statement if it did indeed work for you. Even if you are talking about green tea.
Meal timing worked for me. It's what made keeping a deficit easy. What made has made it sustainable so far and I believe will continue to do so. For me to share that without science to back it up (though there is some data on it) is not 'woo'*. Saying it didn't help is incorrect.
* I don't think it's woo. Honestly I'm a little confused by the whole woo usage on these forums.
This is again where correlation and causation get mixed up, and where people confuse the implementation of the science for the actual science
If you phrased your second paragraph about meal timing exactly that way, essentially that it was a sustainable way to help you maintain satiety while in a calorie deficit, then no one would have any issues.
Saying that Green Tea worked for me implies that it was the Green Tea that caused the weight loss, instead of, "I found green tea to be an enjoyable thing to consume while in a calorie deficit, it helped keep me full and aided in avoiding water retention".
Slight variation in wording would help avoid a lot of arguments!
That seems nitpicky. It's like when people say exercise doesn't work for weight loss because you have to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight.
Maybe less nitpicking would help avoid a lot of arguments.
Amongst the regular users, you're probably right.
But for the newbie type posters who may not have the info and background a lot of us do, I think it's necessary to point out the nits, as to ensure the most complete and accurate information gets into their hands.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Conversely, it doesn't matter how much you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good if the science doesn't support it. Doing something because you can manage to do it isn't enough.
Good point. There's no right way to do a wrong thing.
That's not entirely true. There's no science that supports stopping eating at a particular time, or eating meals at certain times, as directly impacting weight loss, i.e. your body does not shut down when you go to sleep or stop burning calories if you don't eat every few hours to keep your metabolism going, which are the typical supposedly science-based explanations for doing that.
But both strategies can be helpful to an individual for dietary adherence, which can help keep a calorie deficit. So not directly supported by science, but not exactly wrong either. Wrong is pretty much in the eye of the beholder when it comes to weight loss and exercise. For some people, the learning process is more important than the scale number, so while you might find something to be a waste of time, someone else might gain a skill that will help them later on. There's no "right" way to go about this process.
Sure, like in the green tea thread, I told the OP if it was working for her who cares if science doesn't support it. (While someone did post a study that supported green tea and weight loss, that was a minority view.)
That OP was not trying to get a paper published or get FDA approval.
Except "it's" not actually working for her. What's working is the calorie deficit. An OP confusing correllation for causation does not mean the nonsense is actually working.
I think very often the "how" is as (or more) important as the "what".
As someone pointed out above psychology plays a role in weight loss. Often a fairly significant role. Insisting that physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.
And tying this back into my last post, I wouldn't bother asking you to prove scientifically why those "number of things" worked for you.
However, if you start evangelizing that those things are what cause weight loss and advised that if others just "did those things" they'll lose weight, then yes, people would want to see more than n=1 proof.
I am complete agreement with this. But saying "this worked for me" is not an untrue statement if it did indeed work for you. Even if you are talking about green tea.
Meal timing worked for me. It's what made keeping a deficit easy. What made has made it sustainable so far and I believe will continue to do so. For me to share that without science to back it up (though there is some data on it) is not 'woo'*. Saying it didn't help is incorrect.
* I don't think it's woo. Honestly I'm a little confused by the whole woo usage on these forums.
This is again where correlation and causation get mixed up, and where people confuse the implementation of the science for the actual science
If you phrased your second paragraph about meal timing exactly that way, essentially that it was a sustainable way to help you maintain satiety while in a calorie deficit, then no one would have any issues.
Saying that Green Tea worked for me implies that it was the Green Tea that caused the weight loss, instead of, "I found green tea to be an enjoyable thing to consume while in a calorie deficit, it helped keep me full and aided in avoiding water retention".
Slight variation in wording would help avoid a lot of arguments!
That seems nitpicky. It's like when people say exercise doesn't work for weight loss because you have to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight.
Maybe less nitpicking would help avoid a lot of arguments.
Amongst the regular users, you're probably right.
But for the newbie type posters who may not have the info and background a lot of us do, I think it's necessary to point out the nits, as to ensure the most complete and accurate information gets into their hands.
Are there many people who truly don't know you must be a calorie deficit to lose weight? I always think people are implying that someone is stupid or simple when they point that out.0 -
You'd be surprised. I've had many a client who changed their eating habits, exercised consistently and couldn't figure out why no weight loss occurred. Lol, one even told me she went from eating chips (double serving bag for one) to eating natural organic peanut butter................a half jar a day.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Conversely, it doesn't matter how much you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good if the science doesn't support it. Doing something because you can manage to do it isn't enough.
Good point. There's no right way to do a wrong thing.
That's not entirely true. There's no science that supports stopping eating at a particular time, or eating meals at certain times, as directly impacting weight loss, i.e. your body does not shut down when you go to sleep or stop burning calories if you don't eat every few hours to keep your metabolism going, which are the typical supposedly science-based explanations for doing that.
But both strategies can be helpful to an individual for dietary adherence, which can help keep a calorie deficit. So not directly supported by science, but not exactly wrong either. Wrong is pretty much in the eye of the beholder when it comes to weight loss and exercise. For some people, the learning process is more important than the scale number, so while you might find something to be a waste of time, someone else might gain a skill that will help them later on. There's no "right" way to go about this process.
Sure, like in the green tea thread, I told the OP if it was working for her who cares if science doesn't support it. (While someone did post a study that supported green tea and weight loss, that was a minority view.)
That OP was not trying to get a paper published or get FDA approval.
Except "it's" not actually working for her. What's working is the calorie deficit. An OP confusing correllation for causation does not mean the nonsense is actually working.
I think very often the "how" is as (or more) important as the "what".
As someone pointed out above psychology plays a role in weight loss. Often a fairly significant role. Insisting that physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.
And tying this back into my last post, I wouldn't bother asking you to prove scientifically why those "number of things" worked for you.
However, if you start evangelizing that those things are what cause weight loss and advised that if others just "did those things" they'll lose weight, then yes, people would want to see more than n=1 proof.
I am complete agreement with this. But saying "this worked for me" is not an untrue statement if it did indeed work for you. Even if you are talking about green tea.
Meal timing worked for me. It's what made keeping a deficit easy. What made has made it sustainable so far and I believe will continue to do so. For me to share that without science to back it up (though there is some data on it) is not 'woo'*. Saying it didn't help is incorrect.
* I don't think it's woo. Honestly I'm a little confused by the whole woo usage on these forums.
This is again where correlation and causation get mixed up, and where people confuse the implementation of the science for the actual science
If you phrased your second paragraph about meal timing exactly that way, essentially that it was a sustainable way to help you maintain satiety while in a calorie deficit, then no one would have any issues.
Saying that Green Tea worked for me implies that it was the Green Tea that caused the weight loss, instead of, "I found green tea to be an enjoyable thing to consume while in a calorie deficit, it helped keep me full and aided in avoiding water retention".
Slight variation in wording would help avoid a lot of arguments!
That seems nitpicky. It's like when people say exercise doesn't work for weight loss because you have to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight.
Maybe less nitpicking would help avoid a lot of arguments.
Amongst the regular users, you're probably right.
But for the newbie type posters who may not have the info and background a lot of us do, I think it's necessary to point out the nits, as to ensure the most complete and accurate information gets into their hands.
Are there many people who truly don't know you must be a calorie deficit to lose weight? I always think people are implying that someone is stupid or simple when they point that out.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
tracyannk28 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Conversely, it doesn't matter how much you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good if the science doesn't support it. Doing something because you can manage to do it isn't enough.
Good point. There's no right way to do a wrong thing.
That's not entirely true. There's no science that supports stopping eating at a particular time, or eating meals at certain times, as directly impacting weight loss, i.e. your body does not shut down when you go to sleep or stop burning calories if you don't eat every few hours to keep your metabolism going, which are the typical supposedly science-based explanations for doing that.
But both strategies can be helpful to an individual for dietary adherence, which can help keep a calorie deficit. So not directly supported by science, but not exactly wrong either. Wrong is pretty much in the eye of the beholder when it comes to weight loss and exercise. For some people, the learning process is more important than the scale number, so while you might find something to be a waste of time, someone else might gain a skill that will help them later on. There's no "right" way to go about this process.
Sure, like in the green tea thread, I told the OP if it was working for her who cares if science doesn't support it. (While someone did post a study that supported green tea and weight loss, that was a minority view.)
That OP was not trying to get a paper published or get FDA approval.
Except "it's" not actually working for her. What's working is the calorie deficit. An OP confusing correllation for causation does not mean the nonsense is actually working.
I think very often the "how" is as (or more) important as the "what".
As someone pointed out above psychology plays a role in weight loss. Often a fairly significant role. Insisting that physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.
And tying this back into my last post, I wouldn't bother asking you to prove scientifically why those "number of things" worked for you.
However, if you start evangelizing that those things are what cause weight loss and advised that if others just "did those things" they'll lose weight, then yes, people would want to see more than n=1 proof.
I am complete agreement with this. But saying "this worked for me" is not an untrue statement if it did indeed work for you. Even if you are talking about green tea.
Meal timing worked for me. It's what made keeping a deficit easy. What made has made it sustainable so far and I believe will continue to do so. For me to share that without science to back it up (though there is some data on it) is not 'woo'*. Saying it didn't help is incorrect.
* I don't think it's woo. Honestly I'm a little confused by the whole woo usage on these forums.
This is again where correlation and causation get mixed up, and where people confuse the implementation of the science for the actual science
If you phrased your second paragraph about meal timing exactly that way, essentially that it was a sustainable way to help you maintain satiety while in a calorie deficit, then no one would have any issues.
Saying that Green Tea worked for me implies that it was the Green Tea that caused the weight loss, instead of, "I found green tea to be an enjoyable thing to consume while in a calorie deficit, it helped keep me full and aided in avoiding water retention".
Slight variation in wording would help avoid a lot of arguments!
That seems nitpicky. It's like when people say exercise doesn't work for weight loss because you have to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight.
Maybe less nitpicking would help avoid a lot of arguments.
But nitpicking speeds up your metabolism. I know it's true because I read it on the internet!
How I would I log that?0 -
Well said OP.0
-
Cranquistador wrote: »tracyannk28 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Conversely, it doesn't matter how much you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good if the science doesn't support it. Doing something because you can manage to do it isn't enough.
Good point. There's no right way to do a wrong thing.
That's not entirely true. There's no science that supports stopping eating at a particular time, or eating meals at certain times, as directly impacting weight loss, i.e. your body does not shut down when you go to sleep or stop burning calories if you don't eat every few hours to keep your metabolism going, which are the typical supposedly science-based explanations for doing that.
But both strategies can be helpful to an individual for dietary adherence, which can help keep a calorie deficit. So not directly supported by science, but not exactly wrong either. Wrong is pretty much in the eye of the beholder when it comes to weight loss and exercise. For some people, the learning process is more important than the scale number, so while you might find something to be a waste of time, someone else might gain a skill that will help them later on. There's no "right" way to go about this process.
Sure, like in the green tea thread, I told the OP if it was working for her who cares if science doesn't support it. (While someone did post a study that supported green tea and weight loss, that was a minority view.)
That OP was not trying to get a paper published or get FDA approval.
Except "it's" not actually working for her. What's working is the calorie deficit. An OP confusing correllation for causation does not mean the nonsense is actually working.
I think very often the "how" is as (or more) important as the "what".
As someone pointed out above psychology plays a role in weight loss. Often a fairly significant role. Insisting that physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.
And tying this back into my last post, I wouldn't bother asking you to prove scientifically why those "number of things" worked for you.
However, if you start evangelizing that those things are what cause weight loss and advised that if others just "did those things" they'll lose weight, then yes, people would want to see more than n=1 proof.
I am complete agreement with this. But saying "this worked for me" is not an untrue statement if it did indeed work for you. Even if you are talking about green tea.
Meal timing worked for me. It's what made keeping a deficit easy. What made has made it sustainable so far and I believe will continue to do so. For me to share that without science to back it up (though there is some data on it) is not 'woo'*. Saying it didn't help is incorrect.
* I don't think it's woo. Honestly I'm a little confused by the whole woo usage on these forums.
This is again where correlation and causation get mixed up, and where people confuse the implementation of the science for the actual science
If you phrased your second paragraph about meal timing exactly that way, essentially that it was a sustainable way to help you maintain satiety while in a calorie deficit, then no one would have any issues.
Saying that Green Tea worked for me implies that it was the Green Tea that caused the weight loss, instead of, "I found green tea to be an enjoyable thing to consume while in a calorie deficit, it helped keep me full and aided in avoiding water retention".
Slight variation in wording would help avoid a lot of arguments!
That seems nitpicky. It's like when people say exercise doesn't work for weight loss because you have to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight.
Maybe less nitpicking would help avoid a lot of arguments.
But nitpicking speeds up your metabolism. I know it's true because I read it on the internet!
How I would I log that?
Light calisthenics. If you're set up as a active, it's built into your NEAT.0 -
mattyc772014 wrote: »Just a note...recently did a 5K last weekend and thought it was funny when i noticed a fellow runner suck on a cigarette 10 mins before the race. I guess he needed it. Remember when they said smoking was good for you and doctors in the ads said certain brands helped with less throat irritation.
Who are they? Tobacco companies? Yes, tobacco companies with a vested interested got doctors to mention which menthol cigarette they preferred. Clinical researchers? There was barely ever any doubt - reports go back to, last I familiarized myself, as far back as the 1920s noting harm from smoking.
That is the greatest trick Tobacco companies pulled - to this day the waters have been muddied enough that people still think there was a scientific debate on the subject.
It's the same kind of anachronisms where people think no one thought the world was round when Columbus sailed - knowledge of a curved earth (if not actual round, at least curved earth) has to go back as far as the Egyptians: you simply can't build a structure as large as the pyramids without understanding the ground you're putting it on has a gradual slope.0 -
"Are there many people who truly don't know you must be a calorie deficit to lose weight? I always think people are implying that someone is stupid or simple when they point that out."
Yes, my step-dad is one of those guys. He goes on the "Atkins diet" or really his version of "I get to eat all the meat and cheese and nuts I want" and then wonders why he doesn't lose weight. He will sit down and eat a 1/3 of a tub of mixed nuts from Costco after eating a huge fatty meat plate with cheese and bacon and whatever else he wants to pile onto his plate...and he does it for 3 meals a day. I have tried to explain that it's not the amount of carbs you eat but the number of calories and creating a deficit and he tells me I don't understand the Atkins diet.
So yes, there really are some people out there who don't understand CICO. (He never looses weight and is just as heavy as before if not more heavy but claims that his "blood sugar" is great when he's on that "diet" and that's how he justifies not changing.) 0 -
mattyc772014 wrote: »Just a note...recently did a 5K last weekend and thought it was funny when i noticed a fellow runner suck on a cigarette 10 mins before the race. I guess he needed it. Remember when they said smoking was good for you and doctors in the ads said certain brands helped with less throat irritation.
Who are they? Tobacco companies? Yes, tobacco companies with a vested interested got doctors to mention which menthol cigarette they preferred. Clinical researchers? There was barely ever any doubt - reports go back to, last I familiarized myself, as far back as the 1920s noting harm from smoking.
That is the greatest trick Tobacco companies pulled - to this day the waters have been muddied enough that people still think there was a scientific debate on the subject.
It's the same kind of anachronisms where people think no one thought the world was round when Columbus sailed - knowledge of a curved earth (if not actual round, at least curved earth) has to go back as far as the Egyptians: you simply can't build a structure as large as the pyramids without understanding the ground you're putting it on has a gradual slope.
What, you mean there were accurate solar calendars before Europeans admitted that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe?!?!0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Conversely, it doesn't matter how much you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good if the science doesn't support it. Doing something because you can manage to do it isn't enough.
Good point. There's no right way to do a wrong thing.
That's not entirely true. There's no science that supports stopping eating at a particular time, or eating meals at certain times, as directly impacting weight loss, i.e. your body does not shut down when you go to sleep or stop burning calories if you don't eat every few hours to keep your metabolism going, which are the typical supposedly science-based explanations for doing that.
But both strategies can be helpful to an individual for dietary adherence, which can help keep a calorie deficit. So not directly supported by science, but not exactly wrong either. Wrong is pretty much in the eye of the beholder when it comes to weight loss and exercise. For some people, the learning process is more important than the scale number, so while you might find something to be a waste of time, someone else might gain a skill that will help them later on. There's no "right" way to go about this process.
Sure, like in the green tea thread, I told the OP if it was working for her who cares if science doesn't support it. (While someone did post a study that supported green tea and weight loss, that was a minority view.)
That OP was not trying to get a paper published or get FDA approval.
Except "it's" not actually working for her. What's working is the calorie deficit. An OP confusing correllation for causation does not mean the nonsense is actually working.
I think very often the "how" is as (or more) important as the "what".
As someone pointed out above psychology plays a role in weight loss. Often a fairly significant role. Insisting that physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.
And tying this back into my last post, I wouldn't bother asking you to prove scientifically why those "number of things" worked for you.
However, if you start evangelizing that those things are what cause weight loss and advised that if others just "did those things" they'll lose weight, then yes, people would want to see more than n=1 proof.
I am complete agreement with this. But saying "this worked for me" is not an untrue statement if it did indeed work for you. Even if you are talking about green tea.
Meal timing worked for me. It's what made keeping a deficit easy. What made has made it sustainable so far and I believe will continue to do so. For me to share that without science to back it up (though there is some data on it) is not 'woo'*. Saying it didn't help is incorrect.
* I don't think it's woo. Honestly I'm a little confused by the whole woo usage on these forums.
This is again where correlation and causation get mixed up, and where people confuse the implementation of the science for the actual science
If you phrased your second paragraph about meal timing exactly that way, essentially that it was a sustainable way to help you maintain satiety while in a calorie deficit, then no one would have any issues.
Saying that Green Tea worked for me implies that it was the Green Tea that caused the weight loss, instead of, "I found green tea to be an enjoyable thing to consume while in a calorie deficit, it helped keep me full and aided in avoiding water retention".
Slight variation in wording would help avoid a lot of arguments!
That seems nitpicky. It's like when people say exercise doesn't work for weight loss because you have to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight.
Maybe less nitpicking would help avoid a lot of arguments.
Amongst the regular users, you're probably right.
But for the newbie type posters who may not have the info and background a lot of us do, I think it's necessary to point out the nits, as to ensure the most complete and accurate information gets into their hands.
Are there many people who truly don't know you must be a calorie deficit to lose weight? I always think people are implying that someone is stupid or simple when they point that out.
I used to be baffled by this to but judging by the number of people who comment about how they tried some approach (low carb, etc) and can now eat MORE than their maintenance or are losing weight FASTER than they could by counting calories - I would say there are a lot of people who don't understand it, or don't believe it.0 -
The threads on MFP have a wealth of good information. On this thread there are several people that chimed in already that I have seen put an end to the BS that might spew from someones fingers on other threads. If someone cant comprehend common sense then you cant just expect them to get it. It is unfortunate that there are still charlatans. I have seen 3 BS ads on my Instagram feed about detox tea, hyper blaze and protein supplement. But I also saw some good ones such as Wink Frozen Ice cream, protein bar recipe and steak recipe. Just have to weed through the BS like everything else in life.0
-
I share an office with a woman who puts coconut oil in her morning coffee
My SIL keeps sending me juicing links... I've lost over 50lbs and she still fat but she's a-selling the woo
I need absolutely no convincing that people don't get CICO as a basic overriding premise
Hell I never used to0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Cranquistador wrote: »tracyannk28 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Conversely, it doesn't matter how much you can reasonably and consistently integrate into your life, it's not going to do you a lick of good if the science doesn't support it. Doing something because you can manage to do it isn't enough.
Good point. There's no right way to do a wrong thing.
That's not entirely true. There's no science that supports stopping eating at a particular time, or eating meals at certain times, as directly impacting weight loss, i.e. your body does not shut down when you go to sleep or stop burning calories if you don't eat every few hours to keep your metabolism going, which are the typical supposedly science-based explanations for doing that.
But both strategies can be helpful to an individual for dietary adherence, which can help keep a calorie deficit. So not directly supported by science, but not exactly wrong either. Wrong is pretty much in the eye of the beholder when it comes to weight loss and exercise. For some people, the learning process is more important than the scale number, so while you might find something to be a waste of time, someone else might gain a skill that will help them later on. There's no "right" way to go about this process.
Sure, like in the green tea thread, I told the OP if it was working for her who cares if science doesn't support it. (While someone did post a study that supported green tea and weight loss, that was a minority view.)
That OP was not trying to get a paper published or get FDA approval.
Except "it's" not actually working for her. What's working is the calorie deficit. An OP confusing correllation for causation does not mean the nonsense is actually working.
I think very often the "how" is as (or more) important as the "what".
As someone pointed out above psychology plays a role in weight loss. Often a fairly significant role. Insisting that physiology is all that matters is part of the nonsense on these boards IMO.
Well put. Back in April, I did a number of things to psyche myself up to start losing weight, none of which have a direct effect on weight loss, all of which were helpful.
When I stopped losing weight after hitting a mini goal last month, I employed another psychological technique.
And tying this back into my last post, I wouldn't bother asking you to prove scientifically why those "number of things" worked for you.
However, if you start evangelizing that those things are what cause weight loss and advised that if others just "did those things" they'll lose weight, then yes, people would want to see more than n=1 proof.
I am complete agreement with this. But saying "this worked for me" is not an untrue statement if it did indeed work for you. Even if you are talking about green tea.
Meal timing worked for me. It's what made keeping a deficit easy. What made has made it sustainable so far and I believe will continue to do so. For me to share that without science to back it up (though there is some data on it) is not 'woo'*. Saying it didn't help is incorrect.
* I don't think it's woo. Honestly I'm a little confused by the whole woo usage on these forums.
This is again where correlation and causation get mixed up, and where people confuse the implementation of the science for the actual science
If you phrased your second paragraph about meal timing exactly that way, essentially that it was a sustainable way to help you maintain satiety while in a calorie deficit, then no one would have any issues.
Saying that Green Tea worked for me implies that it was the Green Tea that caused the weight loss, instead of, "I found green tea to be an enjoyable thing to consume while in a calorie deficit, it helped keep me full and aided in avoiding water retention".
Slight variation in wording would help avoid a lot of arguments!
That seems nitpicky. It's like when people say exercise doesn't work for weight loss because you have to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight.
Maybe less nitpicking would help avoid a lot of arguments.
But nitpicking speeds up your metabolism. I know it's true because I read it on the internet!
How I would I log that?
Light calisthenics. If you're set up as a active, it's built into your NEAT.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Nonsense will get countered by those who can support better information. And the most reliable people will use legitimate research to back them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »While I agree with the subject line and most of your post, I think using MFP as a "resource" for knowledge is dangerous. There is a lot of nonsense on here. I'd suggest people take everything read on MFP with a grain of salt. It would be wise to verify everything through a reliable referenced source.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
What is really amazing is when people can say that they have years of experience - and others will counter with outright disbelief. If someone works in the medical field, and has hands-on, eyes-on experience, that is pretty much the same thing as the information in a scientific study.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions