The science of weight loss and why it's unhelpful

schibsted750 wrote: »

I still don't understand what the original argument is setting out to prove. "The science of weight loss" consists of many different theories and methods. Which of them, specifically, are you objecting to? The conclusion that our bodies were designed for what you call the "evolutionary environment" is itself derived from many, many different scientific findings, sometimes taken from fields not directly related to weight loss. For example evolutionary theory significantly influenced the early ancestral health thinkers. Our ideas about caloric balance are taken from thermodynamics, which is a special topic in physics. Are you saying that physics is not useful for weight loss? That's true, in a sense, but why does it matter?

Personally, I tried for two years to lose weight by following the principles of ancestral health, because the simplicity and elegance of the methods appealed to me. I didn't want to count calories or intellectualize my fitness because I saw that approach as neurotic. I didn't want to do endurance workouts of any kind because I thought they were boring, and also because I was persuaded that they are harmful. The result of this prejudice was that I didn't lose a single pound. Then I finally relented, started tracking my macros and restricting calories, and ate and exercised in accordance with principles, instead of my impulses.

Once I abandoned the ancestral health paradigm, I lost fifty pounds in a year. I did it by engaging in what's referred to by that community as "chronic cardio," sometimes at the expense of resistance training and always at the expense of HIIT, eating massive amounts of the supposedly deadly carbohydrate, not giving a *kitten* about the fructose content of fruit, not wasting my time on walking for several hours every day, etc. And after losing, I've maintained without the help of Intermittent Fasting or any of the other tricks that are supposed to match my hormonal profile to the ancestral eating pattern, or whatever the rationale for it currently is.

Now I really wish that I had taken this approach earlier, because it turns out to be extremely simple and totally unrelated to neurosis or obsession of any kind. But taking this approach required me to reverse literally every single one of the positions that I'd taken based on the writings of Mark Sisson, Art de Vany, Loren Cordain, Robb Wolf, and others.

And if you think that none of these recommendations are necessarily part of the "ancestral health" paradigm, then the term has no meaning in this conversation. They themselves have claimed the phrase "ancestral health" as the name for their theory.

1. Eat whole foods as best you can.
2. Exercise as best you can
3. Lift weights to build a strong body, as best you can.
4. Stick to your calorie goal through the simple CICO formula.

1. What is a whole food? Are some whole foods better than others?
2. What kind of exercise, how much, how frequently?
3. Same question: what lifts, how much weight, how many reps, how often?
4. How big should the calorie deficit be, what kinds of foods and behaviors can support the body through the stress of deficit eating?

These are the questions that the science of weight loss tries and often manages to answer. But there are many different answers, and "ancestral health" is just one of them.

I'm not saying that ancestral health can't work, but I am curious who it's supposed to work for if it didn't work for me. I was a single man in his early twenties, with a large discretionary budget and otherwise excellent health. Eliminating certain food groups, trying to maximize "naturalistic" movement and sleep, etc. was not sufficient.

TBH I don't think the Paleo guys are even marketing a fitness strategy. They're marketing a lifestyle that can be adhered to as a status symbol by bourgeois with tons of leisure time.

AnvilHead wrote: »

GuitarJerry wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

roblloyd89 wrote: »

Do you think our ancestors gave a damn about macros?

We are designed to live in a world where the only stress we have is worrying about predators, scarcity of food and warmth.

I appreciate we can't go back to these times unfortunately, but replicate as best we can our natural requirements, exercise, weight training and natural food, and stick as best you can to your your calorie requirements.

It's that simple, for most people, everything outside of this is jargon, designed to confuse and adds little benefit.

In philosophy, this is known as an is-ought problem. You've take evolution, which tells us what is, and using it to try to derive what ought. The problem with this is something evolutionary theory itself will tell you: nature doesn't look for optimality, it looks for what works right with what it has to work with.
Me, I'm interested in thriving, not simply surviving.

This is it. I've said this so many times that I'm sick of saying it. But the fallacy of a Paleo diet, as an example only, but since we're talking about ancestral, I think it's appropriate, is that Paleo people didn't decide to eat Paleo. They ate was available to them. They were survivors. They didn't chose a diet. And, it doesn't explain people in other parts of the world who probably had a completely different diet and still thrived at that same time in history. So, it's just a bunch of BS, really.

Science has helped us understand some of this.

The other thing overlooked is that Paleo (short for Paleolithic) was an age, era or period, not a people. It would be equivalent to naming today's age and making up a diet with the assumption that everybody everywhere in the world eats the same way. There were people during the Paleolithic era who lived in temperate climates, desert climates, arctic climates, etc. - they were in different parts of the world, had different indigenous flora and fauna available to them and thus, ate differently.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong or unhealthy about the Paleo diet - I just think it's arbitrarily/unnecessarily restrictive and the whole "ancestral/paleo" thing is founded upon bogus principles. It's another gimmick in the diet world intended to sell books, plans, supplements, etc.

Not to mention the fact that the life expectancy of humans in the paleolithic period was 33 years. Chronic diseases didn't have as much time to manifest themselves and medical care was so primitive that there was no way of diagnosing/treating any of them.

http://youtu.be/BMOjVYgYaG8

Scamd83 wrote: »

We are designed to live in a world where the only stress we have is worrying about predators, scarcity of food and warmth.

I appreciate we can't go back to these times unfortunately

You want to go back to a time where we're being hunted and struggling to find food and stay warm?

paultucker1007 wrote: »

I'm somewhat confused as to why a marketing manager who confessedly isn't very good at explaining things feels the need to announce his opinion on a public forum. A hundred better qualified people than him have expressed his exact opinion; a hundred better qualified people have expressed a different opinion.

roblloyd89 wrote: »

Overcomplexity creates confusion, for a lot of new people, it can be off putting to read about endless diets, exercise options, macro ratios.

The purpose of this thread was to try and take things back to basics.

For the record, what does me being a marketing manager have to do with expressing an opinion, regardless of how ill thought out it was?

brower47 wrote: »

AnvilHead wrote: »

GuitarJerry wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

roblloyd89 wrote: »

Do you think our ancestors gave a damn about macros?

We are designed to live in a world where the only stress we have is worrying about predators, scarcity of food and warmth.

I appreciate we can't go back to these times unfortunately, but replicate as best we can our natural requirements, exercise, weight training and natural food, and stick as best you can to your your calorie requirements.

It's that simple, for most people, everything outside of this is jargon, designed to confuse and adds little benefit.

In philosophy, this is known as an is-ought problem. You've take evolution, which tells us what is, and using it to try to derive what ought. The problem with this is something evolutionary theory itself will tell you: nature doesn't look for optimality, it looks for what works right with what it has to work with.
Me, I'm interested in thriving, not simply surviving.

This is it. I've said this so many times that I'm sick of saying it. But the fallacy of a Paleo diet, as an example only, but since we're talking about ancestral, I think it's appropriate, is that Paleo people didn't decide to eat Paleo. They ate was available to them. They were survivors. They didn't chose a diet. And, it doesn't explain people in other parts of the world who probably had a completely different diet and still thrived at that same time in history. So, it's just a bunch of BS, really.

Science has helped us understand some of this.

The other thing overlooked is that Paleo (short for Paleolithic) was an age, era or period, not a people. It would be equivalent to naming today's age and making up a diet with the assumption that everybody everywhere in the world eats the same way. There were people during the Paleolithic era who lived in temperate climates, desert climates, arctic climates, etc. - they were in different parts of the world, had different indigenous flora and fauna available to them and thus, ate differently.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong or unhealthy about the Paleo diet - I just think it's arbitrarily/unnecessarily restrictive and the whole "ancestral/paleo" thing is founded upon bogus principles. It's another gimmick in the diet world intended to sell books, plans, supplements, etc.

Not to mention the fact that the life expectancy of humans in the paleolithic period was 33 years. Chronic diseases didn't have as much time to manifest themselves and medical care was so primitive that there was no way of diagnosing/treating any of them.

I loved the way this woman explain it during a TED talk.

http://youtu.be/BMOjVYgYaG8

paultucker1007 wrote: »

Oh yes, I agree everyone is and should be free to express an opinion. I too have an opinion, but as I'm not a dietitian, scientist or similar (who would comprise the 200+ better qualified people) I can't imagine why anyone else would be interested in it.

Which makes me wonder why I'm posting this. Oh well, live and learn

Wiseandcurious wrote: »

paultucker1007 wrote: »

Oh yes, I agree everyone is and should be free to express an opinion. I too have an opinion, but as I'm not a dietitian, scientist or similar (who would comprise the 200+ better qualified people) I can't imagine why anyone else would be interested in it.

Which makes me wonder why I'm posting this. Oh well, live and learn

Since you admit to self-censuring based on your qualifications, and apparently are expecting others to do the same, obviously you do not really believe that everyone should be free to express an opinion. Free expression means they get to, actually, you know, express?

paultucker1007 wrote: »

Wiseandcurious wrote: »

paultucker1007 wrote: »

Oh yes, I agree everyone is and should be free to express an opinion. I too have an opinion, but as I'm not a dietitian, scientist or similar (who would comprise the 200+ better qualified people) I can't imagine why anyone else would be interested in it.

Which makes me wonder why I'm posting this. Oh well, live and learn

Since you admit to self-censuring based on your qualifications, and apparently are expecting others to do the same, obviously you do not really believe that everyone should be free to express an opinion. Free expression means they get to, actually, you know, express?

Sure, and I haven't advocated restricting anyone's freedom to do so. My question was, I guess, why do people not self-censure when it should be painfully obvious to them that other than n=1 anecdote, they have nothing to contribute?

Further, although you haven't explicitly implied that the following is my view - freedom to express oneself does not mean freedom from challenge, disagreement or outright ridicule.

roblloyd89 wrote: »

Do you think our ancestors gave a damn about macros?

We are designed to live in a world where the only stress we have is worrying about predators, scarcity of food and warmth.

roblloyd89 wrote: »

I appreciate we can't go back to these times unfortunately, but replicate as best we can our natural requirements, exercise, weight training and natural food, and stick as best you can to your your calorie requirements.

It's that simple, for most people, everything outside of this is jargon, designed to confuse and adds little benefit.

sheermomentum wrote: »

roblloyd89 wrote: »

Do you think our ancestors gave a damn about macros?

We are designed to live in a world where the only stress we have is worrying about predators, scarcity of food and warmth.

1. Leaving aside the phrase "we are designed," and taking it only an attempt to indicate a relationship between human physiology and stress factors, you are, respectfully, mistaken. We are "designed," by intention or otherwise, to worry about many things beyond survival. That is a large part of what differentiates human animals from many other animals. In order to pursue these worries for which we are designed, we inherently need data to absorb and process. For instance, while our ancestors may not have cottoned onto the idea of carbohydrates and proteins in the same way that we do, we certainly do know that they were interested in how plants and meats could be combined to produce some tasty treats.

roblloyd89 wrote: »

I appreciate we can't go back to these times unfortunately, but replicate as best we can our natural requirements, exercise, weight training and natural food, and stick as best you can to your your calorie requirements.

It's that simple, for most people, everything outside of this is jargon, designed to confuse and adds little benefit.

2. Anything that can be absorbed and processed as a nutritional input to the human body is, quite naturally, food. That's a whole, long, conversation to itself. ONE of your original points seems to be that there is good, "natural" food, and other stuff that people also eat. You kind of fly by this implication on your way to other things, but its sticking out there where others can pick up on it and respond, so they did. My own response is "ballocks." The very use of this phrase is part of the modern food-and-fitness jargon that you seem to be objecting to.

3. I don't think you should assume that "most people" should be satisfied with the prescription to exercise, weight train, and eat "natural" food, and I particularly object to the contention that these are our only "natural requirements" for good health. It should be pretty clear by now that many, many people want to have an understanding that goes far beyond this - enough people that you might even start to wonder if that is another "natural requirement." Which, as I said before, it is. So, if your core advice is that people should just stop thinking about these things, then I think that's 1. not really actionable for "most people," and 2. Not very good advice since you haven't really defined what "exercise, weight training and natural food" are, even if we assume that if you did define them perfectly, then they would be a perfect prescription for health. Which they certainly could never be unless you actually did not take your own advice and spent a lot of time thinking about these things.

thorsmom01 wrote: »

roblloyd89 wrote: »

Ladies and gentlemen'

1. Eat whole foods as best you can.
2. Exercise as best you can
3. Lift weights to build a strong body, as best you can.
4. Stick to your calorie goal through the simple CICO formula.

For most people on this board, that will be sufficient.

Sorry for any misunderstanding, it really wasn't deigned to be.

And sorry for offending anyone

I like this explanation much better