The science of weight loss and why it's unhelpful
Options
Replies
-
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
Yes we do live and learn and it sure beats the alternative
I'm not a dietician, scientist or similar, I'm not qualified...I am capable of forming an opinion, professing it, discussing it and enjoying the nature of forums. So are you it seems. And I'll warrant so is the OP.
I have met a number of professionals and scientists who are not equally capable
0 -
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.
Well I'll be damned.
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?
Keep the bashing coming ladies and gentlemen0 -
Well *kitten* me didn't I cause a stir, I got all your attention, marketing was always my thing0
-
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?
Well, I know absolutely nothing about marketing. How interested might you be on my views as to whether TV ads or Search Engine Optimization is the best use of a finite budget?
0 -
paultucker1007 wrote: »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?
Well, I know absolutely nothing about marketing. How interested might you be on my views as to whether TV ads or Search Engine Optimization is the best use of a finite budget?
As a consumer who is privy to both, your opinion on this matter would be quite valuable to a marketing person. That's why they do endless surveys.
0 -
GuitarJerry 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
The 8 plus feet of sugar cane is a fresh memory from this video.
0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »As a consumer who is privy to both, your opinion on this matter would be quite valuable to a marketing person. That's why they do endless surveys.
Only to a marketing person who doesn't understand how to choose an appropriate sample size, I suspect.
0 -
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?0 -
GuitarJerry 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
Thank you for posting the video, Brower. I remembered seeing it in another thread, but couldn't find it again.0 -
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.0 -
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 the old times, disease was rampant. Infant mortality was high, child mortality was high, and adults did not generally live very long compared to now. And while we may be fatter now than we were then, we are living longer as a whole. Especially the Okinawans, who live about a hundred years on average.
I am thankful for technology and modern medicine. Hardly anything is natural anymore. There is so much pollution, gmos, persticides and so much more.
In the end, we can only try to eat well and exercise.
And no, our ancestors did not have Fitbits but they also didn't have antibiotics and other things we have now today that prolongs our life. Besides, I use my Fitbit as a tool like anything else
0 -
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.
You are right, I haven't implied it and never read that in your post. I am interested in your views which seem to promote self-censuring based one one's perceived qualification to have "something to contribute". I find that a sad thing to be honest.
You might be interested in the below - it purports to be a letter from a famous dancer; it's the essence of it in the second paragraph that I wanted to show you and was wondering what you think of it. Basically the way I read it it exposes this particular type of self-censure as a stifling of the creativity in each of us. Expression is important; ideas not expressed are still-born... Food for thought
Here it is:
http://spiritroombook.blogspot.ca/2005_05_01_archive.html
PS Sorry for the hijack everyone...0 -
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
Yes we do live and learn and it sure beats the alternative
I'm not a dietician, scientist or similar, I'm not qualified...I am capable of forming an opinion, professing it, discussing it and enjoying the nature of forums. So are you it seems. And I'll warrant so is the OP.
I have met a number of professionals and scientists who are not equally capable
Yeah, this. Presumably we are on the forums because we like chatting about this stuff and sharing ideas.
On macros, I think the question "what ancestors" was on point.
Yes, presumably my great grandparents didn't think about macros, but they probably ate a culturally and seasonally determined meal that met their goals of being adequately fed, having adequate calories, and getting in nutrients, which, when possible, tended to be the same kind of meal I grew up thinking of as a balanced meal -- protein source (meat or beans), starch/grains, and vegetables, with various other things that added fat (like dairy, especially). Unsurprisingly, the standard meal pretty much hit what we'd now consider a normal macro balance and micros and the rest without it being something you had to think about.
That said, I think macros are probably over-focused on by many, as there's a huge range of healthy macro ratios as shown by the diversity of traditional diets. If it's motivating to experiment with macros, though, it could be helpful to do that. Similarly, we don't need Fitbits or heart rate monitors or to measure body fat percentage or the like, but if people find it helps them to stay excited about fitness in a world where regular physical activity is much less necessary than in the past, why not? It's just important to figure out if it helps you or overwhelms you.0 -
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.0 -
lemurcat12 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
Yes we do live and learn and it sure beats the alternative
I'm not a dietician, scientist or similar, I'm not qualified...I am capable of forming an opinion, professing it, discussing it and enjoying the nature of forums. So are you it seems. And I'll warrant so is the OP.
I have met a number of professionals and scientists who are not equally capable
Yeah, this. Presumably we are on the forums because we like chatting about this stuff and sharing ideas.
On macros, I think the question "what ancestors" was on point.
Yes, presumably my great grandparents didn't think about macros, but they probably ate a culturally and seasonally determined meal that met their goals of being adequately fed, having adequate calories, and getting in nutrients, which, when possible, tended to be the same kind of meal I grew up thinking of as a balanced meal -- protein source (meat or beans), starch/grains, and vegetables, with various other things that added fat (like dairy, especially). Unsurprisingly, the standard meal pretty much hit what we'd now consider a normal macro balance and micros and the rest without it being something you had to think about.
That said, I think macros are probably over-focused on by many, as there's a huge range of healthy macro ratios as shown by the diversity of traditional diets. If it's motivating to experiment with macros, though, it could be helpful to do that. Similarly, we don't need Fitbits or heart rate monitors or to measure body fat percentage or the like, but if people find it helps them to stay excited about fitness in a world where regular physical activity is much less necessary than in the past, why not? It's just important to figure out if it helps you or overwhelms you.
I completely agree. I like knowing my macros to have a quick glance at my protein level for the day, and I don't sweat it if I don't meet them. I'm fascinated and motivated by data. Are my numbers and gadgets necessary? No. But they sure make things fun for me.0 -
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.
0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »
Yep. You guessed it.0 -
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
I have to admit..I like this break down but I'm still really confused by everything before this and especially when I also look at the title of this thread....
but if the above is what you are trying to say...cool. 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions