Myth Busting
ilex70
Posts: 727 Member
First off, I want to say if something is working for you - Paleo, LCHF, intermittent fasting, IIFYM - whatever, great. Get on with your bad self.
I decided to share this after being accused of being a "troll in costume" after sharing my experience with a product on another thread. Apparently sharing my results for two methods was taken to meant that the OP would have the same amount of weight loss, which is just silly unless OP would be the same height/weight/activity level etc.
The OP of the thread was asking about quick weight loss, a no no according to the gospel of MFP. Not sure if that is just common wisdom/groupthink or a policy of the site because fast weight loss , or IOW an aggressive deficit, is often associated with eating disorders. Rapid weight loss can be tricky. There is a risk of the over zealous under eating in a damaging way, or of following a rapid loss with a rapid gain due to overeating.
That doesn't mean that a large quick loss at the start is bad. The biggest battle is between your ears, which I suspect has a lot to do with this.
This one speaks to the idea that you can shift large amounts of weight with small changes. Small changes are a good place to start, but, as share here often, as you get smaller you need fewer calories.
On the idea that you shouldn't have an ambitious goal; i.e. 10 pounds a month, or whatever.
Just saw this on a thread today, the idea that someone who isn't succeeding just isn't "ready".
More here:
nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1208051#t=article
I decided to share this after being accused of being a "troll in costume" after sharing my experience with a product on another thread. Apparently sharing my results for two methods was taken to meant that the OP would have the same amount of weight loss, which is just silly unless OP would be the same height/weight/activity level etc.
The OP of the thread was asking about quick weight loss, a no no according to the gospel of MFP. Not sure if that is just common wisdom/groupthink or a policy of the site because fast weight loss , or IOW an aggressive deficit, is often associated with eating disorders. Rapid weight loss can be tricky. There is a risk of the over zealous under eating in a damaging way, or of following a rapid loss with a rapid gain due to overeating.
That doesn't mean that a large quick loss at the start is bad. The biggest battle is between your ears, which I suspect has a lot to do with this.
Rate of Weight Loss
Myth number 3: Large, rapid weight loss is associated with poorer long-term weight-loss outcomes, as compared with slow, gradual weight loss.
Within weight-loss trials, more rapid and greater initial weight loss has been associated with lower body weight at the end of long-term follow-up. 9,10 A meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials that compared rapid weight loss (achieved with very-low-energy diets) with slower weight loss (achieved with low-energy diets — i.e., 800 to 1200 kcal per day) at the end of short-term follow-up (<1 yr) and long-term follow-up (≥1 year) showed that, despite the association of very-low-energy diets with significantly greater weight loss at the end of short-term follow-up (16.1% of body weight lost, vs. 9.7% with low-energy diets), there was no significant difference between the very-low-energy diets and low-energy diets with respect to weight loss at the end of long-term follow-up.10 Although it is not clear why some obese persons have a greater initial weight loss than others do, a recommendation to lose weight more slowly might interfere with the ultimate success of weight-loss efforts.
This one speaks to the idea that you can shift large amounts of weight with small changes. Small changes are a good place to start, but, as share here often, as you get smaller you need fewer calories.
Small Sustained Changes in Energy Intake or Expenditure
Myth number 1: Small sustained changes in energy intake or expenditure will produce large, long-term weight changes.
Predictions suggesting that large changes in weight will accumulate indefinitely in response to small sustained lifestyle modifications rely on the half-century-old 3500-kcal rule, which equates a weight alteration of 1 lb (0.45 kg) to a 3500-kcal cumulative deficit or increment.5,6 However, applying the 3500-kcal rule to cases in which small modifications are made for long periods violates the assumptions of the original model, which were derived from short-term experiments predominantly performed in men on very-low-energy diets (<800 kcal per day).5,7 Recent studies have shown that individual variability affects changes in body composition in response to changes in energy intake and expenditure,7 with analyses predicting substantially smaller changes in weight (often by an order of magnitude across extended periods) than the 3500-kcal rule does.5,7 For example, whereas the 3500-kcal rule predicts that a person who increases daily energy expenditure by 100 kcal by walking 1 mile (1.6 km) per day will lose more than 50 lb (22.7 kg) over a period of 5 years, the true weight loss is only about 10 lb (4.5 kg),6 assuming no compensatory increase in caloric intake, because changes in mass concomitantly alter the energy requirements of the body.
On the idea that you shouldn't have an ambitious goal; i.e. 10 pounds a month, or whatever.
Setting Realistic Weight-Loss Goals
Myth number 2: Setting realistic goals for weight loss is important, because otherwise patients will become frustrated and lose less weight.
Although this is a reasonable hypothesis, empirical data indicate no consistent negative association between ambitious goals and program completion or weight loss.8 Indeed, several studies have shown that more ambitious goals are sometimes associated with better weight-loss outcomes (see the Supplementary Appendix).8 Furthermore, two studies showed that interventions designed to improve weight-loss outcomes by altering unrealistic goals resulted in more realistic weight-loss expectations but did not improve outcomes.
Just saw this on a thread today, the idea that someone who isn't succeeding just isn't "ready".
Diet Readiness
Myth number 4: It is important to assess the stage of change or diet readiness in order to help patients who request weight-loss treatment.
Readiness does not predict the magnitude of weight loss or treatment adherence among persons who sign up for behavioral programs or who undergo obesity surgery.11 Five trials (involving 3910 participants; median study period, 9 months) specifically evaluated stages of change (not exclusively readiness) and showed an average weight loss of less than 1 kg and no conclusive evidence of sustained weight loss (see the Supplementary Appendix). The explanation may be simple — people voluntarily choosing to enter weight-loss programs are, by definition, at least minimally ready to engage in the behaviors required to lose weight.
More here:
nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1208051#t=article
0
Replies
-
Yes, it is a site rule to not promote unsafe, very low calorie (read: rapid weight loss) diets.0
-
"Unsafe" would not be universally recognised.0
-
MFP has guidelines they have adopted whether you agree with them or not, and it falls within their guidelines of "unsafe."0
-
MFP has guidelines they have adopted whether you agree with them or not, and it falls within their guidelines of "unsafe."
They can have their guidelines indeed as it's a private space. They don't get their own version of the facts though and VLCDs are recognised as safe in obese people for limited duration in several jurisdictions - the whole of Europe for a start. It's not my opinion.0 -
MFP has guidelines they have adopted whether you agree with them or not, and it falls within their guidelines of "unsafe."
They can have their guidelines indeed as it's a private space. They don't get their own version of the facts though and VLCDs are recognised as safe in obese people for limited duration in several jurisdictions - the whole of Europe for a start. It's not my opinion.
Would a doctor approve one for you?0 -
-
0
-
juggernaut1974 wrote: »Yes, it is a site rule to not promote unsafe, very low calorie (read: rapid weight loss) diets.
Maintaining a large deficit, or even following a more "rapid" weight loss plan (e.g. More than 2 lbs per week) does not automatically equal "very low calorie diet".
0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »Yes, it is a site rule to not promote unsafe, very low calorie (read: rapid weight loss) diets.
Maintaining a large deficit, or even following a more "rapid" weight loss plan (e.g. More than 2 lbs per week) does not automatically equal "very low calorie diet".
I didn't say it was.
I was responding in the context of OP's post which seems to be promoting the virtues of a 800-1200 cal/day diet.0 -
This one speaks to the idea that you can shift large amounts of weight with small changes. Small changes are a good place to start, but, as share here often, as you get smaller you need fewer calories.Small Sustained Changes in Energy Intake or Expenditure
Myth number 1: Small sustained changes in energy intake or expenditure will produce large, long-term weight changes.
Predictions suggesting that large changes in weight will accumulate indefinitely in response to small sustained lifestyle modifications rely on the half-century-old 3500-kcal rule, which equates a weight alteration of 1 lb (0.45 kg) to a 3500-kcal cumulative deficit or increment.5,6 However, applying the 3500-kcal rule to cases in which small modifications are made for long periods violates the assumptions of the original model, which were derived from short-term experiments predominantly performed in men on very-low-energy diets (<800 kcal per day).5,7 Recent studies have shown that individual variability affects changes in body composition in response to changes in energy intake and expenditure,7 with analyses predicting substantially smaller changes in weight (often by an order of magnitude across extended periods) than the 3500-kcal rule does.5,7 For example, whereas the 3500-kcal rule predicts that a person who increases daily energy expenditure by 100 kcal by walking 1 mile (1.6 km) per day will lose more than 50 lb (22.7 kg) over a period of 5 years, the true weight loss is only about 10 lb (4.5 kg),6 assuming no compensatory increase in caloric intake, because changes in mass concomitantly alter the energy requirements of the body.
This is my favorite "myth" to read. Mostly because they didn't counter the 3500kcal rule, it still holds. The 100 calorie/day deficit would work over 5 years if you actually kept a 100 calorie/day deficit over 5 years instead of letting it drop to less than 40 calories/day. Just like the bolded part points out
0 -
Excellent post OP.
My useless comments...
1- Quick weight loss. I agree no one should be consuming a VLCD. But sometimes I see someone post they lost 3 lbs this week instead of the 2 they planned and they are worried they are losing "too fast". I say take the pounds as you can get them, if you are eating enough to be healthy, don't sweat too fast/too slow.
2- Small changes. This would agree with my experience. Adding a 20 minute walk 3x a week might be good for your health but probably won't do much for weight loss.
3- Unrealistic goals. That's fascinating and I'll have to read more about it. I'm a cynic so my goals are always pretty realistic though. ("I'll set this to lose 2 lbs a week and hope that I actually lose 1 lb a week".) I do appreciate people's optimism and higher ambitions.
4- On whether someone is 'ready'. Love this. Saw the other thread. Love this quote from your quote: "The explanation may be simple — people voluntarily choosing to enter weight-loss programs are, by definition, at least minimally ready to engage in the behaviors required to lose weight."0 -
OP, as for promoting a very low calorie diet, it's against the rules of the website regardless of what anyone believes.
Now on to the more interesting topic. The myths.
I remember reading them before and myth number 3 makes me sad... Now it's natural that people who lose a lot of weight will end up at a greater weight loss maintenance short term because they have more to regain. Note the study used for this was done on morbidly obese women and a 1.5 pounds a week loss or greater was considered "fast", which is not an unusual rate of loss for morbidly obese people and it does not in any way mean that they were doing a very low calorie diet.
What makes me sad is that the focus of any program is always on the loss and not on the maintenance. That's why people tend to regain regardless of the way they used to lose weight. Maintenance is usually an afterthought like "do the same things you did on your diet, but modify them slightly for maintenance". Maintenance is a whole new beast with a slew of its own challenges. There needs to be more focus on maintenance tools DURING the dieting phase. In fact I believe dieting needs to be treated like a temporary path towards maintenance. I really wish these efforts went beyond the usual "this isn't a diet this is a lifestyle change" cliche. Not many people deal well with with the idea of having to completely overwrite their habits for life when the people around them are the same, situations they face are the same, and their overall life is the same. It's very easy to "unchange" a changed lifestyle if you are not prepared for maintenance.
Myth number 1 just shows how sensational media can do more harm than good. Titles like "make this small change to lose x weight in a year" do more harm than good and lack the basic understanding of how TDEE works.
Myth number 2 is a bit misleading. The results were only barely significant and only in women. I've always believed that goal is just a number that doesn't really affect weight loss. You could have a goal to lose 50 pounds in one month if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you won't. The reason aggressive goals are criticised on MFP is because they are likely to come with aggressive approaches and willingness to dabble in dangerous weight loss practices. I don't know why this myth failed to mention that teaching body acceptance regardless if the dieter were able to hit their goal or not actually produced better maintenance.
0 -
It is interesting what the studies consider "rapid weight loss" ...0
-
My 2 cents:
Amusedmonkey said what I was going to about the Quick weight loss one. For example, the supposed proof of how well a VLCD works posted in another thread recently had a lower rate of loss I got doing MFP in my first 12 weeks (same time period) here, even though I started AFTER my initial few weeks and quick initial weight loss.
I've never seen anyone recommend just tiny changes (the study talked about adding in a mile per day walk) and everyone here (and the site itself) warns about the fact that as you lose weight you have a lower TDEE, all else equal. (Personally, I had a higher TDEE, as I exercised more, but I also paid attention to my changing TDEE as I lost and was aware I burned less when doing the same length run, for example. I think anyone who bothered doing any reading at all would know this. So NOT a myth.)
On unrealistic goals, doesn't it depend on what is defined as such? I looked at one of the studies cited in the article and it said a loss of 30% to get to ideal weight and 24% to get to goal weight were considered unrealistic goals, and that's certainly not how they are defined on MFP. The question is whether staking your success on something unrealistic like Biggest Loser rates of loss (as people think they are) is going to be self-defeating. It might depend on the person. For me, ambitious goals (even ones too scary to admit to others) are motivating. But they aren't unrealistic, or at least so far I've accomplished them or have a reasonable likelihood of doing so.
As for being ready, how can one know if another person is ready? In any case, at least the first study referred to is about readiness and bariatric surgery.
All of this, to me, indicates among other things the problem of pulling out some article and citing it as if that were sufficient to prove a point.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Biggest myth is listening to those on the forums here that claim that because they lost weight eating donuts, ice cream, bags of pure sugar, a lump of lard in every sandwich (gluten free bread of course as it is fashionable) and other junk & that they have a high post count automatically means they know more than every scientific study that is backed up with irreputable proof or highly qualified nutritionists that have clients that lose weight & keep it off by making subtle changes to their diets instead of watching calories or doing paleo/what ever fad diet is flavour of the day. High post count means too much time on their hands or lies about going to the gym!0
-
mynameisoliverqueen wrote: »Biggest myth is listening to those on the forums here that claim that because they lost weight eating donuts, ice cream, bags of pure sugar, a lump of lard in every sandwich (gluten free bread of course as it is fashionable) and other junk & that they have a high post count automatically means they know more than every scientific study that is backed up with irreputable proof or highly qualified nutritionists that have clients that lose weight & keep it off by making subtle changes to their diets instead of watching calories or doing paleo/what ever fad diet is flavour of the day. High post count means too much time on their hands or lies about going to the gym!
Holy passive aggressive appeal to authority ad hominem mother of strawman... This is amusing, but did not see it coming.0 -
mynameisoliverqueen wrote: »Biggest myth is listening to those on the forums here that claim that because they lost weight eating donuts, ice cream, bags of pure sugar, a lump of lard in every sandwich (gluten free bread of course as it is fashionable) and other junk & that they have a high post count automatically means they know more than every scientific study that is backed up with irreputable proof or highly qualified nutritionists that have clients that lose weight & keep it off by making subtle changes to their diets instead of watching calories or doing paleo/what ever fad diet is flavour of the day. High post count means too much time on their hands or lies about going to the gym!
That has never happened
And you just sound slightly put out that others practice moderation. That seems like an overreaction. Shame you had to turn unpleasant to make your point
Wait, what was your point again?0 -
Isn't making " subtle changes to your diet" the very nature of moderation?
Totally confused by that wall of ire0 -
I am confused. I love bread soaked in lamb drippings, but limit it it once a month max.
And most of the posters with high post counts are the ones that post the scientific articles and peer reviews.
@mynameisoliverqueen if you don't like what you read be more vocal, or move on to another post. That is what I do. It has proved very successful when trying to hold on to my sanity.
Cheers, h.0 -
First off, I want to say if something is working for you - Paleo, LCHF, intermittent fasting, IIFYM - whatever, great. Get on with your bad self.
I decided to share this after being accused of being a "troll in costume" after sharing my experience with a product on another thread. Apparently sharing my results for two methods was taken to meant that the OP would have the same amount of weight loss, which is just silly unless OP would be the same height/weight/activity level etc.
The OP of the thread was asking about quick weight loss, a no no according to the gospel of MFP. Not sure if that is just common wisdom/groupthink or a policy of the site because fast weight loss , or IOW an aggressive deficit, is often associated with eating disorders. Rapid weight loss can be tricky. There is a risk of the over zealous under eating in a damaging way, or of following a rapid loss with a rapid gain due to overeating.
That doesn't mean that a large quick loss at the start is bad. The biggest battle is between your ears, which I suspect has a lot to do with this.
Interesting data, and it contradicts quite a few opinions that come to the surface in the diet threads here. But personally I've always thought a lot of this stuff was more individual, and for that reason quite a few studies could just be showing variation that leans more one direction or the other.
And I'm not at all surprised at the negative comments you got. I think people like to accept only what they want, and tend to reject anything else.
0 -
You've missed one of the biggest reasons people here promote slower rate of loss than the get off as fast as possible promoters. And that's the fact that you will have a better aesthetic outcome, generally, if you lose slower you will lose a smaller proportion of LBM (muscle). It's not just about nutritional deficiency but also the psychological aspect of liking what you see in the mirror when you are close to/getting to maintenance. Not to be sniffed at in my opinion, I want to be slim AND look damn fine in a pair of shorts! (And I am not alone, humans are inherently vain).0
-
robertw486 wrote: »First off, I want to say if something is working for you - Paleo, LCHF, intermittent fasting, IIFYM - whatever, great. Get on with your bad self.
I decided to share this after being accused of being a "troll in costume" after sharing my experience with a product on another thread. Apparently sharing my results for two methods was taken to meant that the OP would have the same amount of weight loss, which is just silly unless OP would be the same height/weight/activity level etc.
The OP of the thread was asking about quick weight loss, a no no according to the gospel of MFP. Not sure if that is just common wisdom/groupthink or a policy of the site because fast weight loss , or IOW an aggressive deficit, is often associated with eating disorders. Rapid weight loss can be tricky. There is a risk of the over zealous under eating in a damaging way, or of following a rapid loss with a rapid gain due to overeating.
That doesn't mean that a large quick loss at the start is bad. The biggest battle is between your ears, which I suspect has a lot to do with this.
Interesting data, and it contradicts quite a few opinions that come to the surface in the diet threads here. But personally I've always thought a lot of this stuff was more individual, and for that reason quite a few studies could just be showing variation that leans more one direction or the other.
And I'm not at all surprised at the negative comments you got. I think people like to accept only what they want, and tend to reject anything else.
0 -
MFP has guidelines they have adopted whether you agree with them or not, and it falls within their guidelines of "unsafe."
They can have their guidelines indeed as it's a private space. They don't get their own version of the facts though and VLCDs are recognised as safe in obese people for limited duration in several jurisdictions - the whole of Europe for a start. It's not my opinion.
Actually, it has been brought up before - admins said a doctor supervised VLCD discussion wasn't against the rules of MFP. The wording of it in the guidelines is that you cannot encourage very low calorie diets, and it is embedded in the sections about unsafe loss and anorexia or bulimia. I would agree with that statement as a general guideline and as a legal one - no one one MFP should encourage anyone to adopt a VLCD, as no one is qualified to make that recommendation based on the information available via posts on an internet forum.0 -
-
mynameisoliverqueen wrote: »Biggest myth is listening to those on the forums here that claim that because they lost weight eating donuts, ice cream, bags of pure sugar, a lump of lard in every sandwich (gluten free bread of course as it is fashionable) and other junk & that they have a high post count automatically means they know more than every scientific study that is backed up with irreputable proof or highly qualified nutritionists that have clients that lose weight & keep it off by making subtle changes to their diets instead of watching calories or doing paleo/what ever fad diet is flavour of the day. High post count means too much time on their hands or lies about going to the gym!
This strawman is a mystical rainbow unicorn that poops sugar bunnies.
And IT'S ANGRY!!!!0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »You've missed one of the biggest reasons people here promote slower rate of loss than the get off as fast as possible promoters. And that's the fact that you will have a better aesthetic outcome, generally, if you lose slower you will lose a smaller proportion of LBM (muscle). It's not just about nutritional deficiency but also the psychological aspect of liking what you see in the mirror when you are close to/getting to maintenance. Not to be sniffed at in my opinion, I want to be slim AND look damn fine in a pair of shorts! (And I am not alone, humans are inherently vain).
Actually, LBM loss depends on a lot of factors, of which speed of loss is just one. If you lose through diet alone you will always be sacrificing more LBM no matter how slowly you lose, Without exercise your body will not regenerate as much skeletal muscle as it would with exercise for a host of reasons. I lost 45lbs at10lbs per month on average yet maintained over 90% of my LBM yet others who have lost that amount much more slowly but did not maintain a lifting program have lost at a greater cost of LBM, that's just the way it goes if you don't lift.
So my advice is that if you aren't exercising, particularly lifting heavy, then you should start so you maintain as much LBM as possible.0 -
mynameisoliverqueen wrote: »Biggest myth is listening to those on the forums here that claim that because they lost weight eating donuts, ice cream, bags of pure sugar, a lump of lard in every sandwich (gluten free bread of course as it is fashionable) and other junk & that they have a high post count automatically means they know more than every scientific study that is backed up with irreputable proof or highly qualified nutritionists that have clients that lose weight & keep it off by making subtle changes to their diets instead of watching calories or doing paleo/what ever fad diet is flavour of the day. High post count means too much time on their hands or lies about going to the gym!
How about popcorn, is popcorn okay?
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »First off, I want to say if something is working for you - Paleo, LCHF, intermittent fasting, IIFYM - whatever, great. Get on with your bad self.
I decided to share this after being accused of being a "troll in costume" after sharing my experience with a product on another thread. Apparently sharing my results for two methods was taken to meant that the OP would have the same amount of weight loss, which is just silly unless OP would be the same height/weight/activity level etc.
The OP of the thread was asking about quick weight loss, a no no according to the gospel of MFP. Not sure if that is just common wisdom/groupthink or a policy of the site because fast weight loss , or IOW an aggressive deficit, is often associated with eating disorders. Rapid weight loss can be tricky. There is a risk of the over zealous under eating in a damaging way, or of following a rapid loss with a rapid gain due to overeating.
That doesn't mean that a large quick loss at the start is bad. The biggest battle is between your ears, which I suspect has a lot to do with this.
Interesting data, and it contradicts quite a few opinions that come to the surface in the diet threads here. But personally I've always thought a lot of this stuff was more individual, and for that reason quite a few studies could just be showing variation that leans more one direction or the other.
And I'm not at all surprised at the negative comments you got. I think people like to accept only what they want, and tend to reject anything else.
I'm so glad you found your super power Robert. I saw a lot of disagreeing comments, but you learned how to construe them as negative.0 -
mynameisoliverqueen wrote: »Biggest myth is listening to those on the forums here that claim that because they lost weight eating donuts, ice cream, bags of pure sugar, a lump of lard in every sandwich (gluten free bread of course as it is fashionable) and other junk & that they have a high post count automatically means they know more than every scientific study that is backed up with irreputable proof or highly qualified nutritionists that have clients that lose weight & keep it off by making subtle changes to their diets instead of watching calories or doing paleo/what ever fad diet is flavour of the day. High post count means too much time on their hands or lies about going to the gym!
Excellent use of the bolded to attempt some great insult. But it worked. I'm far more focused on your insult attempt than the illogical nonsense you spouted prior to it. So that's a win? Maybe?
Oh, the judges are telling me that no, it was not a win. My bad. The win actually went to Ms. Columbia. I apologize for the mistake.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions