The problem with science
Vortex88
Posts: 60 Member
Science has added *so* much to the fitness / weight loss / physique world and I feel very grateful that there are people out there publishing some really high quality studies which help us to get results but science is not the be-all and end-all that some people on these forums suggest so I wanted to mention a few points that I think it’s worth keeping in mind:
For example:
1) Science has been described as "observing the world around you”. That’s the best definition I have found. Notice it doesn’t say “listening only to people who observed results in laboratories”
2) Studies, by definition, publish averages. For example: 15 subjects did x and got y result. In reality, perhaps 8 of the subjects got almost identical results, 4 got results which were close to the 8 and 3 got totally different results. Those 3 are *20%* of the test group…. and their results are completely hidden in the averages.
3) Science is just the latest opinion on a subject, albeit a hopefully very educated one. The "science" of weight loss is totally different today compared to 10 years ago. 10 years from now it will be completely different again. Don’t get *too” attached to the studies we have today
4) CICO is a great place to start for weight loss but it is definitely not an absolute. I work in the fitness industry and know professional physique athletes who dramatically *increase* their calories to get lean for a show. Now, for an average person with 30 lbs to lose this may or may not apply to them but some people need to eat more to lose bodyfat and some people need to eat less. (I recently came across a great article on this which I will try to find and post below.)
5) The main problem with CICO relates to hormones. I have seen a few snarky comments on this forum say things like “oh so your body is breaking the laws of physics is it??” when one poster says that they lose more fat on higher calories (which I have observed in myself and others many times). The thing is that the person making the comment definitely isn’t a physicist (and doesn’t really understand the laws of physics) and isn’t a physiologist either (so definitely doesn’t understand how the laws of physics relate the the trillions of processes taking place in the human body every second) so their comment is a case of “a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing”. The confusion with CICO relates to CO. The body is actually very good at down-regulating fat loss when calorie intake is reduced (if you don’t agree, see point 2. You are alive today because a few thousand generations of your ancestors survived on very little food for most of their lives. What often produces the result is the *change*. Moving from a long period of higher calories to reduced calories or moving from a long period of lower calories to high calories. So, when someone tells you they are losing more fat on higher calories, remember that you are not a physiologist; you are a weight loss forummer; and you don’t actually have enough experience to know if someone is absolutely wrong when they are observing their own body right in front of their eyes. It’s very important to keep our minds open in this field. I can guarantee that you will have a different opinion on this subject in 10 years so why assume you are 100% correct today.
Anyway, these are a few points I wanted to put out there in case someone finds them useful. I’ve been involved in the fitness / physique world for more than 20 years so I have seen a few things along the way and whilst the current trend towards science-based fitness is extremely positive, I personally feel that we mustn’t become a slave to it.
For example:
1) Science has been described as "observing the world around you”. That’s the best definition I have found. Notice it doesn’t say “listening only to people who observed results in laboratories”
2) Studies, by definition, publish averages. For example: 15 subjects did x and got y result. In reality, perhaps 8 of the subjects got almost identical results, 4 got results which were close to the 8 and 3 got totally different results. Those 3 are *20%* of the test group…. and their results are completely hidden in the averages.
3) Science is just the latest opinion on a subject, albeit a hopefully very educated one. The "science" of weight loss is totally different today compared to 10 years ago. 10 years from now it will be completely different again. Don’t get *too” attached to the studies we have today
4) CICO is a great place to start for weight loss but it is definitely not an absolute. I work in the fitness industry and know professional physique athletes who dramatically *increase* their calories to get lean for a show. Now, for an average person with 30 lbs to lose this may or may not apply to them but some people need to eat more to lose bodyfat and some people need to eat less. (I recently came across a great article on this which I will try to find and post below.)
5) The main problem with CICO relates to hormones. I have seen a few snarky comments on this forum say things like “oh so your body is breaking the laws of physics is it??” when one poster says that they lose more fat on higher calories (which I have observed in myself and others many times). The thing is that the person making the comment definitely isn’t a physicist (and doesn’t really understand the laws of physics) and isn’t a physiologist either (so definitely doesn’t understand how the laws of physics relate the the trillions of processes taking place in the human body every second) so their comment is a case of “a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing”. The confusion with CICO relates to CO. The body is actually very good at down-regulating fat loss when calorie intake is reduced (if you don’t agree, see point 2
. You are alive today because a few thousand generations of your ancestors survived on very little food for most of their lives. What often produces the result is the *change*. Moving from a long period of higher calories to reduced calories or moving from a long period of lower calories to high calories. So, when someone tells you they are losing more fat on higher calories, remember that you are not a physiologist; you are a weight loss forummer; and you don’t actually have enough experience to know if someone is absolutely wrong when they are observing their own body right in front of their eyes. It’s very important to keep our minds open in this field. I can guarantee that you will have a different opinion on this subject in 10 years so why assume you are 100% correct today.Anyway, these are a few points I wanted to put out there in case someone finds them useful. I’ve been involved in the fitness / physique world for more than 20 years so I have seen a few things along the way and whilst the current trend towards science-based fitness is extremely positive, I personally feel that we mustn’t become a slave to it.
18
Replies
-
I wouldn't say this is an issue with science but rather an interpretation of the study at hand. Many people fail to understand the parameters of what the study is being conducted.
CICO does account for hormones as hormones will affect the CO portion; more often, it's a deregulation of metabolism. People fail at CICO because they feel an online calculator is accurate. And many people assume they are equally as accurate in tracking CI, which statistically, even trained professions under report calories in by as much as 422 calories.25 -
Oh, IRT the eating more to lose more concept that you discuss. I have experienced that myself, but here is why I think I didn't lose weight at 1800, as compared to when I was eating 2300 calories. I think the increase in energy allowed me to stick to my calories more stringently, and I had more available energy to put through workouts. And since we don't live in metabolic wards, those are two very important factors. Down regulation of metabolism doesn't occur quickly and is vastly over blown within the community. And while adapative thermogenesis is a real thing, and can be increased through extend low calorie diet, it's not nearly what many people are lead to believe.16
-
I wouldn't say this is an issue with science but rather an interpretation of the study at hand. Many people fail to understand the parameters of what the study is being conducted.
CICO does account for hormones as hormones will affect the CO portion; more often, it's a deregulation of metabolism. People fail at CICO because they feel an online calculator is accurate. And many people assume they are equally as accurate in tracking CI, which statistically, even trained professions under report calories in by as much as 422 calories.
^ The scientific method isn't what's flawed here. People's limited ability to conceive of what the results actually mean is. I'm frequently one of those people, so I'm not pointing fingers here, I'm just saying. The problem isn't with "science" it's with how it's communicated to the public that's to blame.
ETA: @psulemon I'm agreeing with the bolded and adding an addendum.8 -
The problem with science is all those pesky advanced-degreed researchers who think their peer-reviewed, evidence-based findings have more value than my personal beliefs (which are obviously more valuable because I thought them up with my very own head).
Honestly, it's a conspiracy to denigrate my personal specialness.46 -
The problem with science is all those pesky advanced-degreed researchers who think their peer-reviewed, evidence-based findings have more value than my personal beliefs (which are obviously more valuable because I thought them up with my very own head).
Honestly, it's a conspiracy to denigrate my personal specialness.
I know, right? How dare these people who spend all their time studying one subject in particular think they know more than me just because I don't have none of that fancy book learning?8 -
imo, the best way for you to know what the best science of fitness of nutrition is to read as much as you can about what has already been studied and then do your own unpublished study with a sample size of 1 person. Yourself. Just log everything. Everything you eat. Everything that is non-sedentary or non-standard to your routine (to try and compensate for calories out). Your weight. Your lifting weights. How much exertion was required to perform your routine. Etc.
I'm sure professional fitness enthusiasts are already doing those things in a little paper journal and have been doing things like that for years.2 -
2) Studies, by definition, publish averages.
No. Studies publish all data. Otherwise they get laughed at.3) Science is just the latest opinion on a subject, albeit a hopefully very educated one. The "science" of weight loss is totally different today compared to 10 years ago. 10 years from now it will be completely different again. Don’t get *too” attached to the studies we have today
Nope. You should go back and re-read your first bullet point.4) CICO is a great place to start for weight loss but it is definitely not an absolute. I work in the fitness industry and know professional physique athletes who dramatically *increase* their calories to get lean for a show. Now, for an average person with 30 lbs to lose this may or may not apply to them but some people need to eat more to lose bodyfat and some people need to eat less. (I recently came across a great article on this which I will try to find and post below.)
Yes, it is an absolute. Basic 2nd semester physics. You seem to be either a) confusing volume of food for Calories, or b) confusing people that eat more, yet burn more off.5) The main problem with CICO relates to hormones.
Nope. Hormones are accounted for in the equation(s).I have seen a few snarky comments on this forum say things like “oh so your body is breaking the laws of physics is it??” when one poster says that they lose more fat on higher calories (which I have observed in myself and others many times). The thing is that the person making the comment definitely isn’t a physicist (and doesn’t really understand the laws of physics) and isn’t a physiologist either
LOL. Yes, yes there are those here. And we sometimes say things to that effect.
12 -
"Science". You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.30
-
Science has added *so* much to the fitness / weight loss / physique world and I feel very grateful that there are people out there publishing some really high quality studies which help us to get results but science is not the be-all and end-all that some people on these forums suggest so I wanted to mention a few points that I think it’s worth keeping in mind:
For example:
1) Science has been described as "observing the world around you”. That’s the best definition I have found. Notice it doesn’t say “listening only to people who observed results in laboratories”
2) Studies, by definition, publish averages. For example: 15 subjects did x and got y result. In reality, perhaps 8 of the subjects got almost identical results, 4 got results which were close to the 8 and 3 got totally different results. Those 3 are *20%* of the test group…. and their results are completely hidden in the averages.
3) Science is just the latest opinion on a subject, albeit a hopefully very educated one. The "science" of weight loss is totally different today compared to 10 years ago. 10 years from now it will be completely different again. Don’t get *too” attached to the studies we have today
4) CICO is a great place to start for weight loss but it is definitely not an absolute. I work in the fitness industry and know professional physique athletes who dramatically *increase* their calories to get lean for a show. Now, for an average person with 30 lbs to lose this may or may not apply to them but some people need to eat more to lose bodyfat and some people need to eat less. (I recently came across a great article on this which I will try to find and post below.)
5) The main problem with CICO relates to hormones. I have seen a few snarky comments on this forum say things like “oh so your body is breaking the laws of physics is it??” when one poster says that they lose more fat on higher calories (which I have observed in myself and others many times). The thing is that the person making the comment definitely isn’t a physicist (and doesn’t really understand the laws of physics) and isn’t a physiologist either (so definitely doesn’t understand how the laws of physics relate the the trillions of processes taking place in the human body every second) so their comment is a case of “a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing”. The confusion with CICO relates to CO. The body is actually very good at down-regulating fat loss when calorie intake is reduced (if you don’t agree, see point 2. You are alive today because a few thousand generations of your ancestors survived on very little food for most of their lives. What often produces the result is the *change*. Moving from a long period of higher calories to reduced calories or moving from a long period of lower calories to high calories. So, when someone tells you they are losing more fat on higher calories, remember that you are not a physiologist; you are a weight loss forummer; and you don’t actually have enough experience to know if someone is absolutely wrong when they are observing their own body right in front of their eyes. It’s very important to keep our minds open in this field. I can guarantee that you will have a different opinion on this subject in 10 years so why assume you are 100% correct today.
Anyway, these are a few points I wanted to put out there in case someone finds them useful. I’ve been involved in the fitness / physique world for more than 20 years so I have seen a few things along the way and whilst the current trend towards science-based fitness is extremely positive, I personally feel that we mustn’t become a slave to it.
1) observing the world around you without applying the scientific method is what leads people to believe that the world is flat and the sun revolves around us.
2) scientific studies absolutely DO NOT simply publish averages...to be taken seriously they account for all outliers as well.
3) science does change to add more detail or figure out HOW something works but rarely (almost never) changes the common knowledge that preceded it.
4) I'm sure you know a person who loses weight by eating more and exorcising less...you should sign them up for a scientific study.
5) CICO is fact, what we don't understand is that IT IS AN ESTIMATE AT BEST. It is impossible to know exactly how much of your food you have actually digested (especially things like corn and beans), how your hormones have affected your rate of burn, whether you have a disorder that affects your CO like hyper/hypo thyroidism...that doesn't mean it doesn't all add up scientifically, it means we can't see it on our scale or predict it with online calculators.
As others have stated, the problem with science is not really with science at all, it's with a) how it's communicated to us through the media and b) our ability to understand what's being communicated.
14 -
The problem with science is all those pesky advanced-degreed researchers who think their peer-reviewed, evidence-based findings have more value than my personal beliefs (which are obviously more valuable because I thought them up with my very own head).
Honestly, it's a conspiracy to denigrate my personal specialness.
Haha... Yes. LOL1 -
In addition to a change in CO due to changes in NEAT, in free living conditions, I would bet folks are much less likely to fudge and cheat on an 1800 calorie diet vs. a 2300 calorie diet. Do the studies in controlled settings or use something like doubly labeled water to spy on folks, and I bet the CI difference isn't nearly what it appears to be.Oh, IRT the eating more to lose more concept that you discuss. I have experienced that myself, but here is why I think I didn't lose weight at 1800, as compared to when I was eating 2300 calories. I think the increase in energy allowed me to stick to my calories more stringently, and I had more available energy to put through workouts. And since we don't live in metabolic wards, those are two very important factors. Down regulation of metabolism doesn't occur quickly and is vastly over blown within the community. And while adapative thermogenesis is a real thing, and can be increased through extend low calorie diet, it's not nearly what many people are lead to believe.0 -
Defining science as "observing the world around you" carries the obvious pitfall of thinking that your casual observations of one minute bit of the world are actually "scientific."
This is why we can't have nice things.15 -
I believe that's the same thing that led to the "fact" that items fall faster under gravity if they are heavier since a ball falls faster than a feather. Science taught us that isn't true, and to account for air resistance.Science has added *so* much to the fitness / weight loss / physique world and I feel very grateful that there are people out there publishing some really high quality studies which help us to get results but science is not the be-all and end-all that some people on these forums suggest so I wanted to mention a few points that I think it’s worth keeping in mind:
For example:
1) Science has been described as "observing the world around you”. That’s the best definition I have found. Notice it doesn’t say “listening only to people who observed results in laboratories”
2) Studies, by definition, publish averages. For example: 15 subjects did x and got y result. In reality, perhaps 8 of the subjects got almost identical results, 4 got results which were close to the 8 and 3 got totally different results. Those 3 are *20%* of the test group…. and their results are completely hidden in the averages.
3) Science is just the latest opinion on a subject, albeit a hopefully very educated one. The "science" of weight loss is totally different today compared to 10 years ago. 10 years from now it will be completely different again. Don’t get *too” attached to the studies we have today
4) CICO is a great place to start for weight loss but it is definitely not an absolute. I work in the fitness industry and know professional physique athletes who dramatically *increase* their calories to get lean for a show. Now, for an average person with 30 lbs to lose this may or may not apply to them but some people need to eat more to lose bodyfat and some people need to eat less. (I recently came across a great article on this which I will try to find and post below.)
5) The main problem with CICO relates to hormones. I have seen a few snarky comments on this forum say things like “oh so your body is breaking the laws of physics is it??” when one poster says that they lose more fat on higher calories (which I have observed in myself and others many times). The thing is that the person making the comment definitely isn’t a physicist (and doesn’t really understand the laws of physics) and isn’t a physiologist either (so definitely doesn’t understand how the laws of physics relate the the trillions of processes taking place in the human body every second) so their comment is a case of “a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing”. The confusion with CICO relates to CO. The body is actually very good at down-regulating fat loss when calorie intake is reduced (if you don’t agree, see point 2. You are alive today because a few thousand generations of your ancestors survived on very little food for most of their lives. What often produces the result is the *change*. Moving from a long period of higher calories to reduced calories or moving from a long period of lower calories to high calories. So, when someone tells you they are losing more fat on higher calories, remember that you are not a physiologist; you are a weight loss forummer; and you don’t actually have enough experience to know if someone is absolutely wrong when they are observing their own body right in front of their eyes. It’s very important to keep our minds open in this field. I can guarantee that you will have a different opinion on this subject in 10 years so why assume you are 100% correct today.
Anyway, these are a few points I wanted to put out there in case someone finds them useful. I’ve been involved in the fitness / physique world for more than 20 years so I have seen a few things along the way and whilst the current trend towards science-based fitness is extremely positive, I personally feel that we mustn’t become a slave to it.
1) observing the world around you without applying the scientific method is what leads people to believe that the world is flat and the sun revolves around us.
3 -
I'm not a physicist, but I am a chemist. Thankfully my chemistry training has taught me a lot of things that are applicable to weight loss. One of them being:
A person can't eat 1200 calories and not lose weight, then begin eating 1800 calories and lose weight without changing something else in their life.
It can not be done.
I don't care how many anecdotes a person has, I firmly believe in chemistry, physics, biochemistry, and so on.
I used to aim for 1700kcal/day and didn't lose very much, now I take in over 2000kcal/day and consistently lose 2lbs/week on average. Why? Not because I violated the laws of physics. But because I'm accurately logging now (something I wasn't doing before), sticking to my calorie goal (again, before it was hit and miss), and exercising (so increasing my calories out).34 -
The problem with science is all those pesky advanced-degreed researchers who think their peer-reviewed, evidence-based findings have more value than my personal beliefs (which are obviously more valuable because I thought them up with my very own head).
Honestly, it's a conspiracy to denigrate my personal specialness.
HaHa This X1000%4 -
"3) Science is just the latest opinion on a subject, albeit a hopefully very educated one. The "science" of weight loss is totally different today compared to 10 years ago. 10 years from now it will be completely different again. Don’t get *too” attached to the studies we have today"
This is a good example of dilettantism. If you actually knew "the science", you would know that it has hardly changed at all. A story in a fitness magazine is not "science".
There is no substitute for experience, but there is also no substitute for knowing the fundamentals of physiology. I'd say that 80%-90% of what we understand today about exercise physiology was in the textbooks I used 33 years ago in graduate school. I have copies of research on weight loss that I filed back in the 1980s that are perfectly valid today.7 -
The ultimate problem is that people don't understand what CICO means.
They think that they can exactly calculate calorie_in/calorie_out, and when they don't lose weight, well CICO must be wrong.
Umm no, your calculations are wrong.
Yes, eating more can temporarily rev your metabolism and make your body drop weight. (hence many people drop weight after eating a little more for a week). But guess what, this means that CO has increased. The formula is still correct. The problem is that you are assuming that your CI/CO is static.
Eat too little, and you become sluggish, and your calorie burn drops. Eat a little more, suddenly you have energy, and take the stairs, tap your feet while you work etc. Yes, all this adds up to more calories than your one hour workout which hasn't changed.....6 -
Where in the world did you find that definition of science? Merriam-Webster dictionary defines science as follows (emphasis mine):
Simple Definition of science
: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation5 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »I wouldn't say this is an issue with science but rather an interpretation of the study at hand. Many people fail to understand the parameters of what the study is being conducted.
CICO does account for hormones as hormones will affect the CO portion; more often, it's a deregulation of metabolism. People fail at CICO because they feel an online calculator is accurate. And many people assume they are equally as accurate in tracking CI, which statistically, even trained professions under report calories in by as much as 422 calories.
^ The scientific method isn't what's flawed here. People's limited ability to conceive of what the results actually mean is. I'm frequently one of those people, so I'm not pointing fingers here, I'm just saying. The problem isn't with "science" it's with how it's communicated to the public that's to blame.
ETA: @psulemon I'm agreeing with the bolded and adding an addendum.
This.
I think PhD comics did a very good job depicting how science gets disseminated to the public these days.
The only thing I would add to this is another panel where 10 years later people smuggly point out that science was wrong all along and new findings show that A doesn't actually cause B like all the scientists were claiming 10 years ago (not realizing that the science never actually made that claim in the first place, the media and general public made that claim).27 -
Science has added *so* much to the fitness / weight loss / physique world and I feel very grateful that there are people out there publishing some really high quality studies which help us to get results but science is not the be-all and end-all that some people on these forums suggest so I wanted to mention a few points that I think it’s worth keeping in mind:
For example:
1) Science has been described as "observing the world around you”. That’s the best definition I have found. Notice it doesn’t say “listening only to people who observed results in laboratories”
2) Studies, by definition, publish averages. For example: 15 subjects did x and got y result. In reality, perhaps 8 of the subjects got almost identical results, 4 got results which were close to the 8 and 3 got totally different results. Those 3 are *20%* of the test group…. and their results are completely hidden in the averages.
3) Science is just the latest opinion on a subject, albeit a hopefully very educated one. The "science" of weight loss is totally different today compared to 10 years ago. 10 years from now it will be completely different again. Don’t get *too” attached to the studies we have today
4) CICO is a great place to start for weight loss but it is definitely not an absolute. I work in the fitness industry and know professional physique athletes who dramatically *increase* their calories to get lean for a show. Now, for an average person with 30 lbs to lose this may or may not apply to them but some people need to eat more to lose bodyfat and some people need to eat less. (I recently came across a great article on this which I will try to find and post below.)
5) The main problem with CICO relates to hormones. I have seen a few snarky comments on this forum say things like “oh so your body is breaking the laws of physics is it??” when one poster says that they lose more fat on higher calories (which I have observed in myself and others many times). The thing is that the person making the comment definitely isn’t a physicist (and doesn’t really understand the laws of physics) and isn’t a physiologist either (so definitely doesn’t understand how the laws of physics relate the the trillions of processes taking place in the human body every second) so their comment is a case of “a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing”. The confusion with CICO relates to CO. The body is actually very good at down-regulating fat loss when calorie intake is reduced (if you don’t agree, see point 2. You are alive today because a few thousand generations of your ancestors survived on very little food for most of their lives. What often produces the result is the *change*. Moving from a long period of higher calories to reduced calories or moving from a long period of lower calories to high calories. So, when someone tells you they are losing more fat on higher calories, remember that you are not a physiologist; you are a weight loss forummer; and you don’t actually have enough experience to know if someone is absolutely wrong when they are observing their own body right in front of their eyes. It’s very important to keep our minds open in this field. I can guarantee that you will have a different opinion on this subject in 10 years so why assume you are 100% correct today.
Anyway, these are a few points I wanted to put out there in case someone finds them useful. I’ve been involved in the fitness / physique world for more than 20 years so I have seen a few things along the way and whilst the current trend towards science-based fitness is extremely positive, I personally feel that we mustn’t become a slave to it.
1) observing the world around you without applying the scientific method is what leads people to believe that the world is flat and the sun revolves around us.
2) scientific studies absolutely DO NOT simply publish averages...to be taken seriously they account for all outliers as well.
3) science does change to add more detail or figure out HOW something works but rarely (almost never) changes the common knowledge that preceded it.
4) I'm sure you know a person who loses weight by eating more and exorcising less...you should sign them up for a scientific study.
5) CICO is fact, what we don't understand is that IT IS AN ESTIMATE AT BEST. It is impossible to know exactly how much of your food you have actually digested (especially things like corn and beans), how your hormones have affected your rate of burn, whether you have a disorder that affects your CO like hyper/hypo thyroidism...that doesn't mean it doesn't all add up scientifically, it means we can't see it on our scale or predict it with online calculators.
As others have stated, the problem with science is not really with science at all, it's with a) how it's communicated to us through the media and b) our ability to understand what's being communicated.
All excellent points, would give my own answer but it would pretty much be this.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions