I occasionally look around MFP threads and see dieting discussions that bring back my educational phase with GoaDs. I see the new fads discussed and know that people just want a "magic bullet" that will be the answer to losing weight.

There is no easy, fast, way to lose weight and KEEP IT OFF (IMHO).

But there is no doubt fake news is prevalent. It's very difficult to sort out. My impression is that the basic tenets are unchanged (calories in/calories out) and anything else that comes along is, at best, a tweak. And at worst, downright unhealthy. So I read all this stuff with intense skepticism.


Perhaps bordering on cynicism.

I don't see it often largely because I am not big on social media. I get my news from multiple sources and I too am a skeptic at heart and do not believe much of what I read until I feel I have fully educated myself, if it is a topic of I want to pursue further.

I did follow the "low fat" myth way back in the day, it did not work very well. I also followed Atkins/Low Carb for a short time, it worked OK but I felt like crap so I stopped.

I used to be a big consumer of food related news, and I came to the conclusion most things will work if you follow the guidelines, but many of those approaches are challenging and not a long term solution, admittedly it took some time for me to get there and I would always feel bad for not jumping on board with a concept, because it seemed to hard.

I am thankful I figured it out and stopped reading the fake news.

First, I like at the source. Then, I try to gauge what I've just read against all the other nutritional information I've read for consistency. Plus, if you read enough material, you can see keywords and phrases indicating an issue with what is being said. Think "amazing results," for example.

Probably the most important thing - to which Steve alluded - is to approach everything with a skeptical mind.

GLUTEN-FREE is another good example. The original author of the study promulgating the mostly myth has since recanted his research. Then some folks in order to promote research came up with the concept of it being FODMAPs and not gluten per se. Well I think just about" everybody" knows or has heard of many of us being sensitive to cruciferous veggies like broccoli and cabbage. Kinda a big" so what?" for me. Yes there are a few true celiac folks out there but most of us don't have an issue with it.

Some of the sugar/carb stuff is greatly exaggerated as fake news too. Sure in the absence of activity we can get high blood sugar spikes and falls. That can be reduced by diet OR also by every day activity exceeding 10K walking equivalent for three or more days in a row.

I always had a problem with the whole gluten-free fad. Serious, mocking problem.

Then, one day, my daughter - who suffers from very serious, diagnosed celiac and a whole host of related issues - said to me, "I am glad there is a fad. It means there are products on the grocery shelf that I can buy. Without the fad, my life would be a whole lot more problematic."

I shut up about it after that.

I totally agree with ya Greg. I have tasted some exceptional gluten-free products that I have thoroughly enjoyed that wouldn't be around otherwise. I am always glad to have choices.
Sorry to hear about your daughter.
I too have a friend who seems to do much better by reducing her gluten intake.

Oh and another food thing out there is the whole dairy thing. Turns out that well over 80% of the planet does not drink milk and does just fine in general.

So, when Dr. Oz says I should move to NC and eat chocolate, I should ignore him, right?

;-)

misterhub wrote: »

So, when Dr. Oz says I should move to NC and eat chocolate, I should ignore him, right?

;-)

If you ever hear him say anything remotely close to THAT, please let me know

No disrespect but the Dr totally misses the effect of activity alone on insulin levels and blood glucose. It is not at all necessary for most of us to go away from eating normal carbs in our diet when we get the equivalent of 10,000 steps (lightly active) in for at least three days in a row. The blood glucose spiking she describes indeed goes away along with the insulin spiking but only with consecutive active days. It is true that a large number of the very obese she deals with are not active to that level. Honestly can't imagine how they could be in general. Activity needs to be daily and not hit and miss. Takes about 3 consecutive days to get rid of the blood glucose and insulin spiking and about 3 days to go from no glucose and insulin spiking to maximal spiking when going from active to sedentary.

I don't question her approach but it does leave out a huge chunk of an alternative methodology. I eat normal carb, protein, and kinda low fat and it does work great WHEN one is active daily. She is looking at a diet only approach and makes valid points for her patients.

I am not sure about how the insulin resistance is caused and how it is dealt with. I do know that my wife's grandmother was held up by her arms and walked a lot daily as she had diabetes in the days before insulin was available.

THANKS FOR THE ARTICLE MARK! It is food for thought.

What do I do personally?? I am active daily. I do not sugar foods and have no sugar bowl. I do eat some bread and carbs daily. When I go on bike rides of 2 hours and more I constantly take in electrolytes and sugar of some type. It never causes blood glucose spiking per se when used that way in me.

I don't look for or run into much food-related info, except here (where I choose to). However, I did have an interesting conversation today with a friend of mine I'm coaching. She asked me to do so a few months ago when she signed up with WW online.

She was astounded that I lost my weight without an exercise program. Though I do get exercise I think the bulk of my weight came off by (wait for it...) eating less. She is athletic and does exercise but now that she's been lost about 20 pounds, she said the biggest change really has been eating less (since she exercised before starting the program too).

You all taught me that weight loss happens in the kitchen while toning happens in the gym. I'm always reluctant to assume what worked for me will work for someone else but in this case, seems so. She was surprised...and pleased!

2) Study by John Thyfault at Univ of Missouri:
Active people saw their blood glucose rates jump after meals when they cut back on exercise for just three days….


John P. Thyfault, an associate professor of nutrition and exercise physiology at the University of Missouri, who conducted the study, said people should keep moving during the day because while glucose spikes are normal during periods of inactivity, they become a more serious health problem if inactivity is prolonged or becomes typical for the body.

Hoping to learn more about how inactivity affects disease risk, researchers at the University of Missouri recently persuaded a group of healthy, active young adults to stop moving around so much. Scientists have known for some time that sedentary people are at increased risk of developing heart disease and Type 2 diabetes. But they haven’t fully understood why, in part because studying the effects of sedentary behavior isn’t easy. People who are inactive may also be obese, eat poorly or face other lifestyle or metabolic issues that make it impossible to tease out the specific role that inactivity, on its own, plays in ill health.

So, to combat the problem, researchers lately have embraced a novel approach to studying the effects of inactivity. They’ve imposed the condition on people who otherwise would be out happily exercising and moving about, in some cases by sentencing them to bed rest.

But in the current study, the scientists created a more realistic version of inactivity by having their volunteers cut the number of steps they took each day by at least half.

Thyfault stated that, “They wanted to determine whether this physical languor would affect the body’s ability to control blood sugar levels.” “It’s increasingly clear that blood sugar spikes, especially after a meal, are bad for you.” “Spikes and swings in blood sugar after meals have been linked to the development of heart disease and Type 2 diabetes.”

So the scientists fitted their volunteers with sophisticated glucose monitoring devices, which checked their blood sugar levels continuously throughout the day. They also gave the subjects pedometers and activity-measuring armbands, to track how many steps they took. Finally, they asked the volunteers to keep detailed food diaries. Then they told them to just live normally for three days, walking and exercising as usual.

Exercise guidelines from the American Heart Association and other groups recommend that, for health purposes, people accumulate 10,000 steps or more a day, the equivalent of about five miles of walking. Few people do, however. Repeated studies of American adults have shown that a majority take fewer than 5,000 steps per day.

The Missouri volunteers were atypical in that regard. Each exercised 30 minutes or so most days and easily completed more than 10,000 daily steps during the first three days of the experiment. The average was almost 13,000 steps.

During these three days, according to data from their glucose monitors, the volunteers’ blood sugar did not spike after they ate.

But that estimable condition changed during the second portion of the experiment, when the volunteers were told to cut back on activity so that their step counts would fall below 5,000 a day for the next three days. Achieving such indolence was easy enough. The volunteers stopped exercising and, at every opportunity, took the elevator, not the stairs, or had lunch delivered, instead of strolling to a cafe. They became, essentially, typical American adults.

Their average step counts fell to barely 4,300 during the three days, and the volunteers reported that they now “exercised,” on average, about three minutes a day.

Meanwhile, they ate exactly the same meals and snacks as they had in the preceding three days, so that any changes in blood sugar levels would not be a result of eating fattier or sweeter meals than before.

And there were changes. During the three days of inactivity, volunteers’ blood sugar levels spiked significantly after meals, with the peaks increasing by about 26 percent compared with when the volunteers were exercising and moving more. What’s more, the peaks grew slightly with each successive day.

This change in blood sugar control after meals “occurred well before we could see any changes in fitness or adiposity,” or fat buildup, due to the reduced activity, Dr. Thyfault says. So the blood sugar swings would seem to be a result, directly, of the volunteers not moving much.

Which is both distressing and encouraging news. “People immediately think, ‘So what happens if I get hurt or really busy, or for some other reason just can’t work out for a while?'” Dr. Thyfault says. “The answer seems to be that it shouldn’t be a big problem.” Studies in both humans and animals have found that blood sugar regulation quickly returns to normal once activity resumes.

The spikes during inactivity are natural, after all, even inevitable, given that unused muscles need less fuel and so draw less sugar from the blood.

The condition becomes a serious concern, Dr. Thyfault says, only when inactivity is lingering, when it becomes the body’s default condition. “We hypothesize that, over time, inactivity creates the physiological conditions that produce chronic disease,” like Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, regardless of a person’s weight or diet.

To avoid that fate, he says, keep moving, even if in small doses. “When I’m really busy, I make sure to get up and walk around the office or jog in place every hour or so,” he says. Wear a pedometer if it will nudge you to move more. “You don’t have to run marathons,” he says. “But the evidence is clear that you do need to move.”

Agree with Steve. Correlation certainly does not equal causation. Also studies are statistical and we are just that lonely n=1 single data point. If what we are doing and eating works for us no reason to change in my view.

I am reminded of a saying my english teacher had "the conclusions we jump to may be our own". True enough.

Hang in there Lily. Depression really really really sux. Sending ya all our virtual hugs.