Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Sugar Addiction Myths
Replies
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
No, they can be unneeded in one situation and needed in another. If you are, say, Michael Phelps in training, you can't possibly get enough calories to stay well nourished unless you eat a lot of high-calorie, low-fiber foods. If you are an average Westerner, you're in a different situation. For you, candy is "empty calories," nutritionally speaking. Similarly, glucose can be a lifesaver for a diabetic in insulin shock or a patient in a coma, and doctors don't refer to it as "empty calories" in those circumstances.Carlos_421 wrote: »
It's routinely used in the health care and nutritional fields. For example:I'm thinking the term "empty calories" was invented by the "clean eaters"...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871092/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24200654
https://mchb.hrsa.gov/chusa14/dl/health-status-behaviors.pdf
There's a recognized, common understanding of what the phrase means - it's basically a short way to talk about foods that add unneeded extra calories but little else. Sometimes it's put in quotation marks. ETA: It's never used when the calories the food supplies are needed or helpful, only when the extra calories are unneeded and possibly detrimental.
So if I eat gummy bears pre or post workout they don't have empty calories because helpful but if I eat them during a movie they do have empty calories because unneeded?
They're the same gummy bears...either the calories are empty or not.
Sorry if that seems inconsistent to you, but your quarrel is with the doctors and scientists who use the phrase that way.
If whether or not a calorie is "empty" depends on the circumstances, it seems like it would be more helpful to address the circumstances and help people make informed choices instead of focusing on the foods themselves.
I think the point is that the calories are empty in both cases. Sometimes all you need are calories. In that situation, empty calories are fine and welcome. If you aren't in need of calories or if you are in need of certain micronutrients, empty calories are a bad idea.
If you ordered a book and then received an empty box in the mail, that would be bad. If you need to move, you would want an empty box.
Empty boxes can be good or bad, but I have never once heard somebody say, "It's not an empty box because you have a box and boxes are useful so the fact that you have a box means it's not an empty box."
I hope I never do, to be honest.
Your example makes perfect sense, it's just that you usually hear "empty calories" tossed around as something to avoid, where an empty box is just a tool.
It wouldn't make any sense to talk about 'empty calories' as something to look for.
If you have too many caloreis and not enough nutrients, you need to avoid "empty calories".
On the other hand, if you just need calories, it doesn't matter if they are empty or not. You just need the calories. So, advice on how to get more calories won't suggest you look for empty calories, right? Because their being empty is irrelevant. The extra calories don't have to be empty. An avocado is as good as a bag of skittles when all you want is calories.
Not when I want the calories because I'm about to be deadlifting. Keep the avocado and give me gummy bears.
Even in that case, you don't want them because they are empty. You want them because they are quick access. A banana would work.2 -
The guy who wrote is is an editor, not a doctor, researcher or (that I can see) medically trained. But IMO, you can simply look at the increased processing of food, the increased sugar additives and availability, and the growing trend of obesity and diabetes. Is sugar evil? No, duh, its an object, a food. Eating too much of it hurts your body. I avoid sugar now, and will continue to do so because my body, in particular, converts sugar to fat like magic. I also feel better, function better, have less skin issues and less yeast issues when I am off sugar. Its a personal choice.4
-
Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.janejellyroll wrote: »...
Those studies, at best, seem to establish that changing one's diet can lead to favorable changes in some health markers for those who remain obese, at least in short term studies.
No one was arguing that losing weight is bad, just that it takes longer to lose a lot of weight than to change one's diet. I wasn't recommending any kind of template. And I certainly wasn't saying that it's good to be obese.But is there counter-evidence to show that people who lose weight don't experience beneficial changes also? You're arguing that it's better to be obese (and have a diet that fits a certain template) than it is to be a normal weight and eat in a different way. What is the basis for that claim?
Btw, there's no study like the one you asked me to find, that measures the health effects of weight loss in isolation from other factors like dietary changes and increased exercise.
What specific health improvements are you able to tie directly to changes in diet, with no calorie restriction and associated weight loss?0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.janejellyroll wrote: »...
Those studies, at best, seem to establish that changing one's diet can lead to favorable changes in some health markers for those who remain obese, at least in short term studies.
No one was arguing that losing weight is bad, just that it takes longer to lose a lot of weight than to change one's diet. I wasn't recommending any kind of template. And I certainly wasn't saying that it's good to be obese.But is there counter-evidence to show that people who lose weight don't experience beneficial changes also? You're arguing that it's better to be obese (and have a diet that fits a certain template) than it is to be a normal weight and eat in a different way. What is the basis for that claim?
Btw, there's no study like the one you asked me to find, that measures the health effects of weight loss in isolation from other factors like dietary changes and increased exercise.
What specific health improvements are you able to tie directly to changes in diet, with no calorie restriction and associated weight loss?
This is really the key. For someone with T2D or other severe forms of IR, it seems that controlling it through limiting insulin spikes IS helpful, and therefore immediate improvements can be seen through low carbing, even before weight is lost. Whether that remains true long term (vs. weight loss) seems questionable to me and, of course, it is neither generally applicable nor the same thing as saying a "healthy diet" causes those effects. Low carb (and low GI) may be quite different from the traditional healthy diet, and yet still have the positive effects given the specific problem.
For longer term health and continued improvement I'd think weight loss would be recommended, not just low carbing to control insulin.
You do see positive improvements when someone changes from a quite bad diet to a very different diet (and usually begins losing weight), but you also see those changes right away when someone begins weight loss (as with the Twinkie diet guy) in many cases.
Is it overall healthier to be obese but have a healthy diet vs. being normal weight but having a less healthy diet? The source for that would be the Nurse's Study or the other health professionals studies (all correlation studies) and I've never seen that comparison done. It doesn't seem that dfwesq can support that either, but I'd love to see a discussion of the comparison.1 -
nokanjaijo wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'm sorry if that person doesn't want this post to be quoted elsewhere but I just saw this in another thread and it's exactly this.stevencloser wrote: »macro4luv2 wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »macro4luv2 wrote: »This documentary was as full of crap as processed food, I think most of the experts were actors. Diets are individual. I was done when they said sugar wasn't bad for you.....
Is sugar bad for you? You must have been watching the other netflix documentaries as well.
I'll clear that up... Processed sugar is bad for you. I do watch other netflix docs. and some are better than others...... lol
Still wrong.
I have a question - re sugar (regular white table sugar). I know its BAD bad bad bad, but if I eat one Teaspoon a day, it has only 4 calories, will it really hurt me? if that's all I eat in one day this 1 tsp of regular sugar. I mean that's not ALL I eat, but its like one item i'd like to enjoy. Some things just taste better with sugar. of course, that's about all the indulgences I would eat. otherwise I eat pretty balanced home made food that I make.
BAD bad bad bad. 4 times. She's overthinking about 1 goddamn teaspoon of sugar because of things like this.
These kinds of posts are A DAILY OCCURRENCE on here.
This is due to the fact that a lot of people now think that sugar is 4 times bad for you. They think sugar is one of the worst things you can eat. That is a recent opinion.
That opinion about sugar is a completely different thing than just saying sugar is "empty calories" which is what my mother used to tell me 35 years ago and just means that it's not nutritious. Which is what I understood it to mean when my mother said it and i was all of seven years old. So it can't be that difficult to interpret.
Apparently it is since there's daily threads by people who don't know the first thing about how weight management even works at a basic level due to misinformation purported by people who take sentences like "sugar is empty calories" and tell you to never have it because "empty calories make you fat and sick!".
You seem convinced of this particular chain of cause and effect but I, personally, have zero reasons to think a single link in that chain reflects reality.
It almost seems like you are catastrophizing about the effects of catastrophizing about the effects of sugar. Like you're trying to fight fire with fire.
Did you read the post he quoted earlier? "I have a question - re sugar (regular white table sugar). I know its BAD bad bad bad, but if I eat one Teaspoon a day, it has only 4 calories, will it really hurt me?" is a real question that was asked here recently. I see variations of it all the time. I can't imagine how you miss how frequently versions of this question -- based on the assumption that sugar should be avoided -- are asked here.
No. I didn't miss it. I replied to it, in fact. I explained that this is in response to people saying sugar is incredibly bad for you which is a different claim than "sugar is empty calories".
I've been around the block on here long enough to have witnessed my share of "carbs are not essential, therefore should be avoided" posts particularly in low carb related threads. which is even a step above telling people to avoid sugar because empty calories on the derp scale.
It exists, it happens, people who don't know how to separate valid advice from woo are hurt by it.7 -
violetness wrote: »The guy who wrote is is an editor, not a doctor, researcher or (that I can see) medically trained. But IMO, you can simply look at the increased processing of food, the increased sugar additives and availability, and the growing trend of obesity and diabetes. Is sugar evil? No, duh, its an object, a food. Eating too much of it hurts your body. I avoid sugar now, and will continue to do so because my body, in particular, converts sugar to fat like magic. I also feel better, function better, have less skin issues and less yeast issues when I am off sugar. Its a personal choice.
sugar is not converted to fat. sugar can be stored as fat in a SURPLUS of calories. sugar is used as energy,and in a deficit is not stored.2 -
meh. nevermind0
-
This addresses added sugars. It addresses the idea of added sugar as empty calories.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975866/Introduction
Nutrient/energy deficit in obesity
Sugar was first extracted from sugar cane and sugar beets hundreds of years ago, and later ‘purified’ into a white crystalline form. In modern times, sugar has been isolated and refined to a degree that allows it to be integrated into the food supply in quantities and concentrations that do not occur naturally and are unlikely to have been encountered in human evolutionary history. Pure crystalline sugar, high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and other caloric sweeteners consumed in beverages and processed foods provide a supra-physiological glycaemic load,1 overwhelming the body's processing capacity and leading to detrimental metabolic effects (eg, hyperglycaemia, hyperinsulinaemia and oxidative stress).1 Because of this refinement, added sugars now behave like drug-like substances.2 3 Although edible, added sugars cannot be considered a ‘food’, nor can their consumption be equated to eating foods that contain natural amounts of sugar, but which also provide fibre, vitamins, minerals and other phytonutrients that combat oxidative stress produced by the small amounts of fructose present. As the ‘dose makes the poison’, the food industry has made it possible for consumers to easily ‘overdose’ on added sugars, making this an issue of concern for public health worldwide, wherever there is significant consumption of processed, highly refined and sugar-dense foods.
Added sugars are not food
Sugar is not among the recommended foods. Its recent rationing will not provoke a hardship, for sugar supplies nothing in nutrition but calories, and the vitamins provided by other foods are sapped by sugar to liberate these calories.4 (Emphasis added) (Wilder—Handbook of Nutrition)
The definition of food is, ‘Material that contains essential nutrients, which are assimilated by an organism to produce energy, stimulate growth and maintain life’.5 Many types of added sugars do not fit this definition. While caloric sweeteners such as honey, maple syrup, molasses and sorghum syrup (also known as ‘free sugars’) may provide trace amounts of micronutrients, the sweetening agents most commonly added to processed foods—sucrose and HFCS—do not. In fact, these added sugars not only lack essential nutrients, but they also have detrimental effects on all three important functions of food (eg, produce energy, stimulate growth and maintain life). These two added sugars (sucrose and HFCS) will be the disaccharides of focus in this review.
It goes on to sayThe conversion of food calories into energy in the form of ATP does not occur by chance, with no requirements for input into the biochemical pathways involved. Via glycolysis and the citric acid cycle, carbohydrates—including refined sugars—are converted into energy. The reactions these processes comprise are dependent on required cofactors in the form of vitamins and minerals; however, isolated and refined sugars have been stripped of their micronutrient content, which may impair their conversion into energy and/or result in a net nutrient deficit if such nutrients must be siphoned from body stores in order to keep these processes running efficiently. Contrast this with foods consumed in their whole, unrefined forms, which typically contain at least some of the nutrients required to liberate their energy.
I find this to be a compelling way to think about added sugars.4 -
Focusing on added sugar alone, as if it were not inherently "added" sugar -- i.e., sugar not eaten alone, but to increase the palatability of some other food -- is something I find bizarre.
As the links dfwesq posted above demonstrated, "empty calories" is commonly used (unhelpfully, I believe) to refer to solid fats and added sugar that make certain (in many cases reasonably nutritious) foods more palatable.
Sometimes they are inherent in the foods: cheese contains a high percentage of solid fats and may be eaten alone, same with bacon. Ribeye and pulled pork and chicken with skin and cream also contain solid fats (and therefore more "empty calories" under this definition) than lean meats like boneless, skinless chicken breast, an average pork chop, or low fat dairy.
Often they are added, as with adding butter or cheese to vegetables to make them tastier (in the view of some), a cream sauce to meat or pasta or, of course, some sugar to oats or using it in a dry rub.
Pulling out the "empty calories" in these usages seems weird to me in that typically foods are made up of higher and lower cal elements and the nutritional differences between butter and olive oil (not empty calories, apparently) are slight in reality.
It's also problematic since as the post above shows some want to fixate on just sugar when that's not what it's about.
I do think there's a problem when people stop using these "empty calories" as a small addition to make food more palatable or, perhaps, a significant ingredient in a small indulgence within the course of a nutrient-dense day (for some reason "pound cake" came up in something I was listening to recently -- a lb of butter, a lb of flour, and a lb of sugar -- certainly the butter and sugar would BOTH be empty calories, and the calories from fat and carbs look about equal to slightly higher for the fat).
But moving past this digression, the problem is calories being way out of balance, not being "added" or something to accent food or make it taste better, but the main part of a day, and that's not really an issue of identifying those ingredients which are to be demonized by calling them not food or not good in any amounts, but just noting that they are intended to add to the taste and not to be used in huge amounts.
If "empty calories" helps you with that understanding (it seems kind of obvious to me, so I'm not sure why help would be needed), then great.2 -
nokanjaijo wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
No, they can be unneeded in one situation and needed in another. If you are, say, Michael Phelps in training, you can't possibly get enough calories to stay well nourished unless you eat a lot of high-calorie, low-fiber foods. If you are an average Westerner, you're in a different situation. For you, candy is "empty calories," nutritionally speaking. Similarly, glucose can be a lifesaver for a diabetic in insulin shock or a patient in a coma, and doctors don't refer to it as "empty calories" in those circumstances.Carlos_421 wrote: »
It's routinely used in the health care and nutritional fields. For example:I'm thinking the term "empty calories" was invented by the "clean eaters"...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871092/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24200654
https://mchb.hrsa.gov/chusa14/dl/health-status-behaviors.pdf
There's a recognized, common understanding of what the phrase means - it's basically a short way to talk about foods that add unneeded extra calories but little else. Sometimes it's put in quotation marks. ETA: It's never used when the calories the food supplies are needed or helpful, only when the extra calories are unneeded and possibly detrimental.
So if I eat gummy bears pre or post workout they don't have empty calories because helpful but if I eat them during a movie they do have empty calories because unneeded?
They're the same gummy bears...either the calories are empty or not.
Sorry if that seems inconsistent to you, but your quarrel is with the doctors and scientists who use the phrase that way.
If whether or not a calorie is "empty" depends on the circumstances, it seems like it would be more helpful to address the circumstances and help people make informed choices instead of focusing on the foods themselves.
I think the point is that the calories are empty in both cases. Sometimes all you need are calories. In that situation, empty calories are fine and welcome. If you aren't in need of calories or if you are in need of certain micronutrients, empty calories are a bad idea.
If you ordered a book and then received an empty box in the mail, that would be bad. If you need to move, you would want an empty box.
Empty boxes can be good or bad, but I have never once heard somebody say, "It's not an empty box because you have a box and boxes are useful so the fact that you have a box means it's not an empty box."
I hope I never do, to be honest.
Your example makes perfect sense, it's just that you usually hear "empty calories" tossed around as something to avoid, where an empty box is just a tool.
It wouldn't make any sense to talk about 'empty calories' as something to look for.
If you have too many caloreis and not enough nutrients, you need to avoid "empty calories".
On the other hand, if you just need calories, it doesn't matter if they are empty or not. You just need the calories. So, advice on how to get more calories won't suggest you look for empty calories, right? Because their being empty is irrelevant. The extra calories don't have to be empty. An avocado is as good as a bag of skittles when all you want is calories.
Not when I want the calories because I'm about to be deadlifting. Keep the avocado and give me gummy bears.
Even in that case, you don't want them because they are empty. You want them because they are quick access. A banana would work.
I want them because they are calories. You said that when all you want is calories, an avocado is just as good as skittles. I demonstrated that your statement was incorrect.
The potential of using a banana for the same purpose as the gummy bears is irrelevant.
Also, say my diet is otherwise on point and I'm getting all my fiber and micronutrients. If I have the choice between gummy bears and a banana before my workout and I choose the banana, I don't get bonus points for getting extra vitamins beyond what my body needs so I'm no better off than if I'd eaten the gummy bears.8 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I also do think that people KNOW that they should eat vegetables and not overeat fast food or sugary treats, and no one does the latter because of lack of education or because they don't know the term "empty calories." They do because they want to and maybe (in my more idealistic days) because they wrongly believe that eating healthy is too hard to try because they'd have to give up everything they love. If they know they don't, maybe they'd eat better (and that means more calorie appropriate and, yeah, some vegetables).
This is the battle I run into when I talk about my weight loss with my parents and sister. Mom thinks to lose weight, she'd have to buy all these foods she can't afford, and my sister frankly doesn't want to give up any of her favorite foods at all. Mom also uses "I have an addiction to sugar" as an excuse as well; her mindset is "it's an addiction and I can't control it so why try?"
What I'm finding out, however, is that this seems to be a mask for the real problem, which is they don't want to restrict themselves on portion sizes. When I point out to them that they don't necessarily have to give up everything they love, just eat smaller portions sizes, they claim that if they eat the correct portion size, they are "starving themselves". As an example, last weekend, I bought a container of halo top icecream, which has 4 servings per container. I was visiting my parents and my sister, so there were four of us. I carefully portioned out a single serving for each of us, and my dad and sister both loudly protested and even insulted me when I told them that 1/2 cup was what a single serving was supposed to be, not the huge bowlful (usually 1 1/2 cups or more of regular icecream) that they usually ate.
So I find that not only do they think eating healthy is too hard because they have to give up favorite "unhealthy" foods, they also claim its too hard because they don't want to restrict how much they are eating. The same goes with sugar content. It's not that they don't know they need to reign in the amount of added sugars they are consuming (all three a type 2 diabetics); it comes down to the fact that they don't want to, or the desire for the sugar is stronger than the knowledge that they shouldn't be consuming so much of it.
I do think that for some folks, it could be a case of lack of willpower versus an addiction mentality (my mom), but in other cases, its more of simply not caring at all about their health status or refusing to limit themselves (my sister).3 -
Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.janejellyroll wrote: »...
Those studies, at best, seem to establish that changing one's diet can lead to favorable changes in some health markers for those who remain obese, at least in short term studies.
No one was arguing that losing weight is bad, just that it takes longer to lose a lot of weight than to change one's diet. I wasn't recommending any kind of template. And I certainly wasn't saying that it's good to be obese.But is there counter-evidence to show that people who lose weight don't experience beneficial changes also? You're arguing that it's better to be obese (and have a diet that fits a certain template) than it is to be a normal weight and eat in a different way. What is the basis for that claim?
Btw, there's no study like the one you asked me to find, that measures the health effects of weight loss in isolation from other factors like dietary changes and increased exercise.
If there is no study that demonstrates that, I don't know what you're basing your claim on.2 -
I think you have that backwards. Such a study would be needed to show that weight loss by itself - rather than the improved diet and/or more exercise that caused someone to lose weight - was responsible for improved overall health. I'm not the one touting weight loss alone as the best way to improve overall health. (To be clear, I think it's certainly helpful. But eating healthier is also helpful, may produce results faster, and can be done at the same time.)janejellyroll wrote: »
Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.janejellyroll wrote: »...
Those studies, at best, seem to establish that changing one's diet can lead to favorable changes in some health markers for those who remain obese, at least in short term studies.
No one was arguing that losing weight is bad, just that it takes longer to lose a lot of weight than to change one's diet. I wasn't recommending any kind of template. And I certainly wasn't saying that it's good to be obese.But is there counter-evidence to show that people who lose weight don't experience beneficial changes also? You're arguing that it's better to be obese (and have a diet that fits a certain template) than it is to be a normal weight and eat in a different way. What is the basis for that claim?
Btw, there's no study like the one you asked me to find, that measures the health effects of weight loss in isolation from other factors like dietary changes and increased exercise.
If there is no study that demonstrates that, I don't know what you're basing your claim on.
The obvious reason why there are no studies like that is that people almost never lose weight unless they improve their diet and/or exercise. When you ask for those studies, you're asking for the kind of studies that don't exist.
Btw, there are studies on people who lose weight through liposuction alone. But surgery is a different ballgame and I don't think anyone was suggesting weight loss through surgery as a way to improve health.
1 -
I think you have that backwards. Such a study would be needed to show that weight loss by itself - rather than the improved diet and/or more exercise that caused someone to lose weight - was responsible for improved overall health. I'm not the one touting weight loss alone as the best way to improve overall health. (To be clear, I think it's certainly helpful. But eating healthier is also helpful, may produce results faster, and can be done at the same time.)janejellyroll wrote: »
Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.janejellyroll wrote: »...
Those studies, at best, seem to establish that changing one's diet can lead to favorable changes in some health markers for those who remain obese, at least in short term studies.
No one was arguing that losing weight is bad, just that it takes longer to lose a lot of weight than to change one's diet. I wasn't recommending any kind of template. And I certainly wasn't saying that it's good to be obese.But is there counter-evidence to show that people who lose weight don't experience beneficial changes also? You're arguing that it's better to be obese (and have a diet that fits a certain template) than it is to be a normal weight and eat in a different way. What is the basis for that claim?
Btw, there's no study like the one you asked me to find, that measures the health effects of weight loss in isolation from other factors like dietary changes and increased exercise.
If there is no study that demonstrates that, I don't know what you're basing your claim on.
The obvious reason why there are no studies like that is that people almost never lose weight unless they improve their diet and/or exercise. When you ask for those studies, you're asking for the kind of studies that don't exist.
Btw, there are studies on people who lose weight through liposuction alone. But surgery is a different ballgame and I don't think anyone was suggesting weight loss through surgery as a way to improve health.
If the argument is that obese people with "healthier" diets are better off than people at a normal weight and a less healthy diet, I don't know what that claim is based on. That was the initial claim.
If you're talking about "better health more quickly," that seems like a change of what we're discussing. To be clear, the initial claim was about overall health, not the fastest improvement.
When it comes to overall health outcomes, is it your position that on a general population level it is better to be overweight and "eat healthy" or to be at a normal weight?1 -
I think you have that backwards. Such a study would be needed to show that weight loss by itself - rather than the improved diet and/or more exercise that caused someone to lose weight - was responsible for improved overall health. I'm not the one touting weight loss alone as the best way to improve overall health. (To be clear, I think it's certainly helpful. But eating healthier is also helpful, may produce results faster, and can be done at the same time.)janejellyroll wrote: »
Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.janejellyroll wrote: »...
Those studies, at best, seem to establish that changing one's diet can lead to favorable changes in some health markers for those who remain obese, at least in short term studies.
No one was arguing that losing weight is bad, just that it takes longer to lose a lot of weight than to change one's diet. I wasn't recommending any kind of template. And I certainly wasn't saying that it's good to be obese.But is there counter-evidence to show that people who lose weight don't experience beneficial changes also? You're arguing that it's better to be obese (and have a diet that fits a certain template) than it is to be a normal weight and eat in a different way. What is the basis for that claim?
Btw, there's no study like the one you asked me to find, that measures the health effects of weight loss in isolation from other factors like dietary changes and increased exercise.
If there is no study that demonstrates that, I don't know what you're basing your claim on.
The obvious reason why there are no studies like that is that people almost never lose weight unless they improve their diet and/or exercise. When you ask for those studies, you're asking for the kind of studies that don't exist.
Btw, there are studies on people who lose weight through liposuction alone. But surgery is a different ballgame and I don't think anyone was suggesting weight loss through surgery as a way to improve health.
There are dozens of stories on MFP where people talked about losing weight without significantly overhauling their diet, and in recent months, there have been several great threads posted as an experiment which demonstrates exactly what you said doesn't happen - that it's possible to lose weight AND improve health markers, even without changing diet to a more nutrient dense one - in most of these, I think the guys intentionally ate less healthfully, to prove their point.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10571895/the-junk-food-diet-seriously/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
There's one more that I can't dig up just now, perhaps someone else can link - an experiment with eating nothing but fast food for a month?
2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
I think you have that backwards. Such a study would be needed to show that weight loss by itself - rather than the improved diet and/or more exercise that caused someone to lose weight - was responsible for improved overall health. I'm not the one touting weight loss alone as the best way to improve overall health. (To be clear, I think it's certainly helpful. But eating healthier is also helpful, may produce results faster, and can be done at the same time.)janejellyroll wrote: »
Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.janejellyroll wrote: »...
Those studies, at best, seem to establish that changing one's diet can lead to favorable changes in some health markers for those who remain obese, at least in short term studies.
No one was arguing that losing weight is bad, just that it takes longer to lose a lot of weight than to change one's diet. I wasn't recommending any kind of template. And I certainly wasn't saying that it's good to be obese.But is there counter-evidence to show that people who lose weight don't experience beneficial changes also? You're arguing that it's better to be obese (and have a diet that fits a certain template) than it is to be a normal weight and eat in a different way. What is the basis for that claim?
Btw, there's no study like the one you asked me to find, that measures the health effects of weight loss in isolation from other factors like dietary changes and increased exercise.
If there is no study that demonstrates that, I don't know what you're basing your claim on.
The obvious reason why there are no studies like that is that people almost never lose weight unless they improve their diet and/or exercise. When you ask for those studies, you're asking for the kind of studies that don't exist.
Btw, there are studies on people who lose weight through liposuction alone. But surgery is a different ballgame and I don't think anyone was suggesting weight loss through surgery as a way to improve health.
There are dozens of stories on MFP where people talked about losing weight without significantly overhauling their diet, and in recent months, there have been several great threads posted as an experiment which demonstrates exactly what you said doesn't happen - that it's possible to lose weight AND improve health markers, even without changing diet to a more nutrient dense one - in most of these, I think the guys intentionally ate less healthfully, to prove their point.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10571895/the-junk-food-diet-seriously/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
There's one more that I can't dig up just now, perhaps someone else can link - an experiment with eating nothing but fast food for a month?
Twinkie Diet and McDonald's Diet.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2534737/I-thought-I-going-die-Man-lost-37lbs-eating-McDonalds-three-months-walking-45-minutes-day.html2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
I think you have that backwards. Such a study would be needed to show that weight loss by itself - rather than the improved diet and/or more exercise that caused someone to lose weight - was responsible for improved overall health. I'm not the one touting weight loss alone as the best way to improve overall health. (To be clear, I think it's certainly helpful. But eating healthier is also helpful, may produce results faster, and can be done at the same time.)janejellyroll wrote: »
Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.janejellyroll wrote: »...
Those studies, at best, seem to establish that changing one's diet can lead to favorable changes in some health markers for those who remain obese, at least in short term studies.
No one was arguing that losing weight is bad, just that it takes longer to lose a lot of weight than to change one's diet. I wasn't recommending any kind of template. And I certainly wasn't saying that it's good to be obese.But is there counter-evidence to show that people who lose weight don't experience beneficial changes also? You're arguing that it's better to be obese (and have a diet that fits a certain template) than it is to be a normal weight and eat in a different way. What is the basis for that claim?
Btw, there's no study like the one you asked me to find, that measures the health effects of weight loss in isolation from other factors like dietary changes and increased exercise.
If there is no study that demonstrates that, I don't know what you're basing your claim on.
The obvious reason why there are no studies like that is that people almost never lose weight unless they improve their diet and/or exercise. When you ask for those studies, you're asking for the kind of studies that don't exist.
Btw, there are studies on people who lose weight through liposuction alone. But surgery is a different ballgame and I don't think anyone was suggesting weight loss through surgery as a way to improve health.
There are dozens of stories on MFP where people talked about losing weight without significantly overhauling their diet, and in recent months, there have been several great threads posted as an experiment which demonstrates exactly what you said doesn't happen - that it's possible to lose weight AND improve health markers, even without changing diet to a more nutrient dense one - in most of these, I think the guys intentionally ate less healthfully, to prove their point.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10571895/the-junk-food-diet-seriously/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
There's one more that I can't dig up just now, perhaps someone else can link - an experiment with eating nothing but fast food for a month?
Twinkie Diet and McDonald's Diet.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2534737/I-thought-I-going-die-Man-lost-37lbs-eating-McDonalds-three-months-walking-45-minutes-day.html
Yeah there was one more on the MFP forums that I can't find or remember the OP's name. It was a similar experiment with nothing but fast food, I don't think it was specifically McDonalds.
Anyway - it demonstrates that while no one is really advocating eating nothing but junk food, even for a short period of time - it is possible to lose weight AND improve health markers by doing so. And there are many, many other stories of people who have had similar improvements simply by focusing on losing weight and not a drastic overhaul of their diet.
And just to be clear - I am an advocate of eating a varied and balanced diet that include foods that provide nutrition, satiety, and enjoyment in a calorie appropriate amount for the individual's goals. Just in case I'm accused (again) of saying that nutrition doesn't matter.
3 -
I think you have that backwards. Such a study would be needed to show that weight loss by itself - rather than the improved diet and/or more exercise that caused someone to lose weight - was responsible for improved overall health. I'm not the one touting weight loss alone as the best way to improve overall health. (To be clear, I think it's certainly helpful. But eating healthier is also helpful, may produce results faster, and can be done at the same time.)janejellyroll wrote: »
Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.janejellyroll wrote: »...
Those studies, at best, seem to establish that changing one's diet can lead to favorable changes in some health markers for those who remain obese, at least in short term studies.
No one was arguing that losing weight is bad, just that it takes longer to lose a lot of weight than to change one's diet. I wasn't recommending any kind of template. And I certainly wasn't saying that it's good to be obese.But is there counter-evidence to show that people who lose weight don't experience beneficial changes also? You're arguing that it's better to be obese (and have a diet that fits a certain template) than it is to be a normal weight and eat in a different way. What is the basis for that claim?
Btw, there's no study like the one you asked me to find, that measures the health effects of weight loss in isolation from other factors like dietary changes and increased exercise.
If there is no study that demonstrates that, I don't know what you're basing your claim on.
The obvious reason why there are no studies like that is that people almost never lose weight unless they improve their diet and/or exercise. When you ask for those studies, you're asking for the kind of studies that don't exist.
This is just isn't true -- that people don't lose weight without improving their diets -- and they could compare the two things by setting up 12 week studies anyway.
I often think that there are a group of posters who were eating poorly and not exercising before, changed their diets and found they were easily at a deficit and assume that everyone else was in the same situation and did not think about nutrition before losing.
The evidence we have is that weight loss through MANY divergent diets improves tests, including that silly Twinkie diet and that guy who did all McD's, but -- more seriously -- people who low carb (often low veg and other things I would not recommend) through those who lose on Lean Cuisines and those who do some kind of WFPB and probably the majority who just cut calories in some way and maybe try to follow the nutritional recommendations somewhat.
I think it's good to eat a healthy diet and you do control that, so why not, but if for some reason your idea of a healthy diet is a stumbling block, just losing weight will be good for you (and might lead to interest in a healthy diet -- OliveGirl on MFP has posted about such things). Discouraging people by saying it's not important unless you eat a healthy diet OR saying that weight loss isn't important so long as you "eat clean" (and you will lose anyway) are not examples of good advice, IMO.
And I say this again as someone who got fat/was fat being super obsessed with nutrition and eating all natural and such things.3 -
I didn't say that, and I've re-clarified already that I never said or intended to say that.janejellyroll wrote: »
I think you have that backwards. Such a study would be needed to show that weight loss by itself - rather than the improved diet and/or more exercise that caused someone to lose weight - was responsible for improved overall health. I'm not the one touting weight loss alone as the best way to improve overall health. (To be clear, I think it's certainly helpful. But eating healthier is also helpful, may produce results faster, and can be done at the same time.)janejellyroll wrote: »
Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.janejellyroll wrote: »...
Those studies, at best, seem to establish that changing one's diet can lead to favorable changes in some health markers for those who remain obese, at least in short term studies.
No one was arguing that losing weight is bad, just that it takes longer to lose a lot of weight than to change one's diet. I wasn't recommending any kind of template. And I certainly wasn't saying that it's good to be obese.But is there counter-evidence to show that people who lose weight don't experience beneficial changes also? You're arguing that it's better to be obese (and have a diet that fits a certain template) than it is to be a normal weight and eat in a different way. What is the basis for that claim?
Btw, there's no study like the one you asked me to find, that measures the health effects of weight loss in isolation from other factors like dietary changes and increased exercise.
If there is no study that demonstrates that, I don't know what you're basing your claim on.
The obvious reason why there are no studies like that is that people almost never lose weight unless they improve their diet and/or exercise. When you ask for those studies, you're asking for the kind of studies that don't exist.
Btw, there are studies on people who lose weight through liposuction alone. But surgery is a different ballgame and I don't think anyone was suggesting weight loss through surgery as a way to improve health.
If the argument is that obese people with "healthier" diets are better off than people at a normal weight and a less healthy diet, I don't know what that claim is based on. That was the initial claim.
I had hoped this would be a useful conversation, but I think it has outlived its usefulness.
[edited for formatting]
0 -
I didn't say that, and I've re-clarified already that I never said or intended to say that.janejellyroll wrote: »
I think you have that backwards. Such a study would be needed to show that weight loss by itself - rather than the improved diet and/or more exercise that caused someone to lose weight - was responsible for improved overall health. I'm not the one touting weight loss alone as the best way to improve overall health. (To be clear, I think it's certainly helpful. But eating healthier is also helpful, may produce results faster, and can be done at the same time.)janejellyroll wrote: »
Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.janejellyroll wrote: »...
Those studies, at best, seem to establish that changing one's diet can lead to favorable changes in some health markers for those who remain obese, at least in short term studies.
No one was arguing that losing weight is bad, just that it takes longer to lose a lot of weight than to change one's diet. I wasn't recommending any kind of template. And I certainly wasn't saying that it's good to be obese.But is there counter-evidence to show that people who lose weight don't experience beneficial changes also? You're arguing that it's better to be obese (and have a diet that fits a certain template) than it is to be a normal weight and eat in a different way. What is the basis for that claim?
Btw, there's no study like the one you asked me to find, that measures the health effects of weight loss in isolation from other factors like dietary changes and increased exercise.
If there is no study that demonstrates that, I don't know what you're basing your claim on.
The obvious reason why there are no studies like that is that people almost never lose weight unless they improve their diet and/or exercise. When you ask for those studies, you're asking for the kind of studies that don't exist.
Btw, there are studies on people who lose weight through liposuction alone. But surgery is a different ballgame and I don't think anyone was suggesting weight loss through surgery as a way to improve health.
If the argument is that obese people with "healthier" diets are better off than people at a normal weight and a less healthy diet, I don't know what that claim is based on. That was the initial claim.
I had hoped this would be a useful conversation, but I think it has outlived its usefulness.
[edited for formatting]
I apologize for misunderstanding what you were saying.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think you have that backwards. Such a study would be needed to show that weight loss by itself - rather than the improved diet and/or more exercise that caused someone to lose weight - was responsible for improved overall health. I'm not the one touting weight loss alone as the best way to improve overall health. (To be clear, I think it's certainly helpful. But eating healthier is also helpful, may produce results faster, and can be done at the same time.)janejellyroll wrote: »
Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.janejellyroll wrote: »...
Those studies, at best, seem to establish that changing one's diet can lead to favorable changes in some health markers for those who remain obese, at least in short term studies.
No one was arguing that losing weight is bad, just that it takes longer to lose a lot of weight than to change one's diet. I wasn't recommending any kind of template. And I certainly wasn't saying that it's good to be obese.But is there counter-evidence to show that people who lose weight don't experience beneficial changes also? You're arguing that it's better to be obese (and have a diet that fits a certain template) than it is to be a normal weight and eat in a different way. What is the basis for that claim?
Btw, there's no study like the one you asked me to find, that measures the health effects of weight loss in isolation from other factors like dietary changes and increased exercise.
If there is no study that demonstrates that, I don't know what you're basing your claim on.
The obvious reason why there are no studies like that is that people almost never lose weight unless they improve their diet and/or exercise. When you ask for those studies, you're asking for the kind of studies that don't exist.
This is just isn't true -- that people don't lose weight without improving their diets -- and they could compare the two things by setting up 12 week studies anyway.
No one even said that.1 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think you have that backwards. Such a study would be needed to show that weight loss by itself - rather than the improved diet and/or more exercise that caused someone to lose weight - was responsible for improved overall health. I'm not the one touting weight loss alone as the best way to improve overall health. (To be clear, I think it's certainly helpful. But eating healthier is also helpful, may produce results faster, and can be done at the same time.)janejellyroll wrote: »
Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.janejellyroll wrote: »...
Those studies, at best, seem to establish that changing one's diet can lead to favorable changes in some health markers for those who remain obese, at least in short term studies.
No one was arguing that losing weight is bad, just that it takes longer to lose a lot of weight than to change one's diet. I wasn't recommending any kind of template. And I certainly wasn't saying that it's good to be obese.But is there counter-evidence to show that people who lose weight don't experience beneficial changes also? You're arguing that it's better to be obese (and have a diet that fits a certain template) than it is to be a normal weight and eat in a different way. What is the basis for that claim?
Btw, there's no study like the one you asked me to find, that measures the health effects of weight loss in isolation from other factors like dietary changes and increased exercise.
If there is no study that demonstrates that, I don't know what you're basing your claim on.
The obvious reason why there are no studies like that is that people almost never lose weight unless they improve their diet and/or exercise. When you ask for those studies, you're asking for the kind of studies that don't exist.
This is just isn't true -- that people don't lose weight without improving their diets -- and they could compare the two things by setting up 12 week studies anyway.
No one even said that.
Really?
The obvious reason why there are no studies like that is that people almost never lose weight unless they improve their diet and/or exercise. When you ask for those studies, you're asking for the kind of studies that don't exist.
3 -
Here's how the current discussion got started.
janejellyroll:
"Someone who maintains a healthy body weight while eating McDonald's is more likely to have better health results than someone who is obese while eating [collection of foods that are currently touted for weight loss]."
dfwesq:
"I don't think that's quite accurate, unless the "collection of foods" is an unhealthy diet. If you replace "collection of foods..." with something like "a diet very high in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and lean proteins," it's inaccurate. (As a shortcut, you could substitute the DASH diet for that list. It's a pretty good one.) A good diet tends to improve health faster than losing weight - in some cases it's a matter of a few months or even weeks. Trying to achieve the same results purely by weight loss takes a lot longer, sometimes years."
Maybe dfwesq misunderstood what janejellyroll had said, but she clearly did compare an obese person with a good diet (however defined) vs. someone at a healthy weight eating a less approved diet, and he clearly started by disagreeing with what she was saying with that comparison. Thus, the direction the conversation went in.
The evidence shows, for whatever reason, that pretty much any diet that leads to weight loss seems to improve test results, even in the short term. Does that mean that diet does not matter? No, I don't think so -- I think all else equal (although it never is) you will have better test results eating a generally healthful diet than a very poor diet, at least over time. But it does suggest to me that if you are obese the first and most significant thing you can do for your health is lose weight. If you also want to eat a good diet and were not, I think that's even better, and I would encourage it -- I find it easier to eat well (appropriate calories) when eating generally healthfully. But I would not say that it's more important to "eat clean" or the like (as I've seen claimed on MFP) than to worry about weight loss (unless you have developed issues about dieting in which case it actually might be the best approach to weight loss for some, but that's NOT independent of the weight loss).
On the whole, I think there's a lot of "my diet is best" one upmanship that goes on that is destructive, as people spend time worrying about rather insignificant arguments about one diet vs. another (when both are reasonably healthy anyway) and the stress is probably harmful or keeps them from really focusing on a calorie deficit. And certainly the importance of something like exercise is way more significant than the various debated diet differences (like OMG I had 4 g of sugar, I've ruined everything!).
I do think this can be a helpful conversation if we think about the fact that what helps an individual in need of weight loss may depend on the person, and that saying that it's not one size fits all.1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
I think you have that backwards. Such a study would be needed to show that weight loss by itself - rather than the improved diet and/or more exercise that caused someone to lose weight - was responsible for improved overall health. I'm not the one touting weight loss alone as the best way to improve overall health. (To be clear, I think it's certainly helpful. But eating healthier is also helpful, may produce results faster, and can be done at the same time.)janejellyroll wrote: »
Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.janejellyroll wrote: »...
Those studies, at best, seem to establish that changing one's diet can lead to favorable changes in some health markers for those who remain obese, at least in short term studies.
No one was arguing that losing weight is bad, just that it takes longer to lose a lot of weight than to change one's diet. I wasn't recommending any kind of template. And I certainly wasn't saying that it's good to be obese.But is there counter-evidence to show that people who lose weight don't experience beneficial changes also? You're arguing that it's better to be obese (and have a diet that fits a certain template) than it is to be a normal weight and eat in a different way. What is the basis for that claim?
Btw, there's no study like the one you asked me to find, that measures the health effects of weight loss in isolation from other factors like dietary changes and increased exercise.
If there is no study that demonstrates that, I don't know what you're basing your claim on.
The obvious reason why there are no studies like that is that people almost never lose weight unless they improve their diet and/or exercise. When you ask for those studies, you're asking for the kind of studies that don't exist.
Btw, there are studies on people who lose weight through liposuction alone. But surgery is a different ballgame and I don't think anyone was suggesting weight loss through surgery as a way to improve health.
There are dozens of stories on MFP where people talked about losing weight without significantly overhauling their diet, and in recent months, there have been several great threads posted as an experiment which demonstrates exactly what you said doesn't happen - that it's possible to lose weight AND improve health markers, even without changing diet to a more nutrient dense one - in most of these, I think the guys intentionally ate less healthfully, to prove their point.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10571895/the-junk-food-diet-seriously/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
There's one more that I can't dig up just now, perhaps someone else can link - an experiment with eating nothing but fast food for a month?
Twinkie Diet and McDonald's Diet.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2534737/I-thought-I-going-die-Man-lost-37lbs-eating-McDonalds-three-months-walking-45-minutes-day.html
Yeah there was one more on the MFP forums that I can't find or remember the OP's name. It was a similar experiment with nothing but fast food, I don't think it was specifically McDonalds.
Anyway - it demonstrates that while no one is really advocating eating nothing but junk food, even for a short period of time - it is possible to lose weight AND improve health markers by doing so. And there are many, many other stories of people who have had similar improvements simply by focusing on losing weight and not a drastic overhaul of their diet.
And just to be clear - I am an advocate of eating a varied and balanced diet that include foods that provide nutrition, satiety, and enjoyment in a calorie appropriate amount for the individual's goals. Just in case I'm accused (again) of saying that nutrition doesn't matter.
It was mitymax96: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10534218/fast-food-for-the-month1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
I think you have that backwards. Such a study would be needed to show that weight loss by itself - rather than the improved diet and/or more exercise that caused someone to lose weight - was responsible for improved overall health. I'm not the one touting weight loss alone as the best way to improve overall health. (To be clear, I think it's certainly helpful. But eating healthier is also helpful, may produce results faster, and can be done at the same time.)janejellyroll wrote: »
Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.janejellyroll wrote: »...
Those studies, at best, seem to establish that changing one's diet can lead to favorable changes in some health markers for those who remain obese, at least in short term studies.
No one was arguing that losing weight is bad, just that it takes longer to lose a lot of weight than to change one's diet. I wasn't recommending any kind of template. And I certainly wasn't saying that it's good to be obese.But is there counter-evidence to show that people who lose weight don't experience beneficial changes also? You're arguing that it's better to be obese (and have a diet that fits a certain template) than it is to be a normal weight and eat in a different way. What is the basis for that claim?
Btw, there's no study like the one you asked me to find, that measures the health effects of weight loss in isolation from other factors like dietary changes and increased exercise.
If there is no study that demonstrates that, I don't know what you're basing your claim on.
The obvious reason why there are no studies like that is that people almost never lose weight unless they improve their diet and/or exercise. When you ask for those studies, you're asking for the kind of studies that don't exist.
Btw, there are studies on people who lose weight through liposuction alone. But surgery is a different ballgame and I don't think anyone was suggesting weight loss through surgery as a way to improve health.
There are dozens of stories on MFP where people talked about losing weight without significantly overhauling their diet, and in recent months, there have been several great threads posted as an experiment which demonstrates exactly what you said doesn't happen - that it's possible to lose weight AND improve health markers, even without changing diet to a more nutrient dense one - in most of these, I think the guys intentionally ate less healthfully, to prove their point.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10571895/the-junk-food-diet-seriously/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
There's one more that I can't dig up just now, perhaps someone else can link - an experiment with eating nothing but fast food for a month?
Twinkie Diet and McDonald's Diet.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2534737/I-thought-I-going-die-Man-lost-37lbs-eating-McDonalds-three-months-walking-45-minutes-day.html
Yeah there was one more on the MFP forums that I can't find or remember the OP's name. It was a similar experiment with nothing but fast food, I don't think it was specifically McDonalds.
Anyway - it demonstrates that while no one is really advocating eating nothing but junk food, even for a short period of time - it is possible to lose weight AND improve health markers by doing so. And there are many, many other stories of people who have had similar improvements simply by focusing on losing weight and not a drastic overhaul of their diet.
And just to be clear - I am an advocate of eating a varied and balanced diet that include foods that provide nutrition, satiety, and enjoyment in a calorie appropriate amount for the individual's goals. Just in case I'm accused (again) of saying that nutrition doesn't matter.
It was mitymax96: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10534218/fast-food-for-the-month
That's it! Thank you!0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
I think you have that backwards. Such a study would be needed to show that weight loss by itself - rather than the improved diet and/or more exercise that caused someone to lose weight - was responsible for improved overall health. I'm not the one touting weight loss alone as the best way to improve overall health. (To be clear, I think it's certainly helpful. But eating healthier is also helpful, may produce results faster, and can be done at the same time.)janejellyroll wrote: »
Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.janejellyroll wrote: »...
Those studies, at best, seem to establish that changing one's diet can lead to favorable changes in some health markers for those who remain obese, at least in short term studies.
No one was arguing that losing weight is bad, just that it takes longer to lose a lot of weight than to change one's diet. I wasn't recommending any kind of template. And I certainly wasn't saying that it's good to be obese.But is there counter-evidence to show that people who lose weight don't experience beneficial changes also? You're arguing that it's better to be obese (and have a diet that fits a certain template) than it is to be a normal weight and eat in a different way. What is the basis for that claim?
Btw, there's no study like the one you asked me to find, that measures the health effects of weight loss in isolation from other factors like dietary changes and increased exercise.
If there is no study that demonstrates that, I don't know what you're basing your claim on.
The obvious reason why there are no studies like that is that people almost never lose weight unless they improve their diet and/or exercise. When you ask for those studies, you're asking for the kind of studies that don't exist.
Btw, there are studies on people who lose weight through liposuction alone. But surgery is a different ballgame and I don't think anyone was suggesting weight loss through surgery as a way to improve health.
There are dozens of stories on MFP where people talked about losing weight without significantly overhauling their diet, and in recent months, there have been several great threads posted as an experiment which demonstrates exactly what you said doesn't happen - that it's possible to lose weight AND improve health markers, even without changing diet to a more nutrient dense one - in most of these, I think the guys intentionally ate less healthfully, to prove their point.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10571895/the-junk-food-diet-seriously/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
There's one more that I can't dig up just now, perhaps someone else can link - an experiment with eating nothing but fast food for a month?
Twinkie Diet and McDonald's Diet.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2534737/I-thought-I-going-die-Man-lost-37lbs-eating-McDonalds-three-months-walking-45-minutes-day.html
Yeah there was one more on the MFP forums that I can't find or remember the OP's name. It was a similar experiment with nothing but fast food, I don't think it was specifically McDonalds.
Anyway - it demonstrates that while no one is really advocating eating nothing but junk food, even for a short period of time - it is possible to lose weight AND improve health markers by doing so. And there are many, many other stories of people who have had similar improvements simply by focusing on losing weight and not a drastic overhaul of their diet.
And just to be clear - I am an advocate of eating a varied and balanced diet that include foods that provide nutrition, satiety, and enjoyment in a calorie appropriate amount for the individual's goals. Just in case I'm accused (again) of saying that nutrition doesn't matter.
It was mitymax96: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10534218/fast-food-for-the-month
That's it! Thank you!
Did anyone actually look at what he ate for that? Looked like a majority, I'd say 85-90% of his calories are not junk food, they were just from restaurants.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Here's how the current discussion got started.
janejellyroll:
"Someone who maintains a healthy body weight while eating McDonald's is more likely to have better health results than someone who is obese while eating [collection of foods that are currently touted for weight loss]."
dfwesq:
"I don't think that's quite accurate, unless the "collection of foods" is an unhealthy diet. If you replace "collection of foods..." with something like "a diet very high in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and lean proteins," it's inaccurate. (As a shortcut, you could substitute the DASH diet for that list. It's a pretty good one.) A good diet tends to improve health faster than losing weight - in some cases it's a matter of a few months or even weeks. Trying to achieve the same results purely by weight loss takes a lot longer, sometimes years."
Maybe dfwesq misunderstood what janejellyroll had said, but she clearly did compare an obese person with a good diet (however defined) vs. someone at a healthy weight eating a less approved diet, and he clearly started by disagreeing with what she was saying with that comparison. Thus, the direction the conversation went in.
The evidence shows, for whatever reason, that pretty much any diet that leads to weight loss seems to improve test results, even in the short term. Does that mean that diet does not matter? No, I don't think so -- I think all else equal (although it never is) you will have better test results eating a generally healthful diet than a very poor diet, at least over time. But it does suggest to me that if you are obese the first and most significant thing you can do for your health is lose weight. If you also want to eat a good diet and were not, I think that's even better, and I would encourage it -- I find it easier to eat well (appropriate calories) when eating generally healthfully. But I would not say that it's more important to "eat clean" or the like (as I've seen claimed on MFP) than to worry about weight loss (unless you have developed issues about dieting in which case it actually might be the best approach to weight loss for some, but that's NOT independent of the weight loss).
On the whole, I think there's a lot of "my diet is best" one upmanship that goes on that is destructive, as people spend time worrying about rather insignificant arguments about one diet vs. another (when both are reasonably healthy anyway) and the stress is probably harmful or keeps them from really focusing on a calorie deficit. And certainly the importance of something like exercise is way more significant than the various debated diet differences (like OMG I had 4 g of sugar, I've ruined everything!).
I do think this can be a helpful conversation if we think about the fact that what helps an individual in need of weight loss may depend on the person, and that saying that it's not one size fits all.
There clearly was a misunderstanding, because I do feel like I clearly stated my belief that the portion of the population that maintains a healthy weight will tend to have better health outcomes (regardless of diet) than a hypothetical population that is obese but eating "healthy" and I felt like @dfwesq was disagreeing with that position and stating the reverse. Not sure if our conversation had a misunderstanding from the beginning or if it was introduced later.1 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
I think you have that backwards. Such a study would be needed to show that weight loss by itself - rather than the improved diet and/or more exercise that caused someone to lose weight - was responsible for improved overall health. I'm not the one touting weight loss alone as the best way to improve overall health. (To be clear, I think it's certainly helpful. But eating healthier is also helpful, may produce results faster, and can be done at the same time.)janejellyroll wrote: »
Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.janejellyroll wrote: »...
Those studies, at best, seem to establish that changing one's diet can lead to favorable changes in some health markers for those who remain obese, at least in short term studies.
No one was arguing that losing weight is bad, just that it takes longer to lose a lot of weight than to change one's diet. I wasn't recommending any kind of template. And I certainly wasn't saying that it's good to be obese.But is there counter-evidence to show that people who lose weight don't experience beneficial changes also? You're arguing that it's better to be obese (and have a diet that fits a certain template) than it is to be a normal weight and eat in a different way. What is the basis for that claim?
Btw, there's no study like the one you asked me to find, that measures the health effects of weight loss in isolation from other factors like dietary changes and increased exercise.
If there is no study that demonstrates that, I don't know what you're basing your claim on.
The obvious reason why there are no studies like that is that people almost never lose weight unless they improve their diet and/or exercise. When you ask for those studies, you're asking for the kind of studies that don't exist.
Btw, there are studies on people who lose weight through liposuction alone. But surgery is a different ballgame and I don't think anyone was suggesting weight loss through surgery as a way to improve health.
There are dozens of stories on MFP where people talked about losing weight without significantly overhauling their diet, and in recent months, there have been several great threads posted as an experiment which demonstrates exactly what you said doesn't happen - that it's possible to lose weight AND improve health markers, even without changing diet to a more nutrient dense one - in most of these, I think the guys intentionally ate less healthfully, to prove their point.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10571895/the-junk-food-diet-seriously/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
There's one more that I can't dig up just now, perhaps someone else can link - an experiment with eating nothing but fast food for a month?
Twinkie Diet and McDonald's Diet.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2534737/I-thought-I-going-die-Man-lost-37lbs-eating-McDonalds-three-months-walking-45-minutes-day.html
Yeah there was one more on the MFP forums that I can't find or remember the OP's name. It was a similar experiment with nothing but fast food, I don't think it was specifically McDonalds.
Anyway - it demonstrates that while no one is really advocating eating nothing but junk food, even for a short period of time - it is possible to lose weight AND improve health markers by doing so. And there are many, many other stories of people who have had similar improvements simply by focusing on losing weight and not a drastic overhaul of their diet.
And just to be clear - I am an advocate of eating a varied and balanced diet that include foods that provide nutrition, satiety, and enjoyment in a calorie appropriate amount for the individual's goals. Just in case I'm accused (again) of saying that nutrition doesn't matter.
It was mitymax96: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10534218/fast-food-for-the-month
That's it! Thank you!
Did anyone actually look at what he ate for that? Looked like a majority, I'd say 85-90% of his calories are not junk food, they were just from restaurants.
Some seem to think that you can't get anything but junk food if you get it from a fast food place, though -- that's part of what this discussion is about, having a better idea of what "eating healthy" can be.0 -
What I said was I thought your post was "not quite accurate". To me, that means it was close to accurate, but not quite. Then I said what I thought needed clarifying. It sounds like you read that to mean I disagreed 100% and thought what you said was the reverse of the truth.janejellyroll wrote: »There clearly was a misunderstanding, because I do feel like I clearly stated my belief that the portion of the population that maintains a healthy weight will tend to have better health outcomes (regardless of diet) than a hypothetical population that is obese but eating "healthy" and I felt like @dfwesq was disagreeing with that position and stating the reverse. Not sure if our conversation had a misunderstanding from the beginning or if it was introduced later.
I'll take a chance that it might be helpful to explain again what I thought needed clarifying. Where I think your post was inaccurate is that there's a difference between people following some dietary fad and people who actually improve their diets. People who actually improve their diets can see their health improve much faster than they can by becoming non-obese. For an obese person to reach a normal weight takes a lot of time, but making the kind of changes that begin the process of weight loss can happen fairly quickly.
There are studies showing that when obese people lose just a small percentage of their body weight, their overall health improves. But those studies all involve improved diets and/or exercise. That makes it hard to say for sure that the improvements were caused by the weight loss and not by the better diet and/or exercise that led to the weight loss. (And really, the researchers doing those studies don't care, because for practical purposes it makes no difference.) But other studies have shown that just making dietary improvements can improve health fairly quickly.
1 -
Here's his March diary, if anyone would care to look. He did his experiment through March, and has made his diary public. There are some treats in there, but overall it looks pretty healthy to me.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Did anyone actually look at what he ate for that? Looked like a majority, I'd say 85-90% of his calories are not junk food, they were just from restaurants.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/diary/MityMax96?date=2017-03-01
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions