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

Options
1…1213141618

Replies

  • nokanjaijo
    nokanjaijo Posts: 466 Member
    Options
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    dfwesq wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    dfwesq wrote: »
    J72FIT wrote: »
    I'm thinking the term "empty calories" was invented by the "clean eaters"...
    It's routinely used in the health care and nutritional fields. For example:
    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.
    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.

    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.
  • violetness
    violetness Posts: 131 Member
    Options
    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.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    Options
    dfwesq wrote: »
    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.
    Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.
    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?
    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.

    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?
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited July 2017
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    dfwesq wrote: »
    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.
    Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.
    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?
    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.

    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.
  • CharlieBeansmomTracey
    CharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,682 Member
    Options
    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.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    edited July 2017
    Options
    meh. nevermind
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    edited July 2017
    Options
    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 say
    The 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.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    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.
  • bmeadows380
    bmeadows380 Posts: 2,981 Member
    Options
    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).
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    dfwesq wrote: »
    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.
    Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.
    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?
    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.

    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.
  • dfwesq
    dfwesq Posts: 592 Member
    edited July 2017
    Options
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    dfwesq wrote: »
    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.
    Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.
    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?
    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.

    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.
    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.)

    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.

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    dfwesq wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    dfwesq wrote: »
    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.
    Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.
    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?
    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.

    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.
    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.)

    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?
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    Options
    dfwesq wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    dfwesq wrote: »
    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.
    Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.
    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?
    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.

    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.
    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.)

    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?



  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    dfwesq wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    dfwesq wrote: »
    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.
    Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.
    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?
    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.

    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.
    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.)

    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
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    Options
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    dfwesq wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    dfwesq wrote: »
    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.
    Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.
    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?
    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.

    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.
    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.)

    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.



  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    dfwesq wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    dfwesq wrote: »
    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.
    Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.
    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?
    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.

    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.
    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.)

    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.
  • dfwesq
    dfwesq Posts: 592 Member
    edited July 2017
    Options
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    dfwesq wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    dfwesq wrote: »
    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.
    Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.
    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?
    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.

    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.
    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.)

    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 didn't say that, and I've re-clarified already that I never said or intended to say that.

    I had hoped this would be a useful conversation, but I think it has outlived its usefulness.

    [edited for formatting]

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    dfwesq wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    dfwesq wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    dfwesq wrote: »
    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.
    Yes, a healthier diet leads to better health more quickly than weight loss does.
    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?
    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.

    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.
    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.)

    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 didn't say that, and I've re-clarified already that I never said or intended to say that.

    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.

Categories