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.
low carb vs low fat new research says it doesnt really matter
richb178
Posts: 47 Member
Yeah, right.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/jul/24/low-carb-vs-low-fat-new-research-says-it-doesnt-re/
These diets are more similar than polar opposites. And they define a diet with 3 times more carbs than allowed on a typical low carb diet (for losing weight) as low carb. Typical slanted so-called "journalism" and junk science you get these days. I have nothing against low fat (other than it's probably responsible for the obesity epidemic sweeping the world). I've lost weight on a low fat diet. But can't we just try and be a little more honest? I'd like to see them compare a low fat diet vs. a high fat diet where the low fat diet had 60% fat and the high fat diet hat 80 % fat. As long as carbs were kept low, there probably wouldn't me much of a difference there as well. Shoe's on the other foot, but still not fair reporting and junk science.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/jul/24/low-carb-vs-low-fat-new-research-says-it-doesnt-re/
These diets are more similar than polar opposites. And they define a diet with 3 times more carbs than allowed on a typical low carb diet (for losing weight) as low carb. Typical slanted so-called "journalism" and junk science you get these days. I have nothing against low fat (other than it's probably responsible for the obesity epidemic sweeping the world). I've lost weight on a low fat diet. But can't we just try and be a little more honest? I'd like to see them compare a low fat diet vs. a high fat diet where the low fat diet had 60% fat and the high fat diet hat 80 % fat. As long as carbs were kept low, there probably wouldn't me much of a difference there as well. Shoe's on the other foot, but still not fair reporting and junk science.
18
Replies
-
What's responsible for the obesity epidemic is eating far too much for our mostly sedentary lives; not a particular macronutrient or lack thereof.26
-
Yeah, right.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/jul/24/low-carb-vs-low-fat-new-research-says-it-doesnt-re/
These diets are more similar than polar opposites. And they define a diet with 3 times more carbs than allowed on a typical low carb diet (for losing weight) as low carb. Typical slanted so-called "journalism" and junk science you get these days. I have nothing against low fat (other than it's probably responsible for the obesity epidemic sweeping the world). I've lost weight on a low fat diet. But can't we just try and be a little more honest? I'd like to see them compare a low fat diet vs. a high fat diet where the low fat diet had 60% fat and the high fat diet hat 80 % fat. As long as carbs were kept low, there probably wouldn't me much of a difference there as well. Shoe's on the other foot, but still not fair reporting and junk science.
So if 30% carbs = 3 times more carbs than the maximum for a "typical" low carb diet, a typical low carb diet is a maximum of 10% carbs, so for most dieters somewhere between 120 and 200 calories so 30-50 grams of carbs?
That's not a "typical" low carb diet by any measure.4 -
I'm curious to know what other science you're considering is junk?1
-
Round and round we go. It all comes down to personal preference. If low carb works for one, its perfectly fine if it doesn't work for someone else. Same with low fat, vegan, paleo, counting calories, intuitive eating and so on.14
-
There's been good results on both high carb-low far (a high percentage of vegans, for example -- 80-10-10, starchsolution, anything like that) as well as low carb-high fat (atkins, keto, eco-atkins). Health wise, I feel that hclf community tends to be a bit too low in healthy fats and the lchf community tends to be a bit too high in saturated fat but for weight loss, people have done great on both.
The debates between the different macronutrient focused or demonizing diets always strikes me as a little bit silly.2 -
bmitchelmfp wrote: »There's been good results on both high carb-low far (a high percentage of vegans, for example -- 80-10-10, starchsolution, anything like that) as well as low carb-high fat (atkins, keto, eco-atkins). Health wise, I feel that hclf community tends to be a bit too low in healthy fats and the lchf community tends to be a bit too high in saturated fat but for weight loss, people have done great on both.
The debates between the different macronutrient focused or demonizing diets always strikes me as a little bit silly.
What is your source for the claim that a high percentage of vegans HCLF? I know some vegans do for sure, but I don't know if it is a high percentage. Anecdotally, most of the vegans I know aren't eating HCLF, although our diets do tend to be higher in carbohydrates.0 -
I'm not convinced this is all that new or revolutionary. Calories are king. How you get your deficit is personal preference. Adherence over the long term will be a much better deciding factor for success.4
-
So, in other words, the new research says the same thing that all other research has said?9
-
janejellyroll wrote: »bmitchelmfp wrote: »There's been good results on both high carb-low far (a high percentage of vegans, for example -- 80-10-10, starchsolution, anything like that) as well as low carb-high fat (atkins, keto, eco-atkins). Health wise, I feel that hclf community tends to be a bit too low in healthy fats and the lchf community tends to be a bit too high in saturated fat but for weight loss, people have done great on both.
The debates between the different macronutrient focused or demonizing diets always strikes me as a little bit silly.
What is your source for the claim that a high percentage of vegans HCLF? I know some vegans do for sure, but I don't know if it is a high percentage. Anecdotally, most of the vegans I know aren't eating HCLF, although our diets do tend to be higher in carbohydrates.
Everyone I know + every popular health/weightloss oriented vegan is hclf. Additionally, the vast majority of clinical trials have been done using a hclf with the exception of a few studies using eco-atkins (atleast for the trials where a specific diet can be determined). Do you have any stronger evidence suggesting that lchf is a popular thing in the vegan community? Another source of data might be the popularity of books promoting specific vegan diets, and characterizing them based on macro breakdowns (hclf tends to win here as well).
4 -
Nothing to do with people eating too much and moving too little then?I have nothing against low fat (other than it's probably responsible for the obesity epidemic sweeping the world).11 -
bmitchelmfp wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »bmitchelmfp wrote: »There's been good results on both high carb-low far (a high percentage of vegans, for example -- 80-10-10, starchsolution, anything like that) as well as low carb-high fat (atkins, keto, eco-atkins). Health wise, I feel that hclf community tends to be a bit too low in healthy fats and the lchf community tends to be a bit too high in saturated fat but for weight loss, people have done great on both.
The debates between the different macronutrient focused or demonizing diets always strikes me as a little bit silly.
What is your source for the claim that a high percentage of vegans HCLF? I know some vegans do for sure, but I don't know if it is a high percentage. Anecdotally, most of the vegans I know aren't eating HCLF, although our diets do tend to be higher in carbohydrates.
Everyone I know + every popular health/weightloss oriented vegan is hclf. Additionally, the vast majority of clinical trials have been done using a hclf with the exception of a few studies using eco-atkins (atleast for the trials where a specific diet can be determined). Do you have any stronger evidence suggesting that lchf is a popular thing in the vegan community? Another source of data might be the popularity of books promoting specific vegan diets, and characterizing them based on macro breakdowns (hclf tends to win here as well).
I'm not at all arguing that LCHF is popular in the vegan community, it's just that my (anecdotal) evidence doesn't match your claim that a "high percentage" of vegans are doing HCLF so I was curious what you were basing it on. There certainly are vegans who are doing HCLF, but my impression is that most vegans are just eating a more relatively balanced spread of macronutrients (that is, one that doesn't qualify as HCLF or LCHF). If your claim is based on "everyone you know" and every popular health/weight loss-oriented vegan of which you are aware, that clarifies for me what you're basing your statements on.
I wouldn't think popularity of books promoting a specific style of vegan eating would be a reliable guide to how actual vegans are eating. It would be like assuming one could tell how the average American was eating based on the popularity of various diet books.
Which clinical trials are you referring to?3 -
These diets are more similar than polar opposites.
So? I think the big effect of low carb and low fat is that they force people to eliminate or cut way down on foods that are both high fat and high carb, and not that nutritious. That some choose to think of those as "carbs" and then insist that ALL carbs are "junk" is, well, inexplicable.
Another effect is that they require a significant change in diet, so probably an adjustment period where you don't yet know how to replace the reduced calories. (I noticed this when LCHFing, but also when doing 100% plant based, which was quite high carb and for me pretty low fat. Both did lead to ad lib cal cutting in the short term.)And they define a diet with 3 times more carbs than allowed on a typical low carb diet (for losing weight) as low carb.
(1) People here keep telling me that under 150 g of carbs IS low carb.
(2) It makes sense that low carb would be mostly cutting cals by cutting carbs and low fat would be mostly cutting cals by cutting fat. Low carb is not limited to keto.
(3) Most so called "low fat" diets in similar tests are not what anyone committed to low fat diets (like the Ornishes of the world) would consider low fat, at all, and you don't seem to find that a problem.I have nothing against low fat (other than it's probably responsible for the obesity epidemic sweeping the world).
Yeah, right. Something the world has not followed led to the obesity epidemic.2 -
mrsnattybulking wrote: »What's responsible for the obesity epidemic is eating far too much for our mostly sedentary lives; not a particular macronutrient or lack thereof.
Yes.1 -
LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »Round and round we go. It all comes down to personal preference. If low carb works for one, its perfectly fine if it doesn't work for someone else. Same with low fat, vegan, paleo, counting calories, intuitive eating and so on.
Would you agree with the first poster than 30% carbs is not real low carb and that low fat is not as good an approach if it happens to work for you? Because it seems to me the first poster is the one who started the "my diet is better than your diet" thing.
I very much agree that different ways of eating will work for different people. The issue is that for many of us it's hard to control calories without a strategy with food so available and without a lifestyle that is necessarily active. How to address this is different for different people.
I'm currently running a few experiments to try and see what I think works best for me, since I find maintenance kind of challenging in that it's easy to get complacent.0 -
bmitchelmfp wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »bmitchelmfp wrote: »There's been good results on both high carb-low far (a high percentage of vegans, for example -- 80-10-10, starchsolution, anything like that) as well as low carb-high fat (atkins, keto, eco-atkins). Health wise, I feel that hclf community tends to be a bit too low in healthy fats and the lchf community tends to be a bit too high in saturated fat but for weight loss, people have done great on both.
The debates between the different macronutrient focused or demonizing diets always strikes me as a little bit silly.
What is your source for the claim that a high percentage of vegans HCLF? I know some vegans do for sure, but I don't know if it is a high percentage. Anecdotally, most of the vegans I know aren't eating HCLF, although our diets do tend to be higher in carbohydrates.
Everyone I know + every popular health/weightloss oriented vegan is hclf. Additionally, the vast majority of clinical trials have been done using a hclf with the exception of a few studies using eco-atkins (atleast for the trials where a specific diet can be determined). Do you have any stronger evidence suggesting that lchf is a popular thing in the vegan community? Another source of data might be the popularity of books promoting specific vegan diets, and characterizing them based on macro breakdowns (hclf tends to win here as well).
The opposite of HCLF is not LCHF, and janejellyroll seemed to be agreeing that most vegans may be higher carb than average, but that's not the same thing as HCLF (when I experimented with it, I found getting enough protein harder than getting in the 30% fat I was eating before).
My guess is that ethical vegans have a huge variety of macros, although fewer are going to be high fat or high protein. I'd agree with you that a higher percentage of the health/specific diet based WFPB types are going to be HCLF, although as many of them seem to demonize protein some as fat, depending. But there is a trend to demonize added fats (even olive oils) and to suggest that nuts and seeds must be limited in those communities that I've noticed (I'm addicted to following some of the gurus some).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »Round and round we go. It all comes down to personal preference. If low carb works for one, its perfectly fine if it doesn't work for someone else. Same with low fat, vegan, paleo, counting calories, intuitive eating and so on.
Would you agree with the first poster than 30% carbs is not real low carb and that low fat is not as good an approach if it happens to work for you? Because it seems to me the first poster is the one who started the "my diet is better than your diet" thing.
I very much agree that different ways of eating will work for different people. The issue is that for many of us it's hard to control calories without a strategy with food so available and without a lifestyle that is necessarily active. How to address this is different for different people.
I'm currently running a few experiments to try and see what I think works best for me, since I find maintenance kind of challenging in that it's easy to get complacent.
Ain't that the truth
I'm also experimenting with my woe right now for pretty much the same reason. Currently playing around with a HCLF(ish) mostly whole foods, pescetarian plan. I'm sure it will change in a month though lol 
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »bmitchelmfp wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »bmitchelmfp wrote: »There's been good results on both high carb-low far (a high percentage of vegans, for example -- 80-10-10, starchsolution, anything like that) as well as low carb-high fat (atkins, keto, eco-atkins). Health wise, I feel that hclf community tends to be a bit too low in healthy fats and the lchf community tends to be a bit too high in saturated fat but for weight loss, people have done great on both.
The debates between the different macronutrient focused or demonizing diets always strikes me as a little bit silly.
What is your source for the claim that a high percentage of vegans HCLF? I know some vegans do for sure, but I don't know if it is a high percentage. Anecdotally, most of the vegans I know aren't eating HCLF, although our diets do tend to be higher in carbohydrates.
Everyone I know + every popular health/weightloss oriented vegan is hclf. Additionally, the vast majority of clinical trials have been done using a hclf with the exception of a few studies using eco-atkins (atleast for the trials where a specific diet can be determined). Do you have any stronger evidence suggesting that lchf is a popular thing in the vegan community? Another source of data might be the popularity of books promoting specific vegan diets, and characterizing them based on macro breakdowns (hclf tends to win here as well).
The opposite of HCLF is not LCHF, and janejellyroll seemed to be agreeing that most vegans may be higher carb than average, but that's not the same thing as HCLF (when I experimented with it, I found getting enough protein harder than getting in the 30% fat I was eating before).
My guess is that ethical vegans have a huge variety of macros, although fewer are going to be high fat or high protein. I'd agree with you that a higher percentage of the health/specific diet based WFPB types are going to be HCLF, although as many of them seem to demonize protein some as fat, depending. But there is a trend to demonize added fats (even olive oils) and to suggest that nuts and seeds must be limited in those communities that I've noticed (I'm addicted to following some of the gurus some).
I was at the library earlier today and was browsing the diet section-started flipping through Rip Esselstyn's new book and yep, a whole section explaining why olive oil is going to kill us all Very similar to Furhman, which I experimented with earlier this year, and it was too low fat for me at least. 0 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bmitchelmfp wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »bmitchelmfp wrote: »There's been good results on both high carb-low far (a high percentage of vegans, for example -- 80-10-10, starchsolution, anything like that) as well as low carb-high fat (atkins, keto, eco-atkins). Health wise, I feel that hclf community tends to be a bit too low in healthy fats and the lchf community tends to be a bit too high in saturated fat but for weight loss, people have done great on both.
The debates between the different macronutrient focused or demonizing diets always strikes me as a little bit silly.
What is your source for the claim that a high percentage of vegans HCLF? I know some vegans do for sure, but I don't know if it is a high percentage. Anecdotally, most of the vegans I know aren't eating HCLF, although our diets do tend to be higher in carbohydrates.
Everyone I know + every popular health/weightloss oriented vegan is hclf. Additionally, the vast majority of clinical trials have been done using a hclf with the exception of a few studies using eco-atkins (atleast for the trials where a specific diet can be determined). Do you have any stronger evidence suggesting that lchf is a popular thing in the vegan community? Another source of data might be the popularity of books promoting specific vegan diets, and characterizing them based on macro breakdowns (hclf tends to win here as well).
The opposite of HCLF is not LCHF, and janejellyroll seemed to be agreeing that most vegans may be higher carb than average, but that's not the same thing as HCLF (when I experimented with it, I found getting enough protein harder than getting in the 30% fat I was eating before).
My guess is that ethical vegans have a huge variety of macros, although fewer are going to be high fat or high protein. I'd agree with you that a higher percentage of the health/specific diet based WFPB types are going to be HCLF, although as many of them seem to demonize protein some as fat, depending. But there is a trend to demonize added fats (even olive oils) and to suggest that nuts and seeds must be limited in those communities that I've noticed (I'm addicted to following some of the gurus some).
I was at the library earlier today and was browsing the diet section-started flipping through Rip Esselstyn's new book and yep, a whole section explaining why olive oil is going to kill us all Very similar to Furhman, which I experimented with earlier this year, and it was too low fat for me at least.
Yeah, I skimmed the firehouse diet one and have read Furhman, and they both bothered me for that reason. McDougall is straight out "fat makes you fat," which is retro.3 -
Nothing to do with people eating too much and moving too little then?I have nothing against low fat (other than it's probably responsible for the obesity epidemic sweeping the world).
And not to minimize the issue, but the "epidemic" was created overnight by adopting WHO standards against the advice of the medical community...5 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »
Nothing to do with people eating too much and moving too little then?I have nothing against low fat (other than it's probably responsible for the obesity epidemic sweeping the world).
And not to minimize the issue, but the "epidemic" was created overnight by adopting WHO standards against the advice of the medical community...
Unclear as to what you mean. Expand please?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »Round and round we go. It all comes down to personal preference. If low carb works for one, its perfectly fine if it doesn't work for someone else. Same with low fat, vegan, paleo, counting calories, intuitive eating and so on.
Would you agree with the first poster than 30% carbs is not real low carb and that low fat is not as good an approach if it happens to work for you? Because it seems to me the first poster is the one who started the "my diet is better than your diet" thing.
I very much agree that different ways of eating will work for different people. The issue is that for many of us it's hard to control calories without a strategy with food so available and without a lifestyle that is necessarily active. How to address this is different for different people.
I'm currently running a few experiments to try and see what I think works best for me, since I find maintenance kind of challenging in that it's easy to get complacent.
30% carbs - it depends on who you ask. The standard low carb dieter would find that high but when I was given a "low" carb diet by 2 different dietitians (fully accredited, not nutritionists) 30% was considered low. I personally don't care for a low fat diet but I know people who have a hard time eating a higher percentage. I know people who can't tolerate meat and people who can't tolerate a lot of fiber. They all have the ability to lose weight based on what they can work with because, as is often said around here, it comes down to calories. Different paths to the same destination so to speak. As far as who started it, this is, in my honest opinion, just another version of "my diet is better than your diet" that is beaten to death around here, however entertaining it is.1 -
LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »Round and round we go. It all comes down to personal preference. If low carb works for one, its perfectly fine if it doesn't work for someone else. Same with low fat, vegan, paleo, counting calories, intuitive eating and so on.
Would you agree with the first poster than 30% carbs is not real low carb and that low fat is not as good an approach if it happens to work for you? Because it seems to me the first poster is the one who started the "my diet is better than your diet" thing.
I very much agree that different ways of eating will work for different people. The issue is that for many of us it's hard to control calories without a strategy with food so available and without a lifestyle that is necessarily active. How to address this is different for different people.
I'm currently running a few experiments to try and see what I think works best for me, since I find maintenance kind of challenging in that it's easy to get complacent.
30% carbs - it depends on who you ask. The standard low carb dieter would find that high but when I was given a "low" carb diet by 2 different dietitians (fully accredited, not nutritionists) 30% was considered low.
Well, what the "standard low carb dieter" would think depends on whom you include as a low carb dieter, no?
I ask, because my understanding is that the low carb group here is for under 150 g, and ketomom told me (and has posted a number of times) that under 150 g is considered low carb. I initially argued for a lower number, but conceded in that under 150 g is below the usual carb range given (as in the Dietary Guidelines), is certainly below the more usual percentage for macros in Europe/the US (and also many more traditional diets, but those are quite varied). For me, at a deficit (1500), 30% would be 112 g.
If people are told that eating 30% is low carb (as I was, when I was just eating that way because that's how I like to eat, and without trying to cut carbs at all), then it seems wrong to insist it's not REALLY low carb, doesn't count.I personally don't care for a low fat diet but I know people who have a hard time eating a higher percentage. I know people who can't tolerate meat and people who can't tolerate a lot of fiber. They all have the ability to lose weight based on what they can work with because, as is often said around here, it comes down to calories. Different paths to the same destination so to speak. As far as who started it, this is, in my honest opinion, just another version of "my diet is better than your diet" that is beaten to death around here, however entertaining it is.
I agree with you.
My point is that this thread is the opposite of anyone slamming a low carb diet. It's OP complaining because some study didn't conclude that low carb was inherently superior.0 -
I'm not really sure why the OP is calling that article junk science! Consistently eating high quality nutritious foods that keep you satisfied sounds like a solid plan to me, regardless of the amount of carbs or fat.
I agree with the poster above that the OP just doesn't want to hear that LCHF is not any better than any other diet.6 -
It's a shame that they go with macros when dealing with lchf. LCHF is usually considered to be around the minimum glucose needs (for someone eating a typical carby diet) - about 130 g per day, give or take a couple of dozen grams. Most ranges are between 100-150g of carbs as the upper limit.
In someone eating 2600 kcals per day, 130 g of carbs is about 20% of your diet. Someone eating a 1300 kcal diet would have that as 40%. 30% carbs for both people would be almost 200g of carbs and just under 100g.
0 -
It's a shame that they go with macros when dealing with lchf. LCHF is usually considered to be around the minimum glucose needs (for someone eating a typical carby diet) - about 130 g per day, give or take a couple of dozen grams. Most ranges are between 100-150g of carbs as the upper limit.
In someone eating 2600 kcals per day, 130 g of carbs is about 20% of your diet. Someone eating a 1300 kcal diet would have that as 40%. 30% carbs for both people would be almost 200g of carbs and just under 100g.
Mine are 130g daily on a cut (1580 cals); this is a decent amount of carbs to be honest. I hate how carbs are demonized by people claiming "most americans eat 400g a day, they're the devil.. bla bla bla" The truth is if you're getting adequate protein and fats AND eating appropriate to your activity level, it's really hard to over eat carbs/sugar.2 -
mrsnattybulking wrote: »It's a shame that they go with macros when dealing with lchf. LCHF is usually considered to be around the minimum glucose needs (for someone eating a typical carby diet) - about 130 g per day, give or take a couple of dozen grams. Most ranges are between 100-150g of carbs as the upper limit.
In someone eating 2600 kcals per day, 130 g of carbs is about 20% of your diet. Someone eating a 1300 kcal diet would have that as 40%. 30% carbs for both people would be almost 200g of carbs and just under 100g.
Mine are 130g daily on a cut (1580 cals); this is a decent amount of carbs to be honest. I hate how carbs are demonized by people claiming "most americans eat 400g a day, they're the devil.. bla bla bla" The truth is if you're getting adequate protein and fats AND eating appropriate to your activity level, it's really hard to over eat carbs/sugar.
Agreed. I do around 1500 on a cut, and aim for at least 100 g of protein (and often go over), and just enjoy fat, so that leaves room for about 150 g of carbs without even thinking about it, and I often eat less just out of personal preference. I found it basically impossible to get to 50 g carbs (total, I was well under with net carbs), but that's because of vegetables, nuts, and a little dairy. Now I'm around 100, because of fruit. I like eating this way, for the most part, but the idea that lower is always healthier with carbs is weird. It's inconsistent with how lots of traditional, very healthy diets are structured. Evidence there IS that macros probably aren't that important in and of themselves, as humans are good on a huge variety of them.2 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »
Nothing to do with people eating too much and moving too little then?I have nothing against low fat (other than it's probably responsible for the obesity epidemic sweeping the world).
And not to minimize the issue, but the "epidemic" was created overnight by adopting WHO standards against the advice of the medical community...
Unclear as to what you mean. Expand please?
The BMI guidelines that the U.S. adopted in the late 1990s were derived from WHO standards, which instantly reclassified tens of millions of Americans as overweight/obese.3 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »
Nothing to do with people eating too much and moving too little then?I have nothing against low fat (other than it's probably responsible for the obesity epidemic sweeping the world).
And not to minimize the issue, but the "epidemic" was created overnight by adopting WHO standards against the advice of the medical community...
Unclear as to what you mean. Expand please?
The BMI guidelines that the U.S. adopted in the late 1990s were derived from WHO standards, which instantly reclassified tens of millions of Americans as overweight/obese.
And as research shows, that seems to be still lenient as there's way more people at "normal weight" BMI who have elevated amounts of bodyfat than there are "overweight" BMI people who don't. So for all intents and purposes, the amount of Americans who should count overweight/obese should be even HIGHER.7 -
stevencloser wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »
Nothing to do with people eating too much and moving too little then?I have nothing against low fat (other than it's probably responsible for the obesity epidemic sweeping the world).
And not to minimize the issue, but the "epidemic" was created overnight by adopting WHO standards against the advice of the medical community...
Unclear as to what you mean. Expand please?
The BMI guidelines that the U.S. adopted in the late 1990s were derived from WHO standards, which instantly reclassified tens of millions of Americans as overweight/obese.
And as research shows, that seems to be still lenient as there's way more people at "normal weight" BMI who have elevated amounts of bodyfat than there are "overweight" BMI people who don't. So for all intents and purposes, the amount of Americans who should count overweight/obese should be even HIGHER.
would be great if bmi was abolished and a bf% determined whether or not you were overweight0 -
mrsnattybulking wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »
Nothing to do with people eating too much and moving too little then?I have nothing against low fat (other than it's probably responsible for the obesity epidemic sweeping the world).
And not to minimize the issue, but the "epidemic" was created overnight by adopting WHO standards against the advice of the medical community...
Unclear as to what you mean. Expand please?
The BMI guidelines that the U.S. adopted in the late 1990s were derived from WHO standards, which instantly reclassified tens of millions of Americans as overweight/obese.
And as research shows, that seems to be still lenient as there's way more people at "normal weight" BMI who have elevated amounts of bodyfat than there are "overweight" BMI people who don't. So for all intents and purposes, the amount of Americans who should count overweight/obese should be even HIGHER.
would be great if bmi was abolished and a bf% determined whether or not you were overweight
Harder to do as a population analytic since you can't determine it accurately on a large scale of people with a simple survey.3
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
- 426 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