What commonly given MFP Forum advice do you personally disagree with?

Two things I disagree with.

"Lift heavy things or else"

And

"You are not losing weight because you are not measuring with pinpoint accuracy" given to people who are obese. Honestly I think if you are obese you are not within a rounding error of not losing weight. You'll probably lose more slowly though.

I have a very hard time with the fact that MFP disregards nutrition other than general categories of carbs, protein and fat, when discussing weight loss. It's like this site views weight loss as if it were totally disconnected from essential human health.

It's true that all you need in order to lose weight is a calorie deficit. But that doesn't mean that you can afford to disregard actual nutrition. Sure, you could lose weight by eating nothing but candy bars, as long as you kept under your calorie goal. And you could probably hit all your MFP macros by adding a protein shake or two to that candy bar diet. But your body as a whole organism would not thrive.

"About 85% of Americans do not consume the US Food and Drug Administration’s recommended daily intakes of the most important vitamins and minerals necessary for proper physical and mental development."
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/nutrition-hunger-food-children-vitamins-us

"Malnutrition is thought of as a distant issue, but this condition often goes hand-in-hand with eight chronic diseases, and it costs the U.S. $15.5 billion annually in direct costs."
http://www.nutritionnews.abbott/nutrition-as-medicine/malnutrition-in-america.html

Anytime anyone mentions comparative nutritional value on here, they are "woo"ed to death. Even something as mild as stating that whole grain breads and brown rice are healthier than white bread and white rice provokes a chorus of disagreement. As if the key nutrients in complex carbohydrates and the outer germ and bran of grains (fiber, B vitamins, iron, folate, selenium, potassium and magnesium) are somehow meaningless. As if this advice from Mayo Clinic, based on accepted science, doesn't count:
"Whole grains are also linked to a lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers and other health problems."

And MFP is one of the only sites I know of (outside of the Coca Cola website, maybe) where the SCIENTIFICALLY AGREED-UPON FACT that sugar is actually bad for you is treated as some sort of radical opinion. Science is real, people. No matter how many "woos" you give it.

It is not only people who have diabetes who have to think about sugar. To quote just one of the uniform knowledgeable sources:

“Regardless of their Healthy Eating Index scores, people who ate more sugar still had higher cardiovascular mortality,” says Dr. Teresa Fung, adjunct professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sugar-increases-the-risk-of-dying-with-heart-disease-201402067021

It's like most people on MFP are so fixated on losing weight that they want to join together in an aggressive, in-your-face denial of nutritional facts. "There are no bad foods," is like biblical scripture here.

If you fill up your calorie allotment with added sugars and low-nutrient, highly processed junk food and fast food, you are not going to be healthy -- even if you are losing weight. There is a reason to eat a wide variety of nutrient dense foods and minimize added sugars. Human beings need the wide range of micronutrients and trace elements that occur in fresh produce, good quality proteins, legumes, etc.

Science is real.

MsBaz2018 wrote: »

"You are not losing weight because you are not measuring with pinpoint accuracy" given to people who are obese. Honestly I think if you are obese you are not within a rounding error of not losing weight. You'll probably lose more slowly though.

I think a lot of people who are obese may be in denial about how much they are eating and worse than average at eyeballing or estimating. So for them perhaps focusing on careful weighing and being as accurate as possible can be helpful. I also think for at least a subset of obese people are very emotional around the whole topic, it's charged, and so stepping back and making it just about logging and careful measuring can take the emotion out of it (and to some extent the good/bad judgments and the superstition, the idea that if I ate at the wrong time or didn't eat exactly the right way it wouldn't work) -- focusing on simple concrete things like being super accurate with calories and logging was helpful for me.

I did tend to be someone who overestimated if anything, though, and did not have a problem losing.

MsBaz2018 wrote: »

Packerjohn wrote: »

Posters saying to not be concerned about intake of added sugars even though the WHO, USDA, American Heart Association etc all say their intake should be limited.

It might be that's because we are on a weight loss/gain site not a diabetes prevention one. And a lot of question will be phrased like "can I eat this ans still lose weight ?". If someone is obese, I think them losing weight is more critical than how much sugar they eat in order of priority.
But yeah I agree with you, and it should always be contextual to the question asked.

Actually the USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines on sugar don't really call out diabetes prevention and don't say these recommendations aren't just for those overweight/obese.

Is losing weigh important of course. These organization's recommendations based on the research say that consuming fewer added sugars is a big bang for the buck way to get there for the general population.

USDA
What’s the Problem with Added Sugars?
Eating and drinking too many foods and beverages with added sugars makes
it difficult to achieve a healthy eating pattern without taking in too many
calories. Added sugars contribute calories, but no essential nutrients.

https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/DGA_Cut-Down-On-Added-Sugars.pdf

WHO
The recommendations are based on analysis of the latest scientific evidence. This evidence shows, first, that adults who consume less sugars have lower body weight and, second, that increasing the amount of sugars in the diet is associated with a weight increase.
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/

The best researchers in the world on this topic are in agreement that added sugars should be significantly reduced from current levels of consumption. Not really sure who else you want to be listening to on this topic.

Deviette wrote: »

"You can't get bulky by accident"

Which is just straight up not true. I understand the sentiment, it's saying that you are not going to suddenly become muscular without doing anything that would allow this to happen.

But I have several cases of anecdotal evidence from people who do not lift where they have unintentionally become more bulky than they'd like/realised. This is when you're doing an exercise that builds muscles, but you don't realise it.

Like my friend did when she took up rowing. Or like me when for years, literal years, I thought I just had fat arms. The reason I cannot wear long sleeved blouses or find blazers that fit was because of my fat arms. Until another (female) judo player mentioned, in passing, how they hated how they couldn't wear long sleeves as clothing companies don't think that women should have muscles and how judo players have muscular arms. And yeah, suddenly it made sense, when I tense my muscles I can see that there's a lot there, and that, yeah, I have got bulky by accident. For reference: I don't lift, I don't go to the gym, I don't do weight exercises. I judo twice a week and that's all the strength related training I do. And this has been the case for years. So no, it is certainly possible to become bulky by accident.

Must be genetics. I did judo for years, and never got "bulky". Two+ years hardcore in the gym, though? Yep, SUPAH BULKY!!!

quiksylver296 wrote: »

Deviette wrote: »

"You can't get bulky by accident"

Which is just straight up not true. I understand the sentiment, it's saying that you are not going to suddenly become muscular without doing anything that would allow this to happen.

But I have several cases of anecdotal evidence from people who do not lift where they have unintentionally become more bulky than they'd like/realised. This is when you're doing an exercise that builds muscles, but you don't realise it.

Like my friend did when she took up rowing. Or like me when for years, literal years, I thought I just had fat arms. The reason I cannot wear long sleeved blouses or find blazers that fit was because of my fat arms. Until another (female) judo player mentioned, in passing, how they hated how they couldn't wear long sleeves as clothing companies don't think that women should have muscles and how judo players have muscular arms. And yeah, suddenly it made sense, when I tense my muscles I can see that there's a lot there, and that, yeah, I have got bulky by accident. For reference: I don't lift, I don't go to the gym, I don't do weight exercises. I judo twice a week and that's all the strength related training I do. And this has been the case for years. So no, it is certainly possible to become bulky by accident.

Must be genetics. I did judo for years, and never got "bulky". Two+ years hardcore in the gym, though? Yep, SUPAH BULKY!!!

Or maybe it's how you vs they think of "bulky"?

Salixiana wrote: »

I have a very hard time with the fact that MFP disregards nutrition other than general categories of carbs, protein and fat, when discussing weight loss. It's like this site views weight loss as if it were totally disconnected from essential human health.

It's true that all you need in order to lose weight is a calorie deficit. But that doesn't mean that you can afford to disregard actual nutrition. Sure, you could lose weight by eating nothing but candy bars, as long as you kept under your calorie goal. And you could probably hit all your MFP macros by adding a protein shake or two to that candy bar diet. But your body as a whole organism would not thrive.


It's like most people on MFP are so fixated on losing weight that they want to join together in an aggressive, in-your-face denial of nutritional facts. "There are no bad foods," is like biblical scripture here.

If you fill up your calorie allotment with added sugars and low-nutrient, highly processed junk food and fast food, you are not going to be healthy -- even if you are losing weight. There is a reason to eat a wide variety of nutrient dense foods and minimize added sugars. Human beings need the wide range of micronutrients and trace elements that occur in fresh produce, good quality proteins, legumes, etc.

As the poster previous to this pointed out, it's a matter of priority. People who come to this site obese and facing health-related complications will see the most benefit from getting some of the weight off, regardless of the makeup of their diet. In my own experience and observation, they are most likely to succeed in that goal if they aren't trying to completely overhaul their diet all at once. The observation that "there are no bad foods" has never been used to promote the idea that people should live off candy bars and fast food, but simply to take the pressure off people who think to succeed they need to have a 100% nutritious diet, which would make the process unsustainable for the vast majority of people. As time goes on, I think people tend to realize that too many empty calories in their diet hinders them from achieving their goals, and make changes accordingly. But to insist that they comply with a very strict nutritional profile out of the gate is counter-productive, IMO.

kimny72 wrote: »

Packerjohn wrote: »

MsBaz2018 wrote: »

Packerjohn wrote: »

Posters saying to not be concerned about intake of added sugars even though the WHO, USDA, American Heart Association etc all say their intake should be limited.

It might be that's because we are on a weight loss/gain site not a diabetes prevention one. And a lot of question will be phrased like "can I eat this ans still lose weight ?". If someone is obese, I think them losing weight is more critical than how much sugar they eat in order of priority.
But yeah I agree with you, and it should always be contextual to the question asked.

Actually the USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines on sugar don't really call out diabetes prevention and don't say these recommendations aren't just for those overweight/obese.

Is losing weigh important of course. These organization's recommendations based on the research say that consuming fewer added sugars is a big bang for the buck way to get there for the general population.

USDA
What’s the Problem with Added Sugars?
Eating and drinking too many foods and beverages with added sugars makes
it difficult to achieve a healthy eating pattern without taking in too many
calories. Added sugars contribute calories, but no essential nutrients.

https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/DGA_Cut-Down-On-Added-Sugars.pdf

WHO
The recommendations are based on analysis of the latest scientific evidence. This evidence shows, first, that adults who consume less sugars have lower body weight and, second, that increasing the amount of sugars in the diet is associated with a weight increase.
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/

The best researchers in the world on this topic are in agreement that added sugars should be significantly reduced from current levels of consumption. Not really sure who else you want to be listening to on this topic.

Exactly. Both orgs recommend limiting added sugars because they tend to cause people to eat too many calories. If you are already controlling your calories on MFP, you probably don't have to worry about watching your sugar intake. And if you are watching your macros and making sure you're getting enough protein and fat, it would be incredibly difficult to do that and still end up with too much added sugar.

Once someone has their calories, protein, fat, and fiber down, if they want to play with another variable, go for it and watch your "added sugar". But I'd bet that if they have everything else down, their added sugar isn't even close to being a problem.

Yes! When I started logging my food and counting calories, it became very apparent where the extra calories were coming from. I knew I couldn't cut out things like protein, high-quality carbs, & healthy fats or I would be gnawing my arm off (and had I not known that, I would have found out real quick), so I looked at things like sugary drinks, candy, & white bread. The nutritional profile of my diet improved greatly just by concentrating on my calories & satiety. It can happen naturally without a person being told you "have" to eat this way, which of course, people just love

Salixiana wrote: »

I have a very hard time with the fact that MFP disregards nutrition other than general categories of carbs, protein and fat, when discussing weight loss. It's like this site views weight loss as if it were totally disconnected from essential human health.

I just don't think this is true AT ALL. The advice I give, and that I see others give over and over, is that calories are what matter for weight loss, but that nutrition matters for health and for most people food choice matters for satiety, which makes it much easier to stick with calories.

The thing is that what food choices will work for a person is going to depend on that person, and rather than me lecturing you about what to eat, it makes more sense to make some general comments about some possible considerations (protein, fiber, play around with fat vs. carbs, might be meal timing), and let the person figure it out.

As for nutrition, we aren't idiots, everyone knows generally what a good diet looks like (base meals around protein, include lots of vegetables, ideally some fruit and a wide variety of nutrient-dense and fiber rich foods, low nutrient/high cal foods are fine in moderation, but you wouldn't want to make them the base of your diet). People know this, the advice doesn't ignore it, but sometimes it's not what's being asked about.

No one is told to disregard actual nutrition. That's just not what happens.

Anytime anyone mentions comparative nutritional value on here, they are "woo"ed to death. Even something as mild as stating that whole grain breads and brown rice are healthier than white bread and white rice provokes a chorus of disagreement.

I mention stuff like this without getting "wooed to death."

Fact is that the nutritional difference between brown and white rice isn't that great (and neither is all that high in nutrients) - log at a place like Cron and see. So if there's a huge taste difference for you (there's not for me, I like them equally and can take or leave all rice), you get better bang for your nutrition buck by eating somewhat less rice and more of the other foods eaten with the rice -- add in lots of vegetables, some lower fat protein.

A similar example: whole grain pasta isn't much better than white (and both are fine). If you were to say brown is always better and so pick a 800 cal brown pasta based carbonara with no vegetables, while someone else picked a 450 cal white pasta based meal with shrimp and lots and lots of vegetables, the latter is unquestionably a better choice (unless you needed more cals and were getting lots of vegetables in other meals).

So the point usually is that nutrition is more about what you eat over the day, and requires a much broader understanding than "white is always bad, brown is always good."

I tend to choose whole grain when possible (I think it makes a bigger difference with bread but don't really eat bread much), but it's not something people need to make themselves unhappy over if they prefer white.

And MFP is one of the only sites I know of (outside of the Coca Cola website, maybe) where the SCIENTIFICALLY AGREED-UPON FACT that sugar is actually bad for you is treated as some sort of radical opinion. Science is real, people. No matter how many "woos" you give it.

(1) Sugar is NOT bad for you. Many foods with sugar like fruit and dairy and vegetables are extremely nutritious and often people suggest the sugar is a problem when it is not.

(2) Excessive ADDED sugar is a problem because (as the WHO site explains) it typically goes along with excessive CALORIES or a nutrient-poor diet. Rather than worry about sugar in isolation, why not watch your diet, eat appropriate calories, and get enough protein and fiber and micronutrients, and healthy fats (i.e., omega 3). If you do, I would be surprised if you are consuming excessive sugar, unless you are EXTREMELY active and not dieting.

The problem is that some people buy into false ideas that all sugar = bad or that you can't lose weight if you don't cut out all foods with added sugar, and often that makes weight loss harder and makes people overly stressed about everything.

It is tiresome and insulting and disingenuous to twist advice like that I just gave above into a claim that I was saying that nutrition does not matter and eating a diet of only candy bars is cool. Can you understand that?

And I specifically addressed the Theresa Fung study in another thread and I notice that you did not respond there. (And again that study is only about ADDED sugar and has some obvious problems.)

lemurcat2 wrote: »

try2again wrote: »

kimny72 wrote: »

Packerjohn wrote: »

MsBaz2018 wrote: »

Packerjohn wrote: »

Posters saying to not be concerned about intake of added sugars even though the WHO, USDA, American Heart Association etc all say their intake should be limited.

It might be that's because we are on a weight loss/gain site not a diabetes prevention one. And a lot of question will be phrased like "can I eat this ans still lose weight ?". If someone is obese, I think them losing weight is more critical than how much sugar they eat in order of priority.
But yeah I agree with you, and it should always be contextual to the question asked.

Actually the USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines on sugar don't really call out diabetes prevention and don't say these recommendations aren't just for those overweight/obese.

Is losing weigh important of course. These organization's recommendations based on the research say that consuming fewer added sugars is a big bang for the buck way to get there for the general population.

USDA
What’s the Problem with Added Sugars?
Eating and drinking too many foods and beverages with added sugars makes
it difficult to achieve a healthy eating pattern without taking in too many
calories. Added sugars contribute calories, but no essential nutrients.

https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/DGA_Cut-Down-On-Added-Sugars.pdf

WHO
The recommendations are based on analysis of the latest scientific evidence. This evidence shows, first, that adults who consume less sugars have lower body weight and, second, that increasing the amount of sugars in the diet is associated with a weight increase.
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/

The best researchers in the world on this topic are in agreement that added sugars should be significantly reduced from current levels of consumption. Not really sure who else you want to be listening to on this topic.

Exactly. Both orgs recommend limiting added sugars because they tend to cause people to eat too many calories. If you are already controlling your calories on MFP, you probably don't have to worry about watching your sugar intake. And if you are watching your macros and making sure you're getting enough protein and fat, it would be incredibly difficult to do that and still end up with too much added sugar.

Once someone has their calories, protein, fat, and fiber down, if they want to play with another variable, go for it and watch your "added sugar". But I'd bet that if they have everything else down, their added sugar isn't even close to being a problem.

Yes! When I started logging my food and counting calories, it became very apparent where the extra calories were coming from. I knew I couldn't cut out things like protein, high-quality carbs, & healthy fats or I would be gnawing my arm off (and had I not known that, I would have found out real quick), so I looked at things like sugary drinks, candy, & white bread. The nutritional profile of my diet improved greatly just by concentrating on my calories & satiety. It can happen naturally without a person being told you "have" to eat this way, which of course, people just love

Yes -- most people use common sense like this. The people who assume others will not make me wonder about whether they struggled with common sense.

Based on what people are sharing here, I think it's incredibly common for people to begin logging, notice trends in where their calories are going, and make a series of (usually gradual) small changes to make their calories go "further." What people notice and want to cut is going to be very reliant on previous diet pattern and individual tastes. For me, the stuff like rice, candy, juice, and oil added during cooking jumped out because the number of calories just wasn't worth it. And as I noticed that many of my favorite vegetables were relatively low calorie, I began eating much more of those.

The information is right there in front of us once we begin logging. In my years of helping people here and chatting with them, I think it's relatively rare that people are adding things like soda or candy to their diet because they've decided calories are the only thing that matters. Even if someone didn't care at all about nutrition, they'd probably be so hungry!