What *ACTUALLY* boosts metabolism
Replies
-
candylilacs wrote: »Cinnamon, chiles (cayenne and others), ginger and tumeric, are all a "boost" to your metabolism. Now, I can't pinpoint exactly what boost: 0.05-15%, that's for you to judge.
Suprised this got quite as many "disagrees" as it did. There's at least some evidence that that's true, IMU, for some of those things.
But pay attention to the percentages: Once again, it's arithmetic FTW!
Let's say I eat a material amount of chiles (we're not talking "just a sprinkle" here). My "metabolism" (BMR/RMR) is estimated by most calculators to be around 1200 calories/day.
A 0.05% boost would be 0.6 calories. Whee!
A 15% boost would be 180 calories (which would be nice, but I've personally never seen research that had anything like nearly that big an effect, but I haven't seen all the world's research - that number you'd have to ask @candylilacs about).
. . . if the effect lasted all day. Which, IIRC, from most of what I've read, there's not much evidence.
Tiny. Tiny. Tiny. Lost in the noise of estimating error. Not worth considering. And who wants to eat chiles (or ginger, etc.) by the shovelful?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20826626
Note that that study only sees results after a month of using a supplement (concentrated) form of capsinoid (chile derivative) routinely, that only reaches significance when they pool numbers (and do some other really questionable stuff, statistically speaking), relies on measurements at points in time relatively close to fasted consumption of the supplement. And then the effect is so small as to be within the range of normal daily RMR variation. Whoopee.
Don't waste your time chasing "metabolism boosting" individual foods. You'd burn more calories clicking keys looking for the research that discounts it.
I think your post is indicative as to why the other one got so many disagrees. the differences are so small as to get get lost in the wash of logging errors and N.E.A.T. variations and normal RMR. When people focus on this kind of minutia I really think they are searching for a "hack" that's going to make a difference and, as a variation of what you state above, one burns more calories looking for the hack than the hack itself does.
Bottom line is there are no hacks that do anything of significance. The basics, reasonable calorie deficit, exercise and patience, are what work.
To me, "potentially real, but ridiculously small" is a more informative answer than "disagree", based on some of the (admittedly questionable) research results. Often, the simple one-click "answers" are slightly wrong, and (IMO) do no credit to those who advance them (anonymously ).
I acknowledge that I do like nuance and hair-splitting, by nature, though.
I get you Ann and I think you know I have a high degree of respect for your perspective.
For me, it's a bottom line kind of issue. In my mind, if these nuances won't make a significantly contribution difference to achieving one's goals, then, functionally, they are just noise. And distracting noise at that.
So many people get so hung up on gaming the system as opposed to focusing on the fundamentals and, IMHO, that is so very counterproductive.
PS: one of those disagrees was mine for the reasons stated above.
I think there are several things people forget because we rather argue semantics. First and most powerful, is power of the placebo. Even those many of those are minimal effects on actual metabolism, if doing these "hacks" makes one more compliant, or helps "cravings" than its worth doing... The same is one of the "benefits" of many supplements. And there are endless studies supporting placebo effects. Its also one reason why hospitals discharge you quickly after surgery. So what you and even I see as noise, could be much more to someone else. I have seen this with people i train. One of the ladies believes BCAAs are what helps her recover faster. Whether or not it actually does isn't as important as her belief that it is. And the belief has driven her to have a 405lb hip thrust at 110 lbs. Ironically, even told her that most of the evidence regarding BCAAs isn't promising.
Second, while current evidence should be at the forefront of conversation, a person still needs to understand the individual response. Both Layne Norton and Eric Helms have talked about it. What i mean, it doesn't matter what the evidence says about what is optimal if a person can't recover, adhere to or enjoy. So while it's beneficial to focus the big 5 lifts, if a person can't get comfortable or don't enjoy them, its worth adjusting to something else.
6 -
candylilacs wrote: »The OP poster said:
And I quoted her necessary "boosts" in metabolism. I couldn't give it an actual number, scientists don't know for sure, but I know for sure it helps. Spicy food generally helps.Now the losing weight process is getting harder and I’m wondering what actually boosts your metabolism?
I dislike ginger (if you read above) and I'm so-so on tumeric. I love chai tea latte (with whole milk) and I have been known to drink cinnamon tea. Variety is the spice of life!Nah. It's meaningless.
No, it's not. It's meaningful for the OP and it's all those posing questions about giving a boost to her/his metabolism.
Unless you can produce a sound research study demonstrating otherwise for one of these cases: It's arithmetically meaningless. A tiny effect at best, typically only when quite a daunting amount of the food is involved. "Scientists don't know for sure" is a dodge. There's been research. The results have been underwhelming, in what I've read.
Did you read the study I linked? They went through a number of questionable statistical gyrations to arrive at an effect - from a concentrated supplement of a chemical that exists in chiles, not from a food - of around 50 calories per day. Poorly substantiated, given the gyrations. And a result number that falls within the random unexplained daily variation in a typical person's BMR/RMR. Compared to working on increasing one's NEAT, let along managing one's intake, it's so trivial as to be meaningless.
Psu's point about placebo effect is well taken . . . but we could push anything as a placebo (and various internet hucksters do). If there's a point in talking about these things at all, there's a point in talking about them as accurately as we can manage.
Tiny numbers. At best. Not worth the time and energy to research, buy, consume, unless they're foods you want to eat in quantities you want to eat anyway.11 -
Why are you trying to convey "Tiny numbers"? Is it the hill you want to die on?Tiny numbers. At best. Not worth the time and energy to research, buy, consume, unless they're foods you want to eat in quantities you want to eat anyway.
The overwhelming majority can see on this board is this "Sure, AnnPT, while she's quite oblivious and she's wrong anyway, and you're right! N.E.A.T. variations and normal RMR/BMR! You're a cute grandma!" You're the in-crowd, and mine is the out-crowd.
I'm not in favor of food scales, BMR/RMR/NEAT (I don't know what's that means), but I do know that the body is taking too much of your time.
2 -
candylilacs wrote: »Why are you trying to convey "Tiny numbers"? Is it the hill you want to die on?Tiny numbers. At best. Not worth the time and energy to research, buy, consume, unless they're foods you want to eat in quantities you want to eat anyway.
The overwhelming majority can see on this board is this "Sure, AnnPT, while she's quite oblivious and she's wrong anyway, and you're right! N.E.A.T. variations and normal RMR/BMR! You're a cute grandma!" You're the in-crowd, and mine is the out-crowd.
I'm not in favor of food scales, BMR/RMR/NEAT (I don't know what's that means), but I do know that the body is taking too much of your time.
In or out crowd, its simple: eat that stuff because you like it and it makes you feel better in the self optimizing phase when you've already got the base results you want.
Worry about your base caloric balance to get the results in the first place.
All the hacks in the world won't get that first base balance and result by themselves.
Personally I think that Ann is too fru fru about accepting touchy feeley unproven things as possibilities and prefer to spend my time where there can be more substantial results.
I still consume vast amounts of caffeine and spice my food strongly because I enjoy both and they both help control how much I eat. Not because they boost my metabolism 😘
As for not being in favour of scales or of not knowing about and managing your caloric expenditure I am not sure how this is something to be proud about when posting in the discussion board of a calorie counting website, unless your argument is that people should not be using the capabilities of the site. I mean if all you need to do is keep a rough tally, you could use a napkin instead!19 -
candylilacs wrote: »Why are you trying to convey "Tiny numbers"? Is it the hill you want to die on?Tiny numbers. At best. Not worth the time and energy to research, buy, consume, unless they're foods you want to eat in quantities you want to eat anyway.
The overwhelming majority can see on this board is this "Sure, AnnPT, while she's quite oblivious and she's wrong anyway, and you're right! N.E.A.T. variations and normal RMR/BMR! You're a cute grandma!" You're the in-crowd, and mine is the out-crowd.
I'm not in favor of food scales, BMR/RMR/NEAT (I don't know what's that means), but I do know that the body is taking too much of your time.
Maam.. or Sir..? First off, that "Granny" knows more in one finger than you have in your noggin. I might suggest you listen and learn. Just like you think you "cured" your diabetes with keto fairy dust. You have a massive lack of understanding of human physiology. Afraid to break it to you... once a dm 2, always one. Even if the symptoms are in remission. Second , Ms. Anne has done something you haven't. Lost over 70lbs and kept it off for 5 years I believe. I have seen your post. Always on and off some invisible wagon. Third, the "in" crowd? WTF? Are we in high school? I'm a borderline fringe-ist myself, but you make me go woo. Well... back to MFP jail... peace.21 -
candylilacs wrote: »Why are you trying to convey "Tiny numbers"? Is it the hill you want to die on?Tiny numbers. At best. Not worth the time and energy to research, buy, consume, unless they're foods you want to eat in quantities you want to eat anyway.
The overwhelming majority can see on this board is this "Sure, AnnPT, while she's quite oblivious and she's wrong anyway, and you're right! N.E.A.T. variations and normal RMR/BMR! You're a cute grandma!" You're the in-crowd, and mine is the out-crowd.
I'm not in favor of food scales, BMR/RMR/NEAT (I don't know what's that means), but I do know that the body is taking too much of your time.
It isn't that you are in the out crowd. It is because what you are posting can not be found in scientific research. This evidence shows that the extra calories gained from these foods are insignificant. You would burn so many more calories with a 5 minute walk. The fact that you don't even know what BMR, RMR and NEAT are speaks volumes for your lack of knowledge when it comes to weight loss.23 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »candylilacs wrote: »Why are you trying to convey "Tiny numbers"? Is it the hill you want to die on?Tiny numbers. At best. Not worth the time and energy to research, buy, consume, unless they're foods you want to eat in quantities you want to eat anyway.
The overwhelming majority can see on this board is this "Sure, AnnPT, while she's quite oblivious and she's wrong anyway, and you're right! N.E.A.T. variations and normal RMR/BMR! You're a cute grandma!" You're the in-crowd, and mine is the out-crowd.
I'm not in favor of food scales, BMR/RMR/NEAT (I don't know what's that means), but I do know that the body is taking too much of your time.
It isn't that you are in the out crowd. It is because what you are posting can not be found in scientific research. This evidence shows that the extra calories gained from these foods are insignificant. You would burn so many more calories with a 5 minute walk. The fact that you don't even know what BMR, RMR and NEAT are speaks volumes for your lack of knowledge when it comes to weight loss.
And that is why @AnnPT77 will succeed and @candylilacs will fail. She will fall off her magic wagon. Hell, maybe i am wrong, but my money is on ann.....13 -
The lighter you get, the lower you metabolic rate goes. Hence the lower calories needed to maintain. You can do LONGER physical activities to keep calories burning, but really to keep things in check is based more around activity AND diet.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
6 -
psychod787 wrote: »UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »If by "metabolism" you mean the calories you burn doing nothing but hanging out being alive (RMR/BMR), then there isn't much way to increase it significantly, at least not legally/safely. A pound of muscle only burns a couple of calories (literally) per day more than a pound of fat. There are some other tiny things that could be positive/negative (like undereating so much that your body slows down hair growth and whatnot - it won't stop a person losing weight if they're still eating fewer calories than they burn, but it can lead to negative health outcomes).
If you simply want to increase the number of calories your body burns, there are two productive routes: Exercise and daily life activity, not necessarily in that order (varies). One tricky thing is that it's possible to increase exercise so much that you're fatigued, and reduce daily life activity (chores, work, non-exercise hobbies, etc.) so much that you wipe out a good chunk of the exercise calorie benefit. Conversely, you can amp up daily life activity so much that workout intensity (or willingness/compliance) could be affected. So, there's a balance, and I'd bet the balance point depends on your starting conditions (fitness, daily habits, etc., at the start).
You probably know how to increase exercise calorie expenditure: Pick a type of exercise that burns more calories per minute, or do what you normally do more intensely, more often, or for a longer duration. Watch out for over-fatigue.
There's a thread here about ideas for increasing daily life activity:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss
For some, that produces meaningful results.
There are some other very, very minor things. For example, thermic efficiency of food, TEF, is one: There's a bare chance that eating more protein or more whole foods might burn a truly tiny number of extra calories in the digestive/metabolization processes, but it's iffy and minor. Better to focus on nutrition, satiation, and general enjoyment in that realm, I think, vs. chasing burning a tiny number more calories, on a speculative and non-measurable basis.
Probably the biggest helps in your kind of scenario are consistency, patience, persistence, and precision (of logging), realistically. Not what you'd wanted to hear, I suspect. :drinker:
Exercise... yes.... cardio is great for just burning calories. Resistance training IMHO is just overlooked to much. You burn some energy during lifting. Slight bump in rmr over 48hr period most likely from increased protein turn over. Small amount of rmr bump dt increased/ sustaining muscle mass. It also might help decrease skeletal muscle efficiency that seems to happen after weight loss. Protein levels of 1.6/kg seem to also blunt the slight decrease in rmr as well...
Lol I understood nothing from this hahah , enlighten me please
Here are some research reviews that might help.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/30260099/
https://academic.oup.com/jn/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jn/nxz281/5637681
Or, with apologies to Mr. Psychod787 :flowerforyou: , if you were looking for a less academic restatement, I think he was wanting to say that:
* Too many people ignore how useful strength training is (maybe especially during weight loss)
* You do burn some calories during lifting, even if not quite as many calories per minute as during most cardio
* Strength training also causes a very small extra calorie burn after the workout ("bump in RMR", or resting metabolic rate), probably from rebuilding the muscles that you worked out
* Sometimes people who lose weight, also lose strength and muscle (a bad thing) along with fat; and strength training while losing weight can help avoid that bad effect
* Getting enough protein from one's diet seems to help avoid losing muscle while losing weight, too; and 1.6g of protein daily seems to be a good minimum to hit (let's call that 0.75g protein per pound, more or less, if you use pounds vs. kg). I suspect he might mean per kg/pound of healthy goal weight, or maybe even per kg/pound of lean body mass, but I'm not sure - he didn't say.
I may've missed a point or two in there about resting metabolic rate and protein, or muscular efficiency, not sure, but I think that's the gist.
Super insightful thank you
7 -
This sub-branch of this thread started when I essentially defended your statement that foods like chiles, etc., may increase "metabolism" (which pretty much is RMR/BMR - resting metabolic rate, basal metabolic rate, BTW), by amounts like 0.05%.candylilacs wrote: »Why are you trying to convey "Tiny numbers"? Is it the hill you want to die on?
Speaking of hills, and locations for eventual mortality.Tiny numbers. At best. Not worth the time and energy to research, buy, consume, unless they're foods you want to eat in quantities you want to eat anyway.
The overwhelming majority can see on this board is this "Sure, AnnPT, while she's quite oblivious and she's wrong anyway, and you're right! N.E.A.T. variations and normal RMR/BMR! You're a cute grandma!" You're the in-crowd, and mine is the out-crowd.
I'm not in favor of food scales, BMR/RMR/NEAT (I don't know what's that means), but I do know that the body is taking too much of your time.
I hope you'll be very successful, using your chosen methods, sincerely. :flowerforyou:
I reserve the ability to respond to posts here as I see fit, as long as I do so politely and within the terms of service, in an effort to keep threads in the general region of science, not supposition.
I've not seen any reasonable demonstration of effects in the 15% of metabolism range. I'd be happy to see and evaluate research that demonstrates any food (or even supplement) increasing metabolism by 15%. That would be an excellent, useful thing, assuming the food/supplement was one that would be safe and reasonably pleasant, in the needed amounts.
I also reserve the ability to spend my time as I choose, and hope you'll do likewise.
I think the whole idea of in-crowds and out-crowds is kind of out there. I don't know anyone on this forum in real life, so it's hard to be part of any kind of a crowd. Here, we're each the sum of our posts, nothing more or less.
I acknowledge that the cumulative body of our individual posts here will create, in other people's minds, a sort of reputation for each of us. That's unavoidable.22 -
psychod787 wrote: »candylilacs wrote: »Why are you trying to convey "Tiny numbers"? Is it the hill you want to die on?Tiny numbers. At best. Not worth the time and energy to research, buy, consume, unless they're foods you want to eat in quantities you want to eat anyway.
The overwhelming majority can see on this board is this "Sure, AnnPT, while she's quite oblivious and she's wrong anyway, and you're right! N.E.A.T. variations and normal RMR/BMR! You're a cute grandma!" You're the in-crowd, and mine is the out-crowd.
I'm not in favor of food scales, BMR/RMR/NEAT (I don't know what's that means), but I do know that the body is taking too much of your time.
<snip for reply brevity>
Ms. Anne has <snip> Lost over 70lbs and kept it off for 5 years I believe.
<snip>
Only about 50 pounds, but getting close to 5 years now, total. Started losing in early 2015, joined MFP mid-2015. Hit current weight in late 2015, will start 5th year of maintenance in 2020.
Truth in advertising, y'know. :drinker:17 -
I have lost over 70 pounds and kept it off for about five years. I know about the diet industry. ✌🏼3
-
eat more often throughout the day, drink water, move more, strength train so you burn more calories. Eating at a deficit and being sedentary is a recipe for having to eat at 1200 calories forever. .which no one can do.2
-
elisa123gal wrote: »eat more often throughout the day, drink water, move more, strength train so you burn more calories. Eating at a deficit and being sedentary is a recipe for having to eat at 1200 calories forever. .which no one can do.
Eating more often and drinking more water have no impact on metabolism. That is incorrect information.12 -
candylilacs wrote: »I have lost over 70 pounds and kept it off for about five years. I know about the diet industry. ✌🏼
I have lost over 75lbs and kept it off for about five years. I know about the diet industry and how the body actually works, but still learn new stuff every day. Especially when it comes to unproven products, methods or 'science' being promoted as miraculous fact. 14 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »candylilacs wrote: »I have lost over 70 pounds and kept it off for about five years. I know about the diet industry. ✌🏼
I have lost over 75lbs and kept it off for about five years. I know about the diet industry and how the body actually works, but still learn new stuff every day. Especially when it comes to unproven products, methods or 'science' being promoted as miraculous fact.
This^^^there is always something new to learn. There are no in crowd and out crowd--there are knowlegable posters and others, not so much.9 -
Define knowledgable posters. They think like you do?5
-
candylilacs wrote: »Define knowledgable posters. They think like you do?
Not necessarily. I've been here for 6 years and have seen many come and go. After all this time I can tell who has solid advice and those (even with good intentions, and they are a majority) who are just blowing smoke. If you want to be knowledgable the first rule is "Listen", the second is "Evaluate". I would advise to not post until you do those two first. However, you are free to do as you will.10 -
I been here 7 (6.5, but who’s been counting?) years. Therefore, I know more than you. Think about that logically, and about it makes *no sense*.3
-
To me, someone who is knowledgable is someone who has read and understands the scientific literature in regards to diet and weight loss rather than someone who reads blogs and can not differentiate between someones cherry-picked opinions and solid science. Someone who has a solid foundation but always has the quest to continue learning rather than believing they are experts who know a lot. I guess that means they think like I do in regards to weight loss because I always like my views to be backed by what science tells us.16
-
Lillymoo01 wrote: »To me, someone who is knowledgable is someone who has read and understands the scientific literature in regards to diet and weight loss rather than someone who reads blogs and can not differentiate between someones cherry-picked opinions and solid science. Someone who has a solid foundation but always has the quest to continue learning rather than believing they are experts who know a lot. I guess that means they think like I do in regards to weight loss because I always like my views to be backed by what science tells us.
So if there is evidence contrary to your belief, do you change your belief? I see a lot of people suggesting they are evidence based who only want to validate their current opinion.7 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »To me, someone who is knowledgable is someone who has read and understands the scientific literature in regards to diet and weight loss rather than someone who reads blogs and can not differentiate between someones cherry-picked opinions and solid science. Someone who has a solid foundation but always has the quest to continue learning rather than believing they are experts who know a lot. I guess that means they think like I do in regards to weight loss because I always like my views to be backed by what science tells us.
So if there is evidence contrary to your belief, do you change your belief? I see a lot of people suggesting they are evidence based who only want to validate their current opinion.
I have learned to evaluate the new evidence, compare it to existing, find if new evidence is credible, and then incorporate it into my ideas. Yes, it is tainted by personal opinion, but we are human. I have recently slightly changes my thoughts on fat. So, we either keep learning or die.6 -
psychod787 wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »To me, someone who is knowledgable is someone who has read and understands the scientific literature in regards to diet and weight loss rather than someone who reads blogs and can not differentiate between someones cherry-picked opinions and solid science. Someone who has a solid foundation but always has the quest to continue learning rather than believing they are experts who know a lot. I guess that means they think like I do in regards to weight loss because I always like my views to be backed by what science tells us.
So if there is evidence contrary to your belief, do you change your belief? I see a lot of people suggesting they are evidence based who only want to validate their current opinion.
I have learned to evaluate the new evidence, compare it to existing, find if new evidence is credible, and then incorporate it into my ideas. Yes, it is tainted by personal opinion, but we are human. I have recently slightly changes my thoughts on fat. So, we either keep learning or die.
So i will ask you, do macros matter when it comes to weight loss?2 -
candylilacs wrote: »I been here 7 (6.5, but who’s been counting?) years. Therefore, I know more than you. Think about that logically, and about it makes *no sense*.
Strange--that surprises me. Perhaps you know more than I do, perhaps not. It doesn't matter to me, you aren't on my list of "knowledgable", but then again you could surprise me. Good luck.
PS: I've been here since Feb 2013, you've been here since June 2013. Almost twins!3 -
For the OP:
Altering body composition to increase muscle & decrease fat will make only a small difference in basal metabolic rate, albeit a positive one.
As far as burning calories, formal exercise notwithstanding, an active lifestyle (puttering, standing, keep moving) burns 2-3 times the amount of calories expended while sitting or sleeping (for many people, 60-100 calories per hour vs 30-50 calories per hour).
The latter doesn't significantly change your BMR, but makes the largest difference in daily calories expended for most people. If you are on the go all day & spend little time sitting, you can easily expend 500+ calories more per day than if you are sedentary. If you also do an hour of formal exercise per day, you can rack up another 300+ calories burned. People who are very active and exercise vigorously will expend even more. Gender & body size factor in, but you get the idea.10 -
psychod787 wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »To me, someone who is knowledgable is someone who has read and understands the scientific literature in regards to diet and weight loss rather than someone who reads blogs and can not differentiate between someones cherry-picked opinions and solid science. Someone who has a solid foundation but always has the quest to continue learning rather than believing they are experts who know a lot. I guess that means they think like I do in regards to weight loss because I always like my views to be backed by what science tells us.
So if there is evidence contrary to your belief, do you change your belief? I see a lot of people suggesting they are evidence based who only want to validate their current opinion.
I have learned to evaluate the new evidence, compare it to existing, find if new evidence is credible, and then incorporate it into my ideas. Yes, it is tainted by personal opinion, but we are human. I have recently slightly changes my thoughts on fat. So, we either keep learning or die.
So i will ask you, do macros matter when it comes to weight loss?
Yes and no.... calories are king. Protein has a slightly higher tef. There is some evidence that higher protein diets stop some of the metabolic adaptation seen in weight loss. The diet fit study showed that when most of the diet is a whole foods diet, people tend to lose weight on either low carb or low fat. So, I think food quality effects satiety vs calories out. When we look at the Kevin Hall study it also lends itself to this idea. So, carbs vs fat? No... protein... yes. Gray question.... you get a gray answer.10 -
psychod787 wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »To me, someone who is knowledgable is someone who has read and understands the scientific literature in regards to diet and weight loss rather than someone who reads blogs and can not differentiate between someones cherry-picked opinions and solid science. Someone who has a solid foundation but always has the quest to continue learning rather than believing they are experts who know a lot. I guess that means they think like I do in regards to weight loss because I always like my views to be backed by what science tells us.
So if there is evidence contrary to your belief, do you change your belief? I see a lot of people suggesting they are evidence based who only want to validate their current opinion.
I have learned to evaluate the new evidence, compare it to existing, find if new evidence is credible, and then incorporate it into my ideas. Yes, it is tainted by personal opinion, but we are human. I have recently slightly changes my thoughts on fat. So, we either keep learning or die.
So i will ask you, do macros matter when it comes to weight loss?
This question is too vague to allow for a meaningful answer.
If you mean: do macros matter assuming the variation is within a healthy range, diets are otherwise healthy, and calories are controlled (which means taking into account the small TEF difference that will exist within healthy range macros and depending on amount of fiber), then no, it appears not, with Hall's studies being among the evidence.
If you mean: assuming ad libitum eating or someone counting and struggling with compliance, do macros matter? They certainly might for individuals and seem to on average, especially (perhaps solely) protein, although there are other aspects of diet that I think are as important, so macros tend to be over-focused on (again, assuming within a healthy range). (There is at least some research suggesting the benefit from protein on appetite levels out once it's in a healthy range, however, so while I think the answer is "on average, yes, but individuals vary," some would say "evidence is too conflicting to say.") But again I think there are other aspects of diet more significant.
If you mean: "for someone lean, trying to get leaner, and also trying to maintain muscle"? Then protein matters, although again once one is in a healthy range it isn't going to matter as much as is often suggested (and it matters more for muscle maintenance or gain than weight loss specifically, and really for quite lean people).
Not sure, however, what this has to do with the debate over whether spicy foods or ginger meaningfully affect metabolism such that OP should start eating enormous amounts. (They are tasty in reasonable amounts, IMO.)
Once TEF is taken into account, I don't think the real effect, such as it is, from macros on weight loss is metabolism. (I know there have been some studies that suggest increases to metabolism from some diets, but they conflict with other studies and you can never take single studies as proving things.)6 -
psychod787 wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »To me, someone who is knowledgable is someone who has read and understands the scientific literature in regards to diet and weight loss rather than someone who reads blogs and can not differentiate between someones cherry-picked opinions and solid science. Someone who has a solid foundation but always has the quest to continue learning rather than believing they are experts who know a lot. I guess that means they think like I do in regards to weight loss because I always like my views to be backed by what science tells us.
So if there is evidence contrary to your belief, do you change your belief? I see a lot of people suggesting they are evidence based who only want to validate their current opinion.
I have learned to evaluate the new evidence, compare it to existing, find if new evidence is credible, and then incorporate it into my ideas. Yes, it is tainted by personal opinion, but we are human. I have recently slightly changes my thoughts on fat. So, we either keep learning or die.
So i will ask you, do macros matter when it comes to weight loss?
This question is too vague to allow for a meaningful answer.
If you mean: do macros matter assuming the variation is within a healthy range, diets are otherwise healthy, and calories are controlled (which means taking into account the small TEF difference that will exist within healthy range macros and depending on amount of fiber), then no, it appears not, with Hall's studies being among the evidence.
If you mean: assuming ad libitum eating or someone counting and struggling with compliance, do macros matter? They certainly might for individuals and seem to on average, especially (perhaps solely) protein, although there are other aspects of diet that I think are as important, so macros tend to be over-focused on (again, assuming within a healthy range). (There is at least some research suggesting the benefit from protein on appetite levels out once it's in a healthy range, however, so while I think the answer is "on average, yes, but individuals vary," some would say "evidence is too conflicting to say.") But again I think there are other aspects of diet more significant.
If you mean: "for someone lean, trying to get leaner, and also trying to maintain muscle"? Then protein matters, although again once one is in a healthy range it isn't going to matter as much as is often suggested (and it matters more for muscle maintenance or gain than weight loss specifically, and really for quite lean people).
Not sure, however, what this has to do with the debate over whether spicy foods or ginger meaningfully affect metabolism such that OP should start eating enormous amounts. (They are tasty in reasonable amounts, IMO.)
Once TEF is taken into account, I don't think the real effect, such as it is, from macros on weight loss is metabolism. (I know there have been some studies that suggest increases to metabolism from some diets, but they conflict with other studies and you can never take single studies as proving things.)
While I can't completely speak for the question asker.... me personally thinks it was a "set up" question....8 -
psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »To me, someone who is knowledgable is someone who has read and understands the scientific literature in regards to diet and weight loss rather than someone who reads blogs and can not differentiate between someones cherry-picked opinions and solid science. Someone who has a solid foundation but always has the quest to continue learning rather than believing they are experts who know a lot. I guess that means they think like I do in regards to weight loss because I always like my views to be backed by what science tells us.
So if there is evidence contrary to your belief, do you change your belief? I see a lot of people suggesting they are evidence based who only want to validate their current opinion.
I have learned to evaluate the new evidence, compare it to existing, find if new evidence is credible, and then incorporate it into my ideas. Yes, it is tainted by personal opinion, but we are human. I have recently slightly changes my thoughts on fat. So, we either keep learning or die.
So i will ask you, do macros matter when it comes to weight loss?
This question is too vague to allow for a meaningful answer.
If you mean: do macros matter assuming the variation is within a healthy range, diets are otherwise healthy, and calories are controlled (which means taking into account the small TEF difference that will exist within healthy range macros and depending on amount of fiber), then no, it appears not, with Hall's studies being among the evidence.
If you mean: assuming ad libitum eating or someone counting and struggling with compliance, do macros matter? They certainly might for individuals and seem to on average, especially (perhaps solely) protein, although there are other aspects of diet that I think are as important, so macros tend to be over-focused on (again, assuming within a healthy range). (There is at least some research suggesting the benefit from protein on appetite levels out once it's in a healthy range, however, so while I think the answer is "on average, yes, but individuals vary," some would say "evidence is too conflicting to say.") But again I think there are other aspects of diet more significant.
If you mean: "for someone lean, trying to get leaner, and also trying to maintain muscle"? Then protein matters, although again once one is in a healthy range it isn't going to matter as much as is often suggested (and it matters more for muscle maintenance or gain than weight loss specifically, and really for quite lean people).
Not sure, however, what this has to do with the debate over whether spicy foods or ginger meaningfully affect metabolism such that OP should start eating enormous amounts. (They are tasty in reasonable amounts, IMO.)
Once TEF is taken into account, I don't think the real effect, such as it is, from macros on weight loss is metabolism. (I know there have been some studies that suggest increases to metabolism from some diets, but they conflict with other studies and you can never take single studies as proving things.)
While I can't completely speak for the question asker.... me personally thinks it was a "set up" question....
Perhaps. If you mean that the asker thinks he knows what the answer is and was either trying to solicit an admission or slam the expected answer, sure, I think so too, I don't think he was looking for advice (or needs it).
However, if the point was intended to be "if you answer this the wrong way you don't follow the literature or are close-minded," that's why the fact it was too vague too allow for a meaningful answer is an important thing to note. (I somehow failed to read your response before making mine, but yours is basically a more succinct way of saying the same thing. I'm chronically long-winded, as we all know.) ;-)
I still don't see what it has to do with the effect of ginger, and that seemed to me the conversation it was intended to relate to, but sometimes things get past me!5 -
psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »To me, someone who is knowledgable is someone who has read and understands the scientific literature in regards to diet and weight loss rather than someone who reads blogs and can not differentiate between someones cherry-picked opinions and solid science. Someone who has a solid foundation but always has the quest to continue learning rather than believing they are experts who know a lot. I guess that means they think like I do in regards to weight loss because I always like my views to be backed by what science tells us.
So if there is evidence contrary to your belief, do you change your belief? I see a lot of people suggesting they are evidence based who only want to validate their current opinion.
I have learned to evaluate the new evidence, compare it to existing, find if new evidence is credible, and then incorporate it into my ideas. Yes, it is tainted by personal opinion, but we are human. I have recently slightly changes my thoughts on fat. So, we either keep learning or die.
So i will ask you, do macros matter when it comes to weight loss?
This question is too vague to allow for a meaningful answer.
If you mean: do macros matter assuming the variation is within a healthy range, diets are otherwise healthy, and calories are controlled (which means taking into account the small TEF difference that will exist within healthy range macros and depending on amount of fiber), then no, it appears not, with Hall's studies being among the evidence.
If you mean: assuming ad libitum eating or someone counting and struggling with compliance, do macros matter? They certainly might for individuals and seem to on average, especially (perhaps solely) protein, although there are other aspects of diet that I think are as important, so macros tend to be over-focused on (again, assuming within a healthy range). (There is at least some research suggesting the benefit from protein on appetite levels out once it's in a healthy range, however, so while I think the answer is "on average, yes, but individuals vary," some would say "evidence is too conflicting to say.") But again I think there are other aspects of diet more significant.
If you mean: "for someone lean, trying to get leaner, and also trying to maintain muscle"? Then protein matters, although again once one is in a healthy range it isn't going to matter as much as is often suggested (and it matters more for muscle maintenance or gain than weight loss specifically, and really for quite lean people).
Not sure, however, what this has to do with the debate over whether spicy foods or ginger meaningfully affect metabolism such that OP should start eating enormous amounts. (They are tasty in reasonable amounts, IMO.)
Once TEF is taken into account, I don't think the real effect, such as it is, from macros on weight loss is metabolism. (I know there have been some studies that suggest increases to metabolism from some diets, but they conflict with other studies and you can never take single studies as proving things.)
While I can't completely speak for the question asker.... me personally thinks it was a "set up" question....
Perhaps. If you mean that the asker thinks he knows what the answer is and was either trying to solicit an admission or slam the expected answer, sure, I think so too, I don't think he was looking for advice (or needs it).
However, if the point was intended to be "if you answer this the wrong way you don't follow the literature or are close-minded," that's why the fact it was too vague too allow for a meaningful answer is an important thing to note. (I somehow failed to read your response before making mine, but yours is basically a more succinct way of saying the same thing. I'm chronically long-winded, as we all know.) ;-)
I still don't see what it has to do with the effect of ginger, and that seemed to me the conversation it was intended to relate to, but sometimes things get past me!
He is a moderator. I doubt he even thinks that I am more of a fly on an elephant's backside.🤣 yes, to both of your thoughts. Honestly it has nothing to do with ginger. Maybe I think to much of myself, but the question asked and I have had a couple of "run ins". I still go back to this question. What controls CI? I think it is the biggest variable here. We know you can only burn so much energy in a day realistically. So, how to create a calorie deficit and maintain a lower calorie intake indefinitely is more of an interesting topic for me.8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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