Calorie In Calorie Out
Options
Replies
-
So, if I force myself to eat breakfast, but I still crave that big evening meal with my family, and am not very good at watching other people eat yummy things while I have a tiny portion, what will happen? I think the odds are decent that I'll have compliance problems, and pretty easily slip often enough and far enough to eat back that 250-calorie benefit.
This is actually consistent with the videos (this was part 2).
(snip good recap)
So the conclusion, IMO, is that it's best to go with one's natural tendency to be a breakfast eater or not.
You uncovered my guilty secret: I did the lazy thing, and didn't watch the video, just commented on the OP.
SHAME!
I may watch the video tomorrow. This kind of stuff only catches my attention because I am interested in body rhythms if they offer an explanation for why my reactive hypoglycemia is more of an issue in the morning. That has never made a lot of sense to me.
It has also perplexed me that if I eat breakfast and even if I eat a macro profile that is safe for me I am much hungrier the rest of the day. That is an annoying "feature" to have on vacation.
If so, you should watch the one right before, which is part one.
I think circadian rhythms are interesting, although I find it hard to believe it matters that much just because I don't see the mechanism and because for me it was so easy to lose (at a faster rate than predicted) eating dinner at 9 most nights. Plus my work schedule is such that eating dinner late is hard to avoid. But although I think it's important to realize that personal schedule and ease matters most for sustainability (and that when one eats can't prevent a loss), I am open to the possibility that there is some circadian effect.
I find the differences between people with respect to breakfast interesting, and I think it's why any one size fits all advice about breakfast (or eating patterns generally) is going to be wrong. I'm actually doing a personal experiment this week of not eating breakfast (since I'm not doing pre-work workouts this week), and I do find that I naturally eat a bit less, and I'm not that hungry (I didn't eat breakfast for years when I was in my 20s and early 30s), but I think I'm going to start eating breakfast again anyway. For me (not for anyone else), it is just enjoyable to eat breakfast, fits my morning routine, and makes it easier to get in more veg/fruit and protein (this is partly because I hate snacking and three meals tend to give me about the cals I like at each most days). I don't find I am more or less hungry leading up to lunch when I eat breakfast or don't, absent a workout, but I do tend to be really hungry by mid-morning if I workout and then don't eat breakfast afterwards.
I am interested in what they do to insulin response which has nothing to do with weight loss.
I watched the video. It was missing any meat to explain the claims that calories do not count as much in the morning.
I do not think 6 weeks is long enough to allow for people to adapt to skipping breakfast. If you take a person very accustomed to eating breakfast and tell them to skip it, it should not really be a surprise their NEAT would drop. You look at that same person in a few months and I am willing to bet their NEAT would already be climbing back to near where it was.
Maybe.
One thing that struck me with both the videos is that there are likely differences between people, just based on what I see on MFP. I believe that there are people who are much more hungry if they skip breakfast, and so would do worse if they tried to force themselves to eat breakfast (whatever the results on average--and the results seemed to even out anyway). I also wouldn't be surprised if for those people activity didn't change breakfast or not. But if that's true (and I think we both think it is), I don't see why it isn't also possible that there are people who feel much more hungry if they don't have breakfast and react to missing breakfast by feeling less energetic and that that also isn't merely a result of habit.
Obviously studies would need to be carried out, but I find the idea that anyone could adjust to not eating breakfast (in terms of unplanned activity in the morning eventually being the same) but some cannot adjust to eating it to not really make sense.
You are right. Not just anyone can suddenly decide to skip breakfast. I should have worded my post better. I meant that anyone able to easily sustain it would most likely adjust and their NEAT would climb. I am very active in the morning and I have not eaten since lunch yesterday.2 -
So, if I force myself to eat breakfast, but I still crave that big evening meal with my family, and am not very good at watching other people eat yummy things while I have a tiny portion, what will happen? I think the odds are decent that I'll have compliance problems, and pretty easily slip often enough and far enough to eat back that 250-calorie benefit.
This is actually consistent with the videos (this was part 2).
(snip good recap)
So the conclusion, IMO, is that it's best to go with one's natural tendency to be a breakfast eater or not.
You uncovered my guilty secret: I did the lazy thing, and didn't watch the video, just commented on the OP.
SHAME!
I may watch the video tomorrow. This kind of stuff only catches my attention because I am interested in body rhythms if they offer an explanation for why my reactive hypoglycemia is more of an issue in the morning. That has never made a lot of sense to me.
It has also perplexed me that if I eat breakfast and even if I eat a macro profile that is safe for me I am much hungrier the rest of the day. That is an annoying "feature" to have on vacation.
If so, you should watch the one right before, which is part one.
I think circadian rhythms are interesting, although I find it hard to believe it matters that much just because I don't see the mechanism and because for me it was so easy to lose (at a faster rate than predicted) eating dinner at 9 most nights. Plus my work schedule is such that eating dinner late is hard to avoid. But although I think it's important to realize that personal schedule and ease matters most for sustainability (and that when one eats can't prevent a loss), I am open to the possibility that there is some circadian effect.
I find the differences between people with respect to breakfast interesting, and I think it's why any one size fits all advice about breakfast (or eating patterns generally) is going to be wrong. I'm actually doing a personal experiment this week of not eating breakfast (since I'm not doing pre-work workouts this week), and I do find that I naturally eat a bit less, and I'm not that hungry (I didn't eat breakfast for years when I was in my 20s and early 30s), but I think I'm going to start eating breakfast again anyway. For me (not for anyone else), it is just enjoyable to eat breakfast, fits my morning routine, and makes it easier to get in more veg/fruit and protein (this is partly because I hate snacking and three meals tend to give me about the cals I like at each most days). I don't find I am more or less hungry leading up to lunch when I eat breakfast or don't, absent a workout, but I do tend to be really hungry by mid-morning if I workout and then don't eat breakfast afterwards.
I am interested in what they do to insulin response which has nothing to do with weight loss.
I watched the video. It was missing any meat to explain the claims that calories do not count as much in the morning.
I do not think 6 weeks is long enough to allow for people to adapt to skipping breakfast. If you take a person very accustomed to eating breakfast and tell them to skip it, it should not really be a surprise their NEAT would drop. You look at that same person in a few months and I am willing to bet their NEAT would already be climbing back to near where it was.
Maybe.
One thing that struck me with both the videos is that there are likely differences between people, just based on what I see on MFP. I believe that there are people who are much more hungry if they skip breakfast, and so would do worse if they tried to force themselves to eat breakfast (whatever the results on average--and the results seemed to even out anyway). I also wouldn't be surprised if for those people activity didn't change breakfast or not. But if that's true (and I think we both think it is), I don't see why it isn't also possible that there are people who feel much more hungry if they don't have breakfast and react to missing breakfast by feeling less energetic and that that also isn't merely a result of habit.
Obviously studies would need to be carried out, but I find the idea that anyone could adjust to not eating breakfast (in terms of unplanned activity in the morning eventually being the same) but some cannot adjust to eating it to not really make sense.
(What follows is intended as an extension from the theme in conversational play here, not as any form of disagreement.)
I think it's important to keep in mind that in many aspects of human biology and behavior, probably including the timing and exact effects of circadian rhythms, there is a statistical distribution of individual humans around the means (averages) that are usually the core of "big picture" research findings.
Not everyone is average. Presumably some of these phenomena are quite narrow (small standard deviation, in a possibly slightly less than truly literal sense), with not much variation from individual to individual, and others more widely ranging.
Speculating wildly and from a position of near-total scientific ignorance on that theme, I'd expect the circadian rhythms to differ from person to person, and possibly quite a lot. (Human origins going back long enough - but not all the way - involved populations of people adapting to a huge range of weather, day-length, etc.; and now over the past 1000 or two years, we've been stirring those genetics together at increasing rates through increased human mobility and interbreeding of people of vastly different origins).
I'd also expect, just on general principles, that some people would be more sensitive in a biochemical sense to certain aspects of those rhythms, i.e., some individuals' genetics or circumstances might be more likely to override the circadian tendencies toward certain behavior, kind of (analogy) like some people are more strongly influenced behaviorally by probably-somewhat-hardwired tendencies to dislike bitter tastes. (Me, I like bitter ales. Lotta people think they taste like medicine (poison) ). I'm thinking differences in intra-body production of relevant biochemicals, or sensitivity of receptors to those chemicals, and that sort of thing. (Expression of biochemicals and sensitivity of receptors is certainly a consideration in other realms of human biology and behavior.)
I'd further expect that developmental or psychological events in a person's life could have such a strong influence as to override a certain amount of inborn biochemistry. (To exaggerate, if mama berated or beat the baby person for wanting food in the morning and locked them out of the house without breakfast routinely through childhood, it could make them overwhelmingly, non-negotiably attracted to "eating breakfast is necessary" in rebellion, or to "never eat breakfast" in order to "be a good grown-up baby", in ways that would behaviorally totally outweigh any subtle biological circadian tendencies. Who cares if it's the equivalent of placebo/nocebo effect - and it might be more than that: It's going to be pretty unavoidable adult truth, for some, I think.)
Given a distribution of tendencies across the population, the generic research results, though sound, may still not be the fully accurate guide for each and every individual, because there is underlying variation within the population, and - if nothing else - there are outliers.
TL;DR: Most human characteristics are discussed in the big picture in terms of the population averages/tendencies. Often, individuals exhibit a statistical distribution around that average, which may be a narrow distribution, or a wide one. (Sometimes the nature of the distribution is quite unclear.) It seems like this (the distribution) would make certain types of quite sound population research somewhat less meaningful for some individuals.
. . . (Ann T. looks dazed, shakes head, wide-eyed) . . . whooo, that was weird. 4 -
Given a distribution of tendencies across the population, the generic research results, though sound, may still not be the fully accurate guide for each and every individual, because there is underlying variation within the population, and - if nothing else - there are outliers.
TL;DR: Most human characteristics are discussed in the big picture in terms of the population averages/tendencies. Often, individuals exhibit a statistical distribution around that average, which may be a narrow distribution, or a wide one. (Sometimes the nature of the distribution is quite unclear.) It seems like this (the distribution) would make certain types of quite sound population research somewhat less meaningful for some individuals.
Yep, agree--that's a good way of stating the point I was also trying to make.
It's also why I repeated "(on average)" a few times when I was recapping the studies that were discussed (assuming they were discussed correctly).
To follow my own train of thought stemming from the discussion, I actually haven't noticed this as much on MFP as I used to, but it's why I think it's really counterproductive to try to decide what you do for weightloss or maintenance based on a few studies. Not only is the actual effect of whatever it is likely to be quite small (as you point out well whenever that kind of thing comes up, Ann), but it is of course likely to be outweighed by the benefits of doing what is most workable for your own lifestyle.
I get annoyed when people insist that eating by 6 (or whatnot) is important, even if there is some circadian rhythm effect (which I tend to suspect would be more about light than one set time anyway, and eating before dark this time of year would be rather difficult for almost everyone). First, I find it odd that people assume everyone can finish work and get home by 6, let alone cook by then. Second, I think valuing other things may be important. I personally like eating at home, and like cooking dinner (which is the most social meal often). This means I cannot eat by 6 or do IF without giving up something important to me (dinner or breakfast at home). Even if there were some tiny benefit, having an eating pattern that I like and that works for me is much more important, and likely overall more beneficial, and I think loading all these rules on people as to what is good or bad for weight loss is not helpful. Like I said before, I lost faster than predicted despite eating at 9 pm most nights.
(This is not a slam on the original post or the existence of these kinds of studies, which I find interesting, but to the misuse of studies in general as prescriptive advice about how one must lose weight.)3 -
Very interesting-thanks for the share! :-)0
-
So, if I force myself to eat breakfast, but I still crave that big evening meal with my family, and am not very good at watching other people eat yummy things while I have a tiny portion, what will happen? I think the odds are decent that I'll have compliance problems, and pretty easily slip often enough and far enough to eat back that 250-calorie benefit.
This is actually consistent with the videos (this was part 2).
(snip good recap)
So the conclusion, IMO, is that it's best to go with one's natural tendency to be a breakfast eater or not.
You uncovered my guilty secret: I did the lazy thing, and didn't watch the video, just commented on the OP.
SHAME!
I may watch the video tomorrow. This kind of stuff only catches my attention because I am interested in body rhythms if they offer an explanation for why my reactive hypoglycemia is more of an issue in the morning. That has never made a lot of sense to me.
It has also perplexed me that if I eat breakfast and even if I eat a macro profile that is safe for me I am much hungrier the rest of the day. That is an annoying "feature" to have on vacation.
If so, you should watch the one right before, which is part one.
I think circadian rhythms are interesting, although I find it hard to believe it matters that much just because I don't see the mechanism and because for me it was so easy to lose (at a faster rate than predicted) eating dinner at 9 most nights. Plus my work schedule is such that eating dinner late is hard to avoid. But although I think it's important to realize that personal schedule and ease matters most for sustainability (and that when one eats can't prevent a loss), I am open to the possibility that there is some circadian effect.
I find the differences between people with respect to breakfast interesting, and I think it's why any one size fits all advice about breakfast (or eating patterns generally) is going to be wrong. I'm actually doing a personal experiment this week of not eating breakfast (since I'm not doing pre-work workouts this week), and I do find that I naturally eat a bit less, and I'm not that hungry (I didn't eat breakfast for years when I was in my 20s and early 30s), but I think I'm going to start eating breakfast again anyway. For me (not for anyone else), it is just enjoyable to eat breakfast, fits my morning routine, and makes it easier to get in more veg/fruit and protein (this is partly because I hate snacking and three meals tend to give me about the cals I like at each most days). I don't find I am more or less hungry leading up to lunch when I eat breakfast or don't, absent a workout, but I do tend to be really hungry by mid-morning if I workout and then don't eat breakfast afterwards.
I am interested in what they do to insulin response which has nothing to do with weight loss.
I watched the video. It was missing any meat to explain the claims that calories do not count as much in the morning.
I do not think 6 weeks is long enough to allow for people to adapt to skipping breakfast. If you take a person very accustomed to eating breakfast and tell them to skip it, it should not really be a surprise their NEAT would drop. You look at that same person in a few months and I am willing to bet their NEAT would already be climbing back to near where it was.
Maybe.
One thing that struck me with both the videos is that there are likely differences between people, just based on what I see on MFP. I believe that there are people who are much more hungry if they skip breakfast, and so would do worse if they tried to force themselves to eat breakfast (whatever the results on average--and the results seemed to even out anyway). I also wouldn't be surprised if for those people activity didn't change breakfast or not. But if that's true (and I think we both think it is), I don't see why it isn't also possible that there are people who feel much more hungry if they don't have breakfast and react to missing breakfast by feeling less energetic and that that also isn't merely a result of habit.
Obviously studies would need to be carried out, but I find the idea that anyone could adjust to not eating breakfast (in terms of unplanned activity in the morning eventually being the same) but some cannot adjust to eating it to not really make sense.
[Good stuff]
I think it's important to keep in mind that in many aspects of human biology and behavior, probably including the timing and exact effects of circadian rhythms, there is a statistical distribution of individual humans around the means (averages) that are usually the core of "big picture" research findings.
[More good stuff]
I'd further expect that developmental or psychological events in a person's life could have such a strong influence as to override a certain amount of inborn biochemistry.
(Off-topic but relevant)
This has been something I've been thinking about lately after a conversation about BMI (how it's not real because "averages") followed by talking about studies confirming keto is the best (despite all studies using "averages"). I don't usually engage with these topics in real, but sometimes they make me think.
Studies using means is by default like saying "results may vary", especially for something as complex and full of lurking variables as weight. A study may be a good reference point for general tendencies, and a starting point if you're not sure where to start, but it will never be as good as a plan that is tweaked for personal sustainability.
It's interesting how our beliefs color how we see these studies (I'm also guilty of this sometimes). So, back to the topic (kinda). Since I don't hold any strong beliefs about breakfast (I sometimes eat it and sometimes don't), I noticed how more open I am to observations that lean either way and how interested I am in learning more about it because "my way" doesn't feel "challenged".2 -
In for the early morning zoomies due to a good breakfast!
(top secret code phrase is: 8888 )
5 -
I personally do not believe there will be any breakthroughs in calorie related weight loss science. Any breakthrough that is announced would need many duplicate studies and in general stand the course of time. Anyone can devise a 6 week study and seemingly proves that weight loss is increased or inhibited by certain criteria but unless it can be replicated over and over it does not make it true. It could easily mean there is a variable in the mix that is being overlooked or purposefully ignored so it can be used as clickbait fodder.
There are some interesting things but most of it deals with minute variations. It doesn't matter if you can burn fat at 3480 calorie per pound instead of 3500. It matters if you can stick to a plan long enough to burn the fat at any amount.8 -
I personally do not believe there will be any breakthroughs in calorie related weight loss science.
I both agree and disagree with your statement!
I don't think that there will be any earth shattering revelations in the near term that have not already been covered by past research.
The "game changer" will come together with other medical game changers when we start figuring out ways to tinker with hormones and cellular processes with less side effects as compared to now.
For example, if we accept even a 10% (much less my more favoured 20%) adaptive thermogenesis during a caloric reduction, and you could take a NO SIDE EFFECTS
drug that would turn that -20% to ZERO; or something that would counteract drops to leptin... you would have more efficient dieting and less chances of rebound weight gain.
Mind you, people using Caloric restriction seeking AT to slow down cellular regeneration and extend their life span, might misuse that drug, so there is that!2 -
I personally do not believe there will be any breakthroughs in calorie related weight loss science.
I both agree and disagree with your statement!
I don't think that there will be any earth shattering revelations in the near term that have not already been covered by past research.
The "game changer" will come together with other medical game changers when we start figuring out ways to tinker with hormones and cellular processes with less side effects as compared to now.
For example, if we accept even a 10% (much less my more favoured 20%) adaptive thermogenesis during a caloric reduction, and you could take a NO SIDE EFFECTS drug that would turn that -20% to ZERO; or something that would counteract drops to leptin... you would have more efficient dieting and less chances of rebound weight gain.
Mind you, people using Caloric restriction seeking AT to slow down cellular regeneration and extend their life span, might misuse that drug, so there is that!
But if you just stay the course, leptin is going to resettle.
The answer is already in the DNA. Dieters with AT just need to hang on for few months after hitting maintenance calories.
OR do the diet breaks thing.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1
Now I've gotta go watch your zoomies video. Please tell me it's cats. It's gotta be cats.3 -
Skyler (in the video) says, "Once. I do your bidding ONCE." 2
-
I personally do not believe there will be any breakthroughs in calorie related weight loss science.
I both agree and disagree with your statement!
I don't think that there will be any earth shattering revelations in the near term that have not already been covered by past research.
The "game changer" will come together with other medical game changers when we start figuring out ways to tinker with hormones and cellular processes with less side effects as compared to now.
For example, if we accept even a 10% (much less my more favoured 20%) adaptive thermogenesis during a caloric reduction, and you could take a NO SIDE EFFECTS drug that would turn that -20% to ZERO; or something that would counteract drops to leptin... you would have more efficient dieting and less chances of rebound weight gain.
Mind you, people using Caloric restriction seeking AT to slow down cellular regeneration and extend their life span, might misuse that drug, so there is that!
Assuming a drug like that is coming I wouldn't touch it for about 7 years. I would probably consider weight loss surgery a safer bet.2 -
Err.... yes..... very compliant cat video, that's it!
And I wouldn't want to touch any drugs like that for more than 7 years after, though, if I am still alive when they come online, I might volunteer as a test subject for their cousin drugs, cause, yeah, waiting may not be an option
@cmriverside I would argue that a combination of (default personal) behaviour patterns (due to conscious and unconscious reasons including medical issues) and hormonal push back (size and length and manner deficit was applied) are largely behind the: most of us regain within two years; but, good unicorns who go past the two year mark have more chances to keep going; super special unicorns who get to the 5 year mark have a good chance of becoming energizer bunnies!
And I want to be a bunny like you!
My personal experience was almost 3 years past intense weight loss (almost 2 years past slow loss) and TBH, I think the time of slow loss was instrumental in helping me stabilize in the beginning by keeping me more focused than if I had tried to immediately switch from loss to maintenance.1 -
I personally do not believe there will be any breakthroughs in calorie related weight loss science.
I both agree and disagree with your statement!
I don't think that there will be any earth shattering revelations in the near term that have not already been covered by past research.
The "game changer" will come together with other medical game changers when we start figuring out ways to tinker with hormones and cellular processes with less side effects as compared to now.
For example, if we accept even a 10% (much less my more favoured 20%) adaptive thermogenesis during a caloric reduction, and you could take a NO SIDE EFFECTS drug that would turn that -20% to ZERO; or something that would counteract drops to leptin... you would have more efficient dieting and less chances of rebound weight gain.
Mind you, people using Caloric restriction seeking AT to slow down cellular regeneration and extend their life span, might misuse that drug, so there is that!
What? If I starve myself I can be immortal?😳cmriverside wrote: »I personally do not believe there will be any breakthroughs in calorie related weight loss science.
I both agree and disagree with your statement!
I don't think that there will be any earth shattering revelations in the near term that have not already been covered by past research.
The "game changer" will come together with other medical game changers when we start figuring out ways to tinker with hormones and cellular processes with less side effects as compared to now.
For example, if we accept even a 10% (much less my more favoured 20%) adaptive thermogenesis during a caloric reduction, and you could take a NO SIDE EFFECTS drug that would turn that -20% to ZERO; or something that would counteract drops to leptin... you would have more efficient dieting and less chances of rebound weight gain.
Mind you, people using Caloric restriction seeking AT to slow down cellular regeneration and extend their life span, might misuse that drug, so there is that!
But if you just stay the course, leptin is going to resettle.
The answer is already in the DNA. Dieters with AT just need to hang on for few months after hitting maintenance calories.
OR do the diet breaks thing.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1
Now I've gotta go watch your zoomies video. Please tell me it's cats. It's gotta be cats.
I have been looking into this for a couple of years now. I think one of the reasons an elevated weight is sustained is because the hypothalamus becomes resistant to leptin. Thus leptin levels have to stay high for it to be "happy". Though what some of the research suggest, is there are some ways to help dampen this response. If we look at the DIETFIT studies, people lost weight without being prescribed an energy deficit. They just ate less. Inside the Kevin Hall unprocessed vs processed study, the subjects on the less refined diet spontaneously reduced their calories. Now we can argue mechanisms, but I think that lends itself to a less processed diet in general helping the hypothalamus be "happier" at a lower weight. There was a recent study that used a higher protein 1.6g/kg vs 0.8g/kg diet during and post weight reduction of 20% in overweight and obese subjects. They were brought back in a year later and the higher protein diet group shows none of the AT that usually comes with weight loss. That was even with the higher TEF of protein was equated. The "lower" protein group still showed persistent AT a year later. That lends itself to the idea that possibly
the amino acid Leucine having an effect on the hypothalamus. i personally believe now that the amount of deficit is irrelevant to long term maintenance. We see in the NWCR that people used various methods to lose weight and they are still maintaining. I think that one can reduce their adipose levels. Though, the longer one has been at a higher weight, the harder it becomes to maintain a lean level. I personally know that I had some hormonal issues at 240ish pounds. My LH dropped off and became kinda obsessed with food. Not hungry mind you, just obsessed. That's all n=1 data in my case, but lends to the idea that range is higher than the average person. There has been some rodent research that suggest this. I personally held my low weight for 18 months and my body never reset. After slowly regaining, it is getting better. Though I think it may take more for me to live a more normal life. Not complaining about this, just explaining my thoughts. Hugs @cmriverside ...1 -
I personally do not believe there will be any breakthroughs in calorie related weight loss science. Any breakthrough that is announced would need many duplicate studies and in general stand the course of time. Anyone can devise a 6 week study and seemingly proves that weight loss is increased or inhibited by certain criteria but unless it can be replicated over and over it does not make it true. It could easily mean there is a variable in the mix that is being overlooked or purposefully ignored so it can be used as clickbait fodder.
There are some interesting things but most of it deals with minute variations. It doesn't matter if you can burn fat at 3480 calorie per pound instead of 3500. It matters if you can stick to a plan long enough to burn the fat at any amount.
Well, the less processed idea has been shown in humans and animals. I actually find animal research MUCH more interesting. Using humans for research, especially diet studies, can be problematic imho. People will under report calories outside a metabolic ward and may change how much and what they eat inside a metabolic ward to "please" the researchers. Animals, on the other hand, dont. They simply rely on more "primitive" instincts. A rat will eat when offered food if it is hungry. The less processed idea has been repeated in multiple animal studies over the years. One just has to look for the research. While we like to think of ourselves as "above" animals cognitively, the more primitive parts of our brains are not that much different from a rat, even though we diverged from them millions of years ago. We have many of the basic survival instincts they have.1 -
About the only thing I will disagree with you there, is whether less processed means something specifically which I don't think it does or really translates to less hyper palatable and not presented in tiny easy to over-consume packages2
-
psychod787 wrote: »I personally do not believe there will be any breakthroughs in calorie related weight loss science. Any breakthrough that is announced would need many duplicate studies and in general stand the course of time. Anyone can devise a 6 week study and seemingly proves that weight loss is increased or inhibited by certain criteria but unless it can be replicated over and over it does not make it true. It could easily mean there is a variable in the mix that is being overlooked or purposefully ignored so it can be used as clickbait fodder.
There are some interesting things but most of it deals with minute variations. It doesn't matter if you can burn fat at 3480 calorie per pound instead of 3500. It matters if you can stick to a plan long enough to burn the fat at any amount.
Well, the less processed idea has been shown in humans and animals. I actually find animal research MUCH more interesting. Using humans for research, especially diet studies, can be problematic imho. People will under report calories outside a metabolic ward and may change how much and what they eat inside a metabolic ward to "please" the researchers. Animals, on the other hand, dont. They simply rely on more "primitive" instincts. A rat will eat when offered food if it is hungry. The less processed idea has been repeated in multiple animal studies over the years. One just has to look for the research. While we like to think of ourselves as "above" animals cognitively, the more primitive parts of our brains are not that much different from a rat, even though we diverged from them millions of years ago. We have many of the basic survival instincts they have.
If you are talking about hyperpalatable food it is something that food manufacturers have known for a long time. There may be research there to help prevent obesity but when it comes to losing weight outside of a rigid plan you have to exercise mindfulness.2 -
About the only thing I will disagree with you there, is whether less processed means something specifically which I don't think it does or really translates to less hyper palatable and not presented in tiny easy to over-consume packages
I will even say Hyperpalitable does not mean hyperprocessed or highly rewarding. People can take nova class 1and 2 foods and make higher reward through processing at home. There are foods that are hyperprocessed that I consider unpalatable, such as SPAM. There are less refined foodstuffs I have at home that are Hyperpalitable to me.. aka French fries.1 -
psychod787 wrote: »I personally do not believe there will be any breakthroughs in calorie related weight loss science.
I both agree and disagree with your statement!
I don't think that there will be any earth shattering revelations in the near term that have not already been covered by past research.
The "game changer" will come together with other medical game changers when we start figuring out ways to tinker with hormones and cellular processes with less side effects as compared to now.
For example, if we accept even a 10% (much less my more favoured 20%) adaptive thermogenesis during a caloric reduction, and you could take a NO SIDE EFFECTS drug that would turn that -20% to ZERO; or something that would counteract drops to leptin... you would have more efficient dieting and less chances of rebound weight gain.
Mind you, people using Caloric restriction seeking AT to slow down cellular regeneration and extend their life span, might misuse that drug, so there is that!
What? If I starve myself I can be immortal?😳cmriverside wrote: »I personally do not believe there will be any breakthroughs in calorie related weight loss science.
I both agree and disagree with your statement!
I don't think that there will be any earth shattering revelations in the near term that have not already been covered by past research.
The "game changer" will come together with other medical game changers when we start figuring out ways to tinker with hormones and cellular processes with less side effects as compared to now.
For example, if we accept even a 10% (much less my more favoured 20%) adaptive thermogenesis during a caloric reduction, and you could take a NO SIDE EFFECTS drug that would turn that -20% to ZERO; or something that would counteract drops to leptin... you would have more efficient dieting and less chances of rebound weight gain.
Mind you, people using Caloric restriction seeking AT to slow down cellular regeneration and extend their life span, might misuse that drug, so there is that!
But if you just stay the course, leptin is going to resettle.
The answer is already in the DNA. Dieters with AT just need to hang on for few months after hitting maintenance calories.
OR do the diet breaks thing.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1
Now I've gotta go watch your zoomies video. Please tell me it's cats. It's gotta be cats.
I have been looking into this for a couple of years now. I think one of the reasons an elevated weight is sustained is because the hypothalamus becomes resistant to leptin. Thus leptin levels have to stay high for it to be "happy". Though what some of the research suggest, is there are some ways to help dampen this response. If we look at the DIETFIT studies, people lost weight without being prescribed an energy deficit. They just ate less. Inside the Kevin Hall unprocessed vs processed study, the subjects on the less refined diet spontaneously reduced their calories. Now we can argue mechanisms, but I think that lends itself to a less processed diet in general helping the hypothalamus be "happier" at a lower weight. There was a recent study that used a higher protein 1.6g/kg vs 0.8g/kg diet during and post weight reduction of 20% in overweight and obese subjects. They were brought back in a year later and the higher protein diet group shows none of the AT that usually comes with weight loss. That was even with the higher TEF of protein was equated. The "lower" protein group still showed persistent AT a year later. That lends itself to the idea that possibly
the amino acid Leucine having an effect on the hypothalamus. i personally believe now that the amount of deficit is irrelevant to long term maintenance. We see in the NWCR that people used various methods to lose weight and they are still maintaining. I think that one can reduce their adipose levels. Though, the longer one has been at a higher weight, the harder it becomes to maintain a lean level. I personally know that I had some hormonal issues at 240ish pounds. My LH dropped off and became kinda obsessed with food. Not hungry mind you, just obsessed. That's all n=1 data in my case, but lends to the idea that range is higher than the average person. There has been some rodent research that suggest this. I personally held my low weight for 18 months and my body never reset. After slowly regaining, it is getting better. Though I think it may take more for me to live a more normal life. Not complaining about this, just explaining my thoughts. Hugs @cmriverside ...
Call me an ol' skepti-pants, and I know you read more research more carefully than I do, but I'm musing here on the relative sharpness of the in-play Occam's/Ockham's razor.
Sure, biochemistry, and hormones and settling points, those are things (though I'm a little skeptical about the settling points one, still).
But I still don't think it's irrelevant that satiation is time-delayed for most of us, and high-fiber, less-processed foods tend to be a little slower through the eat-cycle; and that those foods tend to be of a physically higher volume, which may have some satiating effect in itself (hormonal, or more literally physical? dunno). For sure, they require more digestive action, highly processed foods being in a sense kind of partially pre-digested for us. Dunno if that has satiation implications either, or if so, what the mechanism would be.
Protein and possibly more loss/maintenance, yeah, but satiation (hormonal or otherwise) and the influence on body comp are pretty gross-grain potential explainers, without necessarily digging down into other hormonal details. Was body comp change - if any - controlled for?
I don't have any proof to offer here, but I also feel like you might be speculating a bit beyond firmly-established research yourself, in ways that are very strongly colored by your personal experience (as don't we all ).
The trouble with non-human research is that they're not humans, of course. Yes, that makes them less psychologically complicated (or so we think), but it also makes them physiologically different in ways we don't really fully understand. In any case, simple stuff like speed of consumption and physical food volume may apply to them as to us, too.
I'm sure I'm over-influenced by my n=1, too: Got fat, obese, lost, now maintain on predominantly the same kinds of foods, foods mostly pretty low on the processing scale, just in noticeably smaller portions, and somewhat different proportions. So-called "hyperpalatable" foods did and still do mostly make me shudder - not even palatable, generally, let alone hyper.
Except old-school Taco Flavor Doritos, of course, and I just stay away from those now, mostly.:drinker: 5 -
FoodBodyChanges wrote: »CI/CO is true in a lab, lol! But not in a living human. Too many variables in play. Dr Greger lists factors other than straight CI/CO influencing weight loss (or gain) known to research in "How Not to Diet." He truly separates the hype from the facts ad only using peer reviewed double blind studies.
Could you explain what you mean by not in living humans? They don't use cadavers for metabolic ward studies that I've seen.
Double blind studies aren't always necessary. There isn't a way for someone to have placebo weight loss - metabolic pathways don't work that way. Which is lucky because blinding someone to their own diet is a pretty hard to sometimes impossible task.8 -
psychod787 wrote: »I personally do not believe there will be any breakthroughs in calorie related weight loss science.
I both agree and disagree with your statement!
I don't think that there will be any earth shattering revelations in the near term that have not already been covered by past research.
The "game changer" will come together with other medical game changers when we start figuring out ways to tinker with hormones and cellular processes with less side effects as compared to now.
For example, if we accept even a 10% (much less my more favoured 20%) adaptive thermogenesis during a caloric reduction, and you could take a NO SIDE EFFECTS drug that would turn that -20% to ZERO; or something that would counteract drops to leptin... you would have more efficient dieting and less chances of rebound weight gain.
Mind you, people using Caloric restriction seeking AT to slow down cellular regeneration and extend their life span, might misuse that drug, so there is that!
What? If I starve myself I can be immortal?😳cmriverside wrote: »I personally do not believe there will be any breakthroughs in calorie related weight loss science.
I both agree and disagree with your statement!
I don't think that there will be any earth shattering revelations in the near term that have not already been covered by past research.
The "game changer" will come together with other medical game changers when we start figuring out ways to tinker with hormones and cellular processes with less side effects as compared to now.
For example, if we accept even a 10% (much less my more favoured 20%) adaptive thermogenesis during a caloric reduction, and you could take a NO SIDE EFFECTS drug that would turn that -20% to ZERO; or something that would counteract drops to leptin... you would have more efficient dieting and less chances of rebound weight gain.
Mind you, people using Caloric restriction seeking AT to slow down cellular regeneration and extend their life span, might misuse that drug, so there is that!
But if you just stay the course, leptin is going to resettle.
The answer is already in the DNA. Dieters with AT just need to hang on for few months after hitting maintenance calories.
OR do the diet breaks thing.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1
Now I've gotta go watch your zoomies video. Please tell me it's cats. It's gotta be cats.
I have been looking into this for a couple of years now. I think one of the reasons an elevated weight is sustained is because the hypothalamus becomes resistant to leptin. Thus leptin levels have to stay high for it to be "happy". Though what some of the research suggest, is there are some ways to help dampen this response. If we look at the DIETFIT studies, people lost weight without being prescribed an energy deficit. They just ate less. Inside the Kevin Hall unprocessed vs processed study, the subjects on the less refined diet spontaneously reduced their calories. Now we can argue mechanisms, but I think that lends itself to a less processed diet in general helping the hypothalamus be "happier" at a lower weight. There was a recent study that used a higher protein 1.6g/kg vs 0.8g/kg diet during and post weight reduction of 20% in overweight and obese subjects. They were brought back in a year later and the higher protein diet group shows none of the AT that usually comes with weight loss. That was even with the higher TEF of protein was equated. The "lower" protein group still showed persistent AT a year later. That lends itself to the idea that possibly
the amino acid Leucine having an effect on the hypothalamus. i personally believe now that the amount of deficit is irrelevant to long term maintenance. We see in the NWCR that people used various methods to lose weight and they are still maintaining. I think that one can reduce their adipose levels. Though, the longer one has been at a higher weight, the harder it becomes to maintain a lean level. I personally know that I had some hormonal issues at 240ish pounds. My LH dropped off and became kinda obsessed with food. Not hungry mind you, just obsessed. That's all n=1 data in my case, but lends to the idea that range is higher than the average person. There has been some rodent research that suggest this. I personally held my low weight for 18 months and my body never reset. After slowly regaining, it is getting better. Though I think it may take more for me to live a more normal life. Not complaining about this, just explaining my thoughts. Hugs @cmriverside ...
Call me an ol' skepti-pants, and I know you read more research more carefully than I do, but I'm musing here on the relative sharpness of the in-play Occam's/Ockham's razor.
Sure, biochemistry, and hormones and settling points, those are things (though I'm a little skeptical about the settling points one, still).
But I still don't think it's irrelevant that satiation is time-delayed for most of us, and high-fiber, less-processed foods tend to be a little slower through the eat-cycle; and that those foods tend to be of a physically higher volume, which may have some satiating effect in itself (hormonal, or more literally physical? dunno). For sure, they require more digestive action, highly processed foods being in a sense kind of partially pre-digested for us. Dunno if that has satiation implications either, or if so, what the mechanism would be.
Protein and possibly more loss/maintenance, yeah, but satiation (hormonal or otherwise) and the influence on body comp are pretty gross-grain potential explainers, without necessarily digging down into other hormonal details. Was body comp change - if any - controlled for?
I don't have any proof to offer here, but I also feel like you might be speculating a bit beyond firmly-established research yourself, in ways that are very strongly colored by your personal experience (as don't we all ).
The trouble with non-human research is that they're not humans, of course. Yes, that makes them less psychologically complicated (or so we think), but it also makes them physiologically different in ways we don't really fully understand. In any case, simple stuff like speed of consumption and physical food volume may apply to them as to us, too.
I'm sure I'm over-influenced by my n=1, too: Got fat, obese, lost, now maintain on predominantly the same kinds of foods, foods mostly pretty low on the processing scale, just in noticeably smaller portions, and somewhat different proportions. So-called "hyperpalatable" foods did and still do mostly make me shudder - not even palatable, generally, let alone hyper.
Except old-school Taco Flavor Doritos, of course, and I just stay away from those now, mostly.:drinker:
Your scepticism is always welcome my "Atlas" of grannies!😘 in fact, I am a sceptic myself. People who are skeptical tend to dig deeper than what is commonly help belief. As far as body composition being controlled, I do not think it was. Which is a limitation of the study. What I did find very interesting is that their rmr was almost exactly the same in both groups. Which leads the reviewers of the study to speculate that the difference in "metabolism" was due to greater NEAT levels in the higher protein group. More speculation here.... we know from Libeil's studies on weight loss, skeletal muscle efficiency increases post weight reduction greater than what can be accounted for in mass loss. Also far greater than the RMR decrease that has been noted.One possibility is that the efficiency of the muscle in the higher protein group was far less. As far as challenging firmly held ideas... well yes ma'am.... I do. One thing that has been touted as showing what happens post weight reduction are the Minnesota Starvation Experiments. I have issues using it for obese and overweight folks. The subjects were lean already. Yes, they overshot their old weights, but eventually when back to near baseline.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions