In a calorie deficit, scale isn't moving, Split
Options
Replies
-
A couple of people were still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, Bart. I expect you just lost them too.2 -
I thought I made it abundantly clear that I agree with that. I called it a "caricature". I even highlighted the word with a red frame in the screen shot. The point was not about the exact numbers, nobody knows those and nobody can know those. It is just about the principle. If a person who has 5% of her/his body weight to lose, does what it takes to lose 5%, that person will be OK. If a person who has 60% of her/his body weight to lose, and that person does what it takes to lose 5%, that person will still be very far from OK.hmmm.... you may have screenshot the guideline but I still fear that your comprehension that it says 5% = 300 minutes ergo 10% = 600 minutes is incorrect.
I have ZERO argument with that. The only potential problem here is that IF a person does something gradual, that person may become very ill before reaching the goal or even die. My favourite example remains Angus Barbieri because his case is so extreme that there is no other that trumps his, but also because it gives us a reasonably plausible estimate for the fastest weight loss a human can possibly have by dieting, namely 327 g a day. That is 2,289 g a week. That is important, because it indicates that people who claim that they have a diet that will make you lose 10 kg a week, do not have credibility on their side. Who knows? It MIGHT be possible, but I definitely would like to see verifiable proof -not mere evidence- of that and I will not hold my breath until they do.I will also posit that you may be over-estimating the importance of a pre-set dosage and under-estimating the power of consistency, gradual improvement and different/good/better and evolving habits.
You don't need to set out to perform 20 minutes of 70% heart rate max exercise to see improvement.
All some of us may have needed to do to START, is walk to McDonald's and then back home as opposed to driving through the drive through. Just saying.
The main issue with averages is of course that he will have lost quite a bit more in the beginning and quite a bit less in the end phase, but then, many people are fooled by that phenomenon when they start their first diet (the NIH body weight planner is the only one I know that takes this rapid initial loss into account), because they see the kilos fly off, until a few days to a week later, where fat loss starts to peek through the noise of the waste and water loss of the beginning.
Another calculation one could make that is more in line with the "gradual" position is a constant deficit of 500 kcal. If a person has 10 kg to lose, assuming the agreed upon energy content of human fat is 7,700 kcal per kg, that is 77,000 kcal / 500 kcal or 154 days or 5 months. The first days/weeks... will be less painful, the last ones a bit more but the difference will not be particulary impressive.
Now, assuming the same 500 kcal and 7,700 kcal, a person needing to lose 60 kg will need 7,700 * 60 / 500 or 924 days or 2 years, 6 months and 14 days. Never have it said that this is what I claim. I do not, I am merely trying to point out that someone who has more to lose needs more time if doing it gradually. The problem with this is that the person stands a non-negligible chance of being dead before getting there and not even because of the energy deficit, but simply as a consequence of the obesity itself. That is one of the reasons bariatric surgery is considered and usually recommended for people who are very heavy. It is not because doctors are too stupid or too greedy to get it through their thick skulls that a patient can do it on her/his own, but because they are considering the dangers associated with being fat.
As luck will have it, there is a real-life example of someone avoiding bariatric surgery by diet alone below. It was posted yesterday. In six months, this man went down from 151 kg to 120.5 kg, a loss of 5 kg a month. That is no small feat. When I had reached 97.9 kg I changed my diet and lost 34.5 kg since then... which took me a few days more than 4 years and 1 month.
The segment is produced by the NDR, a major German television station, and they have several case reports on dieting for weight loss. They are interesting, because it shows that while the general approaches are the same, details can really vary from country to country (and doctor to doctor).
Here, the patient is complaining that doctors did not offer him an alternative to bariatric surgery. He survived, but some people of his age and his weight do not. He took the risk and it worked out, but would they have made the programme if he had died? Probably not, they only show success stories. I find that problematic because it gives people the wrong impression. Nevertheless, it *is* interesting to watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuL3Tp3j0UU
0 -
TL/dr: something wrong with 2.5 years?
60kg is 132lbs. A lot of people on this site have lost similar amounts, many of them quickly, and a few at a more leisurely pace. And most of us had a starting point above 120kg, because, let's face it, if we didn't we wouldn't have had an extra 60kg waiting to get lost!
Which means that a good number of us started as Class III obese.
Now I am not disputing that some Class III obese people ARE in immediate danger. Yes. There are many who are.
But beyond them there exist a good number of people who are not in immediate danger, but who are realizing that they are facing increased health risks as well as social and health related detriments. A loss of even 14 years of life expectancy does NOT equal almost guaranteed death during the next 5 years for most of us!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4087039/ "The estimated 6.5 to 13.7 y of life lost for BMI values between 40 and 59 kg/m2 versus 18.5–24.9 kg/m2 were in line with those of a previous pooled analysis that found that individuals with BMI values of 35–50 kg/m2 had a median 8–10 fewer years of life than those with BMI 22.5–24.9 kg/m2 [2]. Our study further demonstrates that the expected number of years of life lost continued to increase for BMI values beyond 50 kg/m2, at which point the loss in life expectancy (9.8 y) exceeded that observed for current versus never smoking (8.9 y) in this study"
So, considering that we are dealing with how to manage a chronic condition... knowing that you will be spending the next 5+ years managing your condition and you should develop strategies that will allow you to do so is NOT a terrible burden to impose on the brain of someone starting out.
To the contrary, it is probably a dis-service to make someone believe that losing the weight in a fire and forget manner is all they will have to do, and somewhat helpful, I believe, to convince them that they should view the time of weight loss as an opportunity to START on a process of gradual substitution and change.
I found MFP ready to give up because I was trying to apply unsustainable deficits. Kind-a-happy that I didn't. And that I realized that sustainability was more important than speed, which allowed me to ease up before it was too late.
P.S. I am currently at 163lbs, halfway through 2016. I just pulled the past 180 days (165 logged between July 28, 2022 and today), and I can see that I've been eating 3081 Cal on average... which explains why I am heading up. AND also shows the elasticity that (sometimes) exists both going up and going down. My expected weight gain would be over 7.5lbs, but the actual is closer to 52 -
Who am I to contradict a clairvoyant?A consensus? Hardly. You have selected some resources and are distilling down to a conclusion that is not sound.
I thought I made it clear that this is a personal view, nothing else. I loathe working out, and I love physical activity. The difference, for me, is that "working out" is activity as a goal while "activity" is activity as a means to get something done. Other people may have other views, there is nothing wrong with that, but this is the way I approach it. I do not drive my car to the gym, but I walk to the grocery store.It’s also not helpful to split hairs about “working out” vs. “activity.” Both burn calories, [snip]
I have never said otherwise, and I have even given examples of it. I usually quote the Biggest Loser because there can be no doubt there. The point is merely, and that is also what you will find in the literature, that most people struggle to get to that point. For the rest, calories are units to measure energy, the source of that energy does not matter in any way.[snip]and if I reduce my food intake by 250 calories per day and burn 250 through any type of activity/exercise, they are equal contributors to my weight loss.
Well then, let me help you out:I’ll take a long walk so I can have ice cream, thank you. I know zero doctors that would EVER just blatantly say that exercise doesn’t matter for weight loss.
This is a well-known doctor who also writes for the New York Times:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCtn4Ap8kDM
This is Robert Baron, a professor of medicine at UCSF:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=yzqvgRrNCQM&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE&t=920
So now, you know two. Your statement is no longer true.
You do whatever you want to do. I have never said that you are not allowed to do what you want to do. My standpoint is simply that the choice of a person who is in possession of less information is making less of a conscious choice and more of an arbitrary one.The combo of diet and activity makes it a sustainable weight loss plan. Yes, sustainable! Not because I will sustain the calorie deficit until I waste away and die, but because I am learning how to comfortably sustain a balance of in/out.
I could almost predict this was coming up. I am NOT comparing this to the COVID crisis. I am trying to illustrate how people make mistakes in reasoning by showing another error in reasoning. COVID is simply the first example I was thinking of. Maybe I should learn to add something like:Edited to add: Bart, comparing this to the COVID crisis… 🙄*****************************************************
*****************************************************
THIS IS NOT A COMPARISON OF SUBJECTS
BUT AN ANALOGY TO SHOW HOW
REASONING ****CAN*** BE WRONG.
*****************************************************
*****************************************************
2 -
TL/dr: something wrong with 2.5 years?
60kg is 132lbs. A lot of people on this site have lost similar amounts, many of them quickly, and a few at a more leisurely pace. And most of us had a starting point above 120kg, because, let's face it, if we didn't we wouldn't have had an extra 60kg waiting to get lost!
Which means that a good number of us started as Class III obese.
Now I am not disputing that some Class III obese people ARE in immediate danger. Yes. There are many who are.
But beyond them there exist a good number of people who are not in immediate danger, but who are realizing that they are facing increased health risks as well as social and health related detriments. A loss of even 14 years of life expectancy does NOT equal almost guaranteed death during the next 5 years for most of us!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4087039/ "The estimated 6.5 to 13.7 y of life lost for BMI values between 40 and 59 kg/m2 versus 18.5–24.9 kg/m2 were in line with those of a previous pooled analysis that found that individuals with BMI values of 35–50 kg/m2 had a median 8–10 fewer years of life than those with BMI 22.5–24.9 kg/m2 [2]. Our study further demonstrates that the expected number of years of life lost continued to increase for BMI values beyond 50 kg/m2, at which point the loss in life expectancy (9.8 y) exceeded that observed for current versus never smoking (8.9 y) in this study"
So, considering that we are dealing with how to manage a chronic condition... knowing that you will be spending the next 5+ years managing your condition and you should develop strategies that will allow you to do so is NOT a terrible burden to impose on the brain of someone starting out.
To the contrary, it is probably a dis-service to make someone believe that losing the weight in a fire and forget manner is all they will have to do, and somewhat helpful, I believe, to convince them that they should view the time of weight loss as an opportunity to START on a process of gradual substitution and change.
I found MFP ready to give up because I was trying to apply unsustainable deficits. Kind-a-happy that I didn't. And that I realized that sustainability was more important than speed, which allowed me to ease up before it was too late.
You do not need to prove that to me. I know that. The problem is that we only know that when the diet is (almost) over, it is something we cannot predict, even if we can guess/estimatem but that is not the same as certainty and people who were thought to be safe sometimes die, and that is tragic for the family... and come the lawsuits claiming that there was malpractice and incompetence, something that is almost always impossible to prove.
That is why it is a judgment call. Some doctors will tell the patient he/she should try, others will say it is better not to. In this precise example, the patient, after having been informed CHOSE not to go with the surgery. He survived. But what would have happened if he died? He would not have appeared in the programme.
Of that point I have, sadly, been confronted very recently with exactly that, albeit not with obesity but with recreational drug use. I was trying to help out with a difficult case who was continuously telling me that I was wrong. Who knows? I could very well have been wrong. What did I tell him? That people who are singing the delights of recreational drugs on several Internet fora, are always survivors. The dead ones or the mentally destroyed ones never come back to tell their tale: they are too busy being dead or too busy being locked in for their own protection. The point of that is that these sites are giving people a skeqed impression of the safety of recreational drugs.
Well, he is not going to go back to those fora either. He died exactly, to the day, 3 months ago...of an overdose. I sacrificed more than 15 years of my life to him. It was in vain. I was warned by others who had tried that failure was almost guaranteed. I acknowledged the warnings and invested my time anyway. It was a failure. The point is, it was not predictable and life is precious to me. Do I now regret it? Not for a second. I did my best to help and it was not enough. I would have never forgiven myself for not trying.
To protect against the accusation in a previous comment: I am NOT comparing obesity with drug use. I am just giving another example of how unpredictability means exactly that. I often also use the lottery as an example. Reality is that, if you buy a ticket, you will not win. If anyone else buys a ticket, that person will not win. However, there *are* winners almost every week. People are only shown the winners. Nobody wants to see the losers. And they couldn't. There are millions of those, also almost every week.
You survived, so did I. There are many of those cases. We don't know the ones that are dead because they can no longer tell the tale. They will not come to MFP to tell their story, so many people will not be aware these cases are -sadly- very real.
As for the numbers you are giving, I know those, but it is great that you mention them. Far too many people do not know them and, alas, even (I think) far more people do not understand the nature of statistics: they have no predictive value. It is something that is routinely shown in commercials/advertisements for investments: "past performance is not indicative of future results". Even worse (perhaps), is that too many people do not understand that the numbers used in medicine are markers, screening tools, based on population studies and that they have less than stellar predictive value or even diagnostic value for the individual.
A good example of that would indeed be the BMI classes. When you have a BMI of 24.999 you are of healthy weight, when you have a BMI of 25.001 you are overweight. The difference between the two is ridiculous. They are exactly the same from a clinical standpoint. Unfortunately, that is equally true for all other points on the scale. Of course, my example is rather extreme but I am just trying to be as unambiguous as I can. The CDC has tried to address that:
It is my opinion that some people will have a problem with that solution. I prefer to use: "Healthy weight is ≥18.5 and <25.0, but I have been heavily criticised for that. There comes a point where one just has to accept that not everyone communicates in the same way. I don't like it, I actually hate it, but I have learned -with difficulty- to accept it, at least most of the time and I have no idea whether "most" stands for 50.01% or 99.999% ^_^.
I often compare that problem with that of Richard Dawkins when he tried to explain that there never was a "first human". He used the human lifespan as an example (among others): from day to day, babies look exactly the same. But, when you look after a few weeks/months/years/decades, the changes are phenomenal. So, when does a baby become something that looks like an adult? And when exactly does that adult morph into an old person? All categories are largely arbitrary.
What you are seeing is indeed what everybody sees. So do I.P.S. I am currently at 163lbs, halfway through 2016. I just pulled the past 180 days (165 logged between July 28, 2022 and today), and I can see that I've been eating 3081 Cal on average... which explains why I am heading up. AND also shows the elasticity that (sometimes) exists both going up and going down. My expected weight gain would be over 7.5lbs, but the actual is closer to 5.
And you are completely correct, there is indeed some elasticity. I have the same experience. It is also logical. We don't only have reserves in our fat stores but also distributed just about everywhere else. One of the first things I learned in med school was the case of vitamin C. It was known to be a water-soluble vitamin that cannot be stored, except that it can and is, and it had been known for a very log time, but we don't much about how and where. If that were not the case, people who have no access to vitamin C would start to develop disease and drop dead almost immediately when they don't get any. However, people don't experience that. So, we *postulate* that there are reserves of Vitamin C, possibly/probably in the interstitial fluids but we don't really know much with certainty.
That is why I always say that an energy deficit is guaranteed to lead to fat weight loss, but that there is some wiggle room at the other end, because not everyone is able to extract all the available energy out of their food. That said, if there is no energy excess, there cannot possibly be fat weight gain for if that happened, the person would not survive, at least not for very long, a few days perhaps, who knows? Some people call that "all calories are not created equal". I see that as a misnomer and a very misleading statement because it leads some people to think that we eat calories, and we don't. We eat molecules that can be(and hopefully are ^_^) processed to generate usable energy.
What you mention as your daily intake is a lot higher than mine, but, I am still in a weight loss phase, even if the end of that phase is coming closer. I have several strategies for the maintenance phase in mind, and I started to experiment with them, but I am very careful. After all, energy content i not the only thing to take into account. Nevertheless, I started, because the last thing I need is descending into underweight or shooting up into overweight again, but nobody knows what my ideal weight is. Right now, at 63.4 kg I am of "normal" weight, but no doctor who sees me will actually think that, and they don't. I hear the expression "you could stand to lose a few pounds" more often than is agreeable. On the other hand, if there is any iminent danger, it is highly unlikely to be a weight issue, and I have no other known conditions that could be life threatening. We have to be thankful for small favours.
For the rest, I agree with you even if I usually formulate it somewhat differently. Many people call it "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" and Robert Baron calls it "if you can't have the best, take the better option".
As for the Fibit, how does that work out for you? I have had one for a few days, but it didn't work for me. I still have a Powerwatch 2, but that was essentially a fraud. I quite liked it because you *never* have to recharge it... until you do, and returning it is no longer possible.1 -
One good thing - mods splitting the threads.
If anyone wants to post long convoluted irelevant posts - generally best to start your own thread - even use the debate section which is specifically for debating
Of course even in debate one should stick to the topic - but at least it isnt hijacking any OP's personal threads.
6 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
As for the numbers you are giving, I know those, but it is great that you mention them. Far too many people do not know them and, alas, even (I think) far more people do not understand the nature of statistics: they have no predictive value.
Actually, statistics DO have predictive value. That's the way science works. A well-designed experiment starts with a null hypothesis and a research design that asks a question to try to disprove the null hypothesis. Data are collected. Typically it's a sample that should be large enough to make inference on a larger population. That population DOES have to be defined. It may or may not be all humanity; a good scientific design identifies the population. Statistical analysis can show if the hypothesis was disproved. It can never be proved, but it can be disproved which lends support to the alternate hypothesis, which is the point of the experiment. Then, similar data can be used to make predictions about populations and sometimes individuals. That's how science works. Statistics allow us to make predictions. The bigger the sample size, and the less variability in the data, the stronger the predictions are.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »That is why I always say that an energy deficit is guaranteed to lead to fat weight loss,
Ladies and gentlemen; Here it is. Finally what I've been asking for all along. An admission that a calorie deficit leads to fat loss. Rational people recognize that a combination of the amount of calories eaten and the amount of calories oxidized by normal daily activity AND EXERCISE are part of the calorie balance equation. Quod erat demonstrandum (QED). Thank you.
Oh well, too bad I'm set on "ignore" because Bart won't ever see this. But most others who are trying to be entertained by this circus might.
9 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
As for the numbers you are giving, I know those, but it is great that you mention them. Far too many people do not know them and, alas, even (I think) far more people do not understand the nature of statistics: they have no predictive value.
Actually, statistics DO have predictive value. That's the way science works. A well-designed experiment starts with a null hypothesis and a research design that asks a question to try to disprove the null hypothesis. Data are collected. Typically it's a sample that should be large enough to make inference on a larger population. That population DOES have to be defined. It may or may not be all humanity; a good scientific design identifies the population. Statistical analysis can show if the hypothesis was disproved. It can never be proved, but it can be disproved which lends support to the alternate hypothesis, which is the point of the experiment. Then, similar data can be used to make predictions about populations and sometimes individuals. That's how science works. Statistics allow us to make predictions. The bigger the sample size, and the less variability in the data, the stronger the predictions are.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »That is why I always say that an energy deficit is guaranteed to lead to fat weight loss,
Ladies and gentlemen; Here it is. Finally what I've been asking for all along. An admission that a calorie deficit leads to fat loss. Rational people recognize that a combination of the amount of calories eaten and the amount of calories oxidized by normal daily activity AND EXERCISE are part of the calorie balance equation. Quod erat demonstrandum (QED). Thank you.
Oh well, too bad I'm set on "ignore" because Bart won't ever see this. But most others who are trying to be entertained by this circus might.
Great analysis!
Even I, not the greatest in the sciences and math (I'm into art and color), understood this. Thanks.
5 -
snowflake954 wrote: »BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
As for the numbers you are giving, I know those, but it is great that you mention them. Far too many people do not know them and, alas, even (I think) far more people do not understand the nature of statistics: they have no predictive value.
Actually, statistics DO have predictive value. That's the way science works. A well-designed experiment starts with a null hypothesis and a research design that asks a question to try to disprove the null hypothesis. Data are collected. Typically it's a sample that should be large enough to make inference on a larger population. That population DOES have to be defined. It may or may not be all humanity; a good scientific design identifies the population. Statistical analysis can show if the hypothesis was disproved. It can never be proved, but it can be disproved which lends support to the alternate hypothesis, which is the point of the experiment. Then, similar data can be used to make predictions about populations and sometimes individuals. That's how science works. Statistics allow us to make predictions. The bigger the sample size, and the less variability in the data, the stronger the predictions are.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »That is why I always say that an energy deficit is guaranteed to lead to fat weight loss,
Ladies and gentlemen; Here it is. Finally what I've been asking for all along. An admission that a calorie deficit leads to fat loss. Rational people recognize that a combination of the amount of calories eaten and the amount of calories oxidized by normal daily activity AND EXERCISE are part of the calorie balance equation. Quod erat demonstrandum (QED). Thank you.
Oh well, too bad I'm set on "ignore" because Bart won't ever see this. But most others who are trying to be entertained by this circus might.
Great analysis!
Even I, not the greatest in the sciences and math (I'm into art and color), understood this. Thanks.
I am a recovering scientist. I spent part of my career as faculty on a respected research University. I am retired, and I no longer "science." But I still know how it is supposed to work.
At the same time, an unscrupulous person can cherry-pick statistics to make an argument that isn't true. The REAL challenge is good experimental design. Many experiments aren't designed well, or the data really aren't high quality.
We read a book in grad school called "Shark Attack." It's out of print. It was when the US Navy was looking into when and why sharks "attack." As a SCUBA diver, I know they don't usually "attack" people, they usually mistake us as lunch. We aren't tasty, but the interaction can be devastating or fatal. There were ideas about sharks. One was that "most attacks happen close to shore." The author of the study looked at the data and concluded that most people who are in the ocean are close to shore. It's not that sharks are more likely to bite a person if that person is close to shore, it's just where those people are. A similar idea was that sharks attack in water around a certain temperature. Yep. You guessed it - that is around the temperature where people are comfortable in the water. The temperature doesn't induce sharks to bite; there's just more opportunities because there are people in the water.3 -
Well, there goes my New Year's resolution. I'm going to keep arguing on the Internet even though it won't land.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
I thought I made it clear that this is a personal view, nothing else. I loathe working out, and I love physical activity. The difference, for me, is that "working out" is activity as a goal while "activity" is activity as a means to get something done. Other people may have other views, there is nothing wrong with that, but this is the way I approach it. I do not drive my car to the gym, but I walk to the grocery store.It’s also not helpful to split hairs about “working out” vs. “activity.” Both burn calories, [snip]
Right. That's why I said it's not helpful to split hairs. I also do not "work out"--my exercise of choice is to walk everywhere.
I have never said otherwise, and I have even given examples of it. I usually quote the Biggest Loser because there can be no doubt there. The point is merely, and that is also what you will find in the literature, that most people struggle to get to that point. For the rest, calories are units to measure energy, the source of that energy does not matter in any way.[snip]and if I reduce my food intake by 250 calories per day and burn 250 through any type of activity/exercise, they are equal contributors to my weight loss.
You have indeed said otherwise. You've said that exercise doesn't matter for weight loss. (I'm paraphrasing; you've said it many ways). In my example, exercise is 50% of the calorie reduction.
Well then, let me help you out:I’ll take a long walk so I can have ice cream, thank you. I know zero doctors that would EVER just blatantly say that exercise doesn’t matter for weight loss.
This is a well-known doctor who also writes for the New York Times:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCtn4Ap8kDM
This is Robert Baron, a professor of medicine at UCSF:https://youtube.com/watch?v=yzqvgRrNCQM&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE&t=920
So now, you know two. Your statement is no longer true.
Ah. Now we're getting somewhere. Both of these doctors stress the importance of calorie reduction from food. I wholeheartedly agree, and so do many others on this thread. In the second video (the talk on obesity), he said something like, "You spend 45 minutes on the stair climber and see it burned 300 calories and you just ate a 1200 calorie muffin." What I take away is that exercise is not going to help as much as eating less for losing weight. I can agree that this is probably the medical consensus, especially when we look at average statistical results.
But doesn't the example I gave above (where I've reduced my food intake by 250 calories below what I burn and increased my activity to burn 250 additional calories) make it true that exercise does matter for those who do it that way? Like lots and lots of us on MFP who are doing it that way?
It seems to be really important for you to make sure the MFP community knows that exercise doesn't matter. Why?
You do whatever you want to do. I have never said that you are not allowed to do what you want to do. My standpoint is simply that the choice of a person who is in possession of less information is making less of a conscious choice and more of an arbitrary one.The combo of diet and activity makes it a sustainable weight loss plan. Yes, sustainable! Not because I will sustain the calorie deficit until I waste away and die, but because I am learning how to comfortably sustain a balance of in/out.
I could have saved myself some thought and just snipped your rebuttal here, because why would you argue with what I've said here?
Also, it's incredibly presumptuous to assume anyone has less information than you and is therefore making an arbitrary choice.
I could almost predict this was coming up. I am NOT comparing this to the COVID crisis. I am trying to illustrate how people make mistakes in reasoning by showing another error in reasoning. COVID is simply the first example I was thinking of. Maybe I should learn to add something like:Edited to add: Bart, comparing this to the COVID crisis… 🙄*****************************************************
*****************************************************
THIS IS NOT A COMPARISON OF SUBJECTS
BUT AN ANALOGY TO SHOW HOW
REASONING ****CAN*** BE WRONG.
*****************************************************
*****************************************************
I get what you're trying to do, it's just not a useful analogy and even (gasp) wades into the false-logic pool. Weight loss is a widely studied field with lots and lots of information and data published, read, reread, retooled, updated, compared, contrasted, changed, [add your own verb] for decades. When COVID hit, we had to make fast decisions and put our trust in experts who were also learning at the same time, and it was scary.
4 -
Well, in that case, you may want to try to understand why some types of (dis)information lead some people to believe that calories are just physics and don't apply to human physiology:Rockmama1111 wrote: »Also, it's incredibly presumptuous to assume anyone has less information than you and is therefore making an arbitrary choice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DboTyNu-FLk&t=507s
Jason Fung is generally regarded as a quack, even if he is a genuine nephrologist, but there is far more than him.
Here is Tim Spector, a professor of genetic epidemiology:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66hWntvp0_4
This is painful to watch, because a lot of what he says really is established science. He is just adding a sauce that some people may well like and wish to be true, but is not.
And here is Giles Yeo, a professor of molecular neuroendocrinology giving a lecture at the Royal Institution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQJ0Z0DRumg
This lecture is especially painful to me because this is really an excellent lecture. It is essentially only the title and a bit at the very end that is really objectionable. There is also a Q&A and that is equally excellent, arguably even better:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5F0x1HZSBs
0 -
And believe it or not, there are people who should know better that claim exercise doesn't count towards creating a calorie deficit. Not sure who that might be, but I've heard there are people who espouse that.7
-
While on the phone last night I didn't have time to quote the utter nonsense above, so I just replied then with Chappelle's "I didn't put my feet on Charlie Murphy's couch", immediately followed by video of him doing that and saying that.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »Note that I did NOT write that losing weight is dying. I wrote that losing weight is taking in less energy than you need to stay alive. Most people don't die from that: they use their energy stores to get that energy. Once those energy stores are depleted, their body starts to cannibalise itself and the person eventually dies, but –and that is something I usually don't mention because it doesn't change anything related to energy– it is *possible* though not certain, that the person will continue to live for some time but with death as a guaranteed outcome no matter the therapies that are tried to save her/him: if death is caused by lack of energy intake, the person will lose the ability to synthesise protein at some point and die, I assume rather painfully, but I have never seen a credible report on that.
In other words, you must be taking in less energy than you need to stay alive, or you will not lose weight
Ludicrous stuff. LOL.4 -
Impressive dfferences made by exercise:A meta-analysis of the past 25 years of weight loss research using diet, exercise or diet plus exercise intervention
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9347414/
An increase of a whopping 300 g attributable to exercise on a diet total of 10.7 kg or a difference of 2.8%. If that doesn't show that exercise is useless for weight loss, I don't know what is. The difference is so tiny that it doesn't even make plausible sense. Any statistician will be able to tell you that this difference is meaningless.
And yes, the difference made by exercise only is a bit bigger, but it is small nonetheless and it is at leat seemingly contradicted by the diet+exercise results.
And that difference isn't even included in the conclusion:
That said, this is an abstract, and abstracts are notoriously unreliable, which is why no one should rely on them.0 -
Same for this one:Diet, exercise or diet with exercise: comparing the effectiveness of treatment options for weight-loss and changes in fitness for adults (18-65 years old) who are overfat, or obese; systematic review and meta-analysis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25973403/
I can not repeat it enough: no one is rubbishing exercise for health, but as an intervention for weight loss it is useless, unless you take it to extremes most people will never be able to reach. Exceptions exist, the Biggest Loser is a prime example of that, but even they used a calorie-restricted diet in combination with the ridiculously high and intense amounts of exercise.0 -
No one claims there is no science. However, that science confirms exactly what medicine claims: that exercise is next to useless for weight loss, and that goes against what exercise proponents like to claim.
This is the only "positive" one of the three. It is an abstract. Abstracts are notoriously unreliable and no ethical scientist would take them at face value.Efficacy of Exercise Intervention for Weight Loss in Overweight and Obese Adolescents: Meta-Analysis and Implications
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27139723/
As a result, we have no idea what type of intervention was made and we cannot conclude anything, except for surmising that it is *possible* to lose weight with exercise. No one claims otherwise since exercise does use energy and we can therefore guarantee that no one will gain fat weight because of exercise, but we don't need a vague abstract to know that.
Reality is that established medicine teaches that exercise is largely a waste of time for weight loss. It is great for many other things, but not for weight loss.0 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Impressive dfferences made by exercise:A meta-analysis of the past 25 years of weight loss research using diet, exercise or diet plus exercise intervention
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9347414/
An increase of a whopping 300 g attributable to exercise on a diet total of 10.7 kg or a difference of 2.8%. If that doesn't show that exercise is useless for weight loss, I don't know what is. The difference is so tiny that it doesn't even make plausible sense. Any statistician will be able to tell you that this difference is meaningless.
And yes, the difference made by exercise only is a bit bigger, but it is small nonetheless and it is at leat seemingly contradicted by the diet+exercise results.
And that difference isn't even included in the conclusion:
That said, this is an abstract, and abstracts are notoriously unreliable, which is why no one should rely on them.
Looks to me like exercise makes a pretty big difference.
If diet alone will get you a 10.7 kg loss and exercise alone will get you a 2.9 kg loss, exercise alone without making any changes in diet will achieve 27% of the weight loss as diet alone. That is far from insignificant. It's actually much larger than I would have thought. It is interesting you don't acknowledge that this is VERY significant. Not surprising because your thesis is that exercise is useless for weight loss. Once again, THE NUMBERS YOU PROVIDED show otherwise.
It's odd indeed that combining the two only shows a 3% greater weight reduction than diet alone.
This is also a year later, right? So people who did diet plus exercise may have given up at some point in all that time. Who knows? Not me. Could be problems with the research. Also, to discount a 3% increase in loss rate as unimportant is disingenuous in my opinion.
2 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Impressive dfferences made by exercise:A meta-analysis of the past years of weight loss research using diet, exercise or diet plus exercise intervention
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9347414/
An increase of a whopping 300 g attributable to exercise on a diet total of 10.7 kg or a difference of 2.8%. If that doesn't show that exercise is useless for weight loss, I don't know what is. The difference is so tiny that it doesn't even make plausible sense. Any statistician will be able to tell you that this difference is meaningless.
And yes, the difference made by exercise only is a bit bigger, but it is small nonetheless and it is at leat seemingly contradicted by the diet+exercise results.
And that difference isn't even included in the conclusion:
That said, this is an abstract, and abstracts are notoriously unreliable, which is why no one should rely on them.
Once again, what people generally are saying here is to account for your exercise calories in plotting your path to weight loss. I haven't seen anyone here in this thread say "rely on only exercise for your weight loss". (I've seen a tiny number of people in other threads say that's what they actually did, FWIW.)
Let's say it really is 2.8% of calories (which I know is not the same as weight loss), but it's a nice low percent. Would we suggest that someone ignore 2.8% of their food calories? No. We'd tell them to log that food, account for it, as accurately as practical, without obsessing. (There is actual research about how to do estimates for exercise. Perfect and precise? No. But it's not that hard to reach the "within 20%" kind of accuracy that's claimed for food labels, for many types of exercise.)
Do we tell a bricklayer's apprentice who's remodeling their house in off-hours to use the same activity level setting as a reference library who sits at a desk all day then knits while watching TV in the evening? No. We tell people to account for that difference as they plan their path to weight loss.
That's the message for exercise, too. Some people exercise more. Some people exercise less. They should account for that as part of the overall calorie balance picture. That's it.
You don't have to exercise. But don't tell other people who do exercise to ignore exercise calories when they're calorie counting, any more than you'd tell them to ignore calories from healthy foods because nutritious foods are mostly for health, and there's evidence that people lose weight about the same way on equal calories of Twinkies or McDonald's meals. (<= intentional exaggeration).
Exercise calories are part of calorie balance. Log exercise separately, get an even more approximate estimate by considering exercise load in TDEE, either can work. Ignoring exercise calorie expenditure is a bad plan, unless exercise level is trivial.
5 -
I love the irony that I started reading this thread on the sofa then decided if I read it whilst easy riding on the bike it would help me to make calorie deficit for the day, knowing I have indulgent meals planned for later in the day.
It took me around 45-50mins to read all the pages during which I burned 382 calories
winning!
Exercise is critical for me personally to achieve calorie deficit without feeling like I’m ‘starving’ myself. But then I enjoy exercise, clearly Bart did not. It’s important to remember we’re all different. Some of us thrive on the endorphins from a good workout and don’t see it as a ‘chore’ or ‘torture’ or even indeed unpleasant at all.3 -
sarabushby wrote: »I love the irony that I started reading this thread on the sofa then decided if I read it whilst easy riding on the bike it would help me to make calorie deficit for the day, knowing I have indulgent meals planned for later in the day.
It took me around 45-50mins to read all the pages during which I burned 382 calories winning!
Exercise is critical for me personally to achieve calorie deficit without feeling like I’m ‘starving’ myself. But then I enjoy exercise, clearly Bart did not. It’s important to remember we’re all different. Some of us thrive on the endorphins from a good workout and don’t see it as a ‘chore’ or ‘torture’ or even indeed unpleasant at all.
It's a pity that this thread is in Health and Weight Loss, rather than Debate Club.
If it were in Debate Club, I'd observe that cognitive biases (such as rationalization) are anyone's right at n=1, even if the end result may be objectively dysfunctional. Idiosyncrasies are part of what make other people interesting, if you ask me.
So if someone doesn't want to eat their veggies, or do exercise, or any specific thing that others may see as beneficial and even enjoyable, that's fine with me.
But when they want (need?) to believe that their approach is not just right for them, but objectively The Right Universal Answer - that veggies are icky, unhelpful, unnecessary for all, or unhealthful; that exercise is unproductive, whatever - then then they try to convince others to follow their idiosyncratic, maybe non-mainstream science, personally-appropriate course . . . well, that's kinda toxic, IMO, or at least psychologically odd (insecure, or something?).
If I want to do some unusual thing - "one weird trick", maybe? - well, why not? If I must convince others that it's universal, that I'm an insightful iconoclastic Warrior for Truth because I want to do some offbeat thing . . . I dunno. Good odds it's wrong, IMO.
It's fine for me to be me. Trying to convince others to be me . . . in the face of even modestly adequate countervailing evidence . . . that's wrong, IMO.
Even more judge-y comment: People should have more actual self-confidence.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 388 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions