Debate question: should science matter in weight loss decisions?

[OliviaD68]

In the past few months, I have read and contributed to a number of interesting topics.

I am interested in science - biochemistry - and how the body responds to certain foods. By science I mean both theory and practical testing / validation of said theory. It seems much progress has been made in the past 20 years in understanding such things, possibly as a result of the obesity epidemic in developed countries. Almost 40% of the US population is obese (BMI >= 30)

But my interest in this subject is not shared by all (and nor should it be).

Question: Assuming a 'scientific basis' for health and weight loss can be established beyond a reasonable doubt (this is an important assumption):

1. should we care about what conclusions science is drawing?

2. should we therefore take such basis into account in deciding how to go about weight loss /maintenance?

3. how does one go about sifting through the noise on the internet to get at the truth?

Let's ignore for the moment that everyone will have different situations requiring slightly different approaches - talking 'averages' here.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Well, yes.

Assuming that your "science" includes psychology as well as biology.

I suspect that most people who talk in absolutes are not so much looking for a way to help people to lose weight as they are looking for a stick to beat them with. it's so simple, look at the science, you just have to...

@Trills now that’s interesting. And controversial.

Some would say - I’ve read this somewhere; need to find it again - that food psychology is nonsense. That it’s actually the biology that drives the eating disorder, not some psychological imbalance.

I must say this is where my experience came out: keto/LCHF completely killed cravings and overeating. Also moments when I would normally devour biscuits (when I was still fat and was stressed from work) I found I had no desire, no hunger. But that’s just me.

What’s your experience with food psychology? I’ve looked it up fairly extensively but not found anything I can point to as being sensible. It would be great to get a good solid reference. Are there sources you trust as being reliable you can share?

You need to remove bias before anything else. I worked in research and had to do what the client asked to get a result that suited them, rather than the best result (IN MY OPINION). Which is precisely where science and stats fail.

'Scientists say' is one of the most depressing phrases that I hear. 'Science' is much more fluid than people realise, and the internet has brought bad research straight to the armchair expert via a bit of shoddy journalism and a catchy headline.

Eat less, move more. And yes, it really is that simple.

Not it's not! If it was that simple, there really wouldn't be that many fat people.

I am fully aware of many scientific explanations about why my diet isn't good. I can research what would be a better diet, I can follow that better diet for a little while.

But I overeat for emotional reasons, not really biological reasons. I only overeat on biscuits/chocolate/crisps when I'm feeling sad/stressed/etc. Knowing the science doesn't stop me feeling sad/stressed/etc, but a bar of chocolate is at least nice tasting so it takes the edge off. Much like a smoker will have a fag when they feel like that, or an alcoholic will have a drink, I eat junk food.

I don't have time to cook separate meals for me, what we eat as a family is what we eat as a family and I will not be putting my 7yo on any sort of diet.

So for me at least, knowing the science (and I can easily research it if I want to, I pretty clever even if I do say so myself) doesn't help at all, because I have neither the time, energy, willpower or desire to put that science into practice. It's too hard to fit it into my normal family life, so I just won't do it. What I can do is tweak my normal diet by adding more veg, or giving myself smaller portions, not having junk in the house as a matter of course so I would have to make a special trip to the shops if I want it. I can do small steps, I can't/won't make wholesale changes to my entire diet. I imagine that theres a lot of people like me out there.

@CatastropheKate I’m afraid @BIWI is correct ...

It’s not a case of calories in and out. Take an extreme case of a calorie from a Coca Cola and a calorie from a chicken breast.

Two completely different metabolisms.

One spikes insulin and following a pecking order could end up being stored as fat. Your blood sugar then crashes and you’re hungry again. Fast.

The other is used for its aminos. Actually calorie negative. Takes a long time to process. Thus satiates.

Or ... if you eat a lot more protein than you need is converted to sugar and follows the same path as the coke calorie albeit slower ...

Ain’t so simple. Your body is a complex piece of kit. Has to be.

@MsAwesomeDragon yes there are. Thanks for your view.

Are you sure that's the right argument? Read it again.

You'll be more hungry after the coke, leading you to have more?

You'll be less hungry after the chicken, leading you to have less?

Therefore eating less ......

but then too much protein is damaging to the kidneys....

Doubt that you would notice any physiological effect of a calorie from any source.

And, from what I've read about low carbing, a nice bit of chicken thigh, possibly with at least some of the skin on, is better than a breast, as it's not just protein that is satiating. From experience of calorie counting, I have better results reducing more carbs to achieve the lower calorie count than going low fat. less likely to want to pig out after a nice, oily chicken tikka masala and a reasonable portion of brown rice than a fairly dry chicken breast and bigger portion of white rice. Complete low carb is an instant failure as it gives me guts ache.

@CatastropheKate

Generally speaking yes. That’s the way it turns out. LCHF diets tend to suppress appetite.

A bit simplistic - lots of biochemistry at play- but directionally accurate as a statement.

Which part do you believe is inaccurate and why?

@PickAChew

You are right. I was using some extremes to clarify a point that not all calories are created equal.

?????

You tell me it's not a case of 'calories in and calories out' and then try to back it up by explaining how to have fewer calories in.

What you said isn't inaccurate, but is inappropriate to the point you were trying to make.

Once again you say that 'LCHF diets tend to suppress appetite' which is, in fact, eating less to lose weight.

So maybe it is that simple.

It’s not that simple. Think about the variety of food you eat. Could a simple machine process that complexity?

But I won’t say calories are irrelevant to weight loss just that they are secondary. They are a very rough estimate of energy your body can make use of. Remember back to chemistry what a calorie is?

More important are food macros and their respective combinations mainly because of insulin. You can not access your body fat for fuel if your blood insulin levels are elevated.

Other hormones needed to do this cannot be produced in the presence of insulin. Glucagon in particular.

That being said I will admit - given the right macros - that in my experience it helps for the body to be in a caloric deficit Under LCHF. This seems to be because the body is then encouraged to burn body fat over dietary fat.

But I have read of people not watching calories at all and still losing weight under a LCHF plan. There is a study on this I could send if interested.

So getting back on track - I am only answering questions not trying to convince you - can I take you do not believe in the science? That your original statement still holds?

'Remember back to chemistry' and 'can I take (sic) you do not believe in science'???????

Could you be any more patronising??????

My degree and work 'in science' is exactly what led me to write that the internet has brought bad research straight to the armchair expert via a bit of shoddy journalism and a catchy headline. FFS

so if chemistry doesn't lie why is there not one answer for the millions who need to be in a more ideal range?
why do two people who eat the same diet (easily husband and wives) have such different reactions to the same food products.
why are millions able to eat as they please with no monitoring of this type or that type (carbs protein sugars) with no weight gain what so ever.

I'm hoping this doesn't come across patronising as it isn't meant to be. It's great you have found a way that suits you and you are clearly very passionate about it and have spent a lot of time reading about it. I'm not going to argue the science you have put. But it can't matter that much or you wouldn't have people eating a fair few carbs losing many many pounds by just calorie counting and maintaining as you see on MFP forums.

So let's for arguments sake accept that LCHF is the optimum way to lose weight , other psychological factors come into play to mitigate its effectiveness , otherwise you wouldn't have people saying they tried LCHF and it worked for them for a bit but they couldn't stick to it and piled the weight on when they stopped doing it.

I think the answer is something along the lines of unless you have a specific condition which requires a specific way of eating then any method of eating that means you burn more than you eat will mean you lose weight and it is finding a method that appeals to you, that you can make fit into your life and make a way of life so you don't revert to your old habits that made you gain the weight in the first place.

i would absolutely encourage people to do LCHF if it apoeals to them but equally I would be really sad if people who would struggle to do it eg. Gallbladder removed and can't tolerate the fat ( a lot of people can post removal and it may be in time I can) are put off trying something else. The biggest lesson I have learned so far is Keep On Keepimg On and this has been by far the most important thing in getting me where I am today . Another pound off this week so 81.25 lb off , 29lbs left to go - under 30lbs left to lose for the first time which feels like a milestone.

As I have said before though no 'diet' is successful until the weight is off and more importantly the loss is successfully maintained over a long period of time. Maintainance will be the biggest challenge for me but I am optimistic. This is all before my morning cup of tea , hope it makes sense!

I think you've over-interpreted what I've said. I wasn't even thinking about eating disorders so much as regular non-disordered imperfect eating.

My point is that even if all of the biology were knowable and known, and you could write a "perfect" plan for what a person should eat, unless you also think about whether they will enjoy it and feel happy and feel like they have some level of autonomy and feel that it fits in with their life, they are unlikely to stick to it. So the plan is not so perfect after all.

I am not sure that all the biology is knowable and known, either...

I agree with PostNotHaste that you sound rather evangelical. It's great that you've found something that works for you but that doesn't mean it's the right thing for everyone.

'My point is that even if all of the biology were knowable and known, and you could write a "perfect" plan for what a person should eat, unless you also think about whether they will enjoy it and feel happy and feel like they have some level of autonomy and feel that it fits in with their life, they are unlikely to stick to it. So the plan is not so perfect after all.'

I totally agree with the above.

@Trills and @PostNotInHaste

I agree with you both - your posts make a lot of sense - and sorry to come across as evangelical. That’s not the objective. I am not trying to recruit anyone into doing a particular diet or to take a course on human physiology.

There are plenty of other factors I agree. It does appear some people can’t drop the carbs. Admittedly i have had to bring some carbs back for post workout refeeds .... so I am one.

I am merely interested to hear whether others find scientific evidence in nutrition of interest in driving food decisions. There’s some great stuff out there for those that are interested. And yes much of it appears to be definitive.

But it’s clear that some are interested and some are not.

The smoking analogy is actually very good: even if one knows something is bad for you it doesn’t mean you still won’t do it.

So it’s been an interesting thread to read and debate.

it’s clear that some are interested and some are not.

Depending on the tone that could sound very bitchy, and as if you were saying that anyone who is not agreeing with you is "not interested in science".

That may or may not have been your intention.

People may also be interested in the physiology without agreeing with your conclusions.

@outtopasture.

That's a great question.

From what I know, the average person's body works the same way as the other's. Human physiology is what it is at a basic and average level. We do need to set aside characteristics like missing gall bladders or enzymatic problems for example as these such conditions drive what people can and can't eat.

But then other factors play a role, to name a few:

• age and the changes in hormones
• sex
• muscle mass
• volume and type of exercise
• cell insulin resistance / sensitivity
• DNA damage
• stress levels (stress spikes cortisol which leads to inflammation)

So there are differences across people that can lead to differences in how they respond to different foods. Which is why it's important to find what works best for you.

My angle of interest was to use what I can glean from science to determine an 'optimal' - which for me is going to be what allows me to burn body fat, the 'brand' underlying the method doesn't matter - then adapt to suit.

My tuppence.

@trills.

That is true yes.

But I do think it's true that some just won't care. My partner is one such example - no interest at all.

Or can't / won't spend the time to learn it - we've had one such post.

Again, I don't mind that some may think the available science is too hard, too contradictory, too discredited, too wonky to incorporate in their lifestyles.

I'm interested in viewpoints and breadth of viewpoints is cool.

20 years ago mainstream scientists and doctors were all of the low fat, high fibre persuasion. Now we are being told this may be wrong. So it's easy to see why people don't trust science 100%. Now they are saying sugar is bad but we all know slim,healthy people who eat plenty of sugar. Take the experiment by an American nutrition professor where he ate a calorie controlled amount of sugary cakes and lost weight edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html he's a scientist too and he had good results on his unhealthy diet.