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.

@Minidoghugs.

Don't disagree with your comment on the contradictions. Unfortunately our starting point was wrong - a fraudulent piece of work by the US in the 1970s, possibly (?) driven by corruption from the US grain industry.

And the experiment doesn't surprise me - SlimFast is basically sugar too. Of course you can lose weight if you don't eat enough. Or gain a lot of weight if you eat 5000 kcal a day (with no exercise). But calories appear to be of secondary concern in a healthy food plan to lose weight.

Anyway here's a study - hopefully not armchair expertise - that should show that weight loss is greater in one population that consumed more calories than another. The difference in the two was the usual fat vs carbs battle ...

Accepted wisdom should have it that the group that consumed more calories lost less weight. But it lost more weight ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538279/

Results
Actual nutrient intakes from food records during the VLCK (%carbohydrate:fat:protein = ~9:63:28%) and the LF (~58:22:20%) were significantly different. Dietary energy was restricted, but was slightly higher during the VLCK (1855 kcal/day) compared to the LF (1562 kcal/day) diet for men. Both between and within group comparisons revealed a distinct advantage of a VLCK over a LF diet for weight loss, total fat loss, and trunk fat loss for men (despite significantly greater energy intake). The majority of women also responded more favorably to the VLCK diet, especially in terms of trunk fat loss.

@Minidoghugs Here's another one showing similar results ... There are more available but it's probably enough.

Thanks for your input - really appreciate it.

watermark.silverchair.com/api/watermark?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAdEwggHNBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggG-MIIBugIBADCCAbMGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMYJmtW-GEBQHQ-d3cAgEQgIIBhMjbIpJWGCgZlOeYTsmiY_YRfZZAU-M8iNuN7JRrio99dSNkn8JGptj7-MqdqGQpgWZ6mKt9NGugHL0NkgiCaIw38zjbYpT20OpsJO_8WxozuWp7aVgQU9Sfpx0jLuGMsExtF6L4aYHCT0ksUsOw7zG6daw8B6h1aMEkRKdeheMndKwT4fzbeB2jEJGOGt8dEC6CdEk_VsKAiwjebt_TSaHrlmVmZksg9_RS35kTsMiVV83j8KUY7b3Yb4953ijevk5szGIQnOE8lJ5hFR8STj_VJYuM07kCiSDH9DqBjqqeayrAiD4-e-XWxR6WB4wq3h35RMa1y5h0oBBGOZydpgS-1Q9YnFwJ0drR7wk4KMs7BQRy8yiXMB3oyUrynSZkujnE9-EGvyzvFuYx4RjD9fbAhPOSYCIacvANe2YXnsXwwB4K88j0E_UBxvI-P8xa1BzaEMpCWCWIJE3axy2qZ0kTBq0avocw9Ey0-05p3nyraOe0pa2B6TMcahYvBi0omxU8iTU

20 years ago mainstream scientists and doctors were all of the low fat, high fibre persuasion.

Because that was the fashionable diet at the time, and because studies cost money, someone has to fund them, and that 'someone' usually has a commercial agenda, hence the bias.

OliviaD68, I know you mean well, but you appear to be randomly plucking 'studies' to push your point. I'm pleased that you've found a diet that suits you, and that you're trying to spread the word, but the VLCK 'evidence' that you've posted above is very simplistic and to me smacks of an undergrad thesis - A total of twenty-eight healthy volunteers ... were recruited by flyers and word-of-mouth. It's exactly what I mean about armchair expertise - just because it's published in a journal somewhere doesn't mean that it's credible and/or relevant.

It's something that you clearly don't understand, please read the reports and enjoy them - but be very careful of trying to back things up with 'science' when you don't know who funded the work or what their objectives were.

And the huge link above doesn't work.

@CatastropheKate:

With all due respect, your messages seem to indicate you do not have the benefit of having read anything or spent the time to understand context. I remember a prof of mine saying something about making gratuitous affirmations many decades ago ...

So it's difficult to disassociate acerbic commentary from the key messages or concerns you are trying to convey. I would suggest to remove the aggression and focus on asking questions or basing commentary in an informed way.

That being said, you should research Ancel Keys and the data fraud he perpetrated to understand why we are where we are today. The issue dates back far further than the 1990s . You are right that the opinions have changed; this is because they were not based in fact when they originated. Worse, they were based in fraud: shocker that the US government (or any government) could be the subject of corruption and fraudulent data.

I would hardly accuse Jeff Volek of armchair expertise or of conducting an undergrad thesis - if you would read up on his work, perhaps you could benefit from some useful insights. And you are incorrect: 28 data points are statistically significant to draw conclusions.

IN terms of pushing a diet: I am responding to your gratuitous commentary and other posters that 'only calories matter' in weight loss. If you will recall, both @BIWI and I responded this was not true. These studies prove that food macros matter more. Happy to read conclusions that prove otherwise. Until now I have only received aggressive responses which are light on substance - gratuitous affirmations.

Second you requested a working link to the second document. Please look it up in Google as the link appears to only function temporarily. I am half expecting this to be armchair expertise as well -
because 53 subjects are not enough or possibly the study is too old? Or Cincinnati isn't Harvard ...?

Looking forward to your valued commentary on why this peer-reviewed study isn't valid ... And also to finally reading some of yours ...

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

• A Randomized Trial Comparing a Very Low

Carbohydrate Diet and a Calorie-Restricted Low Fat Diet on Body Weight and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Healthy Women

Ok. You're clearly having trouble understanding what I am trying to say, but given that you have 'a prof ... saying something about making gratuitous affirmations many decades ago ...' I'm assuming that English is not your first language and/or you are not based in the UK.

I'll try to simplify the point that I have repeatedly tried to make with the help of BIWI back up there ^^ at 22.35

What I'd like to see is science being separated - TOTALLY - from the commercial world. Stop studies being sponsored by those with vested interests. Ensure it's totally objective.... But there's precious little science that isn't biased by those who are sponsoring it.

And I have to disagree about the study of 28 people recruited by flyer.

"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. "

Sorry. Could you provide some evidence to back up this rather extraordinary claim?

Are you saying that emotions/psychology/relationship with food have no bearing on struggles with diet (whether that is classified as an ED or not?)

Hi @Badgerlady

I’m saying I don’t know. I haven’t found anything that seems to make sense on this front - I try to avoid forming opinions without first being convinced by people who have done serious work on the subject. The research seems thin on this.

I have read about the issues that some people seem to have with food addiction.

But I don’t know if it’s physiology or psychology.

So for example some seem to have a hard time getting rid of sugar cravings (I’ve heard it called addiction - like my past love for brownies) which prevents sticking to a diet. Others lose their cravings.

Is that physiology or psychology?

Ok. Let's try and establish some parameters:

1 You aren't talking about eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia? As these are recognised mental health diagnoses I think (hope) we can agree they are the result of a complex number of factors including emotional and neurological processes.

1. Is what are mean really 'disordered eating' either. A poor relationship in general with food? Again caused by multiple factors- some emotional; some not.

1. Would you accept that as a principle: food is not simply biology but can have huge emotional baggage attached?

1. In addition to the emotional issues the ways we interact with food can be the result of habit. Breaking those habits can be hard. One way that works for SOME is a completely new way of eating with clear rules.

1. A final factor in this complex issue is the physiological reaction our bodies have to sugar. But that is not the only factor nor necessarily the dominant one.

1. Therefore a reductionist approach that tells people it is 'simply biology' is unhelpful and may cause them to feel even worse.

Ah, this is a topic that, at least currently, has no one "right" answer, but there are still many who profess to know it.

I wonder how I as a vegan would do VLC? Each person has their past experiences, personality, financial situation, social situation, individual biology, and dietary preferences and values. Weight loss can be hard, but easier if a plan fits with all of these. There are many ways to crack this nut. Most mainstream ones, IMO/AFAIK, being pretty much interchangeable in the average population (with e.g. no additional health problems).

And just so I don't appear to be a non-scientific oik, I've three science degrees (including in biology and psychology).

With VLC I meant very low carb. Duh!

Having spent years working in the history of science I have very little faith in it. You argue that it was corrupt and 'not based on fact' in the past: it is ever the case. 'Science' is driven by many things. It is not research leading to 'fact'. Plenty of peer-reviewed studies have turned out to be wrong.
I think it will be a very long time until we understand the relationship of our bodies and minds to food. In the meantime we should not be advocating one route or one understanding of it.

I've studied the history of science too. It's a human construct and thus fallible. No dissing it, but it's not "flawless".

@Badgerlady

That reads like a perfectly sensible way of putting things. Hard to disagree.

As I said I don’t know much about it.

"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 ..."

I think this is a hugely important point. People are being told that a calorie is a calorie, and not given help understanding that in terms of their hunger and appetite that that simply isnt effectively true.

Without context, people are eating smaller amounts of calories of sugary food, and blaming themselves when they get the raging hunger afterwards that means they cant stop themselves "breaking their diet".

Its like giving one person a stick of dynamite, and someone else a stack of wood and a fireplace, and then telling the dynamite person "we gave you the same energy as the other one and theyre not complaining about being cold, if youre cold then its your lack of willpower thats the issue."

@FaFoutis

I guess there are degrees. Shades of grey.

The fraud perpetrated by Ancel Keys was egregious. Data from 28 countries were available to establish a correlation between heart disease and sat fat consumption. 22 countries’ data did not tell his story so he removed 22 data points from his study.

All data in fact showed no correlation between heart disease and sat fat.

And from this fraudulent study was born the FDA food pyramid with fat at the top and grains at the bottom...

Worse, I understand there were studies at the time debunking the relationship Keys was so motivated to establish.

Then came an explosion of waistlines starting in the 80s. I remember being taught the food pyramid in school.

Many attribute our current plight - majority of fat people in developed countries- to this fraud. Overweight people were an exception in the 70s and 80s. Now they are the norm.

So I suppose where are is this:

1. do we continue to believe accepted wisdom which we now know was the result of a fraud ? Clearly expecting a different outcome by doing the same thing is insanity - we are going to keep getting fatter if we don’t do something different. Blame Einstein for that quote.

2. do we look to other sources for superior albeit possibly imperfect information in guiding our decisions?

Thoughts?

@StormTreader

Good analogy.

I trust dietary advise as much as I trust economic forecasts. It's one thing one week and the opposite the next. They can't be very good at their job because the more dietitians we have, the fatter people get.

That's not to say that it is not an area worth studying. Understanding more about how the body reacts to food can only be a good thing. However, it is not an area that I think will reduce obesity. Weight loss comes down to the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the end. Its calories v calories out. The problem isn't the dietary advise it is getting people to stick to it. Diets are not about being optimal from a nutritional point of view, they need to be optimal from a psychological point of view.

I think of it like drinking. Scientist can know for sure what effects alcohol has on the body. The advise to an alcoholic is that they should drink less but how can you help them to achieve that?

Science is useful in that area and can make more progress. If a professional is recommending a diet, they should be base it on research or experience that it is the most successful for the patients needs.

On an individual level though it is about will power in the end. You can find ways that are easier or harder but there are no magic bullets.

It's not just psychological though. There is lots of evidence of the role hormones such as insulin and cortisol play on how the body uses energy and on other hormones that affect hunger. You can tell someone to eat less until you're blue in the face, if they have hyperinsulinemia then they are going to feel much hungrier than someone who doesn't. It's easier to have 'willpower' when you don't feel hungry. I know because I used to feel constantly hungry and now I don't. Turns out I'm not just psychologically greedy/morally lacking. Something else was making me feel hungry all the time. Now I don't, and for the first time in my life I find it easy to say no to tempting, quick energy (sugary) foods.

You're correct everyone is getting fatter because poor advice is being given. That doesn't mean there isn't/won't one day be good advice.

@Lenl

I mentioned this was my experience too. Cravings gone. No hunger. I view my experience as mainly physiologically driven. It seems clear to me that hormones do play an outsized role in driving or suppressing these cravings. I can’t explain it any other way and the research says the same thing.

So I agree with you in large part.

But I don’t know about others. It could well be that psychological factors drive them more. Food is such an emotional subject for some.