New Studies Eat Into Diet Math - WSJ

H

Harold14370

New member
How many calories must a dieter cut to lose a pound?

The answer most dietitians have long provided is 3,500. But recent studies indicate that calories can't be converted into weight through a simple formula.

The result is that the 3,500-calorie rule of thumb gets things very wrong over the long term, and has led health analysts astray. Much bigger dietary changes are needed to gain or shed pounds than the formula suggests.
Click to expand...
 
I am ... a little confused. Are they saying that until now, no one realized that as you gained weight, your metabolism would go up and then you'd be eating at maintenance again? Because... um, did people really think that adding 60 calories a day could mean 100s of extra pounds over your lifetime? (Now, if you added another cookie and another....)
 
Yeah, it sure seems like that's what they are saying in some parts of the article. You would think it has to be more complicated than that. Those BMR calculators have included that kind of adjustment since forever.
 
You guys are silly. This is supposed to be one of the articles we can look at and blame for making us overweight! "The math is wrong!!!!" :)
 
Well, I suppose the interesting part is that while I think most people who stick around these forums are aware that your calorie requirements go down when you lose weight... the article is implying that health analysts didn't!?

I mean... if someone is obese, then no, cutting 60 calories out of the daily intake won't get them down to 25 BMI if they just stick with it long enough...
 
Yep, nothing new there. What experts did they consult? Because I learned that basic fact about 5 minutes into my lose weight-get healthy plan.
 
Well, the NYT had a different take on the same "news." It looks like the WSJ science writer got the story wrong.

The basic formula for gaining and losing weight is well known: a pound of fat equals 3,500 calories.

That simple equation has fueled the widely accepted notion that weight loss does not require daunting lifestyle changes but “small changes that add up,” as the first lady, Michelle Obama, put it last month in announcing a national plan to counter childhood obesity.

In this view, cutting out or burning just 100 extra calories a day — by replacing soda with water, say, or walking to school — can lead to significant weight loss over time: a pound every 35 days, or more than 10 pounds a year.

While it’s certainly a hopeful message, it’s also misleading. Numerous scientific studies show that small caloric changes have almost no long-term effect on weight. When we skip a cookie or exercise a little more, the body’s biological and behavioral adaptations kick in, significantly reducing the caloric benefits of our effort.
Click to expand...

Here's the original JAMA article. No new research here. I guess it doesn't take much to get an article published in JAMA.
 
Last edited:
Lol- its almost like someone (eg the writer of the article) has been trying to lose weight and its not worked and they have used their "special journalistic powers" to write a get-out-of-sportsday note: I am not failing my diet, I was doing it really Miss, it just failed on me as the science is wrong":smilielol5::icon_bs:

I think that I'd like to see the new science to back up the change in toe goalposts before I start to believe it!
 
3500 Calories, Fact or Fiction

The article was interesting but here's my take on it. We've got the science, we've got the studies, we've got what we need to assess and change our lifestyle, but it's not being done.

The best thing to do is simply look at your lifestyle and what needs changing. If we're always looking at the math equation, it becomes more about the numbers vs. simply developing and maintaining a healthy l ifestyle.

We know that EVERY body is different and to assume that everyone will respond the same way to lifestyle changes is not the way to go, in my opinion. I belive developing a healthy lifestyle and lose weight is a very personal thing as lifestyle is very personal.

Don't get caught up in the math. Get caught up in making positive changes that results in a healthier, stronger, happier you. Making small changes, implementing more activity, choosing healthier food options is the way to a healthier you.
 
What exactly does WSJ stand for? Wickedly Stupid Journalists? I mean, seriously? That was a garbage of an article.

Consider the chocolate-chip-cookie fan who adds one 60-calorie cookie to his daily diet. By the old math, that cookie would add up to six pounds in a year, 60 pounds in a decade and hundreds of pounds in a lifetime.
Click to expand...

First of all, that person could be doing 60+ calories worth of exercise throughout the day too. Perhaps by making the cookies or shoveling them into their mouth. Who knows? The point is...well...the point is my "second of all"...

But new research—based on studies of volunteers whose calorie consumption is observed in laboratory settings, rather than often-unreliable food diaries—suggests that the body's self-regulatory mechanisms tamp down the effects of changes in diet or behavior.
Click to expand...

Yes, their calorie consumption was observed, but what about their physical activity? Exercise? Daily routine? I'm not a licensed medical doctor, but I'm faaaaairly certain that, in order to lose weight, you have to burn calories. You can watch what you eat all you want, but you're not going to lose any weight unless you burn more calories than you consume.

Yes, you burn calories by merely sitting and even lying down and sleeping, but why wasn't any other physical activity monitored? Were they afraid of, oooooh, I don't know...being proved wrong?

Fucking idiots.
 
No, not really. They're just saying that if you eat an extra 60 calories a day, eventually you'll put on enough weight that your BMR will go up by an extra 60 calories. Which, um, is not a secret.

The headline of this article really should have been:

NUTRITIONAL ANALYSTS FINALLY TACKLE MATH CHALLENGE OF ALGEBRA - DISCOVER PARKING AN EXTRA 50 FEET AWAY WILL NOT SOLVE OBESITY CRISIS

I.e. if I weigh 220 and I'm eating 3500 calories a day, simply cutting down to 3400 calories (or burning an extra 100) is not going to get me down to 135 lbs.
 
ChefChiTown said:
What exactly does WSJ stand for? Wickedly Stupid Journalists? I mean, seriously? That was a garbage of an article.



First of all, that person could be doing 60+ calories worth of exercise throughout the day too. Perhaps by making the cookies or shoveling them into their mouth. Who knows? The point is...well...the point is my "second of all"...



Yes, their calorie consumption was observed, but what about their physical activity? Exercise? Daily routine? I'm not a licensed medical doctor, but I'm faaaaairly certain that, in order to lose weight, you have to burn calories. You can watch what you eat all you want, but you're not going to lose any weight unless you burn more calories than you consume.

Yes, you burn calories by merely sitting and even lying down and sleeping, but why wasn't any other physical activity monitored? Were they afraid of, oooooh, I don't know...being proved wrong?

Fucking idiots.
Click to expand...
Besides that, the JAMA article didn't have anything in it about new research, in a lab setting, with food journals, or otherwise, so I think he made a lot of that crap up.

The JAMA article was not a research article but was actually an opinion piece supporting massive government intervention, because losing weight requires too much of a dietary change. More that we citizens are capable of doing ourselves, obviously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top