Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Researchers say dieting not worth it

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    the world
    Posts
    1,938

    Researchers say dieting not worth it

    Shop Now
    People don't lose that much weight or improve cardiovascular health:
    A. Janet Tomiyama: Is Dieting Worth the Trouble?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,919
    Lol at the changing definitions of weight loss success.
    Steak, eggs, potatoes - fruits, nuts, berries and forage. Coconut milk and potent herbs and spices. Tea instead of coffee now and teeny amounts of kelp daily. Let's see how this does! Not really had dairy much, and gut seems better for it.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Delaware Valley
    Posts
    717
    Yeah, we can't get people to lose enough weight to see if there's any impact on cardivascular health, so let's just say it's not worth trying. I'd still be 185lbs with a 5% weight loss. I don't need a study to tell me that would have had almost zero impact on me physically. Nutrition science is full of the most idiotic research...
    50yo, 5'3"
    SW-195
    CW-125, part calorie counting, part transition to primal
    GW- Goals are no longer weight-related

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Birkenstocks & hairy arm pits.
    Posts
    9,063
    Funny, it takes the average smoker eight tries to quit. But no one ever says it's not worth it when they relapse seven times. And yes, I know a lot of people who quit on their very first try, but perhaps that's because most people don't brag about "failure."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    central FL
    Posts
    6,548
    Isn't the bigger problem the "diet" mindset... that whatever they are going to do is temporary.

    I just have to quit eating "x" foods until I lose "x" lbs.

    People don't need "diets"... they need long term dietary changes. Life changes.
    “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
    ~Friedrich Nietzsche
    And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Birkenstocks & hairy arm pits.
    Posts
    9,063
    Cori, as a person who has had to lose weight three times in her life, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Like criminals, who are often caught because they don't plan the "after" of a crime, I think "dieters" (or at least me) rebound because we don't plan the "after" for when we reach goal weight. I have finally learned (I hope).

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Horsham
    Posts
    917
    @cori and JoanieL: http://alicerants.blog.com/2012/10/27/against-diets/
    My view on the dreaded "diet".

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Fresno CA,USA
    Posts
    5
    yeah, a lot of people who quit on their very first try, but perhaps that's because most people don't brag about "failure."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    447
    "Although the trial led to improved quality of life, decreases in sleep apnea, reduced need for diabetes medication, and delayed physical disability, it did not achieve its most important objective of fewer strokes, heart attacks, or cardiovascular deaths."

    Why on earth would you "give up" on something that has so many OTHER benefits, even if the main goal wasn't realised? Evidently if people have a better quality of life after losing weight, that's something to be happy about even if the incidence of cardiac events weren't reduced (but to me that's probably because they lost weight the CW way and were eating "healthy" polyunsaturated oils and margarines etc.).

    To me the whole study is just another example of how people have been getting it all wrong for so many years!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,551
    Shop Now
    Quote Originally Posted by Iron Fireling View Post
    "Although the trial led to improved quality of life, decreases in sleep apnea, reduced need for diabetes medication, and delayed physical disability, it did not achieve its most important objective of fewer strokes, heart attacks, or cardiovascular deaths."

    Why on earth would you "give up" on something that has so many OTHER benefits, even if the main goal wasn't realised? Evidently if people have a better quality of life after losing weight, that's something to be happy about even if the incidence of cardiac events weren't reduced (but to me that's probably because they lost weight the CW way and were eating "healthy" polyunsaturated oils and margarines etc.).

    To me the whole study is just another example of how people have been getting it all wrong for so many years!
    Its the failings of our current scientific method. If you weren't looking for it it doesn't matter. If the the experiment was to study the effects of diet on cardiovascular markers (usually not even the right ones) and you saw no effect then the diet was a fail. Forget about the quality of life, better sleep, less meds and so on ....that wasn't what we were studying! Heck I'm surprised they even gave that stuff an honorable mention! Usually they just bury those "side effects" of a healthy lifestyle and report "no significant change in cardio markers".

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •