3 ms·

I disagree with your characterization of the quoted text. It says the “standard prescription” is to reduce calories, and that the new study may change that. A p

by nardi 9y ago

I disagree with your characterization of the quoted text. It says the “standard prescription” is to reduce calories, and that the new study may change that. A prescription is an instruction from your doctor. That text is saying that doctors may start telling you to eat more vegetables and whole foods rather than cutting back on calories. I do not believe it is implying that weight loss is disconnected from calories consumed. From later in the article: Dr. Gardner said it is not that calories don’t matter. After all, both groups ultimately ended up consuming fewer calories on average by the end of the study, even though they weren’t conscious of it. The point is that they did this by focusing on nutritious whole foods that satisfied their hunger.

eridius 9y ago
Right, the rest of the article is ok. My quibble is with the implication in the first two paragraphs. It says the standard prescription is to reduce the amount of calories, and then says the new study "turn(s) that advice on its head", implying that calorie reduction isn't the solution after all. But it still is! It's just a question of how you go about doing it. There's nothing about "reduce the calories you consume" that means you must exercise strict portion control and calorie-count and go to bed hungry. It just means reduce your calorie intake. And a great way to do that is to change the types of food you're eating. The important takeaway from the study here is that by adjusting your diet, you can reduce your calorie intake without feeling like you're eating less, which is a lot more sustainable than calorie-counting (and leaves you a lot happier too). But the key point here is still reducing your calorie intake. If you're adjusting your diet, you need to pick a diet that does in fact result in fewer calories. If you switch to mostly vegetables, but liberally douse your veggies with lots of oil and butter, you're not actually reducing your calories.
- msla 9y ago
  The article has to be special to get readership. If people knew it was the same old, same old said in a different way, nobody would care. The problem is that CICO (Calories-In/Calories-Out) is the only possible way to lose (or gain) weight. Literally every valid, non-pseudoscientific diet is going to be another way to get to reduced caloric input in a sustainable fashion, because sustaining a caloric deficit is genuinely difficult.

by nardi 9y ago

eridius 9y ago

Right, the rest of the article is ok. My quibble is with the implication in the first two paragraphs. It says the standard prescription is to reduce the amount of calories, and then says the new study "turn(s) that advice on its head", implying that calorie reduction isn't the solution after all. But it still is! It's just a question of how you go about doing it. There's nothing about "reduce the calories you consume" that means you must exercise strict portion control and calorie-count and go to bed hungry. It just means reduce your calorie intake. And a great way to do that is to change the types of food you're eating. The important takeaway from the study here is that by adjusting your diet, you can reduce your calorie intake without feeling like you're eating less, which is a lot more sustainable than calorie-counting (and leaves you a lot happier too). But the key point here is still reducing your calorie intake. If you're adjusting your diet, you need to pick a diet that does in fact result in fewer calories. If you switch to mostly vegetables, but liberally douse your veggies with lots of oil and butter, you're not actually reducing your calories.

msla 9y ago
The article has to be special to get readership. If people knew it was the same old, same old said in a different way, nobody would care. The problem is that CICO (Calories-In/Calories-Out) is the only possible way to lose (or gain) weight. Literally every valid, non-pseudoscientific diet is going to be another way to get to reduced caloric input in a sustainable fashion, because sustaining a caloric deficit is genuinely difficult.