Quality weight loss advice found online: study

[Demi]

Reuters News Service
Published: 5 July, 2007


Quality weight loss advice found online: study

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - People who seek out general weight loss information via Internet forums will, more often than not, receive correct information, especially if the messages are posted on heavily trafficked Internet sites, results of a study suggest.

"Good weight loss advice can be given not only by trained professionals, but also by peers who participate in these Internet forums," study co-author Dr. Kevin O. Hwang, of the University of Texas Medical School at Houston, told Reuters Health.

"As use of the Internet grows, these forums should be tested further as useful tools against obesity," he added.

Weight loss is among the most frequently explored online topics, Hwang and colleagues note in a report in the American Journal of Medicine. Whether information posted on the Internet about weight loss is generally accurate has not been investigated, however, until now.

Hwang and his team analyzed postings to 18 Internet weight loss forums during a one-month period in 2006.

Of the 3,368 initial messages posted to the Internet forums, 266 (nearly 8 percent) were requests for weight loss advice, the researchers report.

A total of 654 messages were posted in response to those requests, including 56 postings (8.6 percent) that contained erroneous advice. However, about a third (34 percent) of this misinformation was later corrected, the investigators observed.

Only 43 messages (6.6 percent) contained advice considered to be potentially harmful, such as encouragement to take over-the-counter weight loss aids that can cause potential harm. But more than a quarter (28 percent) of those messages were also later corrected, the investigators note.

The erroneous errors and harmful information were both more likely to be provided via low-activity Internet forums, which tended to have fewer messages posted, than via high-activity Internet forums. Also, the false information that was provided was more likely to concern medication-related issues, rather than general weight loss information, the report indicates.

According to Hwang, "Internet weight loss forums with more than 1,000 messages per month generally contain high quality advice, but medication-related advice is not as accurate as advice related to diet or exercise."

In light of the findings, people who are interested in seeking out online advice about losing weight should "go to highly-active forums with more than 1,000 messages per month, such as the 'Diet and Nutrition' or 'Fitness and Exercise' forums on http://www.SparkPeople.com," Hwang advised.

He cautioned people about seeking medication-related advice online, however.

"For questions about weight-loss medications, it would be better to ask a knowledgeable physician," he told Reuters Health.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070705/hl_nm/weight_loss_advice_dc_1

[tom sawyer]

I wonder how they judged what was "erroneous"?

Certainly this site has a wealth of good information. I have gotten great ideas form so many posters. I also follow up and do additional homework though, just to check the facts.

[Abd]

So I went to the URL, to see what kind of advice was being given, apparently considered "good advice." Here is what I found in the article on carbohydrates:

http://www.SparkPeople.com - the site doesn't seem to allow direct URLs to article, this was from the Nutrition Reference Guide

The carbohydrate world can be very confusing. At times, carbohydrates are accused of being the cause of gaining weight, while other times carbohydrates are viewed as the ideal energy source for the body. Let’s take a closer look at the functions of carbohydrates:

* Carbohydrates spare protein so that protein can concentrate on building, repairing, and maintaining body tissues instead of being used up as an energy source.

* For fat to be metabolized properly, carbohydrates must be present. If there are not enough carbohydrates, then large amounts of fat are used for energy. The body is not able to handle this large amount so quickly, so it accumulates ketone bodies, which make the body acidic. This causes a condition called ketosis.

* Carbohydrate is necessary for the regulation of nerve tissue and is the ONLY source of energy for the brain.

* Certain types of carbohydrates encourage the growth of healthy bacteria in the intestines for digestion.

* Some carbohydrates are high in fiber, which helps prevent constipation and lowers the risk for certain diseases such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes.

That's pretty bad. First of all, what did they get right? Yes, burning carbs instead of protein is a good idea. But this is really about protein, not carbs. There are three options for energy: carbs, fat, and protein. Protein is the true emergency source, not to be used unless the situation is dire.

Are carbohydrates necessary for fat metabolism? Possibly, but the body only needs a very small level of carb, and it can make all of it. Carbohydrates, contrary to the whole thrust of this article, aren't necessary for human nutrition. Some traditional peoples had diets that were almost entirely free of digestible carbohydrates, yet they were healthy.

"If there are not enough carbohydrates, then large amounts of fat are used for energy." This is supposed to be bad? They then state the total error that they found the impression that it is bad is founded on. that burning fat is called "ketosis," which is, of course, true, but ketosis is not a disease, it is a metabolic pathway which may, in fact, be the preferred one. The article confuses ketosis with ketoacidosis; normal fat metabolism does not make the body "acidic."

Yes, the brain needs glucose. And the body makes all it needs.

Yes, *some* carbohydrate foods contain fiber, and fiber is generally good for you; one of the things it does is to slow the uptake of sugars from the food, as does fat and protein. Fiber *is* carbohydrate, merely an indigestible form. It's remarkable that the only carbohydrate that is clearly healthy -- it's still not clear that it is actually a necessity -- is indigestible.

(The Inuit, who ate a very low carb diet, based on protein and fat, ate *all* of the animals they hunted, including what we call "offal." If we eat a high-fat, moderate-protein diet (like Atkins), we are probably well-advised to make sure we get enough fiber, which Atkins does encourage. Vegetables!)

This supposed "good advice" is serious drek.

I glanced at the article on Fat. As I by now expected, more drek.


One of the quickest and healthiest ways to reduce calories and lose weight is to cut back on the fat. Eating a diet low in fat is an important step in keeping your heart and arteries in tip-top shape too. The overall goal is to avoid excess fat, especially saturated fat and LDL cholesterol.

There is no mention that this advice is seriously controversial. Yes, cutting fat reduces, one might think, calories, but if you read the entire article on fat, they point out a number of things about fat that might give one pause. Fat is responsible for a great deal of flavor. Cut back on fat, appetite can increase, leading to overall caloric increase.

The evidence that natural saturated fat is harmful is not only weak, it is counterbalanced by plenty of evidence that it is not harmful, it is healthy.

Context, though, may matter a great deal. If one is eating a high-carb diet (and the standard "recommended" diets are high-carb), high fat intake may behave differently than it behaves in a low-carb context. Really, we need much more research. But we already know enough to suspect, strongly, that the kind of advice that is being given on this site may well be one of the major causes of obesity in modern society, trickling down to increases in heart disease and diabetes. This kind of propaganda has been fed to us for over thirty years, it really is quite modern. And the result?

Well, you see it in the news all the time. Epidemics of obesity and diabetes. Is the low-fat advice responsible? It's hard to say, there are many factors, but it clearly hasn't helped! I'd say that when I started listening to my doctor telling me I had to lower my fat intake, the long-term result was a steady increase in weight. And no improvement in blood lipids, indeed, they got steadily worse.

The advice given on the subject web site is *not* based on science, for the scientists, back in the seventies, had no consensus about fat and cholesterol. It was a *political* decision to start recommending low-fat, based on a theory that it would help our health, and, besides, they thought, it couldn't hurt. They did not bother to fund the real research that would be necessary to prove this conclusion, it was considered too expensive and would take too long. So, instead, we were subjected to a massive uncontrolled experiment, would recommending lower fat improve health.

Only problem was, they forgot that it was an experiment. Instead, it was promoted as "science," and it became an unchallengeable dogma. People like Atkins, who simply looked at the science and made recommendations based on it and their own clinical experience, were considered dangerous lunatics.

And because they didn't remember that it was an experiment, they forgot to watch the results. Which got worse and worse, and so the theories were refined to explain this or that. Originally, it was "fat" that was bad. Then it got more sophisticated, as they realized that truly low-fat diets were positively dangerous. It becomes "bad fat," i.e., saturated fats. Trans fats were substituted for saturated fats by fast food restaurants, under serious pressure from nutrition advocates. Oops!

If there is "bad fat," it is probably the artificial trans fats, which are relatively rare in nature.

Okay, so now there are bans against trans fats. Oops!

Some natural fats contain small amounts of trans fats, and they are effectively banned as a result.

There is one stumble after another, as people with authority try to control the situation to make us healthier. They'd have been *much* better off being patient in the first place, funding the *real* science, and not making recommendations when they don't know the truth.

I should say that *we* would have been much better off.

[Aeryn]

Setting aside the crap that board is pushing, I've got to say that this article makes sense. People on this board are really educated about the issues and push each other to back up their claims in a really constructive way.

Also, a little of a tangent -- it wouldn't surprise me if they find that people who use the message boards also tend to be more successful in their weight loss journeys. Every time we log in, we're making a commitment to give our time and energy to this issue... and that helps too!

I give a LOT of credit to this board in keeping me on plan. It's a little scary actually how much time I now spend each day reading posts here, but I do think it is so much easier to adopt this WOE successfully when you have people to "talk" to about it, people who can answer your questions and give advice and assure you that what you're going through is totally normal. (This is probably the main advantage WW ever had over other plans -- now the internet is equalling things out!)

Looking back, I can identify several points where I would have broken plan had it not been for the folks on this board. As someone who doesn't get headaches, the intensity of that headache during induction frightened me; it seemed like I was doing something awful to my body -- until y'all told me it was normal, and to go ahead and take an Excedrin migraine already! And then there was the dizziness I experienced in the first month, and the leg cramps; and now, a stall that may, just *may* (knock on wood) have broken. All these have been points at which board members stepped in to assure me that these were NOT signs of an impending failure, but rather signs of my continuing success on the program. And this meant everything in terms of keeping me going.

Awww, listen to me go on... I love you guys! :blush:

[scthgharpy]

At first I thought well, if the site is all about fitness and exercise, maybe their low fat-high carb thing isnt so off base-body builders will testify that it helps repair muscle, etc.

but then I looked at the site and what first caught my eye?

Todays recipes: Skillet Lasagne.

Made my stomach churn. Oh yah, theyre REALLY committed.

If there is one thing I love about this board is the intelligent educated discourse about a subject near and dear to their hearts. I feel confident that advice I get here is pretty accurate.

[doreen T]

... According to Hwang, "Internet weight loss forums with more than 1,000 messages per month generally contain high quality advice, but medication-related advice is not as accurate as advice related to diet or exercise."...
Our forum averages 1,400 to 2,400 posts per DAY, with weekends and holidays representing the reduced activity periods.

:cool:


Doreen

[LarryAJ]

Here is a link to the abstract. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=17602934)

[Legeon]

So I went to the URL, to see what kind of advice was being given, apparently considered "good advice."

But did you look at the forums, which is what the study was about? There's low carb advice to be found in there. :agree: