Shedding consistent pounds each week linked to long-term weight loss
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...70828093759.htm
Quote:
This bit; Quote:
I don't really understand why this would be the take-home. You can see how these folk go in with a bias towards behaviour as a cause for obesity. So they have a behaviour modification based intervention. Lower emotional eating, binge eating and preoccupation with food associated with higher weight variability and less weight loss overall. Wouldn't you predict that a behaviour modification intervention, intended to decrease binges, emotional eating and food preoccupation would be least successful, in the long term, for people who didn't have a problem with these in the first place? How exactly is behaviour modification supposed to do you any good if the behaviours addressed had nothing to do with your obesity in the first place? Especially if the behaviour they're trying to modify you towards is healthywholegrains and such slop. :lol: |
I consider most of these studies bunk because they all are looking for something other than personal discipline (or self control) to blame for failed weight loss. No one today wants to blame the individual for the situation they are in these days.
Bottom line - If you control what goes in your mouth you control your weight, or weight loss. If you also exercise regularly, you will lose weight and gain muscle. I am not saying it isn't hard, but there is no secret to weight loss (which ever route you choose to take). ( I remember many years back there was a documentary on weight loss, and it combined interviews with obese people telling the interviewer that they ate like birds and still gained weight, and then they filmed them at home and showed how much they truly ate during the average day.) |
So which is it? Discipline, or self control?
|
Quote:
Here's one to get you started. All the best! http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/ |
Ima be a little pragmatic here.
For an endeavor to succeed, there must be two things. First, the action must be easy and simple (all those words that describe a thing that becomes second nature at some point, i.e. does not require special training a priori) to do. For example, going hungry is not easy. Then, the result (the reaction) must be effective (all those words that describe a thing that is, for example, reliable, predictable, controllable, satisfactory, etc). For example, buying a lottery ticket is not effective. I'll use my golf lessons to illustrate. I wrote golf lessons based on my personal experience with extensive study and practice. I designed the lessons to be simple to understand, easy to perform, logical in their progression, with a bit of higher level knowledge to complement though not strictly needed. They're written in segments, each with a simple specific goal in mind, all easy to achieve by players of all level. However, like the Atkins diet, it's a bit unconventional so that's pretty much the only obstacle to overcome, but once past it, it's smooth sailing because it's all easy to perform and all outcomes from all segments are predictable, i.e. do this to do that and so forth. The point is that a "diet" doesn't need to be explained why it works, it merely needs to be explained how to do, so long as the instructions produce the intended result. For example, eat less move more is a set of instructions that does not produce the intended result in a predictable manner, so it's not effective. But, telling people to eat less carbs is effective because it actually produces the intended result reliably. Granted, it's possible an underlying condition prevents it from working as it should, but then again this same condition will also prevent any other dietary intervention from working as they should. Accordingly, any dietary intervention should come with this "advisory" that says "if it don't work, it's not the diet (because it should work as intended, right?), it's something else, find it, fix it, move on". In that last paragraph you quoted, Teaser, it suggests the researchers are blaming the subjects for the failure of their own intervention, as if they could not do anything wrong. Instead, they should acknowledge that their intervention must be tailored to produce the intended results, regardless of the subjects' apparent starting conditions. They seem to believe that the intervention, if followed, will produce intended results, without regard to how these instructions are conveyed to the subjects. If you've ever read any assembly instructions for furniture for example, you'll know exactly what I mean by that. |
Those assembly instructions probably work better for some people than for others, though.
Quote:
It sounds to me like they accepted that the study didn't support their hypothesis, and suggested an alternate hypothesis. I don't understand why, if the intervention worked, then initial tendency to binge, emotional eating etc. not corresponding to failure is possibly a good thing, maybe those best suited to the intervention had the best response. Expecting an intervention that addresses binging and emotional eating to be effective in a person who doesn't binge or eat emotionally is silly. |
Bazzinga! "...It’s hard to imagine that the French, for instance, would improve their self-esteem by spending more time at the gym."
quote snip from http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/ |
Quote:
True. But being told the wrong things to put in my mouth for weight loss sure made things a lot harder. Years back before low carb I did succeed in losing a substantial amount on the then recommended low fat semi-starvation type of diet through sheer force of will against constant hunger but quickly regained all plus interest the moment I ate a normal reasonable amount of food again. I still struggle to lose and avoid regaining even on low carb but it is a lot easier with more success and far less hunger. Exercise for me did nothing I could detect either way. I have always worked out quite a bit even while obese with no slimming effect. Also once had to take many weeks off due to injury during a time I was making no effort to lose or control my weight. I made no conscious effort whatsoever to deliberately change my energy/calorie intake and just ate based on appetite/hunger same as before and then later after recovering from the injury with return to fitness activities again. Weight remained absolutely stable throughout the entire experience. I did notice my body automatically adjust for the missing work outs by making me feel less hungry and genuinely not want as much food until I started burning more calories again and automatically went back to eating more. I was surprised by how my body handled things so precisely without any conscious effort on my part to maintain its desired homeostasis because before this experience I would have predicted I'd gain a bunch of weight while recovering, unable to move much. Body is pretty smart. |
For me what goes in my mouth seems to control what I want to put in my mouth, and how hard it is to resist. If I eat sufficiently ketogenically, I find much smaller portions of cheese or nuts rewarding, if I don't, I'll tend to binge on these foods. This is just my own experience, I don't know how many people this would also be true for.
|
Quote:
I agree with this 100%. |
Quote:
That statement is addressing the wrong issue. Yes, the personal discipline isn't there - but WHY? I consider myself to be pretty disciplined when it comes to getting showered in the morning and going to work. But someone with severe depression or other illnesses can't even get out of bed. There's no point in looking at that person and saying, "s/he doesn't have personal discipline." The question is why not? Where did it go? That person may have had no problem much of their life, so what happened exactly? To paraphrase Gary Taubes (I think?), that's like investigating an airline crash and concluding, "well, obviously the plane crashed because there was insufficient lift on the wings. Case closed." Well, duh, but there are many different factors and you have to figure them out if you want to avoid the same thing in the future. It could have been caused by human error, insufficient training or staffing, a multitude of mechanical failures, weather, etc. In the case of dieting, it's like Zei said: we're told we're supposed to just ignore hunger, as if it doesn't wake you in the middle of the night, as if it isn't distracting you from your job, as if it doesn't make you dizzy, as if food doesn't start becoming an obsession. It's supposed to work this way. Our species wouldn't have survived if it didn't. ...until you eliminate (or at least minimize) grain and sugar intake. Eat a species-appropriate diet minus the addictive substances, and all of the sudden your "personal discipline" reappears. But LC is still seen as "dangerous", and you must eat your HeartHealthyWholeGrains and eat less meat, so let's blame a lack of discipline instead. |
Quote:
Great reply Kristine. Not being hungry all the time allows me to have the discipline to eat a low carb diet and it is the low carb diet that took away the incessant hunger that I could not control. Jean |
I agree with Kristine on that point. I'd like to point out though that in and of itself, cutting out sugar and bread (for example, and especially) takes a whole lot of discipline just for the very first meal, let alone for a lifetime. Cuz, you know, they're addictive. On the other hand once we know from first hand experience, we're in control and that makes all the difference.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:44. |
Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.