Talk:Dieting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dieting article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
User:Reflex Reaction
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
Archive
Archives
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

    Contents

    [edit] General Consensus?

    I understand this may fly in the face of what the majority of people working on this site attempt to accomplish, but does nobody else feel that a "general (current scientific) consensus" section describing the majority of experts' views on the subject would be helpful? I doubt that most people are looking up dieting just to find out what it is. They're looking for unbiased information not being sold to them in a book or movie series with a meal plan. I don't think it could be considered giving dangerous medical advice to, for instance, state (i don't know if this is true or not) that there is widespread scientific consensus that a light diet consisting primarily of leafy vegetables and small portions of meat, starch, and fat is good for health. And possibly have a statement lead into a sort of suggested diet (this doesn't have to be so overt that anyone could be accused of telling someone the right "answer" to the question.) I think it's really silly and uninformative to have a page that's essentially just a list of possible ways to misguide oneself, without any real attempt at discussing whether the atlatl-hunted diet is any more benificial than the Slim-Fast one. 70.108.199.130 06:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

    70.108.199.130, I would agree. However this should be presented as from an authoritative source, e.g. government guidelines or scientific research. I intend to make a start on cleaning this page up in the near future but I am not an expert on the subject matter. -- Jamougha

    [edit] Diet Pills

    Typically these drugs fall into two classes: diuretics to induce water-weight loss and stimulants (such as ephedrine, and more recently synephrine, due to the former's ban as a weight loss supplement by the FDA, although ephedrine is still available as an asthma medication) to increase heart rate and reduce appetite. Both classes of drugs can cause kidney and liver damage, and stimulants can cause sudden heart attacks, addiction, and both ephedrine and synephrine have been proven to cause ischemic stroke.

    This section reads highly POV, no citations and is prima facie rubbish. The use of stimulants to lose weight is a common technique carried out by millions of people worldwide daily with little to no side effects. The odd instance where someone who is already in very poor health has a stroke or heart attack from it is not above standard deviation, IMHO. Perhaps we can get some citations on this portion of the article, specifically citations that show that it's higher than the standard acceptable deviation applied to the specific chemicals expected level of side effects? Jachin 21:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

    And I'd add that the two classes are not diuretics and stimulants, but drugs that limit energy intake (oralist, appetite suppressants) and drugs that increase energy expenditure (thermogenics, stimulants). Many drugs do both, such as ephedrine/caffeine (suppresses appetite, increases energy, mild thermogenic).

    [edit] A problem with the exercise section, and rapid weight loss in general

    The section on physical exercise tends to downplay the role of exercise in its ability to create *rapid* weight loss. I certainly agree with that. However, I think if we are going to give an extended calculation showing how insignificant a short workout session can be in generating a weight loss of 10 kg, I think we also need to show the equivalent calculation for how small acts of physical activity each day can not only promote general fitness, but over time make the difference in weight management.

    For example, using the same basic assumptions as the example quoted in this section, it is easily verified that climbing about 3 flights of stairs every day (a behavior pattern that many people could easily incorporate into their daily routine) will result in a net weight loss of about 1 pound per year. This is true for a number of small things like this. Walking a mile every day (which can also be incorporated bits at a time throughout a daily routine) will lead to a weight loss of about 10 pounds/year.

    This is obviously not what people are looking for -- they want to lose 10 kg in a 2-3 weeks. HOWEVER, I just think it should be noted somewhere that most people don't gain 10 kg in 2-3 weeks; they gain it over 2-3 *years*, but then they expect to be able to lose it in 2-3 weeks. The point that needs to be made in the exercise section about this is that small amount of activity every day can be enough to prevent someone from gaining the 10 kg over the 2-3 years in the first place. And, making these small changes in daily routines can also promote small amounts of weight loss in the long run. The same, of course, goes for small calorie reductions that are done consistently (e.g., cutting out 100 calories per day -- one or two cookies -- can result in a loss of 10 pounds over a year, assuming that the person is already consuming just enough calories to maintain weight, and the converse is true -- adding one or two cookies per day can make the difference in adding on pounds slowly).

    In summary, I have two overall problems with this article: (1) the exercise section, with its current example, tends to come across as discouraging to people who might otherwise incorporate some level of exercise (even a small amount) in their diet routine (which is bad -- people should incorporate exercise), and (2) there should be a clearer section discussing the fact that we don't gain weight anywhere near as fast as we want to lose it, and paying attention to little details can make the difference in putting on weight slowly versus taking it off slowly. This latter viewpoint is much more healthy (puts less stress on the body, promotes changes in habits that are more likely to stick that rapid fad diets, etc.) and should be stressed more than most of the "diets" mentioned on this page. 76.118.181.158 18:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

    Go ahead, make the changes, but make sure you have reliable sources and avoid original research. You can add unsourced material, but if anyone challenges it, it will be removed. WLU 20:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    I would be very interested in what sources you come up with to indicate that your approach actually works, given that what you are suggesting has pretty much been the position of the medical establishment for many years - lose weight slowly, 1 to 2 pounds per week. The problem with this approach is that it simply does not work. The National Institute of Health states that this approach fails 95% to 98% of the time. The reason is that in order to lose weight, one must consume less calories than your body needs. Unfortunately, this causes hunger. People are able to handle hunger over a period of time, but when they have to endure hunger for months or even years, most simply cannot sustain that ability. Overweight individuals know this, that is why they look for ways to lose weight quickly, before they lose their ability to deal with constant hunger. I do agree with your statements regarding exercise, which I do feel is the key. 206.169.172.212 15:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    Those figures, from what I know, cover essentially all diets irrespective of approach except for gradual weight loss. The NIH page on yo-yo dieting supports the gradual weight loss approach, and discourages rapid weight loss. The page on losing weight supports a calorie deficit of 500-1000 calories, based on a mix of food restriction and increased exercise. Though realistically, burning 1000 calories a day through exercise would probably run a significant risk of overtraining. WLU 15:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    If the proposed ideas concerning small amounts of exercise burning calories are "original research," then the whole section on physical exercise needs to be rewritten. The assumptions in that section do a basic calculation that ignores changes in metabolism, etc. for the duration of the weight-loss regime (a matter of months). If those assumptions are correct, then similar calculations do show that doing small things should result in weight loss (or at least maintaining current weight). So, I'd vote for including some discussion of the role of small amounts of exercise and similar calculations for long-term weight maintenance... it's isn't "original research" -- it's basic math (just the same as the current "physical exercise" section has).
    Regarding the claim that dieters say hunger overwhelms them and thus diets need to be short... well, I'd say if that's true, perhaps your diet it too extreme. I know that some people have problems with metabolism caused by various disorders and so forth, but if all of that is working properly, gradual weight loss just doesn't seem that taxing. Although this is anecdotal evidence, I'll say that I personally lost about 30 pounds with a daily calorie deficit of about 500 calories... which means that the diet lasted about 30 weeks. Yes, it was hard for the first couple weeks, but after about 3 weeks, my body got used to a gradual weight loss. The key for me was simply weighing myself daily and averaging the weights over the past week to see how my weight was trending. As long as it kept going down about a pound per week, I kept eating as I was. If it was going down slower, I ate a little less... if it was going down faster, I ate a little more. Occasionally I'd get hungry, but I don't think it was a lot more often than I would get hungry even if I wasn't dieting (you know, sometimes you're just not at a convenient point in the day, so you can't eat for a while).
    I know this is all anecdotal, but I just needed to respond to the person that essentially argued that fast diets are the only way because hunger will overpower you. Yes, hunger will overpower you if you're trying to lose 5 pounds per week (next to impossible, and very unhealthy), but if you're simply eating a little less than you need, the hunger is manageable... even for months. And, with that in mind, I think there is a lot of wisdom in the argument that doing a little extra each day (taking the stairs, walking a little extra, etc.) will help keep weight off and may help you lose it. 65.96.106.31 19:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    I am not stating that rapid weight lose diets are the way to go. What I am saying is that the majority of overweight individuals cannot cope with the on-going hunger associated with long-term dieting. Your personal success is great, but how does that relate to the rest of the population? Have you ever considered that hunger is experienced differently by different people? I once had a co-worker who never needed any pain medication when at the dentist because he did not feel pain - can you imagine having your tooth drilled without anesthesia? Perhaps many individuals trying to lose weight simply cannot deal with hunger the way you do. The very fact that, in general, overweight people have a difficult time losing weight must indicate that it is hard to do so successfully. I did not know how to create a link in Wikipedia to a specific source, but you will find the following statement in eMedicine.com (there is a link to the general eMedicine obesity article at the top of the Wikipedia article on obesity) under Treatment:
    "Results of weight-loss management:
    o Results of most weight loss management programs are dismal. On average, participants in the best weight-loss programs lose approximately 10% of their body weight, but people generally regain two thirds of the weight lost within a year, and they regain almost all of it within 5 years.
    o When defined as sustained weight loss over a 5-year follow-up period, the success of even the best medical weight-loss programs is next to nil. Most available data indicate that, irrespective of the method of medical intervention, 90-95% of the weight lost is regained in 5 years."
    206.169.172.212 19:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Text in article is, err, odd

    To quote: Physical exercise is an important complement to dieting in securing weight loss. Aerobic exercise is also an important part of maintaining normal good health, especially the muscular strength of the heart. To be useful, aerobic exercise requires maintaining a target heart rate of above 50 percent of one's maximum heart rate for 30 minutes, at least 3 times a week. Brisk walking can accomplish this.

    "above one's maximum heart rate"??? Shouldn't this be a different measure, such as sitting heart rate or some such? Maximum is maximum and if you told me that I had to go 30 minutes at near 300 BPM I'd never take you seriously (my max is 195). - mec 13 August 2007

    New comments should go at the bottom of the page. You might mean resting heart rate - feel free to adjust. WLU 06:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

    I think this is a misunderstanding. "...a target heart rate of above 50% of one's maximum heart rate..." does not mean (to me at least) "a target rate of 50% above one's maximum". If your maximum heart rate is 200, then the first phrase would mean you would need an exercise pulse of at least 100. The second phrase would mean a pulse of 300. Boxter1977 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] The Calorie Myth

    It has been proven through many studies (such as The Glycemic Index) that weight gain does not occur from eating too many calories, but by eating the WRONG foods! Since 1960 Americans have consumed 35% less calories, and yet obesiety has risen by a huge 400%! (statistic from Adrian F. Heini “Divergent trends in obesity and fat intake patterns : The American Paradox”. The American Journal of Medicine 1997.) What then, if not calories, causes weight gain? Hyperinsulinisme (or high blood sugar levels) is the key. Whever you eat somethign with a high sugar level (such as white bread, or cooked potatoes) the carbohydrates are broken down into glucose, and it spikes the bodies blood sugar level, which then cause the body to secrete insulin, which reduces the blood sugar levels. It does this by storing the glucose into its reserves. But once these reserves get full... then trouble comes a knocking. The excess glucose is turned into body fat instead. How would you then know which foods are good (or have low glycemic index (GI) levels), and which are bad? After many studies with different foods, humans have discovered the GI levels of different foods. For more information please visit the Official web site of Michel Montignac and the Montignac Method

    It's remarkable how when the potential to sell books or diet products is present, the laws of physics cease to apply. Even though human beings produce heat (and require a basic metabolic rate of no less than 1300 calories - HEAT ENERGY UNITS - per day....absolute worst case), people are willing to buy that somehow you can defy the laws of thermodynamics by eating "bad calories". It just amazes me. Do I doubt that once you've exceeded your minimum caloric requirements (and are no longer acting catabolic) that the composition of those excess calories can impact how your body uses them? No way. However, if you want to lose weight then eat fewer calories than what you need...period. It's simple thermodynamics that has been around for 150 years or more. Does the requirement (over the BMR) vary from person to person? Sure! At the end of the day, though, it's all about fuel...and fuel is (precisely) measured in KCal....period. You can't turn a caloric deficit into fat...it's akin to saying that by driving at 55 MPH instead of 65 MPH you can somehow magically "add" fuel to your tank...won't ever happen.
    If you want to lose weight you need to expend more calories than you consume. Types of food and the GI index comes into play when calories consumed are more than is being expended. Marconutrient intake ratios will affect the amount of fat stored - for example, an individual consuming 1500 calories per day derived from mostly fat and carbohydrates will gain more bodyfat than they were to consume 1500 calories per day derived from mostly protein and carbohydrates. Quartet 03:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    Explain how this is possible. First, explain how (nearly anyone) eating 1500 KCal per day would be sufficient for weight GAIN. This isn't far from the BMR requirements. Second, by this definition (there are "different" calories), explain how the body is able to get more heat out of certain fuels (foods - like fats and carbohydrates) than is thermodynamically contained within these foods. There may be more KCal per unit mass in fats or carbohydrates (therefore, the consumption of equal mass of different types of food may yield different KCal consumed), but energy is energy is energy...period. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.9.32.49 (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
    I said "gain more bodyfat" - not "gain more weight". A person can gain bodyfat but not gain scale weight - it's called body composition. Secondly it has well documented that different foods from the same macronutrient category can yield different energy compositions, despite the fact that macronutrients are generally thought to yield a certain amount of kcals per gram. A few studies that test the thermogenic responses to isoenergetic meals (meals having similar caloric compositions) agree that protein is the most thermogenic macronutrient (Europ J Clin Nutr 52: 482-488, Clin Sci 65: 307- 312, J Nutr 113: 2289-2294 + others). --Quartet 17:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    Uh, OK...so let's look at the "weight neutral" (no change in total weight) / "increased body fat condition" for just a moment. If weight doesn't increase, then the only way to "gain more bodyfat" is for a two-step process to occur: 1 - Muscle mass needs to get consumed, 2 - Fat needs to be synthesized. By this reckoning, a person eating the "wrong diet" could go from 50 pounds of bodyfat and 150 pounds of "other tissues" (including muscle) to 70 pounds of bodyfat and 130 pounds of other tissues. The total weight remains unchanged, yet the compositon changes. With a thermodynamically neutral diet (exact calories in = exact calories needed), the body would literally need to become catabloic to -make- fat under this scenario (because there is no incoming energy to use to make fat tissue with). Again, nonsense...what I believe you have been "fed" (no pun intended) is the premise that in a negative calorie state (calories in < calories needed), the body will catabolize muscle in preference of fat in the absence of sufficient protien intake. This is true. Let's be clear, though...the -mass- of body fat will never increase in a calorie neutral or negative calorie state...it will simply decrease at a slower rate than that of muscle mass (without the proper carbohydrate / protien, fat mix). Further, when calories exceed the body's requirements, the choice of foods can alter the rate at which fat vs muscle mass increases. What you are talking about is "body fat %"...and it has nothing to do with total weight. Eat (roughly) 4000 calories less than your body needs on a pure carbohydrate diet, and your weight will go down by a pound. Eat 4000 calories less than your body needs on a pure protien diet, and your weight will go down by a pound. Eat 4000 calories less than your body needs on a pure fat diet, and your weight will go down by a pound. Same thing going the other way....period. Now...you wanna spare muscle thereby more slowly reducing BMR thereby more slowly reducing the effect that a "fixed calorie" diet will have on weight loss over time - OK, protein will help that. Know what will help it infinitely more? A tiny bit of weight training. Working muscles and encouraging new muscle growth makes the contribution of diet consumptoin trivial when looking at body fat % (body composition) even in a negative calorie state. Here's the final point: This section was called "the calorie myth"...and there is no myth about the direct linear relationship between calories and weight...period. It's the calorie "law".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.32.49 (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2007
    Sorry but your post demonstrates a lack of understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. Please consider many factors are at play, including hormonal responses to certain macro nutrients, the fact that through respiration you can take in mass which wasn't eaten in the form of oxygen which is available for metabolic processes, and the fact that kilocal seen by burning nutrients in a lab is available to your body as energy. Each macro nutrient has vastly different properties and requires entirely different metabolic pathways (and thus the amount of energy required to extract a calorie differs for each). I suggest you start your research here. --WayneMokane (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    A body builder who cease exercise may loose muscle mass and gain fat without alternation of body mass. jmak (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Page move

    I request a move to the main Diet page, alternatively a redirect may be created preliminary. See the diet (nutrition) talk page for more information. KVDP (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


    [edit] 14 kilocalories per pound per hour???

    Can anyone verify or clarify the claim that one pound of muscle burns 14 kilocalories per pound per hour? This seems rather odd, as that would mean that a person with only 10 pounds of muscle in their whole body would be burning 14 X 24 (hours) X 10 (pounds) = 3360 kilocalories per day. And that is without even getting out of bed. Since most people burn in the vicinity of 2000 - 3000 kilocalories per day total, this figure seems improbable. Is the proper figure 14 calories (not kilocalories) perhaps? Is there a source available for this information? Boxter1977 (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

    Quick googling gives two ([1],[2]) reliable-ish links that both claim muscle burns about 6 (kilo)calories per pound per day. Those links also note that the common wisdom was about 50-60 (kilo)calories per pound per day. Even though the difference is 10x, they are still far from 14 kilocalories per pound per hour. Maybe someone by accident added 'per hour'?
    Using these figures, we can estimate that 10 pounds of muscle (4.6kg) would consume somewhere between 60 and and 600 kilocalories per day. Based on my own personal experience, I'm inclined to trust the lower end of the scale, but conventional wisdom (borne out of possible desire to sell books?) usually goes with the higher end. Baeksu (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)