Support NeoGAF

[teh_pwn]

I've only been overweight once, in my early teens, and it was because I adopted a really bad diet. I'm not sure why it happened, I moved to a new city and maybe I started eating more to cope with change? I'm honestly not sure.

One day I decided to eat less and move more. And boom, I'm back in skinny mode forever. While eating rice, potatoes, muffins, cookies, pizza, etc. - I just think you can eat high calorie food items if you're smart about it. Again, I just don't think it should be stated as a fact that you should follow a super strict diet if you want to have a normal weight. It's as easy as looking at other people who are not overweight and don't deprive themselves from any entire group of food.

I believe there is variation in individual susceptibility to food reward factors. The interesting thing in human studies is that fit people eat precisely enough calories to maintain when told to consume a bland, nutritious solution until satiated while obese people eat about 300 calories per day until they approach a good fat composition and their intake increases.

NYC has smaller portions, tends to have less of a reward bomb to many foods. In suburbia you go to a restaurant and get complementary nachos/queso, then get an appetizer, then get a massive burrito smothered in sour cream, avocado, cheese. I think NYC has less of this because it has more early generation immigrants along with their cuisine, and while visiting NY I didn't find it desirable to overeat because I knew I had to walk a mile to get back to my hotel.

Anecdotal, after I reset my setpoint I'm able to safely balance social outings with rewarding cuisine and traditional meals. I think acclimation to rewarding foods builds up. Some people won't drink water because it's "bland".

Edit: apparently I replace new city with NYC in my head.

 

[Devolution]

There's nothing wrong with posting suggestions. However, if someone comes out and says something similar to: "actually that's incorrect," and provides multiple scholarly articles as evidence (And most importantly, those articles are of robust design, with double blinding when possible, sound methodologies and large sample sizes), then your response should be, "I was wrong, I didn't really know much about this topic."

That is what my response was on this particular topic, for example. I relied on anecdotal data; then someone posted some studies; and then my response was, "oh, I guess I didn't know better. Thanks."

But you're still not providing me with evidence that telling people to exclude gluten or empty carbs leads to bad decisions.

 

[Opiate]

But you're still not providing me with evidence that telling people to exclude gluten or empty carbs leads to bad decisions.

I already provided multiple links re-enforcing my positions; you have provided absolutely zero links, zero articles, and zero data to support any position that contradicts ClassyPenguin's position.

In fact, I can't find anyone providing any scientific evidence besides ClassyPenguin; I can't even find anyone in this thread who appears to have even read the articles which were linked. One of his links is to a study with a relatively small sample size, for example; that's something a literate person could legitimately criticize.

Instead we're mired in a discussion of whether personal experience is relevant. Again, I suppose if that's all you had to go on, beggars can't be choosers. But given that we now have large scale data available to us, the answer is that anecdotal suggestions are irrelevant. I don't care about my experience, I don't care about yours, I don't care about ClassyPenguin's. If you're going to show that ClassyPenguin is wrong, explain why the studies he has linked are faulty and provide scientific evidence of your own.

 

[Devolution]

I already provided multiple links re-enforcing my positions; you have provided absolutely zero links, zero articles, and zero data to support any position that contradicts ClassyPenguin's position.

In fact, I can't find anyone providing any scientific evidence besides ClassyPenguin; I can't even find anyone in this thread who appears to have even read the articles which were linked. One of his links is to a study with a relatively small sample size, for example; that's something a literate person could legitimately criticize.

Instead we're mired in a discussion of whether personal experience is relevant. Again, I suppose if that's all you had to go on, beggars can't be choosers. But given that we now have large scale data available to us, the answer is that anecdote is irrelevant. I don't care about my experience, I don't care about yours, I don't care about ClassyPenguin's.

You don't care about people's experiences when it comes to their own diet, energy levels and feelings after ingesting food? Because that's pretty much the bulk of what dieting happens to be. Experimenting with what works for an individual, telling others what works for them. Carb reduction isn't anything particularly out there and neither is avoiding gluten. This isn't homeopathic medicine we're talking about. This is adjusting the foods you ingest to see if it makes a difference in your overall weight and health.

I already had a discussion with him about how a bunch of doctors did not explain to a person in my life that a dietary change could help a skin condition she suffered from. Several specialists later she was told by one to remove gluten and certain foods from her diet and it clears up a bit. Go back to those foods and it inflames. All they gave her were drugs and creams that didn't do anything. Now tell me what she's supposed to do? Just ignore the fact that those creams and drugs should have worked because studies said so? Keep eating those foods because the evidence surrounding such a connection is weak? How about she just does what works for her.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Of course you can tell them they're wrong -- I don't see why this is even controversial. If what you say is strongly contradicted by logic and evidence, you're wrong, the end. Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant. It sounds like ClassyPenguin has simply done more research and reading on this topic.

Uh, what? So if someone loses a lot of weight by removing gluten from their diet, and feels significantly better, does that mean as soon as you point out that that isn't backed by science they're going to immediately gain the weight back and feel like shit since what they did is apparently "wrong"?

There's a large gap between sharing something that worked and suggesting that it's a scientifically proven cure-all. No one is arguing the latter right now. If a person has lost weight and feels better, then they aren't wrong that it worked for them, sorry. The end. Nothing is more logical and backed by evidence than actual results for an individual when you're discussing what works for that individual.

 

[Opiate]

I just want to make sure everyone is aware that I'm not necessarily saying ClassyPenguin is correct. He could be wrong. But if he is, you'll prove him wrong by reading the articles linked, explaining why those studies are faulty, and/or providing a larger number of rigorous studies that reach contrary conclusions.

In comparison, arguments like "I did X and it worked for me" are like pebbles thrown against an iron fortress. If someone provides scientific data to support a position, you have three reasonable responses:

1) "Oh I was wrong, thanks."
2) Read the studies and look for potential errors. See if these studies are representative of general scientific consensus or are outliers.
3) Leave the thread.

If you don't want to deal with science and scholarly articles, then you don't have to post in threads that deal with them. But if you want to argue seriously, you're going to have step up and read densely.

 

[Piecake]

A more recent meta-study of randomized controlled studies (from January 2000 to March 2007) that compared low-carbohydrate diets to low-fat/low-calorie diets found that measurements of weight, HDL cholesterol, triglyceride levels and systolic blood pressure were significantly better in groups that followed low-carbohydrate diets. The authors also found a higher rate of attrition in groups with low-fat diets. They conclude that "Evidence from this systematic review demonstrates that low-carbohydrate/high-protein diets are more effective at 6 months and are as effective, if not more, as low-fat diets in reducing weight and cardiovascular disease risk up to 1 year." They also call for more long-term studies.[71]

A 2012 systematic review studying the effects of low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors showed the LCD to be associated with significant decreases in body weight, body mass index, abdominal circumference, blood pressure, triglycerides, fasting blood sugar, blood insulin and plasma C-reactive protein, as well as an increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) and creatinine did not change significantly. The study found the LCD was shown to have favorable effects on body weight and major cardiovascular risk factors (but concluding the effects on long-term health are unknown). The study didn't compare health benefits of LCD to low-fat diets.[72]

A meta-analysis published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2013 compared low-carbohydrate, Mediterranean, vegan, vegetarian, low-glycemic index, high-fiber, and high-protein diets with control diets. The researchers concluded that low-carbohydrate, Mediterranean, low-glycemic index, and high-protein diets are effective in improving markers of risk for cardiovascular disease and diabetes.[73]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medica...hydrate_diets#British_Medical_Journal.2C_2012

Dietary science seems to claim a bunch of conflicting stuff. Probably because it is really hard to test a person's diet unless you lock them up in a cell and control what they eat. Does that sound like a call for using prisoners as dietary test subjects? Why not!

 

[crozier]

Modern medicine knows diddly-squat about digestive disorders which is why IBS even exists as a diagnosis. If you're diagnosed, they often have you go on an elimination diet where you gradually add foods back in to determine what you can and cannot eat.

In this sense, dieting can be quite personal. And yes, I'm speaking from experience. In my experience it turned out to be gluten specifically and carbs more generally...no scientific study saying why this is or isn't the case. The doctor just says to avoid them as much as possible (although my issue isn't celiac, not allergic, so I only have discomfort...no intestinal damage).

 

[Opiate]

Uh, what? So if someone loses a lot of weight by removing gluten from their diet, and feels significantly better, does that mean as soon as you point out that that isn't backed by science they're going to immediately gain the weight back and feel like shit since what they did is apparently "wrong"?

It means they don't understand the causal explanations for their own weight gain (or loss). It means other people may understand another person's body better than those people do themselves.

There's a large gap between sharing something that worked and suggesting that it's a scientifically proven cure-all. No one is arguing the latter right now. If a person has lost weight and feels better, then they aren't wrong that it worked for them, sorry. The end. Nothing is more logical and backed by evidence than actual results for an individual when you're discussing what works for that individual.

Of course there is. People are often extremely unaware of how their own body works. They are quick to jump on the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Again, for emphasis: people are often very unaware of how their own bodies work and other people may understand those people's bodies than those people do themselves.

 

[Byakuya769]

Wow, can I get coursera credit for displaying the opiate approved rigor in this thread?

 

[APF]

The ironic thing is, this thread is about fat loss myths you might be wasting your time with.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

Exactly. For whatever reason, people don't seem to think that athletes might also diet if the needs of their sport requires they weigh less. Gladwell has a good article in the New Yorker that touches on this a little (really it's about performance-enhancement in sport). Athletes will straight-up starve themselves if bodyweight is a hindrance, even in highly-energetic sports.

Yep, or they'll look at SHW olympic weightlifters or powerlifters and conclude that lifting heavy things makes you fat and/or "bulky". It's ludicrousfor the average person to compare themselves to an elite athlete when their circumstances, behaviours and genetic advantages are so extreme, but for some reason it's commonplace. BTW, that looks like a good article, cheers.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

It means they don't understand the causal explanations for their own weight gain (or loss). It means other people understand their body better than they do themselves.



Of course there is. People are often extremely unaware of how their own body works. They are quick to jump on the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Again, for emphasis: people are often very unaware of how their own bodies work and many people will understand their bodies much better than those people do themselves.

It doesn't matter if they understand it correctly or not. Maybe they aren't pinpointing the exact mechanism and reason for their success. However, the point is that if they continue to do what they're doing, and it's effective for them, that's all that matters. You can't tell them that whatever they're doing isn't working, when the results are staring at you in the face. No one should be telling them to stop doing what they're doing just because it hasn't been proven by science. Sorry.

Of course, this isn't very helpful for a general discussion of effective strategies for the general population, but that's not what was being discussed in this particular back-and-forth.

 

[Opiate]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medica...hydrate_diets#British_Medical_Journal.2C_2012

Dietary science seems to claim a bunch of conflicting stuff. Probably because it is really hard to test a person's diet unless you lock them up in a cell and control what they eat. Does that sound like a call for using prisoners as dietary test subjects? Why not!

See? This is by a wide margin the best counterargument to ClassyPenguin's position so far.

Responding to the article: it's important to note the bolded. The study isn't saying that low-fat diets are actually less effective biologically, they're more difficult to maintain psychologically in the first 6 months. Longer term studies have found this effect to be reduced, as attrition rates become more equivalent over time.

 

[teh_pwn]

Just want to point out that sweeping conclusions based on total LDL and HDL isn't safe. There are various sub-types of lipoproteins. Some LDL is basically harmless whereas another is highly correlated with heart disease. If you want to know what your best guess risk is for heart disease, get a VAP test and review the results with a doctor that is up to date with the latest research.

So in these studies that are raving about total LDL decreasing, it doesn't mean that the subclass of LDL that's actually correlated with heart disease is decreasing. It's even possible that bad LDL is increasing and normal LDL is decreasing. If you don't measure you don't know.

 

[Opiate]

It doesn't matter if they understand it correctly or not. If they continue to do what they're doing, and it's effective for them, that's all that matters.

No, it isn't, unless you place no value on truth. The question isn't whether you're losing weight, the question is why you're losing weight. If you do a 180 degree spin before every meal and find 6 months later that you've lost 10 pounds, you have obviously actually lost weight, but you fundamentally misunderstand the reason why and telling people "it worked for me!" would be extremely harmful.

 

[crozier]

If you do a 180 degree spin before every meal and find 6 months later that you've lost 10 pounds, you have obviously actually lost weight, but you fundamentally misunderstand the reason why and telling people "it worked for me!" would be extremely harmful.

This is pretty much the definition of superstition here.

 

[RumblingRosco]

I've chimed in on some of the NeoGAF nutrition threads in the past, and while I don't always agree with him, I'd say ClassyPenguin is consistently the most up-to-date and informative person to post in said threads.

Also, as Piecake has alluded to, scientific studies related to human nutrition are often times conflicting. I've mentioned this before, but my fiancee and I have our Bachelor's in food/nutrition/dietetics, she has her Master's in dietetics, and is a clinical/registered dietitian while I am the majority of the way into completing my PhD in food science. We've spent a lot of time reading and studying peer-reviewed nutrition publications. I am close to many people that conduct research related to human nutrition, and seriously, it's impressive how much dumb shit occurs, how many failures occur, and as Piecake mentioned how conflicting this shit can be. I'm a bit jaded I guess, but it takes many, many years and many independent studies before I trust new research related to human nutrition.

The stuff in the OP? Pretty on the point as far as I can tell. Sure, it won't work for everyone, but they're good general guidelines to follow when trying to lower your body fat.

 

[fredrancour]

It doesn't matter if they understand it correctly or not.

Peoples' dietary habits, by and large, still come from their friends and family. If someone completely misunderstands why his personal habits are effective, he may advocate them under circumstances that are completely unhelpful or may attribute his success to the wrong habit in the first place. When his family fails to get healthy the same way they did, they get frustrated and write off healthy exercise or eating altogether, assuming "it's genetics, he's just skinny, there's no point in fighting obesity" or some similar thing.

A lack of understanding makes communication very, very difficult.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

See? This is by a wide margin the best counterargument to ClassyPenguin's position so far.

Responding to the article: it's important to note the bolded. The study isn't saying that low-fat diets are actually less effective biologically, they're more difficult to maintain psychologically in the first 6 months. Longer term studies have found this effect to be reduced, as attrition rates become more equivalent over time.

I don't dispute the many problems of nutrition science. Soka has shown the many problems in his posts
Here and here

Even the USDA backed off the low-fat diet. They are for the consumption of healthy fats oils. The My Plate system is superior to any thing we've had by far.

 

[Piecake]

No, it isn't, unless you place no value on truth. The question isn't whether you're losing weight, the question is why you're losing weight. If you do a 180 degree spin before every meal and find 6 months later that you've lost 10 pounds, you have obviously actually lost weight, but you fundamentally misunderstand the reason why and telling people "it worked for me!" would be extremely harmful.

You have a lot more faith that science can find out the Truth about nutrition than I do apparently, at least in the near future. Nutrition is just too difficult to control. All I know is sugar and the majority of processed foods are shit and I avoid that. I limit grain as well because it makes me feel bloated. I am sure you'll be telling me that that is not scientific quite shortly, but I dont give a shit. I replaced the grains with vegetables, which is a net gain health wise for me.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

I've chimed in on some of the NeoGAF nutrition threads in the past, and while I don't always agree with him, I'd say ClassyPenguin is consistently the most up-to-date and informative person to post in said threads.

Also, as Piecake has alluded to, scientific studies related to human nutrition are often times conflicting. I've mentioned this before, but my fiancee and I have our Bachelor's in food/nutrition/dietetics, she has her Master's in dietetics, and is a clinical/registered dietitian while I am the majority of the way into completing my PhD in food science. We've spent a lot of time reading and studying peer-reviewed nutrition publications. I am close to many people that conduct research related to human nutrition, and seriously, it's impressive how much dumb shit occurs, how many failures occur, and as Piecake mentioned how conflicting this shit can be. I'm a bit jaded I guess, but it takes many, many years and many independent studies before I trust new research related to human nutrition.

The stuff in the OP? Pretty on the point as far as I can tell. Sure, it won't work for everyone, but they're good general guidelines to follow when trying to lower your body fat.

If you can correct me, the better. I'll accept when I'm wrong and totally helps with my understanding.


Oh, and from the breakfast article posted earlier, since it is relevant:

But observational studies that tout an association between the two are churned out “just about every week,” despite doing nothing to actually test or prove the claim.

“At some point, this becomes absurd,” he said. “We’re doing studies that have little or no value. We’re wasting time, intellect and resources, and we’re convincing people of things without actually generating evidence.”

 

[yogloo]

I just want to add this into the discussion.
Losing weight is overrated while living healthy is underrated.

 

[daripad]

Ok guys, I wanted to take advantage of this thread since no one answers in the weight loss thread since it was mobed to community:

I've been losing weight since April, but once I got at 81 kg (I'm 5'8") I stopped losing weight for two months and a half. I'm stuck at that weight and I don't know what is wrong, I haven't gained weight either. I have just stopped doing excercise 5 times a week and now I do it 3 - 4 times a week due to school. I don't know what I should avoid at this point, this is becoming annoying.

My daily diet looks like this (with variations here and there) and it was working since I started (I was even eating a little more):

7 am: Ham Sandwich with lots of tomato slices and lettuce. Coffee
10 am: fruit (apple, banana, pear, orange or whatever I have at home)
2 pm: Chicken or Beef or Pork in different ways (not unhealthy ways ).
8 pm: A glass of milk (w/fruit) and toasted bread (w/ peanut cream)

Thanks in.advance

 

[Opiate]

You have a lot more faith that science can find out the Truth about nutrition than I do apparently, at least in the near future. Nutrition is just too difficult to control. All I know is sugar and the majority of processed foods are shit and I avoid that. I limit grain as well because it makes me feel bloated. I am sure you'll be telling me that that is not scientific quite shortly, but I dont give a shit. I replaced the grains with vegetables, which is a net gain health wise for me.

I completely agree that science is imcomplete in this regard -- but that hardly means we should resort to anecdote, which is far worse.

The available science is the best we have, rather than a definitive conclusion.

 

[fredrancour]

Ok guys, I wanted to take advantage of this thread since no one answers in the weight loss thread since it was mobed to community:

I've been losing weight since April, but once I got at 81 kg (I'm 5'8") I stopped losing weight for two months and a half. I'm stuck at that weight and I don't know what is wrong, I haven't gained weight either. I have just stopped doing excercise 5 times a week and now I do it 3 - 4 times a week due to school. I don't know what I should avoid at this point, this is becoming annoying.

My daily diet looks like this (with variations here and there) and it was working since I started (I was even eating a little more):

7 am: Ham Sandwich with lots of tomato slices and lettuce. Coffee
10 am: fruit (apple, banana, pear, orange or whatever I have at home)
2 pm: Chicken or Beef or Pork in different ways (not unhealthy ways ).
8 pm: A glass of milk (w/fruit) and toasted bread (w/ peanut cream)

Thanks in.advance

Your body is probably light enough that you are now eating at a maintenance level.

 

[GatorBait]

I think people mix up the ideas of eating to "lose weight" (or more accurately, lose fat) and eating to "be healthy." Often times these intersect, but not always, as evidenced by those who have used extreme diets to illustrate a point (e.g., McDonald's diet, Twinkie diet).

I like this Venn diagram I found in a 5-second Google search ("body recomposition" being the "lose weight" part):

Carrots and Celery have 0 carbohydrates

Actually, both of those have carbs in them. All vegetables do.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

No, it isn't, unless you place no value on truth. The question isn't whether you're losing weight, the question is why you're losing weight. If you do a 180 degree spin before every meal and find 6 months later that you've lost 10 pounds, you have obviously actually lost weight, but you fundamentally misunderstand the reason why and telling people "it worked for me!" would be extremely harmful.

How do you know that the 180 degree spin isn't what caused them to lose weight? Were you monitoring their vitals and watching their every action? There's no proof either way because you haven't been studying that specific person's body.

Also, extremely harmful? Someone spending a few weeks of experimenting with 180 degree spins and seeing that it doesn't actually work for them would be extremely harmful? Really? At worst, they wasted their time and made themselves look a little foolish.

(Don't blame me for how ridiculous that sounds, you chose the spinning example. The point still stands if you sub in "reduce gluten/sugar/grain intake)

edit: Let me ask you this. If someone came to you and said "I've lost 20 lbs over the past few months by cutting most gluten/grains/sugar from my diet, and I feel a lot better on a day-to-day basis". Would you respond:

1. You should stop doing that because there's no science to back it up. Try this alternate dietary change instead: <insert whatever consensus the medical community has come up with>
2. Let's take a closer look at what you're doing so we can better pinpoint exactly why this method has been successful for you, in case it actually has nothing to do with gluten/grains/sugar.

It sounds like you're leaning more towards #1.

 

[Salacious Crumb]

I've lost 43KG since the start of the year, it was pretty simple really. I ate less and I moved more. With my radical weight loss system I was even able to eat two slices of the devils food, white bread, sometimes multiple times a week, while still losing weight. Amazing.

 

[IceCold]

I don't dispute the many problems of nutrition science. Soka has shown the many problems in his posts
Here and here

Even the USDA backed off the low-fat diet. They are for the consumption of healthy fats oils. The My Plate system is superior to any thing we've had by far.

They still demonize animal fats (dat saturated fat) and cholesterol while pushing for vegetables oils such as canola oil.

 

[daripad]

Your body is probably light enough that you are now eating at a maintenance level.

OMG I can't believe it

Spoiler

So that means I have to eat less?

 

[APF]

How do you know that the 180 degree spin isn't what caused them to lose weight?

This is not the best way to start arguing your point.

OMG I can't believe it

Spoiler

So that means I have to eat less?

It doesn't necessarily. One of the problems with long-term dieting is that your body adapts to try and match the new lower-caloric intake, which makes sense from a survivability standpoint. However it's frustrating from a body recomposition standpoint, because you're then in a negative-energetic state for no purpose. You might actually do well to do the opposite, and increase your caloric intake by a small amount (varies per person but something along the lines of 250-500kcal per day) for a week or so, to try and reset your metabolism a little. During this time you will likely regain some lost water or muscle glycogen weight, so the scale will go up a little, but refeeds or breaks like this can definitely help some people both physiologically and mentally.

 

[GhaleonEB]

This is not the best way to start arguing your point.

Perhaps not - he's just following the example - but the follow through is worth addressing.

 

[Shambles]

I believe in science so I stick with thermodynamics on weight loss. Energy In < Energy Out = Weight loss.

 

[fredrancour]

OMG I can't believe it

Spoiler

So that means I have to eat less?

Yup. Cut the milk maybe? Have water instead.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

This is not the best way to start arguing your point.

It helps to read the entire post. It's rather short, and I specifically address how ridiculous the example is.

 

[daripad]

Yup. Cut the milk maybe? Have water instead.

So I can live without milk or cheese? Okay, I'll cut that. I'm accostumed to water since I don't have to prepare it, just serve and.we're done!

It doesn't necessarily. One of the problems with long-term dieting is that your body adapts to try and match the new lower-caloric intake, which makes sense from a survivability standpoint. However it's frustrating from a body recomposition standpoint, because you're then in a negative-energetic state for no purpose. You might actually do well to do the opposite, and increase your caloric intake by a small amount (varies per person but something along the lines of 250-500kcal per day) for a week or so, to try and reset your metabolism a little. During this time you will likely regain some lost water or muscle glycogen weight, so the scale will go up a little, but refeeds or breaks like this can definitely help some people both physiologically and mentally.

Wait, I'm confused. So I have to eat a bit more for let's say 2 weeks and then lower it to normal again?

 

[APF]

I specifically address how ridiculous the example is.

Aah, but why is it ridiculous?

Wait, I'm confused. So I have to eat a bit more for let's say 2 weeks and then lower it to normal again?

You don't have to, but consider it an option. Really it's hard to give concrete advice because I don't really know your case very well, and it's hard to say how strict you're dieting or how much of a restriction you're actually on.

 

[zoukka]

There is really no way to lose a lot of weight effectively if you think you can still eat bread with any regularity.

What in the flying fuck :b

I eat bread like there's no tomorrow and am fit and have a very low fat percentage. Magic up in this bitch.

 

[BlueSteel]

One of the things I'm always wary of any article talking about weight-loss or fitness is the lack of citations. If you say something like "studies have shown" or reference a study but don't provide a way to access said study, I'm already suspicious.

I agree with posters that say that nutrition is too complex to prescribe an exact method for everyone (aside from the calories in < calories out, but even that is just a baseline). However, going off anecdotal responses is not enough.

I can appreciate what Opiate is talking about because it's exactly the kind of stance that should be taken. That's not to say we're all super-attentive and knowledgeable even when we post links. I for one fall into the habit of glancing through studies as opposed to reading them comprehensively.

This isn't to say that studies are the end-all. Any big-topic area of research for nutrition will probably have conflicting reports. When such a thing is present, I believe the best approach is not to pick sides, but to take both into account (after careful review) and make your own judgement.

Really, it never hurts to be too cautious when it comes to weight loss, especially if you're presumably doing research for your own health. When I approach weight loss, I generally go through the following process when picking a plan:

1. Determine what do I want to accomplish
2. Take a look at all the options and target some that would seemingly work for me given my situation.
3. Research research research. Anecdotal evidence is a start, but press for the science of it. If I don't get what something means, I ask for clarification.
4. If there is conflicting information, ADJUST. I very much like ClassyPenguin's stance on this. I agree with this. If I'm wrong on anything and can be corrected, the better. There is nothing to be gained by being dogmatic on this issue.
5. If something's not working for me, ADJUST. Maybe my execution is what is failing me, or maybe it's what I believe to be true is actually incorrect. In any case, giving up is not an option for me. I would rather correct than give up.

Anyways, I want to contribute something that I came up with when a friend of mine asked about cleanse/fast diets. My immediate response was that it was ridiculous and stupid. However, given what I just typed above, you can imagine why I didn't want to just state that to her. I wanted to give her a well thought out response (other than the fact that there have been no studies championing it). I outlined reputable sources stating how cleanse diets really had no studies showing it's benefits.

More illuminating for me, and something to think about when it comes high-frequency fast/cleanse diets, is that not all the calories burned will come from fat.

I present this paper that I found on the limit of how much calories from fat your body can burn in a single day here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615

I present this not as fact, as I'm actually only beginning to delve into the literature (which unfortunately is under a pay wall. Luckily I still have university access but work has prevented me from giving it a full review) but instead as something to consider.

Now, we'll note that this journal of theoretical biology. This isn't necessarily a red flag, but as things are theoretical, we want to make sure we don't take the findings as gospel. But, as the abstract outlines, they find that there is a limit on the maximum energy that one can tap from fat stores, which is 290 +/- 25 kJ/kgd. Or, in other words, about 30-31 (without the error term) kCal per pound of FAT in your body per day.

Let's take me as an example then. If I'm 150 pounds and at 16.2% body fat, then I would most likely only be able to burn off around 750 calories of fat per day. In other words, if by some chance I was eating... say, 1000 calories below maintenance, I would start using lean body mass as an energy source (assuming sugars are depleted. The studies mention (again, in the abstract) that this calculation is for individuals with a calorie deficit). Once we factor in activity/exercise, we complicate this a bit.

It's something to think about when you go on diets that aim to reduce fat as quickly as possible through massive calorie deficits.

To tie it back up to the original theme of my post: If there is someone that presents a study that goes against this or reads this study and says, "something is wrong with their procedure or analysis. Thus, this should be discounted." then I'll happily change positions. Anecdotal evidence won't cut it for me though.