Everyday Systems

Posted: **Tue May 06, 2014 11:39 pm**

Did you guys see this article?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 120036.htm

Posted: **Wed May 07, 2014 9:39 am**

Great article! Thank you.

Posted: **Wed May 07, 2014 9:58 am**

"Our study provides the first evidence that eating more often, rather than consuming large meals, contributes to fatty liver independent of body weight gain". That's really something to think about!

Posted: **Wed May 07, 2014 10:39 am**

I found that article encouraging, supporting No S but then, on the same web-site I found this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 095450.htm which supports snacking as an anti-obesity strategy and this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 125050.htm which supports having dessert with breakfast to combat weight gain - seems like you can pick a study to support No S, or to contradict it.

Posted: **Wed May 07, 2014 11:05 am**

Graham wrote:seems like you can pick a study to support No S, or to contradict it.

Yep, when I studied statistics I found that you can even use the SAME study more often than not to interpret whatever you want

Posted: **Wed May 07, 2014 11:59 am**

Long ago I learned to stop looking at studies and start looking at evidence. People who don't snack or snack rarely tend to weigh less than people who snack. They also tend to be healthier.

I'm not sure about dessert after breakfast, but I don't think a small dessert after a meal is necessarily harmful, especially if it keeps you from bingeing on sweets later.

Posted: **Wed May 07, 2014 12:37 pm**

What wosnes said!

Posted: **Wed May 07, 2014 11:42 pm**

Not sure if it would have complicated things too much, but I think there should have been people eating snacks that were not high fat, high sugar as well. The snack fans will just say that it's okay if it's healthy snacks, even if the data implies that the gains didn't happen when the foods were eaten at meals, implying that it wasn't the food quality that made the difference.

I guess this also supports the idea that it's better to have our S's be sweets with meals and/or seconds even on S days. All in due time.

Posted: **Fri May 09, 2014 1:07 pm**

This is great (well, horrible in terms of what people are doing to themselves, but great in terms of validating no-s) -- thank you greatpumpkin1!

Reinhard

Posted: **Fri May 09, 2014 1:33 pm**

oolala53 wrote:Not sure if it would have complicated things too much, but I think there should have been people eating snacks that were not high fat, high sugar as well. The snack fans will just say that it's okay if it's healthy snacks, even if the data implies that the gains didn't happen when the foods were eaten at meals, implying that it wasn't the food quality that made the difference.

I guess this also supports the idea that it's better to have our S's be sweets with meals and/or seconds even on S days. All in due time.

While one is probably most likely to gain weight from high fat, high sugar and high calorie snacks, I don't think it matters. One can gain weight eating wholesome snacks, too. Too many calories is too many calories no matter where they come from.

Posted: **Fri May 09, 2014 9:30 pm**

So true.

Posted: **Sat May 10, 2014 8:57 am**

wosnes wrote:Long ago I learned to stop looking at studies and start looking at evidence.

I have tried for days to ignore the puzzlement I feel every time I read the above. If not from studies, where is evidence of quality, worthy of the name "evidence", to come from?

Dr. David B. Allison, director of the Nutrition Obesity Research Center at the University of Alabama, and colleagues recently published a paper on Myths, Presumptions, and Facts about Obesity - a review of what we do and don't know from the science. The assertion that snacking is associated with gaining weight and getting fat is described as a presumption - not yet proven to be true or false.

It is nice to enjoy studies that support No S, and if that helps, fine, but let's not fool ourselves that "science" endorses No S - some studies appear to support it, but others appear to contradict it.

Posted: **Sat May 10, 2014 2:14 pm**

Graham wrote: It is nice to enjoy studies that support No S, and if that helps, fine, but let's not fool ourselves that "science" endorses No S - some studies appear to support it, but others appear to contradict it.

That's because studies can be set up to prove anything a researcher wants to prove.

However when you look at people, currently or from previous generations, those who don't snack or snack rarely are usually not as heavy as those who snack regularly.

Posted: **Sat May 10, 2014 2:25 pm**

wosnes wrote: That's because studies can be set up to prove anything a researcher wants to prove.

..... so true .....

A biologist, a physician, and a statistician went deer hunting together.
When a deer appeared, the biologist shot 15 foot to the right of the deer.
The physician shot 15 foot to the left of the deer.
The statistician shouted in Glee .."We GOT him"

Posted: **Sat May 10, 2014 3:14 pm**

All of this is why I take my "evidence" from large "samples": Italy and France, the countries with two of the lowest average BMI's in Europe, a region whose low count can't usually be attributed to a high degree of poverty. Until recently, neither of those cultures was a consistent snacking culture. They have relatively set cultural limits on serving size and meal makeup. They have three meals for adults but at least one of those meals is quite small (breakfast, for both) and only one main meal per day. It sounds like it varies whether lunch or dinner will play the biggest role in eating on any one day. They revere food but don't value overeating and they take time to savor what they do eat. (They also value consistent moderate exertion, even in urban areas; you don't have to be a farmer to recreate their calorie burn, though you might have to be a little artificial if you live where walking would be hazardous.) No S and these facts for me have complemented each other well. Of course, my goal was not to find the way to eat so that I could weigh the least possible but to live in a way that allowed me to eat with the greatest all around pleasure. I occasionally consider other influences, but none have been superior yet.

The fact that SOME "scientific" evidence supports this sanity is just, well, an S.

Posted: **Sat May 10, 2014 10:21 pm**

oolala53 wrote:All of this is why I take my "evidence" from large "samples": Italy and France, the countries with two of the lowest average BMI's in Europe, a region whose low count can't usually be attributed to a high degree of poverty. Until recently, neither of those cultures was a consistent snacking culture. They have relatively set cultural limits on serving size and meal makeup. They have three meals for adults but at least one of those meals is quite small (breakfast, for both) and only one main meal per day. It sounds like it varies whether lunch or dinner will play the biggest role in eating on any one day. They revere food but don't value overeating and they take time to savor what they do eat. (They also value consistent moderate exertion, even in urban areas; you don't have to be a farmer to recreate their calorie burn, though you might have to be a little artificial if you live where walking would be hazardous.) No S and these facts for me have complemented each other well. Of course, my goal was not to find the way to eat so that I could weigh the least possible but to live in a way that allowed me to eat with the greatest all around pleasure. I occasionally consider other influences, but none have been superior yet.

The fact that SOME "scientific" evidence supports this sanity is just, well, an S.

What oolala53 said.

Posted: **Sun May 11, 2014 7:45 am**

They also value consistent moderate exertion, even in urban areas; you don't have to be a farmer to recreate their calorie burn

Add to this that it is not necessarily valuing it, but having it imposed as a way of life. For instance, I have never in my adult life lived in a building equipped with an elevator (there was one in my parents' home). So most of my life, I've had to use the stairs as a matter of course. Also, we do not own a car (and neither of us can drive anyway), so that I do most of my shopping on foot. Walking is just part of life. I remember that as a student, I took a bus only when very late or more than usually tired. Otherwise, I would cross Paris on foot several times a day without ever thinking about it.

P.S. Could anyone explain how you insert a quote saying "So and so said" ? Do you have to enter it manually ?

Posted: **Sun May 11, 2014 11:00 am**

MamieTamar wrote: P.S. Could anyone explain how you insert a quote saying "So and so said" ? Do you have to enter it manually ?

See the "quote" icon at the top right of each post? Click on that and the post will appear in a "post reply" format. If you want to respond to a small portion of the quoted post, you will have to manually delete the unwanted parts.

Posted: **Sun May 11, 2014 12:46 pm**

Thanks a lot.

Posted: **Thu May 15, 2014 12:51 pm**

Thank you, greatpumpkin, for taking the time and posting this for us. Very helpful for hubby and myself, especially where we are right now with our motivation...
_________
h

Posted: **Sat May 17, 2014 12:13 am**

That's great heatherhikes! I'm a fan of that Science Daily site. I love how it's organized by science topics. Everything from Diabetes to Quantum Physics. As some have pointed out, studies often contradict each other, but that in and of itself is good information to have. Having the latest news on weight control is as important to me as sports, weather, or political news.

Posted: **Sat May 17, 2014 1:37 pm**

greatpumpkin1 wrote: As some have pointed out, studies often contradict each other,
but that in and of itself is good information to have.

Yes.

Everyday Systems

Science against Snacks

Science against Snacks

Re: Science against Snacks