We Were Wrong

I don't expect you have heard this yet and if you have, you are probably peeved and a little discouraged - but that whole 3500 calories makes or breaks a pound, um - not so true (over time anyways).

Now don't throw your hands up and claim that all science is flawed and should therefore be dismissed - look at it this way.

If science does NOT improve over time - if we don't know any more today than we did 50 years ago, then, SOME ONE has been wasting time. Of course, we know more today and thank goodness we do. It is not something to use to dismiss health promotion but to elevate it!

I first heard about the clamour from journalist Carl Bialik and though I have not read the research that supports the idea that we need new math, I have no problem whatsovever believing it.

In a nutshell, whether it is gaining or losing, after a few months - or a year, the body adapts to the change we have made and either stops gaining or stops losing weight. Hey, read that first part again. So it isn't all bad! If you add a teaspoon of peanut butter to your day , every day, who will gain maybe four pounds a year, at first, but then it will level off. Same is true if you cut calories, and EVERYONE knows this - at first you lose weight and then you plateau.

Now we have science to say oh, it is a matter of the body being adaptive - and I want to be clear that this does not support a set point theory as much as it explains one. We do not have set points, that is a cop out. Instead, this means that our efforts to achieve and maintain a healthy weight must be dynamic. We have to do due diligence in this regard and approach our health strategically.

Surprised? Why? Haven't we been told for years from exercise physiologists that our muscles adapt to the loads we apply and that if we do not adjust our weight training regimens we will cease to see progress? Same principle.

I would use this new information - which portends very individualized outcomes - to discount all those commercials that tell you how much weight you'll lose and calories you'll burn using their product or device. It cannot be stated that way with any veracity.

This new science should not be used to argue against calorie content information or soda taxes either, as the math may be askew, the concept is still one of empowerment. The calorie equation may be off, but the calorie is still the deciding factor.

Might I add that Mr. Bialik's article in the WSJ noted that a woman a woman is trying to gain weight for a Guinness Book of World Records contest. Her intent is to eat 12,000 calories a day - 10,000 more than nearly any of us need- in order to gain 400 plus pounds. Her goal weight - 1000 pounds. My thought on this one is simple, "that lady is in serious need of a Psych. consult."