Tuesday, April 22, 2008

From the Journal of Duh?

A headline from one of my media trawls caught my eye yesterday, "Fruit and vegetables may help weight loss" and so I clicked the link and found myself face to face with an article discussing a recent paper published in Nutrition Research.

The paper, High intake of fruits and vegetable predicts weight loss in Brazilian overweight adults details the story of 80 overweight Brazilians who attended a nutritional counseling program. Comparing their weight and food frequency questionairre answers from both before and after the 6 month program they found.....

[Drumroll]

People who ate more fruits and vegetables lost more weight.

Why isn't this exciting?

A few reasons.

Firstly because of the study's design. In its analysis it only controlled for age, sex, changes in walking time and total energy intake. No mention of meals out, exercise outside of walking, macronutrient dietary changes, frequency of meals and snacks and many other variables that certainly have a role in weight loss differences.

Secondly because it's not news. Barbara Rolls has dedicated her life's work to the concept of energy density which can be summarized simply in saying eat more foods with lower energy densities (calories per gram) like vegetables and fruits and you'll lose weight.

Thirdly because in the study the weight loss we're talking about in this study is barely weightloss - 3.08lbs over 6 months.

I've seen constipation weigh more than 3.08lbs.

Bottom line?

Eating fruits and vegetables can certainly help with you with weight loss if they are replacing higher calorie options and certainly irregardless of their effect on your weight, they're good for you. But as far as this study goes all it taught me was that I won't be recommending the weight loss program in Brazil that over 6 months only managed to help patients lose a grand total 3lbs and eat a whole 3.5 ounces more fruits and vegetables a day.

Bookmark and Share

6 comments:

  1. and certainly irregardless of their effect

    Hate to be a nitpick, but "irregardless" is NOT a word. The correct word is "regardless."

    Regardless of that minor error, it was an interesting post.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Stephanie,

    You'd better take it up with Miriam Webster as they (and I) believe it is indeed a word.


    Regards,
    Yoni

    ReplyDelete
  3. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

    If a student used it in a paper I was grading, they'd lose an entire grade point.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am writing a blog on gaining weght after quitting smoking , fruits and veggies huh ! I dont know how long I can do that , but I will give it a shot , oh and I got the point no matter how you worded it

    ReplyDelete
  5. As a researcher, it really makes me wonder how some of these people get their studies published. Must be some lenient editors...

    ReplyDelete
  6. American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
    ir·re·gard·less Audio Help (ĭr'ĭ-gärd'lĭs) Pronunciation Key
    adv. Nonstandard
    Regardless.


    [Probably blend of irrespective and regardless.]

    Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

    ReplyDelete