- The Authors
Jeff Thiboutot
Matt Schoeneberger
Understand Research for Weight Loss-Confimation Bias
Matt discusses the phenomenon of confirmation bias, how it applies to research and how the scientific community tries to avoid it.
We feel it’s important for people to understand what exactly it means to have our work supported by high-quality evidence. This is why we think our weight loss ebook, S.P.E.E.D., will be so incredibly effective!
Filed under: Research, fat loss, weight loss — Matt Schoeneberger M.S. @ 2:24 pm
HCG and Weight Loss: response to a YouTube comment
We received a comment at YouTube in response to our recent video entry regarding HCG. Since YouTube limits the number of characters in the comments section, we posted our response here. The comment and our response is posted below:
Quote from 1776in2008 : “You’re wrong. The diet ALLOWS the body to release fat, but the HCG causes your body to lose the right kind of fat while protecting LBM and structural fat. Without the HCG, it would be just water and muscle weight. In those so-called ‘trials’ that you site, they only compared the weight that was lost, NOT the type of weight that was lost. Sure, someone will lose around 20 pounds on a 23 day 500 calorie diet too, but it will be water and muscle weight, NOT actual fat, like on the HCG protocol.”
First we’d like to thank you for your comment. I’ll respond to your post one issue at a time.
“You’re wrong.”
No I’m not.
“The diet ALLOWS the body to release fat”
I believe you mean that a 500 calorie/day diet will put just about anyone in a state of negative energy balance, which will most likely cause the loss of some tissue (fat or muscle for the sake of our discussion)
“but the HCG causes your body to lose the right kind of fat while protecting LBM and structural fat”
First, your use of the term structural fat is incorrect. This term is antiquated and is only still being used in this way by those in the HCG camp who seem to read nothing but the HCG literature, which has remained largely unchanged since the original work of Dr. Simeons in the 1950s despite many advances in the understanding of the human body, and fat in particular, since then. You can’t ask the scientific community to prove or disprove HCG’s effects on something that doesn’t even exist. Why not ask them to disprove the existence of unicorns and Santa Claus while we’re at it? The term “structural fat” is now typically reserved for the use of fat in cosmetic surgery. Please begin using the terms visceral and subcutaneous fat and others (brown adipose tissue, white adipose tissue, etc) that have been adopted by the current scientific literature (by current, I mean the last 2 or 3 decades!).
Terminology aside, HCG is not necessary, or proven, for these effects of muscle-sparing and visceral fat targeting. Exercise has been proven to do this time and again (unlike HCG). (Hill, Tsuzuku, Layman, Kay)
“Without the HCG, it would be just water and muscle weight.”
This statement is laughable. It would all be water and muscle weight lost? A person would lose 20 pounds of water and muscle? This reveals a gross misunderstanding of basic human physiology and a stern belief in HCG folklore. In the metabolic ward study by Hill et al., obese women who DID NOT exercise and ate an 800 calorie/day diet lost an average of 57% of their weight as fat after 5 weeks. Exercising women lost almost 75% of the weight lost as fat. Where is the evidence to support your claim of “water and muscle” loss without HCG?
“In those so-called ‘trials’ that you site, they only compared the weight that was lost, NOT the type of weight that was lost”
Why is trial in quotations? They are trials. That’s what they’re called. And, by the way, they’re the gold standard of proof of causal relationships when performed correctly. Trials like these are what have allowed the scientific community to distinguish the bad from the good, the lies from the truth.
Yes, these trials compared the amount of total weight lost. And, actually, in addition to weight lost they compared the ability of HCG to affect the subjects’ feelings of hunger, feelings of well-being, anxiety and depression, not to mention HCG’s ability to promote fat re-distribution. All were found to be negative.
Show me a study that proves HCG promotes positive changes in body composition better than placebo. And if you would be so kind, please also explain the mechanism behind this effect, because the ‘re-setting the hypothalamus” mumbo-jumbo has no merit in relation to your body composition argument, if it ever had any in the first place.
It seems, based on your comment, that the HCG camp is changing their tune regarding what HCG is supposed to do. Since it’s been shot down on all the original claims (increased weight loss, reduced hunger, anxiety, depression, increased feelings of well-being, the ability to take fat away from ‘problem areas’) now you must say it changes the composition of the weight lost, that it targets the “right kind of fat while protecting LBM and structural fat”. Well, the onus is on you to provide evidence that it works.
Dr. Simeons even stated in the forward to his original manuscript:
“Thus, when I make what reads like a factual statement, the professional reader may have to translate into: clinical experience seems to suggest that such and such an observation might be tentatively explained by such and such a working hypothesis, requiring a vast amount of further research before the hypothesis can be considered a valid theory.”
Where is this vast amount of research? If you can provide real proof that HCG does anything it’s purported to do in regards to body composition and weight loss, I’ll post a video trumpeting the benefits of HCG for body composition, Jeff and I will edit our HCG special report to reflect the new information and I’ll admit I was wrong. Go ahead, show me proof. Scientific proof.
These are scientific references, providing proof for claims made above. You can get your own at a library near you:
Hill, J. O., Sparling, P. B., Shields, T. W., & Heller, P. A. (1987). Effects of exercise and food restriction on body composition and metabolic rate in obese women. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 46(4), 622-630.
Layman, D. K., Evans, E., Baurn, J. I., Seyler, J., Erickson, D. J., & Boileau, R. A. (2005). Dietary protein and exercise have additive effects on body composition during weight loss in adult women. Journal of Nutrition, 135(8), 1903-1910.
Kay S.J., Fiatarone Singh M.A. The influence of physical activity on abdominal fat: a systematic review of the literature. Obesity Reviews. 2006;7: 183–200
Simeons ATW. Pounds and inches-a new approach to obesity. Rome, privately printed 1967.
Tsuzuku S, Kajioka T, Endo H, Abbott RD, Curb JD, Yano K. Favorable eVects of non-instrumental resistance training on fat distribution and metabolic proWles in healthy elderly people. Eur J Appl Physiol . 2007;99:549–555
Filed under: Research, fat loss, weight loss — Tags: fat loss, HCG, weight loss — Matt Schoeneberger M.S. @ 2:48 pm
Feedback on our report, HCG & Weight Loss: Enough Already!
So, we’ve gotten some comments about our HCG report that attack us for taking the wind out of people’s sails. This is not our intention! We are supportive of people who can stick to a difficult diet plan like the one commonly associated with the HCG protocol. We hope anyone who has tried, or is in the process of following the HCG plan loses unwanted fat and keeps it off.
Our intention while writing the report was to show that the HCG shots have not been scientifically proven to do anything! So, the people who follow the HCG plan and get results do it all by themselves, with no help from any HCG shot. Good for them!
We would like to warn anyone who is thinking of trying the HCG plan that the shots will be NO HELP and that they’ll be wasting their money on a placebo. This is our reason for writing the HCG report. We don’t like to see people get duped into a technique or supplement that has no proof behind it what-so-ever. We like proof and when we find it, we’ll pass it on to you.
Matt
Read our HCG REPORT
Filed under: Research, diet, fat loss, weight loss — Tags: fat loss, HCG, weight loss — admin @ 11:16 am
S.P.E.E.D. Special Report – HCG & Weight Loss: Enough Already!
HCG & Weight Loss:
Enough Already!
This special report revealing why HCG for weight loss is NOT an effective option is posted at www.SPEEDweightlossbook.com. Just click on HCG Special Report in the navigation section at the bottom of our home page and you’ll be there!
Please share with as many of your friends and family as you’d like.
In Health,
Matt
Filed under: Research, diet, fat loss, nutrition, weight loss — Tags: fat loss, HCG, human chorionic gonadotropin, Research, science, weight loss — Matt Schoeneberger M.S. @ 7:29 am
Introduction and 1st Chapter of S.P.E.E.D. Available…
…if you’re a fan of our Facebook page.
www.tinyurl.com/SPEEDonFacebook
We’ve decided to release the Introduction and 1st Chapter of our weight loss ebook early, before the rest is edited for release… for FREE! All you have to do is become a fan of our Facebook page. So, follow the link and become a fan. Tell your friends to become a fan as well!
You won’t believe what the first chapter has to say…
Filed under: diet, fat loss, health, weight loss — Tags: book, facebook, fat loss, weight loss — Matt Schoeneberger M.S. @ 3:13 pm
As you all know, we’re getting closer and closer to being finished with this weight loss ebook. It’s getting more exciting each day. We apologize for our infrequent posting lately, we’ve just been pouring our energy into the book itself rather than this blog and our L.E.A.N. Wellness Letter. We thank you for your patience and we hope you find the posts we have been making useful and intriguing.
Now to the point. We’ve nailed down most of the original myths we came up with for the book, and we’ve thought of some more issues we’d like to tackle. Two of them are the hCG diet (Simeons Protocol) and the whole B12 shot fad. We’re digging into the science and evidence for these right now. But, we wanted to ask you…
What controversial weight loss topics do you want us to investigate? Are there any diet or exercise programs for which you would like to see the evidence (or lack thereof)?
Reply with a comment and let us know.
Filed under: Exercise, Research, body composition, diet, fat loss, nutrition, weight loss — Tags: diet, Exercise, nutrition, S.P.E.E.D. Weight Loss — Matt Schoeneberger M.S. @ 2:44 pm
Diet+Resistance Training+Protein=X
Let’s talk research.
One of the studies we reviewed for S.P.E.E.D.’s exercise chapter compared the effects on body composition and strength gain of a calorie-restricted diet with or without resistance training, differing levels of protein intake and different types of protein supplementation over 12 weeks. Participants were randomized into three groups:
-Diet alone
-Resistance exercise +whey protein
-Resistance exercise + casein protein
The results of the study showed support for the benefits of protein intake (25% of total calorie intake vs. 16% in diet alone group) and resistance training on body composition, since both groups showed increased fat loss and increased muscle gain compared to the diet only group. Additionally, the casein group showed significant increases in both measure when compared to the whey group. The same goes for strength gain – the casein group comes out on top.
There are some issues with the design of the study we’d like to discuss. This will give you a window into what we are doing as authors when writing the book, so you can understand what goes into well-supported advice.
First, when discussing the grouping of participants, the authors mention that the diet only group was assured they could follow the full program after the 12 week research period. Well, isn’t that a bit de-motivating, knowing that you’re not getting the full program? This is where blinding of research comes into play. The diet group shouldn’t have known that there was even an alternative to their treatment, that there were two other groups who got to perform resistance training programs. This could greatly affect the diet-only group’s ability or willingness to comply with the program.
Second, speaking of resistance training programs, the authors of this study do not specify the resistance training programs that were followed by the two protein+exercise groups. We find out that they performed 4 exercise sessions per week, working one of four large muscle group each session, and the session took 30-35 minutes. There is no mention of whether or not the exercise sessions were the same for each group outside of these parameters. What if one group performed 1 set of 10 reps while the other group performed 4 sets of 10 reps? Would we not expect a difference between groups? A researcher cannot be too specific.
The differences between the two protein+exercise groups in body composition changes and strength changes is remarkable. The casein group took their bodyfat % from about 26 to about 18. The whey group changed theirs from 27 to 23. The casein group increased total strength by 59% while the whey group increased by 28%. These are staggering differences over a 12-week period!
One thing we noticed while looking over the study was the mention of the sources of protein supplements. The whey supplement by one manufacturer and the casein supplement by another. There is no mention of any conflicts of interest of the authors or any mention of sponsorship by any corporation. We can only hope that the researchers did not skew the results of the study, knowingly or unknowingly, toward one product being used. This could be a case of conformation bias – what happens when a researcher has an ideal conclusion in mind and so steers the research toward that conclusion or outcome.
Blinding a study, which refers to the act of making sure the researchers and/or participants are completely unaware to which group they belong, can greatly reduce this phenomenon, but is not mentioned in this study. For example, if the researcher who takes the body composition measurements does not know which participants belong to which group, the researcher has no reason to skew results. However, if this information is known by the researcher performing the measurements, skewing the results, both consciously or unconsciously, is a possibility and cannot be ruled out.
In conclusion, since a practitioner should never base their methods of practice off of one single source of research, this study needs to be combined with many others to decide whether or not resistance training, caloric restriction, and protein supplementation are beneficial when making body composition changes. Wouldn’t it be nice if someone was working on compiling all that information right now and putting it in an easy-to-read, easy-to-follow plan? Hmmm…. what a good idea 
Check out our weight loss ebook as soon as it’s available!
Demling RH, DeSanti L. Effect of a hypocaloric diet, increased protein intake and resistance training on lean mass gains and fat mass loss in overweight police officers. Ann Nutr Metab. 2000;44(1):21-29.
Filed under: Exercise, Research, body composition, diet, fat loss, nutrition, weight loss — Tags: body composition, fat loss, Research, strength gain — Matt Schoeneberger M.S. @ 11:03 am
Meal Frequency – Boosting Your Metabolism: busted as promised
A few weeks back we sent out a challenge to our blog readers and newsletter subscribers to send us more traffic. They’ve answered the call, partially. Our blog traffic has gone up considerably, so we’d like to bust one of the myths we promised. This is really like getting a sneak peak at one of the most interesting sections of S.P.E.E.D.
Myth: I have to eat many small meals throughout the day to “boost my metabolism”.
Fact: Meal frequency has been shown to increase weight loss in some studies, due mostly to curbing hunger and helping the subjects adhere to the diet and not due to an increase in metabolic rate. (Smeet) However, research shows that when eating diets essentially identical in calories either through three or one meal(s)/day, the 1 meal per day group showed positive changes in body composition compared to the 3 meals/day group. (Stote) Metabolic rate has been shown to be no different between feeding patterns of 7 and 2 meals/day. (Verboeket-Van De Venne) Intermittent fasting (reduced meal frequency) with caloric restriction has been shown to have positive effects on life span and brain chemistry. (Mattson) So, there is no need to eat 6+ meals/day and it might just be more health promoting to eat less frequently, like 2-4 meals/day.
Mattson, M. P. (2005). Energy intake, meal frequency, and health: A neurobiological perspective. Annual Review of Nutrition, 25, 237-260.
Smeets, A. J., & Westerterp-Plantenga, M. (2008). Acute effects on metabolism and appetite profile of one meal difference in the lower range of meal frequency. British Journal of Nutrition, 99(6), 1316-1321.
Stote, K. S., Baer, D. J., Spears, K., Paul, D. R., Harris, G. K., Rumpler, W. V., et al. (2007). A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged adults. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 85(4), 981-988.
Verboeket-van de Venne, W. P., Westerterp, K. R., & Kester, A. D. (1993). Effect of the pattern of food intake on human energy metabolism. The British Journal of Nutrition, 70(1), 103-115.
