8 ms·

The Diet Fix

41 points by tokenadult 13y ago

fatman 13y ago
Sounds promising. Calories in, calories out - the rest is just noise.
- antidaily 13y ago
  I dunno. I know people who've lost 100lbs and kept it off doing keto.
  - cab_codespring 13y ago
    I bet if you counted the calories in/calories out it would show the calorie deficit accounting for it. The thing with low carb, in my experience, is that it does make it easier to eat less if you have the right attitude about it. I do it AND count calories. Also, just the fact that it cuts out most of the foods in the universe helps to make it an easy decision whether or not to eat something, whereas with just calorie counting all foods are available and that one bite can become 10 bites so easily. I believe those two things account for it's success rather than some trick subverting thermodynamics.
    - elijahtaylor 13y ago
      > I bet if you counted the calories in/calories out it would show the calorie deficit accounting for it By definition it would have to be true that you consumed fewer calories than expended. Calories in/calories out is not wrong, it's just not useful (or at least it's not a nearly complete picture). Calories in/out are not independent variables. The type of calories you consume dictate at least: 1) how your body processes the calories you consume, 2) the energy you will have to expend, and 3) the hunger you will feel.
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    I know people who have lost 100lbs and kept it off by starving themselves. Just because a method gets you results doesn't mean it is healthy.
  - jonheller 13y ago
    I lost 50 pounds eating ~500 calories more on keto than I did before. Unfortunately I wasn't completely comfortable with the types of meals I ate with that lifestyle. But it did make me feel as though the whole calories in - calories out was nonsense. Especially after trying (and failing) diets based around that (weight watchers) multiple times.
    - Quaro 13y ago
      >I lost 50 pounds eating ~500 calories more on keto than I did before >But it did make me feel as though the whole calories in - calories out was nonsense. As a diet methodology, calories in vs calories out is not very effective for the general public. I too have lost more weight via keto. But when I really tracked what I was eating I found keto simply kept my appetite under control better. This is extremely valuable but ultimately it was still down to calories. (You also tend to drop a ton of water weight when you first start keto which makes it seem super effective at first)
    - mahyarm 13y ago
      Comparing how I felt doing keto with the keto flu vs. just plain calorie counting, I think the unique metabolism of ketosis makes your body not use everything you eat during keto. It's very hard to keep under 20g of carbs and not eat too much protein also. Much easier to just go to chipolte/subway and calorie count. If your lifestyle makes you make all 3 meals already, then keto is great. If you don't, then it's a lot of work.
    - antidaily 13y ago
      Have you tried slow carb? Avoids dairy and adds legumes. I've found it easier to do and it's (probably) healthier.
      - mrfusion 13y ago
        Slow carb worked great for me for 6 months, lost 25 lbs! But alas I got so sick of chicken for dinner and eggs for breakfast, and I guess just got too bored with the meals. Gained it all back :-( (I actually haven't eaten an egg since then. And I avoid chicken now. I'm wondering if some people develop an aversion to foods they eat too regularly?)
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 13y ago
  It would sound more promising if he didn't have to write a book to explain it even better.
- chongli 13y ago
  Thanks for posting a meaningless aphorism. Might as well have said "A penny saved is a penny earned" in a thread discussing poverty.
- grecy 13y ago
  That times a thousand. I've posted here about my experiences with weight loss before (tldr; I got involved with weight watchers, have personally been involved with hundreds of people losing hundreds of pounds each over ~10 years). There is no person on this earth that can eat less calories than they use and not lose weight. It's not possible. So there are two very easy ways to lose weight. 1. Eat less calories (than you use). or 2. Burn more calories (than you eat). (or a combination of the two - as a lifelong program like Weight Watchers promotes.) Obviously it can be hard for some people to eat less calories. I'm not saying it's easy, I'm saying it's simple.
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 13y ago
  The devil is in the details.
- rayiner 13y ago
  That's like saying: "flying is easy, just generate more lift than the airplane weighs - the rest is just noise." No shit, but life isn't so simple. At least for me, controlling weight (now that I'm pushing 30) has been about appetite management, and I've found that keto helps a lot. Not because it changes anything magic about the calorie balance, but because to me 500 calories of steak feels like a meal but 500 calories of pasta feels like a snack.
- fingerprinter 13y ago
  The forest is calories, so don't lose that. However, the trees are macros. Macros are important for goals. If your goal is simply "lose weight", sure, just care about calories. But if you have a more refined goal (recomp, spare muscle, lose bodyfat, athletic performance, build muscle etc), the macros are vital. I do think people lose the forest from the trees. However, I find that people lose sight of the path through the trees just as often. Both are important.
  - ratscabies 13y ago
    Was a bit concerned with weight until I plateaued. Now I realize I am in a lot better shape, including blood sugar and lipids, even though I am stuck at this weight. I keep up the exercise and don't worry about the waistline so much. It is funny when I workout though. All these skinny people around the gym not sweating at all. If you don't sweat, I don't see why they bother.
- furyofantares 13y ago
  To me this is like telling someone that wants to grow carrots that carrots are just atoms arranged in a certain way. It may be true, but it's not helpful. There are a ton of factors that influence both calories in and calories out, they aren't just noise. (This is just a response to your comment, I didn't come away from the post thinking the book treats everything else as just noise.)
mgamache 13y ago
After reading some of sites' other posts I think it's just not a reliable source of information. The 'science' is hand picked to support the author's arguments. This is no different them the candida, sugar or vitamin proponents. They all have scientific explanations and plans of action.
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 13y ago
  His post about Taubes still being wrong does that http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/why-we-get-fat/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/why-we-get-fat/ I'd like Taubes to be wrong on some points, but the author would rather argue against his misunderstanding of Taubes, which doesn't help.
  - lkmalkova 13y ago
    Can you tell us what is his misunderstanding of Taubes? It seems pretty spot on to me.
  - soneca 13y ago
    His argument in this post is "The laws of physics are unavoidable". That makes no sense at all! There is no logical reason to believe that calories (a thermodinamic unity) is transformed in fat in our body. This is the same as saying that all fat should go to the feet because of Gravity and the laws of physics are unavoidable. It is pure non-sense. Do you know how to measure calories on food? You burn it and measure the heat it generates. How this apply to our body function is a mistery to me. To anyone actually. Taubes theory is based on hormones, which is what the medicine proved for the last century that is what regulates all kind of function in our bodies. Make much more sense, no?? Calories in - calories out muchbe relevant to a thermal plant, no to our body producing fat.
- jonrimmer 13y ago
  Agreed, it reads like the same faddish, pseudo-science the author purports to debunk. "I tried all the diet books, and none of them worked, but finally here's one that does, because SCIENCE!" It's the same old shopping channel and sideshow sales pitch people have peddling for hundreds of years, except it tries to play on a mark's trust for scientific authority instead of religious belief or new age mysticism, the same way some magicians pass off classic tricks as clever mentalism by exploiting people's belief in the power of modern psychology. And the actual obesity cure it outlines is the same as every other mainstream diet: Reorient your whole life around planning, purchasing, preparing, eating and recording a weighed, calorie counted, macro-nutrient balanced diet, and try to get some more exercise as well. Most people, particular in those groups most risk of obesity - those poor in time and money - will never be able to adopt such a strategy. Consider a single parent trying to raise three or four kids, while working a couple of jobs, and travelling everywhere via long public transport journeys. There's no way that they're going to be do all this. Processed food is successful because it: - is cheap - tastes good - is easy to acquire - is easy to prepare Any solution to widespread obesity needs to provide a source of healthy food that at the very least matches processed food in these regards.
TrainedMonkey 13y ago
There is claim that exercise contributing to significant weight loss is a myth. I beg to disagree, while exercise itself might not be significant contributor to weight loss, no exercise means lower metabolism and overall health. As always there is no silver bullet, you need to have a balanced lifestyle to be healthy.
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 13y ago
  Science is a silver bullet or at least a bullet or at least a way of getting at the truth, but so far this field of science seems like a joke. How nice for them to use thermodynamics.
- jp555 13y ago
  Exercise can stimulate profoundly positive physiological changes, and that alone is a good enough reason to do it. But people forget that they burn more calories during a single night of sleep than they do doing 3 hours of cardio a week. Balance is important, but shedding nutrition & health mythology is even more so.
  - cab_codespring 13y ago
    The Gluten Free nonsense drives me the most crazy. Of course they don't have Celiac disease, but they are "Sensitive" to it, which there is no way to refute. There is so much pseudoscience crap floating around I'm glad there's one book out there refuting it, I just wish he was a nutrition researcher doctor or something instead of a pharmacist, which doesn't sound very impressive for a diet book.
    - smacktoward 13y ago
      There is one benefit from it, though: a much larger market of gluten-free products than would exist if the only people buying them were people who legitimately suffer from celiac. In that respect it's a net positive: stupid people are out some money, but it's hard to get too worked up about that since (being stupid) they would have probably found some other pointless thing to waste it on anyway, and at least this way their waste makes it possible for celiac sufferers to have a better quality of life. The only hitch is that fads are by their nature transitory, so at some point the stupid people will flit away from gluten-free to some other fad, and the market of gluten-free products will collapse. Which will kind of suck for those who actually need them.
pvnick 13y ago
This is a great article. I'm always in favor of flexible and scientific approaches to dieting. Lyle McDonald wrote a great series of articles on why diets fail (hint: it's a hormone called leptin) [1]. Caloric deficits lead to decreasing leptin, which explains why you feel like crap when dieting because this leads to metabolic slowdown by downregulating things like your immune system (why you get sick more when you diet) and reproductive system (why you lose your sex drive). Leptin's effects on the hunger-controlling hypothalamus explain why you may obsess over calorie-dense junk foods when you diet. It's your body's protection against starvation, but it goes all haywire in our obesogenic (obesity-causing) environment. So what's the best way to acutely raise leptin levels when they're depressed from caloric restriction? Flexible diet solutions like the ones talked about in the article. High-carb "refeeds" - some people call them cheat days - are particularly helpful [2]. The trick is to binge on carbs (not fat!!!) while remaining at a caloric deficit, which is where a calorie journal definitely comes in handy. Things like sweet potatoes and pasta will fill you up and replete your leptin levels. As an aside, while we're talking about leptin and flexible dieting, intermittent fasting is wonderful for flexible dieting. I'm working on a website right now that's based on the leangains method [3], which is great for folks in the moderately overweight category. For severely overweight or obese folks, Dr. Krista Varady (who I had the pleasure of speaking with on the phone recently), has published a ton of research on intermittent fasting over the past decade and just wrote a book called the Every Other Day Diet [4], which I highly recommend for anyone trying to lose a lot of weight quickly and safely and keep it off. [1] http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-hormones-of-bodyweight-regulation-leptin-part-the-last.html http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-hormones-of-bo... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11126336 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11126336 [3] http://www.leangains.com/2010/03/intermittent-fasting-set-point-and.html http://www.leangains.com/2010/03/intermittent-fasting-set-po... [4] http://www.amazon.com/The-Every-Other-Day-Diet-That-Weight/dp/1401324932 http://www.amazon.com/The-Every-Other-Day-Diet-That-Weight/d...
_zen 13y ago
Dieting does not fail, but dieting does not work how the author thinks. For most, dieting is to maintain the status quo. Overweight or obese people drink and eat diet beverages/foods, or conform to some self-imposed diet, to maintain their current health. They know they can't give 100% into their desires, or they could have dire consequences (hospitalization, death), but they are not determined enough to take the actual steps to losing weight (significant diet change, routine exercise). I see this everywhere. Family, friends, etc. They all say they're dieting, but year after year they are as out of shape as always. They are happy and content with themselves, because dieting to them does not mean "get fit like those gym guys on T.V."
raverbashing 13y ago
"Freedhoff opens the book describing “Dieting’s Seven Deadly Sins”, which are commonly held, but dangerous, beliefs about dieting. Hunger is the first myth to go. Freedhoff argues that any diet plan that leaves you hungry won’t be sustainable. Sacrifice is next—perpetual sacrifice of anything you enjoy will make any diet fail. Willpower is important, but permanent resistance is almost certainly futile. Blind food restrictions are the next to go, and Freedhoff is adamant we need to manage, but not banish, certain food groups. Sweating is the next myth, with The Biggest Loser epitomizing the belief that exercise can contribute to significant weight loss. You can’t outrun your fork—not in the long run. Anticipating perfection is also a myth, so real diets must be flexible enough to accommodate setbacks. Denial is the last myth. “The diet was great—I just couldn’t stick with it” is a common refrain. As weight loss progresses, any suffering gets harder to sustain, and harder to deny." Looks like a great beginning to a book. One could write a great informational material only basing themselves on these myths.
beloch 13y ago
It's unfortunate that we have two definitions of diet: 1. What we eat. 2. A temporary change to what we eat that will produce correspondingly temporary results. Another thing that trips people up is the paralysis rational human beings often experience at the start of a monumental task. Changing your diet to be healthier is, for many people, such a huge undertaking that they can't get started. Like so many other things in life, the trick is to start small. Try putting one less sugar in your coffee or, every time you open a Pringles can, throw the first ten chips in the trash. If you keep doing small things one day you will laugh at how little they really were while being awed by how far you've come.
soneca 13y ago
"In this book we obey the laws of thermodynamics" Repeating a comment I made below, this makes no sense at all to me!! His argument in his post saying Taubes is wrong is "The laws of physics are unavoidable". That makes no sense at all! There is no logical reason to believe that calories (a thermodinamic unity) is transformed in fat in our body - and no science to prove it either. This is the same as saying that all fat should go to the feet because of Gravity and the laws of physics are unavoidable. It is pure non-sense. Do you know how to measure calories on food? You burn it and measure the heat it generates. How this apply to our body function is a mistery to me. To anyone actually. Taubes theory is based on hormones, which is what the medicine proved for the last century that is what regulates all kind of function in our bodies. Make much more sense to think how a diet affect hormones and how it affects are body producing fat, no?? Calories in - calories out must be relevant to a thermal plant, no to our body producing fat.
- tfigueroa 13y ago
  Come now. It's a matter of physics that you can't make stuff from nothing, and you can't do things without energy. That's not to say that body fat is strictly dependent on caloric intake, but to certain extremes, there's no way around that fact.
  - soneca 13y ago
    Exactly! What is calorie? Is is something? No! It is a unity of measuring heat. That's it! Doesn't matter at all. Anything can become fat on your body, but what decides it is the hormones saying to your body "this will become fat, this will become muscle or blood or etc, and this is pee or poo". Counting calories is a proxy at most. But people started to treat the proxy as thing in itself, which it isn't.
    - jp555 13y ago
      What is a foot? is it something? No! It is a unit of measuring distance, That's it. Doesn't matter at all.
tbirdz 13y ago
The book sounds interesting, but unfortunately it won't be published and available for purchase until March 4th. I don't understand the point of reviews and marketing like this when you can't actually buy the book. I suppose 5 days isn't that much time, but after reading this article I am interested in the book right now. Are they really still changing parts of the book right now, this close to the publishing date? If not, why not just release it now? Perhaps it takes more time to get all the physical books ready at bookstore points of sale, but surely the e-book version is good to go. I am also interested in how many people read the article, get interested in the book, find they cannot purchase it, and then never bother coming back to check it.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

The Diet Fix

41 points by tokenadult 13y ago

fatman 13y ago

Sounds promising. Calories in, calories out - the rest is just noise.

antidaily 13y ago
I dunno. I know people who've lost 100lbs and kept it off doing keto.
- cab_codespring 13y ago
  I bet if you counted the calories in/calories out it would show the calorie deficit accounting for it. The thing with low carb, in my experience, is that it does make it easier to eat less if you have the right attitude about it. I do it AND count calories. Also, just the fact that it cuts out most of the foods in the universe helps to make it an easy decision whether or not to eat something, whereas with just calorie counting all foods are available and that one bite can become 10 bites so easily. I believe those two things account for it's success rather than some trick subverting thermodynamics.
  - elijahtaylor 13y ago
    > I bet if you counted the calories in/calories out it would show the calorie deficit accounting for it By definition it would have to be true that you consumed fewer calories than expended. Calories in/calories out is not wrong, it's just not useful (or at least it's not a nearly complete picture). Calories in/out are not independent variables. The type of calories you consume dictate at least: 1) how your body processes the calories you consume, 2) the energy you will have to expend, and 3) the hunger you will feel.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  I know people who have lost 100lbs and kept it off by starving themselves. Just because a method gets you results doesn't mean it is healthy.
- jonheller 13y ago
  I lost 50 pounds eating ~500 calories more on keto than I did before. Unfortunately I wasn't completely comfortable with the types of meals I ate with that lifestyle. But it did make me feel as though the whole calories in - calories out was nonsense. Especially after trying (and failing) diets based around that (weight watchers) multiple times.
  - Quaro 13y ago
    >I lost 50 pounds eating ~500 calories more on keto than I did before >But it did make me feel as though the whole calories in - calories out was nonsense. As a diet methodology, calories in vs calories out is not very effective for the general public. I too have lost more weight via keto. But when I really tracked what I was eating I found keto simply kept my appetite under control better. This is extremely valuable but ultimately it was still down to calories. (You also tend to drop a ton of water weight when you first start keto which makes it seem super effective at first)
  - mahyarm 13y ago
    Comparing how I felt doing keto with the keto flu vs. just plain calorie counting, I think the unique metabolism of ketosis makes your body not use everything you eat during keto. It's very hard to keep under 20g of carbs and not eat too much protein also. Much easier to just go to chipolte/subway and calorie count. If your lifestyle makes you make all 3 meals already, then keto is great. If you don't, then it's a lot of work.
  - antidaily 13y ago
    Have you tried slow carb? Avoids dairy and adds legumes. I've found it easier to do and it's (probably) healthier.
    - mrfusion 13y ago
      Slow carb worked great for me for 6 months, lost 25 lbs! But alas I got so sick of chicken for dinner and eggs for breakfast, and I guess just got too bored with the meals. Gained it all back :-( (I actually haven't eaten an egg since then. And I avoid chicken now. I'm wondering if some people develop an aversion to foods they eat too regularly?)
0xdeadbeefbabe 13y ago
It would sound more promising if he didn't have to write a book to explain it even better.
chongli 13y ago
Thanks for posting a meaningless aphorism. Might as well have said "A penny saved is a penny earned" in a thread discussing poverty.
grecy 13y ago
That times a thousand. I've posted here about my experiences with weight loss before (tldr; I got involved with weight watchers, have personally been involved with hundreds of people losing hundreds of pounds each over ~10 years). There is no person on this earth that can eat less calories than they use and not lose weight. It's not possible. So there are two very easy ways to lose weight. 1. Eat less calories (than you use). or 2. Burn more calories (than you eat). (or a combination of the two - as a lifelong program like Weight Watchers promotes.) Obviously it can be hard for some people to eat less calories. I'm not saying it's easy, I'm saying it's simple.
0xdeadbeefbabe 13y ago
The devil is in the details.
rayiner 13y ago
That's like saying: "flying is easy, just generate more lift than the airplane weighs - the rest is just noise." No shit, but life isn't so simple. At least for me, controlling weight (now that I'm pushing 30) has been about appetite management, and I've found that keto helps a lot. Not because it changes anything magic about the calorie balance, but because to me 500 calories of steak feels like a meal but 500 calories of pasta feels like a snack.
fingerprinter 13y ago
The forest is calories, so don't lose that. However, the trees are macros. Macros are important for goals. If your goal is simply "lose weight", sure, just care about calories. But if you have a more refined goal (recomp, spare muscle, lose bodyfat, athletic performance, build muscle etc), the macros are vital. I do think people lose the forest from the trees. However, I find that people lose sight of the path through the trees just as often. Both are important.
- ratscabies 13y ago
  Was a bit concerned with weight until I plateaued. Now I realize I am in a lot better shape, including blood sugar and lipids, even though I am stuck at this weight. I keep up the exercise and don't worry about the waistline so much. It is funny when I workout though. All these skinny people around the gym not sweating at all. If you don't sweat, I don't see why they bother.
furyofantares 13y ago
To me this is like telling someone that wants to grow carrots that carrots are just atoms arranged in a certain way. It may be true, but it's not helpful. There are a ton of factors that influence both calories in and calories out, they aren't just noise. (This is just a response to your comment, I didn't come away from the post thinking the book treats everything else as just noise.)

mgamache 13y ago

After reading some of sites' other posts I think it's just not a reliable source of information. The 'science' is hand picked to support the author's arguments. This is no different them the candida, sugar or vitamin proponents. They all have scientific explanations and plans of action.

0xdeadbeefbabe 13y ago
His post about Taubes still being wrong does that http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/why-we-get-fat/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/why-we-get-fat/ I'd like Taubes to be wrong on some points, but the author would rather argue against his misunderstanding of Taubes, which doesn't help.
- lkmalkova 13y ago
  Can you tell us what is his misunderstanding of Taubes? It seems pretty spot on to me.
- soneca 13y ago
  His argument in this post is "The laws of physics are unavoidable". That makes no sense at all! There is no logical reason to believe that calories (a thermodinamic unity) is transformed in fat in our body. This is the same as saying that all fat should go to the feet because of Gravity and the laws of physics are unavoidable. It is pure non-sense. Do you know how to measure calories on food? You burn it and measure the heat it generates. How this apply to our body function is a mistery to me. To anyone actually. Taubes theory is based on hormones, which is what the medicine proved for the last century that is what regulates all kind of function in our bodies. Make much more sense, no?? Calories in - calories out muchbe relevant to a thermal plant, no to our body producing fat.
jonrimmer 13y ago
Agreed, it reads like the same faddish, pseudo-science the author purports to debunk. "I tried all the diet books, and none of them worked, but finally here's one that does, because SCIENCE!" It's the same old shopping channel and sideshow sales pitch people have peddling for hundreds of years, except it tries to play on a mark's trust for scientific authority instead of religious belief or new age mysticism, the same way some magicians pass off classic tricks as clever mentalism by exploiting people's belief in the power of modern psychology. And the actual obesity cure it outlines is the same as every other mainstream diet: Reorient your whole life around planning, purchasing, preparing, eating and recording a weighed, calorie counted, macro-nutrient balanced diet, and try to get some more exercise as well. Most people, particular in those groups most risk of obesity - those poor in time and money - will never be able to adopt such a strategy. Consider a single parent trying to raise three or four kids, while working a couple of jobs, and travelling everywhere via long public transport journeys. There's no way that they're going to be do all this. Processed food is successful because it: - is cheap - tastes good - is easy to acquire - is easy to prepare Any solution to widespread obesity needs to provide a source of healthy food that at the very least matches processed food in these regards.

TrainedMonkey 13y ago

There is claim that exercise contributing to significant weight loss is a myth. I beg to disagree, while exercise itself might not be significant contributor to weight loss, no exercise means lower metabolism and overall health. As always there is no silver bullet, you need to have a balanced lifestyle to be healthy.

0xdeadbeefbabe 13y ago
Science is a silver bullet or at least a bullet or at least a way of getting at the truth, but so far this field of science seems like a joke. How nice for them to use thermodynamics.
jp555 13y ago
Exercise can stimulate profoundly positive physiological changes, and that alone is a good enough reason to do it. But people forget that they burn more calories during a single night of sleep than they do doing 3 hours of cardio a week. Balance is important, but shedding nutrition & health mythology is even more so.
- cab_codespring 13y ago
  The Gluten Free nonsense drives me the most crazy. Of course they don't have Celiac disease, but they are "Sensitive" to it, which there is no way to refute. There is so much pseudoscience crap floating around I'm glad there's one book out there refuting it, I just wish he was a nutrition researcher doctor or something instead of a pharmacist, which doesn't sound very impressive for a diet book.
  - smacktoward 13y ago
    There is one benefit from it, though: a much larger market of gluten-free products than would exist if the only people buying them were people who legitimately suffer from celiac. In that respect it's a net positive: stupid people are out some money, but it's hard to get too worked up about that since (being stupid) they would have probably found some other pointless thing to waste it on anyway, and at least this way their waste makes it possible for celiac sufferers to have a better quality of life. The only hitch is that fads are by their nature transitory, so at some point the stupid people will flit away from gluten-free to some other fad, and the market of gluten-free products will collapse. Which will kind of suck for those who actually need them.

pvnick 13y ago

This is a great article. I'm always in favor of flexible and scientific approaches to dieting. Lyle McDonald wrote a great series of articles on why diets fail (hint: it's a hormone called leptin) [1]. Caloric deficits lead to decreasing leptin, which explains why you feel like crap when dieting because this leads to metabolic slowdown by downregulating things like your immune system (why you get sick more when you diet) and reproductive system (why you lose your sex drive). Leptin's effects on the hunger-controlling hypothalamus explain why you may obsess over calorie-dense junk foods when you diet. It's your body's protection against starvation, but it goes all haywire in our obesogenic (obesity-causing) environment. So what's the best way to acutely raise leptin levels when they're depressed from caloric restriction? Flexible diet solutions like the ones talked about in the article. High-carb "refeeds" - some people call them cheat days - are particularly helpful [2]. The trick is to binge on carbs (not fat!!!) while remaining at a caloric deficit, which is where a calorie journal definitely comes in handy. Things like sweet potatoes and pasta will fill you up and replete your leptin levels. As an aside, while we're talking about leptin and flexible dieting, intermittent fasting is wonderful for flexible dieting. I'm working on a website right now that's based on the leangains method [3], which is great for folks in the moderately overweight category. For severely overweight or obese folks, Dr. Krista Varady (who I had the pleasure of speaking with on the phone recently), has published a ton of research on intermittent fasting over the past decade and just wrote a book called the Every Other Day Diet [4], which I highly recommend for anyone trying to lose a lot of weight quickly and safely and keep it off. [1] http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-hormones-of-bodyweight-regulation-leptin-part-the-last.html http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-hormones-of-bo... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11126336 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11126336 [3] http://www.leangains.com/2010/03/intermittent-fasting-set-point-and.html http://www.leangains.com/2010/03/intermittent-fasting-set-po... [4] http://www.amazon.com/The-Every-Other-Day-Diet-That-Weight/dp/1401324932 http://www.amazon.com/The-Every-Other-Day-Diet-That-Weight/d...

_zen 13y ago

Dieting does not fail, but dieting does not work how the author thinks. For most, dieting is to maintain the status quo. Overweight or obese people drink and eat diet beverages/foods, or conform to some self-imposed diet, to maintain their current health. They know they can't give 100% into their desires, or they could have dire consequences (hospitalization, death), but they are not determined enough to take the actual steps to losing weight (significant diet change, routine exercise). I see this everywhere. Family, friends, etc. They all say they're dieting, but year after year they are as out of shape as always. They are happy and content with themselves, because dieting to them does not mean "get fit like those gym guys on T.V."

raverbashing 13y ago

"Freedhoff opens the book describing “Dieting’s Seven Deadly Sins”, which are commonly held, but dangerous, beliefs about dieting. Hunger is the first myth to go. Freedhoff argues that any diet plan that leaves you hungry won’t be sustainable. Sacrifice is next—perpetual sacrifice of anything you enjoy will make any diet fail. Willpower is important, but permanent resistance is almost certainly futile. Blind food restrictions are the next to go, and Freedhoff is adamant we need to manage, but not banish, certain food groups. Sweating is the next myth, with The Biggest Loser epitomizing the belief that exercise can contribute to significant weight loss. You can’t outrun your fork—not in the long run. Anticipating perfection is also a myth, so real diets must be flexible enough to accommodate setbacks. Denial is the last myth. “The diet was great—I just couldn’t stick with it” is a common refrain. As weight loss progresses, any suffering gets harder to sustain, and harder to deny." Looks like a great beginning to a book. One could write a great informational material only basing themselves on these myths.

beloch 13y ago

It's unfortunate that we have two definitions of diet: 1. What we eat. 2. A temporary change to what we eat that will produce correspondingly temporary results. Another thing that trips people up is the paralysis rational human beings often experience at the start of a monumental task. Changing your diet to be healthier is, for many people, such a huge undertaking that they can't get started. Like so many other things in life, the trick is to start small. Try putting one less sugar in your coffee or, every time you open a Pringles can, throw the first ten chips in the trash. If you keep doing small things one day you will laugh at how little they really were while being awed by how far you've come.

soneca 13y ago

"In this book we obey the laws of thermodynamics" Repeating a comment I made below, this makes no sense at all to me!! His argument in his post saying Taubes is wrong is "The laws of physics are unavoidable". That makes no sense at all! There is no logical reason to believe that calories (a thermodinamic unity) is transformed in fat in our body - and no science to prove it either. This is the same as saying that all fat should go to the feet because of Gravity and the laws of physics are unavoidable. It is pure non-sense. Do you know how to measure calories on food? You burn it and measure the heat it generates. How this apply to our body function is a mistery to me. To anyone actually. Taubes theory is based on hormones, which is what the medicine proved for the last century that is what regulates all kind of function in our bodies. Make much more sense to think how a diet affect hormones and how it affects are body producing fat, no?? Calories in - calories out must be relevant to a thermal plant, no to our body producing fat.

tfigueroa 13y ago
Come now. It's a matter of physics that you can't make stuff from nothing, and you can't do things without energy. That's not to say that body fat is strictly dependent on caloric intake, but to certain extremes, there's no way around that fact.
- soneca 13y ago
  Exactly! What is calorie? Is is something? No! It is a unity of measuring heat. That's it! Doesn't matter at all. Anything can become fat on your body, but what decides it is the hormones saying to your body "this will become fat, this will become muscle or blood or etc, and this is pee or poo". Counting calories is a proxy at most. But people started to treat the proxy as thing in itself, which it isn't.
  - jp555 13y ago
    What is a foot? is it something? No! It is a unit of measuring distance, That's it. Doesn't matter at all.

tbirdz 13y ago

The book sounds interesting, but unfortunately it won't be published and available for purchase until March 4th. I don't understand the point of reviews and marketing like this when you can't actually buy the book. I suppose 5 days isn't that much time, but after reading this article I am interested in the book right now. Are they really still changing parts of the book right now, this close to the publishing date? If not, why not just release it now? Perhaps it takes more time to get all the physical books ready at bookstore points of sale, but surely the e-book version is good to go. I am also interested in how many people read the article, get interested in the book, find they cannot purchase it, and then never bother coming back to check it.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]