Everyday Systems

Perhaps I'm repeating myself or others but here goes. After 10 years of looking at diet stuff (and that was 15 years ago) I came to the conclusion that one of the biggest problems with diets was that they aimed at having people eat just about the least that they could stand in order to lose weight. I'm sure that was because a) the person had big health problems and time was of the essence or more likely b) the person thought they were fed up with being fat and wanted quick results. I kept telling people, "No, you should aim at eating the most you can and still lose weight." The body loves homeostasis. Gradual reductions can be snuck in so much more easily; no refeeding mechanism's wire will be tripped. As Wansink says, the best diet is the one you don't know you're on. In fact, when you look at people's accounts of how they lost weight successfully, many of them say they didn't even realize they had lost until clothes starting being loose and they realized they had been eating less. No S takes advantage of this natural progression, as long as the participant doesn't try to have "diet" meals. Which is not to say that after a few months, you won't be having meals that look like diet meals, but it will be more because that's what looks and sounds appealing, not because you should. So, start big and gradually reduce the amount of food on the plate in accordance with the body's comfort level. (I'm preaching to myself....)

oola, There's a lot of value of formulating your ideas and posting them. It helps you own them. And, you never know when your particular style of phrasing something will make it click for someone else out there in Ether Land.

I couldn't agree more that painless is the way to go with eating. Well said!

I kept telling people, "No, you should aim at eating the most you can and still lose weight." ... (I'm preaching to myself....)

Amen!

That is exactly right. Long term, people don't stop dieting because they don't see results. They stop dieting because they can't stand the deprivation. But you said it much better

Reinhard

This is very true. In weight watchers, you reduce the points (calories) you eat as you lose weight so that by the time you get to goal weight, you are eating very little food. And, your body lets you know that it is not satisfied, so you get to be in a lifelong battle to stay at goal and eat your 19 or 20 points a day. The thing that always bothered me is that when I was naturally thin and close to goal weight and not concerned with food, I just ate when I was hungry, I know that I ate more calories than those 19 or 20 points (1200 calories or so), so how did my body manage that? I think my body had weighed 140-150 pounds my whole adult life and so it snapped back to that weight and the calories each day were not very important, it efficiently burned more or less depending on the day.

I have lost weight two ways, one time, I fell madly in love with someone, I was so distracted, I forgot to eat, I ran on pure love and one day as I was getting dressed I realized that over six weeks or so I had gone down a size or 2. I hadn't purposefully skipped meals or picked salad over burger. Every other time, I have sweated and agonized about every ounce and given each ounce much more meaning and power than it needed to have.

You can imagine which way was more enjoyable.

Oh, if only falling madly in love were something we could plan!

oolala53 wrote:So, start big and gradually reduce the amount of food on the plate in accordance with the body's comfort level.

Well, I've certainly got the "start big" part down! LOL I was thinking at one point that I should put a limit on how high the food was stacked on my plate, say 3 or 4". Last week (my first week) I was sick after almost every dinner, because of sheer volume. This week seems to be getting gradually better. I think (hope) as I find that point at which I'm full but not sick-full, my plate heaps will diminish slightly.