Why do crash diets fail & lead to quick weight re-gainin

[Cassie]

Hi everyone

Just posted yesterday about my own trial & tribulations recently with an extreme low-carb diet which led to me putting on much of the weight back on (& also led to abandoning the NoS principles which I value & had worked hard on achieving).

Here's the million dollar question for you (or maybe its obvious to everyone but me ). Everyone keeps saying- not just to me, its something people say all the time. 'Crash diets don't work, they lead to putting the weight back on, and maybe putting more back on'.

So: why does everyone think that is?

[Too solid flesh]

Hello, Cassie.

I don't know why this happens, but there is a substantial body of evidence that it does.

To quote the oracle himself, in his book The No S Diet Reinhard says

Pretty much any diet will lose you weight if you stick with it; the problem is, you won’t. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 95 percent of dieters fail to stick with their diets for more than a few months.

Reinhard's meticulous end notes cite: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “The Facts About Weight Loss Products and Programs.â€. This article can currently be found online at:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+facts ... a014401286

The article states that

so-called "crash" diets often send dieters into a cycle of quick weight loss, followed by a "rebound" weight gain once normal eating resumes, and even more difficulty reducing when the next diet is attempted… according to published studies relatively few participants [in organized quick weight loss programmes] succeed in keeping off weight long-term.

My own experience confirms this, although it should be said that your mileage may vary. I do have a couple of friends who have lost weight by crash dieting and are keeping the weight off, but it does not work for most people.

[wosnes]

I don't think this applies to just "crash" diets, but most diets. Extremely few people can stick to a diet until they lose the weight, even fewer stick to it after they've lost the weight.

The truth is, pretty much any diet will lose you weight if you stick with it. The problem isn't how to lose the weight. The problem is how to stick with the diet. According to the FDA, 95% of dieters fail to do this for more than a few months at a time. You need a diet that acknowledges this grim statistic and targets the real culprit: not your belly, but your mind...

...Ask yourself if you can imagine staying on a particular diet for the rest of your life. If not, don't bother starting, it's a waste of time and will.

[Cassie]

Yes it seems its a given that diets generally don't seem to work & lead often to putting all (or most) of the weight back on. Or even worse: MORE weight than one had before.

However, I'm wondering why this is so.

Is it a purely physical reason? e.g. does metabolism get screwed by constant changes of weight? It does make sense to me that in some fundamental way it's not good for our bodies to keep overloading them with extra weight & then losing it etc. Must be confusing/damaging for the body in some way, I'm sure there must be loads written about it.

Or are the reasons psychological?

In my case, when I did my strict very-low carb diet, what helped me keep on the diet was the very simple rule: NO CARBS. Once I broke that rule after 5 months on the diet (with the intention initially to introduce just some 'good quality' complex carbs) what happened is: I couldn't function without my rule. So it became an all or nothing thing, a black or white thing. Either I'm on the diet or I'm not.

On a purely logical level, it would make perfect sense for someone who's struggled to lose weight & has been on a strict diet for ages to then move on carefully to a maintainance plan. However, logic seems to have little to do with it, because that's exactly what doesn't happen. Maintainance is what most people are not able to do. So I'm wondering about the reasons & I wonder whether its a mentality of 'all or nothing' that chronic dieters seem to share...

Other ideas?

[Starla]

I have a couple thoughts on this, worth about a penny a piece, so I'll throw in my two cents:

I think that, regardless of how unhappy we may be with their appearance, our bodies are truly amazing organisms. They've evolved to survive, and work relatively well, under widely differing circumstances. So when we start a crash diet, our bodies go along with it at first. They can handle it. But eventually the survival instinct, our bodies' strongest instinct, kicks in. And this organism, that now thinks it's being starved to death, fights to survive. It focuses on self-preservation.

I think there's no doubt that a crash diet has psychological effects that last well beyond the restoration of normal eating. We no longer want "enough." We want more and more and more and more, and still it doesn't make up for what we deprived ourselves of during the diet.

So a crash diet leaves us with a body and psyche insisting on excess food. I think this is more and more dramatic with each crash diet we try - our body learns that, however much food is in front of it right now, the famine will surely come again.

And then some of us get really fortunate and hear about No S. We feed our bodies three plates of nourishing food each day, with treats every weekend. If we make it past the tough beginning, our bodies and our minds learn that hunger doesn't last, that we will enjoy our meals, that nothing is forbidden. Food becomes something to enjoy and not the whip we've used to beat ourselves up with for years. Sure, there up ups and downs - that's natural. But we break free of the binge/starvation/binge merry-go-round.

[Dandelion]

I think it's both, really. Dieting leads to, if not eating disorders, disordered eating. All that emphasis on 'good/bad' foods, guilt, deprivation lead to things like hoarding food, secret eating, dreams and obsessions about food, binges - so many awful consequences.

Physically, they damage the metabolism in many ways. So many people fear being hungry so they fill up on foods that fill their stomachs, but provide little if any nourishment. There is no way to properly nourish a body on a low calorie diet, (some sources say even 1500 calories is too low even for women) especially a low fat diet. Fat is so crucial to mood, energy, nutrient absorption, hormone production, yet it's usually the first thing people cut out. And if the hormones are 'out of whack' it affects every part of life. A properly nourished and well functioning body has the ability to maintain a healthy weight even if constantly overfed.

The body wants that nourishment - and it will get it. It will store fat, conserve energy, consume it's own muscle and bone and increase the appetite. Eventually the diet ends and maybe the number on the scale goes down, but at a cost. Things have changed and the body is primed and ready for the next self imposed 'famine'.

I've been thinking about this issue this weekend, especially after a paper I read yesterday, from a more personal point of view. It's interesting so when (if?!) I get time, I may write it up in my check in.

[wosnes]

I think it's physical and psychological, too. When you're undernourished you crave what you're deprived of. When you're able to get those things, you overfeed -- maybe in part so that your body/soul won't be deprived the next time you're underfed.

[ThomsonsPier]

All of the above! I think a number of factors contribute, the primary being that people often go straight back to eating garbage once they reach their target weight, but now they have an extra, bulletproof, resolve that means they're obviously able to eat whatever they like because that's what all those naturally thin people do, isn't it?

Crash diets focus on weight loss, not health. I recently lost a load of weight from being too busy and felt like rotting garbage until I deliberately put the weight back on. Looking thin but feeling terrible is not conducive to eating well. I was eating everything in sight just to have enough energy to feel normal.

[Izbiz]

I am pretty certain that it is a physiological thing - your body is hard-wired to store fat, and when you go on a crash/very low calorie diet your body thinks it is starving, your metabolism slows and your body holds onto as much fat as it can - the weight loss experienced on these diets is initially water loss, from glycogen stores being used up, then weight loss from muscle wasting. The result is that after the diet you have less lean muscle mass than before, but probably the same amount of fat. When you start eating "normally" again, because you have a smaller muscle mass, your metabolic rate is still slow and will burn calories more slowly resulting in fat gain even if eating fairly normal portions - the amount you can eat and maintain weight decreases after EVERY crash diet, so inevitably you end up heavier than you were before.

[Cassie]

That's all probably correct (and very interesting) about physiological reasons.

In my case- I was doing an ultra low carb diet- I didn't actually deprive myself of calories, I was having enough calories I think, which was why my weight loss was slow (also my PCOS played a role for that). However the psychological deprivation is another story. Not having bread & pasta & rice & desserts for months on end meant, in my case, that once I started, once I had that first bite of bread or spaghetti bolognaise, I couldn't find a good balance, I just gorged myself... So it became an all or nothing thing.

And I think, if my mind works (around food) in an all or nothing way, i.e. if I need rules & clear structures to help keep me disciplined, then it becomes very important what these rules are. A no carb or very low carb rule is simply not sustainable in the long run, while the NoS rules seem to me much much more sustainable.

[wosnes]

However the psychological deprivation is another story. Not having bread & pasta & rice & desserts for months on end meant, in my case, that once I started, once I had that first bite of bread or spaghetti bolognaise, I couldn't find a good balance, I just gorged myself... So it became an all or nothing thing.

And I think, if my mind works (around food) in an all or nothing way, i.e. if I need rules & clear structures to help keep me disciplined, then it becomes very important what these rules are. A no carb or very low carb rule is simply not sustainable in the long run, while the NoS rules seem to me much much more sustainable.

I think the gorging ends when you know psychologically that you're not going to be deprived of those foods again. I've read that people who are really starving will gorge when they get the opportunity to have enough food again, and it takes a while before they can get back to a balance.

I also think that many diet plans/programs ignore the fact that we have to be emotionally happy with our diet as well as physically satisfied or nourished. In his book Eating Well for Optimum Health Dr. Andrew Weil wrote that the Optimum Diet must:

1. Meet all needs for macronutrients and micronutrients.
2. Support health throughout life.
3. Provide the pleasure you expect from eating.
4. Promote social interaction and reinforce your personal and cultural identity.

I think many plans and programs meet the first two but totally ignore the last two. Many authors will say that the last two aren't important, but they're at least as important as the first two.

[wosnes]

I was just looking at the subject lines of the posts. When I read this one, I think THE answer to the question came to mind.

Any time you go "on" a diet, there's an implication that at some point in time you're going to go "off" the diet. Since many diets, especially "crash" diets, don't teach you how to eat, when you go off the diet, you're going to regain weight.

Even some of the better plans where there's a maintenance program, you're still technically "on" the diet.

In terms of No-S, I have issues with it being called a "diet." Maybe it should be called the No-S Way of Eating. If you need to lose weight, you will. If you just need to learn good habits to prevent weight gain, you will. It's only a diet in terms of a diet being a way of eating, but diet generally means weight loss to most folks.

[RJLupin]

I think it's psychological, honestly. The newest research says clearly that diets don't cause a permanent change in metabolism, so the old idea that it's harder to lose weight every time just doesn't seem to be true.

I really believe diets cause disordered eating habits, and distorted thinking. I am sure we've all had the experience of going off of a diet, and then trying to "make up" for what we've missed by eating everything in sight. If you haven't been allowed carbs for a long time,what's the first thing you are going for? Also, if you feel deprived and can't have some favourite food, I think the tendency to binge on it will definitely be there.

[Cassie]

To be honest, I also tend to think its mostly psychological (but I won't completely discount the idea that some physiology goes into the whole thing).

I completely agree with Wosnes who says that when you go 'on' a diet there's the expectation (conscious or unconcious) that one day you'll be 'off' the diet. My mum is a case in point. She's dieted many many times in her life, always very strict diets, always loses weight & always puts it back on immediately after, when she goes back to exactly the same way of eating she had before. The idea to her is that a diet is meant to be a parentheses in her life. Very sad (and it has influenced me & the way I see diets & it has caused a great pessimism in me about resolving my eating issues which- I have to say- are much milder than my mother's thankfully).

I also agree wholeheartedly that diets encourage disordered eating & disordered behaviour around food...

As for the research about metabolism not being changed etc, would be very very interested in reading about this!! Very interesting topic.

[TunaFishKid]

I read a great explanation for this once. Someone (wish I could remember who) said that our bodies may actually build fat stores the same way they build muscle. When you want to build muscle, you stress the muscle by lifting heavy weights, which breaks down the muscle fibers. Your body then rebuilds the muscle bigger than before, in anticipation of that same level of stress again in the future. It's possible that our bodies build fat stores the same way. When you diet, you break down your fat stores to use for energy. Then, when the stress (famine, or in this case, diet) is over, your body rebuilds its fat (energy) stores bigger than before, in anticipation of another period of stress (famine).

That would make dieting a fat-building mechanism, instead of the fat-loss mechanism we believe it to be.

[bluebunny27]

Hum, I believe when you are super fat you have a lot of fat cells .. they are numerous and they are big ... so when you lose weight, you lose the fat of course, the fat cells "shrink" but they are still there waiting to get bigger again as soon as you start being naughty : not exercising, procrastinating, eating bad food in front of the tv, etc.

That's why it's easy to put the weight back on, especially if you lose the weight very fast (as they do on THE BIGGEST LOSER Tv show for example, when you see how many of the contestants have now gained a lot of weight back.)

The fat cells are numerous so it's easier for them to keep the fat on the body. That's why you have to find a permanent solution, something you can stick with for life ... if you stop following your habits once you are done losing weight you will put the weight back on and maybe even gain more weight ... so it's important to eat well and exercise too, I'd say 4-5 times a week is pretty good, at least 20 vigorous minutes each time, more is better but that's a minimum. Unless you have a monastic lifestyle of course, eating healthy, watching your calories, then you can cut down on the exercise, but few people do that ...

Cheers !

Marc

37 Years Old, 5'10" Tall
Nov. 1st. 2008 : 280 Pounds
Nov. 1st. 2009 : 190 Pounds
(1 Year : - 90 Pounds)

Current Weight : 191 Pounds

[RJLupin]

I think the problem with 'The Biggest Loser" is that nobody can continue to do at home what they did on the show. Is anyone who has to work REALLY going to work out for 4 hours a day? Or have some kind of personal chef cook for them? Of course not! Because the emphasis is on losing weight as fast as possible and not making changes one can stick with forever, I think the contestants are pretty much doomed from the get-go.

[StrawberryRoan]

Well, being an expert on this subject

In my case, it is because I KNOW I can lose the weight, so I don't worry too much if I gain it back.

The same ten, fifteen, twenty (my top limit) pounds over and over.

There always comes a light bulb moment *usually related to clothes* when I get back on track.


I think if it was extremely difficult for me to lose weight, once I did so I might be more inclined to keep it off.

Easy to lose, easy to gain.

Hey, maybe I'm just easy

[herd_o_turtles]

I'm new around here, but just had to jump in. In my case (which involves a year or two of continually getting to my goal weight via Weight Watchers or just straight calorie counting, then gaining some back, repeat), I think it's pretty simple. Counting points/calories is a LOT of work. I got sick of doing the work, and there wasn't as much motivation to do it when I reached my goal. So I stopped. Then my clothes didn't fit, so I started again.

It's probably not that simple for everyone, but I'm kinda lazy.