Page 1 of 1
supports my contention
Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:19 pm
by oolala53
Isn't this interesting. Not new info. I knew it but had forgotten most of the sources for it. It supports what some say, and I contend, about dieting for MOST--not all--. And by dieting I mean a purposeful restriction of foods and amounts to match a target low intake and weight goal. It certainly doesn't mean that reducing the number of calories won't result in some weight loss. It will. The point is that as a strategy it has not been shown to change permanent habits in most who try it. Worse, it distorts the process so that weight gain statistically follows. You can argue until you're blue in the face that it will work, but if it thwarts the natural process for most, I call that a strategy meant for the few. And the stats show it. Not for those who make it- for those who don't. Which is most.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Di ... -7832.aspx
Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:17 pm
by Minkymoo
This is a interesting piece, thanks for the link!
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:34 am
by Liz46
Oolala, Thank you for this link. As for myself, that article could have been written about me, because that's been my experience over the years. I've always said that I've "dieted" my way up to well over 200 pounds over the last 30+ years. I wonder if I'd never dieted at all if I'd now be at slightly plump but "regular" size, having never had a true weight problem until I discovered dieting!
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:31 am
by Strawberry Roan
That is very interesting, thanks oolala. I certainly agree with the assessment about exercise playing a crucial role.
One can lose weight and be skinny without exercise, to lose weight and be fit - I feel exercise is a must.
Luckily, I crave exercise.
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:40 pm
by BrightAngel
Everything that has to do with eating or not eating food is a Diet.
Eating less food than the body uses as energy is a “weight-loss dietâ€
Eating the same food that the body uses as energy is a “maintenance†diet.
Eating more food than the body uses as energy is a “weight-gain†diet.
Some Diets (like the No S Diet) are more easily incorporated into the lifestyles of Some People than other Diets.
Labeling any type of eating (but especially a plan to eat less) "not a diet" is just a Semantic Game.
No matter what the "Diet"... "eating plan" .... "way-of-eating" .... "lifestyle",
it is difficult to lose weight, and even more difficult to maintain weight-loss.
This is my personal experience, and
I've been reasearching and writing about this for quite some time.
In the 6 years since this 2007 article was written, the only "conventional wisdom" that's really "changed"
is that recent studies have indicated that exercise does little to help lose weight;
that exercise might be helpful in maintaining weight-loss;
however, that exercise leads to better physical and mental health.
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:31 pm
by BrightAngel
Additionally, this morning I addressed this issue at DietHobby.
SEE:
http://www.diethobby.com/blog.php?ax=v&nid=825
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 9:29 pm
by oolala53
Ah, BrightAngel, I was waiting for you to weigh in!
I defined what I meant because I believe that's what most people think of when they say they are going on a diet. I'm very aware that "diet" in the end means whatever and whenever a person eats. But I'd say diet has achieved another meaning.
I COMPLETELY agree that it is difficult to lose weight because it means making permanent changes to eat less, and that is statistically very difficult to do. I posted this because it does seem to show that using diets in the sense I defined makes it even harder. I don't deny your experience: I just maintain that it fits the stats. You are one of the exceptions. Keep up the good work!
And thank you for the reference to Gina Kolata. I was trying to think of her name a few hours ago and couldn't.
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:24 pm
by jasper
And herein lies the beauty of nos.
It's not that weight loss( calorie restricted ) diets don't "work" .
They do.
It's just that the strategies most of them employ to restrict caloric intake are not sustainable.
Conventional diets fail long term for behavioural, not physiological reasons.
Nos strategies are more sustainable in the long ( like, forever) run.
Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:12 am
by oolala53
Everyone knows I ADORE No S, but I didn't post this because I believe No S is a panacea. In a food-rich culture, almost no one can be blase about food choices. Most of us need to be mindful, and some people will require more extreme measures. The odds are just better with No S's variety of mindful for those who don't.