Page 1 of 1

Chronic Dieter Syndrome

Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:57 pm
by wosnes
This comes from a much longer article titled Why One Calorie For Her Is Half a Calorie For Him, dealing with why it's harder for women to lose weight than it is for men.
CHRONIC DIETER SYNDROME. Women have a propensity for recurrent dieting. Each consecutive diet cycle, especially one low in fat and protein, compromises the body’s essential endocrine functions, slows the rates of metabolism, and stimulates the over-consumption of carbohydrates, which leads to the accumulation of more fat and reductions of muscle and bone mass (the key factor behind osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, periodontal disease, and eventual tooth loss). Each consecutive weight loss cycle results in more and more fat stores and a corresponding decline in overall health. This results in even more weight gain.

THE TAKEAWAY: A weight loss diet is like an antibiotic. If you start taking one, you need to finish the full course; otherwise, you create antibiotic-resistant bacteria that may harm you later. The more you diet halfway, the more resistant your body becomes to weight loss and more accommodating to weight gain. So if you start a diet, do it right, do it for as long as it takes, and once you’re there, don’t return to the diet that made you overweight in the first place. That — helping you reach the finish line with your health and sanity intact — is the goal of this project.
My takeaway from this is that we should find a way of eating, both what and how (No-S, for example) that we can live with and stick to it. We may have to tweak a little here and there, but essentially it should remain the same.

In another wright-loss related article, the author wrote:
The core market for weight-loss diets in the United States is created by publishing conglomerates and charismatic medical doctors who are willing to tell prospective readers what they want to hear — that you can lose weight quickly and effortlessly by buying and following their books.

All of these “quickie†diets share the same common denominator: a rapid and measurable weight loss. To accomplish this seemingly admirable goal, these diets are intentionally unbalanced, meaning they reduce any one or two of the three primary food groups — carbohydrates, proteins, or fats — to a bare minimum.
In that article I also read (though I can't find it now), that most of the authors of the books limiting or eliminating one food group will say that you can eat as much of the others as you want of what remains and lose or not gain weight.

Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:40 am
by Over43
Very interesting as Boris from Rocky and Bullwinkle would say.

I do think some "eliminate a macrnutrient" diets are more valid than others, but I don't see them as being viable for most people over an extended period of time.

I personally know I am not going to eliminate carbohydrates, or fat, from my diet. So, No S, is an eating plan that fits me quite well, as it does many. And in my mind it is the most liberating of the diets. What other approach lets me eat eggs and hashbrowns? A plate of them.

Truth be told common sense is ditched when the dollar sign is flashed in regards to eating.

Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 12:10 pm
by Christine
Wow, I need to read that whole article, thanks for bringing it up. That's kind of like how I feel. And I feel just as awful at 20 lbs. overweight as I did 65 lbs. overweight. Whew, it's kind of scary to think about!

Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:22 pm
by wosnes
The author of that article is doing a series of articles on that site about weight loss. The second quote comes from an article called Balance or Perish, about the necessity of balancing carbs, fat and protein in the diet.

Though it's not quite what he was talking about, today I came across two mentions of "a balanced diet."

Martha Rose Shulman writes the Recipes for Health column in The New York Times. Today there's another article about her "sweet secret": she ghostwrites pastry cookbooks. She writes, "I believe in a balanced diet, and sweets have a place in it; a little bit of chocolate can do a world of good."

I occasionally read Michael Ruhlman's blog. Last week he had a post called Graduation Fried Chicken (his daughter requested his fried chicken for her high school graduation party). He wrote, "About fat, yes there’s more fat in fried chicken than in baked skinless breast, but not all that much. Deep-frying gets a bad rap. Eat a balanced diet, which, as far as I’m concerned, includes fried chicken once every few months for its spiritual and mental health benefits in addition to being fun to eat."

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 4:59 pm
by leafy_greens
This is just anecdotal in my dealings with men, but I think men "appear" to burn calories better than women and lose weight faster than women simply because they don't obsess as much about food, they eat real food, and don't think about snacking that much.

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 5:14 pm
by wosnes
leafy_greens wrote:This is just anecdotal in my dealings with men, but I think men "appear" to burn calories better than women and lose weight faster than women simply because they don't obsess as much about food, they eat real food, and don't think about snacking that much.
I'll agree that most men don't obsess about food as much as women do and you'll rarely hear a man ask if his butt (or gut!) looks fat. I think they do lose weight more readily because of increased muscle mass and I don't think many care so much about what they eat. I know more men who eat poorly than women. As long as it doesn't eat them first, it's fair game for a meal -- or snack.

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 6:10 pm
by leafy_greens
They do have increased muscle mass, but not obsessing like women do has got to count for a lot. Not obsessing is a huge reason why people do No S, and the side effect of that is weight loss. I think most men just do this naturally because they do not have as much societal pressure.

Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:07 pm
by Bssh
My healthy weight husband loves food and cooking. He reads cookbooks and thinks about meals... but only when he's planning a meal. In this respect he's quite functional about it. And when he's done eating, he's done thinking about food... until the next meal is due. I have a great time observing him.

Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 4:24 pm
by leafy_greens
Bssh wrote:My healthy weight husband loves food and cooking. He reads cookbooks and thinks about meals... but only when he's planning a meal. In this respect he's quite functional about it. And when he's done eating, he's done thinking about food... until the next meal is due. I have a great time observing him.
It's amazing that we enjoy observing them, as if they are the abnormal ones.

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:26 pm
by M's sick of dieting
I've read similar articles like this before. It also explains why last time I attempted Weight Watchers I lost 25lbs. And when I couldn't stick to it anymore I gained that weight back and that same 25lbs felt fatter and heavier then before I'd lost. Because any kind of calorie restricting diets cause you to loose muscle mass along with your weight loss. So when you gain that weight back and it feels fatter! Your not crazy, you are in fact fatter because your body has more fat on it this time then the muscle you had pre-diet.

Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:40 am
by hsmith0930
leafy_greens wrote:
Bssh wrote:My healthy weight husband loves food and cooking. He reads cookbooks and thinks about meals... but only when he's planning a meal. In this respect he's quite functional about it. And when he's done eating, he's done thinking about food... until the next meal is due. I have a great time observing him.
It's amazing that we enjoy observing them, as if they are the abnormal ones.
Well, surely as so many in America (and the world) are overweight, they are "abnormal." Doesn't mean they are wrong, though. Ha