It depends upon how you look at it. The article claims that almost all attempts to lose weight through dieting are not successful. So if you see it as "person attempts to diet -> does not lose...
It depends upon how you look at it. The article claims that almost all attempts to lose weight through dieting are not successful. So if you see it as "person attempts to diet -> does not lose weight" then yes, the diet did not work. But if you see it as "person attempts to diet -> person does not continue to diet -> does not lose weight" then you'd say the diet wasn't at fault.
Obviously if you want to lose weight you need more than just a diet. Having successfully lost 55 lbs a few years ago through dieting I can say that what the article says is true. I noticed the rate of weight loss slowed down after a few weeks. I noticed I was frequently (almost always) hungry. But I kept doing what I was doing regardless. Eventually I got to the weight I wanted.
This wasn't lost on me, I just found the click bait title and reams of irrelevance prior to actually giving you relatively common knowledge a bit galling.
This wasn't lost on me, I just found the click bait title and reams of irrelevance prior to actually giving you relatively common knowledge a bit galling.
Diet has two commom definitions. Both designating a special course or restriction on food intake that's limited in time as well as a general term for the kinds of food a living being consumes....
Diet has two commom definitions. Both designating a special course or restriction on food intake that's limited in time as well as a general term for the kinds of food a living being consumes. It's common to mix the two up.
I kinda lucked out with my body type in general but at one point I got slightly overweight and wanted to go back to my normal weight. Nothing worked for me because all those "lifestyle change"...
I kinda lucked out with my body type in general but at one point I got slightly overweight and wanted to go back to my normal weight. Nothing worked for me because all those "lifestyle change" diets felt like punishing myself.
Then I just started eating less. Like, no diet, no plan, no food category restrictions. I did look up calories, roughly how many a person like me burns a day on average (trying to stay below like 3/4 of that a day to loose weight) and it helped to actually read the labels and get some numbers that back up certain cliches ("sugary drinks are bad", "chocolate is worse", "there's an insane amount of calories in fast food" -- it's all true!). I noticed that I can "diet" by simply skipping one or two "snacks" a day. 1500 calories can actually be a lot of food. You still have room for a chocolate bar once or twice a week, just don't make it a habit and celebrate the food that you can't have every day. You can eat birthday cake and the Christmas turkey.
There was nothing "punishing" about this approach and I believe this is why it worked. I didn't miss the extra calories (again, I didn't have a book where I wrote them down or anything, just roughly trying to not eat stuff above a certain limit), it actually felt good not to feel bloated after eating. A light feel of hunger isn't that bad and can actually make the food taste better. You can only loose like 0.5 kg a week like that but it adds up.
So I never experienced the professional health care side of this so it's hard for me to comment on it but I can certainly blame the "fad of the month" diets that fill so many pages of lifestyle magazines and clickbait articles. "Dieting is hard" is something they use to sell their magazines, their wonder diets. That promise that "yes it's hard, but here's our secret to make it easy – only a weak-willed person will not succeed if doing it this way!". Then you try it, it doesn't work and you feel like a failure. Fuck that.
I'm just continuously baffled by how much you can eat without hitting your daily 2000 calorie limit. There's some extreme cases, like a full holiday dinner or a large Burger King menu or...
I'm just continuously baffled by how much you can eat without hitting your daily 2000 calorie limit. There's some extreme cases, like a full holiday dinner or a large Burger King menu or something. And of course there's all kinds of health concerns and differences in how you metabolize foods. But just counting calories, you can eat a full meal of any kind (that isn't drenched in fat or deep fried) any day + a snack if you're hungry afterward.
So to clarify what I mean by "lifestyle change": I'm talking about genuinely feeling like you give up something or like food concerns are dominating your life. Not having a slice of your own damn birthday cake. Giving up bread completely although you really like it. Having to check with your food bible to pick a restaurant to eat out. Having to update spreadsheets 5 times a day. Basically, it becoming a noticeable sacrifice, that makes you go "I hate this!", when you think about it.
Of course you still have to change your eating habits, that's the idea. I just believe it should be closer to reducing your chocolate bar consumption than becoming vegan.
The problem is that 2,000 calories/day is only a general suggestion. It doesn't take individual caloric needs into account. Somebody who works in an office all day and doesn't get much exercise...
I'm just continuously baffled by how much you can eat without hitting your daily 2000 calorie limit.
The problem is that 2,000 calories/day is only a general suggestion. It doesn't take individual caloric needs into account. Somebody who works in an office all day and doesn't get much exercise doesn't need to eat that much, but it's not like you can go to a doctor, have them run some kind of diagnostic test, and be told exactly how many calories per day you should be eating at your current weight and activity level.
The last doctor I saw, one who actually specializes in weight loss, said I need to keep my intake under 1,200 calories a day, and that 800/day would be ideal. With those limits, it's a choice between skipping meals, eating extremely small meals, or developing a taste for rabbit food.
800 sounds extreme, but 1200 is IMO not that crazy. I tried to stay below 1500, which worked for me (and I tried to stay way below that as an upper limit, probably 1000 on average). A "proper...
800 sounds extreme, but 1200 is IMO not that crazy. I tried to stay below 1500, which worked for me (and I tried to stay way below that as an upper limit, probably 1000 on average). A "proper meal" (a plate with maybe a piece of meat, noodles or rice, some vegetables, etc) is usually between 700 and 900 calories. That leaves room for a sandwich (250 calories) and a bowl of cereal (150) and maybe an apple or something.
I really don't buy that anyone is not losing weight on a cup of yogurt and three crackers or some orange juice and half a granola bar a day if that's consistent behavior. Hunger is super powerful...
I really don't buy that anyone is not losing weight on a cup of yogurt and three crackers or some orange juice and half a granola bar a day if that's consistent behavior. Hunger is super powerful and satiety is nearly impossible achieve on a modern diet of processed foods, but below a certain caloric threshold (BMR) it's thermodynamically impossible not to lose weight. That doesn't mean it's a personal failing if someone is overweight or that they are lazy or weak willed, but rather that modern office work and dietary options make it very difficult for a large percentage of people to be as physically active and careful about their diet as is healthy.
Someone carrying enough fat to be categorized as "obese" could easily be pretty healthy, but there is definitely a point when someone becomes morbidly obese and will have very serious health problems as a result. Nobody of average height will be healthy at, say, over 440 lbs (200 kg) no matter what the fat acceptance people claim and we need to figure out how to treat those people with dignity without pretending that condition is not serious cause for concern medically.
This is a tough issue and something I've thought a lot about. To start I'd like to quickly address that the article is wrong about diets. A ton of diets work in reducing a persons weight if you...
This is a tough issue and something I've thought a lot about. To start I'd like to quickly address that the article is wrong about diets. A ton of diets work in reducing a persons weight if you stick to them. However they are often unhealthy, unreasonable, and don't work long term. That doesn't mean that a diet cannot work, just that a lot of the diets out there are worthless for long-term weight loss, which is what people are always after. The reason these diets are ineffective is because they require an unsustainable, high effort, lifestyle change that breaks down over time.
Now with that said we do know under what conditions people can lose weight long term. They have to make long-term lifestyle changes, often changing the portion sizes they're used as well as trying to incorporate new foods they like that might be higher in fiber and fat as well as actually having access to these foods. They also need some self-confidence and a strong support structure of either family or friends that aren't judgmental but actually supportive. It's also extremely helpful if their lives aren't overly stressful and all of this also has to rest upon a solid understanding of basic nutritional principles.
So it's obvious that getting to a point where a person can lose weight long term is extremely difficult. The article goes through a lot of points describing how doctors, the public, commerical diets, and a slew of other factors can impair one of these requirements and cause people to fail to meet their goal.
I think a lot of this is fixable in theory. Although in reality, unless government can start working effectively to direct social change I don't think we'll see much progress. I expect we'll see obesity increase and eventually people will incorporate it into their identity and being fat will be a much more formal group. Like being gay or a republican and that's not wrong. It'll probably be a necessity by that point just to have your issues heard. Although in my opinion it's completely avoidable and I would personally like everyone to be able to be thin, healthy, fit, and confident.
You can see how inconsistent you'rebeing here? Diets work, unless you want to lose weight long term, in which case they don't work. From everything we know "diets" do not work. Weight loss...
t the article is wrong about diets. A ton of diets work in reducing a persons weight if you stick to them. However they are often unhealthy, unreasonable, and don't work long term. That doesn't mean that a diet cannot work, just that a lot of the diets out there are worthless for long-term weight loss,
You can see how inconsistent you'rebeing here? Diets work, unless you want to lose weight long term, in which case they don't work.
From everything we know "diets" do not work. Weight loss programmes may work for some people, if they keep attending the meetings. For morbidly or super obese people gastric bypass seems to be the only option that actually works, and is a life-changing surgery for most people.
Diets can be used for more than long-term weight loss. For example wrestlers and body builders typically use diets to gain and lose weight on a short-term basis. So for short-term cases diets are...
Diets can be used for more than long-term weight loss. For example wrestlers and body builders typically use diets to gain and lose weight on a short-term basis. So for short-term cases diets are often effective, even if most are significantly ineffective long-term. My entire point is that for long-term weight loss a very large portion of diets are ineffective. But a small minority of diets that focus mainly on smaller portions as a lifestyle change, with possibly the inclusion of new foods can be very successful.
I also talked about how important many other factors are to maintaining a diet and why they can be so difficult. When it comes to morbidly obese people we're talking about very serious circumstances and yes gastric bypass can be effective which is why it is used.
I find this whole topic rather fascinating. When I read stuff like this: it sounds like something a smoker or an alcoholic would say. It seems just like any other addiction. Weight loss is not...
I find this whole topic rather fascinating. When I read stuff like this:
“It’s always hidden,” she says. “I buy a package of ice cream, then eat it all. Then I have to go to the store to buy it again. For a week my family thinks there’s a thing of ice cream in the fridge—but it’s actually five different ones.”
it sounds like something a smoker or an alcoholic would say. It seems just like any other addiction. Weight loss is not this esoteric mystical thing. Eat less, exercise more. Maybe you'll get to your target weight in 6 months, maybe in 6 years, but that's all there is to it (unless you have some underlying condition, but let's face it - most people don't).
And yet, it's not easy at all - just like it makes no sense to tell an alcoholic "simply drink less duh". I've been on a trajectory to become overweight and I've been close to becoming a smoker. But I realized what was happening quite early and I just put a stop to it. I all but completely stopped eating sugar, I stopped eating fried stuff and I started eating smaller portions. I exercise 5 times a week. I don't smoke at all, ever. The most I do is vape and that's a few times a year kind of thing. And it's really not difficult to maintain this discipline. But perhaps if I didn't put a stop to these things so early I would be the one sneaking into the fridge for my fix of ice cream.
My default response is, "Yes, I know I'm fat. Did you know you're an asshole?" I'm not interested in being a "nice fatty" or a "good fatty". I'm not taking any shit from anybody about my mass;...
My default response is, "Yes, I know I'm fat. Did you know you're an asshole?" I'm not interested in being a "nice fatty" or a "good fatty". I'm not taking any shit from anybody about my mass; instead I'll come down on you like Wilson Fisk or Baron fucking Harkonnen.
It sounds like you're an asshole too. Upwards of 70% of the US is overweight or obese. That's staggering and comes with a high cost of health problems.
I'm just hangry, fuck you ever so much. Here's the deal: I'm fat because I overeat when stressed or bored. Since I've been denying myself that maladaptive coping mechanism, I tend to inflict my...
I'm just hangry, fuck you ever so much.
Here's the deal: I'm fat because I overeat when stressed or bored. Since I've been denying myself that maladaptive coping mechanism, I tend to inflict my negativity on others instead of eating it.
I understand being hangry, but you should start to take control of it. My wife used to get hangry to the extreme where our friends wouldn't like to hang around her when she was hungry. What worked...
I understand being hangry, but you should start to take control of it. My wife used to get hangry to the extreme where our friends wouldn't like to hang around her when she was hungry. What worked for her is intermittent fasting, Only eating within a 10 hour window. You would be amazed on how many calories you can cut out when you only have 2 meals a day.
But I digress, if you eat when you are bored, then pick up a hobby, play video games, do something, just make sure you aren't mindlessly eating. When I am bored I still occasionally open the fridge to look around, but I realize that I think of eating as an activity and it's not. Also if you eat while stressed, try swapping out what you eat with better options like broccoli, salad, or carrots. Ultimately small changes over time stick longer than a big change suddenly.
I know this is unsolicited advice, but I have been in a similar situation and it sucks to be trapped in a never ending cycle. I was over 300 pounds and now I am almost a third of the way to my goal. I hope this helps someone if it doesn't help you.
I'm somewhat confused about the article. I understand that it addresses the shitty behavior and service that overweight people get, and I agree that it is unfair and awful. But to say that we...
I'm somewhat confused about the article. I understand that it addresses the shitty behavior and service that overweight people get, and I agree that it is unfair and awful. But to say that we don't understand weight gain and weight loss? That diets don't work? It is calories in vs calories out. If you run a deficit you will lose weight. It might take a little while to show and might fluctuate with water weight, but 500 calories a day (3500 a week) below your maintenance will lose a pound a week. Discussing the mental dedication that it takes to stick to a regimen is one thing, it is tough. There should definitely be more education on healthy diet change as people cutting food to dangerous levels can have serious adverse effects. But I think the literature, support tools, and groups are all out there and easily accessible.
This article makes the claim that "diets don't work" then hundreds of words later argues that changing diets are the cause of increasing obesity.
It depends upon how you look at it. The article claims that almost all attempts to lose weight through dieting are not successful. So if you see it as "person attempts to diet -> does not lose weight" then yes, the diet did not work. But if you see it as "person attempts to diet -> person does not continue to diet -> does not lose weight" then you'd say the diet wasn't at fault.
Obviously if you want to lose weight you need more than just a diet. Having successfully lost 55 lbs a few years ago through dieting I can say that what the article says is true. I noticed the rate of weight loss slowed down after a few weeks. I noticed I was frequently (almost always) hungry. But I kept doing what I was doing regardless. Eventually I got to the weight I wanted.
Words can have multiple meanings depending on the context in which they're used.
This wasn't lost on me, I just found the click bait title and reams of irrelevance prior to actually giving you relatively common knowledge a bit galling.
Welcome to the commercial internet.
Diet has two commom definitions. Both designating a special course or restriction on food intake that's limited in time as well as a general term for the kinds of food a living being consumes. It's common to mix the two up.
I kinda lucked out with my body type in general but at one point I got slightly overweight and wanted to go back to my normal weight. Nothing worked for me because all those "lifestyle change" diets felt like punishing myself.
Then I just started eating less. Like, no diet, no plan, no food category restrictions. I did look up calories, roughly how many a person like me burns a day on average (trying to stay below like 3/4 of that a day to loose weight) and it helped to actually read the labels and get some numbers that back up certain cliches ("sugary drinks are bad", "chocolate is worse", "there's an insane amount of calories in fast food" -- it's all true!). I noticed that I can "diet" by simply skipping one or two "snacks" a day. 1500 calories can actually be a lot of food. You still have room for a chocolate bar once or twice a week, just don't make it a habit and celebrate the food that you can't have every day. You can eat birthday cake and the Christmas turkey.
There was nothing "punishing" about this approach and I believe this is why it worked. I didn't miss the extra calories (again, I didn't have a book where I wrote them down or anything, just roughly trying to not eat stuff above a certain limit), it actually felt good not to feel bloated after eating. A light feel of hunger isn't that bad and can actually make the food taste better. You can only loose like 0.5 kg a week like that but it adds up.
So I never experienced the professional health care side of this so it's hard for me to comment on it but I can certainly blame the "fad of the month" diets that fill so many pages of lifestyle magazines and clickbait articles. "Dieting is hard" is something they use to sell their magazines, their wonder diets. That promise that "yes it's hard, but here's our secret to make it easy – only a weak-willed person will not succeed if doing it this way!". Then you try it, it doesn't work and you feel like a failure. Fuck that.
I'm just continuously baffled by how much you can eat without hitting your daily 2000 calorie limit. There's some extreme cases, like a full holiday dinner or a large Burger King menu or something. And of course there's all kinds of health concerns and differences in how you metabolize foods. But just counting calories, you can eat a full meal of any kind (that isn't drenched in fat or deep fried) any day + a snack if you're hungry afterward.
So to clarify what I mean by "lifestyle change": I'm talking about genuinely feeling like you give up something or like food concerns are dominating your life. Not having a slice of your own damn birthday cake. Giving up bread completely although you really like it. Having to check with your food bible to pick a restaurant to eat out. Having to update spreadsheets 5 times a day. Basically, it becoming a noticeable sacrifice, that makes you go "I hate this!", when you think about it.
Of course you still have to change your eating habits, that's the idea. I just believe it should be closer to reducing your chocolate bar consumption than becoming vegan.
The problem is that 2,000 calories/day is only a general suggestion. It doesn't take individual caloric needs into account. Somebody who works in an office all day and doesn't get much exercise doesn't need to eat that much, but it's not like you can go to a doctor, have them run some kind of diagnostic test, and be told exactly how many calories per day you should be eating at your current weight and activity level.
The last doctor I saw, one who actually specializes in weight loss, said I need to keep my intake under 1,200 calories a day, and that 800/day would be ideal. With those limits, it's a choice between skipping meals, eating extremely small meals, or developing a taste for rabbit food.
800 sounds extreme, but 1200 is IMO not that crazy. I tried to stay below 1500, which worked for me (and I tried to stay way below that as an upper limit, probably 1000 on average). A "proper meal" (a plate with maybe a piece of meat, noodles or rice, some vegetables, etc) is usually between 700 and 900 calories. That leaves room for a sandwich (250 calories) and a bowl of cereal (150) and maybe an apple or something.
I really don't buy that anyone is not losing weight on a cup of yogurt and three crackers or some orange juice and half a granola bar a day if that's consistent behavior. Hunger is super powerful and satiety is nearly impossible achieve on a modern diet of processed foods, but below a certain caloric threshold (BMR) it's thermodynamically impossible not to lose weight. That doesn't mean it's a personal failing if someone is overweight or that they are lazy or weak willed, but rather that modern office work and dietary options make it very difficult for a large percentage of people to be as physically active and careful about their diet as is healthy.
Someone carrying enough fat to be categorized as "obese" could easily be pretty healthy, but there is definitely a point when someone becomes morbidly obese and will have very serious health problems as a result. Nobody of average height will be healthy at, say, over 440 lbs (200 kg) no matter what the fat acceptance people claim and we need to figure out how to treat those people with dignity without pretending that condition is not serious cause for concern medically.
This is a tough issue and something I've thought a lot about. To start I'd like to quickly address that the article is wrong about diets. A ton of diets work in reducing a persons weight if you stick to them. However they are often unhealthy, unreasonable, and don't work long term. That doesn't mean that a diet cannot work, just that a lot of the diets out there are worthless for long-term weight loss, which is what people are always after. The reason these diets are ineffective is because they require an unsustainable, high effort, lifestyle change that breaks down over time.
Now with that said we do know under what conditions people can lose weight long term. They have to make long-term lifestyle changes, often changing the portion sizes they're used as well as trying to incorporate new foods they like that might be higher in fiber and fat as well as actually having access to these foods. They also need some self-confidence and a strong support structure of either family or friends that aren't judgmental but actually supportive. It's also extremely helpful if their lives aren't overly stressful and all of this also has to rest upon a solid understanding of basic nutritional principles.
So it's obvious that getting to a point where a person can lose weight long term is extremely difficult. The article goes through a lot of points describing how doctors, the public, commerical diets, and a slew of other factors can impair one of these requirements and cause people to fail to meet their goal.
I think a lot of this is fixable in theory. Although in reality, unless government can start working effectively to direct social change I don't think we'll see much progress. I expect we'll see obesity increase and eventually people will incorporate it into their identity and being fat will be a much more formal group. Like being gay or a republican and that's not wrong. It'll probably be a necessity by that point just to have your issues heard. Although in my opinion it's completely avoidable and I would personally like everyone to be able to be thin, healthy, fit, and confident.
You can see how inconsistent you'rebeing here? Diets work, unless you want to lose weight long term, in which case they don't work.
From everything we know "diets" do not work. Weight loss programmes may work for some people, if they keep attending the meetings. For morbidly or super obese people gastric bypass seems to be the only option that actually works, and is a life-changing surgery for most people.
Diets can be used for more than long-term weight loss. For example wrestlers and body builders typically use diets to gain and lose weight on a short-term basis. So for short-term cases diets are often effective, even if most are significantly ineffective long-term. My entire point is that for long-term weight loss a very large portion of diets are ineffective. But a small minority of diets that focus mainly on smaller portions as a lifestyle change, with possibly the inclusion of new foods can be very successful.
I also talked about how important many other factors are to maintaining a diet and why they can be so difficult. When it comes to morbidly obese people we're talking about very serious circumstances and yes gastric bypass can be effective which is why it is used.
I find this whole topic rather fascinating. When I read stuff like this:
it sounds like something a smoker or an alcoholic would say. It seems just like any other addiction. Weight loss is not this esoteric mystical thing. Eat less, exercise more. Maybe you'll get to your target weight in 6 months, maybe in 6 years, but that's all there is to it (unless you have some underlying condition, but let's face it - most people don't).
And yet, it's not easy at all - just like it makes no sense to tell an alcoholic "simply drink less duh". I've been on a trajectory to become overweight and I've been close to becoming a smoker. But I realized what was happening quite early and I just put a stop to it. I all but completely stopped eating sugar, I stopped eating fried stuff and I started eating smaller portions. I exercise 5 times a week. I don't smoke at all, ever. The most I do is vape and that's a few times a year kind of thing. And it's really not difficult to maintain this discipline. But perhaps if I didn't put a stop to these things so early I would be the one sneaking into the fridge for my fix of ice cream.
My default response is, "Yes, I know I'm fat. Did you know you're an asshole?" I'm not interested in being a "nice fatty" or a "good fatty". I'm not taking any shit from anybody about my mass; instead I'll come down on you like Wilson Fisk or Baron fucking Harkonnen.
It sounds like you're an asshole too.
Upwards of 70% of the US is overweight or obese. That's staggering and comes with a high cost of health problems.
I'm just hangry, fuck you ever so much.
Here's the deal: I'm fat because I overeat when stressed or bored. Since I've been denying myself that maladaptive coping mechanism, I tend to inflict my negativity on others instead of eating it.
I understand being hangry, but you should start to take control of it. My wife used to get hangry to the extreme where our friends wouldn't like to hang around her when she was hungry. What worked for her is intermittent fasting, Only eating within a 10 hour window. You would be amazed on how many calories you can cut out when you only have 2 meals a day.
But I digress, if you eat when you are bored, then pick up a hobby, play video games, do something, just make sure you aren't mindlessly eating. When I am bored I still occasionally open the fridge to look around, but I realize that I think of eating as an activity and it's not. Also if you eat while stressed, try swapping out what you eat with better options like broccoli, salad, or carrots. Ultimately small changes over time stick longer than a big change suddenly.
I know this is unsolicited advice, but I have been in a similar situation and it sucks to be trapped in a never ending cycle. I was over 300 pounds and now I am almost a third of the way to my goal. I hope this helps someone if it doesn't help you.
You wouldn't have needed that disclaimer if you had phrased your post as, "I've been there, and here's what worked for me."
I'm somewhat confused about the article. I understand that it addresses the shitty behavior and service that overweight people get, and I agree that it is unfair and awful. But to say that we don't understand weight gain and weight loss? That diets don't work? It is calories in vs calories out. If you run a deficit you will lose weight. It might take a little while to show and might fluctuate with water weight, but 500 calories a day (3500 a week) below your maintenance will lose a pound a week. Discussing the mental dedication that it takes to stick to a regimen is one thing, it is tough. There should definitely be more education on healthy diet change as people cutting food to dangerous levels can have serious adverse effects. But I think the literature, support tools, and groups are all out there and easily accessible.