The Fat Loss TroubleshootThis is your place to troubleshoot your fat loss problems from nutrition to training. This section is led by Leigh Peele, author of "The Fat Loss Troubleshoot," the ultimate fat loss manual. If your results have slowed or stalled this is the place to come for advice for all your fat loss needs.
funny, but this article made me annoyed enough to post about it.
First, the positives...
Quote:
In the study, researchers put 811 overweight adults on one of four weight loss plans, which were supposed to vary widely in fat, protein, and carbohydrate content. Most of the reporting discussed Atkins-style high protein diets as similar to the diet's high protein plan and Ornish-style low fat vegetarian diets as similar to the study's low fat plan. Since everyone who cut out 750 calories per day from their diets lost basically the same amount of weight, the take home message seemed to be that none of the popular diets are any better than any of the others.
Cut calories, lose weight. Awesome.
Quote:
First, all the tested diets strived to be "heart healthy," which means that they limited saturated fat, limited cholesterol, and contained at least 20 daily grams of fiber (in the form of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables). Anyone with even a passing familiarity with Atkins-style diets knows that all three of these requirements are virtually impossible on such diets--so this study should not be read, in any way, as endorsing an Atkins (or similar high-meat) diet for weight loss.
It's been 5 years since I read the Atkins Diet, but I'm pretty sure that after the break-in period, you eat all sort of fibrous veggies. 20g of fiber is easy. That's not that hard.
4 c spinach, 2 cups broccoli, 1 bell pepper, 1 zucchini, and 2 servings of nuts is about 20g of fiber.
The saturated fat and cholesterol danger myth is more understandable, but still outdated.
Quote:
Second, although the caloric restriction worked for everyone who stuck with it--so it certainly is confirmation that caloric restriction is the way to lose weight--participants at two years were already consuming more than the allowed calories and gaining back weight. In fact, all four groups were on track to be right where they started by year three. In other words, for long term weight loss, all of the diets failed.
The reason for the high failure rate seems obvious to me: All four diets used similar foods and required precise caloric accounting, so all four diets were confusing and very hard to follow. Basically, adherents were asked to be absurdly careful with caloric counts (dropping precisely 750 calories per day) and proportions, but were told to eat identical foods--just in different amounts. So far, diets that require rigorous participant logs and calorie counting have always failed in peer reviewed studies, so this shouldn't have come as a big surprise.
Out in the dieting world, I thought all diets failed at about a 95% rate? Why is this a surprising statistic (not that she tells the statistics...).
AND, talk about setting people up for failure. Four diets where they all have to eat the same foods, just in different proportions? All low in saturated fats/cholesterol? How one could even eat Atkins-style with the same foods as the low fat vegetarian diet and not go insane is beyond me.
Quote:
In fact, there is a diet that works--consistently--at helping adherents to lose weight and keep it off, and which has a very high compliance rate: a very low fat, vegetarian diet, as recommended by Dr. Dean Ornish, Dr. John McDougall, Dr. Neal Barnard, and many others.
The very-low-fat vegetarian diets work long-term because they focus on the consumption of fiber and complex carbohydrates, which make you feel full without a lot of empty fat calories, so adherents needn't keep food logs, restrict food intake, or count calories--in other words, they take advantage of the nature of food.
The Harvard study got off to a good start by requiring (in all four groups) 20 grams of fiber per day and by limiting fat and cholesterol, but the reason all four groups failed in the end is that all four diets included meat, which has no fiber at all, and which is packed with fat, relative to whole grains, beans, fruits and vegetables.
Quote:
As explained by Dr. Ornish in the 2001 foreword to Eat More, Weigh Less, which is the Bible of this way of eating: "When you go from a high fat to a low fat diet, even if you eat the same amount of food, you consume fewer calories without feeling hungry and deprived. Also, because the food is high in fiber, you get full before you consume too many calories. You can eat whenever you're hungry and still lose weight."
Interestingly, in their review of all the past studies that have been done on diet and weight loss, the researchers note that "a very-high-carbohydrate, very-low-fat vegetarian diet was superior [for weight loss] to a conventional high-carbohydrate, low-fat [non-vegetarian] diet." But for some reason, they don't include this diet, which has been proven to work, in their study.
Way back at the beginning, she said they did include a diet very similar to Ornish's diet. But, just as they can't do straight Atkins with the stupid restrictions, they also can't do straight Ornish. They do Atkins-style and Ornish-style, instead.
Also, people go vegetarian to become vegetarians, not usually to lose weight. They have more important things to do than quit because they don't 'like' a diet. They aren't doing it because they like it. They do it because they think it's right. If they lose fat, even more awesome.
Quote:
In addition to the fact that Ornish-style vegetarian diets are easy to follow and work naturally for weight loss without calorie counting and food logs, adherence to the diet is high because results come fast and furious, and they include so much more than weight loss, from improved sexual function and greater energy to unclogged arteries and less need for sleep.
First, all the diets had the same "fast and furious" results in the study.
Back in the real world (non-study world), Atkins-style does well because it has no calorie counting, either.
I think improved sexual function and better arteries probably comes from fat loss. ...the need for less sleep?
Quote:
And while it might seem challenging at first, it's actually quite basic--you eat all the grains, beans, fruits, and vegetables you want--from black bean burritos to three bean salads to pasta with (faux) meatballs to spaghetti squash and collard greens to apples and blueberries (basically, if it's a whole grain, bean, fruit or vegetable, you can eat as much of it as you want).
And we've known about this miracle diet for more than a decade.
***
Freston is a health and wellness expert and a New York Times best-selling author. Her books include Quantum Wellness: A Practical and Spiritual Guide to Health and Happiness, The One: Discovering the Secrets of Soul Mate Love and Expect a Miracle: 7 Spiritual Steps to Finding the Right Relationship. Her new book, The Quantum Wellness Cleanse: A 21 Day Essential Guide to Healing Your Body, Mind and Spirit, will be published by Weinstein Books in May 2009.
I don't want to point out stereotypes, so make your own decisions on bias based on her conclusions and her spiritual quantum awesomeness.
Bottom line, counting calories does work for many people, but if it becomes too much for you, you need to find another way to restrict your calories, whether it's portion control (South Beach, Zone, etc) or food restriction (Atkins, Ornish, TNT, etc.).
It doesn't always matter the diet that you quit, it matters that you quit dieting.
counting calories, or even diets in general, don't work because then people think they are finished and go right back to doing what they were doing before.
Plus, somehow the most retarded people get to be mainstream diet gurus (I typoed that "gyros" 3 times, I think it works better)
counting calories, or even diets in general, don't work because then people think they are finished and go right back to doing what they were doing before.
I struggle with this concept all the time. The idea that how I'm (supposed to be) eating on a cut is pretty much how I'm supposed to be eating for maintenance down the line really pisses off my inner two year old.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aoife
Plus, somehow the most retarded people get to be mainstream diet gurus (I typoed that "gyros" 3 times, I think it works better)
I'm going to go scrub my brain and try to wash out the cannibalistic gyro images ...
__________________
"Time and patience are the 2 elements that most people don't include in their plans."
-Alan Aragon
"The scale simply tells you how much the earth loves you on a particular day."
-Ogedei (Keith)
I struggle with this concept all the time. The idea that how I'm (supposed to be) eating on a cut is pretty much how I'm supposed to be eating for maintenance down the line really pisses off my inner two year old.
Maintenance is hard for so many of us. Do remember that you get to eat at maintenance levels, not deficit levels, although, even that can be hard to maintain.
I've been doing this a long time, and I don't find maint hard anymore. In fact, I found that I leaned out a bit, then last time I just "lived" for a month. Of course, my version of living is using the rules and guidelines that I've established for myself (portion control, avoiding/limiting treats, etc.). I also have incorporated strategies for keeping the weight off and keep track of my weight and fat levels on an ongoing basis so I can nip a problem in the bud.
For those who have Leigh's stuff, she's got an "extra" pdf in the package called "The Maintenance Manual" that's got some good ideas, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maggieandmommy
Love your commentary! I didn't read the full article because even the parts that you pulled out pissed me off!
Calorie counting never works. Wow. I guess I'll just quit counting calories now. Thanks for the info, cuz I hate wasting my time.
ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL For me, everytime I have successfully lost weight it has been with counting (either calories or WW points) I actually have the Ornish book from years ago and tried that approach and guess what, I didn't lose because even though I was eating the suggested foods I was eating too much to lose.
I am in awe of people who can lose without counting. I do know a few who do well with that approache (and who can't lose counting cuz it makes them crazy) but not so much for me.
Why Counting Calories Never Works?
Linear Mode
