"How To Lose Weight Well" and Crash Diets

[Psamathe]

Just had this program on in the background ("How To Lose Weight Well"). And it seems they are putting people on various diets. Except the people want to lose weight quickly (e.g. "Want to be a yummy mummy for their holiday in a few weeks"). And it seems to be done by a qualified medical doctor.

I always thought medical advice was not to crash diet but to lose weight slowly in a manner you can continue with. Though crash diets were fast weight loss with the weight (and more) quickly put back on, with the added loss of muscle.

I'm no expert but given my understanding (maybe wrong) about diets I do wonder quite why a doctor is presenting a program with a lot of crash diets.

(Channel 4 program)

Ian

[fishfright]

Money, diets make billions and tv want's it share. Also some people would do pretty much anything to be on TV.

Add those two things together and you have that programme, now add that to all those magazines next to the supermarket checkout.

Proper dietitian make way less money than a celeb backed diet,

Screw ethics there's money to be made, sadly.

[Vorpal]

This article is about how calories are an imperfect means to measure food intake & processing, especially for those who are trying to lose weight. Although the headline is 'The Claorie is Borken', the article actually says it isn't, but suggests that another means to measure is needed. I thought it was interesting, and it aligns well with what I've said in the past. It's not as simple as a calorie is a calorie.

http://digg.com/2016/calorie-unit-broken

[RickH]

How individuals respond to diet (in the broadest sense) seems to be much more complex than often supposed.

I came across this on the BBC website earlier. The indication seems to be that how you react to different foods is influenced by the differing microbes living in your guts. The associated programme ("Trust me I'm a Doctor") is on BBC 2 tomorrow (27th) at 8pm (& afterwards on iPlayer).

Rick.

[Richard D]

I've been watching that program very carefully. Not least because I'm 30lbs overweight right now, largely as a result of a prolonged layoff from the bike.

Crash dieting sort of works, if the aim is to lose weight quickly and not care about what happens afterwards. The weight is lost, but it goes back on easily.

Every other diet only works when calories in are less than calories expended. It doesn't seem to matter whether those calories are ingested in the form of high fibre diets, beans and pulses, fats or expensive branded biscuits. If a diet says "eat as much X as you like, and X contains calories, little weight is lost. Whereas "eat only tiny amounts of Y" works every time if the net effect is to reduce the caloryintake.

Yes, the big picture is a bit ore complex. Processed foods with high caloryintake concentrations but low satiety are a recipe for failure, and proteins, carbs, fats and fibre are all required in different amounts depending upon what you're trying to achieve, but it really is mostly as simple as "eat less, exercise more".

[PH]

rash dieting sort of works, if the aim is to lose weight quickly and not care about what happens afterwards. The weight is lost, but it goes back on easily.

I understand the need to stay healthy while dieting, regardless of what period you're trying to lose weight over. But I don't get the above comment, once you've achieved your goal why would it matter how you got there?
I speak as one whose weight has fluctuated over the years, I find it relatively easy to lose, once I've really decided that's what I'm going to do, I've sometimes lost it quickly and others far more gradually, it doesn't seem to make much difference to how long it stays off. Sometimes just months, sometimes several years and it usually goes back on due to changes in activity levels without adjusting diet accordingly.
The advantage of crash diets is the motivation, when you see the weight coming off quickly and feel your body change it does make it easier than knowing what you're doing is working but not feeling much different.

[Vorpal]

rash dieting sort of works, if the aim is to lose weight quickly and not care about what happens afterwards. The weight is lost, but it goes back on easily.

I understand the need to stay healthy while dieting, regardless of what period you're trying to lose weight over. But I don't get the above comment, once you've achieved your goal why would it matter how you got there?
I speak as one whose weight has fluctuated over the years, I find it relatively easy to lose, once I've really decided that's what I'm going to do, I've sometimes lost it quickly and others far more gradually, it doesn't seem to make much difference to how long it stays off. Sometimes just months, sometimes several years and it usually goes back on due to changes in activity levels without adjusting diet accordingly.
The advantage of crash diets is the motivation, when you see the weight coming off quickly and feel your body change it does make it easier than knowing what you're doing is working but not feeling much different.

Some crash diets are not sustainable long term. If, for example, soemone goes onto 1200 calories per day to lost some weight, there is a limit to how long they can do that, and remain healthy.

When I was young, it was quite common for women (say of my mother's generation) to go a few days eating nothing but a small salad for 3 meals a day, so they could 'look good' in a dress for a party or something.

[al_yrpal]

When I lost 48lbs over about 10 months I ate at 1500 calories per day and with exercise my nett calories was usually about 1000 per day. I think I was a lot healthier at the end than at the beginning.

Apparently the composition of your gut bacteria has an effect. If you are missing some it can slow your weight loss.

Al

[PH]

Some crash diets are not sustainable long term. If, for example, soemone goes onto 1200 calories per day to lost some weight, there is a limit to how long they can do that, and remain healthy.

Well yes, I'm not advocating anything unhealthy, which is why my post starts as it does.

[661-Pete]

Just had this program on in the background ("How To Lose Weight Well"). And it seems they are putting people on various diets. Except the people want to lose weight quickly (e.g. "Want to be a yummy mummy for their holiday in a few weeks"). And it seems to be done by a qualified medical doctor.

I always thought medical advice was not to crash diet but to lose weight slowly in a manner you can continue with. Though crash diets were fast weight loss with the weight (and more) quickly put back on, with the added loss of muscle.

I'm no expert but given my understanding (maybe wrong) about diets I do wonder quite why a doctor is presenting a program with a lot of crash diets.

(Channel 4 program)

Ian

I didn't see the broadcast on air, but I take it you're referring to this programme, which I've just been watching in catch-up [I've discovered you now need to register on C4 to watch their catch-up. Didn't use to be the case. Ah well, I've signed up with a false name and a little-used webmail: no way do I want C4 bombarding me with junk mail...]

Anyway, what a load of total and utter [*male procreative appendages*]! I don't suppose that merely watching the programme might turn my head towards trying out any of that nonsense, any more than watching road accident footage would induce me to take my car out and deliberately crash it into something (is that why they talk of 'crash' diets by any chance?)... I believe I'm a bit better-informed than that! But for some people that sort of broadcast is stupid - nay, irresponsible in the extreme.

I am not even convinced of what line the presenter of the programme was taking. Certainly he seems to be condoning, if not actually conniving at, such idiocy. Doctor indeed?!

The thing that really got me fuming was the NG tube which one sad customer got inserted up her nostril. Now, I have a bit of indirect experience with NG tubes. My elderly mother had one fitted after she had a stroke. We were warned that she couldn't keep on with it for very long because of the risk of severe complications. As it happened, at the same time another family member was also in hospital at the same time, also after a stroke, and also with a NG tube fitted. She developed pneumonia and passed away soon after. My mother didn't get pneumonia but she died shortly after that, anyway.

Anyway ... use of this device is most certainly not something to be undertaken lightly. I'm no doctor but I'm sure most medics would agree with this point.

As to the various 'reasons' which the people on the programme gave, for choosing to go on one or other of these diets. Two of them wanted to go on a bikini holiday. Two wanted to squeeze into tight dresses for a forthcoming party or reunion or whatever. And the two blokes wanted to look cool at a wedding. All these are the worst possible reasons for wanting to lose weight. The only valid reason for losing weight - and taking up a sensible amount of exercise in the process - is to improve your overall health and give you a better quality of life, along with a longer lifespan. And losing weight should be for life, not just for some party or such.

I noted that at the end of one of the candidates' crash diet, she proudly announced that she'd lost the grand total of "two pounds". That's 1Kg in my reckoning: I don't go along with these archaic 'imperial' units of measure. Now what's a 1Kg change? That could easily be accounted for by inaccuracies in the scales, wearing different clothing for the two weigh-ins, or simply by the fact of having gone for a pee or a dump before the weigh-in. That sort of change means nothing. I often see a fluctuation of 1Kg in my weight from one day to the next, but this is just random noise on the overall trend.

I have been weighing myself daily for over a year now. In that time I've gone from 100Kg average at the beginning of last year, to a minimum of about 87.5 Kg last summer, and I'm now flatlining at around 91Kg. These are all averaged over a number of weighings. This is not down to any 'crash diet', not even any conscious dieting at all, apart from a cutback in obviously sugary stuff. Just being a bit more sensible in my eating habits, that's all.