
The Diet Fix - tokenadult
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-diet-fix/
======
beloch
It's unfortunate that we have two definitions of diet:

1\. What we eat.

2\. A temporary change to what we eat that will produce correspondingly
temporary results.

Another thing that trips people up is the paralysis rational human beings
often experience at the start of a monumental task. Changing your diet to be
healthier is, for many people, such a huge undertaking that they can't get
started. Like so many other things in life, the trick is to start small. Try
putting one less sugar in your coffee or, every time you open a Pringles can,
throw the first ten chips in the trash. If you keep doing small things one day
you will laugh at how little they really were while being awed by how far
you've come.

------
mgamache
After reading some of sites' other posts I think it's just not a reliable
source of information. The 'science' is hand picked to support the author's
arguments. This is no different them the candida, sugar or vitamin proponents.
They all have scientific explanations and plans of action.

~~~
0xdeadbeefbabe
His post about Taubes still being wrong does that
[http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/why-we-get-
fat/](http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/why-we-get-fat/)

I'd like Taubes to be wrong on some points, but the author would rather argue
against his misunderstanding of Taubes, which doesn't help.

~~~
soneca
His argument in this post is "The laws of physics are unavoidable". That makes
no sense at all! There is no logical reason to believe that calories (a
thermodinamic unity) is transformed in fat in our body.

This is the same as saying that all fat should go to the feet because of
Gravity and _the laws of physics are unavoidable_. It is pure non-sense.

Do you know how to measure calories on food? You burn it and measure the heat
it generates. How this apply to our body function is a mistery to me. To
anyone actually.

Taubes theory is based on hormones, which is what the medicine proved for the
last century that is what regulates all kind of function in our bodies. Make
much more sense, no??

Calories in - calories out muchbe relevant to a thermal plant, no to our body
producing fat.

------
pvnick
This is a great article. I'm always in favor of flexible and scientific
approaches to dieting. Lyle McDonald wrote a great series of articles on why
diets fail (hint: it's a hormone called leptin) [1]. Caloric deficits lead to
decreasing leptin, which explains why you feel like crap when dieting because
this leads to metabolic slowdown by downregulating things like your immune
system (why you get sick more when you diet) and reproductive system (why you
lose your sex drive). Leptin's effects on the hunger-controlling hypothalamus
explain why you may obsess over calorie-dense junk foods when you diet. It's
your body's protection against starvation, but it goes all haywire in our
obesogenic (obesity-causing) environment.

So what's the best way to acutely raise leptin levels when they're depressed
from caloric restriction? Flexible diet solutions like the ones talked about
in the article. High-carb "refeeds" \- some people call them cheat days - are
particularly helpful [2]. The trick is to binge on carbs (not fat!!!) while
remaining at a caloric deficit, which is where a calorie journal definitely
comes in handy. Things like sweet potatoes and pasta will fill you up and
replete your leptin levels.

As an aside, while we're talking about leptin and flexible dieting,
intermittent fasting is wonderful for flexible dieting. I'm working on a
website right now that's based on the leangains method [3], which is great for
folks in the moderately overweight category. For severely overweight or obese
folks, Dr. Krista Varady (who I had the pleasure of speaking with on the phone
recently), has published a ton of research on intermittent fasting over the
past decade and just wrote a book called the Every Other Day Diet [4], which I
_highly_ recommend for anyone trying to lose a lot of weight quickly and
safely and keep it off.

[1] [http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-hormones-of-
bo...](http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-hormones-of-bodyweight-
regulation-leptin-part-the-last.html)

[2]
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11126336](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11126336)

[3] [http://www.leangains.com/2010/03/intermittent-fasting-set-
po...](http://www.leangains.com/2010/03/intermittent-fasting-set-point-
and.html)

[4] [http://www.amazon.com/The-Every-Other-Day-Diet-That-
Weight/d...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Every-Other-Day-Diet-That-
Weight/dp/1401324932)

------
_zen
Dieting does not fail, but dieting does not work how the author thinks.

For most, dieting is to maintain the status quo. Overweight or obese people
drink and eat diet beverages/foods, or conform to some self-imposed diet, to
maintain their current health. They know they can't give 100% into their
desires, or they could have dire consequences (hospitalization, death), but
they are not determined enough to take the actual steps to losing weight
(significant diet change, routine exercise).

I see this everywhere. Family, friends, etc. They all say they're dieting, but
year after year they are as out of shape as always. They are happy and content
with themselves, because dieting to them does not mean "get fit like those gym
guys on T.V."

------
raverbashing
"Freedhoff opens the book describing “Dieting’s Seven Deadly Sins”, which are
commonly held, but dangerous, beliefs about dieting. Hunger is the first myth
to go. Freedhoff argues that any diet plan that leaves you hungry won’t be
sustainable. Sacrifice is next—perpetual sacrifice of anything you enjoy will
make any diet fail. Willpower is important, but permanent resistance is almost
certainly futile. Blind food restrictions are the next to go, and Freedhoff is
adamant we need to manage, but not banish, certain food groups. Sweating is
the next myth, with The Biggest Loser epitomizing the belief that exercise can
contribute to significant weight loss. You can’t outrun your fork—not in the
long run. Anticipating perfection is also a myth, so real diets must be
flexible enough to accommodate setbacks. Denial is the last myth. “The diet
was great—I just couldn’t stick with it” is a common refrain. As weight loss
progresses, any suffering gets harder to sustain, and harder to deny."

Looks like a great beginning to a book.

One could write a great informational material only basing themselves on these
myths.

------
TrainedMonkey
There is claim that exercise contributing to significant weight loss is a
myth. I beg to disagree, while exercise itself might not be significant
contributor to weight loss, no exercise means lower metabolism and overall
health.

As always there is no silver bullet, you need to have a balanced lifestyle to
be healthy.

~~~
grannyg00se
Where does he claim that exercise doesn't matter?

"Exercise: You can’t out-exercise a bad diet, but regular exercise helps keep
weight off, and changes your attitude for the better. And exercise has
enormous health benefits beyond any impact on weight. What exercise?
Something. Anything. “Some is good, more is better, everything counts”
Freedhoff suggests."

~~~
TrainedMonkey
"Sweating is the next myth, with The Biggest Loser epitomizing the belief that
exercise can contribute to significant weight loss."

------
soneca
_" In this book we obey the laws of thermodynamics"_

Repeating a comment I made below, this makes no sense at all to me!!

His argument in his post saying Taubes is wrong is "The laws of physics are
unavoidable". That makes no sense at all! There is no logical reason to
believe that calories (a thermodinamic unity) is transformed in fat in our
body - and no science to prove it either.

This is the same as saying that all fat should go to the feet because of
Gravity and _the laws of physics are unavoidable_. It is pure non-sense.

Do you know how to measure calories on food? You burn it and measure the heat
it generates. How this apply to our body function is a mistery to me. To
anyone actually.

Taubes theory is based on hormones, which is what the medicine proved for the
last century that is what regulates all kind of function in our bodies. Make
much more sense to think how a diet affect hormones and how it affects are
body producing fat, no??

Calories in - calories out must be relevant to a thermal plant, no to our body
producing fat.

~~~
tfigueroa
Come now. It's a matter of physics that you can't make stuff from nothing, and
you can't do things without energy.

That's not to say that body fat is strictly dependent on caloric intake, but
to certain extremes, there's no way around that fact.

~~~
soneca
Exactly!

What is calorie? Is is something? No! It is a unity of measuring heat. That's
it! Doesn't matter at all.

Anything can become fat on your body, but what decides it is the hormones
saying to your body _" this will become fat, this will become muscle or blood
or etc, and this is pee or poo"_.

Counting calories is a proxy _at most_. But people started to treat the proxy
as thing in itself, which it isn't.

~~~
jp555
What is a foot? is it something? No! It is a unit of measuring distance,
That's it. Doesn't matter at all.

~~~
0xdeadbeefbabe
calories * X is proportional to weight loss, but X seems more important than
calories in all but the most silly edge cases.

~~~
jp555
Nope. As far as having an effect on weight loss, net-energy balance (energy
added - energy used) is several magnitudes more important than anything else,
and the "energy added" side of this equation is entirely calories. Hormones
are driven by your environment, and food is a huge environmental stimulus,
especially when we're limiting our discussion to weight-loss. But don't
conflate that with the idea that hormones are more important; they are subject
to your environment (the food you eat), not the other way around.

Over 100 years of hospital-ward, double-blind, clinical trial weight-loss
research have ALL shown the exact same thing; Nothing comes remotely close to
the effect calorie intake has on weight. The macronutrient content of diet
(ie. low-carb, mostly sugar, or high protein) and meal timing has NO
significant effect and is completely drowned out by the influence of calorie
intake.

But of course that's boring and difficult. What sells books and adverts on Dr.
Oz is "calories don't matter".

~~~
0xdeadbeefbabe
_Except_ for silly edge cases?

Okay then eat your recommended calories worth of cocopuffs for breakfast,
since it's all about energy. Calorie counting oversimplifies the problem. Sure
it might describe what is going on, but it can be a poor guide for a dieter
trying to decide what to eat next.

~~~
jp555
Edge cases are exactly that; not typical and therefore need special
consideration. But these are rare in the general public.

I didn't say its ALL about energy, just that nothing comes close to the
contribution of calories in weight-loss. The type of food you eat is
completely drowned out by how much food you eat. So you CAN eat only cocopuffs
and lose the exact same weight you'd lose eating a "balanced diet" consisting
of the same # of calories (which means both diets contain the same amount of
energy), although you risk becoming malnourished over time.

If a dieter's goal is to lose weight, the amount of food they eat (or more
precisely the amount of food + amount of activity) is most important. This
fundamental principle makes it easy to decide what to eat next. However if the
goal is long term health, athletic performance, or growing muscle, then we
need to modify how we choose. But it's really not that complicated for almost
everyone; just eat _mostly_ whole foods.

------
fatman
Sounds promising. Calories in, calories out - the rest is just noise.

~~~
antidaily
I dunno. I know people who've lost 100lbs and kept it off doing keto.

~~~
jonheller
I lost 50 pounds eating ~500 calories more on keto than I did before.

Unfortunately I wasn't completely comfortable with the types of meals I ate
with that lifestyle.

But it did make me feel as though the whole calories in - calories out was
nonsense. Especially after trying (and failing) diets based around that
(weight watchers) multiple times.

~~~
antidaily
Have you tried slow carb? Avoids dairy and adds legumes. I've found it easier
to do and it's (probably) healthier.

~~~
mrfusion
Slow carb worked great for me for 6 months, lost 25 lbs!

But alas I got so sick of chicken for dinner and eggs for breakfast, and I
guess just got too bored with the meals. Gained it all back :-(

(I actually haven't eaten an egg since then. And I avoid chicken now. I'm
wondering if some people develop an aversion to foods they eat too regularly?)

------
tbirdz
The book sounds interesting, but unfortunately it won't be published and
available for purchase until March 4th. I don't understand the point of
reviews and marketing like this when you can't actually buy the book. I
suppose 5 days isn't that much time, but after reading this article I am
interested in the book right now. Are they really still changing parts of the
book right now, this close to the publishing date? If not, why not just
release it now? Perhaps it takes more time to get all the physical books ready
at bookstore points of sale, but surely the e-book version is good to go.

I am also interested in how many people read the article, get interested in
the book, find they cannot purchase it, and then never bother coming back to
check it.

