las

Welcome all seeking refuge from low carb dogma!

“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact”
~ Charles Darwin (it's evolutionary baybeee!)

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Weight Loss Advocacy

Should I post the real version of this? 

Let's imagine that Jane Smith has a bit of a weight problem growing up, gets married, has a couple of kids and some acknowledged issues with "emotional eating".   Jane has tried everything and nothing else seemed to work.   Around a decade ago, at 180 lbs, she discovers Weight-B-Gone, just enough different that she decides she might as well give it a try.  Over the next year following the WBG program, Jane loses 45 lbs.  Jane loves the WBG!  Woo hoo!   Jane keeps the weight off for six months but then some life issues arise.  She stops going to the gym regularly and does the diet plan half-assed on and off for several years.  Four years later she finds herself weighing in at 210 lbs. 

Recalling how well WBG worked the last time, Jane rededicates to the program losing 50 lbs and weighing 160 lbs by the end of the year.  Jane is so excited about this she decides to join the blogosphere and share her experiences with others.  She's even featured on the WBG website as a weight loss success story!   A year later, it appears Jane has regained the most of the weight again, almost another year passes and she's weighing at least 210 lbs again, probably more.  As luck would have it, one of the WBG founders comes out with a new diet plan Weight-B-Gone-Ultimate! ... just what the doctor ordered, Jane enthusiastically signs up sometime late in the fall.   By January she's down 25 lbs and going strong, hoping to lose more an upcoming class reunion in March.  Returning from the reunion she's more excited than ever to reclaim her WBG success.  But success eludes Jane and she again regains the weight.  During this entire saga Jane maintains her blog earning some sponsorship dollars from WBG and online retailers selling WBG-friendly products as she extolls the virtues of WBG and all its healthy goodness.  Perhaps prompted by some grumblings about the web, at some point, Jane decides she should come clean with her readership:  WBG is not working for her ... or rather she's not working the WBG program the right way ... or whatever.  She's gained all the weight back.  She's starting over again.   By all indications, it does not appear to be working any better now, yet Jane continues on, even revamping the website and granting interviews.  Oh ... I forgot, Jane has done several interviews discussing her wonderfully successful WBG lifestyle linked proudly to on the website. 

Lisa Leesa, mom of three has struggled with her weight for several years.  She sees a commercial for WBG-Success! , their latest program.  It's a DVD set with online support.  Looking for information on WBG, Lisa puts WBG into her search engine box and hits the "go" button.  One of the first hits is Jane's website.  She reads around and listens to the interviews ... sounds like just the plan.  Lisa buys the DVD set based mostly on Jane's enthusiastic endorsement and also buys some WBG friendly products.

Does it matter to you whether or not Lisa achieves success?  Should Jane not be held to the same standard we would hold any other less-than-forthcoming representative of a weight loss plan?  In answer to my own question, I think I should post the real life Jane saga.  No doubt I'll catch flack for being mean or vindictive or whatever from the usual suspects.  But I think Lisa deserves the truth before parting with her money.  What say you?

44 comments:

Thomas said...

Sure, post it. But Jane's success with the WBG program shouldn't be diminished, as long as it was the program that allowed her to lose the weight.

Whether or not it's a sustainable program is another story, and likely an individual matter. That's the problem with one size fits all programs-They are not sustainable for all people, because people are so different. With this in mind, all programs probably work (as long as they respect thermodynamics that is) if a person can stick to it long enough. WBG is no different. But the best programs are the sustainable ones and this requires an individualized approach and a lot of discipline and mental toughness.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

OOoohh ... Thomas just said the "D" word!

Steph said...

Re: big name LC advoctes who have put weight back on, I wonder if they broke the commandment about carbs (and maybe went binge-y from deprivation) or if they stuck with LC and gained weight nonetheless (from taking in too many calories, especially as metabolism slowed). In either case, they should be honest, but the two paint different pictures of why LC doesn't always work.

I'm very curious about this. I'm under the impression that JM has stuck consistently with LC or even VLC. Is this true?

Nance said...

Yes, Lisa deserves to know. Jane should chronicle her ups and downs on her blog rather than painting a false picture.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Yes Steph, JM has stuck with LC pretty diligently. He's not the person I have in mind here. This person has been far more vague as to their level of compliance.

Thanks for the input Nance. What's odd in the case I have in mind, and others (there are a lot of regulars on discussion boards in similar situations), is that ultimately these folks can claim they were up front because here or there they updated their status even if not including exact weights and pictures.

As Thomas points out, Jane's experience with WBG is not an indictment of the WBG program. Obviously it was effective for her to a point. But as I've always said, the old ELMM works every time it's tried too ... it's all about sticking with something. And yet that's what I find most troubling for some LC'ers -- so many who do stick with it see diminishing returns and relapses.

Jimmy claimed last year that he still wasn't convinced that calories had anything to do with it. HUH???

paleotwopointoh said...

What I don't get about the 'calories don't matter' thing is that even if metabolic advantage exists and say 400 calories of vlc food is like only 200 calories of wheat bread, you still couldn't eat 5000 vlc cals/day and lose weight if your body only needs 2000 bread-calories for maintenance. You're always going to butt up against some natural limit even if fatty meat is somehow converted less readily than bread.

It was pretty obvious to me that people in the paleosphere were using IF to flatten out their consumption and certainly for me thinking of caloric intake in terms of 'for the week' instead of by day is helpful and it appears to be helpful for others as well. But of course it is a way of managing intake and reward.

Everyone in the sphere I read (the paleosphere) who is successful at maintaining their weight losses and body composition changes (usually to more muscle) moves more and manages their intake relative to that activity level. Which should tell people something.

bentleyj74 said...

Contrarian viewpoint,

Lisa isn't entitled to anything from Jane including honesty and Jane isn't entitled to anything from Evelyn including secret keeping.

I like that in your example you have people with a LIFE problem trying to resolve it by controlling their DIET. If that isn't inherently a set up for an ED I don't know what is.

It is no wonder that people fail at their diets because I have listened with keen interest and their experiences sound miserable. I wouldn't do it either. Even my marrow deep vanity wouldn't keep me going the distance, no way. I wouldn't volunteer to do a cardio session with an 80+ pound weight strapped to my back and I don't blame anyone who balks at the notion one bit.

On the other hand though I can't pretend I don't see a lack of self nurturance among overweight individuals that will also not be cured by changing the foods they overeat. I could snoop around the kitchen if I were bored even if there were nothing in there but hard boiled eggs, unsalted. I don't know anyone who doesn't.

People compromise so much and for so many reasons it's impossible to really generalize except to say that in my observation people who struggle with weight REALLY tend to compromise to such an extent that even asking what they WANT rather than what they don't want will be met with a deer in the headlight blank stare.

Who drives 40 miles to the nearest indoor pool at these gas prices? I do. Not to do boring "laps" either. Cannon balls off the diving board followed by deep conditioner in the dry sauna. I also have a gym membership at a different location and continue my ballet hobby. The question imo isn't "who does that?!!" it's what would I do if I DIDN'T do that?

I can tell you what I *did* do during the short period of time I was still timid about getting my needs met. I watched a lot of TV and ate a lot. I was lonely and bored and I didn't enjoy my life being married with kids and I felt really guilty about it. I loved my husband and I loved my kids but the minutes of my day were miserable and I felt guilty about that too. Suggestions from other women I knew in first and second position? Crafts and baking. Where's that puking emoticon when you need it?

I have even attended what can only be described as mom play dates in which we fail to distinguish between having a child and being a child. Glue guns and puff sticker fridge magnet photo crafts kiss my @ss. If I knew it was going to be like that I'd want a shot of vodka or possibly a cyanide capsule handed out at the door.

It's a fact that I have more time constraints than I used to and my dollars stretch between more people. I excluded a lot of things I used to really enjoy and went for things I knew were a "10". My days...the minutes of my days...look a lot different than they did when I gained weight and I'll bet they look a lot different than other women who do as well.

Notice that none of the things I mention had anything to do with food or body image? It was like that when I was at my leanest and most athletic too. My head was full of tulle and paper flowers. The magic of the performance, the fun of the pool, the blasting music at the gym, the penetrating heat of the sauna. Joking with friends. A new book from my fav bookstore. Looking forward to what's next on a regular basis. I accept I have some hedonistic tendancies but they have worked out for me more often than not. It was the reverse that let me down on a regular basis.

Princess Dieter said...

I tell folks to find what works for them--they're budget, lifestyle, preferences, health. Not everyone WANTS to do LC or LF or prepackaged for a whole lifelong. I think the downfall of many of those "lose it fast" prepackaged programs is that you are gonna get sick of those repetitive pre-set, frankenfood meals (though repetition of meals can be a hallmark of maintenance/weight loss). What can one eat that is healthy--if not perfect--for one's life? Folks need to find that magic combo for themselves by self-experimentation and ongoing research.

By going Primarian earlier this year, my husband found a really lean setpoint. He literally eats ad libitum (often 7, 8 times a day, snacks at will, and I keep a lot of food handy for when he gets the food urge). And he stays withing a 2 pound weight window. If he goes hungry, missing even one snack, he loses. It's amazing when one's body is in sync--hunger with ideal lean weight.

Me, I have to be cautious, count calories. If I ate ANYWHERE CLOSE TO AD LIBITUM, I'd be big as a barn again. Shoot, if I ate 1700-1800 and more calories I'd start gaining steadily until I hit whatever that supported.

So, clearly, some folks are blessed with finding an eating path (in hubby's case, very low starch, but full of carbs from fruit and veggies) that sustains that great link-up of hormonal cues/hunger/etc. I mean, he has people asking him all the time how he can eat so much and stay skinny. They remember him 60+ pounds heavier, eating all the time (but different foods) and NOT being skinny.

Is there some ideal way of eating that will allow ME Ad Libitum: I highly doubt it. I assume I will calorie count for life. Sucks, there ya go.

And your description sounded like Amy D. Not sure if that is who you meant....

But I do think that if you're blogging and touting a plan and linking for profit, you should have a very high level of authenticity and the expected "reveal". Make me empress, and all weight loss bloggers who affiliate for profit would have to do monthly full body shots, front and side. :D

MM said...

Those are really interesting questions, especially since there's money involved. I think another interesting question: should WBG thoroughly check out Jane since they're using her as an example? If Lisa buys the product assuming Jane has maintained and then Lisa does the same yo-yo thing Jane does and finds out about Jane's true history, can she sue WBG for false advertising? Can she sue Jane? WBG would have some weasel-wording "your results may vary" crap on the product, and Jane could just claim she fell off the wagon and wasn't on WBG when she regained. Not that I think people should go around suing everyone. It's just that if Jane doesn't have any real legal liability then she has no motivation other than her own conscience to tell the truth, and I'm guessing she's way beyond caring at this point.

As always, buyer beware. Lisa really needs to know the truth about Jane so she can make an informed decision. Since Jane clearly isn't going to tell the truth, then we definitely you, CarbSane, to do it for her! Save Lisa! Save us from the delusion! :)

foodteacher said...

bentleyj74
Brilliant!

Wright Mind said...

Yes, name names. I think some in the VLC community are messing up a generation of dieters and they should be held accountable.

For example, on the TNT TV show Leverage the other night, the protagonist, Nate, is asking a young, skinny, female chess champion what she is afraid of. "Carbs" is one of the answers she gives. I am afraid that carbs are being demonized the same way fat has been demonized.

Sue said...

Bentley I loved your post too!
Yeh, every diet works until life gets in the way. Most need ways to deal with this without turning to food or stopping exercise programmes. Lots suck at maintenance.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

I third the kudos on bentley's post! Can't get the cannonball image out of my head ;) I want to get me a trampoline and eff what the neighbors think about that crazy lady :D

There's always the disclaimers on such websites and I don't think companies care and vice versa. CarbSmart which seems to sponsor every low carber out there at one time or another is run by an obese man. Perhaps I'm jaded by my shock and awe when I saw pics from the LC cruise in 2009. Honestly, had I found LLVLC just a wee bit sooner I might have gone on that cruise. I looked into the rates for 2011 and rates for just the cruise and the "markup" is quite substantial. So I don't know how the "experts" are compensated, etc., but you're paying quite a premium for those lectures. Had I shown up in 2009 -- before I was jaded by the sheer volume of bad science -- I would have asked for my money back. I'm surprised nobody has sued yet.

Speaking of weight loss programs and maintenance, I've never gotten the celeb endorsement thing in terms of convincing people. I mean Larry the Cable Guy is back to doing Prilosec commercials instead of NutriSystem. NS has a new "long term success" program out being hawked by Janet Jackson. It ends with her saying "I'm on it and I'm already seeing results" ... ummm ... how can you promote a long term solution w/o some sort of long term results?

Oh ... and Princess, I hereby dub you Empress of the Weight Loss Web! I don't know if monthly updates are necessary, but at least update the avatar here and there when it no longer resembles you. This recycling of old pics is ridiculous!

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

BTW ... It occurs to me that many bloggers specifically state at one time or another that part of the reason they blog is for the accountability. I wonder sometimes if that accountability doesn't add another layer of unnecessary stress when they do slip up. I know that for me, when I would regain, I became a hermit, which only made matters worse.

I thought Jimmy looked a bit heavy in his various YouTube pieces he used to post, but I'm all too aware of how the camera adds pounds to some more than others (I think anyone with face/chin fat has that magnified for instance) so I cut him some slack in my mind figuring it was the webcam angle and such. Then I saw this (Jan 2010):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDxAc60fySY
I thought to myself that this Jamarcus guy must have been like Wha??

Thomas said...

WRT the Jimmy Moore's Youtube piece-is there any doubt that Jimmy has to maintain a LC focus? He doubled his prior job's income with LLVLC! He's typecast-he's stuck and the money keeps him there. This safe starch thing has to be his way of continuing content and controversy-all good for his bottom line. We all sit back and wonder how he can be so stupid about his diet and weight, he seems crazy. Yea, crazy like a fox!

MM said...

Reading my comment the next day, it sounds totally sarcastic, but I didn't mean it that way. It was a failed attempt at humor. Anyway, I'm surprised you're sort of asking for permission to reveal this person, when I thought that was at least one purpose of the asylum, and I know you've named names in the past.

I know you seem to focus on low carb, but I was thinking since you're mainly anti-dogma, I wonder if there are any low-fat, or [insert other extreme diet] celebs out there that have done this same yo-yo-ing. Or is it just low carb that inspires this wacky behavior? In my brief searching I couldn't find any low fat celebs that have regained. Susan Powter and Richard Simmons still look slim, but I'm not familiar with very many of them.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Hi Thomas, Since I've been on the receiving end of Jimmy's shenanigans (though ultimately I think the consequences were of unintended benefit to me), especially this past year, I don't think he's crazy about his diet per se. He's gotta stay LC, though he could have taken the paleo out as it is very Atkins-maintenance friendly. He's a very shrewd businessman, and has a strong expression of the UCS* gene. He's up to the same things he did with KimKins and in some ways I can't blame him because he has to bank on this while he can. I can't imagine he is in a comfortable position. He knows that ultimately his weight, and lack of control over it, is a liability and I think he's focusing on being that conduit of information with the podcasting. I dunno, when I think of all of the others out there for whom it is their business, they've got something more tangible to sell -- consulting services, supplements, books, etc. At some point (if not already) Jimmy Moore is old history and that's got to be a bit scary in this economic environment. Hopefully, for his sake, he's looking into internet marketing consulting or something like that to branch out into. Or, I suppose, there will always be suckers, and there have to be because someone keeps buying all this stuff!

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Hey MM, I actually loved the sarcasm :) I'm not really asking permission so much as I'm setting up a "what if" without this being someone's FB friend, real life friend or someone they had some positive attachment to. Sort of like I set up the Bloggo Science post.

Other diet gurus who've backslid? Well, this is where I think Oprah shouldn't give out advice. But then low carbers are pretty brutal to her, and presume if only she'd go low carb she'd be a skinny minny. And see, that's just the thing about most of my LF icons (even though I don't espouse the diet) -- Denise Austin looks phenomenal, Jenny Craig too. It's like if Tony Little showed up looking like Fat Bastard in some Inside Edition expose, would anyone buy the Gazelle 9.9?

For all their mockery of Jillian (and there's an unmistakeable sexist streak there with FatHead, Gary & Co.) she's not stupid about what works!

Are you familiar with DietGirl? She lost a lot of weight, only to a normal slightly voluptuous size, who maintained for three years then regained. It's RIGHT THERE on her about page. No guessing, wondering, etc. THAT is awesome and worthy or respect!!

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Typos/mistakes above. Diet Girl regained SOME, not all, and she is worthy OF respect for being forthright about it.

MM said...

Yes, I see about Oprah. If I remember correctly she did try low carb, sort of. It was the Carbohydrate Addicts plan, which does something like allows you 1 hour/day to eat all the carbs you want. It's more like the binge plan. I don't see how that could work for anyone.

I wasn't aware of DietGirl, and I think she looked great at a size 14. At 50 pounds heavier I'm not sure where that would put her now. But, yes it is amazing, and very cool she would admit that.

bentleyj74 said...

Thanks :)

"I thought Jimmy looked a bit heavy in his various YouTube pieces he used to post, but I'm all too aware of how the camera adds pounds to some more than others (I think anyone with face/chin fat has that magnified for instance)"

For sure, I can tell by looking at their face that someone isn't lean but that is a far cry from overweight or obese. I am a member in good standing of the round face club and direct people to look at the 30 bad "freelee" as an obvious example. Her entire body looks like it's starting to get emaciated. Especially in the arms even on camera...but there's those cheeks round as apples all the same. JM never got lean he got less fat so I'm not suprised that his face reflected that. I know mine would.

Kurt G. Harris MD said...

@Bentley

"People compromise so much and for so many reasons it's impossible to really generalize except to say that in my observation people who struggle with weight REALLY tend to compromise to such an extent that even asking what they WANT rather than what they don't want will be met with a deer in the headlight blank stare."

Simply brilliant. More, please.

Galina L. said...

I think think if your sell the plan you have to provide a complete disclosure. However, it is pretty much obvious, that you can't loose weight on a diet, then go to your old way of eating and expect to keep the lost weight. Also, mileage may vary. Just recently I saw the post on the Diet Doctor blog about a young girl who lost 55 lb in 18 months by just avoiding sugar. Well, it took me 3,5 years to loose just over 30 lb by avoiding sugar, fruits, starches, grains and doing IF. Should I hold anyone accountable for a misinformation? People deserve as much truth as they did some personal research before spending their money.

Steph said...

Re: Diet advocates who backslid, Jared of Subway gained some weight back, talked about it, and has since lost much again. It's a little different with "Internet personalities", I guess, as they are not known by sight, generally. They can try to hide out til they re-lose.

Bentley, I also enjoyed what you said above. Today I stumbled on and ordered a book called Nice Girls Finish Fat, which deals with the issue of not taking care of yourself and thus turning to emotional eating.

Tonus said...

To be honest, the only interest I would have in seeing this restated with real names is the same urge that causes drivers to slow down as they pass the scene of an accident. Not saying you should or shouldn't, but I think you made the important point in the current post.

I will, of course, read the follow-up "naming names" post with great relish.

And that's my passive-aggressive "it's all your fault if it blows up" contribution to the discussion!

Sarah Barracuda said...

For sure, people have no problems describing what they don't want. I think they also know what they want *to be* (a certain size/shape?)--but not what they want *to do* to get/stay there. Why is the idea of simple food so abhorrent to people, whereas the promise of ad libitum goodies (so long as you leave out XYZ taboo ingredients!) seem like such sweet succor?

I get confused when I sit on the train listening to obese individuals having a 15-min. conversation about holiday baking/eating, which then immediately yet effortlessly segues into a conversation about weight loss/dieting. It's like the irony totally escapes them. And what disturbs me even more is that I bet some orthorexic paleo/LC'er sitting where I was would have just thought, 'oh yeah, those baked goodies would be perfectly fine if you subbed out some flour for almond flour' or something.

@Evelyn - Please do follow through with Zee Great Reveal. Not solely for the purpose of theatrics, of course--but because it's not just 'a whole generation of DIETERS' that gets messed up, but even people who probably shouldn't have started a 'diet' in the first place.

Nance said...

These comments resonated with me because I had already decided I'd post monthly pics on my fledgling blog as I work to lose the other half of my excess body fat. Don't get too excited, though--I'll definitely be fully clothed since I'm WAY too old for exposed skin! Specially since mine is so Morticia Adams white. :-))

Gys de Jongh said...

Stephan Guyenet just published an interesting paper (Imo) on *Why* we eat too much in the Journal Of Clinical Investigation. The (free to read) article is here :



J Clin Invest. doi:10.1172/JCI59660.

Obesity is associated with hypothalamic injury in rodents and humans

Gys

Sanjeev said...

the Thaler, Yi, Schur & Guyenet et al article as pdf

as html

or copy & paste

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/59660/pdf

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/59660

greg said...

interesting story... Lisa should know the truth.

Benefits of Glutathione

Morris said...

I have tried to start a discussion on personal caloric intake here and on other boards with zero success., so I will try again. People seem uninterested or are unwilling to make the effort to accurately measure intake (which may well be the key variable for them) preferring to engage in various mudslinging matches. My history: 22 month experiment on a LC (~60-120gm C/day), with fats now constituting 55-65% of total , started at BMI 24, now 22, caloric intake/body mass varied gradually between 11.6 kcal/lb (now) and 24kcal at high point (for experiment sake only). Not much weight lost (~10%) but that was not the goal. Substantial loss of brown friends in GI tract was a surprise.
My conclusions (which apply only to me), I offer no advice:
I have found an eating strategy which satisfies me without any stress or discomfort. Success fits well with Stephan’s view on hormonal and mind effects. I am very pleased with improvements on health-markers and given my satisfaction with the tasty and satiating food (high fat as ratio but not in absolute) I do not need to engage in any mind tricks. Caloric intake is key and lower than I expected or is generally advised for healthy normal weight persons. I have been unable to accurately gage calories without diligently using a scale and a daily record. I am agnostic about general diet advice, particularly the very prescriptive ones, without conducting my own experiment. The theories advanced here and elsewhere have been useful for me only to me only to the extent that they suggest possible experiments. Hairsplitting discussions by amateurs in the nutrition field have not been useful for me. The Jaminets’ book was a good starting point however. It is very possible that my glucose metabolism is disregulated (although my BG is normal) and that it may improve in the future so that I can enjoy carbohydrates without restriction.

Sue said...

I was one of those that said "if only Oprah would do a proper low carb diet"! But I think now its more if Oprah or anyone else for that matter sits down and works out what foods they really can't live without and incorporate them into their dietary lifestyle with some caloric restriction.

Steph said...

Sue, I would add for Oprah and so many others (me included), try to untangle her relationship with food, what she uses it for, emotionally. Work on putting food in its proper place - it is nutrition, it is pleasure, but it's not your mom or boyfriend.

I can't imagine being Oprah and being the butt of all those jokes so publicly, all those years, for being fat.

It seemed like she did very well wtih Bob Greene for a while, BUT! he had her on a really strict "personal contract" where she couldn't vary from her diet. I remember her saying that when she was going to the Oscars, she asked Bob if she could break her contract to have a glass of champaign, and he said no. Now that arrangement was a recipe for disaster.

Galina L. said...

@ Sue,
It is ridiculous to consider there is a food anybody can't live without if it is not something essential and necessary for health. From that sort of mentality most trouble with diets start, leading to low-carb cakes and low-fat cookies. It is better to find out how to put food in the proper place in one's life. Cookies don't worth to be incorporated into anybodies diet.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Hi Steph: I didn't know that about Oprah. I pretty much cut myself off from all "pop culture" in my late 20's. No more women's mags, self help books and shows like Oprah. Best thing I ever did! (The liking of Oz I get, but nobody will ever explain Dr. Phil to me ... ugh!!)

In any case, I didn't follow her various downs and ups after the size 10 Calvin Klein wagon of fat thing. It's too bad Greene was so restrictive. That explains a lot. Heck ... I'd have let her have the whole bottle so long as the buzz didn't lead to eating a whole lot.

I've always felt for the Oprah's and the Kirsties etc. of the world it has got to be incredibly difficult to struggle with weight. What with when Jessica Simpson or Brittany putting on a few pounds getting trashed as big fat slobs. Personally I think Oprah should have left that topic alone a bit more, but on the other hand I recall balling my eyes out for a very obese woman she had on once who related her problems using public rest rooms, etc.

@Galina: Didn't you just have cheesecake for your birthday? That is having the food for a proper reason. An occasional indulgence for celebration is nothing wrong. It's far healthier than never having something because there's NO utility to it if that means one eventually "falls off the wagon" for days, weeks, months on end. And it's far better than, as you say, finding everyday substitutes for some "bad" food that are seen as "good" because they are low fat or low carb, etc.

bentleyj74 said...

"Cookies don't worth to be incorporated into anybodies diet."

Gasp !![staggers with a stake through her heart]

I don't want to live in a world with no cookies forever :)

Sue said...

Galina, I didn't mention cookies but if you are I say they are essential to my sanity!!

Anyway what I was saying is that eat whole foods that you love. No point trying to stick to low carb if every few months or so you binge and go off track. Eat lower calorie during the week to be able to have that cookie or pizza on the weekend. Don't make any foods off limit.

Sue said...

Except of course foods are off limits if they don't agree with you.

And Galina relax about food don't get too uptight about it.

Galina L. said...

Having birthday cake couple times a year doesn't mean incorporating cakes into somebody's diet. I personally found out that being restrictive works better for me than being a little bit relaxed. After that cake I had trouble with grazing for several days. It is almost like a switch in a brain - cake switched it into an indulgence mood, occasional candy does it to me too. While in the "not indulgence" mood I don't feel deprived if I am not hungry. May be others have different set of switches in their heads, but from personal observation it looks like most people "listen to their bodies" way too much.I know, Evelin, that you manage with "controlled cheats". My way seems to be more mistake-proof for me, but it looks like you have a different opinion.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Hi Galina, I think we probably agree on more than we disagree on here. Clearly we all need to find a way that keeps us *consistent* a large percentage of the time. It is easier to control intake without thinking if one eliminates foods for all but very occasionally. Yet we don't have to have cake every day either. But obsessing over "bad foods" so that when one "falls off the wagon" they binge, that's the problem -- clearly what happens with Oprah (and myself for many years).

Sue said...

"But obsessing over "bad foods" so that when one "falls off the wagon" they binge, that's the problem -- clearly what happens with Oprah (and myself for many years)."

And what happens to me.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

@Sue: This is what I've seen over and over and over on LC boards, and see increasingly with paleo. With the latter, there are so many who seem convinced they've poisoned themselves having the occasional holiday goodie that they are going on healing fasts and such. Might be the case, but knowing human nature as it is, in many cases it seems more rationalizing, and repeatedly overcompensating for such transgressions --> binging.

The problem I'm seeing now, however, (the WOED post) is that folks now convert and stick to some WOE instead of viewing it as a diet -- good usually -- but either they can't actually do that WOE or it's not working for them.

Are you currently trying to lose weight?

Sue said...

"Are you currently trying to lose weight?"
Yes, I am.

Sue said...

The latest success story on Primal Blueprint made sure to count calories in the beginning:
Jennifer:
“I was eating about 1500 calories a day. I aimed for 75 grams carbs, 75 grams protein and 100 grams fat. This worked well for me. Today, now that I am doing a lot more strength training, I eat a lot more protein.”
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-weight-seemed-to-just-shed-off-effortlessly/comment-page-3/#comments

She is 5' 7" - went from 177 to 138 in 3 months I think.

Post a Comment

Moderation is currently on. Thanks in advance for your patience.