What’s My Take on Diet Books?
August 30, 2007
That same commenter had a second question: “What’s your take on all the diet books that are out there these days?”
I’m not sure which ones you mean in particular, but it doesn’t matter. They are all pretty much the same. They promise that if you just do this one thing, weight will pour off. All of them work–for some people, for some period of time. All of them say they are easy to follow and are a breakthrough, and all provide a semblance of biological rationale (some better than others). Whatever the gimmick–low fat, low carbohydrate, high volume of fruits and vegetables, low glycemic index, whatever–all have to be based on some method to reduce calories. Calories count. That’s why it matters to eat less and move more. Diets that suggest “eat more” fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, however, do make sense. But the ones that suggest eating more fat usually don’t (because fat has more concentrated calories). Whatever the diets suggest, they are unlikely to be harmful for a few weeks.
I’m afraid I have to disagree, based on own experience, that of others close to me, and now there is even a lot more scientific evidence to back it up.
To lose the 20 pounds I gained during the 3-4 years I was actively making and eating bread and pasta (& cutting animal proteins and fats, of course), I had to stop eating pretty much all grains (refined or whole), starchy veg, and sugars. I bumped up my non-starchy veggie intake a bit, bumped up my protein quite a bit, too (I realized that sharing a chicken breast with my husband wasn’t enough protein for either of us!), and really bumped up my consumption of traditional fats like butter, lard, olive oil, and nut oils (while reducing to a minimum any trans fats, soy, corn, or high omega 6 oils). I did not add any additional exercise but I think I somehow manged to build more muscle, probably do to finally getting enough protein consistently. The pounds came off quite easily, I ate until I was satisfied, and I did not get in-between-meal hunger pangs. The same worked for my husband except he lost 35 pounds. That is how we maintain our weight loss, too (3+ years now).
Later I read some diet books and realized that all those “healthy” whole grains and pasta were triggering a roller coaster high and low blood sugar cycle, frequent hunger pangs leading to snacking (rapidly changing blood sugar initiates strong hunger pangs and cravings for … you guess it, quick carbs), and constant high insulin levels. That’s when I suspected that the “gestational diabetes” I had a few years before was probably really undiagnosed prediabetes. Eating foods, even high in calories like fat, do not raise blood sugar or insulin levels (insulin is the hormone that sends the sugars into the cells to be stored as fat, folks!). My endocrinologist thinks that my insulin production is already compromised somewhat, either due to years of undiagnosed high blood sugar or overproduction burnout of some beta cells. It wasn’t looked for because I wasn’t very overweight, and later I was normal weight. So now I monitor my glucose levels with a personal meter to keep them in a really healthy normal range with a high fat, low carb way of eating (as unprocessed, seasonal and local as possible), because if I eat even modest amounts of starches, my blood sugar goes into diabetic range. I don’t think I’m that unusual, I just happen to know about it. I think a lot of people would be shokced at how high their blood sugar and insulin levels go with the low calorie high carb diets that are recommended.
So I suppose that calories do matter if one is eating waaaay more than necessary or both carbs and fats in high amounts, but frankly, fat and protein satisfy so much more than “low calorie” sugars and starches, that it is hard to overeat those foods for too long (as long as the sugar and starch content is minimal). Most people just eat too much sugar and starch period, not too much fat or calories. I think that is a much bigger factor than their fat intake, movement (exercise) level, or total calories consumed. A calorie is not just a calorie (ask any engineer with a knowledge of fuels); different macronutrients create different hormonal responses, and that makes a huge difference if fat is stored or burned.
Comment by Anna — August 30, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
I think calories count. Even Atkins concedes this point. You can underfeed a person a grain-heavy diet and they’ll still be underfed.
I do however think that as you increase calories, the macronutrient content of those calories comes more into play. I accept what Anna says. But I think each person responds differently. Some people have a constitutional makeup that favors a lower-carb approach, especially if they are insulin resistant. Conversely, I’ve seen others respond better to a higher-carb (not refined), lower-fat approach. Perhaps they are more insulin-sensitive. And I’ve seen studies that support both approaches.
The element of individuality cannot be ignored. I think there’s a risk in making a broad recommendation, as many diet books do. But if there was any broad recommendation one might make, in my mind, it would be to restrict calories and move more … Ms. Nestle’s essential point.
Comment by Bix — August 31, 2007 @ 8:23 am
I would accept “increase strength” over “move more”. It’s more than a semantic difference. Stronger muscles utilize glucose & oxygen better, are less insulin resistant, contribute maintaining to strong bones, balance, and a host of other benefits. Strength training takes far less time, is less injurious, and yields more benefit than “cardio” exercise or simply “moving more”.
Exercise usually means cardiovascular exercise to most people, enough to get the heart pumping at a higher rate. I think what most people don’t realize (including a great many doctors) is that the benefits of intensive cardio exercise are not the result of greater efficiencies of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems, but of greater efficiency of the muscles to use oxygen (in other words, increased respiration and circulation is a *response* to muscles needing more oxygen because they are experiencing a deficit). Huffing and puffing with movement means that the muscles are weak, not that the lungs or heart are weak. As the muscles gain strength, the lungs and heart have to do less work because the muscles aren’t screaming for oxygen as much. Increasing muscle stength does increase the metobolic rate, even at rest. So a stronger body does burn more calories. So cardio workouts are an indirect, more time comsuming and perhaps more injurious way of increasing muscle strength.
Simple things that people can do in everyday life like taking the stairs instead of the elevator, walking across the parking lot instead of driving to another spot, walking a golf course instead of using a cart, etc., are great (I do these kinds of things, too), but they just aren’t as effective for weight loss and don’t burn enough calories for the vast majority of people to erase that unnessary bagel, several slices of pizza, that huge corn syrup sweetened soda, the very tall orange juice smoothy (with several oranges’ worth of sugar), the Frappaccino, or mid-afternoon Snickers (all these things raise blood sugar, raise insulin -the fat storage hormone, blood sugar drops, hunger sets in, more calories are consumed - a vicious circle that is harder to work off when insulin is flooding the body instead of glugagon - the hormone that releases stored fuel in the body -fat burning hormone if you will). You just can’t have much glucagon around to release stored body fuel (fat) if insulin levels are high.
These little movements here and there things just con’t compare to the very hard work people used to have (and which wore them out at an early age, much like the hard-core cardio exercisers are wearing themselves out preamaturely today). For example, laundry used to be so laborious that it was only done once a week on laundry day (hauling the water from source to cleaning area, heating it, scrubbing the heavy wet clothes, rinsing, wringing them out, hauling them to a hanging area then hanging them. Nothing as easy as even using a laundromat today, let alone doing laundry in the home with machines. That’s just one example. If one reads the Little House books, it is obvious that people were eating huge amounts of calories (~4000cal/day?) but they were very strong from all their work and they needed that fuel for their muscles (even the kids - my 3rd grader even made that connection when he noted how many pancakes, syrup and butter the kids ate compared to what he eats).
As a method of weight loss, “moving more” and cardio exercise just isn’t a good as people think (other than perhaps it is hard to eat while exercising, but then again most gyms sell tons of high carb stuff to eat afterwards). The calories burned is far, far less than most people realize (especially as compared to the foods they eat)and it tends to have a rebound effect on appetite. Right after exercising, appetite might be decreased a short time, but it comes back with a vengence later (& contributes to overall increased appetite). And I think many people who are exercising to lose weight tend to reward themselves with extra food, since they “were so good about exercising”.
I’m not suggesting people be sedentary. There is a clear benefit of any level of activity for sedentary people. But once one gets out of the sedentary to below average fitness categories, then the benefits are not as dramatic to overall health. There are lots of benefit to exercise (especially to mood), but I think compared to increasing muscle strength, the cardio type is overrated for both weight loss as well as health benefits, especially if overdone, often leading to injury. We are seeing plenty of people wear out their joints from years of pursuing exercise (either for leisure fun or for “health” benefits). Jane Brody is a good example. She has written many times of her (in my opinion) excessive exercise regimen and she has two knee replacements to show for her efforts (in fact, I think she is a very public example of how pursuing the recommended “healthy” lifestyle leads to poorer health).
But I think this “move more” idea just won’t die, despite little evidence for it. It fits in well with our Puritan underpinnings. And we do know that people are not as active in their occupations as in past generations, so we think that time on the stair stepper will make up for that. But it just isn’t looking that way at all.
Comment by Anna — September 1, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
Some great points there, Anna. Can I ask … what do you think of yoga?
Comment by Bix — September 1, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
Thanks Anna and Bix for your thoughtful comments. My reading of the science on all of this is that calories count and whatever helps dieters to cut calories will help them lose weight. On the activity side of the weight equation, the evidence clearly favors the idea that some activity is better than none, and more is better than less. But even some does some good and is worth doing.
Comment by Marion — September 1, 2007 @ 9:32 pm
Yup, Marion, sendentary lives are good for no one. We can definitely agree on that :-).
Bix, I don’t know much about yoga except that it varies quite a bit depending on the technique (or is it style?) and the teacher, according to my yoga-enthusiast friends (I have several). In my coastal town in San Diego Cty, yoga is quite popular, perhaps in part due to the Self Realization Fellowship located here. I’ve tried Ashtanga yoga a few times with a friend who invited me to classes that turned out to be quite advanced. Wow! I guess I did ok, because even though I couldn’t do all the poses in the avanced mode, the teacher had no idea I was a rank beginner until I told her at the end.
But I didn’t continue with yoga for reasons unrelated to the yoga itself, but I can tell you I would choose yoga long before I would do a “cardio workout” on a stair stepper, treadmill, or stationary bicycle (I’d fall asleep and fall off the machine, I’m sure). While I’m not sure yoga would develop strength as well as a “Slow Burn” strength training method, the postures, poses, and balance needed for yoga is probably at least somewhat strength-building for some people, in that the body weight has to be held for extended times in balance.
Comment by Anna — September 2, 2007 @ 12:21 am
I have to agree with Anna. I struggled with my weight for decades until I skipped the starchy, fruity, and wholesome whole grain foods that dieticians always harp on.
My politically-incorrect high-fat, high-meat diet has kept the weight off for ten years. As soon as the starches and sugary stuff creeps back in, the weight creeps back on.
For me, 2,000 calories of meat, eggs, fish, and vegetables is a whole lot more effective than 2,000 calories of bread and beans and pasta and skinless-tasteless chicken breast.
Comment by WaltK — September 5, 2007 @ 9:16 am
I must say that after reading your book What To Eat been a stunning revalation and thank to my daughter who passed it to me. I’m an octo + 4 and have been active working, and going to the gym for more years than I can remember. Move more and eat less has been my mantra since I started reading your classic book. I also read a Korean phrase that goes:Hara Hachu Bu, as a rough trans means 80 percent of everything. I have lost over 15lbs and eating better than ever. Many thanks.
Comment by Tony Tramantano — September 5, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
Thank you! I’ve never heard that phrase before, but I like it a lot.
Comment by Marion — September 6, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
Hi, Marion! It’s Christie from Pet Connection. Just “weighing” in on my belief that controlled/low carbohydrate diets are, at least for many people, especially those of us who became extremely obese, not at all a gimmick. I’m very sad when respected authors on food, especially those who are challenging big pharma/big industry myths, dismiss something that has been, well… a genuine miracle in my life as a gimmick, a fad, or unscientific.
I have lost just under 190 pounds in the last 4 and a half years, after more than a decade of ever-increasing weight, by eating a whole-foods Atkins diet. No low carb junk food, no convenience foods, just good meats, dairy products, eggs, vegetables, and small amounts of nuts and berries. I am never hungry, I’m full of energy, my skin and hair are gorgeous, and yes, I have before and after pictures .
Part of it is I’m so satisfied eating this way I don’t miss the sugar and starches, and so yes, I’ve reduced my caloric intake. But I’m still eating far more calories than I ate on my various high-carb diets when I not only didn’t lose but actually KEPT GAINING weight in the past.
For my body, for whatever reason, this high fat, low carb, moderate protein, whole foods eating plan is exactly what I needed to turn a lifetime metabolic disorder around. I sincerely wish that you would re-think dismissing low carb as a gimmick. I believe it’s a healthful alternative for those of us who are suited to this, and a literal lifesaver for many people with Type 2 diabetes and/or severe obesity. And it’s shown me in the most inarguable way possible that a calorie really is not just a calorie — even though I don’t dispute that calories count. They just don’t seem to count exactly the way we always thought they did, because apparently on a low carb/high fat/moderate protein diet, some, perhaps many, people can consume more of them and still lose/maintain weight than if they are eating a low fat/high carb/moderate protein diet.
I would be more than happy to talk with you more about this if you’d ever like to …
Christie
Comment by Christie Keith — October 18, 2007 @ 4:52 am
I don’t disagree that Calories In must equal Calories Out in order to maintain a stable weight. Unfortunately, I think most people, including a great many nutrition writers, do not understand the Calories Out portion of the equation.
http://migraineur.wordpress.com/2007/11/11/calories-in-calories-out/
Carbohydrate restriction is not a gimmick, by the way. The first low-carb diet book was written in the mid-19th century, and 25 years before that Brillat-Savarin commented on the connection between a starchy diet and excess body fat. Furthermore, while primitive humans probably ate the seeds of grasses in season, and maybe stored a few of those seeds for later use, it wasn’t until the Agricultural Revolution, a mere 10,000 years ago, that man developed the capacity for large-scale planting, harvest, and storage of grain, and therefore the ability to eat 6 to 11 servings a day year-round. For the other several million years of human history, we lived on game supplemented with a few plants, and those plants had not yet been subjected to the kind of selective breeding that increases sugar content. (If Jared Diamond is right, the primitive ancestors of corn would’ve been barely edible by today’s standards.)
Low-fat, only the other hand, was introduced largely by the McGovern Commission, which dates back to 1977. Thirty years, compared to several million? Please tell me which is a gimmick.
As for “moving more,” well, all I can say is that I got fat in spite of never having owned a car and never having lived less than a 15 minute walk from transit. I was eating a low-fat diet. If adding little bits of activity into our daily lives, like taking the stairs and parking far from the entrance, were actually worth anything, don’t you think the car free might actually be thin and healthy?
Bix is right about individuality - there is a wonderful book by Roger Williams called Biochemical Individuality, which everyone ought to read. However, I’d be surprised if to meet a human who would thrive on 11 servings of grain a day, especially with minimal fat.
Comment by Migraineur — November 26, 2007 @ 1:08 pm