I'd like to read the full study - I'm wondering about things like how they defined "diet", and how weight change was controlled for - for example, if someone was 80 kgs and lost 10 kgs then gained 15 kgs over the five years or however long it was (meaning that in the end they had a net gain of 5 kgs), in the absence of dieting would that the person actually never lost the 10 kgs in the first place, but would then gain the 15 kgs anyway (meaning a net gain of 15 kgs), or would they have just not gained any weight at all (which I find somewhat hard to believe)?
Haha, I remember when I used to work at bookstore and we had people trying to buy books on the latest fad, japanese diets based on blood group, ffs! I tried to convince them how ridiculous it was but they wouldn't listen,
Generally with diets they mean crash diets, Atkins, trend diets and etc. Consuming 500 calories below maintain, is not seen as a diet for some reason. Therefore, when people follow these so-called diets, they often regain the weight when consuming more calories. Whereas, if they consumed 500 calories below maintain and then return to maintain, then it would minimise the chances of regaining the excess weight.
I think it's more to do with what people class as 'a diet'. People want to lose weight so they go on a diet but once they've reached their target weight they think it's okay to start eating loads of fast food and ready meals again. Then they wonder why, a few months down the track, they're fat with high cholesterol, hypertension, practically diabetic etc. A diet shouldn't be a short term style of eating designed to produce a specific outcome (weight loss).
As a nation we need to be better educated about food, not only in terms of what to eat but when to eat and how to prepare and serve it (hasn't Home Economics been dropped from the list of mandatory GSCE subjects now?), especially as we move towards a diet higher in processed ingredients with high saturated- and trans-fat and sodium levels, generally lacking in fruit and veg.
I hate to say it but within 10 years I reckon we'll be a nation of fatties - not dissimilar from the USA.
I hate to say it but within 10 years I reckon we'll be a nation of fatties - not dissimilar from the USA.
Within 10 years?!
Take a look around my friend, we are already there. Admittedly America is leading the way, but we are doing our bit to keep McDonalds in healthy profit.
I notice it was a meta-analysis so we don't get details on the diets studied. I'm guessing the range covers lots of bullshit/extreme diets.
Anyway, I don't think it's exactly big news that most diets fail for most people in the long run. You can say the same for most changes people try to make - be it fitness goals, working harder, being nicer to their partner ... or whatever. Changes in lifestyle are hard to make full stop.
She says: "Their weight would be pretty much the same, and their bodies would not suffer the wear and tear from losing weight and gaining it all back," she wrote. I wonder how she knows that they wouldn't have been even fatter?
They suggest exercise as an alternative. I'd like to see a long term study of people who choose this option. I suspect most of them give up too.
Isn't it a bit like saying most people who try to quit smoking fail (and in fact many go back to smoking at least as much as, if not more than, pre-quit levels), so therefore don't bother trying?
