And a lot of that data comes from people who went into the research with the goal of disproving the earlier data! Garner and Wooley 1991 were specifically trying to disprove Stunkard et al. 1959, but ended up confirming his analysis; Brownell and Rodin 1994 were specifically trying to disprove Garner and Wooley 1991, but came up with the same results. Similarly Heshka et al. 2003, which was paid for by Weight Watchers (and did show marginally better {i.e., slightly less overwhelmingly terrible} rates of success for WW compared to self-guided dieting).
I am always open to "the conventional medical wisdom is wrong, and here is this ground-breaking research paper that explains why" arguments--as someone who had an ulcer that dragged on for a year and a half until it was cured by antibiotics (thank you, NIH, for your 1994 paper telling doctors to wise up and give ulcer patients antibiotics!)
As am I, though I don't diet anymore (because I can't be thin and healthy at the same time).
She was taking exception to my suggestion that just because something is sustainable for her and for me it is pretty clear from the data that it's not sustainable for the majority of people.
Sorry, I mean "She was taking exception that just because something is sustainable for her and for me, that doesn't mean that it isn't pretty clear from the data that it's not sustainable for a majority of people."
People with low body weights who try to gain weight through dietary changes also seem to have a 95% failure rate.
The studies say that most people can't change their body weight very much, whether they want to gain or lose. Diet plus exercise translates into a sustained additional loss of about 1 kilogram over diet alone.
I should say "whether they want to intentionally move their set point from a higher weight to a lower one, or from a lower one to a higher one." Obviously people do gain and lose weight because of pregnancy and breastfeeding, medications, illnesses, injuries, etc., all the time.
It's just a passive-aggressive way of calling us fat and lazy, don't you think? No, REALLY. For whatever reason, the "calories in=calories out" thing has never worked for me. I have a setpoint that is rather higher than I would like, and I have to absolutely STARVE before pounds come off--and I have to exercise as well. I think there is far too much emphasis put on what people look like (not to say that everyone should be horrible-looking or whatever, just that we should not have these crazy standards to hold everyone to). The important thing is what's on the INSIDE and what a person's true self and soul look like. A lot of the self-anointed Beautiful People are not so beautiful on the inside. But anyhow . . . I do wish I were one of those people who just "diets a little and it falls off." The more you diet, the tougher it is the next time, as well. It's better not to pick at someone about his or her weight, appearance, or whatever, unless they ask for advice. I mean . . . gosh, we had NO IDEA we were FAT by your standards,
( ... )
Comments 13
Reply
Seriously, the amount of data out there that shows that diets don't work for the majority of people who try them is remarkably solid.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
As am I, though I don't diet anymore (because I can't be thin and healthy at the same time).
She was taking exception to my suggestion that just because something is sustainable for her and for me it is pretty clear from the data that it's not sustainable for the majority of people.
Reply
People with low body weights who try to gain weight through dietary changes also seem to have a 95% failure rate.
Reply
Reply
But this person was talking about dieting.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
(grin)
Reply
Leave a comment