To think this Why We Eat Too Much is a fad?

[Rainingonsaturday]

OK - probably provocative title, and I’m not trying to be goady or anything like that.

However, I’m losing weight. Every time I click on a weight loss thread this book is being pushed at people.

I remember this happening with Paul McKenna and more recently some Facebook weight group, then it was all about fasting. AIBU to think it’s another faddy thing?

Will have a look at the threads but does anyone want to convince me otherwise?

Calorie counting isn't recommended by Jenkinson, either. Restrictive diets are the opposite of what he recommends - his theory is that restricting what you eat teaches your body to expect periods of 'famine' so you are even more prone to lay down fat to prepare for it.

To be honest it's reasonable to be wary of another book designed to help people lose weight. Who benefits? Follow the money etc...
I have read it and a lot of it makes sense to me but not all of it. I am interested more from an anti inflammation perspective (arthritis). The main thing that strikes me from the thread I have been involved in is that most people weigh themselves which he suggests you don't. He is trying to get people to think about what they eat more holistically and weight loss should be a happy coincidence. Lots on the thread say they have lost lots of weight so there may be something in it.

I don't think he addresses the impact of poverty on diet and time. Hard to cook from scratch when you are working long hours.

Anyway I think it's interesting and worth a read.

I don't think he addresses the impact of poverty on diet and time. Hard to cook from scratch when you are working long hours.

Yes, that would deserve its own book really.

@SquirryTheSquirrel

Calorie counting isn't recommended by Jenkinson, either. Restrictive diets are the opposite of what he recommends - his theory is that restricting what you eat teaches your body to expect periods of 'famine' so you are even more prone to lay down fat to prepare for it.

Oh, the good old 'Get thin without ever feeling hungry! No foods off limits! Eat cake! Eat ice cream!' spiel. People love that promise.

Oh, the good old 'Get thin without ever feeling hungry! No foods off limits! Eat cake! Eat ice cream!' spiel. People love that promise

That is so far off the mark, it's not true.

Don't make such fatuous comments.

If you could be even bothered to read the book you'd realise that your post is embarrassing.

Eat cake! Eat ice cream!' spiel. People love that promise.

Er ... cake and ice cream don't feature in the Jenkinson diet! You avoid foods with added sugar (or added anything).

As BIWI says, why not read the book before criticising it? I'm sure you could get it from the library if you don't want to spend money on it.

Im a serial yoyo dieter. I've been following this way of eating for about 4 months I think. In reality I've cut out most processed food, wheat mostly and sugar. Have lost about 17lbs and don't feel like I am on a diet.

It's not meant to be a diet book tbf, it's meant to be a scientific explanation about why the western world is getting heavier.

Follow it or don't. Makes absolutely no difference to anyone else. Read the book, read around the book and take it from there. But anyone who thinks 30 ingredients in a shake, probably 10 they don't know what they are is healthier and more conducive to long term weight loss than a tuna salad, or a grilled steak with veg wants their bumps feeling.

Is it just semantics that this is described as not being restrictive but there are foods that are restricted (some carbs, added sugar, “ultra processed”)?

@CalishataFolkart

Is it just semantics that this is described as not being restrictive but there are foods that are restricted (some carbs, added sugar, “ultra processed”)?

Yes - by 'restrictive' I was meaning in quantity, not type of food.

There is no calorie counting, weighing or measuring involved.

You are 'restricted' in the types of food you can eat - not carbs per se, but refined carbs (including sugar), processed and ultra processed foods. You can have naturally occurring carbs such rice, potatoes and those in fruit.

[quote BIWI]@TooExtraImmatureCheddar

These things go in cycles. At one point it was Biwi’s bootcamp, then it was 5:2 and later, Fast 800, that was recommended everywhere. I’ve been here 10 years. Calorie counting is recommended on every single weight loss thread. I personally have tried loads of diets, and I find this one the least effort. Others may differ.

Firstly, the Low Carb Bootcamps are still going here - I started them in 2012, so it's not 9 years on. Hardly a fad!

And second, calorie counting is definitely not recommended on Bootcamp.

I really resent the insinuation that low carbing/the Bootcamp is a fad. It's based on solid science.[/quote]
Sorry BIWI, I didn’t mean to imply that the bootcamp is a fad. I lost 20lb on it post baby 1, and I know it’s still going. I meant that in terms of what’s recommended most, not in terms of what actually works or is backed up by science. Just what’s currently popular on MN.

I don't think it is particularly restricted tbh. I think a modern diet is restricted by what is readily available. Which (and there are stats based on supermarkets available) is dictated by what is cheap to produce for the mass market. And is desirable to the mass market.

Chicken is cheap to raise from egg to a chicken. Packaged in a whole chicken os probably lb for lb the cheapest. But 1 chicken may sell for £4. Butcher that chicken and you may get £6. Mince it and mix with cheap fillers, coat it with a cheap batter and you may get 15 bags of 20 chicken nuggets. At £2 each with an additional cost of 50p (all.made up figures btw). But it's still more profit than a whole chicken to roast. And more accessible to people wanting a quick meal, or with fussy kids.

If I want to buy lunch out, other than a prepared salad not much I can eat that avoids processed or UPF. But at home I can easily make a salad with protein of some sort.

The woe os restricted by supermarkets and takeaways not by what you can eat.

You could apply the Jenkinson principles to almost any diet that's based on food rather than meal replacements. SW/WW in fairness do advocate cooking from scratch - you just wouldn't be using 'FryLight' etc. in the recipes. And it would be easy to apply it to low carbing/LCHF - just avoid any 'dirty low carbing' with processed meats.

@lazylinguist to give an example, a few months ago I hit maintenance mode and it just was not shifting. I posted a thread about it. I got a lot of replies urging me over but I was doing a totally different diet and my thread got buried a bit in people being a bit evangelical about it.

So you were asking for advice because your method was not working, or no longer working, and people enthusiastically recommended what was working for them? Doesn't sound like an unreasonable response tbh. What did you want them to say - keep doing your diet that's not shifting your weight?

It isn't a "fad" - it is an explanation of the general progress in understanding of diet and obesity

It is a summary of all the other resources, research and advances made this century

None of his ideas are new, or even his ideas, many have been around for decades, growing in evidence base the whole time

It is an explanation of how science has developed and moved forward over the last 20 years, all peer reviewed, all now established and well understood science

Not that anyone can ever 110% guarantee that any scientific fact will never be disputed, that is the nature of science

But it is completely mainstream, that is why you are seeing it everywhere

The only way I have found to maintain a healthy weight is giving up sugar completely.... I also gave up alcohol and caffeine, using Allen Carr's books.

I now eat whatever I want (including plenty of carbs) but no sugar, alcohol or caffeine. I don't put on weight and my weight doesn't fluctuate.

@lazylinguist I’m not sure how to take that, as I do think you’re possibly not wanting an answer and just trying to be goady.

I have lost weight. I have lost over 4 stone in fact. But I hit a plateau. All I needed was a bit of encouragement, in that instance.

But it’s not really that. It’s as I’ve said I’ve been round the dieting block a few times and I’ve seen people enthusiastically recommend various books and methods and techniques and they’ve mostly all had their day in the sun then things have moved on.

@Chocaholic9 god love ya but no alcohol, sugar or caffeine is NOT eating whatever you want

[quote Rainingonsaturday]@lazylinguist I’m not sure how to take that, as I do think you’re possibly not wanting an answer and just trying to be goady.

I have lost weight. I have lost over 4 stone in fact. But I hit a plateau. All I needed was a bit of encouragement, in that instance.

But it’s not really that. It’s as I’ve said I’ve been round the dieting block a few times and I’ve seen people enthusiastically recommend various books and methods and techniques and they’ve mostly all had their day in the sun then things have moved on.

@Chocaholic9 god love ya but no alcohol, sugar or caffeine is NOT eating whatever you want [/quote]
It really isn't a diet book, more a discussion of the evidence behind why diets don't work, why there has been a significant increase in people's weights over the last few decades, and how to counteract the environmental changes which have driven the obesity epidemic. The fact that you say you have been on different diets in the past, and back on another one mean that they haven't given you sustainable weight loss, and the reason why is exactly explained in the book. Maybe actually read it, then decide it is rubbish or not!

Meh, 'burn' more calories than you consume, it's the only way you'll lose weight. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.

I honestly wasn't trying to be goady! I just meant that people do get enthusiastic about weight loss methods that are working for them, so it's not really surprising if they somewhat vigorously recommend them to someone who starts a thread saying that their method has stalled.

There are lots of dieting methods. Some become very popular and then pass out of favour. I guess that whether you consider them fads or not depends on what you mean by a fad. It can just mean something that has a short phase of major popularity. Or it can imply that the thing is shallow, worthless, overrated. It's quite likely this book will pass out of favour quite quickly, to be replaced by the next thing. But that doesn't mean that the points it makes and the advice it gives are wrong. I mean - how can avoiding highly processed foods and sugar be bad advice?!

@CirqueDeMorgue

Meh, 'burn' more calories than you consume, it's the only way you'll lose weight. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.

You clearly haven't read the book!

Meh, 'burn' more calories than you consume, it's the only way you'll lose weight. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.

Even if that were 100% true (which I don't quite think it is), it would still be a massive oversimplification. All calories are not equal. Different foods with the same calorie content have drastically different effects on your appetite, blood sugar levels, insulin production etc, and therefore have a big effect on your hunger and ability to control what you eat. Not to mention on your health.

Has anyone read both the Obesity Code (Fung) and why we eat too much. What are the differences in approaches / recommendations / science? (Perhaps I’m just being a bit lazy and should read it myself)

@lazylinguist

Meh, 'burn' more calories than you consume, it's the only way you'll lose weight. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.

Even if that were 100% true (which I don't quite think it is), it would still be a massive oversimplification. All calories are not equal. Different foods with the same calorie content have drastically different effects on your appetite, blood sugar levels, insulin production etc, and therefore have a big effect on your hunger and ability to control what you eat. Not to mention on your health.

A calorie is a calorie. Thermodynamics doesn't change.

The reasons different foods aren't equal is for exactly the reasons you describe, but all of those are important reasons BECAUSE they are the roots of why certain eating patterns cause us to consume more energy than we need.

The effects on our appetite from certain foods can make us eat more or less -- but it's still the consumption of more than we need that leads to weight gain.
The effects of certain foods on blood sugar levels leads to effects on appetite, which leads to the consumption of more fuel than we need.

Again, this is all coming with the caveat of "barring significant medical issues" which COULD cause problems. I'm one of those people on a whole host of medications just to get to the level playing field and I do have to be quite careful about what foods I choose, and how much. Most people don't, though.

I'm not saying metabolic changes from diet aren't real. They are. They're just the current hot topic for the diet industry (since around 2016 when that study around The Biggest Loser contestants was published) when in reality, for most people those metabolic changes don't count for as much as all that -- the science also shows that unless you are extreme dieting, adaptive thermogenesis changes are 1. minimal and 2. reversible

It is a nice way for people to say "but it's my metaaaaaaabolism" in the same way people used to say "but it's my thyyyyyyyroid" a few years ago, though.

I’ve read the book. It really resonated with me. I have been dieting for 30 years. And gotten progressively bigger. I’ve done WW, SW, Atkins, BIWI’s bootcamps etc etc etc etc. I have been feeling more and more like a failure and have gotten to the stage even thinking about starting yet another diet utterly depresses me. I’ve sworn off diets now.

The book explained to me why it’s not my fault. It’s not a diet book. It’s a scientific explanation as to why dieting doesn’t work in the long term. For most people. Yes some people go on one diet in their lives and lose the weight they need and successfully maintain that loss. However those of use who have been on and off diets for years have messed up our set point and it is much much harder to stick to a diet and maintain a loss.

He’s a bariatric surgeon who over years and years of treating people who really struggled to lose weight actually researched WHY it’s so hard for some people.

I was on the first couple of threads on here about the book but I stopped reading them as they became too similar to diet threads and for me it’s not a diet book.

The reason for restricting processed foods and sugar etc is that they are rubbish for us anyway. It’s only in the last 30 years or so that we have such unlimited access to constant crap ‘foods’. We are living in a much more obesegenic environment. Also cheap processed oils used in food manufacturing has a huge impact too. All of this rubbish we eat has an effect.

It’s a really interesting book if you are at all interested in health but I don’t think it’s a diet book.

@CirqueDeMorgue

Meh, 'burn' more calories than you consume, it's the only way you'll lose weight. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.

but, as the book explains, this has been disproved.

If you use up more calories, your body simply compensates by using fewer elsewhere for a while