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?

A calorie isn't really a calorie though.

Calories are based on experiments by Wilbur Atwater in the 1880s and according to New Scientist on 16th June this year:
'In Atwater’s experiment, he fed various foods to human volunteers and measured the heat of combustion of the resulting faeces (reflect on this the next time you want to complain about your job). By calculating the difference in the heat of combustion between the food and the faeces, he approximated the calories that were absorbed by his volunteers.
In 1900, after a whole lot of burnt poop, Atwater presented his calculations to the world: we absorb 9 kcal per gram of fat, 4 kcal per gram of carbohydrates and 4 kcal per gram of protein. More than 120 years on, these “Atwater factors” are still the basis for how calorie counts on all food packaging are derived.'

Calories are still calories. Different macronutrients have different amounts of calories, but they're still the same things -- calories.

I agree it's not a diet book and I agree with the poster that said some people are treating it like a diet book. It's full of science and history and things that have confounded scientists for years.

The sense I get from it is that science is quite far behind in understanding weight, obesity and health. He tries to build our knowledge using relevant research so that we can make informed choices. He specifically says don't weigh yourself as I think he has some understanding of the mindset behind dieting and yet loads of people are weighing themselves.

As others have said have a read and make your own mind up.

Different approaches suit different people.

For me, calorie counting works and I’ve lost 35lbs in four months. When I reach my goal weight I’ll eat to maintain.

Ok, I should have been clearer... for weight loss, you need to eat fewer calories. Ideally, in the form of 'healthy' foods. Good luck if that's not your approach to shifting the pounds. :)

@Anubias his theory using your approach as an example is that:

• you will lose weight with calorie deficit
• you will mess with your metabolism and when you start eating normally (to maintain) your brain will think it needs to lay down more fat in case of future calorie deficit
• so he argues you should start by eating as if you were maintaing
• calorie reduction if not done carefully will lead to a cycle of weight reduction followed by weight gain and each time you gain a little more weight

Others might explain it better than me. He heard this story time and time again from his patients hence his research.

you will mess with your metabolism and when you start eating normally (to maintain) your brain will think it needs to lay down more fat in case of future calorie deficit

This is the key piece of theory he's vastly overstating. The science around adaptive thermogenesis shows that while it certainly occurs, it's just not got the impact he implies.

It's estimated that the real impact of adaptive thermogenesis is an average of ~100-150 kcal. Even in the most extreme diet scenarios the biggest loser study, or starvation studies the impact is around 10-15% of the TDEE.

It's just not what is causing the cycle of loss & gain.

I've been following this WOE for a while now. I'm 40 & been trying to lose weight for nearly a decade, since I had DD. Unfortunately I've not felt well this week, had an absolutely rotten sore throat (negative LFT), had my period, & 3 migraines in the last 8 days. Finally been out of the house today. Eaten much worse than usual this week, less healthily, had GF fish & chips twice (I really didn't fancy anything else & wouldn't usually have it), lots of rice, some pancakes yesterday, potatoes, porridge, & a bar of chocolate. Loads of sugary throat sweets. Been stuck in bed at least 5 days with the migraines. I've lost 4lb. I usually eat mostly salad...

@jewel1968 So according to his theory, starvation wouldn’t occur because the body would lay down fat reserves.

When I’ve reached my goal weight if I don’t eat over my tdee to maintain I shouldn’t gain weight. If I do gain I’ll simply alter my calorie limit to suit.

I think a lot of people who fail at weight loss are looking for reasons why. What they really need to look at is how much they are eating and drinking.
Like I said in my previous post, different things work for different people.

I’ve read the book and found it interesting. The poster who said the key message is not eating nuts and seeds is massively misrepresenting it. In fact one of the key points he makes is about the disrupted ratio of omega 6: omega 3 in our diets. It should be something like 3:1 but it’s actually more like 15:1 (not actual numbers but similar) in western diets because there is so much omega 3 in vegetable oils (and yes nuts and seeds but these are good for other reasons) and processed foods generally.

It’s not a diet as such but an explanation of why we should avoid processed foods and refined sugar, and how that affects your metabolism as well as other aspects of general health. It’s not a groundbreaking point and I’d be surprised if anyone on this thread would disagree with it.

It’s not a groundbreaking point and I’d be surprised if anyone on this thread would disagree with it

... if only they could be bothered to read it instead of dismissing it!

@BIWI - it’s not about not being bothered. But if I had read every diet book that I have seen pushed on here in the time I’ve been a member I would live in a very overcrowded house, have very little time and be very poor.

Admittedly the latter two might contribute in a roundabout way to weight loss but that’s not the idea!

I really didn't see it as a diet book. It's more of a sociological overview on why society has got bigger. Yes, there are learnings from it, but it's hardly a weight loss plan.

Well, as many of us have said, this isn't a diet book! It's not trying to push anything.

It is, however, hugely informative. It's also easy to read too.

I'd seriously recommend it.

No, but it is often recommended on threads where people are trying or wanting to lose weight.

Of course it would be! Because it explains the science behind weight loss. (And why it's often so hard to lose weight).

I don't get why you're so defensive about this. It's not a book about maiming kittens or disembowelling puppies.

It’s interesting as from my point of view I’m not being defensive, just talking nicely, but I’m finding you massively defensive! Perhaps we are misreading one another?

He gives a few interesting examples in the book. One is the 'Biggest Loser' follow-up mentioned upthread. One is an experiment done in a prison, where prisoners were fed massive amounts of calories but all hit a point where even though they kept upping the calories, they stopped gaining weight.

The other example I remember is where he looks at the increase in caloric intake of American men during a period of time (1980s onwards), coinciding with the rise in obesity, which would appear to agree with the 1st rule of thermodynamics theory. But when you look at the figures, they don't add up. The weight increase is not anything like as high as the increase in calories suggest it should be. His point being that the body compensates a lot in order to deal with the excess calorie intake. As it does also if you eat too few calories.

It's one of many books aimed at people who want to lose weight, written by people who want to make money. It all comes down to the same thing which is essentially 'eat less.'

This thread is clearly divided between
"I haven't read the book, but I'll give my opinion anyway and it's clearly a diet book, why bother when a calorie is just a calorie, I'll carry on dieting.."
And
"I have read the book, it isn't a diet book, but really informative and explains why a calorie is not a calorie, and why diets don't work in the long term.."

@cirquedemorgue Nope. It's "eat better". Not less.

I really don't understand why people who haven't read the book would claim to know all about it. It's so weird.

@CirqueDeMorgue

It's one of many books aimed at people who want to lose weight, written by people who want to make money. It all comes down to the same thing which is essentially 'eat less.'

You clearly haven't read it, have you?

@Rainingonsaturday

It’s interesting as from my point of view I’m not being defensive, just talking nicely, but I’m finding you massively defensive! Perhaps we are misreading one another?

Not defensive. Frustrated!

[quote TammyTwoSwanson]@cirquedemorgue Nope. It's "eat better". Not less.

I really don't understand why people who haven't read the book would claim to know all about it. It's so weird.[/quote]
You don't understand why people claim to know that eating less helps with weight loss? 🤔 I mean, it's a tried and tested method...

No, but it is often recommended on threads where people are trying or wanting to lose weight.

Yes, because it's not a diet book, but it is a book which explains a lot about why diets repeatedly fail. Understanding why your (perhaps almost lifelong) efforts have failed is helpful. As is having some general, pointers (rather than a strict regime) to help you work out how best to eat for you.

I read the book a few months ago. I started eating plenty, but only at meal times (no snacks), lots of veg, avoiding processed food as much as possible, and drinking more water (because I suspect sometimes I think I'm hungry when I'm actually thirsty. I made no attempt to eat low calorie, low carb, or low fat. I was definitely getting significantly slimmer (I don't weigh myself). It all went a bit to pot while I've been away on holiday, but I'm back to good habits now. I will not be doing another diet (except this one, if you want to call it a diet) ever again.