to think it ridiculous that India Knight calls her diet easy to follow and compatible with everyday life?

[emkana]

It's bl*dy Atkins all over again and not in the least easy IMO.

Okay so she wants to advocate this kind of diet, but why pretend it's something it's not?

Weight Watchers, now that's a diet easy to follow - one where you are allowed everything within reason and not a ridiculously restricted amount of food

One quote from the Sunday Times magazine today:

"you are allowed all vegetables, apart from potatoes, carrots, peas and sweetcorn" WTF?

Vinegar "allowed, apart form balsamic"

yes Enid - agree that eating WW own brand food is disgusting - but it's not necessary - it's like that insurance for white goods that costs around 30% of the sale price - strictly for the gullible

Think the whole diet industry is despicable, and a diet guru who can't follow her own diets is simply laughable

HA HA HA

I totally agree about the WW products, they are hideous and are a cynical ploy to pray on the pockets of the desperate and lazy.

olive, olive look at how I painted DD's dolls' house. On my profile

did your two like theirs?

I need carbs. They're what I crave when I get really hungry. When I was semi-anorexic I used to pick at the loaf of yummy bakery bread in the breadbin until it looked like a rat had been at it. I eat a lot of (mainly complex) carbs. And I'm not overweight (albeit not as slim as I was pre-dc), or lethargic. If I wanted to lose weight (I don't) I would cut out alcohol and crap, not cook with cream or excessive amounts of oil,and walk even more than I already do - and I bet it'd work.

ditto laurie - my body responds to proteins very quickly and lose weight quickly too even at 1800 calories, but not so much at 1000 calories. Thyroid prob too

Enid, I think its more complex than that.

Or we wouldn't have so many conversations on this board about how children react to certain additives/foods.

Its not exactly a stretch to say that adult bodies being individuals react to certain foods. My body responds better to less processed food and that includes losing weight.

"Enid, I think its more complex than that."

no it isnt thats the whole point

You don't think children react to certain additives in foods including sugar?

You cant stretch your imagination to include adults in this ??

anyhow - girly spats aside - think we all agree that the OP is not being unreasonable and that the diet book sucks.

Am I right?

no I dont actually I think its a myth - well, sugar anyway

the chemicals in coke etc yes tehy affect people

but reacting to additives is totally differnet to having a magic metabolism that knows calories from carrots are different to cake calories and larding your hips with them

laurie if i understand correctly, you are saying that some foods, no matter what their calorific value, make you feel fuller for longer. and that others, perhaps more processed, or with a lot of sugar, don't. so you eat fewer calories overall if you control which foods you eat?

no, she said that she can eat 1800 calories of one food and not put on weight, but eat 1000 calories of another food and put on weight

Actually there is plenty of scientific evidence that the old adage of 'a calorie is a calorie is a calorie' isn't entirely true.
For example, hydrogenated fats are more fattending than other fats, calorie for calorie.
People given high protein diets lose more weight than people on high carbohydrate diets even if they eat the same amount of calories. It is interesting, I think.
www.medscape.com/viewarticle/449341
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060619133024.htm

Agree that India and her friend book look quite, um, well-upholstered in the after pictures. I honestly don't see much difference before and after, but good luck to them.

Yes fishie what your saying is one of the things I think.

I also think that my body responds better (maintaining or losing weight) to certain foods and I find I can eat more calories if I eat a caveman type diet than if I eat a western processed diet.

Yep, loads of scientific evidence to say that a calorie is not just a calorie.

pp your first link requires a login. yes some foods are of course worse than others, hydrogenated fats, refined sugar, bleached flour etc. but i don't believe they can do anything other than confuse the body and encourage further troughing. therefore more calories being taken in. not magic weight gain.

do you not just listen to what your body wants though, or is that just me?

when I was off sick last week I had carb after carb, wallowing on the sofa watching Murder She Wrote. Then slept for England.

I crave salads etc in the summer, stews in the winter, so kind of seasonal foods

the thought of a book telling me what to have for dinner [mind boggles]

Apparently, the more complex the carbs, the less likely your body can break it down into fat and absorb it before it passes through.

Also, some high calorie foods require more calories to break it down - meat and eggs for example - so whilst you eat 500 calories of cake or 500 calories of steak - the steak will be less likely to make you gain weight because you use far more energy to break down the steak to digest it.

Does that make sense Enid?

No, look at the study - this was a study on animals which had their food intake strictly controlled. The calories were equal, but those given hydrogenated fat gained more weight.

is it really bad that all i want to do is say 'where is the before and after pics?' as ai want to seeeeee!

porridge fills me up longer than toast

OO, some people have "unlearned" to listen to their body.