Fat logic by Nadja Hermann

[aniawl]

I posted about it on the calorie counting subforum but (crickets) so I’m re-posting in chat - hope that’s ok!

A couple of weeks ago I came across an article by Nadja Hermann on the guardian website bringing a few excerpts from her new book - The Fat logic. They resonated with me and I bought the book. I’ve since read it and found it really refreshing in her approach to dispelling of the 1001 weight loss theories with meticulous research and just driving home the simple truths that I’ve trained my brain to ignore for years. None of it was rocket science but somehow it hit hard. I’d recommend it if you need a kick up the bum to get started / keep going ( although I’d say she could fit the book in half the pages - once I went past the half way mark there didn’t seem to be much new info)

The gist of the book is this :

• whether a person puts on weight or not is a zero-sum of whether the amount of energy one puts into one’s body is the greater or lesser than what we need.

• she dispenses of the myth of slow metabolism( lots of scientific sources backing her up there)

• all diets are just a shortcut - a method of effectively consuming fewer calories ( whether they be carbs or fats or proteins etc). They sell us on an ‘easy’ way to do just that, but the bottom line is that they all aim for the same.

• very low calorie diets are not harmful to an individual who carries more weight than they need

• being overweight is seriously bad for us. Robbing us not only of years of life, but more importantly - healthy years.

• how much weight we lose is not magical or mysterious. To lose 1lb of fat from our bodies we need to consume 3500kcal less than our body needs. If you lose more, it’s more than likely water. I think this one hit hard after many experiences with slimming world etc where a weekly weight loss of 10lb or more would be deemed fine where to actually loose that much FAT one would need to cut out 35,000 kcal ( with daily average for many overweight people being no more than 3000kcal)

There is a lot more there and I keep thinking on the bits I read so keen to compare notes. Anybody else read it?

Did she know how to spell lose?

No that’s just me. I’ll no go and reflect on my life choices.

I’ll NOW go and reflect on my life choices. Damn this phone.

I’ll NOW go and reflect on my life choices. Sausage fingers.

I'm about a third of the way through it--it's exactly what you describe, a kick up the bum. I'm still sceptical about VLC diets, I don't know a single person who's been on one who didn't pile the weight back on again. I'm hoping she talks about the psychology of dieting as I think she's right about the various methods all being different ways of achieving the same thing; ie limiting calories.

Sounds good apart from this bit

he dispenses of the myth of slow metabolism

There is such a thing as a slow metabolism, obviously related to actual medical issues

But what you are saying makes perfect sense

Sorry but nothing new in her book.

I agree all diets are cutting down on calories.

However there are slower metabolisms. More energy is needed at rest for a body that has a high muscle percentage than a lower muscle percentage. People have hormonal differences like the menopause or thyroid problems. People are different heights and weights affecting their metabolism or how stretched fat cells are.

I also disagree it's 3500 cals per pound of fat. As above it's proportional. A size 6 would have a harder time reducing weight than a size 20. This can be seen on graphs.

Very low calorie diets can be harmful as the body will want food more and more than the person is then likely to binge. Many studies show this.

The only reason people pile weight back on from ANY diet is because they eat too much irrespective of how they lost the weight. A VLCD doesn’t make the slightest joy of difference to whether a person gains the weight back - it’s entirely up to the wrap who did the diet in the first place. Hate this ridiculous concept where the diet is somehow to blame for weight gain - makes no bloody sense at all!!

jot and entirely up to the person

@thisonehasalittlecar I finished the book and I don’t think she goes much into psychology. If I’m honest I found that once I got to the half way point I kind of felt everything she has to say past that is pretty much regurgitating the same ideas just in slightly different contexts.

@Rufusthebewilderedreindeer - sorry, my mistake with trying to be concise in my original message. Actually she acknowledges that various conditions as well as even a person’s starting weight contribute to differences in metabolic rates. She herself has Hashimoto thyroditis ( as do I ) and talks about the level to which it affects the metabolic rate. Her point is more that the level of those differences itself is not something that can prevent a person from losing weight, merely slowing the pace of it.

@MarcieBluebell - interesting, I didn’t know the energy deficit required to lose a lb of pound is proportional to size? I’ll look into it.

@Milliy - I agree with you. Reading it, it doesn’t seem like news or rocket science, and yet, my brain and thinking about diets was so scrambled from the various low fat / low carb / fasting / slimming world etc that it felt refreshingly new that she brings it back down to energy in vs energy out. I’ve since found switching to calorie counting actually freeing.

I have to say I personally care less about the very low calorie diet aspect - it wouldn’t fit in my life, I’m not so obese that I need to loose the weight very quickly or need to lose it for any immediate medical reason.

The only reason people pile weight back on from ANY diet is because they eat too much irrespective of how they lost the weight. A VLCD doesn’t make the slightest joy of difference

Of course it's about calories in vs calories out. After the diet the person then gains because they eat too much.

However very low calorie diets are unsustainable. You have to, at some point increase calories and guilt surrounding food becomes complex, leading to sometimes an 'all or nothing' mentality. It does not teach longterm patience and a healthy outlook.

Physiologically the body is very hungry. In this state it is a neurological reaction to think about food all the time. Look at I'm a celeb for example. Many experiments show binges are likely.

It's not just a matter of saying they are eating more afterwards but asking why? I would blame vlc diets and say they are rubbish.

"A size 6 would have a harder time reducing weight than a size 20. "

Yes, but the main reason for that is that it would be very difficult for a size 6 person to cut calories, but very easy (in theory at least!) for a size 20 person to do so because they're probably consuming many more calories than they need.

OP. It doesn't sound like this book tells us anything new. Sounds like it's made for people who were previously in denial.