The metabolic effect diet

amusedmonkey

Instead of commenting blindly I looked the diet up. It basically does include calorie counting, but employs certain tricks to stop being hungry like more protein, more fiber and water plus control carbs around a "tipping point" or the amount of carbs that is not too low or too high just right for you individually where the amount doesn't cause you to get hungrier later.

Sounds like a reasonable approach to me, though I don't agree much with some of the flashy "diet book terms" like "heal your metabolism" ... etc.

If you like the book and the approach, try it out. It doesn't sound like something extreme that would harm you and if you find that it works for you, then great! I personally get discouraged by rules, and I do like my cakes, donuts and chocolate.

WalkingAlong

I looked it up, too, and thought it sounded reasonable. I'll pick it up from the library tomorrow. I'm interested in their theories on carb levels and exercise.

I find new diet/exercise ideas recharge my motivation. There's nothing like trying a new diet and losing serious weight on it because you click with it at the time. A lot of the plans I read I never even try (Chris Powell's springs to mind) but they always have interesting info somewhere in there.

tigersword

I personally love reading diet books. I don't consider reading books a waste of money, though I do get most of them from the library. They're all based on some sort of science and all represent a plan that works well for at least some people. Calorie counting is not at all the only way of losing weight.

I think a personal trainer is a rip-off but I would never assume my choice is the right choice for everyone.

I haven't read that book, though.

Yes, it is. The only way the human body loses weight is by expending more calories than it takes in. Period.

You don't have to COUNT to lose weight.

Yes you do. You have to count calories, OR carbs, OR number of ounces of chicken breast, OR number of grapes, OR number of bottles of beer, etc. Show me a single "diet" book that doesn't tell you exactly how many of each food to eat. You certainly have to count. Counting calories just happens to be the easiest, least restrictive method.

Easiest for everyone?

There are lots of diet plans with no counting. Mayo Clinic diet, Mediterranean diet, intuitive eating methods, WW Core and Simply Filling plans, the Cinch diet, the Zone diet, paleo, South Beach, Nutrisystem, Jenny Craig, Dash, Ornish, TLC, flexitarian, Biggest Loser diet, MyPlate.gov, SlimFast, volumetrics, Spark Solution, macrobiotic, vegan...

I think most don't require counting. Because most people don't like counting, I think, and find it tedious and difficult.

Half your list has nothing to do with weight loss. A vegan diet won't make you lose weight unless you can count and maintain a deficit. Same with the DASH diet, paleo, myplate, Zone, flexitarian, etc. Those are eating methods, but you still have to count portions in order to maintain a diet (the Zone diet even has specific macro limits, how exactly do you maintain that without counting?) Also, you don't have to count anything with Weight Watchers, REALLY? Other than counting Weight Watchers Points, right? If you're trying to lose weight, you need to count. Whether it's calories, portions, points, or whatever the "system" is, you have to count and track to make it work.

WalkingAlong

There are WW plans with very minimal counting, and before maybe 10 years ago there was no points at all. I lost 50 lbs. on one where I only had to count a few food items (35 points a week, max).

How many WW plans have you tried? Or even read about outside MFP? How many other diet plans have you read in books? Oh yeah, books are a waste of money. Seriously, most diets plans out there require no or minimal counting.

Which doesn't mean calories don't count. Or that if you overeat on any plan, you will not lose.

A lot of people use their method of eating (vegan, Zone, med, etc.) to control their weight. Even most of the people here claim MFP is not a 'diet' for them but a 'lifestyle'.

Calories were 'invented' less than 200 years ago. People lost weight intentionally before then.

Sabine_Stroehm

I personally love reading diet books. I don't consider reading books a waste of money, though I do get most of them from the library. They're all based on some sort of science and all represent a plan that works well for at least some people. Calorie counting is not at all the only way of losing weight.

I think a personal trainer is a rip-off but I would never assume my choice is the right choice for everyone.

I haven't read that book, though.

Yes, it is. The only way the human body loses weight is by expending more calories than it takes in. Period.

You don't have to COUNT to lose weight.

Yes you do. You have to count calories, OR carbs, OR number of ounces of chicken breast, OR number of grapes, OR number of bottles of beer, etc. Show me a single "diet" book that doesn't tell you exactly how many of each food to eat. You certainly have to count. Counting calories just happens to be the easiest, least restrictive method.

Indeed. SB asks you to count nuts. Nothing else. Just nuts. Granted, I was referring to your assertion that you have to count CALORIES. But yes, south beach does recommend counting nuts. lol
And, no surprise, I disagree that calorie counting is defacto the "easiest" or "simplest". I didn't calorie count when I lost, and it was pretty "simple".

Sabine_Stroehm

I personally love reading diet books. I don't consider reading books a waste of money, though I do get most of them from the library. They're all based on some sort of science and all represent a plan that works well for at least some people. Calorie counting is not at all the only way of losing weight.

I think a personal trainer is a rip-off but I would never assume my choice is the right choice for everyone.

I haven't read that book, though.

Yes, it is. The only way the human body loses weight is by expending more calories than it takes in. Period.

You don't have to COUNT to lose weight.

Yes you do. You have to count calories, OR carbs, OR number of ounces of chicken breast, OR number of grapes, OR number of bottles of beer, etc. Show me a single "diet" book that doesn't tell you exactly how many of each food to eat. You certainly have to count. Counting calories just happens to be the easiest, least restrictive method.

Easiest for everyone?

There are lots of diet plans with no counting. Mayo Clinic diet, Mediterranean diet, intuitive eating methods, WW Core and Simply Filling plans, the Cinch diet, the Zone diet, paleo, South Beach, Nutrisystem, Jenny Craig, Dash, Ornish, TLC, flexitarian, Biggest Loser diet, MyPlate.gov, SlimFast, volumetrics, Spark Solution, macrobiotic, vegan...

I think most don't require counting. Because most people don't like counting, I think, and find it tedious and difficult.

Half your list has nothing to do with weight loss. A vegan diet won't make you lose weight unless you can count and maintain a deficit. Same with the DASH diet, paleo, myplate, Zone, flexitarian, etc. Those are eating methods, but you still have to count portions in order to maintain a diet (the Zone diet even has specific macro limits, how exactly do you maintain that without counting?) Also, you don't have to count anything with Weight Watchers, REALLY? Other than counting Weight Watchers Points, right? If you're trying to lose weight, you need to count. Whether it's calories, portions, points, or whatever the "system" is, you have to count and track to make it work.

I guess you're going to have to clearly define "diet books" then.

WalkingAlong

Most of those diets I picked off the US News diet reviews list, so I think they're generally considered diet plans. ("Easiest diets" in their rankings were WW and Nutrisystem, by the way.)

Sabine_Stroehm

Most of those diets I picked off the US News diet reviews list, so I think they're generally considered diet plans. ("Easiest diets" in their rankings were WW and Nutrisystem, by the way.)

FWIW, I do consider, Dash, Zone, SB etc. (formal) weight loss diets. And I *know* SB doesn't require counting of calories, carbs, or portion sizes. Just nuts.

catjrow3

Thanks catjrow3 I will have a look for them on facebook and see what they have to say!!

your welcome, she has a great FB page.. this is the exact name
JillFit Physiques

SingRunTing

There are WW plans with very minimal counting, and before maybe 10 years ago there was no points at all . I lost 50 lbs. on one where I only had to count a few food items (35 points a week, max).

How many WW plans have you tried? Or even read about outside MFP? How many other diet plans have you read in books? Oh yeah, books are a waste of money. Seriously, most diets plans out there require no or minimal counting.

Which doesn't mean calories don't count. Or that if you overeat on any plan, you will not lose.

A lot of people use their method of eating (vegan, Zone, med, etc.) to control their weight. Even most of the people here claim MFP is not a 'diet' for them but a 'lifestyle'.

Calories were 'invented' less than 200 years ago. People lost weight intentionally before then.

That's not true. I did Weight Watchers back in 2000 (so 14 years ago) using my mom's old Weight Watchers material (old then, so >14 years old) and it was all about points.

Even the Weight Watchers programs that don't have counting are only supposed to be used as a kick start program. They are done short term and then you go onto the points program.

EvanKeel

Obviously calorie counting isn't required for a caloric deficit. For many people it's a good thing due do its advantages. Within a reasonable margin of error, it's data driven, rational, etc. Apart from the deficit, counting calories isn't restrictive. It makes perfect sense to monitor the energy flow directly. I'd go so far as to suggest that everyone should try it starting out.

That said, when the counting becomes more of a hindrance, then it may not be the best method for someone to follow. There can be a very irrational aspect to losing weight. And, in my opinion, the solution isn't always to just tell the person to suck it up and count calories. Instead, try to find something that might actually be effective for that person. In that case, following a plan that centers around satiety, for example, might be preferred. You still have to eat at a deficit, of course. I also think it's important to realize diets aren't magic, and any foods that don't fall within the guidelines aren't "bad."

Person A might prefer counting calories and eating whatever foods in moderation.

Person B might hate logging food and prefer following a set of guidelines that they find easier to sustain for whatever reason. It may have the disadvantage of having to make slow adjustments over time as you monitor weight, but the same can be said of counting.

WalkingAlong

There are WW plans with very minimal counting, and before maybe 10 years ago there was no points at all . I lost 50 lbs. on one where I only had to count a few food items (35 points a week, max).

How many WW plans have you tried? Or even read about outside MFP? How many other diet plans have you read in books? Oh yeah, books are a waste of money. Seriously, most diets plans out there require no or minimal counting.

Which doesn't mean calories don't count. Or that if you overeat on any plan, you will not lose.

A lot of people use their method of eating (vegan, Zone, med, etc.) to control their weight. Even most of the people here claim MFP is not a 'diet' for them but a 'lifestyle'.

Calories were 'invented' less than 200 years ago. People lost weight intentionally before then.

That's not true. I did Weight Watchers back in 2000 (so 14 years ago) using my mom's old Weight Watchers material (old then, so >14 years old) and it was all about points.

Even the Weight Watchers programs that don't have counting are only supposed to be used as a kick start program. They are done short term and then you go onto the points program.

Points were introduced in 1997 so it has been 17 years. So I did underestimate their age.

Simply Filling, a current program, and Core, a past program, are long term plans with very little counting involved. Simple Start is the 'jump start' plan. But even that they say you're welcome to continue on it as long as you want. That is what Simply Filling is, for the most part. The only difference is SS gives you 7 points a day (no rolling over) and SF gives you 49/week.