Article: "Reverse dieting: slowly increasing calories won’t prevent weight regain ..."

Jacq_qui
Jacq_qui Posts: 443 Member
in Health and Weight Loss

I really rate articles on this site, but this confused me - if you go back to your old "pre-diet" eating plan then obviously you will start to gain weight again. After all, if you're 'pre-diet' regime didn't involve over-eating then you wouldn't have needed to diet in the first place. Or am I missing something here? Are they not just describing a gradual return to maintenance, which is what most of us are hoping to do at some point.

https://theconversation.com/reverse-dieting-slowly-increasing-calories-wont-prevent-weight-regain-but-may-have-other-benefits-144316

TL;DR - diet article in the news from reputable source for discussion/thoughts/perusal.


Replies

  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    "In simple terms, it’s a controlled and gradual way of increasing from a low calorie weight-loss eating plan back to your more “normal” pre-diet way of eating."

    Their simple terms just used some bad terms.

    Yes, pre-diet way of eating for most was eating in surplus and gaining fat.

    The point is to eat at current maintenance level - take a diet break.

    This is not about at the end reaching goal weight and going back to maintenance, but prior - and just how useful it can be on many levels.

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,254 Member
    edited September 2020
    Duane and I would have some disagreements about **definitions** and priorities and risks and our takes on some stuff.

    Discussion on this opinion (not research) article might make some sense in the debate section.

    As far as I'm concerned it is certainly not mainstream enough and unbiased enough to be in the general section, nor does it offer any particularly helpful insight to people using mfp and trying to lose weight.

    And I like Ann's summary of the article even better: "it strikes me as kind of a confused mess"
  • DanaDark
    DanaDark Posts: 2,187 Member
    Yeah, this opinion piece isn't very well researched or written.

    Good sites will often contain poorly written opinion pieces here and there.

    Overall, it seems the author misunderstands the purpose of "reverse-dieting". My basic understanding is it should be used to ease into a maintenance calorie level so that you simply don't overshoot and thus end up gaining weight long term.

    I see several terms the author defines incorrectly: BMR, Set Point, just to name a few.

    Also, his excessive use of quotes seems non-scholarly to me.
  • age_is_just_a_number
    age_is_just_a_number Posts: 631 Member
    I think the key sentence is the article is “ However, there is currently no scientific evidence showing that reverse dieting works as advocates claim.”

    Calories in vs calories out =
    • Positive = weight gain
    • Zero = maintenance
    • Negative = weight loss
    Of course there is also body composition to take into account (muscle vs fat and the proportions of each).
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,226 Member
    tgillies003 wrote: »
    I think the key sentence is the article is “ However, there is currently no scientific evidence showing that reverse dieting works as advocates claim.”

    Calories in vs calories out =
    • Positive = weight gain
    • Zero = maintenance
    • Negative = weight loss
    Of course there is also body composition to take into account (muscle vs fat and the proportions of each).

    I'm not sure how to consider the line you quoted, when it appears in an article that (in my opinion) doesn't seem to clearly understand what it is that the advocates claim. Studies don't prove what the linked author mistakenly believes advocates claim, or . . . ?

    Of course, CI and CO are the crucial variables, but they're dynamic, not static. CI has an effect on CO, and possibly vice-versa (the latter maybe less so, if counting).
  • Jacq_qui
    Jacq_qui Posts: 443 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I don't really care how reputable the source is or isn't . . . IMO it isn't a very good article at all. It seems to miss the point (or some of the points) of reverse dieting (at least as I understand it), it has the deficiency you mention about "returning to normal eating", it misdefines basal metabolic rate, and who knows what else. Frankly, it strikes me as kind of a confused mess.

    I didn't spot the BMR definition failure. Yep otherwise good summary -thanks for confirming I can just ignore it.

    PAV888 - Happy for mods to move this.

Categories