Many people are like the cat in this picture in that they become fearful and depressed when they are faced with small portions of food.

Dieting is "a regimen of eating and drinking sparingly so as to reduce one's weight". It is the process of eating fewer calories than we use as energy in the hope that our bodies will consume themselves and become smaller.

Our Culture generally finds Dieting to be positive and acceptable behavior.  It pours billions of dollars each year into the Dieting Industry, but strangely enough, everything is focused on MORE. Buy more. Get different and additional food, supplements, books, slimming club or gym memberships, personal trainers, equipment, therapy, medical treatment, etc.

MORE is the successful marketing message, but the secret of successful dieting is LESS. The truth is we have to eat less. To lose a lot of weight, we have to take in a lot less food than our bodies use up.

Our MORE culture says … eat less, but just a little bit less… and be sure to eat MORE of this, and do MORE exercise, and buy MORE of this or that.  Drag it out, take it slow.  Make sure it is a "HEALTHY" diet. Do what we say, we'll tell you just what to eat. You need to buy THIS and THIS... you need MORE. If you just eat less, it won't be enough AND it will be the wrong thing. "It's not safe; you'll starve; you'll throw your body out of balance; you'll lose your health; you'll lose your muscle; you'll get an eating disorder; you'll become anorexic; you'll die."

Starving to death takes a very long time for people who start out with a BMI of anywhere from ranges in the middle-of-normal, overweight, obese, severely obese, morbidly obese, or super-obese. Also, people simply don't develop a mental disorder known as "Anorexia" by going without food. The world is full of mirrors, everyone wears clothing, and almost everyone lives among other people. It would be very difficult for a normally functioning human being to be unaware of the fact that they have become underweight. If it happened, there is a quick and easy remedy.
Begin eating more. 
If there is food available, people who are not mentally ill, can easily start doing that.

The problem with dieting, and eating less, is that we like food, we like eating, and society tells us to do it…. together with those extra messages of: "don't get fat" and "you must eat THIS way".

My own small, inactive, elderly body doesn't require much food to maintain a BMI near the border of "normal" and "overweight".  It requires even LESS food to drop my weight anywhere below that number. So if I choose to work at accomplishing such a task, I have to eat very tiny amounts of food.

This section entitled "Delicate, Dainty Meals for an Exquisite, Elderly Lady" is designed to demonstrate what tiny meals look  like. For more information about that concept read more of the posts within this Blog Category.

 I have recently begun an experiment with my own version of a modified 5-Bite Diet. I've found the unmodified 5-Bite Diet to be a bit too restrictive for my personal situation.

My own concept is to eat 3 tiny meals, each of these meals consisting of approximately the same small total volume. The amount of this total volume is approximately 5 normal bites, or between ¼ to ⅓ cup. These meals can consist of any food substance that appeals to me, but whether it is candy or cucumber, the volume remains the same.

Within this plan, outside of these 3 daily meals,  I drink only non-caloric beverages, such as water, black tea, up to 16 oz of crystal light, up to 2 diet cokes. I also allow myself up to 6 oz of tomato juice and 2 cups of clear bouillon for additional sodium and potassium. Artificial sweeteners are acceptable, and I allow myself up to 2 small containers of sugar-free jello, and up to 2 sticks of sugar-free gum per day if I wish.

I haven't yet decided how long this experiment will run, and while I will be sharing some of the dieting BEHAVIOR, I will not be sharing the dieting RESULTS here at DietHobby - including any weight-loss, or weight-gain - while the experiment is taking place.

Here are some specifics about a few of my tiny meals.

BREAKFAST TWO
Estimated calories 144

Contents and Calories
⅓ cooked original pork sausage patty - Jimmy Dean - 45
3 mini pancakes - frozen - Krusteaz - 55
1 tsp butter - 34
2 Tb Mrs. Butterworths sugar-free maple syrup - 10
…….Total = 144 calories

LUNCH ONE
Estimated calories 144

Contents and Calories
½ slice wheat bread - 45
2 thin sliced deli select roast beef - 30
1 tsp light mayo - 12
1/6 avocado - 40
1 Tb alfalfa sprouts - 1
1/10 oz plain potato chips - 16
…….Total = 144 calories

LUNCH TWO
Estimated calories 89

Contents and Calories
1 Teriyaki Chicken Wing - 48
1 bite Blackberry cobbler - 41
…....Total = 89

          

Here at DietHobby, I've decided to occasionally share some detailed information about the meals I choose to eat.

My food choices are exactly that.

.............MY food choices...............  

  I'm not you.  You're not me.

When I choose to eat something that you would NOT choose to eat, it is not an indictment of you or of your food choices.

I'm not a Michael Pollan fan, and I don't consider his advice to be the Gospel.

If any food has an existance outside of my own imagination, I consider it to be REAL food. 

I take a vitamin pill every day. I do not require my food to be "natural", or "unprocessed".  As far as I'm concerned, there are no foods forbidden to me.  I find Sugar acceptable as well as artificial sweeteners.  Wheat, corn, oats, rice, refined and unrefined, brown and white, are all just fine. I don't try to limit or restrict salt except as to conform to my own personal taste.  I eat fruits and vegetables in small quantities, and I don't try to make myself eat any particular food simply because someone thinks it is "good for me". There are spices I like, and spices I don't like, and I don't eat anything unless it tastes good to me.

 For the past ten years I've used a computer program every day to track all of my food.  This provides me with nutritional information, including the estimated calories.  I work to limit and restrict both the volume and the calories that are in the foods I eat.  

I am a short, small, inactive, reduced obese, elderly woman, and my body does not require very many calories. All excess calories get turned into fat.  My goal is to live the remaining years of my life at or near a "normal" weight.  The only way that I can accomplish this, is to eat the foods I like in very small amounts.

My eating preferences are mentally framed as: 
                        Delicate, dainty meals to nourish an equisite, elderly lady.

Here is an example of one such meal:


BREAKFAST One
        Estimated calories 189
 
Contents and Calories

¼ Meat Lovers Breakfast Bowl w/ eggs,
potatoes, Sausage, Bacon, Cheddar Cheese - 115
¼ oz shredded sharp cheddar cheese -28
¼ piece Good Seed Bread, Dave's Killer Bread - 33
½ tsp butter -13

…….Total = 189 calories

                                      
 I recently read a short e-book, “Talking Back to Diet Gurus” by Mike Howard, who is an online fitness guy. I like the way he expressed his point of view on the Calorie issue in the article below, which was posted at Tom Venturo’s website, burnthefatblog.com.

Calorie Denialism: Why It’s Hurting Your Fat Loss Efforts 
             by Mike Howard

Calories have become a perfect target for diet book authors and gurus alike to play on the emotions of those who struggle with weight. In the typical diet book and health blog world, calorie (and any mention of counting them) is met with an illogical amount of hostility. It has become one of the greatest sources of confusion in the world of fat loss and has undoubtedly led to much frustration for those looking to shed pounds. Rest assured you are not alone if you are befuddled by the whole thing…

My aim here is to untangle some of the misconceptions regarding calories, food and eating for fat loss. I wish to arm you with the best knowledge we have regarding fat loss to make the best decision for YOU.

The Anti-calorie Arguments

There are a number of different ways people will try dismiss or at least downplay the importance of calories when it comes to fat loss. How many of these have you heard before?

• Advice to eat less and move more implies that you are calling people gluttons and sloths.
  
  
• Overweight people eat no more than do skinny people.
  
  
• Counting calories doesn’t work.
  
  
• Counting calories is obsessive (extreme, OCD, orthorexic, etc)
  
  
• It’s the carbs/insulin that increases fat – not calories.
   
• Focus on the QUALITY of food because QUANTITY is less relevant/irrelevant
  

In essence, counting calories is responsible for the obesity epidemic, obsessive compulsive disorder and The Kardashians.

Is a Calorie a Calorie?

The answer to this question is a resounding …“kind of”. I’m going to make this as mercifully short and un-nerdy as possible. The calories in/calories out model is an imperfect one due mostly to the differing affects carbohydrates, proteins and fats have on the body during processing. In this case, protein is more metabolically costly to handle than carbs or fats. This renders the model imperfect but not incorrect.

My thesis then is that calories matter the MOST when it comes to fat loss and fat gain. You cannot escape the fact that you have to be in a consistent calorie deficit to lose or a chronic caloric surplus to gain fat – regardless of your macronutrient composition. Adequate protein then is the trump card when it comes to the impact of calories.

Anti-Calorie argument #1: Quality of food trumps Quantity

I start here because fundamentally I don’t disagree with this concept. To be clear, eating wholesome, minimally processed, nutrient-dense foods is the best way to ensure good health. It can also be a means of attaining fat loss – albeit not for the reasons you typically hear. Again it comes back to protein – the equalizer in this equation. Eating adequate protein leads to… (wait for it)… EATING LESS. That’s right, you eat less food when you eat more protein. In a study by Weigle, subjects who ate double the recommended daily level of protein (30% vs 15%) reduced overall calories by 441 per day! This was WITHOUT CARBOHYDRATE REDUCTION.

As sensible and sexy as the idea sounds that eating “clean” will magically make you lose weight without eating less, it is simply the conduit to lowering calories. You CAN still gain weight eating unprocessed foods. Unsexy but true!

Anti-Calorie Argument #2: Calorie theorists think you are gluttons and sloths

This rhetoric seems to be parroted quite often – particularly in the extreme low carb world. This is nothing more than false dichotomy appeal to emotion – implying that advice to eat less and move more is akin to calling someone lazy and greedy. We live in a world of hypersensitivity where people don’t want to hurt feelings and diet book authors have leveraged this to gain the trust of already-emotionally vulnerable and desperate dieters.

Eating less and moving more is actually sensible (albeit vague and incomplete) advice – the financial world equivalent to “buy low, sell high”. The solution, then lies in finding individual strategies – both nutrition/exercise and mindset/emotional on how to accomplish these objectives for long-term success.

Anti-Calorie argument #3: Fat people eat no more than skinny people

For years this was simply assumed based on observation, anecdote and poor science. We’ve all seen and heard the lamentations of those who “barely eat” and can’t lose an ounce while their skinny friend eats “baconators” for breakfast and never gains. Studies appeared to substantiate our observations when subjects were asked to record their food intake…that is until they actually decided to see for themselves and monitor them more closely. And guess what? Overweight people are prone to underreporting food intake – to the tune of up to 47% in some studies!

So someone claiming to eat 2000 calories was actually consuming almost 3000 calories. At the risk of sounding obvious – that’s a pretty big difference.

Oftentimes we have to take an honest look at what we are eating and how many calories we are actually expending. If you do feel you are eating in enough of a deficit, do a thorough 5 day nutrition and activity log. Only when you are CERTAIN you aren’t eating more than you think you and/or exercising less, then it’s time to explore other possibilities (hormone dysfunctions).

Anti-Calorie argument #4: Counting Calories Doesn’t work

Aside from the absurdity of making such blanket statements, the simple truth here is that diets have a high failure rate…PERIOD. Whether it’s counting calories, carbs, fat, or subsisting on cabbage soup, grapefruits or twinkies. To suggest that counting calorie counting is unanimously responsible for our dietary failures is as short-sightedly as it is ludicrous.

Let’s put research aside for one second and just apply some common sense. I am by no means endorsing Weight Watchers or Jenny Craig (appealing to popularity) but do you honestly think that these long-running programs would be successful as they are if they didn’t work at all? Clearly it does work for many.

To back this up with science, take a look at the long term data on weight loss diets and you’ll find that 4 popular diet programs (that range in carb, fat, protein intake) yield similar results when participants cut 750 calories from their diet.

Anti-Calorie Argument #5: Calorie Counting is Obsessive, Extreme, Orthorexic

File this one under the “appeal to emotions” category. Gurus conjure up images of obsessed dieters pulling out scales and measuring devices that would confuse Walter White. This bears repeating: Dietary obsessiveness does not discriminate. Let that sink in… and while you’re marinating on that, I will ask you to ponder the irony of those calling calorie counting obsessive while they meticulously avoid anything that didn’t exist more than 10,000 years ago or voraciously scan ingredients lists to make sure there are less than 3g of carbs per serving or ensuring they are devoid of gluten.

Anti-Calorie argument #6: Hormones drive fat gain (insulin – blood sugar – carbs = carbs make you fat)

Blaming fat gain on hormonal imbalances has become en-vogue in the past decade. Just about every best-selling book has a hormone angle to weight management with insulin being the whipping boy.

Insulin has many functions in the body and while it CAN inhibit fat loss under transient circumstances, the weight of evidence does not support insulin as being a causative factor in weight gain. I’m going to cut to the chase here and go straight to the metabolic ward studies to disprove the insulin-makes-you-fat theory. These are the gold standard when it comes to dietary studies as participants are essentially locked in a tightly controlled environment where their food intake is tightly measured as is their movement. These studies have almost unanimously shown no advantage of low carbohydrate diets vs. high carbohydrate diets when it comes to weight regulation.

The undeniable irony in the world of diet books and diet gurus is that they will emphatically rail against counting calories – blaming excess fat on hormonal disharmony. Now take a look at the menus/diet plans in some of these books and notice that meal plans are meticulously within a certain caloric range. The Zone and The South Beach Diet are prime examples of this sleight-of-hand tactic.

Take Home Points

• Fat loss is a numbers game where calories matter most – this is an undisputable scientific reality.
  
  
• Despite the countless fad diets out there, there is no magical hormone solution, supplement or method can escape the calorie reality.
  
  
• Do you HAVE to count calories to lose fat? Absolutely not. There are other strategies to lose fat that don’t require vigilant calorie counting. You can focus on an easier target such as protein intake. Figure out your protein requirements (about .8-1.0g per lbs of body weight) and aim there first. This can help you spontaneously reduce overall calories.
  
  
• Counting calories should, however be deployed as a second-line strategy if you are stalling. The goal with counting calories is creating awareness – not compulsiveness.
  
  
• The best diet is the one that can get you into a calorie deficit without feeling too hungry or deprived.
  
  
• To figure out your daily caloric needs, use the Harris-Benedict equation and multiply by an activity factor. Choose a deficit anywhere between 10-30% for your calorie target.
  
  
• Cutting out many carb sources can help with fat loss but this is due to a drop in calories and increase in protein rather than the carbs per se.
  
  
• Enjoy guilt-free calorific kind of days once in a while! Taking fat loss seriously paradoxically requires you to relax and enjoy life too!

  Actually, the Mifflin equation has been found to be more accurate than Harris-Benedict. Using these fomulas can be helpful as a starting place to get an estimate of one’s caloric needs. HOWEVER, all of the numbers based on such formulas are AVERAGES only, and there are many people who, like me, have calorie needs which fall BELOW those stated “averages”.