Review of the 5 Bite Diet

The thin, large-print, paperback book “Why Weight Around” (2007) by Alwin Lewis, M.D., encourages readers to follow the five-bite diet for weight-loss. This is a self-published book through Lulu "vanity" press and it retails for around $25.

Dr Lewis recommends the 5 Bite approach to eating:

• Drink as much as you want as long as the drinks are free of calories.
• Skip breakfast
• Have 5 bites of any food for lunch.
• Have 5 bites of any food for dinner.
• Eat at least one bite of protein each day.
• Take a multi-vitamin supplement every day

Dr. Lewis assures the reader that after three days on this diet, that you will stop feeling hungry because your body will learn to feel full on this smaller amount of food. This is commonly known to be a valid statement, as hunger ordinarily leaves one’s body after approximately 3 days of starvation such as during a water fast.  He says the the body continually recycles amino acids so very little daily protein is actually necessary when on a weight-loss program.

The five-bite diet involves voluntarily eating the way people are forced to eat after a gastric bypass, in order to give a dieter the benefits of stomach stapling without the surgery. As with many diet plans, the principle of the five-bite diet is to exercise portion control in order to limit your calorie intake. The program allows you to choose to eat any food you want, which can help prevent the feelings of deprivation that often lead people to quit their diets. The five-bite diet is not designed to be a permanent plan. Once you've reached your weight goal, you're advised to resume your normal eating habits.

Dr. Lewis says the volume of 5 bites is about the same as a regular size Snickers candy bar, and recommends that people on the diet eat two Snickers bars a day in order to familiarize themselves with how much 5 bites is.

Dr. Lewis, …just like almost all diet book authors … claims to have successfully followed his diet himself, and at 6 ft tall, he says that he lost from his high of around 190 lbs down to 137 lbs. He recommends that, for good health and a more attractive appearance, everyone should achieve an 18.5 BMI, which is at the bottom border between underweight and normal weight.

Dr. Lewis practices Internal medicine in Burbank, California where he apparently treats obese, overweight, and normal weight patients who have a BMI above 18.5, by putting them on the 5 bite diet. His website, theslimmingstation.com offers an online membership, for $50 per year, but at times this membership fee is $50 per month. It also offers 3 months of weekly one-on-one telephone coaching with Dr. Lewis for a $2,000 fee.

As part of my dieting hobby, I have experimented with the 5 bite diet. Twenty years ago, after my own gastric bypass, I personally experienced what post-gastric-bypass surgery eating is like, and was interested in running a comparison between that experience and the 5 bite diet.

My experimentation with the 5 bite diet occurred while my weight was in the middle of the normal weight BMI range. I successfully completed two weeks of 5 bite diet, and left it in the third week. The first week my weight dropped 7 pounds. While continuing to successfully follow the 5 bite diet rules, during the second week on the 5 bite diet, my body re-gained 5 of those pounds. I left the diet during the my third week, and upon returning to my normal 1,000 calorie diet, the remaining 2 pounds immediately returned, giving me a zero net loss. During a three year period, I repeated this experiment on several occasions, and each time I received similar personal results.

The calories in two 2 oz Snickers candy bars is a total of about 550 calories.   Therefore successfully following the diet would cause weight loss for almost everyone, especially if that person is obese. Normally, I maintain my current weight on about a 1,000 calorie daily average. My personal results were due to my normal-weight as a short, inactive, reduced-obese female over 60 years of age, with a very low calorie burn, and probably... during the diet, my body's metabolism shifted downward to compensate for the very-low-calorie-intake.  if I had chosen to follow the 5 Bite diet for a longer period, over time, it might have caused a net fat-loss. However, the 5 Bite Diet hasn't provided enough appeal to me personally to motivate me to follow through with testing that hypothesis.

My first experiment with this diet was several years ago, and as a part of that process, I purchased a year’s online membership for $50, and for a time, actively posted on Dr. Lewis’ site. As part of that membership I participated in several of the weekly chat sessions with Dr. Lewis himself.   Dr. Lewis was very committed to the 5-bite diet and enthusiasttic. He appeared, however, to be rather insensitive, very egocentric, and sometimes quite rude. When people achieved only modest weight-loss results, he was prone to imply they were lying about their compliance. He ignored some very basic dieting realities, and while "coaching" members, he was prone to state his opinion as fact, and make grandiose claims which (similar to marketing puffery) were backed up by little or no verifiable evidence.

My above-stated opinion was formed due to what I witnessed during my online participation,  As one personal example: I took exception to Dr. Lewis' blanket statements about HOW FAST EVERYONE ALWAYS loses weight after a Gastric Bypass, and advised him that this was not my own experience nor the experiences of many other women that I have personally witnessed. 

To explain my objection to his claims of fast weight-loss for EVERYONE, I told Dr. Lewis that after reviewing my own detailed  records (which I kept current during the first year after my own Gastric  Bypass), my personal weight loss during the first year after surgery ... while eating only about 500 calories per day ... averaged around 2 pounds per week... From 271 lbs down to a low of 159 (which for me was still "obese", because that number is 6 pounds above the bottom BMI border of my "Obese"  weight-range).  Providing him with this information and detailed records, did not cause any adjustment or alteration in his position, and in fact Dr. Lewis indicated to me that he believed that my statements were either inaccurate or less than truthful.

For those here who are interested, I'll add that following the 1st year after my Gastric Bypass, I had an almost immediate  regain into the mid 160s, as my ability to eat more calories increased. After about three years, while eating approximately an average of not more than 1,500 to 1,600 calories a day ... together with a great deal of active dieting to maintain my weight-loss,...  my weight crept back up into the 190s.

I believe that every diet works for someone. The 5-bite diet is an interesting concept, and I can see how it could be an effective weight-loss tactic for an obese person with an extremely busy schedule, especially if that person has latent anorexic tendencies and lacks a genuine interest in food.  At this point, I am not totally opposed to the 5-Bite Diet. It has many things which appeal to me, and there may be a future time when I will choose to try it again.

Below are two videos about the 5 Bite Diet.

The FIRST video is an interesting and positive interview of Dr. Lewis.

The SECOND video is an rather amusing negative diet review.

 
Dr. Siegel’s Cookie Diet is a meal-replacement plan. One eats six of his cookies throughout the day in addition to one meal at the end of the day. That meal should include approximately six ounces of lean white meat protein and one cup of vegetables. Also drink at least 8 to 10 glasses of a non-caloric beverage, such as water, each day.

Dr Seigal advises his patients to eat six cookies throughout the day whenever hungry. The cookies are the only foods eaten all day and then the patients are ‘rewarded’ with dinner.

Depending on one’s individual food choices, the diet is between 800 and 1200 calories a day. Each cookie contains 90 calories and each dinner meal should contain no more than 500 calories. In addition, one is to drink eight glasses of liquid a day (ideally water). Coffee and tea are allowed on this diet. There are five varieties of Dr. Siegal's cookies that you can choose from: chocolate, oatmeal raisin, coconut, banana, and blueberry. Each week’s box of cookies contains a bottle containing a 7 day supply of generic type multi-vitamin pills, which are to be taken daily.

The cookie’s ingredient label is full of things you'd recognize or be able to pronounce. The first ingredient is sugar, with 9 grams of sugar in each serving. The cookies have less than a gram of fiber per serving. Dr. Seigal states that the cookies contain a "particular mix of proteins" as being key to keeping users feeling full. The cookies are relatively low in sodium, with no more than 200 milligrams per serving. The ingredients appear to be nutritionally similar to most of the popular meal replacement shakes that provide a quantity-controlled diet product.

Dr. Siegal states that his cookies are scientifically designed to help to control appetite and reduce hunger. Each cookie contains 90 calories and contains ingredients such as whole wheat flour, bran and oats. However the main reason he says they work is due to a secret blend of amino acid proteins. 

 The cookies are edible but not the tastiest. Even Dr. Seigel’s website states that ‘we wouldn’t call them delicious’. They say delicious cookies make people fat and there certainly is some logic to this as dieters are less likely to overindulge in really good tasting cookies. Cookies are packed in boxes containing 42 cookies packed in 7 daily bags which will last for one week if the diet is followed according to the instructions above. The price is approximately $56 US plus shipping and handling. 

 As a part of my own dieting hobby, I personally experimented with this diet for a couple of weeks, and thereafter occasionally for a few days at a time. I enjoyed the novelty of the idea, and the cookies were acceptable to me, however, NOTE: that a Dr. Siegal’s cooke tastes better after sprinkling a packet of Splenda on top and placing it in the microwave for 10 seconds just before eating.

Since I was already normal weight and used to small portions when I did my experimentation, I didn’t find myself hungry on the diet, but the lack of food variety was a problem for me. Also, I kept comparing my own homemade recipes for portion-controlled foods to the purchased cookies … such as my microwave cookies made from protein powder which have more grams of protein and less calories. After comparison, I felt that if I really wanted to only eat cookies all day, I would be better served to eat 6 of my own homemade portion-controlled protein cookies. 

 I found “Dr Siegel’s Cookie Diet Book” (2009) to be rather an interesting book, and I’ve read it a few times. I enjoyed the chapters dedicated to weight loss history, and found Dr. Siegal’s attitude about weight-loss to be refreshing. In his opinion, speed of weight loss is a critical success factor because when people don't get results right away, they're more likely to get demotivated and quit.

Dr. Siegal's positon is that weight loss and weight maintenance should be recognized as two different tasks and two different skills, like fixing a car when it's broken and then taking ongoing care of your car so it doesn't break again.

I was especially interested in that part of the book in which Dr. Siegel refers to the scientific principle of 3500 calories equaling one fat pound as “The Great Calorie Theory and in his discussion as to why, although he accepts that principle as a working model, he considers it to be an unproven Theory. 

  I found Dr. Siegal’s Cookie Diet to be a reasonable diet for anyone who wants to eat pre-packaged meal-replacements during the daytime and other foods only at dinner-time, and who has a body with an average personal calorie burn which consistently falls within the number averages of the Harris Benedict and Mifflin formulas.

Since I am a short, normal-weight, older, sedentary, reduced-obese, female ... one of my own problems with the plan is that the daily cookie total was 540 calories. Adding another 500 calories for dinner brings the plan up to 1040 calories… which my 8 years of careful food records show is actually very close to my present daily calorie burn for maintenance of my current weight. At 1,200 calories, my body gains weight, so this plan was actually NOT calorie-restrictive ENOUGH to cause weight-loss for me personally, and I didn't enoy the plan enough to use it long-term for my ongoing maintenance.

Dr. Siegel’s official website is: www.cookiediet.com

Below are two videos about the Cookie Diet.

The FIRST video is an ABC news broadcast about the Cookie Diet. 
Click inside the video twice to see it on YouTube.
 

Yesterday, my article was about the

Difference between Correlation and Causation.

Below are two examples of media
handling the same recent health research study.

 

 

7 Daily Servings of Fruits, Veggies Best for Happiness,
Study Finds 'Strive for 5' might need an update. 
        Oct. 12 (HealthDay News) 

"People who eat seven servings of fruit and vegetables a day have the highest levels of happiness and mental health, according to a new study.

In a joint effort with Dartmouth University, researchers at the University of Warwick examined the eating habits of 80,000 people in England and found that mental well-being rose with the number of daily servings of fruits and vegetables, peaking at seven servings a day.

The study, which appears in the journal Social Indicators Research, defied a serving as about 80 grams (2.8 ounces).

"The statistical power of fruit and vegetables was a surprise. Diet has traditionally been ignored by well-being researchers," study co-author Sarah Stewart-Brown, a professor of public health, said in a university news release.

Further research is needed to learn more about the reasons behind the findings, she added.

"This study has shown surprising results, and I have decided it is prudent to eat more fruit and vegetables. I am keen to stay cheery," study co-author Andrew Oswald, a professor in the economics department, said in the news release.

Currently, many Western governments recommend that people eat five servings of fruit and vegetables a day to protect against heart disease and cancer, the release noted.

While the study found an association between fruit and vegetable servings and well-being, it did not prove a cause-and-effect relationship."

 

 Here’s another take on the same Research.

Study: If You're 'Keen to Stay Cheery,'
7 Fruits and Vegetables a Day
        By Lindsay Abrams 
        Oct 14, 2012 (the Atlantic)

"On the psychological side of dietary recommendations

PROBLEM: We go on about eating for health, but we're usually talking about the physical side. The World Health Organization recommends five servings of fruits and vegetables a day for your body, but not much is known about how much is best for psychological well-being.

METHODOLOGY: Economists and public health researchers from the University of Warwick, in conjunction with Dartmouth College, used data from several randomized, cross-sectional surveys that accounted for the eating habits of about 80,000 people living in the U.K. The fruits and vegetables typically consumed by each person were compared with their life satisfaction, mental well-being, presence of mental disorders, self-reported health, happiness, nervousness, and how often they "feel low."

They factored in as many variables as they could think of, including other the rest of their diets, alcohol, and lots of demographic, social and economic factors.

RESULTS: A "remarkably robust" pattern was found, in which "happiness and mental health rise in an approximately dose-response way with the number of daily portions of fruit and vegetables." While in some cases it rounds out at the recommended five per day, well-being appears to peak at seven.

In many cases, the improvements associated with fruit and vegetable consumption were substantial. For example, the authors explain that "When comparing small and large levels of fruit and vegetable consumption per day, the effect corresponds to between 0.25 and 0.33 life-satisfaction points. To put that in perspective, the known (huge) effect of being unemployed corresponds to a loss of 0.90 of a life-satisfaction point."

CONCLUSION: The findings are "consistent with the need for high levels of fruit-and-vegetable consumption for mental health and not merely for physical health."

IMPLICATIONS: This isn't a definitive randomized trial, but it's an interesting correlation that warrants more research. Economist Andrew Oswald in the Department of Economics at the University of Warwick seems pretty convinced, though. As he put it, "This study has shown surprising results and I have decided it is prudent to eat more fruit and vegetables. I am keen to stay cheery."

Aren't we all, Professor Oswald. Aren't we all.

The full study, "Is Psychological Well-being Linked to the Consumption of Fruit and Vegetables?" will be published in the journal Social Indicators Research. "

 At the end, both of these articles specifically admit that this study involves only a correlation, not causation.

However, do you join me in thinking that a typical reader of these articles will come away believing that new research says that they would probably be happier if they ate more fruits and veggies? And… that one of the reasons they now feel unhappy, could be because they don’t eat ENOUGH fruits and vegetables?

One of the most common errors in the press is the confusion between correlation and causation in scientific and health-related studies.

In theory, these are easy to distinguish … an action or occurrence can CAUSE another (such as smoking causes lung cancer), or it can CORRELATE with another (such as smoking is correlated with alcoholism). If one action causes another, then they are most certainly correlated.

But just because two things occur together does not mean that one caused the other, even if it seems to make sense.

In general, we should all be wary of our own bias. We like explanations. The media often concludes a causal relationship among correlated observances when causality was not even considered by a research study itself. Without clear and definite reasons to accept that one thing CAUSES another, the fact that a correlation exists is all we should accept. Again, two events occurring in close proximity does not imply that one caused the other, even if it seems to makes perfect sense.

Once upon a time, this type of error wasn’t too bad.
If one ate a berry and got sick, it was wise to see meaning in that data. (Better safe than sorry). The same goes for a red-hot coal. Only one touch will give all the correlations needed. Being bullied by a primitive world of nature, it's far worse to miss a link than it is to make one up. A false negative yields the greatest risk.

Now conditions are reversed.
People in modern civilization are bullies over nature. New claims about causation are often made so we can make large interventions in nature. A false positive today often means approving drugs that have no effect, or imposing regulations that make no difference, or wasting money in schemes to limit unemployment. Now, as science grows more powerful and government more technocratic, the stakes of correlation…. of making counterfeit relationships and bogus findings,… grow larger and larger. A false positive is now more burdensome than it's ever been. The only thing we have to fight this attitude is the catchphrase. “correlation is not causation”.

I suggest that we be very cautious in the way we allow media claims to influence us into making personal changes in our own behaviors, ... especially in relation to the way they tend to limit our personal choices of the foods we eat, and the way they tend to add to our personal expense and health risks through recommendions of unnecessary drugs. 

Mistaking correlation for causation finds a cause that simply isn't there.

   
Being Resilient is a very good thing.

What is Resilience?

“Resilience is an individual's tendency to cope with stress and adversity. This coping may result in the individual "bouncing back" to a previous state of normal functioning, or simply not showing negative effects.”

“Resilience is that quality which allows some people to be knocked down by life and come back stronger than ever.”

“Resilience is a dynamic process whereby individuals exhibit positive behavioral adaptation when they encounter significant adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats, or even significant sources of stress.”

Today, for me, personal resilience means that after overeating yesterday, this morning, I have been able to encourage myself to put forth my best dieting efforts, yet again.

I enjoyed this video, although I am a “cat person” rather than a "dog person",  Perhaps you will too.