Grammar nitpick: It isn’t going to “effect” your diet at all. It might affect your diet, though.
You beat me to it Rocketeer. I agree that affect would be correct in this case.
Colophon, this is true on the most reductive level, but you’re talking about an extremely complex biological system, and black-boxing it to arive at “it’s just a matter of calories in/calories out” gets pretty deceptive.
For instance there are complex feedback mechanisms that will change the calories out side of the equation as you lose weight. So changing calories in alters calories out.
If you do, say, cut 500 calories out of your diet a day, your weight will initially drop just as calories in/calories out predicts…but then you trigger a variety of effects. Appetite is increased and metabolism is decreased. (You can see this is a homeostatic response to reestablish the initial weight). Since appetite is a very complex and rather tightly regulated instinct with a large number of feedback controls it can be difficult to control eating when the hypothalamus is jacking up the pressure. Arguing that you can control weight loss absolutely based on a physical model may be as flawed as saying you can hold your breath to syncope based on similar logic.
And lastly it’s deceptive because the (calories in-calories out) necessary to lose or gain large amounts of weight over time is very small in comparison to the total flow of calories through the system daily. So you start getting intellectual errors that have to do with misunderstanding the relative quantities involved.
I found a study that says replacing sugar with artificial sweetener in softdrinks is beneficial for weight loss. However, the authors themselves say they were surprised by the results, as several other studies seem to suggest artificial sweeteners a) boost the appetite in general and b) increase the craving for sweet foods.
a) is what I heard about aspartame - I remember reading that it was used by pig farmers as a food addition to help the fattening process. However, I can’t find a cite for that (or at least none that is off a reputable site, not a kook “nutritionist” one).
Doesn’t surprise me in the slightest, better to have less sugar in your diet, all else being equal (boomtish!). However better still would be replacing sugary drinks with water (or coffee or tea with no sweeteners of any sort in them). As implied above, drinking (or eating, for that matter) artificial sweeteners makes your body think you’ve consumed sugar so it boosts insulin production, which drops blood sugar, which makes you feel hungrier, which means you will eat more and exercise less.
To the OP: The other important thing you can to ro reduce your calorie intake is smaller servings on smaller plates. You are programmed to eat what is available so you need to reduce that. Don’t fool yourself that you’ll eat less of what’s on the plate and leave the rest, it just doesn’t work.
There’s one more thing that a lot of dudes forget: real sugar (sucrose) has a moderate “satiety rating” which means you drink a lot of sugared drinks and yes you feel full. But nearly every soft drink now is High fructose corn syrup, which has an unusually low satiety rating. In other words, you get the calories without the feeling of being full. Very bad combo.
Now, I am not saying Diet soda is great stuff- it ain’t (It’s like the Earth “mostly harmless” 
). But it is far better than HFCS sodas. According to what I have read anyway.
Oh and FYI- potatoes have a very high satiety rating. Microwave one of them dudes (preferably one of the Yukon Gold ones for better nutrients and flavor) , be careful with what you pile on, and it could be a good way to get through lunch without stuffing yourself.
Well, yeah, but the latter theory would probably imply a certain weight gain if you consume artificial sweeteners, and that apparently does not seem to be the case. The study I cited says there are more studies that disprove the “insuline appetite boost” theory than vice versa (I could not find any of the studies that make that claim online, though, so if you have any cites I’d appreciate them).
Other than that, I certainly agree that drinking water or tea is certainly better for a diet - artificial sweeteners definitely increase your threshold for sweet tasting foods (that’s from my own experience - try going without soda for a month and then taste it again).
I’m going to have to see several cites on the “artificial sweeteners raise insulin levels” issue before I believe it (last time this issue came up I found a study on PubMed that said it wasn’t true. Then I found one that said it was … but that one was much older). But if it was true that artificial sweeteners boost insulin, what would the effects be?
If by “works for almost everyone,” you mean “fails 93% of the time,” you’re right. If “diet and exercise” were a drug for weight loss, it would never have been approved based on clinical trials. 93% of overweight/obese folks who try to lose weight using diet and excercise fail (no weight loss or negative weight loss over two years). The number who actually reach their BMI-determined ideal weight is even lower – the 93% number is for any weight loss at all. The exact number varies only slightly for various diets.
Ummm…that’s because they aren’t actually doing it. If they were actually consistently creating a calorie deficit, they would be seeing results. The problem is that doing so require a level of impulse control that most people don’t have (including myself, much of the time). It isn’t because the combination of reduced calories and increased exercise doesn’t work.
Is that because it’s too difficult to actually stick to a diet, or what?
Depends on what you mean by ‘diet’. If you mean ‘short-term fad to drop weight before resuming old habits’, you’re correct. However if you mean ‘diet’ as ‘regular eating habits’, then changing them permanently is * the *way to lose weight.
Yes. Here’s my diet, which is easy to stick to:
Look over your current diet, list 10 foods that are stuffed full of calories (and little food value) and you eat a lot of- (for example)sugary sodas, french fries, chips, doublecheeseburgers, do-nuts, cookies, candy bars, chocolate truffles, ice cream, bacon.
Then list three you can not live without: doublecheeseburgers, truffles, ice cream.
Swear off the rest for life. They can never, ever cross your lips. Lifestyle change. Eat a little smarter, too. Think twice before extra servings.
Add some exercise you enjoy: biking, walking, swimming, whatever.
Drink a large glass of water with a dose of that fiber supplement stuff once or twice a day.
I am not a real doctor.
I don’t think it makes a big difference.
There are quite a few people who quote a weak 2004 study in the International Journal of Obesity that showed a correlation between weight gain and diet soft drinks. This study did not account for other factors in the diet or show causation. A PubMed search does not uncover articles suggesting a correlation.
Diet pop is not health food. After the study many people repeated the dogma that people drinking diet pop were more likely to be obese. This may be true. This is a far cry from saying that diet pop makes you gain weight. The theory that the sweet taste of diet pop causes an insulin spike, or that creates an expectation of more calories and stimulates appetite… are just theories.
Here is an example of recent science on why dieting isn’t a simple matter of math:
Genes Take Charge, and Diets Fall by the Wayside
(I first saw this in the New York Times, but you have to subscribe now to read it there.
Looks like the answer is not to become fat in the first place. Helpful eh…
It might be worth trying caffeine free.
Theres some suggestion that poor sleep quality can result in weight gain, and too much caffeine can impact on that. Theres more of it than you’d think if you drink enough of it, particularly if you have coffee as well.
My personal theory is also that the carbonation makes your stomach feel empty if you drink too much of it. I initially switched from sugar to diet and it was a large part of my initial weight loss, but now find I dont even drink diet apart from the odd energy drink. Saved me a surprising amount of money too once I added it up. I lost about 70lbs and have been in the normal BMI range for 3 years now.
Id also agree that boiling it down to energy in/energy out oversimplifies a pretty complicated process.
Otara
I think it’s more like that exercise is the real key; not reducing what you eat but being sure it all gets burned off - and then, if you’re overweight, some extra as well.
That’s true, and basically the point I was trying to make. All drug trials include compliance as part of their test, either specifically or indirectly. The reason behind the failure isn’t as important as the failure itself – the fundamental fact is that most folks will not succeed with diet and excercise. And it doesn’t matter whether you call it a diet or a “lifestyle change” (pretty much everyone does the latter these days) – the success (or lack of success) rate is the same.
Is it impulse control (or “willpower?”). Sure. But people say that like it was synonymous with “weakness.” For those folks, here’s an experiment: The only thing that will prevent you from succeeding at the task I’m about to assign is willpower. In fact, you’ll only need to have the willpower for a couple of minutes: none of this pesky 24x7x365 stuff (that’s HARD compared to this). Ready for the task? Hold your breath until you pass out.
Trivially simple task, requiring nothing but a short period of willpower. And yet, very few people call do it, even in circumstances where it might save their lives (drowning, for example).
NOTE: I’m not actually recommending you do this test; there are a lot of ways to injure yourself as a sideline to the passing out, for one thing. I’m just demonstrating that “willpower” as an explanation for why something doesn’t work doesn’t offer a cure.
Is there anything that works better than diet and exercise? Dunno, ask a doctor. I’m sure that the surgical methods have better success; circumstances where your ability to choose your food and activity are removed are also likely to work. But these aren’t choices many people are going to make. Those claiming a “simple solution” to what has become a complex problem are deluding themselves – if it really were simple, the obesity epidemic wouldn’t exist. Much like smoking, the majority of folks who are overweight know they are and desparately don’t want to be. Even desparation is insufficient as a motivator.
Right. Again, while it’s true that burning more calories net than you consume will result in weight loss, that is not a working strategy for losing weight. It’s like a football coach telling his team that in order to win all they have to do is score more points than the opponent, and leaving it at that. Winning football requires development of several different skills sets and the ability to put them together in a winning strategy. Likewise long term weight loss requires attention to several different aspects of health and lifestyle, the ultimate goal of which is a net calorie deficit. The human body is very particular with its energy control - it will allow you to run a calorie deficit, but only if you do it in certain ways. Do it wrong and your metabolism, your hormones, your gut, and your brain will rebel against you, and you will lose.
(though doing it the right way does take a good measure of self control and discipline)