My Theory About Dieter's Plateau

Great Debates
1

This was inspired by the recent thread on our old board.

Disclaimer: I am not a doctor, etc.

Anyway, here’s my theory:

First of all, I think that how fat one is has little or nothing to do with the number of calories consumed, per se. For example, consider the “skid row bum” who consumes thousands of calories worth of alcohol, and yet remains skinny.

I think that for the most part, most people’s bodies can adjust to varying amounts of calories, and yet maintain equilibrium.

However, I believe that for certain people, there are certain foods that the body cannot or will not handle by simply “burning” them away. Instead the body gets fatter. I call these foods “fattening.” (duh)

Also, I believe that for certain people, there are certain foods that are “addictive” in the same way that cigarettes are addictive. i.e. consuming those foods produces an immediate positive response or feeling in the person’s brain, which eventually goes away and leaves a “void” or empty feeling which becomes a craving for more of the same sort of food.

The reason that most fat people get fat (according to my theory), is that there are foods (for them) that are (1) fattening; and (2) addictive.

See, the thing about being addicted to something is that it is nearly impossible to consume it in small quantities on a regular basis. e.g., once you’ve quit smoking, you’re forever “a puff away from a pack a day.”
If you try to lose weight, but still consume foods that are fattening and to which you are addicted (even in limited quantities), you face two serious problems:

First, you are still consuming foods that will tend to make you fat. So, no matter how much you diet and exercise, you’re body will be “trying” to add fat. Second, and even worse, as soon as the stress level in your life increases, it will be nearly impossible to avoid increasing your intake of fattening and addictive foods. Either of these things could stall or even reverse your progress.

And I think (speculate?) that this is what happens with dieter’s plateau.

2

I’ve done a little bit of research on nutrition and weight loss, and haven’t seen anything like this. I’m no expert, so it’s possible that I missed something; let’s see what others have to say. In the meantime, could you provide a link to the thread on the temp board so we all know exactly what we’re talking about?

3

Sure:

http://bb.bbboy.net/straightdope-viewthread?forum=3&thread=213

4

I would love to hear what some dopers have to say about this “dieter’s plateau” and the other theories I came across during my scant research. As I mentioned in the other thread, doctors and nutritionists come up with theories and the quacks and hucksters run with them.

There is little doubt in my mind that weight is tied to calories consumed (sorry luc). But those who say it is an equation of calories in minus energy expended equals gain or loss are simplifying things way too much.
P.S. Please, please lets try not to turn this thread into a fat people are lazy and greedy vs fat people with hurt feelings thread.

5

I recall an exchange I had with Qagdop a few months ago where I got him to agree that you can’t evaluate foods (from the point of view of weight gain/loss) just by looking at caloric content.

In any event, please tell me what you mean when you say that “weight is tied to calories” and why you think so. My only point is that you can’t evaluate a food, from the perspective of diet, simply by looking at the calorie count.

As far as whether fat people are lazy and greedy, I honestly think it raises an important and fascinating question - why do people eat poorly (1) despite knowing full well that they are making decisions they will later regret; and (2) despite having decided a few hours or days earlier NOT to eat poorly.

It seems to me that fat people do so for the same reasons that smokers continue to smoke - they are addicts.

Now, I realize that it’s hurtful that some people attribute fatness to some sort of moral failing. But IMHO, the subject is worthy of discussion.

6

It has been my experience that lazy, greedy people come in all sizes. Why it is that fat people are automatically branded greedy and lazy is a whole different thread (one in which I have already participated in.)

Of course weight is tied to calories. If you take in no calories, you will lose weight. If you eat 9000 cals a day, you are guaranteed to gain weight. However, I think there is a misconception. If a person who is within their size range can eat a hamburger when they choose and not get fat, they believe that a fat person must be eating twice as many hamburgers. This is not necessarily true.

I read at one site (I’ll see if I can dig it up again) that individual BMR can differ as much as 30%. This doesn’t change the fact that if you take in less calories you’ll either not gain as fast, not gain at all or even lose weight.

O.K. I went out and found some sites with cites:
[This page](http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID01E/uid01e03.htm#points of uncertainty requiring further research) had this to say:

Here’s an interesting little tidbit from the Mayo Clinic. 16 people were overfed and monitored. (It is interesting that they had to find out each individual’s caloric need to maintain weight before they began overfeeding them) They were all overfed by 1000 cals per day for eight weeks. They all gained weight. However the weight gained ranged from 2lb to 16lb.

It is more complicated than everyone made it seem.

7

As that link indicates, the amount of exercise differed, accounting for the difference. It notes that people who are “fidgety” actually perform more exercise and may appear to have a faster metabolism.

As I, among others, posted on the other thread, once you start dieting without exercising, your metabolism slows down. Your body goes into survival mode.

You can’t negate physics. Calories in - calories out = net gain or loss. The hitch is that calories out is not that easily ascertainable. As posted before, if you work out and have toned muscles, your body is more metabolically active, and you expend more calories just sitting around than someone who is just a blob.

As far as the alcoholics go, “thousands of calories” ? Hmmm, I wonder. That’s quite a lot of alcohol. How many calories in a bottle of wine? WAG is about 100. So the alcoholic would have to drink hundreds of bottles of wine a day.

This states that 4 ounces of wine has 10 calories. So a 16-ounce bottle of wine contains 40 calories. Hell of a lot of alcohol for thousands of calories.

8

Actually, that link says there are 10 or 11 grams of alcohol in 4 ounces of wine, and according to the far right column of the chart, there are 75 or 80 calories in 4 ounces of wine :slight_smile:

Mike

9

There are a great many people who eat and sit and get fat. There are also a great many people who diet and exercise and struggle not to get any fatter. There are people who eat right and exercise and remain in very good shape. There are people who never exercise and eat what they wish and are not fat. Everyone focuses on the two extreme groups. I’m wondering what’s happening in the middle of the spectrum?

Eating right and getting more exercise is the best anyone can do for their body. I don’t want anyone to think I’m saying otherwise. The debate (I think) is why it is easier for some to get and stay slim than for others.

10

Okay - so I’m in my “pleateau” and I’d like to experiment to see what works. In the last 11 months I lost 55 lbs and have been stuck here without any diet/exercise changes for 4 months. Though probably the end of November and the month of December can be counted out considering it was Christmas time :slight_smile: . Anyway I eat about 1200 calories a day M-F and eat probably a 1800-2000 calorie diet on the weekends, though not always. I drink at least 8 - 8oz glasses of water a day and I work out 3-4 times a week and haven’t changed any of this since I started.

So what should I change? Should I eat less than 1200 calories a day? Should I try working out every day instead of just 3-4 times a week? Should I give up my splurging on the weekends? I definately am not into any drug type things or even herbal remedies. I lost 55 lbs on my own and I’d like to continue to do that. And I really, really want to hit my goal - which is about 40 more lbs. Anyone have any suggestions?

11

Yeah, what dreamer said.

There is some controversy as to even if “dieter’s plateau” is a real phenomenon. In the other thread it was postulated that dieters are actually eating more/exercising less, tricked by their own bodies into it.

Does anybody have any links to real research into this?

12

You need to eat more. 1200 calories a day is a tiny amount of food, assuming you are not an unusually tiny person.

I suggest you investigate low-carbohydrate eating plans. There are about 6 solid ones, and they are all different. Most people assume that low-carb means Atkins-all-meat-all-the-time and that isn’t true.

Just a tip.

stoid

13

Assuming for a moment that the creationists aren’t right, the human being originates from some sort of huntig/gathering omnivore; generally, food sources rich in energy are not plentiful or are only available sporadically and in this case it makes sense to fill up on them when they are available (which, I think, accounts for our liking of fatty/sugary foods).

I believe that one of the other legacies of this is that when energy-rich foods are scarce (historically famine/winter, but today dieting), the body adjusts by slowing the metabolism.

14

Biggirl, I read your post and ran down the study cite, and it seems to me that nothing you have posted contradicts my point about calories, which is that you cannot evaluate foods, from the point of view of diet, by calories alone.

Interestingly, the Mayo study does not specify WHAT additional foods the subjects ate.

Here’s a cite I found from WebMd:

This supports my theory that different foods interact in different ways with your body (and mind.) IMHO, a diet that is (solely) based on reducing caloric intake is destined to fail. Miserably.

See, in addition to the problem above, the addictive qualities of certain foods further undermines the “calorie” approach. For example, you may decide to limit yourself to 1500 calories a day. That’s enough calories that you may allow yourself a “special treat” or two every day without exceeding your 1500. Perhaps a chocolate bar, an ice cream, french fries, or a bag of potato chips. (For many people, I believe these are highly addictive foods.) Well, once a stressful even happens in your life (and stressful events happen regularly to everyone), it will be nearly impossible to avoid increasing your intake of these sorts of foods. That’s just the nature of addicition - experience shows that most (all?) addicts are incapable of consuming their drug in moderation for an extended length of time. So now your diet is stalled (or failed), for the 100th time, and what’s worse, your self-respect is taking a beating.

15

Hey all, thought I might enter my two cents as an overweight person.

My personal theory on dieter’s plateau: it’s nothing complicated. The major reasons you gain weight are a) eating too much, b) exercising too little, and c) metabolism.

Say you’re losing weight at a pretty good clip. All of a sudden, your weight loss doesn’t go down as much as usual – or you have no loss at all – despite continuing the same program. There are a variety of possibilities here. One of the likely ones is that you’ve lost enough weight that you are now getting just enough or almost enough calories to sustain yourself (hence, not losing weight). I’m trying Weight Watchers now, and they try to help that by connecting how much you eat to how much you weigh. (It is also easier to get started because if you weigh a lot, you’re probably used to eating more, and can’t get down to 1200 calories a day without going crazy.) Another thing is metabolism. Hence, why I can eat the same as my incredibly thin sisters and still gain weight, even though I weigh a lot (100+ pounds) more than they do.

I’m enjoying the Weight Watchers system so far – I’m doing it with someone else (sharing the literature) so I’m not getting killed by fees, thank goodness.

I’d avoid faddish diets. Low-carb can probably work, but if you are like me (vegetarian, enjoys pasta) that may not be the best route for you. Ultimately, it’s not a matter of too many carbs, fats, or too little proteins – it’s calories. Fats have more than you think.

On addiction: I think this is personally my problem. I strongly want to lose weight, and sometimes when I eat bad things, I am not hungry and when I was young I would often eat to the point of being ill. I think it might be some sort of a psychological addiction – I was always forbidden to eat normal food (and as our society has a lot of social things involving food, well, it ‘sucked majorly’ as I put it then). It’s a comforting mechanism for me – sweets and junk food always meant approval, I never got any and I got little approval from my father, so they’re interconnected. As an adult, I’m trying to control my behavior, but it’s a compulsion.

I’ve tried to seek help from health professionals (doctors, nutritionists, even psychologists when I was young), but they never get it. They just say “well, just diet”. Yeah, no kidding. It’s like saying to the smoker “well, just don’t smoke any cigarettes” or telling the alcoholic, “what’s the big deal? Just don’t drink”. That is the goal, but it’s easier to say a thing than to do it. Nobody wants to be addicted to something that they know is bad for their health, but there it is, and I don’t want to be treated like I have a moral failing because of it. I’ve always been overweight – my first diet was literally when I was an infant! I recently talked to my mom about when I was a small child – I was a late walker because I was always interested in find motor skills (later translated into years of Nintendo). I don’t want to make excuses, but it’s a lot more complicated of a tale than “just don’t eat so much”. In some ways I think it might be easier if I could just give it up as can be done with other addictions – doing a thing in moderation can be so hard!

Anyhow, I keep plugging at it. Maybe someday I’ll be less overweight than I am, but I seriously doubt I could ever be naturally ‘thin’ – perhaps with some serious surgery, but I really don’t want to do that. It would be nice if doctors and such could be a little bit more helpful, and if there could be more studies done, and society a little less judgemental. C’est la vie.

16

The french fry addiction thing is not that hard to explain with the old calorie in, energy out and all things are equal theory of weight loss. You crave more french fries, you eat more french fries, you gain weight. However, that quote from WebMD about calories from alcohol is really startling to me, lucwarm.

Diet based on caloric intake (and exercise) really is the only way to lose weight. It’s effectiveness on individuals seems to vary widely and yet I don’t see too much research into this aspect. There are billions of dollars spent on weight loss in this country-- you’d think that there would be tons of scientists jumping on these non-weight-gaining cals in alcohol, if only to try and understand the phenomenon.

And now I’ve come back around to the original question in the previous thread: Is “dieter’s plateau” a real, measurable phenomenon? Do people actually not lose weight (and sometimes actually gain weight) when eating less cals than they are using?

17

Of course I agree that addiction is the problem. As a former smoker, I have felt the overwhelming comulsion to consume, even though I knew better.

But I don’t think that the problem is personal to you. I think that virtually every fat person in Western Society is an addict. But for the addiction, it would be very easy to lose weight (“just diet”).

It seems to me that what MUST be going on is that certain foods have ingredients that produce a reaction (or reactions) in the brain analogous to that produced by nicotine. When you eat something unhealthy (but tasty), the good taste is an illusion - a learned reaction in the same way that “hot” cigarette smoke feels good going into the lungs.

I agree - it seems to me that the key is to identify those foods that are addictive (what foods do you over-consume when you are stressed?) and to eliminate those foods totally and completely from your life. (This assumes that you can eat a healthy diet solely with non-addictive foods. I think that for most adults, a diet consisting of fruits, vegetables, lean meats, basic breads and cereals, etc., would do the job. IANAD.) No “bad foods” ever. Not at your birthday, not after you’re fired from your job, not when your child comes down with a serious illness.

I also feel, in my heart of hearts, that it is completely possible for someone who has been overweight their whole life to lose weight to the point where they are fit by any reasonable definition, and will stay that way for the rest of their life.

I’m just speculating, but I think it’s possible.

18

Hi Stoid …thanks for the tip. Your’re right, 1200 calories is hardly anything, but it’s what I’ve been eating for a long time now. And I’m totally afraid of eating more and gaining the weight back. I’m not a tiny person, by no means. What I’ve been doing is eating the most calories/carbs in the morning so I have energy to exercise, and then eating the least for lunch and dinner. I did try the Atkins diet once and didn’t like it. Do you have any links or names for those others?

Thanks,
~dreamer~

19

Well, I’m glad I startled you.

Please let me propose a follow-up study to the Mayo study you cited:

Suppose we had 100 volunteers, and made them each consume 2500 calories a day for 3 months. Half the people are required to consume 2500 calories worth of fruits, vegetables, lean meats, basic breads and cereals, etc. The other half consume their 2500 calories in the form of ice cream, potato chips, fried chicken, soft drinks, etc. (Everyone takes vitamin supplements!!)

At the end of the three months, do you think the second group would gain more weight than the first? Or maybe I should phrase the question another way: If you were a participant in the study, which group would you prefer to be in?

See, I don’t think so. I think (guess?) that the thing to do is to identify those foods that one’s body cannot handle properly; eliminate those foods totally and completely from the one’s diet; and let the body take care of the rest.

Is it fair to say that the approach you suggest has been tried, with little long-lasting success, for many years?

20

OK, so all you have to do is drink over 10 bottles of wine daily to drink “thousands” of calories a day.:stuck_out_tongue:

Anybody doing that would not have to worry about their weight - at least not for long because he/she would not have long to live.

You need at least 1200 calories a day just to survive. Working out 3-4 times a week is good, but you don’t say what kind of work-out you do and for how long. You can try either working out daily or working out longer, or both.