From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archives for Dieting (current talk page)
<< 1		Archive 1	Archive 2 >

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 "Clearly, the human body can easily convert..." 2 Low density diets? 3 Being underweight 4 Potatoes and raw edibility 5 NPOV Atkins ad 6 Motivation 7 Chitter Chatter 7.1 What makes potato inedible raw? 7.2 Paleolithic diet 8 A general Wikipedia cultural point, about this kind of subject 9 Quality of Article 10 Purpose of dieting 11 "What dieting is not" is poorly written 12 Diet (nutrition)? 13 Disputed 14 Physical exercise (with an example) 15 Removal of Atkins 'advertising' 16 Scientific analysis of the dangers of fasting (and discussion of partial fasting with protein supplementation) 17 Metric vs. Imperial systems 18 Slow weight loss 19 Elimination 19.1 Atkins "gorging" on meat 19.2 Low fat dieting 19.3 Physical exercise (with an example) 19.4 Removal of Atkins 'advertising' 19.5 Scientific analysis of the dangers of fasting (and discussion of partial fasting with protein supplementation) 19.6 Metric vs. Imperial systems 19.7 Slow weight loss

"Clearly, the human body can easily convert..."

This statement should be better worded, i.e. "It is proven...", or just "The human body..." or anything that doesn't use 'clearly' or 'easily' ('easily' isnt so bad, but 'clearly' must go!) p.s. this is under the Low-Fat Diets section Advs89 22:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Low density diets?

A low density diet is when you try to eat foods that have low calories and big portions. Divide the amount of calories by the grams of food. The resulting number will be between 9-0. The lower the number, the less dense the food is in calories, the better. This way you could get "more bang for the buck" you can eat more food for less calories. Pure carbohydrates will have a number of 4, which includes most cereals. Pure fat have a number 9, the worst. I'd say the best choices would be under the number 3. The thing I like about the diet is it takes serving sizes into account. Think it should be researched and\or included? 24.62.85.110 00:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The Mayo Clinic has developed an energy density food pyramid. The foods with the lowest energy density are low carbohydrate or non-starchy vegetables. The next lowest are fruits. Above the fruits are grains and starchy vegetables. Next comes the protein foods including dairy, legumes and meats. Above the protein foods are the fat foods such as olives, avocados and nuts. At the top of the pyramid are indulgences. Another good idea for at least lunch and dinner is to divide your plate into four portions. On one half or two portions of the plate, place at least a cup of low carbohydrate vegetables. On one quarter or one portion of the plate, place at least a half cup of grains or starchy vegetables. On the remaining quarter or portion, place at least 3 ounces of meat or cheese , preferably fish, poultry or low fat cheese. If legumes are used as a starchy vegetable, the protein portion can be reduced to 2 ounces. Add to this in-between meal snacks of fruit and dairy along with a moderate evening indulgence such as low fat ice cream without added sugar or pudding made with sugar free mix and nonfat milk. I have been following this program for some time and have lost 80 pounds. I have been able to control my Type 2 Diabetes with diet and exercise.Richardalanprice 20:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Being underweight

Something that often seems to be missing from these type of articles is information about weight gain for those who might be seriously underweight. Of course, those are underweight are a minority, but I think they deserve some information too.

I added alink in the see also section. --Jake 21:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Potatoes and raw edibility

Potatoes are edible (if not very palitable) raw, but are slightly toxic. A few people do die from eating raw potatoes each year somewhere in the world but this is usually because they have been improperly stored and have started to sprout. It is in the eyes and the sprouting parts that the toxins are concentrated.

The reason that potatoes are excluded from the paleolithic diet is that their non-domesticated ancestors are significantly toxic without cooking and they are therefore neccessarily a post agricultural food. As well as the alkaloid toxins listed here a paleo-proponent might also be concerned about the lectins in potatoes and their possible role in autoimmune disease.

You might also want to look at the Arpad Pusztai affair which involved the toxicity of potatoes. Many argued that the rats were killed merely by the natural toxins in the potatoes rather than the anything present in the potatoes due to genetic modification. -Unknown

NPOV Atkins ad

I'm removing this bit: A ketogenic diet is often very effective in lowering body-fat levels whilst maintaining or even increasing muscle mass. I'm removing it because:

1. all diets that burn fat involve the biological process of ketogenesis, therefore all diets are ketogenic in nature
2. the word "often" is a prejudicial POVism
3. no diet with a calorie deficit can increase muscle mass without exercise, and every diet with calorie deficit will reduce muscle mass unless the dieter also exercises (n.b.: it is possible to keep a calorie deficit and increase muscle mass with exercise)

The sentence is an apparent attempt to promote the diet that uses ketogenesis as a buzz-word, the Atkins diet. Atkins is discussed elsewhere in the article, and its sales pitch doesn't belong in the science section. Also, Atkins doesn't just involve ketogenesis, but ketosis, or chronic ketogenesis. So this deletion will help Wikipedia avoid further muddying the meanings of those terms. Blair P. Houghton 00:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All diets where body fat is lost involve ketosis as well. Not all place the emphasis that Atkins does on ketonuria, testing the urine with test strips to see if the ketosis is severe enough to spill into the urine. But if you are losing adipose weight, your body will be in the fasting state by the end of the long fast known as sleep. Fat will be mobilized from stores to the liver and gluconeogenesis will be occuring there, with ketones liberated to be used as a fuel.--Silverback 14:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

N.B.: When fat is released from lipocytes it comes as fatty acids and glycerol; the fatty acids can go directly to the cells and converted to ATP; the glycerol goes through the liver to be converted to glucose, then to the cells to be converted to ATP. I'll work this in somewhere, eventually, but first, it's time to declare the Atkins diet a fad. USA Today quotes Rachael Ray (rowl) as reporting that the number of low-carb dieters dropped 50% in the first 9 months of 2004, and sales of low-carb products are down 30% in the last 6 months. I'm just going to remove the demurral in the Atkins section. Blair P. Houghton 20:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What's your point? Yes fatty acids can also be directly utilized aerobically but, barring execize, within a few hours of a high carb mean, insulin has the body in the substrate storing "fed" state. When in the fasting state, the energy that the liver uses for gluconeogenes is is supplied by fatty acids in the liver, to use glucose would be a futile cycle. Atkins is just around in a different form, marketed a little better and called "South Beach". I didn't put the fad stuff in the article, it is not a precise term anyway. --Silverback 22:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't criticizing; just throwing in a detail about the liver's involvement. I guess assumed the fatty acids and glucose are being consumed by some sort of activity so you're not in a "futile cycle". One thing I might put in the article: "The only way to lose fat is to convert it to fuel and burn it". But then everyone would say oh yeah, well what about liposuction... On the other matter, the USA Today piece didn't make a distinction, it just said low-carb dieting is falling off rapidly, so I cut the "Atkins is not a fad" thing. It's all good. Blair P. Houghton 22:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Motivation

I think there should be something about the mental factors at work here. People often overeat because of low self-esteem for example. Dieting therefore has to look at how you tackle that. Andrew

Maybe a new section on Motivation? Could get kind of out of hand, though. Might do better as a subsection in the psychology portions of the obesity page. Could also be added piecemeal to those techniques subsections here that have motivational components, because many of the diets leave motivational tools (beyond buying into the premise of the snake oil) out. --Blair P. Houghton 21:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chitter Chatter

What makes potato inedible raw?

I don't make a habit of it, but I do eat bits of them raw while I'm chopping them. -- Zoe

The classic demonstration of the contribution of smell to taste is to eat a raw apple and a raw potato while holding the nose and to not be able to tell the difference. Ortolan88

According to the data at [1], raw potatoes, even with solanine and chaconine, don't seem too dangerous. Juan M. Gonzalez 19:44 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)

I don't think you'd want to eat very much raw potato at a sitting. I wasn't implying it was poisonous (although the green parts of a potato plant are no good for you, I seem to recall). zadcat 19:52 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)

They are difficult to digest because of protease inhibitors, which interfere with the digestion of protein. Eating raw potatoes in significant quantity will give you gas for this reason. --Silverback 08:00, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Could be something about the starches being harder to digest. I'm on a seafood diet myself ... ;-) --Tarquin 01:09 Aug 30, 2002 (PDT)

Paleolithic diet

You're only allowed to eat what you can forage or hunt down and kill with an atlatl? --Brion

There is info at http://www.paleodiet.com --Juan M. Gonzalez 19:07 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)

As I understand it, the theory is that our digestive systems evolved before we had grains and beans to eat, so the healthiest things for us are meat, fish, fruit, nuts and whatever vegetables don't have to be cooked. (You don't have to eat them raw, but they have to be edible raw - unlike, say, a potato.) There are finer points. I'll do a page soon. zadcat 19:24 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)

A general Wikipedia cultural point, about this kind of subject

This is such a broad and controversial area that it is better to let the material suffer from "over diversity of opinion" than to try to put a "final authority" boil-down into place. The various approaches should be allowed to stand as long as they pass the smell test of serious investigation, or clinical research.Nativeborncal 06:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Quality of Article

This article seems to suffer from being vague and repetitive. The daily protein intake of 1 gram per pound of body weight is wrong or at least outdated: an average man needs about 80 grams of fat, more like 1 gram per kilo. The science and fad parts need to be better separated. It is true and sad that there is very little good info on metabolism and physical work in this area. What about hot and cold weather (on energy expenditure).Anthony717 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of dieting

User 24.116.16.155 made a large edit that says that dieting is only for losing weight, which isn't true. This article does not have to be restricted to just weight loss. A more inclusive article would lead to a better Wikipedia. -- Mjwilco 04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the purpose doesn't seem to be clear. The current article goes to great lengths to suggest that dieting is a short-term process distinct from the generic concept of a diet as a descriptor of what a person consumes. In the next paragraph, the article immediately contradicts that and gives examples like sodium-free, bland, and similar diets. One way or another a consensus should be reached on what this article covers so that it can be consistent and other purposes can find their own aritcles. Robb0995 21:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"What dieting is not" is poorly written

This needs a re-write. It begins by saying that Dieting "for the purposes of this article" must involve weight-loss. This makes sense. But it then immediately INCLUDES diets for "religious purposes, psychological motives and athletic prowess." It EXCLUDES anorexia or bulimia and then goes into strange language about young men and laudable diets. Someone please rewrite this concisely or delete chapter.

Diet (nutrition)?

To me, this article seems like it's just covering the same stuff as dieting, does it really warrant a separate article? I think it could be included here, redirecting both that and the disambig 'diet' page here too... Tyciol 04:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

One must burn 14,500 kilojoules (3,500 Calories) more than one consumes to lose one pound (0.45 kilograms) or burn 37,000 kilojoules (9000 Calories) more than one consumes to lose one kilogram.

This values seem to come from the naive calculation of 1 kg excess body weight = 1 kg fat = 9000 calories. --Abdull 11:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a good rule of thumb. The human body stores excess food energy as fat (9000 calories per kilogram), so assuming that you're trying to lose fat and not muscle, you need to burn off 9000 calories to lose that weight.

In actuality, that kilogram of fat cells you're trying to get rid of includes lower-density support structures (proteins at 4000 calories per kilogram), water (zero calories), and a certain amount of non-fat-cell mass (blood vessels, connective tissue, extra skin), but the actual value is somewhere in the 8000-9000 calorie range. --Serie 00:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If the first part of the sentence is correct, the second can't be (3500/0.45 = 7700) and literature always showed 7700 kilocalories per 1 kg of body fat. So, the 9000 has to became 7700 and "calories" should become "kilocalories". --Juliascotti 16:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Fat is stored in adipose tissue. A calorie deficit causes fat to be burned, not adipose cells, which simply shrink as fat is burned.

Physical exercise (with an example)

I really don't know biology, but this sentence seems to me wrong: ...that he is 20 percent efficient at converting chemical energy into mechanical work (this is within measured ranges). The 20 percent efficiency is really a big number, also for mechanical machines. I'll expect a much smaller value. It seems to me that body produce a lot more heat and there are some indirect chemical reaction to trasform fat into mechanical energy. I cannot believe in such number. Someone can confirm the 20 percent? (I'll expect efficiency < 0.5-1%). Cate 12:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Author response: I added the example last year, and I checked my units and math carefully. "Delta efficiency" (defined work done per overall energy expended, at a time) of humans is firmly in the range of 15 to 25 percent: see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6770/full/403614a0.html and others. Using a stationary bike or a stair climbing machine (especially revolving stairs) and a machine that measures CO2 exhalation or net O2 intake, this efficiency can be calculated with great precision. One percent would be impossible: we'd have to eat constantly just to stay alive. All calculations were done using SI: kilograms to newtons at 9.8ms-2, newton-meters to joules, joules times unit delta efficiency, joules to kilojoules, kilojoules expended versus kilojoules of average diet comparison, et cetera. I do concede the points below, except that I would counter that these lesser effects are very difficult to measure (since we can't keep people constantly hooked up to gas analyzers). Moreover, it is better to be conservative so that a person can understand exactly the amounts of food intake and exercise that will guarantee a certain weigh lossAnthony717 01:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've some other objections against reductive extimation of the role of physical exercise in diet: 1) physical exercise brings an increase of basal metabolism (in the other 24 hours of the day - the hours of workout), because recovering the depleted body (microtraumas in muscles, depleted glicogen reserves etc) after the workout IS a seizeable work in matter of calories so people that does exercise on a regular basis spend quite more calories when resting than sedentary people;

2) many kinds of workout bring a better physical frame, that means more muscle, and the muscle is the tissue that burn more calories (also when resting), so we have a second reason why often the basal metabolism of tuned people is higher than of sedentary people, bringing an increased calory consumption over the 24 hours;

3) reducing calory intake without increasing work demand to muscles is a foul thing to do since evolution efficiently protect us from starving, that is more a real risk in wild nature than obesity, burning the muscle tissue (in order to reduce metabolism) as first response to reduced calory intake, long before starting to use fat that is, in nature, the very last resort. In other words, if we think to limit the calory intake we need also to give the body an anabolic input (with exercise) in order to counterbalence it's naturasl reaction: adapt the consumption to the reduced intake, burning the tissues (muscles first) that bring greater calory consumption.

But there are also less direct effect of exercise that are very important in diet:

4) regular exercise often reduce retention of liquids in tissues, often bringing to seizable weight loss in very first weeks that is due simply to a better balance of water in the body;

5) during workout the body release endorphins and other substances with a strong inpact on the mood of the pherson that may strongly help in balancing psychic discomfort situations that may bring to an high and unmoderated desire for food.

Giorgio.tani

Removal of Atkins 'advertising'

A whole chunk of '[NOTES]' added by Timbrewolf1 have been removed and the article reverted. Timbrewolf1 - if you want to advertise Atkins Wikipedia is not the place to do it.

Scientific analysis of the dangers of fasting (and discussion of partial fasting with protein supplementation)

According to the article:

"After experimentation, it was found that a protein intake of 1 to 1.5 grams of protein per kilogram of ideal bodyweight (lean body mass or LBM) prevented the loss of body protein. A somewhat "safer" intake of .8 to 1.2 grams of protein per pound of LBM is often recommended. (More active persons and those taking less protein must compensate by consuming at least some carbohydrates.)"

2 things need to be resolved: (1) (measurements) It says grams/kg in the first sentence and grams/lb in the second sentence. They should both be the same unit (kilograms I am assuming). (2) (clarification) Is the intake of protein a daily intake figure? (I assume it is)

1)No, they are not supposed to be in the same unit. The original research was done based on kgs of ideal body mass. The safer index comes from Lyle McDonald's research on the subject and is in g/lb since that is most useful to people. You'll notice that the g/lb figure is larger when converted to kg's. This is why it's "safer."

When I read this, I thought the "safer" intake was below the former. The difference should be made more explicit, besides I'm curious why you would assume g/lb would be the more useful unit. Rakshasa 08:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

2) Fixed

Metric vs. Imperial systems

While this isn't a big issue, could we possibly work on incorporating more detailed imperial conversions for users not familiar with the metric system? I think the article already does a fair job of this, but not all of the article's discussions of measurement include direct imperial conversions, and some users may find this confusing -- especially when they're skimming through the article only to read one particular section. Grendel 20:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Slow weight loss

I’ve read vague statements that the more slowly one loses weight the more likely it is to stay off. While I firmly believe this, I’ve never heard of any studies that have shown this. If there are studies that show this, I think they need to get a lot more publicity. My belief, based on hunch and personal experience, is that loss of a pound a week is a little too fast.

The book “French Women Don’t Get Fat,” by Mireille Guiliano, was a best-seller in 2005, but I don’t think it got as much attention as it should get. There’s no mention of that book, of French eating habits, or the much lower rates of overweight in France in this article or in the article “List of diets.” My reaction to all the crazy diets I see here and elsewhere is that I wonder why we continue to discuss the weight problem when the answer has been found: Make a series of small changes that you intend to be permanent, plan on losing weight slowly and eating the same after you lose the weight as during, don’t use any scientific terminology or count or weigh or measure anything, eat small portions of a balanced diet, and be sure you enjoy your food. -- Anne, 9 July 2006

It is so good to know "that the answer has been found" as to the 'secret' of weight loss - lose it slowly. Well, as an obese person struggling throughout my life to lose weight, I'll tell you why your reasoning fails: hunger. There is no short-cut to weight loss; it is simple: burn more calories than you consume. The problem is that when you consume less calories than your body needs to maintain its current weight, it signals that it is hungry. The ability to sustain hunger on an on-going basis is usually referred to as 'will power', i.e., do you have the willpower to lose weight? If not, you are considered weak and not worth the effort expended by doctors, dieticions, etc who go through all the trouble of developing wieght-loss diets that 'work' (according to the 'professionals'). The reason people look to quick-loss diets is that they know that over time, hunger will kill whatever 'will power' they are able to muster. So, again, thanks for recommending the one sure diet, the real secret, which in reality does not work - just as 98% of all wieght-loss diets do not work for one simple reason. People cannot go hungry for weeks, months, years at a time - the time that is needed to lose weight according to almost every diet plan out there. 71.214.66.217 00:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Elimination

"if not all, "fad diets." There is a (sometimes confusing) multitude of weight loss techniques, many of which are ineffective"

Eliminated the above sentence from the article as it expresses an opinion about diets as being ineffective.

jobe457 13:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Atkins "gorging" on meat

Without wanting to spark a heated debate on the merits of the Atkins diet, it is simply untrue to suggest Dr Robert Atkins recommends "gorging on meat". In The New Atkins Diet Revolution, he specifically cautions against overeating on meat, pointing out that the diet will not be effective for those eating in excess. I also find the word "gorging" breaches the NPOV rule, "significant quantities" or "higher quantities" would be more accurate and objective, so I am removing it. (Istara 19:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC))

Low fat dieting

The section on Low Fat Dieting starts authoritatively, then meanders into an entirely uncited series of observations on 'the uncooked diet'.

"For example, the uncooked diet tends to improve a participant's health. People's weight tends to nomalize due to the lack of fat in the diet. It also gives people a high amount of energy as uncooked food is easily matabolized. The diet makes you hungry because the food is easily digested, which constantly makes room for more. However, most people never put on weight while on this diet due to the low fat content. Besides, people should not mix cooked food with uncooked food while on this diet. The cooked food causes the stomach to produce acid, which does not mix well with the uncooked food and can create indigestion."

This may all be accurate, but it's written by a convert, is not NPOV, and is written in alternate persons.

Physical exercise (with an example)

I really don't know biology, but this sentence seems to me wrong: ...that he is 20 percent efficient at converting chemical energy into mechanical work (this is within measured ranges). The 20 percent efficiency is really a big number, also for mechanical machines. I'll expect a much smaller value. It seems to me that body produce a lot more heat and there are some indirect chemical reaction to trasform fat into mechanical energy. I cannot believe in such number. Someone can confirm the 20 percent? (I'll expect efficiency < 0.5-1%). Cate 12:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Author response: I added the example last year, and I checked my units and math carefully. "Delta efficiency" (defined work done per overall energy expended, at a time) of humans is firmly in the range of 15 to 25 percent: see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6770/full/403614a0.html and others. Using a stationary bike or a stair climbing machine (especially revolving stairs) and a machine that measures CO2 exhalation or net O2 intake, this efficiency can be calculated with great precision. One percent would be impossible: we'd have to eat constantly just to stay alive. All calculations were done using SI: kilograms to newtons at 9.8ms-2, newton-meters to joules, joules times unit delta efficiency, joules to kilojoules, kilojoules expended versus kilojoules of average diet comparison, et cetera. I do concede the points below, except that I would counter that these lesser effects are very difficult to measure (since we can't keep people constantly hooked up to gas analyzers). Moreover, it is better to be conservative so that a person can understand exactly the amounts of food intake and exercise that will guarantee a certain weigh lossAnthony717 01:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've some other objections against reductive extimation of the role of physical exercise in diet: 1) physical exercise brings an increase of basal metabolism (in the other 24 hours of the day - the hours of workout), because recovering the depleted body (microtraumas in muscles, depleted glicogen reserves etc) after the workout IS a seizeable work in matter of calories so people that does exercise on a regular basis spend quite more calories when resting than sedentary people;

2) many kinds of workout bring a better physical frame, that means more muscle, and the muscle is the tissue that burn more calories (also when resting), so we have a second reason why often the basal metabolism of tuned people is higher than of sedentary people, bringing an increased calory consumption over the 24 hours;

3) reducing calory intake without increasing work demand to muscles is a foul thing to do since evolution efficiently protect us from starving, that is more a real risk in wild nature than obesity, burning the muscle tissue (in order to reduce metabolism) as first response to reduced calory intake, long before starting to use fat that is, in nature, the very last resort. In other words, if we think to limit the calory intake we need also to give the body an anabolic input (with exercise) in order to counterbalence it's naturasl reaction: adapt the consumption to the reduced intake, burning the tissues (muscles first) that bring greater calory consumption.

But there are also less direct effect of exercise that are very important in diet:

4) regular exercise often reduce retention of liquids in tissues, often bringing to seizable weight loss in very first weeks that is due simply to a better balance of water in the body;

5) during workout the body release endorphins and other substances with a strong inpact on the mood of the pherson that may strongly help in balancing psychic discomfort situations that may bring to an high and unmoderated desire for food.

Giorgio.tani

Removal of Atkins 'advertising'

A whole chunk of '[NOTES]' added by Timbrewolf1 have been removed and the article reverted. Timbrewolf1 - if you want to advertise Atkins Wikipedia is not the place to do it.

Scientific analysis of the dangers of fasting (and discussion of partial fasting with protein supplementation)

According to the article:

"After experimentation, it was found that a protein intake of 1 to 1.5 grams of protein per kilogram of ideal bodyweight (lean body mass or LBM) prevented the loss of body protein. A somewhat "safer" intake of .8 to 1.2 grams of protein per pound of LBM is often recommended. (More active persons and those taking less protein must compensate by consuming at least some carbohydrates.)"

2 things need to be resolved: (1) (measurements) It says grams/kg in the first sentence and grams/lb in the second sentence. They should both be the same unit (kilograms I am assuming). (2) (clarification) Is the intake of protein a daily intake figure? (I assume it is)

1)No, they are not supposed to be in the same unit. The original research was done based on kgs of ideal body mass. The safer index comes from Lyle McDonald's research on the subject and is in g/lb since that is most useful to people. You'll notice that the g/lb figure is larger when converted to kg's. This is why it's "safer."

When I read this, I thought the "safer" intake was below the former. The difference should be made more explicit, besides I'm curious why you would assume g/lb would be the more useful unit. Rakshasa 08:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

2) Fixed

Metric vs. Imperial systems

While this isn't a big issue, could we possibly work on incorporating more detailed imperial conversions for users not familiar with the metric system? I think the article already does a fair job of this, but not all of the article's discussions of measurement include direct imperial conversions, and some users may find this confusing -- especially when they're skimming through the article only to read one particular section. Grendel 20:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Slow weight loss

I’ve read vague statements that the more slowly one loses weight the more likely it is to stay off. While I firmly believe this, I’ve never heard of any studies that have shown this. If there are studies that show this, I think they need to get a lot more publicity. My belief, based on hunch and personal experience, is that loss of a pound a week is a little too fast.

The book “French Women Don’t Get Fat,” by Mireille Guiliano, was a best-seller in 2005, but I don’t think it got as much attention as it should get. There’s no mention of that book, of French eating habits, or the much lower rates of overweight in France in this article or in the article “List of diets.” My reaction to all the crazy diets I see here and elsewhere is that I wonder why we continue to discuss the weight problem when the answer has been found: Make a series of small changes that you intend to be permanent, plan on losing weight slowly and eating the same after you lose the weight as during, don’t use any scientific terminology or count or weigh or measure anything, eat small portions of a balanced diet, and be sure you enjoy your food. -- Anne, 9 July 2006

It is so good to know "that the answer has been found" as to the 'secret' of weight loss - lose it slowly. Well, as an obese person struggling throughout my life to lose weight, I'll tell you why your reasoning fails: hunger. There is no short-cut to weight loss; it is simple: burn more calories than you consume. The problem is that when you consume less calories than your body needs to maintain its current weight, it signals that it is hungry. The ability to sustain hunger on an on-going basis is usually referred to as 'will power', i.e., do you have the willpower to lose weight? If not, you are considered weak and not worth the effort expended by doctors, dieticions, etc who go through all the trouble of developing wieght-loss diets that 'work' (according to the 'professionals'). The reason people look to quick-loss diets is that they know that over time, hunger will kill whatever 'will power' they are able to muster. So, again, thanks for recommending the one sure diet, the real secret, which in reality does not work - just as 98% of all wieght-loss diets do not work for one simple reason. People cannot go hungry for weeks, months, years at a time - the time that is needed to lose weight according to almost every diet plan out there. 71.214.66.217 00:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.