View Single Post
Old 07-24-2012, 01:56 PM   #10 (permalink)
Kathy13118
Super Moderator
 
Kathy13118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,093
Default

I don't have will power or stamina enough for either of these diets. But that doesn't mean a person couldn't lose weight on them. For someone, it might be more important to simply be able to eat ANYTHING. There is no bingeing in the 'count the bites' system. You eat three meals a day, but your number of bites at each meal is crucial. Although many people do well eating small meals frequently, there's another school of thought that says '3 meals and never snack or eat between meals' is as good or healthier. There are plenty of studies on pubmed to support both philosophies.

As for fasting, there are also plenty of people who think it is healthy. Intermittent Fasting has enjoyed some popularity because it is also supposed to have benefits for health (pubmed has lots of studies about that, too).

The one thing I don't see pursued in research, at least on pubmed, is the whole 'broken metabolism' idea. I'm skeptical, beyond a lot of online dieters saying that 'x broke my metabolism.' I would like to hear a doctor explain it to me - how a metabolism 'gets broke.'

Can either of the diets be maintained long-term? I doubt it. How many people post in a thread that they lost so many pounds but now they've gained back? (Elaborate, please!) There's a tremendous story behind gaining weight back. I think it's called 'living life the way you think you should be able to,' which in many cases (exclude illnesses) is just the way you lived life before you lost weight.
Kathy13118 is offline   Reply With Quote