FitDay Discussion Boards

FitDay Discussion Boards (
-   Diets (
-   -   A diet plan-eat what you want-guaranteed weight loss (

mattymath 07-22-2012 03:11 PM

A diet plan-eat what you want-guaranteed weight loss
I thought the title of the thread might intrigue you...

OK, here's a thought I've had.

Get yourself bathroom scales that weigh to the nearest 0.2 lbs or more accurately.

Weigh yourself when you first awake in the morning.

Take your vitamin and eat what you want.

When it gets to be time for your next meal don't eat until you weigh yourself. You cannot eat until you weigh less than you did before your previous meal. If you weigh more, then have 8 ounces of a zero calorie beverage (water, tea, coffee, diet soda). Wait an hour weigh again.

Once you weigh less than before your last meal you can eat whatever you want for your next meal.

Continue this until you are at your ideal weight.

Drinking the 8 ounces every hour is to insure you don't get dehydrated.

I guarantee that if you can make yourself do this you'll lose weight. It seems simple, but I doubt most of us have the will power to do it, but it would be interesting to just do it for a week on a stay-cation and see what would happen.

Kathy13118 07-22-2012 05:14 PM

I'm sure this will work. Slowly, but it will work. There was a similar, very effective diet that specified counting the number of mouthfuls of food. No matter what the food! And, yep, it did work. Slowly, but it worked. The trick is - keeping on the diet (whichever one) when you realize you want something and you can't have it, when you want it. The failure of dieters to maintain can be related to this!

FitnessFree 07-22-2012 05:30 PM

I wonder whether you already tried this? Which vitamin are you referring to? What is the solution when you work all day and you do not have a scale? Just some thoughts. I just saw an email that referrred to some food you have to eat regularly and 1.5 grapefruits each day. 78% chocolate, cinnamon and advocado seem to work as well. >70% chocolate was not new to me as Montignac already mentioned this but cinnamon and advocado came as a surprise.

cjohnson728 07-22-2012 05:49 PM

I must be missing something, because I don't see how this can work. There are so many things that can cause weight to fluctuate during the day, including fluids consumed, sodium causing water retention, time of the month (for women), how much fiber you've had (and bathroom habits)...a myriad of things. It is not the amount of food you eat in and of itself that causes weight gain, it is the calories and what is in the food.

This is purely hypothetical, but suppose I take a day and every time I'm hungry (and weighing less on the scale, in your model), I eat a handful of calorically dense food like raisins, nuts, chocolate chips. Those calories, day after day, are going to add up and I will gain weight. However, it won't happen fast enough that it would show up on the scale by the time of my next weighing (I don't know for sure, but I sincerely doubt calorie overage to weigh gain is instantaneous). Contrast that to a day in which I feel hungry and eat something like watermelon, much less calorically dense but much heavier due to its water content. I bet by the next time I'm on the scale that day, the weight of the watermelon I ate, added to my previous weight, puts me higher than the handful of nuts did.o

I can see where it sounds like a good idea in theory, but it doesn't make sense to me in practice. We have had a number of people on these boards who have commented about their weight loss overall who have weighed more than once a day and always come out heavier at night. Many people here weigh themselves first thing, naked, after using the bathroom, and to me that seems to be the lowest you will get for the day. I think the only way this would make sense is if you ate no sodium and if your bathroom habits were such that you urinated/defecated exactly the weight of whatever you ate before you weighed again, and who does that? And even so, it doesn't take the calories into account.

I also feel that it sets up a dangerous precedent for skipping meals and going too long without eating, which can wreck your metabolism and blood sugar and lead to bingeing. "Oh, I'd really like to have dinner, but I'm not under what I was when I weighed before lunch, so no food for me." And I probably wouldn't be able to eat at all the days I'm on my period!

wildbeanerz 07-23-2012 01:14 PM

I'm with Cassie on this one. I can't see that being logical. I have been weighing myself morning and night for 17 months now. Unless I really under-ate on a day, I weigh about 2lbs more at night and that is before my final snack. Sometimes it is as much as 4lbs. The days where I weigh 4lbs more at night usually show about a 1lb gain the next morning. If I keep it to 2lbs up at night then I usually show a loss the next morning. I don't recommend my method for everyone as I know some people completely obsess over the scale. I do what I do so that I can see in black & white the way that the food I ate affects my weight loss/gain.

I think what you are saying would make a person an absolute slave to the scale. I also think that after a few days of depriving yourself of a meal until you weigh less than you did previously that you would just become so frustrated that you may give up all together. Especially if you think this is the only true way to lose weight. I don't see any mention of doing any form of exercise to lose the weight. This would lead me to believe also that if you did follow this method that a larger than usual portion of the weight lost would be muscle and not just fat. Who wants that? So not only are you hungry all the time but now you are tired because your muscles are being lost and you are growing weaker and your skin is beginning to hang loosely on your body. Hmmmm....I think I will stick with eating what I want in moderation, working out, walking and drinking lots of water. I won't worry every minute of the day if I pee'd or poo'd enough to make me weigh the right amount to earn my next meal.

Kathy13118 07-23-2012 03:10 PM

I think the key is: 'You cannot eat until you weigh less than you did before your previous meal. If you weigh more, then have 8 ounces of a zero calorie beverage (water, tea, coffee, diet soda). Wait an hour weigh again.

Once you weigh less than before your last meal you can eat whatever you want for your next meal. '

If you cannot eat until you weigh less then you did before your previous meal, you will play a waiting game. Waiting amounts to a 'fast' and you fast until you are down in weight, even just a little bit. This is going to be painful enough (but you must do it) that you will think about it as you proceed to 'eat what you want.' Sure, you could have a WHOLE pizza if that is 'eating what you want.' But, as you eat that, you will already know what the results are going to be, right? OK, maybe you're willing to do it anyway... just to be able to eat a whole pizza. I'm guessing you're going to scale down what you eat.

This is pretty extreme, because it definitely is going to involve some fasting. You will always be trying to 'meet that goal' and when you hit a plateau, it's going to be tough. But if you stick with it, one effect that will work in your favor is that you will dial down your appetite - fasting does that when fasting is done correctly (plenty of liquids and commitment).

When I read about the 'counting bites' method, the discussion went the same way. People commented, 'You can't lose weight that way! What if you eat really big bites... what if you eat Boston Cream Pie?...' and yet, none of that made a difference. The diet still worked. If you ate 15 bites at each meal, and your weight was 150, and it stayed at 150 as you continued to very carefully eat 15 bites at each meal, then you reduced the bites to 14 at each meal, and tested that number. Then you stuck with that number. Then, when your weight stayed the same, after losing a bit, you reduced 14 bites to 13, and so on. The point is, you take into account hormonal fluctuations, weigh yourself after rising every morning (that's the best you can do) and 'shake out' the fluctuations by sticking to your bite number until you see that you are not losing weight at all and so you need to reduce the number.

If you've tried to 'find the loophole' and ate only the richest, most caloric food you could find and stuffed your mouth with a mouthful, you're going to be stuck at a weight that doesn't budge, or even increases, and so you'll have to reduce the number of bites, anyway. It didn't gain you much to go out of your way to use that loophole. Just cutting out all snacks (that includes caloric drinks, too) is going to have a beneficial effect. Your behavior will change - and a meal is going to be treated like a 'I can have this many bites' situation, which is the hardest thing for a dieter ('I can just have this much food and no more...')

Your behavior will change (as long as you stick to your commitment), your body will react by adjusting to less weight (it's individual how comfortable you will feel with that), and at every meal, you will be able to eat whatever is offered, no matter how flavorful, fattening and delicious!

Borg-mx5 07-23-2012 04:38 PM

This sounds like fasting. You may lose "weight" this way but it does not guarantee you lose fat. Also as previously mentioned, your weight will normally fluctuate during the day, mostly by hydration/dehydration. Even with drinking 8 ounces of water (or zero calorie beverage) will cause this. Your body needs fuel throughout the day and from what I've read, dieticians have argued that several small meals in a day are better for you than a couple big ones. Finally, I think any disciplined approach to weight loss can work in the short term, but for how long? I do not see this is as something that can be sustained. It may be fine if you need to lose a quick 5 lbs., but not 50. Just my opinion.

catebert 07-23-2012 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by cjohnson728 (Post 85869)
I also feel that it sets up a dangerous precedent for skipping meals and going too long without eating, which can wreck your metabolism and blood sugar and lead to bingeing. "Oh, I'd really like to have dinner, but I'm not under what I was when I weighed before lunch, so no food for me." And I probably wouldn't be able to eat at all the days I'm on my period!

I agree with Cassie, April and Borg on this one. Especially the comment above. Spot on Cassie, a very dangerous precedent, and possibly setting one up for an eating disorder to boot - fasting, then binging - what's next - purging? Not a good idea at all IMHO.

mattymath 07-24-2012 01:15 PM

Good comments. A lot of this revolves around things people debate about all diets. Is a fast good for you? Do you have the will power to do it? Will you lose fat or muscle?

I also noted that this diet would be hard to pull off at work (which is why I suggested it be tried on a "stay-cation" when someone was at home).

People who say this can't work simply don't understand conservation of mass, however. It's a remedial physics concept...mass can't be created from nothing. It would have to work if you could stick to it.

I've never tried it and doubt I ever will, because I don't think I have the will power for it because I can imagine having to go an entire day or even longer without eating, but I bet there are people who would be able to stick to something like this and who would lose weight.

Kathy13118 07-24-2012 02:56 PM

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.

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:37 AM.

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.