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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

I do think that you could lose weight this way. Don't get me wrong. I just don't see it as a long-term solution to a life-long problem. I view it more as if you had the flu for a week and dropped 10 pounds. As soon as you weren't sick anymore your body would regain that weight (mostly). I don't see any reason to make yourself miserable just to lose weight a little faster. What happens to someone who theoretically would follow this diet plan through to their goal weight and then begin to eat at a normal healthy rate? I don't think they would maintain their loss.

'What happens to someone who theoretically would follow this diet plan through to their goal weight and then begin to eat at a normal healthy rate? I don't think they would maintain their loss.'

I think that's the key. If you achieve your goal by dieting, you don't (shouldn't) begin to 'eat at a normal healthy rate.' The definitions of 'normal' and 'healthy' may mean 'as you ate before, just less.' But eating less was never your strong suit, if you actually had an upward-trending weight over the years.

The counting-bites method never changes what you put in your mouth. There's a wide range of foods you accept as every-day foods and special foods and yummylicious foods, all of which can be put in your mouth. It's you who decides how to spend your x number of bites at a meal. No more than x number of bites at a meal and no snacking between meals. So, if when you reach your goal weight and you are at that point allowing yourself 14 bites of food (big ones, but they are bites), you can choose carrots, spinach, whatever shouts 'health' to you. But will you? That's when there's a shakedown moment: had those been your foods of choice to begin with, would you have gained all the weight?

The entire dieting sales pitch (any diet) seems to me to be saying, 'You can eat a lot - a LOT - 6,000 calories a day - and fit it into this small space that is your body's metabolism (figuratively speaking), and it will be so satisfying and you will lose weight so fast that you will never want to eat otherwise.'
Every diet message board, forum and website has people struggling with the plateau, even weight GAIN, and frustration at 'falling off the wagon' and failure to maintain. If you find the diet that accomplishes the 'eat all you want of everything you want and do that every day and never regain the weight,' then go for it!

The two diets described (the counting bites method is one, the weighing diet is the other) basically don't call certain foods bad. They don't say you can eat all you want and not gain weight. They don't say you can eat all you want and lose weight (the 'all' part of 'all you want' is important there). They say: here's a limit. You keep your eye on that limit. You obey the limit. You stick with it.

Sounds like dieting to me!

After achieving goal weight, then there's the vigilance of maintenance. And then, there's that 'eat normally and get the healthy food in' that - um, sounds like 'have your cake and eat it too'! The dieter would say, 'I'm not dieting any more, I'm eating just healthy food and I'm not denying myself things I like - the 'bad foods' - so I can live with this.

Mindful eating: the two diets describe watching what you put in your mouth and watching the scale. Sure, there are days when you retain water, or feel bloated or constipated. But the diets work over time, like any and every diet does.

I can't recommend either of these diets - I go to WW and keep my eye on the points. And for me, the going is slow, but it is going.

Mark me down as skeptical. I share the others trepidations about this approach. The idea would be fine if non-calorie foods like water didn't weigh anything either. The problem is you drink 8 ounces of water and you gain weight. Eventually you will excrete the water but it could take some time. The same goes for bodily waste. Unless you are willing to take a laxative on a regular basis or endure enemas the waste throws off your weight. I recently lost 5 pounds in a day. I am sure it was water and food waste as I know I didn't burn 17,500 kcal more that day than I consumed. Weight loss/gain happens long term. This method is just a modified fast. You may as well just eat 500 kcal per day and drink lots of water. Your results would probably be similar.

I know many of us here were looking for a lifestyle change that we could maintain for the rest of our lives so we could be healthier and fitter when we found Fitday. The fads and the Fasts and the purging are not sustainable. Changing what you eat and how much you indulge and especially your attitude about food will make for a sustainable healthier future.

I think it ends up being an 'intermittent fast,' which has had some popularity in recent years. That's the 'watch the scale' diet. The 'count bites' diet is not a fast. You eat three times a day.

The 'watch the scale' diet is pretty much how I spent money on groceries when I was first married. I did all the grocery shopping. I clipped coupons that I took to the supermarket once or twice a week. I bought what looked good and most importantly, what was the cheapest (per pound, for example, when it was meat or fish or cheese, etc.)

I put the food on an index card in a box that I also brought with me to the supermarket. If I needed to buy some protein that I would be including in the dinner meals, I had just one rule: it had to be as cheap or cheaper than what we had previously (as written on the index card). The prices had to follow a downward spiral, and if meat ended up not meeting that requirement (check the sales, and check the regular prices, too - chicken livers were always pretty cheap!), it would be rice and beans or tuna casserole if tuna could be bought cheaply - but then, tuna on sale always ended up in the pantry so I'd have several cans on hand anyway! This pushed my grocery bill down and down and down. I'd use coupons. I'd try some new protein (trout on sale, for example), I'd substitute. But I went by a low price bar and the idea was to keep setting that bar lower.

It worked great! It took a lot of work in the beginning. When prices started to go up on everything, I'd have to really hunt - but vegetarian chili is something I could make from canned goods, or maybe I'd find a sale item at a different store that made a trip worthwhile.

I thought it was my neat little system. One day, I read a post on an internet board in which a guy explained that THAT was how he bought groceries for his family.

Here's my eventual plan to not gain weight back. I really think I'll have to count Calories for the rest of my life if I don't want to gain it back (except when I thru-hike the Appalachian Trail).

I'm running for 40 minutes 5 days a week right now and I have so much more energy that I find myself being a lot more active even when I'm not running. When I ever make my goal (a long way away--I started at 300 and I am down to 233 and I want to be 150), I plan to increase calories slowly until I find an amount I can eat and not gain weight. I am currently doing three meals a day with each meal just under 600 Calories. I figure when I get to my goal I can try adding a few more Calories to each meal until I hit an amount that ticks my weight up for a week. Once I hit that I'll drop back to what I ate the week before and see if that will help me hold my weight. I feel like exercise is the big thing that will give me a chance to keep the weight off and I hope to be running much faster and farther by the time I get to my goal.

Not to mention, who has times to weigh themselves multiple times throughout the day just to see if you can eat yet? Sounds like a miserable diet where you are chained to the scale and constantly starving.

If you're constantly starving, you're not going to stay on a diet! You make it work with food choices that minimize that possibility. More fiber, more protein as a percentage of daily calories, and less calories per day, of course!

A diet plan is effective if you prepare it in consultation with a dietician. Diet should be according to your weight and height. Dieting doesn’t mean that you should not eat anything the whole day; It only means to help you identify right food choices that are nutritious food and with regular eating time.