Comments on: The Thing About Weight Watchers

By: Marla Richter

Marla Richter — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 20:22:33 +0000

I would like to clear up where the 1000 calories started in the first place. Why 1000? Back during wwII studies were done to see how little they could feed the prisoners and still keep them alive. 1000 calories was the magic number. It is a kind of starvation.

By: Tori

Tori — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 19:55:53 +0000

Agreed. I think it’s really important to keep in mind that a lot of diets just aren’t sustainable over the long term. I mean, I’ve been on a number of Patented Sensible Weight Loss Programs (TM) where my daily calorie needs during the “loss” portion of the program were calculated at 1000-1200 calories per day but where the “maintenance” calories were calculated at 1400-1600 per day — as in, I was supposed to subsist on that amount of calories for the rest of my life. Additionally, with the amount of exercise the programs recommended, an “average” person (because I get that people absorb and expend calories differently and individually) would be using about 2600 calories per day.

Which, um — Even in the most reasonable of those circumstances, that would be a 1000 calorie deficit per day for the rest of my life.

It really is like strapping concrete blocks to people’s feet and then blaming them when they can’t fly.

By: Amelia

Amelia — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 18:46:44 +0000

I have a friend who recently gained a lot of weight in a short amount of time. She went to her doctor to see if it could be a thyroid issue–as thyroid issues do run in her family. It should also be mentioned that she recently lost her father and the weight gain happened in conjunction with the funeral, cleaning out his house, etc. Anyway, she went to the doctor who refused to test they thyroid and told her “In my experience, when a person is fat it is because they eat too much.” I should also point out this friend is not really what you would consider a heavy person. I’d guess she is maybe a size 12 at the most but this doctor agreed she was “too fat” but refused to consider anything outside of the fact that she must be eating too much. The doctor actually prescribed a 1000/cal a day diet. This friend decided to make it 800 cal/day. I tried to tell her that her body needs calories to function. Your organs need calories to function! I tried to explain her metabolism can’t even function on 800/cal a day. I tried to explain she is setting herself up to gain MORE weight in the long run. She refused to listen. Calories=bad–starvation=good. We’ve got that so ingrained in our society it is ridiculous.

By: Marla Richter

Marla Richter — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:09:35 +0000

There are many studies where after a while on any diet, the body will regain the weight. The body thinks you are starving it so it takes what little food (fat) it is given and replaces the fat lost so it doesnt starve. Of course there is more to it than my breif discription…there are many books and scientist who have found that to be the case.

By: danceswithfat

danceswithfat — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 07:39:54 +0000

Hi Leslie, Thanks for asking. No, there aren’t any studies that show long-term success with diets of any kind. . There also aren’t any studies that show that long-term weight loss results in improved health because so few people have maintained long-term weight loss that there aren’t enough to put together a study. You can start with these blogs and then let me know if you have questions http://danceswithfat.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/do-95-of-dieters-really-fail/

http://danceswithfat.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/do-diets-fail-or-do-dieters-fail/

You might also check out the evidence section of this blog: http://danceswithfat.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/for-fat-patients-and-their-doctors/

~Ragen

________________________________

By: Leslie

Leslie — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 07:13:39 +0000

Hi Ragen,

I have been reading your blog, and I notice how often you say that diets don’t work 95% of the time. I just was hoping you could give me a little more clarification. I understand that a lot of people can lose weight initially, but most of the time it comes back, and people give credit to their diet for the weight loss but blame themselves for the following weight gain. Are you saying (or are the studies showing) that people re-gain the weight because they stop following the diet, or they re-gain the weight even though they stay on the diet? In my own experience, I re-gained weight after doing diets because I found the diet to not be sustainable for me and my life, and so I think that’s what happens for a lot of people, that they fall off their diet plan. Are there studies that show that people regain the weight or stop losing weight even if they stick to the diet plan? Are there any diets out there that show that people can stick to them long-term? Thanks!
Leslie

By: peregrin8

peregrin8 — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:09:45 +0000

Amazing how so many dieters believe the “plateau” exists — but also manage to simultaneously believe that “it’s just calories in, calories out!”

By: Andrea H.

Andrea H. — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:04:08 +0000

Thank you, both, for the feedback. I really appreciate the information. Now I know.

By: Marla Richter

Marla Richter — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 01:46:22 +0000

About dress sizes. Years ago dress sizes ended at size 18, then they skipped to size 40 which was related to chest size. So when someone was a size 22 it would have been a 42. Sometime in the early 70s it changed and went chronologically from size 2,4,6……20, 22 etc. Hope this helps you understand why she was a size 44

By: Janeen

Janeen — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:40:30 +0000

Sizes used to be very different at one time and I think this was before vanity sizing kicked in. If I remember correctly from what I used to see on some of my mom’s clothes, 44 is twice the number you see now on plus size clothes so it was probably a size 22 she was and that still may have been on the high side, again, due to vanity sizing (it would probably be considered a size 20 or 18 today).

To give kind of a comparison idea, I can remember reading a Barbie book when I was a kid that was written in the 60′s or 70′s and one of the stories was about a size 10 dress. Now we all know that size 10 in this day and age is considered plus size in the fashion world but back then, size 10 was average. In the books, Sweet Valley High (which would be the 80′s Barbie comparison), the twins were a size 6. In the REMAKE of the series (redone to add in current technology and whatnot) the author also resized the girls to a size 4. So yes, sizes have changed throughout the years, plus sizes especially because I think women were kind of put off at wearing such large sizes (can’t say I blame them).