Diets can work in the long term

Updated 4.24.2014; Reformatted 9.19.2015
Our topic is whether diets can work for the long term, continuing on from thoughts begun here. We are following the 5:2 diet regime because we find it easy to do so. We've been doing it for over a year now. But implementing the 5:2 was only the latest change we tried to make work in our lives.

So what did we do?

• Rather than diet, we use smaller plates, which has been shown to decrease food intake.
• Rather than diet, we skipped the pre-meal bread at restaurants (the ONLY part of our brief trial of low carb living that has stuck).
• Rather than diet, we made a conscious choice to add more vegetables to our meals, the whole "eat a lot of colors."
• Rather than diet, we made dessert a treat rather than a nightly occurrence.
• Rather than diet, I stopped routinely drinking colas and began drinking water.
• Rather than diet, we eat fruit rather than drink fruit juices.

Unrelated to desire to lose weight, in the late 1990s we made a choice to try to avoid trans-fats, which means we eliminated a lot of processed foods. With hindsight, this looks like a really good choice to have made. In that same time frame, a family member was diagnosed with a condition that required a very low sodium diet, which resulted in our mostly avoiding fast food.

Taken altogether, it probably reads a bit like a diet. But we eliminated no foods, we bought no special meals. We like to cook, so we make most of our meals from scratch at home. In terms of exercise, rather than diet, I walked 3 times a week for 30 minutes at 3 mph on a treadmill.

The habit changes that I list above are the ones that "stuck" for me. If we tried something and only did it for a short while, then it's not listed. The result of all of the habit changes, was that my husband and I stopped gaining weight, and I even lost a few pounds. But I was still overweight, just under obese by BMI. My husband was obese by BMI. Note: I know BMI is flawed, but as neither of us is athletic, for the two of us, BMI is an adequate marker. Neither of us has had our body fat percentage measured.

Are set-points destiny?

I think set-points can be changed. Here we intersect with previous writings on this topic. Because for me to lose weight, it was necessary to learn how many calories a female human of my height and age needed to eat. Because I was short, older, and sedentary that number was LESS than the average predicted for women. This was important, because if you eat more calories than you expend (whether you eat those calories mindfully or not) you gain weight.

• The new calorie total was not greatly less than what I'd been eating, but it WAS less. Even after making all the habit changes above, I will still eating more than I needed.
• In fact, I did a back calculation looking to see if my slow weight gain could be explained by that small total of extra calories. And it DID.

So was my weight at a set-point?

My weight was relatively stable at the not-quite-obese level (my BMI never quite hit 30, though at 29.8 it was probably a matter of rounding error), so I think most obesity researchers would say, yes, that was my set point.

HOWEVER

I was not happy at the set point, and wanted to change it. Hence my attempt to determine what amount of calories I should be eating. The original back of the envelope calculation turned out to be close enough to work, but (as I've written previously) there are much more precise ways to do the calculation, for example using National Institute of Health's BMI simulator (http://bwsimulator.niddk.nih.gov).

Changing my set point.

With a rough idea of how much I should be eating (around 1700 calories for my height (4'11' or 1.5 meters) and age (late forties post-menopausal) if I was the weight I wanted to be and was completely sedentary) I set out to learn how much food and drink that represented. This took a few weeks of looking at calories and portion size and actually weighing food to really see what a portion was supposed to be.

And then I did something that no diet guru tells you to do. I asked myself if this was the amount of daily food and drink that I would be happy eating the rest of my life (ignoring for a moment the fact that calorie needs decrease with age). And when my answer to myself was no, I changed the plan.

That's it. I didn't quit. I didn't rant on the internet about fat-phobic patriarchy etc etc etc, I CHANGED my plan. Of course, I wasn't trying to make a living by identifying the one be-all and end-all method of weight loss. I was just looking to find what would work for me in a way that I could do comfortably for the rest of my life.

I made it easier for me to create the energy balance I needed to be the size I want to be.

Since I didn't want to eat any less— in fact I wanted to eat a bit more— I needed to increase the energy I expended, which meant moving more. There are two ways to increase the calories out portion of the energy balance, increase your amount of deliberate exercise known as the thermic effect of activity (TEA) in the energy balance equation, or increase your non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT). The NEAT term essentially includes all movement not associated with deliberate exercise.

I've done the reading on exercise and the body's response to it. You can't out exercise your fork. I had been doing (and continue to do) a moderate amount of exercise: weights, yoga, walking, but to make a difference I was going to have to do more. Because I heartily loathe the gym and can no longer jog, the Stand-Up Fitness Plan was born. I started by simply standing up for more of the day, and ended up building a treadmill desk to use while I work at my computer. Standing is not TEA, it's NEAT.

Most people assume that NEAT is subconscious; you're either a fidgeter or you're not. But I don't think that's the whole picture. I think NEAT can be consciously increased. Whether or not I stand in front of my screen or sit is a choice. If I choose to stand, I increase my NEAT.

I include walking while working at my treadmill desk under the term NEAT as well. I'm not moving fast enough to generate any aerobic benefit, so I don't think it can count as exercise. Not that it matters if it does, whether TEA or NEAT it's movement and it increased the calories out part of the energy balance. And because it's NOT strenuous, it doesn't induce the type of hunger that exercise does. At least it didn't in me.

This was not a quick fix nor a short term effort. It took time and experimentation to develop new habits. It took almost six months for me to be able to stand the entire day, walking or not. Now I do so daily, unless I'm stuck on a plane. Ultimately this plan worked ONLY because I accepted that to lose weight I needed to create an energy deficit. I wasn't willing to decrease my food intake to the level needed to lose the weight.

How do I know my set-point has shifted?

Over the span of two years, I lost 30 pounds, which is ten pounds more than I thought possible. I, a post-menopausal woman, now weigh less than I did in high school. I also find that sitting for too long bothers me. Gone are the days when I was comfortable sitting for hours while working. I concentrate better now while standing.

I say my set point has changed because my body now defends my current weight. How do I know this? If a have a week of overeating (vacation, holidays, etc) I no longer put on a few pounds instantly. Of course, were I to eat above my required energy level consistently, then my weight, and my set-point would rise.

I chose habits that I can do the rest of my life. I don't feel deprived, I don't have any forbidden foods (beyond those for which I have sensitivities.) I think that with these habits I can maintain this weight for the rest of my life.

Diets CAN work. And they can work for the long term. No crazy restrictions required.

Disclaimer