I think what gets forgotten is that the REASON someone needs to lose weight to begin with, is because their eating habits combined with their metabolism level and degree of insulin resistance have resulted in a weight gain.
The whole concept of 'diet' infers a temporary change in eating habits for weight loss. But the whole concept of diet is flawed. Unless you are minimally overweight, and your metabolism and insulin issues normally keep you thin (you only gained that weight through some special circumstance (like say being injured and eating a lot during inactivity for awhile)), it is illogical to think that a 'diet' would have any practical use beyond the borders of staying on it.
A person is going to gain weight when they eat in fashion that has provably caused them to gain weight in the past. What's almost funny is that people basically have proof, success, evidence, that eating a given way has made them fat. They are, as I joke, "An expert on how to get fat", yet they think they can go 'off' a diet and eat that same way again and NOT become fat? (There is a saying somewhere that insanity is thinking that the same action is going to have a different result...)
That's why despite Atkins' early book titles--he was working in the world of the diet concept--he and other authors since with lowcarb eating plans have referred to their ideas as eating PLANS as opposed to "diet". (The word diet was "stolen" culturally to infer food alteration for weight loss, anyway. It just means eating--whatever you're eating--that is your 'diet'.)
If you read Atkins or the Eades for example, they are not going to sell you on Thin Thighs in 30 days as if that's all that matters. And they are going to outline an eating plan that lasts *for the rest of your life* basically. THAT is their plan. Atkins even titled his last book that! I think he was trying to get the point through.
So in a way (nothing personal, since I myself have worded things in this way) it's almost an oxymoron to say one "went on the Atkins plan but then gained it all back" or something like that. The Atkins plan (and most others nowdays) is for LIFE. Unless you gained it back after death, you did not 'complete' the Atkins plan.
(This is sort of like the logic that if you stopped smoking 10 times before it worked, you actually just 'paused' 9 times--you only stopped once!)
The real problem in our culture as I see it is that people are not AWARE that if they are gaining a ton of weight and it is difficult for reasonable portions, decent food and exercise to cure that, then they have a <b>medical condition</b> -- likely insulin resistance, as the Eades describe -- which is responsible for this situation. (That may be cloaked within other things, like PCOS etc.)
People don't expect to be allergic to shellfish one day, to avoid eating it for six months, and then to be able to eat it again and have no response. Yet they seem to expect that same kind of logic to work for a high carb diet. That they can eat it, get fat, then eat low carb, get thinner, then eat high carb again, and they're amazed they get fat again. It's really pretty logical if you ask me! And it's kind of silly for some in the media to 'invalidate' a lifetime eating plan because people who only bothered to stay on it for a while lost the benefits of being on it.
Obviously, if you aren't on the plan, then you aren't seeing the positive results of the plan. This logic works for everything, including car insurance, haha!
I think we're surrounded by marketing images of anorexic beauties eating infinite carbs and this not interfering with their figures, and we all know plenty of people that can eat like a garbage disposal and still be thin, so there is this "denial" of realization or acceptance that one's own body just doesn't work like "those" people's bodies apparently do.
We want them to. We all want to be able to live on pan-crust pizza and bagels and milkshakes and still have an athletic figure. It's a sad fact but that is just never going to happen. If a person gets fat from eating that crap to begin with, it's a testament to the fact that they are ALWAYS going to get fat from eating that crap. If their body did not work that way, they would have stayed thin despite their eating to begin with!
If our eyes do not work as well as they should, and we might even have additional problems with them needing correction, we visit an optometrist (or alternative health eye specialist) and we arrange for glasses or whatever. We do not expect that if we wear the glasses for three months we can then quit wearing them and have perfect vision. We understand that our body in this way has a problem and that something special or additional is required to deal with it.
If a person is lactose intolerant, they know that if they drink a milkshake they are going to be running for a bathroom fast. If a person does not hear well, they may get a hearing aid. That's for life. The list goes on.
With every other part of the body except metabolism, our people accept as "obvious" the fact that our body functions in a certain way, and if that way isn't appropriate for what we need (we need better vision or hearing -- this might not be necessary or even noticed depending on our culture/lifestyle!) then we might have to do something in particular to 'assist' the body.
All of this comes down to the realization that nobody becomes obese without a metabolic/insulin/IR-type issue to cause that. People sometimes get a little heavy from eating junk and not exercising, but not REALLY fat. (And if they DO, then by the time it gets to the 'really fat' point, the previous eating habits have generally *caused* the metabolic/insulin/IR-type issues! So the result is the same.)
There comes a point where maturity is required. Where a person has to be an adult and look themselves in the eye and say, "I must be responsible for my eating habits. I cannot eat like a teenager responding to mass marketing and expect to be healthy let alone thin. As much as I wish I could eat like that, doing so will make me fat and ruin my health. I must make a decision to control my health and figure, the same way I am responsible for my checking account, for getting my eyeglass prescription, for keeping car insurance active, and other annoying necessities of life. I must admit to myself that if I do not make this decision and follow through, I am going to pay the price, and the price is my life--my comfort and social status now, potential misery eventually, and death too soon."
The media -- and the marketing world -- and the food industries -- and certainly the medical industries -- not to mention the diet industries, which as of '99 were something like a $12 BILLION market annually(!) -- none of them benefit from people using their brains to think about things logically or in the long term. The idea of a 'quick fix' for the 'problem' and then dropping back to the same buying/eating habits, followed by another 'quick fix' attempt, these are the hamster treadmills of our society. We don't use our (poor) health to generate the energy and cash for all these industries if we understand and accept that metabolism, insulin resistance, and other issues are real and require a lifetime of alteration, just like your eyes may require a lifetime of glasses or you may be allergic to a specific substance till the day you die.
The first adjustment is one of the mind, not the body: these things must be understood and accepted. The second adjustment is one of the heart: courage to change and to begin, and faith that eating 'smarter, not harder' is the answer. Only then does a person's diet begin to change. And only then does a person's life begin to change.
The media is insipid. It's written for the mass-educated who might not read beyond a 5th grade level. Even TV sound bytes are short, possibly so all the carb-impaired hypnotized folks watching can get it to stick in their heads. ;-)
PJ
|
)
Linear Mode
