No-Eat-Day Diet: A good strategy or bad advice?

I thought it was bad to have no-eat days? That is what I've heard. I heard that it makes your body go into starvation mode which produces more fat tissue. I went through an eating treatment program, and Daniel Manson is the one who taught me all about how to eat better.

I prefer the term "ignorant"! I got that from some health therapists who came out to talk to Army officers at Fort Leavenworth. The reference was how important it was NOT to skip breakfast.

- Grant

While your concept is right -- don't mess with the equation too much -- your physiology is naive. It isn't as simple as the next meal turning into fat. That's also diet mythology.

Your own diet sounds good and joyful. You, too, keep up the good work.

Not sure why you put "Ack to both of you"- since you seemed to agree with my general idea, or at least didn't disagree with me in your post. But- I agree with your post, so I will say "good job" to you.

Bottom line to me is that I like the idea of eating 5-6 small meals of healthy foods in a day, exercising 20-40 min. of cardio along with weightlifting, gymnastics, and sports sprinkled generously in. Healthy foods to me are meat, vegetables, and fruits- and some grains and nuts; stay away from processed stuff as much as you can.

If you are working out- skipping a meal or going too long between meals has the potential- from what I understand- of degrading your body.

Ack! to both of you.

Our body's energy equations are so much more complicated (and elegant) than all the fad diet (and, yes, this is a fad diet) drivel that continually peppers the pages of mainstream and women's media.

By way of background. In 2002-2003, I lost 60 pounds. Toward the end of that journey, I committed myself to research on weight-loss, and especially weight-loss maintenance, and had one of the biggest "oh, poop" realizations of my life. There are only 4 empirical studies that have followed up with people who have lost weight intentionally, using behavioral (non-surgical) changes. Roughly 2 to 3 percent of the people who lose radical amounts of weight (variously defined, but I qualified under all studies at 60 pounds) maintain that loss for five years or more.

One prominent research group, frequently quoted, that uses telephone surveys (surely no one would lie over the phone about his or her weight!), places the long-range diet "success" rate at 20 percent. Lovely, till you read the small print: That group defines "success" as maintaining only a 10 percent loss for one year. Good Lord.

I am in the three percent (or two percent, depending on the study) club. Here are some of the things I know:

* Most "diets," including the one listed above, are impractical for normal people. If you have a day job, you need to be able to concentrate, and you must have a decent if not pleasant personality. You cannot just nap or go take a walk any time you need to distract yourself from hunger. How silly. Food is also often incorporated into the corporate and family culture of everyday life. The above diet would interfere with those interactions and make the dieter into a social pariah. Yeesh.

* Setting a number goal for losing weight is as stupid and impractical as setting a specific number goal for lowering cholesterol. You will likely, on at least one day (with weight, maybe a few weeks), attain your goal, but if the life that is practical for you to lead does not maintain that weight, then you will lose grasp of that goal. You will become discouraged and likely enter a state of resignation and mild depression. Moreover, your endocrine system will be creating all kinds of physical and mental impulses to eat.

The upshot: You end up regaining all the weight you lost, and often additional weight. You end up thoroughly depressed, because Oprah, et. al. will tell you that you are an "emotional eater" or some such nonsense. And you'll blame yourself for lacking willpower, etc. BUT you're really just going with your body's flow, like 97% of the population.

Had I set a "goal" weight, it would have been 20 pounds less than the weight I now enjoy, and I would have maintained that weight loss for up to three months total (because I am more tenacious than most people) before back gaining all 80 pounds.

*The only way to lose weight and maintain that loss is to craft the healthiest life that your long-term circumstances will permit. My philosophy: Live joyfully most of the time, eat healthfully most of the time, exercise productively nearly every day and then treasure the body that happens. For women in developed countries, that fourth precept is the most difficult.

In practical terms, for me, a 5'4" woman, that means eating between 1700 and 2100 calories a day (365 days per year -- even Thanksgiving) and doing moderately heavy cardio exercise (sweat-provoking, but not exhausting) for an hour a day (I give myself three days off per month). I also try to incorporate some balance and weight-lifting into my routine, though (since they aren't as regular and predictable) I don't know how they affect my weight.

With the exception of my three days off per month, I don't mess with my body's energy equation by more than 100 calories (or ten minutes of cardio) on any particular day. Eating healthfully also means taking more time than "normal" people to research and prepare legitimately good, healthy foods (none of that diet crap). I calculate that what I do to maintain 60 pounds of weight loss, in terms of exercise, food preparation and research, is the equivalent of a third- to half-time job. The word "lifestyle" is too flip to do it justice.

Thems the facts. The cold, cruel facts.

As I've heard it- if you deny your body food, it goes into starvation mode and starts breaking down muscle and storing fat in order to live. Your next meal will turn into fat because the body isn't sure when it will eat again, based on the "no-eat" day.

So, you may lose weight, but only because fat weighs less than muscle. And losing muscle just doesn't sound healthy.