Is the weight loss industry helping, or harming, or overall health?

[Carol]

Over the past couple of years I've put on more weight than I'd like to admit, largely due to some pesky back injuries that have limited my ability to train. This fall I decided to take an "empty cup" approach to diet/nutrition and decided to enlist the help of a professional that could work with me (and whatever my strengths and weaknesses are) to build more consistent habits and improve my overall heath.

I absolutely didn't want the path of surgery, drugs, or supplements taken like drugs. I didn't want to be required, or encouraged, to buy/eat processed foods. I had some personal concerns about how certain foods were affecting me (foods I love, of course...) and wanted a more knowledgeable insight about these concerns (ie: is this an allergy/sensitivity? Or was it the result of just a bad choice?) I also wanted someone that was open enough to modify my diet if/when my ability to exercise differs.

I had no clue that finding a professional to assist me with these goals would be so difficult.

Finally, I found what I was looking for, and began working with a physician and her PA who has a specialty interest in nutrition. They treat me as a patient instead of a customer (my health is more important than the bottom line) and they treat me as an individual instead of yet another participant in a one-size-fits-all program. The results show. After 3 months on the program, the weight is coming off, and the habits I'm building are better. I feel healthier, and stronger.

Insurance has been another matter. But, I've decided to stick with my doc and her PA for a few more months at least...even if I have to pay cash.

To me, its depressing that this individualized, health-centered approach to weight loss is so hard to find. So many weight loss professionals seem to be centered around a business plan...the food business, the supplement business, the pharmaceutical business....all this excess stuff I don't want or need. I met with one doctor that began scribbling on his prescription pad before I even finished talking to him. At the same time, I can appreciate that another individual may need a different path than the one I chose, and I can see how the commercialized approaches can help some people.

So...now that I've bared my own struggle...I'd like to put the topic up for discussion.

Is the commercial weight loss industry helping our overall health, by offering and encouraging a path to better habits?

Or are they harming our overall health by selling "quick fixes" that may or may not be healthy or wise?

 

[exile]

Is the commercial weight loss industry helping our overall health, by offering and encouraging a path to better habits?

Or are they harming our overall health by selling "quick fixes" that may or may not be healthy or wise?

This is the right question, and the one that the industry does not want anyone asking.

So far as I can see, the weight loss industry is dominated by gimmicks and fad practices that in some cases require dangerous choices by individuals. The physical realities of weight loss are brutally simple: you have to take in less than you expend in energy. There are various ways to do that: you can eat a lot and exercise a lot more, not very practical for most people; you can eat like a bird (in which case you'll probably get sick, and will lose muscle tissue because you don't have the energy to exercise even moderately) or you can eat a balanced, low-processed diet and cut some of your calories out that way, and train using proven fat-burning methods (interval training, where you alternate moderate intensity for longer periods of time with short bursts of very high intensity activity, has been the subject of many well-executed sport physiology studies, which show that it tends to burn more fat calories in the short run and, as a side benefit, keeps your metabolism higher, for longer, than longer sessions at a consistently moderate pace). There's really no magic here.

But the diet industry plays on our magic-bullet longing for a simple, effortless fix, and offers us a spectrum of questionable, 'single-issue' choices (low carbs/low glycemic/high protein/'negative metabolic'/etc.) which are usually extremely poorly informed by considerations of nutrition. I remember when Barry Spears' 'Zone Diet' was all the rage, and people were making absurd claims for it and how it was so much better than anything else, and a lot of biochem-babble filled the airwaves about its recruitment of fat-burning hormonal reactions, etc. etc.... there were subsequently some non-industry-sponsored tests which looked at the diet and indicated that yes, it was almost certainly bound to be successful for most people—because, if you crunched the numbers without making off-the-wall assumptions, you wound up with an average daily calorie intake of around 1700 calories, which falls below the average person's basal metabolism rate. Great breakthrough, oh yes—eat less and you'll lose more weight. Why couldn't I think of that?? (It also turned out that people seemed to be unable to stay on the Zone diet for prolonged periods of time, and often regained the weight they'd lost... funny, that!)

The one-size-fits all approach doesn't take into account the enormous difference between people's individual metabolisms, biochemical balances and many other factors. If you are habitually low on retention of certain vitamins or trace minerals, for example, you're going to have a very different set of problems from someone who doesn't suffer from those conditions. What the weight-loss industry preys on is the fact that our modern lifestyles encourage sedentary behavior in a variety of respects, and have replaced from-scratch food preparation—once upon a time the way 99.9% of the population got their meals—with so-called convenience foods that focus on 'mouth-feel' tricks (high sodium, high fat and so on). We are seeing seriously high levels of coronary heart disease associated with damaged blood vessels from plaque buildup as a result. 'Metabolism-enhancers' and other kinds of wishful thinking aren't the answer to this problem....

 

[bluekey88]

As has been said, an excellent question. I don't have the basic statistics at hand...but here's my thoughts. The weight-loss/fitness industry is one of the largest in the USA...and as long as I've been alive has gone from one fad to the next looking for that magic bullet. Yet, the basic info, as Exile pointed out, has not changed much over the last 30 years.

Given the industries HUGE growth, you'd think people would be getting fit and beautiful all over the palce...but last I heard, we're all gaining weight and are heavier now than ever. Seems to me the results don't match the promise.

Bottom line, eat fewer calories than you expend to lose wieght. Excercise using a combination of interval/high intensity cardio and weight training. take in the right balance of macro nutrients to meet your eneds (protein, fat and carbs). Your body will adapt as needed given enough time and hard work/discipline on your part.

Carol, you've done the smartest thing by getting hooked up with a knowledgable professional who can tailor a program for you and that's been working.. Kudos! I should probably do the same.

Come to think of it, my new Dr's office has personal training, dietician, chiropractic and therapeutic massage services. Methinks it's time to schedule an appointment and discuss my fitness goals with my Dr. and see what they can provide in the way of services. Thanks for the inpiration!

Peace,
Erik
Er

 

[Carol]

This is the right question, and the one that the industry does not want anyone asking.

So far as I can see, the weight loss industry is dominated by gimmicks and fad practices that in some cases require dangerous choices by individuals. The physical realities of weight loss are brutally simple: you have to take in less than you expend in energy. There are various ways to do that: you can eat a lot and exercise a lot more, not very practical for most people; you can eat like a bird (in which case you'll probably get sick, and will lose muscle tissue because you don't have the energy to exercise even moderately) or you can eat a balanced, low-processed diet and cut some of your calories out that way, and train using proven fat-burning methods (interval training, where you alternate moderate intensity for longer periods of time with short bursts of very high intensity activity, has been the subject of many well-executed sport physiology studies, which show that it tends to burn more fat calories in the short run and, as a side benefit, keeps your metabolism higher, for longer, than longer sessions at a consistently moderate pace). There's really no magic here.

There isn't any magic, agreed. When I first voiced my concerns to my primary care doc, she said the way to lose weight was to "decrease the input and increase the output". Meaning, eat less and excersize more. And although I understand and agree with her...I found that I needed a little more help than that.

This is where my doc has been particularly helpful. What are my personal challenges to losing weight? Fluctuating levels of activity, fluctuating amounts of sleep from working nights, the mental demands of my school work. The suggestions that she has for me are different than the suggestions that she might have for a single mom, or the suggestions for someone with an unsupportive partner.

She also puts a lot of emphasis on what is eaten in addition to the overall calorie count. She has a slide show that displayed images of a few different types of food: a McDonald's hamburger, a tomato-and-mozzarella salad, chocolate chip cookies, hummus with whole wheat pita slices, a piece of pizza, a dish of fruit, sushi, etc. When the slide show ends, she said all of the slides had something in common, and she asked me to name what it was. I was stumped. She explained how each slide depicted 250 kcal, but each slide would have a different effect on the body and appetite. The hummus and pita might seem filling, the pepperoni pizza may stimulate your appetite even more.

Its easy to find the phrase "lifestyle change" when reading discussions about weight loss, but many discussions seem to be focused on pithy tips such as "take the stairs". The real success seems to be twofold, adding in the positive habits that help take weight off (such as taking the stairs) while working around the pitfalls that lead to putting weight on (such as eating pepperoni pizza instead of a hummus with a whole grain pita).

So...the mechanics of weight loss may be simple, but applying the mechanics effectively is anything but easy. Which makes me wonder...between doctors, clinicians, storefront counselors, personal trainers...how many professionals really have the knowledge to be able to help someone lose weight? I don't know if I want to know the answer.

 

[teekin]

Another old but very true idea is to eat "Old fashion". Stuff right out the garden. No processed foods, no fast food. Lots of fresh raw foods. I do not eat any sort of processed foods other than whey powder and whole wheat bread. I do cook my eggs. Just doing that will cut down the amount of empty kclas you eat.
(That said my one weakness is soft serve Pumpkin Icecream from Dairy King. It's only here from Sept 1 till Oct 31. )
lori

 

[Lynne]

Overall, I don't believe the weight loss industry is helping (that includes diet books).

I believe that a large part of the problem is that nutrition is so complex that no one has the answers. If weight loss were about energy in/energy out, not many would have a weight problem. The problem is very complex. Most likely, appetite and hunger (two different things) are controlled by hormones such as leptin, ghrelin, and insulin. You can bet there are more appetite-stimulating hormones we don't know about.

It is true that eating more protein will help control your appetite. But we hear that eating more than a few ounces of protein a day is deleterious to health (where is the proved science behind that?). It is true that eating a high-carbohydrate diet, even "good" carbs, will cause some people to store more fat.

Low-fat diets are dangerous for some people. My stepfather is a prime example. He has "thin man's Type II diabetes." A few years back, he had to have angioplasty and a cardiac stent. He has had three more stents. His arteries kept building up with plaque. Why? He was following a low-fat diet. His wife was on Weight Watchers and eating a bunch of crap like potato bread, baked chips, white flour stuff, low-fat dairy, low-fat cookies, boxed junk, frozen meals, etc. On this kind of diet, his triglycerides went out the roof. So, much of the calories from that low-fat junk he was eating was being stored as fat. The insulin would rise too high and just happily usher the triglycerides into cells. Finally, he found another cardiologist who put him on a no flour, no starch, no sugar diet. He hasn't had a stent (cardiovascular event and his arteries remain clear) in over a year

By the way, I've seen photos of some of the dieticians on the web. They are fat. I wouldn't take advice from them.

As martial artists, our nutrient needs are higher than sedentary individuals. Either we have to get the nutrients we need from increased food intake or supplementing with a multivitamin and maybe calcium with D. Our electrolyte needs are definitely higher. There is a One-A-Day vitamin for active people that has more electrolytes. I bring this up because nutrient deficiencies can increase appetite/hunger.

MA also increases my appetite. I am starving after class and all of the next day. Sometimes my body wants sugar. My brain is just dying for a quick hit of glucose. The brain prefers to run on glucose. So, I give it some glucose. Fruit is not always acceptable to my brain. I sometimes do have some cookies or another type of sweet. I have to be careful to not overstimulate my appetite though.

I have found some combinations that give me a lot of energy. One is beans and chicken on a flour tortilla. I am talking high-calorie/hjigh-density foods. I tried the Volumetrics plan which is based on eating tons of low-density foods like salads. That was the worse plan I ever tried. Have you ever gone to a Chinese restaurant (not the buffet!) and ordered, say, chow mein? You may have filled up quickly and then you were hungry an hour to hour-and-a-half later. This is called the Chinese restaurant effect. This is what eating a lot of low-calorie foods did for me. Not only that, but my stomach "stretched" out and wanted higher volumes of food. And veggies never gave me any energy. Who wants to eat all day long, munching on veggies? What a pain. It's not natural.

I think some of the people who create these plans have never had a weight problem or they are just hucksters. Some diets sound good theoretically, but either they don't work, or no one can stick to them for the long haul.

The hardest thing is patience. More than one pound of fat loss a week may be unreasonable for a lot of people. If you are losing 1/2 pound a week and you have 50 pounds to lose, it will take you two years. That's very hard to endure. But at least you won't lose your hair and your muscle mass.

 

[Kacey]

The weight loss industry constantly advertises amazing weight loss, while putting the words "results not typical" in the smallest lettering they can get away with in the most inconspicuous spot they can find.

In another thread, I noted that too many people rely on diets to lose weight, and then revert to the habits that caused them to gain weight as soon as their goal was reached. The diet industry plays right into this. No matter what they say, it is in the diet industry's best financial interest if people yo-yo - lose weight on their program, gain it back off their program, and then come back to their program - because it improves their income stream; if they teach you to eat properly for life (which some of them claim to do - but I know no one who has learned that from a diet program) they lose your future business.

I have never tried a commercial weight loss program - but every time I start paying attention to what I eat, instead of grabbing the nearest/quickest thing, I lose weight. I changed my grocery buying habits once I figured this out - I don't keep convenience foods in the house. It's made an incredible difference - because I can't just grab something and snack on it; I have to prepare and cook it first, so I'm much less likely to eat when I'm bored than I used to be. As an added benefit, the nutritional value of what I eat has gone up as well - not that I never eat junk, but it's a much smaller portion of my diet than it used to be.

And that's another piece of the equation - many of the diet programs sell their own food because it's already properly portioned and it's easy to grab out of the pantry or refrigerator, and it's easy to eat their food forever because they don't teach you how to make your own, just how to eat theirs.

Last I heard, the most successful commercial weight loss program available is Weight Watchers - because they teach you to choose the right foods, prepare foods in a healthy fashion, and provide support while you learn - and even they have gone down the road of having commercially packaged foods, because that is what much of society wants - convenience - and they bowed to their customer base.

 

[exile]

If weight loss were about energy in/energy out, not many would have a weight problem.

Not sure why you say that, Lynne. Most people take in a very large number of calories per day, relative to their actual needs, and very few people engage in enough physical activities to burn off the calories they take in. That seems to be what various studies of American eating habits show. One of the most frequently repeated experiments in practical nutrition studies is to select a random sample of people from all classes, education levels, ethnicities etc. and have them keep a log of their perceived calorie intake over six weeks. People are given rough guidelines—how many calories are contained in a gram of fat, of carbs, of protein—and then asked to estimate. The result, invariably, is that people underestimate their calorie intake by as many as 1,500 calories a day.

Why? People don't even notice that they're snacking. They way underestimate the size of the portions they eat. They have no clue about the calorie density of what they eat. And most importantly, they avoid physical activity in every way imaginable.

To burn 1750 calories—half a pound—you need to do the equivalent of jogging nonstop for an forty-five minutes at twice the speed of a fast walk every other day. Given that people typically don't even notice the extra 1000–1500 calories they take in daily from high-sugar/large portion soft drinks and other unexpectedly calorie-rich sources, it's not surprising that so many folk encounter nasty surprises on a weekly basis when they step on the scale. Awareness is the first step in eating better—but it's in short supply, unfortunately...

 

[Lynne]

Not sure why you say that, Lynne. Most people take in a very large number of calories per day, relative to their actual needs, and very few people engage in enough physical activities to burn off the calories they take in. That seems to be what various studies of American eating habits show. One of the most frequently repeated experiments in practical nutrition studies is to select a random sample of people from all classes, education levels, ethnicities etc. and have them keep a log of their perceived calorie intake over six weeks. People are given rough guidelines—how many calories are contained in a gram of fat, of carbs, of protein—and then asked to estimate. The result, invariably, is that people underestimate their calorie intake by as many as 1,500 calories a day.

Why? People don't even notice that they're snacking. They way underestimate the size of the portions they eat. They have no clue about the calorie density of what they eat. And most importantly, they avoid physical activity in every way imaginable.

To burn 1750 calories—half a pound—you need to do the equivalent of jogging nonstop for an forty-five minutes at twice the speed of a fast walk every other day. Given that people typically don't even notice the extra 1000–1500 calories they take in daily from high-sugar/large portion soft drinks and other unexpectedly calorie-rich sources, it's not surprising that so many folk encounter nasty surprises on a weekly basis when they step on the scale. Awareness is the first step in eating better—but it's in short supply, unfortunately...

Hey exile,

The reason I made the statement that I did is that many people have insulin resistance. When one is insulin resistant, the body has a tendency to access carbohydrates for energy rather than fat stores. So, an insulin resistant person who goes on a low-calorie, low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet may not lose bodyfat or might even gain bodyfat. It is not unusual for people to gain weight on a 1400 calorie high-carbohydrate diet yet lose fat on an Atkins' diet, taking in 2000 or more calories (that is anecdotal yet there are a few scientific papers that support this - though scientific papers don't really mean anything as studies are usually limited).

Unfortunately, most overweight people have some insulin resistance. Just 5 - 10 pounds of excess bodyfat can induce prediabetes or Type II diabetes.

My stepfather has "thin man's diabetes." His wife was on Weight Watchers and instead of choosing healthy foods, she chose things like Rice Crispies, Potato Bread, white Pasta, low-fat foods, skinless turkey, nonfat dairy, low-fat cookies. They were both eating less calories. Now his wife is huge. I thought maybe she couldn't stick to a low-calorie diet (1200 calories is very difficult to stick to) and had binged but that's not the case. She sticks to Weight Watchers but keeps gaining. She refuses to eat healthy, thinking that a salad a day solves everything.

My stepfather has had 4 stents as the low-fat, high-carb diet drove up his triglycerides. He developed Type II Diabetes first. With high blood sugar circulating around, he packed fat around his organs and developed heart disease. A smart cardiololgist put him on a higher fat, no sugar, no starch diet with more calories. He hasn't had a stent in over a year. I don't know if they've done an MRI to discern his visceral fat or not.

Although a radical diet, some of the zero carb people eat up to 3,000 calories a day, losing weight and remaning very slim. Not Atkins' - truly zero carb (well almost - meat produces some glucose within the body in the absence of carbs).

 

[Phoenix44]

His wife was on Weight Watchers and eating a bunch of crap like potato bread, baked chips, white flour stuff, low-fat dairy, low-fat cookies, boxed junk, frozen meals, etc.

That's not Weight Watchers. That's saying you're on WW while you're actually eating a bunch of crap. WW in particular follows very sound nutritional guidelines, coupled with group support. It encourages eating a wide variety of foods, increasing fiber and water intake, and exercise. There are no required foods, it's sustainable over the long run, and it's relatively INexpensive compared to most other plans. (Actually, when you hit your goal weight, it's free). As a physician, it's the only plan I routinely recommend, and when I need to lose a few pounds, it's the route I choose.

I don't necessarily think the weight loss industry is making the situation worse, as long as the individual is reasonably thoughtful in making choices. If you're naive enough to believe there's a magic bullet to weight loss (Lose 20 lbs in one week eating nothing but grapefruit!) then you probably have more problems than just your weight.

Your approach with a doctor and dietitian is good--pricey, but good. Other people prefer a group approach like WW or a more exercise-based approach like Ultimate Bodyshaping Course or Beach Body.

I think the food and beverage industry has made it worse. Just Super-Size me.

 

[Keith Kirkendall]

Consistent daily healthy diet and moderate exercise. Eating smaller portions every three to four hours daily also helps keep the old bod at a steadier burn.

 

[Ironcrane]

Industries of these types are pretty much about making money. Even Doctors are having a hard time find accurate info, because a lot of the research, and studies on medicine, and supplements, are sponsored by the companies that make them, and of course, always give their stuff a good review even if it isn't any good at all.

 

[maft]

Hey,

Unfortunately it is hard to say if they are harming us or not. In a way it a very gray area what you can actually advertise or not, mostly weight loss industry can do whatever they like.

They do want to make more money but I think real problem is in us, people who wants magic pill, lose I don't know how many kilos over night without moving form their sofa. Not even to mention proper nutrition.
People wants quick fixes and smart pharmaceutical people know that so they feed us with that.

Fat and extra kilos don't come on their own, we eat too much, that is how they got there in first place. By just paying little attention to our daily nutrition, miracles can be done. By just reading labels on the back of the products, can do wonders. Not to mention eating fresh food, avoiding junk and so on.

Hard one to answer, I think we are responsible for lot of things they are selling to us but then again, it is not hard to get back on the right track especially in this, interent times, where every possible information is on available for free.

Cheers,

maft