I’ve mentioned my dislike for fad diets every now and then, but I have never defined what I deem to be a fad diet. This post will clarify some of that, and I will touch on my definition of a fad diet, as well as attack two notable examples.
I will stick to the diets catered towards fat loss, with the ultimate goal of achieving the desired body composition. But first and foremost, let’s strive to look at this objectively. Many of such diets do give some results, because in the end, all diets would achieve the most important condition for fat loss: a caloric deficit.
That much I must say is true, and some people do well on some of these diets. But let’s not look at just the successes, we should also look at the failures, which amount to quite a large group. The logical question is, “Why do these people fail to achieve their goals?”. I think, the answer can partly be found in their definition.
Whats the definition of a fad diet?
One way to define it is simply to say that a fad diet is a diet that has caught on with the local buzz. I think, however, that as vague a definition as that is, it explains everything pretty well.
Instead, I would focus on why people follow them, and these are the three parts of the equation:
- The diet generates an emotional response towards it.
- Early results encourage the dieter [1]
- Similar results from others enforce the opinion
Note however that I did not discuss anything about the ability of the diet to generate fat loss. Again, this is because I want to tackle the biggest problem with such diets: oversimplification. Now, let’s look at these via two examples.
Low carb Diets
A low carbohydrate diet is basically what it says it is. Basically, carbohydrates are restricted on the diet.
That’s very effective in creating a caloric deficit, since the diets of many people across the world consists of a large amount of carbohydrates. [2] By eliminating such a major macronutrient, the dieter effectively has ‘leeway’.
That is very likely why diets like the Atkins diet worked initially. Although fat and protein in the diet was increased, it was not enough to offset the decrease in calories from carbohydrates.
Also, it must be mentioned that such diets deplete the body of its carbohydrate stores (glycogen) at least partially. This is important, because losing these stores also means losing the water that is attracted to them. Hence, large weight losses are seen. For example, when I restrict carbohydrates to 50g a day, I can lose 3kg or more (i’m about 84kg) in 2 days.
The question is then, “Is this useful?” and “Is this sustainable?”.
Very frankly, there are situations where I would answer yes and others where I would answer no. For example, to cut weight for an event (whatever it may be), I would certainly opt for a low carb diet. On the second point, there are genuinely some people who feel a greater sense of well-being with less carbohydrate in their diet.
Equally so, recognising that the initial weight loss is water, it is simply a transient morale booster. That could be good for short-term motivation, but for those who feel like absolute crap on such a diet [3], it doesn’t help at all.
But because we see other people succeed on the diet, and the initial results were good, we tend to rigidly stick to the protocol. As usual, I think this is more of a problem of oversimplification. Remember that there always is a middle ground. More importantly, remember that you are doing this to your body, and you are responsible for finding out what works and what doesn’t.
Now, on to paleo man!
I think this is a classic case of oversimplification. I also think that the fervent proponents of such diets may have been too romanced by their version of paleo man.
It surely is nice to think of the strong, muscled Palaeolithic wrestling down sabre-toothed tigers with his bare hands. Whether or not this is true isn’t the point. What is true is whether or not what he ate brought upon such benefits.
To be honest, I think everyone should in some ways revert back to the ways of ‘paleo man’. For starters, an increase in the amount of fruits and vegetables definitely increases some markets of health. In some of such diets, the increase in protein is also desirable.
The claims that this was the way we are meant to eat, that this is the natural way, etc, are frankly not proven very concretely by the scientific literature. What do we do then? I think the answer is to always be questioning, realising that there is never one concrete answer when we thread into the territory of human desires.
A small wrap-up
If you thought that I didn’t give definitive conclusions or concrete data you are absolutely correct. That is precisely why a fashionable item becomes fashionable: it’s all about how it makes you feel.
If you felt insulted by my opinions, then you’d think in a certain way; because I stepped on your opinions. If you felt that I was hitting the nail on the head, you’d be willing to support my opinion; because it is also yours.
I think that if the human body is complicated enough to baffle some of the top scientists (we still don’t know what combination of fats is ‘best’), we laypeople are better off listening to either real science, and our own body’s experience. Certainly not a group who claims that low carb diets are gospel and paleo man knew all along that McDonald’s was going to wreck havoc on society.
What to do
As always, I try not to leave the reader without a terse, easy-to-remember recommendation. So here it is:
A fad diet is a fashionable item, swung by the winds of public opinion. But the diet is for YOU. Know the Right principles. Then make up your own rules.
—
Notes:
[1] Dan Ariely talks about a similar phenomenon in his book, ‘Predictably Irrational’. He claims that we talk our first experience as our benchmark experience. If that experience is good, we would also then tend to feel a greater sense of confidence in our subsequent choice to take the same experience.
The example he gives is that of Coffee. If your first $4 latte was good, you’d be more likely to come back for your second. If it was bad, not so. But if your second was good, you’d be even more likely to come back for your third. A habit builds.
[2] I’ve seen values anywhere from 40-50% in American upwards to even 80% in some places in China. Removing carbohydrates entirely represents removing up to the aforementioned percentage of calories in your diet. Thus a calorie deficit is easily created.
[3] Insulin sensitivity varies across various people and is largely genetic. What this means is that some people respond well to high carbohydrate intakes while others do not.
An interesting though possible inaccurate test would be to eat a large meal of largely carbohydrates, like a huge bowl of cereal, and gauge your response. It’s been reported that people with good insulin sensitivity tend to feel energised by a meal like this while those with poor insulin sensitivity tend to feel sluggish and sleepy. The first group would do better with some carbs in their diet, and thus take the hit for all the negative consequences of low carb dieting (nausea, fatigue, imsomnia, etc). The second may reap the benefits of carbohydrate restriction.
Related posts:
- Self-Sabotage in Fat Loss Diets This is another series of articles centered around a central...
- Diet Self-Sabotage 2: Patience, Perception and Randomness is Dieting This is the second post in the series, “Self-Sabotage in...
- Diet Self-Sabotage 4: Preventing Self-Sabotage This is the last (and shortest) post in Self-Sabotage in...
- Losing Weight Without Counting Calories Let’s face the facts, any diet must cause an energy...
- Diet Self-Sabotage 1: The Lack of Proper Expectations and the Proper Plan This is the first post in the “Self Sabotage in...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
