How Diets Work
There are as many opinions about dieting as there are books, articles and websites on the subject. Not only are there thousands of recommendations, they are contradictory and mutually exclusive. Every so-called diet expert would have you believe that his or hers is the only approach that works and that every other method or philosophy is downright dangerous.
Advocates for low-fat diets insist that high protein, low-carb diets don’t work, cause cancer and are responsible for everything from heart disease to the national debt. The equally credentialed authors of low-carb diets blame the much higher-carb, low-fat diets for the exact same list. Even authors within the same dieting category take shots at one another. Reading competing diet books is like taking a high school class in comparative religion. These authors take the same essentialist position as most faiths. They control the keys to heaven. Everyone else is knowingly trying to lead you astray.
We’ll let the experts speak for themselves:
Advocates for low-fat diets insist that high protein, low-carb diets don’t work, cause cancer and are responsible for everything from heart disease to the national debt. The equally credentialed authors of low-carb diets blame the much higher-carb, low-fat diets for the exact same list. Even authors within the same dieting category take shots at one another. Reading competing diet books is like taking a high school class in comparative religion. These authors take the same essentialist position as most faiths. They control the keys to heaven. Everyone else is knowingly trying to lead you astray.
We’ll let the experts speak for themselves:
Robert Atkins – The Atkins Diet versus All
By far the best-known advocate for a low-carb diet was Dr. Robert Atkins. In his book, New Diet Revolution Dr. Atkins placed the blame for American obesity squarely on the shoulders of promoters for low-fat diets. “The influential but, alas, ineffective school of low-fat dieting . . . has been the dominant trend in dieting for the past decade, but its dominance hasn’t, by and large, done a thing to take the pounds off . . . [L]ow-fat dieting . . . is a major national embarrassment.”
Dean Ornish – The Dean Ornish Diet versus Atkins
In an article for The Huffington Post, Dr. Dean Ornish, who is arguably the reigning king of the low-fat approach, wrote, “I've been saying [this] all along: an Atkins diet is not healthful and may shorten your lifespan.”
Nathan Pritkin – The Permanent Weight-Loss Manual versus Atkins
In his Pritikin Permanent Weight-Loss Manual, low-fat guru Nathan Pritikin made no effort to hide his disdain for Atkins and other low-carb diets. “These diets simply are not safe,” Pritikin wrote. He went on to accuse Atkins of knowingly and intentionally damaging the health of his followers.
Arthur Agatson – The South Beach Diet versus Pritikin and Ornish
In his book, The South Beach Diet, Dr. Arthur Agatston advocates a low-carb approach. In his introduction, he notes that early in his career he enthusiastically championed “Pritikin and the [other] heart-healthy low-fat regimens, including the Ornish plan . . . ” Dr. Agatston abandoned the low-fat approach after, “[e]ach of them, for different reasons, failed miserably. Either the diets were too difficult to stick with, or the promise of improved blood chemistry and cardiac heath remained just that - a promise.”
It is no wonder that dieters have trouble sorting through the data.
We strongly believe that all diets works work on the same principle: calories in versus calories out. We do not believe that certain categories of foods are to blame for obesity. The law of conservation of mass causes obesity. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. If you eat more than your body can convert to energy, the remainder is stored. This would be awesome news if you could burn all of that stored energy at once in a giant burst of speed. Unfortunately, that’s not how it works. Usain Bolt is at no risk of having his world record time in the 100-meter dash broken by someone who is morbidly obese.
We strongly believe that all diets works work on the same principle: calories in versus calories out. We do not believe that certain categories of foods are to blame for obesity. The law of conservation of mass causes obesity. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. If you eat more than your body can convert to energy, the remainder is stored. This would be awesome news if you could burn all of that stored energy at once in a giant burst of speed. Unfortunately, that’s not how it works. Usain Bolt is at no risk of having his world record time in the 100-meter dash broken by someone who is morbidly obese.
What exactly is a calorie?
The less-than-helpful, highly technical answer: one calorie is the amount of heat required to raise one gram of water one degree Celsius. Calories are not specific to food. Any combustible material contains measurable calories. At the high end, a gallon of gasoline contains over 31 million calories. A standard ballpoint pen contains far fewer. This is an educated guess. We have been unable to find someone willing to throw his or her pen into a bomb calorimeter in order to accurately calculate this number.
Which brings us to the best-named piece of scientific equipment ever: the bomb calorimeter.
This is the machine into which any object from a Twinkie to a ballpoint pen can be placed and burned in order to measure its calories. We’re shocked that no one has tried to change the name. These days, simple Googling the words “bomb calorimeter” is probably enough to trigger some automated government spy system to add your name to the TSA No-Fly List.
With a name like bomb calorimeter, it has to look cool. And believe us, they look as cool as they sound. Picture an old-fashioned whiskey still attached to a vintage tube amplifier. Some even display the calories in the same red, LCD letters as 1970s alarm clocks. There are, of course, modern companies manufacturing bomb calorimeters encased in plastic that look like oversized laser printers; we think the labs that buy these have no sense of style.
Food, or any other organic material, is placed into a sealed glass cylinder and lowered into a tank of water in the center of the bomb calorimeter. The contents of the cylinder are then ignited using an electrical current. This process gives off heat that is absorbed by the water surrounding the cylinder. The amount of heat varies based on what was burned in the cylinder. The calories are determined by the rise in the water temperature. The higher the number of calories in the material being burned, the warmer the water gets. The remnants of whatever was in the cylinder typically look like the aftermath of the worst Fourth of July barbeque ever. Hotdogs are distinguishable from hamburgers only by shape. If you try to go by taste, neither is distinguishable from the pen.
These days, bomb calorimeters are rarely used for measuring the calories in food. The current standard food industry methodology involves plugging the ingredients and quantities into a database of food ingredients. The database not only spits out the calories, but all of the information required for the nutritional label. We have no idea how the accuracy of this new system compares to the old one.
These databases are proprietary and owned by the food manufacturers and trade organizations. Not only does this sound like a massive conflict of interest, it also means that we cannot directly evaluate the data. The most we can say is that having a database estimate your calories sounds a little having your Body Mass Index measured by the weight guesser at the circus. Those guys can be eerily accurate, but the process is far from a reliable replacement for being measured in a doctor’s office.
Which brings us to the best-named piece of scientific equipment ever: the bomb calorimeter.
This is the machine into which any object from a Twinkie to a ballpoint pen can be placed and burned in order to measure its calories. We’re shocked that no one has tried to change the name. These days, simple Googling the words “bomb calorimeter” is probably enough to trigger some automated government spy system to add your name to the TSA No-Fly List.
With a name like bomb calorimeter, it has to look cool. And believe us, they look as cool as they sound. Picture an old-fashioned whiskey still attached to a vintage tube amplifier. Some even display the calories in the same red, LCD letters as 1970s alarm clocks. There are, of course, modern companies manufacturing bomb calorimeters encased in plastic that look like oversized laser printers; we think the labs that buy these have no sense of style.
Food, or any other organic material, is placed into a sealed glass cylinder and lowered into a tank of water in the center of the bomb calorimeter. The contents of the cylinder are then ignited using an electrical current. This process gives off heat that is absorbed by the water surrounding the cylinder. The amount of heat varies based on what was burned in the cylinder. The calories are determined by the rise in the water temperature. The higher the number of calories in the material being burned, the warmer the water gets. The remnants of whatever was in the cylinder typically look like the aftermath of the worst Fourth of July barbeque ever. Hotdogs are distinguishable from hamburgers only by shape. If you try to go by taste, neither is distinguishable from the pen.
These days, bomb calorimeters are rarely used for measuring the calories in food. The current standard food industry methodology involves plugging the ingredients and quantities into a database of food ingredients. The database not only spits out the calories, but all of the information required for the nutritional label. We have no idea how the accuracy of this new system compares to the old one.
These databases are proprietary and owned by the food manufacturers and trade organizations. Not only does this sound like a massive conflict of interest, it also means that we cannot directly evaluate the data. The most we can say is that having a database estimate your calories sounds a little having your Body Mass Index measured by the weight guesser at the circus. Those guys can be eerily accurate, but the process is far from a reliable replacement for being measured in a doctor’s office.
Fact: To confuse matters further, the calories listed on food packages are not calories, but kilocalories. A kilocalorie is 1,000 calories. Anything edible is measured in kilocalories; everything else is measured in regular calories. This is not difficult math to do, but you’ll have to take it into account if you want to compare the calories in a ballpoint pen to those in a Hostess Cherry Pie.
So, a calorie is a measurement of the heat given off by food as it’s burned to a tiny lump of carbon. But is a calorie a calorie? Does this mean that 100 calories in carrots is wholly equivalent to 100 calories in high-fructose corn syrup? For the past 30 years, the answer would’ve been an unqualified yes. Obviously, the carrots are healthier and contain more nutritional value. But when it came to calculating calories consumed, both types of calories were considered to have an equal impact on a dieter’s waistline.
Are All Calories Equal?
There’s an emerging body of research that purports to show that some calories are worse than others in terms of causing obesity. A good example is a recent study conducted at Princeton University comparing rats fed high-fructose corn syrup to rats fed sucrose from sugar cane and sugar beets. Not surprisingly, both groups of sugar-junkie rats gained weight. However, in spite of the fact that they all consumed the same number of calories, the rats fed high-fructose corn syrup gained more weight. This was a small study that lasted only a few months. The findings have yet to be verified by other studies. But if the results hold, this insight has the potential to change the way calories are measured.
We wouldn’t be surprised to learn that high-fructose corn syrup packs a greater punch than other sugars when it comes to weight gain in laboratory rats or even people. The human body is not a bomb calorimeter. We don’t actually burn food for fuel. Instead, nutrients are broken down through dozens of different metabolic pathways. It makes perfect sense that it might take more energy to break down 100 calories in carrots than 100 calories in high-fructose corn syrup. Ideally, the calorie count we use for food would take this into account.
Net calories - raw calories minus the amount of energy it takes for the average person to break a food down - would be a far more useful measure of the value of what we are actually consuming and its impact on the body. Assuming the Princeton study is duplicated, the calories listed for high-fructose corn syrup should probably rise, while the calories in other sugars might drop slightly. This would allow consumers to make more accurate comparisons between foods. While we realize that most people ignore calories altogether, we always come down on the side of providing more accurate information.
The studies we’ve seen so far have only compared the effects of high-fructose corn syrup with sucrose. We have yet to see anyone compare high-fructose corn syrup with carrots. In fact, every major food would have to be evaluated before nutritional labels could carry net calories. We’re a long way from this happening. For now, we have to rely on old-fashioned calories - technically kilocalories - as determined by a proprietary database that one must assume mirrors the results of actually detonating foods in a bomb calorimeter.
We wouldn’t be surprised to learn that high-fructose corn syrup packs a greater punch than other sugars when it comes to weight gain in laboratory rats or even people. The human body is not a bomb calorimeter. We don’t actually burn food for fuel. Instead, nutrients are broken down through dozens of different metabolic pathways. It makes perfect sense that it might take more energy to break down 100 calories in carrots than 100 calories in high-fructose corn syrup. Ideally, the calorie count we use for food would take this into account.
Net calories - raw calories minus the amount of energy it takes for the average person to break a food down - would be a far more useful measure of the value of what we are actually consuming and its impact on the body. Assuming the Princeton study is duplicated, the calories listed for high-fructose corn syrup should probably rise, while the calories in other sugars might drop slightly. This would allow consumers to make more accurate comparisons between foods. While we realize that most people ignore calories altogether, we always come down on the side of providing more accurate information.
The studies we’ve seen so far have only compared the effects of high-fructose corn syrup with sucrose. We have yet to see anyone compare high-fructose corn syrup with carrots. In fact, every major food would have to be evaluated before nutritional labels could carry net calories. We’re a long way from this happening. For now, we have to rely on old-fashioned calories - technically kilocalories - as determined by a proprietary database that one must assume mirrors the results of actually detonating foods in a bomb calorimeter.
Fact: All of the Princeton rats that were fed sugar gained weight. If you’re the kind of person who changes his or her behavior based on the latest research study, keep in mind that the only rats that did not gain weight were in the control group. If you want to emulate their behavior you should drink only water and eat only rat chow.
Also worth mentioning, if you attend Princeton and you’re looking for a name for your a cappella group, you could do far worse than The Princeton Rats.
Even if the calories on packaged foods labels are changed to reflect net calories, we do not believe that the difference will be large enough to form a new dieting philosophy. Substituting Coke made with high-fructose corn syrup for the Mexican variety containing cane sugar will never be a viable weight-loss strategy. The difference between the two sugars is simply not large enough. In the end, successful dieting will continue to come down to the quantity of calories consumed, not the type.
For anyone who still believes that the type of calories is more important than the quantity we offer the case study of Mark Haub, a man who spent two months on the least healthy diet imaginable.
For anyone who still believes that the type of calories is more important than the quantity we offer the case study of Mark Haub, a man who spent two months on the least healthy diet imaginable.
Case Study, the Junk Food Diet: Mark Haub teaches nutrition at Kansas State University. In 2010, Haub undertook a personal experiment where for two months, two-thirds of his calories came in the form of junk food. And no one can accuse Haub of gaming the system by picking healthier junk food options. He ate foods we wouldn’t throw into our compost bin. The vast majority of his calories came from Cheetos, Little Debbie Devil Cremes, Sno-Balls, Oreos, Ding Dongs and the like.
The final third of Haub’s calories came in the form of canned vegetables (less than a can per day), a protein shake and a multi-vitamin. By all measurements, Haub’s diet made Morgan Spurlock’s Supersize Me McDonalds regime look downright balanced.
Before Haub began his experiment, he was not a small guy. By the Body Mass Index standard that he taught to his students, he was obese.
What makes Haub’s diet unique is that he limited himself to 1,800 calories per day. He estimates that, before he began the junk food diet, he was consuming 2,600 calories per day. In other words, the junk food diet was a dramatic reduction in daily calories even though it was an increase in foods that most of us would rank somewhere between unhealthy and outright harmful. If the kind and quality of calories were more important than the number of calories consumed, Haub should have continued putting on weight.
We were not surprised to learn that Haub lost 27 pounds over the course of the two months. Consuming 800 fewer calories per day was a huge reduction. His calorie burn stayed roughly the same. Assuming weight loss really is based on the equation calories in versus calories out, the results were predictable. He should have lost weight, and he did. There is nothing special or magic about his diet. Any diet that restricted his calories to the same level would have yielded a similar result.
Just because Haub lost weight doesn’t make the junk food diet a good idea. We were planning a long tirade about how packaged foods from gas stations and vending machines are the opposite of healthy eating. But that rant is unnecessary because of Haub’s self-imposed prohibition. The junk food diet included no alcohol. He didn’t drink a single glass of wine or beer during the course of his experiment. So instead of an impassioned plea about the importance of consuming real foods with nutritional density, we’ll simply write off the junk food diet as incompatible with the Drink Your Carbs lifestyle.
All successful diets follow the same model. Atkins, Ornish, South Beach, Weight Watchers, Deal-a-Meal, Jenny Craig and even Slim Fast are all strategies to reduce overall caloric intake. In the case of Jenny Craig and Slim Fast, this is easy to see. Both diets limit your calories by selling you most of the food you consume. They prepare the food. They define the portions. The end result is a dramatic reduction in calories.
Dr. Dean Ornish and other advocates of low-fat diets readily admit that their approach dramatically decreases the number of calories eaten. The low-fat approach not only limits fatty meats, which are higher calorie than lean meats, but also bans most processed foods, fried foods and added sugars. This alone is enough to reduce a typical American’s calories to where he or she will begin losing weight.
Dr. Dean Ornish and other advocates of low-fat diets readily admit that their approach dramatically decreases the number of calories eaten. The low-fat approach not only limits fatty meats, which are higher calorie than lean meats, but also bans most processed foods, fried foods and added sugars. This alone is enough to reduce a typical American’s calories to where he or she will begin losing weight.
Fact: Dr. Ornish has never eaten even a single french fry. If he had, we would have seen the video on YouTube.
Weight Watchers takes a different approach to calorie restriction. Instead of prohibiting certain foods, the program discourages high-calorie foods by converting all meals and snacks to points and then saddling higher-calorie foods with a punitive point cost. Since you get a limited number of food points per day, if you eat a Twinkie you might find yourself lacking enough points for dinner.
Atkins and other low-carb diets also reduce calories, but the method by which they do so is far less obvious. The key to their approach is that the highest-calorie foods most of us consume are simple carbohydrates including all forms of sugar, bread, pasta, rice and potatoes. Adherents to Atkins, South Beach and the other low-carb diets eat close to none of these foods.
While it is true that some low-carb diets allow dieters to eat unlimited quantities of bacon and full-fat sour cream, few people are capable of eating those foods in quantities high enough to come close to their pre-diet caloric intake. Consider this: in order to match the calories in a McDonalds’ lunch consisting of a Big Mac, large fries and a Coke you would have to choke down a full pound of New York steak topped with more than a cup of sour cream. If you prefer, for the same calories as in the McDonalds’ Extra Value Meal, you could instead gorge yourself on an entire package of bacon and still have over 600 calories left for lunch.
Atkins and other low-carb diets also reduce calories, but the method by which they do so is far less obvious. The key to their approach is that the highest-calorie foods most of us consume are simple carbohydrates including all forms of sugar, bread, pasta, rice and potatoes. Adherents to Atkins, South Beach and the other low-carb diets eat close to none of these foods.
While it is true that some low-carb diets allow dieters to eat unlimited quantities of bacon and full-fat sour cream, few people are capable of eating those foods in quantities high enough to come close to their pre-diet caloric intake. Consider this: in order to match the calories in a McDonalds’ lunch consisting of a Big Mac, large fries and a Coke you would have to choke down a full pound of New York steak topped with more than a cup of sour cream. If you prefer, for the same calories as in the McDonalds’ Extra Value Meal, you could instead gorge yourself on an entire package of bacon and still have over 600 calories left for lunch.
Fact: Unless you are champion speed eater Joey Chestnut - who recently showed himself capable of consuming 66 hotdogs in 12 minutes - it is nearly impossible to eat as many calories in fatty foods as it is in simple sugars and carbohydrates.
Without carbohydrates to make it palatable, there is a limit to the fat most people can consume. While Atkins allows unlimited butter, actual butter consumption ends up limited by the fact that there is no bread to smear it on. Atkins allows unlimited fatty meats but permits no noodles, potatoes, buns or rice to soak up the grease. If you insist on eating everything on your plate, you will have to go after the pan drippings with a spoon. Consider also that Atkins forbids dessert, since the diet eliminates nearly all sugar. A large piece of cake or a crème brûlée can clock in at 500 calories; adherents to the Atkins diet consume none of these. Atkins may allow virtually unlimited fat, but in exchange it eliminates all of the other common sources of high-density calories.
It is also worth mentioning that the goal of most low-carb diets is to force your body into a state called ketosis. By dropping dietary carbohydrates to near zero, the body is forced to burn fat for energy. Recent evidence indicates that entering a state of ketosis speeds up a dieter’s metabolism and results in faster weight loss. Another study, however, found no significant difference in weight loss after two years on either a low-carb or low-fat diet. In other words, any advantage from ketosis appears to vanish over a relatively short timeline. In the end, dieting success still requires a reduction in calories.
It is also worth mentioning that the goal of most low-carb diets is to force your body into a state called ketosis. By dropping dietary carbohydrates to near zero, the body is forced to burn fat for energy. Recent evidence indicates that entering a state of ketosis speeds up a dieter’s metabolism and results in faster weight loss. Another study, however, found no significant difference in weight loss after two years on either a low-carb or low-fat diet. In other words, any advantage from ketosis appears to vanish over a relatively short timeline. In the end, dieting success still requires a reduction in calories.
Fact: We actively encourage dieters to consume enough healthy fruit and vegetable carbs to stay out of ketosis. This puts us at odds with traditional low-carb dieting.
In the 1992 edition of Dr. Atkins’ New Diet Revolution, Dr. Atkins described ketosis as “one of life’s charmed gifts. It’s as delightful as sex and sunshine, and it has fewer drawbacks than either of them.”
We have no idea what else Dr. Atkins was up to while having sex or hanging out in light of day, but the known side effects of ketosis include nausea, fatigue, headaches, bad breath, oily stool and, according to some researchers, permanent kidney damage. Setting aside the possibility of kidney damage because there is conflicting research on the subject, it is worth pointing out that a dieter’s initial reaction to entering a ketogenic state can be so severe that it is referred to in the Atkins’ community as the “Induction Flu.”
To clarify our position and head off some of the hate mail from the low-carb mafia: the reason we do not encourage ketosis has nothing to do with health and everything to do with the side effects. Why experience discomfort when it is entirely unnecessary for achieving one’s long-term weight loss goals?
Even diet pills rely on the same basic principle of calories in versus out.
There are two types of diet pills on the market, even though the pharmaceutical industry tries to divide them into more categories. The first type increases your calorie burn (calories out). These pills are typically marketed under names like “fat burners” and “metabolism boosters.” Don’t fool yourself. All of these labels are just fancy names for speed.
The second category of pills - the category we refer to as Shit Yourself Thin - reduces calories by preventing your body from absorbing the food you eat. These are the latest trend in weight loss drugs. They work by stopping your body from processing calories. Food passes through you undigested. On paper, not digesting food has a similar effect to not eating it: your caloric intake is reduced.
Unfortunately, no pill has yet defeated thermodynamics, so all of that bulk ends up going right through you. Even the companies that sell these pills admit that, for some people, this process can be awkward. Not surprisingly, the warning labels on these supplements read like the plot of a low-budget horror film.
There are two types of diet pills on the market, even though the pharmaceutical industry tries to divide them into more categories. The first type increases your calorie burn (calories out). These pills are typically marketed under names like “fat burners” and “metabolism boosters.” Don’t fool yourself. All of these labels are just fancy names for speed.
The second category of pills - the category we refer to as Shit Yourself Thin - reduces calories by preventing your body from absorbing the food you eat. These are the latest trend in weight loss drugs. They work by stopping your body from processing calories. Food passes through you undigested. On paper, not digesting food has a similar effect to not eating it: your caloric intake is reduced.
Unfortunately, no pill has yet defeated thermodynamics, so all of that bulk ends up going right through you. Even the companies that sell these pills admit that, for some people, this process can be awkward. Not surprisingly, the warning labels on these supplements read like the plot of a low-budget horror film.
Case Study in Shit Yourself Thin Diets: We have a friend named Chris M. who decided to lose weight using the fat-blocking drug Orlistat. It works by blocking fat absorption. The fat you consume is pushed undigested through your body. Apparently, in some people, that undigested fat is expelled without notice at the most inopportune times. The most shocking thing is that with all of the marketing money pharmaceutical companies have at their disposal they have been unable to purchase a better name for this side effect than “anal leakage.”
Chris M. was so afraid of “anal leakage” that he pretty much stopped eating processed foods. Chris eliminated all fried food, as well as most of the other saturated fats in his diet. He went from living off fast food to eating a balanced diet of lean meats and fresh vegetables. Before Chris M. decided to shit himself thin, we cannot recall him ordering a salad. Suddenly salads were the cornerstone of his diet. This incredible transformation can be credited to the fact that Chris M. refused to wear an adult diaper.
Chris M. lost a ton of weight and as a result believes that the Orlistat worked. Considering the radical changes to his diet, we are absolutely certain that a placebo would’ve been just as effective.
All of these approaches can be successful for weight loss. Again, the reason any diet works is calories in versus calories out (or calories in and out very quickly). Regardless of the philosophy behind the diet, each approach, if followed rigorously, will reduce your caloric intake. Drink Your Carbs works on the same principle. We require exercise to increase your calorie burn. Our Food List is designed to reduce the number of calories you consume.
There is simply no other way to successfully diet. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you the dietary equivalent of perpetual motion; their system violates the basic laws of physics and, more importantly, won’t work.
This is not to say that all diets are equally effective. Without a doubt some diets work faster than others.
We readily admit that meeting your weight-loss goals on Drink Your Carbs can be slower than on other diets. While other diets either heavily restrict or eliminate alcohol, we embrace it. Those extra calories reduce the calorie deficit generated by Drink Your Carbs. The result is slower weight loss than from diets designed to produce greater calorie deficits.
There is simply no other way to successfully diet. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you the dietary equivalent of perpetual motion; their system violates the basic laws of physics and, more importantly, won’t work.
This is not to say that all diets are equally effective. Without a doubt some diets work faster than others.
We readily admit that meeting your weight-loss goals on Drink Your Carbs can be slower than on other diets. While other diets either heavily restrict or eliminate alcohol, we embrace it. Those extra calories reduce the calorie deficit generated by Drink Your Carbs. The result is slower weight loss than from diets designed to produce greater calorie deficits.
Fact: Drink Your Carbs is absolutely the wrong choice if you need a diet to help you fit into a bridesmaid dress purchased two sizes too small for a wedding less than a month away. We don’t know which diet is the fastest, but it is probably some combination of severe calorie restriction and a Shit Yourself Thin supplement that has to be mail ordered from Canada and packaged in coffee grinds because it has been banned by the FDA.
Slow and steady weight loss is a good thing. Diets designed for rapid weight loss tend to work well for a short period of time. The problem is that no one seems able to stick to them. The Shit Yourself Thin shakes and supplements have too many negative side effects. Severe caloric restriction is impossible to adhere to for any extended period of time. People tend to lose a lot of weight quickly, sometimes as much as a pound a day, and then regain that weight and more. This yo-yo effect, more than anything, explains why at any given time 45 million Americans are on some kind of diet even as the ranks of the obese continue to swell.
Fact: If you choose a diet that makes you feel weak, sick or otherwise contains restrictions and lifestyle changes that you are not able to follow over the long term, you will almost certainly fall off that diet and your weight will almost certainly rebound.
Drink Your Carbs is designed to avoid this trap. In our experience, the knowledge that you will spend the evening relaxing with a drink encourages healthy food choices throughout the day. Allowing yourself to drink makes healthy eating feel less like a burden. Dieters tend to adhere more strictly to Drink Your Carbs than previous diets. It’s far easier to skip the pasta and order a salad for lunch when you’re looking forward to wine with dinner or an evening out at a bar with friends.
Fact: Happy hour is Drink Your Carbs approved even though the happy hour menu typically is not.