Successful Dieting

The informationon how many diets fail and how people of all shapes and sizes do not seem to lose weight is quite disheartening. Yet some people still seem to lose weight. Readers' success stories in magazines have to come from somewhere. Are these dieters in some way different? Are there factors which distinguish failed and successful dieters?

One factor which is a good predictor of weight loss is sex — not how much you have but whether you are male or female. Men have more success at both losing weight and maintaining any losses than women. As one spokeswoman from Slimmer Clubs said, 'Men tend to arrive at the clubs weighing more than most of the women there, they diet, lose weight and leave before most of the women who were there before them.' So why is this?

There are many factors which seem to predict weight loss and these are more likely to be characteristic of men than women.

So what are these factors?

The most obvious is the number 'of previous attempts at weight loss. Men seem to diet only once. They have not spent a lifetime trying to lose weight and this is a good predictor of weight loss. The fewer diets tried, the more likely you are to lose weight. If you diet, lose weight and then regain the weight, further weight loss becomes more difficult. This is because of changes in metabolic rate and the percentage of fat in the body and a process called weight cycling. Men diet once, have a high metabolic rate and a higher percentage of body muscle, and find it easier to lose weight.

Repeated dieting has other detrimental effects. Diets which result in no weight loss or regained lost weight create disillusionment. One of the best predictors of weight loss is believing that you can do it. Men who have never dieted before have not suffered the feelings of failure associated with constant dieting, and are therefore more likely to believe that dieting is easy and that they will succeed. This belief in their own success increases the likelihood that this success will occur.

The availability of food also predicts success or failure in dieting. Men are not usually surrounded by food, they do not have to cook and shop for the family, and are not constantly tempted to eat. When they decide to lose weight they can detach themselves from food and concentrate only on eating less. For women it is a different story. When women decide to diet they still have to cook and shop for the rest of the family and provide high calorie food for everyone else whilst they try to eat less.

Finally, men are not pressurised to be thin to the same degree as women. Men decide to diet at a much higher weight than their female counterparts. They therefore have an additional motivation to lose weight: health.

Of course, not all successful dieters are men and these factors which predict weight loss can also exist in women. Yet men are the embodiment of many of the factors which predict weight loss.

However, there are additional characteristics associated with success in dieting which are not necessarily characteristic of men.

An increase in exercise seems to predict success in weight loss. A recent study carried out in America showed that dieters who exercised were more likely to lose weight than dieters who just reduced their caloric intake. It was originally believed that exercise caused weight loss by using up calories. Exercise does burn up calories but only surprisingly few compared to an average meal. Professor Kelly Brownell has devised a chart to explain how many calories are used up in physical activity. He suggests that for a person who weighs 125 lbs, sleeping for ten minutes uses 10 calories, running at 5.5 miles per hour for ten minutes uses 90 calories and walking upstairs for ten minutes uses 146 calories. The average lunch probably takes about twenty minutes and probably consists of about 400 calories! Until recently it was also believed that exercise could raise your metabolic rate. However, recent evidence suggests that, although the metabolic rate may increase temporarily, this results onlyfrom prolonged and intensive exercise.

However, exercise still seems to predict weight loss, so why isthis?Exercise has many other effects which indirectly influenceweight loss. Primarily, it helps to maintain muscle tissue whilst the body is losing fat. In addition, exercise can be fun and enjoyable and can provide a diversion from the problems of everyday life. Increased self-confidence contributes to a general feeling of self-control and can aid attempts at losing weight.

But for the Majority...

For most people dieting does not work. Whether they are obese, overweight or simply see themselves as being fat dieting does not help them to become thinner. Initial weight loss may occur but this is very often regained, making further weight loss more difficult.

The large majority of dieters are not obese nor are they overweight; they just see themselves as being overweight. And yet they persistently diet with the desire to be thinner. Their own experience of previous attempts at dieting tells them that they won't lose weight and yet we are constantly led to believe that 'this time it will be different'. But for the majority, this time it will be exactly the same.

For the obese and the overweight maybe there are additional reasons to persist, to try out the new programmes and to read the most recent literature, but for the majority of women, why continue doing something that does not work?

The Metabolic Effects of Eating Less

Dieting affects your metabolic rate. If you start to eat less your body slows down the rate at which it functions.

It is only relatively recently that there have been ampleamounts of food available to most people in the western world. In terms of human existence on earth we are still programmed to deal with droughts, food shortages and periods of starvation. It is far more damaging and more likely in evolutionary terms for the body to starve to death than it is to overeat. And so we have evolved with the perfect method for avoiding starvation during a period of food shortage: storing excess food when it is available. This excess food is stored mainly in the form of fat, which is oxidised to produce energy when needed.

Metabolic rate refers to the amount of energy made available for use for a specific period of time. Our metabolic rates are also perfectly adapted for food shortages. If we decrease our food intake our bodies prepare themselves for the anticipated assault on stored food. The metabolic rate decreases so that the body can function as efficiently as possible and therefore use as little energy as possible and as little stored fat. Dieting for a period of fourteen days can lead to a decline of up to 20 per cent of the metabolic rate.

A recent study at the Rockefeller University in New York examined the effects of dieting on dieters' daily energy requirements. A group of obese people were studied; they had lost substantial amounts of weight and yet were still overweight by an average of 86 pounds. They found that as they lost weight their daily energy requirements dropped accordingly. After they had lost an average of 124 pounds their calorie requirements had dropped by an average of 28 per cent to become lower than those of normal-weight people. As they lost weight their bodies were using any available food more efficiently.

Although irritating to the dieter who wishes to lose weight, it makes perfect sense to the body which is responding to an evolutionary history of dealing with the lack of food. Excess food is still only a relatively recent development, and the desire to be thin by rejecting food makes no sense to our sense of survival.

So, even if dieters are managing to eat less food than non- dieters and less than they would do if they were not dieting, dieting reduces their metabolic rate. Any food eaten is used more efficiently and the need for metabolising fat is minimalised. To lose weight and maintain this weight loss, dieters have to eat less consistently, and to compensate for a decreasing metabolic rate they have to eat less and less over time.

But what about the times when dieters are eating more than non-dieters and perhaps even eating more than they would do if they were not dieting at all?

Diet-Breaking

It is often assumed that diets do not work because the dieters are not actually dieting. The dieting industry tells us that failed dieters are weak-willed and are simply not sticking to their diet. The responsibility for not losing weight is placed firmly on the dieter's shoulders with no understanding of the processes which constitute diet-breaking.

Experimental work shows that dieters overeat both in the laboratory and in naturalistic studies. Perhaps this behaviour is an illustration of diet-breaking, suggesting that not sticking to a diet is a far more complex issue than simply a lack of determination.

So why do dieters not stick to their diets? Surely all they have to do is eat less food?

Anyone who has ever dieted can provide you with reams of reasons why they break their diets, and will cite hundreds of examples of times when they have eaten more than they intended. Dieters may recall the different causes for their episodes of 'over-indulgence' and yet most dieters still blame themselves, and regard themselves as failures.

I want to draw upon the results of an experiment that I carried out as part of my work for my PhD, which suggests that diet-breaking is not the fault of the dieter, it does not reflect personal inadequacy, but is an inevitable consequence of the structure of dieting. Overeating is part and parcel of attempting to diet and is a consequence of trying to eat less, a direct product of dieting.

I carried out a study in the final year of my PhD which examined the effects of dieting and attempted to find out why so many diets fail and why women break their diets. The overeating behaviour shown by dieters in the laboratory is also reported by dieters in their day-to-day lives. Many women report fluctuating between days when they manage to eat less and days when they completely overeat.

Imagine sticking to 1000 calories a day for three days and then being invited out to dinner on the fourth day. Tempted by all the food available and the fact it is a special occasion, many dieterssay that they would eat more at the dinner than if they hadn't been trying to diet on the previous days. It is like thinking 'Oh what the hell. If I'm going to break my diet I might as well make the most of it.' It is similar to trying to give up smoking or drinking.

A friend of mine used to smoke only after six in the evening. She would never think about a cigarette before this and certainly wouldn't think of smoking first thing in the morning. At New Year she decided to stop smoking. From the moment she decided to stop all she could think about was cigarettes, even in the morning. She woke up desperate to smoke and found that when she actually had one cigarette, for the first few days of smoking again, she smoked more than ever before. The overeating found in dieters is similar to this.

It was originally believed that overeating was followed by a period of dieting, that people dieted because they had a tendency to overeat, and needed to compensate for episodes of indulgence. Dieters are all sorts of people. Some have problems with food, but the vast majority of dieters simply see themselves as being larger than society tells them to be. There is no evidence to suggest that dieters become dieters because they have episodes of overeating.

It was then proposed that dieting caused overeating — a complete reversal of the original theory. Researchers suggested that the overeating shown by dieters in the laboratory and reported in their day-to-day lives was a direct consequence of attempting to eat less. This is similar to the analogy with smoking; trying to stop smoking causes a desire to smoke more and trying to stop eating causes overeating. The difference is that stopping smoking is good for you, stopping eating isn't!

This idea was called the causal analysis of eating behaviour and suggests that attempting not to eat, paradoxically, increases the probability of overeating, the specific behaviour dieters are attempting to avoid. It represented a new approach to the eating behaviour of dieters and is an interesting reappraisal of the situation.

A study by Wardle and Beales in 1988 showed that dieters tended to overeat and the authors concluded that the results 'supported the idea that dieting causes disturbances of food intake'.

So why does this happen? Why does dieting cause overeating?

It is possible that overeating is a direct product of changes which occur as a result of dieting. Dieting could cause changes which increase the tendency to eat more.

It has been predicted from the causal analysis of dieting and overeating that increasing dieting would cause an increase in those factors related to overeating. Research suggests that changes in mood, state of mind, control and hunger occur as a consequence of dieting and could cause an increase in eating.

A classic study was carried out in 1950 by an American professor called Ancel Keys and his colleagues. Their aim was to evaluate the effects of a period of restricting calories, and to see whether reducing food intake caused overeating. Over a period of twelve weeks, thirty-six healthy non-dieting men received a carefully controlled daily food intake of approximately half their normal intake and consequently lost 25 per cent of their original body weight. Ancel Keys states that they developed a preoccupation with food, often resulting in their hoarding or stealing it. They showed an inability to concentrate, with mood changes such as depression and apathy being common. At the end of the period of dieting the men were allowed to eat freely and often ate continuously. They reported loss of control over their eating behaviour, sometimes resulting in binge eating. The author concluded that these psychological effects were not a function of the actual process of starvation, but were more likely to be due to the restriction of their diet.

In 1988, Warren and Cooper, in a study in Cambridge assessing the effects of dieting on both mood and the control of eating, placed seven men and seven women on a calorie- restricted diet for two weeks, and monitored any daily changes. They found an increase in feelings of loss of control, over eating and increased preoccupation with food.

Dieting seems to cause overeating by changing factors which contribute to eating more. The study which I carried out attempted to assess what these factors could be.

Up to 90 per cent of the female population diet at some time in their lives. The aim of the study was to examine the effects of these constant attempts at losing weight and to analyse their contribution to overeating. The failure to lose weight is often regarded as a sign of weakness and an indication that the dieter is not dieting properly. The following results suggest that failed dieters are simply responding to changes which occur during a diet and that breaking your diet is inevitable.

What is the best way to treat overweight? Continue…

Tad' diets - the short-term losers

There are numerous diets on the market which appear to be successful, but in fact very often result in short-term weight reduction only. Such diets usually bring about high protein and water losses (from muscle tissue) - which do cause temporary weight loss - but also result in unnecessary decreases in basic energy expenditure. This in turn 'sets you up for failure' because maintaining your weight after initially losing the kilograms is much more difficult. Diets such as these also tend to encourage poor, unbalanced eating patterns instead of improving already harmful eating habits. By doing this, they increase the possibility that the weight problem will recur once you revert back to your original pattern.

Fluid intake should be at least 6-8 glasses per day.

• Sugar, sweets, cake, chocolate and cooldrink etc. are not allowed.
• A sedentary person is defined as somebody who engages in the following activities most of the time:
• Reading, writing, watching television, movies, sitting, sewing, playing cards, typing, office work done while sitting and standing, light housework (cooking, washing, dusting etc.), walking slowly, personal care. No participation in any form of physical exercise.
• A moderately active person is defined as somebody who engages in the following activities most of the time: heavy housework (making beds, scrubbing, mopping, sweeping, polishing, load washing, large articles, hanging out clothes), walking moderately fast to fast, climbing stairs, gardening, carpentry work. Participation in physical exercise occurs at least once a week.

The following are characteristics of unbalanced, fad, or unsound reducing diets. Any diet which:

• propagates the belief that certain foods, nutrients, or other substances have unique, previously undiscovered or magical properties to facilitate weight loss (novelty diets).
• claims that a low intake of carbohydrate accompanied by an unrestricted intake of total kilojoules (calories) from protein and/or fat will induce weight loss and that the excretion of by-products of fat metabolism (known as ketones) accounts for high weight loss in spite of a high kilojoule intake.

• claims that a certain meal pattern (which could vary from one day to the next) and/or certain combinations of foods and/or the exclusion of certain food groups are prerequisites for health and weight reduction.
• provides less than 4200 kJ (1000 cal) or less than 50% of an individual's average energy requirements per day (including very low calorie diets and total or intermittent fasting).
• promises fast weight loss (in excess of 2 kg per week or 1% of total body weight per week)
• promises that fat will melt away without increased exercise, hunger pains, or restrictions on favourite foods and with no restriction of food intake.

While diets such as these abound, it should be mentioned that good, balanced weight loss programmes are provided by some slimming clubs (such as Weigh-Less and Ideal Weight Club) and by some books, reputable magazines, pamphlets and registered dietitians.

For what sugar you had?

Several different types of sugar are available, namely white, golden brown and the so-called 'speciality sugars' which include soft brown, caramel brown, multicoloured crystals, castor, icing and yellow sugar. Golden brown sugar is the end product of the milling process. Also known as raw sugar, it is from this that all the following types of sugar are produced:

• Soft brown sugar is made by adding extra molasses to raw sugar.
• Caramel brown sugar is produced by adding caramel flavouring and colouring (also made from sugar).

Yellow sugar has simply had yellow colouring added to it.

• White sugar is a refined raw sugar.
• Castor sugar is very finely ground white sugar - which is why, if you're ever stuck without it, you can make your own by grinding ordinary white sugar in your food processor.
• Icing sugar is even more finely ground white sugar, with a little cornflour added to prevent lumps forming.

Sugar and nutrition

Sugar is pure carbohydrate and as such its main contribution to the diet is food energy. One gram provides 17 kilojoules (4 calories). This energy is readily availableto the body, that is, the body can use it very quickly and efficiently. This may be either an advantage or a disadvantage, depending on the situation. For example, for anathlete taking part in an endurance event and therefore requiring a quick energy top-up, sugar is very useful. On the other hand, for diabetics - who have difficulty keeping their blood sugar level under control - the fact bloodstream relatively quickly is a

Another aspect to consider regarding sugar as an energy source is that it is inexpensive. This may not be of concern in affluent nations, but it means that sugar can be used to supplement energy-deficient diets of impoverished communities.

Despite claims to the contrary, the difference between the nutritional value of brown as opposed to white sugar is negligible. The brown variety does contain more molasses (the syrup left behind when sugar crystals are produced from sugar cane) and molasses is a rich source of certain nutrients, but in terms of the overall contribution to the diet, the amounts are insignificant. As an illustration, while molasses is considered a good source of iron, in order to meet the Recommended Daily Allowance for iron for an adult woman from brown sugar alone, one would have to eat nearly half a kilogram!

Why is sugar found in so many foods?

One of the major concerns people have about sugar is the fact that it is found in such a wide variety of foods - including foods that don't even taste sweet - which makes it easy to consume relatively large amounts of sugar without being aware of it. The reason it is used so widely is because it is a very versatile product. It has certain properties which enable it to perform numerous functions in foods - for example, it adds flavour, colour and texture and acts as a natural preservative.

Although sugar substitutes are available, none of these has all the properties of sugar and many products in which it is used would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to produce without sugar. For example, sugar may be used in the production of bread to improve its shelf life and in beer to assist with fermentation. Since South African food law states that food ingredients must be listed in descending order of quantity, you can get a good idea of the extent to which sugar has been used in a product simply by reading labels.

A spoonful of moderation

Having looked at where sugar comes from, what it does and its role in nutrition and health, it is clear that as is the case with so many other aspects of nutrition, much of what is commonly believed is not necessarily accurate. Too often, what is held to be absolute truth is in fact the result of assumptions and hearsay rather than controlled scientific research.

As far as sugar is concerned, the conclusion to which research has brought us is that, provided it is used in moderation as part of a balanced diet, it is not harmful. But what, you may ask, is moderation? It is difficult to give specific quantities because we all have different energy requirements, but the general consensus is that it is acceptable to consume up to 10% of your total energy intake in the form of simple carbohydrates (that is, all sugars). For an average adult man, this would be the equivalent of about 16 teaspoons of table sugar per day; for a woman, about 12 teaspoons. However, because (as mentioned above) so much of the sugar we consume is 'hidden' in manufactured or processed foods, it is very difficult to establish exactly how much sugar you are in fact eating. The best policy, therefore, is to have three balanced meals a day, concentrating on fresh, wholesome foods which are prepared at home wherever possible. Sugar, used sensibly to improve the palatability of such a diet, forms a useful part of good nutrition.

How Fresh is Fresh? (From farmer to family)

From farmer to family

As a general rule, most of our larger food chains either buy direct from farms and markets or use agents who buy on their behalf and distribute to their stores.

One exception to this is Woolworths, which buys nothing on the open market. All their fruit, vegetables and salads are grown for the group by selected farmers who follow specified growing programmes. The farmer delivers direct to one of two distribution centres (in the Cape and Transvaal), which operate 24 hours a day. Woolworths distributes to stores from that point and on average, produce is on the shelves the day after it is picked.

Most of it is transported in refrigerated trucks (with the exception of course of produce that must not be chilled - potatoes and bananas, for example, must not be refrigerated because they deteriorate). But all produce that requires it is refrigerated and the 'cold chain' remains unbroken from the time the produce leaves the distribution centre to the time it is unpacked onto the shelves. Produce is not treated with any synthetic preservatives after being harvested.

Another food store group moving into mass refrigeration of fresh produce is Pick 'n Pay. Their buying policy centres predominantly on the independent farmers, with 85% of produce coming direct from the farms and only 15% from the markets. It goes from either of these to a central distribution centre, then into the stores. So carrots picked this morning would be through to some stores by this afternoon, or tomorrow morning at the latest. The supermarket chain buys all its greens, carrots and so on fresh on a daily basis from the farms. In July 1990 Pick 'n Pay opened a new distribution centre in the Cape which is temperature-controlled at 12 ^°C internally. Their next step will be to refrigerate all their trucks and maintain the cold chain to stores especially vital during the long summer months.

Refrigeration may seem unnecessary if the vegetables are in fact reaching the stores so quickly - after all, a day between field and trolley doesn't sound like much. But in the summer months, average day temperatures can be between 26-28^° and in an ordinary metal- sided truck, they can soar to over 30° - which creates a distinct danger of products becoming over-ripe or wilting. This is often the reason why we see tired-looking lettuces and other produce in stores - it's apparently more a case of wilting due to excessive daytime temperatures than having sat on a supermarket shelf for days. In fact, no-one seems to deny that cold-chain transportation is essential in a country which has a summer lasting six months and where long distances have to be travelled from distribution centres to stores.

Another factor to consider is that produce is becoming significantly more expensive. The growing cost to the farmer has increased enormously in the last few years and in order to recoup those prices from the consumer, the stores have to offer good quality in return. There has been a massive expansion in the consumption of fresh produce in the last few years and it looks set to continue growing.

Some chain stores - such as Pick 'n Pay and OK Bazaars - buy both direct and through an agent while many others, notably Checkers, buy everything through a supply company which in turn buys from farms or through the markets. Produce is transported in cooler trucks to central refrigerated depots in either Cape Town, Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth, Durban or Bloemfontein and from there out to the differentstores.

But what about the smaller food stores? The giants have sophisticated infrastructures to keep their shelves filled so how does the smaller retailer compete, and how does his produce rate by comparison? Surprisingly, many small country supermarkets compare very well. In agricultural areas a lot of produce is bought straight from the farms, which means theoretically it can be picked in the morning and in the store by the afternoon. What can't be bought locally is purchased at the municipal markets, usually through an agent. (This also applies to small shopkeepers in more urban areas.) In these instances, the foodstuff is usually a day old when it gets to market, is probably held another day by the agent while transportation is arranged, and may be in the local store on the third day.

However this is the 'best possible' scenario. Where some small stores come unstuck is that they may buy through an agent who delivers, say, twice weekly. If we take as an example a small store where the agent delivers on Tuesday and Friday, when you walk into that store

on the Thursday not only are you seeing produce that has been in-store for three days but you must also allow for the preceding few days between farmer, market and shop. This goes a long way to explaining why 'country fresh' is sometimes more of an ad-man's dream than a reality!

Of course, if freshness is your top priority, the many farmstalls dotted around the country are a good option. Their seasonal produce generally comes straight from the farm, and only out-of-season fruit and vegetables are bought from markets.

In summary, it seems we can assume that the cauliflower or beans or lettuce we buy today has taken an average of 2 days to make its journey from farmer to consumer. And the prime reason for differences in freshness rests not so much with the time-lag after harvest as with what happens to the crop once it is picked. Retailers who can offer cold-chain distribution, or who are small enough to be able to coordinate fast delivery from source to shop, are the ones who appear to be coming out best.

The one over-riding factor, of course, is the seasonality of the foodstuff - if you are buying, say, apples out of season, then it's commonsense to accept that they will have been held in cold storage for a prolonged

One question that often bothers consumers is why produce appears to be much fresher in one branch of a national chain than in another and why there are instances when some of the fruit and vegetables on display look 'tired' to say the least! Theoretically there should not be any difference because all the produce comes from a centralised depot, the same standard of produce goes out to all stores and the time factor is roughly the same in each case. Occasionally, however, there is a weak link in the chain and sometimes this weak link is the individual store manager.

Most stores have an in-store produce manager who is responsible not only for the ordering of stock but also for its handling, display and presentation and for the length of time it is left on the shelves before being replaced by fresh stock.

While research suggests that the majority of stores order only what they need for each day - thus ensuring that stocks are swiftly cleared ready for replenishment by a new delivery - in some instances where the in-store manager is inexperienced (or possibly inefficient) stocks may well be less than perfect. Over-ordering could result in produce staying on the shelf until it is past its prime and any canny marketer can tell you that that even if there is fresh produce to hand, it probably won't be put up for sale until the 'old' stock has been cleared. At the same time, it's important to realise that a carrot is not ready to be discarded just because its green top is wilted.