A farmer wants the donkey to take the load and travel.
But, the donkey does not move.
He hits the donkey with a stick, but it still won’t move.
So, he ties a carrot to the stick  and holds it in front of the donkey, just out of reach.
The donkey wants to eat the carrot and moves forward.
At the same time, the carrot also moves by the same distance.
The donkey cannot eat the carrot, till the farmer reaches his destination.
 

Here is the Carrot used in Intermittent fasting.

“Just get through today, and tomorrow you can eat what you want.”

Unfortunately it isn’t the truth … unless what you WANT tomorrow is merely what a naturally thin person consistently eats in order to maintain a normal weight.

Successful self-discipline requires plenty of carrot as well as stick.
The stick without the carrot can be used for punishment, but as a reward that stick is ineffective.

Success with intermittent fasting ... (or even with other diets involving intermittment times of calorie restriction – such as: restricted weekdays with unrestricted weekends) ... requires the low-calorie eating days to be balanced together with days of eating at maintenance calorie level … in other words, the restrictive days need to occur alongside the kind of “healthy” moderate diet that is followed by the naturally thin.

This requirement actually makes intermittent fasting more challenging than many other diets, and, for all but the most dedicated, even more unappealing and more impossible to follow.

If I WANTED only “normal” amounts of “healthy foods”, being fat would never have been a problem for me, and a Binge/Fast eating pattern rarely proves to be an effective weight-loss strategy.

The promise of days of unlimited, unrestricted eating is what lures one to the diet, but for most people this is really only a stick with the false promise of a carrot. Here’s a statement by one of the people who have found Intermittent Fasting a personal success:

“What I found was that my appetite gradually changed as I adapted to fasting and I no longer needed to binge-eat on up days. I wasn't a saint exactly but I was more restrained and weight-loss was steady and noticeable.”

People who succeed at non-fasting, but still intermittently restricted diets, such as the No S Diet, ..(which has restricted eating for 5 days, and unrestricted eating for 2 days)...  make similar claims. They indicate that after time, maybe 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, etc… their weekday restrained eating habits bleed over onto weekends, and they no longer wish to overeat even though the diet “allows” them to do so.

Allegedly … eventually, …. the fat person’s body and appetitive will adapt, and the formerly fat person will naturally choose to eat in a way that will maintain a “normal” person’s weight.

Yeah … and for those fat people who rely on that promise, I’ve got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. While this might hold true for some overweight or even some borderline obese people who are not that far away from “normal” weight, there is a great deal of evidence that this is an illusionary promise for most of the people who’ve spent years being truly fat. Despite numerous, lengthy attempts, that promise doesn’t appear to prove true for a great many people, including me personally.

These claims remind me a bit of that “trust your body” position followed by those who adopt Intuitive Eating principles, .. those who tightly close their eyes to all of the Scientific research available which clearly tells us, that what an obese body can be trusted to do is struggle to remain obese or … in the event a fat person manages to lose down to a normal weight … what a reduced obese body can then be trusted to do is to insist on its return to obesity.

I’ve spent quite a lot of time experimenting with these lower-eating/higher-eating concepts, and for me personally, they’ve tended to result in a binge/fast pattern. This is because the absence of a carrot leaves only the stick, and self-punishment is not a sustainable, or highly motivating, factor for me.

Here’s a recent article about Intermitted Fasting which I found interesting.

Is Intermittent Fasting Just Another Fad?
                             by Daniel Bartlett 2/9/2013 - Huffingtonpost.co.uk

Every year, without fail, a new diet gets media attention and every year I put my head in my hands. The newest trend for 2013 is fasting diets, dusted off and freshly repackaged to appeal to the masses.

Intermittent fasting, or the "5/2 diet", marks an especially exciting period for perpetual dieters, because these plans offer the idea that you can eat anything you like on your non-fasting days. The holy grail of binge eating has finally arrived and I can almost hear the collective sigh of relief across the airwaves.

The concept behind the 5/2 Diet is simple. Eat very restricted calories for two days and eat whatever you like for the other five. To think, most people were only throwing caution to the wind at weekends before. It's akin to telling an alcoholic the best way to cure his drink problem is by having more whisky.

There is nothing wrong with fasting, but nothing particularly new either. Civilizations have been practicing fasting for centuries as there are clear and demonstrated benefits, but the fasting part of the 5/2 diet is not the problem. It's the encouragement of explicitly unhealthy food consumption.

Just the other day I met up with a friend who gleefully informed me of this wonderful new diet whilst washing down a burger and fries with a thick strawberry milkshake. "The best thing about Intermittent Fasting" They said in between giant bites of burger. "Is if I can just get through a couple of days, I can eat whatever I like".

As I left the table I found it hard to believe that an extreme diet of highly processed foods in large quantities followed by periods of abstinence would deliver on its promises.

I know that not everybody following an intermittent fasting plan will eat so poorly in the non-fasting days, but when it comes to the mainstream this is the message that seems to be sticking.

I can hear the advocates of intermittent fasting frantically preparing the multiple studies on mice and fruit flies, ready to tell me about IGF1 and how they are going to live for eternity, and yes, there is evidence that fasting reduces oxidative stress, increases insulin sensitivity and resists the effects of aging. It would seem that there are benefits to reducing total calorific intake but surely not at the sacrifice of quality nutrition.

It may surprise you to learn that I have used fasting to great effect in clients experiencing difficulty losing weight or achieving health goals, but only after more proven methods are failing. In many cases IF does offer a suitable method of busting through a plateau, but in other instances, intermittent fasting leaves people irritable and performing terribly.

Crucially, in cases where intermittent fasting has been introduced successfully it is always alongside a healthy diet. This makes intermittent fasting not only more challenging than other diets, but more unappealing and impossible to follow for all but the most dedicated. You can't sell the stick without the carrot.

The first thing anybody should do to improve health and increase longevity is eliminate processed foods, not introduce them in large quantities on an empty stomach. By eating whole natural foods most people see an immediate benefit to health, weight and energy levels.

                         David Bartlett is a personal trainer of professional athletes 
                         who owns and runs a holistic health and fitness center in Chiswick, London

For me, as well as many other people (although not everyone), fasting is a form of suffering.

The False Promise involved with Intermittent Fasting diets … the message of eating as much as you want of whatever you want (who wouldn't want that in a weight loss plan?) … is reinforced over, and over again.

"Imagine the freedom that would come from being able to do whatever you want, eat whatever you want and know - not think, not hope, but know for certain - that you'll never gain another pound."

"Eat whatever you want as much as you want. But only eat during ... (a specific time-frame like an 8-hour period, or 5-hour window etc.) ... each day (or on alternate days, or on weekends).

"And the most remarkable thing of all: You only have to follow the diet 3 days a week. Three days a week!" (or 5 days etc.)

Fasting is the Stick.
The Promise of eating what you want on non-fasting days is the Carrot.

Since summer of 2006, I’ve had quite a lot of personal experience with Intermittent Fasting including QOD, Alternate Day Eating, JUDDD, 5/2, Fast-5, The 8 Hour Diet, and Eat Stop Eat, and for me, the Promise has always proven to be false.

The only way Intermittent Fasting works to cause weight-loss, is if “normal” on the eating days is about the same as one’s maintenance energy burn.

For larger, younger people – especially males -- whose daily calorie burn is around 2000 calories, this can be relatively easy for if they “normally” eat that amount and just occasionally eat higher-calorie.
However, I am a small, older female whose “normal” daily calorie burn is around 1050. It is a continual struggle for me to keep my food intake within that “normal” range, and for me … the reward of getting 1050 calories the next day doesn’t seem like much great reward for a day of eating 300 to 500 calories. So, far, despite my best efforts, my results on the up days have often been more like 1400 to 2000 calories … which cancels out any weight-loss results of the 300 to 500 calorie fast days, … while still being FAR LESS than the amounts I really want to eat after a day, or alternate days, of calorie deprivation.

Fasting is in and of itself, "a form of suffering" for me and many other people, ... although certainly not for everyone.  Even so, unless some other type of Diet / way-of-eating / lifestyle comes along that works well for me to maintain my body within a "nomal" weight-range, I expect I will continue doing further such experiments with diets that contain the promise of even an illusory “carrot”, because that’s the kind of thing I do as a part of my Dieting Hobby.

 
What about eating frequency? How often should we eat?

Should we eat 3 Square Meals?

Or should we eat 6 Small Meals?

Or should we eat only inside a window of 8 hours or 5 hours?

Or should we, intermittently, have days with only one small meal, or even zero food in a total water fast?

Or should we eat whenever we feel Hunger?

Each of these “Diets”, “Non-Diets”, “Ways-of-Eating”, or “Lifestyles” claims that Scientific Research supports their individual position.

So what DO we do?
The following article by Dr. Yoni Freedhoff of WeightyMatters, supports my own personal position on this question.

Does New Study settle the
3 Square vs. 6 Small vs. the 8 hr Diet Debate?

So this month yet another study in a never-ending line of studies looking to compare the impact of meal frequency on fullness and biochemistry came out. This one suggested that small frequent helped decrease energy intake in normal weight men.

Honestly I pretty much disregard all of these studies.

Not because I'm doubting or questioning their results, just that I don't think their results really matter.

What I mean is that all of these studies fail to address the practical aspects of living with their recommendations, and as a clinician, that's really all that matters to me.

I've seen people controlling calories, loving life and preserving health with 6 small meals daily. I've seen people do the same on 2, 3, 4, and in some cases even 1 meal a day.

Regardless of the research that comes out, what matters more than what a physiology paper says is how you personally feel.

In my office we do tend to start people on small and frequent meals and snacks. But if that doesn't suit or help the individual we'll shift to 3 square meals. We've also recommended the intermittent fasting style that's suddenly finding some traction on the diet book shelves.

You need to find a life that you enjoy, and just because a new study or diet book suggests there's a "better", or "right", way, if you don't happen to enjoy it, it just isn't going to work.

The specific new study referred to is: Psychology and Behavior
www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938413000243

According to all of the scientific research I’ve read, when we get right down to it, any actual “Health” or “Metabolic” Benefit Differences between all of these eating plans are truly miniscule, and therefore, not even worth the individual effort of personal consideration. The question to consider is which one can we DO?

I ask myself:

• Which Eating Behavior will work for ME in MY weight-loss or maintenance efforts?.
  
• Which Behavior will allow ME to consistently eat less than, or the same as, the amount that My body uses for energy?
  
• Is one Eating Behavior more manageable for ME than another?
  
• Which one can I consistently stay on?
  
• Can I live with one of these Behaviors as a lifetime Habit?

 "The Fast-5 Diet and the Fast-5 Lifestyle" (2005) by Bert Herring M.D. is a weight-loss and weight-maintenance plan based on the concept of intermittent fasting. It consists of a single rule: limit calorie intake to no more than five consecutive hours in each day. The Fast-5 Lifestyle is an indefinite continuation of that diet for weight maintenance after the weight loss goal has been reached.

Dieters using the Fast-5 diet fast for nineteen hours total each day. This nineteen hours includes sleep. After the nineteen hours of fasting is complete, dieters then have five hours in which they can eat whatever they choose.

The suggested eating window is from 5pm - 10pm, but Dr. Herring indicates that the nineteen continuous hours of fasting time is the key to the diet's effect, and that the five-hour eating window may be set whenever it is most personally convenient.

The Fast-5 approach does not stipulate a calorie intake level. It relies on the eating schedule's effect of correcting appetite to determine proper intake, but doesn’t discourage the addition of a calorie counting approach. The Fast-5 Diet also does not specify food content or forbid any foods, allowing the approach to be used with any dietary preference.

The Fast-5 diet was developed based on the personal results Dr. Herring experienced while working at the National Institutes of Health and incorporates estimates of the eating schedule of ancient hunter-gatherer humans who ate without benefit of food storage or refrigeration.

Dr. Herring distinguishes Limbic hunger, which comes from that part of the brain that connects primitive drives, emotion, and memory, from Somatic hunger, which is the sensation of discomfort in the stomach area that is commonly known as hunger, or hunger pangs. Somatic hunger is the result of the interaction of many hormonal and nerve signals and incorporates more information than just whether the stomach is empty.

He says that Limbic hunger is the reason why it is hard to eat only one potato chip. Eating one chip triggers more appetite because primitive limbic signals tell the brain we should eat as much as we can while food is available. This leads to more eating, connecting in a vicious circle that doesn’t stop until the bag of chips is empty. The ancient instinct takes control of behavior, ignoring higher thinking and preferences. Limbic hunger in a land of plenty causes one to eat too often and too much.

Two ways in which the Fast-5 plan is helpful, according to Dr. Herring, is that:

• Having a 19 hour short-term fasting period eliminates the potential…during that time period, for eating to-drive-more-eating, and keeps limbic hunger from taking over control.
  
  
• 19 hours of daily fasting enhances the body’s fat-burning capabilities by providing a long period every day when the body’s fat-burning machinery is switched on and stays on. Once the body is using energy from stored fat, rather than from fresh glucose absorbed from digesting food, continuous fat burning is more efficient than when the body flips back and forth from fat to glucose and back again. Also, changing back and forth causes fluctuations in the levels of hunger related hormones (insulin, ghrelin, leptin and more) resulting in the sensation of hunger.

I have had brief and limited experiments with the Fast-5 diet, usually in combination with alternate day eating. I am currently involved in another entirely different Fast-5 experiment.

My normal pattern is to wake up about 4am. and go to sleep about 8pm.

During my past experiments, I chose an eating window of 2pm until 7pm, which in my lifestyle is the equivalent of a 5pm to 10 pm window. This did not work well for me because during the entire Fast-5 dieting experiment I found myself simply killing time every day until 2pm, totally focused on wanting to eat, while I did everything possible to distract myself from food until the time finally came for me to eat.

I am a morning person, and normally prefer my breakfast and lunch over my dinner, so with a late-in-the-day window, my preferred mealtimes were not available to me.

I had difficulty in getting myself to set a morning 5 hour window because of the idea of how hard I might find it to go without food during the long afternoon and evening period.

Recently, I decided to try Fast-5 with a morning window from 9am to 2pm and found that this suits my body and personality a great deal better. A five hour window from 9am to 2pm allows me to eat at my preferred mealtimes. It also seems that so far…..I, personally, feel less physical hunger and less desire to eat after 2pm between lunch and bedtime, than I do in the mornings before 2pm. Whether this will continue to be the case over time, is something that I just don’t know.

My present Fast-5 experiment is in the early stages, and is combined with calorie counting and other dietary preferences. I haven’t set a time-period for how long I’ll continue on with it. Right now, it’s day-by-day, and I’m deciding each morning whether or not to go forward with it.

I know that there are times when I find eating zero food easier than eating a tiny amount of food, and other times when this isn’t true for me. I’m interested in learning more information about that difference. I’m also curious as to whether this way of eating will cause me to eat less overall, for more than just a few days, and if that behavior will provide me with any weight-loss results. I mention this just as another example of how I treat Dieting as a Hobby.

"We never repent of having eaten too little.”
Thomas Jefferson (1743 -1826)

When Jefferson was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, he was around 33 years old, and he lived until age 83 during a time when food was not as easily obtainable. Even though he did not experience our modern readily-available-highly-processed-food world he seemed to understand the value of eating less.

How little is "too little"?

I’ve noticed that people who eat far too much, seem to spend a lot of time worrying about eating too little. Why do people who are obese, or even merely overweight, fear eating too little, and just how little is too little anyway?

Many overweight and obese people appear to have an irrational fear of starvation mode.
However, one really can't eat too little for weight loss - Starvation Mode (the way most dieters define it) is a Myth.

"Starvation mode" is a phrase that gets thrown about loosely. Many people think that eating below 1000 to 1200 calories a day, will cause their metabolism to slow down so much that their body will stop losing weight. The reality is that until a male has only 5% excess body fat, or a female has only 10% excess body fat, it is very unusual for a person to go into “starvation mode”.

When it seems impossible for a dieter nearing goal to lose weight, they assume their metabolic process is slowing down, and think that they are “in starvation mode”. However, people with extra weight obtainable to oxidize, can oxidize extra body fat per second. The less human body fat one has, the less fat oxidized for each moment. So as one gets closer to the body’s individual reduction limit of human body weight, the slower one will burn up what body fat one has. This is why taking off the final 10 pounds happens very slowly, NOT because one is wrecking one’s metabolic process with an aggressive diet regimen.

By the way, I’m using the term…”excess fat”… to define the entire genetic make-up of an individual body, not “troublesome” fat on specific body areas that one wishes were leaner… like stomach or thighs, etc. It is not uncommon for someone who is “normal weight” or even “underweight” to be unhappy with the way their own body’s necessary fat is genetically distributed.

The article quoted below makes a number of good points:

Are You In The Starvation Mode or Starving For Truth?

Recently we discussed the myth that dieting can lead to an eating disorder and saw this common dieting myth was inaccurate.  Another common dieting myth held by people is that they may not be losing weight because they are in the "starvation mode" from eating too few calories. And, in response to the intake of this low calorie level, their body has gone into "starvation mode" and slowed down their metabolism and is holding on to the weight. The usual recommendation to get out of starvation mode and allow the body to lose more weight, is to consume more calories. Eat more calories, to lose more weight.

Really?

Well, for anyone struggling to lose weight, this may sound sensible, but as you will see, it, like most other dieting myths, it is inaccurate. A few things to consider before we get to the "starvation mode."

First, the human body, as is our world, is governed by the laws of physics. Body weight is a product of energy balance. We can not violate the laws of physics and thermodynamics. The energy we consume must go somewhere, and to maintain a certain level of weight, an equivalent amount of energy must be consumed and an equilibrium must be achieved.

Second, in regard to metabolism, about >70% of our base metabolism is driven by our brain and other vital organs and is not really effected by food consumption as I discussed in the metabolism blog. We have little impact on this basal metabolic rate.

Third, most attempts to accurately track food consumption under report (intentionally and/or not intentionally) by about 30% and attempts to track exercise and activity levels over report by up to 50%. Even professionals can be as much as 30% off or more. This is usually part of the problem. Fat people are not accurately able to determine their caloric intake and output.

Now, in regard to the "starvation" mode, someone who has extra body weight and body fat is not in any "starvation mode" where they need to 'kick start" their metabolism by eating more calories. You can not "eat more" calories to force your body to "lose weight".

In regard to metabolism, if you are overweight/overfat, you can not cause your metabolism to decrease below a level needed to lose weight while you have extra weight/fat on you, and you can not "lose more weight by eating more calories/food." This is a misunderstanding of the principles of metabolism that does not apply to overweight people trying to lose weight.

Let's say we look at someone who says they are only eating only 800 calories and not losing weight. A well meaning and good intentioned friend (or professional) has told them they are in starvation mode and in order to lose weight and/or kick-start their metabolism, they need to eat more. But, what if instead of eating more, what do you think would happen if instead they just stopped eating altogether? Would they go further into starvation mode and continue to stay at the same weight or maybe even "gain" weight?

Clearly, they would lose more weight if they stopped eating altogether.

We all know (especially those who are familiar with fasting) that if you were to stop eating completely and just live on pure water, you would start to lose weight almost instantly and would continue to do so.

But according to this theory of the "starvation mode," if you were really in it and you fasted, by its own rational you would lose less weight ... if any at all, not more. We know this is not accurate.

So, where did this myth come from?

There is a true phenomenon known as the starvation response and it is well documented in the Minnesota Starvation experiments and the Hunger Fasts that have been studied. However, it only happens in humans when they lose enough body fat that they fall below the level of essential fat. In a man, this would be below around 5% fat and in women just above that, about 10%.

Most humans will look like holocaust survivors at that time. Here is a picture of some of the subjects from the famous Minnesota Starvation experiments from the 1940s.

Even at this point, after months of a low calorie diet with heavy exercise, they were not yet in the so-called "starvation mode" where they experienced significant metabolic changes. If you have more weight/fat on you than them, then neither are you

In addition, when this point is truly reached, the body does make several metabolic shifts to preserve itself, and if it is not fed more calories, can cease to exist. It is a matter of life and death. Hence the name.

This is not the same thing that happens when someone who is overweight and has a high percentage of body fat, is not losing weight. Usually this is due to an inaccurate assessment of their energy balance.

Now, it is possible that a medical condition, like hypothyroid could contribute to a slowed metabolism. However, if someone was to have a thyroid problem, it can be diagnosed and treated. But, then we are right back to my points above and dealing with an energy balance issue.

So, if you are overweight and/or overfat and not losing weight, the most important thing to do is re-evaluate your energy balance. And the best way to do this is to focus on foods that are low in calorie density (and high in nutrient density) and maintain a healthy level of activity.

The above-article was written by Jeffrey S. Novick, MS, RD, LD, LN, in January 2009 at www.healthscience.org

MS = master of science,

RD = registered dietitian

LD = Licensed dietitian

LN = Licensed nutritionist 

 

We now have enormous access to miscellaneous information via the internet. This means that a relatively intelligent, ordinary person, with a bit of formal education (such as myself), can be exposed to a myriad of possibilities…   together with little or no personal ability to determine the accuracy of the information provided.

Online time exposes us to ideas that are relatively new to us, and leads us to discover data and publications… including books and videos … that would have been otherwise unavailable to us.
Such exposure and discoveries make me think about things in ways I’ve not previously considered.  There are many great Theories in the world which modern Societies in general consider to be true…but .. chances are, some of them probably are not.

Along with many other people living in the “civilized” societies of the present, I am interested in my own eating and digestive process. Yes, eating is necessary for sustaining life, but I want to know more about how I can enjoy food  without getting fat.  In a way, eating is like sex. If there was no enjoyment in the process, people would be doing a whole lot less of it.

  So, what if the details we THINK we know about Food and the Digestive system are inaccurate?

I find it interesting to consider the possibility that much of the knowledge which we take for absolute truth about diet and nutritional information (which is often referred to as “conventional wisdom”), might be WACKED. When I say “wacked”, I mean “out of order, crazy, not in proper condition, screwed up, incorrect, so messed up it could be broken.”

What if?  

What if the state of our current knowledge regarding nutrition and the body is similar to that previous accepted Truth = “the world is flat”? Societies of the past functioned for long periods of history with what we consider now to be only minimal knowledge. Back in time, people did a great deal of traveling before they discovered that “the world is round”. We now tend to think of them as ignorant, but they were as knowledgeable and forward thinking as was possible at the time. People in the future might consider those of us who live here in the present, to be ignorant and backward.

   I recently read the following about how “calories” were discovered:

Up until March 16, 1896 at 10:30 am, food was just that – something we ate to stave off hunger and to grow. Food was nourishment and a source of “protein” (back then this meant even rice, potatoes and wheat), typically, about 12-15% protein was recommended. All foods were assessed for “protein.” There was “cheap protein” and “expensive protein,” but people didn’t equate meat with protein any more than gluten in wheat. It was a time of affordable nourishment as a priority. People were starving.

On that day in March, Wilbur O. Atwater began his now famous calorimetry experiments and fundamentally changed how we look at food forever. After locking a Dr. Olin Freeman Tower up in a small chamber for 5 days Atwater took measurements of Dr. Tower’s metabolism. Four days earlier Dr. Tower began eating a fixed “breakfast, dinner, and supper” and continued throughout the 5 days. He exited on March 21 having gained 2 lbs.

Atwater’s measurements included both the change in temperature and the oxygen consumed/carbon dioxide produced. For the first time – food, mostly meals, had a number.

They went on to perform many experiments on how the body digests and absorbs the energy and then assigned “caloric content” of these foods based on experimentally measured averages. Remember, we didn’t know about vitamins and minerals yet – that begins 30 years later. Atwater was simply ascribing a caloric content to protein, carbohydrate, fat and alcohol. The question answered: How did the body react to food when input, waste, heat and composition were precisely measured? Did the laws of thermodynamics apply to people and food?

Eat, swallow, and poop. Now, we have a quantification of energy.

Atwater changed everything we knew about food. He made some groups angry, like the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, for suggesting alcohol actually had calories, but he defined the notion of digestibility of food based on protein, carbohydrate fat, and alcohol energy content. He had good goals and unbelievable attention to detail, but he warned that these numbers shouldn’t be used too much outside the bounds of the food combinations that were studied.

On the not-so-helpful side of things, Atwater inadvertently launched the now common “macronutrient wars.” With this new data, the beef and wheat industry could go head-to-head on “affordable protein.” These battles have raged on for a century and soon food was being ubiquitously labeled with “proteins, carbs and fats” and today, diet dogma abounds on the mythical ratios for health.

When Atwater began these investigations, we were still trying to validate Lavoisier’s work a century earlier that equated the chemistry of a burning candle and the Human body’s digestion of food.

Atwater wasn’t a fan of bread and simple sugars and advocated that more legumes and vegetables be incorporated into the diet. People thought of food very differently then – remember, nourishment. After Atwater died, we learned so much more about the role of vitamins and minerals, but at that time it was much more simple and in some ways, easier to make decisions. When the first food pamphlet (after his death) was published in 1916 – Food For Young Children by Caroline L. Hunt, I’m sure it wouldn’t have met his approval had he been alive. In it, you can see the beginnings of what would be a century dominated by special interest and food political agendas.

In the little over a century between 1796 and 1900 Lavosier and Atwater made HUGE progress on energy and in the last century we’ve made progress on vitamins and minerals.

We have taken Wilbur Olin Atwater’s life work and reduced it to … pervasive, unintelligible, and misguided recommendations for people.

The key to weight loss AND health is to start talking about food, and not label it with macronutrient names based on a fictional notion that the most significant factor of a food is the majority of the macronutrient present within it.

 The above-article comes from the personal blog of Ray Cronis, which is known as Thermogenex, located at www.hypothermics.com. It says that

Ray Cronis studied chemistry in undergraduate and graduate school and began his career as a Material Scientist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. During his 15 years at NASA, he worked on a microgravity material science, physical & analytical chemistry, and space station environmental control an life support systems. Ray co-founded Zero Gravity Corporation with Peter Diamandis and Byron Lichtenberg - creating the world's first private parabolic flight operation. He is not a medical doctor, but is informally currently exploring the issue of weight loss by way of basic thermodynamic principles.

  Click the link if you’rd like to see “Food For Young Children” (1916) by Caroline L. Hunt, which is the pamphlet referred to in the article above.

As part of my Dieting Hobby, I often consider things such as these,  simply because I find them interesting and/or inspiring.  I don’t feel it necessary to make a personal decision as to whether the ideas are truly “correct” or “incorrect”. Here at DietHobby my philosophy is: 
 Take what you like and leave the rest.