Interesting little article today saying that research-whatever that means in the context of weight loss- shows that crash dieting, or fast dieting is just as crap as slow dieting, or lifestyle change/choice.
This is worth noting because for a while now we have be fed some delusions aimed at rescuing weight loss dieting from the mayhem it both causes, in itself and provokes by it's activation of the body's defences; against it. Like most things surrounding weight loss dieting, reality simply will not co-operate with this wishful thinking. The truth is, dieting isn't healthy-regardless of what you think of being fat or weight gain, whatever, it can cause many if not all of the conditions it is supposed to alleviate by relieving one permanently of weight. It of course, cannot deliver on the latter, even if it can the former.
Both of these knotty issues pose a problem for diet apologists, the failure to work and the failure sustain, weight loss. The "solution" to these is to pretend that there is something called, good or competent dieting versus bad and incompetent dieting. Good dieting is slowed down and elongated dieting, watering it down so that it can be sustained for life, which is why it's called lifestyle change (or choice)usually fused with healthist dogmatism on favouring certain foodstuffs and the exclusion of others.
Bad dieting has become faster dieting, crash dieting, VLCD-very low calorie diets, semi-fasting of various types, such as exclusive food groups, of low calorific value, such as watery fruits/veg, a few or one kind. In gradations, starting off more strictly than it finishes, etc. Point is, it's seen as temporary, something to use up energy stores and then return to more normal ways of eating.
The bad ones are the ones that are not supposed to work and are supposed to be the unhealthy ones. They helpfully take on all of dieting's bad effects and good dieting is supposed to be healthy in itself and health improving in action.
This is how you get round the fact that dieting's bad for you, split them into two and label one good and the other bad. You may sense a flaw. It's regarding efficacy.
It seems faster diets are no more ineffectual than slow(er) ones. And possibly work even better, which is saying virtually nothing.
This is nothing new of course, as virtually nothing is in the whole dieting debacle, it all goes round and round in a circle of hell-and has been doing so for hundreds, if not thousands (or more) years. It will continue thus, until we accept what we have been told by reality over and over again. There can be no progress, because that would require progress, and that cannot occur without coming to terms with the facts. Like all those who are in shock, those who just cannot believe this is happening/ not happening the endless repetition doesn't make for progress if that centre of gravity remains the same. As there are many afflicted by this unfortunate faith, reaching a critical mass of acceptance of reality could happen anytime from today to the twelfth of never.