Why are people so negative about this diet???

[Soel]

It's a bit rich to critizise CD for being "potentially dangerous" Iris when you have listed your goal BMI as 17.2 - officially underweight, with all the serious health implications that entails including infertility. The words pot, kettle and black spring to mind.

 

[KD]

'The real issue, however, is not the effectiveness of initial weight loss (almost any diet can do that) but the long-term success in keeping off unwanted pounds.

Absolutely. Whichever diet you do, it makes no difference for maintenance.

Relying on a diet formula does not teach people how to eat normally.

Nope, which is why Cambridge move on to low GI, calorie controlled diet which you do for 2 to 3 months.

Dr. Howard himself reported that within 15 months after going off the diet 62 out of 72 patients in one group and 53 of 62 in another group had regained at least half of the weight they lost.

That's actually quite good , since most diets have something like a 95% failure rate for maintenance. Still, bad, but faring well as other research proves.

But whatever, I don't think it makes any difference (regardless of the very positive research that indicates more chance of keeping it off with a VLCD), maintenance still comes down to what you do after the diet.

Bearing in mind that the majority of people who do Cambridge are folk that have done every other woe possible and not kept it off, and also tend to be more than averagely overweight, I would say there was a higher chance that they don't succeed in maintenance. Not because of the diet, but various other factors.

And it's what makes me still so angry about any company offering any diet system which makes money from products that don't work in the long term for most people.

Do you put other companies under this bracket too? Diet coke, sprite Any foods that have been processed to make them low calorie even though people who drink them still tend to get bigger anyway.

It makes me wonder if there really is more money for the company in failure, and repetitive failure at that.

I notice that you were interested in SW. I've done SW probably more than a dozen times. Put it all back again...sigh. Not SWs fault, in the same way that it isn't Cambridges fault that people gain again after doing low GI, calorie controlled months before maintenance.

Give people the products, give them advice, but know that the stats say the majority will eventually fail and come back for more

But come on Iris. Be realistic. Do you think all diet products should have this warning on. Diet coke...sprite etc too. WW, SW, calorie counting. Perhaps calorie counting books should be banned because so many people who lose weight calorie counting often gain it again (me being one)

If you believe a diet system will genuinely help people to lose and maintain that loss long term, then why not attach a money-back guarantee to it?

Again, this is unrealistic. The diet doesn't fail people, people 'fail' the diet, for whatever reason. It does what it says on the tin. Can't see many companies offering a money back guarantee for a product failing when it hasn't been used properly.

 

[sbridge7]

Crikey, I feel like the lone atheist who's wandered into a church. Like I said, not my intention to offend anyone at all - just offering a viewpoint. You know the funny thing? I considered CD many moons ago while at the end of my rope and in the grip of a six month chocolate binge. I decided to do some reading on it because I get geeky tendencies at times, and in the end it was one lone article that put me off the prospect completely. An old article, admittedly, from the NY Times, but it wasn't the outdated scientific worries that stalled me, it was simply this paragraph:

'The real issue, however, is not the effectiveness of initial weight loss (almost any diet can do that) but the long-term success in keeping off unwanted pounds. Relying on a diet formula does not teach people how to eat normally. Dr. Howard himself reported that within 15 months after going off the diet 62 out of 72 patients in one group and 53 of 62 in another group had regained at least half of the weight they lost. ''Whatever the reason,'' Dr. Howard reported, ''the maintenance of weight loss remains a major problem in this type of therapy, as it does for those undergoing complete starvation.'''

That's what made me decide no. And it's what makes me still so angry about any company offering any diet system which makes money from products that don't work in the long term for most people.

It makes me wonder if there really is more money for the company in failure, and repetitive failure at that. Give people the products, give them advice, but know that the stats say the majority will eventually fail and come back for more or just toss it in altogether and get even fatter. Couple this with the damage that any kind of yo-yo dieting can do to a person's body and mind in the long term, and bleedin' heck, it makes me positively bloody wrathful. I start to wonder if dieting itself isn't actually the real enemy, the thing that is making people fatter and more miserable in the long term.

No one wants to believe they'll be one of the unlucky regainers. But if the stats are to be believed and the odds of regain are so overwhelmingly high - it makes you question whether the emotional and physical investment in a potentially dangerous diet is worth it, and more to the point, whether it's morally justifiable for a company to make money out of it knowing its probable long term success rate.

How is it ethical for anyone, not just Cambridge, to make money out of that kind of misery? If you believe a diet system will genuinely help people to lose and maintain that loss long term, then why not attach a money-back guarantee to it? Get a company to prove they're not just in it for the massive profit margins attached to cyclical yo'yo failure.

The diet industry, in general, makes me sick.

I think you should take a look at many of the maintainers who have managed to keep the weight off after doing CD. CD provides fast weight loss, which is what many people need to spur them off. Regardless of whatever diet you follow, if you're not prepared to change your relationship with food, you'll gain.

 

[Iris]

However much I wanted to eat intuitively I simply couldn't for very long and would end up with an empty tube of Pringles and an ice cream tub hidden under some paper in the bin

Hi Alli, the Pringles sound familiar! I've heard about Intuitive Eating but I haven't done any reading on it. Is it related to the McKenna approach? I picked up his book lately and had a thumb through - I thought it had a lot of sound common sense to it. But nothing's going to work if you're just not ready for it, right? I think you can hit a tipping point where something mental or emotional in you shifts - and it's that shift which propels you through the diet, any diet. I do agree with you, the trick is finding a system that works well for you personally, and everyone is different. But I do think you're better armed for the long term battle of maintenance if you've given your mind and body enough time to adjust to the new you, if you know what I mean.

I found some good studies that suggested that VLCDs might be a good way of losing weight and that the common perception that you put the weight back on at the rate that you lost it is just not true.

I agree it doesn't have to be true, that's true, but the maintenance success rates I've read in various studies range from 1% to 15%. That's taking in the full spectrum of diets, not specific to CD or VCLD, and I can't find any information that suggests that any profit-driven system offers substantially better long term results. So that's a 75% - 99% rate of failure. For every person who succeeds... how many don't? And how many return to try again and buy again and pad out the company's coffers?

VLCD certainly isn't for everyone and I still have conflicting emotions having been firmly against it for so long. I suspect I will not be 100% convinced until I've lost the weight and maintained my new weight for some time. BUT (and it is a big but ) I have never before in my life felt more sure that I will lose all the weight and maintain.

Sorry for the long message - I always intend on being concise...must try harder

Don't apologise! I'm a rambler myself. Very sincerely, I wish you all the luck in the world achieving your goal and maintaining it. If you're hellbent on doing it, it'll happen. When you get there, though, maybe spare a thought for the 75 - 99% of other people who've fallen by the wayside while you've succeeded!

PS Forgot to say that I agree with you about the diet industry! The food industry in general actually. All that food in the shops labelled as healthy when it's packed full of sugar - it's criminal!

I agree! Sugar-spotting is one of my supermarket hobbies these days. I was recently horrified by 'Ready Brek with honey'. See, the original Ready Brek has a lovely little note on it advertising its virtuous no-added sugar status, and it sits alongside other innocuous looking additions to the family - Ready Brek Honey, and Ready Brek Chocolate. All have the same calories at first glance, but looking more closely, 20% of the wholegrain good stuff has been yanked out of the chocolate and honey boxes to be replaced with pure sugar. I think the government guidelines are that anything over 10g of sugar per 100g is very high. They have 20g! Twice the recommendation and they're marketed at kids (and overgrown sweet-toothed cereal-loving kids like me). Same old story, I guess, profit margins driving companies to pad out their products with cheap sugar and fat... I'll shut up now before I get angry!

Whoa - Iris, I just spotted your BMI? Is that right? A BMI of less than 18 really isn't healthy, hun.

I recently had a chat with my GP and she gave me the green light to shift a couple of pounds more if I felt it was necessary. No offence or anything, but I'm happy to trust her judgement on that. If it'll make you feel any better, my wrist/elbow measurements indicate a very slight frame. In the same way that BMI isn't a reliable indicator of health in many athletes, I doubt it cuts the mustard for weedy types like me.

not to pick or anything, but i have to say i noticed this bit too
"off and on since January 2007"....
Just goes to show its not just CD where people fluctuate..

Very true, but no one's been profiting from my fluctuations, unless we count Thornton's plc - and as much as I'd like to blame them, they never claimed they'd help me lose weight!

By the way, well done on the journey so far, and best of luck with your continuing weight loss!

It's a bit rich to critizise CD for being "potentially dangerous" Iris when you have listed your goal BMI as 17.2 - officially underweight, with all the serious health implications that entails including infertility. The words pot, kettle and black spring to mind.

It's like PMQ in the House, isn't it! I refer the honourable member to the reply I gave some moments ago...

As a matter of fact, just for the record, my symptoms of pcos have all but disappeared since I lost weight. My GP's a happy lady!

Bearing in mind that the majority of people who do Cambridge are folk that have done every other woe possible and not kept it off, and also tend to be more than averagely overweight, I would say there was a higher chance that they don't succeed in maintenance. Not because of the diet, but various other factors.

To me, that makes it worse. If the majority of people trying it are already at the end of their rope and willing to give anything a go, would you personally take their money knowing that the odds indicate they will fail again? I don't get it - the means don't justify the ends, and the ends don't justify the means. Whichever way you look at it, the vast bulk of people don't maintain their loss. It'd be a bit like selling a car to someone, knowing that around 90% of people will find it unusable within 2 years. Unless you specifically market it as a short term old banger with a built-in design flaw, you're committing what boils down to fraud, if not in practice, then in principle. Yes, the car may get you from point A to point B over the short term, just as the diet may take the pounds off, but the stats show it hasn't got long term mileage. Eventually it turns back into a pumpkin and you're left stranded on the Highway of Fat once more. (Aren't mixed metaphors fun! )

I suppose what I'm asking is - why sell that car? Sure, it's a just a tool, but a tool which doesn't appear to work for the vast majority of people. For every one person who succeeds and maintains, how many don't? You can't even really say 'well, if we've helped one person then it's justified,' because it isn't when weighed against the misery of continued yo-yo'ing and potentially even deeper weight problems for the majority. And especially not when that 'help' rendered is about the deepness of pockets rather than the goodness of hearts.

Do you put other companies under this bracket too? Diet coke, sprite Any foods that have been processed to make them low calorie even though people who drink them still tend to get bigger anyway.

I think I have a good dollop of bile for most big corporations - plenty to go round! Sprite and Diet Coke aren't marketed as weight loss systems, though, are they? Many calorie counted products do have a fine print warning - 'can aid weight loss only as part of a calorie controlled diet.' Perhaps diet systems should carry a similar warning - 'may result in weight loss, but stats indicate you'll be even fatter this time next year.'

I notice that you were interested in SW. I've done SW probably more than a dozen times. Put it all back again...sigh. Not SWs fault, in the same way that it isn't Cambridges fault that people gain again after doing low GI, calorie controlled months before maintenance.

I'm interested in SW, mainly because I unwittingly followed a free foods system this time in the first few months of my weight loss and I found it helped me feel full whereas whenever I tried to eat a lot less before, I fell off the wagon. The cynical hag in me does wonder whether they have a financial arrangement with Muller, though! It's a sad fact of life, but money and scruples don't often go hand in hand. Companies like SW or Cambridge or WW aren't charitable institutions, and whatever warm and cosy soundbites they feed their hungry audience, they're in it to make money. The part of you they're most interested in is your purse.

Again, this is unrealistic. The diet doesn't fail people, people 'fail' the diet, for whatever reason. It does what it says on the tin. Can't see many companies offering a money back guarantee for a product failing when it hasn't been used properly.

I think the diet automatically fails the user because what it offers on the tin just isn't enough. I don't think it's enough to sell a weight loss system if you can't offer the dieter better than a 90ish% chance of long term failure to maintain. When Dr. Howard saw those stats on maintenance, surely his conclusion should have been 'what I've developed is a tool for short term weight loss, not a system that will benefit the majority in the long run.' If he, or the industry in general, were truly interested in helping people keep that weight off, they'd go back to the drawing board and come up with something that works long term, not just for Christmas.

As it is, there's little incentive for them to do that. Just the promise of speedy loss is usually enough to sell a product - so why bother beyond that? Especially when profits are inflated by failure - after all, the diet 'worked,' you shed the weight, then you put it back on, so if you want to lose weight again, you'll buy our products because you know they 'work.'

You know, it'd be funny if it wasn't so darn tragic. The story of the stats: dieting doesn't work. Perpetuating a diet culture in the pursuit of profit is, to me, more than a little morally suspect.

I think you should take a look at many of the maintainers who have managed to keep the weight off after doing CD. CD provides fast weight loss, which is what many people need to spur them off. Regardless of whatever diet you follow, if you're not prepared to change your relationship with food, you'll gain.

That's very true, and I salute anyone who manages to maintain after any diet - but how many don't? Do you think it's fair for a company, any company, to rake in profits from serial failure?

Money from misery bothers me. Probably always will.

Just a thought - I'd be interested to see the stats on the average weight of two groups, compared side by side. All with a BMI over 25. Those two groups would be people who've dieted in the past, and people who've never dieted. I think I'd wager a hefty sum that the average weight of the dieters would be more than the non-dieters. Some of the largest people I know with the biggest food demons are people who've tried every diet going, including Cambridge. They've probably shed their own body weight in cumulative efforts many times over, and each time it just gets harder and harder because they've put more weight back on after each failure and feel more and more demoralised and hopeless.

Does dieting actually make more people fatter and more miserable? My guess is that the answer to that question is yes. Surely profiting from that state of affairs is highly unethical. But hey, ethics and big business... never comfortable bed partners.

 

[KD]

To me, that makes it worse. If the majority of people trying it are already at the end of their rope and willing to give anything a go, would you personally take their money knowing that the odds indicate they will fail again? I don't get it - the means don't justify the ends, and the ends don't justify the means.

Umm. Are you saying that I should slap a FAIL sticker on their forehead and send them away. Because if my CDC had done that to me, then I'd probably be more that 8stone heavier now.

After a big weightloss, there is a high chance people will put the weight back on, whatever the diet. I don't think it's fair to tell people that they don't stand a hope in hell of losing weight.

I'd rather give them the facts, and help them learn how to maintain after their loss with healthy foods at a suitable calorie level. And support them whilst doing it. I never had that support or info when I got down to goal before.

As for taking their money, well, perhaps a quick note to tescos stating they should sell food, it should be given free? I believe they make a profit too for their goods and services.

 

[KD]

The story of the stats: dieting doesn't work.

It's true that dieting can make you fatter if you don't control your intake (during and after). Ideal is to never have to diet in the first place.

What confuses me, is that you've dieted to get the weight off. Okay, you may have given your money to a supermarket, rather than a dieting company, but the chances of maintaining successfully will be similar, because it's what you do after that decides how successful you are at keeping the weight off.

Unless you've had surgery to 'cut' it off, but I dont' think so...your profile says you used self denial. Sorry, but you really sound like an anti dieter, but appear to have made dieting work for you so far

 

[Iris]

Umm. Are you saying that I should slap a FAIL sticker on their forehead and send them away. Because if my CDC had done that to me, then I'd probably be more that 8stone heavier now.

Not at all, but surely you could give someone advice on losing weight and maintaining that loss without their need to part with any cash?

I mean, call me a crazed idealist...

 

[Iris]

It's true that dieting can make you fatter if you don't control your intake (during and after). Ideal is to never have to diet in the first place.

What confuses me, is that you've dieted to get the weight off. Okay, you may have given your money to a supermarket, rather than a dieting company, but the chances of maintaining successfully will be similar, because it's what you do after that decides how successful you are at keeping the weight off.

Unless you've had surgery to 'cut' it off, but I dont' think so...your profile says you used self denial. Sorry, but you really sound like an anti dieter, but appear to have made dieting work for you so far

We've both made a 'diet' work apparently. So far. But just because they work for us, it doesn't negate the sorry tale of the stats, does it?

Sure, I've given my money to a supermarket, but I'd have been giving it anyway. Asda's broccoli stash may have attracted more of my moolah than before, but I've been spending pretty much what I always did on food.

And you're right, I'm anti-diet. I think the culture causes more misery than it cures. The only reason this 'diet' has worked for me so far is that I've had to accept that it's for life. So it's not a diet anymore, it's the way I eat.

 

[KD]

Not at all, but surely you could give someone advice on losing weight and maintaining that loss without their need to part with any cash?

I mean, call me a crazed idealist...

Crazed idealist

I also admit to giving music lessons and charging for my advice, and also have paid my NHS and tax dues and received advice from my doctors, teachers etc, all of whom get paid.

But anyway, this is beside the point, please take note that this forum is for support, not to put down other people choice of diets!

 

[KD]

The only reason this 'diet' has worked for me so far is that I've had to accept that it's for life. So it's not a diet anymore, it's the way I eat.

Which is different from what I do, and from what I advise my clients. They diet to lose the weight, and then they don't diet for life. They learn to eat healthily.

I have no problem with your choice of dieting for life. Just not the way I prefer to do it. I wish you all the luck in the world with your 'diet'

 

[Iris]

Crazed idealist

I also admit to giving music lessons and charging for my advice, and also have paid my NHS and tax dues and received advice from my doctors, teachers etc, all of whom get paid.

But anyway, this is beside the point, please take note that this forum is for support, not to put down other people choice of diets!

Sure, I just happen to believe that helping people lose weight should be grounded in the public rather than the private sector. I think that NHS-driven initiatives should be the order of the day, instead of companies with an arguably vested interest in keeping you twitching at the end of the yo'yo.

I've just been offering a viewpoint - not putting anyone down, at least I hope not! I try to be as supportive of all other dieters as I can.

 

[Iris]

Which is different from what I do, and from what I advise my clients. They diet to lose the weight, and then they don't diet for life. They learn to eat healthily.

Those that stick at it, right?

I have no problem with your choice of dieting for life. Just not the way I prefer to do it. I wish you all the luck in the world with your 'diet'

If you're a foodaholic, you're always going to have to be aware of food, and exert some degree of denial. I'm sure you know that as well as I do. There's no magic wand that can be waved that suddenly cures your food addiction. To me, I'm not on a 'diet,' I'm eating in a way I can sustain for the rest of my life.

I wish you luck with your maintenance, too!

 

[KD]

Those that stick at it, right?

I didn't stick at calorie counting, nor SW etc. Not for long enough.

Now please Iris, your posts are certainly not coming over as positive support for the Cambridge dieters on this forum, and since replies for the original message is now going a little astray, I am closing this thread and suggest that if you have nothing positive to say about the diet, you stay away from the cambridge forum on minimins.