question for dieters

I see a lot of postings that include the word "diet" and "dieting".  The way we describe things affects our attitudes and actions.  Although it may not be technically correct, the term "diet" usually implies a short term strategy for eliminating some component of what you normally eat either by category or amount.  "Dieting" does not imply a permanent change but a temporary change until some goal is reached.  It recently occurred to me that this word is affecting behaviour. 

If you are dieting, that translates as cutting back on a temporary basis, but are you really altering your eating patterns? Once the goal is reached, have you set the stage for permanent weight loss?  Or is it just another struggle to meet (and possibly fail) another diet, ie. the "maintenance diet"?  Yes, I know.  Everyone here is just trying to eat healthy.  Still, over and over again i see that word and i see postings with people asking how little (not how much)  they can get away with eating without bad effect.

Suppose instead you subscribe to a permanent change, with no temporary deprivation involved.  Describe it as "food management" or something of that nature.   Would that not have an influence on your behaviour to permanently change eating habits?  Wouldn't this be easier than fighting against hunger, which is one of the strongest impulses we have?  

Just a thought. 

i always thought the word diet really just meant the foods that make up what you normally eat...for example, saying it in a sentence such as "a healthy diet of fruits, veggies, etc"....but then again english isnt my first language and thats how i was taught about its definition.  the attachment of 'diet' meaning calorie restriction and fad dieting, etc, is a variant of that i guess.
its hard for some people to permanently eat "healthy".... i guess looking at myself i can say that i certainly cant eat healthy 24/7 and i do stray from my healthy diet....who doesnt want to eat cake all the time! hehe.  but i do know how to eat healthy but i had to learn how...

The word "diet" does in fact mean what you say.  However, in common usage in North America, it has come to mean a regimen to reduce weight, as in "to diet". 

I am just wandering around in health and fitness land, trying to understand the mechanics of why we gain weight, how best to lose it, and what balance and type of workout suits me, personally.

Eating healthy is what everyone wants to do, i think.  It just seems that when you mix in a weight loss goal, the primary concern becomes restriction.  I think that comes from the concept of "dieting" built into our gestalt.  I wonder if people would have greater success if they could expunge that idea.  I realize that people who post here are often successful in their efforts, including the dieting component.  I just wonder if that success is lasting and also point at the thousands and thousands of people in the US and Canada who unsuccessfuly try to lose weight through assorted programs, diet aids, special foods, weight loss clubs and so on.  Looking around at the mall, I'd say it's a losing battle.

I was hoping, I guess, to challenge the methods of people on restricted calorie diets.  And by that I mean anyone who has calculated some calorie minimum which they don't intend to follow the rest of their lives, but only until the desired weight is achieved.  I think it doesn't work on a long term basis, and I have so far seen nothing to indicate that it does.  My own experience supports this, but I'm open to other evidence.

Agreed. I'm on no diet; I'm living a healthier lifestyle.

I guess we should aim for a heathy balanced diet for the rest of our lives. Diet isn't a negative word at all.

As they say "Everything in moderation"

While I do agree that the use of positive language and a positive inner dialog are important to losing weight permanently, I think that there is a fallacy in your logic.

In order to lose weight, you must burn more than you consume, aka maintain a deficit.  So while losing weight, you have two choices.  Either eat as much as you want and exercise like mad to create a deficit or restrict your intake and exercise in moderation.  Given how busy most people are, the first choice isn't really an option.  I had to change my schedule to get up at 4:30 am and be at the gym by 5:00 am to get in the two hours of workout that I like to get to create my deficit.  Any other time of day just didn't work for me due to the requirements of work, taking care of my family, etc.  So currently, I am restricting calories to lose weight to keep my deficit where it should be to lose weight.  Once I reach my goal, I will adjust my intake to a level that will let me maintain.

So I don't think restricting is bad, per se, or will cause me to fail.  It is just a trade off I make so that I don't have to live at the gym.

Yes, it's true that you have to take in less than what you needed to support your current weight if you want to lose, but aren't you doing that by eating at the maintenance level of the weight that you want to be? My argument is that if, for example, it takes 2500 calories to maintain the weight that you want to be at a moderate activity level, but you normally have been eating 3000 and not doing anything and that's what has resulted in the excess weight. Why would you not go with a 2500 calorie diet and increased activity, which is easy to maintain, over a 1500 calorie diet and increased activity which is not easy to maintain? 

For someone who just wants to lose 10 pounds, it's not such a big deal, but when you're looking at a 50 pound weight loss, even if you lose a remarkable 2 pounds per week, you're looking at 25 weeks of deprivation.  I don't know too many people that can actually do that.  They fail and they succumb to binges. 

How long have you been logging 2 hours at the gym?  I couldn't keep that up, myself.  I have also heard from both trainers and written sources that working out for more than 60 minutes at a stretch is counterproductive.  

I use to say I was making a lifestyle change, but too many people thought that I was "coming out" as a lesbian... lol.  So, I use diet in the vernacular. I understand what I mean. I am making a change for life.

Original Post by miss_vito:

Yes, it's true that you have to take in less than what you needed to support your current weight if you want to lose, but aren't you doing that by eating at the maintenance level of the weight that you want to be? My argument is that if, for example, it takes 2500 calories to maintain the weight that you want to be at a moderate activity level, but you normally have been eating 3000 and not doing anything and that's what has resulted in the excess weight. Why would you not go with a 2500 calorie diet and increased activity, which is easy to maintain, over a 1500 calorie diet and increased activity which is not easy to maintain?

For someone who just wants to lose 10 pounds, it's not such a big deal, but when you're looking at a 50 pound weight loss, even if you lose a remarkable 2 pounds per week, you're looking at 25 weeks of deprivation. I don't know too many people that can actually do that. They fail and they succumb to binges.

How long have you been logging 2 hours at the gym? I couldn't keep that up, myself. I have also heard from both trainers and written sources that working out for more than 60 minutes at a stretch is counterproductive.

My goal is to lose 160 pounds, so I don't have a just a few pounds to lose and I have been doing this for almost 11 months.  The gym has only been since January though.  I have never read or heard that more than 60 minutes of workout at a time is counterproductive and my results don't show that either.  I have lost over 116 pounds so far eating below my maintenance calories and I don't feel deprived, I don't have a list of off limit foods, and I'm not constantly hungry all the time either.  I just went out last night to buy some new clothes, since I have lost almost 10 inches in my waist.

I just wanted to add that I think that weight loss is too personal to make generalizations like you did.  By that I mean that it isn't exact enough of a science to be able to make the conclusions that you are making.

While it may be true for some people, it certainly isn't true for me, but I may be the exception to the rule.  If you look at my journal and the description of the plan that I devised, you will see that is very restrictive in the types of calories I get each day, but that by changing the restrictions daily, I can incorporate just about any food I want.  I don't think that my plan would work for anyone but me, but since I designed it for the way I like to eat and it allows me to eat any type of food I want, then it is perfect for me and I have no problem sticking with it and haven't since I started this last June.

The only thing I have really cut out of my diet is fast food, but that is because the majority of it is very unhealthy and I realized that it wasn't really that I liked it, but that it was convenient.

I have done extensive reading about people who are successful at losing weight and keeping it off and the strategies that work for them.  I have incorporated many of those strategies into my plan and I see in myself many of the traits that they share.  So while I am currently restricting to fewer than my maintenance calories for my goal weight, I just don't believe that I will ever go back to my unhealthy eating habits, regardless of whether I ever reach my target weight or not.  I am enjoying my healthy eating lifestyle too much for that.

When I first began on CC my screen name was "JuliasDiet" and I changed it because I felt people would misunderstand what I meant.

To me, JuliasDiet meant "this is a log of what Julia eats". What people probably assumed is, "Julia is on a diet". The word has a double meaning. It can be something you have and something you do.

So, I'm pick'n up what you're lay'n down. It's a good affirmation to say "I have a healthier lifestyle" instead of "I am on a diet".

Original Post by kishmish:

i always thought the word diet really just meant the foods that make up what you normally eat...for example, saying it in a sentence such as "a healthy diet of fruits, veggies, etc"....but then again english isnt my first language and thats how i was taught about its definition. the attachment of 'diet' meaning calorie restriction and fad dieting, etc, is a variant of that i guess.
its hard for some people to permanently eat "healthy".... i guess looking at myself i can say that i certainly cant eat healthy 24/7 and i do stray from my healthy diet....who doesnt want to eat cake all the time! hehe. but i do know how to eat healthy but i had to learn how...

i agree. and english is also not my first language:) i understand a diet both as a vehicle to lose weight AND as in "i follow a vegetarian diet" or "one shozuld eat a balanced diet". i do not have a problem stating i am "on a diet" now - well i am, so why call it otherwise?

Congratulations to you, kishmish - that's a great achievement.  It seems that there is indeed no single answer for everyone and I don't really propose that there is.  Which is part of my problem with the concept of eating restrictive calories.  I personally lost 75 pounds by eating to the weight I wanted to be and it was the most painless means of losing weight I have ever experienced.  I was never much of a junk food fan and my food choices were always pretty good, so it was just understanding how much of those good foods I really needed.  Took a long time, though, so it might not suit people whose needs are immediate gratification. 

My interest in starting this thread was to find out what people thought about this approach.

As an aside, my personal trainer and a few other website articles (sorry, I can't remember them now) were the source of the 60 minute thing.  I think the particular reference was to the average person doing either cardio or heavy weights very strenuously for consecutive 60 minutes with no breaks, and "counterproductive"  meant that the return for the effort was much less than when keeping to the hour.  Obviously, athletes train for more than an hour.  I should check details before making these comments.  

In regard to the other comments, if being on a diet actually gives you motivation for permanent change, well that's something to consider.  I still think the word affects the action and for some at least, being on a "diet" is committing only to a temporary change. 

Original Post by mortalmonkey:

Agreed. I'm on no diet; I'm living a healthier lifestyle.

I couldn't agree more.  When I saw the title of  your thread I almost didn't click it because I do not consider myself a dieter.