The Self-Deception That Believes the Lie

Breaking news: You're more likely to be normal about food--including losing weight if you have to--if you're not going hungry.  This staggering development was revealed recently in a rather odd study, published in the journal Obesity, that looked at both diet composition (high-protein versus low) and meal timing (six small meals a day versus three "squares").  I'll say right up front that my BS detector started pinging when I saw that the study was funded in part by the National Pork Board and the American Egg Board--and yes, a good portion of the protein being served up to participants was in the form of pork and eggs. 

However. In the spirit of not throwing the baby out with the bath-water, I have to admit the study had a few thought-provoking hypotheses, boiling down to this: people who ate a moderately high-protein diet (not insanely high: 25% protein, 26% fat, 49% carb) and ate three reasonably satisfying (but still dietetic) meals daily felt fuller throughout the day, were less tempted to snack at night, and wasted less time obsessing about food.

The contrarian in me is attracted to this conclusion, because it flies in the face of yet another weight-loss "technique" that actually has very little science backing it up: the Frequent-Meal Theory,
which holds that eating small meals throughout the day will keep your blood-sugar steady, your metabolism chugging along, and your appetite under control.  Know what that was largely based on?  Previous research suggesting that overweight and obese people tend to eat fewer, but larger meals.  That's quite a leap to make in terms of cause-and-effect--especially considering that researchers have made the startling discovery that people don't always tell the truth about what and when and how much they eat (especially guilt-laden heavy folk participating in a weight-loss study).

In truth, many people don't lose weight by following the Frequent-Meal Theory (particularly people who have been struggling with cravings and food issues for years)--just the way many people didn't lose weight (at least, not permanently) doing Atkins, or following the Big Breakfast Diet (whose premise is that eating your biggest meal in the morning leads to smaller meals later, and ultimately to painless and effortless shedding of pounds).  That's because all of these notions--and most "diets," in fact--share the same faulty and wistful logic: that weight loss can involve indulgence rather than that boring standby, Moderation; that one little "trick" will open the pearly gates onto the Elysian Fields of slenderness.  When you fall for that logic, you can take any semi-reasonable idea about eating and make it crazy: you can go on Atkins and eat unlimited amounts of bacon and macadamia nuts (Note to Self: This does not lead to weight loss).  You can follow the Big Breakfast Diet and end up eating a Larger Lunch and a Colossal Dinner.  And you can turn Six Small Meals into Constant Grazing--even some cats, renowned for their self-control, can get fat doing that.

So how can you feel reasonably sated, stay sane, and lose some weight?  Eat good meals constructed of sensible amounts of protein, fat, and carbs (the study's 25-25-50 ratio is eminently sensible), get some exercise (not mentioned in the study, but how can you not? it's key), and stop shopping for the mythical Easy-Weight-Loss-While-You-Stuff-Yourself Diet.