The "Duh" Diet

Trying Something New. Or Am I?

2007-05-03T19:28:00.000-07:00

So, I'm trying something new--unless it's just the same ol' same ol'.

The New York Times is all about it.

The "it" in question is high intensity interval training. All very well and good. Basically, it means you run like hell now and then.

So I gave it a shot tonight.

Felt okay--a bit exhausting.

10-minute warm-up run, 20 minutes alternating 1 minute of sprinting with two minutes of walking--not too daunting, this--then ten minutes of walking, a little jogging.

I figure the more I bring my heart rate down in the 'recovery' periods, the better.

But all the while, part of me was thinking: Now, God, now can I eat whatever I frigging want?

Can I go home and eat leftover Easter marshmallow chicks and some pastries from La Victoria bakery?

Can I eat the last few mint-flavored chocolate-covered graham crackers that Keebler makes to steal the thunder from those sweet little Girl Scouts. (They should beat the crap out of that flippin' elf. That is a smackdown I would love to see. God I'm high from the exercise! Listen to me! I'm fantasizing over girl-on-elf action.)

No, of course, I can't eat all that.

I'll have some pasta, though I usually try to avoid carbs at night (interferes with sleep, something about the blood sugar).

But this really brings it all home.

Is there, somewhere, a non-neurotic attitude towards food? Not in me there ain't.

Thinking of a friend's blog, it's like looking at a life from the wrong end of a telescope. She basically writes: this made me stressed, so I bought something to comfort myself or ate something to comfort myself.

And I'm just the same.

Funny how we all buy things, leisure products, that take time to consume, that are time--music, movies. Yet we don't have time to enjoy them. How many CD's do you have? Illegal mp3 or DVD downloads? Forget about gigabytes: what does iTunes give you as a total number of listening/watching hours. It's like we're all hoarding

And maybe the same thing goes for calories. I want to hoard more than I burn. (Big Idea: time is to the 21st century what calories and the vocabulary of energy were to the 19th century.)

It's like we're all asking all the time: "Just once, just once, for God's sake, can the laws of physics not apply to me? Might I not be the only one, nearly the only one, in the history of the planet, who was not constrained by so-called reality?"

And of course the answer is always 'No,' but that doesn't stop our almost-species-defining wishful thinking.

Indeed, the history of civilization might well be the history of a series of concepts invented by humans to try to think of ourselves as separate from nature.

There was "God." And "humanity." And "consciousness"--that was big in the 19th century.

All concepts meant to say: I am in this special domain where what I say goes. It's all about sovereignty. But we ain't got it.

The laws of physics have dominion over us. We're part of nature, and it just bugs the crap out of us.

(My dad used to have a cartoon: God and an angel, and God's saying, "So here's what we'll do. Let's take some of the smarter apes and give them a little more memory." And that's us.)

Burn all the calories you like. If you eat more, you'll still have a spare friggin' tire around your middle.

Unless you're that ultramarathon guy who runs like 100 miles. You hearda him?

He runs a marathon to warm-up, runs a competitive marathon, then runs another marathon or two--kinda like desert.

He can sleep while running.

In the middle of a run, he'll call ahead and order a pizza and a cheesecake. He eats it--and keeps on running. Doesn't throw up or shit. Just runs.

I hate him.

But if I were him, one pizza and one cheesecake would not be enough.

--E. R. O'Neill

Eight Miles in 82 Minutes.

2007-02-03T19:37:00.000-08:00

Nice little run today.

From Gough and Bay to the Golden Gate Bridge, then back along Bay and down the Embarcadero to just north of the Ferry Terminal.

Eight miles in 82 minutes. 5.85 mph. Not so shabby--for me, anyway.

--E. R. O'Neill

Nice Run.

2007-01-31T18:39:00.000-08:00

Only ten miles.

In 1 hour and 57 minutes.

But hey, there were hills!

Gmaps pedometer claims it's 1100 calories burned.

But everything else I read says that depends on your speed.

I'd imagine it would depend on your fitness, too--though I'm not sure which way.

I mean: if you're more fit, you're more efficient, therefore burning fewer calories.

On the other hand, if you're more fit, you're able to do more work, hence burn more calories.

Let's see, 5.13 mph burns about 1100 or 1200 calories--according to different sites.

Have I earned my veggie burrito yet!?

--E. R. O'Neill

Eat Food, Not Nutrients.

2007-01-30T23:40:00.000-08:00

Michael Pollan is at it again.

And thank goodness for him!

His long piece on 1/28/07 in the New York Times argues what I've been saying.

Lots of other people say it too.

Eat simple, whole foods. Emphasize fruits and vegetables.
Avoid highly refined foods.
Eat less but better.
Get some exercise.

But Pollan emphasizes the way our focus on nutrition seems actually to have made us sicker.

"Nutrition" would be an expression of scientific reductionism--the idea that there are agents in food which cause specific effects, apart from the circumstances or contexts.

Pollan wants to emphasize culture, food as part of a way of life.

It's not just something present in or absent from the food that makes it good for you.

It's how it's made, where it comes from, how it's part of larger healthful patterns of life.

It may be familiar, but it bears repeating.

--E. R. O'Neill

Five Pounds in 24 Hours?

2007-01-05T12:27:00.000-08:00

My weight's crept up.

While not exercising.

I hurt my calf while running--not enough warming up, no doubt.

Then I had a cold.

Counting calories, I sometimes was above 3000 in a day.

Too much.

My weight crept from 145 to 148.

Did you know that some online sites say the ideal weight for my height is 135 pounds?

I'm a stick at 135 pounds.

This page says most people my height and age weigh around 145, but then do I want to be most people?

This bizarre thing says that for white men my age I'm in something like the 10th percentile--meaning 90% of people weigh more, it seems.

This one says my BMI (22.7) is 15th percentile for men my height and age.

So I ran for two hours yesterday: from 24th and Potrero to Fisherman's Wharf--and back.

Usually I just run down there, then run a bit more on the Embarcadero, then take a train home.

Today I weighed five pounds less: from 148 to 143.

Yes, well I did run about 12 or 14 miles.

I'm sure it's "all water"--whatever that means.

The trouble is: I want to exercise and then eat all I like.

But apparently I can't.

So how many calories do I burn by running for two hours?

No one can tell me!

Or they do tell me, but the answers vary wildly.

I ate about 3000 calories yesterday--quite moderate really for that amount of exercise.

Getting my heart from 140 to 155 beats per minute for an hour (at my weight) may burn between 600 and 1000 calories. That's some latitude.

So in two hours I either burned 1200 or 2000 calories.

Subtracted from the 3000 I ate, that means I had either 1000 or 1800 calories.

Who knows.

The good thing is: I came home from running and had a salad with tuna and some few cookies. I snacked some more--soup, fruit, popcorn.

But not a quesadilla with steak.

Exercise is not a Get Out of Diet Jail for Free card.

How much an I indulge?

Time and experience will tell.

Is that steak quesadilla 1500 calories? Or 30000?

I may never know.

But I'm back to running, and that is all to the good.

--E. R. O'Neill

What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

2007-01-03T22:56:00.000-08:00

This is brilliant.

It just shows what 200 calories of various foods looks like.

As you'd imagine, that's a lot of broccoli.

It's a small-ish bowl of chili.

It's three big eggs.

It's half a burger.

It's 2/3 of a muffin.

It's a mere handful of gummy bears.

It's a couple small pieces of bacon.

It's that simple!

--E. R. O'Neill

What Gives? Skeptical Me.

2006-12-02T12:35:00.000-08:00

The more I exercise, the more I weigh.

It's a bit troubling.

Mind you, I tend to stop and eat a burrito after running 12 miles.

But still--damn, it's 12 miles!

I worked up to this slowly, truth be told.

It's mostly the pleasure of exercise, plus listening to music while I run.

I know it sounds crazy, but after 45 minutes, it's sheer pleasure. Probably the brain flooded with endorphins.

But back to my "problem."

At my tiniest I was nearly 135# at 5'7". Now I'm up to 147. But I must be healthier, yes? I mean I can run 12 miles in two hours. It's not extraordinarily fast, but it's reasonable.

My scale is no longer reliable about telling me how much fat I'm wearing. If it ever was reliable. Anyway, it used to go downward as I dieted and exercised. Now it tells me "Err 4"--which is not so helpful. I can't stomach the thought of plunking down for another--or more for a 'better' one.

Recently I looked at a chart of heart rates and whatnot. It seems that by keeping my heart at 130-145 beats per minute (BPM), I'm not working hard enough--vis-a-vis the maximum for a 44-year-old man.

So earlier this week I ran for two hours with my heart from 140-155. Then yesterday I kept it from 150-160. That was much harder. Basically, I had to run nonstop for 15 minutes before I could say sprint to get it higher then walk to relax a bit--which is what I prefer.

But you know, my body looks thinner. I think my tummy's a little flatter.

Jeans don't fit any better (when freshly washed). These are jeans with a 29-inch waist so I ought not to complain. Like that ever stopped anyone.

I would like to think my leg and butt muscles are getting so strong that it makes me weigh more.

145 pounds for a man of 5'7" is not really too big.

But skeptical me would like some evidence of improvement. (Is running further and faster not enough?)

--E. R. O'Neill

How Will I Do This?

2006-09-14T12:42:00.000-07:00

Well everything's different now.

I've moved to one of the greatest food cities in the world.

No, not Paris.

No, not Dallas. (Laugh all you want: have you eaten there?0

San Francisco. (Sigh!)

Carnitas, pho, croissants, you name it.

All of which poses a problem.

What to eat? Or rather: what not to eat, when to eat, when not to eat?

For about two weeks I was crazy with moving and slowly migrating myself and my possessions from Santa Cruz to San Francisco.

I admit, during this time I ate nearly anything I wanted.

Not absolutely anything.

I still ate lots of fruit, for instance.

And I tried not to pig out absolutely every opportunity I got.

But I did eat a lot. And I barely exercised at all.

At my lowest I weighed about 135.

With lots of running, I settled into 137 pounds, but still a 29-inch waist. And that was with less than 11% body fat--according to my scale, which is flaky.

Now I'm finally getting back to exercise after basically a two week gap.

I still can't quite figure out where to jog.

One day I hiked up to Bernal Park. I hiked up it. Then I ran around it a few times. A good warmup.

Yesterday I ran down Hampshire towards downtown, then over to Portrero Hill proper, which I walked up--no mean feat!

Then across a little pedestrian bridge to my nabe.

It was a decent hour, but certainly not something one could do twice for a two-hour workout.

I'd like to go to the Panhandle and Golden Gate Park and run to the ocean. It's a 30-minute bus ride to there, and those buses are less frequent on the way back. But one day soon I'll try.

Meanwhile, what do I eat? I'm eating more at home now, so that should help.

Can I still keep track of calories? Or should I just eat what I know is good and healthy, then allow myself a certain number of pastries and treats when exercising?

I'll have to find some healthy balance. Eating one of those lovely little tart cherry pastries from the Mexican bakery near me every day is not going to work!

I was up to 142 pounds, now 140.2 pounds after an hour-long run.

I wish I could tell you the body fat, but my scale is being quite irrational. It's either 8% or 18%. Do I get to pick?!

How will I manage?

I'll find a way.

--E. R. O'Neill

The Myth of Essence.

2006-08-12T19:14:00.000-07:00

Our culture is so strange.

We're forever chasing some magical substance hidden deep inside things.

It's the Myth of Essence.

People who eat fruits and vegetables get cancer less. So extract the vitamin C or the beta carotene from vegetables and take it as a pill.

There's some strange belief in efficiency. Who would want to eat all those nasty fruits and vegetables, when you can just take a pill?!

Weight gain might be cured by a pill. If only we added some exotic substances to our normal diet, we could avoid chaning our lives.

How backwards!

The alternative theory could be called the Hippocratic Theory: first, do no harm.

Do fruits or vegetables--or whatever--contain some magical essence that has curative powers?

Perhaps.

Do they prevent you from eating other things that are worse for you?

Definitely.

Fruits and vegetables are mostly water. They contain fiber, which helps things flush through your system quickly. And yes, they probably have good stuff in them, too.

But mostly the water and fiber displaces fat and sugar you might otherwise be eating that can do you definite harm.

So why not just eat the fruits and vegetables?!

Give up on chasing the magical whatsis which will cure all ills.

Instead: do less harm.

--E. R. O'Neill

Getting Stuck?

2006-06-22T10:50:00.000-07:00

A friend recently commented that she thought she was stuck--hadn't lost enough weight quickly enough.

She'd lost 15 pounds in three months. That's a lot! Congratulate yourself! Get a calorie-free treat, like a pedicure!

She exercises for an hour or more every day and eats well.

The only suggestions I had were these.

1. Recover. Some say that not recovering from exercise isn't healthy. Try taking a day off every other or every third day. In general, I only exercise every other day.

2. Count your calories. Even just estimate. Get a book. Or go online. Just keep a log of what you eat with approximate quantities, then later look up the calories--maybe also the protein and fat.

The best way to know what's going on is to know how many calories you eat and how much exercise you do. At any given ratio, your weight will tend towards one number--over the long-term.

Once you get an average of what you eat, you can decide if you need to trim it down by reducing fat or portion size--the best way, I think. I'm against excessive use of artificial sweeteners, protein bars and other 'fake foods,' but I don't believe in being dogmatic.

3. Mix it up. Break up your exercise routine with strength training. Lift some weights. Do pushups or situps. Work on the major muscle groups. By an exercise book or magazine with a program you can try out.

Especially helpful, I've found, is to alternate between longer, lower-intensity workouts and shorter, higher-intensity workouts. I do things in halves or doubles: 60 minutes at a lower heart rate, then 30 minutes at a higher one; or 45 minutes at one heart rate, and 1 1/2 hours at a much lower one.

4. Get a scale that measures fat. You may well be losing fat but gaining muscle and thus 'weighing' the same amount but burning lots of fat. Often in the first six months of diet and exercise, my weight stayed the same, but my percentage of body fat dropped. Now those scales aren't magic. They'll move around from day to day. But over the long haul, they do show you something.

5. Dare I say it? Have patience. Forgive yourself for not becoming perfect overnight. Enjoy your progress. Feel free to re-evaluate what your goals are.

--E. R. O'Neill

College Weight.

2006-05-29T14:16:00.000-07:00

Well, there's little to report.

Except that I'm back to my college weight of 135.

Give or take 1/2 a pound.

I'm 135.2 pounds, as of this morning.

And I've been that for about a week.

I've had a cold and so haven't been able to exercise.

And I seem to be at around 2250 calories.

So it seems with little exercise but walking, I could maintain this weight at this number of calories. Which is all you need to know.

My 30 inch waist pants are now loose. I can fit comfortably into a 29" pair of jeans. It's a bit snug to tuck in a shirt, but after a bit more running and burning off more fat, that may not be the case.

Still, it's remarkable to think that I can buy a pair of pants because the old ones don't fit and two months later need more pants.

But I think keeping 29" and 30" pants is reasonable. In case 135# is some kind of fluke or acccident of nature.

I'm not keen on weighing exactly this much. I'd like more muscle, and that would involve weight more.

But there's still a bit of fat here or there.

I've gone from 20% body fat to around 13%, sometimes 12%, like during the days after a long run.

Yesterday I played tourist in San Francisco and thus (a) ate a ton and (b) walked a ton.

I ate:

one Italian pastry in North beach,
three dim sum in Chinatown,
two cookies from a Chinese bakery,
a couple of rolls from a bakery in the Inner Sunset,
a pork taco with guacamole and corn chips,
an agua fresca (strawberry),
a small dish of ice cream.

Oh yeah. I think I managed to eat a piece of fruit in there somewhere.

The point is: I was being a tourist. There was lovely food around. I had some very rich things. I ate small portions. I didn't deprive myself. I walked a LOT.

And today I weigh the same as the day before. So no harm done.

Now if my cold would go away, I could get back to exercising.

--E. R. O'Neill

Slow and Steady Wins the Race?

2006-04-29T11:40:00.000-07:00

Yes it does--as long as you sprint a bit, too.

I'll tell you what that means.

Here's my progress. I'm staying at 140 pounds. Which is fine. I think I weighed 135 pounds in college--about fifteen years ago!

For several weeks, I was jogging or using the elliptical machine at the gym--short and sweet.

That is: high intensity, short duration. For me, this means getting my heart to 150 beats per minute (bpm) for 25 to 30 minutes.

That feels quite good: good sweat, good elevated mood and energy.

Now I've been slowing the pace and lengthening the time--to good effect.

On April 20th I ran for 45 minutes raising my heart rate to 140-145 bpm.

On April 23rd, I did the elliptical for 45 minutes getting my heart to 145 bpm. (It's easy to maintain a steady rate on the machine, where you can control the incline and resistance.)

On April 24th, I jogged for an hour, starting at 135-140 bpm for the first half, then cutting back to 130-135 for the second half.

Finally, on April 26th, I ran for one and a quarter hours at 135 bpm, then did another 45 minutes at 125-130 bpm. That's two hours.

"Running" here means: running until you get your heart to the top of your target, then walking until you start to fall below the bottom of your target.

The last, longest, slowest run was the most effective.

I went from 14.6% body fat to 13.4% body fat--in two days. If my scale is telling me the truth.

That's a pound and a half of fat burned.

The first hour and a quarter of that run was fun. After that, it was harder. I was really jogging just a tiny bit, to keep my heart rate elevated.

If I had it to do again, I might try slower--heart rate of 130. That might mean I could do the whole 2 hours at the same rate. That might prevent the last part from being so exhausting.

And I'm also trying to be semi-scientific here. I'm experimenting on myself, finding the heart rate that I can exercise at for an hour or two. Some claim that after an hour or so, you're burning mostly fat.

Mind you, you probably need the conditioning of the shorter, harder workouts in order to get some endurance for the longer slower ones.

And the middle-range runs didn't budge my percentage body fat. It even wandered around slightly higher.

But two short, intense bouts of exercise during the week, followed by one or two that's very long but otherwise easy. This could be a good formula.

From 20% body fat to nearly 13% is in less than four months is pretty darn good.

Eat right and exercise. I know: what a shock.

Which is, of course, the point.

--E. R. O'Neill

140.2 Pounds.

2006-04-24T01:42:00.000-07:00

Nice!

My 'percentage body fat'--as measured by the magic of electronic circuitry--seems to vary.

It's like the old joke: my weight is perfect for my height, which varies.

After a week of higher intensity and smaller duration, this week I'm running longer and slower.

After a spurt of the intense exercise, you're suddenly less fat, but then you bounce back.

I wonder what would happen if I did it two days in a row!

But I need to recover.

I'm keeping an eye on my morning heart rate--while still lying in bed.

It was up to 66.

Now it's down to 61.

That's recovery.

You don't want the higher rate!

So no two days in a row nonsense.

I'm also adding some resistance. You know, weight lifting.

Nothing intense.

But just enough to make me sore.

Wish me luck.

--E. R. O'Neill

Unscientific Unconclusion.

2006-04-18T15:40:00.000-07:00

Well, running faster over less time seems to maybe do something.

The electronic scale keeps fluctuating. My body fat is either 14.3% or 15.6%.

Is that a wide enough variation for you?

I've been raising my heart to 145, 150 or 155, depending on the context. It's easier on the elliptical trainer at the gym, a wider variation when jogging.

155 last time was hard! I basically had to sprint. That must have been good for me, no?

My pulse while still lying in bed in the morning is getting lower, though. It's gone from 66 to 62.

Apparently your pulse rate on first arising--or before actually getting up--gets lower and lower the better shape you're in. It's your heart and lungs being more efficient.

Sounds either businesslike (efficiency) or zen (slow....).

So my condition is improving.

I probably need to rest a bit, though.

So it's back to lower intensity and longer.

When I get a chance!

How I would dearly love a nice 90-minute jog/walk.

But it must wait until Wednesday or Thursday.

I still have to clean, do a bunch of reading, and prepare tomorrow's lecture. Monday's was a bit shabby, so I need to make up for it by sparkling extra brilliantly tomorrow.

But having just ordered two pair of jeans, one with a 30" waist and one with a 29" waist, and finding out I fit nicely if snugly in the 29" pair, I'm not too unhappy. (How's that for qualified?)

--E. R. O'Neill

Is This Possible?

2006-04-15T11:36:00.000-07:00

For the last couple of days, my electronic scale's been telling me I have 15% body fat.

15% of 140.8 pounds, that's 21.1 pounds of fat. (Strange to think of it--as if it's all collected in a vat somewhere.)

Today, the scale claims I have 13.8% body fat. Same weight. But now only 19.4 pounds of fat.

Is it possible that I've 1.7 pounds of fat in a day?

I doubt it very much.

The electronic scales 'measure' by passing electricity through you--completely painless, I assure you--and then figuring out how much of you is water and how much fat and how much bone by some kind of formula (based on height and age, in this scale's case).

This scale has two different settings, one for 'normal' and the other for 'athlete.' Which am I? I don't consider exercising three or four times a week for a couple of months to make me an 'athlete'?

Nevertheless, after two rounds of exercise at high heart rate for a short duration--25 to 30 minutes--let me tell you: my tummy looks smaller, flatter. I'm actually beginning to see the ab muscles underneath.

Now I'm someone who weighs about 140 pounds and is only 5' 7". So at this point I'm not what you'd consider overweight. It's not as if two days transformed me utterly.

But high intensity and shorter duration does seem to do something good.

I'll have to try a week at the other end of the spectrum--low intensity and longer duration.

But at this point, the key thing is probably: something is better than nothing.

--E. R. O'Neill

Which Exercise Works Best?

2006-04-13T21:49:00.000-07:00

I seriously have no idea.

But I'm going to find out!

Now that I'm 141 pounds--I started out at 164!--and have a 30" waist, it's not so much about weight loss for me as losing fat.

My electronic scale claims I'm 15% body fat. I started at 20%.

That's right: I used to have about 33 pounds of fat on my body, and now I have closer to 20.

But I would like to remove a bit of pudge, maybe be able to see my abdominal muscles just a bit?

So what should I do? I've been exercising. That helps.

But there's some debate about duration vs. intensity.

Namely, is it better to have a longer duration at a lower intensity? Or a shorter duration at a higher intensity?

Should I take an hourlong walk, or a 20-minute very brisk jog?

Partisans of the first approach claim that the longer you exercise the more of what you're burning is fat. After about an hour, you're burning almost entirely fat, hence the utility of this approach.

On the other hand, you're not burning that many calories overall.

Partisans of the second approach claim that if you raise your heart rate higher, it stays up longer and thus burns more overall calories, both due to the intensity and to the amount of time your heart rate is elevated.

I decided to find out--in my own, compulsive and semi-scientific way.

I figure: I know what foods keep me thin. How hard could it be to find out what exercise does the same?

So last week I went for a two-hour run!

For the first hour, I didn't get my heart above 140 beats per minute (bpm). Truthfully, this involves running a bit, then walking. It's rather pleasant and not terribly challenging.

Then I walked another hour (with short spurts of jogging) to keep my heart rate between 120 and 125 bpm.

A day and a half later, I had lost a pound and a half of fat!

Of course, the following day it was more like half a pound.

Then I jogged for 25 minutes, keeping my heart rate at 150 bpm. (It happened to be on a machine, but that can't make too much difference, I imagine.)

A day and a half later, I had lost over a half a pound of fat--and kept it off.

So the jury's still out. Obviously, one can't take two hours off that often to go running, even running very slowly.

The short-fast burst approach certainly seems less time-intensive.

I did another short, hard run today. This time a 15-minute warm-up and then 30 minutes of keeping my heart rate between 140 and 150 bpm--the wide range because it's harder jogging to get a constant rate than it is on a machine where you control the difficulty precisely.

So I will see! In a couple of days, I'll know if this is the fat-burning approach.

Even if it is, I enjoy the longer, less daunting runs--especially out of doors. (Who wants to be on a machine at the gym for that long?!) So I'm sure I'll try to work both ends.

Before, I was shifting around duration and intensity, but more to surprise my body. Consistently increasing duration and intensity is supposed to provide the famous conditioning effect--improving fitness, given enough time for recovery.

But if I knew the approach which burned more fat, it would certainly make fine-tuning this body of mine much easier.

I'll keep you posted.

--E. R. O'Neill

Long Time, No See!

2006-04-12T22:07:00.000-07:00

I know.

I've been away.

I was socked in with work.

Then I went on a road trip.

Basically, my weight's been pretty consistent--around 142 pounds. So I've lost 22 pounds since January 3rd of 2006.

And I'm pretty much keeping it off.

The road trip was a challenge, to be sure.

I did indulge, I confess.

But I tried to keep track of calories, guesstimating when necessary. And I tried to keep things balance.

Yes, I splurged on a candy bar.

But then I had salad for dinner.

Yes, I splurged on chili.

But then I ate lots of fruit.

Balance! Let sanity prevail!

And the truth is, after a week of traveling, eating out, eating on the run, I had only gained two pounds--which is pretty darn good.

Now I'm back and moving onto the challenges of daily living, more subtle improvements.

My favorite meal? Broccoli sauteed in a tiny bit of olive oil and then garnished with tomato sauce and balsamic vinegar. Yum!

--E. R. O'Neill

Eat Chinese!

2006-03-19T14:05:00.000-08:00

Have you heard of this China Diet Study?

It's a pretty comprehensive epidemiological study conducted by Cornell.

Some of the results are pretty amazing. For instance, they eat many more carbs, much less fat and much less animal protein (the two usually going together).

China
carbs 71%
fat 14%
protein 10%
(including animal protein: 1%!)
alcohol 5%.

US
carbs 42%
fat 36%
protein 15%
(including animal protein 10%)
alcohol 7%

BTW: their carbs are not from sugar and white flour. They're from rice and millet, grains and beans.

And they have far less cancer, heart disease, etc.

There's a book on the subject.

While they eat far more carbs than I do, they're also a lot less sedentary.

I don't know if I'd cut protein so much. But cutting fat clearly seems beneficial.

The book (and the web site) make arguments about the mechanisms at work in their better health. It's a bit vague. But the basic idea seems to be that plant matter blocks degenerative disease, while animal fat (and possibly protein) amplify the same degenerative mechanisms.

It makes me wonder about the amount of low-fat dairy I eat. Too much protein? It's animal-based, so less good? But low in fat?

If moderation is the key, then I should do fine.

Check back to find out--in about 20 years.

--E. R. O'Neill

Calories per Weight.

2006-03-13T09:43:00.000-08:00

One of the most basic ideas of the Duh! Diet is: eat more of the stuff that's better for you.

Better for you means: more protein, vitamins and other good stuff.

It also means: fewer calories.

We often start every meal and snack with water, which has no calories, to remind ourselves of the idea of giving our body what it needs and filling up with substances lower in calories.

And we try to do this naturally, without a lot of chemicals and other 'fake' foods.

One way to do this is: eat foods with fewer calories by weight. The other is to eat foods with fewer calories by volume.

Food can have fewer calories by weight in two ways.

First, fat has more calories per gram--nine vs. four for protein and carbs. So foods with less fat has fewer calories.

Second, water adds bulk to foods and 'spaces out' the calories. It adds weight that has no calories.

Fruits and vegetables are loaded with water. A cucumber, famously, is 96% water. Not that an all-cucumber diet would be a good idea, but you get the picture.

Simply considering foods which have fewer calories per gram or per 100 grams (an easier measure) is thus a good way to figure out how often to each something, how much of it to eat.

For instance? (These are my calculations.)

calories per 100 grams
oil: 800 calories
walnuts: 700 calories
almonds: 576 calories
hard candy: 400 calories
corn cakes, caramel-flavored: 400 calories
sugar: 387 calories
popcorn: 300 calories
thin-crust pizza: 258 calories
All-Bran cereal: 258 calories
Fiber One cereal: 200 calories
brown rice: 162 calories
egg: 148 calories
chicken breast: 107 calories
corn: 94 calories
banana: 89 calories
cottage cheese: 80 calories
beans, white: 63 calories
beans, garbanzo: 62 calories
2% milk: 58 calories
plums: 46 calories
carrots: 41 calories
broccoli: 34 calories
red peppers: 26 calories
romaine lettuce: 18 calories
zucchini: 16 calories

Get the picture?

From 100 to 200 calories per 100 grams, eat moderately.

Below 100 calories per 100 grams, you can eat pretty freely--if the food is simple, natural, relatively unprocessed and healthy.

Above 200 calories per 100 grams--restrict yourself very strongly.

There's nothing magic about it.

It's just taking a rational approach which puts eating and health in a clear perspective to make decisions easier.

--E. R. O'Neill

Six Simple Rules....and a Menu Plan.

2006-03-02T23:46:00.000-08:00

The Duh! Diet can be reduced to five simple rules and three simple meal plans.

The Duh! Rules.

First, do no harm. That is: eat things that are good for you rather than bad. In food terms, this translates into: drink water and water-filled foods.
Fill up on less calorie-dense foods: fruits and vegetables. This is the first rule made more concrete. Fruits and vegetables are good for you, damn good. It's hard to believe they aren't. They're packed with nutrients and very little calories.
Get a good amount of low-fat or good-fat protein: low-fat dairy, chicken, lower-fat beef, fish. This speaks for itself. Your body needs protein, and it's especially important if you're eating less--to spare muscle from being lost.
Limit your fat intake. Read labels. Choose foods with less fat. Some nuts with healthy oils--walnuts, almonds, peanuts--are probably an exception. But in general, less fat means fewer calories.
Heavily limit or avoid altogether heavily processed foods. Yes, this means candy, cake, white flour, etc. It's not that 'carbs' are bad. It's just that the refining process removes so much nutritional value and concentrates the calories into these foods. A single slice of bread may have over 150 calories, whereas a lovely apple might have only 110--plus lots of fiber and water to fill you up.
Integrate filling and healthful whole grains and legumes (yes, beans) very moderately as you find out how many you can eat.

That's it! It's that simple.

What does it mean in terms of everday eating?

The Duh! Diet Menu Plan.

Eat three meals and three snacks: breakfast, lunch and dinner, snacks in between, plus a third as dessert.

Every meal and every snack begins with a glass of room-temperature water. Just drink it right down. Your body needs it. It will fill you up.

Each snack consists of: one piece of fruit and one serving of low-fat protein: some low-fat yogurt (with as little sugar as possible), a nonfat latte, some low-fat cottage cheese, even just an ounce of cheese (higher in fat, but it's a very small quantity.)

For lunch and dinner, eat:

a softball-sized serving of vegetables,
a tennis ball-sized serving of protein,
a pingpong ball-sized serving of whole grains,
1 teaspoon of fat.

That's it. It couldn't be simpler. Cooking the vegetables with no fat, you can probably add another serving, too, and still not add too many calories.

Breakfast is a little different.

For breakfast eat:

a tennis ball-sized serving of whole grains,
one to two servings of protein--e.g., a glass of nonfat milk,
an egg, 1/2 c. low-fat cottage cheese, etc.
optionally: 1 teaspon of oil to cook the eggs or butter the grains.

That's it. I eat a small boal of oatmeal and a non-fat latte, plus a hard-boiled egg.

This comes out to about 1400-1800 calories per day--great for weight loss but perfectly adequate for nutrition.

Assumptions.

This all assumes you are fairly sedentary or want to lose weight quickly.

If you are more active--if you stand or walk all day at work--you can add a piece of fruit at breakfast and add another portion of protein.

You can also add more whole grains and legumes. For instance, five low-fat Triscuits added to a snack adds only about 100 calories.

Simplicity.

It isn't complicated. It's worked for me.

I'm still counting calories to make sure I stay within reasonable limits. But then I cook a lot of meals at home and so can weigh and choose everything. Eating on the go, it's better to have a game plan.

I eat 1400 calories when I'm sedentary. But when I exercise, I can eat 2400 to 2500 calories. And days between exercising, I stick to 1800 to 2000 calories.

This amounts to adding some extra oil--I generally don't cook with it at all and so avoid those calories which I can then use for more fruits and vegetables.

Plus I add in some grains--such as fresh-baked, fat-free whole grain corn muffins--or splurge on a bit more cheese and even a few pieces of candy.

Favorite treat? A Fudgsicle has about 70 calories. You can't beat it.

--E. R. O'Neill

I Lost 20 Pounds in Two Months!

2006-03-01T10:58:00.000-08:00

I'm Happy!

Sorry for the exclamation points.

But I've been following the Duh! Diet since January 6th. It's now March 1st. That's less than two months--much less, considering February is so short.

The results?

I lost 20 pounds in two months.

I went from 164 pounds to 143.6 pounds.

That's 12% of my original body weight (12.4% to be exact).

On Atkins, I never got below 150.

That's a BMI (Body Mass Index) of 22.5--down from 25.7. (A BMI of above 25 is considered 'overweight.')

This is kind of my target weight, although looking at my body, I realize I could lose a tiny bit more pudge around the middle.

Yes, it is a tad perfectionistic.

The more important thing is: I want to keep eating healthfully and see where that times me.

The Real Truth: Exercise Helps.

I confess: it's not just the Duh! Diet.

I added a Duh! Exercise Regime.

That is equally uncomplicated.

I go to the gym three to four times a week.

There I light some weights for five or ten minutes, just focusing on one body area: abs, shoulders, pecs, legs.

Then I do some cardio training for 30 to 35 minutes. Or I may do a lower intensity for a longer period--60 to 65 minutes.

I try to adjust up and down, to take it easier one day and worker harder another, to keep my body not knowing what's happening.

The cardio machines I use measure my hear rate, and I use the heart rate to target my effort.

My resting heart rate lying down is around 75 beats per minute, so I target 125-145 as the zone I need to reach to give myself a decent calorie- and fat-burning workout.

At 140-145 I work up a good sweat but am not exhausted.

Sometimes I don't lift the weights.

Sometimes if I'm tired, I take a long walk instead (at least 30 minutes), as I find that soothing.

And that is it.

The Good Side of Exercise: Eating More.

Of course, when I exercised more, I needed to eat more.

I could really tell the difference between "I would like to eat more" at 1400 calories a day, and "I absolutely need to eat more" when I had exercised. There is hunger and there is hunger. It's good to know the difference.

Now I can eat 2400 to 2500 calories a day and still be losing weight and fat.

Eating more need not mean eating worse. Partly I simply eat more of the same good food.

But I am able to do things like saute vegetables in oil or have more complex carbs--such as low-fat corn muffins, more oatmeal in the morning, cereal as a snack, etc. And yes, I can also eat a few pieces of candy or a bit more chocolate or nuts.

Results.

Using the Duh! Diet for a month, I lost 14 pounds.

Adding in the Duh! Exercise Regime for another month, I lost another 6 pounds.

But dieting I had only gone from 20% body fat to 18%. Adding exercise I went from 18.3% body fat to 16.4%--that's between Feburary 8 and March 1st.

The point is: it is not complicated or time-consuming.

Eat less, eat more healthfully, exercise more. Do it reasonably. Any reasonable program will probably work, within limits.

--E. R. O'Neill

Sorting through the Madness.

2006-02-28T19:21:00.000-08:00

There are so many diets arguing what seem like contradictory ideas that it seems impossible to sort out the mad onslaught.

But despite the surface variety, there are really not such huge differences amongst diets.

That is one of the Big Secrets that can allow you to diet successfully--to choose any diet or no specific diet and still to eat better, feel better, lose weight.

The surface variety--low fat diets, low carb diets, zone diets, etc.--covers up some pretty simple structures.

How To Analyze a Diet.

Basically, every diet has some theory, a method, strategies and tips.

A diet's theory is it's actual understanding or explanation of how weight loss occurs--hence of why people become overweight.

Here there's a small amount of variety. Atkins et al. believe people eat too many carbs, or, on the Sears/Zone theory, the wrong kinds of carbs in the wrong proportions.

The Sugar Busters similarly feel that people eat the wrong carbs--too many refined carbohydrates, sugar, white flour, potatoes, "white foods."

Most theories of weight gain and loss are pretty simple. The theory is: if you eat too much food or too much of the wrong types of food, you will gain excess weight.

Hence most theories of dieting boil down to: eat less.

Atkins is remarkable for having a very different theory of how your metabolism works, but some studies suggest that people eat fewer calories on Atkins, too, despite all the fat. So many carbs cut out lots of sugar, and the fat is very satisfying, so people end up simply reducing calories.

Does it matter which theory is true? I suppose it does--if you are a scientist. Are you? I'm not. So I don't care why I lose weight and feel and look good, I just want to!

The method is its way of implementing the theory.

For example, on Atkins the theory is that carbs make you fat, so you must reduce carbs.

On the Zone diet, the theory is that the wrong carbs and too many of them make you fat, so you carefully balance carbs with protein and vegetables, and you substitute the 'better' carbs.

If the theory is 'too many calories make you fat,' the method is: reduce calories. Etcetera. It's not very complicated.

Where Different Diets Become the Same.

Widely different theories can actually have quite similar methods.

If in most cases the theory is 'eating too much of the wrong stuff makes you fat,' the method is: eat more of the good stuff and less of the bad stuff--indeed, eat less over all.

In other words, the problem is: you eat too much. And the solution is: don't eat so much!

If this sounds like an old and not very funny joke--"Doctor, doctor! It hurts when I do this!" "Don't do this!"--I mean it to.

The Duh! Diet idea is to cut through the clutter, get down to basics, stop worrying which diet to follow and follow something approaching common sense and sanity.

Strategies are the way of implementing the method.

Yes, I can reduce carbohydrates, but counting carbs is the strategy. Indeed, the list of strategies is the actual rules: only eat 20 grams of carbs a day, eat 2 cups of salad, eat limited quantities of dairy and unlimited quantities of chicken and fish, etc.

This is what people remember.

On the Zone, it's dividing the plate into zones and putting X% vegetables and X% protein and X% starch.

Now the strategies are much less scientific.

Will a certain portion of the plate automatically give you the right number of grams of protein or carbohydrates? Not likely. But it's a way of getting them.

Duh! Strategies.

A strategy is a real-world implementation of the logically-inspired method.

Some diets ask you to count calories. I do that for myself. It's useful. But it's just one particular method of the general strategy of calorie reduction--perhaps the most common diet strategy of all.

I start each meal and snack with a glass of water. It's a method. It implements the strategy of doing no harm, of doing what everyone says is healthy--drink lots of water, eat lots of fruits and vegetables.

The Sonoma Diet asks you to eat specific 'power' foods: tomatoes, almonds, etc.

Is there anything magical about these foods? Why almonds and not walnuts? Or peanuts? Or flax meal?

The method is always a bit of a trick. It's a neat way to bring the theory and the strategy into everyday life.

Leave the Tip.

Finally, there are tips. Tips are like micro-strategies. These are things often found in magazine articles. There they are often doctored up as methods or even whole theories.

A tip is something like: start every meal with hot soup. Scientists have found that people who consume hot soup at the beginning of a meal eat fewer calories overall.

In a sense, there's a theory here: people gain weight because they eat too much. Eating too much can be avoided by filling up the stomach and convincing the body to eat less. Hot liquids do that, so the method is: start each meal with hot liquid. But then why not coffee? Or tea?

There's no reason. It's a scientific factoid turned into a tip disguised as a diet.

Lately, experts say the same thing about calcium. People who eat more tend to weigh less. So eat more calcium and you'll lose weight. This may not even work! There's a famous scientific dictum: correlation is not causality. That is: two things happening at the same time doesn't make one thing cause the other.

The Duh! Theory and Method.

Here there's a theory--eating too many calories is bad--and the method is to less. It's not really a strategy, because it's not general enough. You can't eat soup at the beginning of every meal. It's just a tip, a little everyday bit of know-how to help you do what you want to do.

The Duh! Diet is simple.

The theory is: we are fat because we eat too much.

The method is: eat less, eat better.

The strategy is: favor more harmless, better, lower-calorie foods--water, fruits and vegetables, lower-fat proteins or healthy-fat proteins; avoid, limit and reduce heavily processed, calorically-dense foods (cake, pastry, candy, etc.).

The tips are things like: eat three meals and three snacks a day; control your portion size; try counting calories; etc.

But the main thing is: do what makes the most sense, do what works for you, don't worry about which theory is correct.

In the old adage: there's more than one way to skin a cat. (But don't eat it.)

--E. R. O'Neill

Moving Along. Estimates.

2006-02-17T22:49:00.000-08:00

I joined a gym.

This is not shocking and new for me.

For most of my life--from my 20's through my 30's--I was a gym member. And I actuall went, too.

I went when I lived in New York City in the late 80's.

I worked out at the UCLA gym during most of the 90's.

Even after I finished my Ph.D. at UCLA, I worked out: I joined a gym in Hollywood.

Living in Philadelphia, I worked out at a gym.

But after a bunch of health problems, I stopped going. I would walk or jog in Santa Cruz down near the ocean on West Cliff Drive. Lovely.

But after dieting myself down about 16 pounds and finding my weight staying there, I decided that exercise might be helpful.

Also my scales--both my old and new one--were telling me that I wasn't losing that much body fat. (The measure it by passing electricity through you. Sounds strange, but you don't feel it.) Anyway, it's just an estimate, but I thought it was worth doing something about.

So 30 or 40 minutes of treadmill time several times a week, plus a little weight lifting is now the order of the day.

In the first five days, I lost two pounds of fat. No, my total weight didn't change much. But according to the scale--and it's pretty consistent over time, even if it varies from day to day--my percentage of body weight that's fat went down.

I was 20% body fat when I started.

Which I found kind of weird and creepy: as if all the fat might be pushed to one side of my body and then kind of lopped off.

Now it's down closer to 17%.

I'd love to have it be 15% or less.

But I have a feeling the rest of this transformation will be v-e-r-y slow.

Like maybe losing a pound or two a week.

But I'm enjoying it. It is invigorating.

And I can eat more!

Sadly, of course, one wants to eat a lot more. Before I ate 1200-1400 calories a day. When I exercise, I want to eat about 2000! That's probably reasonable, but the exercise gadget I run on tell me I'm burning around 300 calories--again, probably an estimate--so that's still an extra 300.

Today I ate 300 calories of breakfast--soy milk & cottage cheese. (I was in a hurry!) Then I exercised, then ate lunch with my friend Alison. BIG greasy lunch. Wonderful, but neither small nor low-calorie. (About 750 calories. I'm estimating again. )

But I wasn't that hungry the rest of the day, drank a nonfat latte, ate an apple, and had fish and veggies for supper.

So from 164 to 147 pounds, from 20% body fat to 17%, between January 6 and February 17th.

Slowly but surely.

Moving along.

--E. R. O'Neill

Even Simpler?

2006-02-06T21:15:00.000-08:00

Eventually, I'll be done with counting calories. I'll have re-trained myself, and I'll know what I can eat and how much.

But for now, I'm doing it the tedious way.

A meal is about 300-400 calories. A salad with chicken. Vegetables with low-fat spagetti sauce and soy meatballs. Something of that sort.

A snack is about 150 to 250 calories--a piece of fruit, maybe some cottage cheese or a nonfat latte.

It comes out to 1200 to 1500 calories a day.

There is a very simple way to think about it.

And the Duh! Diet is all about simplification.

If you want to picture what I eat in a day it's simple.

A meal is:

a softball-size serving of vegetables,
a tennis-ball serving of low-fat protein,
a ping-pong ball-size serving of carbohydrates,
and no more than 1 teaspon of fat--for dressing, cooking, whatever.

(Sometimes, it's two softball-sized servings of vegetables, but let that go for now.)

That's about it!

The vegetables are about 40 calories, the protein is about 100 calories, the carbs are about 50 calories, the fat is about 40 calories. That's 230 calories--with plenty of room for being off in your guesstimate.

If I go below the weight I want, I'll add more carbohydrates or allow myself more fat.

Is it "scientific"? Not in the sense of being precise.

Is it reasonable? Yes. I'm saying to eat vegetables and low-saturated-fat protein, to avoid heavily caloric and processed foods, like fat and starch.

It's a strategy: a way of implementing your method of reducing calories and eating more healthfully, a way you can think about and live with.

Give it a shot.

--E. R. O'Neill

Will Power? Higher Power?

2006-02-05T16:46:00.000-08:00

People ask me: how do you eat so little? How do you control yourself? You must have tremendous willpower.

The trick is: I have no willpower whatever. You don't have to either, because eating right isn't about willpower.

I think the biggest break for me, the biggest insight, the one that allowed me to eat better--more sensibly, more healthfully and within reasonable limits--was a very simple recognition.

At the beginning of this whole processed--while doing a modified fast for several days--I realized something transcendentally simple.

We are hungry. Human beings are hungry.

We are hungry all the time.

Hunger is absolutely normal.

If we weren't hungry, we wouldn't have gotten out of the caves to forage for food.

Our ancestors who didn't care too much about food all died off before having children.

The ones who survived and propagated were the hungry ones.

Hunger must be perceived, at some level, as a kind of danger signal. And that's the way it feels. I must eat something, I must get something to eat, I must do it now. If I don't, I'll just die.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

We are very hearty, most human beings.

We can go for long periods without eating, or eating little. I'm talking about days.

But in contemporary life, we rarely go more than a few hours. I'm talking about those of us lucky enough to have enough to eat--which is not all Americans.

Once I recognized that hunger was okay, that it was normal, the emergency light went off.

Lately I've been remembering something people who are in 12-step groups sometimes say. They sometimes say, "Of course, I did that I'm an x"--fill in the x here as alcoholic, co-dependent, addict, etc.

That always weirded me out. As if being that category become a whole state of mind, a kind of person. They had categorized themselves and found comfort in being a category.

Now I see it a bit differently.

Now I see it as a recognition that there are features of themselves, of their brain chemistry and the way their body gets translated into ideas, that have unhappy consequences if followed literally.

If you are hard-wired a certain way, you often think, "I need a drink (or a fix) to maintain my equilibrium." Maybe not those exact words, but that general idea.

And in a sense, you're probably right. Many addicts seem to have a certain brain chemstry, perhaps hereditary, perhaps learned, which almost requires them to use some specific substance to achieve a kind of temporary balance.

The "of course" of the 12-step follower is just a recognition that this particular need and idea, this way of feeling a problem and trying to solve it is really not going to go away. It's a permanent feature of their psychic-somatic landscape.

So, for perhaps quite different reasons, it is with hunger.

Your body will tell you that you are hungry. Many times a day. Quite often. Even after having eaten quite a reasonable amount.

But you don't have to obey.

You can't ignore it. You will have to recognize that it's there. But you can know from your experiences that the signal need not be followed.

It's like saying: "Thanks for telling me about that. I sometimes forget. But I choose not to do anything about that right now. I choose to continue in this state, even though it's a bit uncomfortable. It will help me more to adjust my state of being a bit later and in a bit healthier a way."

As I understand them (inspired in part by Gregory Bateson's ideas), 12-step programs represent a way of overcoming addictions by no longer thinking of them in terms of will.

The problem isn't that your will as weak, that you don't have the will power, that you can't battle some greater force. The problem is thinking of it as a battle of the wills, as something that diminishes you if you lose.

If, instead, you 'accept that you are powerless' and 'turn to a higher power,' it's no longer a battle.

'Accepting that you are powerless' here simply means accepting the hunger itself, accepting it as a normal part of life, as a feature of your biochemistry and mind that will not simply go away. Of course you are powerless over food cravings. Who wouldn't be?

But 'turning to a higher power' here simply means turning to a rational means of eating, eating what is good for you in amounts that are healthy.

Oddly, I began to eat healthfully when I realized that I would never simply want to.

That was my first step, anyway. Maybe it will be yours, too.

--E. R. O'Neill

So Close....

2006-02-01T12:39:00.000-08:00

Today I weight 149.5 pounds.

That's a pound less than I ever got to on Atkins eating cottage cheese and almonds and guacamole and eggs.

Now I realize I can eat one of those small size bagels with light cream cheese. That's about 180 calories. That plus an apple or coffee and skim milk is 250 calories. It's got some protein and fiber but is really not as filling as a piece of fruit and a bowl of oatmeal.

So I've lost 14.5 pounds since January 6--in under a month.

I should easily get to 15 pounds in a month.

I weighed 143 in graduate school--after I started lifting weights and eating Big Macs afterwards.

That was the first time anyone ever said I had a 'tummy'--even though he meant it in a nice way.

Before that 138 was my normal-skinny weight.

I don't know if I'll get there in the next few months. That's a 25-pound weight loss.

But it would be nice.

Basically, I'm eating about 1500 calories a day. I'll see how far that takes me.

It's not complicated.

Drink water.
Eat fruits and vegetables first. (These first two could be called "First, do no harm.")
Prefer low-fat protein in limited quantities.
Strictly limit fat and highly-refined or -processed foods.
Eat regularly (three meals plus three snacks), but eat reasonable portions.
Don't simply eat when you're hungry. Accept that human beings are almost always hungry, and it's not the end of the world.
Know how many calories in what you're eating.
Allow yourself small treats, but limit their size and balance them with healthier choices.

These are in order of importance, so you can always start with the easy stuff and see how far that gets you.

Try it. It works. But so does any common sense plan.

--E. R. O'Neill

On Scales and Weight

2006-01-31T02:20:00.000-08:00

Scales are funny.

Or maybe it's weight.

Yesterday I weighed the same as today: 151 pounds.

But today my stomach is notably flatter.

And I fit better into my 'skinny pants'--you know, the pair that you keep despite not fitting into because you have the fantasy that one day they will really fit.

Well a couple days ago at 151.5 pounds, they were still snug.

And today at 151 pounds, they're loose.

It can't be that a half pound makes that much difference.

It's almost like the scale is only giving part of the picture.

Hence the virtue of having 'skinny pants.'

They keep alive that dream of looking fit.

And they're--in a weird way--a more objective measure of what you weigh and how you look than that damn silly old scale.

--E. R.O'Neill

Why Any Diet Will Work

2006-01-30T11:41:00.000-08:00

Doctors have done research, and they find that low-fat and low-carb diets both cause people to lose weight (when followed).

Lots of people have some sort of success in losing weight following the most diametrically opposed diets.

Some limit carbs. Some limit fat. Some eat more fiber--whole grains, etc. Some eat less beef and more fish.

So what's the deal? Is there just one way of losing weight? Or can we accept that there are many different ways, and that many work, probably some better for some people than others?

Is that too messy and chaotic? Is there anything meaningful to be said about this plethora of routes towards health, happiness, balance?

There is.

Just one word: limits.

Or another, similar word: restrictions.

All diets limit or restrict what you eat.

And that is what we are loath to do.

In everyday life, we let the people selling us the food decide how much we eat.

We eat a box or bagful.

We eat whatever the restaurant puts on the plate.

At salad and soup and pasta 'bars,' we go back again and again--as if obligated by the hopes of getting the best 'bargain.' (It's never such a bargain for the waistline.)

Perhaps we try to place limits on ourselves. But we inevitably grant exceptions.

Perhaps it's because, in a bureacratic world, no one else gives us a break. It's rules imposed on us by others from morning until night. Get to work by nine. Only 15 minutes for a break. Make one copy for the chron file and another for the client file. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Is it any wonder, then, that we 'need' that 500 calorie Jamba Juice cocktail? Or that 500 calorie coffee frappe and that 300 calorie pastry beside? We just have such hard lives. And perhaps we're a little thankful we can afford to plop down five or eight bucks on glorified fast food.

Limits. Living within limits.

It seems harsh. Especially when we impose them on ourselves.

But in a world of plenty in which choice feels like self-definition, limits can be our only hope.

They don't have to be harsh. They just have to be tied to reality: if you eat more than this, you will gain weight. And probably hurt your heart and your lipids and who knows what else.

So, yes, follow a diet. Any diet. Any sensible diet.

Just put limits on yourself.

It's a better gift to yourself than 600 calories of sugar and fat from the fancy fast food joints.

--E. R. O'Neill

New Math.

2006-01-29T12:21:00.000-08:00

So for a while I was counting calories.

And protein and fat and saturated fat and fiber.

It was a good learning experience.

It made me AWARE.

Just cream in your coffee bumps up the saturated fat you're taking in a HUGE amount--compared to eating steamed vegetables, even nicely prepared with lower-fat sauces.

Now I got a better scale for measuring my food.

Measuring cups were fine before.

I actually wanted a scale that measured in grams a while back--for coffee. It seems no matter what I do, how I measure, my coffee is black as pitch one day and the color of slightly rusty water the next. I swear I cannot master it.

With a gram scale, I can measure exactly 15 grams per cup, which is nice and strong without being sludge-like, BTW.

So with the gram scale--and BTW it was $14 at Ross Dress for Less, thank you--and a little math skill (a spreadsheet helps), you can figure out wonderful stuff.

Namely, you can figure out that yes, a half cup of low-fat cottage cheese is 90 calories, but 126 grams is exactly 100 calories.

This means you don't have to count. You just eat in 50- and 100-calorie-sized portions.

It's a bit more generous than only eating 1/4 cup of something.

Although when you see 100 calories of almonds and find out that it's like ten of the damn things, you begin to wonder--why bother?

But that is partly the point.

We don't think about how many calories is in our food.

We look at what seems like a nice filling portion.

But if you could see that 100 calories of cottage cheese is the size of a tennis ball, whereas 100 calories of carrots is two cupfuls, well you'd really think, 'Gee, those vegetables look awfully appetizing.'

A little more math, and you can make muffins and brownies from a mix that have not the 170 or 180 calories advertised on the box, but rather 50 or 100 calories--just so you can keep track.

Breakfast today? 120 g. of cottage cheese, 2 mini corn muffins, an apple, and espresso with 40 calories worth of milk.

That's 100 calories each for the first items and 50 for the last. 350 calories.

Obsessive? A bit. Moving towards greater simplicity? Definitely.

As someone who was thin for the first 20 or so years of my life, I don't really know how to control what I eat.

So this is just me teaching myself what people who had to care about such things always knew.

Know what's in what you eat. Eat reasonable quantities.

It's all about re-education.

As a philosopher once said, it's like a ladder you use to climb up that you don't need once you get where you need to be.

So my obsessiveness is short-term. Or that's my excuse, anway.

And who can argue with results. I weigh 151 pounds today, down from 164. My body fat has dropped from 20%--which it always was on Atkins, no matter what--to 19%. Okay, it's probably in the margin of error, but I'm happy.

And I'm heading down to 145, which I last weighed in 1993--over a dozen years ago.

Stay tuned.

--E. R. O'Neill

I Lost Twelve and a Half Pounds in Three Weeks.

2006-01-27T10:19:00.000-08:00

This morning I weighed 151.5 pounds. It's January 27.

January 5--22 days or about three weeks ago--I weighed 164 pounds.

That's 12 1/2 pounds in about three weeks.

I'm almost to the lowest weight I ever reached on Atkins (150.5), except I get to eat fruit like apples and oranges and bananas, and I get to have grains like oatmeal or bread (just very small amounts of the latter--about one slice a day).

I'll see how far I get eating 1300-1500 calories a day. I'm hoping for 145 or even 143. That's what I weighed about twelve years ago when I was in my very early 30's. But at this rate, it doesn't seem impossible. Yes, the weight loss is slow after the first two weeks. But this is the way I want to eat for the rest of my life: reasonably, eating the good stuff, controlling the quantity.

--E. R. O'Neill

New Challenges: Eating Outside the Home.

2006-01-26T22:34:00.000-08:00

I'm currently facing the challenge of eating outside the home. Since my work is in small spurts, I'm only away from home for four or five hours per day. That means I can make and eat most of my food at home. At work I just bring along a piece of fruit and a protein bar as a stopgap measure.

But today I went to work and from thence to Ikea to get a wardrobe to get my clothes more organized. I left around 9 am and returned around 6 pm--kind of like a normal workday.

So I faced the challenges of Eating Away from Home.

Preparation is still key.

At home, I prepare snacks like carrots in snack-sized bags which have calorie and fiber info on the sides.

You can also just weigh your prepared food so each serving has some round number of calories--50, 100, 150, 200, e.g.

I had brought an apple and a banana to work, along with a protein bar. (I should have brought a second one. I could have used it.)

Driving through Half Moon Bay en route to Ikea (the scenic way), I stopped at Coastside Gourmet Coffee & Tea for one of their famous chai's. The owner would not make it for me with low fat milk, nor with Sweet'n'Low instead of sugar--bless him!

So I just accepted that it was preferable to have something delicious and special but fatty & sugary than to go across the street to Starbucks to the same nonfat latte you can get pretty much anywhere.

I considered having a salad at Ikea but wasn't that hungry.

Tip: hot liquids seem to be very filling. After a single (110-calorie) nonfat latte, I'm full for several hours.

In any case, I got home only having had two pieces of fruit and a protein bar at work, along with the chai.

I just counted the chai as 200 calories and gave up counting fat and protein for the rest of the day.

Instead, I started just rounding everything to 100 calories, and I still came out with only about 1300 calories that day.

I snacked on a little bit of low fat cottage cheese. Then dinner was some Knorr instant soup mix made with chicken broth and fresh ground pepper. I also had two whole wheat crackers, which brought the meal, with some carrots to crunch on, to an even 150 calories.

A desert of 2T of popcorn popped in 1 t. of oil added on another roughly 100 calories.

Some nice hot herbal tea made a light--you can say that again!--desert.

And the next day I woke up 1 1/2 pounds lighter. Mind you, I had stayed at 153 pounds for several days. Your body will do that. Decide one weight is the one to be, then realize after a few days' resistance that in fact it needs to lower your weight to match what you're eating.

Obviously, your body doesn't really have articulate thoughts like this. But that's the impression it gives.

So it can be done! You can eat outside the home and still lose weight. (The same day, even.)

You have to remember that hunger is not a cue to eat.

Your brain must tell you when and what to eat, not your body. Because you have a caveman's body, and it wants to be fat for the long winter. Don't listen!

--E. R. O'Neill

It's a Crepe! It's an Omelette! It's a Fritatta! It's...

2006-01-24T15:37:00.000-08:00

...I don't know what it is.

But I made it, and it was good.

And it's only 215 calories.

The "it" here was my attempt to make an omelette but with less egg. Or a crepe with less flour--less batter-y. Or a fritatta but with less cooking.

So I came up with the idea of making a batter that had very little flour and only one egg. I thought I'd cook it like a crepe--very thinly, in a frying pan, like an unlayered omelette.

And I wanted vegetables and a little cheese on top.

Well, it worked, and it was good. And here's the recipe.

Crepomeletta.

Beat 1 egg. Add 2 T. flour. Mix until smooth.

Add 2 T. low fat milk. Mix well.

Season with salt and pepper, e.g.

Steam some chopped vegetables--such as broccoli.

Heat a large frying pan on low heat. Spray with nonstick cooking spray.

Pour the batter into the heated pan and slide it around until it very thinly coats the bottom.

Top with the steamed vegetables. Add 2 T. grated cheese.

When the batter's surface is dry and the cheese is melted, use a spatula to ease the edges away from the surface.

Roll the creation up, like a thin omelette.

Serve.

By my calculations, that's 215 calories, 9.5 grams of fat, 4 grams of saturated fat, and 13.8 grams of protein.

And it's yummy good.

--E. R. O'Neill

168-Calorie Mushroom 'Pasta'?

2006-01-21T15:59:00.000-08:00

Well, no, it's not pasta. But it's a nice alternative.

It's a meat-like mushroom ragu, made just the way Italian meat sauce is made, served over steamed red peppers cut into strips to remind you of pasta.

Me, I find it's the sauce-y part that makes me feel I'm eating pasta, not the pasta part.

Mushroom Ragu

Saute in 1 T. olive oil:

1 medium onion, chopped fine.

When translucent, add in batches:

10 oz. mushrooms, chopped fine.

When the mushrooms are tender, add:

1 t. garlic,
2/3 cup packaged eggplant caponata (or other lower-fat Italian vegetable mix),
1/2 c. chicken broth,
2 T. tomato paste,
1 t. pepper.

Heat until the flavors meld. Then mix in:

1 t. butter sprinkles ('Butter Buds' or similar brand).

This makes about 2 cups with only 430 calories in the whole thing.

A single half-cup serving contains (by my math):

107 calories, 2.7 g. protein, 7 g. fat, .5 g. saturated fat.

A nice way to serve it is to steam some strips of red bell pepper or zucchini. Also heat 1/2 c. frozen spinach in a small amount of fat-free chicken broth. Salt these both to taste.

Place the vegetables in a bowl, top with 1/2 c. of the ragu, then sprinkle with 1 T. parmesan cheese.

The whole thing is only 168 calories!

At that rate, there's even room for desert.

--E. R. O'Neill

125 Calorie Soup.

2006-01-20T00:02:00.000-08:00

I had this as a snack last night.

Then I 'made' another bowl by adding the ingredients to a microwaveable container and sticking it in the fridge. Voila! I've got a snack for tomorrow.

1 c. organic chicken broth
1/4 c. chick peas
1/4 c. frozen corn
1/2 c. spinach
1 slice lemon
1 T. tamari
spices to taste--e.g., pepper, cayenne

Heat everything except the spinach in a pot until hot through. Add the spinach, and when it turns bright green, serve it.

Adding one ounce of chicken makes it about 150 calories--155, to be precise. (Use only 2 tsp. of tamari, and it stays 150.)

--E. R. O'Neill

Sample Day's Diet.

2006-01-19T19:02:00.000-08:00

So what exactly do I eat on the Duh Diet?

Well, right now I'm aiming to lose weight, to get to the weight I want to be, and then to find out how much is the right amount for me to maintain that weight.

So right now, it's all very simple.

I drink water before and during every meal and most snacks--that's five to eight 8 oz. glasses a day. Indeed, when I'm hungry the first thing I do is drink a class of water.
I eat small portions. I don't think about filling up; I think about what is a reasonable amount of food--usually not more than 4 oz. of any one thing.
I emphasize fruits and vegetables. Most snacks have one, and most meals have one or two servings of fruit or vegetable.
I then add low-fat protein--e.g., soy, chicken, yogurt.
I reduce or avoid fat--in dressings, cooking, etc.
I include a certain amount of fiber.
I do not eat until I am full. I eat a reasonable amount and stop.
I emphasize 'real' food over prepared, processed things--but I will eat a protein-rich and low-calorie bar as a stopgap, such as when I'm sick of eating fruit.

Breakfast.
8 oz. water
multivitamin supplement
1 small orange
1/2 c. oatmeal, cooked
1/4 c. non-fat yogurt with raspberries

Snack.
8 oz. water
Zen bran cake
8 oz. sugar-free soy milk

Lunch.
8 oz. water

Salad consisting of:

1 chopped apple
1 chopped pepper
3 oz. chicken breast
4 oz. spicy peanuts

With dressing consisting of: 1/4 c. nonfat yogurt, 1 T. sesame oil, 1 t. hot sauce, 1 T. soy sauce.

Snack.
8 oz. water
Luna bar
Nonfat latte

Snack.
6 oz. decaf coffee, 6 oz. low fat milk

Snack.
8 oz. water
6 oz. carrots
8 oz. soy milk

This is about 1400 calories. That's a really small amount. But I ate many times a day. My lunch salad was HUGE. And adding just a tablespoon of fat would add another 120 calories.

Indeed, my breakdown suggests it's: 33 grams of fat, of which only 7 is saturated; 84 grams of protein (which is a ton), and nearly 40 grams of fiber. (The Zen bran cakes have 13 grams of fiber. An apple, poor thing, has just three.)

(Yes, I keep a diary right now of how many calories and grams of this and that I'm eating. It's to educate myself, to discover what I'm really eating, and to make sure I get enough protein to stay healthy.)

That's more fat than Ornish would allow. I didn't count carbs, but it's way more than Atkins. But, like the Zone, it's very heavy in protein. Unlike Atkins, it's much lower in fat.

Now this particular day I didn't really have dinner. It just happened. I wasn't super-hungry at night. And I was content to eat some small snacks.

Also, I somehow find 100 calories or so of nonfat latte or coffee with low-fat milk actually fills me up and satisfies me quite well. Maybe it's the hot liquid.

Also that 6 oz. of carrots in the evening actually did fill my stomach nicely. YES I could have eaten more. I could have eaten a couple nice slices of pizza. But I did not need to eat pizza. I ate what I knew was reasonable, nutritious and low in calories. I wanted that more.

No actual weight loss today from yesterday. But after losing almost ten pounds in about two weeks, the weight loss slows down. The next five pounds--which will take me beyond where Atkins could ever get me--may itself take two weeks. But it will be worth it.

I already fit into my clothes better. And I know somehow that eating fruits and vegetables and lots of water must be pretty darn good for you.

And although bread's still a bit too processed and caloric for me, I still get to eat grain (oatmeal) and may even include some brown rice pretty soon.

--E. R. O'Neill

Nearly Ten Pounds in Under Two Weeks.

2006-01-17T12:52:00.000-08:00

I started dieting on Thursday night, January 5 at 6 pm.

At that point I weighed 164 pounds. It's just at the bottom of the 'overweight' designation for a man who's 5'7" (which I am).

As of today (1/17/06) I weigh 154.5. So I've lost 9.5 pounds--my fancy digital scale works in half pound increments--in less than two weeks.

Now this isn't all just drinking water and eating lots of fruits and vegetables.

I actually started by fasting. No, not the not-eating kind of fasting. The clear broth kind of fasting, except I didn't limit myself even that much. (I blogged about it. And also here.)

Why did I do that?

Well, partly I wanted to jump start the process. I notice lots of diet books have you start out on some absurd regimen to get you to loose five pounds right away so you'll be encouraged--some would say 'hooked' or even 'converted.'

But there's more to it than that. There's a logic in such diets. It's not about suddenly taking off ten pounds and then going back to eating Twinkees and Pork Rinds.

It's about making friends with hunger. Yes, you can eat broth or fruit all day, and yes you will be hungry, but no you won't die.
It's about starting from next to nothing and then adding foods in gradually, the good ones first, a few at a time.
It's about building a new foundation for healthy eating.
It's about re-training yourself, one obstacle at a time.
It's about starting in your kitchen and working outward from there. (You can't just suddenly drop in at McDonalds while on a diet and expect to make good choices. Come to think of it, if you stop there in the first place, you've probably taken a wrong turn already.)

Making Friends with Hunger is actually an interesting process.

A few days ago I ate very little one day--about 1200 calories. The next day I 'pigged' out and eat 2000.

Looking back at my food diary (more on this later), I realized that on the 1200 calorie day I ran errands. I only had a nonfat latte while out. I wouldn't allow myself to stop and eat something unhealthy. And I forgot to bring along a piece of fruit or a protein bar (very processed, but useful for emergencies).

So instead of eating every two or three hours, I went about five hours with nothing but the latte.

Well, after initally feeling hungry, your body does a bit give up. You know you're still hungry, but you kind of settle into it.

(Also that low-calorie day I actually had rather a big, relatively fatty breakfast. So it could be that a certain amount of fat makes me feel full. I'll have to find out.)

Learning and Re-learning.

One of the most helpful ways you can think about the aspects of yourself you don't like and would like to change is: it's not the essence of who you are that's bad; it's the habits you have learned.

You learned to be this way. And if something can be learned, it can be unlearned or relearned.

You need to figure out how you learned the habit you don't like and then find models for better habits.

It's tempting to substitute new, weird rituals for your old, weird rituals: only eating yogurt and apples instead of eating everything under the sun from burgers to pizza to donuts.

But in this, as in so many things, moderation and variety should be your watchwords.

There are no 'magic' foods that 'cure' you.

It's not all about cucumber juice or leek soup or nonfat yogurt.

There is no magic hidden inside foods.

There are only the prosaic choices you make, the ways you choose to live.

So now, as pangs of hunger ache through me, and the apple I ate doesn't quell them, and I forgot to bring a protein bar, I'm going back to work so I can go home and have some lunch.

But waiting an hour won't kill me--if I eat in moderation afterwards.

And that is a comfort.

--E. R. O'Neill

The Sad Truth.

2006-01-17T00:26:00.000-08:00

Freud was right--but not for the reasons he thought.

Freud famously argued (in Civilization and Its Discontents) that human beings cannot be happy--at least not to the extent that they are civilized. Civilization--cultivation, being brought up into specific modes of conduct--involves giving up on primal impulses.

We defer, deflect, sublimate, and generally just go without the most basic forms of instinctual gratification: punching in the nose the person who ticks us off, jumping on the person who makes us hot and bothered, scarfing down the food that makes our mouths water.

Instead, we make a cutting remark or fantasize about punching the guy in the nose, try to appear alluring and send charming emails, wait until dinner and then eat a sensible portion.

But not the last one.

If you belive Darwin--and not everyone does--human beings today are the result of natural selection.

The human beings who weren't very hungry did not get out of the cave to find food, and they died off before they could have children.

The human beings who could not accumulate lots of nice fat died off during the long harsh winters or during seasons when food was less abundant, if "abundant" is even the right word.

Cut to: the 21st century. We have food aplenty. And not just any food. But the most caloric, concentrated, processed, sugar- and fat-laden food available to the widest population any civilization has ever seen in the history of the planet.

Indeed, the cheaper food is even more laden with calories, fat and sugar than the healthier stuff: think the dollar value meal at the fast food joint vs. the baby organic vegetables from that very chic market.

The sad truth is: our bodies constantly tell us we are hungry.

They are not going to stop.

If our bodies hadn't told our ancestors were hungry, they would have died.

So now we're stuck with bodies set for scarcity and adversity in times of horrid excess.

There is only one thing to day.

You must recognize that hunger is not going to go away.

A lot of diets will tell you that on those eating plans you will "never be hungry." Eat only fats and proteins and you'll "never be hungry." Eat only grains and raw vegetables and you'll "never be hungry."

Those things may be true, but do you really want to eat that way? No bananas? Or no fat?

Not really.

The truth is far sadder.

You will always be hungry. At some point, for some length of time. That is reality.

You cannot eat based on hunger.

You cannot eat what you want, when you want, in the quantities you want--until you are full.

You cannot eat every time you are hungry, so that you are no longer hungry.

You cannot use food to chase away all hunger all the time.

At some point you must accept that hunger is just a fact of life.

Freud thought we were destined to be miserable because we were civilized. But when it comes to food, the culprits are natural selection together with a capitalist society based on selling us crap we don't need and that's not particularly good for us. (That is: we're only miserable food-wise because biology imposes on us one set of demands and society another, not that the two are implacable opposites, as Freud rather dourly supposed.)

Freud or no Freud, it's not as bad as all that.

It simply means that you must use some other basis for eating.

You must eat sensibly and rationally based on common sense that everyone knows about food, eating and diet.

Yes, I'm talking portion control. I'm talking about eating a reasonable amount, an amount that will stop the main hunger pangs, an amount that is healthful and nutritious.

And then stopping. Push yourself away from the table. Do not have seconds or thirds. Do not have a big desert. Do not try to eat until you cannot eat any more. You will succeed--but only temporarily, and the victory is really a defeat.

The plan is simple. 1. Eat at regular intervals. 2. Control your portions. 3. Avoid excessive calories--excess fat, highly refined products like sugar.

In future entries, I'll talk more about how to re-organize your eating, how to re-educate yourself about how to eat, what to eat, how much to eat.

Basically: you need to find out how much is a reasonable amount for you and for the weight you want to be.

Again, it's not rocket science. You might not need any more help or advice at this point. You could figure out the rest yourself.

But come back, and I'll share with you my experiences, techniques, methods, tips and tricks.

It gets a lot more fun when you actually get to focus on the food you get to eat.

But the first step is simply to recognizing that jamming as much food into your body as it demands is what got you where you are, and it won't work to get you where you know you need to be.

--E. R. O'Neill

What Is the "Duh" Diet?

2006-01-16T20:11:00.000-08:00

The basic idea of the Duh Diet is simple.

It is, in fact, simplicity.

Losing weight and eating right should be connected. There should not be one 'magical' way of eating to lose weight and another, prosaic way of eating in real life. There should be only one way of eating--the best, healthiest way--leaving latitude for losing weight, maintaining weight, needing more energy when we exercise, less when we don't, occasional indulgences, etc.

The Duh Diet takes from any and every diet what they accept and have in common and leaves the rest--the fads, the fancies, the fantasies--behind.

For example, the Atkins Diet has a lot of good ideas in it. Eat lots of vegetables. Eat the healthiest, most nutrient-rich fruits. Avoid heavily-processed food. Limit saturated fat from dairy.

Or take Food Combining. Behind the magical theory that food 'rots in your stomach' in the wrong combinations--yes, dears, it's called digestion--is the very simple notion of eating lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, spacing your meals, controlling your portions.

Or take the Ornish Diet. Less than 10% calories from fat? Don't eat, e.g., more than 25 g. of fat a day (for a guy my size--5'7" with a medium build)? Are you nuts?! But the rest of the diet makes sense. Eat lots of fresh fruits and vegetables. Favor whole grains over refined foods. Avoid dietary fat, especially saturated fat.

Do you see a common picture emerging here?

Sure. These are the General Precepts of the Duh Diet.

1. Drink six to eight glasses of water a day.

Everyone agrees on this. No diet says "don't drink lots of water." Some say it's to stay hydrated. Some say it 'flushes fats and toxins.' Who the heck knows. But it seems to be good for you. Could it possible be bad? It seems unlikely. It's just common sense.

Water fills you up. It helps you avoid eating other things that are worse.

2. Eat lots of fresh fruits and vegetables.

This is not complicated. Every diet says to do so, to some degree.

Fresh fruits and vegetables, raw or lightly cooked with little or no added fats or sugar, are rich in nutrients, full of fiber, and they're mostly water. They're filling and low in calories. Plus they're insanely good for you.

If you eat a lot of these, you won't eat so much of the less healthy stuff.

3. Eat protein that's lower in saturated fat: chicken, fish, lean beef, soy, non-fat dairy.

Fat has more calories than carbohydrates or protein. It's yummie and filling and carries flavor well. But it probably makes you fatter. And the saturated kind--which is prevalent in beef--seems to be artery-clogging.

So, given the choice, choose the protein with less saturated fat.

4. Avoid, limit or eliminate food that's higher in calories: heavily-refined foods like sugar and white flour and those foods laden with them.

As a result of processing, sugar and white flour have plenty of calories, very densely packed. But most of the fiber and other nutrients have been refined away. Yes, white flour has protein, but it's left with very little else after the refining.

"Refining" is such a funny thing. It suggests getting rid of something gross, base and low. No nasty fiber or vitamins! As if that somehow 'purifies' the foods.

Compare equal weights of an apple or a green pepper with a muffin or piece of candy. The 'refining' has made the latter foods much more dense with calories and much more sparse on nutrients (unless they get added back in).

So eat these foods in much smaller quantities. Eat them last.

It's called "dessert" for a reason. It's the little special treat at the end, not the whole reason for eating.

Is that it? Four Simple Precepts.

Not entirely. But that's a good beginning.

And one of the key underlying principles of the Duh Diet is widely known as the KISS principle: Keep It Simple, Sweetheart.

Remember: eating healthfully is not mysterious. It is a lifelong practice and habit. It involves discipline, self-control, social support, motivation and common sense. It shouldn't require you to become a research chemist or join the equivalent of a religion--the Cult of No Fat, the Cult of No Carbs, the Cult of North Beach, etc.

Somehow in the U.S. we want losing weight to be mysterious, an endless spiritual quest. It can't be as simple as making better eating choices. There must be some trick, otherwise we would have reached our ideal weight a L-O-N-G time ago, right?

No. Just because you are confronted by an endless parade of books and magazine headlines telling you How To Lose Weight and Keep It Off or How To Lose 5 Pounds This Weekend, doesn't mean there is anything new or mysterious in all these proposals.

We all know that in a capitalist economy like ours "new" products are seldom so different from the old ones. It's just an attempt to get you to throw out your old LP's and buy them all over again on CD.

So don't believe the hype.

Don't pay anything for a diet.

Do what you know is right.

--E. R. O'Neill