Mini Habits for Weight Loss: Stop Dieting. Form New Habits. Change Your Lifestyle Without Suffering.

by Stephen Guise

  Mini Habits for Weight Loss is not training wheels for those who can’t stick to a diet; this is the advanced program. It’s entirely different and much smarter than dieting, with a higher success rate. Dieting is for temporary weight loss. We’re aiming for real, lasting change.

  1

  The Unhappy Marriage of Weight Loss and Dieting

  Dieting and Smoothie Cleanses Are Effective for Weight Gain. Wait... What?

  "It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem."

  ~ Gilbert K. Chesterton

  Dieting Makes Us Fat

  Brace yourself, because this will shock you.

  In 1986, scientists sought to find the metabolic impact of yo-yo dieting. To simulate this behavior, which is marked by repeated weight loss and regain, they alternately restricted and expanded the calorie consumption of obese rats. The rats completed two full “yo-yo” weight loss cycles.

  To lose weight the first time, rats were fed 50% of the average food consumption of control rats until they had lost 131 grams of weight. Once the rats regained that weight, they used the same 50% restriction for the second weight loss cycle, and the rats lost 133 grams. That’s almost the same, right? Yes, but the amount of weight gained or lost—the typical focus of dieters—was not the focal point here. Instead, the scientists looked at how long it took the rats to lose weight in each cycle (using the same diet). They wanted to see how yo-yo dieting affected the rats’ metabolism, if it changed the rats’ propensity to lose (or gain) weight. It changed significantly, and not for the better.

  It took the rats 21 days to lose 131g the first time. The second time—which used the same exact calorie restriction diet—took 46 days, more than twice as long. The effect was even worse for the weight gain part of the cycle. After the first weight loss, the rats took 29 days to regain their pre-diet weight. After their second weight loss, it only took them 10 days to regain the weight.

  By losing and regaining weight repeatedly, the rats’ bodies became more than twice as resistant to weight loss and almost three times as prone to weight gain (by function of time on identical diets).2

  Cycling weight gain and loss increased the rats’ food efficiency, meaning that the rats’ bodies became more conservative with the energy they took in and stored as much fat as ratly possible. This is the opposite goal of a person (or rat) trying to lose weight, but it’s the natural biological response of a starved or partially starved animal. If you lived in a time when famines were common, such increased food efficiency could save your life. But for those of us who have an abundance of food and artificially restrict our intake to lose weight, well, that still tells our metabolism to slow down and not burn too many calories because, for all it knows, the next meal might not be coming anytime soon.

  This study is one of many to find weight-gaining metabolic shifts in rats from calorie restriction yo-yoing. 3Thankfully, this is just rats and has nothing to do with humans, or else someone would have told us 30 years ago, right? Wrong. This biological mechanism affects us, too.

  Every person should know about this analysis, but few do. Consider this: UCLA researchers looked at 31 long-term studies on dieting and found that, across the studies, dieting caused 33% to 66% of participants to regain more weight than they lost while dieting.4 If those numbers seem bad, well, they’re almost certainly worse than that. Many of the participants they followed up were contacted years after their study’s conclusion. Not all participants reported back about their weight change, and who do you think would be least likely to report back? The ashamed ones who regained the most weight.

  “These studies likely underestimate the extent to which dieting is counterproductive because of several methodological problems, all of which bias the studies toward showing successful weight loss maintenance.”

  A three-year study of almost 15,000 children aged 9-14 found that those who dieted were more prone to binge eating.5 Those who dieted, male and female, frequent and infrequent, gained more weight across the board in the study’s duration. That is strike two against dieting (or are we at four yet?).

  Another study compared twins, which is interesting, because it takes genetics out of the equation. Over 4,000 individual Finnish twins were monitored for 25 years. The twin halves who attempted intentional weight loss (dieting) gained more weight than their genetically identical siblings, and weight gain increased with subsequent dieting attempts.6 The dieting halves probably increased their desire for foods that would make them gain weight by depriving themselves of them.

  In a 1944 study called the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, 36 male volunteers were semi-starved for 24 weeks. One of the primary observations was that most of the men became depressed and emotionally distressed.7 At least they lost weight, right? Right! Predictably, yes and then no.

  For 24 weeks, the men ate only 1,600 calories per day (which isn’t enough for grown men). They did lose a lot of weight at first, but then their bodies responded as bodies always do to sustained calorie restriction: “The men lost an average of a pound of body fat a week over the first 12 weeks, but averaged only a quarter-pound per week over the next 12, despite the continued deprivation.”8 When the men’s bodies increased their food efficiency (remember the rats?), their rate of weight loss slowed to a crawl. (Those watching their waistline see this as a bad thing, but it’s actually a phenomenal survival adaptation.)

  At the conclusion of the study, the men were allowed to recover and eat to satiety, and they ate up to 10,000 calories a day. What else does that tell you about their bodies’ response? If their bodies could speak throughout this experiment, they’d say, “Famine! Conserve as much energy as possible, and when you have access to food, gorge on it and store it as fat in case the famine persists!” That’s exactly what happened. They bounced back to their former weight rapidly, and then some. They accumulated 50% more body fat than they had before the study began. Yikes!

  The Biggest Loser is a hit American TV show with millions of viewers. It has been one of the most successful reality TV shows of all time. The premise: Which contestant can lose the most weight by show’s end?

  What do you think is the recipe for weight loss on the show, the one that produces massive double-digit and even triple-digit weight loss numbers in a short amount of time? It’s the same one we just covered. Exercise for hours every day and severely restrict your calorie intake to create a big calorie deficit.9 Yep, that will do it! Considering the information we’ve just covered, go ahead and take a guess about what happens to these contestants during and after the show.

  During the show, contestants lose a massive amount of weight, some of them dropping well over 100 pounds. What happens next?

  A study followed 14 Biggest Loser contestants for six years after the show, and all but one of them regained weight after the show.10 Four became heavier than when they started the show. Even worse, nearly all of them suffered from abnormally low metabolism for their size, and lower metabolism than when they started. Low metabolism makes weight loss much, much harder, and weight gain effortless.

  When this study came out in May 2016, I saw Good Morning America discuss it, and those on the show acted as if we hadn’t known about this concept for decades. My first thought was, “Why are they acting surprised?”

  Thirty years ago, we saw this exact same thing happen with rats. Forty years before that, we saw it happen in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment (1944). We already knew that when you semi-starve an animal, its body reacts by slowing metabolism, increasing hunger, and storing as much fat energy as possible to increase its odds of survival. This isn’t merely common sense—and it is that—it’s also proven science.

  Even worse, we’ve generated a pessimistic view that all weight loss attempts are futile because people will regain the weight later. But that’s because our notion of how to lose weight is too narrow. It’s like saying that every time you start a fire, it will become a forest fire (because you only start fires in the middle of dry
forests). If you do something wrong, you’ll get terrible results every time.

  If you want to get fatter, try dieting. Buy the books that promise “X pounds lost in X days.” The science clearly supports these methods for weight gain. What’s that? You want weight loss? Oh. To do that, you’ll need a different strategy.

  Imagine that you were one of the rats in the yo-yo dieting study. If you had just seen firsthand what diet cycling did to you, and someone told you about a semi-starvation smoothie “cleanse” that could help you lose 15 pounds in 10 days, what would your reaction be?

  Imagine that you were one of the men in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment. Would you adopt a calorie-restriction diet to lose the fat you gained from… having a calorie-restriction diet? Didn’t Albert Einstein once say something profound about doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result? Their suffering aside, it must have been shocking to gain so much fat so fast after semi-starving themselves for months! Maybe you have already experienced this same unfortunate weight gain effect from diet cycling, but you probably attributed your weight struggles to other things because you assumed dieting was the only way.

  Let this soak in. Anyone who says they’re going on a diet has a great chance of gaining weight because of it. This is not an opinion. This is what the data shows. The true cost of following short-term weight loss solutions isn’t merely wasted time, effort, and momentary suffering, it’s all that plus further weight gain. The people and rats in these studies had the dream scenario for dieting—they had their calories controlled for them, so they wouldn’t have to fight themselves to eat less, and all it did was make them fatter in the end. All of them. And calorie restriction, ladies and gentlemen, is the most common strategy for weight loss worldwide. Sigh.

  Calorie restriction isn’t the main problem, it’s just one part of the bigger “dieting” problem. There are some quality, nutritious diets out there with the potential to bring lasting weight loss. But if so many people are on wholesome, nutrition-based diets, why do obesity rates continue to rise?

  Simple. The crux of weight loss is not whether or not you eat blueberries or grapes. It's not about if you're a slow carb, low carb, low calorie, paleo, or Mediterranean diet aficionado. It’s not about if you can eat the perfect diet for 30 days. The crux of weight loss is whether or not you can sustain healthy lifestyle changes in the long term. Go about it the wrong way, and not only will you lose time, but you’ll also screw up your metabolism or your view of healthy food in the process. (If you’ve already done that, you can reverse this damage with the right strategy. The body and mind are capable self-healers.)

  Let’s get to the root of the problem, then.

  Why Dieting Is Broken

  If you look for weight loss books, what will you find?

  "The BLAH Diet"

  "The NEW BLAH BLAH Diet"

  “We Decided That This Diet Will Last 30 Days Because… Reasons!”

  "Celebrity Diet #283: Buy it Because She's Famous!"

  The marketplace is saturated with dieting books. Amazon's category name is even called "Weight Loss & Dieting," as if weight loss has fallen in love with dieting, they’re getting married, and any other suitors are too late.

  Are there any who object to this union? I do. Vehemently so!

  The marriage of weight loss and dieting is sad, because the entire concept of dieting is broken. As with some spouses, it doesn't work. At the risk of giving relationship advice in a weight loss book, healthy couples make each other better. The dieting industry makes billions of dollars every year, despite being ineffective. How many people believe it’s impossible to lose weight and keep it off because dieting failed them? There are a lot of frustrated people because of this failed marriage.

  Does Dieting Ever Work Long-Term?

  Since many scientists assume dieting is “the way,” short-term studies are used to try to validate its various forms. A. Janet Tomiyama reports in American Psychologist: “Several studies that are often cited as support for the long-term success of diets followed individuals for less than one year, six months, or even less time.”11

  There’s an overabundance of short-term studies on weight loss and dieting, because we don’t like the results of long-term studies. A 7.5-year study found that women who had consumed a low-fat diet weighed only one pound less than those on a typical Western diet.12 Studies on dieting have found that most diets work well in the short term, whether they’re based on calorie restriction or eating better foods. But they generally don’t work long-term, because they’re so poorly designed.

  We’re in this situation because of a chronic short-term focus. Even on a consumer and personal level, people are making major life decisions based upon seeing a friend drop 12 pounds in two weeks on a smoothie cleanse. Oy vey, people!

  Do you know the single most effective short-term weight loss solution? Don’t eat any food and work out for two hours a day. You will lose more weight faster than you’ve ever lost it before in your life! With my new diet, The Newest New No-Food-Necessary Diet™, you’ll lose weight so quickly it’s dangerous (literally). Lose up to 20 pounds in one week! It really works! I hope my sarcasm is clear. Do NOT try The Newest New No-Food-Necessary Diet™. Some people would scoff at this idea as if it’s absurd, when they’re doing this exact thing to a lesser degree (e.g., calorie-restriction diets or masked calorie-restriction diets such as cleanses).

  Short-term solutions are as worthless for weight loss as our fence was for keeping our family dog, Shiloh “Houdini” Guise, in our backyard (she’d jump over our 6-foot fence and swim around in the local lake). Just because a diet says 30 days instead of a week or lets you drink a few green smoothies instead of completely starving yourself, that doesn’t make it any more sustainable. Weight loss plans are either sustainable for you or they aren’t—it’s black and white—and almost every weight loss plan out there is unsustainable, superficial, and a waste of your time.

  The Wrong Focal Point

  Have you noticed that the only two variables the weight loss industry is bent on changing are the type or quantity of food we consume? Book after book after book tells you it’s the carbs, it's the meat, it's the calories, it's the wheat! Here's the formula.

  A new dieting book comes out.

  The book explains why other diets don't work—too many carbs, not enough fish oil, too much fruit, too little fruit, the wrong ratio of macronutrients, insufficient diet soda intake, too many calories, not enough exercise, too much wheat, etc.

  The book presents a new theory about the "ideal diet.”

  Nothing is inherently wrong with this process. It makes sense to question the foods we eat and seek the ideal ones for our health and weight. This, however, is the wrong focal point. We don’t need the perfect diet formula; we need an alternative to the broken dieting method. Even those books with clever titles about being the "non-diet solution" to weight loss proceed to incorporate the exact same principles of dieting into their “non-diet.” Most commonly, they’ll give you a list of foods to eat and not eat and some sort of unsustainable application plan (with a cheat day if you’re lucky).

  We’ve mistaken the diet (n) as the problem to be solved, which has introduced way too much complexity into what has always been a simple truth (eat real, whole foods to lose weight). We have hundreds of diets (n)—many of which recognize the basic correct foods to eat—but they share the same broken dieting (v) strategies.

  The broken concept of dieting is to attempt to quickly switch from one way of eating to another, often (but not always) for a set period of time.

  Whether it's a plan designed for life or one for 10-30 days, it's usually: Eat this way and you'll lose weight. Get motivated. Do it. Good luck!

  This is a lousy strategy that consistently fails, and people have tried everything to get it to work.

  Some make diet plans in which there are no rules and you just try to eat the right foods. This is closer to a real solution because it’s flexible, but
it isn’t structured or strategic enough to change behavior.

  Others try to take your decision-making out of the process. This can work for some time, but eventually, people will make their own food choices. Taking away your freedom to choose is rarely effective, because you can take back your power of choice at any time. It’s better to change the way you make decisions.

  Some ignore the types of foods we eat and simplify the goal to counting calories, but calorie counting is a pain to maintain, it’s inaccurate, it doesn't focus on proper nutrition, and, as we just covered, it causes long-term weight gain. In his book The Calorie Myth, Jonathan Bailor succinctly describes the accuracy problem with calorie counting: “Since the late 1970s, we have gradually worked our way up to eating an additional 570 calories per day. But let’s estimate that over those few decades, we each ate a more modest 300 additional calories per day. According to traditional calorie math, the average American should have gained 907 pounds of fat between 1977 and 2006.”13 That didn’t happen because traditional calorie math is bunk. Our bodies are not calculators. It’s not “calories in, calories out” (CICO); it’s more like “calories in, complex biological reactions, calories out.”