Ouch.

Wow, somebody woke up on the crabby side of the bed this morning.

First of all, diets don't work in the long term. If you attempt to lose a significant amount of weight (more than 10% of your current weight), your body kicks into famine mode and uses every tool in its arsenal to undermine your diet. Sure, you can lose weight short term, but at five years, the failure rate is 95%. After you've regained the weight, studies show that you are worse of metabolically speaking.

What the Fat Nutritionist seems to promote is something akin to Health at Every Size, which doesn't mean eat whatever you want. It means that if you want to be healthy then you need to eat healthy, nutritious foods (which, more often than not, means not the crap you buy in the grocery store), be active (not necessarily joining a gym, but doing the things you already do more actively), and have a positive body image.

WW is not just about caloric restriction. It is also about moving the scale downward. So, as long as you succeed at dropping the pounds, you're motivated and highly vested in the program. But if you hit a plateau or, GASP, begin to gain again (which studies show can occur regardless of how closely you follow their program), then you blame yourself for your inability to control your body, when, in reality, your body is always in control.

That self-blame can lead to other dangerous behaviors, like binging or resorting to more extreme methods, like diet pills, supplements and fad diets.

No, WW in and of itself is not dangerous and the message they promote is not a horrible one. But the ideas they cite as fact (anyone can lose the weight and keep it off if they work hard enough) is not backed up by science (even MeMe Fucking Roth acknowledges that 95% of diets fail).

So I am on board with anyone who recommends eating healthy, being active and loving yourself. Eating healthy does not mean caloric restriction. Intuitive eating does not mean eating whatever you want. What the Fat Nutritionist is recommending is eating like a normal human being... eating three satisfying meals a day and, if you want that chocolate cake, go for it because your body has established mechanisms for balancing the energy equation in the long run. Maybe today you crave cake, but tomorrow you're not as hungry. But trust your body and it will take care of you.

This isn't foolproof. People with eating disorders or unhealthy relationships with food will find the HAES method difficult. But people with eating disorders or unhealthy relationships with food should not be attempting to change their lifestyle on their own. They should be consulting their doctor and/or a qualified nutritionist. I don't doubt her advice, despite incomplete credentials, and if anyone wants her advice, that's up to them.

In any case, take a deep breath Sylvia. She's not completely off base.

Peace,
Shannon

Wow! I knew you guys intended to distance yourselves from the fatosphere, but I guess I didn't realize by how much.

I agree that no one should call themselves a nutritionist and give out uneducated information, and CHARGE you for it on top of that! But I think the heart of the fatosphere, beyond all the bullshit, is the idea that someone can be healthy and fat. Or even if they're unhealthy and fat, that's their choice (just like smoking) and people should mind their own business.

Woman X may find that she enjoys the fat acceptance movement, and she may find health without losing weight. It happens. I know that this wasn't the case for you guys, but don't be bitter towards the people it DOES work for! Just like they shouldn't freak on you for wanting to lose weight. Really, it's your body and no one should tell you how to live in it.

I'm sorry that you guys got burned so badly by them you lost sight of what they were tyring to do, which really was kind of beautiful and not in itself unhealthy or malicious (all their crazy bullshit aside). Just because you gained weight while practicing HAES doesn't mean everyone else did, or that if they stopped and started dieting that they would be able to lose weight like you are.

Don't get me wrong, I think you guys are heading in the right direction. I hope you can find a healthy balance between dieting as well as fat acceptance, which I think is the best thing even though they seem like completely opposite movements. This post just seemed a little...catty.

I don't know. Sorry if I piss you off...I still think you rock.

Wow, Shannon said everything I was trying to WAY more eloquently. I should have just kept my mouth shut.

I still think Fat Acceptance is beautiful thing. But I think it's dangerous to label yourself a health professional (with caveats, sure) and dispense advice such as this.

I don't look at myself in the mirror anymore and think "what a disgusting fat pig" based on the way I look. I feel badly about myself when I don't take care of myself, whether it's because I drank too much and spent the next day throwing up, or ate an entire bucket of fried chicken laying in bed as soon as I came home from work, every single day.

My point is that just telling someone, who may already have poor eating habits anyway, 'just eat 3 reasonable meals a day' isn't enough. If you never learned what 'reasonable' is, or have difficulty making good decisions about what to put in your body, how is that advice helpful?

I'm not sure I've explained myself any better in this comment than I did in my post. But I understand what y'all are saying.

I understand, and I'm not too excited about her either. But there really should be more nutritionists who promote HAES. The nutritionist I paid was a militant psychopath. He had me eating only raw vegetables, seeds, and nuts. He would scream at me for "cheating" if I didn't lose at least 2 lbs every week. And all that at a time where I needed nothing more than for someone to tell me it was okay to eat...

Coley,
Thanks, I appreciate it. And if you want to find a HAES-friendly nutritionist, it was recommended to me that you work with ED nutritionists, who tend to embrace HAES.

Sylvia,
That's a big step (not seeing yourself as disgusting) and there's nothing wrong with trying to reign in your dietary excesses. If you haven't read Dr. Bacon's book on HAES, I would recommend. I'm just finishing it now and it's a LOT more common sense and middle-of-the-road advice than much of what you're seeing on the Fatosphere. Dr. Bacon actually acknowledges that (*GASP!*) people who eat poorly and don't exercise can become obese. Many of the staunchest Fatosphere residents seem to resist that idea or at least resist speaking those words.

Dr. Bacon's book DOES define what reasonable is, and she also explains how you don't have to become a calorie-Nazi to eat healthy. And I'm the kind of person who has NEVER given half a shit about what I eat. I eat what sounds good, I eat until it's gone, and then I get dessert. Her book has really turned a crank in my brain and I'm now thinking in terms of health and nutrition (my mom would have a freakin' heart attack). I think that if the Fat Nutritionist is guilty of anything, it's the sin of omission. She takes for granted that you know what HAES is and how to practice it.

If you don't, then I highly recommend looking into it. Even if you think it's bull-puckey, you at least understand where "they" are coming from.

Peace,
Shannon

Bianca,
But this post specifically seems to deny the fact that diets don't work. So, you are aware of the facts, but you still get pissed when other people cite them? I don't get it. That's like getting mad because someone thinks that it's unhealthy to eat poorly and get no exercise (which some on the Fatosphere have gotten PO'ed with me about).

If you want to try and lose weight, more power to you. But this post seemed more like a hit piece on the Fat Nutritionist, not an assessment of what she wrote. Who cares if she knocks Weight Watchers? So Sylvia's pissed because she joined WW and the Fat Nutritionist thinks its a scam? If so, say that. But Sylvia made it sound like the Fat Nutritionist is encouraging irresponsible behavior, which I don't think she is.

Peace,
Shannon

It's difficult to read this as anything other than an irrational tirade against someone who called you out on your explanations for joining (and then leaving) the Fatosphere feed.

Here's a tip: if your site stats are tanking, try generating some interesting and thoughtful content of your own, rather than trying to drive traffic to your site by stirring up drama or being pointlessly controversial.  You'll get a much higher quality of readers with good writing than you will with reactionary posts that only demonstrate a lack of reading comprehension. 

Just a friendly suggestion.

Shannon - telling someone to eat whatever they want, whenever they want is irresponsbile. And yes, that is what she said.

wow, you ladies have really gone of the deep end. I feel ashamed to think that I actually contributed to your old site. please, if you haven't already done so, delete the old blog or at least delete my guest post. I don't want my name associated with you anymore.

Sylvia,
The quote you posted (and I haven't read all the comments, so feel free to point out other comments that are more appropriate) said, "Still, if you weren’t on a diet, you could have as much chocolate cake as you wanted, AND eat three decent meals, which sounds like a better deal to me, nutritionally."

Obviously, this is all interpretation, but the way I read it was that rather than subscribe to a point system where if you wanted chocolate cake, you'd either have to sacrifice your regular meals to save up your points to have a satisfying portion of cake, or you don't have the cake (or have an unsatisfying portion of it).

Her point (as I understand it from a HAES perspective) is that you don't have to diet to be healthy and that forbidding yourself from having cake can (in many cases) lead to binging on cake later to get the satisfaction you craved. Instead, she recommends eating three nutritionally balanced meals a day and enjoying the cake you want (which, if you're practicing HAES should be a reasonable amount, and if it's not, then that's obviously what you needed and your body will balance out the caloric excess over time).

I can see where it seems like she's saying, "Gorge on cake!" but in the context of HAES, it's not so revolutionary to say, "Eat what you want, don't arbitrarily restrict yourself." It's about having a healthy relationship with food, so if you're gorging on cake or restricting yourself on a diet, then neither is healthy.

Peace,
Shannon

Diets absolutely work. It's what people do after the diet achieves weight loss that results in weight gain. That regimen strangely never looks like nor subscribes to basic dieting principles, the main one being caloric deficit or homeostasis. Eating fewer calories than you burn works exactly as advertised. So does eating more calories than you burn. So because people often choose to follow the former program with the latter, that indicates the former program doesn't work, biologically, as advertised? lol.

Saying diets don't work is like saying not smoking doesn't achieve a state of not smoking. It absolutely does. When people relapse they are smoking. It's not the "not smoking" part that didn't function correctly.

Dieting is a tool, and not a user friendly one. Long term failure is a result of the individual's use of that tool, nothing more.

Sylvia,

I have to call bullshit here. I read the comments in both threads yours, and hers. What it looks like to me is that you disagree with an opinion the Fat Nutritionists is expressing. The bullshit is your personal attack on her, her credentials, and her offering a consultation for $50.00. Even though you point to what you don't agree with, you do it wrapped up in personal attack which is just uncool.

I think ZC is great and you do have the right to write whatever you want on your blog. Attacking the person instead of expressing your opposition to her opinion in a civil, respectful way makes me call Bullshit.

What is going on Sylvia? I have not seen this kind a vitriol form you before. In my opinion you always fought fair before.

Do you think it is appropriate to attack someone personally when they have a different opinion they you do? Do you disagree that this is what you did on this post? I like you guys and what you have put out up to now. This could be a deal breaker for me.

Come on, your too awesome for this low level street fighting. Activate the Diva posers and get back to the essence of ZC which I have come to love.

Cheers,

Ivan

tombrokaw,
I like you frame yourself as this dieting guru, but you still cling to calorie theory, which is crap. Over time, your body compensates for your caloric adjustments and even if you are practicing the same dietary restrictions and activity patterns, you will begin to gain, as demonstrated in this study comparing the Zone, LEARN, Ornish and Atkins diets. Despite maintaining their caloric balance, participants in all four groups began gaining weight around the six month mark and were steadily making their way back to their baseline weights at the end of the 12 month study.

Here's a graph of the phenomenon because I realize that big words confuse Hulk.

Five years where the 95% comes into play, so who knows where they would be four years from study's end.

The same pattern was shown in this seven year Women's Health Initiative study.

But even if it were true that the failure is the individual's fault, doesn't the fact that 95% of the people fail (in ALL diets, mind you, not just one specific method) that human's do not have the mental, emotional or physical skills to maintain long term weight loss? Or are you suggesting that only 5% of the population has the willpower to maintain their lower weights? Because that's an awfully broad brush you're painting with to say that 95% of dieters are just weak-willed quitters.

And the final question, then, is how do you, tombrokaw, propose we change those weak-willed quitters into little tombrokaw acolytes? Because if you have an answer for that, I recommend you write a book NOW because you'll be a fucking millionaire.

Peace,
Shannon

I've started a comment on this post a couple times since I read it and have found it hard to make my point concisely. Now, I won't reiterate the points already made, but I'm glad to see them made by people more eloquent and to-the-point than me.

I suppose my biggest concern with your argument is that you are "outing" someone who a) is entirely upfront about her current state of training and uncredentialed status, and b) discussed a recent and cited source (among many) for the real long-term outcomes of paying $480 a year for WW.

You call her out for "saying that people who go on diets typically have very poor eating habits and CANNOT BE DISCIPLINED ENOUGH to not eat chocolate cake so THEREFORE DIETS DON'T WORK." - No, to be precise, she says diets don't work because the literature she's citing says diets don't work.

Has she called to ask you to fork over $50 for advice? Has she billed herself as a Registered Dietician when advertising her services? (like it or not, the term "nutritionist" is not one which is regulated, and she's free to call herself that on her personal blog.) Have you actually talked to someone who has hired her? Without actually knowing what her paid services consist of, it's a pretty big leap to assert that she would advise someone against exercising and improving her eating habits, based upon a belief in HAES and a skepticism over Weight Watchers.

The whole re-blogging of this is something I only partially understand. If you linked her post to try to counter her statement (Diets do work, they do, they DO!), that would make sense. But this just seemed like a rather weak excuse to "out" her for being a graduating student, rather than a licensed RD... which she fully admits and outlines why (she feels) she is qualified to offer her advice. Don't wanna pay to hear what she says? Don't. I can say I've met a fair number of "fully qualified" Registered Dieticians who were absolutely unqualified to advise a horse to eat hay. Same goes for certified trainers, MDs, DOs, DVMs, JDs, etc - I'd rather accept medical advice from an intelligent and informed med student than from an MD who's not up to date.

I like you frame yourself as this dieting guru, but you still cling to calorie theory, which is crap. Over time, your body compensates for your caloric adjustments and even if you are practicing the same dietary restrictions and activity patterns, you will begin to gain, as demonstrated in this study comparing the Zone, LEARN, Ornish and Atkins diets. Despite maintaining their caloric balance, participants in all four groups began gaining weight around the six month mark and were steadily making their way back to their baseline weights at the end of the 12 month study.

lol, by definition if you gained weight you are not in caloric balance. People's caloric needs fluctuate over time due to age, weight and metabolism. A number that constitutes "balance" one day will not necessarily constitute homeostasis five years from now. I'm well aware that those who lose weight need to maintain a lower caloric intake than those of similar statistics who never lost weight.

So what? Life is tougher for some than others. But it's still calories in calories out, and therefore within individual control.

But even if it were true that the failure is the individual's fault, doesn't the fact that 95% of the people fail (in ALL diets, mind you, not just one specific method) that human's do not have the mental, emotional or physical skills to maintain long term weight loss? Or are you suggesting that only 5% of the population has the willpower to maintain their lower weights? Because that's an awfully broad brush you're painting with to say that 95% of dieters are just weak-willed quitters.

Almost correct. That 95% of the population fails to maintain long term weight loss suggests that 95% of humans lack the will and discipline to achieve a straightforward but tough goal. I don't care what the other 95% of the population goes through or that 95% is a large number. I care about what it takes to put yourself, an individual in the 5%. A huge percentage of this country has frivolous credit card debt as well. Is that also biologically out of the individual's control? B.S. A large failure rate is no proof that something is not within an individual's control.

And the final question, then, is how do you, tombrokaw, propose we change those weak-willed quitters into little tombrokaw acolytes? Because if you have an answer for that, I recommend you write a book NOW because you'll be a fucking millionaire.</I>

Changing the other 95% is not my concern. I am no egalitarian and thus fully accept that not everyone will have the willpower and discipline to achieve X. Fill in anything for X. Weight loss, going to college, making a good salary, being a responsible and productive person, etc.

X will never be 100% And it's not particularly in my agenda to make it 100%. I applaud those who do what it takes to get in the 5% in any endeavor. To the other 95% I tell them the truth. I tell them how difficult the task is and maybe some basic tools on how to achieve it. I hold them accountable for their own role in failing and hope society continues to hold them accountable. That's all anyone ever did for me, nobody held my hand and told me that being fat was ok or that it was out of my control. When I was losing weight it have blown my mind to imagine that something like the fatosphere even exists.

Ideally a culture of pure and rigid accountability will raise the number a bit from 5%. Will it? Maybe, probably not. I don't really care as I am an individualist. I care about telling individuals that the power is in their hands.

I like you frame yourself as this dieting guru, but you still cling to calorie theory, which is crap. Over time, your body compensates for your caloric adjustments and even if you are practicing the same dietary restrictions and activity patterns, you will begin to gain, as demonstrated in this study comparing the Zone, LEARN, Ornish and Atkins diets. Despite maintaining their caloric balance, participants in all four groups began gaining weight around the six month mark and were steadily making their way back to their baseline weights at the end of the 12 month study.

lol, by definition if you gained weight you are not in caloric balance. People's caloric needs fluctuate over time due to age, weight and metabolism. A number that constitutes "balance" one day will not necessarily constitute homeostasis five years from now. I'm well aware that those who lose weight need to maintain a lower caloric intake than those of similar statistics who never lost weight.

So what? Life is tougher for some than others. But it's still calories in calories out, and therefore within individual control.

But even if it were true that the failure is the individual's fault, doesn't the fact that 95% of the people fail (in ALL diets, mind you, not just one specific method) that human's do not have the mental, emotional or physical skills to maintain long term weight loss? Or are you suggesting that only 5% of the population has the willpower to maintain their lower weights? Because that's an awfully broad brush you're painting with to say that 95% of dieters are just weak-willed quitters.

Almost correct. That 95% of the population fails to maintain long term weight loss suggests that 95% of humans lack the will and discipline to achieve a straightforward but tough goal. I don't care what the other 95% of the population goes through or that 95% is a large number. I care about what it takes to put yourself, an individual in the 5%. A huge percentage of this country has frivolous credit card debt as well. Is that also biologically out of the individual's control? B.S. A large failure rate is no proof that something is not within an individual's control.

And the final question, then, is how do you, tombrokaw, propose we change those weak-willed quitters into little tombrokaw acolytes? Because if you have an answer for that, I recommend you write a book NOW because you'll be a fucking millionaire.

Changing the other 95% is not my concern. I am no egalitarian and thus fully accept that not everyone will have the willpower and discipline to achieve X. Fill in anything for X. Weight loss, going to college, making a good salary, being a responsible and productive person, etc.

X will never be 100% And it's not particularly in my agenda to make it 100%. I applaud those who do what it takes to get in the 5% in any endeavor. To the other 95% I tell them the truth. I tell them how difficult the task is and maybe some basic tools on how to achieve it. I hold them accountable for their own role in failing and hope society continues to hold them accountable. That's all anyone ever did for me, nobody held my hand and told me that being fat was ok or that it was out of my control. When I was losing weight it have blown my mind to imagine that something like the fatosphere even exists.

Ideally a culture of pure and rigid accountability will raise the number a bit from 5%. Will it? Maybe, probably not. I don't really care as I am an individualist. I care about telling individuals that the power is in their hands.

It is fair to call out Michelle on her conflict of interest. Remember how other blogs discount studies that are supposedly funded by the evil diet industry? Well, a lot of the FA gurus have their own business interests in saying what they say. Linda Bacon is a "consultant." Paul Campos has books to sell. And the Fat Nutritionist will charge you $50 to let you know that you should never ever restrict calories. If any of these people found out they were wrong about something, do you trust that they will be as vocal about it as they are about pushing their own brand?