Talk:Dieting/Archive 1

message: This statement should be better worded, i.e. "It is proven...", or just "The human body..." or anything that doesn't use 'clearly' or 'easily' ('easily' isnt so bad, but 'clearly' must go!)  p.s. this is under the Low-Fat Diets section
Advs89 22:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Clearly, the human body can easily convert..."

message: A low density diet is when you try to eat foods that have low calories and big portions. Divide the amount of calories by the grams of food. The resulting number will be between 9-0. The lower the number, the less dense the food is in calories, the better. This way you could get "more bang for the buck" you can eat more food for less calories. Pure carbohydrates will have a number of 4, which includes most cereals. Pure fat have a number 9, the worst. I'd say the best choices would be under the number 3.  The thing I like about the diet is it takes serving sizes into account.  Think it should be researched and\or included? 24.62.85.110 00:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Low density diets?

message: Something that often seems to be missing from these type of articles is information about weight gain for those who might be seriously underweight. Of course, those are underweight are a minority, but I think they deserve some information too.
:I added alink in the see also section. --Jake 21:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Being underweight

message: I'm removing this bit: A ketogenic diet is often very effective in lowering body-fat levels whilst maintaining or even increasing muscle mass. I'm removing it because:
#all diets that burn fat involve the biological process of ketogenesis, therefore all diets are ketogenic in nature
#the word "often" is a prejudicial POVism
#no diet with a calorie deficit can increase muscle mass without exercise, and every diet with calorie deficit will reduce muscle mass unless the dieter also exercises (n.b.: it is possible to keep a calorie deficit and increase muscle mass with exercise)
The sentence is an apparent attempt to promote the diet that uses ketogenesis as a buzz-word, the Atkins diet.  Atkins is discussed elsewhere in the article, and its sales pitch doesn't belong in the science section.  Also, Atkins doesn't just involve ketogenesis, but ketosis, or chronic ketogenesis.  So this deletion will help Wikipedia avoid further muddying the meanings of those terms.  Blair P. Houghton 00:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All diets where body fat is lost involve ketosis as well.  Not all place the emphasis that Atkins does on ketonuria, testing the urine with test strips to see if the ketosis is severe enough to spill into the urine.  But if you are losing adipose weight, your body will be in the fasting state by the end of the long fast known as sleep.  Fat will be mobilized from stores to the liver and gluconeogenesis will be occuring there, with ketones liberated to be used as a fuel.--Silverback 14:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: What's your point? Yes fatty acids can also be directly utilized aerobically but, barring execize, within a few hours of a high carb mean, insulin has the body in the substrate storing "fed" state. When in the fasting state, the energy that the liver uses for gluconeogenes is is supplied by fatty acids in the liver, to use glucose would be a futile cycle. Atkins is just around in a different form, marketed a little better and called "South Beach". I didn't put the fad stuff in the article, it is not a precise term anyway. --Silverback 22:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't criticizing; just throwing in a detail about the liver's involvement. I guess assumed the fatty acids and glucose are being consumed by some sort of activity so you're not in a "futile cycle". One thing I might put in the article: "The only way to lose fat is to convert it to fuel and burn it". But then everyone would say oh yeah, well what about liposuction... On the other matter, the USA Today piece didn't make a distinction, it just said low-carb dieting is falling off rapidly, so I cut the "Atkins is not a fad" thing. It's all good. Blair P. Houghton 22:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Atkins ad

message: I think there should be something about the mental factors at work here. People often overeat because of low self-esteem for example. Dieting therefore has to look at how you tackle that. Andrew
Maybe a new section on Motivation? Could get kind of out of hand, though.  Might do better as a subsection in the psychology portions of the obesity page.  Could also be added piecemeal to those techniques subsections here that have motivational components, because many of the diets leave motivational tools (beyond buying into the premise of the snake oil) out.  --Blair P. Houghton 21:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Motivation

message: This is such a broad and controversial area that it is better to let the material suffer from "over diversity of opinion"
than to try to put a "final authority" boil-down into place. The various approaches should be allowed to stand as long
as they pass the smell test of serious investigation, or clinical research.Nativeborncal 06:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A general Wikipedia cultural point, about this kind of subject

message: This article seems to suffer from being vague and repetitive. The daily protein intake of 1 gram per pound of body weight is wrong or at least outdated: an average man needs about 80 grams of fat, more like 1 gram per kilo. The science and fad parts need to be better separated. It is true and sad that there is very little good info on metabolism and physical work in this area. What about hot and cold weather (on energy expenditure).Anthony717 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality of Article

message: User 24.116.16.155 made a large edit that says that dieting is only for losing weight, which isn't true. This article does not have to be restricted to just weight loss. A more inclusive article would lead to a better Wikipedia. -- Mjwilco 04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose of dieting

message: To me, this article seems like it's just covering the same stuff as dieting, does it really warrant a separate article? I think it could be included here, redirecting both that and the disambig 'diet' page here too... Tyciol 04:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Diet (nutrition)]]?

message: I really don't know biology, but this sentence seems to me wrong: ...that he is 20 percent efficient at converting chemical energy into mechanical work (this is within measured ranges). The 20 percent efficiency is really a big number, also for mechanical machines. I'll expect a much smaller value. It seems to me that body produce a lot more heat and there are some indirect chemical reaction to trasform fat into mechanical energy. I cannot believe in such number. Someone can confirm the 20 percent? (I'll expect efficiency < 0.5-1%). Cate 12:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical exercise (with an example) 

message: According to the article:
"After experimentation, it was found that a protein intake of 1 to 1.5 grams of protein per kilogram of ideal bodyweight (lean body mass or LBM) prevented the loss of body protein. A somewhat "safer" intake of .8 to 1.2 grams of protein per pound of LBM is often recommended. (More active persons and those taking less protein must compensate by consuming at least some carbohydrates.)"
2 things need to be resolved:
(1) (measurements) It says grams/kg in the first sentence and grams/lb in the second sentence. They should both be the same unit (kilograms I am assuming).
(2) (clarification) Is the intake of protein a daily intake figure? (I assume it is)
1)No, they are not supposed to be in the same unit. The original research was done based on kgs of ideal body mass. The safer index comes from Lyle McDonald's research on the subject and is in g/lb since that is most useful to people. You'll notice that the g/lb figure is larger when converted to kg's. This is why it's "safer."
:When I read this, I thought the "safer" intake was below the former. The difference should be made more explicit, besides I'm curious why you would assume g/lb would be the more useful unit. Rakshasa 08:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific analysis of the dangers of fasting (and discussion of partial fasting with protein supplementation) 

message: While this isn't a big issue, could we possibly work on incorporating more detailed imperial conversions for users not familiar with the metric system? I think the article already does a fair job of this, but not all of the article's discussions of measurement include direct imperial conversions, and some users may find this confusing -- especially when they're skimming through the article only to read one particular section. Grendel 20:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metric vs. Imperial systems 

message: I’ve read vague statements that the more slowly one loses weight the more likely it is to stay off.  While I firmly believe this, I’ve never heard of any studies that have shown this.  If there are studies that show this, I think they need to get a lot more publicity.  My belief, based on hunch and personal experience, is that loss of a pound a week is a little too fast.
The book “French Women Don’t Get Fat,” by Mireille Guiliano, was a best-seller in 2005, but I don’t think it got as much attention as it should get.  There’s no mention of that book, of French eating habits, or the much lower rates of overweight in France in this article or in the article “List of diets.”  My reaction to all the crazy diets I see here and elsewhere is that I wonder why we continue to discuss the weight problem when the answer has been found: Make a series of small changes that you intend to be permanent, plan on losing weight slowly and eating the same after you lose the weight as during, don’t use any scientific terminology or count or weigh or measure anything, eat small portions of a balanced diet, and be sure you enjoy your food.  --  Anne, 9 July 2006
:It is so good to know "that the answer has been found" as to the 'secret' of weight loss - lose it slowly.  Well, as an obese person struggling throughout my life to lose weight, I'll tell you why your reasoning fails: hunger.  There is no short-cut to weight loss; it is simple: burn more calories than you consume.  The problem is that when you consume less calories than your body needs to maintain its current weight, it signals that it is hungry.  The ability to sustain hunger on an on-going basis is usually referred to as 'will power', i.e., do you have the willpower to lose weight?  If not, you are considered weak and not worth the effort expended by doctors, dieticions, etc who go through all the trouble of developing wieght-loss diets that 'work' (according to the 'professionals').  The reason people look to quick-loss diets is that they know that over time, hunger will kill whatever 'will power' they are able to muster.  So, again, thanks for recommending the one sure diet, the real secret, which in reality does not work - just as 98% of all wieght-loss diets do not work for one simple reason.  People cannot go hungry for weeks, months, years at a time - the time that is needed to lose weight according to almost every diet plan out there. 71.214.66.217 00:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slow weight loss 

message: Without wanting to spark a heated debate on the merits of the Atkins diet, it is simply untrue to suggest Dr Robert Atkins recommends "gorging on meat".  In The New Atkins Diet Revolution, he specifically cautions against overeating on meat, pointing out that the diet will not be effective for those eating in excess.  I also find the word "gorging" breaches the NPOV rule, "significant quantities" or "higher quantities" would be more accurate and objective, so I am removing it. (Istara 19:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atkins "gorging" on meat 

message: I really don't know biology, but this sentence seems to me wrong: ...that he is 20 percent efficient at converting chemical energy into mechanical work (this is within measured ranges). The 20 percent efficiency is really a big number, also for mechanical machines. I'll expect a much smaller value. It seems to me that body produce a lot more heat and there are some indirect chemical reaction to trasform fat into mechanical energy. I cannot believe in such number. Someone can confirm the 20 percent? (I'll expect efficiency < 0.5-1%). Cate 12:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical exercise (with an example) 

message: According to the article:
"After experimentation, it was found that a protein intake of 1 to 1.5 grams of protein per kilogram of ideal bodyweight (lean body mass or LBM) prevented the loss of body protein. A somewhat "safer" intake of .8 to 1.2 grams of protein per pound of LBM is often recommended. (More active persons and those taking less protein must compensate by consuming at least some carbohydrates.)"
2 things need to be resolved:
(1) (measurements) It says grams/kg in the first sentence and grams/lb in the second sentence. They should both be the same unit (kilograms I am assuming).
(2) (clarification) Is the intake of protein a daily intake figure? (I assume it is)
1)No, they are not supposed to be in the same unit. The original research was done based on kgs of ideal body mass. The safer index comes from Lyle McDonald's research on the subject and is in g/lb since that is most useful to people. You'll notice that the g/lb figure is larger when converted to kg's. This is why it's "safer."
:When I read this, I thought the "safer" intake was below the former. The difference should be made more explicit, besides I'm curious why you would assume g/lb would be the more useful unit. Rakshasa 08:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific analysis of the dangers of fasting (and discussion of partial fasting with protein supplementation) 

message: While this isn't a big issue, could we possibly work on incorporating more detailed imperial conversions for users not familiar with the metric system? I think the article already does a fair job of this, but not all of the article's discussions of measurement include direct imperial conversions, and some users may find this confusing -- especially when they're skimming through the article only to read one particular section. Grendel 20:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metric vs. Imperial systems 

message: I’ve read vague statements that the more slowly one loses weight the more likely it is to stay off.  While I firmly believe this, I’ve never heard of any studies that have shown this.  If there are studies that show this, I think they need to get a lot more publicity.  My belief, based on hunch and personal experience, is that loss of a pound a week is a little too fast.
The book “French Women Don’t Get Fat,” by Mireille Guiliano, was a best-seller in 2005, but I don’t think it got as much attention as it should get.  There’s no mention of that book, of French eating habits, or the much lower rates of overweight in France in this article or in the article “List of diets.”  My reaction to all the crazy diets I see here and elsewhere is that I wonder why we continue to discuss the weight problem when the answer has been found: Make a series of small changes that you intend to be permanent, plan on losing weight slowly and eating the same after you lose the weight as during, don’t use any scientific terminology or count or weigh or measure anything, eat small portions of a balanced diet, and be sure you enjoy your food.  --  Anne, 9 July 2006
:It is so good to know "that the answer has been found" as to the 'secret' of weight loss - lose it slowly.  Well, as an obese person struggling throughout my life to lose weight, I'll tell you why your reasoning fails: hunger.  There is no short-cut to weight loss; it is simple: burn more calories than you consume.  The problem is that when you consume less calories than your body needs to maintain its current weight, it signals that it is hungry.  The ability to sustain hunger on an on-going basis is usually referred to as 'will power', i.e., do you have the willpower to lose weight?  If not, you are considered weak and not worth the effort expended by doctors, dieticions, etc who go through all the trouble of developing wieght-loss diets that 'work' (according to the 'professionals').  The reason people look to quick-loss diets is that they know that over time, hunger will kill whatever 'will power' they are able to muster.  So, again, thanks for recommending the one sure diet, the real secret, which in reality does not work - just as 98% of all wieght-loss diets do not work for one simple reason.  People cannot go hungry for weeks, months, years at a time - the time that is needed to lose weight according to almost every diet plan out there. 71.214.66.217 00:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slow weight loss 

message: :Typically these drugs fall into two classes: diuretics to induce water-weight loss and stimulants (such as ephedrine, and more recently synephrine, due to the former's ban as a weight loss supplement by the FDA, although ephedrine is still available as an asthma medication) to increase heart rate and reduce appetite. Both classes of drugs can cause kidney and liver damage, and stimulants can cause sudden heart attacks, addiction, and both ephedrine and synephrine have been proven to cause ischemic stroke.
This section reads highly POV, no citations and is prima facie rubbish.  The use of stimulants to lose weight is a common technique carried out by millions of people worldwide daily with little to no side effects.  The odd instance where someone who is already in very poor health has a stroke or heart attack from it is not above standard deviation, IMHO.  Perhaps we can get some citations on this portion of the article, specifically citations that show that it's higher than the standard acceptable deviation applied to the specific chemicals expected level of side effects?  Jachin 21:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diet Pills

message: I request a move to the main Diet page, alternatively a redirect may be created preliminary. See the diet (nutrition) talk page for more information.
KVDP (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: To quote:
Physical exercise is an important complement to dieting in securing weight loss. Aerobic exercise is also an important part of maintaining normal good health, especially the muscular strength of the heart. To be useful, aerobic exercise requires maintaining a target heart rate of above 50 percent of one's maximum heart rate for 30 minutes, at least 3 times a week. Brisk walking can accomplish this.
"above one's maximum heart rate"??? Shouldn't this be a different measure, such as sitting heart rate or some such? Maximum is maximum and if you told me that I had to go 30 minutes at near 300 BPM I'd never take you seriously (my max is 195).  - mec 13 August 2007
:New comments should go at the bottom of the page.  You might mean resting heart rate - feel free to adjust.  WLU 06:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Text in article is, err, odd

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
* "pmid17636786" :
** 
** 
DumZiBoT (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: A contributor to this article has provided information about the "single meal" approach to caloric/nutrient intake as being best for optimal health and ideal weight.  Could this contributor please give us some references for the "studies have proven" and "Scientists have found" statements in second paragraph of the Meal Frequency section? ---- InfoInsatiate 21 November 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by InfoInsatiate (talk • contribs) 22:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Impact of Meal Frequency --  

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fit for Life. Badagnani (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion proposal 

message: "Dieting is the practice of ingesting food in a regulated fashion to achieve or maintain a controlled weight" is an erroneous definition. Dieting, very often, refers to controlled/regulated ingestion of food for different health reasons other than maintaining/controlling weight. For example, diabetic patients follow low-calorie diet, patients with hypertension follow diet with low sodium intake, high blood urea calls for low-protein diet, etc. Subh83 (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I see this will need a whole lot of change in the complete article. The article is focused only towards dieting w.r.t. weight loss. Is there any other generic article on dieting that covers the other aspects of dieting as well? Subh83 (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Healthy diet Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue with definition of Dieting 

message: I've just attempted to start a table listing a website that can keep a user's food diary, but it has been removed.
I can understand that think could be deemed to be "advert linkspam," but I also think that this would be useful content for the reader.
The new table was intended to initiate a comparison between this website and other websites/applications.
Please feedback any thoughts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.63.183 (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia doesn't exist for the purpose of promoting other sites.  The article already links to http://www.dmoz.org/Health/Weight_Loss/ - which is much better suited to host link directories. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table for Advice on Choosing a Food DIary to Use 

message: Muscle tissue expends more energy than fat tissue, but the difference is insignificant (I think it's 6kcal/lb/day versus 2kcal/lb/day). They both increase energy needs (this article states only muscle does).
BMR isn't a direct indicator of weight loss as suggested in this article. Even sedentary individuals need to add 20% for basic activities. See Wikipedia's article on energy balance.
Also, 3500kcal deficit per pound of weight loss isn't accurate. Muscle can sometimes be 50% of weight loss and it releases much less energy per pound than fat (therefore more weight lost on a similar deficit).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.50.137 (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  muscle tissue and BMR 

message: I understand this may fly in the face of what the majority of people working on this site attempt to accomplish, but does nobody else feel that a "general (current scientific) consensus" section describing the majority of experts' views on the subject would be helpful? I doubt that most people are looking up dieting just to find out what it is. They're looking for unbiased information not being sold to them in a book or movie series with a meal plan. I don't think it could be considered giving dangerous medical advice to, for instance, state (i don't know if this is true or not) that there is widespread scientific consensus that a light diet consisting primarily of leafy vegetables and small portions of meat, starch, and fat is good for health. And possibly have a statement lead into a sort of suggested diet (this doesn't have to be so overt that anyone could be accused of telling someone the right "answer" to the question.) I think it's really silly and uninformative to have a page that's essentially just a list of possible ways to misguide oneself, without any real attempt at discussing whether the atlatl-hunted diet is any more benificial than the Slim-Fast one. 70.108.199.130 06:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Consensus? 

message: Where is the information on the history of dieting?  The trends and fashions and the reasons they changed?  It is hard to understand or to put in context the various popular diets of today without knowing the history. Is dieting a recent phenomenon?  Why?  Didn't people in the past get fat too?  What advances have been made, if any?  This article looks like a mess. Lambanog (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of dieting 

message: Perhaps the diet diary section can be augmented to include the analysis linked to below.
The diet diary section implies a study proves keeping a diary strongly aids in achieving weight loss. This page (http://www.nhs.uk/news/2008/07July/Pages/Fooddiaryhelpsweightloss.aspx) suggests the link may not be as strong as is supposed. Indeed towards the end of the NHS article, concerning the study it is assessing, it states:
What does the NHS Knowledge Service make of this study?
The initial phase of the carefully designed Weight Loss Maintenance Trial was well conducted. However, its results have been misinterpreted by some news reports.
* This was not a randomised trial and was only the initial observational “screening’” phase to allow entry of participants into a randomised controlled trial aimed at investigating and comparing longer-term strategies for maintaining weight loss. 
* The food diary was not an isolated intervention but was combined with several dietary and activity targets as part of a structured behavioural programme, including regular follow-up and supervision by trained professionals. 
* The details of the self-reported measures of food diaries kept, activity taken and food consumed cannot be reported, as they are not described in detail in this research. However, it is likely that there will be some reporting bias in the results.
* The study period was relatively short and whether weight would be regained once the food diary and other interventions were stopped has not been reported in this publication.
* The participants in this study also had to fulfil very specific entry criteria and cannot be assumed to be representative of the general population. The study also included a high proportion of African Americans. Results may not be representative of other groups with a different ethnic makeup. 
Although a food diary may be beneficial as part of a wider intervention aimed at weight loss, no quantification of the amount of weight that may be lost from keeping a food diary alone can be accurately concluded from this study, as it has not been investigated as an isolated intervention.
109.149.202.15 (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This request is too general for an edit request. If you suggest a specific wording I'll check it and make the edit to the article. --Six words (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diet diary 

message: I think it would be interesting to include the overall failure rate of dieting and furthermore the failure rate of different diets. I keep coming across the figures of 95 % failure rate over a 5 years period in forum discussions, but I can't find where theses figures come from.
--Braveheidi (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  failure rate 

message: There's good research finding benefit from short term fasting see autophagy.  No more than 48 hours, and 24 is probably enough.32cllou (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fasting is not always dangerous 

message: The article crash diet redirects to dieting but I couldn't really find in this article what crash dieting is about. Moreover, the present article has crash diet in the "See also" section, i.e., a reference to itself. Can somebody write a short paragraph of crash dieting, please? Cristiklein (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crash Diet 

message: ===Air Diet===
Zero calorie diet, usually supplemented by vitamin and mineral additives. 24 deep breaths, or 'gulps' of air, are taken daily, replacing 99% of basic sustenance. Practitioners cite pseudo-scientific theories of 'energy' being absorbed from the air, with each breath. Health officials refer to limited scientific basis for positive outcomes, sometimes used as an extension to fasting. Very often involves consumption of vegetables proclaimed as 'zero calorie' but in fact have low calorific properties. Reoccurring popularity in online media and sporadic practice in Eastern Europe.
:This section was removed from the article, as it has no sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and content must be referenced to a WP:Reliable source. This policy applies to all articles, but it is especially important for health and medicine-related topics such as this one.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 04:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  /* Air Diet */ relocate completely unref'd "air diet" section to talk page 

message: Zero calorie diet, usually supplemented by vitamin and mineral additives. 24 deep breaths, or 'gulps' of air, are taken daily, replacing 99% of basic sustenance. Practitioners cite pseudo-scientific theories of 'energy' being absorbed from the air, with each breath. Health officials refer to limited scientific basis for positive outcomes, sometimes used as an extension to fasting. Very often involves consumption of vegetables proclaimed as 'zero calorie' but in fact have low calorific properties. Reoccurring popularity in online media and sporadic practice in Eastern Europe.
:This section was removed from the article, as it has no sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and content must be referenced to a WP:Reliable source. This policy applies to all articles, but it is especially important for health and medicine-related topics such as this one.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 04:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Air Diet

message: Effects of Cheat Meals While Dieting:
	There have been many research studies conducted on the best ways to lose weight, many of those studies include having one meal of choice a week, in other words a cheat meal. This is because while you are dieting, your many of your hormone levels begin to decrease along with your energy and metabolism. Including that cheat meal into your diet will help to boost metabolism and basically act as fuel to help you burn fat faster. Energy levels will also rise and you will feel better and happier in the days after the cheat meal. Hormones such as leptin, ghrelin, and thyroid hormones will all be affected positively allowing your body to go back to normal levels for the time being. All in all, cheat meals are very beneficial to people that are in a caloric deficit and plays a crucial role in mental strength in order to keep pushing for optimal weight loss goals.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brady188 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheat Meals While on a Diet