Anyone starting a new diet plan for the New Year?

Just wanted to know if anyone is starting a new diet for this year? I know I need to lose 47-50 pounds, so I can get back into my old clothes, but also, tying to lower my blood pressure. Any ideas of the best culinary diet there is? My problem is I love to cook and it really shows.

I started a new regime, but I don't know if it's going to work yet! A few weeks ago I read in the New York Times about a book called "The Instinct Diet," by a Tufts professor of nutrition with twenty years of research experience, name of Susan B. Roberts. It's based on her findings that we have 5 food instincts which are fruitless (no pun intended) for us to ignore; pretending they don't exist can only get us into more trouble. Anyway, the one sort of "cardinal rule" for weight loss she has is that every meal one eats should be high in fiber, or at least have a high-fiber component to it. She stresses that it is not enough to say, "Well, my breakfast was high fiber, my lunch doesn't really have to be." No, each meal needs to contribute fiber, so that we get 50 or 60 grams of it in a day. (Which is far more than the average American gets.) That's fairly well in line with mainstream food-science opinion, so I feel pretty safe following it. (One of the reassuring things about the book is her theme--putting it in my words--that "this is not magic, folks, we've known a lot of these things for a long time now.") So, we shall see.

I know this is going to sound really hackneyed but a standard 'diet' is probably going to do you no good beyond the short term, if at all. IMO, it's all about lifestyle changes that can get you to your goal and be reasonably sustained thereafter. For most people, that includes modifying what they eat and getting some regular exercise. This is so much easier said than done but it's doable, even for busy people.

From a food perspective -- which is what we are discussing here -- I don't think there are really any secrets, shortcuts or silver bullets. It's just a matter knowing yourself and making some realistic adjustments to your intake. You mentioned that you like to cook. Try to scratch that itch by challenging yourself to cook lighter, healthier dishes. Hone your skills by coming up with ways to impart big flavors into your cooking without throwing a bunch of unnecessary fat into them. Substituting in lean proteins for fattier ones can be valuable. Eating occasional meatless meals can help -- as long as they are nutritionally balanced (fries and milkshake won't cut it ). Limiting empty carbs can also be a key. At first, these types of substitions feel insignificant but day after day, week after week, they really add up and they are relatively easy to perpetuate.

Making consistent, moderate adjustments to the quantity of what you eat will have a huge impact, as well. If you are not familiar with nutritional values, keep a log of everything you eat for a couple of weeks. Calculate what you've eaten using any credible off-the-shelf nutritional guide. You will be astounded by how quickly the calories add up. But beyond that, keeping the log will help you develop an innate knowledge of what you're really eating, which will be extremely valuable to you. You may also want to consult a nutritionist or health-industry professional to assist you with this and help you develop a customized plan and determine an ideal daily nutritional intake.

Understand that while restaurant eating is definitely in-bounds, it can also be dangerous territory, nutritionally speaking. Restaurant food tastes great because it often contains a lot of (hidden) fat. Additionally, restaurant portions are usually gigantic by nutritional standards. Gaining a working knowledge of nutritional values will help you make better choices in this arena. Agreeing -- with yourself -- that you can set some realistic limits here will be very helpful to you.

You have to induldge yourself from time to time because absolutely denying yourself anything is simply not realistic. Perhaps you'll decide to eat something really love -- say pizza, for example -- only once or twice a month. I strongly believe that a good goal is to look at the long term picture and think about where you want your weight be in 6 months, a year and beyond. Making very reasonable adjustments to your diet, combined with some exercise, can result in weight loss that may seem insignificant at first. But if you lose a pound or 2 a week, and you do it in a way that you can comfortably live with, after 6 months, you'll have produced results that will be both formidable and sustainable.

The bottom line, though, is that weight loss -- especially for those of us who love food -- most definitely requires some sacrifice. Once you're armed with the proper knowledge and information, you can decide for yourself the areas in which it will be most easy for you to make those sacrifices. If you make them properly, you will get to your goal in a way that will allow you to maintain it. It seems like you've already overcome one big hurdle, which is deciding that you want to do it. Like anything else worth having in life, the rest is just a matter of doing the work.

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:The bottom line, though, is that weight loss -- especially for those of us who love food -- most definitely requires some sacrifice.

What Ronnie_Willpower_Suburban is not saying is in the last 8-months he has lost 60-pounds. A feat to be respected and, hopefully, emulated.

ronnie_suburban wrote:I know this is going to sound really hackneyed but a standard 'diet' is probably going to do you no good beyond the short term, if at all. IMO, it's all about lifestyle changes that can get you to your goal and be reasonably sustained thereafter. For most people, that includes modifying what they eat and getting some regular exercise.

One of the things Susan B. Roberts says (and she seems to have a lot of evidence to back it up) is that exercise, surprisingly, contributes relatively little to weight loss. What we eat has a far greater effect. Mind you, she is not saying that exercise doesn't have all kinds of other utility, such as preventing heart disease, improving lung function, contributing to general physical and mental well-being all kinds of ways. She is simply saying that when it comes to weight-loss per se, it has relatively little impact compared to food choice. This is an important point, she feels, for the reason that if are under the illusion that exercise is going to get us to our goal weight, we are more likely to eat more than we should. ("I worked out today--therefore, I can have this chocolate shake.")

Ronnie has done a great job. Another tip that I found helpful is eating "whole foods". By that I mean minimally processed meats, fruits and veggies. Chop up those veggies yourself, buy fresh chicken or fish versus frozen, forget soda exists and avoid prepackaged crap food that is sold for convenience rather than flavor.

I love eating things that I have spiced up and flavored myself using onions, garlic and great spices versus msg laden prepackaged stuff.

yes but I am at my wit's end with diets so I don't know where to turn. I have lost the same thirty pound and keep gaining them back. As my doctor simply would say "Eat less and exercise more". Easy to say hard to do.

Boy, I understand that well, Toria. I would lose thirty pounds and gain fifty.

riddlemay wrote:

ronnie_suburban wrote:I know this is going to sound really hackneyed but a standard 'diet' is probably going to do you no good beyond the short term, if at all. IMO, it's all about lifestyle changes that can get you to your goal and be reasonably sustained thereafter. For most people, that includes modifying what they eat and getting some regular exercise.

One of the things Susan B. Roberts says (and she seems to have a lot of evidence to back it up) is that exercise, surprisingly, contributes relatively little to weight loss. What we eat has a far greater effect. Mind you, she is not saying that exercise doesn't have all kinds of other utility, such as preventing heart disease, improving lung function, contributing to general physical and mental well-being all kinds of ways. She is simply saying that when it comes to weight-loss per se, it has relatively little impact compared to food choice. This is an important point, she feels, for the reason that if are under the illusion that exercise is going to get us to our goal weight, we are more likely to eat more than we should. ("I worked out today--therefore, I can have this chocolate shake.")

I found with my body, and with the body of many people I know who have lost significant amounts of fat, exercise is very important, especially resistance training (weights). You have to find what works best for you, but for me it was a combination of changing some eating habits (nothing terribly drastic, mostly portion control, eating a lot more vegetables, cutting my carb intake to maybe a third of total calories, cutting alcohol, etc.) and working out with weights three days a week. I later added cardio on three off-days (five to seven miles running), but it was the resistance training that really helped the inches come off the belly. Increasing muscle mass also brings your metabolism up, as more muscle means your body needs more calories to sustain itself. That, and when you lose the fat, it's nice to have some shape underneath.

And, yes, it's a lifestyle change, not just a diet.

I want some, or all, to step up to the plate....and leave pop behind. Yes, your beloved pepsi or coke product. Don't say you can't but yet " I'll try ". As a test for yourself make it a week without pop. After you finish that week make it a month and so on.

A few years back I was a tad overweight and lost nearly 35lbs. by not drinking pop in about 3 months. I'm not saying this is the perfect plan to lose weight....but it sure can help, someone tell me they'll try it.

*I've turned a few people away from pop over the years and they've all thanked me for it, one person at a time.

I pretty much completely gave up pop years ago, and I still have weight to lose.

On the premise that no one sticks with unpleasant New Year's resolutions for more than a month or two, I don't think I'll lose the weight I want to lose by diet changes. I already eat mostly rice, beans, and vegetables, practically no fast food ever, no soda (pop), no sweet tooth, no secret stock of candy. I blame my excess weight on loving to cook and loving wine and slowing down as I get older.

I'm out walking for about an hour every morning with the dog, which I think is good for my mental health, but I don't know if I can count it as exercise, because it is pretty pokey walking, lots of sniffing around (her, not me). So rather than change my eating habits I plan to put renewed pressure on my exercising habits - I've dusted off and set up the treadmill. I will improve my health and possibly lose weight if I spend a total of about an hour on it a day in addition to the outdoor dog walks. The challenge I'm facing at the moment is carving out that hour. It's easy to put off. Boredom is not an issue - I have a backlog of interesting podcasts on my Blackberry that I listen to on the dog walks and look forward to listening to on the treadmill too. The issue is making myself step away from the office (I work at home) to get on the treadmill. A whole uninterrupted hour of exercise in the middle of the day never seems as urgent as something I'm supposed to be doing for work. At the moment, I am thinking I may have more success getting the time on the treadmill in if I split it up into three 20-minute quick treadmill walks spread out during the day.

The switch late last year(Nov. 1st) to drinking lite beer(I have a few or more cans a day, and those idle calories were adding up), & cutting out 99% of the pop out of my diet seems to be working(I used to drink 2+ cans a day, now I may drink that much every 2 weeks). The first week was rough without pop, but now when I have a rare mexican Coke, or pop somewhere I really enjoy it. I also started drinking water(I really do not like this flavorless beverage).

I will continue this "diet" into the New Year & beyond, so I can continue to eat as much beef, pork, crab, cheese, etc as I crave, as well as drink as much tequila as I like.

Its all about trade offs.

I wrote:Anyway, the one sort of "cardinal rule" for weight loss she has is that every meal one eats should be high in fiber, or at least have a high-fiber component to it. She stresses that it is not enough to say, "Well, my breakfast was high fiber, my lunch doesn't really have to be." No, each meal needs to contribute fiber, so that we get 50 or 60 grams of it in a day...

Relying on memory before shutting down the computer last night, I misspoke. The actual figure Roberts urges is 35 to 45 grams of fiber each day. Still well more than most of us now eat, and requiring the inclusion of high fiber foods at every meal if the goal is to be reached.

Re the relative impact of exercise versus food choice on weight loss, I thought it was worth quoting Roberts' passage in full. (And obviously not discounting the experiences of people here who have found exercise was the key to weight loss for them.) Here it is:

Exercise is great for our physical health and state of mind, and for preventing weight gain in the first place, but it has a disappointingly small effect on weight loss. When it comes to shedding pounds, it's what and how much we eat that counts most. According to the latest research, normally sedentary people who add 60 minutes of exercise to their schedule might be able to lose about six pounds of body fat. But how many of us can put aside an hour every single day for exercise? Even if you could cram 30 minutes of vigorous daily exercise into your busy schedule, you'd probably lose only three pounds over a six-month period.

So don't allow yourself to believe that exercise is a panacea for weight problems. This kind of thinking may keep you from accepting responsibility for what you put in your mouth.

Am I going to discontinue my two weekly trainer appointments at the gym, or stop my regular walks? Of course not; that would be a complete misreading of what Roberts says. But I do find her credible on the subject of where actual fat loss (as opposed to general health) is going to come from.

The bottom line, though, is that weight loss -- especially for those of us who love food -- most definitely requires some sacrifice

First of all, congratulations to Ronnie and others who have shared personal stories, be they successes like his or just lessons learned.

Regarding the quote above, I say yes and no. For some people (I think I'm one of them), the best thing to do to be healthier is to eat only things you really enjoy. This has at least two benefits.

First, if you live in this country, you're surrounded by a whole lot of really crappy, bad-for-you food all day, and marketers are doing their best to get you to consume it. If you live by the "I'm only going to eat foods I love" principle, it'll be easier to pass on that crap. For many people, that means you'll be eating less in total.

Second, if you eat (and drink) only the things you love, you should focus on that enjoyment... savor it. When you do that, you tend to eat more slowly. Take a bite. Put down fork. Say, "mmmmmm". Talk to your dining companion about how good that bite was. Discuss how it was prepared. Then pick up the fork again and take another bite. Repeat. This process simply doesn't work when you eat McRib sandwiches. You just want those things to be gone as soon as possible, so you scarf them down and barely remember what you ate. Now you'll stop at the next drive-through for a milkshake.

Along similar lines, I think Michael Pollan's advice to always eat at a table is excellent. And, as he says, your desk does not count at a table. Your car certainly doesn't count. Neither does the coffee table in front of the couch while watching the game. When people view meals as times to savor more slowly, I think they tend to eat more healthily.

riddlemay wrote:I started a new regime, but I don't know if it's going to work yet! A few weeks ago I read in the New York Times about a book called "The Instinct Diet," by a Tufts professor of nutrition with twenty years of research experience, name of Susan B. Roberts. It's based on her findings that we have 5 food instincts which are fruitless (no pun intended) for us to ignore; pretending they don't exist can only get us into more trouble. Anyway, the one sort of "cardinal rule" for weight loss she has is that every meal one eats should be high in fiber, or at least have a high-fiber component to it. She stresses that it is not enough to say, "Well, my breakfast was high fiber, my lunch doesn't really have to be." No, each meal needs to contribute fiber, so that we get 50 or 60 grams of it in a day. (Which is far more than the average American gets.) That's fairly well in line with mainstream food-science opinion, so I feel pretty safe following it. (One of the reassuring things about the book is her theme--putting it in my words--that "this is not magic, folks, we've known a lot of these things for a long time now.") So, we shall see.

I suppose I can find the book, but I'd be interested in these food instincts. One of the things I believe, based on my own experiences, at least, is the instinct to eat when food is present. Put food in front of me, especially good food, and I have a very hard time stopping. I am sure (with no other research to back this) that this is some ancient response that says eat now (bubbele) you do not know when you might eat again. I know I have to curb/regulate that impulse.

Related to that, I also believe in what I'd call the cumulative factor. That is, our guts (and we know who we are) are not the result of each specific meal, but rather the bad ones (too many of the bad ones). My theory is that it's not eating at Gene and Jude's that's harmful, it's how many times one eats at Gene and Judes that's harmful. We are the results, not of any one meal, high fiber, low-carb, vegan; but the results of all of our meals. One of the reasons that body change is so difficult is that people feel that they are dealing with a few weeks of bad holiday eating, but really your current state is the result of all the days that preceded it. It should not take a 44 year old, 44 years to change things, but it won't take 44 days either.

A point of clarification on exercise versus changes in food consumption: you gain weight when you intake more calories than you expend; you lose weight when you expend more calories than you intake. Saying that changes in food consumption is more important than exercise is akin to saying that your caloric balance is more affected by the amount of calories that you intake, rather than the amount you expend. That is not correct: it is the balance that matters.

Here's an example: if you ingest 2500 calories a day and expend 2000, you have added 500 calories. Over the course of a week, you've added 7*500 = 3500 calories. 3500 calories will add about a pound to your total body weight. You can bring your calories into balance by reducing your calorie intake to 2000, while maintaining your calorie expenditure at 2000. But so will expending 2500 calories per day while maintaining your caloric intake at 2500. In both cases you expend the exact same number of calories as you intake, and your weight will not change.

Now, I do not mean to imply that it is equally *easy* to reduce caloric intake and to increase caloric expenditure. We eat multiple times per day and have a lot of opportunity to alter what we eat and thereby reduce the number of calories that we consume. By contrast, exercising could be more difficult for some people because it requires us to carve out time during the day for a new activity.

I haven't read the Roberts book, but is it possible that she is talking about the psychology of losing weight, not the physiology of losing weight?

Vital Information wrote:I suppose I can find the book, but I'd be interested in these food instincts. One of the things I believe, based on my own experiences, at least, is the instinct to eat when food is present. Put food in front of me, especially good food, and I have a very hard time stopping.

I will post the five instincts later, when I have more of a moment (maybe later this morning), but for now, VI, you have identified one of the five! She refers to it as the Availability Instinct.

Darren, re your question re her stance on exercise vs. diet ("is it possible that she is talking about the psychology of losing weight, not the physiology of losing weight?"), I would say the answer is that she's talking empirically about what the research she finds most credible is actually showing.

riddlemay wrote:Darren, re your question re her stance on exercise vs. diet ("is it possible that she is talking about the psychology of losing weight, not the physiology of losing weight?"), I would say the answer is that she's talking empirically about what the research she finds most credible is actually showing.

Right - but perhaps she is trying to explain the data with the psychology of weight loss.

Kennyz wrote:

ronnie_suburban wrote:The bottom line, though, is that weight loss -- especially for those of us who love food -- most definitely requires some sacrifice

First of all, congratulations to Ronnie and others who have shared personal stories, be they successes like his or just lessons learned.

Regarding the quote above, I say yes and no. For some people (I think I'm one of them), the best thing to do to be healthier is to eat only things you really enjoy.

Absolutely, Kenny. There's nothing worse than wasting calories eating something that sucks. In a perfect world, that's what every meal is about. But beyond that, willpower (or sacrifice) is still a key for me. I make a pretty good effort to only eat the foods I really love -- heck, I've made an avocation out of it -- but in many cases, these foods are dense in calories, so losing weight with them does require some eye on portion control, at least for me.

=R=

I think about eating as it relates to health management quite frequently, almost obsessively. I have a number of guiding principles that govern how I eat. Some of them have already been touched on and I will not write it all up, because I fear that it would become a book (that no one would read).

I will echo that the key is focusing on changing your behavior, your philosophy, rather than focusing on your weight. A decrease in weight, or at least weight maintenance, will become a by-product of good habits.

One important principle that I have worked into my personal routine is hara hachi bu, the Okinawan principle of never eating beyond feeling "80% full".

When friends or family ask about my interest in food and how I avoid severe weight gain, my short answer is: "I eat whatever I want. I just don't eat as much as I want."

The further subtext in that statement is "want". I don't want pop, bad french fries, candy bars, cheap beer, or most pre-processed junk. It helps a great deal when you are able to eliminate certain foods from your personal desires.

I'll leave it there, because I really could go on forever about this.

Best of luck in your personal health goals, and congratulations to those of you who have achieved already.

Best,
Michael

ronnie_suburban wrote:in many cases, these foods are dense in calories, so losing weight with them does require some eye on portion control, at least for me.

That's been the key for me, too. The only time I have been able to lose weight by choice is when I ordered or cooked anything I wanted and then just ate half of what was served to me. I found that method of portion control to work for me. I lost 45 lbs that way, of course all of it has since been gained back; but if I was ever in a mind to once again lose weight, that's how I would do it. I love food too much to limit the variety of what I eat. I've just got to decide to eat less of it.

eatchicago wrote:When friends or family ask about my interest in food and how I avoid severe weight gain, my short answer is: "I eat whatever I want. I just don't eat as much as I want."

Eat everything, moderately. That's pretty much the principle I eat by. To help me make sure I'm not eating too much of what I like, I generally follow the Weight Watchers point system, which I find a relatively easy and objective way to regulate intake. I don't go to WW meetings, or do the online stuff; I just have a booklet and a calculator I picked up from WW circa 1999, and I use it as a guide. With it, I can eat pretty much whatever I want -- pizza, a juicy pork chop, whatever -- but if I indulge in one super-rich and tasty meal, I have to cut-back for the rest of the day. It works for me.

What WW and most good "diets" inculcate is a heightened awareness of what we're eating, and that's got to be good.

In response to VI's question here are the five "instincts." (I put the word in quotes because I wouldn't defend to the death the principle that all of these really are instincts, but it provides her a useful framework and provides us a useful way to be conscious of our relationship with food).

1. Hunger. Your body doesn't want to be hungry, and will do what it needs to do to cause this state to stop. So don't fight that--satisfy it instead, with meals that include healthy, high-fiber foods.
2. Availability. If we see food, we will eat it. Therefore, make sure that if you have food around you, it is the kind that will support your goals. If there is a cookie jar on your kitchen counter, you will eat the cookies.
3. Calorie Density. I found this very interesting. Turns out that when given a choice between foods, our bodies will always impel us to eat the one that's more calorie-rich. It's not even a conscious thing. So bring that instinct into consciousness, and make it work for you rather than against you. (For example, by adding a little fat to a high-fiber, low-calorie food to make it more appealing.)
4. Familiarity. We will continue to eat the foods that feel comforting and familiar to us. So don't deny it, deal with it. One way would be to gradually introduce healthier foods into your diet, so that they become the foods you're familiar with.
5. Variety. We crave it. So make the instinct work for you, by keeping a low variety of unhealthy foods in the house, and a high variety of healthy foods.

Back to Darren's question, I think with exercise vs. diet, she is actually talking physiologically (if I have to choose). She is saying that for reasons we may not fully understand yet, exercise has less of an impact on fat loss than we might suppose, or than might seem intuitive.

If it were a matter of psychology, she might be saying we are loath to exercise, and therefore diet is the more "do-able" solution. But she is not saying that. She is saying that when we do exercise, and do it regularly, the results in terms of fat-loss are disappointingly small. (Not the results in terms of heart health, cancer prevention, et. al., which are well worth the effort.)

(She does imply one psychological cause, however, which is that vigorous regular exercise may delude us into feeling we have license to eat more.)

While I have no dog in this fight (this is her book, not mine), I do tend to be influenced by books that make sense to me or that feel credible to me for one reason or another, and this one does. I should say that with all diet books (I have read not all that many, but a few over the years), I only read the first half. That is to say, I never get into the back of the book that lays out the daily menu plans ("for breakfast on Day One, have..."), and I never look at the recipes. I'm just not going to do any of that. But I do read for the general principles in the front half of the book, and apply them if I feel they will bring benefit.

1. Hunger. Your body doesn't want to be hungry, and will do what it needs to do to cause this state to stop. So don't fight that--satisfy it instead, with meals that include healthy, high-fiber foods.
2. Availability. If we see food, we will eat it. Therefore, make sure that if you have food around you, it is the kind that will support your goals. If there is a cookie jar on your kitchen counter, you will eat the cookies.
3. Calorie Density. I found this very interesting. Turns out that when given a choice between foods, our bodies will always impel us to eat the one that's more calorie-rich. It's not even a conscious thing. So bring that instinct into consciousness, and make it work for you rather than against you. (For example, by adding a little fat to a high-fiber, low-calorie food to make it more appealing.)
4. Familiarity. We will continue to eat the foods that feel comforting and familiar to us. So don't deny it, deal with it. One way would be to gradually introduce healthier foods into your diet, so that they become the foods you're familiar with.
5. Variety. We crave it. So make the instinct work for you, by keeping a low variety of unhealthy foods in the house, and a high variety of healthy foods.

I don't buy all of these. Availability, for one. I have little to no sweet tooth. A quart of ice cream can sit in the freezer, or a bowl of chocolate bars on the table, for months, and I won't feel like having any. I have a "salty tooth," if there is such a thing. If I couldn't find any popcorn, chips, pizza, or cheese in the house, I'd order a pizza or go out to the store to get something salty even if the whole kitchen was full of candies and desserts.

I have a salty tooth too. Any nuts/salty foods in the house would get scarfed up by me in a sitting. However, I am trying to change that for the new year. I trying not to drink soda, and drink more herbal teas. My latest addiction since December is peppermint tea.

Also, I have been cooking at home more and eating more veggies, fruits and fish. In addition I have been working out at least 3x a week, only if it is 15 min in the morning yoga. I found on my On Demand that there is an exercise TV option and they list all kinds of at-home workout programs--which I now have no excuse that I can't fit in at least 15 min into my day a few times a week.

i'm trying but failing... just bought bigger pants. i don't know if i can lose the weight because of the sacrifice

MBK wrote:i'm trying but failing... just bought bigger pants. i don't know if i can lose the weight because of the sacrifice

I try to never expand my wardrobe based on weight gain. I want the daily reminder (tight pants, belt at last hole, shirts binding at the shoulder) to remind me that I need to drop a few. And, yeah, I got some circulation-stopping clothes on right now.

David Hammond wrote: I try to never expand my wardrobe based on weight gain. I want the daily reminder (tight pants, belt at last hole, shirts binding at the shoulder) to remind me that I need to drop a few. And, yeah, I got some circulation-stopping clothes on right now.

Yup, this particular diet methodology is not working on me, I'm just uncomfortable all the time - but I'm D^*#@& if I'm buying new clothes I can't afford.

I am in awe of anybody who's actually dropping weight (Ronnie, I'd noticed, BTW - good work!) I was doing OK for a bit and then everything just went all to hell. Cookies. I blame the cookies.

congratulations to the ones losing weight like ronnie... its tough to do and takes an iron will.

eatchicago wrote:One important principle that I have worked into my personal routine is hara hachi bu, the Okinawan principle of never eating beyond feeling "80% full".

I think this principle is very interesting because it's from the "East" but reminds me of what I dislike most about the most standard diet advice one hears here in the States. As someone with a very enthusiastic appetite and very little will power when it comes to restricting what I eat, messages about consuming less, counting to reduce calories, banning certain foods...have always struck me as inherently defeating. I find the 80% full idea bothersome because its emphasis seems to be not so much on "eat more slowly and pay attention to when your body is sated (because you're often full earlier than you think)." It's eat only until you're almost sated, which for me is a very fine line that would be extremely difficult to meet but not cross.

What I do like about hara hachi bu, zooming out somewhat, is that to get to the 80%, you must learn to listen to your body. This more general idea of cultivating the skill of tuning in to your body is what I live by and what determines my weight, physical fitness and overall health and happiness. (Others may pick up this idea quickly, but it's taken me years of careful and dedicated study of yoga and tantra to live out and see manifested physically). I don't really ever hear this message in the prescriptive BS doled out by dietitians. (Pardon the strong language--this is obviously my personal opinion--I've just seen too many good friends who, even if it's not apparent immediately or in the short term, seem only to be psychologically tormented by the advice of dietitians and other types of "nutrition experts.")

I realize that "listen to your body" is perhaps not sufficiently concrete to function as diet advice, but for me what this means is that I listen carefully to what my body needs (harder than it sounds), and I give it precisely that, whether "that" means Hong Kong-style pig at Sun Wah, a slice of cake every day or a simple spinach salad that I prepare at home. I eat what I crave (with absolutely no substitutions if I can help it), and I don't let myself feel hungry. One great advantage I've found of being a foodie in terms of diet is that I know and can prepare or acquire a very wide range of foods and therefore "calibrate" my body fairly precisely (in other words, satisfy myself efficiently). Since I've fully adopted this philosophy in my life, I've seen dramatic (and I think positive) physical, mental and emotional changes. Like any philosophy, mine is not for everyone, but as I shape up for 2009, it's what I'm sticking to.