I've discovered something: when on a diet, sleep is very important. As you know, I'm doing South Beach Diet with my wife, and I've lost about 10 pounds. Over the past few days, I've stopped losing weight completely, and I think it has to do with a lack of sleep. It makes sense. I recently read a newspaper report on a study that showed that people who slept less ate more (seems pretty obvious). But their bodies craved more calories than they used, creating a calorie surplus that would eventually end up around the belly (or wherever you carry weight).
I've noticed this occurring in my own experience. Right now, I am trying my best to finish a draft of my dissertation this month (two chapters left). So I've taken on a rather erratic schedule, rarely getting more than four or five hours of sleep at a time. In addition, I work at night and sleep during the day--less distractions. This adds up to more calories, so even if I'm eating the "right" food, I'm eating too much, and I've stagnated a little in my weight loss. This does not mean I think the diet is a failure, nor does it mean I plan to quit. I still feel better than I have in a long time (just tired), so I know it is doing the right thing. If I stick with the right food, I'll lose more rapidly once I can get more sleep. It's just an observation.
This brings me to my thoughts on the new diet pill they are going to sell over the counter. It seems intriguing at first glance, but it raises significant questions. Basically, the pill blocks the absorption of fat, effectively eliminating those calories. However, there are side-effects that necessitate a low-fat diet (diarrhea is one). In other words, the pill blocks fat, but you also have to eat less fat. In addition, you need to increase your exercise. So overall, one needs to follow a specific diet and exercise (exercise is always good for you) to see the benefits being touted.
Previous readers might have seen my thoughts on dieting in general, so you know that the idea behind the SBD is to eat less simple carbohydrates, more protein, and the "right" fats (unsaturated, no trans fats), because our bodies need these elements. Those on this new diet pill will need to eat "low fat" foods, which tend to add more simple carbohydrates to make up for the lost taste. This brings up a whole host of problems on its own, but the pill brings more questions still, because we need fat in our diet. By blocking fat absorption one loses a critical dietary element. Those interested in the differences between good and bad fats should read this article from the Harvard School of Public Health.
The diet pill was previously available by prescription, and this could be an incredibly useful tool for critically obese people. But for normal dieters, I don't see an upside. It seems like a crutch that ultimately will create bad habits. We know that low-fat foods cause more problems than they solve because fat is not primarily responsible for the obesity epidemic we face in our country. The low-fat era has actually exacerbated the problem. Now comes a pill that requires a low-fat diet, reinforcing a system we know does not work in the long term. Those coming off of the pill will then need to learn an entirely new diet to keep the weight off, or it will create a vicious cycle of dependency and yo-yo dieting.
Also, by keeping the pill prescription-only, it was more difficult for those with eating disorders to get it. Now that it will be readily available, anorexics and bulimics will have ready access to something that can aid them in self-destructive behavior. In fact, I can imaging many who suffer from body image problems intentionally adding fat to their diet to produce a side effect likely distasteful to most people (after vomiting, diarrhea won't seem so bad).
Ultimately, I believe there is no benefit to introducing this pill without a prescription. Having potential users see a doctor would ensure proper use (you should see a doctor before starting a diet anyway), and I imagine we will soon be hearing stories of abuse. Apparently, the FDA is more concerned with helping the pharmaceutical industry make a profit than with carefully assessing risk and effectiveness.
No comments:
Post a Comment