THE EXPLANATION

The first question is: When the consumption of calories is reduced, why does weight loss not follow? Actually, weight loss does occur, but only temporarily. This is, in fact, where Newburgh and Johnson went wrong, in that they collected their data over much too short a period of time. The phenomenon works like this:

Suppose that an individual needs 2,500 calories a day and that, over a long period, he consumes accordingly. If, suddenly, the ration of calories drops to 2,000, the body will draw on an equivalent quantity of stored fat to compensate and weight loss will be seen to occur. However, if from now on the daily intake of calories is limited to 2,000, instead of the 2,500 previously consumed, the body's survival instinct comes into play. It quickly adjusts its energy requirements to match the level of calorie intake: if it is only given 2,000 calories, it will only use up 2,000 calories. Weight loss will quickly cease. But the body does not stop there. Its instinct for survival will lead it to take greater precautions yet, and lay down reserves for possible future need. If from now on it is supplied with 2,000 calories, it will simply reduce its energy needs to, say, 1,700 calories and store the other 300 in the form of body fat.

So this is how we end up achieving the very opposite of the result we were aiming for. Paradoxically, although the subject is eating less, he will gradually put weight back on again.

In practice, the human body, constantly driven by its survival mechanisms, behaves no differently from the starving dog which buries its bone. Despite what we might think, it is when the dog is not fed regularly that it reverts to its inborn instincts and buries its food, saving it for the day when it may otherwise go hungry.

How many of you, I wonder, have fallen victim at one time or other to this unfounded theory of balancing calories? You will certainly have come across obese people who were actually starving themselves to death. This is especially common among women. Psychiatrists' consulting-rooms are full of women being treated for depression induced by trying to follow such a diet. They have become dependent on this vicious circle, knowing that breaking away from it will only entail putting back on more weight than they have lost.

Most members of the "medical" profession do not want to know. They do realise their patients are not losing weight, but they put it down to cheating and secret binges. Some slimming professionals even run group therapy sessions, at which members are applauded when they are able to show they have lost weight and made to feel ashamed of any gain. The mental cruelty involved in these practices is positively mediaeval. Moreover, stipulating a 1500 calorie diet without detailing what it is to contain is quite inadequate. It simply serves to focus on the energy value of foods without taking account of their nutritional value.

Apart from a few specialists, doctors tend to be disinclined to update their understanding of these matters and are usually not knowledgeable about them in the first place. Where nutrition is concerned, they seem to have little scientific understanding going beyond the commonly held views.

What is more, it is not a field in which doctors in general are particularly interested. I have noticed that of the twenty or so I have worked with on this book, all of them, without exception, were originally led to research and experiment in the field because they themselves had a serious weight problem to solve.

What is heart-rending, even scandalous, is the fact that the general public has been allowed to believe that the calorie theory was scientifically proven. It is sad that the theory became accepted and now constitutes one of the basic assumptions of western civilisation.

Not a week goes by without one women's magazine or another splashing an article on slimming. We are presented with the latest menus developed by some team of dieticians, based on the calorie theory and suggesting something along the lines of "a tangerine for breakfast, half a rusk for elevenses, a chick-pea for lunch and an olive in the evening..."

It is amazing how the low-calorie approach has managed to delude people for so long. There are two explanations, though. One is that a low-calorie diet invariably produces a result of sorts. Lack of food, which is the basis of the method, inevitably leads to some loss of weight. But the result, as we have seen, does not last. Not only is a return to square one inevitable, but in most cases more weight is gained than is lost. The second explanation is that "low calorie" products today constitute a sizeable market sector. Exploitation of the theory, under the guidance of dietary "experts", has created such a market that vested interests now have to be contended with, principally those of the food industry and a few misguided chefs.

So the calorie theory is false and now you know why. But that is not the end of it. The theory is so ingrained in your mind that for some time to come you will catch yourself still eating according to its principles. And when we start discussing the method of eating that I am recommending to you in this book, you may well feel confused at first, because what I am suggesting seems to be completely at odds with this famous theory. If this happens, just re-read this chapter until everything is completely clear to you.