Lee Randall: Lifelong diet has been weighing on my mind

Published on Tuesday 12 May 2009 19:21

POPULAR wisdom says diets don't work. Nonsense! If your caloric intake is less than your caloric expenditure, you'll lose weight. It's such simple maths that even a girl unable to count to ten while wearing mittens (me!) understands.

To be sure, some diets are extremely unhealthy, some faddishly silly and some actually dangerous. But in the main, diets work fine. Taking weight off is tough but achievable.

What doesn't work – what nobody's cracked – is maintenance, because keeping weight off is infinitely harder than losing it. The clue is "infinitely". There's no goal, per se, apart from treading water. And while the consequence of not treading water is drowning, monotony is a major demotivator. When we're dieting, every venture onto the scales is an emotional gamble which, if you're behaving, pays out in pleasure.

Lurching sideways momentarily, here's a mindbender that never fails to trip me up: ever notice how a number's glorious when you're headed down the way, but depressing going in the other direction?

Say you weigh 112lbs (eight stone) and decide to lose a stone. Halfway there, at 105 lbs, a sense of achievement bestows bliss.

And you reach 98lbs, but a few hearty meals later you're back at 105lbs and feeling suicidal. A number that signalled success now glares up at you like a brand of failure, triggering all the toxic emotions and destructive behaviour associated with the realisation that you've blown it.

That is partly why, when people ask (and ask and ask) "How much longer will you stick to this regimen?" I say: "If I seriously want to keep the weight off, I'd best stick to it for ever."

SureSlim understands. Their maintenance programme stresses that you've got to toe the line for ever. Pages devoted to their "Lifestyle Programme" far outnumber those containing "Quick Loss" advice. In a nutshell, they recommend two Eat Slim meals (still balanced and low-carb, but you don't have to weigh food and may mix proteins) and one Eat-What-You-Like meal per day. Meals are still spaced five hours apart and snacks discouraged, as is the over-consumption of alcohol, sugar and enormous portions.

Their example of an Eat-What-You-Like meal is "stir-fry beef with vegetables and basmati rice". My idea of Eat-What-I-Like is the entire left side of the menu.

You see the difficulties! I'm still a neurotic psycho-killer who never met a food group she didn't want to have an illicit relationship with over a prolonged period of time.

Such antics are followed by hours of self-recrimination, bilious moaning and tears, though I'm perfectly aware that without added thrashing this doesn't burn enough calories to count as time valuably spent.

It actually sends me into the kitchen, in the hallowed tradition of "might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb". Once you have three rebound pounds to lose, what's four?

Just yesterday I gobbled a slice of chocolate cake in honour of a friend's birthday. Halfway through I felt nauseated, but I soldiered on heroically. Arriving home for a quick costume change before dinner with friends (get me!), I confronted a bloated stomach and rolls of hideous fat that couldn't see how to wrangle into a flattering display.

I felt exactly as I had back in December, before dieting – fat, unhappy, ugly, hopeless and faintly green around the gills. A good reminder that there's no such thing as "safe".

My cunning plan is to stick to Quick Loss eating indefinitely, but to adapt my habits to loosen up at restaurants and friends' houses. I think it'll roughly adhere to the SureSlim ethos, which I have to admit has done pretty well by me thus far. The proof, of course, is in the pudding – which I see I'll need to limit to very special occasions.