Review of the 5 Bite Diet

The thin, large-print, paperback book “Why Weight Around” (2007) by Alwin Lewis, M.D., encourages readers to follow the five-bite diet for weight-loss. This is a self-published book through Lulu "vanity" press and it retails for around $25.

Dr Lewis recommends the 5 Bite approach to eating:

• Drink as much as you want as long as the drinks are free of calories.
• Skip breakfast
• Have 5 bites of any food for lunch.
• Have 5 bites of any food for dinner.
• Eat at least one bite of protein each day.
• Take a multi-vitamin supplement every day

Dr. Lewis assures the reader that after three days on this diet, that you will stop feeling hungry because your body will learn to feel full on this smaller amount of food. This is commonly known to be a valid statement, as hunger ordinarily leaves one’s body after approximately 3 days of starvation such as during a water fast.  He says the the body continually recycles amino acids so very little daily protein is actually necessary when on a weight-loss program.

The five-bite diet involves voluntarily eating the way people are forced to eat after a gastric bypass, in order to give a dieter the benefits of stomach stapling without the surgery. As with many diet plans, the principle of the five-bite diet is to exercise portion control in order to limit your calorie intake. The program allows you to choose to eat any food you want, which can help prevent the feelings of deprivation that often lead people to quit their diets. The five-bite diet is not designed to be a permanent plan. Once you've reached your weight goal, you're advised to resume your normal eating habits.

Dr. Lewis says the volume of 5 bites is about the same as a regular size Snickers candy bar, and recommends that people on the diet eat two Snickers bars a day in order to familiarize themselves with how much 5 bites is.

Dr. Lewis, …just like almost all diet book authors … claims to have successfully followed his diet himself, and at 6 ft tall, he says that he lost from his high of around 190 lbs down to 137 lbs. He recommends that, for good health and a more attractive appearance, everyone should achieve an 18.5 BMI, which is at the bottom border between underweight and normal weight.

Dr. Lewis practices Internal medicine in Burbank, California where he apparently treats obese, overweight, and normal weight patients who have a BMI above 18.5, by putting them on the 5 bite diet. His website, theslimmingstation.com offers an online membership, for $50 per year, but at times this membership fee is $50 per month. It also offers 3 months of weekly one-on-one telep...

 
Dr. Siegel’s Cookie Diet is a meal-replacement plan. One eats six of his cookies throughout the day in addition to one meal at the end of the day. That meal should include approximately six ounces of lean white meat protein and one cup of vegetables. Also drink at least 8 to 10 glasses of a non-caloric beverage, such as water, each day.

Dr Seigal advises his patients to eat six cookies throughout the day whenever hungry. The cookies are the only foods eaten all day and then the patients are ‘rewarded’ with dinner.

Depending on one’s individual food choices, the diet is between 800 and 1200 calories a day. Each cookie contains 90 calories and each dinner meal should contain no more than 500 calories. In addition, one is to drink eight glasses of liquid a day (ideally water). Coffee and tea are allowed on this diet. There are five varieties of Dr. Siegal's cookies that you can choose from: chocolate, oatmeal raisin, coconut, banana, and blueberry. Each week’s box of cookies contains a bottle containing a 7 day supply of generic type multi-vitamin pills, which are to be taken daily.

The cookie’s ingredient label is full of things you'd recognize or be able to pronounce. The first ingredient is sugar, with 9 grams of sugar in each serving. The cookies have less than a gram of fiber per serving. Dr. Seigal states that the cookies contain a "particular mix of proteins" as being key to keeping users feeling full. The cookies are relatively low in sodium, with no more than 200 milligrams per serving. The ingredients appear to be nutritionally similar to most of the popular meal replacement shakes that provide a quantity-controlled diet product.

Dr. Siegal states that his cookies are scientifically designed to help to control appetite and reduce hunger. Each cookie contains 90 calories and contains ingredients such as whole wheat flour, bran and oats. However the main reason he says they work is due to a secret blend of amino acid proteins. 

 The cookies are edible but not the tastiest. Even Dr. Seigel’s website states that ‘we wouldn’t call them delicious’. They say delicious cookies make people fat and there certainly is some logic to this as dieters are less likely to overindulge in really good tasting cookies. Cookies are packed in boxes containing 42 cookies packed in 7 daily bags which will last for one week if the diet is followed according to the instructions above. The price is approximately $56 US plus shipping and handling. 

 As a part of my own dieting hobby, I personally experimented with this diet for a couple of weeks, and thereafter occasionally for a few days at a time. I enjoyed the novelty of the idea, and the cookies were acceptable to me, however, NOTE: that a Dr. Siegal’s cooke tastes better after sprinkling a packet of Splenda on top and placing it in the microwave for 10 seconds just before eating.

Since I was already normal weight and used to small portions when I did my experimentation, I didn’t find myself hungry on the diet, but the lack of food variety was a problem for me. Also, I kept comparing my own homemade recipes for portion-controlled foods to the purchased cookies … such as my microwave cookies made from protein powder which have more grams of protein a...

Yesterday, my article was about the

Difference between Correlation and Causation.

Below are two examples of media
handling the same recent health research study.

 

 

7 Daily Servings of Fruits, Veggies Best for Happiness,
Study Finds 'Strive for 5' might need an update. 
        Oct. 12 (HealthDay News) 

"People who eat seven servings of fruit and vegetables a day have the highest levels of happiness and mental health, according to a new study.

In a joint effort with Dartmouth University, researchers at the University of Warwick examined the eating habits of 80,000 people in England and found that mental well-being rose with the number of daily servings of fruits and vegetables, peaking at seven servings a day.

The study, which appears in the journal Social Indicators Research, defied a serving as about 80 grams (2.8 ounces).

"The statistical power of fruit and vegetables was a surprise. Diet has traditionally been ignored by well-being researchers," study co-author Sarah Stewart-Brown, a professor of public health, said in a university news release.

Further research is needed to learn more about the reasons behind the findings, she added.

"This study has shown surprising results, and I have decided it is prudent to eat more fruit and vegetables. I am keen to stay cheery," study co-author Andrew Oswald, a professor in the economics department, said in the news release.

Currently, many Western governments recommend that people eat five servings of fruit and vegetables a day to protect against heart disease and cancer, the release noted.

While the study found an association between fruit and vegetable servings and well-being, it did not prove a cause-and-effect relationship."

 

 Here’s another take on the same Research.

Study: If You're 'Keen to Stay Cheery,'
7 Fruits and Vegetables a Day
  &nbs...

One of the most common errors in the press is the confusion between correlation and causation in scientific and health-related studies.

In theory, these are easy to distinguish … an action or occurrence can CAUSE another (such as smoking causes lung cancer), or it can CORRELATE with another (such as smoking is correlated with alcoholism). If one action causes another, then they are most certainly correlated.

But just because two things occur together does not mean that one caused the other, even if it seems to make sense.

In general, we should all be wary of our own bias. We like explanations. The media often concludes a causal relationship among correlated observances when causality was not even considered by a research study itself. Without clear and definite reasons to accept that one thing CAUSES another, the fact that a correlation exists is all we should accept. Again, two events occurring in close proximity does not imply that one caused the other, even if it seems to makes perfect sense.

Once upon a time, this type of error wasn’t too bad.
If one ate a berry and got sick, it was wise to see meaning in that data. (Better safe than sorry). The same goes for a red-hot coal. Only one touch will give all the correlations needed. Being bullied by a primitive world of nature, it's far worse to miss a link than it is to make one up. A false negative yields the greatest risk.

Now conditions are reversed.
People in modern civilization are bullies over nature. New claims about causation are often made so we can make large interventions in nature. A false positive today often means approving drugs that have no effect, or imposing regulations that make no difference, or wasting money in schemes to limit unemployment. Now, as science grows more powerful and government more technocratic, the stakes of correlation…. of making counterfeit relationships and bogus findings,… grow larger and larger. A false positive is now more burdensome than it's ever been. The only thing we have to fight this attitude is the catchphrase. “correlation is not causation”.

I suggest that we be very cautious in the way we allow media claims to influence us into making personal changes in our own behaviors, ... especially in relation to the way they tend to limit our personal choices of the foods we eat, and the way they tend to add to our personal expense and health risks through recommendions of unnecessary drugs. 

Mistaking correlation for causation finds a cause that simply isn't there.

   
Being Resilient is a very good thing.

What is Resilience?

“Resilience is an individual's tendency to cope with stress and adversity. This coping may result in the individual "bouncing back" to a previous state of normal functioning, or simply not showing negative effects.”

“Resilience is that quality which allows some people to be knocked down by life and come back stronger than ever.”

“Resilience is a dynamic process whereby individuals exhibit positive behavioral adaptation when they encounter significant adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats, or even significant sources of stress.”

Today, for me, personal resilience means that after overeating yesterday, this morning, I have been able to encourage myself to put forth my best dieting efforts, yet again.

I enjoyed this video, although I am a “cat person” rather than a "dog person",  Perhaps you will too.