When people decide to lose weight (esp. after a break-up) they need to reduce their caloric intake or increase their caloric burn. For many reasons, it’s more efficient to reduce intake than increase burn. Hence the saying, “Strength is made in the gym, abs are made in the kitchen.”
It’s as simple as reducing the amount of food you eat to a point where your caloric intake (Calories In) is lower than your caloric burn (Calories Out). This is known as CICO. Having a net negative CICO means you will lose weight. The most straightforward, mathematical way to reduce your CICO is to decrease your portion sizes.
However, portion control is easier said than done. And it’s not very sexy or marketable. Weightwatchers did a good job of it, by abstracting away the concept of calories into “points”. But younger generations look toward online fitness influencers.
It’s All in the Wrapping
These influencers all say some variation of, “Eat this Diet to lose weight”. They don’t say, “Eat less”. The thing is, all of the Diets that they promote work for the same reason. They are all different strategies to reduce caloric intake.
Keto, Paleo, Plant-based, vegetarian, carnivore, herbivore, omnivore, nutrivore, Whole30, intermittent fasting, Blue Zone, low-carb, low-fat, slow-carb, high-protein, Weightwatchers… All reduce caloric intake. They all achieve the goal, losing body fat, the same way.
So why are promoters of these Diets — and those that adopt them — so annoying about it?
My pet theory is that proper-noun Diets are sexy and marketable because: they each have a coherent narrative that paints their followers as virtuous. That’s why I use Diet instead of diet. A diet is just a way to reduce your CICO. A Diet is that, plus a virtue-signaling narrative unrelated to weight loss.
Why Tribal Dietary Narratives are Sticky
The interesting thing is: a coherent Diet narrative might actually help with weight loss by improving diet compliance.
It’s hard to maintain a caloric deficit. We live in a world full of delicious food. To reduce your caloric intake, you must say, “No” a lot. But your inner trash panda is always hungry. Your inner trash panda wants to say, “Yes” to just about everything. So your rational brain needs to come up with an argument that will silence your hungry little inner monkey.
Unfortunately, monkeys don’t know math. So repeating to yourself that calories in < calories out = weight loss doesn’t really get the point across. It’s simply not emotional enough. That’s where the narrative element of these proper-noun Diets comes into play.
For example, plant-based Dieters often justify their method of caloric restriction by pointing out that it’s beneficial to not just themselves, but the planet. Meat-based Dieters preach their method by claiming seed oils and defensive plant toxins are making society fat and sick. Whole30 Dieters cast industrial food manufacturers as villains in their story. Intermittent Fasting Dieters say that their brains work better and that they have fewer toxins in their body.
These positive-externality arguments aside, we can see that these Diets all work the same way:
Plant-based: reduces caloric intake by filling you up with high-volume foods.
Meat-based: reduces caloric intake by filling you up with satiating proteins.
Whole30: reduces caloric intake by filling you up with nutrient-dense foods.
Intermittent fasting: reduces caloric intake by limiting the amount of time you have to eat.
Keto: reduces caloric intake by eliminating a macronutrient (carbs) from your diet.
Low-fat: reduces caloric intake by almost eliminating a macronutrient (fat) from your diet.
People looking to lose weight get drawn in by the (usually) real results that these Diets offer. Which is great. Reducing caloric intake is a great idea for many North Americans. However, Dieters might also find that they’ve gravitated deeper into an ideological tribe. Lose some weight, gain some tribalism.
This isn’t entirely surprising. What people eat is a very strong indicator of people’s values. And most, if not all, Diets are adjacent to some existing ideology. I don’t know if there’s a casual relationship between what you eat and what you believe (I doubt it). But one could draw borders in the United States based on diets with results similar to existing borders between states.
It’s also unclear to me if this is a good or a bad thing. Because on an individual level, that overzealous attitude about your diet does help with reducing your caloric intake. But, zealots are pretty damn unpleasant to hang out with. Just because a Diet works for you, doesn’t mean all other Diets are ineffective, worthless, or evil.
Avoiding Dietary Tribalism
At the end of the day, these are two separate conversations. Losing weight is more or less as simple as being in a caloric deficit (calories in < calories out). Whether or not your Diet is virtuous? Totally different and — frankly — vastly more complicated.
I think the mistake we make with Diet Tribalism is: we equate the personal value of a Diet with the societal value of a Diet. We assume that if everyone ate like us, everything would be better! Not just improvements to our waistlines, but to our country’s GDP, our neighbors’ wardrobe, the green-ness of grass, and the weather!
In that sense, if someone eats differently than you — they’re not helping your cause. It’s a personal affront. But that’s not why you start a Diet in the first place. Your aim is to lose weight. Nothing wrong with that. If your Diet works for you, for that original goal, then you’re doing a fine job. You don’t share a mouth with anyone. Unless you’re part of a Human Centipede, what other people eat doesn’t directly affect your caloric intake.
