PawPaw wrote:
I don't think that's clear at all, and it is sensationalist.
Maybe it's not clear because you have a very very very narrow definition of a diet -
one specifically tailored to support rubbishing the article.
"Diet" means a lot more than reducing calorie intake so as to lose weight. In fact, clinical dietitians spend
most of their time helping patients who are losing too much weight, or have other medical issues
that restrict what foods they can take.
Here is the merriam-webster dictionary's definition:
Definition of DIET
1
a : food and drink regularly provided or consumed
b : habitual nourishment c : the kind and amount of food prescribed for a person or animal for a special reason
d : a regimen of eating and drinking sparingly so as to reduce one's weight <going on a diet>
2
: something provided or experienced repeatedly <a diet of Broadway shows and nightclubs — Frederick Wyatt>
Origin of DIET
Middle English diete, from Anglo-French, from Latin diaeta, from Greek diaita, literally, manner of living, from diaitasthai to lead one's life
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diet
Many words in the English have alternate meanings like diet does. To select the appropriate definition,
you have to read it from the context of its usage.
To make an appropriate interpretation, you have to make the link with the article's contexts:
Firstly, in Fact One: it clearly identifies the commercial weight-loss product market
- and refers to it as the diet business.
Australians spend a staggering $745 million on weight-loss products every year. This includes
low-calorie pre-prepared meals, meal-replacement shakes, supplements and diet books
(but not gym memberships and other exercise-related expenses). The diet business is
booming because we're fatter than ever...
Fact Two then identifies that
Almost without exception, anyone who tries to lose weight rapidly with a diet fails. They might shed kilos in the short term but will ultimately put it all back on - and then some.
"Almost without exception" is not saying "all" (that's your misinterpretation) and it further
qualifies it by "tries to lose weight rapidly".
There is nothing sensationalist in that. They are both facts, with sound published research
to back them up. It is widely accepted by professional dietitians and the medical community.
In the further explanation that follows, the researchers clearly spell out that they are
talking about "quick fix dieting". It's in that context that Mr Evans says "I'm not on
a diet" - he means not a prescriptive quick-fix book or product based diet plan.
Fact is, everyone has a diet (even Mr Evans). If you are gaining weight, you
have a diet that is taking in more calories than you are burning off (and vice-versa).
Most people gain weight over a long period of time, and getting rid of that
weight (permanently) can't be fixed by quick-fix diet-only approaches.
I'm not sure what motivates your criticism, or interpretation of the article. But
if a you have alternative research supported truths on how to lose weight, then
why not share them with us ?