In 1985 the famed three day diet first came on the scene. It boasted creation of a "specific metabolic reaction" to cause quick weight loss and the system to be cleansed. This reaction has never been validated or even attempted to be explained. The diet is to be followed for only 3 days, with an off period of about 5 days in between diet times. All the versions of this diet share in common nebulous steps that must be followed and foods that must be eaten in order for the diet to work.
What better way to blame the dieter when it doesn't work than "you botched the formula."
First day breakfast includes coffee (no sugar), one half a grapefruit, and a piece of toast with 1 Tbsp peanut butter. Lunch is a can of tuna, a piece of toast, and black coffee. Dinner consists of 3 ounces of chicken or lean meat, a cup of green beans, one cup of carrots, one apple, and one cup of regular vanilla ice cream. The other two days are pretty much the same but with some substitutions such as hot dogs instead of lean meat. Supposedly it's possible to lose as much as 10 pounds in only three days.
Hogwash is the answer. The question is what is a specific reaction to that claim? There is no evidence for the so-called "specific metabolic reaction." The only reason this diet would shed pounds is because of the lack of calories in the diet. In fact, because the diet is so low in carbohydrates a person could drop ten pound in three days.
Of course most of that would be water weight because carbohydrates help the body to retain water. By the way, losing that much weight from not retaining water is dangerous as the body needs water to survive.
Once the three days end the weight will return, primarily because it's mostly water. But also because any weight lost from the skipped calories will be regained when the starving diet victim returns to normal, or in this case heavier than normal, eating.
Deprive the body of water for three day cycles enough times and a person could develop kidney damage, dehydration, or a host of other dangerous conditions.
If something sounds too good to be true it is. The 3 day diet sounds too good to be true. - 16650
What better way to blame the dieter when it doesn't work than "you botched the formula."
First day breakfast includes coffee (no sugar), one half a grapefruit, and a piece of toast with 1 Tbsp peanut butter. Lunch is a can of tuna, a piece of toast, and black coffee. Dinner consists of 3 ounces of chicken or lean meat, a cup of green beans, one cup of carrots, one apple, and one cup of regular vanilla ice cream. The other two days are pretty much the same but with some substitutions such as hot dogs instead of lean meat. Supposedly it's possible to lose as much as 10 pounds in only three days.
Hogwash is the answer. The question is what is a specific reaction to that claim? There is no evidence for the so-called "specific metabolic reaction." The only reason this diet would shed pounds is because of the lack of calories in the diet. In fact, because the diet is so low in carbohydrates a person could drop ten pound in three days.
Of course most of that would be water weight because carbohydrates help the body to retain water. By the way, losing that much weight from not retaining water is dangerous as the body needs water to survive.
Once the three days end the weight will return, primarily because it's mostly water. But also because any weight lost from the skipped calories will be regained when the starving diet victim returns to normal, or in this case heavier than normal, eating.
Deprive the body of water for three day cycles enough times and a person could develop kidney damage, dehydration, or a host of other dangerous conditions.
If something sounds too good to be true it is. The 3 day diet sounds too good to be true. - 16650
About the Author:
More info available by visiting dietreview.blinkweb.com Get your own completely unique content version of this article.
