It is true that much of the commercial weight-loss industry is composed of charlatans who lack evidence to back up their come-ons. But that's not the same as saying that there is no way to reduce one's body size sustainably.

As you know, I did (am doing) it, and I have lots of friends who have as well. But there's also the long-term, legitimate, National Weight Control Registry, which is coming up on 20 years and tracks more than 10,000 people who've lost significant weight and kept it off for significant time.

[I originally published this post a year (and three days) ago, but I'm bumping it to the top because it fits the thread of discussion kindled by Michele Simon's Eat Drink Politics report of last week.]

Based on my early experience with them, and on what I've heard from others of their experiences, I have long held opprobrium for registered dietitians. But it has recently bubbled over again.

The Salt, NPR's food blog, carried the news today that McDonald's will beging posting calorie counts of its products, which is definitely news. This is what happens when groups like Corporate Accountability International organize the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people who care about nutrition to apply enough pressure that even the most prominent corporations choose to change.

Over the years, people have occasionally opined that the kit of actions that has allowed me to lose 155 pounds and keep it off 20 years is "a lot." 'Course, "a lot" is a relative term, but not a useful one necessarily. "A little" or "a lot" both miss the point of a desired outcome; "enough" is the only thing that matters:

If you want an outcome, are you doing enough to get it?

And how do you know if it's enough? Within a wholesome range, you can judge by results.

If you're getting the results you want, you're doing enough.

I don't often post someone else's post just because I like the writing, but that's what I'm doing here.

Lindy West, writing on Jezebel, gathered together a lot of diet-guru advice to become the healthiest person on earth. And her telling of how she did it is fun to read, even if you're not drawn to the subject matter.

'Least, that's what I think.

One of the blogs I'm following in my RSS reader is by the Fat Nutritionist. Her most recent post describes several quotidian food strategies that I agree with, but it also has this:

Plus if I don’t buy a frozen pizza, I will just order one at some point anyway. There’s no point in fighting it.

I just don't get this fatalism around food choices. There are people who go without pizza their whole lives. What's to say that this writer, or anyone else, can't go without it too?

An irking aspect of conventional wisdom around weight loss, peddled foremostly by many dietitians, is that deprivation doesn’t work, so moderation is the only path that can succeed.

I have some sympathy with the notion, I suppose — I don’t like to be deprived if what’s dear to me, either. But I reject the premise.

I saw this over at Dances With Fat, Ragen Chastain's blog, and am passing on.

Part 1 Part2 Part 3 (this one)

So I started off this series with the question I very often hear, "what's the most important action a person struggling with his or her weight can take?" I usually learn from such questioners that they really want to know what diet to go on, or what food to eat more of or less of.

Part 1 (this one) Part 2 Part 3

I've said before: Many people who engage me about my weight-loss story want to know, "what's the most important action?" What many want to hear, though, is "what diet is going to work for me?"