Crash Diets More Effective Than Thought, But Still UnpleasantAnna North6/08/09 11:00amFiled to: Crash Test DummiesCrash dietsDietingWeight lossWeightFoodSusie orbach38EditPromoteShare to KinjaToggle Conversation toolsGo to permalinkA new study reported in the Times of London says "sensible" crash diets may work better, even in the long term, than "slower" ones.AdvertisementStudy author Susan Roberts defines "sensible" as no less than 1,200 calories a day for women, down from the 1,500 typically advised for a slower diet. In her study, those who tried to cut their calories down to this lower level had lost about the same amount of weight after a year as more conventional dieters, despite the assumption that crash dieting would cause binging and rebound weight gain. Roberts adds that "disinhibited eaters," those who easily break their diets when presented with the opportunity, "did really badly" on the more moderate plan. She says a dramatic change may be easier for some people than moderation, and "the trouble with slow diets is people tend to feel they are getting nowhere and give up. Fast keeps you excited and feeling like you're making progress."Unsurprisingly, this crash dieting research has its detractors. Fat Is a Feminist Issue author Susie Orbach says, "diets depend on failure. They need to fail, otherwise there would be no repeat customers." And eating-disorder consultant Dr. Peter Rowan adds, "even a sensible weight-loss diet can trigger an eating disorder in someone who is vulnerable, but there is evidence to suggest that the more severe the weight loss, the more likely the diet is to trigger an eating disorder."