The health section of the Toronto Star has been carrying reviews and comment on the various dieting plans that are out there. Not a bad idea since there is such an array of them. Their piece today caught my attention, it’s about the Reverse Diet.

The basic idea of the reverse diet is that you eat your calorie intake in reverse order. Supper at breakfast sort of idea. Most people eat the largest meal of the day at supper time, which is the time of day when most people are usually burning the fewest calories. This diet supports eating the largest intake at breakfast, medium intake and lunch and smallest at supper.

Megan Ogilvie’s verdict on this diet plan “Nothing new here, folks. Yet another low-calorie diet hiding behind an absurd gimmick.” NOT so fast Megan.

I’ll say right off the bat, I am not a person who diets. I’ve had years of one useless diet after another and rarely will follow them when I do try them. So, why set myself up for failure? What I have tried to do over the years is fit my likes and dislikes into a pattern that supports me at least maintaining my current weight without increasing or (even more preferred) dropping some weight.

In the last six months I have dropped enough weight I’m comfortably wearing a smaller size pair of slacks. (I don’t do weigh scales either). I have been doing what would be a form of reverse diet. Let me explain.

I’m not a breakfast eater. Cereal or bacon and eggs holds as much appeal to me as flying to the moon. For me, breakfast is a wide open choice range. If I’m going to be around the house or have enough time, I will prepare what most people would prepare for supper, for breakfast. Since I’m an early riser that isn’t too hard to accomplish. I will usually prepare about half again as much as I would eat extra and that gets set aside for lunch. So, I am in effect preparing two meals at the same time.

If I’m going to be around the house, the extra meal (roughly half of what I had for breakfast) becomes lunch, often it becomes a late lunch. If I’m out, knowing that a meal is sitting waiting at home is a good incentive to not get fast food as my lunch. Supper will become more of a snack than a meal. Might be cheese and crackers or fruit or a combination of similar items. By having what amounts to finger foods for supper, I am also satisfying any desires to nibble by the nibbling being my supper.

I have days where I get into the mood for a fuller supper. I just don’t have a lot of them. I have found that having a fuller meal at breakfast does seem to keep me full longer during the day so even when I have the lunch portion mid-afternoon, I’m not so hungry I go searching for more.

There are some things I’ve more or less weaned myself off of. The big one is sweets. I do sometimes get a craving for them, usually about once a month. When I get that, I indulge it and then I’m good for another month. As a rule, you wont find convenience foods in my house.

For the most part I can shop the outside aisles and only rarely find I have any need to venture into the other aisles. Shopping the outside aisles means that I’m shopping primarily for fresh fruits and vegetables, meats, breads and dairy. I keep lots of fruit juices around and try to keep my water intake up. I do however drink tea and coffee (especially the coffee) and if I’m with a friend, I don’t feel guilty for sharing a few drinks of wine with them.

I also have taken up walking with a friend once a week. I’m not really big on the walking, but I really enjoy the company so the walking becomes a pleasure instead of a chore. Sometimes I think we get so focused on ‘dieting’ we forget that our diet has to become part of our lifestyle.

So absurd? I don’t think so, it is an idea that could work for some if they had the courage to break from the traditional and give it a try. Am I advocating the structured reverse diet? Not really, the concept has my attention, like I said.. I don’t diet.