DEAR DR. BLONZ: My attempts to lose weight continue to disappoint. I cut back significantly on food and calories and the numbers begin to decrease, but soon, the weight loss suddenly shuts down -- leveling off with no more drops. All this with no cheating! When I give up, the weight comes back and sometimes goes above my starting level. I continue to try, but am wondering if there is something I am not considering. -- F.S., Hayward, California

DEAR F.S.: Unfortunately, there is the risk that some of those who are repeatedly unsuccessful with drastic weight-loss regimens may end up disappointed -- and in some cases, in worse shape than if they hadn’t tried in the first place. Some get to the point that they no longer want to try.

Being slightly overweight is not necessarily a bad thing if you have a healthful diet and active lifestyle. But if weight is more of a serious issue, remaining obese means squaring off with increased risks of high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes and other issues.

Getting back to your question: Could there be a bug in your approach, or is this more an issue with the body’s software? What gives the body this apparent cruel streak?

Consider that we make a conscious choice to go on these weight-loss diets, but the basic metabolic processes in our bodies are not in the loop on that decision. To these systems, the body has entered a state of famine, and it shifts to the assumption that a scarcity of food is the new status quo.

As soon as a restrictive diet is begun, the body’s innate drive for survival gets activated. Similar to the way we would have to cut back on spending if we lost our jobs and had to survive on assistance, the body automatically shifts into its version of economy mode. Depending on the severity of the calorie cut, actions would start with a slowing of body metabolism and a lowering of body temperature, along with other cuts that leave you feeling drained of energy.

We maintain our normal lifestyle through this period by conscious deception. We know that it’s coming, why it’s here and how long it will last. Consistent with the purpose of the diet, we want to make the body call on its energy reserves, which we are attempting to pare down. But as your reserves begin to drain, the body has this perverse desire to leave an IOU. Similar to how we might have “learned a lesson” and focused more on savings if we were fortunate to gain that job back, once we are “off” that diet, the body becomes more attentive to the handling and putting away of its energy. If frequent dieting is the norm in your life, this would especially be the case. The net effect can be a body with a greater focus on efficiency and holding on to its caloric stores.

One possible remedy is to refrain from focusing solely on drastic dieting. It is best to look beyond what we eat. Changes in lifestyle, such as regular physical activity, could provide the energy drain to swing the balance. We could be talking about nothing more than brisk walks.

Why not discard the idea of a “diet” entirely? After consulting your health professional, decide upon a reasonable ideal weight, and set this as your goal. Come up with a combination of food and activity that a person similar to you would require to maintain that weight; then on Day 1, begin eating and acting as if you were that person. Such an approach would mean a longer path to your goal, but the payoff is that you would never have to make any changes once there. It might be a way of turning the system around in your favor.

Send questions to: “On Nutrition,” Ed Blonz, c/o Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO, 64106. Send email inquiries to questions@blonz.com. Due to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.

DEAR DR. BLONZ: It is a bit frustrating that it takes researchers so long to come up with answers for the major diseases affecting us all. I was hoping for some thoughts, as members of my circle of friends are dealing with several health issues. Their doctors prescribe pill after pill, with little in the way of answers. -- W.F., San Francisco

DEAR W.F.: Why does “science” take so long to come up with its cures? The frustration you feel, not uncommon, gives birth to a tendency to believe the worst about the medical and pharmaceutical communities. We tune in when the subject is conspiracies with the rich and powerful at the reins. This approach is all too easy to embrace by those who suffer.

Is there a reasonable answer? Those who have been around for several decades understand that there’s much that can go wrong with the human body. There has been amazing progress along many fronts, even though sophisticated medical research has not been around for very long. For example, we have only begun to understand how our 25,000 or so genes work and interact, and what turns them on, off or tweaks them in the right direction. We are, in essence, a collection of complicated interactive chemical reactions and control mechanisms, with only a rudimentary understanding of how it all works together and how we can make adjustments to avoid, or treat, disease.

Research, while vibrant, can seem poky when there are specific answers we crave. It takes enormous amounts of money, and there is not enough coming from federal funding. Our government has a moral responsibility to fund such research, but nobody wants to pay higher taxes to make it happen. Much gets done in corporate laboratories, but those are profit-making institutions that have to answer to their stockholders.

It is not an ideal situation, but there is no logic in jumping from this situation to one in which you embrace remedies with no testing or scientific foundation. The peddlers of such remedies have nothing but a sales pitch preceded by a condemnation of the status quo.

Most physicians and scientists are noble in their motivations. At least, most start that way. It is wrong to think that someone with a handle on a cure would not follow through to find out whether it is valid. Scientists relish the chance to be on a team that would help end a dreaded disease.

For my part, I will remain vigilant in my readings. I’ve been in the science field for a while, and do my best to foster promising concepts. At the same time, I will take issue with situations in which health frustrations and tragedies degenerate to financial opportunities for the unscrupulous to push unproven remedies on desperate people.

Send questions to: “On Nutrition,” Ed Blonz, c/o Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO, 64106. Send email inquiries to questions@blonz.com. Due to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.

DEAR DR. BLONZ: What fats do you recommend for baking? Years ago I used shortening, but then shifted to butter because of the trans fat issue. But butter has saturated fats, which are also a problem. -- F.S., Tucson, Arizona

DEAR F.S.: The fats used in baking serve a number of functions. They coat the flour and help to shorten the strings of gluten protein that form when water and flour mix; interestingly, this is the basis for the word “shortening.” The fats also help hold things together, and fats that are more solid help trap the air bubbles that allow baked goods to rise. (This is not much of an issue with cookies, which helps explain why less-solid fats can work there.)

This all means that you need specific performance characteristics from baking fats and oils, but at the same time, you don’t want your food to be a health liability. It makes sense to experiment a bit to see what works with your recipes. Also: Be aware that there are now shortenings without trans fats.

Additional guidance is available at the many websites and blogs covering baking, including bakefromscratch.com, bakerpedia.com, and bakerbettie.com.

DEAR DR. BLONZ: Is salmon safe to eat if it’s been frozen for over a year? Should I just throw it away? -- Y., Hayward, California

DEAR Y.: There shouldn’t be any problems from a safety perspective if the salmon was packaged tightly, ideally in a container or bag meant for this type of storage, and if your freezer has maintained its low temperature. I suggest removing any areas of freezer burn, which show as blotches of discolored fish, usually near the edges.

As the fish defrosts, let your senses be your guide as you check for “off” odors: After the siesta, your fish will not be as flavorful as it was fresh.

DEAR DR. BLONZ: What determines what is classified as dietary fiber in foods? -- D.D., Tulsa, Oklahoma

DEAR D.D.: There are two main categories of dietary fiber: water-insoluble and water-soluble, and their health benefits differ. Both, however, are valuable parts of the diet.

Fiber refers to the materials found in plant foods that the human body cannot digest. Think of the foods we eat as a complex combination of nutrients and non-nutrient ingredients. To absorb and make use of what’s there, the food has to be disassembled into small, absorbable bits, and our digestive system is that disassembly and absorption line.

Enzymes are the body’s chemicals that break foods down. Fiber is unique in that the human body lacks the enzymes that can take it apart. Instead of being absorbed, it remains in the part that passes on through. As fiber travels through the digestive system, what it does depends on how it’s built.

The average diet in the U.S. contains only about half the fiber we need. Research evidence suggests an increased fiber intake (a total of 25 to 30 grams per day) helps control heart disease, certain cancers, diabetes, diverticular disease, constipation, diarrhea, weight, hemorrhoids and ulcerative colitis. Quite impressive, when you consider that dietary fiber isn’t absorbed. Recent findings suggest that the interaction between fiber and the flora in our intestines -- our microbiome -- will hold the key here, and this is now an emerging and exciting field of study.

Send questions to: “On Nutrition,” Ed Blonz, c/o Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO, 64106. Send email inquiries to questions@blonz.com. Due to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.