Crash Diets May Be Most Effective Weight Loss Technique
Replies
-
richardheath wrote: »And logically, that's the only conclusion that makes sense, because maintenance is determined by how you eat and exercise during maintenance, not how you lost weight in the first place. To think that you'll somehow be more or less likely to exercise and to hit your calorie target during maintenance based on how you dropped weight is just nonsense. What you did last year or what you called your diet last year is not going to affect what you do or don't do today - how could it?
At the end of the day, it's all pretty simple to me. Figure out what works best for you to lose weight, lose the weight, and then figure out what works best for you to maintain the losses or otherwise make progress towards your long-term goals.
Well, actually I would say that if one develops healthy habits during weight loss then one is more likely to follow those same habits (with slight tweaks) during maintenance. I know that I basically eat the same foods as I did; but I learnt to manage portions, add veggies, move more etc which I have continued for 2 + years of maintenance.
The thing is, the habits you listed off have nothing to do with how aggressive your calorie deficit is. You still manage portions on an aggressive diet - actually, it's quite a bit more difficult to manage portions on an aggressive diet than on one where you cut over the span of years. I don't see how less aggressive calorie targets somehow teach you to add more vegetables to your diet, relative to more aggressive calorie target diets. Exercise... the same. In short, I'm not really seeing seeing a relationship between any of those factors and how aggressively someone sets out to lose weight.
At least for me, I would not want to eat the same foods when cutting as when bulking, because I purposefully eat a lot of very satiating foods when losing weight and I have way more calories to play with during other times. Nor would it make a lot of sense for my exercise routine to be exactly the same. Yes, there may be some basic habits that carry over, but the overall routines are very different. Which is why to me, you want to figure out what's best for losing weight... and then separately figure out what's best for maintaining weight. Trying to pick a way of losing that helps you maintain is just illogical and confusing the issues.
Because by aggressively cutting you have to make major, sweeping changes to your diet. If you are eating 400-800 calories per day, you aren't going to be eating "normally" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, most of these Doctor-managed VLCD diets will have you using meal replacement shakes to ensure you continue to get all your micronutrients. You aren't going to carry on eating this way once you do finally get to maintenance.
By doing a more moderate calorie deficit you can still eat your "normal" foods - just less of them, make some lower cal substitutions here or there etc. When you get to maintenance, you just carry on. At least that's the way I see it.
0 -
richardheath wrote: »richardheath wrote: »And logically, that's the only conclusion that makes sense, because maintenance is determined by how you eat and exercise during maintenance, not how you lost weight in the first place. To think that you'll somehow be more or less likely to exercise and to hit your calorie target during maintenance based on how you dropped weight is just nonsense. What you did last year or what you called your diet last year is not going to affect what you do or don't do today - how could it?
At the end of the day, it's all pretty simple to me. Figure out what works best for you to lose weight, lose the weight, and then figure out what works best for you to maintain the losses or otherwise make progress towards your long-term goals.
Well, actually I would say that if one develops healthy habits during weight loss then one is more likely to follow those same habits (with slight tweaks) during maintenance. I know that I basically eat the same foods as I did; but I learnt to manage portions, add veggies, move more etc which I have continued for 2 + years of maintenance.
The thing is, the habits you listed off have nothing to do with how aggressive your calorie deficit is. You still manage portions on an aggressive diet - actually, it's quite a bit more difficult to manage portions on an aggressive diet than on one where you cut over the span of years. I don't see how less aggressive calorie targets somehow teach you to add more vegetables to your diet, relative to more aggressive calorie target diets. Exercise... the same. In short, I'm not really seeing seeing a relationship between any of those factors and how aggressively someone sets out to lose weight.
At least for me, I would not want to eat the same foods when cutting as when bulking, because I purposefully eat a lot of very satiating foods when losing weight and I have way more calories to play with during other times. Nor would it make a lot of sense for my exercise routine to be exactly the same. Yes, there may be some basic habits that carry over, but the overall routines are very different. Which is why to me, you want to figure out what's best for losing weight... and then separately figure out what's best for maintaining weight. Trying to pick a way of losing that helps you maintain is just illogical and confusing the issues.
Because by aggressively cutting you have to make major, sweeping changes to your diet. If you are eating 400-800 calories per day, you aren't going to be eating "normally" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, most of these Doctor-managed VLCD diets will have you using meal replacement shakes to ensure you continue to get all your micronutrients. You aren't going to carry on eating this way once you do finally get to maintenance.
By doing a more moderate calorie deficit you can still eat your "normal" foods - just less of them, make some lower cal substitutions here or there etc. When you get to maintenance, you just carry on. At least that's the way I see it.
You say that, but there are studies that look at people post-VLCDs and found they had at least as much success in maintaining their losses as people who followed a basic hypocaloric diet. I think we like to think that by doing things a certain way you're increasing your odds of long-term success, but I don't think the evidence really supports that conclusion. Frankly, the skills one has to "learn" to lose weight are pretty minimal, and in my experience developing habits that support your weight loss is what really helps, rather than learning skills. That said, habits are pretty easily broken over just the span of a few weeks, which for some people is about the length of a single vacation. That's why I tend to settle on people just doing what works best for them to lose weight responsibly, and hopefully having a plan for maintenance (which can be completely different, as long as they follow it).0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »
I see once again you insist on mentioning that I am an EMT. Apparently you think that's insulting me. You're just pathetic. Not sure why you have to continue to mention that but you're a joke.Of course. It makes perfect sense. The process of losing weight is one of motivation and psychological discipline. It's much much easier to remain focused for 18 weeks compared to 36 weeks. That's why all diets fail after 5 years, people lose their mental discipline.
Really? All diets fail?
I would say the diet succeeded. The weight came off and stayed off long enough to know it's not just water weight or similar. It's the maintenance strategy (or the fact that there was none) that is the failure.
Besides. There are people who manage to keep weight off for 5 years and more. They're a minority, but they do exist.
Just ignore him. All diets fail according to him. No one knows anything. The only people that supposedly succeed are the ones that read one book.
All died protocols fail five years out, because people do not keep them up. I started a thread on this not long ago and it should be.
There was a review study out of UCLA on this.
And I see M 27 is at it again. He must have finished his EMT shift. Hey, you never did get back to me on discussing Guyton's text book with all your doctor friends.
Did they ridicule it and dismiss it to the degree that you do?
Just curious.
I see that you are quite a bit older than I suspected you of being. That makes your reluctance to embrace real science all the more puzzling and disturbing.
And again, you still aren't willing to show anyone that you've accomplished anything. Just repeatedly pushing that book with your fake profile picture. Everyone should forever hit the spam button on your posts.
Steve has accomplish being my entertainment when he comments. That is good enough for me.
I guess it's good that they don't have a "Report-for being a general annoyance to humanity," then. We can't have funny-time taken from us.
-1 -
Curious that certain posters protest against the dissemination of the world-standard textbook on human physiology. I continue to post because for every one of the these people- usually fitness buffs- there are (hopefully) dozens and dozens of people who read these forums and welcome an infusion of real science and facts into the discussion, and who recognize the tactics being used against me.
Here is a link to the free download
https://kickass.to/guyton-and-hall-textbook-of-medical-physiology-12e-pdf-unitedvrg-t8879304.html
There is a lot of nonsense on the internet about weight loss and how to go about it. Guyton's is a relatively easy read and is an invaluable reference for those who want the truth.
Unfortunately, the last thing that many internet diet-faddists or fitness gurus want is someone checking up on what they say with- gasp!- the facts.
Many resort to ad hominem attacks to scare off people who really know what they are talking about.
Very sad.
You ever see that episode of the Cosby show where Vanessa brings home her fiance? Dr. Huxtable explains to the young man that he was presented to the family like a gourmet dinner on a filthy trash can lid. It doesn't matter what your message is, "Steve." You're presenting it on a trash can lid.
-1 -
Curious that certain posters protest against the dissemination of the world-standard textbook on human physiology. I continue to post because for every one of the these people- usually fitness buffs- there are (hopefully) dozens and dozens of people who read these forums and welcome an infusion of real science and facts into the discussion, and who recognize the tactics being used against me.
Here is a link to the free download
https://kickass.to/guyton-and-hall-textbook-of-medical-physiology-12e-pdf-unitedvrg-t8879304.html
There is a lot of nonsense on the internet about weight loss and how to go about it. Guyton's is a relatively easy read and is an invaluable reference for those who want the truth.
Unfortunately, the last thing that many internet diet-faddists or fitness gurus want is someone checking up on what they say with- gasp!- the facts.
Many resort to ad hominem attacks to scare off people who really know what they are talking about.
Very sad.
Fitness buffs LOL that a new one to me.
0 -
Curious that certain posters protest against the dissemination of the world-standard textbook on human physiology. I continue to post because for every one of the these people- usually fitness buffs- there are (hopefully) dozens and dozens of people who read these forums and welcome an infusion of real science and facts into the discussion, and who recognize the tactics being used against me.
Here is a link to the free download
<snip link>
There is a lot of nonsense on the internet about weight loss and how to go about it. Guyton's is a relatively easy read and is an invaluable reference for those who want the truth.
Unfortunately, the last thing that many internet diet-faddists or fitness gurus want is someone checking up on what they say with- gasp!- the facts.
Many resort to ad hominem attacks to scare off people who really know what they are talking about.
Very sad.
Isn't that an illegal torrent of a copyrighted work? I know that because I have a hardcopy of Guyton's sitting on my shelf right now...
I guess I'll let the mods decide.0 -
If it doesn't violate copyright that's fine. It's a handy reference. It's not support for your arguments for what I can see though.Is that the latest edition? The second latest edition is downloadable. I just did a quick google to come up with the site I linked to. There are other sites out there with the earlier edition, and I certainly do not condone piracy.
0 -
richardheath wrote: »richardheath wrote: »And logically, that's the only conclusion that makes sense, because maintenance is determined by how you eat and exercise during maintenance, not how you lost weight in the first place. To think that you'll somehow be more or less likely to exercise and to hit your calorie target during maintenance based on how you dropped weight is just nonsense. What you did last year or what you called your diet last year is not going to affect what you do or don't do today - how could it?
At the end of the day, it's all pretty simple to me. Figure out what works best for you to lose weight, lose the weight, and then figure out what works best for you to maintain the losses or otherwise make progress towards your long-term goals.
Well, actually I would say that if one develops healthy habits during weight loss then one is more likely to follow those same habits (with slight tweaks) during maintenance. I know that I basically eat the same foods as I did; but I learnt to manage portions, add veggies, move more etc which I have continued for 2 + years of maintenance.
The thing is, the habits you listed off have nothing to do with how aggressive your calorie deficit is. You still manage portions on an aggressive diet - actually, it's quite a bit more difficult to manage portions on an aggressive diet than on one where you cut over the span of years. I don't see how less aggressive calorie targets somehow teach you to add more vegetables to your diet, relative to more aggressive calorie target diets. Exercise... the same. In short, I'm not really seeing seeing a relationship between any of those factors and how aggressively someone sets out to lose weight.
At least for me, I would not want to eat the same foods when cutting as when bulking, because I purposefully eat a lot of very satiating foods when losing weight and I have way more calories to play with during other times. Nor would it make a lot of sense for my exercise routine to be exactly the same. Yes, there may be some basic habits that carry over, but the overall routines are very different. Which is why to me, you want to figure out what's best for losing weight... and then separately figure out what's best for maintaining weight. Trying to pick a way of losing that helps you maintain is just illogical and confusing the issues.
Because by aggressively cutting you have to make major, sweeping changes to your diet. If you are eating 400-800 calories per day, you aren't going to be eating "normally" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, most of these Doctor-managed VLCD diets will have you using meal replacement shakes to ensure you continue to get all your micronutrients. You aren't going to carry on eating this way once you do finally get to maintenance.
By doing a more moderate calorie deficit you can still eat your "normal" foods - just less of them, make some lower cal substitutions here or there etc. When you get to maintenance, you just carry on. At least that's the way I see it.
... I think we like to think that by doing things a certain way you're increasing your odds of long-term success, but I don't think the evidence really supports that conclusion. Frankly, the skills one has to "learn" to lose weight are pretty minimal, and in my experience developing habits that support your weight loss is what really helps, rather than learning skills. ...
Now maybe that might be true for some, especially those who have so little to lose they can do it months, or those who are able to be super strict with themselves, but I needed to find a way to eat that I would STICK WITH for a long, long time -- the time it takes to lose over 100 pounds. So, eating "normally" yet less of it, is what works. Other plans I've tried have caused me to give up. I think I can keep this up, adding some calories when I'm satisfied with my overall loss.
IOW, long term success for me is only going to be possible if I can stick with the losing weight part of the plan.
0 -
I'd have been interested in seeing a study of people who have lost 12% and kept it off for more than 3 years - to see how they did it. Whether the ones who successfully maintained for many years were ones who started their process with a crash diet, or made conscious lifestyle changes... I'm not sure that this study told me anything surprising.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
1. It IS the latest edition, so therefore a violation of copyright.
2. Textbooks are never at the forefront of scientific research. The latest edition is nearly 5 years old, the "legally downloadable" edition is nearly 10 years old.
and
3. This:It's a handy reference. It's not support for your arguments for what I can see though.
0 -
misskittyninja wrote: »There really isn't much here in the way of research as usual =/
I would like to see the long term results of both diets when it comes to maintaining. Which group maintains the weight for the longest. I also wouldn't mind seeing different diets all side by side and what happens 2 years after each group reaches goal.
That article wasn't the full, nor the best, info write up.
You missed some posts in this topic by me giving links to the full research discussion, because your specific concerns were addressed, if 3 years is long enough anyway. Both groups, average of all the people, gained 71% of the weight back. Obviously that means some likely gained little, pretty successful, some gained a lot more back.
No comment what the maintenance level calories were afterwards, how that was measured or estimated for the people to know. Shoot, if they didn't do RMR tests or some sort of TDEE burn test, they could have given them inflated estimates for amount of LBM lost, and had them overeating from the start, even if they hit their calorie numbers.0 -
misskittyninja wrote: »I remember someone quoting a research on here stating that only 2% of people who reach goal remain at goal 5 years later. If that's true it's extremely depressing, though i would like to know what that 2% did. I haven't found that "research" yet so imagine the real number is higher... I hope it's higher.
Specific to that part.
http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/WeightLossMaintenance.html
Klem, M.L., Wing, R.R., McGuire, M.T., Seagle, H.M., Hill, J, A descriptive study of individuals successful at long-term maintenance of substantial weight loss, Am J Clin Nutr. 66: 239-246, 1997.
0 -
If it doesn't violate copyright that's fine. It's a handy reference. It's not support for your arguments for what I can see though.Is that the latest edition? The second latest edition is downloadable. I just did a quick google to come up with the site I linked to. There are other sites out there with the earlier edition, and I certainly do not condone piracy.
well, what do you think my arguments are?
Working from a common source, we can have a civilized discussion.
while you insult folks?0 -
Well for one, you've made the claim several times that as long as you skip breakfast, you can eat at a surplus (actually you said you can eat anything you want) and not gain weight.
If it doesn't violate copyright that's fine. It's a handy reference. It's not support for your arguments for what I can see though.Is that the latest edition? The second latest edition is downloadable. I just did a quick google to come up with the site I linked to. There are other sites out there with the earlier edition, and I certainly do not condone piracy.
well, what do you think my arguments are?
Working from a common source, we can have a civilized discussion.
I'm pretty sure the mechanisms of the citric acid cycle in Guyton's doesn't explain that.
0 -
Steve098 the folks on MFP don't necessarily take issue with your right to debate your POV on the forums, rather it's the pompous manner you have adopted in doing so. You seem to be here only to peddle your book and tell people how they're doing everything wrong, in the most arrogant way possible. Try removing the chip off your shoulder and speaking to people with respect, and perhaps you can have a civilized discussion.
Hopping off my soap box now.0 -
I think when it comes to losing the weight it's really up to the individual. Truly, the hardest part is keeping it off in the long run, and what that means is not something a lot of people want to admit to themselves. You have to really fight biology to lose the weight but what stinks is that it fights back long after you have accomplished this. To keep weight off you have count your calories and recalculate what those calories are as you get older. The overabundance of high calorie food we have now is what makes this important.
I lost 20 lbs pretty quickly (2 lbs a week) after college following a VLCD, slowly increased my calories once I hit my target weight and then continued counting afterwards. I maintained my weight loss for 6 years then I got pregnant. During pregnancy I pretty much went from 0-ALL OF THE CAKE and packed on 35 lbs.
I finished breastfeeding a few months ago, and began my VLCD again and it is working. It's what works best for me but it's not for everyone. Do what you need to do but understand it will be a lifelong struggle....unless a famine hits....then we just start Googling how many calories in a bug.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Now maybe that might be true for some, especially those who have so little to lose they can do it months, or those who are able to be super strict with themselves, but I needed to find a way to eat that I would STICK WITH for a long, long time -- the time it takes to lose over 100 pounds. So, eating "normally" yet less of it, is what works. Other plans I've tried have caused me to give up. I think I can keep this up, adding some calories when I'm satisfied with my overall loss.
IOW, long term success for me is only going to be possible if I can stick with the losing weight part of the plan.
I didn't say not to eat "normal foods" - actually I said:Figure out what works best for you to lose weight, lose the weight, and then figure out what works best for you to maintain the losses or otherwise make progress towards your long-term goals
You definitely need something you can stick with for a year or more with 100 pounds to lose, and what that plan looks like differs from person to person. It sounds like you've found what works for you, and so we're in complete agreement that you're doing it the right way. Do what you have to do to lose the weight in the first place.
What I'm saying is that people shouldn't confuse weight loss with maintenance. Put another way, there isn't much to support that you can influence your chances of maintaining based on how you choose to lose the weight, as that's entirely determined based on how you behave after you've lost the weight.0 -
Oh, LAWD, I feel like I'm in Groundhog Day. The same song keeps playing over and over....
0 -
Is that the latest edition? The second latest edition is downloadable. I just did a quick google to come up with the site I linked to. There are other sites out there with the earlier edition, and I certainly do not condone piracy.
Does it have any Copyright information in it ? Specifically does it permit dissemination via electronic means by random individuals without permission ?
Edit: The answer is no :Copyright
TEXTBOOK OF MEDICAL PHYSIOLOGY
ISBN: 978-1-4160-4574-8
International Edition: 978-0-8089-2400-5
Copyright ?? 2011, 2006, 2000, 1996, 1991, 1986, 1981, 1976, 1966, 1961, 1956 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier's Rights Department: phone: (+1) 215 239 3804 (US) or (+44) 1865 843830 (UK); fax: (+44) 1865 853333; e-mail: healthpermissions@elsevier.com. You may also complete your request on-line via the Elsevier website at http://www.elsevier.com/permissions0 -
Maybe copyright infringement will be the thing that finally gets him booted off the forums. Fingers crossed. Oh,and Steve thanks for the "abuse" flag, I was starting to feel left out.
-1 -
This content has been removed.
-
If the majority of them failed to maintain equally in both groups, the "crash diet group" went through serious restrictions for the exact same results in the end. All they really got was momentary results. Seems more like an advertisement for "restrict yourself quickly for fast results you'll keep for a short period of time." I think we all know that is possible but we don't desire it.
I also wonder how they were monitored to ensure they were only eating that amount. Mentally, it's much easier to cheat when you think you have an extended period of time to achieve your diet goals. Both groups boil down to people aiming to lose over a certain period rather than aiming to make a lifestyle change.
Statistically, the vast majority of people who lose a significant amount of weight will fail miserably in the long-term. That doesn't mean any particular individual will fail, nor does it mean people shouldn't try, but it does mean most people will ultimately fail to maintain their losses.
I think the takeaway from this article though is that it doesn't particularly matter how you lose the weight, aside from some extreme scenarios where you actually damage your body during the weight loss (which is harder to do than most people think), but rather what matters in terms of long-term success is whether you stay focused and continue working just has hard during maintenance. Put another way, just because someone decides to lose weight slowly, while refusing to acknowledge they follow some form of structured diet (even if it's just a calorie target) and getting all cranky if you don't refer to it as a "lifestyle change", they still don't increase their chances of maintaining their success in the long-term than someone who follows a structured and perhaps more restrictive diet plan while losing weight.
And logically, that's the only conclusion that makes sense, because maintenance is determined by how you eat and exercise during maintenance, not how you lost weight in the first place. To think that you'll somehow be more or less likely to exercise and to hit your calorie target during maintenance based on how you dropped weight is just nonsense. What you did last year or what you called your diet last year is not going to affect what you do or don't do today - how could it?
At the end of the day, it's all pretty simple to me. Figure out what works best for you to lose weight, lose the weight, and then figure out what works best for you to maintain the losses or otherwise make progress towards your long-term goals.
All this, based on a study where everyone drank shakes to lose weight. Of course.0 -
Now fitness guys feel that the only way to weight loss is through exercise, but the real secret is learning how to deal with an empty stomach without heading for the refrigerator, as the pilot study showed.
As in a calorie deficit? Wow, that's excellent information that I've never seen anywhere before! Great job! Thanks for mentioning it
0 -
Well for one, you've made the claim several times that as long as you skip breakfast, you can eat at a surplus (actually you said you can eat anything you want) and not gain weight.
If it doesn't violate copyright that's fine. It's a handy reference. It's not support for your arguments for what I can see though.Is that the latest edition? The second latest edition is downloadable. I just did a quick google to come up with the site I linked to. There are other sites out there with the earlier edition, and I certainly do not condone piracy.
well, what do you think my arguments are?
Working from a common source, we can have a civilized discussion.
I'm pretty sure the mechanisms of the citric acid cycle in Guyton's doesn't explain that.
Thanks for being rational.
You misunderstood what I said.
First, most brave people who plunge into Guyton's, after reading the sections on metabolism, will be puzzled. There is nothing that talks about the importance of a morning meal. Nothing that says that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. Nothing that says that metabolic machinery has to be started up in the morning. Nothing that says a morning meal is necessary to support your blood glucose. Nothing that says skipping breakfast will cause rebound gorging in the afternoon.
Nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.
For your other point, you confuse what Guyton's says with what Dr. Hagan found in his pilot study. When people disciplined themselves to a morning water-fast on a consistent basis, and kept to an 8-9 hour afternoon eat period, their hunger urges changed to where they lost their cravings for the so-called "bad" foods. Also, the effective volumes of their stomachs apparently shrank, as they could not eat as much as they could before.
So they could eat what they wanted and as much as they wanted, but what they wanted to eat changed, and they were satisfied with less, and so they began to lose weight.
And feel better and sleep better and etc etc.
So I will recommend again just reading the freebie kindle pages of his "Breakfast:The Least Important Meal of the Day" for the basic facts.
Now fitness guys feel that the only way to weight loss is through exercise, but the real secret is learning how to deal with an empty stomach without heading for the refrigerator, as the pilot study showed.
Steve talks like he knows anything again. Fitness guys, you are not one, so how do you thing you know what a fitness guy feels on a cut. Fitness people know it is the exact opposite. A cut is not through increase exercise. Someone clearly told you wrong.
-2 -
The song is a catchy tune.baconslave wrote: »Oh, LAWD, I feel like I'm in Groundhog Day. The same song keeps playing over and over....
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »
The song is a catchy tune.baconslave wrote: »Oh, LAWD, I feel like I'm in Groundhog Day. The same song keeps playing over and over....
Not a bad tune to hear over and over.
This Steve vs. MFP thing though...
-2 -
A VCLD is less healthy, you lose muscle, bones and even organ damage can happen once you get below 500.WalkingAlong wrote: »I've posted studies that say that for a long time. Many people are hesitant to believe that it's not less healthy.
0 -
The only time I think that is true is if the person learns/keeps better habits. Eating 1200 or less long-term is not good for you, your body needs more nutrition than that. VCLD diets (meaning under 800 calories a day) are not only bad but dangerous. I did a low calorie diet (not very low, just low) to get out of obese range, but the second I was out of obese range I started upping calories, by a month later I was as 1500, now I eat closer to 2000 and am not gaining and am feeling/doing so much better. I slowed down losing the final portion of my weight because I want to keep the muscle, lose the rest of the fat, and keep getting more toned. Sure I can eat barely above my BMR (but even that is 1300-1400) and run on the treadmill all the time and get the fat off faster, and I will look exactly like I did at the higher weight, just a smaller version of that. No thanks, slow and steady wins the race, and lifting heavy rocks.It also says that the rate at which both groups regained weight after three years was roughly the same at 71%, suggesting that crash dieting is no worse in the long term.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions