Fat and Feminism--Want to get really pissed off??
Options
Replies
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Yes, but there are too many here to be a bone fide anomaly was my sarcastic point. I believe that to be an anomaly requires that you are past the third, at the least, standard deviation but it's certainly much more people who can maintain weight loss.
There may be enough successful people on this site to not be anomalies for this population, but when you consider them against the world at large, or even just the people who try to lose weight in the world at large, they can be considered anomalies, imo. I fully intend to be one of those anomalies.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Yes, but there are too many here to be a bone fide anomaly was my sarcastic point. I believe that to be an anomaly requires that you are past the third, at the least, standard deviation but it's certainly much more people who can maintain weight loss.
There may be enough successful people on this site to not be anomalies for this population, but when you consider them against the world at large, or even just the people who try to lose weight in the world at large, they can be considered anomalies, imo. I fully intend to be one of those anomalies.
To me at least, anomaly implies that something is peculiar or unexpected. I guess in the general population of people who try to lose weight, failure is more "normal" than success, but it's not a peculiar or unexpected outcome.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Yes, but there are too many here to be a bone fide anomaly was my sarcastic point. I believe that to be an anomaly requires that you are past the third, at the least, standard deviation but it's certainly much more people who can maintain weight loss.
There may be enough successful people on this site to not be anomalies for this population, but when you consider them against the world at large, or even just the people who try to lose weight in the world at large, they can be considered anomalies, imo. I fully intend to be one of those anomalies.
That's the right attitude!
I intend to keep on screwing up the set point model. 0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Yes, but there are too many here to be a bone fide anomaly was my sarcastic point. I believe that to be an anomaly requires that you are past the third, at the least, standard deviation but it's certainly much more people who can maintain weight loss.
There may be enough successful people on this site to not be anomalies for this population, but when you consider them against the world at large, or even just the people who try to lose weight in the world at large, they can be considered anomalies, imo. I fully intend to be one of those anomalies.
To me at least, anomaly implies that something is peculiar or unexpected. I guess in the general population of people who try to lose weight, failure is more "normal" than success, but it's not a peculiar or unexpected outcome.
The main reason why I don't buy us as an anomaly is because we are just a continuation of the process that most give up on. We just aren't any different in biology than the vast majority that lose weight and regain and then often yo-yo and many who maintain successfully are former yo-yo dieters to boot. I strongly believe that instead of labeling long term maintainers as anomalies they should try to figure out what the differences are and use those findings as encouragement for others. This is basically the whole point of the National Weight Control Registry.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »You guys are right, I shouldn't get worked up about such BS, but I guess it's the first time I've really seen the HAES idea spouted in such a destructive way. It's like this article is actively trying to convince women that losing weight is bad for you and maybe even impossible!
I was listening to a discussion on the radio where the authors of a meta study claimed that anyone who lost weight and kept out off was an anomaly. Apparently many of us here don't exist.
Not sure what you mean. You can't be an anomaly unless you exist. People who lose weight and keep it off are anomalies because most people either fail to lose weight or (more commonly) fail to maintain the loss.
Yes, but there are too many here to be a bone fide anomaly was my sarcastic point. To be an anomaly requires that you are past the third, at the least, standard deviation but it's certainly much more people who can maintain weight loss.
Is it?
Actually, read my edit, to me if you are going to say it's an anomaly and we aren't going to consider it you better be looking at a very small portion of the population you are excluding. Yes, there isn't an exact definition of anomaly but they were set point theorists and they weren't accepting people who could maintain as a reason to dismiss the validity of their theory. They label us anomalies so they can dismiss us summarily, and THAT is my issue. The model is wrong but they exclude any counter as being "just an anomaly". Sorry, I was rushed when I said what I did and it was inaccurate.
I think James Hill at National Weight Control Registry said it best (paraphrase): "We certainly have people who diet and maintain that loss. Do our records contain all of them? Probably not, but I don't know, it could be all the people registered with us are the only people who ever dieted and kept it off. It could be that our group is just a small fraction of people do successfully maintain. We do know, though, that it is possible."
Unfortunately, no one will give me a grant to do it the same way they count animal populations: blow dart a random group, collect data, release, wait and do the same thing with a different random group, including possibly getting ones that were tagged before (that's used to estimate population sizes). Someone at one particular budget office asked for security. What rubbish, nothing wrong with tranquilizing some random people, heck, some people pay good money to be tranquilized, and here I'm actually offering to do it to get health statistics. I just wonder if the people will answer my questions about are they contemplating losing weight honestly when I wake them up post darting and tagging. The NHS in England's study that just used raw numbers from physicians' offices without checking what percent of those people actually were trying to lose weight looks rather abysmal, but again, percent isn't of people actually trying to lose weight, just people that are overweight.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »You guys are right, I shouldn't get worked up about such BS, but I guess it's the first time I've really seen the HAES idea spouted in such a destructive way. It's like this article is actively trying to convince women that losing weight is bad for you and maybe even impossible!
I was listening to a discussion on the radio where the authors of a meta study claimed that anyone who lost weight and kept out off was an anomaly. Apparently many of us here don't exist.
Not sure what you mean. You can't be an anomaly unless you exist. People who lose weight and keep it off are anomalies because most people either fail to lose weight or (more commonly) fail to maintain the loss.
Yes, but there are too many here to be a bone fide anomaly was my sarcastic point. To be an anomaly requires that you are past the third, at the least, standard deviation but it's certainly much more people who can maintain weight loss.
Is it?
Actually, read my edit, to me if you are going to say it's an anomaly and we aren't going to consider it you better be looking at a very small portion of the population you are excluding. Yes, there isn't an exact definition of anomaly but they were set point theorists and they weren't accepting people who could maintain as a reason to dismiss the validity of their theory. They label us anomalies so they can dismiss us summarily, and THAT is my issue. The model is wrong but they exclude any counter as being "just an anomaly". Sorry, I was rushed when I said what I did and it was inaccurate.
I think James Hill at National Weight Control Registry said it best (paraphrase): "We certainly have people who diet and maintain that loss. Do our records contain all of them? Probably not, but I don't know, it could be all the people registered with us are the only people who ever dieted and kept it off. It could be that our group is just a small fraction of people do successfully maintain. We do know, though, that it is possible."
Unfortunately, no one will give me a grant to do it the same way they count animal populations: blow dart a random group, collect data, release, wait and do the same thing with a different random group, including possibly getting ones that were tagged before (that's used to estimate population sizes). Someone at one particular budget office asked for security. What rubbish, nothing wrong with tranquilizing some random people, heck, some people pay good money to be tranquilized, and here I'm actually offering to do it to get health statistics. I just wonder if the people will answer my questions about are they contemplating losing weight honestly when I wake them up post darting and tagging. The NHS in England's study that just used raw numbers from physicians' offices without checking what percent of those people actually were trying to lose weight looks rather abysmal, but again, percent isn't of people actually trying to lose weight, just people that are overweight.
You should setup a GoFundMe for that! I'd chip in for sure!!0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »You guys are right, I shouldn't get worked up about such BS, but I guess it's the first time I've really seen the HAES idea spouted in such a destructive way. It's like this article is actively trying to convince women that losing weight is bad for you and maybe even impossible!
I was listening to a discussion on the radio where the authors of a meta study claimed that anyone who lost weight and kept out off was an anomaly. Apparently many of us here don't exist.
Not sure what you mean. You can't be an anomaly unless you exist. People who lose weight and keep it off are anomalies because most people either fail to lose weight or (more commonly) fail to maintain the loss.
Yes, but there are too many here to be a bone fide anomaly was my sarcastic point. To be an anomaly requires that you are past the third, at the least, standard deviation but it's certainly much more people who can maintain weight loss.
Is it?
Actually, read my edit, to me if you are going to say it's an anomaly and we aren't going to consider it you better be looking at a very small portion of the population you are excluding. Yes, there isn't an exact definition of anomaly but they were set point theorists and they weren't accepting people who could maintain as a reason to dismiss the validity of their theory. They label us anomalies so they can dismiss us summarily, and THAT is my issue. The model is wrong but they exclude any counter as being "just an anomaly". Sorry, I was rushed when I said what I did and it was inaccurate.
I think James Hill at National Weight Control Registry said it best (paraphrase): "We certainly have people who diet and maintain that loss. Do our records contain all of them? Probably not, but I don't know, it could be all the people registered with us are the only people who ever dieted and kept it off. It could be that our group is just a small fraction of people do successfully maintain. We do know, though, that it is possible."
Unfortunately, no one will give me a grant to do it the same way they count animal populations: blow dart a random group, collect data, release, wait and do the same thing with a different random group, including possibly getting ones that were tagged before (that's used to estimate population sizes). Someone at one particular budget office asked for security. What rubbish, nothing wrong with tranquilizing some random people, heck, some people pay good money to be tranquilized, and here I'm actually offering to do it to get health statistics. I just wonder if the people will answer my questions about are they contemplating losing weight honestly when I wake them up post darting and tagging. The NHS in England's study that just used raw numbers from physicians' offices without checking what percent of those people actually were trying to lose weight looks rather abysmal, but again, percent isn't of people actually trying to lose weight, just people that are overweight.
One of the problems I see in the data is that I don't believe that it represents a complete view of the data. It's a lot like early drug and alcohol addiction recovery data that couldn't account for spontaneous recovery rate, which was actually quite high. It's possible that there are a lot of people, like me, who just do our own thing and never report to anyone in an official record but exist in the "wild" in larger numbers than anyone realizes.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
The study they linked has issues with how they presented their statistics. While the mortality rate in the statistics was lowest in the overweight group rather than normal weight, part of this comes down to figures used don't differentiate between smokers, and non-smokers, as well as people in certain diseases state (a person starting chemo who was overweight or high end normal will have normal weight mid treatment, but people who are overweight for the full term of chemo are rare).Oddly my objection was to the critical theory assumptions and slant to this article, not to its defense and use of actual medical statistics.
I recall one person picked apart just the smoking part of this one study and it completely changes the mortality rate to BMI curve originally plotted.
Similarly, if you remove people who recently lost weight (which is often sick people, as well as people who did so on purpose) that gets rid of the overweight being better than healthy weight thing, if memory serves. (I used to have a couple of links for this, but can't immediately find them.)
I'm no source and I don't have a link either, but I generally agree with and remember the same general idea. I believe that the study authors (or similarly knowledgeable individuals who reported on/interpreted the study results) theorized that one of the primary drivers of that particular result relates to critical illnesses just before death. Often people who go through an ultimately fatal period of illness often lose weight due to that illness and/or the treatments or secondary factors relating to the illness, and therefore it skews the data a bit to make it seem as though people who are typically normal weight or below are more likely to die...when really it can be interpreted as people are more likely to die when they're at a normal weight or below. It's a subtle but important shift.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »You guys are right, I shouldn't get worked up about such BS, but I guess it's the first time I've really seen the HAES idea spouted in such a destructive way. It's like this article is actively trying to convince women that losing weight is bad for you and maybe even impossible!
I was listening to a discussion on the radio where the authors of a meta study claimed that anyone who lost weight and kept out off was an anomaly. Apparently many of us here don't exist.
Not sure what you mean. You can't be an anomaly unless you exist. People who lose weight and keep it off are anomalies because most people either fail to lose weight or (more commonly) fail to maintain the loss.
Yes, but there are too many here to be a bone fide anomaly was my sarcastic point. To be an anomaly requires that you are past the third, at the least, standard deviation but it's certainly much more people who can maintain weight loss.
Is it?
Actually, read my edit, to me if you are going to say it's an anomaly and we aren't going to consider it you better be looking at a very small portion of the population you are excluding. Yes, there isn't an exact definition of anomaly but they were set point theorists and they weren't accepting people who could maintain as a reason to dismiss the validity of their theory. They label us anomalies so they can dismiss us summarily, and THAT is my issue. The model is wrong but they exclude any counter as being "just an anomaly". Sorry, I was rushed when I said what I did and it was inaccurate.
I think James Hill at National Weight Control Registry said it best (paraphrase): "We certainly have people who diet and maintain that loss. Do our records contain all of them? Probably not, but I don't know, it could be all the people registered with us are the only people who ever dieted and kept it off. It could be that our group is just a small fraction of people do successfully maintain. We do know, though, that it is possible."
Unfortunately, no one will give me a grant to do it the same way they count animal populations: blow dart a random group, collect data, release, wait and do the same thing with a different random group, including possibly getting ones that were tagged before (that's used to estimate population sizes). Someone at one particular budget office asked for security. What rubbish, nothing wrong with tranquilizing some random people, heck, some people pay good money to be tranquilized, and here I'm actually offering to do it to get health statistics. I just wonder if the people will answer my questions about are they contemplating losing weight honestly when I wake them up post darting and tagging. The NHS in England's study that just used raw numbers from physicians' offices without checking what percent of those people actually were trying to lose weight looks rather abysmal, but again, percent isn't of people actually trying to lose weight, just people that are overweight.
One of the problems I see in the data is that I don't believe that it represents a complete view of the data. It's a lot like early drug and alcohol addiction recovery data that couldn't account for spontaneous recovery rate, which was actually quite high. It's possible that there are a lot of people, like me, who just do our own thing and never report to anyone in an official record but exist in the "wild" in larger numbers than anyone realizes.
I think that was the point of the guy they quoted from the National Weight Loss Registry. He only has info from folks who volunteer that info.
A quick web search brought up some Canadian article stating a group of scientists had determined only 5% of people who lose weight maintain it long term, and an American article stating 20% of folks who lose at least 10% of their body weight maintain it. Maybe it depends on how we define the problem that is why there are different numbers rolling around. Like, is that 5% for all people trying to lose weight? Or for people on a single attempt? If I fail the first time but succeed the next, am I considered a success?
0 -
blues4miles wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »You guys are right, I shouldn't get worked up about such BS, but I guess it's the first time I've really seen the HAES idea spouted in such a destructive way. It's like this article is actively trying to convince women that losing weight is bad for you and maybe even impossible!
I was listening to a discussion on the radio where the authors of a meta study claimed that anyone who lost weight and kept out off was an anomaly. Apparently many of us here don't exist.
Not sure what you mean. You can't be an anomaly unless you exist. People who lose weight and keep it off are anomalies because most people either fail to lose weight or (more commonly) fail to maintain the loss.
Yes, but there are too many here to be a bone fide anomaly was my sarcastic point. To be an anomaly requires that you are past the third, at the least, standard deviation but it's certainly much more people who can maintain weight loss.
Is it?
Actually, read my edit, to me if you are going to say it's an anomaly and we aren't going to consider it you better be looking at a very small portion of the population you are excluding. Yes, there isn't an exact definition of anomaly but they were set point theorists and they weren't accepting people who could maintain as a reason to dismiss the validity of their theory. They label us anomalies so they can dismiss us summarily, and THAT is my issue. The model is wrong but they exclude any counter as being "just an anomaly". Sorry, I was rushed when I said what I did and it was inaccurate.
I think James Hill at National Weight Control Registry said it best (paraphrase): "We certainly have people who diet and maintain that loss. Do our records contain all of them? Probably not, but I don't know, it could be all the people registered with us are the only people who ever dieted and kept it off. It could be that our group is just a small fraction of people do successfully maintain. We do know, though, that it is possible."
Unfortunately, no one will give me a grant to do it the same way they count animal populations: blow dart a random group, collect data, release, wait and do the same thing with a different random group, including possibly getting ones that were tagged before (that's used to estimate population sizes). Someone at one particular budget office asked for security. What rubbish, nothing wrong with tranquilizing some random people, heck, some people pay good money to be tranquilized, and here I'm actually offering to do it to get health statistics. I just wonder if the people will answer my questions about are they contemplating losing weight honestly when I wake them up post darting and tagging. The NHS in England's study that just used raw numbers from physicians' offices without checking what percent of those people actually were trying to lose weight looks rather abysmal, but again, percent isn't of people actually trying to lose weight, just people that are overweight.
One of the problems I see in the data is that I don't believe that it represents a complete view of the data. It's a lot like early drug and alcohol addiction recovery data that couldn't account for spontaneous recovery rate, which was actually quite high. It's possible that there are a lot of people, like me, who just do our own thing and never report to anyone in an official record but exist in the "wild" in larger numbers than anyone realizes.
I think that was the point of the guy they quoted from the National Weight Loss Registry. He only has info from folks who volunteer that info.
A quick web search brought up some Canadian article stating a group of scientists had determined only 5% of people who lose weight maintain it long term, and an American article stating 20% of folks who lose at least 10% of their body weight maintain it. Maybe it depends on how we define the problem that is why there are different numbers rolling around. Like, is that 5% for all people trying to lose weight? Or for people on a single attempt? If I fail the first time but succeed the next, am I considered a success?
Here's yet another survey, a general and random mailing to US households, that shows 31% successful at maintaining weight loss http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16854220. Unfortunately, the abstract doesn't indicate the time frame for successful maintenance. Still leaves me believing that the 90% failure rate for maintenance that is often quoted is actually off base.
Also, I applied for the Registry a few months ago and haven't heard back so I'm sure they don't have all that are actually even interested in being in the Registry actually in it.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »This topic raises lots of issues for me:
- Do I believe that misogyny and sexism intersect with sizeism and anti-fat bias? Yes.
- Do I believe in Healthy at Any Size (HAES)? No.
- Do I believe that being somewhat overweight is healthier than the self-destructive under-eating and/or over exercise I have seen from some posters here? Yes.
- Am I curious as to why it is predominantly women who create posts indicating think they must suffer in order to lose weight? Yes.
kshama2001 wrote: »This topic raises lots of issues for me:- Do I believe that misogyny and sexism intersect with sizeism and anti-fat bias? Yes.
- Do I believe in Healthy at Any Size (HAES)? No.
- Do I believe that being somewhat overweight is healthier than the self-destructive under-eating and/or over exercise I have seen from some posters here? Yes.
- Am I curious as to why it is predominantly women who create posts indicating think they must suffer in order to lose weight? Yes.
Yes, yes, yes, and yes.0 - Do I believe that misogyny and sexism intersect with sizeism and anti-fat bias? Yes.
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Yes, but there are too many here to be a bone fide anomaly was my sarcastic point. I believe that to be an anomaly requires that you are past the third, at the least, standard deviation but it's certainly much more people who can maintain weight loss.
There may be enough successful people on this site to not be anomalies for this population, but when you consider them against the world at large, or even just the people who try to lose weight in the world at large, they can be considered anomalies, imo. I fully intend to be one of those anomalies.
To me at least, anomaly implies that something is peculiar or unexpected. I guess in the general population of people who try to lose weight, failure is more "normal" than success, but it's not a peculiar or unexpected outcome.
The main reason why I don't buy us as an anomaly is because we are just a continuation of the process that most give up on. We just aren't any different in biology than the vast majority that lose weight and regain and then often yo-yo and many who maintain successfully are former yo-yo dieters to boot. I strongly believe that instead of labeling long term maintainers as anomalies they should try to figure out what the differences are and use those findings as encouragement for others. This is basically the whole point of the National Weight Control Registry.
Actually, the National Weight Control Registry, as best as I can determine, is statistical nonsense because they only look at the behaviors of people who maintain their weight loss. They don't compare those behaviors to people who don't maintain their weight loss. They might as well say breathing helps you keep weight off as attributing it to regular weigh-ins and exercise, because they have no idea if people who don't maintain their weight loss are weighing in and exercising any more or less than those who do.
It's the main reason I didn't bother signing up when I looked into it after meeting their requirement (maintaining a 30 pound weight loss for one year). Now I'm more than two years into maintaining a 30+ pound weight loss. The only one of the behaviors they cite that I practice is weighing myself once a week. Well, I suppose I eat breakfast every day, in the sense that I always break my fast somehow, and I almost always log my first meal as "breakfast," but not in the sense that I get up and have hot or cold cereal or eggs or something of that sort in the first hour or so that I'm awake, before I leave the house.There is variety in how NWCR members keep the weight off. Most report continuing to maintain a low calorie, low fat diet and doing high levels of activity.
78% eat breakfast every day.
75% weigh themselves at least once a week.
62% watch less than 10 hours of TV per week.
90% exercise, on average, about 1 hour per day.
On average I get about a half hour exercise a day. I probably watch about 20 hours of TV (counting Netflix, Amazon, etc.) a week, if not more. I certainly don't eat low fat, and since I've been maintaining, I don't know how I could be described as eating low calorie.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »You guys are right, I shouldn't get worked up about such BS, but I guess it's the first time I've really seen the HAES idea spouted in such a destructive way. It's like this article is actively trying to convince women that losing weight is bad for you and maybe even impossible!
I was listening to a discussion on the radio where the authors of a meta study claimed that anyone who lost weight and kept out off was an anomaly. Apparently many of us here don't exist.
Not sure what you mean. You can't be an anomaly unless you exist. People who lose weight and keep it off are anomalies because most people either fail to lose weight or (more commonly) fail to maintain the loss.
Yes, but there are too many here to be a bone fide anomaly was my sarcastic point. To be an anomaly requires that you are past the third, at the least, standard deviation but it's certainly much more people who can maintain weight loss.
Is it?
Actually, read my edit, to me if you are going to say it's an anomaly and we aren't going to consider it you better be looking at a very small portion of the population you are excluding. Yes, there isn't an exact definition of anomaly but they were set point theorists and they weren't accepting people who could maintain as a reason to dismiss the validity of their theory. They label us anomalies so they can dismiss us summarily, and THAT is my issue. The model is wrong but they exclude any counter as being "just an anomaly". Sorry, I was rushed when I said what I did and it was inaccurate.
I think James Hill at National Weight Control Registry said it best (paraphrase): "We certainly have people who diet and maintain that loss. Do our records contain all of them? Probably not, but I don't know, it could be all the people registered with us are the only people who ever dieted and kept it off. It could be that our group is just a small fraction of people do successfully maintain. We do know, though, that it is possible."
Unfortunately, no one will give me a grant to do it the same way they count animal populations: blow dart a random group, collect data, release, wait and do the same thing with a different random group, including possibly getting ones that were tagged before (that's used to estimate population sizes). Someone at one particular budget office asked for security. What rubbish, nothing wrong with tranquilizing some random people, heck, some people pay good money to be tranquilized, and here I'm actually offering to do it to get health statistics. I just wonder if the people will answer my questions about are they contemplating losing weight honestly when I wake them up post darting and tagging. The NHS in England's study that just used raw numbers from physicians' offices without checking what percent of those people actually were trying to lose weight looks rather abysmal, but again, percent isn't of people actually trying to lose weight, just people that are overweight.
One of the problems I see in the data is that I don't believe that it represents a complete view of the data. It's a lot like early drug and alcohol addiction recovery data that couldn't account for spontaneous recovery rate, which was actually quite high. It's possible that there are a lot of people, like me, who just do our own thing and never report to anyone in an official record but exist in the "wild" in larger numbers than anyone realizes.
I know at least some "studies" of the spontaneous rate of drug recovery are kind of wrong. A few early ones that said that spontaneous recovery is common were based on the recovery rate of Vietnam vets, and the statistics didn't account for the fact that many of the people they considered spontaneously recovered had actually under gone addiction therapy in Vietnam, they just weren't in a program once they arrived state side.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Yes, but there are too many here to be a bone fide anomaly was my sarcastic point. I believe that to be an anomaly requires that you are past the third, at the least, standard deviation but it's certainly much more people who can maintain weight loss.
There may be enough successful people on this site to not be anomalies for this population, but when you consider them against the world at large, or even just the people who try to lose weight in the world at large, they can be considered anomalies, imo. I fully intend to be one of those anomalies.
To me at least, anomaly implies that something is peculiar or unexpected. I guess in the general population of people who try to lose weight, failure is more "normal" than success, but it's not a peculiar or unexpected outcome.
The main reason why I don't buy us as an anomaly is because we are just a continuation of the process that most give up on. We just aren't any different in biology than the vast majority that lose weight and regain and then often yo-yo and many who maintain successfully are former yo-yo dieters to boot. I strongly believe that instead of labeling long term maintainers as anomalies they should try to figure out what the differences are and use those findings as encouragement for others. This is basically the whole point of the National Weight Control Registry.
Actually, the National Weight Control Registry, as best as I can determine, is statistical nonsense because they only look at the behaviors of people who maintain their weight loss. They don't compare those behaviors to people who don't maintain their weight loss. They might as well say breathing helps you keep weight off as attributing it to regular weigh-ins and exercise, because they have no idea if people who don't maintain their weight loss are weighing in and exercising any more or less than those who do.
It's the main reason I didn't bother signing up when I looked into it after meeting their requirement (maintaining a 30 pound weight loss for one year). Now I'm more than two years into maintaining a 30+ pound weight loss. The only one of the behaviors they cite that I practice is weighing myself once a week. Well, I suppose I eat breakfast every day, in the sense that I always break my fast somehow, and I almost always log my first meal as "breakfast," but not in the sense that I get up and have hot or cold cereal or eggs or something of that sort in the first hour or so that I'm awake, before I leave the house.There is variety in how NWCR members keep the weight off. Most report continuing to maintain a low calorie, low fat diet and doing high levels of activity.
78% eat breakfast every day.
75% weigh themselves at least once a week.
62% watch less than 10 hours of TV per week.
90% exercise, on average, about 1 hour per day.
On average I get about a half hour exercise a day. I probably watch about 20 hours of TV (counting Netflix, Amazon, etc.) a week, if not more. I certainly don't eat low fat, and since I've been maintaining, I don't know how I could be described as eating low calorie.
A. It isn't statistical non-sense. The whole point is to study people who have maintained weight loss and look for patterns that are associated with success. They aren't trying to perform A-B testing. You don't need to investigate ways to fail at anything, people can choose to fail at any endeavor at any time.
B. You're saying the statistics don't reflect how you do things, and so you refuse to participate in the statistics. That's a bit of a catch-22 isn't it?0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Yes, but there are too many here to be a bone fide anomaly was my sarcastic point. I believe that to be an anomaly requires that you are past the third, at the least, standard deviation but it's certainly much more people who can maintain weight loss.
There may be enough successful people on this site to not be anomalies for this population, but when you consider them against the world at large, or even just the people who try to lose weight in the world at large, they can be considered anomalies, imo. I fully intend to be one of those anomalies.
To me at least, anomaly implies that something is peculiar or unexpected. I guess in the general population of people who try to lose weight, failure is more "normal" than success, but it's not a peculiar or unexpected outcome.
The main reason why I don't buy us as an anomaly is because we are just a continuation of the process that most give up on. We just aren't any different in biology than the vast majority that lose weight and regain and then often yo-yo and many who maintain successfully are former yo-yo dieters to boot. I strongly believe that instead of labeling long term maintainers as anomalies they should try to figure out what the differences are and use those findings as encouragement for others. This is basically the whole point of the National Weight Control Registry.
Actually, the National Weight Control Registry, as best as I can determine, is statistical nonsense because they only look at the behaviors of people who maintain their weight loss. They don't compare those behaviors to people who don't maintain their weight loss. They might as well say breathing helps you keep weight off as attributing it to regular weigh-ins and exercise, because they have no idea if people who don't maintain their weight loss are weighing in and exercising any more or less than those who do.
It's the main reason I didn't bother signing up when I looked into it after meeting their requirement (maintaining a 30 pound weight loss for one year). Now I'm more than two years into maintaining a 30+ pound weight loss. The only one of the behaviors they cite that I practice is weighing myself once a week. Well, I suppose I eat breakfast every day, in the sense that I always break my fast somehow, and I almost always log my first meal as "breakfast," but not in the sense that I get up and have hot or cold cereal or eggs or something of that sort in the first hour or so that I'm awake, before I leave the house.There is variety in how NWCR members keep the weight off. Most report continuing to maintain a low calorie, low fat diet and doing high levels of activity.
78% eat breakfast every day.
75% weigh themselves at least once a week.
62% watch less than 10 hours of TV per week.
90% exercise, on average, about 1 hour per day.
On average I get about a half hour exercise a day. I probably watch about 20 hours of TV (counting Netflix, Amazon, etc.) a week, if not more. I certainly don't eat low fat, and since I've been maintaining, I don't know how I could be described as eating low calorie.
Then I would strongly suggest that you do apply and ask anyone else you know who is doing it your way to do as well so they can be represented. The big issue is that we know why people fail, but it's why they succeed that is the bigger issue here. Exercise is the biggest predictor of success in maintenance according to what data we have and the Registry confirms this, but there are people here that have done it through only diet and they should be noted too. The bigger issue here is also how did people learn to modify their behaviour no matter what route they took, and have they yo-yo'd in the past. What factor allowed people to modify their behaviours to lose and then maintain their weight loss? These are the more interesting factors but if people, like yourself, decide to avoid the study just because they don't see themselves in the stats then it will skew the data and miss other potential factors that are important.0 -
HappyCampr1 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
Also, I applied for the Registry a few months ago and haven't heard back so I'm sure they don't have all that are actually even interested in being in the Registry actually in it.
I think they send out packets for new participants quarterly, but I could be mistaken in my recollection.
Thanks, I'll see what happens.
0 -
Sites like this (feminist, fat activist etc) are not a good source for medically accurate info. They make it a political issue in order to find a "reason" why they don't have to take responsibility for doing anything about the state of their bodies and why anyone who is concerned for them is an evil tool of the patriarchy and needs to shut up, and why every place needs to have giant chairs and giant doors and blah blah blah. It's amazing how much effort people will put into rationalizing. If they put that same effort into calorie tracking and exercise, guess what would happen? lol.
The secret to maintaining loss is, for many, continuing to track and continuing to exercise. Don't change what you did that worked. You up the calories some to stay at maintenance, but the other behaviors stay the same. That will work. While, of course, continuing to have your annual physical and taking care of your body medically and your mind in whatever way is good for you, as stress and cortisol are not the friend of people who would like to look their best. I had no access to a gym for 3 months due to having to move twice, and I gained back 8 lb. It was a change in behavior. I now have a gym membership and am taking that fat back off.
I saw the thing online about the woman who eats a full meal at McDonald's before having dinner at her friend's house so she won't be seen to eat too much. Well, no wonder she's fat: She's eating two dinners, and the first one is greasy high cal fast food and sugary soda!!! These are the people who will say "Look how little I eat. Fat has nothing to do with how much I eat." while they are secretly scarfing down double cheeseburgers. Sorry folks yr not fooling anyone.
If people have decided to be fat for whatever reason, that's up to them, but I wish they would not fill the Web with misleading articles, tweaked statistics, carefully culled sources, and other inaccuracies that derail the efforts of people who would really like to improve their bodies.
0 -
I've thought about/read about women and body size issues for years. So many women think they have to be very, very thin to be attractive (whether healthy or not). I think its good to examine those assumptions.
I think the wish to be very tiny has to do with current fashion -- I'm not sure it's anything sinister. Skinny jeans, pencil skirts, short dresses, low-waisted jeans/trousers look best (meaning they look as they are intended to look by the designer) if one is quite slender.
I certainly don't think that makes ultra-thinness a good thing, but I think women who strive for that are usually striving to look good in certain clothing.
0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Yes, but there are too many here to be a bone fide anomaly was my sarcastic point. I believe that to be an anomaly requires that you are past the third, at the least, standard deviation but it's certainly much more people who can maintain weight loss.
There may be enough successful people on this site to not be anomalies for this population, but when you consider them against the world at large, or even just the people who try to lose weight in the world at large, they can be considered anomalies, imo. I fully intend to be one of those anomalies.
To me at least, anomaly implies that something is peculiar or unexpected. I guess in the general population of people who try to lose weight, failure is more "normal" than success, but it's not a peculiar or unexpected outcome.
The main reason why I don't buy us as an anomaly is because we are just a continuation of the process that most give up on. We just aren't any different in biology than the vast majority that lose weight and regain and then often yo-yo and many who maintain successfully are former yo-yo dieters to boot. I strongly believe that instead of labeling long term maintainers as anomalies they should try to figure out what the differences are and use those findings as encouragement for others. This is basically the whole point of the National Weight Control Registry.
Actually, the National Weight Control Registry, as best as I can determine, is statistical nonsense because they only look at the behaviors of people who maintain their weight loss. They don't compare those behaviors to people who don't maintain their weight loss. They might as well say breathing helps you keep weight off as attributing it to regular weigh-ins and exercise, because they have no idea if people who don't maintain their weight loss are weighing in and exercising any more or less than those who do.
It's the main reason I didn't bother signing up when I looked into it after meeting their requirement (maintaining a 30 pound weight loss for one year). Now I'm more than two years into maintaining a 30+ pound weight loss. The only one of the behaviors they cite that I practice is weighing myself once a week. Well, I suppose I eat breakfast every day, in the sense that I always break my fast somehow, and I almost always log my first meal as "breakfast," but not in the sense that I get up and have hot or cold cereal or eggs or something of that sort in the first hour or so that I'm awake, before I leave the house.There is variety in how NWCR members keep the weight off. Most report continuing to maintain a low calorie, low fat diet and doing high levels of activity.
78% eat breakfast every day.
75% weigh themselves at least once a week.
62% watch less than 10 hours of TV per week.
90% exercise, on average, about 1 hour per day.
On average I get about a half hour exercise a day. I probably watch about 20 hours of TV (counting Netflix, Amazon, etc.) a week, if not more. I certainly don't eat low fat, and since I've been maintaining, I don't know how I could be described as eating low calorie.
A. It isn't statistical non-sense. The whole point is to study people who have maintained weight loss and look for patterns that are associated with success. They aren't trying to perform A-B testing. You don't need to investigate ways to fail at anything, people can choose to fail at any endeavor at any time.
B. You're saying the statistics don't reflect how you do things, and so you refuse to participate in the statistics. That's a bit of a catch-22 isn't it?
A. There's perception bias in the behaviors they choose to observe as more prevalent among those who have maintained weight loss, when they don't compare to see if those behaviors are actually more prevalent among those who maintain weight loss than they are among those who regain. What if it turned out that 90% of those who regain eat breakfast every day, while only 78% of those who maintain their loss eat breakfast every day? Then eat breakfast every day actually turns out to be more highly correlated with regain than with maintaining loss. They don't know whether it's true or not, because they're not asking. They're just deciding before they ask any questions what behaviors they think will help with maintaining loss, and asking just those who have maintained whether they do that. It doesn't prove anything about whether those behaviors are actually positively associated with maintaining a loss.
B. No, I'm saying the way they study the maintenance of weight loss is silly and doesn't prove anything, so I refuse to waste my time participating in their gathering of meaningless anecdotal "data."0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Yes, but there are too many here to be a bone fide anomaly was my sarcastic point. I believe that to be an anomaly requires that you are past the third, at the least, standard deviation but it's certainly much more people who can maintain weight loss.
There may be enough successful people on this site to not be anomalies for this population, but when you consider them against the world at large, or even just the people who try to lose weight in the world at large, they can be considered anomalies, imo. I fully intend to be one of those anomalies.
To me at least, anomaly implies that something is peculiar or unexpected. I guess in the general population of people who try to lose weight, failure is more "normal" than success, but it's not a peculiar or unexpected outcome.
The main reason why I don't buy us as an anomaly is because we are just a continuation of the process that most give up on. We just aren't any different in biology than the vast majority that lose weight and regain and then often yo-yo and many who maintain successfully are former yo-yo dieters to boot. I strongly believe that instead of labeling long term maintainers as anomalies they should try to figure out what the differences are and use those findings as encouragement for others. This is basically the whole point of the National Weight Control Registry.
Actually, the National Weight Control Registry, as best as I can determine, is statistical nonsense because they only look at the behaviors of people who maintain their weight loss. They don't compare those behaviors to people who don't maintain their weight loss. They might as well say breathing helps you keep weight off as attributing it to regular weigh-ins and exercise, because they have no idea if people who don't maintain their weight loss are weighing in and exercising any more or less than those who do.
It's the main reason I didn't bother signing up when I looked into it after meeting their requirement (maintaining a 30 pound weight loss for one year). Now I'm more than two years into maintaining a 30+ pound weight loss. The only one of the behaviors they cite that I practice is weighing myself once a week. Well, I suppose I eat breakfast every day, in the sense that I always break my fast somehow, and I almost always log my first meal as "breakfast," but not in the sense that I get up and have hot or cold cereal or eggs or something of that sort in the first hour or so that I'm awake, before I leave the house.There is variety in how NWCR members keep the weight off. Most report continuing to maintain a low calorie, low fat diet and doing high levels of activity.
78% eat breakfast every day.
75% weigh themselves at least once a week.
62% watch less than 10 hours of TV per week.
90% exercise, on average, about 1 hour per day.
On average I get about a half hour exercise a day. I probably watch about 20 hours of TV (counting Netflix, Amazon, etc.) a week, if not more. I certainly don't eat low fat, and since I've been maintaining, I don't know how I could be described as eating low calorie.
A. It isn't statistical non-sense. The whole point is to study people who have maintained weight loss and look for patterns that are associated with success. They aren't trying to perform A-B testing. You don't need to investigate ways to fail at anything, people can choose to fail at any endeavor at any time.
B. You're saying the statistics don't reflect how you do things, and so you refuse to participate in the statistics. That's a bit of a catch-22 isn't it?
A. There's perception bias in the behaviors they choose to observe as more prevalent among those who have maintained weight loss, when they don't compare to see if those behaviors are actually more prevalent among those who maintain weight loss than they are among those who regain. What if it turned out that 90% of those who regain eat breakfast every day, while only 78% of those who maintain their loss eat breakfast every day? Then eat breakfast every day actually turns out to be more highly correlated with regain than with maintaining loss. They don't know whether it's true or not, because they're not asking. They're just deciding before they ask any questions what behaviors they think will help with maintaining loss, and asking just those who have maintained whether they do that. It doesn't prove anything about whether those behaviors are actually positively associated with maintaining a loss.
B. No, I'm saying the way they study the maintenance of weight loss is silly and doesn't prove anything, so I refuse to waste my time participating in their gathering of meaningless anecdotal "data."
You don't need a comparison group when you are just looking at particular behaviours of a particular group in and of itself. Unless they are trying to say that those who don't do this are more likely to regain, which they don't, they don't need to extrapolate to outside the group. The behaviours they note have a great commonality among the participants, but not all, so this indicated that these behaviours are likely factors that contribute to success. Does this mean that those who exhibit some or all of those behaviours won't regain? Well that's for a comparison study, but this data is useful as a starting point for future study. This isn't non-sense, you just don't like it, that's fine, but it doesn't invalidate the study.
If you have any peer reviewed studies that indicate that the conclusions maybe incorrect please feel free to link because I would certainly like to see all of the evidence.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions