Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Metabolism "healing" or going back to "normal"
Replies
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
Doesn't shock me. I stopped being fat and sloppy six years ago. I haven't been able to kick smoking entirely yet. Vaping works great for me, but *kitten* always wants to seem to break at the worst time, and there are plenty of 24 hour places that sell smokes. Not so much for box mods, coils, etc.
Many people find nicotine to help suppress the appetite when on RFL..........0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
Doesn't shock me. I stopped being fat and sloppy six years ago. I haven't been able to kick smoking entirely yet. Vaping works great for me, but *kitten* always wants to seem to break at the worst time, and there are plenty of 24 hour places that sell smokes. Not so much for box mods, coils, etc.
Many people find nicotine to help suppress the appetite when on RFL..........
It only tends to work that way when one isn't a longtime habitual user. I've been smoking since I was 12. Nicotine's appetite suppressant properties were lost to me long ago, unless I smoke so much that I feel like my head will explode from the headache.0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
Doesn't shock me. I stopped being fat and sloppy six years ago. I haven't been able to kick smoking entirely yet. Vaping works great for me, but *kitten* always wants to seem to break at the worst time, and there are plenty of 24 hour places that sell smokes. Not so much for box mods, coils, etc.
Many people find nicotine to help suppress the appetite when on RFL..........
Next fad diet
0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
Doesn't shock me. I stopped being fat and sloppy six years ago. I haven't been able to kick smoking entirely yet. Vaping works great for me, but *kitten* always wants to seem to break at the worst time, and there are plenty of 24 hour places that sell smokes. Not so much for box mods, coils, etc.
Many people find nicotine to help suppress the appetite when on RFL..........
Next fad diet
High Cigarette Low Food (HCLF) WOE/lifestyle
5 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
Doesn't shock me. I stopped being fat and sloppy six years ago. I haven't been able to kick smoking entirely yet. Vaping works great for me, but *kitten* always wants to seem to break at the worst time, and there are plenty of 24 hour places that sell smokes. Not so much for box mods, coils, etc.
Many people find nicotine to help suppress the appetite when on RFL..........
Next fad diet
High Cigarette Low Food (HCLF) WOE/lifestyle
Pretty sure they already tried that in the 50s. Worked famously, but it just kept killing people later. Such a shame.3 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
Doesn't shock me. I stopped being fat and sloppy six years ago. I haven't been able to kick smoking entirely yet. Vaping works great for me, but *kitten* always wants to seem to break at the worst time, and there are plenty of 24 hour places that sell smokes. Not so much for box mods, coils, etc.
Many people find nicotine to help suppress the appetite when on RFL..........
Next fad diet
High Cigarette Low Food (HCLF) WOE/lifestyle
Pretty sure they already tried that in the 50s. Worked famously, but it just kept killing people later. Such a shame.
European women still smoke to keep thin from my understanding.2 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
Doesn't shock me. I stopped being fat and sloppy six years ago. I haven't been able to kick smoking entirely yet. Vaping works great for me, but *kitten* always wants to seem to break at the worst time, and there are plenty of 24 hour places that sell smokes. Not so much for box mods, coils, etc.
Many people find nicotine to help suppress the appetite when on RFL..........
Next fad diet
High Cigarette Low Food (HCLF) WOE/lifestyle
Pretty sure they already tried that in the 50s. Worked famously, but it just kept killing people later. Such a shame.
European women still smoke to keep thin from my understanding.
A fair generalisation. Looking at a lot of European female smokers, I would say its not working!0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
Doesn't shock me. I stopped being fat and sloppy six years ago. I haven't been able to kick smoking entirely yet. Vaping works great for me, but *kitten* always wants to seem to break at the worst time, and there are plenty of 24 hour places that sell smokes. Not so much for box mods, coils, etc.
Many people find nicotine to help suppress the appetite when on RFL..........
Next fad diet
High Cigarette Low Food (HCLF) WOE/lifestyle
Pretty sure they already tried that in the 50s. Worked famously, but it just kept killing people later. Such a shame.
European women still smoke to keep thin from my understanding.
A fair generalisation. Looking at a lot of European female smokers, I would say its not working!
Looks like they are catching up to us in North America. 1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
Doesn't shock me. I stopped being fat and sloppy six years ago. I haven't been able to kick smoking entirely yet. Vaping works great for me, but *kitten* always wants to seem to break at the worst time, and there are plenty of 24 hour places that sell smokes. Not so much for box mods, coils, etc.
Many people find nicotine to help suppress the appetite when on RFL..........
Next fad diet
High Cigarette Low Food (HCLF) WOE/lifestyle
Pretty sure they already tried that in the 50s. Worked famously, but it just kept killing people later. Such a shame.
European women still smoke to keep thin from my understanding.
A fair generalisation. Looking at a lot of European female smokers, I would say its not working! Looks like they are catching up to us in North America.
Just imagine how much worse they'd be without the smoking.
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
Doesn't shock me. I stopped being fat and sloppy six years ago. I haven't been able to kick smoking entirely yet. Vaping works great for me, but *kitten* always wants to seem to break at the worst time, and there are plenty of 24 hour places that sell smokes. Not so much for box mods, coils, etc.
Many people find nicotine to help suppress the appetite when on RFL..........
Next fad diet
High Cigarette Low Food (HCLF) WOE/lifestyle
Pretty sure they already tried that in the 50s. Worked famously, but it just kept killing people later. Such a shame.
European women still smoke to keep thin from my understanding.
I live in two European countries, and I've never heard about this "method" (Europe is culturally not that homogeneous, tough)1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
Doesn't shock me. I stopped being fat and sloppy six years ago. I haven't been able to kick smoking entirely yet. Vaping works great for me, but *kitten* always wants to seem to break at the worst time, and there are plenty of 24 hour places that sell smokes. Not so much for box mods, coils, etc.
Many people find nicotine to help suppress the appetite when on RFL..........
Next fad diet
High Cigarette Low Food (HCLF) WOE/lifestyle
Pretty sure they already tried that in the 50s. Worked famously, but it just kept killing people later. Such a shame.
European women still smoke to keep thin from my understanding.
European female here... wonder where you got that from?
As another poster said, Europe is anything but homogeneous. It's a continent that covers a lot of different cultures and ways of life. Portugal and those parts of Russia which are west of the Urals (and everything in between) are both in Europe (even if they don't belong the the EU). Generalizations like that don't make much sense.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
Doesn't shock me. I stopped being fat and sloppy six years ago. I haven't been able to kick smoking entirely yet. Vaping works great for me, but *kitten* always wants to seem to break at the worst time, and there are plenty of 24 hour places that sell smokes. Not so much for box mods, coils, etc.
Many people find nicotine to help suppress the appetite when on RFL..........
Next fad diet
High Cigarette Low Food (HCLF) WOE/lifestyle
Pretty sure they already tried that in the 50s. Worked famously, but it just kept killing people later. Such a shame.
European women still smoke to keep thin from my understanding.
I live in two European countries, and I've never heard about this "method" (Europe is culturally not that homogeneous, tough)
True, I was thinking mostly of France because some women I knew from there made this claim. I've lived only in one (not France) and smoking was common and many claimed it was for appetite suppression. My ex-sister-in-law was from Switzerland and she smoked to stay thin so this was were my understanding of this came from.
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
Doesn't shock me. I stopped being fat and sloppy six years ago. I haven't been able to kick smoking entirely yet. Vaping works great for me, but *kitten* always wants to seem to break at the worst time, and there are plenty of 24 hour places that sell smokes. Not so much for box mods, coils, etc.
Many people find nicotine to help suppress the appetite when on RFL..........
Next fad diet
High Cigarette Low Food (HCLF) WOE/lifestyle
Pretty sure they already tried that in the 50s. Worked famously, but it just kept killing people later. Such a shame.
European women still smoke to keep thin from my understanding.
I live in two European countries, and I've never heard about this "method" (Europe is culturally not that homogeneous, tough)
True, I was thinking mostly of France because some women I knew from there made this claim. I've lived only in one (not France) and smoking was common and many claimed it was for appetite suppression. My ex-sister-in-law was from Switzerland and she smoked to stay thin so this was were my understanding of this came from.
It is certainly not common in the UK however I have heard similar folk stories about it being used in continental Europe. Although not sure if there is any fact to it.0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
Doesn't shock me. I stopped being fat and sloppy six years ago. I haven't been able to kick smoking entirely yet. Vaping works great for me, but *kitten* always wants to seem to break at the worst time, and there are plenty of 24 hour places that sell smokes. Not so much for box mods, coils, etc.
Many people find nicotine to help suppress the appetite when on RFL..........
Next fad diet
High Cigarette Low Food (HCLF) WOE/lifestyle
Pretty sure they already tried that in the 50s. Worked famously, but it just kept killing people later. Such a shame.
European women still smoke to keep thin from my understanding.
I live in two European countries, and I've never heard about this "method" (Europe is culturally not that homogeneous, tough)
True, I was thinking mostly of France because some women I knew from there made this claim. I've lived only in one (not France) and smoking was common and many claimed it was for appetite suppression. My ex-sister-in-law was from Switzerland and she smoked to stay thin so this was were my understanding of this came from.
It is certainly not common in the UK however I have heard similar folk stories about it being used in continental Europe. Although not sure if there is any fact to it.
I'm not sure, my mother was a smoker, as were many of her contemporaries, and she said it helped her keep the weight off and quitting smoking is known to cause weight gain but that might be because people substitute eating for smoking. Nicotine is a stimulant and stimulants do tend to suppress appetite. Research does support nicotine as a weight loss aid as well: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/06/10/3240145.htm but smoking isn't a great way of getting nicotine when you consider the side effects.0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
Doesn't shock me. I stopped being fat and sloppy six years ago. I haven't been able to kick smoking entirely yet. Vaping works great for me, but *kitten* always wants to seem to break at the worst time, and there are plenty of 24 hour places that sell smokes. Not so much for box mods, coils, etc.
Many people find nicotine to help suppress the appetite when on RFL..........
Next fad diet
High Cigarette Low Food (HCLF) WOE/lifestyle
Pretty sure they already tried that in the 50s. Worked famously, but it just kept killing people later. Such a shame.
European women still smoke to keep thin from my understanding.
I live in two European countries, and I've never heard about this "method" (Europe is culturally not that homogeneous, tough)
True, I was thinking mostly of France because some women I knew from there made this claim. I've lived only in one (not France) and smoking was common and many claimed it was for appetite suppression. My ex-sister-in-law was from Switzerland and she smoked to stay thin so this was were my understanding of this came from.
It is certainly not common in the UK however I have heard similar folk stories about it being used in continental Europe. Although not sure if there is any fact to it.
I can't help but wonder if this is similar to the cultural divide stereotypes that we see in the US between various states and cities. As much as "American" is spouted as the national demographic, it's hard to get a more varied population, outside of Europe.
You know, how every person from Texas owns 46 firearms, every person from Alabama only has four teeth and lives in a trailer, and how every person from California is either Hispanic, a statist jerkoff, or both.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
Doesn't shock me. I stopped being fat and sloppy six years ago. I haven't been able to kick smoking entirely yet. Vaping works great for me, but *kitten* always wants to seem to break at the worst time, and there are plenty of 24 hour places that sell smokes. Not so much for box mods, coils, etc.
Many people find nicotine to help suppress the appetite when on RFL..........
Next fad diet
High Cigarette Low Food (HCLF) WOE/lifestyle
Pretty sure they already tried that in the 50s. Worked famously, but it just kept killing people later. Such a shame.
European women still smoke to keep thin from my understanding.
I live in two European countries, and I've never heard about this "method" (Europe is culturally not that homogeneous, tough)
True, I was thinking mostly of France because some women I knew from there made this claim. I've lived only in one (not France) and smoking was common and many claimed it was for appetite suppression. My ex-sister-in-law was from Switzerland and she smoked to stay thin so this was were my understanding of this came from.
It is certainly not common in the UK however I have heard similar folk stories about it being used in continental Europe. Although not sure if there is any fact to it.
I can't help but wonder if this is similar to the cultural divide stereotypes that we see in the US between various states and cities. As much as "American" is spouted as the national demographic, it's hard to get a more varied population, outside of Europe.
You know, how every person from Texas owns 46 firearms, every person from Alabama only has four teeth and lives in a trailer, and how every person from California is either Hispanic, a statist jerkoff, or both.
Considering that America is the 3rd largest country on the planet and has a population and land mass that are similar to western Europe you will definitely get a lot of regional variations. I just got back from Dallas on Tuesday and it was my first time there. I've lived in Idaho and visited most of the northern states as well as many on the west and east and I've certainly seen a lot of differences. So far I've found that Texans tend to be the most polite, at least in the Fort Worth area and Washington State and California were probably the friendliest areas.
Oh and why pick on Alabama when there is West Virginia? 0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
Doesn't shock me. I stopped being fat and sloppy six years ago. I haven't been able to kick smoking entirely yet. Vaping works great for me, but *kitten* always wants to seem to break at the worst time, and there are plenty of 24 hour places that sell smokes. Not so much for box mods, coils, etc.
Many people find nicotine to help suppress the appetite when on RFL..........
Next fad diet
High Cigarette Low Food (HCLF) WOE/lifestyle
Pretty sure they already tried that in the 50s. Worked famously, but it just kept killing people later. Such a shame.
European women still smoke to keep thin from my understanding.
I live in two European countries, and I've never heard about this "method" (Europe is culturally not that homogeneous, tough)
True, I was thinking mostly of France because some women I knew from there made this claim. I've lived only in one (not France) and smoking was common and many claimed it was for appetite suppression. My ex-sister-in-law was from Switzerland and she smoked to stay thin so this was were my understanding of this came from.
I see. I am not sure, but it sounds more as an excuse not to stop smoking.
Anyway, I couldn't resist, and I looked for statistics
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/mar/23/tobacco-industry-atlas-smoking
Lots of female smokers in Austria and Greece, while most of the European countries are pretty close to the U.S..0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
Doesn't shock me. I stopped being fat and sloppy six years ago. I haven't been able to kick smoking entirely yet. Vaping works great for me, but *kitten* always wants to seem to break at the worst time, and there are plenty of 24 hour places that sell smokes. Not so much for box mods, coils, etc.
Many people find nicotine to help suppress the appetite when on RFL..........
Next fad diet
High Cigarette Low Food (HCLF) WOE/lifestyle
Pretty sure they already tried that in the 50s. Worked famously, but it just kept killing people later. Such a shame.
European women still smoke to keep thin from my understanding.
I live in two European countries, and I've never heard about this "method" (Europe is culturally not that homogeneous, tough)
True, I was thinking mostly of France because some women I knew from there made this claim. I've lived only in one (not France) and smoking was common and many claimed it was for appetite suppression. My ex-sister-in-law was from Switzerland and she smoked to stay thin so this was were my understanding of this came from.
I see. I am not sure, but it sounds more as an excuse not to stop smoking.
Anyway, I couldn't resist, and I looked for statistics
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/mar/23/tobacco-industry-atlas-smoking
Lots of female smokers in Austria and Greece, while most of the European countries are pretty close to the U.S..
Thanks, I think most of Canada is pretty low on the smoking rate but varies greatly by area.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/health74b-eng.htm1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
Doesn't shock me. I stopped being fat and sloppy six years ago. I haven't been able to kick smoking entirely yet. Vaping works great for me, but *kitten* always wants to seem to break at the worst time, and there are plenty of 24 hour places that sell smokes. Not so much for box mods, coils, etc.
Many people find nicotine to help suppress the appetite when on RFL..........
Next fad diet
High Cigarette Low Food (HCLF) WOE/lifestyle
Pretty sure they already tried that in the 50s. Worked famously, but it just kept killing people later. Such a shame.
European women still smoke to keep thin from my understanding.
I live in two European countries, and I've never heard about this "method" (Europe is culturally not that homogeneous, tough)
True, I was thinking mostly of France because some women I knew from there made this claim. I've lived only in one (not France) and smoking was common and many claimed it was for appetite suppression. My ex-sister-in-law was from Switzerland and she smoked to stay thin so this was were my understanding of this came from.
It is certainly not common in the UK however I have heard similar folk stories about it being used in continental Europe. Although not sure if there is any fact to it.
I can't help but wonder if this is similar to the cultural divide stereotypes that we see in the US between various states and cities. As much as "American" is spouted as the national demographic, it's hard to get a more varied population, outside of Europe.
You know, how every person from Texas owns 46 firearms, every person from Alabama only has four teeth and lives in a trailer, and how every person from California is either Hispanic, a statist jerkoff, or both.
Considering that America is the 3rd largest country on the planet and has a population and land mass that are similar to western Europe you will definitely get a lot of regional variations. I just got back from Dallas on Tuesday and it was my first time there. I've lived in Idaho and visited most of the northern states as well as many on the west and east and I've certainly seen a lot of differences. So far I've found that Texans tend to be the most polite, at least in the Fort Worth area and Washington State and California were probably the friendliest areas.
Oh and why pick on Alabama when there is West Virginia?
The northwest in general seems to have that friendliness things then. Oregon: the land where everyone smiles, no one is attractive, but no one is ugly. It's a weird *kitten* place, compared to what I am used to, which segues nicely into your question; because I am from Virginia, and like to pretend that WV doesn't exist. It's like that really disappointing family member that's closer than you'd like, but far enough away to ignore.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
Doesn't shock me. I stopped being fat and sloppy six years ago. I haven't been able to kick smoking entirely yet. Vaping works great for me, but *kitten* always wants to seem to break at the worst time, and there are plenty of 24 hour places that sell smokes. Not so much for box mods, coils, etc.
This is why you should always have a couple packs of coils and spare vapouriser laying around. I know I'd last maybe a couple of hours without my vape before contemplating buying a pack of smokes
I think it's been around a year since i last had a cigarette. Now i'm hooked on this damn puffer, but it's the lesser of the two evils i guess...
I just checked the price of the cigs i used to smoke- $37.50 for a pack of 40 . That shocked me into not starting again!!!!
ETA: Smoking definitely blunted my appetite, if i felt hunger pangs coming on, a couple of smokes and a cuppa warded the munchies off.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
Doesn't shock me. I stopped being fat and sloppy six years ago. I haven't been able to kick smoking entirely yet. Vaping works great for me, but *kitten* always wants to seem to break at the worst time, and there are plenty of 24 hour places that sell smokes. Not so much for box mods, coils, etc.
This is why you should always have a couple packs of coils and spare vapouriser laying around. I know I'd last maybe a couple of hours without my vape before contemplating buying a pack of smokes I think it's been around a year since i last had a cigarette. Now i'm hooked on this damn puffer, but it's the lesser of the two evils i guess...
I just checked the price of the cigs i used to smoke- $37.50 for a pack of 40 . That shocked me into not starting again!!!!
ETA: Smoking definitely blunted my appetite, if i felt hunger pangs coming on, a couple of smokes and a cuppa warded the munchies off.
Jesus Christ. I thought my $50 for 200 was bad. At nearly a buck each, yours had better have more than just tobacco in them.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
Doesn't shock me. I stopped being fat and sloppy six years ago. I haven't been able to kick smoking entirely yet. Vaping works great for me, but *kitten* always wants to seem to break at the worst time, and there are plenty of 24 hour places that sell smokes. Not so much for box mods, coils, etc.
This is why you should always have a couple packs of coils and spare vapouriser laying around. I know I'd last maybe a couple of hours without my vape before contemplating buying a pack of smokes I think it's been around a year since i last had a cigarette. Now i'm hooked on this damn puffer, but it's the lesser of the two evils i guess...
I just checked the price of the cigs i used to smoke- $37.50 for a pack of 40 . That shocked me into not starting again!!!!
ETA: Smoking definitely blunted my appetite, if i felt hunger pangs coming on, a couple of smokes and a cuppa warded the munchies off.
Jesus Christ. I thought my $50 for 200 was bad. At nearly a buck each, yours had better have more than just tobacco in them.
Haha speckled gold dust perhaps.
Welcome to Australia.. Where we pay more for everything
I was so excited to see we had that Halo top icecream here. But i exited the store empty handed after seeing it was $12 for a tub. I'll try it one day day, but it definitely wont be a staple. 0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
Doesn't shock me. I stopped being fat and sloppy six years ago. I haven't been able to kick smoking entirely yet. Vaping works great for me, but *kitten* always wants to seem to break at the worst time, and there are plenty of 24 hour places that sell smokes. Not so much for box mods, coils, etc.
This is why you should always have a couple packs of coils and spare vapouriser laying around. I know I'd last maybe a couple of hours without my vape before contemplating buying a pack of smokes I think it's been around a year since i last had a cigarette. Now i'm hooked on this damn puffer, but it's the lesser of the two evils i guess...
I just checked the price of the cigs i used to smoke- $37.50 for a pack of 40 . That shocked me into not starting again!!!!
ETA: Smoking definitely blunted my appetite, if i felt hunger pangs coming on, a couple of smokes and a cuppa warded the munchies off.
Jesus Christ. I thought my $50 for 200 was bad. At nearly a buck each, yours had better have more than just tobacco in them.
I like the way you think
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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
- 421 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions