Depressing Scientific Research about Weight Maitenance after Weight Loss
saoirsed628
Posts: 3 Member
So I came across this documentary ,it states individuals who have lost weight require 20 percent less calories than someone who hasn't loss weight.So someone post lost weight loss would only need 1600 calories compared to 2000.I seen this a while back and I would really like you guy's opinion on this as I am getting close to maintaining my weight rather than losing.The evidence looks very real and has a lot of backed up research.i will link the video,you can skip to 17 mins for the info I'm talking about or the second link is 20 mins about the subject in detail.(edit to add video)
https://youtu.be/hLv0Vsegmoo
https://youtu.be/2i_cmltmQ6A
Thanks
https://youtu.be/hLv0Vsegmoohttps://youtu.be/2i_cmltmQ6AThanks
0
Replies
-
Fearmongering, excuses, propaganda, raising funds and recruiting clients for bariatric surgery?
I haven't had that experience at all. I lost 50 pounds over two years ago, maintained a healthy weight, and I've eaten the amount of calories that normal TDEE calculators suggest for a woman my height, weight, age and activity level.19 -
I lost 40 Lbs 4 years ago...I've been more or less maintaining that loss since on about 3000 calories which is pretty close to what most TDEE calculators give me for my activity level...I gain a little weight when my activity level dips (like with an injury) but I don't compensate with my diet...it comes right back off when I start training again.4
-
All I know is I'm maintaining effortlessly eating more than I did in the days pre MFP! Granted I move more but I say don't listen to everything you hear.
(I eat an average 2000 cals a day but I'm only 5 ft 2 )5 -
I haven't found it to be true at all personally. I lost 125+ lbs over two years ago and I maintain on pretty much exactly what the various TDEE calculators and my Fitbit tell me I will.3
-
Even if it's true (which I very much doubt) then what's the alternative? Stay fat and unhealthy.
By the way I eat more at maintenance than when I was 30lbs overweight.6 -
Some of it is true but there is context. If you lose a lot of weight really fast in an unhealthy fashion then yes you body will need less calories to maintain because it is in freak out mode trying to get the weight back. This will fade with time and you will move back towards "normal". You can skip this process by losing slowly and your body will adjust on the fly giving you that nice pile of maintenance calories
5 -
I heard about this nearly a year ago, a bit after I started the whole mfp thing. In the absence of spare time to gain the scientific qualifications and grant funding to investigate it for myself, I decided better safe than sorry and
1) lost weight slowly (incorporating both exercise and big portions of food!) and,
2) just in case, tracked my weight and panickedly paused the dieting and just maintained for a month or so at x% and y% of initial bodyweight lost.
As far as I can tell, my metabolism is still fine and I'm into the healthy range for my height and still losing without having to restrict myself to ridiculous amounts.
YMMV though- I'm not one of those people who says "I don't understand why I'm fat, I eat like a bird"; in fact I always found the most puzzling thing about my weight not to be that I was overweight, but to be that I wasn't fatter...
TL; DR; it's possible I had a faster than average metabolic rate to start with, which would massively affect the outcome. (Or I have a totally average metabolic rate, and I just consistently underestimate the amount of activity I do.)3 -
honestly I choose to focus on successful maintainers and their success inspires me. Unfortunately 70 % of adults in many countries are overweight, 10 % of people don't need to worry about weight. This leaves 20 that managed, with efforts to remain healthy weight. They are the group I am interested in
I went trough few ups and downs, never been technically overweight but had concerns about my metabolism. Lucky no damage done - ci co workout so well for me. I guess keeping active helps too3 -
Does it really matter how many calories you would be able to eat had you not needed to lose weight?
I'm not at maintenance yet but my god am I looking forward to the day I can up those calories and feel less restricted and guilty about the odd bad choice!3 -
l'm always satisfied, full even, on maintenance calories...... and to debunk the drama crisis making video, I don't say this as an example of what to do, but while losing weight I was many times below 1200 calories for the day, yet my weekly maintenance calories are actually working out to be over what mfp recommends. Time to lose these scary 'scientific' reports IMO.0
-
If you pay attention to your body and your body needs fewer calories, you won't be hungry. I've maintained almost 5 years. I do eat less than I did before I lost weight. But that's why I needed to lose weight - as I got older I also needed fewer calories and I hadn't adjusted my eating enough.
I am in that longitudinal study of successful maintainers. I read the scientific research before I started loosing. I followed the directions. I still log. I walk every day. I don't eat more than I should. I'm comfortable. I eat everything I really like - but less than I used to. And I've learned to listen to my body and stop eating when I'm not hungry. I have also learned that I continue to feel fuller and fuller for at least an hour after I eat. So if I don't stop before I'm full I full lousy afterwards.
I find an exercise tracker invaluable because it adds in calories for my movement. I've used a pedometer and fitbit. Now I have an apple watch.2 -
Glad to hear all of your experiences maintaining and that this video may not be necessarily true.Btw being fat and unhappy would not be a good alternative even if it was true.1
-
I guess I'm a bit confused about how this is a question?
If you lose weight you need less calories to maintain that weight.
For instance at my heaviest I was 226lbs and eating around 3600-4000 cals a day and that kept me around that weight.
I dropped weight down to 182 a couple years ago and only needed about 2400 cals to maintain that weight.
I'm bulking around 3000 cals right now and slowly gaining weight.
TDEE cals (remember they are educated guesses) puts me at 2500 to maintain.
If you're smaller than you were to begin with you will need less calories to maintain.0 -
The stated issue is that you would need fewer calories to maintain the same weight as someone who'd always been that weight.piperdown44 wrote: »I guess I'm a bit confused about how this is a question?
If you lose weight you need less calories to maintain that weight.
For instance at my heaviest I was 226lbs and eating around 3600-4000 cals a day and that kept me around that weight.
I dropped weight down to 182 a couple years ago and only needed about 2400 cals to maintain that weight.
I'm bulking around 3000 cals right now and slowly gaining weight.
TDEE cals (remember they are educated guesses) puts me at 2500 to maintain.
If you're smaller than you were to begin with you will need less calories to maintain.
For example, a person who'd always weighed 165 might maintain with 2100 calories but someone else who'd once weighed 275 pounds but now weighs 165 (the same weight as the first person) would need to eat 1750 in order to maintain 165.1 -
My understanding is that metabolic slowdown is temporary, and even in extreme cases only slows metabolism by 100-200 kcals per day. Eating at a maintenance level should bring it back up.
I suspect the real reason people fail to maintain weight is that psychologically they feel like "the diet" is over and bad habits begin creeping back into their routines.12 -
OP, another thing you have to consider is that a lot of people lose weight without doing resistance training and otherwise making efforts to minimize loss of lean mass...lean mass requires more energy (calories) and thus someone with more lean mass would have a higher calorie requirement...in many cases, the person who lost weight also lost a lot of lean mass as compared to someone who was always at that weight...and in that case, yes...that individual would have a lower calorie requirement than the individual who was always at that weight.
The good news is that you can mitigate loss of lean mass by not having too steep of a deficit, getting adequate protein, and doing resistance training.7 -
A rolling stone gathers no moss. Don't allow this to discourage you. That goes for everyone. Once a person has lost the weight they want to lose they can easily tweak their intake through trial and error. More muscular people and more active people tend to burn more. It is not out of your hands.4
-
In this documentary Nola was given a liquid diet of 800 calories. She was on a very low calorie diet of liquid. Of course she would need fewer calories than another person of her size when she started maintaining on solid foods.
I've lost around 105 pounds in less than a year eating good foods but ensuring I burned more calories than I took in. I was aggressive, losing 2lbs/week. I made sure to get enough protein. For me, a low fat higher protein diet worked. Now in maintenance I must eat 300-500 calories more than My Fitness Pal or Fitbit recommends or I continue to lose weight. I believe this documentary is not typical of what My Fitness Pal promotes. A 1200 calorie (for women) diet with extra calories for exercise caused me to maintain a good metabolism. If I only had 800 calories of liquid I'm sure I would have slowed down because our bodies need the energy from food to stay at optimal performance.3 -
I lost 85 pounds almost 6 years ago and have maintained all this time. My maintenance calories are the same. I ate a normal diet, not a fad diet or liquid diet. My own body gave me the truth. Yours will too.1
-
Every body is different. On a BBC research program they discussed "low responders". That is definitely me!! I can relate to this research. Exercise does NOTHING to help my weight loss. Here is a link to the BBC series that tried out varied weight loss programs and reported his results. http://www.pbs.org/program/michael-mosley/
But... we all know what to do for our hearts, our joints, our brains, our muscles, our balance... so just eat healthy and exercise. period. :-)1 -
Every body is different. On a BBC research program they discussed "low responders". That is definitely me!! I can relate to this research. Exercise does NOTHING to help my weight loss. Here is a link to the BBC series that tried out varied weight loss programs and reported his results. http://www.pbs.org/program/michael-mosley/
But... we all know what to do for our hearts, our joints, our brains, our muscles, our balance... so just eat healthy and exercise. period. :-)
Michael Mosley - that's the 800 calorie blood sugar diet guy. He may be a bit biased.
"Low responders" is about exercise, how fast/well you build muscles/strength/stamina, NOT how fast/well you lose weight.
Oh, in case you didn't know - you can lose weight without exercise.5 -
I lost weight without excersize and eat more in maintenance than the typical amount according to the charts for my age and height etc. and still maintain.1
-
I did not watch the video but if the TL; DR is that obese people who lose weight need less calories to maintain then individuals of the same weight who never lost large amounts of weight, that is not true.
Here is an abstract from the National Weight Control Registry Findings. Researchers compared the metabolisms of people who have lost weight and people who had never lost weight. Both groups weighed about the same, but there was not a difference in the metabolic rate difference between the two groups. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10357738?dopt=Abstract
3 -
The stated issue is that you would need fewer calories to maintain the same weight as someone who'd always been that weight.piperdown44 wrote: »I guess I'm a bit confused about how this is a question?
If you lose weight you need less calories to maintain that weight.
For instance at my heaviest I was 226lbs and eating around 3600-4000 cals a day and that kept me around that weight.
I dropped weight down to 182 a couple years ago and only needed about 2400 cals to maintain that weight.
I'm bulking around 3000 cals right now and slowly gaining weight.
TDEE cals (remember they are educated guesses) puts me at 2500 to maintain.
If you're smaller than you were to begin with you will need less calories to maintain.
For example, a person who'd always weighed 165 might maintain with 2100 calories but someone else who'd once weighed 275 pounds but now weighs 165 (the same weight as the first person) would need to eat 1750 in order to maintain 165.
Still don't buy it as there are too many variables. You'd have to normalize a huge population with build, activity levels, metabolic rates, etc. to get a number.
Regardless, to the OP, don't get discouraged and keep the chin up!
2 -
People who've lost weight , in general, weigh less than people who haven't lost weight, therefore they need fewer calories. It's about the actual weight, not about the fact that you lost it. And I'm speaking on a population scale of averages, NOT that every person who has lost weight weighs less than every person who hasn't. Don't be depressed or stressed. Just do what you need to do to maintain successfully. You don't want to become part of the statistic that "most" people who lose weight gain it back and then some.2
-
I didn't say I agreed but that's the stated issue.piperdown44 wrote: »
The stated issue is that you would need fewer calories to maintain the same weight as someone who'd always been that weight.piperdown44 wrote: »I guess I'm a bit confused about how this is a question?
If you lose weight you need less calories to maintain that weight.
For instance at my heaviest I was 226lbs and eating around 3600-4000 cals a day and that kept me around that weight.
I dropped weight down to 182 a couple years ago and only needed about 2400 cals to maintain that weight.
I'm bulking around 3000 cals right now and slowly gaining weight.
TDEE cals (remember they are educated guesses) puts me at 2500 to maintain.
If you're smaller than you were to begin with you will need less calories to maintain.
For example, a person who'd always weighed 165 might maintain with 2100 calories but someone else who'd once weighed 275 pounds but now weighs 165 (the same weight as the first person) would need to eat 1750 in order to maintain 165.
Still don't buy it as there are too many variables. You'd have to normalize a huge population with build, activity levels, metabolic rates, etc. to get a number.
Regardless, to the OP, don't get discouraged and keep the chin up!1 -
I agree with Captain Joy. Every study I've ever seen on this effect has been done with people put on low protein VLCD liquid diets.
Since most people don't diet that way, I'm not going to be too discouraged by the findings.4 -
This is interesting. Seems like I'm always in the minority. Don't know if study is "valid" or not but my experience suggests that the basic premise is true - at least for me.
I lost 35# in 5 months from 196 to 161 on an ave of 1800 cals/day and went into maintenance mode. MFP and other TDEE calculators said that could eat about 2100 cals/day to maintain my weight at 161.
So, I increased my intake to that level and w/in a week, I gained 3#, which concerned me. So, I dropped the cals back to 1800 and lost the 3# w/in another week and have been maintaining at 1800 or about 15% below my suggested TDEE for the past month.
Go figure . . .0 -
This is interesting. Seems like I'm always in the minority. Don't know if study is "valid" or not but my experience suggests that the basic premise is true - at least for me.
I lost 35# in 5 months from 196 to 161 on an ave of 1800 cals/day and went into maintenance mode. MFP and other TDEE calculators said that could eat about 2100 cals/day to maintain my weight at 161.
So, I increased my intake to that level and w/in a week, I gained 3#, which concerned me. So, I dropped the cals back to 1800 and lost the 3# w/in another week and have been maintaining at 1800 or about 15% below my suggested TDEE for the past month.
Go figure . . .
You could have a different TDEE because those calculators are estimated and individuals can differ. However, that sounds like glycogen replenishment. You know how some people lose water weight quickly when they start a diet? The opposite can happen when you go to maintenance calories.
See how that red line drops fast in the first few days and rebounds when the calories (blue line) are raised? Your actual final weight is going to include rebound pounds so you may want to lose a couple of pounds below your actual goal. (The chart is for energy expenditure but the red line illustrates what I'm talking about.)
Try reverse dieting. Add 100 calories to your daily goal and stay at that for a week or two. Add 100 more and stay at that for another week or two. Keep nudging up your calories like that until you find your maintenance calories.6 -
This is interesting. Seems like I'm always in the minority. Don't know if study is "valid" or not but my experience suggests that the basic premise is true - at least for me.
I lost 35# in 5 months from 196 to 161 on an ave of 1800 cals/day and went into maintenance mode. MFP and other TDEE calculators said that could eat about 2100 cals/day to maintain my weight at 161.
So, I increased my intake to that level and w/in a week, I gained 3#, which concerned me. So, I dropped the cals back to 1800 and lost the 3# w/in another week and have been maintaining at 1800 or about 15% below my suggested TDEE for the past month.
Go figure . . .
When you're in a deficit, your glycogen stores stay pretty depleted. You're going to put a few lbs back on in glycogen and water when you start eating at maintenance. It's not fat, especially in one week's time.
Also, you dropped weight at a fairly rapid rate for someone with only 35 lbs to lose. There's a good chance you lost muscle mass, which would lower your TDEE. Were you doing any resistance training?
Finally, calculators are averages, and different calculators use different formulas. Some people will be above, some people will be below. Not everyone's going to be dead-on. My TDEE matches with calculators on the low end, using my body fat % to get an accurate estimate.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions