Depressing Scientific Research about Weight Maitenance after Weight Loss

SideSteel

So first of all I didn't watch the video yet and I recognize that I'm probably committing some huge internet sin by replying first. So I'll apologize in advance for the laziness.

Adaptive thermogensis does exist. It's essentially a reduction in energy expenditure from what would typically be predicted at a given weight. And so basically if you take two 200lb people and one used to be 300lbs but he or she dieted down to 200, you'd see a slightly lower energy output from that person.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7632212
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3173112
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18842775
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20935667

SandraMcLeod72

My understanding of this particular research is that the participants were ex-Biggest Loser contestants. That cohort lost large amounts of weight rapidly which left their bodies in starvation mode for good. The other part of this research reinforces that the slow gradual decrease does not have the same effect size. I didn't watch the video, but have seen other numerous articles and decided to read the research for myself.

sgt1372

Thanks to those who attempted to "explain" why my situation is different than for others but one of the most important maxims that I learned while doing social science research in college and professionally was:

Don't fight the data.

The 1st research article linked in Side Steel's post above entitled "Adapative Thermogenesis in Humans" is indicative of my situation and I quote:

"Maintenance of a 10% or greater reduction in body weight in lean or obese individuals is accompanied by an approximate 20%-25% decline in 24-hour energy expenditure. This decrease in weight maintenance calories is 10–15% below what is predicted solely on the basis of alterations in fat and lean mass. Thus, a formerly obese individual will require ~300–400 fewer calories per day to maintain the same body weight and physical activity level as a never-obese individual of the same body weight and composition."

See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/

I lost 35# from 196 to 161 which was a 17.6% weight loss. I recomputed my TDEE and, of course, the numbers vary widely based on the method used and the assumptions made about the "level of activity."

The numbers I got from a couple of generic TDEE sites (which did not specify the method of calculation) gave me around 2000 cals for "sedentary" and 2300 cals for "lightly active" activity levels. The most detailed TDEE calculation site that found was provided at:http://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr.

SailRabbit calculates TDEE using 6 different methods and 10 different activity levels. The numbers I got using the 6 methods and 6 different activity levels also varied widely. The closest fit for me was the "Lightly Active" level, the results for which vary between 2116 and 2627. The average of the 6 methods was 2311 cals/day, which is about the same as that calculated in the generic TDEE sites, but the 3 lowest methods of calculation averaged only 2135.

The 30 day average of my net cal intake is 1831/day, which is the level at which I have been maintaining my weight between 161-163# for the past month. This number is 480 cals or 20.1% less than the TDEE average for my expected daily level of activity. Maintenance at 1831 is 343 cals and about 15% less than a TDEE of 2154, which is almost exactly the average of the 3 lowest methods of calculation used by SailRabbit at 2135.

So, while others here may wish to dispute the premise that those who lose a significant amount of weight need fewer calories to maintain their weight afterward (and will regain weight if they choose to eat at normally suggested TDEE levels), the conclusion I reach for myself is to the contrary.

After having lost about 18% in body weight, I do not need to eat as many calories as estimated based on the computed TDEE using various formulas and, in fact, have proven (based on a daily record of the net cals consumed over the past month) that I can maintain my current weight on at least 15% fewer calories than estimated.

If the reported experience of others is different, fine, but, at least in my case (and as far as I am concerned), the premise is proven.

AnnPT77

I thought this was informative:

Reduced metabolism/TDEE beyond expected from weight loss

Among other things, it's commentary on a study that suggests that reduced maintenance calories aren't an inevitable outcome after weight loss, and that weight loss methods may have an influence.

FWIW, I maintain on substantially more calories than most calculators suggest for my age/activity/size, after losing 60 pounds . . . but I have no idea whether it's just how I was wired in the first place, or what.

MissusMoon

Alamo0809 wrote: »

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. :-)

Low responders who self report, as reported by a guy thoroughly debunked. If you're going for BBC, try Secret Eaters.

RAinWA

AnnPT77 wrote: »

I thought this was informative:

Reduced metabolism/TDEE beyond expected from weight loss

Among other things, it's commentary on a study that suggests that reduced maintenance calories aren't an inevitable outcome after weight loss, and that weight loss methods may have an influence.

FWIW, I maintain on substantially more calories than most calculators suggest for my age/activity/size, after losing 60 pounds . . . but I have no idea whether it's just how I was wired in the first place, or what.

That was a great blog - very informative. I wish I had tracked more closely what my TDEE was as I was losing and starting maintenance. I lost 48% of my body weight around 2 years ago and I'm maintaining at pretty much what the various calculators say I will but I didn't really start paying attention to what I was burning until I got a Fitbit a year ago. The first year of maintenance I guessed mostly at how much I was burning by what my weight was doing - one of the reasons I got the Fitbit is because I was still slowly dropping weight the first year. Wonder how long it took my TDEE to get back up to what the calculators say it should be?

rileysowner

When I lost the weight the first time, yes, I didn't maintain it and am back losing, I gained it back because I thought I could maintain without logging. I now know better. Having said that, my weight loss speed seems to fit quite well with what I should be burning based on the TDEE chart average for someone my height, age, weight, sex. I have seen enough people here who maintain at what would fit with that as well. The issue for me is continuing to log, and to set a weight range when I get to my goal where if I go above it I tighten up my logging to get within it again. That is still a ways away since I am taking a far slower approach this time.