Most people are obese because they're meant to be. What?!

DietVanillaCoke

Basically my mother is terrible when it comes to supporting anyone. She greeted me by saying that losing weight is pointless because she read somewhere that all the biggest losers gained all their weight back because their metabolisms were so use to eating low, the moment they started eating maintenance calories for their new weights, they gained it all back as their metabolisms were permanently slowed down. There for I should give up because *drum roll* Obese people are just meant to be obese. Thanks mum. She ended up sending me this link the next night.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2016/05/03/contestants-on-biggest-loser-regain-weight-due-to-damaged-metabolism-study-finds.html

Haha It's fox news too, so it's totally legit *rolls eyes*

I can't find any real research to back it up, I've found a few silly articles like the fox one but yet again none having any real research, so I'm feeling good about that... but I'd love to see what everyone else has to say on this and what research you can put forward.

I imagine they gained the weight back because they lost the weight in a small amount of time, doing crazy amounts of exercise and eating very little, so they probably didn't learn much about a healthier lifestyle and went back to their old ways, but that's just a guess.

Chef_Barbell

People always have some sort of excuse for things.

Aaron_K123

I don't think the Biggest Loser is a good touchstone for normal weight loss and something people should compare themselves too and assume similar results.

AnvilHead

Huge discussion about this concept (albeit not that exact article) already exists: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10474913/nyt-article-about-obesity-stating-its-genetic-not-lack-of-willpower/p1

lemurcat12

Here's a prior discussion of those results/this topic in this section, which you might find interesting:

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10382754/nytimes-reports-that-biggest-losers-have-decreased-metabolism/p1

DietVanillaCoke

AnvilHead wrote: »

Huge discussion about this concept (albeit not that exact article) already exists: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10474913/nyt-article-about-obesity-stating-its-genetic-not-lack-of-willpower/p1

More to remember for the next time i see her. Now I'll have "Metabolic damage and Genetics" covered XD Thank you!

lemurcat12

Some other interesting links on the topic:

Leigh Peele: http://www.leighpeele.com/a-response-to-the-ny-times-biggest-loser-study -- among other things, some issues about how the study was done (unknowns) plus encouragement about how much influence we have on TDEE.

WP: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/05/why-the-weight-loss-study-everyone-has-been-sharing-is-kind-of-misleading/?utm_term=.baf8963dc623

"Although the study was a damning indictment of the show, it doesn’t apply to those of us trying to lose weight with less extreme measures. There’s a substantial body of research on whether, and how much, your metabolism slows after weight loss, and the “Biggest Loser” study is a definite outlier. No other study shows such a large slowdown over such a long period of time....

The question isn’t whether you burn fewer calories after you lose weight, because you absolutely do. There’s less of you to move around, to pump blood through, and to keep at 98.6 degrees. Smaller people burn fewer calories than larger people. The question is whether your metabolism goes into a mode where it tries to be thrifty, to conserve calories and do all those basic functions using less energy. If it does, it means you have to eat less than someone who is the same weight but didn’t have to drop pounds to get there. Is there a metabolic penalty, in other words, for getting lighter?

Much of the evidence shows that there is some, but the amount varies. And some of the evidence shows none...."

Yoni Freedhoff on advice for sustainable weight loss: http://www.vox.com/2016/5/10/11649210/biggest-loser-weight-loss

DietVanillaCoke

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Some other interesting links on the topic:

Leigh Peele: http://www.leighpeele.com/a-response-to-the-ny-times-biggest-loser-study -- among other things, some issues about how the study was done (unknowns) plus encouragement about how much influence we have on TDEE.

WP: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/05/why-the-weight-loss-study-everyone-has-been-sharing-is-kind-of-misleading/?utm_term=.baf8963dc623

"Although the study was a damning indictment of the show, it doesn’t apply to those of us trying to lose weight with less extreme measures. There’s a substantial body of research on whether, and how much, your metabolism slows after weight loss, and the “Biggest Loser” study is a definite outlier. No other study shows such a large slowdown over such a long period of time....

The question isn’t whether you burn fewer calories after you lose weight, because you absolutely do. There’s less of you to move around, to pump blood through, and to keep at 98.6 degrees. Smaller people burn fewer calories than larger people. The question is whether your metabolism goes into a mode where it tries to be thrifty, to conserve calories and do all those basic functions using less energy. If it does, it means you have to eat less than someone who is the same weight but didn’t have to drop pounds to get there. Is there a metabolic penalty, in other words, for getting lighter?

Much of the evidence shows that there is some, but the amount varies. And some of the evidence shows none...."

Yoni Freedhoff on advice for sustainable weight loss: http://www.vox.com/2016/5/10/11649210/biggest-loser-weight-loss

These are absolutely awesome! Thank you so much =D Feeling a lot better now.

nutmegoreo

DietVanillaCoke wrote: »

Basically my mother is terrible when it comes to supporting anyone. She greeted me by saying that losing weight is pointless because she read somewhere that all the biggest losers gained all their weight back because their metabolisms were so use to eating low, the moment they started eating maintenance calories for their new weights, they gained it all back as their metabolisms were permanently slowed down. There for I should give up because *drum roll* Obese people are just meant to be obese. Thanks mum. She ended up sending me this link the next night.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2016/05/03/contestants-on-biggest-loser-regain-weight-due-to-damaged-metabolism-study-finds.html

Haha It's fox news too, so it's totally legit *rolls eyes*

I can't find any real research to back it up, I've found a few silly articles like the fox one but yet again none having any real research, so I'm feeling good about that... but I'd love to see what everyone else has to say on this and what research you can put forward.

I imagine they gained the weight back because they lost the weight in a small amount of time, doing crazy amounts of exercise and eating very little, so they probably didn't learn much about a healthier lifestyle and went back to their old ways, but that's just a guess.

Sounds like your mother and my mother would get along just fine.

domesticlydiva

From what I understand from "experts" who have written numerous articles about weight loss, losing weight is the result of a series of lifestyle changes that have to be maintained to keep the weight off. If a person is just out to take the weight off using drastic, unrealistic, unsustainable measures such as is the case with Biggest Loser, then the pounds will be regained once a person returns to old, unhealthy eating habits & lack of exercise. Not that I have watched numerous episodes of Biggest Loser, but the few I have seen are extreme to say the least. It is not a healthy, balanced way to lose weight & keep it off. I realize that the stats are not great for people to keep weight off once it is lost, but likely it isn't reappearing for no reason other than bad habits resurfacing. As far as the metabolism part of things, I can't comment on that cause I have no idea, but It takes work to lose the weight & continued workto maintain a healthy weight. Quit working & the weight will be regained.

Christine_72

Is your mum obese?

DietVanillaCoke

Christine_72 wrote: »

Is your mum obese?

Yes!!! XD She actually didn't feed us right growing up because back in her day being stick thin was considered attractive and she was never thin. So she would starve us, call us "solid girls" and we grew up with a very bad understanding of food and nutrition. My sister was hospitalized many times as she developed eating disorders and spent a lot of her life under 100lbs. I went the other way and gained a lot the moment i moved out. I really wish they taught nutrition in schools here.

trigden1991

I read a study on Biggest Loser Competitors and what they do on the show is not healthy or sustainable and causes issues with ED's and severe metabolic damage due to the VLCD and extreme amounts of exercise.

In the "real world", weight loss is achievable and is sustainable if you want it enough.

snowflake954

If you follow the success threads on MFP you'll find alot of people that were obese, lost the weight, and have kept it off. They have all changed their lifestyles though. They exercise alot, even if only walking, and watch what they eat, even if not counting. They also give themselves a 5 lb "window". If they go over those 5 lbs they go back to basics--logging everything. There are also alot of pics. I find it an inspiration--you and your mom might too.

DietVanillaCoke

snowflake954 wrote: »

If you follow the success threads on MFP you'll find alot of people that were obese, lost the weight, and have kept it off. They have all changed their lifestyles though. They exercise alot, even if only walking, and watch what they eat, even if not counting. They also give themselves a 5 lb "window". If they go over those 5 lbs they go back to basics--logging everything. There are also alot of pics. I find it an inspiration--you and your mom might too.

I find them inspirational, it's one of the many reasons I use MFP.

BeGrandLike

Y'know what I think? Feck "meant to be". If you have a body that finds it easy to gain weight and more difficult to stay at a lower weight? That's a thing. But it's not destiny. The idea of "meant to be" is nothing more than a way for us to give up power over our own lives to.. something else. Whether that "else" is the universe or genetics or whatever it is you call it- it's never you.

But your body, with all its quirks and foibles, belongs to you. You get to choose what food to put in it- paying attention to its own needs. You get to choose to move it more- taking into account any impairments it might have. You still get to decide what you're gonna do with the cards you're dealt.

And, damnit, if you want to choose to put the work in over your lifetime to develop and sustain a body that's smaller or fitter or stronger? You get to do that!


/soapbox

Samarisa

Warning: Essay Incoming

Let's assume the worst for a second: Let's assume that you really will require less food at goal weight than someone of the same weight who has never dieted.

Well, so be it. Figure out what your maintenance requirements are when you hit goal and then eat nutritious foods that meet your intake needs given your calorie expenditure.

Does it suck? Heck yes. Is it impossible to do?

Nope.

And you can mitigate a lot of satiety issues with diet changes, too. But you do have to find what foods fill you up the best and longest. I'm still experimenting with that five years after starting this war on weight, but I'm getting there. And I haven't gained back to even close to my highest weight. I still struggle, that's why I keep coming back to MFP. But according to the bleaker predictions, I'm not supposed to be able to have achieved this at all. To give you an idea:

Highest weight ever, 6 years ago: 250
Highest in past 5 years: 230
Lowest in the past 5 years: 110
Current: 130
Highest in past 3 years: 160

Is it easy? Nope. Fun? Rarely (I do enjoy being able to go outside and play, though!). Would I still be alive today if I had listened to the odds and stayed fat? Definitely not.

Gamliela

Not sure I should even be in this conversation because I was barely getting my toe wet in the overweight category twice in my life, during pregnancy and menopause, but it seems to me that there is obvious evidence that as we lose weight, our calorie intake must go down. Even though that is true, I think that by reverse dieting and time, the situation of having to eat less in maintenance may shift toward being able to eat more calories. I say it because of the feeling that comes once the weight is lost and then beginning to eat more in maintenance, then of the increased energy, it all adds up to a body that will tend to move more and as long as calories are logged and people stay accountable to eat in line with TDEE things won't be too bad after all.

Best wishes batteling the negatives that are bringing you down! There might even be ideas here that will help your Mom lose her fears that obesity is inevitable for life.

SingRunTing

There are legitimate studies that have shown that to maintain a weight loss, you have to eat fewer calories than someone who's always been at that weight. However, the difference is something minuscule, like 20-50 calories if I remember correctly. The amount varies by how much you lost, how quickly you lost it, and how long you've been maintaining.

Its something that is easily overcome by being active and continuing to watch what you eat. Not a legit reason to remain obese.

Gamliela

SingRunTing wrote: »

There are legitimate studies that have shown that to maintain a weight loss, you have to eat fewer calories than someone who's always been at that weight. However, the difference is something minuscule, like 20-50 calories if I remember correctly. The amount varies by how much you lost, how quickly you lost it, and how long you've been maintaining.

Its something that is easily overcome by being active and continuing to watch what you eat. Not a legit reason to remain obese.

Thank you for sharing this!
TBH 20 to 50 calories is nothing to be afraid about then. Relax and keep on going. I tell myself, "If I quit I'll regret it".

I like it that people make these discussion threads because we can learn from them and dispell any excuses that sometimes pop up on hungry days.

stevencloser

SingRunTing wrote: »

There are legitimate studies that have shown that to maintain a weight loss, you have to eat fewer calories than someone who's always been at that weight. However, the difference is something minuscule, like 20-50 calories if I remember correctly. The amount varies by how much you lost, how quickly you lost it, and how long you've been maintaining.

Its something that is easily overcome by being active and continuing to watch what you eat. Not a legit reason to remain obese.

Yep. Lost 50 pounds and maintained for multiple years. I never felt like I need less food to stay my weight than others. In fact I have problems eating enough to gain now.