The "slow and steady wins the race" myth...

Iwishyouwell

Where does this notion that "slow and steady" weight loss leads to a greater chance of maintaining weight loss in the long run originate from?

This study, and others like it, suggest otherwise:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780395/

The regain rates for weight loss are unfortunately abysmal across the board, regardless of the rate of loss.

Yet it's so common in dieting circles to hear, ad nauseum, that the slower you lose it, the higher the chances of long term maintenance. Except all real signs just point to slow loss simply lengthening the weight loss-weight regain journey for an unfortunately high amount of dieters. Lose it slow, and you can still regain it fast; plenty do.

So where did this myth originate and why is it continually propagated?

auroranflash

Granted I skimmed the article, but they mentioned weight loss, not necessarily fat loss. The idea of slow and steady is to not have a drastic caloric deficit and have a decent strength training routine so you retain as much lean body mass as possible. The more LBM you have, the higher your resting metabolism, the easier it is to keep the weight off (as long as you continue you stay active and eat within maintenance calorie range).

I know several people who have drastically reduced their caloric intake to 1200 and below for an extended amount of time and claim it negatively effected their metabolism.

NRSPAM

I can tell you from experience, as someone who has almost always been overweight, that when you lose it fast, it's usually from not eating enough. When you don't eat enough, and you throw exercise on top of that, you put yourself at a very high deficit. You wind up feeling like you're always hungry, deprived, can't have the foods you love, etc. Then you go bat$#it crazy, and try to make up for those feelings, and gain it all back. The more satisfied you can feel with your current food choices, the better off you'll be in the long run. The closer your diet is now to maintenance, the happier you'll be with it. In other words, if you can still eat the foods you love, just less often, and in moderation, you won't feel deprived of them. You can throw those studies out the window. Yes, everyone, regardless of how fast or slow you lose weight, has a chance of gaining it back, but I've been down that other road too many times. Lose 30 quickly, and gain back 40+. I mostly got bored eating the same chicken, fish, and salads, because I didn't have many calories to work with. Lost it quickly though. Take it or leave it.

LiminalAscendance

Where does this notion that "slow and steady" weight loss leads to a greater chance of maintaining weight loss in the long run originate from?

This study, and others like it, suggest otherwise:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780395/

The regain rates for weight loss are unfortunately abysmal across the board, regardless of the rate of loss.

Yet it's so common in dieting circles to here, ad nauseum, that the slower you loses it, the higher the chances of long term maintenance. Except all real signs just point to slow loss simply lengthening the weight loss-weight regain journey for an unfortunately high amount of dieters. Lose it slow, and you can still regain it fast.

So where did this myth originate and why is it continually propagated?

Just as there is a stigma associated with being overweight, there is inherent pride in losing said weight, and achieving a "normal" size (just look at how many display their tickers here).

Although most don't want to admit it, many (outside of MFP, at least) view those who lose weight more quickly as more successful (the "winners" in the race, if you will).

When it's not immediately evident that the individual that lost weight more rapidly did so in an unhealthy fashion (e.g. complications resulting from lack of nutrition), the only recourse the "losers" have is to comfort themselves in the fact that the "winners" won't maintain their success.

"Sour grapes," if you will.

ninerbuff

Drink eight glasses a day. Water is a natural appetite-suppressant. Nettle tea is a great weight-loss tea as it supports metabolism and has diuretic properties.
FREE Ebook Download: How To Lose 5 pounds In A Week Easily!
http://k002.kiwi6.com/hotlink/inj9278794/lose5poundsinaweek.pdf

How does this answer the OP's question?

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Stage14

The idea is twofold. 1. Slower weight loss means less loss of lean body mass, which keeps your metabolism from lowering as much when your weight drops. 2. A smaller deficit makes it easier to maintain your healthy eating habits when you switch to maintenance and decreases initial gains from upping your calories to maintenance level. It's part physiological and part psychological. But the bottom line is that looking at weight loss as a "diet" as opposed to a lifestyle change is a big culprit of regains regardless of deficit size.

I wonder how many of the study subjects continued to tack calorie intake after losing the weight?

ninerbuff

I wouldn't say it's a myth, but rather a more sensible approach for people since losing too fast ends up with undesirable results in many cases (loose skin, muscle loss, extreme deficits, etc.)

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

NRSPAM

Where does this notion that "slow and steady" weight loss leads to a greater chance of maintaining weight loss in the long run originate from?

This study, and others like it, suggest otherwise:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780395/

The regain rates for weight loss are unfortunately abysmal across the board, regardless of the rate of loss.

Yet it's so common in dieting circles to here, ad nauseum, that the slower you loses it, the higher the chances of long term maintenance. Except all real signs just point to slow loss simply lengthening the weight loss-weight regain journey for an unfortunately high amount of dieters. Lose it slow, and you can still regain it fast.

So where did this myth originate and why is it continually propagated?

Just as there is a stigma associated with being overweight, there is inherent pride in losing said weight, and achieving a "normal" size (just look at how many display their tickers here).

Although most don't want to admit it, many (outside of MFP, at least) view those who lose weight more quickly as more successful (the "winners" in the race, if you will).

When it's not immediately evident that the individual that lost weight more rapidly did so in an unhealthy fashion (e.g. complications resulting from lack of nutrition), the only recourse the "losers" have is to comfort themselves in the fact that the "winners" won't maintain their success.

"Sour grapes," if you will.

Ok, so you're saying that people made the whole "slow and steady wins the race" thing up, because we're jealous that others lost more quickly? That is the funniest thing I've ever heard. I can tell you, I'm happy to be where I am with my weight. Just need a few tweaks here and there, and I am not jealous of anyone who lost weight faster than I did. I really don't care how fast myself, or anyone else lost. Just happy to be where I am, and that I can eat real food. I guess that makes me a "sour grape"....SMH

Mr_Knight

If I *had* to lose slowly, I would fail miserably. Takes too damn long. I'm much happier losing a whack fast and maintaining for while, then losing another whack fast, and maintaining for a while, repeat until done.

It's worked for 70 pounds and 2 years, so I'm comfortable I've found my groove.

Like so much else in the human experience - different strokes for different folks.

jenilla1

The idea is twofold. 1. Slower weight loss means less loss of lean body mass, which keeps your metabolism from lowering as much when your weight drops. 2. A smaller deficit makes it easier to maintain your healthy eating habits when you switch to maintenance and decreases initial gains from upping your calories to maintenance level. It's part physiological and part psychological. But the bottom line is that looking at weight loss as a "diet" as opposed to a lifestyle change is a big culprit of regains regardless of deficit size.

I wonder how many of the study subjects continued to tack calorie intake after losing the weight?

QFT - I've been maintaining for years...

Cranquistador

Drink eight glasses a day. Water is a natural appetite-suppressant. Nettle tea is a great weight-loss tea as it supports metabolism and has diuretic properties.
FREE Ebook Download: How To Lose 5 pounds In A Week Easily!
http://k002.kiwi6.com/hotlink/inj9278794/lose5poundsinaweek.pdf

How does this answer the OP's question?

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

look at her other posts

NH_Norma

Drink eight glasses a day. Water is a natural appetite-suppressant. Nettle tea is a great weight-loss tea as it supports metabolism and has diuretic properties.
FREE Ebook Download: How To Lose 5 pounds In A Week Easily!
http://k002.kiwi6.com/hotlink/inj9278794/lose5poundsinaweek.pdf

How does this answer the OP's question?

If you click the number of posts for this user, there are 50 (as of now), all within a few minutes on Friday 10/18. All have this same link. Spam much?

Iwishyouwell

Thanks everyone for the thoughts. This has been on my mind for quite awhile.

As someone who lost some slow, and regained fast, and has lost a lot fast, and maintained for years, it's always thrown me for a loop this insistence that slower losers somehow had an advantage. I've done both and seen no advantage to taking the slow route.

But someone earlier made an excellent point in regards to the transition from loss to maintenance. Yes, I do believe we all have a higher chance at maintaining fat loss if we're able to undertake a sustainable maintenance journey. Now what each of us considers sustainable obviously varies wildly.

And to the other poster, I concur; not nearly enough of these studies cover weight loss vs fat loss, and the impact on an increased higher LBM.

candiceh3

The idea is twofold. 1. Slower weight loss means less loss of lean body mass, which keeps your metabolism from lowering as much when your weight drops. 2. A smaller deficit makes it easier to maintain your healthy eating habits when you switch to maintenance and decreases initial gains from upping your calories to maintenance level. It's part physiological and part psychological. But the bottom line is that looking at weight loss as a "diet" as opposed to a lifestyle change is a big culprit of regains regardless of deficit size.

I wonder how many of the study subjects continued to tack calorie intake after losing the weight?

QFT - I've been maintaining for years...

Point 1 is not true.

You only lose lots of LBM if you quit doing weights. If you do strength training, you can retain your LBM even in moderate to high deficits.

Big deficits plus lots of cardio destroys LBM, but big deficits and lots of strength training retains LBM.

Iwishyouwell

If I *had* to lose slowly, I would fail miserably. Takes too damn long. I'm much happier losing a whack fast and maintaining for while, then losing another whack fast, and maintaining for a while, repeat until done.

It's worked for 70 pounds and 2 years, so I'm comfortable I've found my groove.

Like so much else in the human experience - different strokes for different folks.

Yes, that's how I've undertaken this journey so far.

Wacked off a big chunk pretty quickly in 2011, maintained pretty much for a year and a half, got back into a more focused, aggressive plan starting in late spring this year and I've lost a lot of weight since then. But all the tools I've implemented during this second phase of weight loss are the same tools I'm happy to keep using for maintenance (and actually similar to the tools I used before years ago, but just didn't do on purpose, and with as much focus),

gigglesinthesun

I think the idea is that if you go on a 'diet' you struggle moving to a 'normal' diet. Can you lose weight with 2 meal replacement shakes and some chicken and lettuce for dinner? Sure, but is it maintainable for the rest of your life? not so sure.

Slow and steady means you are having a life style change and you are able to maintain it, because you are simply used to it.

Iwishyouwell

I think the idea is that if you go on a 'diet' you struggle moving to a 'normal' diet. Can you lose weight with 2 meal replacement shakes and some chicken and lettuce for dinner? Sure, but is it maintainable for the rest of your life? not so sure.

Slow and steady means you are having a life style change and you are able to maintain it, because you are simply used to it.

Yes, which makes perfect sense in theory...

Except almost every single dieter I've known personally, never mind the studies, have gained most, if not all, the weight back (and often more than they started with). The two slowest losers I've ever met, my wife, and older female friend of mine, lived to the T by portion control, strict calorie counting, logging/weighing, small deficits, and small losses. It was heartbreaking watching both of them, especially my wife, regain the weight it took them sooo long to to lose. And let me not get on how discouraging, and detrimental, this has been for their psyches.

Maintaining weight just seems to be a huge problem for most, regardless of how the weight was lost. Which makes me wonder if the whole "slow and steady" idea is perpetuated just to sooth fears and give hope where little exists.

BrainyBurro

i believe the implication in the slogan is that "fast" usually means temporary deprivation diets which are abandoned once the weight comes off, whereas "slow" usually means changes to you lifestyle that can be maintained for years going forward.

"fast" => starve yourself => go back to old habits when goal weight is reached
"slow" => do not starve yourself => maintain new habits after goal weight is reached

Mr_Knight

Slow and steady means you are having a life style change and you are able to maintain it, because you are simply used to it.

Unfortunately there is no evidence to back this up.

Anyway, the last paper I read considered even 2 lbs/week to be "fast".

Mr_Excitement

I think it's probably based in the idea that people who set out to "diet" also assume that diet is going to end once they reach some goal weight. Naturally, they put the weight back on when they resume their old eating habits.

People who just slowly change their lifestyle might lose weight a bit more slowly, but they'll never rebound because they're never going to go back to the eating/exercise habits that made them heavy.

I mean, I can only guess that's where it's coming from. Calories are calories and lost fat is lost fat, whether you lose it quickly or slowly.

heybales

There is also a big difference between slow loss because of knowledgeable wise choices making it happen.
And as several have mentioned going nuts on the deficit and making it bigger with exercise, where the body just forces a slower loss.

That latter group is the ones I usually hear repeating slow and steady as a mantra while complaining about stalls and plateaus and wishing it was faster. Increasing exercise and decreasing food and making it all worse.

The former group many times did it the fast way at some point in their past, or the forced slow way, both of which end up with metabolism lower than it needs to be, less LBM than average, bad relationship with food, ect. And then weight gain.

So then they got smart and made a wise decision to make lifestyle changes and allow it to be slow by choice, not because they forced their body to.

Then again, every once in a while you'll catch a woman that has yo-yo dieted her whole life away claiming such-and-such works great for weight loss, because it worked the previous 4-7 times they lost weight.