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

zensugi

Interesting that when one reads the article to check the sample under study is:

Participants were 298 relatively healthy, weight stable, obese women between the ages of 50 to 75 years (mean ± SD; 59.3 ± 6.2 years) with a mean baseline weight of 96.5± 14.9 kg and body mass index (BMI) of 36.8 ±5.0 kg/m2

who live in Underserved Rural Settings in the US, which makes me wonder how much could I (46 yo male, BMI 25.4) rely on the results.

slim4health56

The only thing I've heard/read that might relate to this is that we need time to adjust our lifestyle and eating habits (ergo the "time" involved)...the point being is if you lose rapidly it can 1) be unhealthy in some circumstances and 2) you don't learn to modify your intake and as soon as you stop "dieting" you return to old habits and gain it back. I think the term "yo-yo" dieting is self explanatory.

bikinisuited

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?

REPORTED!!!!

gigglesinthesun

one question though that I have is over what period was the weight gained back and was there a difference. Ultimately I find this all a bit defeatist since it basically says that you'll gain it back regardless so why bother.

Lupercalia

I always thought the idea behind "slow and steady" was that if you were taking things at a reasonable pace, surely you must be learning some good habits along the way that will aid in maintaining the fitter/healthier body you become.

happystars82

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

agreed! also if someone loses alot of weight in the first few weeks and then suddenly it will slow and some weeks maybe nothing this will cause demotivation and may result in binges thus putting weight back on..

peachcats

If I had to lose 100+ lbs and lost it at 1lb/week, there's no way I'd stay on track.

LeanneGoingThin

Because slow and steady usually means a lifestyle change, which is more permanent than the fast crash diets which are not maintainable.

LeanneGoingThin

If I had to lose 100+ lbs and lost it at 1lb/week, there's no way I'd stay on track.

And that's why a lot of people starve themselves and within 5 years 95% is back to their old weight.

1lb isn't a lot, but it's a hell of a lot better than staying fat and unhealthy.

leonelsanchez

I prefer to lose weight fast. I lost 30 pounds over a three month period between 2008 and 2009 mainly by cutting down my sodium intake and playing basketball; I kept the weight off for about three years before shooting up 15 pounds. I didn't stop exercising. I stopped weighing myself. I didn't mind so much. I've been around 160 to 165 the past two years due largely to switching to a new career and spending long hours learning new skills. My gym also closed the basketball court where I played three to four times a week. I run mainly now.

I think I could embrace losing weight low and slow, perhaps over a year's time. However, I know I can lose it fast now and am enjoying tracking only recently with the help of myfitnesspal. I don't know how long it will take to lose the 15 pounds I regained; I've lost two so far in two weeks mainly by doubling my running from 30 to 60 minutes and watching my calories. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I don't care how I get there, as long as I get there.

GemmaRowlands

Technically, if you know how many calories you need to maintain, and make sure you stick to them when you're at your goal, you will be fine.

BUT, and I'm basing this on experience not studies, it is SO much easier to maintain if you've gradually increased your calories whilst still losing. When I finished, I was only 200 cals per day below maintenance levels, so it was very easy to add those.

If you're eating 1,200 a day, suddenly need to maintain, and effectively need to double your intake, then people may go mad with it, eat junk like they used to, and the weight will creep back on.

I've maintained for 10 months now so I'm doing better than a lot of studies say people do generally!

candiceh3

Well, why can't you learn lifelong habits on a fast diet?

If I need to lose 24 lbs, over (say) 12 weeks, why is 12 weeks not long enough to learn habits at the same time as sustaining a heavy deficit and heavy loss?

*scratches head*

Some people have so much weight to lose that they are going to be on a fast diet for extended periods of time enabling them to lose fast and learn fast at the same time.

sunsetzen

Here's my problem with this study and the conclusion you are attempting to get from it:

"Collectively, findings indicate both short- and long-term advantages to fast initial weight loss. Fast weight losers obtained greater weight reduction and long-term maintenance, and were not more susceptible to weight regain than gradual weight losers."
-->fast losers were just as susceptible...but they also gained the most weight back out of the groups

"Groups were drawn from participants in the TOURS trial, which included a sample of middle-aged (mean =59.3 years) obese women (mean BMI =36.8) who received a 6-month lifestyle intervention followed by a 1-year extended care program."
-->this is a group consisting wholly of (post)menopausal women from a neglected rural area. How can anyone get results from such a specific group and apply its conclusions to every person losing weight? Man or woman, muscular or not, young or old, (mental) health problems or not, social help or none, city or suburbs or rural?

wild_wild_life

What are these races that slow and steady wins? Didn't work for me in my half marathon...

alisonlynn1976

When participants in studies gain the weight back, it's because they quit doing whatever the study intervention was and went back to their previous habits. Similarly, when people lose weight quickly by introducing a large calorie deficit, they eventually declare their diet done and go back to their previous habits. That's why. It's just behavioral, it's not the broscience stuff about metabolism.

Edited to add: It also depends on what "gained the weight back" means. All of it, or some of it? If someone, for example, lost 100 pounds and then a year later had gained back 10 of that, I would not consider that a failure. I would consider remaining anywhere in the normal weight range after having been overweight or above not a failure.

Mokey41

I think the biggest problem isn't whether you lose slow or fast but the fact that a lot of people are overweight because of psychological reasons and if you never figure out why you have a dysfunctional thought process on food you are never going to be successful. Those people tend to be the ones who do the 1,000 calories a day with 5 hours of exercise then throw the towel in after a couple weeks but even if they follow the slow sensible route it's always a struggle because food means more to them than just sustenance.

ninerbuff

Well, why can't you learn lifelong habits on a fast diet?

If I need to lose 24 lbs, over (say) 12 weeks, why is 12 weeks not long enough to learn habits at the same time as sustaining a heavy deficit and heavy loss?

*scratches head*

Some people have so much weight to lose that they are going to be on a fast diet for extended periods of time enabling them to lose fast and learn fast at the same time.

Of course it can be done. It's just statistically fast weight loss doesn't seem to last with many who do it that way.

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

Yooperm35

I always just assumed that if you lost the weight slower your metabolism would adjust slowly too so you wouldn't gain the weight back when you went into maintenance ... NO?

wild_wild_life

Here's my problem with this study and the conclusion you are attempting to get from it:

"Collectively, findings indicate both short- and long-term advantages to fast initial weight loss. Fast weight losers obtained greater weight reduction and long-term maintenance, and were not more susceptible to weight regain than gradual weight losers."
-->fast losers were just as susceptible...but they also gained the most weight back out of the groups

"Groups were drawn from participants in the TOURS trial, which included a sample of middle-aged (mean =59.3 years) obese women (mean BMI =36.8) who received a 6-month lifestyle intervention followed by a 1-year extended care program."
-->this is a group consisting wholly of (post)menopausal women from a neglected rural area. How can anyone get results from such a specific group and apply its conclusions to every person losing weight? Man or woman, muscular or not, young or old, (mental) health problems or not, social help or none, city or suburbs or rural?

He's not attempting to get a conclusion, he is simply stating the researcher's conclusions in the study.

Why do you say the fast losers gained the most weight back? From the paper:

"No significant group differences were found in weight regain between 6 and 18 months (2.6, 1.8, and 1.3 kg, respectively, ps < 0.9). The FAST and MODERATE groups were 5.1 and 2.7 times more likely to achieve 10% weight losses at 18 months than the SLOW group."

The amount of weight regained was not statistically different between the groups. In the longer term (18 months), the fast and moderate groups were the most successful.

As for your other point, it's true to have to look at the sample make-up but realistically a sample cannot include individuals with all of the variations you describe. That doesn't mean the study is invalid.

I agree the study doesn't reflect real-world situations in which people self-select which group they will be in, which could be an issue if people who "crash diet" are those who never really get a handle on their diet and end up gaining back. Psychological factors certainly come into play as well. But I think the point is that, all else being equal, the rate of loss itself is not a factor in the likelihood of re-gain.

ETA -- Other studies support these conclusions.

As for why weight is regained so readily, there are a couple of current threads about this. This is not strictly a psychological issue. The body reacts physiologically to a calorie deficit in such a way as to promote return to the previous weight. Someone posted this paper which I thought was excellent:

http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/ajpregu/301/3/R581.full.pdf

heybales

What are these races that slow and steady wins? Didn't work for me in my half marathon...

It's in comparison to the other extreme.

Have you done a half where a group went out really fast and you thought wow, they don't look like they can run that fast, but good for them.

And then at mile 8 you catch up with them because they are walking, complaining of stomach and leg cramps, ect.

Compared to them, you were slow and steady.

You didn't cause yourself problems that interfered with reaching your goal at a reasonable pace.