The "slow and steady wins the race" myth...
Replies
-
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!0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
What are these races that slow and steady wins? Didn't work for me in my half marathon...0
-
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.0 -
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.0
-
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.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.
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 nutrition0 -
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?0
-
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.pdf0 -
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.0 -
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.
Because the person made such radical changes that they actually dislike that it's not a habit, it's a forced regimen during that time, and ready to jump off of it the whole time, and may indeed do so by binging from time to time. Reach goal weight with slower metabolism than expected for their weight, then eat more they think they can, gain some back that way, and then back to prior life style doesn't help.
And people that have a lot to lose can lose more without negative impacts.
The 200 lb overweight person could do 4 lbs weekly for a decent time, and that actually would be slow and steady compared to someone trying to lose 10 lbs weekly.
Of course slow and steady has no set number, it should become less as you have less to lose.
After reading through the comments though, I agree the slow and steady is bad term since you can do it by choice and by default because your body forced you too.
Reasonable diet makes more sense. Really overweight, reasonable is 4lb weekly potential, 10 lbs overweight then 1/2 lb weekly is reasonable.0 -
In my opinion, I think its an excuse for people that dont want to put the extra effort into serious exercise routine. I have a few friends that are somewhat lazy where they only want to put 30 min a few days a week of exercise, they "could" make time for an hour, or mabe even 5 days a week, but they are happy taking the "slow and steady" approach. So lets justify it by adding that its easier to keep the weight off if you take it "easy" Is complete garbage.0
-
The reason why I always believed slow and steady won the race was because I thought that those who went fast and aggressive usually (not always) lost their weight by eating extremely low calories. From my understanding (I'm no doctor over here), low calorie intake is bad for your insides and slows down your metabolism.
Slow and steady wins my race. It is just the method that makes me the happiest.0 -
In my opinion, I think its an excuse for people that dont want to put the extra effort into serious exercise routine. I have a few friends that are somewhat lazy where they only want to put 30 min a few days a week of exercise, they "could" make time for an hour, or mabe even 5 days a week, but they are happy taking the "slow and steady" approach. So lets justify it by adding that its easier to keep the weight off if you take it "easy" Is complete garbage.
I'm sorry but I don't think it is fair to say someone is lazy because they only work out 30 min a day. I don't know your friends, but I can speak for myself and working out for hours on end a day just isn't possible. It isn't maintainable in the long run for me.0 -
In my opinion, I think its an excuse for people that dont want to put the extra effort into serious exercise routine. I have a few friends that are somewhat lazy where they only want to put 30 min a few days a week of exercise, they "could" make time for an hour, or mabe even 5 days a week, but they are happy taking the "slow and steady" approach. So lets justify it by adding that its easier to keep the weight off if you take it "easy" Is complete garbage.
I'm sorry but I don't think it is fair to say someone is lazy because they only work out 30 min a day. I don't know your friends, but I can speak for myself and working out for hours on end a day just isn't possible. It isn't maintainable in the long run for me.
Logistically speaking, I could technically work out an hour a day but I also have a life. So I agree that's not very fair. It's only justifiable to point that out to someone if they only work out X amount of times a week when they could work out more but also ***** about not losing enough weight.0 -
I lost slowly. I think that the advantage for me is that it is easier to maintain now because I have not had to change my habits very much. I also think it is good for confidence to believe that weight is coming off based on what I'm eating and doing despite what the scale says.0
-
As an additional thought, I WILL say that quicker weight loss can be very encouraging psychologically. Seeing results in a shorter time frame can motivate.0
-
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.
Yes but.... ( grabbed your post to quote, there are many I could have used.... and I see by your ticker, that something is certainly working for you.
So, yes but..... There seems to be some assumption that people who lose weight 'quickly' are stupid. That is, to use your quote...if you were taking things at a reasonable pace, surely you must be learning some good habits along the way
So, the assumption is, that if you are taking things at an 'unreasonable pace,' that you aren't learning anything. There have been some pretty intelligent replies to this... that some MFP'ers like to lose quickly, and that they have given lots of thought to what they are doing, and that they DO, in fact, have a plan.
I'm certainly enjoying seeing people post with 'alternative,' non MFP mainstream ideas... and having them discussed. IMHO, how you lose the weight may not be the biggest issue, it's how you 'exit' the diet phase, and transition towards maintenance. I also strongly believe that the last lbs are coming off slow and are going to put up a lot more resistance than the 1st bunch. But, that's my personal opinion, and experience. Your mileage may vary.0 -
I have never heard that the "slow and steady" method helps from gaining the weight back. The reason it is said that "slow and steady" method is better is because, first of all, any drastic form of weight loss affects your metabolism. Your body has an automatic "starving mode" and as soon as you drastically reduce your intake of calories, your body kicks into to starving mode and reacts with hoarding all the calories that it can get.
The second reason, and this is in my case, if you take drastic steps to quickly lose weight, then you are not learning a new way of life. In order to KEEP the weight off, you must develop a new way of eating and exercising! All these quick weight loss programs, pills, etc. are not maintainable for the long road. At some point, either you are going to get tired and bored of this drastically restricted diet or stop taking the pills and go right back to what got you overweight in the first place!
The third reason is if you quickly lose a lot of weight your body does not have time to react appropriately and you are more likely to have excess baggy skin. If the weight is lost over a longer period of time AND you are doing an adequate exercise program along with it, you will have less excess skin.
I have yo-yoed my weight several times but this time I am trying to not make it about the number on the scale but how I feel and for overall health. I do weigh in about every 3-4 weeks just to keep track of my progress but I don't measure my success on the number. This site has been a blessing to me! It does help to keep track of what you eat everyday and the calories you have burned with your exercise routine. My goal is to lose 2 lbs a week. I started Feb. 1 and have lost 55 lbs so far but much more than that, I am learning to make better food choices. I do the Leslie Sansone Walk at Home 5-day Slim Down DVD 5 days a week. Due to neck/back and knee problems, I am unable to do a lot of the aerobic tapes and this tape is perfect for me. When I started I couldn't even finish the first mile but right away I started noticing a better range of motion in my arms and legs. Now 9 months later, I am doing all 5 miles 5 times a week and burning calories like crazy and feeling good about myself. I have lost 55 lbs so far with at least another 50 to go but I will get there and I'm confident that I won't regain the weight this time because instead of making my weight loss a race to see how fast I can lose it, I'm making a choice to live longer!0 -
Completely agree!0
-
Didn't read the article or the other replies.
That said, I will indicate that for me, slow and steady worked for the loss and I have now kept it off for almost 2 years. During that two years I suffered some major hardships (see my profile if you are interested) and was able to maintain. That's why slow and steady worked for me...it led me to make real, sustainable lifestyle changes that weren't even derailed by major illness and surgery.0 -
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.
This assumes that there is no "fast and steady" category. I agree this analogy breaks down pretty quickly though.0 -
<shrug>
It took me eight months to lose 50 lbs and hit my initial goal. Then I went on maintenance and lost another 15 pounds over the next four months while I tweaked figuring out my actual calorie need. That's about a pound a week, and I consider that to be slow & steady. I only cut about 250 calories a day from my TDEE.
I've been at my goal weight or lighter for almost two years now, and maintaining it has been pretty easy.
I lost a significant amount of weight once before in my life. It was twenty years ago and I lost it fast - more than 60 pounds in less than three months. I regained all that weight very quickly.
Slow and steady works better for me.0 -
Many people lose quickly in the beginning and then hit a plateau, so they switch to slow weight loss. In my first year of weight loss (Winter 2011/2012 - 2012/2013), I lost 10-15 pounds. After that, I was stuck at the same weight until recently, when I decided to give slow weight loss a try, and now I'm close to my goal. It just depends on what works for each individual, but I from what I've seen on MFP, it seems that a lot of people decrease their calorie deficit and end up losing those last stubborn pounds.0
-
IMO, it is finding the nutrition & lifestyle that one can maintain for a lifetime that wins the race. In the end, it has nothing to do with how fast or slowly one loses. It is whether one can maintain.0
-
Beats me. This is the first I've heard of this "myth".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?0 -
Ok, for those of you who did not read the study I'll boil it down for you.
Slow or fast weight loss don't have any affect on maintaining long term weight loss of a 10% reduction of weight.
Best method I could get from the paper was this: gradual decrease in calories AND gradual increase in exercise over a 16 week period shows the best long term results.
From what I could guess by that would be something along the lines of this:
* Find BMR + activity level, eat that for a week or two.
* Reduce calorie intake by X amount during the next 16 weeks. Maybe 100, maybe 50 calories I did not see any numbers for that. Could be 5 calories a day over the time frame for all I know.
* Add in a little exercise over the next 16 weeks slowly.
* ????
* Profit!
What I would hazard a guess at is that the slow calorie deficit increase would give you the little boost of awesome at the start, while maintaining an average weight loss over the time frame. The gradual increase in exercise would add to your deficit to make the average weight loss you would see be the same from start to finish of that time. So you get the moral boost of "Hey it was easy to do this!" that would allow you to continue to lose the weight or maintain the loss going forward since some good habits would be created from the 16 weeks you just did.0 -
Didn't read the article or the other replies.
That said, I will indicate that for me, slow and steady worked for the loss and I have now kept it off for almost 2 years. During that two years I suffered some major hardships (see my profile if you are interested) and was able to maintain. That's why slow and steady worked for me...it led me to make real, sustainable lifestyle changes that weren't even derailed by major illness and surgery.
I looked at your profile, and then read your thread ( didn't read the 13 pages of 'YOU ARE AMAZING' replies..... all very well deserved
)
1. YOU ARE AMAZING
2. You are AMAZING
3. You are AMAZING\
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/918358-they-cut-my-head-open-your-excuse-is-invalid?page=13
I just wanted to add, that YOU ARE AMAZING.... and it makes me feel a bit guilty that I like to b*tch so much, when I lead such a charmed life.
[img]http://www.scented****e.com/wp-content/uploads/guilty-pup.jpg[/img]0 -
A lot of people here are talking about how they lost 20-30lb's quickly, and were able to maintain easily. I think if you're used to being a normal weight, and managed to pack on a few lb's, that's very different from someone who has food "issues" and has been very heavy for a long time. If you just have a need to lose 20lb's, then I wouldn't think it would be an issue to lose quickly, and be able to maintain. People who are used to being very heavy for a long period of time, have bigger issues than that. For someone who is used to eating at a surplus for a very long time, they have created habits. Unhealthy ones. If they all of a sudden decided to drastically cut calories, and eat only healthy foods to lose quickly, it's most likely not going to be sustainable. It's too much of a difference from their normal eating habits, that they have grown accustomed too. If they can still have those foods they love in moderation, it's not such a big impact.0
-
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
^^^^ this
combined with the fact that the human body can only burn so much fat in one day.... if you're losing a lot of weight quickly, it's not all fat. If it's water weight losses, they'll come back as soon as you start eating normally again. If it's bone density and muscle mass losses, then they're going to negatively impact your health and to some extent increase the risk of gaining weight back again. In terms of fat loss, while a lot of people (including me) will say "slow and steady wins this race" - usually it's said to people who're freaking out because they "only" lost 1 or 2lbs or something.... but really there is an optimal rate, which roughly equates to how much fat you can expect the body to burn in a week. For most people it's 1-2lb a week. For people with huge amounts of fat to lose, their bodies can probably burn 3lb fat or more in a week. For people who are already lean and are aiming for ultra lean, then you're looking at 0.5lb a week, or even less than that. Generally speaking, if you're losing more weight than this in a week, it's not all fat. There may be some exceptions and if you're running marathons or training at the gym all day, then that's going to increase how much fat you can burn in a week... although the flip side of that coin is that once the body's glycogen levels are depleted (which will happen if you're training while eating a big deficit) then the rate and intensity at which you can train is negatively impacted (plus mood swings and feeling crap generally).
However the main issue is sustainability. anyone with the "diet is a temporary thing to get the weight down before going back to eating the same way you got fat in the first place" mentality will gain it back no matter how quickly or slowly they lost the weight. If you have the "this is a lifestyle change, I'm going to eat and exercise like this for the rest of my life" mentality and stick to it, then you will maintain your new weight for life. While it's possible to maintain weight loss when you lose it quickly, you have to bear in mind a) the negative impact on health of having lower bone density and less muscle mass and b) maintaining a very restrictive diet for life is purgatory, and why torture and deprive yourself when you really don't have to. The main point of slow and sustainable fat loss, is that you don't torture yourself, you enjoy your new lifestyle and so maintenance is a lot easier. For most people, eating as many calories as they can while still losing at a steady rate and doing exercise they enjoy, is going to be easier and more sustainable than giving up all their favorite foods and doing exercise they hate.0
![http://www.scented****e.com/wp-content/uploads/guilty-pup.jpg[/img]](https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/home/leaving?allowTrusted=1&target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scented%2A%2A%2A%2Ae.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fguilty-pup.jpg%5B%2Fimg%5D){kind=link}
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K 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