Researchers claiming it's impossible to keep weight off

lindsey1979

I am a little shocked that some people's take-away message is that because it's hard and will be a challenge, they won't try at all. To me, it's important to know the REALITY, regardless of whether it's easy or hard, so I can prepare appropriately. Staying in denial about challenges helps no one. If you aren't ready to face the reality and instead opt for a defeatist, futile attitude, I highly doubt you would succeed anyway.

likitisplit

I am a little shocked that some people's take-away message is that because it's hard and will be a challenge, they won't try at all. To me, it's important to know the REALITY, regardless of whether it's easy or hard, so I can prepare appropriately. Staying in denial about challenges helps no one. If you aren't ready to face the reality and instead opt for a defeatist, futile attitude, I highly doubt you would succeed anyway.

I'm kind of like "so, what?" myself.

I know that I can keep at my goal weight range for some years by intuitively weighing myself and making appropriate choices.

I also know that I have been running a life event about every 9 or so years since I was 23. I gain weight, flounder around for awhile and then figure out a way to be healthier than ever.

So...I'm likely to have 5 more spells of being fat in my life. That's like 8 years of being fat with 35 years of looking and feeling good and 5 years of working myself back to my goal weight.

I'm not sure where I see the big deal in this. Yes, I will probably be fat again. I will learn from it and move on with my life.

I will probably change careers too. Move to another house. Relocate. What does that mean about my job/home/personal connections now?

MelodyandBarbells

I am a little shocked that some people's take-away message is that because it's hard and will be a challenge, they won't try at all. To me, it's important to know the REALITY, regardless of whether it's easy or hard, so I can prepare appropriately. Staying in denial about challenges helps no one. If you aren't ready to face the reality and instead opt for a defeatist, futile attitude, I highly doubt you would succeed anyway.

I generally wouldn't expend massive efforts in a solution with only a 5% success rate

EvanKeel

I am a little shocked that some people's take-away message is that because it's hard and will be a challenge, they won't try at all. To me, it's important to know the REALITY, regardless of whether it's easy or hard, so I can prepare appropriately. Staying in denial about challenges helps no one. If you aren't ready to face the reality and instead opt for a defeatist, futile attitude, I highly doubt you would succeed anyway.

I generally wouldn't expend massive efforts in a solution with only a 5% success rate

As far as I can tell there isn't one solution that's discussed.

Without know more details about why people succeed or fail, the percentage doesn't mean much.

Mr_Knight

I generally wouldn't expend massive efforts in a solution with only a 5% success rate

As far as I can tell there isn't one solution that's discussed.

Without know more details about why people succeed or fail, the percentage doesn't mean much.

When the percentage gets that extreme, it tells us pretty much everything we need to know.

EvanKeel

I generally wouldn't expend massive efforts in a solution with only a 5% success rate

As far as I can tell there isn't one solution that's discussed.

Without know more details about why people succeed or fail, the percentage doesn't mean much.

When the percentage gets that extreme, it tells us pretty much everything we need to know.

Not really. 100% of the population will die, yet we still expend a fair bit of resources trying to prevent it from happening in many cases. Some of those cases make sense IMO, some don't. I think context is important. The context presented is a bit too general to be that useful for me.

maillemaker

I am a little shocked that some people's take-away message is that because it's hard and will be a challenge, they won't try at all. To me, it's important to know the REALITY, regardless of whether it's easy or hard, so I can prepare appropriately. Staying in denial about challenges helps no one. If you aren't ready to face the reality and instead opt for a defeatist, futile attitude, I highly doubt you would succeed anyway.

Well, to me it's like if I'm probably not going to win the lottery, why bother buying a lottery ticket? Why expend the effort?

What it tells me is there is only one real solution to this problem. A medical advancement that results in a safe and effective appetite suppressant. I believe it will happen within 20 years. There are literally billions or even trillions of dollars for the winner who develops it.

Mr_Knight

I generally wouldn't expend massive efforts in a solution with only a 5% success rate

As far as I can tell there isn't one solution that's discussed.

Without know more details about why people succeed or fail, the percentage doesn't mean much.

When the percentage gets that extreme, it tells us pretty much everything we need to know.

Not really. 100% of the population will die, yet we still expend a fair bit of resources trying to prevent it from happening in many cases.

We don't expend effort to prevent death, we expend effort to delay death. And we've proven very adept/successful at that.

Some of those cases make sense IMO, some don't. I think context is important. The context presented is a bit too general to be that useful for me.

When virtually everybody is failing, the use cases are pretty irrelevant, as the use case clearly isn't the issue. The more use cases (ie, weight loss strategies) that have been attempted, the more true that becomes.

likitisplit

I am a little shocked that some people's take-away message is that because it's hard and will be a challenge, they won't try at all. To me, it's important to know the REALITY, regardless of whether it's easy or hard, so I can prepare appropriately. Staying in denial about challenges helps no one. If you aren't ready to face the reality and instead opt for a defeatist, futile attitude, I highly doubt you would succeed anyway.

I generally wouldn't expend massive efforts in a solution with only a 5% success rate

A) If there is massive effort, you are doing it wrong.

How the researchers define "success" isn't how I would necessarily define success.

For example, I went to college and quit smoking at 23. Way more sedentary that I was used to. Gained a bunch of weight. Lost it through portion control and exercise.

At 31, I was working full time and in graduate school full time. Doing pretty well until I had to have foot surgery. Gained all the weight and more back. I couldn't do exercise and portion control wasn't working. I kept gaining for a year and then lost it all in 6 months on Weight Watchers.

At 39, I was about 20 pounds over my goal WW weight - I'd become a manager and was working 60+ hour weeks. It was crazed. I couldn't do WW because I didn't have the time. I tried the online version, but couldn't keep committed. Then I got pregnant. Lost all the weight in six weeks and then gained it back + some by three months. Next year, I did that again (pregnant+lost+gained). Then I learned to run and found MFP.

I'm currently at my pre-baby weight, but with a heck of a lot more muscle. I'm working on increasing my muscle mass more than losing my fat right now.

According to the definition used, that is a a story of progressive failures. I failed at each diet but the last one...yet. And the conclusion is that diets don't work? Really?

tedrickp

I probably missed this in the thread, but does anyone have a link to the actual paper the CBC article is discussing?

From reading the article a couple things come to mind instantly...

Typical Media Spin: Media =/= science and in some cases does a horrible job of presenting research. I saw this mention on the CBC nightly news and it was clearly presented in a sensationalized manner. Even the headline for this article is ****ty IMO: \
Obesity research confirms long-term weight loss almost impossible: No known cure for obesity except surgically shrinking the stomach

5% IMO is not "nearly impossible".

Someone more versed in actual research could probably answer this - but isn't 5% a little high of a percentage to be considered an "outlier"?

Heatherybit

To me this article just motivates me to keep going..never stop. Only I can determine if I'm going to be the 5% because there is no "miracle pill" or procedure and nothing is permanent.

I'm not offended. I'm now more passionate about the importance of what I am doing. I want to be the 5 percenter!

likitisplit

I probably missed this in the thread, but does anyone have a link to the actual paper the CBC article is discussing?

From reading the article a couple things come to mind instantly...

Typical Media Spin: Media =/= science and in some cases does a horrible job of presenting research. I saw this mention on the CBC nightly news and it was clearly presented in a sensationalized manner. Even the headline for this article is ****ty IMO: \
Obesity research confirms long-term weight loss almost impossible: No known cure for obesity except surgically shrinking the stomach

5% IMO is not "nearly impossible".

Someone more versed in actual research could probably answer this - but isn't 5% a little high of a percentage to be considered an "outlier"?

It's one person in 20.

davert123

I would say its ridiculous but then again I haven't lost all my weight and don't know if I will put it back on so my opinion doesn't count for anything.

levitateme

I am a little shocked that some people's take-away message is that because it's hard and will be a challenge, they won't try at all. To me, it's important to know the REALITY, regardless of whether it's easy or hard, so I can prepare appropriately. Staying in denial about challenges helps no one. If you aren't ready to face the reality and instead opt for a defeatist, futile attitude, I highly doubt you would succeed anyway.

I generally wouldn't expend massive efforts in a solution with only a 5% success rate

A) If there is massive effort, you are doing it wrong.

How the researchers define "success" isn't how I would necessarily define success.

For example, I went to college and quit smoking at 23. Way more sedentary that I was used to. Gained a bunch of weight. Lost it through portion control and exercise.

At 31, I was working full time and in graduate school full time. Doing pretty well until I had to have foot surgery. Gained all the weight and more back. I couldn't do exercise and portion control wasn't working. I kept gaining for a year and then lost it all in 6 months on Weight Watchers.

At 39, I was about 20 pounds over my goal WW weight - I'd become a manager and was working 60+ hour weeks. It was crazed. I couldn't do WW because I didn't have the time. I tried the online version, but couldn't keep committed. Then I got pregnant. Lost all the weight in six weeks and then gained it back + some by three months. Next year, I did that again (pregnant+lost+gained). Then I learned to run and found MFP.

I'm currently at my pre-baby weight, but with a heck of a lot more muscle. I'm working on increasing my muscle mass more than losing my fat right now.

According to the definition used, that is a a story of progressive failures. I failed at each diet but the last one...yet. And the conclusion is that diets don't work? Really?

My story is pretty similar, gain weight then lose weight, over and over (more times than you, and I was never pregnant, but still) and right now I am recommitted and on a downswing. That doesn't mean that I will not be in the 95% that gain it back. The conclusion isn't that "diets don't work" it's that "people can lose weight but rarely can maintain the loss over a long period of time."

We can all plug our ears and say "lalala statistics shmatistics" and "that will never be me" and "I am part of the 5%" right now, but we can't see ourselves 1 year in the future. I would like to think that I've been to the rodeo enough times to know how to stay on the bull, but *kitten* happens.

EvanKeel

We don't expend effort to prevent death, we expend effort to delay death. And we've proven very adept/successful at that.

I think one can argue that we do both of those (prevent and delay), but the difference is mostly an insignificant semantic distinction--to me, at least.

EDIT: Example. I get in a car accident. I have surgery that prevents me from bleeding to death. The doctors have prevented my swiftly approaching death from happening. It also happens to be delaying it until some future time.

When virtually everybody is failing, the use cases are pretty irrelevant, as the use case clearly isn't the issue. The more use cases (ie, weight loss strategies) that have been attempted, the more true that becomes.

That doesn't seem like a logical conclusion. Without understanding the differences between the successful attempts, and failed attempts, again the % just means we're not very good at [whatever the desired outcome is], yet. It doesn't say anything about how possible success.

I'd probably also quibble about the definitions of "success" and "failure" but that's kind of another issue.

Mr_Knight

And the conclusion is that diets don't work? Really?

That's not what the article said.

likitisplit

I am a little shocked that some people's take-away message is that because it's hard and will be a challenge, they won't try at all. To me, it's important to know the REALITY, regardless of whether it's easy or hard, so I can prepare appropriately. Staying in denial about challenges helps no one. If you aren't ready to face the reality and instead opt for a defeatist, futile attitude, I highly doubt you would succeed anyway.

I generally wouldn't expend massive efforts in a solution with only a 5% success rate

A) If there is massive effort, you are doing it wrong.

How the researchers define "success" isn't how I would necessarily define success.

For example, I went to college and quit smoking at 23. Way more sedentary that I was used to. Gained a bunch of weight. Lost it through portion control and exercise.

At 31, I was working full time and in graduate school full time. Doing pretty well until I had to have foot surgery. Gained all the weight and more back. I couldn't do exercise and portion control wasn't working. I kept gaining for a year and then lost it all in 6 months on Weight Watchers.

At 39, I was about 20 pounds over my goal WW weight - I'd become a manager and was working 60+ hour weeks. It was crazed. I couldn't do WW because I didn't have the time. I tried the online version, but couldn't keep committed. Then I got pregnant. Lost all the weight in six weeks and then gained it back + some by three months. Next year, I did that again (pregnant+lost+gained). Then I learned to run and found MFP.

I'm currently at my pre-baby weight, but with a heck of a lot more muscle. I'm working on increasing my muscle mass more than losing my fat right now.

According to the definition used, that is a a story of progressive failures. I failed at each diet but the last one...yet. And the conclusion is that diets don't work? Really?

My story is pretty similar, gain weight then lose weight, over and over (more times than you, and I was never pregnant, but still) and right now I am recommitted and on a downswing. That doesn't mean that I will not be in the 95% that gain it back. The conclusion isn't that "diets don't work" it's that "people can lose weight but rarely can maintain the loss over a long period of time."

We can all plug our ears and say "lalala statistics shmatistics" and "that will never be me" and "I am part of the 5%" right now, but we can't see ourselves 1 year in the future. I would like to think that I've been to the rodeo enough times to know how to stay on the bull, but *kitten* happens.

My point is that, between the ages of 22 and 42, I've been fat three times. This is a total period of time lasting 5 years and have been pretty fit for 15 of them. If the averages hold, by the time I get fat again, I will have been fit for 22/28 years since the time I was 22 or 79% of the time.

And this is failure?

Mr_Knight

That doesn't seem like a logical conclusion. Without understanding the differences between the successful attempts, and failed attempts, again the % just means we're not very good at [whatever the desired outcome is], yet. It doesn't say anything about how possible success.

It tells us that the approach to weight loss is essentially irrelevant. Which means the reasons for failure (or success) aren't in the specifics of the program (of any program), they lie outside that. They lie in the interaction between excess food supply and human nature.

There is exactly one weight loss program that works 100% of the time for 100% of the people - and that's to have a higher authority simply deny the dieter access to food.

likitisplit

And the conclusion is that diets don't work? Really?

That's not what the article said.

It said that they have a 95% failure rate.

I'd rather stick with free choice and enjoy 100% of my life where I'm happy with what I look like 78% of the time.

tedrickp

It's one person in 20.

LOL I know what 5% means.

What I am saying is 1 in 20 doesn't seem "nearly impossible" to me, but I guess that really comes down to semantics. I just have an issue with the article using terms like "nearly impossible" and "outliers".

1 in 20 seems statistically significant to me - but like I said I don't know a lot about actually doing research, so not sure if 1 in 20 is often considered an outlier.

EDIT: Most importantly Id love to see the research this article was based on.