What are the Proven Benefits of a "Lifestyle Change"?

tycho_mx

Have you tried using google? Or are you actually looking for someone to mail you a medical journal that contains weight loss articles?

A simple google search can provide you links to numerous studies about weight loss methods.

So in other words, you've got nothing.

Thanks for your input.

A bit of a jerk, aren't we? I'm out of this. You clearly engage those that are emotionally responsive to your post, but decline to comment on the actual pertinent research data.

I think that's called trolling. Godspeed, no intention of enabling you anymore. Nice forums with ignore settings

Iwishyouwell

Whoa, hang on a minute there - you clearly posted " I love reading anecdotal testimonies", which is why I posted my crap.

I absolutely do, and I thank you for it. It's just not the main point of this particular thread. But please, don't regret sharing because I always appreciate hearing people's stories.

But to get to the term at hand, I think we're simply looking at this using the wrong words "lifestyle change".

I got a fair amount of results doing a search under " long term weight loss". The first abstract I found cites:

Yep, I'm aware of the NWCR. As I mentioned in a previous post they've got solid, useful information for a cross section of maintainers. Good stuff.

However the existence of the NWCR, and the conclusions it reaches about those registered, doesn't bear out any statistical evidence that "lifestyle changes", as are commonly defined here on MFP, lead to a greater percentage of maintenance successes over any other method.

That's what I was asking about for this thread. Not proof that people can maintain; I know, anecdotally speaking, that it is possible. I am asking that people back up their claims that "lifestyle changes", as defined most often by calorie counting, slower weight loss, an "everything in moderation approach", are inherently, provably superior to any other method of weight loss and weight maintenance after the loss. If it's become the number one mantra to cite the "correct" way, and to suggest that "dieting" fails, while "lifestyle changes" have a far greater chance at success, I'd simply love to see actual evidence of this.

It amazes me that people post studies on this board all the time, often asking others to back up their weight loss/maintenance related claims. Science is king around here. Yet a thread asking for scientific proof to back up an enormously popular mantra is met with quite a lot of derision, personal attack, and almost no actual evidence.

I appreciate those who have posted material in an attempt to address the topic. I appreciate those who were just plain honest and said it essentially doesn't exist. Thank you to all who actually at least tried to stay on topic, or add interesting information to the conversation without getting personal, or making assumptions about me, the OP.

Iwishyouwell

A bit of a jerk, aren't we? I'm out of this. You clearly engage those that are emotionally responsive to your post, but decline to comment on the actual pertinent research data.

I think that's called trolling. Godspeed, no intention of enabling you anymore. Nice forums with ignore settings

Someone, for no apparent reason, responds rudely to me. Yet I'm the troll?

And the absolute irony? Just as you were writing your "kiss off troll" retort, I was in the middle of typing a rather lengthy, considered response to your earlier post. It's posted above and was an attempt to clarify my point.

Godspeed indeed.

_KitKat_

But what if losing weight causes those disorders? Quoting this again because I read it today in someone's post, and to me it sums up the issue of how difficult it is to maintain a loss and I don't think the words 'lifestyle change' address it at all:

"The Rockefeller subjects also had a psychiatric syndrome, called semi-starvation neurosis, which had been noticed before in people of normal weight who had been starved. They dreamed of food, they fantasized about food or about breaking their diet. They were anxious and depressed; some had thoughts of suicide. They secreted food in their rooms. And they binged."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/health/08fat.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

The whole article is really worth a read.

The article was interesting, but locking people away and allowing no food...well here " The only food permitted was a liquid formula providing 600 calories a day" is far different than an individual making conscious decisions and changes over an extended period of time. This article makes a point to say these people were acting starved, hiding food and binging. First they were by definition starved and secondly the article has no mention of how they got fat, they may have always binged when felt deprived.

If weight loss was the cause of those disorders (not saying in some situations weight loss may not trigger new disorders to the individual) than did the obese individual magically create and store energy from nothing, or did they eat too much for whatever reason or issue and instead of taking steps to correct it, they developed more issues related to obesity as they grew in size?

The latter seems much more plausible. I would be interested if there is a correlation to the degree of obesity (or overweight), length of time spent over weight and longterm maintenance.

Over all I do not think the OPs question is answerable and any study found would be irrelevant because they are either doing insane studies, like that article or they are lumping all overweight people together regardless of mental health, prior history, hereditary and environment and counting a crash dieter the same as a longterm calorie restriction plan.

The studies mentioned were from the 1920's and 1950's

Your reply was a which came first the chicken or the egg type question, but the truth is many things cause excess weight, then excess weight causes many more issues. Dieting and failure may exuberate the issues but they still came with and during the weight gain.

The article also discusses set point, not sure of my opinion but since prior to the 19th century obesity was rare and I highly doubt the human population evolved to hold onto food in a more efficient manner at a point in history when food has never been more available and do this in a couple hundred years as opposed to 1000's for normal evolutionary patterns to appear. This theory seems far fetched. I am not saying some people are not just naturally bigger, but over a hundred pounds over weight is not just genes. To be that much larger there were contributing factors.

Iwishyouwell

Kpost323 I'm loving your thoughts, questions, and contributions to the greater topic.

SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish

A bit of a jerk, aren't we? I'm out of this. You clearly engage those that are emotionally responsive to your post, but decline to comment on the actual pertinent research data.

I think that's called trolling. Godspeed, no intention of enabling you anymore. Nice forums with ignore settings

Someone, for no apparent reason, responds rudely to me. Yet I'm the troll?

And the absolute irony? Just as you were writing your "kiss off troll" retort, I was in the middle of typing a rather lengthy, considered response to your earlier post. It's posted above and was an attempt to clarify my point.

Godspeed indeed.

No, he's right, you were rude, and don't seem to be here to really talk about it, but just ask for studies over and over. Its not really cute when people do it in other topics either, especially when they don't read/understand/comment on whats brought up. Common sense is common sense, and good luck in finding your 1+1=2 study, I'm not sure its a mystery that needs exploring to find whether going back to eating at a surplus will = gain a second time. You WILL gain weight if you go back to that surplus that you previously proved you gain on. That's why a "lifestyle change" needs to be initiated for the rest of your life, or you will still have your habit of caloric surplus.

tycho_mx

Fair enough, my apologies for the overreaction. I was irked that you seemed more intent in responding those responding emotionally than those trying to contribute.

I still think there is a wrong tilt in the way we want to analyze this: you want something that says "lifestyle changes that consist of this lead to weight loss".

I see it from the opposite end - weight loss is relatively simple in mechanics but has a very large, long-term failure rate. So, what do those that are successful did?!

And came up with this, from the meta-studies on the NWCR:

- Weight control behaviours were statistically insignificant for long-term weight loss- so you could eat lower fat, small portions, or lower calories. For those that actually managed to lose weight (the last summary and myself will ignore those failures for now), long-term success is irrelevant of how they achieved their caloric reduction.
- Exercise rate is statistically significant: They exercise more, and have less perceived barriers to exercise
- Monitoring is statistically significant: successful long-term losers weighed themselves regularly, daily amongst the most successful.
- "cheating" on the weekends (i.e. non-planned or monitored meals) is more significant amongst those that fail to sustain their weight loss.
- Resistance training is statistically significant amongst successful losers - 20% Vs. 10% of those that fail.
- Funnily, a majority of successful losers report enjoying cooking and baking.

So there's some stuff to discuss and try to digest, so to speak. No, it's not prescriptive, but at least shows some success factors. After reading this I'll limit/eliminate my cheating days and weigh myself more frequently.

_KitKat_

OP, I think the issue is with the words. When most here mention lifestyle change, they normally mean .... Can the person continue to do each small change for the rest of their life. I do not think they mean all of the points you made as one thing. Instead some will learn moderation, some will need to log, some will be goal motivated...it is whatever healthy change that a person can commit to for life to better themselves. All preexisting issues would of course need addressed before such a commitment could be honestly taken.

Also people that have always maintained a healthy weight do practice moderation, are in tuned to their bodies and normally have little tolerance of variance in their body composition (meaning they naturally eat less or become more active if their body composition changes any).

Iwishyouwell

Fair enough, my apologies for the overreaction. I was irked that you seemed more intent in responding those responding emotionally than those trying to contribute.

No worries.

I see it from the opposite end - weight loss is relatively simple in mechanics but has a very large, long-term failure rate. So, what do those that are successful did?!

Agreed. From what I gather, from the information currently available, weight loss has "a very large, long term failure rate"...regardless of method of loss or rate of loss.

Yet I keep reading, time and again, on this forum how the "lifestyle change" method most popularly pushed around here leads to a greater success rate, a defense against those bleak statistics we see.

Just wanted some evidence that I might have missed.

I think the NWCR gives us some great meat to chew on regarding the very few who have maintained a substantial loss for a decent amount of years, the work it continues to take in order to keep success going. Unfortunately it's very existence doesn't do much to support the notion that weight loss, done "right" or "wrong", is very sustainable in most people's lives.

And, as is often the case in areas of underdeveloped scientific study, we must turn to the anecdotal. Though to be honest Tycho, in my own life that doesn't work out much better. I can count on one hand how many people I personally know who have lost a substantial amount of weight, and even less those who kept it off long term.

And I know a lot of people.

Iwishyouwell

No, he's right, you were rude,

A person came at me with snark, and I shut them down and moved on. If, you, or anyone has an issue with that, so be it; I'm a big boy, I can manage. Moving on...

and don't seem to be here to really talk about it, but just ask for studies over and over.

Do you want to know why I keep reiterating the entire point of this thread? Because people keep veering wildly off topic, trying to turn this thread into a thousand things it absolutely is not.

This was a thread simply asking for some evidence to back up the claim that one of the most popular mantras used, ad nauseum, here on MFP indeed has been proven to lead to higher percentages of successful weight loss maintenance than the typically abysmal numbers we see from multiple studies on the subject.

That it's. I shouldn't have to field all the other agendas and off topic tangents. The emotionality is becoming tiresome and is derailing this thread.

casy84

I've been maintaining for about a year and I only plan to gain weight the day I am pregnant. Until then it is a lifestyle change + more because I still have to track what I eat and watch my weight like a hawk. It's not really pleasant to live like this, but the benefits of being at your desired weight are worth the sacrifice.

bennettinfinity

If you give up on it after you've hit your goal weight, that's your problem not mine.

QFT

By definition, if you give up the 'lifestyle change' at some point after you hit goal, then it wasn't a 'lifestyle change' and you'll gain the weight back.

So then, by definition, maintaining the lifestyle change that got you to goal, will allow you to maintain indefinitely.

It's not rocket surgery.

agrafina

But what if losing weight causes those disorders? Quoting this again because I read it today in someone's post, and to me it sums up the issue of how difficult it is to maintain a loss and I don't think the words 'lifestyle change' address it at all:

"The Rockefeller subjects also had a psychiatric syndrome, called semi-starvation neurosis, which had been noticed before in people of normal weight who had been starved. They dreamed of food, they fantasized about food or about breaking their diet. They were anxious and depressed; some had thoughts of suicide. They secreted food in their rooms. And they binged."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/health/08fat.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

The whole article is really worth a read.

The article was interesting, but locking people away and allowing no food...well here " The only food permitted was a liquid formula providing 600 calories a day" is far different than an individual making conscious decisions and changes over an extended period of time. This article makes a point to say these people were acting starved, hiding food and binging. First they were by definition starved and secondly the article has no mention of how they got fat, they may have always binged when felt deprived.

If weight loss was the cause of those disorders (not saying in some situations weight loss may not trigger new disorders to the individual) than did the obese individual magically create and store energy from nothing, or did they eat too much for whatever reason or issue and instead of taking steps to correct it, they developed more issues related to obesity as they grew in size?

The latter seems much more plausible. I would be interested if there is a correlation to the degree of obesity (or overweight), length of time spent over weight and longterm maintenance.

Over all I do not think the OPs question is answerable and any study found would be irrelevant because they are either doing insane studies, like that article or they are lumping all overweight people together regardless of mental health, prior history, hereditary and environment and counting a crash dieter the same as a longterm calorie restriction plan.

The studies mentioned were from the 1920's and 1950's

Your reply was a which came first the chicken or the egg type question, but the truth is many things cause excess weight, then excess weight causes many more issues. Dieting and failure may exuberate the issues but they still came with and during the weight gain.

The article also discusses set point, not sure of my opinion but since prior to the 19th century obesity was rare and I highly doubt the human population evolved to hold onto food in a more efficient manner at a point in history when food has never been more available and do this in a couple hundred years as opposed to 1000's for normal evolutionary patterns to appear. This theory seems far fetched. I am not saying some people are not just naturally bigger, but over a hundred pounds over weight is not just genes. To be that much larger there were contributing factors.

Not true. Many of the studies of maintenance done institute programs with extensive behavioral change components who are then followed after the program ends. These programs do teach behavioral changes along the lines of lifestyle changes that are discussed every day on here. And yet people don't maintain significant weight loss. The science is better than most of you seem to give credit for. I'm talking trials, not observational studies of the National Weight Control Registry.

Chevy_Quest

I agree with what Sabine_Stroeh posted earlier.

DO believe a lifestyle change is what's needed. I believe that a true lifestyle change means different things to different people.\

I strongly believe that this subject really gets into the psychological end of things regarding will power and discipline.

---

I am trying to lose 30-40 lbs and get fitter by doing a "lifestyle" change right now. I hope to report back in a few months that this works. I would consider this to be first person anecdotal evidence.

FlaxMilk

QFT

By definition, if you give up the 'lifestyle change' at some point after you hit goal, then it wasn't a 'lifestyle change' and you'll gain the weight back.

So then, by definition, maintaining the lifestyle change that got you to goal, will allow you to maintain indefinitely.

It's not rocket surgery.

I bet surgeons for rockets make heaps of money.

I think OP was not challenging the idea that a "lifestyle change" won't maintain weight. Any way of eating that helps someone get to goal will work for maintenance. I think she is more asking, "Where is the evidence that eating in moderation, including treats on a semi-regular basis, and calorie counting results in more long-term success than following other diet methods?"

I don't believe she is questioning whether or not people who can stick to that plan do well. I believe she is asking if there's any proof that more people can stick to that plan. Of course calorie counting works. But many people don't comply with it. What makes it a lifestyle change any more than choosing to follow a true Paleo diet? Both groups have people who stick with it and those who don't.

EvgeniZyntx

The question isn't how do people gain weight back, we know how. We lose the weight, then eat like pigs again. The question is: Why do so many of us do that, given how horrible being overweight is and how hard we worked to not be anymore?

When that gets solved, then this issue can be laid to rest. For certain the simple, ill-defined phrase 'lifestyle change' isn't offering up any solutions.

It means you keep working out and eating right even after you hit your goal. You set new fitness related goals (doesn't have to just be losing weight). Mabye your goal is lose 30 lbs. Then once you get there, you maintain it and you set some other goal your interested in - maybe run a 5k, 10k, whatever. You keep working out and doing fitness related activities. You don't start eating junk because you lost your 30 lbs. You eat a maintainance amount of calories. If weight starts to creep up, you lower cals again. Rinse and repeat for life. Best thing to do is keep setting goals and enter into fitness related events so you have something to train for. Example: I'm training for a powerlifting meet and three mud obstacle races this summer. In the fall I'll be training for some other events. That's why it's a lifestyle, always have a goal to train (and eat) for.

If it was that simple everyone with even a moderate amount of nutrition information would never get fat in the first place, much less have trouble keeping weight off.

How do you see that? People who have emotional ties to food for stress and comfort, people that have binging disorders.....these issues can easily overtake the best intentions unless dealt with. Until the why is addressed, the how to fix it will never work. Not addressing the core issues is why people yo-yo and develope an even more harmful perpetuating cycle of self sabotage.

But what if losing weight causes those disorders? Quoting this again because I read it today in someone's post, and to me it sums up the issue of how difficult it is to maintain a loss and I don't think the words 'lifestyle change' address it at all:

"The Rockefeller subjects also had a psychiatric syndrome, called semi-starvation neurosis, which had been noticed before in people of normal weight who had been starved. They dreamed of food, they fantasized about food or about breaking their diet. They were anxious and depressed; some had thoughts of suicide. They secreted food in their rooms. And they binged."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/health/08fat.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

The whole article is really worth a read.

It's called pulling excuses out of a hat.

You can probably lose weight without "semi-starvation" and extremism. Maybe. Thousands of people are doing it on this place called myfitnesspal.com.

agrafina

The question isn't how do people gain weight back, we know how. We lose the weight, then eat like pigs again. The question is: Why do so many of us do that, given how horrible being overweight is and how hard we worked to not be anymore?

When that gets solved, then this issue can be laid to rest. For certain the simple, ill-defined phrase 'lifestyle change' isn't offering up any solutions.

It means you keep working out and eating right even after you hit your goal. You set new fitness related goals (doesn't have to just be losing weight). Mabye your goal is lose 30 lbs. Then once you get there, you maintain it and you set some other goal your interested in - maybe run a 5k, 10k, whatever. You keep working out and doing fitness related activities. You don't start eating junk because you lost your 30 lbs. You eat a maintainance amount of calories. If weight starts to creep up, you lower cals again. Rinse and repeat for life. Best thing to do is keep setting goals and enter into fitness related events so you have something to train for. Example: I'm training for a powerlifting meet and three mud obstacle races this summer. In the fall I'll be training for some other events. That's why it's a lifestyle, always have a goal to train (and eat) for.

If it was that simple everyone with even a moderate amount of nutrition information would never get fat in the first place, much less have trouble keeping weight off.

How do you see that? People who have emotional ties to food for stress and comfort, people that have binging disorders.....these issues can easily overtake the best intentions unless dealt with. Until the why is addressed, the how to fix it will never work. Not addressing the core issues is why people yo-yo and develope an even more harmful perpetuating cycle of self sabotage.

But what if losing weight causes those disorders? Quoting this again because I read it today in someone's post, and to me it sums up the issue of how difficult it is to maintain a loss and I don't think the words 'lifestyle change' address it at all:

"The Rockefeller subjects also had a psychiatric syndrome, called semi-starvation neurosis, which had been noticed before in people of normal weight who had been starved. They dreamed of food, they fantasized about food or about breaking their diet. They were anxious and depressed; some had thoughts of suicide. They secreted food in their rooms. And they binged."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/health/08fat.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

The whole article is really worth a read.

It's called pulling excuses out of a hat.

You can probably lose weight without "semi-starvation" and extremism. Maybe. Thousands of people are doing it on this place called myfitnesspal.com.

But the loss isn't the issue. No one disputes people can lose weight. How many of us, using this place called MFP will keep off a large portion (say greater than 50%) of the weight we lose long term? That is the rub.

lemurcat12

A common personality trait in registry members is their personal vigilance regarding weight loss maintenance. Forty-four percent of registry members weigh themselves daily, while 31% weigh themselves at least once per week. Further investigation of this population reveals that “successful weight loss maintainers continue to act like recently successful weight losers for many years after their weight loss” (Wing and Phelan, 2005).

Based on my own personal experience and common sense (questionable as that is as a source), I suspect this is the key.

The problem is that calling it a "lifestyle change" vs. a diet (although I usually do that too) or losing weight at a particular speed or in a particular way doesn't necessarily equate to these kinds of actions afterwards. For me, I acted like this for some years and then I stopped. The question is what makes people more inclined to do this or not. Given that some huge number of people eventually fail to do this, why is that? Is there anything that could make it more likely that they won't?

Re fad diets vs. calorie counting, I do think that if you understand the logic of how to lose weight and why you lost and what you need to do to maintain (which calorie counting should teach you), that makes it easier. If you use a diet plan that just tells you what to eat, I can't see how that leads to learning how to do maintenance or even understanding how one would maintain in a sustainable way. That said, that person could in theory weigh his or herself and jump back on the fad or preplanned menus for a week or two if a gain of 5 lbs was observed and maintain. And more significantly, the sensible loser must also continue monitoring and watching calories, at least if weight starts creeping up. Seems simple, but lots and lots of times people don't. So the problem is why. Of course, this is essentially the longstanding problem of why humans often struggle with doing what they know they should, even when they know it will make them happier/better off in the long run.

I'm NOT saying it's impossible, but that it's an important question to face.