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

mjterp

All the proof I need is in my miriad of MFPs who have LOST the weight and are several years into maintenance and who report at their doctors appointments being taken of diabetes medication, being taken off high blood pressure medication, no more infections...and a plethora of other improvements. All of those individual case studies located RIGHT HERE in the Success stories section.

_KitKat_

This article mentions these studies and the following quote speaks to a "realist" point of view, in actuality it speaks to having a positive assumption of success in itself contributing to longterm success.

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2010/0915/p630.html

"Social support, better coping strategies, and the ability to handle life stressors are factors associated with successful weight loss maintenance.25 Disinhibited eating, binge eating, more intense hunger, eating in response to negative emotions and stress, passive reactions to problems, and less assumption of responsibility in life are all factors posing a risk of weight regain. On the other hand, strong internal motivation to lose weight, self-efficacy (defined as greater confidence in achieving successful weight loss), and a sense of autonomy contribute to successful weight loss maintenance.25 Food journaling is an additional proven strategy for short-term weight loss and successful weight loss maintenance.25  A summary of behavioral strategies contributing to successful weight loss maintenance is shown in Table 2.25"

rexroars

Wait I'm really confused why this needs a "study"??

If you go on a temporary "diet", you will lose weight temporarily, then gain it back when you go back to your old habits.

If you change your "lifestyle" then it's a permanent change.. so whatever health benefits you get will be permanent as well.

"Lifestyle change" isn't a weight loss technique, it's what someone needs to do to make ANY improvement in their life, not just health/weight loss. It's a really, really general/simple concept?

FlaxMilk

If you change your "lifestyle" then it's a permanent change.. so whatever health benefits you get will be permanent as well.

"Lifestyle change" isn't a weight loss technique, it's what someone needs to do to make ANY improvement in their life, not just health/weight loss. It's a really, really general/simple concept?

But a lifestyle is built on a lifetime of choices, not a single choice to change. It requires commitment and follow through. Most people who fail to maintain eating in moderation or counting calories probably were shooting for a lifestyle change and said that's what they wanted to do and were doing. Actually getting that means doing the work most of the time. There is no permanent change until you die. The most confident lifestyle changer here can't predict with certainty what he or she will do, think, or feel in 10 years. You can plan, hope, and work. But you cannot guarantee permanent success.

Iwishyouwell

If you change your "lifestyle" then it's a permanent change.. so whatever health benefits you get will be permanent as well.

"Lifestyle change" isn't a weight loss technique, it's what someone needs to do to make ANY improvement in their life, not just health/weight loss. It's a really, really general/simple concept?

But a lifestyle is built on a lifetime of choices, not a single choice to change. It requires commitment and follow through. Most people who fail to maintain eating in moderation or counting calories probably were shooting for a lifestyle change and said that's what they wanted to do and were doing. Actually getting that means doing the work most of the time. There is no permanent change until you die. The most confident lifestyle changer here can't predict with certainty what he or she will do, think, or feel in 10 years. You can plan, hope, and work. But you cannot guarantee permanent success.

Nailed it.

jofjltncb6

If you change your "lifestyle" then it's a permanent change.. so whatever health benefits you get will be permanent as well.

"Lifestyle change" isn't a weight loss technique, it's what someone needs to do to make ANY improvement in their life, not just health/weight loss. It's a really, really general/simple concept?

But a lifestyle is built on a lifetime of choices, not a single choice to change. It requires commitment and follow through. Most people who fail to maintain eating in moderation or counting calories probably were shooting for a lifestyle change and said that's what they wanted to do and were doing. Actually getting that means doing the work most of the time. There is no permanent change until you die. The most confident lifestyle changer here can't predict with certainty what he or she will do, think, or feel in 10 years. You can plan, hope, and work. But you cannot guarantee permanent success.

Nailed it.

So you finally got the answer you were fishing for?

Good.

Only took six pages.

Iwishyouwell

If you change your "lifestyle" then it's a permanent change.. so whatever health benefits you get will be permanent as well.

"Lifestyle change" isn't a weight loss technique, it's what someone needs to do to make ANY improvement in their life, not just health/weight loss. It's a really, really general/simple concept?

But a lifestyle is built on a lifetime of choices, not a single choice to change. It requires commitment and follow through. Most people who fail to maintain eating in moderation or counting calories probably were shooting for a lifestyle change and said that's what they wanted to do and were doing. Actually getting that means doing the work most of the time. There is no permanent change until you die. The most confident lifestyle changer here can't predict with certainty what he or she will do, think, or feel in 10 years. You can plan, hope, and work. But you cannot guarantee permanent success.

Nailed it.

So you finally got the answer you were fishing for?

Good.

Only took six pages.

No I didn't get the answer I was looking for.

Agreeing with someone's post doesn't mean the purpose of the thread was fulfilled. Obviously nobody provided the evidence I was searching for, nobody backed up the popular claims with any study or proof.

But then again I'll just assume you were being facetious and call it a day.

parkscs

No I didn't get the answer I was looking for.

Agreeing with someone's post doesn't mean the purpose of the thread was fulfilled. Obviously nobody provided the evidence I was searching for, nobody backed up the popular claims with any study or proof.

But then again I'll just assume you were being facetious and call it a day.

Studies have conclusively proven (I don't have citations, look them up) that avoiding use of the term "diet" and instead using the term "lifestyle change" leads to long-term success in weight loss, fitness and life. This is common knowledge, much like how a lack of pop tarts in your di- ... er, "lifestyle change eating plan" necessarily leads to failure.

On a more serious note, your request is silly because it's not the type of hypothesis that a study would prove. But use your common sense - if you change your lifestyle in such a way that you eat a caloric deficit to maintenance and then eat at maintenance calories, how can you NOT see long-term success with respect to weight loss? Can you concoct a hypothetical in which someone eats at maintenance and gains a bunch of fat, thus failing in their long-term weight loss? I certainly can't. Now, if instead you just call your diet a "lifestyle change", get distracted upon reaching your goal weight and revert to your old habits, you can expect to see the same weight gain as the guy who called his diet a diet and then reverted to his old habits.

Rather than getting all caught up the semantics of a "lifestyle change" and "proving" that it works, the important takeaway should be that your focus needs to be on the long-term and that weight loss and maintenance isn't a transitory activity. While you may not count calories the rest of your life, you do need to be constantly aware of your body/weight/diet/etc. if you want to keep your body at a healthy weight. It doesn't matter what you call it, but rather what matters is keeping your focus on long-term results.

FlaxMilk

Studies have conclusively proven (I don't have citations, look them up) that avoiding use of the term "diet" and instead using the term "lifestyle change" leads to long-term success in weight loss, fitness and life. This is common knowledge, much like how a lack of pop tarts in your di- ... er, "lifestyle change eating plan" necessarily leads to failure.

On a more serious note, your request is silly because it's not the type of hypothesis that a study would prove. But use your common sense - if you change your lifestyle in such a way that you eat a caloric deficit to maintenance and then eat at maintenance calories, how can you NOT see long-term success with respect to weight loss? Can you concoct a hypothetical in which someone eats at maintenance and gains a bunch of fat, thus failing in their long-term weight loss? I certainly can't. Now, if instead you just call your diet a "lifestyle change", get distracted upon reaching your goal weight and revert to your old habits, you can expect to see the same weight gain as the guy who called his diet a diet and then reverted to his old habits.

Rather than getting all caught up the semantics of a "lifestyle change" and "proving" that it works, the important takeaway should be that your focus needs to be on the long-term and that weight loss and maintenance isn't a transitory activity. While you may not count calories the rest of your life, you do need to be constantly aware of your body/weight/diet/etc. if you want to keep your body at a healthy weight. It doesn't matter what you call it, but rather what matters is keeping your focus on long-term results.

This post has inspired me to create the Decision Diet. Screw the rest of your life, just remember that everything you eat is a choice and stay aware of the choices you are making, one choice at a time.

WalkingAlong

I agree with the OP. Nearly everyone thinks they're on a 'lifestyle change', regardless of their method or eating plan of choice, in my experience.

"Fast weight losers obtained greater weight reduction and long-term maintenance, and were not more susceptible to weight regain than gradual weight losers."

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12529-010-9092-y

It doesn't specifically say "lifestyle change DOES NOT work" but it does say that people on more aggressive diets maintained better and longer. I've seen a meta-analysis of 30+ studies that showed people on VLCD (800 calories or less) were the most successful 5 years out. I'm not suggesting that means there IS a magic bullet and it's VLCD, just that our assumptions are often wrong about who maintains and why.

parkscs

Studies have conclusively proven (I don't have citations, look them up) that avoiding use of the term "diet" and instead using the term "lifestyle change" leads to long-term success in weight loss, fitness and life. This is common knowledge, much like how a lack of pop tarts in your di- ... er, "lifestyle change eating plan" necessarily leads to failure.

On a more serious note, your request is silly because it's not the type of hypothesis that a study would prove. But use your common sense - if you change your lifestyle in such a way that you eat a caloric deficit to maintenance and then eat at maintenance calories, how can you NOT see long-term success with respect to weight loss? Can you concoct a hypothetical in which someone eats at maintenance and gains a bunch of fat, thus failing in their long-term weight loss? I certainly can't. Now, if instead you just call your diet a "lifestyle change", get distracted upon reaching your goal weight and revert to your old habits, you can expect to see the same weight gain as the guy who called his diet a diet and then reverted to his old habits.

Rather than getting all caught up the semantics of a "lifestyle change" and "proving" that it works, the important takeaway should be that your focus needs to be on the long-term and that weight loss and maintenance isn't a transitory activity. While you may not count calories the rest of your life, you do need to be constantly aware of your body/weight/diet/etc. if you want to keep your body at a healthy weight. It doesn't matter what you call it, but rather what matters is keeping your focus on long-term results.

This post has inspired me to create the Decision Diet. Screw the rest of your life, just remember that everything you eat is a choice and stay aware of the choices you are making, one choice at a time.

Perhaps that's my (sometimes overly) logical approach to life, but that sounds about right to me. Everything you eat is a conscious decision because you're an adult human being with free will. At worst, you have to deal with social pressure to eat/drink something, but that's pretty easy to overcome. As for taking it one choice at a time, what other choice do we have?

And that's not to say you will never make poor choices with respect to weight loss. But if you're focused on the long-term, you can make up for any slip ups along the way. It's only when you lose that focus or stop caring that you start to slip.

FlaxMilk

Perhaps that's my (sometimes overly) logical approach to life, but that sounds about right to me. Everything you eat is a conscious decision because you're an adult human being with free will. At worst, you have to deal with social pressure to eat/drink something, but that's pretty easy to overcome. As for taking it one choice at a time, what other choice do we have?

And that's not to say you will never make poor choices with respect to weight loss. But if you're focused on the long-term, you can make up for any slip ups along the way. It's only when you lose that focus or stop caring that you start to slip.

Agreed. I'd rather take it one choice at a time than think about a lifetime.

Iwishyouwell

I agree with the OP. Nearly everyone thinks they're on a 'lifestyle change', regardless of their method or eating plan of choice, in my experience.

"Fast weight losers obtained greater weight reduction and long-term maintenance, and were not more susceptible to weight regain than gradual weight losers."

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12529-010-9092-y

It doesn't specifically say "lifestyle change DOES NOT work" but it does say that people on more aggressive diets maintained better and longer. I've seen a meta-analysis of 30+ studies that showed people on VLCD (800 calories or less) were the most successful 5 years out. I'm not suggesting that means there IS a magic bullet and it's VLCD, just that our assumptions are often wrong about who maintains and why.

I've seen that study brought up two or three times, once by myself actually.

Crickets.

andreavarangu

bump

MB_Positif

Haven't read all the responses, but I am proof that it's possible to make sustainable lifestyle changes to keep weight off. Lost 50 pounds my first year here, managed to keep it off with only fluctuations of up to 5 pounds above my lowest weight since making the changes. I even managed to maintain my loss through an period of Illness, brain surgery and the recovery that followed for a total of 9 months with zero exercise. Had I not made true lifestyle changes in my eating habits (which has pretty much only been portion control) I would surely have gained during that time.

kethry70

I agree with the OP. Nearly everyone thinks they're on a 'lifestyle change', regardless of their method or eating plan of choice, in my experience.

"Fast weight losers obtained greater weight reduction and long-term maintenance, and were not more susceptible to weight regain than gradual weight losers."

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12529-010-9092-y

It doesn't specifically say "lifestyle change DOES NOT work" but it does say that people on more aggressive diets maintained better and longer. I've seen a meta-analysis of 30+ studies that showed people on VLCD (800 calories or less) were the most successful 5 years out. I'm not suggesting that means there IS a magic bullet and it's VLCD, just that our assumptions are often wrong about who maintains and why.

I've seen that study brought up two or three times, once by myself actually.

Crickets.

I don't see that that indicates anything beyond the participants' willingness to commit and adhere to their eating modifications. It says all participants were encouraged to eat to a loss of .45 kg a week. So, the first week, some people went under that calorie goal and were labelled fast, some went over and became slow. Moderate adhered more closely to the directions given. The end results therefore don't surprise me a bit - some of the women were more serious/motivated and that translated to greater losses over time and greater long-term success. And, given that they were all obese, a loss of up to 1kg (2.2 lbs) a week or so would hardly be problematic.

amusedmonkey

To be honest, regardless if the way the weight was lost, maintenance strategies is what keeps weight off. Now from personal experience, when I tried to lose weight in the past I was not too educated about how calories work and failed to maintain. This time, I lost the most I ever did (and maintained for 6 months before resuming, for personal reasons) and it came much easier to me than all the previous times I tried to lose, because lifestyle modifications (I wouldn't say total change) just started being a natural part of my daily life. So in my case, fad diets were harder to do and harder to maintain, and a more balanced view was easier to do and easier to maintain. Here is a study that matches my experience:

http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(13)00528-X/abstract

This study shows that ". . . Larger initial weight losses and longer duration of maintenance were associated with better long-term outcomes. Decreases in leisure-time physical activity, dietary restraint, and frequency of self-weighing and increases in percentage of energy intake from fat and disinhibition were associated with greater weight regain."

One could interpret "larger initial weight loss" as "more time to form habits", and many studies show that once you have maintained for 5 years while keeping up the lifestyle modifications like frequent weighing, exercise and being aware of food intake, the less likely you are to slip back into "old habits" because these changes become a part of your daily life.

With that said, if I had lost through a fad diet and had the tools I have now for maintenance, I may be able to succeed at maintenance as well, though it would be a bit harder since I would need to re-integrate the habits into my life.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.long#T2

This study shows that people who continued exercising (which is a lifestyle modification) after losing their weight were about twice as likely to keep it off

What's interesting is that people who have lost through very low energy diets were able to maintain about 1.5 times better than those who did through a balanced diet. I find that interesting, and since it does not match my own experience, I'm intrigued. Does anyone have an explanation for that?

I'm personally a very strong advocate for "whatever works for you" approach, as long as you learn and adapt strategies for maintenance.

neandermagnon

There are a few threads going on at the moment detailing various studies that show that long term weight loss management has pretty abysmal success rates.

The common rebuttal is that said studies are reflecting participants that lost weight the "wrong" way with various fads, cleanses, diet pills, etc, and that these rates do not reflect people who did it the "right" way with a "lifestyle change".

I've been looking for evidence to back up this claim and so far I've found nothing. I also haven't seen anybody on MFP actually offer solid proof either.

So I'm asking for people to please offer links to studies that show concrete evidence that "lifestyle changes" in the area of calorie counting, slow weight loss, "everything in moderation" all lead to more successful maintainers in the long run.

Thank you.

(haven't read the rest of the thread just this post)

Lifestyle change = permanent, i.e if you revert back to your old ways, it wasn't a lifestyle change

Doing it right = doing everything necessary to maintain your weight long term (and it's a continued process) - if you regain weight, then you're not doing it right (notice the use of the present tense, because it's an ongoing process it's not just about what you did in the weight loss phase).

If people think "doing it right" only applies to the weight loss phase and not to long term maintenance again then they are not "doing it right" and they also don't understand the concept of "lifestyle change"

............Unless you saying that even if someone is proactive in maintaining a healthy weight, as in continuing to exercise, count calories (or other successful portion control method) and do all the things that got you thin, throughout maintenance and continue doing that for the rest of their life, monitoring their weight etc, that you believe that people are going to regain weight no matter what they do?

Yes, maintaining after you lose weight requires continued effort. And yes, some people will slip back into old ways. But like I said, slipping back into old ways means that the "lifestyle changes" were not really lifestyle changes, they were just a temporary thing.

EvgeniZyntx

I agree with the OP. Nearly everyone thinks they're on a 'lifestyle change', regardless of their method or eating plan of choice, in my experience.

"Fast weight losers obtained greater weight reduction and long-term maintenance, and were not more susceptible to weight regain than gradual weight losers."

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12529-010-9092-y

It doesn't specifically say "lifestyle change DOES NOT work" but it does say that people on more aggressive diets maintained better and longer. I've seen a meta-analysis of 30+ studies that showed people on VLCD (800 calories or less) were the most successful 5 years out. I'm not suggesting that means there IS a magic bullet and it's VLCD, just that our assumptions are often wrong about who maintains and why.

I've seen that study brought up two or three times, once by myself actually.

Crickets.

That study is a prime example of sampling selection error.

The cohorts were chosen on the ability to lose weight so those that stuck to the plan to lose 0.45/week or more were likelier to stick to it afterwards for a year. No surprise there, just bad methodology. All individuals in that study had the same weight loss target and cohorts were chosen after the study based on actual average weight lost.

This type of post-hoc bias is common. Assuming that a bias might exist when the determinant of weight loss maintenance versus weight loss rate versus target would seem rather obvious.

Also the conclusion of that study do not say that "that people on more aggressive diets maintained better and longer." It actaully says:

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)

That means no difference in the groups.

kethry70

I agree with the OP. Nearly everyone thinks they're on a 'lifestyle change', regardless of their method or eating plan of choice, in my experience.

"Fast weight losers obtained greater weight reduction and long-term maintenance, and were not more susceptible to weight regain than gradual weight losers."

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12529-010-9092-y

It doesn't specifically say "lifestyle change DOES NOT work" but it does say that people on more aggressive diets maintained better and longer. I've seen a meta-analysis of 30+ studies that showed people on VLCD (800 calories or less) were the most successful 5 years out. I'm not suggesting that means there IS a magic bullet and it's VLCD, just that our assumptions are often wrong about who maintains and why.

I've seen that study brought up two or three times, once by myself actually.

Crickets.

That study is a prime example of sampling selection error.

The cohorts were chosen on the ability to lose weight so those that stuck to the plan to lose 0.45/week or more were likelier to stick to it afterwards for a year. No surprise there, just bad methodology. All individuals in that study had the same weight loss target and cohorts were chosen after the study based on actual average weight lost.

This type of post-hoc bias is common. Assuming that a bias might exist when the determinant of weight loss maintenance versus weight loss rate versus target would seem rather obvious.

Also the conclusion of that study do not say that "that people on more aggressive diets maintained better and longer." It actaully says:

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)

That means no difference in the groups.

You said it so much better than I did :bigsmile: :flowerforyou:

bettyjoburdett

I can give you a 45 year study of 3 women. It is not scientific but it is factual. These 3 women would be in the obese range. 2 of the women were in the morbidly obese range. 2 of the women had bariatric surgery, 1 did not. All 3 women have been on Adkins, WW,
grapefruit diet, non fat diet, no carb diet, etc. 1 woman went to a diet clinic and ate 300 calories a day.

All 3 women were not physically active except for chasing kids when they were toddlers. 1 woman was somewhat active off and on.

To date, all three women have gained and lost on average 100+ pounds despite dieting on and off, surgery and quack diets.
To date all three women are the ages of 60,60 and 61. They all started gaining weight at a pre-teen age.

My conclusion looking back on 45 years is that you have to see the whole picture of health.It is not just losing lbs. or exercising for short spurts, because it always end in short term success.

When you decide to see yourself healthy, truly healthy not just slimmer, you will be successful. It truly is a LIFESTYLE change. We all have many changes in life and we adjust to them, modify our reactions, change our way of thinking and eventually see it as LIFE long term.

I will let you know how my change in lifestyle goes as I am learning to become healthy finally after 45 years.

WalkingAlong

"Results
The FAST, MODERATE, and SLOW groups differed significantly in mean weight changes at 6 months (−13.5, −8.9, and −5.1 kg, respectively, ps < 0.001), and the FAST and SLOW groups differed significantly at 18 months (−10.9, −7.1, and −3.7 kg, respectively, ps < 0.001). 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."

I agree that study isn't the best example of what I meant but it does conclude what it says it concludes, just not for the 'between 6 and 18 month' period.

The meta-analysis I mentioned was a better example. It looked at 30+ weight loss studies done over decades and concluded that the best maintainers were the VLCD dieters. I don't know if it matters if I find the link or not. My only point was sometimes you read something 100 times (98 times here, usually) and figure it must be true but the evidence doesn't always support it.

I think if you go the forums of any 'way of losing weight'-- WW, Atkins, 5:2, South Beach, WLS, whatever-- you'll see a room full of people also convinced they're not on a diet, for them it's a lifestyle change. 95% of us are still part of the 95% regardless of what we call it.

I don't care that I'm part of the 95% because each time I regain I regain less so I figure eventually I'll nail it and settle in the sweet spot.

People who quit smoking probably also have a 95% failure rate if you consider all their attempts but still most people do eventually nail it and quit for good. Citing the failure rate of the first attempt doesn't mean much if you get unlimited attempts and you learn more and get more likely to succeed each time.

Iwishyouwell

EvgeniZyntx, kethry70, and WalkingAlong, thank you all for your thoughts on the study. I've been hoping to see that get some good, thorough discussion for awhile.

The meta-analysis I mentioned was a better example. It looked at 30+ weight loss studies done over decades and concluded that the best maintainers were the VLCD dieters. I don't know if it matters if I find the link or not. My only point was sometimes you read something 100 times (98 times here, usually) and figure it must be true but the evidence doesn't always support it.

This was the impetus of this thread for me. To see if the data lines up with the near universal assumption around here that doing it a certain way automatically leads to a stronger chance at long term maintenance. You see particular assumptions being made on this board time and again, and at some point somebody had to ask "OK, but where is the proof?".

If you ever find a link to that study I would be very interested in reading it. As someone who lost initially, back in my teens, on a VLCD, without really even knowing what I was doing, I ended up maintaining that weight for years.

I know for some their methods they use to lose weight must match the method they use for maintenance. And that makes sense. But I do believe that some people can do well with having a specific program or strategy for weight loss, and another for maintenance. My grandmother and great aunt lost weight that way over 30 years ago, and they are/were the longest maintainers I've ever met. It's about the transition.

Regardless of how you lost, or at what rate, can you make the transition into maintenance? You'd assume this would be an easy transition for those who lost slow and made a "lifestyle change" that seemed easy and permanent, and yet even those people commonly run into the same issues as people who "diet".

I think if you go the forums of any 'way of losing weight'-- WW, Atkins, 5:2, South Beach, WLS, whatever-- you'll see a room full of people also convinced they're not on a diet, for them it's a lifestyle change. 95% of us are still part of the 95% regardless of what we call it.

Yes. Back in my strictly low carb days the first time I ever heard of the idea of a "lifestyle change" was amongst low carbers, and it was called their new "way of life". Many of those people had insulin related issues and considered this new way of life to be imperative to their health. I met almost nobody who intended to low carb for weight loss and then stop once they hit goal. They were just as well intentioned as the "lifestyle change" folks around here. And like calorie counting, IIFYM, everything in moderation, those types of philosophies, there were many who failed, and a few who did succeed into long term maintenance.

It seems, based off what we know, nearly all the programs and approaches have very similar success:failure ratios when it comes to maintaining considerable losses.

But people treat their dieting/program/lifestyle change as more religion than science. People come to believe their way of eating is THE choice way. I've seen this way of thinking amongst IFers, low carbers, IIFYMers, Vegans, the low fat crew, Paleo folks, etc.

The only thing in common those various approaches seem to have is high failure rate overall, with very few maintaining what they do lose.

jmv7117

But people treat their dieting/program/lifestyle change as more religion than science. People come to believe their way of eating is THE choice way. I've seen this way of thinking amongst IFers, low carbers, IIFYMers, Vegans, the low fat crew, Paleo folks, etc.

The only thing in common those various approaches seem to have is high failure rate overall, with very few maintaining what they do lose.

In general, certain alternative diets (eg. Paleo, clean eating, vegetarian, vegan) are part of a lifestyle ideal. For example, just as I avoid food additives and commercially processed foods for a clean eating diet it really is only part of my overall lifestyle that also includes the use of toxins in our home or on our bodies. We eat locally produced and grown foods as well as make ethical choices about the products we use and buy. We grow what we can and deal directly with the farmers and growers. So this is all about our lifestyle of which clean eating is only one aspect. These alternative diets are not specific to weigh loss alone. Another example, Crossfit and Paleo tend to be tightly entwined. Again, it is a total lifestyle choice not just diet.

hmadrone

OP, this is not a single study, but the WeightWatchers book _Weight Loss That Lasts_ by James M. Rippe, M.D. is pretty much a long, research-sourced argument for why lifestyle change works to take and keep weight off. It looks at a bunch of different factors in weight loss and how they affect long-term success.

Sounds like it's just what you're looking for.

osothefinn

I agree with the OP. Nearly everyone thinks they're on a 'lifestyle change', regardless of their method or eating plan of choice, in my experience.

"Fast weight losers obtained greater weight reduction and long-term maintenance, and were not more susceptible to weight regain than gradual weight losers."

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12529-010-9092-y

It doesn't specifically say "lifestyle change DOES NOT work" but it does say that people on more aggressive diets maintained better and longer. I've seen a meta-analysis of 30+ studies that showed people on VLCD (800 calories or less) were the most successful 5 years out. I'm not suggesting that means there IS a magic bullet and it's VLCD, just that our assumptions are often wrong about who maintains and why.

I've seen that study brought up two or three times, once by myself actually.

Crickets.

Honestly, this makes some sense to me. Historically humans were probably exposed to short term caloric restriction quite a bit. If the tribe didn't get a kill everyone went hungry for a few days until they got one, then everyone binged til it was gone I imagine. Long term caloric restriction (months long, etc) is probably more unnatural biologically than a short term VLCD. I wonder if there was ever a study about ending metabolic rate based on say a 30 day VLCD vs. a 6 month loss of the same calories, assuming maintenance consumption afterward? Time to poke around on PubMed.

Meerataila

Honestly, this makes some sense to me. Historically humans were probably exposed to short term caloric restriction quite a bit. If the tribe didn't get a kill everyone went hungry for a few days until they got one, then everyone binged til it was gone I imagine. Long term caloric restriction (months long, etc) is probably more unnatural biologically than a short term VLCD. I wonder if there was ever a study about ending metabolic rate based on say a 30 day VLCD vs. a 6 month loss of the same calories, assuming maintenance consumption afterward? Time to poke around on PubMed.

Makes sense to me, too. Though I wonder how often people stopped eating well before they were full, tempering their appetites, not to lose weight, but to dry and store food for leaner times.

Iwishyouwell

OP, this is not a single study, but the WeightWatchers book _Weight Loss That Lasts_ by James M. Rippe, M.D. is pretty much a long, research-sourced argument for why lifestyle change works to take and keep weight off. It looks at a bunch of different factors in weight loss and how they affect long-term success.

Sounds like it's just what you're looking for.

Thank you!

Though how ironic that it's a Weight Watchers book, considering the revelation that their program's long term success rate is around I believe 2%.

neandermagnon

Honestly, this makes some sense to me. Historically humans were probably exposed to short term caloric restriction quite a bit. If the tribe didn't get a kill everyone went hungry for a few days until they got one, then everyone binged til it was gone I imagine. Long term caloric restriction (months long, etc) is probably more unnatural biologically than a short term VLCD. I wonder if there was ever a study about ending metabolic rate based on say a 30 day VLCD vs. a 6 month loss of the same calories, assuming maintenance consumption afterward? Time to poke around on PubMed.

I disagree. Long term food shortages would have affected early human populations too. Also, when the hunt fails, there is still gathered plant foods available and small game. Modern hunter-gatherers may go several days without a big kill but they don't go hungry in between. People underestimate the contribution/importance of gathered foods to hunter-gatherer populations. Shortages of gathered foods are likely to have had a worse effect on populations than lack of large game as these provided the day to day staples and the main source of carbohydrates, and this kind of shortage likely would last, e.g. an entire winter, or maybe even an entire year if there was some freaky climatic conditions that affected the availability of plant foods in the area they lived.

To be honest, I think the most similar dieting methods to a palaeolithic lifestyle would be the bodybuilder/strength athlete cut and bulk cycles. Hunting during the middle palaeolithic era required an extreme level of strength (hunting large mammals close range with only a thrusting spear, plus carrying the animal back to wherever home was) - at all times they would be using their muscles to survive. There would be phases of the year where food was less available (but not yearly famines, just less food available so they'd get enough to keep hunting and not lose too much lean mass and have the energy to keep hunting, but still at a deficit), where their bodies would need to maintain their muscle mass in order to catch enough food. Then phases when food was more plentiful (but not the kinds of excesses they have today, so they'd not have a huge surplus).... what happens to the human body under these conditions, well during the calorie deficit phases, the strenuous exercise protects the muscles from being metabolised (they're needed to succeed at hunting therefore are important for survival) and fat is used to make up the energy shortfall........ then when food is more plentiful, a lot of that surplus is going to be used to build up the muscles necessary for success at hunting, and what's left will replenish the fat stores to enable the person to survive the season(s) when food is less plentiful. In a severe food shortage, more muscle tissue can be metabolised (but this would not be a regular thing, and muscle memory gains plus returning to hunting would mean they rebuild their muscle to be able to succeed at hunting relatively quickly). If someone is sedentary (not hunting, e.g. due to permanent injury), more muscle tissue can be metabolised (no point maintaining muscle if it's not being used for hunting because it's not necessary for survival)...... it's well known that the human body responds in these ways to these conditions, that is well documented by exercise and nutrition scientists. It also fits in well with the idea that our ancestors had to keep hunting through times of the year when food is more plentiful and when it's less plentiful. It's also likely that finding people with ripped muscles very sexually attractive comes from the fact that this indicates that this person is still strong and able to hunt through the harsher times of the year, i.e. they have good genes to increase your offspring's chance of survival.

While the process of cutting and bulking didn't come from the study of evolutionary science, it is interesting that this method puts the body through similar conditions that a middle palaeolithic lifestyle did and also that it results in a physique that a lot of people find sexually attractive and desirable.

Does that mean it'll be easiest to maintain the weight if you lost it that way? That depends on how much you like the lifestyle, because to maintain you have to keep doing what you're doing. There is *no* way to lose weight that is going to stick permanently. Hence the importance of choosing a method you know you are capable of sticking to.

Avoiding obesity isn't something that humans have evolved for, because hunter-gatherers don't become obese because they have to do a lot of exercise, often strenuous exercise, to find food in the first place. Even when food is plentiful they still have to exercise in order to get it. This was even more the case in the middle palaeolithic as they didn't have projectile weapons. The idea that the ability to maintain a healthy weight while food was plentiful was somehow selected for IMO is erroneous. This trait would not be selected for in an environment where it's nigh on impossible to get obese, because it would not affect an individuals chance of survival. The ability to have a healthy body fat percentage in a society with plentiful easily obtainable food has no relevance to our evolutionary past. Staying fit and lean in this environment requires effort. Weight loss will never be permanent if you just go right back to being a couch potato, no matter how you lost it. And that is mostly about mental attitude. The reason why people advise lifestyle changes that people can stick to, is because if you can't do it for the rest of your life you'll regain the weight. If you lose weight in ways that you're not going to stick to, your failure rate becomes 100%. Losing fat with a lifestyle you find enjoyable and maintainable, then you have a chance of success and your chances of success are going to depend on your mental attitude and choosing to stick with it permanently. Yep some will fail, but it's not inevitable.

WalkingAlong

This was the impetus of this thread for me. To see if the data lines up with the near universal assumption around here that doing it a certain way automatically leads to a stronger chance at long term maintenance. You see particular assumptions being made on this board time and again, and at some point somebody had to ask "OK, but where is the proof?".

If you ever find a link to that study I would be very interested in reading it. As someone who lost initially, back in my teens, on a VLCD, without really even knowing what I was doing, I ended up maintaining that weight for years.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.abstract

It might've been that one I'm remembering.

I joined here maybe 3 years ago and you could hardly read a thread without reading "eating below your BMR is dangerous because it's what your body needs in a coma". I finally deleted that account in frustration over trying to convince people that is a myth.

I'm not at all advocating VLCD or eating below any particular number, I just hate seeing myths presented as facts, especially with scare tactics attached ("starvation mode!", "coma!", "gas tanks!", "metabolic damage!", "burning your LBM!, "regain it all!").