Probability of gaining it all back... and more

withchaco

I just read an article by an expert in the field who stated that “our bodies have a weight they want to be”. He cited a study where lean and fit people were asked to eat 5000 cal daily and still, they only gained minimal amounts.

I think in most cases, it's BS to use that to explain obesity. It almost sounds like the "expert" is trying to undermine the importance of responsibility. To say obese people are obese because that's what their bodies naturally want to be, you'd need a study where obese people are asked to eat balanced meals at a caloric deficit and burn hundreds of calories through exercise daily for a prolonged period of time. If THAT study doesn't result in weight loss, now you have something to support the "obesity as a natural tendency" argument.

However, as we all know, most of us overweight folks can and do lose weight by sticking to such a lifestyle. People gain their weight back because they don't stick to their healthy lifestyle. Maintenance can be hard work, but I say if you have lost weight the right way... you also have what it takes to maintain.

I do agree, though, that every body is different. Two equally healthy, equally tall people can be very different sizes/ weight.

bellinachuchina

BASICALLY, you will never ever ever know the stats of every person in the US who has lost weight, so you shouldn't take any statistic to heart, especially one which has that tremendous of a population. Inferential stats, and even Descriptive stats, do not PROVE anything, they are merely predicted observations when used with populations. Hence why they usually contain: "On average", "In general".

I don't think you're "debbie downer", I just think you don't want to set yourself up for failure when/if you don't lose or gain some back, and be able to justify it based on something, just like anyone who doesn't want to be dissappointed. But since I've done it, and sustain it, I can tell you, DO NOT place your health and current body dissatisfaction in the hands of people trying to make money by getting published based on their "discovery". Yes, we are aware luck is against us to gain back, but that's b/c changing your life is hard work, mentally & physically. You don't need probability to know that. You CAN do this. Believe it, achieve it!

Hey, congrats! What you say is true about some of the research, but in the research where the took slim people and randomly put them into high/low calories groups, we are talking experimental design (it's been awhile, but I taught stats when I was in grad school). These studies don't depress me, really. They just get me thinking. What's sorely lacking (and I think what you are sort of pointing to) is that I can't really find an article about what that 10-20 percent DID to keep the weight off. We need more research on the successes (maybe even qualitative) to better understand, IMO. Also, the docs in these studies keep saying that regardless of the numbers, it's STILL good for your body to eat a healthy diet and exercise Luckily health is more of a goal of mine than looking good (though it's nice to look good!).

I know it's controversial, but I don't mind comparing weight loss to addiction and recovery. If people who sat down at an AA meeting were honest, they would say "most of us will relapse". The question is: how do you handle a relapse? Do you quit and give up? Do you get back on the wagon? It would be good to get a better understanding of those folks who never relapsed. What was it about their personality/behaviors that was different from the relapsers?

This is the kind of research that would be interesting to me.

All the best,

Debbie

I, too, would like to know what the successful people do, other than my approach, which is one that most people would probably find strict. For example, 9/10 times, I will not eat a cupcake, ice cream, pizza, fast food just b/c I'm at a family event, on vacation, or it's my cousin's b-day lol. I usually bring my own food (disguised as a dish offering) or eat prior. As you said, in regards to addiction, that's like giving an alcoholic a drink! I had to re-train my hunger cues, tastes, full-ness, everything dealing with consumption, it's simply not worth ruining my progress. I'm usually the calorie downer at events *shrugs* And your point about how people deal with diet-relapsing is really interesting, & for me, I handle it by practicing the same behavior that I did while losing. I normally create a deficit the next day to make up for my extra cals the previous day. The fact that I take responsibility and fix it, is a totally different response from when I was overweight.

I also agree, that personality plays a major role in this game, b/c in my view, it's mainly a psychological battle. I'm an extremely organized, controlling, "all-or-nothing" person, so I think that's why having a structured eating routine and food diary worked so well.

Best of luck :flowerforyou:

taso42_DELETED

I believe most people who "go on a diet" will indeed gain the weight back. That's why we keep reiterating around here that "diets" should be avoided. For long term success and well-being, adjust your lifestyle.

Crystalchaos72

studies show that yo-yo dieters are more healthy than obese people, so even if we gain it back, its still healthier than not trying to lose it at all.

Can you site the source to this study? I am pretty sure yo yo dieters are wreaking havoc on their metabolism, and when they do gain they gain more fat and do more damage to themselves. IMHO I feel that is misinformation.......

debbiequack

studies show that yo-yo dieters are more healthy than obese people, so even if we gain it back, its still healthier than not trying to lose it at all.

Can you site the source to this study? I am pretty sure yo yo dieters are wreaking havoc on their metabolism, and when they do gain they gain more fat and do more damage to themselves. IMHO I feel that is misinformation.......

Yes, in my readings I came across the opposite--- that yo yo dieting is actually WORSE for your health possibly, than being moderately obese.

Debbie

ninerbuff

So, most data suggests that 80-90 percent of us will gain most/all/more weight back, once we have lost. I just read an article by an expert in the field who stated that “our bodies have a weight they want to be”. He cited a study where lean and fit people were asked to eat 5000 cal daily and still, they only gained minimal amounts. On the other hand, most of us who have struggled with our weight, know in a very personal way, the disappointment that ensues when we start gaining back.

Some suggestions are, of course, to lose weight in a reasonable manner. Women who eat 1200 cal/day seem more likely to gain back than those who eat a more moderate figure. In fact, women who eat 1200 cal/day often gain back MORE than they started with. To make matters worse, yo-yoing seems to be associated with health risks.

So what will you do to be in the 10 percent of people who keep the weight off? Exercising three hours a day seems hardly sustainable.


Here's one study that has been cited: http://magazine.ucla.edu/exclusives/dieting_no-go/

I know I will sound like a negative Nancy or “Debbie Downer” but I really pose the question in terms of hopefulness. I personally eat reasonably and exercise 30-40 minutes a day, because I know I can sustain this with kids/without/while on vacation, and when I'm older. I also think that social support helps and MFP is great for that.

Thoughts?

There's no reason to work out 3 hours day unless that's your actual job. 1 hour a day 5-6 days a week isn't unreasonable and just having a diet within your BMR will keep the weight off.
Here's the problem: People reach goals.................then quit. They quit working out regularly, they quit eating reasonably and quit thinking it's not important.
Here it every time when I meet a new client who "needs" to get back into shape after losing weight previously.

Crystal_Rudolph

I am not in this fight for a "diet". I am fighting for my life! Why would I stop eating right and exercising when I reach my goal weight? That idea just seems absurd. This is a lifestyle change. The only people that will gain back the weight are the ones that think and treat this like a diet. We are fighting for our lives!!!

lodro

That is exactky why those '' I eat 1200 caloreis a day ...or less...and lose weight no problem, I am followed by my doctor, I know what is best for me, I am short so I can eat less'' make me want to cry. Because it is not sustainable. They are messing with their metabolism so in order to maintain their weight loss, they will have to eat 1400-1600 calories a day. Those who eat more, will gain the weight back. Those who feed their metabolism and make it a fat burning machine will maintain at 2000 to 2500 calories a day. Alot less likely to gain the weight back.

I am short and so I have not much wiggle room: my BMR is about 1400 calories/day, and so in order to maintain I need to stick close to that number. I did start getting more active though, so that gives the room to eat more calories, within reason. However, on non-exercise days I still eat to my MFP goal of 1200 calories/day, knowing full well, that some of the calorie tracking on MFP is guestimation, I think i'm eating close to my BMR. So far, I've been able to restrict calories well, as I let my body get used slowly to the calorie restriction. Because I knew that when I started to track and restrict calories, changing macronutrients to eat more proteins and fat and less carbohydrate, that there wouldn't be a way back. And that if I want to give myself the best preconditions for reasonable longevity, I would have to stick with what I'm doing now. So I'd better make this sustainable for me. And for now it is, but of course, I cannot predict the future. However, for now I've been hanging in there and I've been doing this since late last year. However, if I eat 1600 calories/day as I track it on MFP (i.e. not weighing and measuring everything, but knowing what serving sizes are in real world terms) I will gain. So I keep well below my BMR on non exercise days.

taso42_DELETED

That is exactky why those '' I eat 1200 caloreis a day ...or less...and lose weight no problem, I am followed by my doctor, I know what is best for me, I am short so I can eat less'' make me want to cry. Because it is not sustainable. They are messing with their metabolism so in order to maintain their weight loss, they will have to eat 1400-1600 calories a day. Those who eat more, will gain the weight back. Those who feed their metabolism and make it a fat burning machine will maintain at 2000 to 2500 calories a day. Alot less likely to gain the weight back.

I am short and so I have not much wiggle room: my BMR is about 1400 calories/day, and so in order to maintain I need to stick close to that number. I did start getting more active though, so that gives the room to eat more calories, within reason. However, on non-exercise days I still eat to my MFP goal of 1200 calories/day, knowing full well, that some of the calorie tracking on MFP is guestimation, I think i'm eating close to my BMR. So far, I've been able to restrict calories well, as I let my body get used slowly to the calorie restriction. Because I knew that when I started to track and restrict calories, changing macronutrients to eat more proteins and fat and less carbohydrate, that there wouldn't be a way back. And that if I want to give myself the best preconditions for reasonable longevity, I would have to stick with what I'm doing now. So I'd better make this sustainable for me. And for now it is, but of course, I cannot predict the future. However, for now I've been hanging in there and I've been doing this since late last year. However, if I eat 1600 calories/day as I track it on MFP (i.e. not weighing and measuring everything, but knowing what serving sizes are in real world terms) I will gain. So I keep well below my BMR on non exercise days.

Something doesn't add up here. If you're eating at or below BMR you would probably be losing weight and significant muscle mass, slowing your metabolism, and all that good stuff. You're not on bedrest are you? If you get up in the morning and walk to the bathroom and brush your teeth, then you're burning more than your BMR....

lodro

No, I'm not. I hover around the 60kg mark and have done for about 3 months now. you see, thermogenic adaptation is real, it is the body's defense mechanism against insanely low body fat percentages. Also, as I explained, I'm not fanatical about weighing and measuring, but when I did I noticed that I could be off by as much as 300 calories. So I suspect that I'm close to 1400 / 1500 calories a day, which is just about my BMR.

And of course - as I also explained - if I exercise more, I eat more, within reason, to sustain that exercise. The point is, of course, thin people really do eat less than fat people.

yanicka

That is exactky why those '' I eat 1200 caloreis a day ...or less...and lose weight no problem, I am followed by my doctor, I know what is best for me, I am short so I can eat less'' make me want to cry. Because it is not sustainable. They are messing with their metabolism so in order to maintain their weight loss, they will have to eat 1400-1600 calories a day. Those who eat more, will gain the weight back. Those who feed their metabolism and make it a fat burning machine will maintain at 2000 to 2500 calories a day. Alot less likely to gain the weight back.

I am short and so I have not much wiggle room: my BMR is about 1400 calories/day, and so in order to maintain I need to stick close to that number. I did start getting more active though, so that gives the room to eat more calories, within reason. However, on non-exercise days I still eat to my MFP goal of 1200 calories/day, knowing full well, that some of the calorie tracking on MFP is guestimation, I think i'm eating close to my BMR. So far, I've been able to restrict calories well, as I let my body get used slowly to the calorie restriction. Because I knew that when I started to track and restrict calories, changing macronutrients to eat more proteins and fat and less carbohydrate, that there wouldn't be a way back. And that if I want to give myself the best preconditions for reasonable longevity, I would have to stick with what I'm doing now. So I'd better make this sustainable for me. And for now it is, but of course, I cannot predict the future. However, for now I've been hanging in there and I've been doing this since late last year. However, if I eat 1600 calories/day as I track it on MFP (i.e. not weighing and measuring everything, but knowing what serving sizes are in real world terms) I will gain. So I keep well below my BMR on non exercise days.

You shot your metabolism to hell. I am 4'11'' and I am short!!!! You pretty much condemed yourself to a life of low calories or you will gain weight. What ever float your boat

lodro

That is exactky why those '' I eat 1200 caloreis a day ...or less...and lose weight no problem, I am followed by my doctor, I know what is best for me, I am short so I can eat less'' make me want to cry. Because it is not sustainable. They are messing with their metabolism so in order to maintain their weight loss, they will have to eat 1400-1600 calories a day. Those who eat more, will gain the weight back. Those who feed their metabolism and make it a fat burning machine will maintain at 2000 to 2500 calories a day. Alot less likely to gain the weight back.

I am short and so I have not much wiggle room: my BMR is about 1400 calories/day, and so in order to maintain I need to stick close to that number. I did start getting more active though, so that gives the room to eat more calories, within reason. However, on non-exercise days I still eat to my MFP goal of 1200 calories/day, knowing full well, that some of the calorie tracking on MFP is guestimation, I think i'm eating close to my BMR. So far, I've been able to restrict calories well, as I let my body get used slowly to the calorie restriction. Because I knew that when I started to track and restrict calories, changing macronutrients to eat more proteins and fat and less carbohydrate, that there wouldn't be a way back. And that if I want to give myself the best preconditions for reasonable longevity, I would have to stick with what I'm doing now. So I'd better make this sustainable for me. And for now it is, but of course, I cannot predict the future. However, for now I've been hanging in there and I've been doing this since late last year. However, if I eat 1600 calories/day as I track it on MFP (i.e. not weighing and measuring everything, but knowing what serving sizes are in real world terms) I will gain. So I keep well below my BMR on non exercise days.

You shot your metabolism to hell. I am 4'11'' and I am short!!!! You pretty much condemed yourself to a life of low calories or you will gain weight. What ever float your boat

I want to add that I am not restricting calories primarily for weigh loss, but because I'm part of a study that studies the effect of calorie restriction, carbohydrate reduction and/or fasting on the formation of certain types of brain tumors. so far, I'm on a plateau, which I hope may last. It does mean though, that i'll have to continue to restrict calories. At -roughly - 1500 calories/day (my guesstimation of portions to the sum of 1200 "MFP calories") I'm at 60 - 75% of what would be my required daily intake. Studies in mice have pointed to benefits of this, pointing to "hormesis" (cell repair because of stress) as the beneficial mechanism. The benefit of fasting and calorie restriction to mitigate the effects of chemotherapy has already been amply demonstrated, albeit anecdotally and qualitatively. This is the first of hopefully many studies to get more insight into the benefits or lack thereof and into the mechanisms that may be at work here.

So, you see it as ruining my metabolism, I see it as my body dealing with the prolonged period of calorie restriction and preserving me.

There are other reasons why one would seek to restrict calories. But thanks for the kind words.

TavistockToad

9 years ago I lost 80+ lbs the healthy way, and I gained it all back and then some. I ate in the 1600-1900 calorie range for most of my weight loss. It was slow and steady, I thought by doing it the right way I'd never regain. I worked out a ton, running, weight lifting, swimming, roller blading, I became very active.

I maintained my loss for 3 years, but as soon as I stopped being incredibly vigilant the weight started creeping back on. I did have some major health issues and medication that caused me to gain some weight, but the bulk of the gain was due to not tracking my eating and not working out consistantly.

It has to be a permanent lifestyle change, end of story.

My failing were:

-Failure to weigh myself often enough, allowing myself to stay in denial about a pound here and a pound there.

-Thinking you can eat like your husband/boyfriend/skinny friends

-Not keeping up with 5-6 intense workouts per week

-Booze and partying; when I got skinny and hot going out was so much fun! Being the center of attention, having men drool over you and tell you how beautiful you are after a lifetime of being the fat chick feels amazing. I started going out all the time. Hangovers in the morning meant no early morning run, then the need for the hangover helper of greasey foods. Not a good combination if you're trying to maintain the loss.

From my experience, and the experience of a friend who is a personal trainer who specializes in weight loss (the dude is way credentialed) it doesn't matter how you lose the weight. It's what you do next that matters. There are people that lose their weight quickly on 1000-1200 calories a day, find out their daily maintenance calories and stick to them and keep the weight off. Then there are people like me, who did everything right, except to see their healthy habits ever so slowly revert to their old comfortable ways, and see the weight eventually creep back on.

The truth is, as unfair as it may seem, but for those with our affliction, nothing but total vigilance will keep the extra pounds at bay.

i really liked your post until the last line about 'our affliction'.... reverting to your old comfortable ways (your words) isnt an affliction!!!!!! its being lazy and chosing the easy option which lead to the weight gain in the first place!

AlsDonkBoxSquat

This isn't a diet for me, it's a new lifestyle. I will spend the rest of my life in maintenance. I didn't go into this thinking "I can't wait to get my weight down so that I can go back to eating like normal" I went into it thinking "I want to eat like normal, now let's go do this. This is my new normal." I think it's as important to look at how much weight a person lost and how they did it as it is to quesiton the psychology of the person losing the weight and the approach they are taking: Are they dieting or making a lifestyle change? Are they incorporating both food and exercise changes? Is there a support system? What is the goal (my goal was to get to my chosen bf% and maintain) is a reasonable maintenance program included in the goal?

kell_riley

Bump

jagoochie

it never about a DIET - it should be a lifetyle change
you need to stick withhealthy eating and regular exercise then you wont put it all back on
if you just DIET you will put it back on when teh diet stops
so eat sensibly and treats in moderation
change your habits
and its will stay off

txmike64

Way back, I was struggling with weight problems, then I hooked up with the "Lose Weight Now, Ask Me How" crowd...and got really really good results at 65 pounds lost. Not sure I want to go back through that again, but what I'm doing is pretty close to that -- just not being out a lot of money every month.

But...I went normal back to regular eating patterns, and over a decade slowly increased the weight. I got to 30 pounds heavier than I was back then when I started. So yes, I gained it all back and then some.

Changes in lifestyle occurred, but the wrong direction. So here I am, battling with calorie counts and exercise logs. We'll see if I can break my addictions to certain foods, but I'll have to stay on MFP for life for maintenance, logging everything, even when I have a ZERO weight loss goal. I'm now trying to lose a decade of weight gain, but in 6 months or less...

It will be the only way. Constant vigilance.

Lozzy_82

For me, I think the BIG thing is going to be weighing myself. Previously I have only been weighed when at my doctor's (a maximum of once a month, often no weigh-in for 6 months or more) and my weight has always gone up and down. Now I have finally bought myself some scales and I am committed to weighing myself regularly. I believe it will stop the weight creeping back up on me!

shelbygeorge29

It will be the only way. Constant vigilance.

Exaclty this. I wonder if I needed to gain it all back to learn that lesson? I hope by sharing it helps someone avoid making the mistakes I've made.

shelbygeorge29

This isn't a diet for me, it's a new lifestyle. I will spend the rest of my life in maintenance. I didn't go into this thinking "I can't wait to get my weight down so that I can go back to eating like normal" I went into it thinking "I want to eat like normal, now let's go do this. This is my new normal." I think it's as important to look at how much weight a person lost and how they did it as it is to quesiton the psychology of the person losing the weight and the approach they are taking: Are they dieting or making a lifestyle change? Are they incorporating both food and exercise changes? Is there a support system? What is the goal (my goal was to get to my chosen bf% and maintain) is a reasonable maintenance program included in the goal?

I don't think many of us consciously make those decisions, it just happens. One habit slips, and another . . .it snowballs. You can never forget where you came from, but after you've been thin a few years it can happen. I never thought I'd weigh over 200 again, NEVER.

Silverkittycat

While I'm not keen on the entire set - point theory, I do think genetic inheritance plays a very important part in the body returning to a "comfortable" weight. I really think weight is due to a combination of both genes and environment. After reading articles like the following I can't help but wonder if dieting is just too hard for some. My thinking (at the moment ) leans towards the possibility that people who relapse are just tired of the struggle to maintain the constant vigilance. Maybe it's due to a shifting of values where remaining thin is no longer a top priority in life, or counting calories and thinking about food becomes too time consuming and starts taking away from someone's life instead of adding to it. It's nice to be free from analyzing your options every time you eat something, to be able to eat something because that's what you "want", and not what you "should" have.

I'm sure there are many reasons, just throwing some possibilities out there.

May 8, 2007
Genes Take Charge, and Diets Fall by the Wayside

By GINA KOLATA
Correction Appended

It was 1959. Jules Hirsch, a research physician at Rockefeller University, had gotten curious about weight loss in the obese. He was about to start a simple experiment that would change forever the way scientists think about fat.

Obese people, he knew, had huge fat cells, stuffed with glistening yellow fat. What happened to those cells when people lost weight, he wondered. Did they shrink or did they go away? He decided to find out.

It seemed straightforward. Dr. Hirsch found eight people who had been fat since childhood or adolescence and who agreed to live at the Rockefeller University Hospital for eight months while scientists would control their diets, make them lose weight and then examine their fat cells.

The study was rigorous and demanding. It began with an agonizing four weeks of a maintenance diet that assessed the subjects’ metabolism and caloric needs. Then the diet began. The only food permitted was a liquid formula providing 600 calories a day, a regimen that guaranteed they would lose weight. Finally, the subjects spent another four weeks on a diet that maintained them at their new weights, 100 pounds lower than their initial weights, on average.

Dr. Hirsch answered his original question — the subjects’ fat cells had shrunk and were now normal in size. And everyone, including Dr. Hirsch, assumed that the subjects would leave the hospital permanently thinner.

That did not happen. Instead, Dr. Hirsch says, “they all regained.” He was horrified. The study subjects certainly wanted to be thin, so what went wrong? Maybe, he thought, they had some deep-seated psychological need to be fat.

So Dr. Hirsch and his colleagues, including Dr. Rudolph L. Leibel, who is now at Columbia University, repeated the experiment and repeated it again. Every time the result was the same. The weight, so painstakingly lost, came right back. But since this was a research study, the investigators were also measuring metabolic changes, psychiatric conditions, body temperature and pulse. And that led them to a surprising conclusion: fat people who lost large amounts of weight might look like someone who was never fat, but they were very different. In fact, by every metabolic measurement, they seemed like people who were starving.

Before the diet began, the fat subjects’ metabolism was normal — the number of calories burned per square meter of body surface was no different from that of people who had never been fat. But when they lost weight, they were burning as much as 24 percent fewer calories per square meter of their surface area than the calories consumed by those who were naturally thin.

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.

The Rockefeller researchers explained their observations in one of their papers: “It is entirely possible that weight reduction, instead of resulting in a normal state for obese patients, results in an abnormal state resembling that of starved nonobese individuals.”

Eventually, more than 50 people lived at the hospital and lost weight, and every one had physical and psychological signs of starvation. There were a very few who did not get fat again, but they made staying thin their life’s work, becoming Weight Watchers lecturers, for example, and, always, counting calories and maintaining themselves in a permanent state of starvation.

“Did those who stayed thin simply have more willpower?” Dr. Hirsch asked. “In a funny way, they did.”

One way to interpret Dr. Hirsch and Dr. Leibel’s studies would be to propose that once a person got fat, the body would adjust, making it hopeless to lose weight and keep it off. The issue was important, because if getting fat was the problem, there might be a solution to the obesity epidemic: convince people that any weight gain was a step toward an irreversible condition that they most definitely did not want to have.

But another group of studies showed that that hypothesis, too, was wrong.

It began with studies that were the inspiration of Dr. Ethan Sims at the University of Vermont, who asked what would happen if thin people who had never had a weight problem deliberately got fat.

His subjects were prisoners at a nearby state prison who volunteered to gain weight. With great difficulty, they succeeded, increasing their weight by 20 percent to 25 percent. But it took them four to six months, eating as much as they could every day. Some consumed 10,000 calories a day, an amount so incredible that it would be hard to believe, were it not for the fact that there were attendants present at each meal who dutifully recorded everything the men ate.

Once the men were fat, their metabolisms increased by 50 percent. They needed more than 2,700 calories per square meter of their body surface to stay fat but needed just 1,800 calories per square meter to maintain their normal weight.

When the study ended, the prisoners had no trouble losing weight. Within months, they were back to normal and effortlessly stayed there.

The implications were clear. There is a reason that fat people cannot stay thin after they diet and that thin people cannot stay fat when they force themselves to gain weight. The body’s metabolism speeds up or slows down to keep weight within a narrow range. Gain weight and the metabolism can as much as double; lose weight and it can slow to half its original speed.

That, of course, was contrary to what every scientist had thought, and Dr. Sims knew it, as did Dr. Hirsch.

The message never really got out to the nation’s dieters, but a few research scientists were intrigued and asked the next question about body weight: Is body weight inherited, or is obesity more of an inadvertent, almost unconscious response to a society where food is cheap, abundant and tempting? An extra 100 calories a day will pile on 10 pounds in a year, public health messages often say. In five years, that is 50 pounds.

The assumption was that environment determined weight, but Dr. Albert Stunkard of the University of Pennsylvania wondered if that was true and, if so, to what extent. It was the early 1980s, long before obesity became what one social scientist called a moral panic, but a time when those questions of nature versus nurture were very much on Dr. Stunkard’s mind.

He found the perfect tool for investigating the nature-nurture question — a Danish registry of adoptees developed to understand whether schizophrenia was inherited. It included meticulous medical records of every Danish adoption between 1927 and 1947, including the names of the adoptees’ biological parents, and the heights and weights of the adoptees, their biological parents and their adoptive parents.

Dr. Stunkard ended up with 540 adults whose average age was 40. They had been adopted when they were very young — 55 percent had been adopted in the first month of life and 90 percent were adopted in the first year of life. His conclusions, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1986, were unequivocal. The adoptees were as fat as their biological parents, and how fat they were had no relation to how fat their adoptive parents were.

The scientists summarized it in their paper: “The two major findings of this study were that there was a clear relation between the body-mass index of biologic parents and the weight class of adoptees, suggesting that genetic influences are important determinants of body fatness; and that there was no relation between the body-mass index of adoptive parents and the weight class of adoptees, suggesting that childhood family environment alone has little or no effect.”

In other words, being fat was an inherited condition.

Dr. Stunkard also pointed out the implications: “Current efforts to prevent obesity are directed toward all children (and their parents) almost indiscriminately. Yet if family environment alone has no role in obesity, efforts now directed toward persons with little genetic risk of the disorder could be refocused on the smaller number who are more vulnerable. Such persons can already be identified with some assurance: 80 percent of the offspring of two obese parents become obese, as compared with no more than 14 percent of the offspring of two parents of normal weight.”

A few years later, in 1990, Dr. Stunkard published another study in The New England Journal of Medicine, using another classic method of geneticists: investigating twins. This time, he used the Swedish Twin Registry, studying its 93 pairs of identical twins who were reared apart, 154 pairs of identical twins who were reared together, 218 pairs of fraternal twins who were reared apart, and 208 pairs of fraternal twins who were reared together.

The identical twins had nearly identical body mass indexes, whether they had been reared apart or together. There was more variation in the body mass indexes of the fraternal twins, who, like any siblings, share some, but not all, genes.

The researchers concluded that 70 percent of the variation in peoples’ weights may be accounted for by inheritance, a figure that means that weight is more strongly inherited than nearly any other condition, including mental illness, breast cancer or heart disease.

The results did not mean that people are completely helpless to control their weight, Dr. Stunkard said. But, he said, it did mean that those who tend to be fat will have to constantly battle their genetic inheritance if they want to reach and maintain a significantly lower weight.

The findings also provided evidence for a phenomenon that scientists like Dr. Hirsch and Dr. Leibel were certain was true — each person has a comfortable weight range to which the body gravitates. The range might span 10 or 20 pounds: someone might be able to weigh 120 to 140 pounds without too much effort. Going much above or much below the natural weight range is difficult, however; the body resists by increasing or decreasing the appetite and changing the metabolism to push the weight back to the range it seeks.

The message is so at odds with the popular conception of weight loss — the mantra that all a person has to do is eat less and exercise more — that Dr. Jeffrey Friedman, an obesity researcher at the Rockefeller University, tried to come up with an analogy that would convey what science has found about the powerful biological controls over body weight.

He published it in the journal Science in 2003 and still cites it:

“Those who doubt the power of basic drives, however, might note that although one can hold one’s breath, this conscious act is soon overcome by the compulsion to breathe,” Dr. Friedman wrote. “The feeling of hunger is intense and, if not as potent as the drive to breathe, is probably no less powerful than the drive to drink when one is thirsty. This is the feeling the obese must resist after they have lost a significant amount of weight.”

This is an excerpt from Gina Kolata’s new book, “Rethinking Thin: The New Science of Weight Loss — and the Myths and Realities of Dieting” (Farrar, Straus & Giroux).

Correction: May 12, 2007


An article in Science Times on Tuesday about the role of genes in weight gain misstated the publication date for an article in the journal Science describing the biological controls over body weight. The article was published in 2003, not 2000.

Lots of comments after this article at the New York Times if you're interested - most not as depressing as this article and a few by readers that are maintaining a large loss of weight. :flowerforyou:

Qarol

I used to think my body wanted to stay a certain weight. I fluctuated between the same 20 pounds for a very long time. Until I passed that and kept going. Really, unchecked, my weight will balloon. It'll always be a struggle for me, but I'm no longer convinced that there's a magic number that my body will stay at no matter what I eat. I'm going to have to pay close attention from here on out.

darrcn5

If it's not a lifestyle change, and you go right back to eating crap and lazing around, then you probably will gain it all back. I am pretty sure my body DOES NOT want to be 200+ pounds. I maintained 140 pounds for 3 years, then I started slowly gaining weight due to unhealthy eating and not enough exercise. I will spend the rest of my life tracking my calories because I know that it is a method that works for me.

stormieweather

I've always eaten whatever I wanted without gaining weight. The only exceptions were my pregnancies. My last one was when I was 44, and I've really struggled to lose the weight, probably due to my age. I underate for several years and kind of screwed up my metabolism, so who knows how maintaining will be once I reach my goal? Hoping that I can return to the eating normally thing, as long as I work out regularly as well.

debbiequack

Great article! Thanks for posting.

Again, I don't see the situation as "hopeless". I think it's more of a commentary on having realistic expectations (for example-- maybe I was meant to be between 140-160 instead of less) and on how hard we have to keep at it, all our lives.

Best,

Debbie

fiberartist219

First of all, I plan on still hopping on the scale and fitting into a certain size. As that size gets tight, or as I gain a few pounds, I'll track my food and exercise again. I might gain 5lbs, but I certainly hope I can control whether or not I gain 40.

Secondly, I'm not doing anything now to lose weight that I won't do forever. I don't work out for more than a half hour a day, unless it's gardening, which I have always done, every summer, since I bought my house. I still eat cake and cookies, but I just eat less of them. For example, when the tray of cookies comes by at work, I'll ask to share one with my neighbor, rather than eating a whole one.

Third, I have a support group. My husband does not shove fattening foods in my face, and most of my friends don't either. They know what I'm trying to do and why.

Last, but not least, I like to think that my intentions have something to do with it. When I lost weight for my wedding, I gained it all back after the wedding, because I wanted to fit into a dress. Once the dress was done with, I was done being thin. However, this time, I'm losing so I don't get diabetes. That means, there is no end date. I might hit my goal weight, but that doesn't mean the journey is over. The journey does not end until I'm dead. I just don't want a repeat of my family history if I can avoid it, and my doctor says I have a good chance if I lose the weight and keep it off.

Silverkittycat

on a happier note, this article comes with tips on succeeding -

The Mind of the Successful Dieter
By Carol Mithers
Oprah.com

How are you at sticking to a diet? Getting to the gym? Keeping doctors' appointments? A potentially groundbreaking study says that how well you take care of yourself depends on which corner of your brain tends to be more active. The good news: You can retrain your mind.

In the battle against fat, the heroes achieve what most of us only long for—lasting weight loss. They're so unusual, they've become the subjects of ongoing research by scientists trying to finger just what it is that makes them stand out from the rest of dieting humanity. The project is called the National Weight Control Registry (NWCR) and was created 12 years ago by researchers at Brown University and the University of Colorado in the face of the well-known and defeating statistic: Ninety-five percent of dieters gain their weight back. Registrants—some 4,500—must have dropped at least 30 pounds and kept them off for a year or more, though the average member has lost twice that much and maintained it for about five years.

In one of the latest studies, Inga Treitler, PhD, a cultural anthropologist, and a fellow researcher intensely interviewed and observed 10 of the registrants, focusing not on what they ate or did for exercise but on how they lived—the books they read, the photos they kept, their pets, careers, friends, and hobbies—before and after the weight loss. The question, again, was basic: What had enabled them to triumph where so many others falter?


Your Mind-Set and Your Scale

One of Treitler's aha moments came after the study subjects took a 120-item multiple-choice questionnaire that assesses thinking styles, called the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI). Simply put, the theory behind it goes like this: We all naturally tend to process information, solve problems, and relate to others in a particular way, and such inclinations roughly correspond to four different quadrants of the brain—two on the right, two on the left. These preferences are like mental defaults your brain automatically resorts to when evaluating the world unless otherwise prompted, and most people employ some combination of quadrants.

"A" quadrant (upper left): People who favor this area are analytical, mathematical, logical problem solvers. Drawn to statistics and the workings of machinery, they can overanalyze a situation so much, they have trouble taking action.
"B" quadrant (lower left): These people are controlled, methodical, disciplined, sticklers for structure and routine. Punctual and neat, they always have a plan, timetable, and calendar with appointments penciled in.
"C" quadrant (lower right): Lower-right thinkers are emotional, spiritual, and focused on people and human connection.
"D" quadrant (upper right): "D" types are strongly visual and easily bored, attracted to new ideas, fun, and risk taking.

And the Successful Dieters?
"We found that those with the most dramatic losses scored noticeably higher in favoring 'B,' the lower left," says Treitler. This makes sense to her, having observed many people struggling with weight. Someone inclined toward plans and routines, who sees life through methodical eyes, would be the most comfortable with the mundane details of calorie counting and portion control; she would also be more able to coolly observe herself and catalog obstacles and failings—without succumbing to an emotion like self-hatred.


A Leap of Imagination

Breakthrough number two occurred during another study with the NWCR volunteers. When Treitler listened to subjects' stories, something stood out: They'd all gone through an inner transformation almost like those celebrated in traditional rites of passage. Each had found a coach, mentor, or guide for the journey, had pulled back and separated somewhat from his or her old environment, and then was "reborn" into a different way of life. At this point, the newly thin person became a leader rather than a follower, a change that opened the door to further goals and achievements, often in fields completely unrelated to weight loss. (One subject, for example, asked a chef at the university where he worked to develop an aggressive diet for him, dropped nearly half his body weight, then took a leave from his job to help start a law school in Africa, where he reemerged as a passionate long-distance walker and bird-watcher.) "All the subjects had incorporated some meditative element into their lives," Treitler says. "It might have been walking or yoga, but it was self time, a white space where they could disengage from the old, obsessive behavior." This transformation of identity appears crucial in keeping weight off. Without a new self who's clearly different from the old, overweight one, it's too easy to revert to former unhealthy habits. Can you reprogram your brain?


Tool Kit for Change:
3 Weeks to Change Your Mind

While most of us can't remove ourselves from daily life as radically as that man who went to Africa, we can create the conditions that make rebirth possible. Based on Dr. Treitler's observations, she can suggest concrete steps to change a habit that have nothing to do with food or exercise or any other behavior you're wrestling with. The fact is, no matter which cognitive type you are, you can "learn to shift to another mode of thinking," to "stretch" the brain quadrant boundaries in which you feel at home, says Ann Herrmann-Nehdi, CEO of Herrmann International, which developed the HBDI. So for people who have no natural inclination to be systematic and detail oriented ("B" strengths), Treitler says the goal is to build up familiarity and comfort with those approaches.

According to Herrmann-Nehdi, simple activities practiced over a period of about three weeks can bolster your inner bookkeeper. They can be done in stages, she says.

Begin with organization. Alphabetize your CDs, then, a few days later, your spices. A few days after that, rearrange your closet, then your tax papers.

Next comes timeliness. Keep a time log of your daily activities, and start being punctual for every appointment.

Then comes planning. Sit down and map out a week in advance. It's also helpful to follow a routine—jogging a certain course every other day, balancing your checkbook once a week.

Finally, there's step-by-step thinking: Cook from a recipe exactly as it's written, knit from a pattern, learn a computer program by following a tutorial or manual.

If these activities seem grating, you can make them more appealing to your naturally dominant brain type, Herrmann-Nehdi says: "A 'D' [conceptual, risk taking] could dream up something she wants to achieve in a year's time, then, working backward, create a timeline and checklist of what needs to be done." A 'C' (emotional, people-oriented), adds Treitler, could teach her niece to balance a checkbook. Think of these activities as physical workouts, suggests Treitler: "When you practice them regularly, it trains your brain to become accustomed to new ways of thinking." Later, when an actual diet plan requires steadfastness and attention to detail, the effort won't feel so alien. The most important aspect of redefining yourself is "doing something empowering," says Treitler. "It may be teaching, volunteering—anything that allows you to take on new status and to be in the position of helper rather than one who needs help." From this strengthened position, you go forward, not back.

debbiequack

I like that article too-- it again reminds me of what alcoholics and other addicts go through, for successful recovery. Finding a mentor, changing lifestyles and "giving back" are all part of recovery.

I am definitely a quadrant B person. People make fun of me, I'm so into routine

Best,

Debbie

Daffydilly

Statistics are notoriously flaky. After all, do you know that 75% of people believe every statistic they read?

Ha, also that over 80% of statistics are made up!

manorexicmarshmallow

studies show that yo-yo dieters are more healthy than obese people, so even if we gain it back, its still healthier than not trying to lose it at all.

Can you site the source to this study? I am pretty sure yo yo dieters are wreaking havoc on their metabolism, and when they do gain they gain more fat and do more damage to themselves. IMHO I feel that is misinformation.......

Sorry, I'm just now seeing your post, here's the article Im referring to. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43298247/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/yo-yo-dieting-better-staying-obese/

Intuitively I think it makes sense though. Yes yo-yo dieting can mess with your metabolism, but being obese significantly increases your risks for diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, high cholesterol and a whole slew of assorted incredibly serious medical problems. So spending some time being a healthier weight (even if only temporarily) would seem to be better than staying obese (obviously being consistently healthy is far superior of course)