The science behind gaining it all back

micneg01

bump

MaximalLife

A great article in the NYTimes:

"While researchers have known for decades that the body undergoes various metabolic and hormonal changes while it’s losing weight, the Australian team detected something new. A full year after significant weight loss, these men and women remained in what could be described as a biologically altered state. Their still-plump bodies were acting as if they were starving and were working overtime to regain the pounds they lost. For instance, a gastric hormone called ghrelin, often dubbed the “hunger hormone,” was about 20 percent higher than at the start of the study. Another hormone associated with suppressing hunger, peptide YY, was also abnormally low. Levels of leptin, a hormone that suppresses hunger and increases metabolism, also remained lower than expected. A cocktail of other hormones associated with hunger and metabolism all remained significantly changed compared to pre-dieting levels. It was almost as if weight loss had put their bodies into a unique metabolic state, a sort of post-dieting syndrome that set them apart from people who hadn’t tried to lose weight in the first place. "

Read the article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html?_r=1&hp

We are still without excuse though.

All of these factors can be easily overcome with continued willpower, hard work and discipline.

annabellj

definitely bump this baby!

MaximalLife

What a depressing article.

So basically, my hormones are going to make me inclined to be fat forever? I'm going to have to count every calorie I put in my mouth for the rest of my life? And, I have to exercise twice as much as 'normal' people?

I pity those normal people.
I'd never trade places with them, because my victory over this very struggle made me strong.

I am stronger than them, and it's reflected in all the other areas of life where I excel way beyond the comfort zone normality.

Sorova

Registry members exercise about an hour or more each day — the average weight-loser puts in the equivalent of a four-mile daily walk, seven days a week. They get on a scale every day in order to keep their weight within a narrow range. They eat breakfast regularly. Most watch less than half as much television as the overall population. They eat the same foods and in the same patterns consistently each day and don’t “cheat” on weekends or holidays. They also appear to eat less than most people, with estimates ranging from 50 to 300 fewer daily calories. "

This doesn't sound depressing at all to me. In fact, it sounds like exactly the sort of lifestyle I want to live: less sitting on a couch, more physical activity, and regular, healthy meals. To me it sounds like these people have a higher than average quality of life.

I accepted a while ago that I will probably need to pay attention to my weight for the rest of my life. At first I felt frustrated, but then I realized: I've been paying attention to my weight my whole life already. I've thought about it every day when I got dressed, when I tried to squeeze into a small chair, and when I felt out of breath going up stairs. I'd much rather think about it from the other side of the problem, you know? And the added benefit is that I'll probably end up eating healthier than most people, because I'll be paying attention. We just need to look on the bright side.

DevanEve

This doesn't sound depressing at all to me. In fact, it sounds like exactly the sort of lifestyle I want to live: less sitting on a couch, more physical activity, and regular, healthy meals. To me it sounds like these people have a higher than average quality of life.

I accepted a while ago that I will probably need to pay attention to my weight for the rest of my life. At first I felt frustrated, but then I realized: I've been paying attention to my weight my whole life already. I've thought about it every day when I got dressed, when I tried to squeeze into a small chair, and when I felt out of breath going up stairs. I'd much rather think about it from the other side of the problem, you know? And the added benefit is that I'll probably end up eating healthier than most people, because I'll be paying attention. We just need to look on the bright side.

I agree with this. At first it was upsetting but after looking at it from this point of view I completely understand. I guess my response is: heck yes to staying healthy and fit for the rest of my life! :bigsmile:

IvoryParchment

It's really not news; they're just finding the hormones that explain it -- which may lead to better ways to deal with the problem, and less room for scammers trying to sell weight loss miracle products that don't work, getting away with junk science because there's so little established science.

I was reading a similar article from two years ago (I'm slow) about leptin. People born without leptin are constantly hungry and become massively obese from childhood. Give them leptin and they lose weight easily. But most obese people don't have low levels of leptin and don't lose weight when they are given more -- they just get lower levels when they lose weight. They seem to have reduced sensitivity to leptin. A thin person who overeats has increased leptin levels and stops eating. An obese person has increased leptin levels and continues to eat.

Insulin is similar. Obese diabetics have plenty of insulin, but don't respond as much to it. Exercise, weight loss, and certain medications make them more sensitive to insulin.

By defining the problem with appetite related hormones, we can begin to look for the factors that influence them.

mhotch

SAVE

TourThePast

This doesn't sound depressing at all to me. In fact, it sounds like exactly the sort of lifestyle I want to live: less sitting on a couch, more physical activity, and regular, healthy meals. To me it sounds like these people have a higher than average quality of life.

Exactly.

I discovered years ago that my maintenance intake is very low, exacerbated in my case by being very short and light, so unless I want to end up fat again, the only positive way forward is me to keep this healthy lifestyle and frankly that's not entirely a bad thing.

Bellyroll

So is it good that I am eating at maintenance for what my goal weight should be?

KarmaxKitty

bump

capriciousmoon

This is why you diet slowly, and take breaks every so often to eat at maintenance. It prevents the hormonal problems, by allowing them to reset, rather than keeping at it long term and causing all kinds of havoc.

I did this, even though I was really just being lazy for a while. :laugh: I lost 100 lbs in a year with some breaks of a month or two, then pretty much maintained for 3 years before joining MFP. I noticed those breaks let me eat a lot more food and maintain my weight without any special effort (just eating when hungry and some exercise).

paprad

It was initially depressing, but I wonder how much of that is Tara Parker Pope's own irritation with her body coming through, it was almost as if she needed to give herself permission to stay overweight. She didn't really provide any counter-reseach - what could make the leptin-gherlin balance come back, what is the effect of strength training, And only briefly flirts with the idea that maybe a slower weight loss would work - that study cited was ridiculous - how can they justify putting people on such low calorie diets and then trying to extrapolate that to the the whole population. Clearly any weight loss on those terms was not a sustainable lifestyle at all.

I think strength training is probably a key input - I noticed the exercise mentioned in it were mostly cardio and endurance. TPP was a marathoner and there is evidence to show that it eats muscle - it would have helped if she had researched whether strength training staves of putting back lost weight.

Raclex

A great article in the NYTimes:

"While researchers have known for decades that the body undergoes various metabolic and hormonal changes while it’s losing weight, the Australian team detected something new. A full year after significant weight loss, these men and women remained in what could be described as a biologically altered state. Their still-plump bodies were acting as if they were starving and were working overtime to regain the pounds they lost. For instance, a gastric hormone called ghrelin, often dubbed the “hunger hormone,” was about 20 percent higher than at the start of the study. Another hormone associated with suppressing hunger, peptide YY, was also abnormally low. Levels of leptin, a hormone that suppresses hunger and increases metabolism, also remained lower than expected. A cocktail of other hormones associated with hunger and metabolism all remained significantly changed compared to pre-dieting levels. It was almost as if weight loss had put their bodies into a unique metabolic state, a sort of post-dieting syndrome that set them apart from people who hadn’t tried to lose weight in the first place. "

Read the article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html?_r=1&hp

We are still without excuse though.

All of these factors can be easily overcome with continued willpower, hard work and discipline.

Well said. I second this!

imjessly

So would this also apply if you were sick for an extended period of time (months) and lost a bunch of weight from not being able to keep food down?

joseph9

The article makes sense to me.

1) If I eat the way I want to with the food that's available to me, I'm going to be 190 pounds and climbing. I love eating a whole pizza, or buying a bag of mini-Reese's to eat in the car. Food is one of the two or three great pleasures in life, and my body evolved to stock up some fat in case lean times are ahead.

2) So if I want to keep my weight at 160 or so, it's pretty obvious that I need to keep monitoring my calorie intake so that I eat fewer calories than I would if left to my own devices. (Or change the food that's available to me with something like Paleo).

3) The one thing I'm not sure I buy is the author's idea that it's the process of getting fat, then stripping the weight, that causes successful dieters to have a lower metabolic rate than people who were always that thin. That's possible, but it's also possible that the dieters had a lower average metabolic rate to start with, which contributed to their initial weight gain.

paprad

That's possible, but it's also possible that the dieters had a lower average metabolic rate to start with, which contributed to their initial weight gain.

That would be the case for people who've always had a problem with weight. In my case I was skinny for nearly 30 years, then mildly overweight for around 10 and then obese for 8 - so what would cause my metabolic rate to keep dipping - mostly due to age and lifestyle changes, I thnk, but it isn't likely to be genetic.

TourThePast

Purely in evolutionary terms it would be an advantage if it was the case that when a body went from having a large reserve of fat to then having a lesser reserve of fat i.e. in a time of food shortage, it was thereafter able to survive and even regain some of those fat reserves even on a lower food intake.

So to me it makes perfect sense, even if I don't actually like it! :bigsmile:

Will be interesting to find if future studies find similar results.

Shaz_74

This is why you diet slowly, and take breaks every so often to eat at maintenance. It prevents the hormonal problems, by allowing them to reset, rather than keeping at it long term and causing all kinds of havoc.

And yes, strength training helps. If the muscle you have gets more efficient, just add more to make up the difference.

Sensible and straight forward. I like it! :flowerforyou:

SolidGoaled

Huh - I don't think I like this article very much! The thoughts of having to eat at a calories deficit AND workout 6 days a week for the rest of my life is very depressing.

I was hoping that by becoming somewhat of an athlete, I could eventually have a maintenance calorie requirement of 2000+/day or so.