the "fat trap," "natural weight," and society

mammothdoll

The New York Times' recent "Fat Trap" article (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html?_r=1) suggests that dieters retain weight more efficiently and require fewer calories than non-dieters at identical weights (and, I assume, body compositions). It goes on to suggest that, for weight loss to be effective, dieters must be "hyper-vigilant" (this translates to using MFP or similar, btw) for the rest of their lives.

On Slate, L.V. Anderson accepts the Times' writer's conclusions, opining that weight loss attempts are therefore futile, that hyper-vigilance resembles an eating disorder, and that society needs to be more accepting of the obese.

What do y'all think of this, fellow MFP-ers?

Personally, out of all of the above, I agree with precisely one proposition: that society should be more accepting of the obese. I believe that fat-shaming will only incentivize the self-possessed to become _more_ fat in the spirit of rebellion. Besides, fat-shaming is just mean.

I also have a few personal questions, which perhaps the more science-minded among you could take a stab at.

For my entire adult life (after, say, age 12), my "default" weight was 165 pounds. No more, no less. My weight fluctuated but it would always return to 165.

In the past two years, I gained a whopping 60 pounds.

My goal right now is to take those 60 pounds back off.

Does my experience so far support the NYT and Slate articles' conclusions?

Should I be worried that my default has changed to 223 pounds?

Any tangential observations are welcome as well.

Thanks!

meerkat70

I think this is more relevant to individuals with long term / lifelong issues with eating, to be honest. But yes a level of vigilance is likely needed for anyone who's been significantly overweight.

deksgrl

There was some discussion on this the other day.

Here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/428971-you-may-not-be-doing-anything-wrong

gloriann1

I know there was already a post on this article, but I will post on this one.

"One question many researchers think about is whether losing weight more slowly would make it more sustainable than the fast weight loss often used in scientific studies. Leibel says the pace of weight loss is unlikely to make a difference, because the body’s warning system is based solely on how much fat a person loses, not how quickly he or she loses it. Even so, Proietto is now conducting a study using a slower weight-loss method and following dieters for three years instead of one."

This kind of flies in the face of the popular "do it slower" mantra that has become popular. I would be very interested to see what comes of the new study. I know a lot of people swear by slower weight loss.

mammothdoll

Thanks, guys! This was very helpful. And I'll check out the other thread.

myofibril

I would be very interested to see what comes of the new study. I know a lot of people swear by slower weight loss.

Actually so would I.

I would treat the conclusions drawn from that article with a degree of caution. It doesn't really tell us that much we didn't already know about body weight regulation.

Essentially it is a way of spinning the old chesnut of the adaptive component of dieting down, aka adapative thermogenesis, part of the fabled "starvation" response.

When our body weight lowers we simply need less calories per day to maintain that lower weight. This is inevitable. However, depending on the structure of your diet there is also sometimes an additional reduction in overall maintenance calories which cannot be explained away by the reduction in weight. This is in turn makes long term maintenance more difficult.

There are many ways to mitigate this to include diet breaks, cheat meals, refeeds, spiking, calorie deficits suitable to body composition and so on which can help break this cycle. Dieting doesn't have to be desolate.

Amy911Gray

I know that my cousin is way more healthier than I am. I've yo-yo'd my whole life from a size 8 to a size 24. She's stayed about about an 18. Where I've had knee and joint issues, she bounces around without pain. Her heart rate is good, cholesterol is good..maybe there is something to the stability.

jsuaccounting

I have read about similar studies in other aritcles. Very interesting. I will check out the other post also.

dissonancesquared

the article also mentions that weight gain is unlikely to become "set" for a period of a few years... so if you somewhat rapidly gain and bunch of weight and then lose it again, your body doesn't experience the same sorts of changes... but that hasn't been well studied in people.

i also think the "lose is slowly" thing, even if it doesn't change the effect on metabolism, does make a difference to the habits you develop. during the whole period of a slower weight loss you are building up habits that you can simply continue once you reach your goal weight, rather than having to figure out how to work healthy habits into your daily life when you're no longer on a diet. you just continue doing what you've been doing, perhaps with a slightly higher caloric intake.

the NYT article kind of scared me though. i always imagined that the need to be hypervigilent about what is consumed would fade with time, rather like quitting smoking. this makes it sound like maintaining a lower weight is a matter of constant effort.

ruby_red_rose

I agree - the slower weight loss gives folks a chance to develop healthy habits and practice them, so I think they are less likely to go back to the old ways.

the article also mentions that weight gain is unlikely to become "set" for a period of a few years... so if you somewhat rapidly gain and bunch of weight and then lose it again, your body doesn't experience the same sorts of changes... but that hasn't been well studied in people.

i also think the "lose is slowly" thing, even if it doesn't change the effect on metabolism, does make a difference to the habits you develop. during the whole period of a slower weight loss you are building up habits that you can simply continue once you reach your goal weight, rather than having to figure out how to work healthy habits into your daily life when you're no longer on a diet. you just continue doing what you've been doing, perhaps with a slightly higher caloric intake.

the NYT article kind of scared me though. i always imagined that the need to be hypervigilent about what is consumed would fade with time, rather like quitting smoking. this makes it sound like maintaining a lower weight is a matter of constant effort.

psmd

I posted on this earlier and I blogged on this topic tonight:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/430359-the-fat-trap

http://wp.me/p1xlnt-37

I think there is merit to this. I think in regards specifically to your own weight gain the past two years, what the article is suggesting would be that your body's hormone levels may have changed with the weight gain, and may change again (for the worse) with weight loss. It also means that weight loss, in order for it to be successful, has to be slow (yes, I am one of those people--I've lost 20 pounds already and now reset my ticker). Anyone suggesting this means obese people should "give up" is being fatalistic. And perhaps writing sensationalist articles for more readership?

I think rather than giving up, this DOES show that there is biology behind obesity--it's not "all in the mind," but rather there is real science to it.

We are only starting to see the beginning of the research, and hopefully over time it will lead to being able to target weight loss more consistently for people, and therefore more successfully.