Everyone who has recently lost weight needs to read this

nicholettebell

Bump to read later.

ixap

I read the Times article a few months ago (haven't read the journal article yet though).

One thing that struck me is that they described the diet and lifestyle of the "exception to the rule" woman who kept the weight off as being incredibly onerous - that she had to cut her calories SO low and exercise SO much.

But then when they gave the details, the said she could eat 2000 calories per day if she burned 500 in exercise.
As compared to an "average" woman of her size who could maintain with 2300 calories per day doing the same amount of exercise. How is that SO terrible and unattainable?

wfte

Is this not why anyone with common sense will suggest not eating at too big a deficit, some measure of cardio and some strength training?

Yes, your metabolism may slow as you lose weight but there's things you can do to limit the effects.

Robin_Bin

As most of us know, most "diets" don't work. When you first change your body it "wants" to go back to where it was. Slower loss may work better, and that can be an advantage of plateaus... they give your body a chance to develop a new level-set or "normal".

Katydone

I used to weigh 220 lbs at 5 foot 2 inches. Over a few years of being more active I am down to 170 lbs. I have been in that vicinity for maybe 5 years. Now I want to lose more. It didn't seem to take any effort to stay in the 170 lb. It might be helpful to lose it slow as a life change.

nhbthaler

ITT: Peer-reviewed biochemstry dismissed with a 'no I don't think that's true.'

LOL

Suit yourselves. It's my informed opinion that the article is correct. I lost weight, kept it off, and I'm still losing.

As a scientist, I will say that peer reviewed often means squat. The study that linked the measles vaccine to autism was shown to be BS pretty much, but it was published. Despite being retracted, the battle rages on. I'm not saying this article is BS, but you have to view everything with a grain of salt.

As a published scientist with undergraduate and graduate degrees in biochemistry and molecular biology I believe that the peer review process provides credibility.

Your autism/measles example is a red herring.

Of course we have to take things with a grain of salt.

People are free to disregard, that is their prerogative. I used the information contained within the article to adjust my diet such that I was able to keep the weight I had lost off in spite of a vastly increased appetite and reduced caloric requirement. YMMV.

californiagirl2012

This really helped me understand why I was so much hungrier and suffering from insane cravings after losing 30 lbs (starting from 205):

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html

Cliffs:
Losing ≥ 10% of body weight = altered metabolic state
Ghrelin (hunger hormone) goes up
Leptin (fat mobilizing hormone) goes down
Relative to a person of same weight who has not undergone weight loss, you need fewer calories to maintain

Just a friendly FYI

I'm not sure I agree with that. But I do know that you can't have a big calorie deficit when you are leaner as compared to when you have more fat reserves. When I was over weight I could have a fairly big calorie deficit, but as I approached 12% body fat I needed to taper up my calories and I felt a big difference in my hunger if I ate to low. I'm still maintaining under 12% body fat for about a year now (both my doctors say I'm quite healthy and my blood work shows my hormone levels are good for a almost 52 year old female).

Anyway this might help too:

The Theory of Fat Availability:
•There is a set amount of fat that can be released from a fat cell.
•The more fat you have, the more fat can be used as a fuel when dieting.
•The less fat you have, the less fat can be used as a fuel when dieting.
•Towards the end of a transformation, when body fat is extremely low you
may not have enough fat to handle a large caloric deficit anymore.

At the extreme low end, when your body fat cannot ‘keep up’ with the energy deficit
you've imposed on your body, the energy MUST come from SOMEWHERE. This is
when you are at risk of losing lean body mass during dieting (commonly referred to
as ‘starvation mode’). This happens at extremely low levels of body fat, under 6% in
men and 12% in women [Friedl K.E. J Appl Phsiol, 1994].

-Brad Pilon and John Barban (from The Reverse Taper Diet in The Adonis Index and Venus Index manuals)

nxd10

Yeah, a friend of mine did some of that research. But many people did keep it off. And I plan to be one of them.

The ones who do lost slowly and permanently changed their habits. They also exercised. They did not deprive themselves of foods in particular (no NEVERS) and did watch their portions.

It was hard. It really was a lifestyle change.

I would also note - barring everything else - that my metabolism dropped at 40 and again at 50. So I can eat much less now than I could when I was 20. All you guys who brag that you're thin because you have better willpower than those of us who gained - just you wait! I hope you're right and never do.

---

My sister took off 65 pounds and kept it off 15 years until her thyroid medicine just messed her body up.

It took me 20 years to gain the 20 pounds I have just lost. It was easy to drop it. I plan to keep it off. I hope to lose another 20. We'll see how THAT goes.

nhbthaler

ITT: Peer-reviewed biochemstry dismissed with a 'no I don't think that's true.'

LOL

I agree. I love how people on this site with limited training in research, statistics, biology, chemistry, etc. dismiss research findings for no other reason than they don't like what it says. It's ridiculous. Moreover, these findings do not mean you are "doomed" to regain the weight, I think that is the completely wrong way to look at it. This is information that you can use to help make sure that you don't regain weight. Personally, I find research like this very affirming, because I have found through trial and error, that if I eat what "should" be maintenance calories for me, I will put weight back on. If I stay slightly below that (~15%) I maintain.

Thank you.

Anyone who thinks I posted this as a "give up now, resistance as futile" sort of thing is mistaken.

In fact I am impervious to people complaining about having to work out, count calories, etc.

I posted the article strictly for the physiological information which in my case helped me understand why I was craving so much crap that was never a part of my diet even before I sought to lose weight.

I was bemused that so many people said they disagreed. What does that mean - do they think the researcher *didn't* record elevated ghrelin and decreased leptin levels in his subjects?

Awkward30

Many studies have seen similar "more than expected based on lost mass" metabolism changes. Some examples below. In no way are we doomed to regain the weight, we just will always have to work harder than people who naturally maintain the weight we diet down to.

JAMA. 2012 Jun 27;307(24):2627-34.
Effects of dietary composition on energy expenditure during weight-loss maintenance.
Ebbeling CB, Swain JF, Feldman HA, Wong WW, Hachey DL, Garcia-Lago E, Ludwig DS.
Source
New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center, Children's Hospital Boston, 300 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT:
Reduced energy expenditure following weight loss is thought to contribute to weight gain. However, the effect of dietary composition on energy expenditure during weight-loss maintenance has not been studied.
OBJECTIVE:
To examine the effects of 3 diets differing widely in macronutrient composition and glycemic load on energy expenditure following weight loss.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:
A controlled 3-way crossover design involving 21 overweight and obese young adults conducted at Children's Hospital Boston and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, between June 16, 2006, and June 21, 2010, with recruitment by newspaper advertisements and postings.
INTERVENTION:
After achieving 10% to 15% weight loss while consuming a run-in diet, participants consumed an isocaloric low-fat diet (60% of energy from carbohydrate, 20% from fat, 20% from protein; high glycemic load), low-glycemic index diet (40% from carbohydrate, 40% from fat, and 20% from protein; moderate glycemic load), and very low-carbohydrate diet (10% from carbohydrate, 60% from fat, and 30% from protein; low glycemic load) in random order, each for 4 weeks.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
Primary outcome was resting energy expenditure (REE), with secondary outcomes of total energy expenditure (TEE), hormone levels, and metabolic syndrome components.
RESULTS:
Compared with the pre-weight-loss baseline, the decrease in REE was greatest with the low-fat diet (mean [95% CI], -205 [-265 to -144] kcal/d), intermediate with the low-glycemic index diet (-166 [-227 to -106] kcal/d), and least with the very low-carbohydrate diet (-138 [-198 to -77] kcal/d; overall P = .03; P for trend by glycemic load = .009). The decrease in TEE showed a similar pattern (mean [95% CI], -423 [-606 to -239] kcal/d; -297 [-479 to -115] kcal/d; and -97 [-281 to 86] kcal/d, respectively; overall P = .003; P for trend by glycemic load < .001). Hormone levels and metabolic syndrome components also varied during weight maintenance by diet (leptin, P < .001; 24-hour urinary cortisol, P = .005; indexes of peripheral [P = .02] and hepatic [P = .03] insulin sensitivity; high-density lipoprotein [HDL] cholesterol, P < .001; non-HDL cholesterol, P < .001; triglycerides, P < .001; plasminogen activator inhibitor 1, P for trend = .04; and C-reactive protein, P for trend = .05), but no consistent favorable pattern emerged.
CONCLUSION:
Among overweight and obese young adults compared with pre-weight-loss energy expenditure, isocaloric feeding following 10% to 15% weight loss resulted in decreases in REE and TEE that were greatest with the low-fat diet, intermediate with the low-glycemic index diet, and least with the very low-carbohydrate diet.

Int J Obes (Lond). 2012 Jul 31. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2012.124. [Epub ahead of print]
Adaptive thermogenesis can make a difference in the ability of obese individuals to lose body weight.
Tremblay A, Royer MM, Chaput JP, Doucet E.
Source
Department of Kinesiology, PEPS, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
The decrease in energy expenditure that occurs during weight loss is a process that attenuates over time the impact of a restrictive diet on energy balance up to a point beyond which no further weight loss seems to be possible. For some health professionals, such a diminished energy expenditure is the normal consequence of a progressive decrease in the motivation to exercise over the course of a weight-reducing program. Another explanation of decreased energy needs during weight loss is the decrease in body energy stores (that is, fat mass and muscle mass) and its related obligatory costs of living. Many studies have also documented the existence of adaptive thermogenesis in the context of weight loss, which represents a greater-than-predicted decrease in energy expenditure. In this paper, we pursue the analysis of this phenomenon by demonstrating that an adaptive decrease in thermogenesis can have a major role in the occurrence of resistance to further lose fat in weight-reduced obese individuals. Evidence is also presented to support the idea of greater hunger sensations in individuals displaying more pronounced thermogenic changes. Finally, as the decrease in thermogenesis persists over time, it is also likely associated with a greater predisposition to body-weight regain after weight loss. Globally, these observations suggest that the adaptive reduction in thermogenesis that accompanies a prolonged negative energy balance is a major determinant of the ability to spontaneously lose body fat.International Journal of Obesity advance online publication, 31 July 2012; doi:10.1038/ijo.2012.124.

nhbthaler

And the peer-reviewed data published in scholarly journals just keeps a-rollin' in....

Thank you for that Award 30. I look forward to reading those articles!

ixap

Anyone who thinks I posted this as a "give up now, resistance as futile" sort of thing is mistaken.

I didn't have that impression about you posting it, but the tone of the Times article itself gave me that feeling.
For example, it says about the successful maintainer "Just talking to Bridge about the effort required to maintain her weight is exhausting." When all that person was doing was logging her food (like we all do on here), limiting her calories to 2000 per day (not so draconian in my opinion), and doing some mild cardio (elliptical, recumbent bike, and "vigorous gardening").

I haven't read the original research, so I can't say whether the Times article represented it well or not, but I know that other news media representations I've seen of research have glossed over significant details.

flatblade

I think part of it had to do with the fact that the subjects were only eating between 500 and 550 calories a day and they dropped 30 pounds in 10 weeks. I did something very close to that....and yeah, I gained it back. I think if he had put them on a more respectable calorie intake per day and lengthened the time of the study, there might have been a different outcome. The study was a DIET....and we all know diets don't work.

OK. I've lost weight quickly 40 lb in less than 10 weeks. I haven't had super low calorie counts for many days. I have exercised more than I have, but mostly the exercise has been consistent (exercising 5-6 days per week). I haven't felt more hungry, in fact I've had few cravings, but have had a couple episodes when I didn't eat 'til late. I think there may be something chemical, but it isn't a certainty that the weight will be regained. My main focus is to adjust my plan when I reach my "quick loss" subgoal. That is about 20 pounds from now. I expect to go slower once I reach 220 lb. I think if I were to expect to continue to lose weight rapidly after a 60 lb. weight loss would be a setup to failure.

fastforlife1

The absolute best response to this article I've read:

http://www.weightymatters.ca/2012/01/are-you-doomed-to-regain-thoughts-on.html

Thank you ! Encouraging article!

californiagirl2012

ITT: Peer-reviewed biochemstry dismissed with a 'no I don't think that's true.'

LOL

I agree. I love how people on this site with limited training in research, statistics, biology, chemistry, etc. dismiss research findings for no other reason than they don't like what it says. It's ridiculous. Moreover, these findings do not mean you are "doomed" to regain the weight, I think that is the completely wrong way to look at it. This is information that you can use to help make sure that you don't regain weight. Personally, I find research like this very affirming, because I have found through trial and error, that if I eat what "should" be maintenance calories for me, I will put weight back on. If I stay slightly below that (~15%) I maintain.

Thank you.

Anyone who thinks I posted this as a "give up now, resistance as futile" sort of thing is mistaken.

In fact I am impervious to people complaining about having to work out, count calories, etc.

I posted the article strictly for the physiological information which in my case helped me understand why I was craving so much crap that was never a part of my diet even before I sought to lose weight.

I was bemused that so many people said they disagreed. What does that mean - do they think the researcher *didn't* record elevated ghrelin and decreased leptin levels in his subjects?

I didn't think that. And I appreciate you posting the article. I'm sorry my answer was so short. I'm sure there is truth to the study and I'm sure everyone is different. I just know I had not experience that, but I know others who have and I have to admit I didn't understand what they were going through. I just don't think I've experienced it. I got down to 10% body fat last year and didn't know that until I was tested and I've stayed under 12% for more than a year now with no ill effects and no unusually hunger. It seems like this is where I'll stay and where I'm happy. Yet I've been obese and over weight my entire life until last year.

Thank you so much for posting what you found. I appreciate it.

postcall

Good article and I have seen others that support this. Basically for most people who have kept the weight off their diet and exercise tends to be better tan the average population. In addition I have seen data by several doctors who have stated that metabolic needs decrease by 30% when compared to the average person.

ShannonMpls

I was bemused that so many people said they disagreed. What does that mean - do they think the researcher *didn't* record elevated ghrelin and decreased leptin levels in his subjects?

It means, in my opinion, that they don't *want* it to be true.

I do think not enough research has been done on those who lose weight with modest calorie deficits while preserving LBM (the studies referenced in the article are of people who lost weight on VLCD, sometimes 800 cals or under per day).

Not sure if you read the blog post from the obesity MD I linked previously in this thread, but he doesn't disagree with the conclusion that those who have lost weight will have to be very vigilant to keep from re-gaining. What he does believe is that a mindset change can make all the difference, and that the method we choose to lose weight should be one we are willing to live with for the long haul. If losing weight is miserable, keeping it off will be too. (article is here: http://www.weightymatters.ca/2012/01/are-you-doomed-to-regain-thoughts-on.html)

That's why the NYT article's conclusion makes me smirk a bit - Tara Pope's last line of "I may not be ready to fight this battle this month or even this year. But at least I know what I’m up against." It doesn't have to be hell on earth to lose weight. It doesn't have to be a "battle." We don't need to go on Medifast and limit ourselves to 800 calories of shakes and packaged "puddings". We don't need to travel with our scales. But we DO need to be conscious of what we eat, make exercise a priority, and be more vigilant than our friends who have never had to worry about their weight. I guess the difference between my optimism and Tara Pope's pessimism is that I don't view those things are drudgery, but rather a small price I'm willing to pay to be healthy and fit.

anifani4

thanks for posting this article. It makes sense to me and is helpful in understanding what happens in my body.

Robin_Bin

Peer reviewed studies in credible journals tend to be very careful about the claims they make. But studies with a significance level of .05 will be wrong roughly 1 out of 20 times even when they have a great confidence level. You have to look at the body of research. Even so, I will give much more credibility to a reviewed paper than most other sources. Also I keep in mind that a popular press article about a study often leaves out key points, especially about the limits of the research or how it fits into what other researchers are finding.

Thank you for posting this.