Everyone who has recently lost weight needs to read this

I don't buy it either......I was NOT a fat kid, teen, I only got fat from having babies.....

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.

Yeah, sorry, it's true. Lyle McDonald writes about it at his web site: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com

I've extracted a relevant quote from one of his articles below. Basically, when you diet down, you need less calories to maintain that weight than someone who has always weighed that amount. It's one of the sucky side effects of weight gain.

"Some research has found a similar effect in humans although the studies tend to be very mixed on this (I’ll address why in a later blog post): when you diet down a human being, often you see metabolic rate decreasing far more than you’d expect based on the loss of body weight alone. That is, based on the weight loss, say you expected metabolic rate to drop by 200 calories; but when you measure it it really drops by 300. That extra 100 calories is more than predicted and suggests that the body is ‘adapting’ to the weight loss in an attempt to not only slow further fat loss but also to get bodyweight/body fat back up when food becomes available again."

ETA: That doesn't mean you're doomed to regain the weight. It just means you have to be more vigilant than you otherwise would have.

I agree John.
I find it kinda funny that they describe the maintenance period so horrible because they 'have to spend an hour a day working out and have to watch every calorie.'



Duh?

I read that article when it came out and it actually inspired me to get serious about losing weight. What I took from it is that it IS doable, if you keep track of what you are eating both while you are losing AND when you get to the weight you want to be. I realized that I always regained weight in the past because I stopped paying attention. So, I bought a food scale and a people scale and joined MFP.

I realized from that article and others like it that I would have to eat several hundred calories less than someone who's always been at my goal weight in order to stay there, so I didn't set an unrealistically low goal weight -- I'd be happy with 5 pounds into the healthy weight zone.

I have also realized that weighing less (when you are starting out obese) is a positive even if you never make your goal. Being 202 is easier on my body than being 255. If I never get to 150, I'm still better off now. Even if I never lose another ounce, I am eating well and exercising regularly which is good for me in any case.

I think the real thing to take away from that article is that we should focus more (as a society) on making sure people don't become obese, rather than on helping them once they get there. I could go on and on about that topic, but that's for another day.

I do think that article is good to keep handy to forward to any annoying people who think losing weight is easy. It's not, but difficult and impossible aren't the same thing.

I don't buy it either......I was NOT a fat kid, teen, I only got fat from having babies.....

Me too, I was underweight until I got pregnant.

It is what it is. I know that for the rest of my life, if I want to keep the weight off (which i do), I will have to stay active and pay attention to calories in and out. Had I been doing it all along, I wouldn't have gotten fat in the first place, but I didn't and I did. LOL My bad! So..

Who wants to be one of those, "I was on weight watchers and lost 50 lbs but stopped and gained it all back" people, anyway? That article explains it perfectly. Truth is... being fat is negative. LOL Being healthy is positive. A fat person is going to stay fat unless they make significant life changes. That's how it works.

Not enough information. The study involved crash dieting. 800 calories a day and no exercise regime is not a normal diet and certainly not teaching any good maintenence habits.

I have not been experiencing the hunger pangs of dieting that others describe. I make sure I eat enough protein, dietary calcium (in the form of fat free yogurt and low fat milk) and fiber, I drink enough fluids, and vigilantly keep track of my calories. I have lost 16 pounds, 24 percent of my goal weight, 10 pounds in this month alone. It is all about portion and calorie control, alongside regular exercise. I never deny myself a dessert (I budget for it) and I have the occasional cheat meal. (only once or twice a month allowed a cheat meal) I don't care if I overshoot my goal on protein and fat as long as I remain under the calorie goal, but I am not low carbing either. I strive for moderation.

I am a celiac so fast food is already not an option for me, but even for gluten free it is easy to overeat calories and gain weight with replacement starches. I never realised how much I was overeating until I bought a food scale and realised what a proper portion looks like. It has made all the difference for me. I am also hypothyroid so I figure I have gotten somewhat of a metabolic boost from the medication. At any rate I haven't had any trouble shedding pounds. That 25 dollar food scale was the best weight loss purchase I ever made.

I think if I am ever going to be successful at keeping it off, it is going to be by developing good habits while losing the weight to start with.

I will be interested to see how the other study for slower weight loss turns out, as it happens they haven't actually finished it yet, Dr. Leibel is just offering his guess.

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.

Thanks for sharing!

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.

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?

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".

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.

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.