Everyone who has recently lost weight needs to read this

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.

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.

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.

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.