Understanding Why it's So Difficult to Maintain Weight

Very interesting. Thank you.

Over the past 9 months, I have logged and then averaged my calories on a weekly basis. I weigh about the same as when I started. I now know my body needs 1500 calories daily to maintain so I stick to it.

I tried abandoning logging a few times over the past 3 years and gained 7-8 lbs before correcting.

I am 49 yrs old, 5'8" and started out at about 160. I had been a normal weight up until about my mid 40's. I'm now 140.

I guess I'll have to log forever but what's the alternative? Go back to 160 and keep climbing?

They put the patients in this study on an 800 calorie a day diet. Isn't that putting the body into starvation mode and causing it to react the way it is? I'm no scientist/physician, but I'd like to know the results if they had their patients eating a 1400 calorie a day diet. Would the results be the same?

No. The adaptations mentioned in the segment would have been minimal in comparison if subjects were prescribed and maintained a smaller deficit. If people want to have more success at maintenance, then maintaining a very-low calorie diet chronically should not be the strategy. The risk of obesity relapse is simply too great by such methods.

Various studies put the relapse rate after *any* diet/weight loss method at around 95%. Whether the specific responses mentioned in the doc are only true for VLCDs, there is clearly some kind of homeostatic pressure (whether psychological, hormonal, both) operating for most. Meanwhile, in most studies of people who've kept weight off long-term, most counted calories indefinitely. #logforlife #itsnotthathardin2013

Very interesting information in this. Thank you for posting.

bump for later. Great topic. And one I hopefully will be transitioning to in several months.

They put the patients in this study on an 800 calorie a day diet. Isn't that putting the body into starvation mode and causing it to react the way it is? I'm no scientist/physician, but I'd like to know the results if they had their patients eating a 1400 calorie a day diet. Would the results be the same?

No. The adaptations mentioned in the segment would have been minimal in comparison if subjects were prescribed and maintained a smaller deficit. If people want to have more success at maintenance, then maintaining a very-low calorie diet chronically should not be the strategy. The risk of obesity relapse is simply too great by such methods.

What's your evidence for that?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780395/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9226488

In these studies, the rate or method of loss did not affect the rate of regaining. How do we know the same adaptations do not occur?

Along similar lines, this is a meta-analysis done in 2006 that shows similar long-term prospects comparing VLCDs and LCDs but greater weight gain relapse in VLCD groups: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2006.146/full

From the paper:

This meta-analysis of six studies showed that VLCDs induced significantly greater short-term weight losses than LCDs but comparable long-term changes in weight. The equivalence of long-term losses was attributable to greater weight regain among the VLCD-treated patients. The present findings support the conclusion of the NHLBI expert panel that VLCDs not be recommended in lieu of LCDs comprised of conventional foods.

Good article. For the purposes of this discussion, I think the relevant point in their findings is "Attrition was similar in VLCD and LCD regimens".

Bump

They put the patients in this study on an 800 calorie a day diet. Isn't that putting the body into starvation mode and causing it to react the way it is? I'm no scientist/physician, but I'd like to know the results if they had their patients eating a 1400 calorie a day diet. Would the results be the same?

No. The adaptations mentioned in the segment would have been minimal in comparison if subjects were prescribed and maintained a smaller deficit. If people want to have more success at maintenance, then maintaining a very-low calorie diet chronically should not be the strategy. The risk of obesity relapse is simply too great by such methods.

What's your evidence for that?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780395/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9226488

In these studies, the rate or method of loss did not affect the rate of regaining. How do we know the same adaptations do not occur?

Along similar lines, this is a meta-analysis done in 2006 that shows similar long-term prospects comparing VLCDs and LCDs but greater weight gain relapse in VLCD groups: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2006.146/full

From the paper:

This meta-analysis of six studies showed that VLCDs induced significantly greater short-term weight losses than LCDs but comparable long-term changes in weight. The equivalence of long-term losses was attributable to greater weight regain among the VLCD-treated patients. The present findings support the conclusion of the NHLBI expert panel that VLCDs not be recommended in lieu of LCDs comprised of conventional foods.

Good article. For the purposes of this discussion, I think the relevant point in their findings is "Attrition was similar in VLCD and LCD regimens".

Eh, scratch that, sorry. By attrition they just meant failure to stick with the diet. They do also say that the proportion that regained from each group was not significantly different.

Thanks for sharing- saving for later.

Bump for later

do you still track calories every day then? That's just mind boggling to me-I got burned out from tracking just during the few months of weight loss and stopped when I started transitioning into maintenance I wonder if I'm setting myself up for failure by not tracking them?

I think you will have to track or develop eating habits that help keep your weight off. For example, I have a weekly "diet" day where I eat about 1000 calories below maintenance. It's only one day so it's not hard to do. I also eat a monotonous breakfast and lunch-almost identical every day with a relatively low calorie count. This allows me to have a somewhat relaxed "normal" supper and some enjoyable foods afterwards.

I am working on developing habits so that I won't need to track my whole life. I have been working on that since I moved into my second year on MFP. I have found that I can easily maintain my current weight. But I have about 25 pounds more to go before I can say that I'm in permanent maintenance.

BUMP for later.

Bumping to watch later, thanks!

Bumping to watch later...

Over a lifetime of losing probably around 500 ish pounds.. Losing 89 in 1987, losing 36 in 2011, and multiple random losses of various weights, at different times. Im great at losing!!!!! The maintaining sucks. This video explains just why it crept back on me multiple times. I was doing EVERYTHING the same, just increased 300-500 per day on the calorie front. And the last time I lost, at the end of losing, I started into my menopause time. Arrgh.

The video explains about your leptin level after losing weight. I was always told to lose weight, lower your intake, up your exercise, drink lots of water. When you get to goal.... now, do everything the same only increase your cals just a little bit. WRONG WRONG.

Thats the part the doctors in this study have researched. The leptin level in your body is now lower. It now takes even less daily calories, just to maintain. Dont increase once your at goal. Your body with the leptin and your hormones are now changed. Just a slight increase of 300 ish calories per day... Even thou your eating now 1500 per day.... Even that, can cause your weight to come back on....

A person who has always weighed about 150 lbs, and a person who lost 30 lbs and now weighs 150. The one who always weighed 150 eats higher to maintain that weight. Where the person who lost 30 & weighs 150, they have to eat less to maintain the same weight. Due to the readjustment of Leptin in the brain. Your brain wants to fight back to the same weight you were before... Very badly....

This explains why all my friends here, the ones who eat at such lower levels.. YES they are the ones who are maintaining the lower weight. The ones who eat at the same level, that had lost weight before, they are gaining weight eating the same calories!!! That encludes meee.

Notice my ticker. Its reset. To start all over again. My body/brain is wanting to resist and stay around the 160 ish lbs according to what the hormones and leptin level is. I would say Im making excuses.. Those doctors have done all the research for me. Thank you doctors. Where can I acquire some leptin, so my body and metabolism will be the same as it used to be before I lost any weight at all. I wonder.

Thanks for the video! I really appreciate this video... I really don't want to eat at 1200 to maintain.. I really don't. Whats this bull-pucky about people who can eat at 2000 per day and maintain? Its the people who HAVE NOT lost weight multiple times. And the people who spend 2-5 hrs per day working out I guess. I can promise 45 per day. Of purposeful intensional workouts. NOT counting how much time throughout my 24 hrs, that is spent with regular activities of daily living.

Did I understand that video right? I hope so. Thanks again. The losing is fine... The maintaining is the most difficult part. That is True!

Where can I acquire some leptin, so my body and metabolism will be the same as it used to be before I lost any weight at all. I wonder.

^^^THIS, juice me up with some Leptin!! :laugh: