Understanding Why it's So Difficult to Maintain Weight

Options
1246

Replies

  • ctalimenti
    ctalimenti Posts: 865 Member
    Options
    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?
  • geekyjock76
    geekyjock76 Posts: 2,720 Member
    Options
    ...
  • anemoneprose
    anemoneprose Posts: 1,805 Member
    Options
    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
  • jessready
    jessready Posts: 129 Member
    Options
    Thanks for sharing!
  • jpolinisse
    jpolinisse Posts: 149 Member
    Options
    Very interesting information in this. Thank you for posting.
  • SapiensPisces
    SapiensPisces Posts: 1,001 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Scott_2025
    Scott_2025 Posts: 201 Member
    Options
    bump for later. Great topic. And one I hopefully will be transitioning to in several months.
  • melissaka7
    melissaka7 Posts: 277 Member
    Options
    bump
  • wild_wild_life
    wild_wild_life Posts: 1,334 Member
    Options
    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".
  • bonjovi27
    bonjovi27 Posts: 144 Member
    Options
    bumping for later
  • bfitgirl
    bfitgirl Posts: 138 Member
    Options
    Bump
  • Fairlieboy
    Fairlieboy Posts: 84 Member
    Options
    You have to be very cautious about deriving epidemiological studies because they are notorious at self reporting. Correlation is not causation. The work by Leibel and Rosenbaum in a fully controlled environment is worth dozens of epidemiological papers to understand the causes. (These guys were the first who found leptin). This doco reconfirms what is now understood about appetite and metabolism. Leptin does affect hunger. So does insulin. Fructose (in added sugar) does. So does how you are emotionally. All the 7 or so identified hormones in this complex and the dozens of behavioural influences. What was intriguing is they could, by giving leptin to the patients, stop this metabolic drive to get back to being the heavy weight. But do you want to take a drug for the rest of your life? (even a naturally occurring / or synthetic one)
    Research from others suggest very low carbohydrate diets, avoidance of fructose, intermittent fasting (like the 5:2) may have similar outcomes, but the actual reasons may take years to understand. They more they know, the more complicated it becomes!
    Metabolism also slows with age. At 20 at my weight, and now (40 years on), my daily energy is down at least 200 calories per day. So just simply eating the same would have me at 30kg more (which I was a few years ago.)
  • wild_wild_life
    wild_wild_life Posts: 1,334 Member
    Options
    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.
  • natalyau
    natalyau Posts: 18
    Options
    Bump to watch later, thanks
  • khgraves
    khgraves Posts: 54 Member
    Options
    Thanks for sharing- saving for later.
  • jeansuza
    jeansuza Posts: 148 Member
    Options
    I believe that my metabolism may have been permanently altered and that it will forever be a struggle to maintain once I get there. I will never be the one that can eat anything and never get an ounce but never had been anyway! That's me and my life.
    Despite a study that said that I had 0% chance of successfully maintaining, I want my ticket to health and I will get it by exercising and developing a healthy lifestyle that includes calorie counting.
    Hope Mfp will remain on the net for the next 50 years 'cos I want to live that long! Being a healthy Mfp member aged 101!!! ;-D
  • chelseybennett1
    chelseybennett1 Posts: 275 Member
    Options
    Bump for later
  • dshalbert
    dshalbert Posts: 677 Member
    Options
    This explains so much. I always felt that once I hit a certain weight that my body seemed to hold on to every ounce for dear life and it is nearly impossible to get the scale to budge. I guess I'm not crazy.
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    Options

    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 :tongue: 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.
  • SharonCMach
    SharonCMach Posts: 305 Member
    Options
    Thanks for sharing, very informative, but scary at the same time. YIKES!!

Categories