Are people helpless in controling their weight?

I made it chubby, I can make it fit.

While genetics play a role in more and more diseases, it's not an excuse. No one is perfect. We all have limitations, but limitations are not excuses. Improvise, Adapt and Overcome ... This is coming from someone who went from 245 to 160, all before finding out I suffered from low T. Was it hard prior to my diagnoses, hell yeah! But, I still drop the weight because I was determined. Is it easier now being on TRT, hell yeah!

And please feel free to go on your merry way as the discussion is clearly above your pay grade. The article references several studies which show the genetic connection to obesity. Its not the only answer, but a huge factor in explaining why so few people who are overweight can sustain their weight loss. Is that so controversial or difficult to understand? Perhaps for some. Read these forums if you doubt it. Clearly there is a metabolic quotient (?) that seems to be significantly different from person to person that may make long term possible difficult/impossible for some beyond the environmental ones.

You keep saying the same thing and we keep saying the same other thing and even though I know you made this thread to get a rise out of us, I'm just going to say:

We've read these forums. Some of us for many many years. If you think you can use any group of related posts to confirm or deny any of your claims, well good luck with that. Anyone who comes in here and acts the way you are acting is going to get his or her hat handed to him.

Continue to be rude and argumentative, and that's what you will get in return. Post threads with titles and claims like this one and expect pictures and arguments. Attack long-time intelligent members and find yourself on the "other" end of friendly.

Better to come in expecting the best rather than the worst.

We eagerly await your next attempt at proving your non-point.

Actually I have cited 4 scientific articles that address the issue. Your narrow viewpoint on what you read on a forum is not really compelling evidence to the contrary. And continuing to be argumentative "that my brother this", or "my sister that", is really not convincing evidence to dispute the fact that there are serious genetic reasons that may make real weight loss impossible for some. /how many people fail in ongoing weight loss 95%??? They are not all fat slobs who lack will power. There are genetic, chemical, and biological reasons that underly the problem.

Nope. But it seems you are still looking for excuses OP. :ohwell:

I don't have any excuses. I will hit my goal in a month or two. I am just pointing out that the genetic deck maybe stacked against certain people, based on the metabolism that they inherited. It is a somewhat sobering article. You must have missed the point. Not surprising.

Regardless, 100 calories is nothing. You can easily burn that by standing up for a while instead of sitting.

.

Is this true?

If he had studied normal, slow weight loss we might not be having this conversation.

"Normal, slow weight loss" has been studied.

That method has the same abysmal regain rate as quick, fast, low calorie.

None of the current methods of weight loss lead to lasting change in the vast majority of people. Call it a lifestyle change, slow and steady wins the race, etc, it all leads to the same road for the overwhelming majority of people.

Fat and fat again.

That's why the concentration has to be on a total and complete mind change AFTER the weight is gone, because how you lost it is proving to matter so little.

I disagree with this and would like to see studies that compare the regain rates/percentages of people who did the different techniques. Also, I'd like to see the measurements be body fat instead of "pounds"....

I think that there is a huge difference in success long term between people who do quick starvation diets and those who do slow and steady. First of all, slow and steady is sustainable and IS a lifestyle change. Second, when you lose weight by sever calorie restriction, you lose critical muscle mass which lowers your metabolism. You also encourage a mind-set of all or nothing... as opposed to a mind set of moderation.

I did slow and steady, lost 50 lbs and gained back 20. But as I said, I would like to see the measurements not in pounds but in body fat...because my weight is up, but so is my muscle mass (I lift heavy). My body fat was down to 19% at it's lowest and is now up to 23%. Not something I'm ashamed of, considering I started in the ball park of 40% four years ago.

You can chose to believe whatever you like, but it's the truth. Losing weight/fat/pounds/whatever, regardless of method, the overwhelming majority of times, in the overwhelming majority of people, leads to significant regaining of weight in the long term.

Long term success is extremely rare, and even most of the 'successes' are people who managed to not gain back ALL the weight.

There is no evidence that calling it a "lifestyle change", doing it the "slow, or "right", way leads to a great percentage of long term weight loss success. Those are popular dieting mantras that have no basis in fact at all. They just sound really good and encouraging, and for companies in the business of weight loss, they're great ways to keep people hooked for long periods of time.

This article references a study where almost all the slow, moderate, and fast losers regained the weight. The difference was that the quicker losers, on the whole, enjoyed far more weight loss because they'd lost more in the same amount of time. Everyone regained about similar amounts of weight, regardless of rate of loss.
http://triathlon.competitor.com/2011/11/nutrition/the-myth-of-slow-weight-loss_43011

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20443094

An excerpt from the study:

"Our study provides further evidence that, within the context of lifestyle treatment, losing weight at a fast initial rate leads to greater short-term weight reductions, does not result in increased susceptibility to weight regain, and is associated with larger weight losses and overall long-term success in weight management," the authors write in the International Journal of Behavioral Medicine.

Here is an analysis over over two dozen US studies, done across 5 years, comparing people who lost on a very low energy diet (less than 800 a day) vs a more balanced diet of 1200-1500 calories.

The conclusions?

"Participants who completed a very low energy diet programme lost significantly more weight and maintained greater weight losses after four to five years than those who completed a hypoenergetic balanced diet programme".

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.long



Anecdotally I've lost slow, and lost fast. Regain rates were the same following each type of loss. I have never seen any advantage to slowing down weight loss, except frustration. Most important is how you adjust after you lose weight, regardless of how you lost it.

I challenge you to find a single study that champions strong long term success for slow, "lifestyle" change dieters.

Regardless of all of this, I guarantee you that 100% of the people who regained did so because they ate above maintenance, and 100% of the people who did not regain were because they did not eat above maintenance.