Researchers claiming it's impossible to keep weight off

1246789

Replies

  • kgeyser
    kgeyser Posts: 22,505 Member
    People fail at keeping the weight off for the same reasons they fail at anything else in life. I'm not sure why this is a point of contention. If you treat your weight as the end goal and not something you need to keep working on, you're going to fail, just as you would at a job or relationship. There's really no need to complicate things.
  • lthames0810
    lthames0810 Posts: 722 Member
    6. Possibly most importantly, once achieving goal weight, they did not attempt to simply maintain weight. They continued to want to improve body composition by doing rotating periods of muscle gain and fat loss (also known as bulk/cut cycles).

    I feel like number 6 is really the key here. It is why they continue to do numbers 1-5. When people no longer have a goal and simply want to focus on maintaining the can become relaxed. The work is done, now it's just smooth sailing. This is unfortunately not true at all. The only thing "easier" about maintenance vs. fat loss is that calories can be slightly higher. Not even a ton higher, we're talking around 500 calories a day higher. Not really a ton of wiggle room. If instead of just maintaining you decide to focus on body re-composition, you have no room to be relaxed. A muscle gaining phase involves more precise control then a fat loss phase does. It's much harder work. It's slower, results are less dramatic. You can lose 100 lbs in a year if you try hard. You can only hope to gain a fraction of that over a lifetime of attempting muscle gain. It probably takes most people 5-10 years worth of bulk/cut cycling to reach their muscular genetic potential. Spending that long tracking calories, working out, weighing in, seems like adequate time to have fully integrated those habits into your life. 10 years in you probably have little worry of falling off the wagon.

    Very, very interesting. Vismal, you always have a way of casting a problem in a new light.

    I now see the potential to take real action to not become one of the 95% (as opposed to just hoping I won't.) The only thing is that this particular goal of working toward the best possible body in this particular way doesn't seem applicable to a older woman like myself (who loathes lifting weights.) I just have to find an equivalently elusive goal that I can work toward over the long term. Maybe something to do with my bicycling...like improving my watts per kilogram or something like that.

    Thank you for this!
  • Pirate_chick
    Pirate_chick Posts: 1,216 Member
    I lost a lot of weight before, and when I reached my goal, I went back to my old eating habits. Unsurprisingly, I put double what I lost back on. It's my own fault, no excuses. This time, I have that knowledge and decided to make it a lifestyle change. Meaning, if I don't plan on giving it up forever, I am not giving it up now. I learning to eat in moderation. Not starve or binge/purge like I did last time.
  • 1princesswarrior
    1princesswarrior Posts: 1,242 Member
    I remember a forum awhile back that pointed to a HBO documentary about a study of leptin therapy after weight loss. They were studying why people gained weight after losing it and yo-yo dieting and found that after weight loss the leptin levels never returned to normal. I know this was already mentioned and just repeated it to describe the study. It was very interesting and I didn't bookmark the link...ugh. But it is the only study I've ever seen taking this approach to maintaining weight after a significant loss.

    Tbh, I don't know if I fall into the 5% or not because I'm still losing and I was always athletically built until about 6 years ago when I started having health troubles. My brother and parents have yo-yo dieted as long as I can remember though but they've never tried calorie counting and structured exercise. I'd like to think that all the knowledge I'm gaining here will apply in maintenance once I get there and I can be part of the 5% but I won't know until I get there.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    People fail at keeping the weight off for the same reasons they fail at anything else in life. I'm not sure why this is a point of contention. If you treat your weight as the end goal and not something you need to keep working on, you're going to fail, just as you would at a job or relationship. There's really no need to complicate things.

    Yet jobs are lost and relationships fail too. Even if you are giving it your best shot.
  • JustSomeEm
    JustSomeEm Posts: 20,269 MFP Moderator
    Are we sure this isn't a satirical article picked up by a reputable news service? Wouldn't be the first time. some of the phrasing in the article makes me want to laugh.
  • defauIt
    defauIt Posts: 118 Member
    It's really amazing how 100% of the people in this thread are the 5%.

    Also fun to note, the 5% count someone who has lost 5% of their weight permanently as a success. So if you're 300lbs and go to 285lbs you're part of the very rare 5%. People going from 300lbs to 180lbs are a tiny subgroup of the 5%.

    But feel free to say every single study which has found the same result to be wrong. Your anecdotal evidence and disbelief is much more credible then thousands upon thousands of data points.

    Funny. I posted earlier and didn't say anything about being in the 5% other than that I think it's not relevant. Each diet plan will have a different success rate. I want to know the success rate for what I'm doing, not what someone else is doing.

    Besides, I'm planning on a couple of cut/bulk cycles. Pretty sure that deliberate weight gain should take me out of the tested population anyway.

    My first comment was a tongue-in-cheek joke about how almost everyone thinks they're special and was not meant as a statement of literal truth.

    Would it have helped if I added [/joke] tags?
  • in_the_stars
    in_the_stars Posts: 1,395 Member
    It's really amazing how 100% of the people in this thread are the 5%.

    Also fun to note, the 5% count someone who has lost 5% of their weight permanently as a success. So if you're 300lbs and go to 285lbs you're part of the very rare 5%. People going from 300lbs to 180lbs are a tiny subgroup of the 5%.

    But feel free to say every single study which has found the same result to be wrong. Your anecdotal evidence and disbelief is much more credible then thousands upon thousands of data points.

    yeah, because "The plural of anecdote is not data."
  • FunkyTobias
    FunkyTobias Posts: 1,776 Member
    When you increase your fitness, your resting metabolism goes down.

    Making **** up again I see.

    Fitness and RMR have no correlation.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1550061
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9029211
  • in_the_stars
    in_the_stars Posts: 1,395 Member
    When you increase your fitness, your resting metabolism goes down.

    Making **** up again I see.

    Fitness and RMR have no correlation.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1550061
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9029211

    So true.
  • KellySue67
    KellySue67 Posts: 1,006 Member
    Well, after reading so much debate on this article, I guess we all have our own bottom line on the credibility of this article. I will continue to do what I have been doing for the last 2 years. It has been working so far- and for one who thought my ticker might not be accurate- I can assure you that it is. I will continue to work at losing weight and when I get down to what I feel is reasonable, I will continue with the healthy changes that I have made and will tweak where I need to. Making a lifestyle adjustment is just that, an adjustment. Adjustments need to be made periodically for everything, including us. We need to adjust to those major and minor situations that happen to us all, but we don't need to adjust in such a way as to go backwards. That is our choice.
  • lindsey1979
    lindsey1979 Posts: 2,395 Member
    I remember a forum awhile back that pointed to a HBO documentary about a study of leptin therapy after weight loss. They were studying why people gained weight after losing it and yo-yo dieting and found that after weight loss the leptin levels never returned to normal. I know this was already mentioned and just repeated it to describe the study. It was very interesting and I didn't bookmark the link...ugh. But it is the only study I've ever seen taking this approach to maintaining weight after a significant loss.

    Tbh, I don't know if I fall into the 5% or not because I'm still losing and I was always athletically built until about 6 years ago when I started having health troubles. My brother and parents have yo-yo dieted as long as I can remember though but they've never tried calorie counting and structured exercise. I'd like to think that all the knowledge I'm gaining here will apply in maintenance once I get there and I can be part of the 5% but I won't know until I get there.

    I thought that was an interesting study too, but if I'm remembering correctly, the leptin levels didn't return to normal after a year. I'm not sure they checked (or are able to check yet as the study was quite recent) at time periods past one year. I'm hoping, and others asserted, that they can return to normal for some people over time. Unfortunately, I saw no actual cites for those assertions, though I hope they're true!
  • sculli123
    sculli123 Posts: 1,221 Member
    It's really amazing how 100% of the people in this thread are the 5%.

    Also fun to note, the 5% count someone who has lost 5% of their weight permanently as a success. So if you're 300lbs and go to 285lbs you're part of the very rare 5%. People going from 300lbs to 180lbs are a tiny subgroup of the 5%.

    But feel free to say every single study which has found the same result to be wrong. Your anecdotal evidence and disbelief is much more credible then thousands upon thousands of data points.
    It's not wrong that most people gain the weight back. But it's not impossible to keep the weight off either if you are dedicated to the lifestyle. I've been roughtly the same size for the last 20 years or so. I gain some in the winter on purpose for muscle gain and cut down in the summer as I'm donig now. But overall I've been doing the same thing for many year without getting 'fat'.
  • kgeyser
    kgeyser Posts: 22,505 Member
    People fail at keeping the weight off for the same reasons they fail at anything else in life. I'm not sure why this is a point of contention. If you treat your weight as the end goal and not something you need to keep working on, you're going to fail, just as you would at a job or relationship. There's really no need to complicate things.

    Yet jobs are lost and relationships fail too. Even if you are giving it your best shot.

    You missed the point. If you don't put in the effort, of course you are going to fail, no matter what the goal. Does that mean you are absolutely going to succeed? No, because nothing in life is 100% guaranteed. But your chances are a lot better when you continue working on something and don't get complacent.
  • heatherloveslifting
    heatherloveslifting Posts: 1,428 Member
    I lost about 45 lbs in 1994 and kept it off until my first pregnancy almost 10 years later. It can be done and I am doing it again. I've spent most of my life doing things other people said were "too hard". I am the 5%.

    Wasn't the 5% those who kept it off for more than 10 years? It sounds like you are exactly what the article is talking about. You are doing it again.

    Lol, yeah, I'm sure since I was a couple months short of 10 years I was probably really close to gaining it back immediately if I hadn't gotten pregnant anyway. :tongue:
  • johnwhitent
    johnwhitent Posts: 648 Member
    I'm at six years and counting of successful weight loss, so I guess I'm in the five percent, and I will stay there. I did regain a few pounds after about about 18 months, but realized what was happening and got that back off, and now I'm cruising. I lost 55 lbs and that is where I remain, at 160 lbs (5'9"). A lot of people use MFP as a short term method to lose weight, then drop out. I've logged every particle of intake for over three years now and intend to continue doing so indefinitely. I do need the discipline of logging, but I'm good with that. It keeps me focused and where I want to be. With commitment. dedication, and patience anyone can get to and stay at a healthy weight. This is one "race" the turtle does win.

    Edit to add: Someone above noted that 100% of the people in this thread claim to be in the 5%, as if that can't be true. Well, 100% is obviously an exaggeration, but I would expect a much higher proportion of successful people here at MFP than in the general population. Tracking works! Lots of success stories here.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    I think it's a darn good article. I didn't see where it said it had nothing to do with people sticking to a plan. My take was that is EXACTLY what it was saying. And statistics are statistics. We can all think we are going to be that success story. We are going to be the one to keep it off forever. But, the reality is that only 5% of us will.

    I've seen so many posts bragging about keeping the weight off for a whole year or even two. I've done that too. Several times.

    Indeed. I guess it's not very motivational to say this, but most people who think they're going to keep the weight off for 10 years through self-discipline and force of will are deluding themselves. I made it seven years once :)

    How many people do you know that realize that you can't diet the weight off, go back to eating like normal and expect to keep it off? Honestly, I don't know very many that do. That's why all these VLCD and other pre-planned diets are popular - because supposedly you can go on Slim Fast or Medifast or Nutrisystem (for example) - lose the weight, then get off the plan and somehow you're going to magically eat to stay at that weight. Of course nearly all of those people fail to keep it off. And since they are a large portion of the dieting population, they're going to heavily influence the statistics.

    What I want to see are statistics for people who know damn well that isn't going to work. What are the stats for people who go into it planning to follow a sustainable diet long term? I'm guessing that more than 5% of those people are successful, but I've never seen or heard of a study on that demographic so who knows?

    What is your source for VLCD being a large portion of the dieting population?

    One has to wonder if the anger articles like this cause isn't partly due to how true it rings. If one is truly convinced that they are in the 5%, then why argue or be upset about the article? I think we all know that the risk of regain is out there.

    I didn't say just VLCD. I said VLCD and pre-planned diets. That would include all of those plans I listed and many more - Slim Fast, Nutrisystem, Optifast, Weight Watchers if you're doing the boxed dinners and/or their pre-planned recipes (not if you're using the point system but making and choosing your own food), Medifast, any diet like the Flat Belly Diet (again if you use the planned recipes and don't apply the principles to the real world), etc.

    All of those together I can guarantee you will be a large portion of the dieting population.

    FYI - I'm not in the 5%. I'm doing cut/bulk cycles anyway that should make me ineligible to be considered to be in either the 5% or 95%. And if I were not, I'd have a minimum of 10 yrs to go before I could claim to be in the 5%.

    I argue the stat partly because it pisses me off to see crap science. I am a scientist, so I am horrified when my profession is degraded by poorly designed studies, or poorly written reviews, or by news journalists who completely miss the point of the study. It looks like we hit at least two out of three with this one.

    I also argue the stat because putting numbers like that out there are extremely discouraging and has the effect of telling people that there's nothing they can do about their weight, they might as well not even try. If you're going to do that, you'd better have real, relevant, and fully substantiated data to back it up. That means studying every diet plan to confirm that none of them have a substantial chance at success, not take the aggregate number and throw it out there as if it's the end-all-be-all. What if one of those unstudied plans has a success rate of > 50%? Suddenly the picture doesn't look so bleak, does it?
  • heatherloveslifting
    heatherloveslifting Posts: 1,428 Member
    I think it's a darn good article. I didn't see where it said it had nothing to do with people sticking to a plan. My take was that is EXACTLY what it was saying. And statistics are statistics. We can all think we are going to be that success story. We are going to be the one to keep it off forever. But, the reality is that only 5% of us will.

    I've seen so many posts bragging about keeping the weight off for a whole year or even two. I've done that too. Several times.

    Indeed. I guess it's not very motivational to say this, but most people who think they're going to keep the weight off for 10 years through self-discipline and force of will are deluding themselves. I made it seven years once :)

    How many people do you know that realize that you can't diet the weight off, go back to eating like normal and expect to keep it off? Honestly, I don't know very many that do. That's why all these VLCD and other pre-planned diets are popular - because supposedly you can go on Slim Fast or Medifast or Nutrisystem (for example) - lose the weight, then get off the plan and somehow you're going to magically eat to stay at that weight. Of course nearly all of those people fail to keep it off. And since they are a large portion of the dieting population, they're going to heavily influence the statistics.

    What I want to see are statistics for people who know damn well that isn't going to work. What are the stats for people who go into it planning to follow a sustainable diet long term? I'm guessing that more than 5% of those people are successful, but I've never seen or heard of a study on that demographic so who knows?

    What is your source for VLCD being a large portion of the dieting population?

    One has to wonder if the anger articles like this cause isn't partly due to how true it rings. If one is truly convinced that they are in the 5%, then why argue or be upset about the article? I think we all know that the risk of regain is out there.

    I didn't say just VLCD. I said VLCD and pre-planned diets. That would include all of those plans I listed and many more - Slim Fast, Nutrisystem, Optifast, Weight Watchers if you're doing the boxed dinners and/or their pre-planned recipes (not if you're using the point system but making and choosing your own food), Medifast, any diet like the Flat Belly Diet (again if you use the planned recipes and don't apply the principles to the real world), etc.

    All of those together I can guarantee you will be a large portion of the dieting population.

    FYI - I'm not in the 5%. I'm doing cut/bulk cycles anyway that should make me ineligible to be considered to be in either the 5% or 95%. And if I were not, I'd have a minimum of 10 yrs to go before I could claim to be in the 5%.

    I argue the stat partly because it pisses me off to see crap science. I am a scientist, so I am horrified when my profession is degraded by poorly designed studies, or poorly written reviews, or by news journalists who completely miss the point of the study. It looks like we hit at least two out of three with this one.

    I also argue the stat because putting numbers like that out there are extremely discouraging and has the effect of telling people that there's nothing they can do about their weight, they might as well not even try. If you're going to do that, you'd better have real, relevant, and fully substantiated data to back it up. That means studying every diet plan to confirm that none of them have a substantial chance at success, not take the aggregate number and throw it out there as if it's the end-all-be-all. What if one of those unstudied plans has a success rate of > 50%? Suddenly the picture doesn't look so bleak, does it?

    :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart:
  • SarahAnna87
    SarahAnna87 Posts: 65 Member
    CBC is the Canadian Broadcasting and are highly reputable.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    It's really amazing how 100% of the people in this thread are the 5%.

    Also fun to note, the 5% count someone who has lost 5% of their weight permanently as a success. So if you're 300lbs and go to 285lbs you're part of the very rare 5%. People going from 300lbs to 180lbs are a tiny subgroup of the 5%.

    But feel free to say every single study which has found the same result to be wrong. Your anecdotal evidence and disbelief is much more credible then thousands upon thousands of data points.

    Funny. I posted earlier and didn't say anything about being in the 5% other than that I think it's not relevant. Each diet plan will have a different success rate. I want to know the success rate for what I'm doing, not what someone else is doing.

    Besides, I'm planning on a couple of cut/bulk cycles. Pretty sure that deliberate weight gain should take me out of the tested population anyway.

    My first comment was a tongue-in-cheek joke about how almost everyone thinks they're special and was not meant as a statement of literal truth.

    Would it have helped if I added [/joke] tags?

    Yes. Yes it would have. :laugh:

    I read half-serious sarcasm where apparently I should have seen all-out sarcasm. Sorry!
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Well, after reading so much debate on this article, I guess we all have our own bottom line on the credibility of this article. I will continue to do what I have been doing for the last 2 years. It has been working so far- and for one who thought my ticker might not be accurate- I can assure you that it is. I will continue to work at losing weight and when I get down to what I feel is reasonable, I will continue with the healthy changes that I have made and will tweak where I need to. Making a lifestyle adjustment is just that, an adjustment. Adjustments need to be made periodically for everything, including us. We need to adjust to those major and minor situations that happen to us all, but we don't need to adjust in such a way as to go backwards. That is our choice.

    I didn't suggest your ticker was inaccurate. I said it showed that the article wasn't about you since you are actively losing weight (not yet to goal). The article is about maintaining.
  • nesto610
    nesto610 Posts: 107
    This gives me more motivation to weigh daily and never stop logging! Thanks!
    ^^^DING, DING!! Winner, winner, chicken dinner..
  • mblair1968
    mblair1968 Posts: 323 Member
    it's nearly impossible to permanently lose weight.



    I like to prove people wrong. Nearly impossible is not impossible. Just like mostly dead, is not all dead!
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    I would say that is an opinion piece written by a journalist not a scientific paper. Just because a journalist talks about what certain scientists think personally doesn't make that science.

    Scientists are people, they have opinions too. Not everything that exits a scientists mouth is science.
  • elyuma
    elyuma Posts: 11 Member
    One thing i learned is that im not doing a diet, just chaning my life style. If people do the same, the weight will never come back
  • liekewheeless
    liekewheeless Posts: 416 Member
    it's nearly impossible to permanently lose weight.



    I like to prove people wrong. Nearly impossible is not impossible. Just like mostly dead, is not all dead!

    I like your reference.
  • Mama_Jag
    Mama_Jag Posts: 474 Member
    I am just going to put this here again. A long, but very worthy read:
    June 10, 2013 11:48 AM
    Ohhhhh...


    Cliffs:
    When your body cannot store any more fat in it's existing cells, it creates new fat cells.
    You cannot get rid of fat cells once your body has created them.
    Thin people don't have as many fat cells in your body, therefore it is harder for thin people to gain weight.


    You might find this interesting. :

    just copying an old post reply.

    While I'm not keen on the entire set - point theory, I do think genetic inheritance plays a very important part in the body returning to a "comfortable" weight. I really think weight is due to a combination of both genes and environment. After reading articles like the following I can't help but wonder if dieting is just too hard for some. My thinking (at the moment ) leans towards the possibility that people who relapse are just tired of the struggle to maintain the constant vigilance. Maybe it's due to a shifting of values where remaining thin is no longer a top priority in life, or counting calories and thinking about food becomes too time consuming and starts taking away from someone's life instead of adding to it. It's nice to be free from analyzing your options every time you eat something, to be able to eat something because that's what you "want", and not what you "should" have.


    I'm sure there are many reasons, just throwing some possibilities out there.


    QUOTE:
    May 8, 2007
    Genes Take Charge, and Diets Fall by the Wayside
    By GINA KOLATA

    It was 1959. Jules Hirsch, a research physician at Rockefeller University, had gotten curious about weight loss in the obese. He was about to start a simple experiment that would change forever the way scientists think about fat.

    Obese people, he knew, had huge fat cells, stuffed with glistening yellow fat. What happened to those cells when people lost weight, he wondered. Did they shrink or did they go away? He decided to find out.

    It seemed straightforward. Dr. Hirsch found eight people who had been fat since childhood or adolescence and who agreed to live at the Rockefeller University Hospital for eight months while scientists would control their diets, make them lose weight and then examine their fat cells.

    The study was rigorous and demanding. It began with an agonizing four weeks of a maintenance diet that assessed the subjects’ metabolism and caloric needs. Then the diet began. The only food permitted was a liquid formula providing 600 calories a day, a regimen that guaranteed they would lose weight. Finally, the subjects spent another four weeks on a diet that maintained them at their new weights, 100 pounds lower than their initial weights, on average.

    Dr. Hirsch answered his original question — the subjects’ fat cells had shrunk and were now normal in size. And everyone, including Dr. Hirsch, assumed that the subjects would leave the hospital permanently thinner.

    That did not happen. Instead, Dr. Hirsch says, “they all regained.” He was horrified. The study subjects certainly wanted to be thin, so what went wrong? Maybe, he thought, they had some deep-seated psychological need to be fat.

    So Dr. Hirsch and his colleagues, including Dr. Rudolph L. Leibel, who is now at Columbia University, repeated the experiment and repeated it again. Every time the result was the same. The weight, so painstakingly lost, came right back. But since this was a research study, the investigators were also measuring metabolic changes, psychiatric conditions, body temperature and pulse. And that led them to a surprising conclusion: fat people who lost large amounts of weight might look like someone who was never fat, but they were very different. In fact, by every metabolic measurement, they seemed like people who were starving.

    Before the diet began, the fat subjects’ metabolism was normal — the number of calories burned per square meter of body surface was no different from that of people who had never been fat. But when they lost weight, they were burning as much as 24 percent fewer calories per square meter of their surface area than the calories consumed by those who were naturally thin.

    The Rockefeller subjects also had a psychiatric syndrome, called semi-starvation neurosis, which had been noticed before in people of normal weight who had been starved. They dreamed of food, they fantasized about food or about breaking their diet. They were anxious and depressed; some had thoughts of suicide. They secreted food in their rooms. And they binged.

    The Rockefeller researchers explained their observations in one of their papers: “It is entirely possible that weight reduction, instead of resulting in a normal state for obese patients, results in an abnormal state resembling that of starved nonobese individuals.”

    Eventually, more than 50 people lived at the hospital and lost weight, and every one had physical and psychological signs of starvation. There were a very few who did not get fat again, but they made staying thin their life’s work, becoming Weight Watchers lecturers, for example, and, always, counting calories and maintaining themselves in a permanent state of starvation.

    “Did those who stayed thin simply have more willpower?” Dr. Hirsch asked. “In a funny way, they did.”

    One way to interpret Dr. Hirsch and Dr. Leibel’s studies would be to propose that once a person got fat, the body would adjust, making it hopeless to lose weight and keep it off. The issue was important, because if getting fat was the problem, there might be a solution to the obesity epidemic: convince people that any weight gain was a step toward an irreversible condition that they most definitely did not want to have.

    But another group of studies showed that that hypothesis, too, was wrong.

    It began with studies that were the inspiration of Dr. Ethan Sims at the University of Vermont, who asked what would happen if thin people who had never had a weight problem deliberately got fat.

    His subjects were prisoners at a nearby state prison who volunteered to gain weight. With great difficulty, they succeeded, increasing their weight by 20 percent to 25 percent. But it took them four to six months, eating as much as they could every day. Some consumed 10,000 calories a day, an amount so incredible that it would be hard to believe, were it not for the fact that there were attendants present at each meal who dutifully recorded everything the men ate.

    Once the men were fat, their metabolisms increased by 50 percent. They needed more than 2,700 calories per square meter of their body surface to stay fat but needed just 1,800 calories per square meter to maintain their normal weight.

    When the study ended, the prisoners had no trouble losing weight. Within months, they were back to normal and effortlessly stayed there.

    The implications were clear. There is a reason that fat people cannot stay thin after they diet and that thin people cannot stay fat when they force themselves to gain weight. The body’s metabolism speeds up or slows down to keep weight within a narrow range. Gain weight and the metabolism can as much as double; lose weight and it can slow to half its original speed.

    That, of course, was contrary to what every scientist had thought, and Dr. Sims knew it, as did Dr. Hirsch.

    The message never really got out to the nation’s dieters, but a few research scientists were intrigued and asked the next question about body weight: Is body weight inherited, or is obesity more of an inadvertent, almost unconscious response to a society where food is cheap, abundant and tempting? An extra 100 calories a day will pile on 10 pounds in a year, public health messages often say. In five years, that is 50 pounds.

    The assumption was that environment determined weight, but Dr. Albert Stunkard of the University of Pennsylvania wondered if that was true and, if so, to what extent. It was the early 1980s, long before obesity became what one social scientist called a moral panic, but a time when those questions of nature versus nurture were very much on Dr. Stunkard’s mind.

    He found the perfect tool for investigating the nature-nurture question — a Danish registry of adoptees developed to understand whether schizophrenia was inherited. It included meticulous medical records of every Danish adoption between 1927 and 1947, including the names of the adoptees’ biological parents, and the heights and weights of the adoptees, their biological parents and their adoptive parents.

    Dr. Stunkard ended up with 540 adults whose average age was 40. They had been adopted when they were very young — 55 percent had been adopted in the first month of life and 90 percent were adopted in the first year of life. His conclusions, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1986, were unequivocal. The adoptees were as fat as their biological parents, and how fat they were had no relation to how fat their adoptive parents were.

    The scientists summarized it in their paper: “The two major findings of this study were that there was a clear relation between the body-mass index of biologic parents and the weight class of adoptees, suggesting that genetic influences are important determinants of body fatness; and that there was no relation between the body-mass index of adoptive parents and the weight class of adoptees, suggesting that childhood family environment alone has little or no effect.”

    In other words, being fat was an inherited condition.

    Dr. Stunkard also pointed out the implications: “Current efforts to prevent obesity are directed toward all children (and their parents) almost indiscriminately. Yet if family environment alone has no role in obesity, efforts now directed toward persons with little genetic risk of the disorder could be refocused on the smaller number who are more vulnerable. Such persons can already be identified with some assurance: 80 percent of the offspring of two obese parents become obese, as compared with no more than 14 percent of the offspring of two parents of normal weight.”

    A few years later, in 1990, Dr. Stunkard published another study in The New England Journal of Medicine, using another classic method of geneticists: investigating twins. This time, he used the Swedish Twin Registry, studying its 93 pairs of identical twins who were reared apart, 154 pairs of identical twins who were reared together, 218 pairs of fraternal twins who were reared apart, and 208 pairs of fraternal twins who were reared together.

    The identical twins had nearly identical body mass indexes, whether they had been reared apart or together. There was more variation in the body mass indexes of the fraternal twins, who, like any siblings, share some, but not all, genes.

    The researchers concluded that 70 percent of the variation in peoples’ weights may be accounted for by inheritance, a figure that means that weight is more strongly inherited than nearly any other condition, including mental illness, breast cancer or heart disease.

    The results did not mean that people are completely helpless to control their weight, Dr. Stunkard said. But, he said, it did mean that those who tend to be fat will have to constantly battle their genetic inheritance if they want to reach and maintain a significantly lower weight.

    The findings also provided evidence for a phenomenon that scientists like Dr. Hirsch and Dr. Leibel were certain was true — each person has a comfortable weight range to which the body gravitates. The range might span 10 or 20 pounds: someone might be able to weigh 120 to 140 pounds without too much effort. Going much above or much below the natural weight range is difficult, however; the body resists by increasing or decreasing the appetite and changing the metabolism to push the weight back to the range it seeks.

    The message is so at odds with the popular conception of weight loss — the mantra that all a person has to do is eat less and exercise more — that Dr. Jeffrey Friedman, an obesity researcher at the Rockefeller University, tried to come up with an analogy that would convey what science has found about the powerful biological controls over body weight.

    He published it in the journal Science in 2003 and still cites it:

    “Those who doubt the power of basic drives, however, might note that although one can hold one’s breath, this conscious act is soon overcome by the compulsion to breathe,” Dr. Friedman wrote. “The feeling of hunger is intense and, if not as potent as the drive to breathe, is probably no less powerful than the drive to drink when one is thirsty. This is the feeling the obese must resist after they have lost a significant amount of weight.”

    This is an excerpt from Gina Kolata’s new book, “Rethinking Thin: The New Science of Weight Loss — and the Myths and Realities of Dieting” (Farrar, Straus & Giroux).

    Correction: May 12, 2007
    An article in Science Times on Tuesday about the role of genes in weight gain misstated the publication date for an article in the journal Science describing the biological controls over body weight. The article was published in 2003, not 2000.


    *Lots of comments after this article at the New York Times if you're interested - most not as depressing as this article and a few by readers that are maintaining a large loss of weight.





    *To be honest though, I think in certain cases obesity might be related to viruses, microbes, bacterium, and such. adenovirus -36? Methyl markers aren't the only way genes are turned on or off. Promoters and repressors that regulate how much a gene expresses itself into mRNA? and then translating into a protein?
  • VeganCappy
    VeganCappy Posts: 122
    When you increase your fitness, your resting metabolism goes down.

    Making **** up again I see.

    Fitness and RMR have no correlation.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1550061
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9029211


    Both of those studies are comparing a group of people. BMR varies among people and these studies were VERY poorly designed. The study should have taken untrained individuals, recording BMR, then after training recorded their BMR again. Because of the thermogenic effect of food and the metabolic response to stress from exercise, the only proper way to measure BMR is while fasting, and after a sufficient period of time that the metabolic response from stress has leveled off. Your studies measure RMR with is far less restrictive and will vary considerably more than when measuring BMR.

    If you take someone who is fit and measure their metabolism versus someone who is unfit, likely you will see a higher RMR in the fit person because they are more active. There bodies are working a large amount of time to repair and replenish from the higher activity level. However, this is not BMR. An example of this increased metabolic rate can be shown in a fit individual who might have a resting heart rate of 45. They exercise in the morning, and their heart rate remains higher all day.

    If you take an unfit person and increase their fitness, their resting heart rate decreases. Heart rate is correlated with energy expenditure.

    *I should have stated your basel metabolism goes down from increased fitness, but I was trying to relate more to the people who haven't heard of basel metabolic rate. I think RMR as it is defined is a not an important measurement. BMR is far more telling.
  • Gingerkid05
    Gingerkid05 Posts: 60 Member
    If people remain accountable for their weight the way they are about going to work, paying bills, taking care of their vehicles, not missing salon appointments, etc. then they sure as hell can keep the weight off.

    I love thinking of it this way! My job, my bills, my house, my weight. These are things I have to pay attention to everyday. Thank you!
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    People fail at keeping the weight off for the same reasons they fail at anything else in life. I'm not sure why this is a point of contention. If you treat your weight as the end goal and not something you need to keep working on, you're going to fail, just as you would at a job or relationship. There's really no need to complicate things.

    Yet jobs are lost and relationships fail too. Even if you are giving it your best shot.

    You missed the point. If you don't put in the effort, of course you are going to fail, no matter what the goal. Does that mean you are absolutely going to succeed? No, because nothing in life is 100% guaranteed. But your chances are a lot better when you continue working on something and don't get complacent.

    Agreed. But I don't think the problem is knowing what needs to be done, since these are people who have already done it. It's why don't people do it. Why do they become complacent? Why don't they want it bad enough anymore?