Researchers claiming it's impossible to keep weight off

Is this real lol

It's one person in 20.

LOL I know what 5% means.

What I am saying is 1 in 20 doesn't seem "nearly impossible" to me, but I guess that really comes down to semantics. I just have an issue with the article using terms like "nearly impossible" and "outliers".

1 in 20 seems statistically significant to me - but like I said I don't know a lot about actually doing research, so not sure if 1 in 20 is often considered an outlier.

EDIT: Most importantly Id love to see the research this article was based on.

I was just pointing that out because many people have very different reactions to

95% failure (that's almost everybody)

and 1 in 20 success (that's still a lot of people)

I get the feeling that at least half of the people griping about that source in the OP didn't actually read it.

I see nothing wrong with their conclusion, based on what was said in the article, and the numbers used to reach the conclusion.

They aren't saying its impossible to keep the weight off, they say its very unlikely. And it IS. Most people who lose, by a landslide majority, gain it back. I've seen it over and over again...

(Statistical significance is one in 20. P>.05)

Thanks for this actually - this helped me direct my own curiosity to learn more about P value

That doesn't seem like a logical conclusion. Without understanding the differences between the successful attempts, and failed attempts, again the % just means we're not very good at [whatever the desired outcome is], yet. It doesn't say anything about how possible success.

It tells us that the approach to weight loss is essentially irrelevant. Which means the reasons for failure (or success) aren't in the specifics of the program (of any program), they lie outside that. They lie in the interaction between excess food supply and human nature.

There is exactly one weight loss program that works 100% of the time for 100% of the people - and that's to have a higher authority simply deny the dieter access to food.

Well, no. Technically, I think what you mean is that the only method that would be 100% effective would be to have the food be restricted. Authority is irrelevant. There are plenty of possible scenarios where we all lose weight because of food shortages that have nothing to do with authority.

That aside, I don't think that's what's being said (that the approach irrelevant). Eating behavior is a behavior. We can change behavior. All I see from this is that the difficulty of changing eating behavior increases as the population size also increases. No pun intended, though that's probably also true. But all that's given the methods we know of and the attempts we know of. If the set of constraints and variables produce an outcome that's 95% likely to give a result we'd rather not have, then we change the variables and constraints. That could mean restricting food in an organized way. It could mean other things.

That doesn't seem like a logical conclusion. Without understanding the differences between the successful attempts, and failed attempts, again the % just means we're not very good at [whatever the desired outcome is], yet. It doesn't say anything about how possible success.

It tells us that the approach to weight loss is essentially irrelevant. Which means the reasons for failure (or success) aren't in the specifics of the program (of any program), they lie outside that. They lie in the interaction between excess food supply and human nature.

There is exactly one weight loss program that works 100% of the time for 100% of the people - and that's to have a higher authority simply deny the dieter access to food.

Well, no. Technically, I think what you mean is that the only method that would be 100% effective would be to have the food be restricted. Authority is irrelevant. There are plenty of possible scenarios where we all lose weight because of food shortages that have nothing to do with authority.

That aside, I don't think that's what's being said (that the approach irrelevant). Eating behavior is a behavior. We can change behavior. All I see from this is that the difficulty of changing eating behavior increases as the population size also increases. No pun intended, though that's probably also true. But all that's given the methods we know of and the attempts we know of. If the set of constraints and variables produce an outcome that's 95% likely to give a result we'd rather not have, then we change the variables and constraints. That could mean restricting food in an organized way. It could mean other things.

I wanted to do my undergraduate honors thesis on behavior change and my adviser nixed it, making the point that just about every behavior is resistant to change. I wonder how fitness behavior changes stack up against anger management, etc?

A couple years ago when I told someone that I would probably need to count calories and carbs for the rest of my life, they said, "Don't you think your eating habits will have changed after a year or so?" I didn't quite know the answer to that then, but now I do. It's a no. Therein lies the myth. Many of us think, "If I ever get rid of this weight, I'll never let it come back. I'd be crazy to have the burden of obesity lifted and then just let it all come back on." So we lose the weight, and think we're now in the Happily Ever After part of the journey. "I can have a donut; I'm not fat anymore," is the thinking. First it's an occaisional treat and then it's back to your old ways. And the weight creeps back on. It doesn't suddenly come back with flashing lights and warning bells. Many times I have found myself thinking that I'm eating "normally," so I should continue to see a normal weight. But obesity has no one-shot cure, only very effective treatments. These treatments have to be continued and continually modified to keep the beast at bay. Do that, and become what this article calls an "outlier."

Thanks for posting the article. I found it interesting.

This article is not a shocker to me, as my doctors and support system have educated me on what modern scientific evidence is showing, and that's that maintaining weight loss is DAMNED HARD. Not because we, as overweight people, are broken some way, psychologically (and just can't harness our willpower), but because there are physiological things happening in our bodies that are a result of being obese in the first place that may NEVER change. It's a terrifying thought.

BUT.... it's still important that researchers DO these studies because without the knowledge gained from these studies, we're flying blind here. It pisses me off that I will ever be able to eat the amounts of foods that my never-obese friends will eat and expect to maintain my lower weight like they will. But knowledge about this is empowering for me. First, it helps me keep perspective. When I see my weight start to creep up eating the same foods and being just as active as my friends, I won't be mystified and wonder what voodoo is plaguing me. No, I'll understand that yeah, I used to be morbidly obese, so I'm always going to need to eat a little less to stay at a lower weight. Sucks, but I can use that knowledge to my advantage.

Secondly, this allows scientists to use this research to develop workarounds: be they magical pills that help us out (hey, a girl can dream), or even a methodology (some new forms of tracking or body monitoring, etc.) that helps keep us sane in the insanity of maintenance.

Lastly, it's about educating the public at large - government, our friends and families, and our communities. If parents knew that by feeding their children fast food as a shortcut (and that they could just work it off once they get into high school sports or something), they are actually dooming them to have lifelong biological issues with weight - it might change the way they provide food (again, a girl can dream). And when we can go back home for the holidays and not have our family saying, "Oh, go ahead and eat the cake - you've lost all the weight! You can handle it!" - how helpful would that be in the neverending marathon of physical and psychological efforts we have to make for lifelong maintenance??

To sum up my thoughts: don't be afraid of the science. Embrace it, use it as a tool to empower yourself, and hope that further studies and research lead to ways to help us all out on this journey!

It would be so useful, if we knew what the 5% were doing, that made them successful, long term. Everything else is just noise.

And the conclusion is that diets don't work? Really?

That's not what the article said.

It said that they have a 95% failure rate.

I'd rather stick with free choice and enjoy 100% of my life where I'm happy with what I look like 78% of the time.

Actually, it did not say that diets have a 95% failure rate. It said maintenance after losing weight has a 95% long term (keeping it off for > 10 yrs) failure rate.

ETA: Your previous post of your life of losing, regaining, losing again is exactly what they are talking about. Not that people fail at losing weight. That they usually fail at keeping it off after they lose weight.

And, yet, I would call my life being generally successful at maintaining a healthy weight. After all, I've been at a healthy weight for the vast majority of it, and it's not like I went for 7 years and then ate all the pizza. I got pregnant.

And that is considered "failure at keeping the weight off after I lost it."

What you consider generally successfully really has nothing to do with data. I have also been at a healthy weight most of my life, yet the article describes me perfectly. I started off pretty skinny so some of the lose/gain cycles didn't even put me in the overweight category, but I still failed to maintain the loss long term, as did you. How happy either of us was while doing this is not the issue.

I started off really underweight, so that first horrifying gain put me at healthy.

My point is that our experience of happiness is very much the issue when people are reacting to this.

"It will never be me"

No. You won't slip back into your old habits. You will get pregnant or have surgery or become homeless. And you just won't have the energy to care for awhile.

But that also won't define you as a person. You will get over the hump and get back on track because you have the experience of doing that before. You will be happy with who you are as a person and you will generally feel that you have stayed fit over the long term, despite the bumps in the road.

That is what these researchers are defining as "failure" and that's what I describe as "so what?"

I look at that and think...I'm 42. I'll probably hit menopause at 55. I'll have a 17 year old and a 16 year old at that point. I might be a little overwhelmed for a year or two in there. It's possible that I'll gain the 40 pounds back (failure!!!) but then they'll be off at college and I'll have more time and it will come off.

So f'n what that these particular researchers would consider that "lack of success at maintenance." They don't have to live in my pants.

I agree, you will feel miserable, but if you do it right, that misery will pass as your body starts to become accustom to foods with lower calorie densities. If you eat the right foods, you can eat all you want and still lose weight, feel great, and still perform anaerobic exercise (you can't in ketosis).

There is evidence to suggest that this is not true. The reduction in metabolism from losing body fat may be permanent. The effect has been tracked in people who have kept their weight off for several years. Their metabolisms are still 12% - 20% lower than people of the same weight who were never obese.

If it became easier over time I would expect to see more people succeed long term, too, which we don't.

Ah, the beauty of intermittent fasting for weight loss and maintenance. If you can come to enjoy IFing, it could be the answer for this hypothetical metabolic slowdown.

One or two days of fasting, or very low calorie eating, for 5-6 days of pretty free eating (within reason), might be the answer for a lot of people.

Hooray for IF. I have been doing EOD for 4 months now and I love it. I really think keeping a couple days of fasting around fior maintenance will be the key for me.

So if I gain weight back even once that permanently puts me in the 95% I'm guessing? On the other hand I lost ~40 lbs and kept it off for the better part of 3-5 years and now I'm on track to drop another 30. Does that put me again in the success column?

So if I gain weight back even once that permanently puts me in the 95% I'm guessing? On the other hand I lost ~40 lbs and kept it off for the better part of 3-5 years and now I'm on track to drop another 30. Does that put me again in the success column?

According to these researchers, you need to maintain a stable weight for 10 years. 9 stable years and a pregnancy: you lose.

So if I gain weight back even once that permanently puts me in the 95% I'm guessing? On the other hand I lost ~40 lbs and kept it off for the better part of 3-5 years and now I'm on track to drop another 30. Does that put me again in the success column?

According to these researchers, you need to maintain a stable weight for 10 years. 9 stable years and a pregnancy: you lose.

Wait what? That's a ridiculous standard anyway. Even if you are lucky that's still a full tenth of your entire life. I call bs on the whole study. Who's with me?

Actually, since I re-read the article (no link to the study), the standard is either 2 or 5 or 10 years. I call BS until somebody can give me a solid definition of who this 95% group includes and doesn't include.