What are the Proven Benefits of a "Lifestyle Change"?

I can give you a 45 year study of 3 women. It is not scientific but it is factual. These 3 women would be in the obese range. 2 of the women were in the morbidly obese range. 2 of the women had bariatric surgery, 1 did not. All 3 women have been on Adkins, WW,
grapefruit diet, non fat diet, no carb diet, etc. 1 woman went to a diet clinic and ate 300 calories a day.

All 3 women were not physically active except for chasing kids when they were toddlers. 1 woman was somewhat active off and on.

To date, all three women have gained and lost on average 100+ pounds despite dieting on and off, surgery and quack diets.
To date all three women are the ages of 60,60 and 61. They all started gaining weight at a pre-teen age.

My conclusion looking back on 45 years is that you have to see the whole picture of health.It is not just losing lbs. or exercising for short spurts, because it always end in short term success.

When you decide to see yourself healthy, truly healthy not just slimmer, you will be successful. It truly is a LIFESTYLE change. We all have many changes in life and we adjust to them, modify our reactions, change our way of thinking and eventually see it as LIFE long term.

I will let you know how my change in lifestyle goes as I am learning to become healthy finally after 45 years.

OP, this is not a single study, but the WeightWatchers book _Weight Loss That Lasts_ by James M. Rippe, M.D. is pretty much a long, research-sourced argument for why lifestyle change works to take and keep weight off. It looks at a bunch of different factors in weight loss and how they affect long-term success.

Sounds like it's just what you're looking for.

Honestly, this makes some sense to me. Historically humans were probably exposed to short term caloric restriction quite a bit. If the tribe didn't get a kill everyone went hungry for a few days until they got one, then everyone binged til it was gone I imagine. Long term caloric restriction (months long, etc) is probably more unnatural biologically than a short term VLCD. I wonder if there was ever a study about ending metabolic rate based on say a 30 day VLCD vs. a 6 month loss of the same calories, assuming maintenance consumption afterward? Time to poke around on PubMed.

Makes sense to me, too. Though I wonder how often people stopped eating well before they were full, tempering their appetites, not to lose weight, but to dry and store food for leaner times.

Honestly, this makes some sense to me. Historically humans were probably exposed to short term caloric restriction quite a bit. If the tribe didn't get a kill everyone went hungry for a few days until they got one, then everyone binged til it was gone I imagine. Long term caloric restriction (months long, etc) is probably more unnatural biologically than a short term VLCD. I wonder if there was ever a study about ending metabolic rate based on say a 30 day VLCD vs. a 6 month loss of the same calories, assuming maintenance consumption afterward? Time to poke around on PubMed.

I disagree. Long term food shortages would have affected early human populations too. Also, when the hunt fails, there is still gathered plant foods available and small game. Modern hunter-gatherers may go several days without a big kill but they don't go hungry in between. People underestimate the contribution/importance of gathered foods to hunter-gatherer populations. Shortages of gathered foods are likely to have had a worse effect on populations than lack of large game as these provided the day to day staples and the main source of carbohydrates, and this kind of shortage likely would last, e.g. an entire winter, or maybe even an entire year if there was some freaky climatic conditions that affected the availability of plant foods in the area they lived.

To be honest, I think the most similar dieting methods to a palaeolithic lifestyle would be the bodybuilder/strength athlete cut and bulk cycles. Hunting during the middle palaeolithic era required an extreme level of strength (hunting large mammals close range with only a thrusting spear, plus carrying the animal back to wherever home was) - at all times they would be using their muscles to survive. There would be phases of the year where food was less available (but not yearly famines, just less food available so they'd get enough to keep hunting and not lose too much lean mass and have the energy to keep hunting, but still at a deficit), where their bodies would need to maintain their muscle mass in order to catch enough food. Then phases when food was more plentiful (but not the kinds of excesses they have today, so they'd not have a huge surplus).... what happens to the human body under these conditions, well during the calorie deficit phases, the strenuous exercise protects the muscles from being metabolised (they're needed to succeed at hunting therefore are important for survival) and fat is used to make up the energy shortfall........ then when food is more plentiful, a lot of that surplus is going to be used to build up the muscles necessary for success at hunting, and what's left will replenish the fat stores to enable the person to survive the season(s) when food is less plentiful. In a severe food shortage, more muscle tissue can be metabolised (but this would not be a regular thing, and muscle memory gains plus returning to hunting would mean they rebuild their muscle to be able to succeed at hunting relatively quickly). If someone is sedentary (not hunting, e.g. due to permanent injury), more muscle tissue can be metabolised (no point maintaining muscle if it's not being used for hunting because it's not necessary for survival)...... it's well known that the human body responds in these ways to these conditions, that is well documented by exercise and nutrition scientists. It also fits in well with the idea that our ancestors had to keep hunting through times of the year when food is more plentiful and when it's less plentiful. It's also likely that finding people with ripped muscles very sexually attractive comes from the fact that this indicates that this person is still strong and able to hunt through the harsher times of the year, i.e. they have good genes to increase your offspring's chance of survival.

While the process of cutting and bulking didn't come from the study of evolutionary science, it is interesting that this method puts the body through similar conditions that a middle palaeolithic lifestyle did and also that it results in a physique that a lot of people find sexually attractive and desirable.

Does that mean it'll be easiest to maintain the weight if you lost it that way? That depends on how much you like the lifestyle, because to maintain you have to keep doing what you're doing. There is *no* way to lose weight that is going to stick permanently. Hence the importance of choosing a method you know you are capable of sticking to.

Avoiding obesity isn't something that humans have evolved for, because hunter-gatherers don't become obese because they have to do a lot of exercise, often strenuous exercise, to find food in the first place. Even when food is plentiful they still have to exercise in order to get it. This was even more the case in the middle palaeolithic as they didn't have projectile weapons. The idea that the ability to maintain a healthy weight while food was plentiful was somehow selected for IMO is erroneous. This trait would not be selected for in an environment where it's nigh on impossible to get obese, because it would not affect an individuals chance of survival. The ability to have a healthy body fat percentage in a society with plentiful easily obtainable food has no relevance to our evolutionary past. Staying fit and lean in this environment requires effort. Weight loss will never be permanent if you just go right back to being a couch potato, no matter how you lost it. And that is mostly about mental attitude. The reason why people advise lifestyle changes that people can stick to, is because if you can't do it for the rest of your life you'll regain the weight. If you lose weight in ways that you're not going to stick to, your failure rate becomes 100%. Losing fat with a lifestyle you find enjoyable and maintainable, then you have a chance of success and your chances of success are going to depend on your mental attitude and choosing to stick with it permanently. Yep some will fail, but it's not inevitable.

Can you give me one source that says any of that about eating below your BMR, though? I've asked here a hundred times and no one has. They give me sources that say eating VLCD can cause some of that, but VLCD is typically considered to be more like 800 and under. Most people's BMR is double that and higher. Even the 1200 floor MFP uses is 50% over it, and below everyone's BMR (virtually). I do think using BMR as some arbitrary floor value is a myth that you only see here and on some other weight loss forums so I don't consider it generally good advice. Though I know it's well-meaning and people do 100% believe it's true, what they're saying.

Can you give me one source that says any of that about eating below your BMR, though? I've asked here a hundred times and no one has. They give me sources that say eating VLCD can cause some of that, but VLCD is typically considered to be more like 800 and under. Most people's BMR is double that and higher. Even the 1200 floor MFP uses is 50% over it, and below everyone's BMR (virtually). I do think using BMR as some arbitrary floor value is a myth that you only see here and on some other weight loss forums so I don't consider it generally good advice. Though I know it's well-meaning and people do 100% believe it's true, what they're saying.

A 5'6" woman @130 lbs might have a BMR of 1200 (say about 30% bf)

But let's go a little higher and work with a guy. Say approximately 1,560 calories per day.
Would that work for you? Would you like some research that shows deleterious effects of long-term calorie restriction at that level?

It is called the Minnesota Starvation Experiment.

Okay now that's funny. You seriously think the Minnesota Starvation Experiment stands for the proposition that no one should eat under their BMR? There's simply no comparison between an underweight person eating a large caloric deficit and an overweight person eating a large caloric deficit, and the vast, vast majority of people getting told "Oh noes, don't eat under BMR!" are overweight and trying to cut weight.

If a 5'5", 95 pound girl came on the forums and asked if she should eat under her BMR, good advice would be not to - but then again, good advice for that girl would be to not eat a caloric deficit period, regardless if it's under or over BMR. If your focus is on BMR for purposes other than calculating your calorie goals for the day (e.g., TDEE), odds are you're doing it wrong.

The more common scenario on the MFP forums is a woman who's 220 pounds, 5'6" and 30 years old, and people advising her that she should never eat under her BMR. Maybe she should, maybe she shouldn't, but either way her BMR isn't the decisive factor.