Why is it that losing weight too fast will result in gaining it all back?
Replies
-
They did but this could be because they also had the greatest shift in water weight. It's a shame body composition wasn't tested. If I were to redo this study, I'd want to measure weight as well as body composition via dexascan among other adjustments. It's also possible that the "fast" group lost more lean mass than the other groups. That would be very pertinent information.Wiseandcurious wrote: »Actually there is emerging research showing that losing weight more rapidly can be associated with keeping the weight off long term (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20443094). It's counter intuitive to what many of us have thought, but it's interesting for sure. I think it partly depends on what is considered fast and slow weight loss. In the study, "fast" was considered 1.5 lbs or more fat loss per week, "moderate" was 0.5-1.5 lbs a week loss, and slow was 0.5 or less. The study concluded that "fast" group was able to lose the most weight in 6 months (not surprising) and also have the greatest weight loss a year after the diet modification (somewhat surprising).
Rapid weight loss does have a very high long term failure rate. The thing is, so does slow or moderate weight loss. People are quick to point that losing weight quickly has a proven track record of less then promising results, but they fail to acknowledge that slow and moderate weight loss do too. If this study can be improved upon and repeated, we may learn that losing weight quickly will result in the best chances of long term success, even if those chances are still small.
The fast group did have the greatest regain though from what I can see? It would be really interesting to see more long-term studies on this topic.
0 -
You don't wake up fat one day. It takes a bunch of bad habits repeated over and over again to make you fat. When you do a crazy diet you lose weight fast....however, you can't sustain that crazy diet for the rest of your life. And since you haven't developed any new lasting healthy habits, most people slip back into their old unhealthy habits resulting in gaining the weight back.0
-
I don't think its an automatic assumption. But perhaps theory says that if you do it too fast, you won't learn new habits? And if you return to old habits, presumably the ones you had when you gained weight before - you'll gain weight again?
I'm only 4.5 months into maintenance - after losing 50+ pounds in 9.5 months - but in the process I learned a new way of thinking about food & activity (thinking of the two in combination as a daily budget) and maintaining has not been difficult.How does this work? I am losing weight rapidly (while eating enough daily, in my opinion) but don't want to gain it back when I hit my goal weight. How does one avoid this? All opinions and thought appreciated, thank you.
0 -
Lrdoflamancha wrote: »If you always do what you always did.... Then you will always get what you always got.
Freaking brilliant. I think that I will turn that into an inspirational poster:
this is beautiful.0 -
Actually there is emerging research showing that losing weight more rapidly can be associated with keeping the weight off long term (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20443094). It's counter intuitive to what many of us have thought, but it's interesting for sure. I think it partly depends on what is considered fast and slow weight loss. In the study, "fast" was considered 1.5 lbs or more fat loss per week, "moderate" was 0.5-1.5 lbs a week loss, and slow was 0.5 or less. The study concluded that "fast" group was able to lose the most weight in 6 months (not surprising) and also have the greatest weight loss a year after the diet modification (somewhat surprising).
Rapid weight loss does have a very high long term failure rate. The thing is, so does slow or moderate weight loss. People are quick to point that losing weight quickly has a proven track record of less then promising results, but they fail to acknowledge that slow and moderate weight loss do too. If this study can be improved upon and repeated, we may learn that losing weight quickly will result in the best chances of long term success, even if those chances are still small.
I was about to quote this! Yep. Thing is, this matches my own anecdotal experience in struggling to stay at 25 BMI my entire adult life. It is completely counterintuitive, of course, but that doesn't make it false.0 -
Agreed. It can become even more serious for yo-yo dieters. It becomes this vicious cycle as one loses weight, loses muscle, metabolism slows, gains weight, loses weight, loses more muscle, metabolism slows further.... I always thought that our metabolism naturally slowed as we got older. I came to realize that was largely because our lean muscle mass decreases over time, especially if the yo-yo dieting is a factor. That's why, this time around, I'm lifting heavy.Wiseandcurious wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »
Also, rapid weight loss will generally result in the loss of more muscle mass to fat ratio than most people really want.
This is actually a very serious issue if you think about it, and well worth slowing down for. Because if you sacrifice lean mass for speedy results, you will find yourself with possibly lower calorie needs than the last time you were at that weight, so it will be even easier to gain eating like you did before, or harder to maintain new habits that have you eating less than you could if you had maintained the lean mass. Definitely worth thinking about...
That's making a lot of assumptions that aren't necessarily so.0 -
The rate at which you lose does not determine whether you will gain the weight back. Statistics tell us that most of us losing will gain some or all of it back. The reason is we start eating a surplus of calories. If you don't do that when you reach your goal, you won't gain it back.0
-
-
How does this work? I am losing weight rapidly (while eating enough daily, in my opinion) but don't want to gain it back when I hit my goal weight. How does one avoid this? All opinions and thought appreciated, thank you.
Your basic premise is flawed - most weight loss is regained whether the weight was lost quickly or slowly.
Weight is regained because people start over-eating again, and that happens independently of how the weight was lost.0 -
No, the fast group did not have greater regain. Statistically the tiny difference is meaningless. That's what the p score tells you, if you remember your college statistics course (though lots of people didn't have to take stats...lucky them!)Wiseandcurious wrote: »Actually there is emerging research showing that losing weight more rapidly can be associated with keeping the weight off long term (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20443094). It's counter intuitive to what many of us have thought, but it's interesting for sure. I think it partly depends on what is considered fast and slow weight loss. In the study, "fast" was considered 1.5 lbs or more fat loss per week, "moderate" was 0.5-1.5 lbs a week loss, and slow was 0.5 or less. The study concluded that "fast" group was able to lose the most weight in 6 months (not surprising) and also have the greatest weight loss a year after the diet modification (somewhat surprising).
Rapid weight loss does have a very high long term failure rate. The thing is, so does slow or moderate weight loss. People are quick to point that losing weight quickly has a proven track record of less then promising results, but they fail to acknowledge that slow and moderate weight loss do too. If this study can be improved upon and repeated, we may learn that losing weight quickly will result in the best chances of long term success, even if those chances are still small.
The fast group did have the greatest regain though from what I can see? It would be really interesting to see more long-term studies on this topic.
I have seen other studies saying a similar thing...sorry, I don't have them to post. One hypothesis is that losing quickly helps people stay motivated early on...giving them time to learn new habits. Losing slowly can discourage some people so that they give up. The bottom line is you should do what works best for your personality...if you want quick results, lose fast. If you want to be able to eat a little more to not feel as deprived, lose slowly. In the long run you will end up in the same place.
0 -
Same page.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
No, the fast group did not have greater regain. Statistically the tiny difference is meaningless. That's what the p score tells you, if you remember your college statistics course (though lots of people didn't have to take stats...lucky them!)Wiseandcurious wrote: »Actually there is emerging research showing that losing weight more rapidly can be associated with keeping the weight off long term (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20443094). It's counter intuitive to what many of us have thought, but it's interesting for sure. I think it partly depends on what is considered fast and slow weight loss. In the study, "fast" was considered 1.5 lbs or more fat loss per week, "moderate" was 0.5-1.5 lbs a week loss, and slow was 0.5 or less. The study concluded that "fast" group was able to lose the most weight in 6 months (not surprising) and also have the greatest weight loss a year after the diet modification (somewhat surprising).
Rapid weight loss does have a very high long term failure rate. The thing is, so does slow or moderate weight loss. People are quick to point that losing weight quickly has a proven track record of less then promising results, but they fail to acknowledge that slow and moderate weight loss do too. If this study can be improved upon and repeated, we may learn that losing weight quickly will result in the best chances of long term success, even if those chances are still small.
The fast group did have the greatest regain though from what I can see? It would be really interesting to see more long-term studies on this topic.
I have seen other studies saying a similar thing...sorry, I don't have them to post. One hypothesis is that losing quickly helps people stay motivated early on...giving them time to learn new habits. Losing slowly can discourage some people so that they give up. The bottom line is you should do what works best for your personality...if you want quick results, lose fast. If you want to be able to eat a little more to not feel as deprived, lose slowly. In the long run you will end up in the same place.
0 -
There are many reasons why people gain weight, but it seems to me that people who lose weight quickly are likely to gain weight back because they never train themselves to eat properly. They felt deprived the whole time they were losing weight and they still feel deprived when they eat at maintenance. Also, because of the big deficit, they probably haven't had to exercise much, but exercise helps people maintain their weight. But a person who loses more slowly needs only make a few adjustments when they reach their goal weight and their lifestyle continues much as it was while they were losing weight, just with most calories.0
-
All the theories as to why people who lose slowly are more successful are irrelevant because its not proven to be true. I know it makes sense to think that losing slower helps build habits and establish good nutritional practice. That all sounds reasonable. Unfortunately, the data doesn't support that, even though it does make good common sense. This is why it's so important to study things. Common sense, IMO, is right more often than not, but it's not flawless. Sometimes things that make perfect sense are flat out wrong. What upsets me is the lack of research in this area.0
-
i actually read a study (somewhere) that said the length of time it takes to lose weight has absolutely no effect on how long someone can keep off the weight.0
-
OK, I had more time to look at the study itself and not just the abstract. It strikes me that the groups were all composed of very obese women (BMI was over 36 , i.e. Obese II) and that puts things into a very different perspective. For these women, 1.5lb which was the "fast" rate is by no means anything extraordinary. I suspect it would be very different for someone starting at a lower BMI.0
-
brianpperkins wrote: »
1300-1400 calories.0 -
I don't discredit that. It does happen. Ironically the same happens when someone gets very overweight/obese too. I was just pointing out that the body is very efficient at energy storage which is why it's so much easier to gain weight than to lose it.
I'll slightly disagree here because the body is already very efficient at storing body fat. One doesn't have to be starving to gain a significant amount of body fat. Regular people who just overeat more than they need to gain fat on a daily basis. Hence the reason that over 60% of the US population is overweight/obese.Also, the more extreme you are with your caloric deficit, the more your hormones will compensate to keep you alive. Whenever you quit starving yourself, your body will be more effecient at storing bodyfat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
But one can't discredit the effect on hormones that a large caloric deficit creates. Total thyroid ouput can decline and T3 will reverse. Testosterone will also drop, sometimes severly depending on how big the deficit. It takes a bit after eating higher quantities of food before these hormones get back to normal. That was my point.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
It doesn't. Still sometimes people that lose too quickly, do so by deprivation and don't really learn a lifestyle change. They're more apt to put it back on.0
-
brianpperkins wrote: »
1300-1400 calories.
Net or gross?0 -
Wiseandcurious wrote: »OK, I had more time to look at the study itself and not just the abstract. It strikes me that the groups were all composed of very obese women (BMI was over 36 , i.e. Obese II) and that puts things into a very different perspective. For these women, 1.5lb which was the "fast" rate is by no means anything extraordinary. I suspect it would be very different for someone starting at a lower BMI.
I think part of the issue may be what people consider to be a "fast" rate and a "slow" rate of loss. For someone with a BMI over 36, I consider 1.5 pounds per week to be reasonable, even "slow". It would, however, be too fast for someone with a BMI close to normal. For those who are considerd morbidly obese, I would consider "fast" to be doing "Biggest Loser" type things and losing weight much more quickly. So, perhaps someone needs to define "fast" and "slow" as a percentage of weight lost when these studies are done.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »
1300-1400 calories.
Net or gross?
I eat between 1300-1400 whether I've exercised or not.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »
1300-1400 calories.
Net or gross?
I eat between 1300-1400 whether I've exercised or not.
Now to tie this all back to your initial question. Your current intake puts you at/near the lower end of recommended net intake for a woman, especially on days you exercise ... the 1200 net calorie level. Depending on protein intake, what exercises you perform, etc ... rapid loss can include more lost lean body mass than ideal. Lost lean mass results in reduced caloric burn at rest ... a lower resting metabolic rate ... and rebuilding muscle is harder than simply storing fat once the deficit is eliminated and one goes back to eating what they think is maintenance.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »
1300-1400 calories.
Net or gross?
I eat between 1300-1400 whether I've exercised or not.
Now to tie this all back to your initial question. Your current intake puts you at/near the lower end of recommended net intake for a woman, especially on days you exercise ... the 1200 net calorie level. Depending on protein intake, what exercises you perform, etc ... rapid loss can include more lost lean body mass than ideal. Lost lean mass results in reduced caloric burn at rest ... a lower resting metabolic rate ... and rebuilding muscle is harder than simply storing fat once the deficit is eliminated and one goes back to eating what they think is maintenance.
0 -
There's losing weight fast and there's losing weight too fast. If your deficit is too high, you will lose a higher percentage of muscle with fat than you would slowing it down. Since there's no scientific way to determine the exact threshold at which point you lose significantly more muscle, people air on the side of caution. The more muscle you lose, the lower your daily calorie requirement becomes. That means that when you transition to maintenance at the end of your weight loss, you'll get to eat fewer total calories than if you had taken it slowly.
Extremely low calorie levels can result in loss of hair, energy, vitamins/minerals, lack of adequate fat/protein to support your organs/cellular function. I can see how someone who does that would be likely to binge after being so deprived of vital micro/macronutrients.
You should add more calories on days that you exercise, or else raise your total calories. Exercise burns calories. 1,300-1,400 calories is already plenty low to cause you to lose a lot of weight, assuming you're not 5'1 and normal weight.
0 -
Based on the almost certain fact that we got too heavy because we didn't use self control, and/or we didn't understand how to eat a healthy diet--they're probably right.
Also, may I suggest that, like any other addict, we usually hang out with people who ALSO do not eat a healthy diet, we ARE likely to go back to our former way of eating.
I just read somewhere that we are approximately the average of the 5 people we spend the most time with. (in regard to values, habits, attitudes--all connected stuff) So this forum really IS important to help us to change our thinking patterns.
So use this time spent losing the extra weight to retrain your friends/family to accept your new way of eating as well as retraining yourself.0 -
Losing weight fast doesn't always result in a significantly higher loss in lean mass. There are many factors at work and to say "losing weight quickly causes you lose more lean mass" isn't necessarily correct. The amount of fat you have, the amount of lean mass you have, the amount of protein you take in, your training, all those things come in to play. Someone who is obese with little lean mass to begin with, who trains weights, and gets in adequate protein, can probably lose weight rather rapidly and not worry about lean mass losses. This thought comes from the world of bodybuilding where lean guys/girls become super lean. In that case you cannot lose weight rapidly and retain all your mass, but it's an extremely different case then someone 40 lbs overweight, which in turn is very different than someone 80 lbs overweight.0
-
Losing weight fast doesn't always result in a significantly higher loss in lean mass. There are many factors at work and to say "losing weight quickly causes you lose more lean mass" isn't necessarily correct. The amount of fat you have, the amount of lean mass you have, the amount of protein you take in, your training, all those things come in to play. Someone who is obese with little lean mass to begin with, who trains weights, and gets in adequate protein, can probably lose weight rather rapidly and not worry about lean mass losses. This thought comes from the world of bodybuilding where lean guys/girls become super lean. In that case you cannot lose weight rapidly and retain all your mass, but it's an extremely different case then someone 40 lbs overweight, which in turn is very different than someone 80 lbs overweight.
Nobody in this thread said what you put in quotes.0 -
The reference to losing lean mass was mentioned 3 times, then I stopped. What was your point, it's not clear.brianpperkins wrote: »Losing weight fast doesn't always result in a significantly higher loss in lean mass. There are many factors at work and to say "losing weight quickly causes you lose more lean mass" isn't necessarily correct. The amount of fat you have, the amount of lean mass you have, the amount of protein you take in, your training, all those things come in to play. Someone who is obese with little lean mass to begin with, who trains weights, and gets in adequate protein, can probably lose weight rather rapidly and not worry about lean mass losses. This thought comes from the world of bodybuilding where lean guys/girls become super lean. In that case you cannot lose weight rapidly and retain all your mass, but it's an extremely different case then someone 40 lbs overweight, which in turn is very different than someone 80 lbs overweight.
Nobody in this thread said what you put in quotes.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
The reference to losing lean mass was mentioned 3 times, then I stopped. What was your point, it's not clear.brianpperkins wrote: »Losing weight fast doesn't always result in a significantly higher loss in lean mass. There are many factors at work and to say "losing weight quickly causes you lose more lean mass" isn't necessarily correct. The amount of fat you have, the amount of lean mass you have, the amount of protein you take in, your training, all those things come in to play. Someone who is obese with little lean mass to begin with, who trains weights, and gets in adequate protein, can probably lose weight rather rapidly and not worry about lean mass losses. This thought comes from the world of bodybuilding where lean guys/girls become super lean. In that case you cannot lose weight rapidly and retain all your mass, but it's an extremely different case then someone 40 lbs overweight, which in turn is very different than someone 80 lbs overweight.
Nobody in this thread said what you put in quotes.
If the concept of quoting is foreign to you ... wow.
If you actually take time to read the literature on the subject of weight loss, losing LBM is a key component of metabolic adaptation.0 -
This is pretty close:brianpperkins wrote: »Losing weight fast doesn't always result in a significantly higher loss in lean mass. There are many factors at work and to say "losing weight quickly causes you lose more lean mass" isn't necessarily correct. The amount of fat you have, the amount of lean mass you have, the amount of protein you take in, your training, all those things come in to play. Someone who is obese with little lean mass to begin with, who trains weights, and gets in adequate protein, can probably lose weight rather rapidly and not worry about lean mass losses. This thought comes from the world of bodybuilding where lean guys/girls become super lean. In that case you cannot lose weight rapidly and retain all your mass, but it's an extremely different case then someone 40 lbs overweight, which in turn is very different than someone 80 lbs overweight.
Nobody in this thread said what you put in quotes.
"...rapid loss can include more lost lean body mass..."
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions