Rapid Weight Loss is Not the Culprit!
KetoneKaren
Posts: 6,412 Member
OK, so by now the Biggest Loser study is lighting up the boards. It's a good study. The research is solid. Here is a quote from the study:
"Rapid weight loss, such as that experienced by “The Biggest Loser”participants, is sometimes claimed to increase the risk of weight regain, but recent studies have failed to support this idea since weight loss rate per se was not observed to affect long-term weight regain."
Here is a link to the study if you would like to read it:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/epdf
Comments?
Has anybody found any recent evidence-based studies that show that rapid weight loss is the culprit? I haven't found any. I would very much like to read the research articles supporting that claim if anyone can provide them.
"Rapid weight loss, such as that experienced by “The Biggest Loser”participants, is sometimes claimed to increase the risk of weight regain, but recent studies have failed to support this idea since weight loss rate per se was not observed to affect long-term weight regain."
Here is a link to the study if you would like to read it:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/epdf
Comments?
Has anybody found any recent evidence-based studies that show that rapid weight loss is the culprit? I haven't found any. I would very much like to read the research articles supporting that claim if anyone can provide them.
0
Replies
-
Still wondering if anybody has some evidence-based studies for me to read that prove that rapid weight loss causes weight regain...1
-
agreed. I'm interested.
(this will probably be one of those ... it depends... things )1 -
agreed. I'm interested.
(this will probably be one of those ... it depends... things )
I am sure it does depend on the person. I lost over 160# in 20 months. Some may find that rapid, but not compared to the biggest losers. Been maintaining for 30 months now. Everything I have read about weight loss says that no matter how the weight is lost, or what kind of program the person was on, over 80% gain all of the weight back, many gain even more than they lost, within 5 years.
Every day here there are multiple posts of people "back again" for another try, which kind of supports this.
All I know is myself. It is hard.
It is hard losing
It is hard maintaining
It takes self control and dedication. CICO is a simple concept, but it is never easy.
12 -
Got to define 'rapid weight loss'. Don't really care which way you look at it, but eating 1200 calories and exercising 6 hours a day is NOT healthy.11
-
snowflake930 wrote: »agreed. I'm interested.
(this will probably be one of those ... it depends... things )
I am sure it does depend on the person. I lost over 160# in 20 months. Some may find that rapid, but not compared to the biggest losers. Been maintaining for 30 months now. Everything I have read about weight loss says that no matter how the weight is lost, or what kind of program the person was on, over 80% gain all of the weight back, many gain even more than they lost, within 5 years.
Every day here there are multiple posts of people "back again" for another try, which kind of supports this.
All I know is myself. It is hard.
It is hard losing
It is hard maintaining
It takes self control and dedication. CICO is a simple concept, but it is never easy.
A kindred spirit! My sad story: lost 75-80 lbs in a little over a year, maintained for 18 months, started gradually gaining, starting over again having gained almost all of it back.
It is hard.
It is hard losing.
It is hard maintaining.
It is worth it.
Sometimes it doesn't seem as if it's worth it, but it is.1 -
Metabolic damage has to occur (it just has to) and anything or anyone that says you can drastically cut your nutrition/calories for somewhat length of time, exercise more than 6 hours a day and not cause harm to yourself is looking for something that is not realistic.
Are we here in the MFP conducting such actions in our diets to need the answers so badly on this?
I don't need studies to know that this is harmful to anyone's health short term and long term.5 -
The references in the article, 35 and 36, are discussing the rate of regain of weight. From these references, especially the first, there does appear to be evidence that these subjects regained weight at about the same rate. (The second seems more dubious to me: they're comparing 1250 kcal/d vs 500 kcal/d.)
I agree that this is interesting insofar as most people claim that slow weight loss leads to better success at maintenance. Maybe not.
What they are NOT claiming, however, is the same reduction in RMR. The most recent article being discussed so vigorously around here claims that the Biggest Loser contestants have a significantly reduced RMR. As far as I can tell from the PubMed listings, that is not claimed in refs 35 and 36.1 -
Metabolic damage has to occur (it just has to) and anything or anyone that says you can drastically cut your nutrition/calories for somewhat length of time, exercise more than 6 hours a day and not cause harm to yourself is looking for something that is not realistic.
Are we here in the MFP conducting such actions in our diets to need the answers so badly on this?
I don't need studies to know that this is harmful to anyone's health short term and long term.
Hi RoxieDawn,
Yes I agree with you about cutting calories drastically and exercising excessively. I am interested in whether there are any good studies that prove that losing weight slowly results in better maintenance of goal weight. I am interested because I lose 2-4 lbs per week on a 1000 calorie/day diet and am wondering if I would be more likely to avoid weight regain if I lost 1/2 lb per week, for example. I don't want to regain the weight this time.
Cheers!0 -
The references in the article, 35 and 36, are discussing the rate of regain of weight. From these references, especially the first, there does appear to be evidence that these subjects regained weight at about the same rate. (The second seems more dubious to me: they're comparing 1250 kcal/d vs 500 kcal/d.)
I agree that this is interesting insofar as most people claim that slow weight loss leads to better success at maintenance. Maybe not.
What they are NOT claiming, however, is the same reduction in RMR. The most recent article being discussed so vigorously around here claims that the Biggest Loser contestants have a significantly reduced RMR. As far as I can tell from the PubMed listings, that is not claimed in refs 35 and 36.
Good point re: RMR. RMR is the secret to success, isn't it? Weight lifters with lots of muscle burn more calories watching TV for an hour than I do exercising for an hour! Thank you for the comments.1 -
KarenHatch1 wrote: »Metabolic damage has to occur (it just has to) and anything or anyone that says you can drastically cut your nutrition/calories for somewhat length of time, exercise more than 6 hours a day and not cause harm to yourself is looking for something that is not realistic.
Are we here in the MFP conducting such actions in our diets to need the answers so badly on this?
I don't need studies to know that this is harmful to anyone's health short term and long term.
Hi RoxieDawn,
Yes I agree with you about cutting calories drastically and exercising excessively. I am interested in whether there are any good studies that prove that losing weight slowly results in better maintenance of goal weight. I am interested because I lose 2-4 lbs per week on a 1000 calorie/day diet and am wondering if I would be more likely to avoid weight regain if I lost 1/2 lb per week, for example. I don't want to regain the weight this time.
Cheers!
Its been said that losing more than 1% a week of your body weight is not healthy. Also its said that eating 1000 a day isn't healthy.
Most people who are either short or older have lower tdee, so they can't always afford to subtract 500 calories from their tdee and lose one pound a week. So they have to be happy losing less quickly.
Losing 4 pounds a week is pretty agressive loss, 1000 a day is not enough energy for an active average height middle aged person.
As far as that plan ruining your metqbolism, well, the biggest loser study seems to say, yes, it could.
Who knows for sure? Take your chances, or play it safe, its your decision.
3 -
KarenHatch1 wrote: »Metabolic damage has to occur (it just has to) and anything or anyone that says you can drastically cut your nutrition/calories for somewhat length of time, exercise more than 6 hours a day and not cause harm to yourself is looking for something that is not realistic.
Are we here in the MFP conducting such actions in our diets to need the answers so badly on this?
I don't need studies to know that this is harmful to anyone's health short term and long term.
Hi RoxieDawn,
Yes I agree with you about cutting calories drastically and exercising excessively. I am interested in whether there are any good studies that prove that losing weight slowly results in better maintenance of goal weight. I am interested because I lose 2-4 lbs per week on a 1000 calorie/day diet and am wondering if I would be more likely to avoid weight regain if I lost 1/2 lb per week, for example. I don't want to regain the weight this time.
Cheers!
Its been said that losing more than 1% a week of your body weight is not healthy. Also its said that eating 1000 a day isn't healthy.
Most people who are either short or older have lower tdee, so they can't always afford to subtract 500 calories from their tdee and lose one pound a week. So they have to be happy losing less quickly.
Losing 4 pounds a week is pretty agressive loss, 1000 a day is not enough energy for an active average height middle aged person.
As far as that plan ruining your metqbolism, well, the biggest loser study seems to say, yes, it could.
Who knows for sure? Take your chances, or play it safe, its your decision.
Thank you for your comments. After reading your post, I calculated my tdee and subtracted 500 calories which puts me at 1200 calories a day. I usually lose 2-3 lbs a week, sometimes 4. Thank you for your thoughts, it was very helpful.0 -
KarenHatch1 wrote: »Still wondering if anybody has some evidence-based studies for me to read that prove that rapid weight loss causes weight regain...
I've never seen any evidence based studies (would like to) but have seen statistics that say the majority (maybe 80%?) Of people who lose weight will regain within 5 years. That's a generalized statement that doesn't take into account rate of loss, amount of loss, etc. Would love to see a real study.
Rapid weight loss is usually caused by Bariatric surgery, and so it's difficult to analyze weight regain considering they have a physical barrier to gaining the weight back. And what defines rapid? Since the recommended is .5-2 lbs a week, depending on amt to lose - is it simply >2lbs/wk? On TBL the contestants regularly lose upwards of 15 lbs a week. That is just insane. They exercise 4 or more hours a day. If they are gaining it back after, there is no study needed to see "why"; that lifestyle is not sustainable and they learn nothing for life-skills in the way of energy balance.1 -
KarenHatch1 wrote: »KarenHatch1 wrote: »Metabolic damage has to occur (it just has to) and anything or anyone that says you can drastically cut your nutrition/calories for somewhat length of time, exercise more than 6 hours a day and not cause harm to yourself is looking for something that is not realistic.
Are we here in the MFP conducting such actions in our diets to need the answers so badly on this?
I don't need studies to know that this is harmful to anyone's health short term and long term.
Hi RoxieDawn,
Yes I agree with you about cutting calories drastically and exercising excessively. I am interested in whether there are any good studies that prove that losing weight slowly results in better maintenance of goal weight. I am interested because I lose 2-4 lbs per week on a 1000 calorie/day diet and am wondering if I would be more likely to avoid weight regain if I lost 1/2 lb per week, for example. I don't want to regain the weight this time.
Cheers!
Its been said that losing more than 1% a week of your body weight is not healthy. Also its said that eating 1000 a day isn't healthy.
Most people who are either short or older have lower tdee, so they can't always afford to subtract 500 calories from their tdee and lose one pound a week. So they have to be happy losing less quickly.
Losing 4 pounds a week is pretty agressive loss, 1000 a day is not enough energy for an active average height middle aged person.
As far as that plan ruining your metqbolism, well, the biggest loser study seems to say, yes, it could.
Who knows for sure? Take your chances, or play it safe, its your decision.
Thank you for your comments. After reading your post, I calculated my tdee and subtracted 500 calories which puts me at 1200 calories a day. I usually lose 2-3 lbs a week, sometimes 4. Thank you for your thoughts, it was very helpful.
Karen, if you are losing 2 -3lbs a week on 1200 cals your TDEE is a lot higher than you think!
each 1lb =3500, therefore 3lbs =10500 cals is the deficit you'd have to eat at for one week to lose those 3lbs - thats 1500 PER DAY! if you are eating 1200 cals your TDEE is more likely to be 2700 cals per day. Quite a difference!
I would suggest you aim for 2lbs max per week, to lose more will mean loss of muscle along with the fat, slower loss helps minimise that.1 -
Metabolic damage has to occur (it just has to)
Does it really? Doesn't that mean that a body that hasn't had its calories cut at some point uses way more calories for the same processes than are actually necessary? It just doesn't make sense to me, the laws of thermodynamics apply to everyone and it makes no evolutionary sense to be wasteful with the food you get as an organism.
I think with these extreme diets the damage done is psychological, it completely destroys your ability to gauge when you are full or read any hunger cues your body gives you. And since it is so hard, once you get to goal weight you are probably much more likely to want to indulge again and this coupled with the broken hunger system leads to regain. That's mainly the reason why I think slow and steady CICO works better, there isn't really a goal after which you are done, you just adjust your calories and keeping plugging along.
0 -
Those people did not regain all of the weight solely because their metabolism's are now slowed. They gained the weight because they stopped exercising and started back to their old habits of overeating. If they gained 20 lbs back and had a hard time getting it off, they may be slowed metabolism and their body fighting weight loss. But, to gain back 200 lbs is because of their lifestyle. The reason they fail is because the mental aspects of their obesity was never addressed properly.
4 -
I like this article on the topic of deficit size:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/setting-the-deficit-small-moderate-or-large.html
He also mentions that rapid loss can actually be associated with better success losing weight and keeping it off, and links to another article where he quotes a research review as saying: "However, against this notion speaks numerous post hoc analyses of weight loss intervention studies showing that a greater initial weight loss, usually achieved in the first 2-4 weeks of treatment, is associated with a better long-term outcome, i.e. a sustained weight loss 1-5 years later."
Personally, I've had success with both approaches (slow and fast loss). When I try to lose weight quickly, I usually only do it for 2-4 weeks (4-8 pounds), and then focus very hard on maintaining that weight for a while (months or even a year) before I drop more.2 -
Got to define 'rapid weight loss'. Don't really care which way you look at it, but eating 1200 calories and exercising 6 hours a day is NOT healthy.
Yeah -- I can't imagine there are any non BL studies involving weight loss at that rate.
I've seen studies of LCDs that concluded that moderate wasn't better than rapid, but (whether due to cheating on the calories or what) what they were defining as rapid wasn't any faster than what I lost on a moderate cal diet on MFP.1 -
FYI; I'm 65 and I know I couldn't survive on 1000 cals a day. I am returning to the gym after a major wrist break back in Dec. I do weights three days a week and a good neighborhood walking program about four days a week. If you are totally sedentary and unable to do much house work, cooking, etc. then 1000 may be ok.0
-
RunRutheeRun wrote: »KarenHatch1 wrote: »KarenHatch1 wrote: »Metabolic damage has to occur (it just has to) and anything or anyone that says you can drastically cut your nutrition/calories for somewhat length of time, exercise more than 6 hours a day and not cause harm to yourself is looking for something that is not realistic.
Are we here in the MFP conducting such actions in our diets to need the answers so badly on this?
I don't need studies to know that this is harmful to anyone's health short term and long term.
Hi RoxieDawn,
Yes I agree with you about cutting calories drastically and exercising excessively. I am interested in whether there are any good studies that prove that losing weight slowly results in better maintenance of goal weight. I am interested because I lose 2-4 lbs per week on a 1000 calorie/day diet and am wondering if I would be more likely to avoid weight regain if I lost 1/2 lb per week, for example. I don't want to regain the weight this time.
Cheers!
Its been said that losing more than 1% a week of your body weight is not healthy. Also its said that eating 1000 a day isn't healthy.
Most people who are either short or older have lower tdee, so they can't always afford to subtract 500 calories from their tdee and lose one pound a week. So they have to be happy losing less quickly.
Losing 4 pounds a week is pretty agressive loss, 1000 a day is not enough energy for an active average height middle aged person.
As far as that plan ruining your metqbolism, well, the biggest loser study seems to say, yes, it could.
Who knows for sure? Take your chances, or play it safe, its your decision.
Thank you for your comments. After reading your post, I calculated my tdee and subtracted 500 calories which puts me at 1200 calories a day. I usually lose 2-3 lbs a week, sometimes 4. Thank you for your thoughts, it was very helpful.
Karen, if you are losing 2 -3lbs a week on 1200 cals your TDEE is a lot higher than you think!
each 1lb =3500, therefore 3lbs =10500 cals is the deficit you'd have to eat at for one week to lose those 3lbs - thats 1500 PER DAY! if you are eating 1200 cals your TDEE is more likely to be 2700 cals per day. Quite a difference!
I would suggest you aim for 2lbs max per week, to lose more will mean loss of muscle along with the fat, slower loss helps minimise that.
Ok, thank you - I actually meant to say that I lose 2-4 lbs on 1000kcal so upped it to 1200kcal the last 3 days. I feel much more energetic than on 1000kcal per day and am enjoying a little more fat - yum! Keep carbs to about 50g/d because of past experience with carb/glucose intolerance. I am certainly not hungry, but won't sweat it if my calories are higher on occasion...thank you, I love the input! =K0 -
kirstenb13 wrote: »Metabolic damage has to occur (it just has to)
Does it really? Doesn't that mean that a body that hasn't had its calories cut at some point uses way more calories for the same processes than are actually necessary? It just doesn't make sense to me, the laws of thermodynamics apply to everyone and it makes no evolutionary sense to be wasteful with the food you get as an organism.
I think with these extreme diets the damage done is psychological, it completely destroys your ability to gauge when you are full or read any hunger cues your body gives you. And since it is so hard, once you get to goal weight you are probably much more likely to want to indulge again and this coupled with the broken hunger system leads to regain. That's mainly the reason why I think slow and steady CICO works better, there isn't really a goal after which you are done, you just adjust your calories and keeping plugging along.
Oh yeah, your reply makes sense to me...what did me in last time I lost 80 lbs was that I never made it successfully through transition. I kept the weight off 12-18 months but was having mostly protein shakes in the daytime and a meal at night. Now I am eating eggs for breakfast, chef salad for lunch, meat or fish and veggies for dinner, etc., with one protein shake a day. It feels much more normal and as a matter of fact, I feel as if I AM "plugging along"
rather than desperately holding my breath until I reach goal weight. -K
0 -
I like this article on the topic of deficit size:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/setting-the-deficit-small-moderate-or-large.html
He also mentions that rapid loss can actually be associated with better success losing weight and keeping it off, and links to another article where he quotes a research review as saying: "However, against this notion speaks numerous post hoc analyses of weight loss intervention studies showing that a greater initial weight loss, usually achieved in the first 2-4 weeks of treatment, is associated with a better long-term outcome, i.e. a sustained weight loss 1-5 years later."
Personally, I've had success with both approaches (slow and fast loss). When I try to lose weight quickly, I usually only do it for 2-4 weeks (4-8 pounds), and then focus very hard on maintaining that weight for a while (months or even a year) before I drop more.
I read the article - very informative, glad to have that reference, thank you so much! -K0 -
Honestly, I went on a strict 1 year maintenance program after losing 46 pounds and I am still motivated every day to log and move and eat within my plan three years later. I haven't been perfect, but I have stayed within my goal range - the difference this time was 100% for health reasons, and the realization that I only I had the power to maintain my fitness.2
-
Honestly, I went on a strict 1 year maintenance program after losing 46 pounds and I am still motivated every day to log and move and eat within my plan three years later. I haven't been perfect, but I have stayed within my goal range - the difference this time was 100% for health reasons, and the realization that I only I had the power to maintain my fitness.
Terrific! and inspirational...I have come to realize that logging is really important for me. If I don't want to log it, I probably shouldn't put it in my mouth. As I get older, I realize what a powder keg obesity is healthwise.0 -
The National Weight Loss Study didn't find rapid weight loss to be problem. The problem is that people go back to their old habits, eat too much, and regain. If you're on a slow loss plan, it's easier to turn those into good long term habits you can live with the rest of your life. But if you can take it off fast and then find a way to sustain it, more power to you.
Losing slow without learning sustainable habits is just as bad as losing fast without learning sustainable habits.2 -
The National Weight Loss Study didn't find rapid weight loss to be problem. The problem is that people go back to their old habits, eat too much, and regain. If you're on a slow loss plan, it's easier to turn those into good long term habits you can live with the rest of your life. But if you can take it off fast and then find a way to sustain it, more power to you.
Losing slow without learning sustainable habits is just as bad as losing fast without learning sustainable habits.
I believe you're right! It takes awhile to replace maladaptive habits with healthier habits. Slower weight loss gives you more time.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