Depressing Scientific Research about Weight Maitenance after Weight Loss

Options
2»

Replies

  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,468 Member
    edited November 2016
    Options
    I lost weight without excersize and eat more in maintenance than the typical amount according to the charts for my age and height etc. and still maintain.
  • ugofatcat
    ugofatcat Posts: 385 Member
    Options
    I did not watch the video but if the TL; DR is that obese people who lose weight need less calories to maintain then individuals of the same weight who never lost large amounts of weight, that is not true.

    Here is an abstract from the National Weight Control Registry Findings. Researchers compared the metabolisms of people who have lost weight and people who had never lost weight. Both groups weighed about the same, but there was not a difference in the metabolic rate difference between the two groups. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10357738?dopt=Abstract
  • piperdown44
    piperdown44 Posts: 958 Member
    Options
    seska422 wrote: »
    piperdown44 wrote: »
    I guess I'm a bit confused about how this is a question?
    If you lose weight you need less calories to maintain that weight.
    For instance at my heaviest I was 226lbs and eating around 3600-4000 cals a day and that kept me around that weight.
    I dropped weight down to 182 a couple years ago and only needed about 2400 cals to maintain that weight.
    I'm bulking around 3000 cals right now and slowly gaining weight.
    TDEE cals (remember they are educated guesses) puts me at 2500 to maintain.

    If you're smaller than you were to begin with you will need less calories to maintain.
    The stated issue is that you would need fewer calories to maintain the same weight as someone who'd always been that weight.

    For example, a person who'd always weighed 165 might maintain with 2100 calories but someone else who'd once weighed 275 pounds but now weighs 165 (the same weight as the first person) would need to eat 1750 in order to maintain 165.

    Still don't buy it as there are too many variables. You'd have to normalize a huge population with build, activity levels, metabolic rates, etc. to get a number.

    Regardless, to the OP, don't get discouraged and keep the chin up!

  • lorrpb
    lorrpb Posts: 11,464 Member
    Options
    People who've lost weight , in general, weigh less than people who haven't lost weight, therefore they need fewer calories. It's about the actual weight, not about the fact that you lost it. And I'm speaking on a population scale of averages, NOT that every person who has lost weight weighs less than every person who hasn't. Don't be depressed or stressed. Just do what you need to do to maintain successfully. You don't want to become part of the statistic that "most" people who lose weight gain it back and then some.
  • seska422
    seska422 Posts: 3,217 Member
    Options
    piperdown44 wrote: »
    seska422 wrote: »
    piperdown44 wrote: »
    I guess I'm a bit confused about how this is a question?
    If you lose weight you need less calories to maintain that weight.
    For instance at my heaviest I was 226lbs and eating around 3600-4000 cals a day and that kept me around that weight.
    I dropped weight down to 182 a couple years ago and only needed about 2400 cals to maintain that weight.
    I'm bulking around 3000 cals right now and slowly gaining weight.
    TDEE cals (remember they are educated guesses) puts me at 2500 to maintain.

    If you're smaller than you were to begin with you will need less calories to maintain.
    The stated issue is that you would need fewer calories to maintain the same weight as someone who'd always been that weight.

    For example, a person who'd always weighed 165 might maintain with 2100 calories but someone else who'd once weighed 275 pounds but now weighs 165 (the same weight as the first person) would need to eat 1750 in order to maintain 165.

    Still don't buy it as there are too many variables. You'd have to normalize a huge population with build, activity levels, metabolic rates, etc. to get a number.

    Regardless, to the OP, don't get discouraged and keep the chin up!
    I didn't say I agreed but that's the stated issue.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Options
    I agree with Captain Joy. Every study I've ever seen on this effect has been done with people put on low protein VLCD liquid diets.

    Since most people don't diet that way, I'm not going to be too discouraged by the findings.
  • sgt1372
    sgt1372 Posts: 3,977 Member
    edited November 2016
    Options
    This is interesting. Seems like I'm always in the minority. Don't know if study is "valid" or not but my experience suggests that the basic premise is true - at least for me.

    I lost 35# in 5 months from 196 to 161 on an ave of 1800 cals/day and went into maintenance mode. MFP and other TDEE calculators said that could eat about 2100 cals/day to maintain my weight at 161.

    So, I increased my intake to that level and w/in a week, I gained 3#, which concerned me. So, I dropped the cals back to 1800 and lost the 3# w/in another week and have been maintaining at 1800 or about 15% below my suggested TDEE for the past month.

    Go figure . . .
  • chocolate_owl
    chocolate_owl Posts: 1,695 Member
    Options
    sgt1372 wrote: »
    This is interesting. Seems like I'm always in the minority. Don't know if study is "valid" or not but my experience suggests that the basic premise is true - at least for me.

    I lost 35# in 5 months from 196 to 161 on an ave of 1800 cals/day and went into maintenance mode. MFP and other TDEE calculators said that could eat about 2100 cals/day to maintain my weight at 161.

    So, I increased my intake to that level and w/in a week, I gained 3#, which concerned me. So, I dropped the cals back to 1800 and lost the 3# w/in another week and have been maintaining at 1800 or about 15% below my suggested TDEE for the past month.

    Go figure . . .

    When you're in a deficit, your glycogen stores stay pretty depleted. You're going to put a few lbs back on in glycogen and water when you start eating at maintenance. It's not fat, especially in one week's time.

    Also, you dropped weight at a fairly rapid rate for someone with only 35 lbs to lose. There's a good chance you lost muscle mass, which would lower your TDEE. Were you doing any resistance training?

    Finally, calculators are averages, and different calculators use different formulas. Some people will be above, some people will be below. Not everyone's going to be dead-on. My TDEE matches with calculators on the low end, using my body fat % to get an accurate estimate.
  • SandraMcLeod72
    SandraMcLeod72 Posts: 7 Member
    Options
    My understanding of this particular research is that the participants were ex-Biggest Loser contestants. That cohort lost large amounts of weight rapidly which left their bodies in starvation mode for good. The other part of this research reinforces that the slow gradual decrease does not have the same effect size. I didn't watch the video, but have seen other numerous articles and decided to read the research for myself.
  • sgt1372
    sgt1372 Posts: 3,977 Member
    edited December 2016
    Options
    Thanks to those who attempted to "explain" why my situation is different than for others but one of the most important maxims that I learned while doing social science research in college and professionally was:

    Don't fight the data.

    The 1st research article linked in Side Steel's post above entitled "Adapative Thermogenesis in Humans" is indicative of my situation and I quote:

    "Maintenance of a 10% or greater reduction in body weight in lean or obese individuals is accompanied by an approximate 20%-25% decline in 24-hour energy expenditure. This decrease in weight maintenance calories is 10–15% below what is predicted solely on the basis of alterations in fat and lean mass. Thus, a formerly obese individual will require ~300–400 fewer calories per day to maintain the same body weight and physical activity level as a never-obese individual of the same body weight and composition."

    See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/

    I lost 35# from 196 to 161 which was a 17.6% weight loss. I recomputed my TDEE and, of course, the numbers vary widely based on the method used and the assumptions made about the "level of activity."

    The numbers I got from a couple of generic TDEE sites (which did not specify the method of calculation) gave me around 2000 cals for "sedentary" and 2300 cals for "lightly active" activity levels. The most detailed TDEE calculation site that found was provided at:http://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr.

    SailRabbit calculates TDEE using 6 different methods and 10 different activity levels. The numbers I got using the 6 methods and 6 different activity levels also varied widely. The closest fit for me was the "Lightly Active" level, the results for which vary between 2116 and 2627. The average of the 6 methods was 2311 cals/day, which is about the same as that calculated in the generic TDEE sites, but the 3 lowest methods of calculation averaged only 2135.

    The 30 day average of my net cal intake is 1831/day, which is the level at which I have been maintaining my weight between 161-163# for the past month. This number is 480 cals or 20.1% less than the TDEE average for my expected daily level of activity. Maintenance at 1831 is 343 cals and about 15% less than a TDEE of 2154, which is almost exactly the average of the 3 lowest methods of calculation used by SailRabbit at 2135.

    So, while others here may wish to dispute the premise that those who lose a significant amount of weight need fewer calories to maintain their weight afterward (and will regain weight if they choose to eat at normally suggested TDEE levels), the conclusion I reach for myself is to the contrary.

    After having lost about 18% in body weight, I do not need to eat as many calories as estimated based on the computed TDEE using various formulas and, in fact, have proven (based on a daily record of the net cals consumed over the past month) that I can maintain my current weight on at least 15% fewer calories than estimated.

    If the reported experience of others is different, fine, but, at least in my case (and as far as I am concerned), the premise is proven.

  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,069 Member
    Options
    I thought this was informative:

    Reduced metabolism/TDEE beyond expected from weight loss

    Among other things, it's commentary on a study that suggests that reduced maintenance calories aren't an inevitable outcome after weight loss, and that weight loss methods may have an influence.

    FWIW, I maintain on substantially more calories than most calculators suggest for my age/activity/size, after losing 60 pounds . . . but I have no idea whether it's just how I was wired in the first place, or what.
  • MissusMoon
    MissusMoon Posts: 1,900 Member
    Options
    Alamo0809 wrote: »
    Every body is different. On a BBC research program they discussed "low responders". That is definitely me!! I can relate to this research. Exercise does NOTHING to help my weight loss. Here is a link to the BBC series that tried out varied weight loss programs and reported his results. http://www.pbs.org/program/michael-mosley/

    But... we all know what to do for our hearts, our joints, our brains, our muscles, our balance... so just eat healthy and exercise. period. :-)

    Low responders who self report, as reported by a guy thoroughly debunked. If you're going for BBC, try Secret Eaters.
  • RAinWA
    RAinWA Posts: 1,980 Member
    Options
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I thought this was informative:

    Reduced metabolism/TDEE beyond expected from weight loss

    Among other things, it's commentary on a study that suggests that reduced maintenance calories aren't an inevitable outcome after weight loss, and that weight loss methods may have an influence.

    FWIW, I maintain on substantially more calories than most calculators suggest for my age/activity/size, after losing 60 pounds . . . but I have no idea whether it's just how I was wired in the first place, or what.

    That was a great blog - very informative. I wish I had tracked more closely what my TDEE was as I was losing and starting maintenance. I lost 48% of my body weight around 2 years ago and I'm maintaining at pretty much what the various calculators say I will but I didn't really start paying attention to what I was burning until I got a Fitbit a year ago. The first year of maintenance I guessed mostly at how much I was burning by what my weight was doing - one of the reasons I got the Fitbit is because I was still slowly dropping weight the first year. Wonder how long it took my TDEE to get back up to what the calculators say it should be?
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,100 Member
    Options
    When I lost the weight the first time, yes, I didn't maintain it and am back losing, I gained it back because I thought I could maintain without logging. I now know better. Having said that, my weight loss speed seems to fit quite well with what I should be burning based on the TDEE chart average for someone my height, age, weight, sex. I have seen enough people here who maintain at what would fit with that as well. The issue for me is continuing to log, and to set a weight range when I get to my goal where if I go above it I tighten up my logging to get within it again. That is still a ways away since I am taking a far slower approach this time.

Categories