Yup, no surprises (except someone keeps funding new studies that come to the same conclusions as the old studies). I believe the multi-dimensional aspects (what I call mind-body-spirit) are tougher to combine in a controlled experiment than 'just' inputs and outputs of food and exercise.

Here on GOAD and in my meetings, I frequently think I observe the influence of how much the 'fight' of WL influences the outcome. @bwmalone , years ago (decades ago, actually!), I took a karate class. One of the few things I remember was the concept of using an opponent's energy against them. I presume that's still a viable strategy? For me, it has been with WL too. Once I made the decision to lose, I didn't want the fight to consume all my energy. Mentally, I think focusing on benefits for example, has made it easier for me than to focus on what I'm giving up. Taking time to really appreciate good choices and how they make me feel has helped too.

My point is not so much to pat myself on the back but just to wonder how and if experiments can truly reflect the non-measurable but very important individual approaches to WL. I think it makes it really tough because I'm guessing they're likely a significant variable.

[Also @bwmalone , I couldn't access the article you linked to (even allowing for the fact that the last part had to be entered separately.)]

Weight loss studies are in fact extremely hard to control and monitor. When folks are confined to say a hospital like setting where all functions are monitored it is very expensive. You need to have folks measured on expensive equipment to determine exacting caloric outputs analyzing the breath and more. OK I digress here but really most studies are largely anecdotal in nature trusting the reporting of the individuals. Also accurate body movement needs to be factored in too. It turns out that blood sugar spiking in normal individuals does not happen or at least not in a very measurable way even when they eat the usual carb laden meals as long as they have been moving more than 10,000 steps per day for more than 3 days in a row.

I like the general idea of the study Greg talks about. Makes sense. I too believe that any weight loss which is maintained is a big bonus for folks. I was willing to accept a Dr's note for WW if needed to maintain a higher weight than my healthy weight max BMI. I felt fortunate that I lost below that level so didn't need a note but have no issues at all with that idea.

I know I am not in the 100,200 or more weight loss category and was fortunate to not be particularly overweight as a kid growing up. Obvious to me that is a much bigger deal than losing about 60 LB in my case. Rate of loss should be in the healthy range for the most part in my view. That means between 1/2 LB per week and about 2 LB per week EXCEPT it is in my view not unhealthy to lose up to 1% per week for those weighing more (say 3 LB per week is OK for a 300 pounder). Yes I lost too fast in the beginning (3-3.5 per week for awhile) and settled in to the 2.5 and 2 LB range. Toward the end it dropped to zippo for quite awhile and I ended up averaging about 1.9 LB per week for upwards of 55-60LB.

My dentist lost over 50 LB at the snail pace of 1/2 LB per week but only needed to lose about 50 LB and did it without a program.

I don't believe in magic or that there are magic foods per se.

I used to get depressed reading reports that showed it was no use losing weight because X% of the people gain it all back, or their metabolism SLOWS down, or they get fatter than they were when they began their diet.

I am controlling my own fate by what I eat and how much I move. I know I can become a statistic BUT I want to be in that small sample group of people who have lost weight and kept it off.

I know there is a statistical group like that and that is one group I want to be a part of.