Study: Exercise is more critical than diet to maintain weight loss

2

Replies

  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,393 Member
    edited April 2019
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Jruzer wrote: »
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    My quick read of the above link sees that weight control people have a TDEE of about 300 above the never obese and spend about 180 more on exercise.... where's the other 120?
    In reading the study, the answer is that the authors discriminated between TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) and PAEE (Physical Activity Energy Expenditure). The 300 refers to TDEE, while the 180 refers to PAEE. In looking at the data, it appears that the weight-loss group also has about 120 kcal/d higher REE than the never-overweight group.
    Does that fly in the face of the "Biggest Loser Study" adaptive thermogenesis (so-called "metabolic damage") hand-wringing?

    And wasn't a previous Registry study one of those that found a small down-regulation beyond that explained by the loss of lean mass--if I recall correctly?
  • echmain3
    echmain3 Posts: 231 Member
    Rubbish.

    Total couch potato here.

    Lost 60 pounds, hit my goal weight 3 years ago, been maintaining ever since.
  • aokoye
    aokoye Posts: 3,495 Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    There exists a major potential underlying self selection bias in all these studies, including this one, and perhaps even in what we do as overweight people in order to lose and maintain weight.

    How many of us have heard of the National Weight Control Registry (NWCR) database? Quite a few more I bet on MFP as compared to the general population, right?

    Their studies, including the fact that successful maintainers on their database walk daily, is *one* of the reasons I started walking more in 2014 (another reason is that I was looking for an easy to implement--low cost of entry, easy to implement at the drop of a hat--exercise activity)

    So is the fact that I walk a lot and maintain my weight and eat, on average, probably only a little bit less than I did 125lbs ago a ringing endorsement of exercise as a weight maintenance strategy, or is it the dual awareness of having to control calories in and that I feel good when I am more active?

    When family issues recently resulted in me being less active AND eating more due to stress in spite of being aware that I was doing so, with a gain of about 3lbs of trending weight, was this the result of just not being as active and that I couldn't rely on exercise to maintain my weight? Or the result of the stress eating?

    I think the stress eating had more to do with it, because I would argue that, self perceptually, I have no trouble reducing my eating to match my activity up until I reduce my activity to being within the realm of sedentary (sub 5K steps). At that point I do start having some trouble matching my eating to my TDEE.

    I also don't think that it is a plus that the weight control registry excludes non US residents and that it is a recall once a year study.

    In today's world with logs such as MFP and many others and with the availability of all day tracking devices I would think that there is scope (but no money) to get even more widespread data.

    I would also love to know whether the weight control registry tracks the "failures". i.e. the strategies that people who fail to remain eligible were using <-- I have to look up whether and how they handle that, I don't know whether they do study it.

    My quick read of the above link sees that weight control people have a TDEE of about 300 above the never obese and spend about 180 more on exercise.... where's the other 120?

    I honestly have never heard of the National Weight Control Registry. It's completely and utterly off my radar and I would have gotten nowhere with the acronym alone. What is useful is that it did remind me to google another acronym, though that one (EMCA) I guessed correctly based on my experience and the context of where it was used (a research group meeting this afternoon).
  • MikePTY
    MikePTY Posts: 3,816 Member
    I will say that despite my skepticism of the conclusions drawn by the study and article, I can say personally, exercise has been a huge part of my weight loss. I eat at about what would be maintenence for me if I was sedentary, but because I exercise heavily consistently losing around a pound a week. Down 27 pounds so far. So I don't think exercise is necessarily doing more than diet for me but it is pulling its weight along with diet.

    And weirdly, exercising makes me less hungry than not exercising, so it helps me control my diet more than with no exercise.

    However I know there are plenty of others who have achieved success with little to no exercise, so everyone is different in that regards. But I can say for me it has been a big part of it.
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,088 Member
    It's a combo if exercise and dietary adherence. Diet drives weight loss and so can exercise. To quote dr. Hill, "exercise can help attenuate the bodies natural reaction to regain." In my ideas, it provides a buffer for us. Resistance training can offer some potentially beneficial boons as well. Recent study my Rosenbaum's lab showed decreased skeletal muscle efficiency after weight training in the post reduced body weight subjects. Just my ramble.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,023 Member
    Remoth wrote: »
    My take from this study is that the correlation between physical activity and weight maintenance most likely does not mean " physical activity means successful weight maintenance". But more likely that the people who are more motivated to lead a healthier lifestyle and maintain their weight are more likely to be more active.

    This is kind of what I assume as well. Perhaps people who start and stick to "active" hobbies or to a workout schedule are incorporating good habits all over the place. You could extrapolate that out to all sorts of behaviors or habits that both make you more likely to be active AND make you more likely to eat correctly.

    I'd add that just because some people who successfully maintain weight loss don't exercise doesn't mean the idea is flawed. It says exercise is more critical, not that it's absolutely necessary in all cases.

    Perhaps the more fair conclusion is "activity level is generally a better indicator of weight loss maintenance than diet"?
  • Remoth
    Remoth Posts: 117 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    Remoth wrote: »
    My take from this study is that the correlation between physical activity and weight maintenance most likely does not mean " physical activity means successful weight maintenance". But more likely that the people who are more motivated to lead a healthier lifestyle and maintain their weight are more likely to be more active.

    This is kind of what I assume as well. Perhaps people who start and stick to "active" hobbies or to a workout schedule are incorporating good habits all over the place. You could extrapolate that out to all sorts of behaviors or habits that both make you more likely to be active AND make you more likely to eat correctly.

    I'd add that just because some people who successfully maintain weight loss don't exercise doesn't mean the idea is flawed. It says exercise is more critical, not that it's absolutely necessary in all cases.

    Perhaps the more fair conclusion is "activity level is generally a better indicator of weight loss maintenance than diet"?

    Honestly I dont know if that's much better. Are people who are more active more likely to succeed at maintenance? Sure. If the focus on diet was the same. But there is nothing saying that maintenance requires more physical activity. Its so much easier to eat a cinnamon bun than it is to burn off the 200-500 calories it entails.

    Physical activity can be used as an indicator of a higher probability of success for maintenance, but diet is still king in that aspect as well by a fair margin. Are people who are successful at maintenance with diet more likely to be more active? Probably, but its definitely not a requisite.
  • sardelsa
    sardelsa Posts: 9,812 Member
    For me personally, I do find exercise to be the most important factor. So if I am trying to maintain, even if I am gaining or losing at times, that's not even important for me (provided it's within limits and not be a bulk or cut), but my lifting has to be in place in order for me to be successful. Plus I tend to make better choices (ie. higher protein, more vegetables) when I am exercising regularly.
  • bobshuckleberry
    bobshuckleberry Posts: 281 Member
    I find it true. I have lost and gained weight my entire life. The last year and a half my fitness routine has grown significantly. I was always busy, multiple jobs including those with manual labor but I would go back up to or near starting weight. You cannot out exercise a bad diet either. I have changed my eating as well as my activity. I think every individual would get a slightly different result or testify to a different outcome.
  • TravisJHunt
    TravisJHunt Posts: 533 Member
    Not sure I'd consider this a study, more of a parallel between the two things that are true stereotypical. In general, yes those who are more physically active are likely to be at a lower weight than someone who isn't. The reason isn't really super scientific or speaks to some magic exercise pill, its more to do with the fact that if you enjoy doing physical exercise, things such as mountain climbing, running, skiing, etc. you're more likely to worry about being in good health which includes weight because it lets you enjoy these things more. I'd say it has more to do with the love of being able to perform the activity at a level that is fun than anything else. Just my two cents though. I know without exercise I'd have trouble making my daily calorie limit because I love food. So being active allows me to eat extra and still be in a deficit.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,879 Member
    Been maintaining going on 6 years this month. Regular exercise is pretty crucial to my weight maintenance. My exercise always dips in the winter and I put on 8-10 Lbs every winter and take it off in the spring. When I'm exercising regularly, I maintain easily and don't even really have to think about it. I like food, and I like beer...regular exercise gives me a nice buffer for those things.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,023 Member
    Remoth wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    Remoth wrote: »
    My take from this study is that the correlation between physical activity and weight maintenance most likely does not mean " physical activity means successful weight maintenance". But more likely that the people who are more motivated to lead a healthier lifestyle and maintain their weight are more likely to be more active.

    This is kind of what I assume as well. Perhaps people who start and stick to "active" hobbies or to a workout schedule are incorporating good habits all over the place. You could extrapolate that out to all sorts of behaviors or habits that both make you more likely to be active AND make you more likely to eat correctly.

    I'd add that just because some people who successfully maintain weight loss don't exercise doesn't mean the idea is flawed. It says exercise is more critical, not that it's absolutely necessary in all cases.

    Perhaps the more fair conclusion is "activity level is generally a better indicator of weight loss maintenance than diet"?

    Honestly I dont know if that's much better. Are people who are more active more likely to succeed at maintenance? Sure. If the focus on diet was the same. But there is nothing saying that maintenance requires more physical activity. Its so much easier to eat a cinnamon bun than it is to burn off the 200-500 calories it entails.

    Physical activity can be used as an indicator of a higher probability of success for maintenance, but diet is still king in that aspect as well by a fair margin. Are people who are successful at maintenance with diet more likely to be more active? Probably, but its definitely not a requisite.

    But indicator doesn't mean "cause of" and certainly doesn't mean "requisite", it just points to strong correlation asking for more study into why. Nobody's saying you have to be more active to be successful. For some reason, this research suggests that a large percentage of people who successfully maintain are active. Is the activity the reason, or is it another "symptom" of whatever makes those people successful? It's like the indicator light on your dashboard telling you it's time for an oil change. It's not a guarantee you are about to run dry of oil and ruin your car, but it's indicating you might be running out of time. It might also be a computer malfunction.

    I would add that for me, diet was the key to LOSING weight. Increasing my activity level has been enormously important to maintenance for me. I'm not sure I could've avoided regain without it. I am by no means saying it's a requirement for everyone, mind you.

    I think it's important to accurately interpret the language in scientific research and conclusions. Some posters seem to be reading this as "You can't maintain weight loss without exercise" and that isn't at all what it's saying.
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,088 Member
    edited April 2019
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I'm not sure how to look at this, in personal terms. I was very active for a decade, while obese, before losing weight (by changing intake), and am now similarly active in year 3 of maintenance.

    I think it's unusual (though not unheard of, obviously) for obese people to be very active. It's not terribly unusual for people who want to lose weight to add exercise in the weight-loss mix. It's probably (?) not that unusual for formerly obese people to discover how good it feels to be fitter, during that whole process, and stick with some level of exercise; and to find exercise simply more doable at a lighter body weight, besides.

    So, through that lens, what to conclude from the data is a little murky to me.
    Jruzer wrote: »
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    My quick read of the above link sees that weight control people have a TDEE of about 300 above the never obese and spend about 180 more on exercise.... where's the other 120?

    In reading the study, the answer is that the authors discriminated between TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) and PAEE (Physical Activity Energy Expenditure). The 300 refers to TDEE, while the 180 refers to PAEE. In looking at the data, it appears that the weight-loss group also has about 120 kcal/d higher REE than the never-overweight group.

    Does that fly in the face of the "Biggest Loser Study" adaptive thermogenesis (so-called "metabolic damage") hand-wringing?

    After dissecting the BL studies, I have issues with many of these so called studies. One of my biggest grievances with the BL study was that most of the participants were in a caloric deficit when their rmr was taken. The second was their rmr was lower, but Kevin halls planner nearly nailed their tdee on the mark. Uhhh?? What? Makes no sense. The biggest gripe I have with these correlational study's, such as this one, is that they depend on self reported data. We know human reported data is never accurate. Metabolic ward studies carry the most weight to me.

    *edit* also wanted to add that some of the od the issues could also be they used 2 different equations, one at the end of show vs one at time of study, to establish rmr.
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    Been maintaining going on 6 years this month. Regular exercise is pretty crucial to my weight maintenance. My exercise always dips in the winter and I put on 8-10 Lbs every winter and take it off in the spring. When I'm exercising regularly, I maintain easily and don't even really have to think about it. I like food, and I like beer...regular exercise gives me a nice buffer for those things.

    How is the knee wolf?
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,879 Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I'm not sure how to look at this, in personal terms. I was very active for a decade, while obese, before losing weight (by changing intake), and am now similarly active in year 3 of maintenance.

    I think it's unusual (though not unheard of, obviously) for obese people to be very active. It's not terribly unusual for people who want to lose weight to add exercise in the weight-loss mix. It's probably (?) not that unusual for formerly obese people to discover how good it feels to be fitter, during that whole process, and stick with some level of exercise; and to find exercise simply more doable at a lighter body weight, besides.

    So, through that lens, what to conclude from the data is a little murky to me.
    Jruzer wrote: »
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    My quick read of the above link sees that weight control people have a TDEE of about 300 above the never obese and spend about 180 more on exercise.... where's the other 120?

    In reading the study, the answer is that the authors discriminated between TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) and PAEE (Physical Activity Energy Expenditure). The 300 refers to TDEE, while the 180 refers to PAEE. In looking at the data, it appears that the weight-loss group also has about 120 kcal/d higher REE than the never-overweight group.

    Does that fly in the face of the "Biggest Loser Study" adaptive thermogenesis (so-called "metabolic damage") hand-wringing?

    After dissecting the BL studies, I have issues with many of these so called studies. One of my biggest grievances with the BL study was that most of the participants were in a caloric deficit when their rmr was taken. The second was their rmr was lower, but Kevin halls planner nearly nailed their tdee on the mark. Uhhh?? What? Makes no sense. The biggest gripe I have with these correlational study's, such as this one, is that they depend on self reported data. We know human reported data is never accurate. Metabolic ward studies carry the most weight to me.

    *edit* also wanted to add that some of the od the issues could also be they used 2 different equations, one at the end of show vs one at time of study, to establish rmr.
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    Been maintaining going on 6 years this month. Regular exercise is pretty crucial to my weight maintenance. My exercise always dips in the winter and I put on 8-10 Lbs every winter and take it off in the spring. When I'm exercising regularly, I maintain easily and don't even really have to think about it. I like food, and I like beer...regular exercise gives me a nice buffer for those things.

    How is the knee wolf?

    It's ok. I can ride no problem. I can't squat in the gym yet...really wobbly and unstable, but I can leg press no problem.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,268 Member
    edited April 2019
    I am familiar with the NWCR as I have paperwork to submit to become a member...just need to get before and after Pics done.

    The NWCR mentions a lot of things that people who maintain weight loss do vs those who don't maintain.

    For example most people in the registry eat breakfast....does that means it's critical...no but it's a good indicator it helps.

    As for exercise...yes it helps.

    for maintaining...not necessarily losing.

    for weight loss it is all about diet and it's important to understand you don't need exercise to lose and/or maintain weight as at some point you might not want to or be able to exercise...then what?

    but typically what happens is if you lose weight using 95% diet chances are you end up more active anyway and understand you can eat more that way but par down eating if you aren't exercising otherwise you aren't going to maintain.

    TL;DR

    if you are a long term maintainer you understand that exercise can help a lot but isn't critical...
  • Remoth
    Remoth Posts: 117 Member
    edited April 2019
    kimny72 wrote: »
    Remoth wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    Remoth wrote: »
    My take from this study is that the correlation between physical activity and weight maintenance most likely does not mean " physical activity means successful weight maintenance". But more likely that the people who are more motivated to lead a healthier lifestyle and maintain their weight are more likely to be more active.

    This is kind of what I assume as well. Perhaps people who start and stick to "active" hobbies or to a workout schedule are incorporating good habits all over the place. You could extrapolate that out to all sorts of behaviors or habits that both make you more likely to be active AND make you more likely to eat correctly.

    I'd add that just because some people who successfully maintain weight loss don't exercise doesn't mean the idea is flawed. It says exercise is more critical, not that it's absolutely necessary in all cases.

    Perhaps the more fair conclusion is "activity level is generally a better indicator of weight loss maintenance than diet"?

    Honestly I dont know if that's much better. Are people who are more active more likely to succeed at maintenance? Sure. If the focus on diet was the same. But there is nothing saying that maintenance requires more physical activity. Its so much easier to eat a cinnamon bun than it is to burn off the 200-500 calories it entails.

    Physical activity can be used as an indicator of a higher probability of success for maintenance, but diet is still king in that aspect as well by a fair margin. Are people who are successful at maintenance with diet more likely to be more active? Probably, but its definitely not a requisite.

    But indicator doesn't mean "cause of" and certainly doesn't mean "requisite", it just points to strong correlation asking for more study into why. Nobody's saying you have to be more active to be successful. For some reason, this research suggests that a large percentage of people who successfully maintain are active. Is the activity the reason, or is it another "symptom" of whatever makes those people successful? It's like the indicator light on your dashboard telling you it's time for an oil change. It's not a guarantee you are about to run dry of oil and ruin your car, but it's indicating you might be running out of time. It might also be a computer malfunction.

    I would add that for me, diet was the key to LOSING weight. Increasing my activity level has been enormously important to maintenance for me. I'm not sure I could've avoided regain without it. I am by no means saying it's a requirement for everyone, mind you.

    I think it's important to accurately interpret the language in scientific research and conclusions. Some posters seem to be reading this as "You can't maintain weight loss without exercise" and that isn't at all what it's saying.
    kimny72 wrote: »
    Remoth wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    Remoth wrote: »
    My take from this study is that the correlation between physical activity and weight maintenance most likely does not mean " physical activity means successful weight maintenance". But more likely that the people who are more motivated to lead a healthier lifestyle and maintain their weight are more likely to be more active.

    This is kind of what I assume as well. Perhaps people who start and stick to "active" hobbies or to a workout schedule are incorporating good habits all over the place. You could extrapolate that out to all sorts of behaviors or habits that both make you more likely to be active AND make you more likely to eat correctly.

    I'd add that just because some people who successfully maintain weight loss don't exercise doesn't mean the idea is flawed. It says exercise is more critical, not that it's absolutely necessary in all cases.

    Perhaps the more fair conclusion is "activity level is generally a better indicator of weight loss maintenance than diet"?

    Honestly I dont know if that's much better. Are people who are more active more likely to succeed at maintenance? Sure. If the focus on diet was the same. But there is nothing saying that maintenance requires more physical activity. Its so much easier to eat a cinnamon bun than it is to burn off the 200-500 calories it entails.

    Physical activity can be used as an indicator of a higher probability of success for maintenance, but diet is still king in that aspect as well by a fair margin. Are people who are successful at maintenance with diet more likely to be more active? Probably, but its definitely not a requisite.

    But indicator doesn't mean "cause of" and certainly doesn't mean "requisite", it just points to strong correlation asking for more study into why. Nobody's saying you have to be more active to be successful. For some reason, this research suggests that a large percentage of people who successfully maintain are active. Is the activity the reason, or is it another "symptom" of whatever makes those people successful? It's like the indicator light on your dashboard telling you it's time for an oil change. It's not a guarantee you are about to run dry of oil and ruin your car, but it's indicating you might be running out of time. It might also be a computer malfunction.

    I would add that for me, diet was the key to LOSING weight. Increasing my activity level has been enormously important to maintenance for me. I'm not sure I could've avoided regain without it. I am by no means saying it's a requirement for everyone, mind you.

    I think it's important to accurately interpret the language in scientific research and conclusions. Some posters seem to be reading this as "You can't maintain weight loss without exercise" and that isn't at all what it's saying.

    I do agree with everything you said. I'm thinking that we are arguing the same point. Do you think I am incorrect in saying that physical activity may not be the "best" indicator of successful maintenance? Not to say it's not helpful for someone to succeed or not a good indicator or not an indicator at all. The best indicator would be a persons average net caloric level (surplus/deficit/equillibrum) including said physical activity? basically just to clear up the title of the topic.

    What do you think is the reason exercise was key for you? Generally curious.

    Sorry, Not sure why it quoted twice... pain to fix on phone...