Interesting NY Times Mag. article - "The Fat Trap"...

KatieJane83
KatieJane83 Posts: 2,002 Member
edited October 7 in Health and Weight Loss
...if you feel like reading. It's a bit long, just to warn you.

I had posted this in Chit Chat, Fun, & Games but realized that probably wasn't the right place, lol.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.xml

HUGE issue I had is EVERY single scientific study that was conducted on weight loss and maintaining had the subjects losing the weight on diets of NO MORE than 1000 calories a day. One of the studies was 500-550 calories a day! To me it says, well of course those people are going to have a major struggle maintaining!

Thoughts? Reactions? Issues? A lot of food for thought here (pun intended).

Replies

  • rgibswilg
    rgibswilg Posts: 17 Member
    Well, that's a cold hard slap of reality, but I suspected that is the case. Looks like I'm going to be on MFP for a while!
  • philsy1
    philsy1 Posts: 104 Member
    I reached my goal weight about 4 weeks ago. Now, I'm up about 3 lbs since then. There's a lot of variables, really. What I call "springback" effect, holiday eating, etc. Nevertheless, when I average my intake and exercise calories over that period, I "should" have lost about a pound. I think I'm going to have to stay 300 or so calories under my maintenance calorie level to truly stay at my current weight.
  • KatieJane83
    KatieJane83 Posts: 2,002 Member
    *sigh* Either no one likes to read anymore or everyone is just very busy. Hopefully it's the latter, lol!

    Just a bump for anyone who's interested who missed it.
  • ckatastrophy
    ckatastrophy Posts: 112 Member
    When I started this journey, I knew it was going to mean a major life change. This article just reinforces that idea. I am determined to get to my goal weight and stay there even if it take me 3yrs to do it. Just a little bit at a time. However, the article was very interesting & goes to show that doctors, nutritionists, & other professionals in the field still don't know everything. It also shows that what works for 1 person may not work for another.

    Thanks for sharing this.

    Good luck everyone on achieving your goals!
  • Aurelina
    Aurelina Posts: 197 Member
    For the registry of people who maintained an average weight loss for over a year, here's the scoop.

    "But their eating and exercise habits appear to reflect what researchers find in the lab: to lose weight and keep it off, a person must eat fewer calories and exercise far more than a person who maintains the same weight naturally. Registry members exercise about an hour or more each day — the average weight-loser puts in the equivalent of a four-mile daily walk, seven days a week. They get on a scale every day in order to keep their weight within a narrow range. They eat breakfast regularly. Most watch less than half as much television as the overall population. They eat the same foods and in the same patterns consistently each day and don’t “cheat” on weekends or holidays. They also appear to eat less than most people, with estimates ranging from 50 to 300 fewer daily calories."
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all

    Sobering! This ain't a two month party cruise. LOL It's long haul.
  • Aurelina
    Aurelina Posts: 197 Member
    For me the super fast thing doesn't work and long ago I was Will-Power-Woman to do them, but it's was a nasty set-up for the rebound. Even with the current slow-go routine, it's easy to get creep-up.

    ...if you feel like reading. It's a bit long, just to warn you.

    I had posted this in Chit Chat, Fun, & Games but realized that probably wasn't the right place, lol.

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.xml

    HUGE issue I had is EVERY single scientific study that was conducted on weight loss and maintaining had the subjects losing the weight on diets of NO MORE than 1000 calories a day. One of the studies was 500-550 calories a day! To me it says, well of course those people are going to have a major struggle maintaining!

    Thoughts? Reactions? Issues? A lot of food for thought here (pun intended).
  • Aurelina
    Aurelina Posts: 197 Member
    I found this link elsewhere on MFP. Oh I like this answer. So like. Very positive message about maintaining.

    http://refusetoregain.com/refusetoregain/2011/12/the-fat-trap-my-response.html
  • 1234terri
    1234terri Posts: 217 Member
    Read it the other day, was very helpful. It taught me my metabolism and my body's ability to burn calories may not be at all like the next person's. It made me think about adjusting my workout calories burned down, to be more in line with what could be happening for my weight loss. Thanks for reposting this, here!

    -Terri
  • 1234terri
    1234terri Posts: 217 Member
    I hear you, probably the next 4 years for me!!
    Well, that's a cold hard slap of reality, but I suspected that is the case. Looks like I'm going to be on MFP for a while!
  • StevLL
    StevLL Posts: 921 Member
    It took a long time to put it on and keep it there. I'm good with removing it slowly so it stays off. I think there is some good information, but again those are extreme calorie restrictions and I am happy with my slow loss at 2100 calories. I think I can maintain this for life, so if it takes a few years to come off, cool. I like it here in MFP land anyways and I'm staying.
  • TMLPatrick
    TMLPatrick Posts: 558 Member
    Thats an interesting article.... reinforces the "lifestyle" mentality.... if you want to be thin, you can never quit watching what you eat. Its a tough decision.
  • AI1108
    AI1108 Posts: 488 Member
    It took a long time to put it on and keep it there. I'm good with removing it slowly so it stays off. I think there is some good information, but again those are extreme calorie restrictions and I am happy with my slow loss at 2100 calories. I think I can maintain this for life, so if it takes a few years to come off, cool. I like it here in MFP land anyways and I'm staying.

    I wish MFP had a like button.. I've never had a lot to lose so I went slow with myself, and maybe I don't really know how it feels to be obese but I think determination and educating yourself is important. I see people lose and maintain all the time and I think its a testament to how do-able it is. People publishing articles that blame everything around them for them not being able to get rid of the weight, even going a step ahead and using a small study that may on some level reinforce your hypothesis, are people that just really want to settle and aren't really ready to tackle their problem with themselves just yet. Just my 2 cents.
  • BundangKiwiGal
    BundangKiwiGal Posts: 78 Member
    Looks interesting. Will definitely give this a read when I have a bit of time on my hands later this weekend
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    I'm wondering if the more efficient muscles that are burning fewer calories compared to folks always at your current size, is because they have been working out to get to that point.

    May also have something to do with those extreme calorie deficits causing body to slow down.

    Now I wonder if that means the muscle can't do as much work, compared to a person always at your current size after weight loss?
  • Shock_Wave
    Shock_Wave Posts: 1,573 Member
    Hurry up with the Leptin supplements!! Those worked in the atricle. :p
  • appleseeds
    appleseeds Posts: 212 Member
    The most interesting thing to me was the 8 month window the mice or rats I can't remember had to lose the weight without biological changes. It kind of goes to show that the sooner you tackle a weight-gain, the better chances you have. I guess you really should say something to your friends/family if you notice they've gained 10 pounds!
  • appleseeds
    appleseeds Posts: 212 Member
    I'm wondering if the more efficient muscles that are burning fewer calories compared to folks always at your current size, is because they have been working out to get to that point.

    May also have something to do with those extreme calorie deficits causing body to slow down.

    Now I wonder if that means the muscle can't do as much work, compared to a person always at your current size after weight loss?

    I'm curious to see if the muscles burning fewer calories ALSO happens to the people in the long-term study. It would be interesting to have that kind of proof to say once and for all that you need to lose weight slowly, not quickly
  • MissMaggie3
    MissMaggie3 Posts: 2,464 Member
    Thanks for posting this - a very interesting article. I'd already come to the conclusion that logging food and exercising a lot are my long-term future, but good to get reinforcement of that need.
  • sonjawi
    sonjawi Posts: 46
    I'm wondering if the more efficient muscles that are burning fewer calories compared to folks always at your current size, is because they have been working out to get to that point.

    May also have something to do with those extreme calorie deficits causing body to slow down.

    Now I wonder if that means the muscle can't do as much work, compared to a person always at your current size after weight loss?



    I'm curious to see if the muscles burning fewer calories ALSO happens to the people in the long-term study. It would be interesting to have that kind of proof to say once and for all that you need to lose weight slowly, not quickly
    [/quote

    I know that it has been said that your calorie burn goes down the longer you stick to one kind of exercise, e.g. if you walk for a year, then you will not burn the same amount of calories after a year as you did when you started walking. I guess mixing it up in all fields of life is the solution :).Lifestyle changes are the only long term way to maintain...its really bad if the lifestyle changes, as in my life, go the other way round, from a job that kept me more or less "working out" for hours a day to a sedentary part time job. I am just not the kind of person that will make up with actual working out each day 2 to 3 hours to catch that.
  • Shock_Wave
    Shock_Wave Posts: 1,573 Member
    This is kinda lengthy but after reading that article this idea made me feel better about what they didnt exactly cover much in the studies from what I read.

    I went to sleep thinking about this article and then it dawned on me that it might not be all that bad.. First off I want to say that the first study was found inconclusive so I took that in with a grain of salt. BUT the study with the lady that was 330lbs and now is 190 is retired so she is very old and her body metabolism would be very slow and thats when it popped into my head. I wonder if it would be easier to maintain or to "reset" your bodys idea of weight as they said by working out more strength training. I would like to see a study taking those people that have lost and have them do a strength training for 6 month or 1 year and then see how hard it would be to maintain. More lean muscle mass=better metabolism even at rest comparied to those who have less, I would think this would offset most if not all of that delema. It would possibly make losing even more weight easier and again to maintain. I say this because most people are all about cardio, cardio, and more cardio. How about using that cardio to lose the weight then cutting back on cardio and adding in more strength training gearing your diet twards creating new lean muscle mass while doing only some cardio just to keep your body burning. You can lose lean muscle tissue from doing to much cardio and also cardio does not create new lean tissue like strength training does. So then why would you not incorporate strength training after you have lost weight? I could see where a never ending battle would begin this way with keeping off the weight from alway just doing cardio training from a lack of lean muscle tissue. So said in another way, I would think after weight loss or during weight loss it would make it so much easier to work on creating a high metabolism rather than to have to fight a low metabolism or people with low lean muscle tissue on a weight loss diet. If you have more muscle tissue then this would negate that problem they said with your body burning less cals in the muscles and in fact you would burn more I would speculate to say even "reseting your body metabolism". You have to fight for every thing in weight loss but maybe adding lean muscle mass would make this journey easier in the end.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    I'm wondering if the more efficient muscles that are burning fewer calories compared to folks always at your current size, is because they have been working out to get to that point.

    May also have something to do with those extreme calorie deficits causing body to slow down.

    Now I wonder if that means the muscle can't do as much work, compared to a person always at your current size after weight loss?

    I believe it has more to do with what is called the thermic effect of food. I don't have the research article here at home, but it is more due to the increased efficiency of processing food. The research is not the most positive in that it suggest that, if you lose a significant amount of weight, you are always at greater risk of regaining compared to someone who had never gained the weight. And the effect seemed long-lasting.

    This is why maintaining vigorous exercise, lifting weights, and maintaining a pattern of increased casual activity are crucial to long-term success.
  • shakybabe
    shakybabe Posts: 1,578 Member
    it just shows crash diets don't work.. why do they reduce it so much to 500-550cals? .. of course they're gonna pile on weight when they go back to eating 'normally'.. I doubt they stayed on the optifast and 2 cups of veg!

    Hass anyone done a study of just cutting your calories by a smaller amount and how long the weight stayed off?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    I believe it has more to do with what is called the thermic effect of food. I don't have the research article here at home, but it is more due to the increased efficiency of processing food. The research is not the most positive in that it suggest that, if you lose a significant amount of weight, you are always at greater risk of regaining compared to someone who had never gained the weight. And the effect seemed long-lasting.

    This is why maintaining vigorous exercise, lifting weights, and maintaining a pattern of increased casual activity are crucial to long-term success.

    Actually the article quoted one of the studies where they did muscle biopsy and found the muscle just burned less calories, I'd suppose for equal amounts of work.
    That was compared to someone already at a certain weight, and someone loosing down to that same weight.

    So those trying to loose are at a disadvantage then compared to those that seem to have no problem.

    Now, then again, is that one of the physical differences in the first place that made it easier for one to gain weight, and one to maintain weight. No change, just different genetically? I don't see that was considered. Unless I missed comment about their muscle used to burn more at higher weight and then lost the ability.
  • bcampbell54
    bcampbell54 Posts: 932 Member
    Confirms what I always suspevted - the real work begins after achieving my "goal weight."
    I'm prepared for it, I think.
  • Shock_Wave
    Shock_Wave Posts: 1,573 Member
    Also remember to take in consideration that people that have lost weight down to a normal weight for some ones class would have made in their body more fat cells than some one who is normally that weight. This will certainly make it easier for some one who was over weight that lost the weight to put back on the weight. Simply put, the more fat cells you have the easier it is to re gain the weight. You can shrink those extra fat cells but you can never get rid of them completely unless you get lipo suction and physically remove them.
  • Shock_Wave
    Shock_Wave Posts: 1,573 Member
    Deleted
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    I believe it has more to do with what is called the thermic effect of food. I don't have the research article here at home, but it is more due to the increased efficiency of processing food. The research is not the most positive in that it suggest that, if you lose a significant amount of weight, you are always at greater risk of regaining compared to someone who had never gained the weight. And the effect seemed long-lasting.

    This is why maintaining vigorous exercise, lifting weights, and maintaining a pattern of increased casual activity are crucial to long-term success.

    Actually the article quoted one of the studies where they did muscle biopsy and found the muscle just burned less calories, I'd suppose for equal amounts of work.
    That was compared to someone already at a certain weight, and someone loosing down to that same weight.

    So those trying to loose are at a disadvantage then compared to those that seem to have no problem.

    Now, then again, is that one of the physical differences in the first place that made it easier for one to gain weight, and one to maintain weight. No change, just different genetically? I don't see that was considered. Unless I missed comment about their muscle used to burn more at higher weight and then lost the ability.

    I think that losing weight itself accounts for many of these changes.

    I had not read the article when I posted the original comment. I have now, so I am (belatedly) up to speed.

    Here is a link if anyone is interested to the study I mentioned previously:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18842775
This discussion has been closed.

Categories