NY Times- Why it is hard to lose weight and keep it off- After the Biggest Loser

[Soror]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

 

So, interesting to see the proof of how their metabolisms slowed down and stayed that way. 

 

“It is frightening and amazing,†said Dr. Hall, an expert on metabolism at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, which is part of the National Institutes of Health. “I am just blown away.â€

It has to do with resting metabolism, which determines how many calories a person burns when at rest. When the show began, the contestants, though hugely overweight, had normal metabolisms for their size, meaning they were burning a normal number of calories for people of their weight. When it ended, their metabolisms had slowed radically and their bodies were not burning enough calories to maintain their thinner sizes.

Researchers knew that just about anyone who deliberately loses weight — even if they start at a normal weight or even underweight — will have a slower metabolism when the diet ends. So they were not surprised to see that “The Biggest Loser†contestants had slow metabolisms when the show ended.

What shocked the researchers was what happened next: As the years went by and the numbers on the scale climbed, the contestants’ metabolisms did not recover. They became even slower, and the pounds kept piling on. It was as if their bodies were intensifying their effort to pull the contestants back to their original weight.

 

But Dr. Ludwig said that simply cutting calories was not the answer. “There are no doubt exceptional individuals who can ignore primal biological signals and maintain weight loss for the long term by restricting calories,†he said, but he added that “for most people, the combination of incessant hunger and slowing metabolism is a recipe for weight regain — explaining why so few individuals can maintain weight loss for more than a few months.â€

Dr. Rosenbaum agreed. “The difficulty in keeping weight off reflects biology, not a pathological lack of willpower affecting two-thirds of the U.S.A.,†he said.

Edited May 2, 2016 by soror

[AFwife Claire]

Whoa, that was really interesting, and a bit depressing.  I'm on a whole30 diet right now, and I hope to high heavens my metabolism is not slowing down like that!  I don't think it is, but wow--those poor people!  It's definitely NOT simply "eat less, exercise more", though.

[Greta]

I look forward to reading the rest of the article.  The excerpt you posted is very interesting!  I've certainly noticed that calorie restriction diets seem to be a death-spiral:  you have to keep restricting more and more to maintain.  And this even happens to non-dieters as we age.  

 

And why is that, what is happening to people once they pass the age of 35 or so?  You start to lose a little bit of muscle mass every year.  So I wonder if a better answer is to fight the muscle loss, and if then the weight gain will take care of itself.  I'm fighting that battle right now, and I've chosen to increase my protein intake and lift weights rather than restrict calories.  Here's hoping it works!!!   :D

 

 

ETA:  I'd like to clarify that I realize the "middle age spread" that I'm talking about is a whole different ball game from the obesity that the contestants on that show were dealing with.  I suspect the weight gain in middle age has a lot to do with hormonal changes and muscle loss, and therefore it seems logical to address those issues rather than calorie restriction (since calories didn't cause the problem, they wouldn't be the solution).  Obesity is a different problem, and I don't claim to have the solution.  But it does seem more and more that the "eat less, move more" model isn't working.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Greta

[SparklyUnicorn]

Well it certainly explains why most diets ultimately fail for people.  I'm sure most people know how to drop pounds and can manage to work hard for a little while.  But for the long haul? Not so easy.

[38carrots]

The lost their weight in such an extreme way, eating crap, and killing their bodies, no wonder their metabolism is screwed up. I don't think it should be taken as depressing news to those who eat healthy and strive for gradual weight loss.

 

ETA: I think mainstream eating habits and portion sizes are terribly screwed up. The idea of what it means "to go hungry" is screwed up as well. Our processed foods contain who knows what, and most don't even question this.

 

Look at concentration camps survivors who went through hunger and even WWII veterans who experienced food restrictions. Not many of them are overweight, not at all!

Edited May 2, 2016 by 38carrots

[catz]

I think this is fascinating.  There is so much we don't know about the human body. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Yeah sometimes I come across information about what people believed about the human body years ago and I wonder what weird thing do we believe now that we will ultimately discover isn't quite true. 

[Soror]

I'd be curious to see further studies with various levels of calorie restriction to see at what level we start to see this happening. To me it is more about the fact that it isn't as cut and dry as we think, especially for those who are morbidly obese. They are at the point that they must starve themselves to maintain even an overweight body, seriously 800 calories. I've never been big on calorie restriction- it should be very gradual and we should stop telling such people that they just are pigs and eat too much. There comes a point when you can't even eat normally. (of course there is the question as to why we have such morbid obesity from such young ages but I don't think there is one factor here- if we figure out how to stop obesity before it occurs can we stop this process? Not talking about 10-20 lbs that people put on in age- which is more a vanity than health issue but those that end up morbidly obese with all the accompanying health problems)

Edited May 2, 2016 by soror

[creekland]

I wonder if this is why it seems to work better if one only diets a couple of days per week (5:2) and other such things.

 

I haven't read the whole article yet - just what was posted.

 

I know I've lost 30 lbs, can't (physically) eat much most of the time, yet it can be difficult to lose more.  When we travel, I put on weight super easily presumably because the foods I eat when we travel are so much more calorie dense than what I eat at home.  When I return home that weight comes off easily too by switching back, but I've yet to figure out if more isn't coming off because we travel too much or because I've hit some sort of plateau.

 

Ideally I want to lose 10 more before I hit that plateau.  Then I'm ok maintaining as needed.

 

And I'm forever thankful to have lost that feeling of hunger with radiation a couple of years ago.  I feel for those around me dieting who have to deal with hunger.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I'd be curious to see further studies with various levels of calorie restriction to see at what level we start to see this happening. To me it is more about the fact that it isn't as cut and dry as we think, especially for those who are morbidly obese. They are at the point that they must starve themselves to maintain even an overweight body, seriously 800 calories. I've never been big on calorie restriction- it should be very gradual and we should stop telling such people that they just are pigs and eat too much. There comes a point when you can't even eat normally.

 

I also wonder if part of it isn't just aging. 

 

It's hard to do studies on these types of things because any real experimental study wouldn't be ethical.  They often rely on self reporting or the few people who are willing to go to some extreme and then agree to be observed and tested.

[PeachyDoodle]

The lost their weight in such an extreme way, eating crap, and killing their bodies, no wonder their metabolism is screwed up. I don't think it should be taken as depressing news to those who eat healthy and strive for gradual weight loss.

 

ETA: I think mainstream eating habits and portion sizes are terribly screwed up. The idea of what it means "to go hungry" is screwed up as well. Our processed foods contain who knows what, and most don't even question this.

 

Look at concentration camps survivors who went through hunger and even WWII veterans who experienced food restrictions. Not many of them are overweight, not at all!

 

I wondered this too. Did the rapidity and extreme nature of their weight loss affect the reduction in their metabolisms at all? It looks as though every one of them burns hundreds fewer calories per day than would be expected for a person their size. I hope that perhaps their response is more pronounced than one would expect after a long-term, more moderate approach.

 

Otherwise, this is seriously depressing.

[Soror]

I also wonder if part of it isn't just aging. 

 

It's hard to do studies on these types of things because any real experimental study wouldn't be ethical.  They often rely on self reporting or the few people who are willing to go to some extreme and then agree to be observed and tested.

Well, it is normal (across cultures even) to put on some pounds as we age but that is more in the realm of 10-20 lbs, nothing like what these people experienced. It is also curious as to why some of them had more of an effect than others? One girl only ended up with a metabolism about 200 cal less than expected, not good but not a great amount. 

 

Interesting as well they did this study with a diabetes drug that makes you spill calories in your urine, the people lost weight but for each pound they starting eating 200 calories more a day. 

 

They said they are looking at drugs to help with appetite so people don't realize they are hungry. What I'm wondering is how to normalize the metabolism.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Well, it is normal (across cultures even) to put on some pounds as we age but that is more in the realm of 10-20 lbs, nothing like what these people experienced. It is also curious as to why some of them had more of an effect than others? One girl only ended up with a metabolism about 200 cal less than expected, not good but not a great amount. 

 

Interesting as well they did this study with a diabetes drug that makes you spill calories in your urine, the people lost weight but for each pound they starting eating 200 calories more a day. 

 

They said they are looking at drugs to help with appetite so people don't realize they are hungry. What I'm wondering is how to normalize the metabolism.

 

Yeah appetite suppressing drugs don't strike me as ideal.  For one thing drugs tend to have other side affects and who knows what they do long term . And then what are you supposed to do?  Take it forever? 

 

I've never been majorly overweight (although my weight is creeping up currently and I'm feeling rather crappy about it).  But at those points I could fairly easily lose the pounds.  I'd follow the "plan" carefully.  Never cheat.  I'd work hard and do everything right.  Then you get to the goal and then what.  Then it's like now what do I do?  That part always stumped me.  I had to work very hard to get there and that level of effort was not sustainable for the long term. 

[creekland]

Just finished the article - very worthy read.  Thanks for posting it.  Hopefully other studies will be underway from its initial findings to answer other questions, but in the meantime, I plan to have hubby read it so I can get him to quit trying to follow my (very light) eating pattern in an attempt to lose weight himself.

 

He needs to lose weight, but not by adopting my diet.  I don't get hungry.  I can maintain mine easily.  He gets hungry and is likely setting himself up for a not-so-great future.

 

Even with myself, I eat more than I need to so my body doesn't adjust to "too low" (or come up with other problems from too little).  It could just take me longer to remove that other 10 lbs - or maybe I won't worry about it.

[Soror]

I wondered this too. Did the rapidity and extreme nature of their weight loss affect the reduction in their metabolisms at all? It looks as though every one of them burns hundreds fewer calories per day than would be expected for a person their size. I hope that perhaps their response is more pronounced than one would expect after a long-term, more moderate approach.

 

Otherwise, this is seriously depressing.

I would think it would certainly be affected by the extremeness of how they did it. But in general we know that the chances of maintaining weight loss is very slim, so at point does this occur and what are the other factors? There is just more questions than answers. I certainly don't think it means to not try, some things are good to do regardless of weight like eat real foods and be active.

 

I take it as a message that we should be careful to not restrict calories too low and why are on the tip of the iceberg of understanding weight loss.

Edited May 2, 2016 by soror

[Katy]

I wonder how much of this is due to muscle loss and bacterial change in the gut.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Just finished the article - very worthy read.  Thanks for posting it.  Hopefully other studies will be underway from its initial findings to answer other questions, but in the meantime, I plan to have hubby read it so I can get him to quit trying to follow my (very light) eating pattern in an attempt to lose weight himself.

 

He needs to lose weight, but not by adopting my diet.  I don't get hungry.  I can maintain mine easily.  He gets hungry and is likely setting himself up for a not-so-great future.

 

Even with myself, I eat more than I need to so my body doesn't adjust to "too low" (or come up with other problems from too little).  It could just take me longer to remove that other 10 lbs - or maybe I won't worry about it.

 

Yeah when I was very strict with low carb, which worked great for me, I found shaking things up would get things moving again.  So occasionally I'd have a high carb day.  The danger in doing that though is being very tempted to give up and/or feeling like crud.

[Julie Smith]

I thought resting metabolism had a lot to do with muscle mass. As in the more muscles you have the more calories you burn while doing nothing. I thought (I am not saying I'm right, or have proof) that the reason some people have problems like in the article is because many diets that just restrict food intake end up making you lose muscle mass as much as fat. If you want to eat more calories and not gain fat then you need to increase your muscle mass. 

[Ali in OR]

I read earlier this year, I think in Brian Wansink's Mindless Eating, that as mindless eating can make you slowly gain, the most effective way to lose that kind of weight is to lose slowly so as not to mess up your metabolism. Mindless eating may be eating 100 calories more than you should each day, so he recommended eating just 100 calories less each day to lose which means slow weight loss (a pound a month), but at that rate you keep your metabolism going at its regular rate. I'm kind of trying this this year (losing a pound or two per month) to lose the 10 pounds I had put on in the last year or two, but I'm in that 10-15 pounds overweight group, not the obese group.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I thought resting metabolism had a lot to do with muscle mass. As in the more muscles you have the more calories you burn while doing nothing. I thought (I am not saying I'm right, or have proof) that the reason some people have problems like in the article is because many diets that just restrict food intake end up making you lose muscle mass as much as fat. If you want to eat more calories and not gain fat then you need to increase your muscle mass. 

 

Yeah I don't know.  I've heard stuff like that too.  But then that's problematic too because a lot of times people use charts and BMI to determine the weight they think they need to get to.  They could be very healthy at a weight higher than that.  If they have a lot of muscle, they are going to be heavier.  But then they feel twtichy that they don't match the charts.  It's a Catch 22.

 

 

[NorthwestMom]

I watched The Biggest Loser for a season several years ago and was completely appalled. Almost everything they put their contestants through was unhealthy as well as emotionally abusive, including the name of the show. With this scientific evidence that the show does not actually help the contestants permanently - can we cancel it now? It is horribly exploitative and hurting those it is supposed to help.

[Soror]

I thought resting metabolism had a lot to do with muscle mass. As in the more muscles you have the more calories you burn while doing nothing. I thought (I am not saying I'm right, or have proof) that the reason some people have problems like in the article is because many diets that just restrict food intake end up making you lose muscle mass as much as fat. If you want to eat more calories and not gain fat then you need to increase your muscle mass. 

 

I don't know how they could have worked more on muscle mass they weren't just starving themselves but also exercising as well. 

I read earlier this year, I think in Brian Wansink's Mindless Eating, that as mindless eating can make you slowly gain, the most effective way to lose that kind of weight is to lose slowly so as not to mess up your metabolism. Mindless eating may be eating 100 calories more than you should each day, so he recommended eating just 100 calories less each day to lose which means slow weight loss (a pound a month), but at that rate you keep your metabolism going at its regular rate. I'm kind of trying this this year (losing a pound or two per month) to lose the 10 pounds I had put on in the last year or two, but I'm in that 10-15 pounds overweight group, not the obese group.

When I put on weight from depo that is the way I did it, it took me a full year to lose 20 lbs but I never had an issue of maintaining even with pregnancies, not until this last one when I developed thyroid disease, which I've been working on getting lined out. I'm very against starvation diets or even radical calorie restriction. I think we often end up doing more harm than good.

[Soror]

The beer quote said it all...there is more to maintaining a healthy weight than balancing total calories in and out.Sure, your friends can drink more -ingest more carbs -- and not gain, but are their organs at the same point of not being able to process excess carbs at the same rate and quantity as yours? What would happen if this fella didnt exceed his carb and sugar limit for the day, and ate whole foods?

Sorry this sounds like more fat shaming to me. Did you read about how much less they had to eat? Someone wanting an occasional beer isn't some sin. One should be able to occasionally indulge but they can't even eat normal amounts of food.

I don't know how they could have worked more on muscle mass they weren't just starving themselves but also exercising as well. 

 

 

It would be interesting to know how much of their weight loss was muscle vs fat.  But reading the article, these folks were working out an insane amount of time -- working out became their full-time job -- from the NYT article:

 

His routine went like this: Wake up at 5 a.m. and run on a treadmill for 45 minutes. Have breakfast — typically one egg and two egg whites, half a grapefruit and a piece of sprouted grain toast. Run on the treadmill for another 45 minutes. Rest for 40 minutes; bike ride nine miles to a gym. Work out for two and a half hours. Shower, ride home, eat lunch — typically a grilled skinless chicken breast, a cup of broccoli and 10 spears of asparagus. Rest for an hour. Drive to the gym for another round of exercise.

[38carrots]

Sorry this sounds like more fat shaming to me. Did you read about how much less they had to eat? Someone wanting an occasional beer isn't some sin. One should be able to occasionally indulge but they can't even eat normal amounts of food.

 

It seems that mentioning personal responsibility is automatically fat shaming. Is it?

 

If someone wants to eat 5 chips and then "blacks out" and eats the entire bag, it is not about "something is wrong with my body" it is wanting to have someone else to blame.

 

I tend to to over-eat when I'm stressed. I tend to have the attitude of "I'll eat it now because I want it, and I don't care about later." I gained weight, and after losing 20 lb I still have 25 to go. I'm the one responsible for my decisions and my life style. I gained weight because I ate too much. I ate too much because I made decisions to eat too much. Period. If one eats a bag of chips after "blacking out", he or she is responsible.

 

This "fat shaming" concept is not doing obese people any favours. What is rude is to make public comments or offer intrusive advice, but this applies to pretty much every area of our lives. Some peope are rude and some strive to be polite and considerate. To state that someone who is drinking beer and eating bags of chips shouldn't be surprised about the weight gain is *not* "fat shaming."

 

 

[Soror]

Sorry, you own your emotions.

I am commenting that what is eaten matters more than total calories. There are a whole lot of people that have to go lo carb or moderate carb to maintain...adding a beer or two daily blows the limit, and puts a person on the express train to pack the pounds. The lady who commented about one treat is spot on, she clearly understands. I would like to see the dude eat whole foods, staying with a balanced carb/sugar/fat intake, maintaining muscle mass, and see what happens. Eating normally is not gonna work if thats high carb high fat high sugar and he has damaged his pancreas.

I'm not fat- it is not personal to me. I think your comment however looking for a way to blame them, despite the numbers showing they were not overeating. Of course if they didn't overeat it must be because they all eating junkfood. He didn't say he was eating crap all the time, just having one drink, I don't know how it can be extrapolated that his(and the entirety of the rest of the participants) ate total crap for diets.

 

I can see how overweight people get very weary because it doesn't matter the facts or what you do, everyone knows that you must be doing something wrong and everybody looks for some way to blame you. It seems in the weight loss game we can't admit we don't know and understand everything.

[Soror]

It seems that mentioning personal responsibility is automatically fat shaming. Is it?

 

If someone wants to eat 5 chips and then "blacks out" and eats the entire bag, it is not about "something is wrong with my body" it is wanting to have someone else to blame.

 

I tend to to over-eat when I'm stressed. I tend to have the attitude of "I'll eat it now because I want it, and I don't care about later." I gained weight, and after losing 20 lb I still have 25 to go. I'm the one responsible for my decisions and my life style. I gained weight because I ate too much. I ate too much because I made decisions to eat too much. Period. If one eats a bag of chips after "blacking out", he or she is responsible.

 

This "fat shaming" concept is not doing obese people any favours. What is rude is to make public comments or offer intrusive advice, but this applies to pretty much every area of our lives. Some peope are rude and some strive to be polite and considerate. To state that someone who is drinking beer and eating bags of chips shouldn't be surprised about the weight gain is *not* "fat shaming."

And the research shows there are biological reasons why they are driven to eat more than "normal" people so the playing field isn't even and we need to stop pretending that it is. 

[creekland]

Am I missing something?  I was under the impression from the article that their metabolism went down after they were exercising and had switched to a better diet.

 

The weight game came afterward - when they kept the same low metabolism.

 

The difference is afterward they could no longer take in as many calories as before without regaining the weight due to both their lower metabolism and the increased/decreased hormones making them forever hungry.

 

I doubt it mattered if their extra calories came from eating a can of beans or drinking a beer.  Their weight still went back up.

 

Their metabolism slowed way down and didn't recover.  That screams red flags to me - unless one wants to be hungry their whole lives.

[poppy]

Am I missing something?  I was under the impression from the article that their metabolism went down after they were exercising and had switched to a better diet.

 

The weight game came afterward - when they kept the same low metabolism.

 

The difference is afterward they could no longer take in as many calories as before without regaining the weight due to both their lower metabolism and the increased/decreased hormones making them forever hungry.

 

I doubt it mattered if their extra calories came from eating a can of beans or drinking a beer.  Their weight still went back up.

 

Their metabolism slowed way down and didn't recover.  That screams red flags to me - unless one wants to be hungry their whole lives.

 

Yup.  Not about carbs.

[NorthwestMom]

I'm not fat- it is not personal to me. I think your comment however looking for a way to blame them, despite the numbers showing they were not overeating. Of course if they didn't overeat it must be because they all eating junkfood. He didn't say he was eating crap all the time, just having one drink, I don't know how it can be extrapolated that his(and the entirety of the rest of the participants) ate total crap for diets.

 

I can see how overweight people get very weary because it doesn't matter the facts or what you do, everyone knows that you must be doing something wrong and everybody looks for some way to blame you. It seems in the weight loss game we can't admit we don't know and understand everything.

I am also not overweight - and I agree with this completely.

[Greta]

 

 

Look at concentration camps survivors who went through hunger and even WWII veterans who experienced food restrictions. Not many of them are overweight, not at all!

 

 

:huh:  If following the CICO model of weight loss means that I have to treat myself like a concentration camp victim, I'll pass.  

 

Seriously, this is not a viable real-world solution.  People can't starve themselves for years and years and years on end.  And if they have to resort to that in order to not be fat, that is a giant red flag that something else, something that cannot be explained by CICO, is going on. 

Am I missing something?  I was under the impression from the article that their metabolism went down after they were exercising and had switched to a better diet.

 

That is what the article said.  What is kind of surprising to me, and the article only mentioned this in passing, was that when the dieters were at their peak weight, their metabolism was merely "normal".  I would think that carrying around a hundred extra pounds or more would greatly increase your metabolism.  So, the problem isn't that their metabolism decreased, so much as it went from "normal" at heavy weight to "below normal" after their weight loss.

[PeachyDoodle]

:huh:  If following the CICO model of weight loss means that I have to treat myself like a concentration camp victim, I'll pass.  

 

Seriously, this is not a viable real-world solution.  People can't starve themselves for years and years and years on end.  And if they have to resort to that in order to not be fat, that is a giant red flag that something else, something that cannot be explained by CICO, is going on. 

 

No one suggested that. I believe her point was that hundreds of thousands of people experienced drastic weight loss due to wartime conditions, and yet, in general at least, their metabolisms were not so warped by that experience that they uncontrollably gained weight afterwards.

 

I would respond to that by saying that the difference is that very few (if any) of the victims of Nazi concentration camps were morbidly obese pre-camp, whereas all of the participants in this study were. In that sense, we're comparing apples and oranges, so it's not the most helpful comparison. I seriously doubt there exist any studies on the resting metabolisms of concentration camp victims pre- and post-camp.

 

Regardless, it's also not helpful in the course of these discussions when people start carrying on about having to treat themselves like concentration camp victims to lose weight. No one is suggesting that anyone -- fat or thin -- should live that way. Speaking as someone who has been morbidly obese and lost significant weight, I know what it is like to "feel hungry" and still choose not to eat AT THAT MOMENT. It is NOT easy. But I also know that cravings do not always equal hunger, either. It can be very difficult to tell the difference between the two, but choosing to forego my cravings (or even my hunger) for a few hours at most is NOWHERE NEAR treating myself like a concentration camp victim.

[Greta]

No one suggested that. I believe her point was that hundreds of thousands of people experienced drastic weight loss due to wartime conditions, and yet, in general at least, their metabolisms were not so warped by that experience that they uncontrollably gained weight afterwards.

 

I would respond to that by saying that the difference is that very few (if any) of the victims of Nazi concentration camps were morbidly obese pre-camp, whereas all of the participants in this study were. In that sense, we're comparing apples and oranges, so it's not the most helpful comparison. I seriously doubt there exist any studies on the resting metabolisms of concentration camp victims pre- and post-camp.

 

Regardless, it's also not helpful in the course of these discussions when people start carrying on about having to treat themselves like concentration camp victims to lose weight. No one is suggesting that anyone -- fat or thin -- should live that way. Speaking as someone who has been morbidly obese and lost significant weight, I know what it is like to "feel hungry" and still choose not to eat AT THAT MOMENT. It is NOT easy. But I also know that cravings do not always equal hunger, either. It can be very difficult to tell the difference between the two, but choosing to forego my cravings (or even my hunger) for a few hours at most is NOWHERE NEAR treating myself like a concentration camp victim.

 

 

That, the bolded part of your post, was exactly my point.  I should have expressed it better.  

[kitten18]

It seems that mentioning personal responsibility is automatically fat shaming. Is it?

 

If someone wants to eat 5 chips and then "blacks out" and eats the entire bag, it is not about "something is wrong with my body" it is wanting to have someone else to blame.

 

I tend to to over-eat when I'm stressed. I tend to have the attitude of "I'll eat it now because I want it, and I don't care about later." I gained weight, and after losing 20 lb I still have 25 to go. I'm the one responsible for my decisions and my life style. I gained weight because I ate too much. I ate too much because I made decisions to eat too much. Period. If one eats a bag of chips after "blacking out", he or she is responsible.

 

This "fat shaming" concept is not doing obese people any favours. What is rude is to make public comments or offer intrusive advice, but this applies to pretty much every area of our lives. Some peope are rude and some strive to be polite and considerate. To state that someone who is drinking beer and eating bags of chips shouldn't be surprised about the weight gain is *not* "fat shaming."

We're talking about people who have likely tried EVERY diet under the sun. If they're bodies functioned properly they would have never become 100+ lbs overweight.

[kitten18]

That is what the article said. What is kind of surprising to me, and the article only mentioned this in passing, was that when the dieters were at their peak weight, their metabolism was merely "normal". I would think that carrying around a hundred extra pounds or more would greatly increase your metabolism. So, the problem isn't that their metabolism decreased, so much as it went from "normal" at heavy weight to "below normal" after their weight loss.

It said their metabolism was normal for their size.

[wendy not in HI]

I have been reading Barbara Berkeley's blog about maintaining weight loss.  She is a doctor who specializes in treating obese patients.  She suggests over and over that maintaining a weight loss is much much harder than losing weight.  She says that there are many many proven ways to lose weight, but keeping the weight off is almost impossible for any one, whether they lost it fast or slow, whether famous our just a normal regular person - almost everyone who loses, gains all and often more than what they lost.  It is actually pretty discouraging!!  But it's not a new thing, Biggest Loser contestants are not the only ones with this problem.   (think Oprah, and Huckabee, and....many regular people...)

 

Here are a few of her articles about why people regain and what to do about it:

 

http://www.refusetoregain.com/2013/09/why-am-i-regaining-my-weight.html

 

http://www.refusetoregain.com/2014/03/cleaning-up-the-yard-why-weight-loss-itself-is-meaningless.html

 

http://www.refusetoregain.com/2015/02/successful-weight-loss-stop-celebrating-and-go-to-battle-stations.html

 

 

[J-rap]

Yeah when I was very strict with low carb, which worked great for me, I found shaking things up would get things moving again.  So occasionally I'd have a high carb day.  The danger in doing that though is being very tempted to give up and/or feeling like crud.

 

My ds, who seems to spend a lot of time researching the perfect healthy diet and lifestyle, has said many times that "shaking things up" is actually really important.  So he is on a strict diet (for health, not for weight), but always takes one day a week to go off-diet.  From the research he has done, this seems to often be beneficial but I can't tell you why.  

[SparklyUnicorn]

:huh:  If following the CICO model of weight loss means that I have to treat myself like a concentration camp victim, I'll pass.  

 

Seriously, this is not a viable real-world solution.  People can't starve themselves for years and years and years on end.  And if they have to resort to that in order to not be fat, that is a giant red flag that something else, something that cannot be explained by CICO, is going on. 

 

Uh yeah I agree.  We have to work within the realities we do have and not those in which we don't.  

 

And how much long term information do we actually have of those who were nearly starved to death and didn't end up dying as a result of that?  Who bothered to keep track of that detail?

[SparklyUnicorn]

No one suggested that. I believe her point was that hundreds of thousands of people experienced drastic weight loss due to wartime conditions, and yet, in general at least, their metabolisms were not so warped by that experience that they uncontrollably gained weight afterwards.

 

I would respond to that by saying that the difference is that very few (if any) of the victims of Nazi concentration camps were morbidly obese pre-camp, whereas all of the participants in this study were. In that sense, we're comparing apples and oranges, so it's not the most helpful comparison. I seriously doubt there exist any studies on the resting metabolisms of concentration camp victims pre- and post-camp.

 

Regardless, it's also not helpful in the course of these discussions when people start carrying on about having to treat themselves like concentration camp victims to lose weight. No one is suggesting that anyone -- fat or thin -- should live that way. Speaking as someone who has been morbidly obese and lost significant weight, I know what it is like to "feel hungry" and still choose not to eat AT THAT MOMENT. It is NOT easy. But I also know that cravings do not always equal hunger, either. It can be very difficult to tell the difference between the two, but choosing to forego my cravings (or even my hunger) for a few hours at most is NOWHERE NEAR treating myself like a concentration camp victim.

 

Another factor might be differences in diet (what people ate). 

 

But look, I know of people who lived through WW2 from my husband's family and many of them actually were overweight.  Although they were children during that period of time.  So I'm not sure what kind of meaning that would have.

[J-rap]

I read the article this morning and found it super fascinating.  I had some questions though, such as:

 

What if a person gained 20 pounds in one summer due to strange eating, but then got back to his normal diet routine and lost the 20 pounds fairly easily.  Does that count as the type of dieting as they are referring to, and therefore slows your metabolism forever more after that?  That seems weird to me.  Or does the dieting that results in slow metabolism only happens if you're body has had a lot of time (years) to adapt to that extra 20 pounds.

 

I was wondering if the people in the study, who had put on so much extra weight, maybe had wonky metabolism in the first place, therefore skewing the results?

[Joker]

My grandfather was the only one of his many siblings to even survive the Great Depression. Yet, he was obese for as long as I can remember. He lived to be 93 and didn't even officially retire until 85. He was very active and healthy but also very overweight.

 

I don't think comparing people who lived through horrible times is really going to accomplish much.

 

I found the article really interesting. Thanks!

[SparklyUnicorn]

My grandfather was the only one of his many siblings to even survive the Great Depression. Yet, he was obese for as long as I can remember. He lived to be 93 and didn't even officially retire until 85. He was very active and healthy but also very overweight.

 

I don't think comparing people who lived through horrible times is really going to accomplish much.

 

I found the article really interesting. Thanks!

 

This sounds a lot like my husband's grandfather.  I met him a few times.  He lived to be 98.  He lived through difficult times including war.  He worked third shift in a steel mill for many years (we've been told that third shift working messes people up), he drank regularly, and he was overweight.

 

Guess he had good genes or something.

[Greta]

I read the article this morning and found it super fascinating.  I had some questions though, such as:

 

What if a person gained 20 pounds in one summer due to strange eating, but then got back to his normal diet routine and lost the 20 pounds fairly easily.  Does that count as the type of dieting as they are referring to, and therefore slows your metabolism forever more after that?  That seems weird to me.  Or does the dieting that results in slow metabolism only happens if you're body has had a lot of time (years) to adapt to that extra 20 pounds.

 

I was wondering if the people in the study, who had put on so much extra weight, maybe had wonky metabolism in the first place, therefore skewing the results?

 

 

I don't think it would, if I'm understanding your hypothetical scenario.  You mean that someone eats junk food, overindulges for a summer, and then goes back to the way they were eating before, which was presumably a more normal/typical eating pattern of not "pigging out", but not "starving" either?  I certainly don't know for sure, but I am guessing that kind of scenario is not going to result in a permanently slowed metabolism.  I *think* that the weight loss on that show was accomplished by such extreme measures (radically increasing calories out while also radically decreasing calories in) that their bodies were sent into a tailspin, and lowered their basal metabolic rate in order to hold on to some semblance of homeostasis.  Biological organisms really really like homeostasis.  I suspect that more gentle and/or gradual changes don't necessarily result in such negative effects on metabolism, because they give your body more of a chance to adapt to the change without having a "metabolic freakout".  

 

Not sure if I'm making sense.  Or if I answered your question!  Is that kind of what you were getting at?  

[SparklyUnicorn]

I always felt like the methods on The Biggest Loser were so extreme and so not probably doable for most people.  For one thing they are spending morning, noon, and night constantly working on this.  Who has that kind of time? 

 

A killer is having a desk job.  Yeah, you can take walks and stuff, but you are still spending an incredible amount of time just sitting on your duff.  Some people at my husband's work have these standing desks now.  I've read recently that this is not making much of a difference. 

 

 

[Greta]

I always felt like the methods on The Biggest Loser were so extreme and so not probably doable for most people.  For one thing they are spending morning, noon, and night constantly working on this.  Who has that kind of time? 

 

A killer is having a desk job.  Yeah, you can take walks and stuff, but you are still spending an incredible amount of time just sitting on your duff.  Some people at my husband's work have these standing desks now.  I've read recently that this is not making much of a difference. 

 

 

I never actually watched that show, but I certainly gathered from the little snippets I have seen that it was extreme.  And it's only logical (by tv producer logic, that is) that they would use extreme measures because they wanted to be able to show dramatic results by the end of the season.  But that doesn't mean the method is the healthiest or the best or the most sustainable.  It just wouldn't have made for good tv if they had shown the people losing weight very gradually in a healthy way over the course of multiple years, right?

 

Yeah, I recently read somewhere that the standing desks aren't really living up to their promise.  Too bad.  I'd love to think that would help, but I guess not.  I do have a fitness tech bracelet thingy that alerts me when I've been sitting for 20 minutes.  So I get up and do some jumping jacks or some bodyweight squats or something like that.  I have no idea if it will really help with either weight control OR health, but it makes me feel good to do it.  So that's worth something!

[MistyMountain]

I have not read the entire article but I was seeing comments from people who have and it seemed that the rate at which they lost weight was part of the problem and that gradually making changes and slowly getting weight off works better in the long run.

[AFwife Claire]

 

And how much long term information do we actually have of those who were nearly starved to death and didn't end up dying as a result of that?  Who bothered to keep track of that detail?

In some book I read in the past few years for my AP biology class--The Violinist's Thumb, perhaps?  or a different book on epigenetics?--talked about this very thing.  People (maybe just women?) who were starving for a period of time that ended so they were able to have babies later on had babies who consistently were obese.  So epigenetically something happened to make the bodies of the babies store fat much more efficiently and readily than babies whose mothers had not had any period of starvation.  They specifically referenced some people group, from Norway, I believe, during World War 2.  Sorry I can't remember it more clearly, and I don't have time to serach for the reference right now, but it was really interesting.  So maybe it didn't so much affect their metabolism permanently, but it certainly affected the metabolism of their children,

[SparklyUnicorn]

I have not read the entire article but I was seeing comments from people who have and it seemed that the rate at which they lost weight was part of the problem and that gradually making changes and slowly getting weight off works better in the long run.

 

I think that it's a combination of it being difficult to be patient and having less of a grasp if something is working if you go very slowly.  When you think to cut back, how much should you cut back?  Tracking calories is pretty inaccurate.  So if you say ok, I'll cut out 100 calories a day.  Can you really do that?  No because how much were you eating before?  How close to 100 can you get?  So sure you could also go the other way around and strive to eat a certain number of calories that isn't too much of a cut.  But again, how accurate is all of your tracking going to get?  And that gets very old very quickly.  Weight Watchers strikes me something that has simplified that somewhat and takes into account eating out, etc.  But the foods they encourage the most are the same foods that make me feel starved.  So that only works for people who don't have any issues in that department.   

 

I find low carb relatively easy because I didn't really have to count anything.  I counted carbs, but unless I was planning to eat something high in carbs, I'd just in general eat overall fewer carbs and that was fine.  What makes it difficult is you can't eat out, you can't go to parties, and there are very few convenience foods.  If you have to pack a lunch or something regularly and have no access to a microwave or whatever, then your list of items to bring is short.  And then it gets very boring.  Sounds like a lot of excuses I know, but it's a fact that you need to spend a lot of time focusing on food.  And sometimes there isn't much time to do that. 

 

 

[wendyroo]

I never actually watched that show, but I certainly gathered from the little snippets I have seen that it was extreme.  And it's only logical (by tv producer logic, that is) that they would use extreme measures because they wanted to be able to show dramatic results by the end of the season.  But that doesn't mean the method is the healthiest or the best or the most sustainable.  It just wouldn't have made for good tv if they had shown the people losing weight very gradually in a healthy way over the course of multiple years, right?

 

I have not read the entire article but I was seeing comments from people who have and it seemed that the rate at which they lost weight was part of the problem and that gradually making changes and slowly getting weight off works better in the long run.

 

On the other hand, the subject of that article (the winner of The Biggest Loser) weighed 430 lb at the beginning.  At 5'11", that meant he had to lose over 215 lb just to classified as overweight instead of obese.

 

If he aimed to lose a pound a week, it would take him over 4 years to lose that weight...and that would only be if he did not suffer any setbacks.  If he was capable of consistently losing a pound a week he would have never ended up weighing 430 lb.

 

Wendy