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

[BlsdMama]

Trying really hard to leave THM out of it, but frankly this all makes sense to me.

 

Genetically some of us are just incredibly sensitive to sugar highs/lows from food in our diet.  And some of folks have bodies that love to cart away (fat or sugar) and store it.  

I have two family sides - one naturally very slender, one naturally very heavy.  The slender side is certain it's because they are active.  Okay, granted, when you're heavy it's HARD work to be active, but that's not it.  Their activity is symptomatic of their size not vice versa from what I've seen.

 

And then I look at DH.  Genetically he is more sensitive to sugar.  And every year, the weight creeps up just a  little.  But here's the thing - the man has the appetite of a mouse.  Really, I can outeat him practically by double.  But right after we lost the baby in December, I was seeing my weight go UP and it alarmed me.  That had never happened.  But I noticed I had developed some new habits - I was drinking drinks with sugar.  (Coffee / tea instead of water.)  And I was sipping on them a good part of the day, constantly spiking my blood sugar.  But it made me feel full so I was eating FAR less.  I was skipping breakfast.

 

We started THM, forced ourselves to eat breakfast (protein - eggs with fat & coffee w/ low glycemic sweetener) every morning.  Then I started packing him planned snacks.  That was new. He's not a snacker.  Then lunch.  Then another snack.  Then a protein heavy dinner.  Sure enough he's dropping weight.  I dropped 10 and now I'm holding steady but it was interesting to me that we needed to NOT cut calories (and scare my body into thinking we were starving) and we needed to prompt our metabolism to get a move on MORE often.

 

Hmm.

[Carol in Cal.]

The only time I have ever lost weight in a reasonable and it felt like sustainable way was WWOnline, two versions ago.

Then they up and changed their version on me, and I stopped losing immediately.

I wish I knew what to try now, but I don't.

[Greta]

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

 

 

I'm sure that I'm just being dense, but I don't know what you mean by the bolded part.  Could you explain?  (Thanks in advance!)

[PeachyDoodle]

Trying really hard to leave THM out of it, but frankly this all makes sense to me.

 

Genetically some of us are just incredibly sensitive to sugar highs/lows from food in our diet.  And some of folks have bodies that love to cart away (fat or sugar) and store it.  

I have two family sides - one naturally very slender, one naturally very heavy.  The slender side is certain it's because they are active.  Okay, granted, when you're heavy it's HARD work to be active, but that's not it.  Their activity is symptomatic of their size not vice versa from what I've seen.

 

And then I look at DH.  Genetically he is more sensitive to sugar.  And every year, the weight creeps up just a  little.  But here's the thing - the man has the appetite of a mouse.  Really, I can outeat him practically by double.  But right after we lost the baby in December, I was seeing my weight go UP and it alarmed me.  That had never happened.  But I noticed I had developed some new habits - I was drinking drinks with sugar.  (Coffee / tea instead of water.)  And I was sipping on them a good part of the day, constantly spiking my blood sugar.  But it made me feel full so I was eating FAR less.  I was skipping breakfast.

 

We started THM, forced ourselves to eat breakfast (protein - eggs with fat & coffee w/ low glycemic sweetener) every morning.  Then I started packing him planned snacks.  That was new. He's not a snacker.  Then lunch.  Then another snack.  Then a protein heavy dinner.  Sure enough he's dropping weight.  I dropped 10 and now I'm holding steady but it was interesting to me that we needed to NOT cut calories (and scare my body into thinking we were starving) and we needed to prompt our metabolism to get a move on MORE often.

 

Hmm.

 

I am really sorry for your loss.

 

A lot of what you say here corresponds to my experience as well. And really, that's all any of us has to go on -- and experiences vary SO widely. I think that being naturally highly active seems to be both a cause AND an effect of thinness. While I have much more energy now than I did at 100 lbs overweight, I am still very much NOT a naturally active person. Never have been and probably never will be. Despite the fact that I work out an hour day, most days of the week, during the times that I'm not working out, I'm not the kind of person who just NEEDS to get up and move around. By contrast, my mother very much is that kind of person, and she has also never struggled with her weight.

 

 

[wendyroo]

I'm sure that I'm just being dense, but I don't know what you mean by the bolded part.  Could you explain?  (Thanks in advance!)

 

I firmly believe that most overweight people have sincerely tried to change habits and lose the weight.  I'm betting that he has tried many, many habit changes and diets and exercise plans over the years and years it took him to get to that weight and none of them were able to consistently shed the excess weight.  I'm sure some of them worked in the short term, but once you are 200+ pounds overweight, short term gradual lose isn't going to do you much good...and I think research shows that when you regain the weight, which you are almost guaranteed to do, that you will probably end up heavier than you started.

 

Wendy

[Greta]

I firmly believe that most overweight people have sincerely tried to change habits and lose the weight.  I'm betting that he has tried many, many habit changes and diets and exercise plans over the years and years it took him to get to that weight and none of them were able to consistently shed the excess weight.  I'm sure some of them worked in the short term, but once you are 200+ pounds overweight, short term gradual lose isn't going to do you much good...and I think research shows that when you regain the weight, which you are almost guaranteed to do, that you will probably end up heavier than you started.

 

Wendy

 

Right, I gotcha.  Thanks for explaining for me.  What a mess - the research shows that short term gradual loss doesn't work, and this one study at least showed that radical drastic loss doesn't work?  Where does that leave us?  :(

[J-rap]

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?  

 

Yes, that addresses my question exactly.  Your answer makes sense to me!  Thanks.

[happi duck]

I feel bad for those contestants. Getting on the show must have seemed like an answer to a desperate situation and now they are , literally, worse off.

[hornblower]

I think it's so important to know that there are some who do lose & maintain the loss & I think that's where the interesting research is. What is it that those who lose large amounts & keep it off have in common? 

The answer IMO is that they changed their lives. I think they're not the same people anymore. They changed their lives, their habits, their outlooks...& while most of them made drastic changes, those changes had to be sustainable and lifelong. It's not a diet - it's a different way of living. 

Here's a feel good video: 

And the diet details of how he did it is explained here

 

 

Edited May 2, 2016 by hornblower

[hornblower]

Also, our Cdn weight loss guy, Yoni Freedhoff has been ever so critical of the biggest loser and he has a blog post up today about it & promises to talk in the coming days about the issue of potential lifelong damage to metabolism by such programs...

The Lasting Damage of the Biggest Loser (part 1) 

he also wrote a couple years ago a post called: Is it really scientifically impossible to keep your weight off 

 

[BlsdMama]

Also, our Cdn weight loss guy, Yoni Freedhoff has been ever so critical of the biggest loser and he has a blog post up today about it & promises to talk in the coming days about the issue of potential lifelong damage to metabolism by such programs...

 

The Lasting Damage of the Biggest Loser (part 1) 

 

he also wrote a couple years ago a post called: Is it really scientifically impossible to keep your weight off 

 

 

 

I'm going to look forward to reading the Part 2.  

 

This quote was in his second article:

So it is indeed doable, but ultimately weight loss and maintenance require lifelong effort, therefore if you don't like the effort required, you're not going to keep it up and your weight's going to return.

 

I think this is really the key.  Look, we already know low carbing doesn't work.  Wanna kill your adrenals?  And we know you essentially can't starve yourself - your body will fight to reserve.  So what works?  I think it's a retraining... It has to not be a "30 day plan" or whatnot, but EXACTLY what he says and that is - something you can do (and enjoy) for life.  I had stuffed crepes with chocolate this weekend and homemade cream.  It was TOTALLY sustainable btw, because it felt very indulgent.  However, the cream was sweetened with agave (and no I'm not a huge fan of agave but it is low glycemic) and it was super minimal and I am finding the more I eat 85% cacao chocolate the less I feel like I'm suffering.  Indulging ON plan makes it so that I don't cheat.  Potatoes are the one thing I really do miss and while I love (allowed) sweet potatoes, man, I'd love a baked potato.

 

But I think he IS right - we as Americans think we have to do everything by pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps and guttin' it out.  And I don't think it's sustainable.

And I think weight is somewhere where a whole lot of people don't extend grace. My aunts on my dad's side are big women and it is a shame that our society would somehow pigeonhole them with perceived personality flaws because of a squishy middle.  It's just society wanting to wrap everything up with a bow and a label.  Hogwash.

[Greta]

 

Here's a feel good video: 

 

 

 

 

Feel good, but also  :crying:    Grab the kleenex before you watch!  :)

 

Thanks for sharing this.  It was lovely.  

[38carrots]

I feel bad for those contestants. Getting on the show must have seemed like an answer to a desperate situation and now they are , literally, worse off.

 

Me too!

 

But weren't there several who gained only 20-30lb (not anywhere close to their weight prior to the show) and looked great?

[regentrude]

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. 

 

Well, being a physicist is for the most part a desk job. OK, the experimentalists fiddle sometimes with their equipment, and theorists may occasionally assemble a computer, but mostly we.. sit on our butt. Yet among my entire department, only one colleague is mildly overweight and none are obese. OTOH, several people bike or walk to work, two run marathons, one hikes and kayaks, one plays tennis, a few work out in the gym, one swims several times a week... having a sedentary job does not make a person predestined to be overweight.

 

Edited May 2, 2016 by regentrude

[Carrie12345]

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.

 

This may well be true in individual cases, but I think it's irresponsible to pretend it's universal.

I've never been 100lbs overweight, but I have pushed 50+.  I can't pretend my body would have needed to be dysfunctional in order to collect another 50; I could have just continued doing what I was doing.

[regentrude]

I think it's so important to know that there are some who do lose & maintain the loss & I think that's where the interesting research is. What is it that those who lose large amounts & keep it off have in common? 

 

The answer IMO is that they changed their lives. I think they're not the same people anymore. They changed their lives, their habits, their outlooks...& while most of them made drastic changes, those changes had to be sustainable and lifelong. It's not a diet - it's a different way of living.

 

Yes!

A good friend of mine underwent a dramatic transformation when she began training seriously for triathlons. A doctor telling her that she needed to lose weight or would die shocked her into action. She lost a ton of weight and turned into a very active person with athletic goals. Then came a decade in her life where she lost sight of that, was extremely busy with work and raising teens, gained. About half a year ago, she began working with a coach, resumed her training, lost the weight (absolutely dramatic), but not only became thinner, but is glowing with health and energy. She said "How could I forgot how good this feels? I can't believe I let it go so long; I must remember this feeling".

She changed her life, her goals, her routines, her diet - but from what I can see, in a sustainable way. She lives differently.

[Pawz4me]

This may well be true in individual cases, but I think it's irresponsible to pretend it's universal.

I've never been 100lbs overweight, but I have pushed 50+.  I can't pretend my body would have needed to be dysfunctional in order to collect another 50; I could have just continued doing what I was doing.

 

Agreed.

 

I've "only" been 60 pounds overweight.  But I'm also only 4'10" so that was a LOT of extra weight (my tall doc is only semi-joking when he says 10 extra pounds on me is like 50 extra on him).  My BMI was almost 35.  But . . . I could have easily gained more had I kept doing what I was doing.  It had zero to do with a dysfunctional body or metabolism and everything to do with eating too much and moving too little.

[JustEm]

Of the people I know who have lost weight and kept it of for 5+ years they have all done it by changing their lives. Some have made it a habit to log their food daily even when they're maintaining. Others have gone from eating awful amounts of junk and not being active to simply cleaning up their diets permanently and becoming more active.

 

The many people I know who constantly lose and gain weight are people who have this mentality that if I just get it off it will be easy after that. Then once it is off ,whether quickly or gradually, they start living like they did before they started trying to lose weight. Some do it deliberately because they don't want to exercise or eat healthy all the time. Others do because they no longer make their health a priority so they allow themselves to accidentally fall back into bad habits.

[creekland]

Agreed.

 

I've "only" been 60 pounds overweight.  But I'm also only 4'10" so that was a LOT of extra weight (my tall doc is only semi-joking when he says 10 extra pounds on me is like 50 extra on him).  My BMI was almost 35.  But . . . I could have easily gained more had I kept doing what I was doing.  It had zero to do with a dysfunctional body or metabolism and everything to do with eating too much and moving too little.

 

I'm not sure it matters how the weight goes on.  Once one has decided "enough," it's really helpful to know what works (and doesn't) if they want to take it off.

 

Lifestyle changes are good, of course, but if one doesn't want to have to be hungry all the time sticking to an 800 calorie/day diet - with exercise - then it might be wise to look at other options besides "boot camp."

 

I know in general I've been wondering lately just how much content of diet even matters in the long run, but then I reminded myself that my mom already had Type II diabetes by my age.

 

That said, I'm leaning more toward something like 5:2 being what I suggest to hubby.  Keep the body guessing about calories.

[Guest]

I'd love to say I'm surprised but I slowly and carefully lost 130 pounds and have regained pretty much all of it rapidly, after several years of maintaining. My case is a weird combo of medical crisis and mental exhaustion but there is no doubt my metabolism is slower, despite how I lost the weight. Now I'm trying to do it again and wondering if it is even worth it? I'm focusing on my health and eating well but my body size is something I ay have to make peace with. My metabolism is so bad with my hormones out of whack and my weight issues - I'll be content with losing a chunk of it again and being strong and energetic. The rest I pretty much have to give up on.

 

Ketogenically low carb diets are about the only way I can maintain my weight and, if I'm a complete nazi with my intake, slowly lose (allowing me to shortcut around the mean of energy management issues my body has). But the discipline it takes to do that every day is something that has eluded me in recent months. I feel a bit like a failure. And sometimes I'm really mad. Other days though, I remember that my body is healthy and strong in so many ways and I'm so lucky this is one of the worst things I have to deal with - messed up hormones and fat. I can deal with that 90% of the time and that has to be enough.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[teachermom2834]

Ugh. So what is the answer? I lost about 70 lbs 4 years ago and kept it off pretty easily until the last year. I have gained 30 of it back. I feel pretty hopeless. I am supposed to just give up?

 

I really liked being thin. Never thought I would be back here even though I knew most people gain it back. It was so manageable...and then it wasn't.

[Ausmumof3]

Well, being a physicist is for the most part a desk job. OK, the experimentalists fiddle sometimes with their equipment, and theorists may occasionally assemble a computer, but mostly we.. sit on our butt. Yet among my entire department, only one colleague is mildly overweight and none are obese. OTOH, several people bike or walk to work, two run marathons, one hikes and kayaks, one plays tennis, a few work out in the gym, one swims several times a week... having a sedentary job does not make a person predestined to be overweight.

The people that I see often struggle with weight gain are those who change from very active to sedentary work. Not those in the sedentary jobs all along.

[Ausmumof3]

I also have to admit to wondering how much damage the hours of enforced sitting during school in childhood do to people's long term health curve.

[Ausmumof3]

Ugh. So what is the answer? I lost about 70 lbs 4 years ago and kept it off pretty easily until the last year. I have gained 30 of it back. I feel pretty hopeless. I am supposed to just give up?

 

I really liked being thin. Never thought I would be back here even though I knew most people gain it back. It was so manageable...and then it wasn't.

I'm there with you. I suspect mine may be hormonal as my cycles are wacky again though I'm never sure if it's the weight gain causing the hormonal issues or the hormonal stuff causing weight gain.

[Tanaqui]

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.

 

It's not just us. Animals are getting fatter too. And maybe it's the case that we feed our beloved pets more, and maybe it's the case that we throw out more food so the opossums feast - but lab rats? Zoo animals on a controlled diet that hasn't changed in 30 years?

 

Did you see this article? Apparently, a study shows that somebody 30 years ago, your age/sex, with the same diet and exercise routine you have, would weigh less than you do today. Is it just me, or is that crazy?

 

[hornblower]

I do wonder about hormone disruptors in the environment & in our personal care products. I think that might be part of the picture & would explain the lab rats & pets....



(geeez, i should proofread better. Products, not problems. Though they cause problems...) 

Edited May 3, 2016 by hornblower

[Soror]

I personally did not take it as a message to give up. The message to me was that you do not want to go to extremes to lose weight. I also think it is a lesson in compassion for people that are overweight- we don't know everything. I had a morbidly obese friend who often went without eating- so much of the time I would see her shaking from the lack of food. I don't know if she had starved herself so much it screwed up her metabolism or she binged at other times and really it isn't my business. Lastly it is healthier to aim to lose a percent of your weight, instead of trying to make it to skinny. So many times you see the yoyo effect people lose a bunch of weight then gain back even more and we as a society push that. We are making perfect the enemy of the good. Perhaps instead if people worked on losing a percent- then went to maintenance for awhile and then did another cycle the results would be better. 

 

Anyway- I did not post this as a way of saying there is no hope- don't even try. Even small changes to add more activity and eat healthier food are good for you regardless of the numbers on the scale. I think getting hung up on the numbers makes us lose sight of that sometimes. People start eating better and exercising and then the weight doesn't come off so they give up- well it didn't work anyway- that is totally the wrong attitude. Tiny habits, sustainable habits, maybe you do go more strict at the beginning to get used to the change but you will have to figure out how to make changes that are sustainable for the rest of your life, which may not be up to your ideal but an improvement.

 

Certainly there are some people that are able to go from morbidly obese to healthy on their own but the vast percentage fails. Isn't it like 90+% instead of seeing all those people as failures I would frame it as- what makes those that succeed different? 

 

AFwife Claire, on 02 May 2016 - 3:10 PM, said:

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,

That is really fascinating!

 

I'd love to say I'm surprised but I slowly and carefully lost 130 pounds and have regained pretty much all of it rapidly, after several years of maintaining. My case is a weird combo of medical crisis and mental exhaustion but there is no doubt my metabolism is slower, despite how I lost the weight. Now I'm trying to do it again and wondering if it is even worth it? I'm focusing on my health and eating well but my body size is something I ay have to make peace with. My metabolism is so bad with my hormones out of whack and my weight issues - I'll be content with losing a chunk of it again and being strong and energetic. The rest I pretty much have to give up on.

Ketogenically low carb diets are about the only way I can maintain my weight and, if I'm a complete nazi with my intake, slowly lose (allowing me to shortcut around the mean of energy management issues my body has). But the discipline it takes to do that every day is something that has eluded me in recent months. I feel a bit like a failure. And sometimes I'm really mad. Other days though, I remember that my body is healthy and strong in so many ways and I'm so lucky this is one of the worst things I have to deal with - messed up hormones and fat. I can deal with that 90% of the time and that has to be enough.

((((((hugs)))))

[ktgrok]

Just jumping in to support and get support from those struggling. Even after weight loss surgery I still have another 20 lbs to go, to be out of the overweight category. And I've been stalled for two months. Mind you, I'm no longer obese, which is HUGE and effects my daily life greatly. But it's still frustrating. 

 

As for exercise, I really need to do more of it, to be healthy, but I can say that when I was running daily I didn't lose weight from the exercise. Same with when I was lifting weights three times a week (heavy, not high rep/low weight stuff). My body just adapts incredibly fast...if I increase activity I lose for a week then my metabolism adapts. I can double my activity and see no difference beyond the first week. So yeah, i need to work out to be healthier (if I can ever get over the darned cold I have...hard to exercise when your lungs are full of crap) but I'm not counting on a lot of weight loss from it. 

 

I think hormone disrupters, gut biome, and epigenetics will end up being the biggest factors we don't yet understand. 

[Bluegoat]

I think there are probably real differences in many people who manage to lose and gain without too much trouble, and those who don't.  And there are some of both kinds.  Some of it is probably biological, some behavioral.

 

But I do think being overweight early on in life makes a difference for many in how their body responds afterward.  And I think diet and activity are significant component in childhood obesity.  I think that is really where it will be possible to make a difference.

 

Someone up-thread mentioned kids sitting in school - aside from improving diet, I am sure activity in children is a huge factor.  Things like kids being able to walk to school daily, walk to friends and activities, play outside, have games and sports rather that tv, computers, or whatever, is a huge factor.  I would even say that sometimes organized sports can work against kids because so many are given up at adolescence, because they become too time consuming or expensive or just not that fun - the fact that for many adults there will be no way to carry on in the favoured activity doesn't help.

 

A lot of this depends on cultural changes beyond what individuals may be able to accomplish though.

 

As far as adults who know that losing is going to be a long-term problem, I don't know.  At some point more drastic measures start to make sense from a health perspective.  before that, I tend to think the best thing might be to adjust goals to being more active and eating better without considering weight much at all. 

 

 

[Greta]

It's not just us. Animals are getting fatter too. And maybe it's the case that we feed our beloved pets more, and maybe it's the case that we throw out more food so the opossums feast - but lab rats? Zoo animals on a controlled diet that hasn't changed in 30 years?

 

Did you see this article? Apparently, a study shows that somebody 30 years ago, your age/sex, with the same diet and exercise routine you have, would weigh less than you do today. Is it just me, or is that crazy?

 

Wow.  Very interesting and disturbing stuff!  I wonder if some of the commercial products we use without thinking (who knows which ones, household cleansers, lawn and garden stuff, body care products) will turn out to be endocrine disruptors, or something like that.  Rather scary!

[Greta]

 

Someone up-thread mentioned kids sitting in school - aside from improving diet, I am sure activity in children is a huge factor.  Things like kids being able to walk to school daily, walk to friends and activities, play outside, have games and sports rather that tv, computers, or whatever, is a huge factor.  I would even say that sometimes organized sports can work against kids because so many are given up at adolescence, because they become too time consuming or expensive or just not that fun - the fact that for many adults there will be no way to carry on in the favoured activity doesn't help.

 

 

 

 

 

My school (small town in Oklahoma in the 80's and early 90's) really failed on the P.E. front.  It wasn't so bad in elementary, it was just fun stuff.  But once we got into middle school, we got divided into those kids who the coach thought would make good players for team sports, and those who wouldn't.  And those of us who wouldn't (I got put into that group, and I honestly didn't understand why. Up to that point, I'd thought of myself as a fast runner and kind of athletic girl!  But that sure changed my perception of myself.) basically were simply told to go over there and occupy yourselves and leave me alone while I work with the kids who matter.  And since team sports were the ONLY thing offered in subsequent years, those of us put in the "you suck" group all stopped taking P.E. as soon as we were allowed to (7th or 8th grade, can't remember for sure).

 

There's a charter school here in my city that we considered enrolling my daughter in, and when we attended parents' night, the P.E. coach talked about how his goal is to teach kids lifelong fitness.  What a concept!  It is a small school, and doesn't even have any ball teams.  Just fitness classes.  I thought that was such a great idea.  And I couldn't help but notice that the P.E. coach at that school actually looked fit.  All the coaches at the school that I attended were severely obese.  (I always thought that was weird even when I was growing up:  the coaches were obese but the teachers who sat in their classrooms all day weren't!  Maybe it was an unusual sample.)

 

My point being:  I think the heavy emphasis on team sports is failing kids who aren't interested in or aren't stellar at team sports.  And you're right, it's even failing the kids who are interested in or good at those things, because that leaves them with nothing after they graduate high school (except for the few who go on to do college sports).

 

I hope that more schools will start to make "lifelong fitness" the goal of their P.E. classes.  Weight issues aside, that's just so much better for us mentally and physically!  

 

I'm 42 years old, and I'm just now starting to "recover" the image of myself as a potentially athletic person.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I agree on the sports thing.  It's not fun to play any sport when they are all so serious.  I was not good at sports.  Really the whole thing would have just been embarrassing for me. 

But that said, I walked a lot at that point.  My schools were always fairly far away and just under the the distance where I would have been able to take a bus.  Literally one school's bus stopped 2 houses down from me.  So it was a hike back and forth every day.  That helped I think. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

 

I hope that more schools will start to make "lifelong fitness" the goal of their P.E. classes.  Weight issues aside, that's just so much better for us mentally and physically!  

 

I'm 42 years old, and I'm just now starting to "recover" the image of myself as a potentially athletic person.

 

I think they tried when I was in school, but I think it would have been better if they had more of a variety for those not into stuff like basketball.  I mean if you aren't 5 feet tall, basketball is not a fun sport at all. 

[Bluegoat]

My school (small town in Oklahoma in the 80's and early 90's) really failed on the P.E. front.  It wasn't so bad in elementary, it was just fun stuff.  But once we got into middle school, we got divided into those kids who the coach thought would make good players for team sports, and those who wouldn't.  And those of us who wouldn't (I got put into that group, and I honestly didn't understand why. Up to that point, I'd thought of myself as a fast runner and kind of athletic girl!  But that sure changed my perception of myself.) basically were simply told to go over there and occupy yourselves and leave me alone while I work with the kids who matter.  And since team sports were the ONLY thing offered in subsequent years, those of us put in the "you suck" group all stopped taking P.E. as soon as we were allowed to (7th or 8th grade, can't remember for sure).

 

There's a charter school here in my city that we considered enrolling my daughter in, and when we attended parents' night, the P.E. coach talked about how his goal is to teach kids lifelong fitness.  What a concept!  It is a small school, and doesn't even have any ball teams.  Just fitness classes.  I thought that was such a great idea.  And I couldn't help but notice that the P.E. coach at that school actually looked fit.  All the coaches at the school that I attended were severely obese.  (I always thought that was weird even when I was growing up:  the coaches were obese but the teachers who sat in their classrooms all day weren't!  Maybe it was an unusual sample.)

 

My point being:  I think the heavy emphasis on team sports is failing kids who aren't interested in or aren't stellar at team sports.  And you're right, it's even failing the kids who are interested in or good at those things, because that leaves them with nothing after they graduate high school (except for the few who go on to do college sports).

 

I hope that more schools will start to make "lifelong fitness" the goal of their P.E. classes.  Weight issues aside, that's just so much better for us mentally and physically!  

 

I'm 42 years old, and I'm just now starting to "recover" the image of myself as a potentially athletic person.

 

I also thought I was athletic until I got to middle school. 

 

I think the thing about the coaches who are overweight could easily be that they were guys who played team sports, probably seriously, but mostly stopped past university.  They get less activity but still eat like they are 20 and on the football team.

 

I know some people who have carried on with team sports as adults, but what I notice is that they are typically very different in feel from what kids do.  My cousin (who is pushing 60) has always played in a pick-up floor hockey league, for example.  It's minimal cost, a variety of skill levels, not such a commitment that work makes it impossible, and no cost for equipment - that stuff all belongs to the rec center.  Pickleball and dodgeball are also popular here.  There are also some rec leagues for baseball and softball that are popular for adults. (And one for cricket if you can figure out the rules.)

 

And there are lots of things like free skating (ice or roller) at the outdoor rink with skates you can borrow, volksmarch, tai chi meetups. 

 

There are lots of ways to be active as an adult for people who are used to the idea of that kind of activity, but not so much that compares at all to what organized kids sports do - lots of time, very competitive and focused on achievement, lots of regular time invested, and you need to be pretty fit without injuries.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I also thought I was athletic until I got to middle school. 

 

I think the thing about the coaches who are overweight could easily be that they were guys who played team sports, probably seriously, but mostly stopped past university.  They get less activity but still eat like they are 20 and on the football team.

 

I know some people who have carried on with team sports as adults, but what I notice is that they are typically very different in feel from what kids do.  My cousin (who is pushing 60) has always played in a pick-up floor hockey league, for example.  It's minimal cost, a variety of skill levels, not such a commitment that work makes it impossible, and no cost for equipment - that stuff all belongs to the rec center.  Pickleball and dodgeball are also popular here.  There are also some rec leagues for baseball and softball that are popular for adults. (And one for cricket if you can figure out the rules.)

 

And there are lots of things like free skating (ice or roller) at the outdoor rink with skates you can borrow, volksmarch, tai chi meetups. 

 

There are lots of ways to be active as an adult for people who are used to the idea of that kind of activity, but not so much that compares at all to what organized kids sports do - lots of time, very competitive and focused on achievement, lots of regular time invested, and you need to be pretty fit without injuries.

 

Yeah I do know of some adult sports leagues.  They are very informal and have a variety of skill levels.  My skill level is still too embarrassingly low so I'm not willing to join.  There's a limit to how open people are to "all skill levels". 

 

I particularly despise dodge ball though. 

[Bluegoat]

Dodge ball seems to inspire strong feelings in people.  I think one of the reasons pickleball has become popular is that no one learned it as a kid so there are always plenty of beginners.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I loved pickle ball. That was probably the one thing in gym class I felt somewhat successful at. 

 

[Joyofsixreboot]

I think it's so important to know that there are some who do lose & maintain the loss & I think that's where the interesting research is. What is it that those who lose large amounts & keep it off have in common?

 

The answer IMO is that they changed their lives. I think they're not the same people anymore. They changed their lives, their habits, their outlooks...& while most of them made drastic changes, those changes had to be sustainable and lifelong. It's not a diet - it's a different way of life

I think weight loss is treated much like the men describing the elephant. We can all describe our experience but we don't have a total picture. That means we should believe when someone says calorie restriction, or low carb or whatever did not work for them but know there is more at play. What is or is not effective for an individual may not hold true for others. Now, I'm not shocked that such an extreme (abusive) program only worked short term or that people who had become morbidly obese have unique metabolism mechanisms in play. Add to all this magical thinking and a lack of patience and a food obsessed culture with poor habits and you get....the mess we have.

*i'm going to plug No S again as a not flashy way to at least avoid craziness.

Edited May 3, 2016 by joyofsix

[Reefgazer]

I wonder if the extreme metabolism slowing and extreme hunger remain if you lose very slowly and steadily?

[Laurie4b]

I checked but didn't see if anyone had linked the original research. Here it is: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/

 

Interestingly, the researchers believe that in general, the Biggest Loser program was effective because 57% of the contestants kept off at least 10% of their body weight. That 10% loss translates into health benefits, if not aesthetic benefits. Average weight maintenance is 35+ lbs less than they were at the start. 

 

You can also really dig around in the data. They lost way more fat mass than muscle mass and they have overall stayed very active exercise-wise. 

 

We need to keep in mind that this was a very small study: 14 participants. Additionally, there was no control group, etc. So any "findings" have to be interpreted in light of that. 

[Jaz]

I checked but didn't see if anyone had linked the original research. Here it is: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/

 

Interestingly, the researchers believe that in general, the Biggest Loser program was effective because 57% of the contestants kept off at least 10% of their body weight. That 10% loss translates into health benefits, if not aesthetic benefits. Average weight maintenance is 35+ lbs less than they were at the start. 

 

You can also really dig around in the data. They lost way more fat mass than muscle mass and they have overall stayed very active exercise-wise. 

 

We need to keep in mind that this was a very small study: 14 participants. Additionally, there was no control group, etc. So any "findings" have to be interpreted in light of that. 

 

Thanks for sharing the research and conclusion. It's very interesting.

[Guest]

I wonder if the extreme metabolism slowing and extreme hunger remain if you lose very slowly and steadily?

Yes, for many of us. I lost weight over five, almost six years, with two pregnancies in between and plenty of maintenance periods. I lost carefully. I maintained for two years and during those pregnancies in a decent window. My metabolism was always sluggish and things normal people could eat would pile weight on me. The cravings have always remained bad, ceasing only when I'm in the ketogenic zone of my intake. And even then, the mental energy of having to be on guard and careful all the time, of always being aware even a birthday dinner or taste of something could send you off a cliff and into a frenzy? It's awful. I'm not a binger and eating isn't really emotional for me - sometimes boredom or stress but rarely. However the real physiological drive to consume large quantities of food and certain types of calorie dense fare until the weight hits whatever point equals homeostasis is there. Clawing and scraping every scrap of discipline and willpower is exhausting and even then doesn't always halt the slide. In my case there were other factors at play outside of the normal hormonal equation in energy balance, but watching long term weight success slip away in the course of a year was humbling and depressing, and being almost powerless to stop it (trying every single day) was a big wake up call about how not 'in control' of weight management I actually was, despite having done it and maintained extremely well. One or two health factors suddenly upset the whole balance and I'm right back to miserably heavy.

 

It's not the same for everyone and I firmly believe there are different causes to obesity that need handling differently. Someone who is morbidly obese from puberty is handling a very different physiological reality than a normal body weight person who sees twenty pounds creep on in mid life. Losing 130 pounds exerted things on my body's regulatory systems that losing 50 didn't. It's very complex and I've experienced that first hand.

 

In my group, th longer term maintainers always indicate it doesn't get easier. It gets habitual to a certain extent. But not easier. Always vigilant, always disciplined, always correcting if things slide. That's the way it is to maintain a body that is smaller than it seems to naturally land. Especially if you're already eating nutritiously and fairly active for your size, it's not a simple matter of cutting out soda and chips and losing several stones.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[cintinative]

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.

 

This is my problem. I know I have weight to lose but with the muscle I have built from strength training, my best gauge is simply how I look in a mirror or how clothes fit. I am out of my BMI range but I don't think that realistically I have that many pounds to lose.  Maybe only half. 

[Joules]

There's a follow-up Q&A that still doesn't offer much hope:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/05/health/short-answers-to-hard-questions-about-weight-loss.html?mabReward=CTM&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&region=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&_r=0

 

 

[Laurie4b]

There's a follow-up Q&A that still doesn't offer much hope:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/05/health/short-answers-to-hard-questions-about-weight-loss.html?mabReward=CTM&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&region=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&_r=0

 

The research on the sample size of 14 biggest loosers that is getting all the press says that  57% of the contestants maintained a weight loss of at least 10% of their body weight, which is significant for health benefits. 1/14 didn't regain any weight. 5/14 regained almost all of it but none are reported to be heavier than they were. Though the data is suggestive, we would not draw conclusions from 14 people. (Heck, a reputable doctor at UCLA has reversed Alzheimer's in a cohort about that size and no one is lining up to say Alzheimer's is curable. His study is just labeled "preliminary" and pretty much ignored. And that's a reasonable reaction because it's so small! 

 

The other research cited in this follow-up article was not particularly compelling. 

 

I think one take-away is that there is really a need for much more study of what works and what doesn't work. Most "diet studies" are short term and don't show long-term effects. 

 

One intriguing area for research is why gastric surgery does not have the same dampening impact on resting metabolism that these contestants experienced. 

 

Another area of research would be to mine the national registry http://www.nwcr.ws/  of people who have kept weight off. Some of their research is  on a cohort of people who lost and kept it off longterm. It is possible at least for some people. 

 

What I think is really awful is how doctors tell people to lose weight for health when there is so little research about whether or not weight loss (as opposed to never having been overweight) impacts actual health outcomes (not just risk factors.) Additionally, the medical profession has little to no information on how to lose weight and keep it off. In recommending that someone lose weight, if that ultimately results in more weight gained, it might be something they should not be doing. 

[Joules]

 

 

One intriguing area for research is why gastric surgery does not have the same dampening impact on resting metabolism that these contestants experienced. 

 

 

What I think is really awful is how doctors tell people to lose weight for health when there is so little research about whether or not weight loss (as opposed to never having been overweight) impacts actual health outcomes (not just risk factors.) Additionally, the medical profession has little to no information on how to lose weight and keep it off. In recommending that someone lose weight, if that ultimately results in more weight gained, it might be something they should not be doing. 

Sorry I didn't check out the linked research in detail.  I'm not finding much at NIH that seems definitive.  The large databases are interesting.  It seems that first the different causes of weight gain are going to need to be understood, because I'm betting that the treatment (or weight loss plan) would be different for each cause.  (And, of course, as long as many people assume that weight gain is strictly behavioral issue, not much progress is being made.)

 

I agree the bariatric surgery angle is interesting.  I've heard speculation that it changes the flora, but as far as I know there is no research that says that.  It would be so nice if there was a less drastic option to accomplish the same thing.

 

The bolded is a really interesting idea.  Maybe the risk factors pre-date the weight gain, and the same mechanism that puts people at risk also causes them to gain weight.  So people with a BMI of 29 are less likely to have health issue than someone with a BMI of 32, BUT if you split that into people who are naturally 29 versus those who lost down to 29, what would the affect be?  I wonder if we have longitudinal data like that.  

[Joanne]

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.

 

The problem is that the same stats with former obese people who lose according to conventional advice (variations of eat less, move more). Even those who lose slowly and moderately have the same gain back.

 

OP, I was going to post the same article when I first saw it. I've been posting similar articles here for the last year or so. Obesity is its own illness, and the calories in/calories out model of wellness and health are not clinically supported.

 

After all this time, I have actually lost weight (24 pounds) but I think a great deal of that is due to illness other than obesity.

[regentrude]

The problem is that the same stats with former obese people who lose according to conventional advice (variations of eat less, move more). Even those who lose slowly and moderately have the same gain back.

 

 

interestingly there is this other thread on the board currently

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/606156-so-if-you-were-once-obese-and-now-are-not-and-have-maintained-that-could-you-share/

 

and the people who lost a significant amount of weight (we are not talking 10 lbs but obese) and kept it off for a long time say they did lose it by eating less and moving more...

Edited May 8, 2016 by regentrude