Chaco

A good article explaining many of the issues involved in losing weight, and why there is a 95% + failure rate.

I find it refreshing to read articles like this, as opposed to the simplistic "calories in-calories out" arguments so vigorously promoted by people without a weight problem. True, they will say this article just gives us an excuse to be fat, but most of us who have struggled with weight issues all our lives know it's not a simple equation.

The research this article sites indicates that people who have lost a lot of weight are still deficient in ghrelin and leptin, and as a result have to consume around 300 calories per day less than people their weight who stay there naturally.

It's worth a read.

Ursa Minor

What a great article - thanks. It really hit home for me cuz I've been losing weight pretty consistently
(352 in May 2011 down to 263 in Dec 2011) but I hdn't thought much about reaching my goal weight
(165) and maintaining it. According to the article its gonna be unending vigilance if I wanna maintain
the weght loss. Good know since I am determined to be a healthy normal weight person for the rest of
my life.

Charlie

Neil_B

"...the simplistic "calories in-calories out" arguments so vigorously promoted by people without a weight problem."

It's simplistic, yes, but it works. Incidentally you'll find many people who have, or had, a weight problem promote "calories in - calories out."

As for the NYT article, it's typical of the Old Grey Liar. Start with the premise fat people have problems they can't fix, search for anything that will support your topic - unverified studies, anecdotal comments, etc - and build to the publication's constant theme.... Big Brother needs to save us. It was so predictable that I even guessed what paragraph at the end carried the suggestion the government step in.

The 300 calories you mention - yawn. So I work out a little longer or harder, and skip the muffin at breakfast. Is the fact no two people are alike news to the New York Times?!?

david58

Whatever the chemistry, or the setpoint, or whatever, it really does boil down to calories in / calories out. Not a pleasant conclusion, and it keeps me from the beer and burgers that stand between me and the weight I should be. If you need to consume 300 less per day, then it requires 300 less to go in. I could never achieve any weight loss success until I finally arrived at the conclusion that nobody nor nuthin' else but me and my pie-hole was the problem. Nobody else can lose my weight.

CraigB

It's no great surprise to learn that the price of maintaining weight loss is eternal vigilance. Only an idiot would think that we'd be able to stay at a goal weight if we return to the eating habits that got us overweight to begin with.

Rowan

The world is indeed full of idiots.

Juan Foote

QFT

No manner of help will do so if you don't take ownership of your eating and exercise habits.

goldfinch

Every time someone posts about the difficulty of maintaining weight loss and information about the science that supports that difficulty there is a hostile reaction. No one said you can't lose weight or can't keep it off. Just that the odds are not with you. I like to talk about things to increase those odds. Exercise is a big one.

Anyway, off to ride my bike. Maybe I'll get my 1500 miles today.

Neil_B

Oh, and it was entirely predictable just who would rally to the defense of the article..... :-)

indyfabz

No surprise to you and me and probably most (if not all) people who visit this forum. But I have a dollar to a donut that says there are a lot of "idiots" out there.

david58

Sounds like a good thread to start!

Could it be the "hostile" reactions are to the never-ending chain of articles published to explain yet again some pseudoscience as to why we have trouble keeping weight off? There may be some pseudoscientific reason why we clydes and athenas want to eat, but the bottom line is that we have to simply not eat those extra calories. NOBODY on this forum would ever call it easy. Simple, yes, Easy, never.

Neil_B

+1.

Neil_B

I think the use of the description "hostile" says more about the poster using the word than the "reactions." My comments were probably the most spirited, but that's about as strong as they were.

CraigB

I did call some folks idiots. But I meant that in the nicest possible way.

Seattle Forrest

It's very easy to gain weight, and very hard to lose it. A lot like climbing vs descending a hill on the bike. The article does a good job of explaining why this is so. And knowledge is often power, plus it rarely hurts anybody. But, at the end of the day, it's still a lot healthier not to carry the extra weight around, and the way to do that is eating fewer calories and burning more of them. Nothing in the article really changes what we all know, about how to keep the weight off in our own lives.

I'm not sure how this is connected/related to anything else in this thread? Or where the notion comes from?

goldfinch

Never said anyone called it easy and simple is simple only if you are talking about thermodynamics. Calories in/calories out is so basic that it doesn't interest me. What interests me is why people have trouble eating the appropriate amount and the drive to eat. Including physical, environmental, and psychological reasons. I am not even that interested anymore in how people lose weight. I am interested in low they keep it off and why most do not.

Some of the studies talked about in the NYT are far from conclusive but the are not psuedoscience. Instead it is science at work. Of course it is a process and there is much we don't know and much to learn.

But instead of a discussion of the science, we get statements like "the world is full of idiots" or about how predictable I am. As if that is relevant to the issue of hormones and weight loss. Or genetics and predisposition to weight gain. Or whether those who lost weight burn fewer calories than a person who is the same weight but never dieted. Or even issues about whether the knowledge you might be predisposed to overweight may be demoralizing and cause you to give up. Sometimes I think that is what some of you worry about. If we know how difficult it is to maintain a lower weight, if we know that we might be predisposed to fat, why even try? Well, we try because biology is not destiny and we are driven to wanting a better life. After all, some do succeed! Maybe for some the scientific trends are demoralizing. But this doesn't mean that science shouldn't look at the issues or that we shouldn't pretend that they don't exist. And maybe we can forgive those who are fat and do not want the lifelong effort of keeping off the weight.

As the article says: I think many people who are anxious to lose weight don’t fully understand what the consequences are going to be, nor does the medical community fully explain this to people,” Rudolph Leibel, an obesity researcher at Columbia University in New York, says. “We don’t want to make them feel hopeless, but we do want to make them understand that they are trying to buck a biological system that is going to try to make it hard for them.”

I think it is fair to think about and explore whether it is reasonable to accept lower weight loss goals because of how our bodies behave after weight loss. For example, I should be 95 to 100 pounds but I am accepting 110 pounds.

We have talked about the National Weight Control Registry. This is a font of information for scientists to follow up on. Learning about people who are keeping off the weight can't be anything but a positive. As mentioned in the article:
You find these people are incredibly vigilant about maintaining their weight. Years later they are paying attention to every calorie, spending an hour a day on exercise. They never don’t think about their weight.

Seattle Forrest

I guess pseudoscience must mean "something I find distasteful." Can you point to actual pseudoscience in here, or is that just a knee jerk reaction. We all know it's easier to gain weight than it is to lose it, and the reasons that's true are very much reality.

goldfinch

Yes Craig, I know.

Neil_B

Some people will have to work harder to lose weight. Such is life. But the NYT thinks it needs a lot of space in the paper......

Neil_B

I just won a bet. Thanks! :-)

vic303

Ultimately it IS the calories in vs calories burned...but there ARE things your body does that make it easier or more difficult, especially as you age. For me, a near-50 woman, it is HARD to lose weight--probably 2x as hard as it is for a man of the same age. My gender fights against it, my hormones fight it, my metabolizm fights it...but I CAN do it! I have lost nearly 30# since June 2011, and almost #50 since April 2010.

My magic bullet? I eat less, I exercise more, I have given up most 'easy' carbs (bread, pasta etc.). I count my calories daily, with myfitnesspal.com and use data trackers on my workouts. I have to constantly put up with my body trying to conserve what it has--I have to try to confuse it, to make sure it isn't thinking it needs to go into starvation mode. Sometimes I have to shift exercises, or add more workouts in...it's a pain in the ass, but there is so much LESS ASS now!

Hang in there folks, especially you Athenas out there!

Vic

Seattle Forrest

Oh ... I thought this was about something more important than garden-variety NYT bashing, but it looks like I was wrong.

Neil_B

Well, the Times is bashable any day. But running an article that says 'some people will need to work harder at weight loss' is like putting a target on your head. Then again, every couple of months the NYT runs an article along those lines.....

Seattle Forrest

In eight whole pages, there's nothing more than "some people need to work harder to lose weight?" Really?

SmokedDeathDog

That is an interesting article especially since I am working on losing weight. One of the things that I never wanted to do was count calories. Over Thanksgiving I ended up going to Fitness Ridge (co-sponsored by the Biggest Loser). Now that was an experience. Bottom line of what I learned, my body is just like most other people, my metabolism is not different than other people, it is not more efficient than most. I was able to calculate how many calories I burn if I do nothing (RMR) and then how many calories that I burn if I am active (exercise, all types including just walking). My RMR is about 2500 calories a day. If I work out for 1 hour (medium intensity) I burn about 800 calories. If I do some walking (30 minutes) my total calorie burn is 4000 calories a day. Now in order for me to lose weight I just have to consume less than 4000 calories if I exercise or less than 3000 calories a day if I don't. I never wanted to count calories because I didn't want to (many, many reasons). But now that I know how many calories I burn a day, this now makes since and I now understand if I go for fast food what it will take to burn it off. It was very enlightening for me, very! The other thing I found out is I'm always looking for exact, translated means if I don't stick to my program I stop for the day or the week. So if I don't work out I'm off my plan and I start again the next day, i.e. I eat what I want. Looking at the calorie side of things, working out will only get me to my goal weight 3 weeks sooner than not working out. I had to learn about targeting a range. So I look at it for a week, how many calories I ate vs. how many I burned. I have only been doing this for a month now, but it is working, I am losing weight and it is not difficult.

So bottom line, I am now counting calories and it isn't as big of a deal as I once thought. There are also many emotional reasons that I eat, those are not changed yet, but I am working on them.