Fast is the way to go ??

bluebunny27 · Post by **bluebunny27** » Fri May 07, 2010 6:03 pm

Hum ... I wonder if this is true !!

Story below.

Cheers !

Marc

38 Years Old, 5'10" Tall
Nov. 1st. 2008 : 280 Pounds
Nov. 1st. 2009 : 190 Pounds
(1 Year : - 90 Pounds)

Current Weight : 195 Pounds

....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37018839/ns ... id=twitter

"NEW YORK - Want to lose weight and keep it off? The best way to do it is to drop the pounds quickly, not slowly, according to new research.

Scientists at the University of Florida, who studied the link between the rate of initial weight loss and overall success long-term, said shedding weight quickly is the best way to achieve lasting results.

"Women who lost at a faster rate, greater than 1.5 pounds (0.68 kilos) a week, had lost more and maintained a greater loss in the long run than women who lost at a slower rate of half a pound (0.23 kilos) a week or less," said researcher Lisa Nackers, whose findings are published online by the International Journal of Behavioral Medicine.

The women who lost weight faster also kept better food records and ate fewer calories than the other women.

"It shows if you get off to a quick start ... it pays off more in the long run than making smaller behavioral changes," Nackers added in an interview.

About two-thirds of U.S. adults and nearly one in three children are overweight or obese. Research results have been mixed on whether dropping pounds at a slow or quicker pace is best for overall weight loss in the long term.

Nackers said the jury is still out on which is the best method but her findings support the quick approach.

"What we concluded in this study is that the results show that perhaps losing at a faster rate is more reinforcing in terms of the learning period of behavior," she added.

Nackers suggests that physical appearance, body image, increased energy and better mobility may be improved more by shedding weight quickly which can be encouraging to meet goals.

She and her team studied data on 262 middle-aged women who took part in an obesity treatment trial. All the women were encouraged to cut calories and do more exercise.

They split the women into three groups, fast, moderate and slow, according to how much weight they lost in the first month. They also studied how much weight the women had dropped at six and 18 months.

Nackers reported that women in the fast group were five times more likely to achieve a 10 percent loss of their body weight at 18 months than those in the slow group. Women in the moderate group were nearly three times more likely to reach that milestone than the slow group."

Kathleen · Post by **Kathleen** » Fri May 07, 2010 7:19 pm

bluebunny27,

I was a successful dieter, and I know the problems with losing weight and keeping it off, since I was successful at keeping weight off for more than 10 years when I was in my 20s and into my 30s. I also know the cost in terms of effort and constant struggle. My life was dominated by my diet.

To me, having a study evaluate effective weight loss methods at 18 months after start is like evaluating the success of a marriage at 18 months after wedding date. The question isn't whether a marriage survives to 18 months but whether it is happy to 50 and 60 years after wedding date!

Below is a quote off the Internet about a Columbia University researcher on obesity:

"From Dr Leibel's studies of formerly obese (who are keeping weight off), he observed that they are hungry all the time, are cold and other symptoms of the biochemical system kicking in to force a weight gain. When they exercise, these individuals burn 15 to 20 percent LESS calories than a normally thin person and they evidence large amounts of cortisol in the blood (the cortisol has been observed in some studies to cause weight gain in and of itself)."

Personally, I was hungry for 10 years and wasn't going to repeat that. That's why I worked so hard to figure out a diet that was easy to follow.

Kathleen

ShannahR · Post by **ShannahR** » Fri May 07, 2010 7:32 pm

While that study is interesting I think it makes some pretty big conclusions that it doesn't really support. This is actually a correlational study which cannot establish a cause-effect realtionship. The women who lost the weight fastest lost more and kept off more at 18 months-okay but was it the fast weight loss that caused this or something else about women who can lose weight fast? habits? genetics? environment? You can't randomly assign someone to a fast weight loss group, and even if you could they didn't in this study.

Nackers said the jury is still out on which is the best method but her findings support the quick approach.

I'm not sure if the jury has even convened yet based on this study.

DaveMc · Post by **DaveMc** » Fri May 07, 2010 9:08 pm

But where's the line at the end of the story saying "On the other hand, studies X, Y, and Z reported that slow weight loss was more effective in the long term"? Because I'm sure I've seen such studies ... I will leave it to wosnes to supply the exact citations.

connorcream · Post by **connorcream** » Fri May 07, 2010 10:42 pm

I like benchmarks or goals. For weight loss I like them tethered more to an individual. For me, I aimed for 1 1/2#/week (based on my weight) which is a 750 calorie deficit. Some weeks I lost more, some less. Over time I have succeeded. This goal setting allowed me to reassess my behaviors and even my goal itself in terms of its reasonableness. It forced me to learn all types of health related topics.

I think rate (except for the extremes on both ends) is independent of maintance. I have lost weight successfully at three different rates. Each time, I regained the weight very slowly over time. Regain came from stopping the behaviors I had used to get to goal weight. This time, I choose the rate goal, no one else, not WW, SB or even NoS. And after thinking about this today, I certainly would not want it to take any longer than it has. 7 months is a long time and I probably have 1 1/2- 2 months left to go. I love the improvement in every area of my life that this weight loss has brought. And I do mean every. And I would not want to miss the pleasures my smaller body brings. Not one more day than is needed.

I have in place specific behaviors, which will help prevent the weight gain because I realize the diet is never over. If I go back to the old way of eating, I will get the old body results. I really like my new body I don't want the old fat body.

Maintanence is a day to day decision. When I reach 145 it isn't over. Some weeks I will be up, then I will need to eat a deficit to lose. I wish I could say if I were too low I would need to eat more, but knowing me, I don't think that is going to be a problem:-)

Over time, I think will become more automatic in sustainble behaviors, like budgeting with DH is now. But it will never be effortless nor does it need it to be for it to be successful. Things worthwhile in my life involve work. However calorie counting and daily weighing is almost as effortless as it gets right now. Brushing my teeth and flossing takes more time each day.

I have learned to develop delicious, satisfying recipes and behaviors or habits to ensure my success. The Habitcal has been very useful in this regard.

bluebunny27 · Post by **bluebunny27** » Fri May 07, 2010 10:59 pm

Hum, I lost weight hard and fast ... similar to the method described in the article.

90 pounds within a year =

1.73 pounds per week X 52 weeks.

Pretty good at maintaining so far although I've gained about 5 pounds since I ended my MISSION.

I am working on losing that extra weight now and maybe a lil' more.

Here in Montreal, It's easier to gain a bit of weight during the winter season cos' it's harder to exercise since it's cold and there's a lot of snow too. I can work out inside of course but it's more effective when I can do it outside probably. During the summer season I cycle hard and/or sprint 25-35min. every day when the weather is alright. From mid november to mid april I can't work out outside a lot, bummer.

From my experience, I'd say it works pretty well when you lose the weight "Hard and fast" as long as you keep your good habits long term of course, but I suppose it's the same for those who use the "Slow and steady" approach to weight loss. I'm only 6 months in the maintenance phase now though so that's not exactly long term in my book....

Interesting article anyway that's why I posted it here

(Source, MSNBC.com)

Cheers !

Marc

38 Years Old, 5'10" Tall
Nov. 1st. 2008 : 280 Pounds
Nov. 1st. 2009 : 190 Pounds
(1 Year : - 90 Pounds)

Current Weight : 195 Pounds

connorcream · Post by **connorcream** » Fri May 07, 2010 11:14 pm

bluebunny27 wrote: I'm only 6 months in the maintenance phase now though so that's not exactly long term in my book....

Way to go. Long term begins with a single day. It isn't the rate, though either too fast or too slow has pitfalls, but the behaviors that brought yoou to this point. I don't expect maintanence to end. I expect to gain 5-10 # and then have to lose again. I expect my weight to bounce around but within clear boundaries.

I am currently trying to get my maintanence graphic postable so that one and all can see it. Modeled off of BA's but relevant to my body and desires.

Awesome job.

Graham · Post by **Graham** » Sat May 08, 2010 6:53 am

Kathleen wrote:Below is a quote off the Internet about a Columbia University researcher on obesity:

"From Dr Leibel's studies of formerly obese (who are keeping weight off), he observed that they are hungry all the time, are cold and other symptoms of the biochemical system kicking in to force a weight gain. When they exercise, these individuals burn 15 to 20 percent LESS calories than a normally thin person and they evidence large amounts of cortisol in the blood (the cortisol has been observed in some studies to cause weight gain in and of itself)."

Personally, I was hungry for 10 years and wasn't going to repeat that. That's why I worked so hard to figure out a diet that was easy to follow.

Kathleen

Kathleen, the conclusion of the study you cite here sounds pretty depressing. So, have you found an answer? Is it possible to be "formerly obese" without the hunger/feeling cold, the high cortisol and the lower energy burn during exercise?

Anyone else got a more upbeat conclusion to significant weight-loss than the above-reported scenario? Please, someone, say it doesn't have to be so bad...

Graham

Kathleen · Post by **Kathleen** » Sat May 08, 2010 11:24 am

Graham,
I think I've found the answer, and the answer is based on the No S principle of delaying rather than denying. Who wants to live the way the scientists describe -- hungry all the time? With No S, you delay until an S Day and you delay until meals. I'm now down 10% of my starting body weight (from 215 to 194), which is when Leibel says the sense of being constantly hungry is at a maximum (it doesn't get worse at higher weight losses), and I do not feel constantly hungry.
Kathleen

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Sat May 08, 2010 11:48 am

DaveMc wrote:But where's the line at the end of the story saying "On the other hand, studies X, Y, and Z reported that slow weight loss was more effective in the long term"? Because I'm sure I've seen such studies ... I will leave it to wosnes to supply the exact citations.

Well, no exact citations, but I did find this: "The human body reacts negatively when calories are reduced, even when a weight-loss plan is nutritionally complete. Cutting back on food threatens the body. Your body tries to protect itself by slowing its "basal metabolism," the rate at which it burns calories at rest. This makes weight loss harder. To counter this effect, itâ€™s important to make gradual changes in your eating habits." The recommended rate of weight loss is 1/2-1 pound weekly.

Quick weight loss doesn't usually teach good eating habits. Better to make a lifestyle change than "go on a diet."

I found information about walking, too. This is talking primarily about people in cardiac rehab, but I don't see why it wouldn't apply to people without cardiac problems as well: "45 minutes to 60 minutes a day at a moderate pace, five to six days a week -- were found to burn more calories, improve cardiac function, reduce weight and body fat. The standard regimen for cardiac rehabilitation involves walking, biking or rowing for 25 minutes to 40 minutes at brisk pace three times a week." I've thought this might be true for a long time. Since my dog needs to walk daily, that's about what I'm doing daily, though it is broken up into 2-3 walks daily.

mrsj · Post by **mrsj** » Sat May 08, 2010 12:03 pm

I disagree very strongly with losing weight fast. 4 years ago I lost 24 kilos in 6 months. I gained 14 of those kilos back within 4 months. I ate a very reduced calory diet and I excersized my feet off. I just couldn't maintain that lifestyle in the long run. After I lost the weight I didn't recognize myself in the mirror and started to get panic attacks. I also had loose skin on my tummy, under my buttocks, around my elbows and knees, on my inner thighs and on my back. NOT a pretty sight!

Today, I'm happily No S'ing. Although I'm not shrinking at the moment, at least I'm not gaining. I move with purpose and stick with vanilla No S.
Maybe not as dramatic as fast weight LOSS, but I am slowly and steadily shrinking.

I will never again LOSE weight, as lost weight is quickly found again. I reduce my weight or shrink.

Starla · Post by **Starla** » Sat May 08, 2010 12:28 pm

Well, this study is flawed in many ways. To properly study the question they would have:

1) Divided the women into three groups at the start of the study;
2) Ensured that there were no significant differences in the composition of the three groups; and
3) Controlled the food intake of the three groups at three different calorie levels.

The way this study was set up, the initially successful dieters were by definition put into the "fast" group. The "slow" group may not have been made up of women trying to lose weight slowly, but of women who were not losing weight at all (as some proportion of women will do on any diet). Notice also that the initial group determination was not based on percentage lost, so a 300 pound woman who lost 5 pounds in a month and a 150 pound woman who lost 5 pounds in a month would be placed in the same group, although they would certainly not consider their weight loss to be equally slow.

My experience with No S would have put me in the fast group, because I lost weight very quickly at the beginning of this diet. But that was never my intention, and here I am 8 months later losing very slowly. I think this study is essentially meaningless.

RJLupin · Post by **RJLupin** » Sat May 08, 2010 12:47 pm

I think there is some truth to it. I lost a lot of weight very fast in my late teens, and kept it off for years. I think quicker weight loss can improve the motivation and make one more likely to stick with it; nothing feels worse than trying really hard for two weeks, and then getting on the scale and finding out you lost 1/2 pound. The trick would be to find a weight loss plan that you can modify as you got near to goal. I am sort of doing a modified No S right now, actually: I am following the rules, but using calorie-controlled meals for my N days, and limiting my "S" days to ONE S instead of several.

connorcream · Post by **connorcream** » Sat May 08, 2010 1:14 pm

RJLupin wrote:I think there is some truth to it.

I think quicker weight loss can improve the motivation and make one more likely to stick with it; nothing feels worse than trying really hard for two weeks, and then getting on the scale and finding out you lost 1/2 pound.

The trick would be to find a weight loss plan that you can modify as you got near to goal.

Exactly right.

connorcream · Post by **connorcream** » Sat May 08, 2010 1:21 pm

I have lost 37.8# in 7 months. Thank God it just took 7 and not 14 months!

There are dangers with both extremes- too fast health compromised and good habits not learned. Deliberately too slow, motivation is lost over time, life in its many forms intervenes making what could have been an easier weight loss process much more difficult. This is my only point.

I have seen many restarters on Nos through the years, those who lost slow, to regain and restart. Those who have been here awhile know this too. Rate does not determine maintanence sucess.

This is my last post on this topic because "Those convicted against their will are of the same opinion still."

Too solid flesh · Post by **Too solid flesh** » Sat May 08, 2010 1:22 pm

This must vary between individuals. I have never succeeded in keeping weight off when I have lost it fast; it is only now that I am losing slowly that I am managing to maintain the loss.

bluebunny27 · Post by **bluebunny27** » Sat May 08, 2010 5:38 pm

Connorcream :
"There are dangers with both extremes- too fast health compromised and good habits not learned. Deliberately too slow, motivation is lost over time"

******* Good point, Connor. This is awesome. Everyone has to find the right balance. I agree 100% with you there, it's all about the individual's personality. I know with me I have to do it hard n' fast, I prefer that way (Not that I plan on ever having to lose 90 pounds again, yikes !) ... and so far so good for me maintaining my weight.

I am keeping my good habits though, eating well, exercising at least 5 times per week, weighing weekly, etc.
It was hard n' fast but it wasn't insane either, I didn't lose 90 pounds within 6 months - - it took a year so that's 7.5 pounds per month down on average. I think for me it would be harder to do it the slow n' steady way.

I've been doing really well for a long time now, only one bad day during the past 21-22 days and I am confident I can get back to my fighting weight within a month or two ... just 5 pounds more to lose ... but those are the hardest ones, heh.

P.S. Thanks for the compliments ! *Blushing*

For me "Maintaining Long Term" means at least 2 years though (Plus I kind of remember reading that's how long it takes for your body to get used to being at a certain weight ? Probably just a rumor, *IT* never gets used to anything, that's why it's so easy to gain pounds back the week you don't exercise and cheat on your diet, lol !) - - That's why I was sayin' I didn't consider 6 months to be enough but others might have different opinions. I'd say 6 months is a pretty good start though.

Cheers !

Marc

38 Years Old, 5'10" Tall
Nov. 1st. 2008 : 280 Pounds
Nov. 1st. 2009 : 190 Pounds
(1 Year : - 90 Pounds)

Current Weight : 195 Pounds