Lancet Research on Obesity

Blithe Morning · Post by **Blithe Morning** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:28 pm

Research published in the Lancet on how to address the obesity epidemic. From the NY Times article about the research:

The Lancet authors reported that to bring the weights of Americans back to 1978 levels, steep reductions in caloric intake are needed: about 240 calories a day less for the average person and double that amount for obese adults, whose body mass index is 35 or higher. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/health/13brody.html

I guess it's obvious to those of us on this board the quickest and easiest way to do this is No S.

DaveMc · Post by **DaveMc** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:14 pm

The other thing that seems obvious to us NoS-ers is that 240 calories doesn't need to be all *that* steep: most people probably eat at least that much in the form of snacks every day. So stop doing that.

herbsgirl · Post by **herbsgirl** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:36 pm

Also you can easily burn 100 calories per mile, Walking a few miles and not eating snacks more than takes care of that!

BrightAngel · Post by **BrightAngel** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:52 pm

DaveMc wrote: The other thing that seems obvious to us NoS-ers
is that 240 calories doesn't need to be all *that* steep:
most people probably eat at least that much in the form of snacks every day.
So stop doing that.

This is certainly true for men, and for many larger, younger women.
However, 250 calories is a great deal for short, smaller, older women.
In my own case, I am barely maintaing my current weight on 1050 calories per day,
so 250 calories is 23% of my daily calorie budget.

A side note that may be of interest to some you who know me.
I have now been recording my food intake in a computer food journal
every single day since Sept 20, 2004...(started when I was 190 lbs).
It has become an enjoyable habit, just another part of my life,
however it gives me SEVEN years of personal data.

Anyway, an interesting point that I've discoverd during the past 2 years is:
increasing my calories above 1050 for more than a week or two
causes a permanent gain of my stabilized weight,
BUT, decreasing my calories in amounts between 100 and 250 for up to 12 weeks
DOES NOT cause a loss of my stabilized weight.
Apparently, due to the fact that I am a reduced obese person maintaining normal weight,
when I drop my calories, my metabolism simply drops with it.

My weight fluctuates up to 4 lbs due to salt/water/waste,
so I consider my weekly weight averaged month-to-month to be my "stabilized" weight.

I can gain weight (from my stabilized area),
but I can't lose it (from my stabilized area)
....(unless I'm under 800 calories per day for a very long time--something I've never been able to accomplish)....,
This makes it VERY important for me to CONSISTENTLY keep my calorie averages down,
Weekend binges would simply create a continual weight-gain for my body.

TexArk · Post by **TexArk** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:28 pm

@Bright Angel:

It certainly helps to have the data. I started keeping records after I gained weight on NoS having perfect N Days. I have been keeping records since last October and it has been quite revealing as I have studied daily, weekly, monthly, and quarterly averages. I have learned that I will gain weight at 1400 calories or more and that I have to go down to 1200 to lose and probably need to stay there to maintain that loss. That is a fairly low maintenance calorie budget since I am 5'7". It is because of that data that I decided to give up S Days and realized that every bite counts. I can not "afford" a vacation.

This may just be what the body of an older, previously obese, woman has to deal with. In the past I have been able to reduce to 150 and maintain between 140-150. But not this last weight reduction journey!

Blithe Morning · Post by **Blithe Morning** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:44 pm

Bright Angel,

Have you tried weight training? Not 24 reps with 3 lb weights where you merely tire the muscle but going to failure in 8-12 reps with heavier weights? Adding muscle mass will help, maybe.

herbsgirl · Post by **herbsgirl** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:47 am

Texark, thanks for the info!

M's sick of dieting · Post by **M's sick of dieting** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:56 pm

You know that's when the light went off for me that this really is a smart sane way of life. I found this message board by accident, read about it, I went and added up how much I'd consumed that day in snacks. I'd ate over 400 calories in just snacks and I hadn't even had dinner yet!!

I thought "know wonder my pants are getting tight!!!"

BrightAngel · Post by **BrightAngel** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:26 pm

Blithe Morning wrote:Bright Angel,

Have you tried weight training? Not 24 reps with 3 lb weights where you merely tire the muscle but going to failure in 8-12 reps with heavier weights? Adding muscle mass will help, maybe.

Thank you, Yes.

That has been part of my ongoing weekly exercise plan for the past 5 years.
I do 3 days of light strength training, using body weight & light dumbbells,
and 5 to 7 days of low-impact exercise (mainly walking) from 20 to 60 minutes a day.

In my mid-60s, I am unwilling to increase the intensity of the formal exercise in my life.
Although I am working to keep from losing muscle,
it is unlikely that my activities will put on any additional muscle.
I've discovered that more formal exercise tires me, and that despite my best intentions,
my normal activities simply decrease during the remainder of the day.
So increasing exercise activity, doesn't actually increase my overall activity level.

SpiritSong · Post by **SpiritSong** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:17 pm

BrightAngel wrote:I can gain weight (from my stabilized area),
but I can't lose it (from my stabilized area)
....(unless I'm under 800 calories per day for a very long time--something I've never been able to accomplish)....,
This makes it VERY important for me to CONSISTENTLY keep my calorie averages down,
Weekend binges would simply create a continual weight-gain for my body.

Oh my goodness, this is depressing. I'll never be able/willing to keep such close track of calories, so I hope my body doesn't work like this.

Blithe Morning · Post by **Blithe Morning** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 10:03 am

This is the second article on the Lancet research.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/health/20brody.html

I think for most people No S really will help them lose weight and keep it off.

Too solid flesh · Post by **Too solid flesh** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 6:11 pm

Blithe Morning wrote:This is the second article on the Lancet research.

And the same story on BBC News (sorry if this has been posted elsewhere, I am not up to date with the bulletin board):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14882832

3-0-7 girl · Post by **3-0-7 girl** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 8:36 pm

When I go back and count the number of calories I consume on a average day that used to include snacks I was almost every time exactly 450-500 calories more. Thats significant to me

SO, just by eliminating all snacks I should lose a pound a week after the initial first water weight etc... loss I have in the first month.

veggirl1964 · Post by **veggirl1964** » Sat Oct 01, 2011 2:25 pm

No S will certainly help me lose those extra calories. After falling off the No S Bandwagon for awhile and trying calorie-counting, what I've found is that I eat about 1500 calories in meals and an additional 1000 calories per day in snacks. Yikes! While I assume my meals calories might increase a bit as I get used to no snacking, I'm sure the net result will be a substantial drop in calories.