Obesity research confirms long-term weight loss almost impossible

[V]

Originally Posted by photon

Smoking is addictive, but your body doesn't alter its own physiology (which includes hunger signals, metabolism, energy, mood, everything) to try and get you to keep smoking, or to get you to smoke every day after you've quit forever.

It sure feels like it does. Quit smoking for over 3 years, and still wanted a smoke almost every day. I've relapsed many times over my lifetime of starting and stopping. It's f###-ing hard.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

Sustainable weight loss is largely a myth perpetuated by those in a position to profit from it. Same goes for the supposed dangers of being overweight.

It's a great business: convince people there's something wrong with them, sell them a product that supposedly helps, wait for short term gains to wear off, repeat.

Yes. Everything is a conspiracy. The diabetes association makes more money by people buying Dr Oz's Raspberry Ketones.

There isn't mountains of evidence about the role of obesity in many diseases.

Wow


Edit: Read your follow up post. Yes BMI is not a perfect tool, but it's a great screening tool. There are correlations with negative health impacts with those who have BMI >30. Xenadrine and the ilk may pray on this information to shame people into dieting cycles, but let's not pretend the people who research and report on obesity are all involved in the diet industry

[V]

Originally Posted by bcsoda

I guess my question is - does anyone have anything other than anecdotal evidence (so what I'm looking for is scientific research)that shows a diet/lifestyle change/whatever you want to call it, that has been proven to work in the long-term (key point being, in the long-term)?

You'd think that would be easy enough to find given the "war on obesity", but I haven't yet.

Does that exist for any addiction?

My brother-in-law tried the "don't eat anything after supper" diet and lost 50 lbs. Another friend tried yoga. Another changed his lifestyle completely. Different models will work differently for different people. Why would there be a silver bullet for this addiction when there isn't one for any other?

[Flamenspiel]

Not sure this has been mentioned but if you are looking at keeping off weight beyond 10 years you have to take age into account. The older you get the more you have to control your diet(not a "diet" but diet as in "what you eat")and the harder you have to work in terms of burning calories.

What worked at 30 is no longer enough at 40 and even harder at 50. A person could have been maintaining a lifestyle for 10 years but still gained 10 pounds so I am not sure that is reflected in these studies.

[Esoteric]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

There isn't mountains of evidence about the role of obesity in many diseases.

What I don't understand is people that try to argue obesity as healthy. It's not - if someone is happy in their own body, that's great; don't try to justify it as being healthy though.

I won't tell someone how to eat or exercise if they're content, but if they try to justify it and say that they're healthier than me - that's when I get annoyed.

[bcsoda]

Originally Posted by V

Does that exist for any addiction?

My brother-in-law tried the "don't eat anything after supper" diet and lost 50 lbs. Another friend tried yoga. Another changed his lifestyle completely. Different models will work differently for different people. Why would there be a silver bullet for this addiction when there isn't one for any other?

I think you're confusing obesity with compulsive overeating. Obesity is a body type, compulsive overeating is a disorder. Not everyone who is obese is a compulsive overeater, and not everyone who is a compulsive overeater is obese.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by saillias

Luckily, this will not demotivate anyone because everyone secretly thinks they're better than everyone else.

The fact that your statement is completely false is likely the main reason why only 5% of people are able to keep the weight off longterm. Most of us DON'T believe we are better than everyone else.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Esoteric

What I don't understand is people that try to argue obesity as healthy. It's not - if someone is happy in their own body, that's great; don't try to justify it as being healthy though.

I won't tell someone how to eat or exercise if they're content, but if they try to justify it and say that they're healthier than me - that's when I get annoyed.

Agreed but thats a very rare thing indeed, the only people I hear arguing that are those slightly overweight people, not the obese.

[V]

Originally Posted by bcsoda

I think you're confusing obesity with compulsive overeating. Obesity is a body type, compulsive overeating is a disorder. Not everyone who is obese is a compulsive overeater, and not everyone who is a compulsive overeater is obese.

Obesity is not a natural body type. Overweight probably is, but obese is not. You have to get there somehow.

[bcsoda]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

The fact that your statement is completely false is likely the main reason why only 5% of people are able to keep the weight off longterm. Most of us DON'T believe we are better than everyone else.

It states in the OP that "The fundamental reason," Caulfield says, "is that we are very efficient biological machines. We evolved not to lose weight. We evolved to keep on as much weight as we possibly can."

But people much prefer the "Obese people are lazy Fatty McFatFats" argument.

[bcsoda]

Originally Posted by V

Obesity is not a natural body type. Overweight probably is, but obese is not. You have to get there somehow.

Your opinion does not equate to scientific evidence.

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by Esoteric

BMI has a ton of pitfalls such as the more muscular you are, the more likely it is to think you're overweight or if you don't have a ton of muscle mass, the more likely it is to think you're healthy.

If I enter my height (6'5), it thinks that 156 lbs is the low range of normal, and 210 lbs is the high range. If you've ever seen anyone at 6'5 with a decent amount of muscle, they're definitely going to be considered overweight based on BMI.

I agree with this too. According to my BMI I would be overweight. I'm 5'-7" 180 lbs but I have a lot of muscle.

At one point I weighed 208 lbs with high blood pressure and all the bad things that come with that. I decided to do something about it and started researching the topic as much as I could to find what would work for me.

I didn't change what I ate so much as how I ate and how much I ate. I cut out a few things by for the most part I still eat anything I want. I know eat protein with every meal and snack and I know my portion sizes.

I also work out 4-7 days a week in some form. I didn't when I first lost some weight but as I get older I find my fitness routines aren't so much geared towards losing weight as much as keeping my body young and mobile. (turning 50 next month). My blood pressure has gone from 142/92 to 99/64.

I understand how hard it is to change your lifestyle to accomplish a significant change and I don't outwardly "fat shame" people. However I will challenge them (mostly friends) when they complain about how they look and feel but don't make the effort....real effort to change. Some people use it as a crutch.

[bubbsy]

i don't actually understand what the article is saying. how did they come to this conclusion?

Did they track a group of people who were considered obese , put them on a diet/exercise regiment that resulted in short term weight loss, and then, have the individuals tested every year for X years to see how the short term weight loss held up?
OR
Did they track a group of people who were considered obese , put them on a diet/exercise regiment that resulted in short term weight loss, and then, monitor these folks and differentiate them based on what % of those folks a) didn't maintain the diet/exercise changes in their lifestyle, b) did continue the diet/exercise regiment, and then report on how many folks in column a and b were able to keep off the weight?

Other than the folks where genetics play a large role in their inability to lose weight, i always assumed that if one were to monitor their nutrition (not just the calorie #, but the good vs bad food intakes) and start a regular exercise program, they would get healthier and lose weight. As long as they continued this, the results might plateau due to their body eventually adjusting. I suppose their results could also reverse if factors like age/stress increase without increasing their physical exertion levels. But i just can't imagine that people in column 'b' of my above example can't remain in shape if they continued with the healthy eating and exercise as part of their continued lifestyle.

So, the only way i can interpret what i feel is a relatively poorly written article, is that people who are able to lose weight have a tough time keeping the lifestyle changes constant over 1, 2, 5 year period, and hence, the weight loss itself is short lived. I can live with this conclusion, as it is a fact of life, it is flat out hard to do. But i refuse to believe that if you were to make the lifestyle changes constant, that the weightloss could not be continued/maintained (barring some degree of plateu/reversing due to body adjusting/aging/stress increases in life).

[Senator Clay Davis]

From personal experience what you eat really doesn't have a huge impact on weight loss. I didn't really change my diet all that much from when I went from 350 to 230, I just ate proportionally less and put in the time at the gym and walked everywhere I could (and still do). I think motivation plays a huge factor, and I was motivated by the fact being 350 means I probably die younger. Not dying is a pretty solid motivation.

[habernac]

Diet is a huge part. I know it's why I'm carrying a lot more weight than I should be. I've been pinballing for the last 10 or 15 years between 168 and 208 lbs (I'm 5'6"). I can tell you it's harder to lose when you pass 40. It's also hard when you're as good at making up excuses as I am. I think the bottom line is that you just need to want to do it. Same thing as when I quit smoking 12 years ago. Just have to say "I'm done".

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by bcsoda

Your opinion does not equate to scientific evidence.

The much smaller proportion of obese/morbidly obese persons existing 60+ years ago is pretty good evidence.

[photon]

Originally Posted by V

It sure feels like it does. Quit smoking for over 3 years, and still wanted a smoke almost every day. I've relapsed many times over my lifetime of starting and stopping. It's f###-ing hard.

Sure, the success rates for quitting smoking seem to be in the range of successful weight loss, at least initially. But it improves over time.

Relapse rates after a few years of smoking go down significantly, 80% don't relapse after 2 years of not smoking.

Weight loss has nothing like that.

[V]

Originally Posted by photon

Sure, the success rates for quitting smoking seem to be in the range of successful weight loss, at least initially. But it improves over time.

Relapse rates after a few years of smoking go down significantly, 80% don't relapse after 2 years of not smoking.

Weight loss has nothing like that.

So I'm in the stupid 20%. Dammit.

[Super Nintendo Chalmers]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

The fact that your statement is completely false is likely the main reason why only 5% of people are able to keep the weight off longterm. Most of us DON'T believe we are better than everyone else.

I'd argue that's a big reason why they succeed.

[Super Nintendo Chalmers]

Originally Posted by bcsoda

It states in the OP that "The fundamental reason," Caulfield says, "is that we are very efficient biological machines. We evolved not to lose weight. We evolved to keep on as much weight as we possibly can."

But people much prefer the "Obese people are lazy Fatty McFatFats" argument.

Then people are ignoring their biology and are living in a fashion that runs counter to it.

Every one of your posts is an attempt at justification.