Hey, here's an article that has lots of questions and answers about weight loss. It makes some very interesting points about different approaches, the value of exercise, type of exercise, and so on.
I read this last week and since it rang so true with my experience, I thought it was a brilliant and insightful piece of writing!
I'm not so sure about his 6 month rule written so black and white like that, but something like that DID happen to me after 8 months, so maybe he's on to something. I do like the thought of "if you're plateauing for so long, rest for awhile and practice maintenance and then try again" mainly because it worked for me so well.
It's been three years of maintenance for me and I still don't feel safe! I feel like I'm one snickerdoodle away from being the old me sometimes.
I was going to say "Seriously? If you haven't lost all the weight you want to in 6 months you probably won't?" But then they went into how you should take a break to maintain and then do 6 months of losing again. This is actually what I did (although not on purpose).
I think the answer to the "Why is it so easy to gain weight, but so difficult to lose it and maintain that loss?" question was really interesting. I've never heard about that before at all. I haven't checked it against any other sources, so I'm not sure of the validity but... interesting.
I found that article very interesting, actually very comforting.
Thanks for posting it, Jay!
A lot of it I've heard over & over again from knowledgable members of 3FC. People here really do want to see others succeed or they wouldn't be passing on this wonderful information.
I especially liked this:
Quote:
Are there psychological traits that distinguish successful dieters from people who lose and regain over and over? The successful ones monitor themselves and they develop solutions to common problems. They've identified what has made them fail before, and they've come up with a plan for dealing with those issues. They might go for a walk when they're stressed, for instance, so they don't turn to food. Their approach is practical and sustainable long-term.
In other words: "Learn from your mistakes, Faerie. "
ETA: But what I didn't like so much:
Quote:
Where do you think all this genetic research will lead?
The more we understand the biology of weight regulation, the better able we'll be to design drugs to target specific problems. Right now, the weight-loss drugs we have are like a hammer. They're not subtle or precise, and they have only modest effects. In the future, we should be able to create drugs that target the hormones that regulate appetite, satiety, and metabolism. There are dozens of companies working on such drugs, but it's not easy to find one that works. If it were easy, we'd have one already.
I realize that future drugs may very well help people to curb hunger and lose weight, but I just wish they hadn't ended the article on that note. After all, losing weight & maintaining a loss will mostly likely always be really hard work, even with a drug. So what's in store for the future of losing weight? ... Continued hard work! (With continued results totally worth the effort )
Thanks for posting this link! It was very interesting and made me think about some of my own beliefs about exercise and weight loss.
I didn't agree with a few things in this article, particularly about exercise.
The exercise that was recommended as most effective was aerobic because it burns the most calories.
Issues that were not addressed were the number of calories burned after aerobic vs. anaerobic exercise, the effect of exercise on the metabolism, and the loss of muscle that occurs when only aerobic exercise is performed.
The article stated that increased muscle mass doesn't have a big impact on the amount of calories burned at RMR. The article said, "Most people burn about one calorie per kilogram of body weight per minute, whereas a bodybuilder burns about 1.2." That's a 20% increase -- that is not insignificant in my book. So even if a regular person increases her lean muscle mass by, say, 2 kilos, she'll improve her metabolism by 288 calories/day. That's 8 oz of turkey breast and a full plate of veggies. For me, that's dinner.
I also disagreed with this statement: "If you want to lose weight, stay at a moderate pace, because you can go longer and it doesn't wipe you out as much." It takes the same amount of calories to run 1 mile as it does to walk 1 mile. That's a natural law of physics, the name of which I can't remember. So it doesn't matter how fast you do your 1 mile, as long as you do it. So if I run at, say, 5 mph for 12 minutes, I've gone 1 mile. It would take a whole hour to walk that distance at 3 mph. I'd rather run and get it over with, but that's just me. Different people will choose different approaches, but no one approach is right for everyone. I do, however, think that everyone benefits, in terms of both health and confidence, from pushing herself to increase her abilities.
yoyomadness, my experience with aerobic exercise has been just what is stated in the article. Moderate works much better for me. Increasing length of time works better also, compared to cranking up the effort.
I think the "weight bearing" part of aerobic exercise is important also--because that offsets loss of muscle mass as well.
I do work with weights and weight machines, though.
So it doesn't matter how fast you do your 1 mile, as long as you do it. So if I run at, say, 5 mph for 12 minutes, I've gone 1 mile. It would take a whole hour to walk that distance at 3 mph.
Umm actually, at 3 mph hour, you would walk 3 miles per hour. You would walk a mile in 20 mins at 3mph instead of 12 mins at 5 mph. You are also much more likely to be injured at 5mph then you are at 3 mph, which puts a damper on future exercise.
(I agree with much of what you said, just wanted to stick up for the slow walkers )
Both aerobic and weight training are important. My doc explained it as "do aerobic for now, immediate calorie burning benefits. Do weights for long term, in the future calorie burning.
Last edited by healthytoad; 06-10-2008 at 12:45 PM.
I didn't agree with a few things in this article, particularly about exercise.
The exercise that was recommended as most effective was aerobic because it burns the most calories.
Issues that were not addressed were the number of calories burned after aerobic vs. anaerobic exercise, the effect of exercise on the metabolism, and the loss of muscle that occurs when only aerobic exercise is performed.
Just my opinion, but having in the past spent serious time in the gym lifting versus now spending serious time at running, biking, swimming (as well as knowing many triathletes and observing their bodies), I really think the fear of losing muscle mass due to too much cardio is overblown for most of us. From what I've read and seen, it takes a pretty extreme amount of cardio (such as the amount that serious endurance athletes do for double-ironmans or ultra marathons) for this to be a serious issue. And even then, sometimes it is more about not having proper nutrition that tips the scale towards a catabolic state.
So I guess agree with the article for most people -- if you have limited time to exercise, do aerobic exercise. If you have a lot of time, supplement with weight training. And always feed yourself properly.
Faerie, I agree that it wasn't exactly the best note to end on.
I'm also in the camp where I don't want to take drugs that mess with my metabolism... I just don't think scientists know enough about how things work to be messing with them. (And I say that as a scientist by training.)
The article was pretty decent over all; there's some genuinely good advice/information in there that of which I agree with, however most of it I've seen repeated time and time again not only on here but also several other weight loss websites that I frequent.
I also couldn't help but roll my eyes at the mention of designing new drugs for weight loss as a closing Q/A, and then that 'if you haven't lost all of your weight in six months, you're probably never going to!' bit.
It was generally a good article, where the answers could likely help those of us who haven't heard it all before, but it really bothers me that it could be putting a 6 month deadline in the heads of people who don't know any better.
'If you haven't lost the weight in 6 months you're probably not going to'
I have to stress greatly here on the word PROBABLY. I think I speak on behalf of half this forum at least when I say that is rubbish. So many women here have and still are achieving great weight losses after 6 months.
Most of us, statistically, who lose weight will regain it. But there are LOTS of examples here of those for whom that is emphatically, categorically, NOT TRUE. So statistics never, ever tell the whole story.
I have the perfect place to walk, according to the article - hills! I just don't do it often enough.
I felt encouraged, especially by the "take some time off to maintain". We have heard most of it before, but it is always good to hear important concepts restated.
I can read that 95% gain the weight back, but when I see that people on 3FC are sucessful and people in Anne Fletchers book are sucessful and people in the National Weight Loss Registry are sucessful, that gives me lots of hope. The 5% sucess rate becomes hundreds and thousands of people and I can be one of them.
Even though it does say 'probably'(as opposed to 'always'), it bothers me nonetheless. Whether is says 'probably', 'absolutely', or what have you, even saying that the majority(though not all) will likely(but not definitely)never lose it after a six month deadline bothers me.
Even if the statement holds some amount of truth in it, it's like going to a room full of crippled people and saying "Most of you are probably never going to recover if you haven't already by six months!" It's silly.
Forget Fad Diets - Link
People here really do want to see others succeed or they wouldn't be passing on this wonderful information.
" 
