Weight Loss Support - After the diet - no letting up for you




tricon7
05-16-2012, 08:05 AM
This new study is saying that after one's diet (or weight loss period) is over, one will still need to eat 300 fewer calories per day than someone of the equivalent size who has not dieted - due to various reasons. :(

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2144989/Diet-tips-Cut-300-calories-good-youll-pile-pounds-straight-on.html


3CatsMeow
05-16-2012, 10:00 AM
That is from the Daily Mail in the UK, they publish contradicting articles about weight loss and diets etc every week so I wouldn't worry too much about what they say :) it may have some truth to it, but a lot of what they publish is rubbish anyway

sontaikle
05-16-2012, 10:04 AM
Check out the maintenance section of the forum. There's some similar discussion about this.

From what I've read there isn't a number on the exact amount of calories, but formerly obese people generally do need to eat less than those who were never obese.


nelie
05-16-2012, 10:11 AM
That is why we emphasize lifestyle changes, not diets. If you go on a heavily restricted plan that won't work for you for life then the chances of keeping your weight off is slim. Weight loss is actually the easy part, maintenance is the more difficult aspect.

bargoo
05-16-2012, 11:01 AM
That is why we emphasize lifestyle changes, not diets. If you go on a heavily restricted plan that won't work for you for life then the chances of keeping your weight off is slim. Weight loss is actually the easy part, maintenance is the more difficult aspect.

Agree 100%.

Elsewhere is Fine
05-16-2012, 11:08 AM
What a depressing last paragraph. Don't worry too much. Some of those calories have to be attributed to muscles atrophying (they don't mention anything about exercise). And since most people live a sedentary lifestyle, you can make up for those 300 calories via muscle training.

pixelllate
05-16-2012, 11:28 AM
Even if that was true no matter what weight loss method I do (like if I had a lower BMR even with a more moderate cal deficity diet/lifestyle change-whatever people decide to label it vs an extreme diet) the weight loss is worth it to me. For what its worth, I've dieted many times and I find that in my maintenance phase, my BMR was always "average" for a person of my height and weight, not saying that this applies to anyone!

freelancemomma
05-16-2012, 11:36 AM
I can't speak for anyone else, but I've yo-yoed several times in my life and have not experienced this phenomenon. I'm now 55 and eat 2,000 calories to maintain my weight. At 16 I needed 2,400 calories. The 400-calorie difference is entirely explainable by age-related metabolic slowdown.

F.

nelie
05-16-2012, 11:39 AM
Well yo-yo dieting also encourages muscle loss so each time you lose weight, you lose muscle. From what I've read, age related metabolism slow down is mostly due to muscle loss. You start to lose muscle naturally sometime in your 30s. So the best way to combat it is weight training.

LockItUp
05-16-2012, 11:56 AM
I believe there is never (ok, very very rarely, if ever) something like this that is true for everyone.

I don't let articles discourage me because I was not included in the study personally, and I may very well be special! :D

mimizlb123
05-16-2012, 12:06 PM
I wouldn't worry about that because everybody is different. I would rather have an appt with a nutritionist and have them help me come up with a healthy meal plan that fits my needs. I used to see one when I was in college and they gave me really good advice, they'd break down my meal plans into steps and work around my lifestyle to help me eat healthier. I hope this helps :)

JohnP
05-16-2012, 01:47 PM
It's been known for some time that people who have dieted down to a given weight have a lower BMR than those who are "naturally" that weight.

What we don't know is how much of that is adaptation and how much of that is the natural varience in BMR and one of the reasons that person became over weight in the first place.

jayohwhy
05-16-2012, 01:57 PM
I hope that this doesn't discourage anyone from losing weight.

yes, maintenance is hard, but the rewards of being at goal/close to goal greatly outweigh the cost.

being obese/overweight comes with a myriad of disease possibilities and carrying the extra weight always caused me physical discomfort and frustration at not being able to physically do the things that i mentally wanted to do.

Brandis
05-16-2012, 02:05 PM
By the time you reach your permanent maintenance weight, hopefully all of the work and effort and changes you made will already be in place, and it won't be as hard to maintain a little bit of a deficit. If that is even the case. The only way to know for sure is to reach that weight and figure out how many calories it will take to stay there. If you are active and employing weight bearing exercise and strength training, that can only help you as well.

lin43
05-16-2012, 06:18 PM
I haven't found this to be true for me. I ended up being able to eat more than many of the online calories-needed calculators estimated for someone with my stats.

JohnP
05-16-2012, 07:27 PM
I haven't found this to be true for me. I ended up being able to eat more than many of the online calories-needed calculators estimated for someone with my stats.

Consider yourself quite fortunate. I maintain about 400-500 below what calculators estimate for my stats.

ValRock
05-16-2012, 07:35 PM
Pshhhh sure, if you crash diet all your weight off you're gonna have a rough time at maintenance.

But, if you make the needed lifestyle changes... chances are it will be second nature by then. Don't be discouraged, just keep trucking!!!

I also don't find this to be true, for me. I've built a lot of muscle (so that may counteract it? I don't know) but I find that I can eat a fair amount and still maintain my weight. I don't feel hungry or deprived AT ALL on my maintenance calories. It's losing this last few lbs. that is kicking my behind ;).

sontaikle
05-16-2012, 11:04 PM
I haven't found this to be true for me. I ended up being able to eat more than many of the online calories-needed calculators estimated for someone with my stats.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've yo-yoed several times in my life and have not experienced this phenomenon. I'm now 55 and eat 2,000 calories to maintain my weight. At 16 I needed 2,400 calories. The 400-calorie difference is entirely explainable by age-related metabolic slowdown.

F.

You two sort of disproved the theory I had for a while where I figured that I could eat more than the calculators say because of my age. I too find that I didn't experience the same BMR reduction we're supposed to have experienced. When I crunch the numbers I SHOULD have to eat 1800-1900 to maintain, as a reduced obese person. At that level I still lose (actually even at the regular level the calculators say I still lose).

But then again we're all recent maintainers. Who's to say that things won't change down the road?

I guess—as always—we must remain vigilant and adapt :)

Pshhhh sure, if you crash diet all your weight off you're gonna have a rough time at maintenance.

But, if you make the needed lifestyle changes... chances are it will be second nature by then. Don't be discouraged, just keep trucking!!!

I also don't find this to be true, for me. I've built a lot of muscle (so that may counteract it? I don't know) but I find that I can eat a fair amount and still maintain my weight. I don't feel hungry or deprived AT ALL on my maintenance calories. It's losing this last few lbs. that is kicking my behind ;).

I'm wondering if the muscle helps too! It makes sense, right?

Makes me wonder how much I could be eating then if I was never overweight, LOL.

berryblondeboys
05-16-2012, 11:08 PM
It's been known for some time that people who have dieted down to a given weight have a lower BMR than those who are "naturally" that weight.

What we don't know is how much of that is adaptation and how much of that is the natural varience in BMR and one of the reasons that person became over weight in the first place.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg. And how can they know unless then strictly follow the same person/groups of someone's ever morsel and movement for before weight gain, during weight gain, while over weight, while losing and while maintaining. Impossible.

Petite Powerhouse
05-17-2012, 06:09 PM
I'm wondering if the muscle helps too! It makes sense, right?


Muscle makes far less difference than people once thought. But people with muscle tend to be more active people in general, and that does make a difference.

Personally, I maintain on a lot more food than I am supposed to be able to eat even as an active person. I have never been overweight, though, so that may just be how my body works. I haven't noted any significant difference in how much I can eat as a muscular woman versus how much I could eat before I started lifting years ago. Lifting changed my entire body composition—every part of me changed size—but, although my caloric intake had to be adjusted to compensate for my activity level, it did not really seem affected by my muscle, as far as I can tell.

As has been pointed out, it is hard to say how much of that statistic is due to people who always had a lower caloric threshold than normal, and thus were more susceptible to gaining weight anyway. I think there is something to that.

And of course there is also something to the yo-yo dieting effect. In the end, people gain weight for all manner of reasons, and they can eat what they can eat at maintenance after weight loss for all manner of reasons, too.

kaplods
05-17-2012, 07:27 PM
I've been on the weight loss rollercoaster since kindergarten, and have used the metabolism estimation formulas back before computers and even calculators when you did all the math by hand.

The calculators were very dead-on for me when I first used them (in my early teens), but became less and less so - more and more overeatimating my calorie needs.

I'm hoping that activity level will help my metabolism "rebound" to some degree, because right now the calorie level that allows me currently to lose just one pound a month, was once a calorie level that would earn me five to seven pounds per week (on average, and up to 11 lbs the first week of calorie restriction).

Over the years the 5 to 7 lbs per week, became 4 to 6, then 3 to 5, then 2 to 3 and finally where I am now at a couple pounds per month.

I am older, have more health issues, and I am not as able to be more active, but even so the metabolic calculators (even given the lowest sedentary option available) estimate my calorie needs at about 1000 to 1500 calories more than they are.

It's a bit disappointing, but it is what it is, and I have to deal with the metabolism I've been dealt (even if I "brought it on myself" with chronic dieting). It sucks, but it is what it is.

As I get healthier and able to move more, I'm seeing a little bit of "speed up," but I may always have to eat far, far less than the average person of my height, weight, age and activity level. I don't get discouraged anymore though because I've stopped comparing my weight loss or my calorie intake with anyone else's (not even the younger, fitter me).

Sure I regret not getting a handle on my weight earlier, but it wasn't for lack of trying. Hunger was my biggest enemy most of my life. Weight loss was always torture for me in the past, because my out-of-control hunger made calorie restriction torturous. And I was so miserable when dieting that I could never "hang on" for long.

Now that I've discovered that I can prevent that "rabid" hunger by carefully controlling the amount and kinds of carbohydrates I eat, the prospect of being on my current plan, or even fewer calories than I'm eating now, doesn't bother me.

I'll do what I need to do, and I'll learn to cope with it. As long as I can keep the old type of hunger at bay, I'll be fine. Though if I had to return to a high-carb style of eating for some reason, I would totally be screwed, because I know that I can't resist that kind of hunger. It makes my life so miserable, that overeating seems the far lesser of two evils. I literally thank God that I discovered a way to keep that type of hunger at bay. I never want to go back to feeling like that 24/7 (I do get a glimpse of it now and then when I overeat the type of carbs that trigger it, but now I control hunger, hunger doesn't control me - but I always have to remember that my control hinges on carb-control. I'm not stronger than hunger on my own, I need to use the tools available to me, and that's not just my low-carb diet, but the support I get from 3FC and my local TOPS (taking off pounds sensibly) group.

Hunger (and obesity) will kick my *** if I don't use the tools that allow me to keep both in check.

If that means I only get to eat 1500 or even 1200 calories at maintenance, I guess I'll have to learn to do that.

Arctic Mama
05-17-2012, 07:54 PM
I agree 100% Kaplods. We do what we can to mainise our caloric intake without a gain, but at some point we are either willing to live within whatever circumstances we find ourselves in at maintenance or we regain until we hit a level whereby our bodies, habits, nutrition all align with our weight.

Like you, I find myself much more comfortable low-carb than anything else. The finer points I have tweaked to fit my needs (like no grains or sugar, even when I eat carbs) but the general macro ratios of high fat, moderate protein, low carb afford me much more energy and satiety for my calorie level than any other combo I have tried, and that makes it much easier to stick to!