Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-16-2012, 05:51 AM   #1  
Mummy-tummy battler
Thread Starter
 
jitterfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 507

S/C/G: 132ish(290+)/~ticker~/75(165)

Height: 164(5'4")

Default NYT article: Mathmatical Challenge to Obesity

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/sc...sity.html?_r=1

The interesting parts:

That the conventional wisdom of 3,500 calories less is what it takes to lose a pound of weight is wrong. The body changes as you lose. Interestingly, we also found that the fatter you get, the easier it is to gain weight. An extra 10 calories a day puts more weight onto an obese person than on a thinner one.

Also, there’s a time constant that’s an important factor in weight loss. That’s because if you reduce your caloric intake, after a while, your body reaches equilibrium. It actually takes about three years for a dieter to reach their new “steady state.” Our model predicts that if you eat 100 calories fewer a day, in three years you will, on average, lose 10 pounds — if you don’t cheat.

One of the things the numbers have shown us is that weight change, up or down, takes a very, very long time. All diets work. But the reaction time is really slow: on the order of a year.

People don’t wait long enough to see what they are going to stabilize at. So if you drop weight and return to your old eating habits, the time it takes to crawl back to your old weight is something like three years. To help people understand this better, we’ve posted an interactive version of our model at bwsimulator.niddk.nih.gov. People can plug in their information and learn how much they’ll need to reduce their intake and increase their activity to lose. It will also give them a rough sense of how much time it will take to reach the goal.
jitterfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2012, 08:29 AM   #2  
June
 
runningfromfat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Brasil
Posts: 2,620

S/C/G: 240/184/155

Height: 5'6"

Default

Interesting, thanks for sharing!

I'm not sure if I get exactly what they mean by 3 years, though? Are they saying that the calories that you'll need/day to maintain your current weight will only settle down after three years? Or that your weight loss will finally stop after three years of changing your daily calorie intake? It seems fairly vague in the article...
runningfromfat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2012, 03:26 PM   #3  
IR/PCOS/Pre-Diabetic
 
synger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 1,797

S/C/G: 310/*ticker*/150

Height: 5'4"

Default

My understanding is that it takes a couple of years to stabilize at your maintenance weight, even after you stop "dieting".
synger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2012, 05:23 PM   #4  
Senior Member
 
linJber's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NW PA
Posts: 1,609

S/C/G: 255/holding at 162/160

Height: 5'-7"

Default

I got what Synger got - it takes time to stabilize. I find it interesting that they also focused on the fact that food production is high, therefore food is cheap and readily available, making fast food cheap and readily available. That certainly is a pretty obvious statement, I guess, with McD, BK, etc., on every other corner in a town of any size all over the US.

I will take this information to heart as I struggle through maintenance! I guess the trick is to hold on to the loss for 3 years or so and hope for the best! I think in that amount of time we do balance out. I liked the concept that they felt weight stayed the same over the course of a year, regardless of daily caloric intake - as long as the average is kept constant. Sort of like the really long version of calorie cycling for the week that I often do.

Very interesting - thanks for posting it.

Lin
linJber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2012, 05:57 PM   #5  
Tai
Senior Member
 
Tai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,493

S/C/G: 272/111/Maintaining

Height: 5'4"

Default

Very interesting article Jitterfish; thanks for sharing. I think he makes a lot of good points.

The only thing I really disagreed with is his theory about how long it would take to re-gain weight. I think if I ever went back to my old way of eating I would reach 272 much sooner than three years!
Tai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2012, 09:38 PM   #6  
Senior Member
 
Underwater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 846

S/C/G: 265/(ticker)/155

Height: 5'6"

Default

I love the little application they wrote and included in the article... if I want to weight 199 by September 1, I have to eat 1400 calories a day without cheating.

1400 calories on most days I can do. But every day between now and September? Now that's a challenge!

http://bwsimulator.niddk.nih.gov/
Underwater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2012, 04:40 PM   #7  
Rosebud
 
Justwant2Bhealthy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 6,944

S/C/G: 30/Goal Met:L-XL/relosing some

Default

Quote:
There’s no magic bullet on this. You simply have to cut calories and be vigilant for the rest of your life.

He sums up his findings with that tidbit -- something that we already know. I could have told them that for free. Since the 50's & 60's, we have more high-calorie, cheap food readily available, so people are eating more. They really don't know how much they are eating (the calorie value, I mean).

Before that, people made and ate their food at home; plus many people had gardens and bought foods direct from farmers. They had to -- money was tight. They ate mostly whole non-processed foods. Obesity was rare. Even being overweight wasn't that common. I recall that there may have been only one student who may have been classified as obese, and only a few that were overweight (around 20 lbs).

Like the interviewer said, when I was growing up there were no fast-food places in our town. People ate out very rarely, if at all. I never had fries until my early teens; pizza until in my mid-teens; and hamburgers in my late teens.

I worked in stores during that time; and I remember how much the food products changed over the years. Even in the 70's when I worked in a grocery store, they didn't have a whole aisle for junk or bread products; just a small corner. Now there are whole aisles and aisles of the stuff. Whole aisles of pop; whole aisles of junkies; whole aisles of cookies; whole aisles of ice cream, whole aisles of baked goods, and so forth.

Our government (in Ontario, Canada) is now going to require that restaurants disclose how many calories are in all the foods they make. Sadly, we're just catching up to the US in this regard.

One of the most telling things for our family was this -- when we were children, we had 3 homemade meals a day; and small ones at that, with no snacking at all, and none of us were overweight at that time. All of us were normal weight children ... UNTIL ... we had more food available.

At first, we were just a little plump; but when we started working in stores where we had junk foods available to us, and the money to buy them, we gained a lot of weight. Then, add in the fast foods, and our weights went up even more.

There's where the problem started, but for many people today, this has become the "norm" for them -- they eat fast food and junk all the time. So, why are we so surprised that we have an obesity epidemic?

Last edited by Justwant2Bhealthy; 05-18-2012 at 04:53 PM.
Justwant2Bhealthy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2012, 07:23 PM   #8  
Hooping my Life Away
 
Daimere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 2,050

S/C/G: 298/218.1/170

Height: 5'8"

Default

Quote:
So if you drop weight and return to your old eating habits, the time it takes to crawl back to your old weight is something like three years.
Truthiness! Around Thanksgiving I was 25 pounds close to my highest weight. How long had it been? Four years. I think it didn't take 3 years because in the first half there was a lot of diet hold over (like not eating bread) and a couple diets in between. WOW.
Daimere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2012, 10:36 AM   #9  
Shrinkin' Salsa :P
 
salsa chip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 872

S/C/G: 127/122/72 (kg)

Height: 5'9"

Default

Wow, that's very interesting. Thank you for posting it
salsa chip is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:31 AM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.