I maintain at about 1400 calories, I can occaisionly have a treat, but still have to watch those darn calories.

Clara, there's a good discussion of weight ranges in Rethinking Thin. I highly recommend the book, though it's somewhat depressing in its conclusions for weight loss and maintenance. However, better to know what we're facing than to be ignorant and caught off guard, IMO.

This topic was recently discussed in a New York Times article titled For the Overweight, Bad Advice by the Spoonful, written by Gina Kolata, author of Rethinking Thin:

Originally Posted by :
... scientists recently have come to understand that the brain exerts astonishing control over body composition and how much individuals eat. “There are physiological mechanisms that keep us from losing weight,” said Dr. Matthew W. Gilman, the director of the obesity prevention program at Harvard Medical School/Pilgrim Health Care.

Scientists now believe that each individual has a genetically determined weight range spanning perhaps 30 pounds. Those who force their weight below nature’s preassigned levels become hungrier and eat more; several studies also show that their metabolisms slow in a variety of ways as the body tries to conserve energy and regain weight. People trying to exceed their weight range face the opposite situation: eating becomes unappealing, and their metabolisms shift into high gear.

The body’s determination to maintain its composition is why a person can skip a meal, or even fast for short periods, without losing weight. It’s also why burning an extra 100 calories a day will not alter the verdict on the bathroom scales. Struggling against the brain’s innate calorie counters, even strong-willed dieters make up for calories lost on one day with a few extra bites on the next. And they never realize it. “The system operates with 99.6 percent precision,” Dr. [Jeffrey] Friedman said [obesity researcher at Rockefeller University].

When we seek to lose and maintain a weight loss outside of our weight ranges, we're fighting Mother Nature, plain and simple. And our bodies have a vast arsenal of hormonal and biochemical weapons to keep us fat. I think we've all experienced how shockingly fast we can regain weight with only a slight calorie increase. For many of us, a regained pound is a lot less than the 3500 calories that's supposed to be a diet truism.This is why permanent weight loss is never "EZ, Quik, and Painless" and why it's a battle we'll be fighting for the rest of our lives.

BUT ...

I know everyone here will agree with me that the rewards of weight loss are totally, 100% worth every bit of planning and effort! I may be fighting Mother Nature -- but I'm winning! :D

Originally Posted by mazza:
Wow how fascinating. I didn't know that. Do you think this would still apply if you lost weight at a young age (say, younger than 25) and were only 'obese' by about 3 or 4 pounds before slimming down, Meg?

I lost my weight at 29 a couple years ago and I maintain at 2000-ish calories with only walking as my exercise. Of course, the holidays gave me problems, but I know I was eating way more than 2000 cals. I'm still getting the hang of this.

That said, I'm sure I'll have to drop my calories and add in some light weight training once I get over 40.

I may not be the "norm", but I don't feel I'm fighting my body. My holiday weight gain was due to some mild depression I was fighting then. Now that I'm on the other side of that the weight has come off fairly easily. I'm not bragging here, but I think that nothing (even scientific research) is 100% true for everyone.

Perhaps, part of it is that my goal weight is not very low? I'm not skinny by any means, but I'm comfortable with my body at this weight and it's within a healthy range.

Zenor, there's so much that we don't know about obesity and science is only beginning to piece the very complicated picture together. We who are living it probably know a lot more than most doctors and scientists! But there are many, many unanswered questions. And, of course, individual variance! :)

But something has to be going on -- something biological, within our bodies. We have over 85,000 registered members here at 3FC and Suzanne 3FC tells me that the average member needs to lose 100 pounds. How many succeed? And of that number, how many can maintain that loss? The numbers are very small, perhaps only in the dozens.

So what are we to make of it? Are we weak-willed, lazy, ignorant, and lack self-discipline? I don't buy it. We have a forum full of intelligent and insightful women with tremendous character and strength. Does someone who has the motivation and strength to lose 100 pounds suddenly become unmotivated and weak when it's time to maintain? Or are we dealing with complex biological issues that affect our bodies in ways we're only beginning to understand?

Unfortunately, it seems like we're the orphans of the medical and scientific communities, at a time in which obesity is becoming epidemic. It seems like doctors have thrown up their hands and are sending their patients for weight loss surgery as a first resort. And too little research is being done into the causes and cures for obesity. So far as I know, the National Weight Control Registry is the only on-going study of successful maintainers. I've often said that someone ought to come study us for some real answers!

Many questions, too few answers.

Good heavens, I certainly do go on, don't I? :lol:

Cyndi, are you 136 now? I am just making sure I reading your stats correctly. I eat 1500 a day, run three miles every day and do 30DS about 3 days a week. I am still losing but VERY slowly. I know I should reduce my calories if I want to be pencil thin--probably to 1200. I think your calorie intake and your exercise regimen sound spot on as to what is to be expected.

Do you suppose that these realities are why so many of us can't follow "intuitive eating"? There is tremendous emphasis nowadays on listening to "the wisdom of the body" and "stop when you don't feel hungry anymore" and "eat only as much as your body needs". I've read quite a few people here, though, say that try as they might they can't follow that dictum. Do you suppose they actually are able to follow it, but that their bodies honestly are telling them to eat that much, to keep their bodies that large? Just a thought...but interesting to contemplate.

Thanks to everyone for your insight, experience & thoughts about this. It really validates the reading I did (much of it here) while losing to prepare for maintenance. I will pull some of this information to share with my doctor. Maybe she will be prepared the next time someone comes in with a similar issue.

I discovered this fall that it's harder to re-lose those 6 lbs than it was the first time. So I do what I know I need to do and I'm fit and healthy and have no complaints. I would choose my life now over the way I was two years ago ANY DAY!

At the risk of being controversial (and potentially hijacking a perfectly good thread, for which I apologize in advance), I guess I have trouble believing that so many of us are "set" to be morbidly obese. Overweight, sure, I'd buy that, an extra 20 pounds or so has a definitely advantage in a paleolithic sense. But at 100 extra pounds, a hypothetical paleolithic soccer mom is toast. Tasty sabertooth tiger food. Personally, I could barely waddle myself around the block when I was 289.

So what gives? Frankenfoods? Improved mass marketing that is next to irresistible and overwhelming to our primitive brain? Cities that are unsafe to walk in, neighborhoods with garage doors on the houses instead of doors for actual people? I just find it extraordinary that we think it is normal that we eat bags of chips and cookies, 2000 calorie restaurant meals, never get any exercise whatsoever, and think morbid obesity is a normal set point. Our collective biology hasn't changed at all in the last century, but our "set points" sure have. Something else is going on. Personally, I have no ideas what the causative agents are, and which are just along for the ride.

Any thoughts?

Anne

I love the image of the paleolithic soccer mom. :lol:

I blame the food, mostly. Cheap, calorie-filled but nutrient poor, mass produced, processed, etc.

I think I posted this last summer after I went to a conference, but one of the speakers was talking about the obesity epidemic. He stated that our biggest premodern stress was perpetual threatened famine and so it is wired into us to fear famine. Modern folks (well, those of us in developed countries with reasonable resources anyway) experience stress of a different kind but our bodies read the relief of that stress to be munching.

I guess it is a combination of the food and lack of movement. I find it humerous that I pay money to go lift and push heavy stuff, when my great-great-great-grandmother likely lifted and pushed heavy stuff as a matter of course. Our bodies are meant to be active beings, but we have convenientized our world in ways that kills our health.

Don't get me wrong---I'm glad to have a car, washing machine, dishwasher, computer :love:, antibiotics, surgeries and MRIs.

Who has seen Wall-E? I'm actually a little surprised that there hasn't been a thread on Wall-E, or if there was I missed it. But I was really struck by the state of the humans on the ship (and the state of the earth left behind) but I also fear that those producers might have ESP. America, as a nation, is eating and consuming itself to poor health---physical, emotional and environmental.

Now I'm going to be a little controversial (yes, really!). I think that America is at a serious crossroads. We want to be fiercely independant people, yet we also want to be taken care of. Can we have it both ways? I don't know.... How do we marry personal independance and a culture of social responsibility?

DH and I had a good-natured arguement about this last week. He was horrified at some of the calorie counts of certain menu items and said "It should be illegal to sell a single dinner item that has more than 1800 calories." Now, I think he was just horrified.

But my position was, "Why? Illegal, really? It is an individual's choice to eat it or not eat it and how do we know if someone is eating it after a marathon or whatnot?"

How do you legislate common sense? There is a bill in my state legislature right now to ban texting while you are driving. I am stunned that anyone would be stupid enough to text while they drive. But I guess some people do.

Coming from a public health perspective, I believe you educate people, give them tools and then....cross your fingers? Legislate? Regulate? Say do what you're gonna do but pay for your own health care?

Heck if I know!

I can see, maybe, the argument that poor food quality can make people gain and change set points. But what about the maintainers who eat clean, unprocessed, mostly whole foods, and STILL have bodies that, were they to eat intuitively, would put them at an unhealthfully obese weight? Do we have to start looking at things like soil quality, animal feed, etc?

Originally Posted by :
Clara, there's a good discussion of weight ranges in Rethinking Thin. I highly recommend the book, though it's somewhat depressing in its conclusions for weight loss and maintenance. However, better to know what we're facing than to be ignorant and caught off guard, IMO.

Meg, I was just reading some reviews of that book on amazon and omg, I'm glad I'd never heard of it before I tried to lose weight or I might not have even tried! It sounds so pessimistic (realistic?). Anyway, thanks for the recommendation.

Originally Posted by sidhe:
Do you suppose that these realities are why so many of us can't follow "intuitive eating"?

Yes! My body wants me to eat more. I try to eat around 1400 per day, but realistically it's ending up around 1500-1600 because when my stomach growls, I eat. I am more than willing to have really slow weight loss if it means that I can eat more at maintenance by doing it this way.

My body wants to be bigger, I think. Although I wonder if my set point might be changing. I seem to hover around 140 now without too much effort. Maybe there are several set points, and that is where we plateau. I had one around 225, then 200, then 175. Those were specific weights that I had an enormously difficult time crossing and staying below. But once I got low enough under them, then the weight loss proceeded as before.

Just my 2 cents here. I think it's easy for people with ten or fifteen pounds to lose, and never more than that, to advocate intuitive eating. I think once someone is beyond a certain point with weight gain, learning how to eat intuitively is just not going to be the best approach. I don't have any data, though. :dunno:

wndranne, I think any 289 pound paleolithic soccer moms did get eaten. But there aren't any large predators of that sort around now. Besides, we have to get to the neolithic period, once agriculture is just beginning, to start seeing statues of really large women, like those on Malta and in Turkey. Agriculture brought with it a surplus of food, especially grains.

midwife, if you've been educated in public health, I'm sure you find that people are incredibly frustrating to work with. Think of how many young people start smoking and continue to smoke, in spite of a total blitz of information about the dangers... You can talk until you're blue in the face... And just have to hope that a few of them will listen!

Jay

Originally Posted by :
Besides, we have to get to the neolithic period, once agriculture is just beginning, to start seeing statues of really large women, like those on Malta and in Turkey. Agriculture brought with it a surplus of food, especially grains.

And even then they were women in the ruling classes - those that didn't have to work their behinds off just to stay alive. :)

On that note, I'm off to the gym to do my fleeing from the sabertooth tiger..... :lol:

Nothing new to add - I found Rethinking Thin very eye-opening when I read it (about half-way through my weightloss journey). It made me more determined than ever to change my lifestyle in such a way that I would lose this weight for good. I maintain on about 45-60 minutes of exercise 6-7 times per week and about 1500 calories. That being said - I have a sedentary job and I am post-menopause (51 years old). I have been overweight most of my adult life and my most recent loss is 93 lbs.

Eating clean is my saving grace - I can eat plenty of high-quality foods and still stay within my calorie limit for the day.

I loved Jay's analogy of the Energizer Bunny - while I occasionally get in a funk about being "different", I really feel blessed that I can eat 1500 calories and still maintain a healthy weight and lifestyle. Unlike other addictions - I get to eat (within limits) and can truly ENJOY food! I think calorie counting was a true life saver for me - no foods are forbidden, just must be consumed within certain parameters.
Anne (wndranne) posted a quote that has become my "mantra" through this process - "I figure I can eat (1) anything I want, (2) as often as I want, and (3) in whatever quantity I want. But I only get to pick two of these three if I want to manage my weight, and more importantly, my health."