We've got to stop looking at slow weight loss as failure. In my experience, people don't quit because they're failing, they quit because they feel like they're failing because they aren't satisfied with their level of success. Often they feel they're working as hard as they can, and the rewards aren't great enough (and only because speed is part of their measure of success). They can't imagine working harder, so they give up - because they couldn't see slow weight loss as successful weight loss.
Two years ago, I joined 3FC & went into ED treatment. I lost 25 pounds in about 4 months. I got down to 148 pounds.
Then I went into a maintenance phase for a little less than a year. I was trying to eat sensibly, but I wasn't really working a program. And I wasn't exercising enough. My weight varied from 138 - 155.
I got back into a weight loss stage this March after quitting smoking (I had a 6 month relapse) and am losing weight fast again.
Right now, I feel mentally prepared for maintenance, but I don't know if the speed or slowness of my weight loss had anything to do with it. I think being sick of 20 years of yo-yo dieting has inspired me to try something new- maintenance and a healthy way of life.
Last edited by motivated chickie; 05-07-2010 at 12:03 PM.
If I were to have deliberately stretched out the time of my weight loss, would that increased my odds of a successful maintanence? This is a position I encounter a lot on the web. So I asked those successful maintainers, ancedotal to be sure, their experiences.
So far as I am reading it, weight loss rate and maintanence success are 2 different phenomena. Some over lap to be sure, but still different.
My regain from the past 3 successful losses weren't because of my weight loss rate as I lost at different rates while with WW twice (life time member here, key in the drawer) and South Beach once, but in not learning that what I did to lose weight must be kept up forever, even when life happens.
Great discussion. Thank you one and all for thinking this through with me. People are asking me my weight loss story now and I want to have these things thought through. So not only are you helping me but others as well
I haven't done any deliberate slow down but nearly 6 years ago, I decided to lose weight. About 2.5 years ago, I had reached the 150 lb lost mark and I've been there ever since. I still have another 50 lbs to go though but I'm happy with where I'm at. I am looking at doing some recent changes that I expect will finally get me to the level I want to achieve but I am in no hurry to lose the last 50 lbs or so.
Karen, I may have an explanation for the phenomenon of people saying slow loss leads to maintenance success. People who go on crash or fad diets tend to lose weight extremely rapidly. These people also do not learn the skills necessary for maintenance. They probably skew the statistics about slow vs fat weight loss and success vs failure at maintenance.
That is to say, if you go on a crash or fad diet, you chances for successful maintenance are extremely slim, while your chances of rapid weight loss are quite good. People translate that as "fast weight loss = no maintenance," while it is not really the case.
There is also the factor of how fast is "fast" and how slow is "slow" -- is 2lbs a week slow? Is 3lbs a week fast?
Scientists at the University of Florida, who studied the link between the rate of initial weight loss and overall success long-term, said shedding weight quickly is the best way to achieve lasting results.
"Women who lost at a faster rate, greater than 1.5 pounds (0.68 kilos) a week, had lost more and maintained a greater loss in the long run than women who lost at a slower rate of half a pound (0.23 kilos) a week or less," said researcher Lisa Nackers, whose findings are published online by the International Journal of Behavioral Medicine.
So their definition of "fast" is greater than 1.5 pounds a week and "slow" is less than .5 pounds a week.
Quote:
The authors conclude: "Our study provides further evidence that, within the context of lifestyle treatment, losing weight at a fast initial rate leads to greater short-term weight reductions, does not result in increased susceptibility to weight regain, and is associated with larger weight losses and overall long-term success in weight management. We suggest that, within lifestyle weight control programs, substantial efforts should be focused on promoting large rather than small behavioral changes during the initial weeks of treatment."
I'm going to see if I can find the study. We all know how well (poorly) the media can report study results!
Dang it! The International Journal of Behavioral Medicine wants me to pay $34 to read the study!
Their results certainly confirm my experiences but it definitely goes against conventional diet wisdom about slow losses and baby steps being best. I'd love to read the study.
"NEW YORK - Want to lose weight and keep it off? The best way to do it is to drop the pounds quickly, not slowly, according to new research.
Scientists at the University of Florida, who studied the link between the rate of initial weight loss and overall success long-term, said shedding weight quickly is the best way to achieve lasting results.
"Women who lost at a faster rate, greater than 1.5 pounds (0.68 kilos) a week, had lost more and maintained a greater loss in the long run than women who lost at a slower rate of half a pound (0.23 kilos) a week or less," said researcher Lisa Nackers, whose findings are published online by the International Journal of Behavioral Medicine.
The women who lost weight faster also kept better food records and ate fewer calories than the other women.
"It shows if you get off to a quick start ... it pays off more in the long run than making smaller behavioral changes," Nackers added in an interview.
About two-thirds of U.S. adults and nearly one in three children are overweight or obese. Research results have been mixed on whether dropping pounds at a slow or quicker pace is best for overall weight loss in the long term.
Nackers said the jury is still out on which is the best method but her findings support the quick approach.
"What we concluded in this study is that the results show that perhaps losing at a faster rate is more reinforcing in terms of the learning period of behavior," she added.
Nackers suggests that physical appearance, body image, increased energy and better mobility may be improved more by shedding weight quickly which can be encouraging to meet goals.
She and her team studied data on 262 middle-aged women who took part in an obesity treatment trial. All the women were encouraged to cut calories and do more exercise.
They split the women into three groups, fast, moderate and slow, according to how much weight they lost in the first month. They also studied how much weight the women had dropped at six and 18 months.
Nackers reported that women in the fast group were five times more likely to achieve a 10 percent loss of their body weight at 18 months than those in the slow group. Women in the moderate group were nearly three times more likely to reach that milestone than the slow group."
I've heard of studies that found more success for fast losers, and I've read studies that found more success in the "slow" group.
It makes me think that speed isn't the real issue. I suspect the real issue is feeling like you're succeeding, because this is true in other types of behavioral change as well (from alcohol abuse to domestic battery to compulsive gambling).
Feeling successful keeps people motivated. Feelings of failure demotivate. I've seen a shift in what's seen as successful over the years. The popularity of the show The Biggest Loser scares me, because it seems to be spreading a message that weight loss of less than 3 lbs per week is "slow weight loss."
More and more here and on other sites dieters half the size of TBL contestants are complaining of ONLY losing 2.5 lbs per week. That's dangerous thinking.
I think telling people that fast loss is associated with long-term success often leads to people thinking that fast loss is required for long-term success - and if they can't manage fast loss, then they might as well quit now because they won't be able to succeed.
The best I can manage now is slow weight loss. The calorie level I'm eating to lose 2 lbs per month, is the same calorie level that in my 20's produced a weekly weight loss of 5 to 8 lbs. There are a lot of health issues that account for that (I'm not nearly as active, and cannot be as active as I was in my 20's).
If I believe that only fast weight loss succeeds, and I cannot lose fast - well that means I'm not going to succeed. If I believed that, I'd have to give up now. If I did believe that, I certainly would have given up 4 years ago, and I'd still weigh 394 lbs or MORE.
I really think expectations and definition of success is the real factor. Of course if you believe that only fast works - then you're not going to stick with anything that produces slow results.
Regardless, I think "do what you can" is the better strategy. If you're doing your best, then the results you get are the fastest results you can expect. It's certainly better to accept a slow loss, if that's all you can manage than for people to tell you that "only fast weight loss" matters.
Slow weight loss matters too, and it's still success.
It is true that most people quit when their progress is slower than they expect it to be (and that results in the same results as fast=successful).
I'm just calling for people to take speed out of the equation entirely. Do what you're able and willing to do. The more that is, the faster you will lose. But if the most you can do results in slow weight loss, accept that. Don't see it as failure. It's still success and it doesn't "doom" you to fatness.
I have been Winnie the Pooh today on this topic, "Think, think, think:-)"
0.5#<weight<1.5# is the study"s range for both slow and fast regardless of age, weight, sex, activity level, or health
I tend to like guides a bit more tethered to an individual rather than a one size fits all. Especially in light of the observations made so far. Before, my rate for loss had been determined by others (WW, SB or Nos). This time I choose the rate goal. I realized this today. The incredible power I had to choose my rate. I really could figure this out for myself.
If I use debt as an example, something DH & I help others to overcome, the longer it takes to pay it off, the more likely it is it won't get paid off. 18 months-2 yrs is the norm. And as with norms, some do it quicker, some do it slower. And there are a dangers on both sides of the extremes. Too fast don't learn good budgeting, too slow, life occurs, moe debt is incurred and the momentum wanes. No one has unlimited emotional reserves.
There also has to be an attitude of I am not living like this anymore, the house is on fire, I am done. Then the difficult behavioral changes can start to occur. Walking into debt is very easy to do. Paying it off, is hard.
I know I wandered back into weight gain easily over a long period of time, due to my ignorance and poor information. I had a moment of enough is enough, I can't get my pants up over my hind quarters, I need new behaviors, new information, new habits: yesterday! If I had to do it again, I certainly wouldn't want it to take twice as long. But then the slow is best for maintanence came up again and I started to under estimate my success.
My weight came off as it would, but I set the goal to roughly 1 1/2#/week with some underage to account for lower calorie estimates. It has worked fabulously. Some weeks were higher, some weeks lower. My goals helped me assess my information and implementation. Did I count calories correctly, did I take into account changes in my body, am I looking at averages as opposed to individual points, was my goal reasonable, etc...?
Which brings me to the idea of goal setting with weight loss. If I didn't set goals in other areas of my life, how could I measure progress? Is weight loss fundamentally different than education, work, family? I have goals for these areas, should my body be any different? If goals are a strong word for some, substitute bench marks. Businesses fail without clear goals and objectives.
Sorry for the long winded post.
Winnie the Pooh today
Been soooo busy lately and I am just seeing this now.
Obviously (for the most part), the larger folks stand a much better chance of losing more than the 1 - 2 lbs per week *norm* because of their starting weight. That was certainly the case with me. So I really don't think it's *fair* to lump us (the super morbidly obese) in that *safe* 1 -2 lbs catergory. In fact it irks me as it is done so often.
Yes, I admit (as if it's a bad thing and I should be ashamed), I lost *fairly* quickly. Needing to lose 165 lbs though, there was only so fast that the weight could come off.
Like Meg, my aim was to not lose the weight quickly. My aim was to find/develop something that I could stick to and was WILLING to stick to it - forever - and then indeed STICK to it. And that's what I did. I fell in love with this healthy lifestyle and fairly quickly learned that it was no hardship or deprivation to eat well. Silly me, I wish I'd figured that out decades ago.
And again, needing to lose 165 lbs, that year was more than enough time to develop the knowledge and the tools needed to lose the weight - and keep it off - forever. It'll be three years that the weight is off this coming July and I can safely and confidently say I am never going to gain it back.
I am a firm believer that the speed of weight loss has ZERO to do with how successful one will be in maintaining the loss. I think it was LoriBell that said it, it's all about what you are willing to do AFTER you've lost the weight. It will always be our choice. It was my choice to get fat, my choice to lose it, my choice to maintain it and though it's not happening, it would be my choice to gain it back.
I also think there is a large group of people who lose it *quickly* because they are so determined to get it off, that they really, really STICK with their plan - and THAT'S why they lose it quickly. Not because it's some drastic *cabbage soup* diet or something. I would think those people stand a MUCH higher chance of losing the weight - and keeping if off. But I'm sure it runs the gamut, like everything else. There is no one group.
I am a firm believer that the speed of weight loss
has ZERO to do with how successful one will be in maintaining the loss.
.. it's all about what you are willing to do AFTER you've lost the weight.
It will always be our choice.
It was my choice to get fat, my choice to lose it,
my choice to maintain it
and .....it would be my choice to gain it back.
Despite the differing genetic and metabolism issues,
which make weight-loss and maintenance more difficult for some than for others,
I believe that the statement above applies to everyone, including me.
Despite the differing genetic and metabolism issues,
which make weight-loss and maintenance more difficult for some than for others,
I believe that the statement above applies to everyone, including me.
Oh I do believe that weight maintenance IS harder for some than others, as is weight loss, it just means that those folks will have to choose to work harder.
