Reassuring news on the research front from the Nat'l Registry people...
I was reading over on maintainers, which led me to read the site, which had this tidbit of research about is it harder to keep weight off after losing weight:
Resting energy expenditure in reduced-obese subjects in the National Weight Control Registry. Wyatt HR. Grunwald GK. Seagle HM. Klem ML. McGuire MT. Wing RR. Hill JO. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 69:1189-93, 1999
Does losing weight make it "harder" to lose more weight? Do our bodies go into an energy-saving mode? The National Weight Control Registry is a valuable resource composed of men and women who have lost weight and maintained that weight loss for over a year. Wyatt et al measured the resting metabolic rate (RMR) to see if the reduction in RMR was proportional to the decrease in lean mass alone or was greater than could be explained by body composition. They studied 40 reduced-obese subjects (7 men and 33 women) and 46 weight-matched controls (9 men, 37 women). They found that when adjustments were made for lean mass, fat mass, age, and sex there was no significant difference in RMR between the 2 groups indicating that there is not a permanent obligatory reduction in RMR other than what one would expect with the reduced lean mass that results from overall weight loss.
Thanks! That goes along with other research that I've read that resting metabolic rate (RMR) apparently remains unchanged by weight loss. Where we get slammed is with the metabolic slowdown in the active energy expenditure portion (daily movement and exercise) of our total daily energy expenditure that results from weight loss. In a nutshell, we're burning fewer calories when we exercise and go about our daily activities than the never obese/overweight person next to us. Consequently a reduced obese person burns 15-20% fewer calories daily than a similar person who never was overweight.
there is not a permanent obligatory reduction in RMR other than what one would expect with the reduced lean mass that results from overall weight loss.
That's why it's so important to be building and maintaining muscle mass during weight loss -- so we don't have even MORE of a metabolic slowdown than what's inevitable!
But how much of the lean mass lost is muscle and how much plain old water? IMHO, active individuals probably don't lose all that much muscle when they diet. I don't think I have really lost any muscle during my diet.
Of course, if you are not exercising, you are bound to lose plenty of muscle.
Last year I leaned way down while lifting as heavy as I ever have. Of the weight I lost, 25% was lean body mass. Surely that wasn't all water. I was following a strict bodybuilding pre-comp protocol to conserve muscle. I think some muscle loss is inevitable.
Unfortunately, unbeknownst to me at the time, I was also hyperthyroid which put me in a catabolic state. So...I guess this post is meaningless
Nope, you're making a good point. I've never heard of anyone getting all the way to goal and losing 100% fat and 0% muscle. Inevitably some is going to be lost ... the goal to minimize the amount of muscle and maximize the amount of fat lost.
I tracked my BF % as I lost and my LBM took the biggest hit losing the last twenty pounds. Our bodies seem to hold on to fat with a death grip at that point.
Thanks for that additional link Meg. I will read all about it! I figured it made sense that we would burn less at our goal weight than we did while we were obese bc it simply takes less energy and caloric expenditure to haul around a 150 lb body in your daily activities than what it took to engage a 300 lb body frame. But I had no idea our expenditure was less than the never obese right next to us of the same weight and height. BUMMER. But what good motivation to keep the scale going down instead of up.
HR, that has to be at least part of the reason why the vast majority of people who lose weight regain it all back (estimates range from 80 - 95% - we talked about it on this thread 95% failure rate). Once we reach goal, not only can't we eat the way we used to - I think most people understand and accept that - but we can't eat the way a 'normal', never overweight/obese person can eat. Why? Because our metabolisms are slower and our bodies are much more efficient at burning calories. Our calorie intake at goal, from my experience and what I've read, has to be about 15-20% less than a never-overweight person's if we want to keep the weight off. And I don't think most people understand THAT!
The National Weight Control Registry, which authored the study that you originally posted about, also reports that the average maintainer in the study group eats 1400 calories per day - not to lose weight, but to maintain their weight loss. I think it's safe to say that 1400 calories is much less than the average, 'normal' person would need to limit themselves to in order to maintain a normal weight.
Of course, that's why metabolic calculators are such a joke for the 'reduced obese'! You just don't know whether you want to laugh or cry when you see how much you could theoretically eat and still maintain your weight.
Right. And why the caloric expenditures on cardio equipment are not worth anything, especially if they don't even ask weight and gender. We all know we probably burn more than what those displays say when we are overweight, but sounds also likely that it is less that the display says, once we are at average weight. Thanks again for explaining it further; I agree, it must be one of the big contributors as to why. Although, I think I could live on an average of 1400 cals, but yes, it does seem to take all the excitement and fun out of life - at least on the eating front - which is where all my fun seems to come from. Need to find a new source of fun like getting addicted to working out!!
Bingo! You just hit the nail on the head about finding a substitute source of pleasure other than food. You know that old saying about how some people live to eat and some eat to live? Most of us here were firmly in the 'live to eat' camp (I sure was!) and - in my opinion - it's important to gradually transition into the 'eat to live' camp and view food in a different role.
But I guarantee that even though it may be hard to give up food as a best friend and major indoor sport at first , you'll find SO many replacements for food as recreation and fun that you won't miss it in the end. Getting addicted to working out? Hmm, I can think of worse things.
1. I would wake up and the first thought to come to mind was where I would go out to eat that day. Would it be McD's, Arby's, etc etc.
2. I had to scheme my kids into wanting to go out so that I could talk them into stopping their play and going out with me (can't leave them at home alone yet)
3. I used to plan my shopping trips for junk food like a heroin addict driving into the badlands of an urban area to buy drugs. I knew this could not be good to plan an entire day around when I would stock up on crack, I mean, crap (as in food choices).
Very very bad. What was so wrong in life that my joy came from here? Still looking for the traumatic event that got me here, but mostly, I think it morphed from using going out to restaurants as rewards --hey, I finished that project and did a great job: let's go out! I got a new job: let's go out. I survived that business trip: stock up on junk at the grocery on the way home to go home and relax and recover from the travel. Blah blah blah. New workout clothes ...... now that could be an enticing replacement.
Reassuring news on the research front from the Nat'l Registry people...
I've never heard of anyone getting all the way to goal and losing 100% fat and 0% muscle. Inevitably some is going to be lost ... the goal to minimize the amount of muscle and maximize the amount of fat lost. 
, you'll find SO many replacements for food as recreation and fun that you won't miss it in the end. 
Getting addicted to working out? Hmm, 
I can think of worse things. 