The key to why most people who lose weight fail to maintain the weight loss

[Jingthing]

Stop with your assumptions about what I want. The level of your rudeness has reached the obscene.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Bender]

if i have time, and better english skills i would write the definitive guide how to lose weight lead a healthy life.

Mostly because, with overweight people, the problem doesnt start in the kitchen or at the breakfast/lunch/dinner time. Its within with you,

its deeply ingrainated, not you in your dna or your foods habits.

You must change something, you must do something, but most of the fat people fail to do the right thing... then you give up!

and by the way, i dont believe all these counting calorie, etc etc are really efficient, thats just a torture.

Can you believe me, if i tell you that back home i used to eat more than 500 grams of meat per day, each day of the weeks...

Edited January 12, 2014 by Bender

[singa-traz]

...

Just another anecdote, but my hunch is it would be more productive to pump those who succeeded for info about what they did rather than reading statistics about those who failed.

It's called a self-fullfiling prophecy, unfortunatelly a negative one.

What would be interesting to explore, is why people choose to set themself for failure, rather than take the risk of success.

Even if the statistics are saying that only 5% of ex-obese/overweight people are successful in keeping their weight in control long term, I want to be part of the 5% club.

I am for sure in this 5% club.

[Jingthing]

I 100 percent agree that the minority group that achieves long term weight loss maintenance are a group worthy of learning more about.

VERY MUCH SO, as a matter of fact.

I ALSO think that learning from the MISTAKES of the majority that do not achieve this can also be beneficial.

I completely disagree that knowing about the lower success rates creates any kind of self fulfilling prophesy! That's ridiculous. That's like suggesting that fat people are stupid and it's dangerous that they know the truth. Let's censor the truth from fat people. It might stop them from being thin. How silly is that? In my view, knowing the truth about the lower odds RAISES the consciousness of what kind of challenge it is going to be. To believe something is easy when it's not, is hardly beneficial. We know it's hard and we face the challenge as ADULTS.

The video in the OP relates to the situation that a person who has lost weight has got to be more cautious than a person who never needed to lose the weight. Reading about success cases, yes people in the successful category DO tend to be vigilant, and not relax like the unfortunate Governor Huckabee.

Statistics on long term weight loss maintenance success can be very deceptive. They are definitely not high, but how low, and what the numbers mean, is quite fuzzy.

When measured by five year success, probably the most common statistic you'll find is about a FIVE percent success rate.

HOWEVER, and this is important, that group includes people who have lost modest amounts of weight, say an obese person losing 10 percent of their body weight but still being obese, and also the spectacular success stories, from significant obesity to normal weight, all in the same pot.

When looking at success rates over ONE year the stats will much higher. TWENTY percent is typical. But again it's only one year AND also includes the range of weight loss levels.

In my opinion most people reading this forum, including me, probably wouldn't feel there is DRAMATIC success for an obese person unless they reach normal weight, and maintain that.

Like if an obese person loses 10 percent of their body weight, and is still obese, friends and family may give praise and notice, but to strangers this person is still just another FATTY!

You can be sure the stats on that (from obese to normal for 5 years, the dramatic successes) are much less than FIVE percent but hard to pin it down. That's logical because the typical five percent rate includes ranges of weight loss, most probably mostly NOT the dramatic successes significant obesity to normal weight.

It is important to keep in mind these ambitious goals that I think are understandable to have are not the only measure of weight loss / maintenance success. It is now known that for an obese person to lose a good percentage of weight, say 10 percent, and keep it off even if not losing to the point of normal weight STILL represents a measurable improvement in health profiles (in general of course).

So with this in mind, I would suggest it is worthwhile to recognize and and also value DIFFERENT kinds of real successes, not only the super dramatic ones.

For an example, in my personal case, losing 15 percent of body weight, and still being low level obese, if I maintained that, from a purely medical POV, that would be a success. I am clear my goals are more ambitious but in the real world that is the kind of weight loss level that many people can achieve, and maintain, and that is a GOOD thing too. OK, not GREAT, dancing in the streets success, but still a positive accomplishment.

Heck, when you get down to it, even an obese person who has been gaining every year to STOP gaining, that is better than nothing, but that I wouldn't exactly label as success.

A link:

• Obesity is difficult to treat and has a high relapse rate. Greater than 95% of those who lose weight regain the weight within five years.

http://www.medicinenet.com/obesity_weight_loss/article.htm

An example of what I was talking about. Losing weight in that statistic does not only mean obesity to normal weight. It could be any kind of level of weight loss progress where the result is necessarily normal weight.

Edited January 12, 2014 by Jingthing

[David48]

It was a hypothetical question. Please again stop insulting me.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

It was a foolish question, as its impossible. If you want people to participate use some real numbers. Smart people don't like to participate in a exercise in futility. Also most of the people on this forum are male, they automatically consume even more as females.

If you want to set an experiment that is representative look at real numbers and people would participate, but I guess that was not the objective of the question. You wanted no's

Rob ... just keep posting in the balanced way you have in the recent past.

You provide an excellent counterbalance in the debate and, to the fair-minded amongst us, your style presents no rudeness nor contempt to any of the posters here.

It's the nature of the debate that we have.

A proposal is submitted by/from the OP, we then relate it to our collective knowledge and comment accordingly. Often a personal experience is different to that of the OP and that difference in opinion is expressed in a post.

Rob, you are the one who has lost the weight and the one who has maintained a healthy balance, thus your posts get special attention from me because, when I look for some inspiration, I differ to members like you who have actually walked the talk (slang for have achieved what you said you would).

While it's occasionally interesting to read the medical theories and what is hot with opinion, it remains just part of the pie to digest (a part of the total information to absorb).

.

[Jingthing]

This is a fantastic American organization that tracks SUCCESSFUL weight loss cases. In their case they define that as at least 30 pounds for at least a year. I think they are now tracking about 10,000 people. You can see an obese person losing 30 pounds would often still be obese depending on their specific starting point. They also study people among their group (starting at one year) that do fail after that and try to understand WHY. As you can see, we can learn from cases of both success and failure, ourselves and others.

http://www.nwcr.ws/stories.htm

[h90]

JT,

To add.. 500 calories is totally unrealistic and unless done in a laboratory I don't believe one bit of it. Here an other nice bit about starvation in the famous Minnesota experiment .

You can even drop some calories because you are talking about a female not male but 500 calories is death

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment

Here a bit about under reporting of calories and how it affects studies

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-12-calorie-under-reporting-affects-national-obesity.html

You can't take any information from the Minnesota experiment for diet because it was extreme low protein and vitamin experiment. Too little protein and vitamin is a total game changer.

[h90]

The fact is you don't value anything that says it can be done. You love blaming outside stuff all the time.

...

I would like to ask that you stop insulting me and trying to make this so personal, in a way its actually a kind of BULLYING.

I never said it can't be done or that people shouldn't try. In fact I EXPLICITLY said the opposite. I said it is very hard and I supported credible sources about the reasons. You don't have to agree of course, not saying that you do.

Motivation can come in many forms, but in my experience, if we are first taught that most people fail at what we are about to do, there is a significant number of people with low self confidence who will take the statistics to mean they must be doomed, too, and give up before even trying.

An attitude that focuses on enabling and encouraging people has always, in my life, proved way more effective than the information about how difficult stuff is. Statistics are useful and interesting for many purposes, but they only point to probability, and never ever determine individual outcomes.

At the end of the day, no matter what one is trying to achieve, success lies in the keeping keeping on, and seeing each failure as temporary, transient and interesting, rather than as a judgement about a lack in ability or character. Anyone who has ever succeeded in doing something difficult will be able to tell you that much.

I managed to quit smoking after 15 years' addiction, and have lost 17 kgs in the past 3 years after being obese and sedentary for 10 years. I am not finding it requires an extensive effort to keep up my new weight - but an effort of some kind is necessary, for sure.

Just another anecdote, but my hunch is it would be more productive to pump those who succeeded for info about what they did rather than reading statistics about those who failed.

I recall that 20 years ago I spoke with several old people who stopped smoking...so it must be 40+ years when they stopped it. At this time smoking wasn't an addiction it was a bad habit.

And they had much less problems stopping. Because they didn't know that they have an almost impossible to brake addiction, they thought they have just a bad habit.

These days whenever we do something wrong...too much shopping, drinking, gambling, sex, eating etc etc we aren't careless and wrong ourself. That would be disrespectful and not political correct. No we are victims of an unbeatable addiction which needs at least some doctors to beat it (and so finance their new BMW).

Maybe it is time to go back to the basics...you are fat because you eat too much, not because of some bacteria in your guts or because McDonalds food tastes too good or because of you aren't lucky with your genes. No one else is responsible....

[NeverSure]

The fact is you don't value anything that says it can be done. You love blaming outside stuff all the time.

...

I would like to ask that you stop insulting me and trying to make this so personal, in a way its actually a kind of BULLYING.

I never said it can't be done or that people shouldn't try. In fact I EXPLICITLY said the opposite. I said it is very hard and I supported credible sources about the reasons. You don't have to agree of course, not saying that you do.

Motivation can come in many forms, but in my experience, if we are first taught that most people fail at what we are about to do, there is a significant number of people with low self confidence who will take the statistics to mean they must be doomed, too, and give up before even trying.

An attitude that focuses on enabling and encouraging people has always, in my life, proved way more effective than the information about how difficult stuff is. Statistics are useful and interesting for many purposes, but they only point to probability, and never ever determine individual outcomes.

At the end of the day, no matter what one is trying to achieve, success lies in the keeping keeping on, and seeing each failure as temporary, transient and interesting, rather than as a judgement about a lack in ability or character. Anyone who has ever succeeded in doing something difficult will be able to tell you that much.

I managed to quit smoking after 15 years' addiction, and have lost 17 kgs in the past 3 years after being obese and sedentary for 10 years. I am not finding it requires an extensive effort to keep up my new weight - but an effort of some kind is necessary, for sure.

Just another anecdote, but my hunch is it would be more productive to pump those who succeeded for info about what they did rather than reading statistics about those who failed.

I recall that 20 years ago I spoke with several old people who stopped smoking...so it must be 40+ years when they stopped it. At this time smoking wasn't an addiction it was a bad habit.

And they had much less problems stopping. Because they didn't know that they have an almost impossible to brake addiction, they thought they have just a bad habit.

These days whenever we do something wrong...too much shopping, drinking, gambling, sex, eating etc etc we aren't careless and wrong ourself. That would be disrespectful and not political correct. No we are victims of an unbeatable addiction which needs at least some doctors to beat it (and so finance their new BMW).

Maybe it is time to go back to the basics...you are fat because you eat too much, not because of some bacteria in your guts or because McDonalds food tastes too good or because of you aren't lucky with your genes. No one else is responsible....

Nice post and I agree.

My problem with the concept of a higher set point that's almost impossible to change is that it hasn't been proven to me.

It has been proven to me that overweight people have a hard time losing weight, and that once they do, it's hard for them to keep it off.

But to me the reasons given are assumptions, and popular assumptions at that.

I think it might have to do with eating habits that are hard to break. Someone could tell me that the low percentage of smokers who quit for 90 days stay a non-smoker, but I wouldn't necessarily agree as to why. In fact I probably wouldn't.

Smokers have a hard time quitting and staying quit because there is a lie in the back of their minds that tells them the cigarette is their friend. It makes them feel good momentarily from a blood sugar rush. If they are deprived of that friend they will go hunting for one or bum one. They have to change their mindset to believe that the cigarette is really their enemy, and learn to hate it. Then they can quit.

No one has convinced me that an over eater is different from that. Food is their friend. It momentarily makes them feel good, especially if its a favorite like chocolate cake or ice cream or both. It tastes good to them and gives them a blood sugar rush. I think it's another addiction that they have to learn is their enemy, and learn to hate it for that reason. Once they do, the rest gets easier.

Just my $.02

[robblok]

JT,

To add.. 500 calories is totally unrealistic and unless done in a laboratory I don't believe one bit of it. Here an other nice bit about starvation in the famous Minnesota experiment .

You can even drop some calories because you are talking about a female not male but 500 calories is death

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment

Here a bit about under reporting of calories and how it affects studies

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-12-calorie-under-reporting-affects-national-obesity.html

You can't take any information from the Minnesota experiment for diet because it was extreme low protein and vitamin experiment. Too little protein and vitamin is a total game changer.

True, the Minnesota experiment is not a great example but it does show that what they consider low. They would not even be thinking of 500 calories for a male.

Combine that with my other link that people tend to under report what they are eating the 500 calories are totally crazy.

[robblok]

This is a fantastic American organization that tracks SUCCESSFUL weight loss cases. In their case they define that as at least 30 pounds for at least a year. I think they are now tracking about 10,000 people. You can see an obese person losing 30 pounds would often still be obese depending on their specific starting point. They also study people among their group (starting at one year) that do fail after that and try to understand WHY. As you can see, we can learn from cases of both success and failure, ourselves and others.

http://www.nwcr.ws/stories.htm

Of course you can learn from success and failure, but i rather learn how to do it then how not to do it. As how to has proven successful and just knowing one thing that you should not do leaves you open for making open for other mistakes.

Also a mindset of something that can't be done is not a great starter. (neither is going for the impossible) But positive thinking has been proven to help. As for the fact that 30 lbs they might still be obese.. yes... but less obese as before still a win.

[robblok]

I recall that 20 years ago I spoke with several old people who stopped smoking...so it must be 40+ years when they stopped it. At this time smoking wasn't an addiction it was a bad habit.

And they had much less problems stopping. Because they didn't know that they have an almost impossible to brake addiction, they thought they have just a bad habit.

These days whenever we do something wrong...too much shopping, drinking, gambling, sex, eating etc etc we aren't careless and wrong ourself. That would be disrespectful and not political correct. No we are victims of an unbeatable addiction which needs at least some doctors to beat it (and so finance their new BMW).

Maybe it is time to go back to the basics...you are fat because you eat too much, not because of some bacteria in your guts or because McDonalds food tastes too good or because of you aren't lucky with your genes. No one else is responsible....

Nice post and I agree.

My problem with the concept of a higher set point that's almost impossible to change is that it hasn't been proven to me.

It has been proven to me that overweight people have a hard time losing weight, and that once they do, it's hard for them to keep it off.

But to me the reasons given are assumptions, and popular assumptions at that.

I think it might have to do with eating habits that are hard to break. Someone could tell me that the low percentage of smokers who quit for 90 days stay a non-smoker, but I wouldn't necessarily agree as to why. In fact I probably wouldn't.

Smokers have a hard time quitting and staying quit because there is a lie in the back of their minds that tells them the cigarette is their friend. It makes them feel good momentarily from a blood sugar rush. If they are deprived of that friend they will go hunting for one or bum one. They have to change their mindset to believe that the cigarette is really their enemy, and learn to hate it. Then they can quit.

No one has convinced me that an over eater is different from that. Food is their friend. It momentarily makes them feel good, especially if its a favorite like chocolate cake or ice cream or both. It tastes good to them and gives them a blood sugar rush. I think it's another addiction that they have to learn is their enemy, and learn to hate it for that reason. Once they do, the rest gets easier.

Just my $.02

Yes by repeatedly being told you can't do something you are setting yourself up for failure.

On the other hand by setting impossible expectations you can loose all your motivation.

Question is are things so impossible because people set themselves up for failure or because its hard.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.full

Results of random digit dial surveys indicate that ≈20% of people in the general population are successful at long-term weight loss maintenance. These data, along with findings from the National Weight Control Registry, underscore the fact that it is possible to achieve and maintain significant amounts of weight loss.

Findings from the registry suggest six key strategies for long-term success at weight loss: 1) engaging in high levels of physical activity; 2) eating a diet that is low in calories and fat; 3) eating breakfast; 4) self-monitoring weight on a regular basis; 5) maintaining a consistent eating pattern; and 6) catching “slips” before they turn into larger regains. Initiating weight loss after a medical event may also help facilitate long-term weight control.

Additional studies are needed to determine the factors responsible for registry participants' apparent ability to adhere to these strategies for a long period of time in the context of a “toxic” environment that strongly encourages passive overeating and sedentary lifestyles.

Edited January 13, 2014 by robblok

[h90]

I would like to ask that you stop insulting me and trying to make this so personal, in a way its actually a kind of BULLYING.

I never said it can't be done or that people shouldn't try. In fact I EXPLICITLY said the opposite. I said it is very hard and I supported credible sources about the reasons. You don't have to agree of course, not saying that you do.

Motivation can come in many forms, but in my experience, if we are first taught that most people fail at what we are about to do, there is a significant number of people with low self confidence who will take the statistics to mean they must be doomed, too, and give up before even trying.

An attitude that focuses on enabling and encouraging people has always, in my life, proved way more effective than the information about how difficult stuff is. Statistics are useful and interesting for many purposes, but they only point to probability, and never ever determine individual outcomes.

At the end of the day, no matter what one is trying to achieve, success lies in the keeping keeping on, and seeing each failure as temporary, transient and interesting, rather than as a judgement about a lack in ability or character. Anyone who has ever succeeded in doing something difficult will be able to tell you that much.

I managed to quit smoking after 15 years' addiction, and have lost 17 kgs in the past 3 years after being obese and sedentary for 10 years. I am not finding it requires an extensive effort to keep up my new weight - but an effort of some kind is necessary, for sure.

Just another anecdote, but my hunch is it would be more productive to pump those who succeeded for info about what they did rather than reading statistics about those who failed.

I recall that 20 years ago I spoke with several old people who stopped smoking...so it must be 40+ years when they stopped it. At this time smoking wasn't an addiction it was a bad habit.

And they had much less problems stopping. Because they didn't know that they have an almost impossible to brake addiction, they thought they have just a bad habit.

These days whenever we do something wrong...too much shopping, drinking, gambling, sex, eating etc etc we aren't careless and wrong ourself. That would be disrespectful and not political correct. No we are victims of an unbeatable addiction which needs at least some doctors to beat it (and so finance their new BMW).

Maybe it is time to go back to the basics...you are fat because you eat too much, not because of some bacteria in your guts or because McDonalds food tastes too good or because of you aren't lucky with your genes. No one else is responsible....

Nice post and I agree.

My problem with the concept of a higher set point that's almost impossible to change is that it hasn't been proven to me.

It has been proven to me that overweight people have a hard time losing weight, and that once they do, it's hard for them to keep it off.

But to me the reasons given are assumptions, and popular assumptions at that.

I think it might have to do with eating habits that are hard to break. Someone could tell me that the low percentage of smokers who quit for 90 days stay a non-smoker, but I wouldn't necessarily agree as to why. In fact I probably wouldn't.

Smokers have a hard time quitting and staying quit because there is a lie in the back of their minds that tells them the cigarette is their friend. It makes them feel good momentarily from a blood sugar rush. If they are deprived of that friend they will go hunting for one or bum one. They have to change their mindset to believe that the cigarette is really their enemy, and learn to hate it. Then they can quit.

No one has convinced me that an over eater is different from that. Food is their friend. It momentarily makes them feel good, especially if its a favorite like chocolate cake or ice cream or both. It tastes good to them and gives them a blood sugar rush. I think it's another addiction that they have to learn is their enemy, and learn to hate it for that reason. Once they do, the rest gets easier.

Just my $.02

If you look at it from the other side: From the point of statistics it is true.

They are looking at people who couldn't change and tell they can't change. They don't include these who never got fat because they are always taking care of their body and they don't include these who did reduce successful 10 years ago.

So the statistics is looking only at people who can't and ignore they people who could.

[h90]

JT,

To add.. 500 calories is totally unrealistic and unless done in a laboratory I don't believe one bit of it. Here an other nice bit about starvation in the famous Minnesota experiment .

You can even drop some calories because you are talking about a female not male but 500 calories is death

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment

Here a bit about under reporting of calories and how it affects studies

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-12-calorie-under-reporting-affects-national-obesity.html

You can't take any information from the Minnesota experiment for diet because it was extreme low protein and vitamin experiment. Too little protein and vitamin is a total game changer.

True, the Minnesota experiment is not a great example but it does show that what they consider low. They would not even be thinking of 500 calories for a male.

Combine that with my other link that people tend to under report what they are eating the 500 calories are totally crazy.

500 calories is not so extreme....it is like 5 eggs at 80 calories each + a bucket full of worthless salad + a couple of vitamin tablets + a lot water. I sometimes ate less per day (like only 3 eggs and one carrot (I know carrot has carbs) when I went down from 80++ in November.

I would say 500 is a good number for a diet and 1000 for a moderate diet and very easy to maintain as you have every day your victory shown on the scale + you aren't much hungry.

And you are very energized during that day, seems the body is switching in some "find food mode" and sharpens the awareness

For me it is much easier than these moderate slow diets with just 1 kg every month.....I really couldn't that.

[robblok]

JT,

To add.. 500 calories is totally unrealistic and unless done in a laboratory I don't believe one bit of it. Here an other nice bit about starvation in the famous Minnesota experiment .

You can even drop some calories because you are talking about a female not male but 500 calories is death

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment

Here a bit about under reporting of calories and how it affects studies

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-12-calorie-under-reporting-affects-national-obesity.html

You can't take any information from the Minnesota experiment for diet because it was extreme low protein and vitamin experiment. Too little protein and vitamin is a total game changer.

True, the Minnesota experiment is not a great example but it does show that what they consider low. They would not even be thinking of 500 calories for a male.

Combine that with my other link that people tend to under report what they are eating the 500 calories are totally crazy.

500 calories is not so extreme....it is like 5 eggs at 80 calories each + a bucket full of worthless salad + a couple of vitamin tablets + a lot water. I sometimes ate less per day (like only 3 eggs and one carrot (I know carrot has carbs) when I went down from 80++ in November.

I would say 500 is a good number for a diet and 1000 for a moderate diet and very easy to maintain as you have every day your victory shown on the scale + you aren't much hungry.

And you are very energized during that day, seems the body is switching in some "find food mode" and sharpens the awareness

For me it is much easier than these moderate slow diets with just 1 kg every month.....I really couldn't that.

For me it is real extreme, but in JT his theoretical example it was 500 calories for a lifetime. Not a limited period of time.

[h90]

You can't take any information from the Minnesota experiment for diet because it was extreme low protein and vitamin experiment. Too little protein and vitamin is a total game changer.

True, the Minnesota experiment is not a great example but it does show that what they consider low. They would not even be thinking of 500 calories for a male.

Combine that with my other link that people tend to under report what they are eating the 500 calories are totally crazy.

500 calories is not so extreme....it is like 5 eggs at 80 calories each + a bucket full of worthless salad + a couple of vitamin tablets + a lot water. I sometimes ate less per day (like only 3 eggs and one carrot (I know carrot has carbs) when I went down from 80++ in November.

I would say 500 is a good number for a diet and 1000 for a moderate diet and very easy to maintain as you have every day your victory shown on the scale + you aren't much hungry.

And you are very energized during that day, seems the body is switching in some "find food mode" and sharpens the awareness

For me it is much easier than these moderate slow diets with just 1 kg every month.....I really couldn't that.

For me it is real extreme, but in JT his theoretical example it was 500 calories for a lifetime. Not a limited period of time.

If you are extreme fat, you need extreme measure to come down in a reasonable time.

Of course not lifetime......unless you can live from sunlight (but that guy died already......)

[Naam]

h90

I would say 500 is a good number for a diet and 1000 for a moderate diet and very easy to maintain as you have every day your victory shown on the scale + you aren't much hungry.

in my case 1000kcal are not at all "very easy to maintain" because i refuse to forego the 400-600kcal intake from

[David48]

Showing my lack of knowledge on this vegetable ...

Carrots have Carbs?

[Naam]

Showing my lack of knowledge on this vegetable ...

Carrots have Carbs?

yes, like all vegetables.

[h90]

Showing my lack of knowledge on this vegetable ...

Carrots have Carbs?

Calories 52

Calories from Fat 3

Total Fat 0.3g 0%

Saturated Fat 0.0g 0%

Polyunsaturated Fat 0.1g

Monounsaturated Fat 0.0g

Cholesterol 0mg 0%

Sodium 88mg 4%

Carbohydrates 12.3g 4%

Dietary Fiber 3.6g 14%

Sugars 6.1g

Protein 1.2g

(per 128 gram....which is serving size I guess)

After not eating sugar for years and no carbs for 1 month (now it is longer but after 1 month I got the experience), carrots taste very sweet.

Normal apples taste sweet like a cake...almost so sweet that it doesn't taste good anymore.

I think that is the normal sense coming back. I am sure 10.000 years ago people would have focused on carrots and left the cucumber alone, because they tasted that the carrots have a lot calorie in compare.

If you would have asked me a couple of month ago I would have told both have almost no calorie and don't taste nothing....now the carrots are very sweet and cucumber still tastes like cucumber...

[MrHammer]

I don't know what this thread is about exactly. In my opinion, losing the weight is the hardest, it is much easier to keep the weight off because then you have many good habits which will help, where as when you begin you have bad habits which keep you fat.

Losing weight is all about good habits, such as going to the gym 3 times a week or skipping on that junk food except one a week. We all know the basics of these habits, they are generally about will power, do we go to the threadmill when we're a bit tired and do we refrain from ordering Foodpanda and instead get some baked spinach?

It takes quite some time to develop new habits and break old ones, but I believe it is key. In the beginning, you don't have the 'being skinny' habits so you need to force them, by counting calories or having a gym buddy to motivate you. Once you hit your goal weight, chances are the habits are now deeply ingrained, so you don't need as much conscious thought. Instead skipping the gym will make you feel bad - you don't need to think about it - you will feel it. The same with eating bad, it becomes a subconcious thing.

And I agree with the daily weighing, when I was in top shape around 90 kg at 186 cm, I also weighed myself and if I hit 91 kg, I would take some action like run a bit more that day or eat a bit less. It wasn't rocket science or streneous actually, but I will admit it was based on a high level of physical activity.

I believe that is the real problem, that modern life is unnaturally sedentary. We're simply not built for this lifestyle with 1.5 hour hard training, no we are made for 6-8 hours of light to moderate physical activity every day.

Here's a tip, if you spend a lot of time online, consider getting a threadmill desk, I am very serious, haven't got it myself, but I do know it works.

[Jingthing]

I don't know what this thread is about exactly. In my opinion, losing the weight is the hardest, it is much easier to keep the weight off because then you have many good habits which will help, where as when you begin you have bad habits which keep you fat.

...

Perhaps easy and hard are the wrong words.

Think more about more common vs. more rare.

Yes losing weight can be hard but it is common.

Maintaining weight loss long term, on the other hand, is much less common.

This is well known and established.

You can even figure this out with a small personal sample.

Talk to 10 current fat people, ask them have you ever lost at least 10 percent of their weight. Most will almost always say yes.

Talk to those same 10 current fat people and ask them if they currently maintaining a loss of at least 10 percent of weight long term. Most if not all will say no.

OK results will vary, that's a small sample, but this is really known.

So if the real goal is not only weight loss but keeping it off and the facts are keeping it off has a higher failure rate than success in just losing, then you can call the maintaining "harder" or not, but its just semantics.

Anyway, I'm happy for you if your personal experience has been feeling that keeping it off has been easier than losing weight. I think many people go into a temporary "fighting" phase for the weigh loss phase and have the DIET MENTALITY which of course means eventually the diet ends. So at maintenance phase, things tend to slip again for most people, and the weights comes back so much easier than it came off, the facts are there. That is one reason I feel very strongly the entire concept of "DIETS" is a flawed mentality.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Jingthing

[David48]

I feel very strongly the entire concept of "DIETS" is a flawed mentality.

How about the concept of EXERCISE ?

Or, even better, a pattern of sensible eating, embracing, for want of a better term 'natural' food, as opposed to 'packaged' food.

Combining that natural way of eating with some sensible, enjoyable exercise?

That exercise will change over time (aging). For me, I can still play squash, weight lift (not anything like Rob ... but resistance exercises), ride a bike and walk.

EVERY time, I come to Thailand, I drop a few kilos, the rate being probably a kilo a month.

I eat, drink and be merry.

The weight loss I put down to the extra walking. Walking is GREAT exercise.

A sensible diet combined with moderate exercise is a great mentality ...

.

[robblok]

I feel very strongly the entire concept of "DIETS" is a flawed mentality.

How about the concept of EXERCISE ?

Or, even better, a pattern of sensible eating, embracing, for want of a better term 'natural' food, as opposed to 'packaged' food.

Combining that natural way of eating with some sensible, enjoyable exercise?

That exercise will change over time (aging). For me, I can still play squash, weight lift (not anything like Rob ... but resistance exercises), ride a bike and walk.

EVERY time, I come to Thailand, I drop a few kilos, the rate being probably a kilo a month.

I eat, drink and be merry.

The weight loss I put down to the extra walking. Walking is GREAT exercise.

A sensible diet combined with moderate exercise is a great mentality ...

.

I don't often support JT but in this case I believe he means that diet implies something is temporary while it is more beneficial to make life long good choices (pardon me if i said something you did not think this)

I am a believer in a sensible diet (as in permanent changes) and exercise. Time and again this has proven to be the best. What kind of exercise is debatable, but in my view it should be something you can enjoy else you will give up too easy and any exercise is better as nothing at all.

[weary]

The main thing that helped me was actually mindfulness training, paying attention to the present moment. That came with a number of realisations.

The first realisation:

It is always NOW.

The only time I can act is NOW. There is no past, it is gone already. (Ergo: whatever bad habits or stupid things I have done are gone. They had an impact in forming the now, but what I think and do NOW, NOW, NOW and NOW has the same impact on what forms the future.) The future is just potential, and to dream about in a positive or negative light is pointless. Instead, just be here now and do the things you really want to do (the things that align with your true inner values and desires, not the things that are based in autpilot cravings) to the best of your ability.

Each now is a moment to do something different if you are unhappy with what you are doing now. As soon as you get up to do something about it, you are already changing the course of your future.

If you fail to act NOW, instead of blaming yourself, just act NOW.

Edited January 14, 2014 by weary

[Jingthing]

I don't often support JT but in this case I believe he means that diet implies something is temporary while it is more beneficial to make life long good choices (pardon me if i said something you did not think this)

I am a believer in a sensible diet (as in permanent changes) and exercise. Time and again this has proven to be the best. What kind of exercise is debatable, but in my view it should be something you can enjoy else you will give up too easy and any exercise is better as nothing at all.

Yes, exactly.

LIFETIME CHANGES!

The word "diet" has become loaded for fat people.

In my view, the ideal, hard to achieve but still the ideal is for the "phase" of weight loss is the food choices and even portions should be roughly something that is acceptable and even pleasant to SUSTAIN for life.

This fits with the OP, because it is usual to need to be ever vigilant of avoiding excess in food type and portion after the weight loss "phase" for life.

So the more tolerable and even pleasant the food choices and portions are in the weight loss "phase" the happier the prospects are to sustain that life.

I think most people work on the pleasure principle. There is pleasure in food to be found outside of chocolate cake and french fries, in other words all of the classical unhealthy fat promoting foods. I have found it so I know it is possible for me. It may not be possible for everyone; I couldn't know as I'm not everyone.

The try to keep it pleasant part of it might be more important for someone like me who is a bona fide food lover and adventurer. Yes I have seen gluttons that can sit down and eat a mountain and don't seem to care about the quality and flavor. I can't relate to that. I REALLY love food in a passionate and discriminating way.

Exercise is something that is known to be vital for both the weight loss "phase" and after. No argument there. So that needs to be part of the weight loss "phase" and after. Absolutely, no question. How much exercise? I would say as much as is needed and more if that's your thing. If you can reduce some extra calories, you can reduce some exercise. Bang for the buck in weight loss and maintenance, food choice and portion is known to be the stronger part of it but both aspects are NEEDED. Some people tolerate even love massive amounts of exercise more than others. But you need to do a minimum or you cut your chances of success severely.

On a personal note, I am really sick and tired with multiple posts on the fat forum, and also on other forums on the board sometimes almost like a kind of stalking harassment, basically TEASING me into doing more exercise. I am mature a man. I know what exercise is, I know the benefits of it, and the downside of not doing enough of it. I am not seeking and will not be helped by taunting and abusive posts goading me to do more exercise. If I do decide to increase the level of my current level of exercise, that will be something I will be motivated to do myself INTERNALLY.

If that isn't clear enough, please no more messages here or by PM that are directed personally at me to preach at me, or tease at me about exercise levels. It's not helpful. It is rude and in some cases it even reaches fat shaming levels.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Jingthing

[robblok]

I don't often support JT but in this case I believe he means that diet implies something is temporary while it is more beneficial to make life long good choices (pardon me if i said something you did not think this)

I am a believer in a sensible diet (as in permanent changes) and exercise. Time and again this has proven to be the best. What kind of exercise is debatable, but in my view it should be something you can enjoy else you will give up too easy and any exercise is better as nothing at all.

Yes, exactly.

LIFETIME CHANGES!

The word "diet" has become loaded for fat people.

In my view, the ideal, hard to achieve but still the ideal is for the "phase" of weight loss is for the food choices and even portions should be roughly something that is acceptable and even pleasant to SUSTAIN for life.

This fits with the OP, because it is usual to need to be ever vigilant of avoiding excess in food type and portion after the weight loss "phase" for life.

So the more tolerable and even pleasant the food choices and portions are in the weight loss "phase" the happier the prospects are to sustain that life.

I think most people work on the pleasure principle. There is pleasure in food to be found outside of chocolate cake and french fries, in other words all of the classical unhealthy fat promoting foods. I have found it so I know it is possible for me. It may not be possible for everyone; I couldn't know as I'm not everyone.

Exercise is something that is known to be vital for both the weight loss "phase" and after. No argument there. So that needs to part of the weight loss "phase" and after. Absolutely, no question. How much exercise? I would say as much as is needed and more if that's your thing. If you can reduce some extra calories, you can reduce some exercise. Bang for the buck in weight loss and maintenance, food choices is known to be the stronger part of it but both aspects are NEEDED. Some people tolerate even love massive amounts of exercise more than others. But you need to do a minimum or you cut your chances of success severely.

As you said it weight loss comes more from food choices as from exercise. It might even stop weight loss a bit (by building muscles in novices they are the only ones who can loose weight and gain muscle).

There is one important thing about exercise is that it can have a beneficial effect on insulin sensitivity. That can help to maintain and loose weight.

Besides weight loss exercise is good for the heart and in some cases for the bones.

It all depends on how much people can do and can keep up with. Personally i seem to have found what i like and keep doing it. It also keeps me in a good mood, if i cut out exercise for a long time i will become grumpy and prone to stress. Probably because i got a desk job. (hence my post count)

Its not that I always enjoy going up to my gym and workout.. sometimes i just do it because if i break this habit its hard to start it again. Other days i just enjoy it more to clear my mind.

[Jingthing]

Yes exercise is needed for the weight loss "phase" and later. That is amplified by the findings I posted on the success stories thread. Pretty much all of the success stories were regular exercisers. Now that could just be walking (something I do a lot) or it could be being a gym rat, but is has GOT to be something and it has GOT to be frequent.

I also agree there are general health benefits to exercise, even psychological ones, that make exercise important for all people, not only people who have ever had fat issues.

We're all on board with the importance of exercise.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Jingthing

[singa-traz]

What was the topic? "The key to why most people who lose weight fail to maintain the weight loss"

[robblok]

What was the topic? "The key to why most people who lose weight fail to maintain the weight loss"

IMHO mainly because its hard to make lifetime long changes. Its easy to let the bad habits slip back in.