Re: x = rate of weight loss, y = long-term success, what's the graph look like?
- From: "Steve Freides" <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:04:11 -0400
"DZ" <9464@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:31754@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Steve Freides <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am still wondering, however, if anyone has attempted to eliminate
the fad,
10-pounds-in-two-days weight loss programs and actually controlled
for
different rates of weight loss while otherwise having all the
participants
follow more or less the same, sensible guidelines, e.g., if someone
has
tried 100, 250, 500, and 1000 calorie per day deficits but everything
else
was more or less the same - and then compared both the short- and
long-term
results.
What would be a hypothesis of such experiment?
My hypothesis is, "the longer you take to lose it, the more likely you
are to keep it off long-term." The question is whether it is only
lifestyle changes that account for lasting weightloss, or whether the
rate of weight loss has any actual bearing on long-term results, either
in the way I suggested or otherwise. Another hypothesis would be,
"losing faster than 2 lbs. per week is less effective in the long-term
than losing at that rate or slower."
I should be more complete in describing my own experience - I went
through two 'phases' of weight loss in my life, one in which I lost 20
lbs. in 12 weeks (over the course of a summer) and one in which I lost
the same amount of weight but over about 18-20 months. The faster time
happened earlier in my life, I did gain the weight back, but then lost
it "for good" when I lost it more slowly.
Thus, my personal experience certainly plays a role in the formation of
my theory here, but it is impossible for me to compare in any meaningful
way the methods of dieting I used - the first time my life was so hectic
(but very happy) that it was literally often difficult to find time to
eat and the weight loss was easy. The second time was later in life and
really did involve more "lifestyle" choices.
I'm frankly surprised it hasn't been studied if, in fact, it hasn't -
seems like a very worthwhile thing to test out to me. "Long-term" would
need to be defined, of course, but my vote would be for a minimum of 5
years, and I'd prefer 10 or longer, since weight often "creeps" back on
fairly slowly.
Mind you, I am not a scientist and don't even know if I'm using the word
"hypothesis" as you mean it. My doctoral work involved Burgundian
chanson. :)
-S-
http://www.kbnj.com
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Evolution, Weight, and Exercise
- Next by Date: Re: questions and my workout
- Previous by thread: Re: x = rate of weight loss, y = long-term success, what's the graph look like?
- Next by thread: Re: x = rate of weight loss, y = long-term success, what's the graph look like?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
