Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / May 2010

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Fast or Slow Weight Loss - which is best?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
pamela - 07 May 2010 14:21 GMT
It has long been repeated that fast weight loss is of lesser health
value than slow weight loss. "A pound or so per week". Recently, the
Doctors Eades shifted to a rapid weight loss approach in their book "The
Six Week Cure for the Middle Aged Middle".

The study below freshly questions the long repeated dogma of slow weight
loss. The study is focused on the weight loss of the obese, and
concludes that the key to short term maximum weight loss is to
initially lose weight fast. 262 female humans and no rats or mice formed
the basis of the study

===================================================================

Science News
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100506092735.htm

Shape Up the Quick Way: Lose Weight Fast for Lasting Results Suggests
New Study

ScienceDaily (May 6, 2010) — If you thought the best way to lose and
maintain weight was the slow and steady approach, think again. A new
study by Lisa Nackers and colleagues, from the University of Florida in
the US, suggests that the key to long-term weight loss and maintenance
is to lose weight quickly, not gradually, in the initial stages of
obesity treatment. Their findings are published online in Springer's
International Journal of Behavioral Medicine.

Successful weight loss in obese individuals is defined as a reduction of
10 percent or more of initial body weight maintained for at least a
year. The jury is still out, however, as to whether fast or slow initial
weight loss is the best approach for long-term weight control in obese
patients. On the one hand, there is evidence that losing weight slowly
initially results in continued weight loss, reduced risk of weight
regain, and successful long-term weight loss maintenance. On the other
hand, it has also been shown that the greater the initial weight loss in
obese patients, the larger the total weight loss observed longer term.

Nackers and team's study examines the association between rate of
initial weight loss and long-term maintenance of lost weight, by looking
specifically at whether losing weight at a slow initial rate results in
larger long-term weight reduction and less weight regain than losing
weight at a fast initial rate.

The authors analyzed data for 262 middle-aged obese women who took part
in the Treatment of Obesity in Underserved Rural Settings (TOURS) trial.
These women followed a six-month lifestyle program encouraging them to
reduce their calorie intake and increase their moderate intensity
physical activity to achieve an average weight loss of 0.45kg per week.
They were then supported for a further year with an extended care
program involving contact twice a month in the form of group sessions,
telephone contact or newsletters.

Nackers and team split the women into three groups according to how much
weight they lost in the first month of the intervention. Women in the
FAST group lost over 0.68kg per week; those in the MODERATE group lost
between 0.23 and 0.68kg per week; women in the SLOW group lost less than
0.23kg per week in that first month. The authors then looked at the
womens' weight loss at 6 and 18 months, as well as any weight regain.

They found that there were long-term advantages to fast initial weight
loss. Fast weight losers lost more weight overall, maintained their
weight loss for longer and were not more likely to put weight back on
than the more gradual weight losers. In particular, women in the FAST
group were five times more likely to achieve the clinically significant
10 percent weight loss at 18 months than those in the SLOW group and
those in the MODERATE group were nearly three times more likely to
achieve this milestone than women in the SLOW group.

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."

Story Source:

    Adapted from materials provided by Springer Science+Business Media,
via AlphaGalileo.

Journal Reference:

   1. Lisa M. Nackers, Kathryn M. Ross, Michael G. Perri. The
Association Between Rate of Initial Weight Loss and Long-Term Success in
Obesity Treatment: Does Slow and Steady Win the Race? International
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 2010; DOI: 10.1007/s12529-010-9092-y

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12529-010-9092-y
Billy - 07 May 2010 17:53 GMT
Am I missing something here? According to the article, those who lost
weight the most easily, were five times more likely to achieve the
clinically significant 10 percent weight loss at 18 months than those in
the SLOW or MODERATE groups. My response is, "Duh".

I get the feeling it was a slow news-day.

> It has long been repeated that fast weight loss is of lesser health
> value than slow weight loss. "A pound or so per week". Recently, the
[quoted text clipped - 86 lines]
>
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12529-010-9092-y
Signature

- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html

Doug Freyburger - 07 May 2010 21:35 GMT
>> It has long been repeated that fast weight loss is of lesser health
>> value than slow weight loss. "A pound or so per week". Recently, the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>> initially lose weight fast. 262 female humans and no rats or mice formed
>> the basis of the study

There are a lot of people who come to boards and groups who focus on
loss rate.  "Rushing is breaking" and they rarely last long.  But lots
of them come back a year or two later to try again.

In comparison folks who aren't in a hurry seem to have a lower drop out
rate.  That tortice always beats the hair no matter how many times I
read the story.

This study says that experimental data runs to opposite of annecdotal
evidence.  It happens.  But I would very much like to see the relative
drop out rates.  It looks to me like they dropped the drop outs.

> Am I missing something here? According to the article, those who lost
> weight the most easily, were five times more likely to achieve the
> clinically significant 10 percent weight loss at 18 months than those in
> the SLOW or MODERATE groups. My response is, "Duh".

That too.  If you lose slowly enough that alone would explain not
hitting the 10%.  But try running the numbers.  Someone 250 pounds would
need to lose 25 pounds in six months.  That's 1 per week and that's
about right to count in the slow group.
Jim - 08 May 2010 00:45 GMT
> Am I missing something here? According to the article, those who lost
> weight the most easily, were five times more likely to achieve the
> clinically significant 10 percent weight loss at 18 months than those in
> the SLOW or MODERATE groups. My response is, "Duh".
>
> I get the feeling it was a slow news-day.

You are pretty stupid ( or maybe only ignorant).

It shows quite plainly.

If you were less stupid, or ignorant, you would know of the classic
argument that the best weight loss program is gradual, not rapid.
Doctors often state that too.

>> It has long been repeated that fast weight loss is of lesser health
>> value than slow weight loss. "A pound or so per week". Recently, the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>> initially lose weight fast. 262 female humans and no rats or mice formed
>> the basis of the study
Billy - 08 May 2010 01:18 GMT
> > Am I missing something here? According to the article, those who lost
> > weight the most easily, were five times more likely to achieve the
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> >> initially lose weight fast. 262 female humans and no rats or mice formed
> >> the basis of the study

??????
Did another turnip truck turn over on the interstate?
Citation pul-ease.
Signature

- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html

Jim - 08 May 2010 04:42 GMT
>>> Am I missing something here? According to the article, those who lost
>>> weight the most easily, were five times more likely to achieve the
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>> argument that the best weight loss program is gradual, not rapid.
>> Doctors often state that too.

> ??????
> Did another turnip truck turn over on the interstate?
> Citation pul-ease.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12529-010-9092-y
FOB - 07 May 2010 21:36 GMT
Fast loss is certainly more motivating.

| It has long been repeated that fast weight loss is of lesser health
| value than slow weight loss. "A pound or so per week". Recently, the
[quoted text clipped - 89 lines]
|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12529-010-9092-y
Jim - 08 May 2010 00:43 GMT
> Fast loss is certainly more motivating.

That is absolutely true. Some argue that the State I of Atkins
deliberately promotes rapid weight loss to give encouragement.
The others will use the same argument to claim that Atkins is just a
"trick" diet.

There is no pleasing all people.

> | It has long been repeated that fast weight loss is of lesser health
> | value than slow weight loss. "A pound or so per week". Recently, the
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
> | results in larger long-term weight reduction and less weight regain
> | than losing weight at a fast initial rate.
trader4@optonline.net - 09 May 2010 17:49 GMT
> > Fast loss is certainly more motivating.
>
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

It seems to me that there are many things involved here and I'm not
sure the results of this really can help determine if rapid weight
loss or slow weight loss is better.   The first problem is it's not
clear that any give person has much of a choice as to whether they
lose weight rapidly or slowly.  A large part of that is determined by
metabolism that a person can't control.   Even in this study, the most
important thing to note is that they did not divide the group up
before hand and tell one group to do things differently, ie lose
weight more rapidly.   They seperated them into groups AFTER they had
all tried to do the same thing.   So, why would it be surprising that
those people who had more early success also managed to keep the
weight off later?  If they have faster metabolisms and lost more
because of it, then it seems reasonable that a year later they could
be less likely to regain.

Had they divided the groups up BEFORE starting and had one group do a
program that results in faster weight loss, while the other did a more
moderate program, then I would think they would be at least trying to
measuring whether a fast weight loss technique is better than a slower
one.
Jim - 10 May 2010 01:23 GMT
>>> Fast loss is certainly more motivating.
>> That is absolutely true. Some argue that the State I of Atkins
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>
>> There is no pleasing all people.

> It seems to me that there are many things involved here and I'm not
> sure the results of this really can help determine if rapid weight
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> measuring whether a fast weight loss technique is better than a slower
> one.

They concluded that more work needs to be done. What you say is in
accordance with that.
Walter Bushell - 10 May 2010 18:19 GMT
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100506092735.htm

In any event this is a reduced calorie diet test and as such is of
little relevance to low carbers.

Signature

A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.