"The New Weight-loss math" (Leslie Beck)

[Jwolf]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/hea ... le2345013/

From the Globe and Mail, February 21, 2012
"The New Weight-loss math" by Leslie Beck (Globe nutrition columnist)

Basic premise of the article:

Yes, it really is just calories in vs. calories out. But it might take longer than you think.

For example, if you cut your diet by 100 calories per day, you won't lose 10 pounds in a year based on the 3500 calories = 1 pound formula. That's because your body adjusts it's calorie burning and metabolism as you lose weight. Instead it will take you about 3 years to lose 10 pounds: about 5 in the first year and gradually less as the next years go on.

My question (jwolf speaking here): How is this new? Haven't we known all along that our bodies adjust metabolism and burn less as we lose weight? It's not that we need to reduce our diet by a consistent 100 calories per day, but we need to get into a 100-calorie deficit per day (to lose 10 pounds in a year). The deficit is trickier to reach because as we lose weight we burn less calories. Similarly our exercise will burn less as we lose weight and as we become more efficient. So the "calories out" calculation is a moving target.

[trixiee]

Even that is over simplified, isn't it?

Add hormones -both menopausal and reproductive shifts and hormones produced by stress... seasonal weight gain.

OMG... I'm in deep doo-doo!

[turd ferguson]

How is this new?

Of course its not new. I bet you could do a pretty cool chart of how long it takes "news" like this to make it from the sciencey press and journals to the features section of the newspaper, where its used as filler.

In my little corner of the professional world, its a running joke that by the time the national newspapers discover something, its already irrelevant.

[Jwolf]

How is this new?

Of course its not new. I bet you could do a pretty cool chart of how long it takes "news" like this to make it from the sciencey press and journals to the features section of the newspaper, where its used as filler.

In my little corner of the professional world, its a running joke that by the time the national newspapers discover something, its already irrelevant.

Well, this article was based on reports from a scientific conference going on right now. So it's not the newspaper calling it "new", but the researchers.

This past weekend, at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meeting in Vancouver, an international team of researchers unveiled a new formula to better predict how people will lose weight on a diet....

Now health-care professionals and researchers have a tool to more accurately predict a dieter’s expected weight loss over time, based on changes to metabolism. Having a more realistic sense of what to expect can help people stay motivated over the long term.

The new formula and accompanying web-based model were developed by researchers from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the World Health Organization, Columbia University and Harvard School of Public Health,

The online tool – called the Body Weight Simulator – requires people to input their age, gender, body weight, height, activity level and weight goal (bwsimulator.niddk.nih.gov).

It then simulates what diet and exercise changes are required to reach the goal weight and what changes are necessary to maintain it over time.

This seems very similar to formulas used by other on-line weight loss calculators that have been around for a long time.

[ultraslacker]

I tried the simulator it links to and the simulator told me that my *base* calorie needs are 2600/day. Right.

[Jwolf]

I tried the simulator it links to and the simulator told me that my *base* calorie needs are 2600/day. Right.

So much for the new math!

ETA: I did it too, and it seems much more reasonable-- about 2000 calories/day to maintain, about 1750 to meet my weight-loss "goal" of losing 7 pounds in 60 days (not really my goal, but I just put in something).

But still, I had to make some assumptions about activity level for it to work, and the calculator really doesn't take into account specific minutes/hours of exercise. It doesn't seem to do that much better than other things that are already out there.

[babysteps]

I tried the simulator it links to and the simulator told me that my *base* calorie needs are 2600/day. Right.

So much for the new math!

ETA: I did it too, and it seems much more reasonable-- about 2000 calories/day to maintain, about 1750 to meet my weight-loss "goal" of losing 7 pounds in 60 days (not really my goal, but I just put in something).

But still, I had to make some assumptions about activity level for it to work, and the calculator really doesn't take into account specific minutes/hours of exercise. It doesn't seem to do that much better than other things that are already out there.

Mine's close to yours - about 2300/day to maintain and 1650/day to lose. But I wanted to lose 12 lbs in 60 days!! (A girl can dream). But that was also based on an activity increase of 20%..

[Jo-Jo]

I tried the simulator it links to and the simulator told me that my *base* calorie needs are 2600/day. Right.

So much for the new math!

ETA: I did it too, and it seems much more reasonable-- about 2000 calories/day to maintain, about 1750 to meet my weight-loss "goal" of losing 7 pounds in 60 days (not really my goal, but I just put in something).

But still, I had to make some assumptions about activity level for it to work, and the calculator really doesn't take into account specific minutes/hours of exercise. It doesn't seem to do that much better than other things that are already out there.

I used it too...to maintain my current weight I need 1452 calories a day...pretty much what I expected it to say. I don't count calories but I have a pretty good idea of how many I do get a day.

[fingerboy]

I need on average 3,188cal a day Must be why my weight goes up and down 6 or so lbs a week.