Figure 2, included from the 2008 Israeli study is very interesting. Why do all three diets show a reverse in weight loss at 5 months? (It must be a coincidence that it is at five months for all three groups, perhaps the true number would vary for the diets and be at 5 plus or minus 2, especially for the Mediterranean diet which reverses again at month 8.) But generally weight loss occurs for a handful of months and then reverses.
Maybe this is part of weight loss dynamics. A person loses some weight, and then there is a restorative force to put the weight back. (But all the weight is not gained, the diet was still worthwhile.) But this seems indicative that there is some equilibrium weight and dieting has failed to entirely reset that equilibrium. (With the plateau at 1.5 years at a lower weight, the equilibrium seems to have been adjusted a useful amount.)
This is just one data set, but since the study seems well-designed I’ll fold this hypothesis into my paradigm with a tag, ‘continue to examine incoming evidence’.
I think that the data shows the diets are very effective: participants lost 3 to 5 pounds over two years. Losing weight is so difficult, losing a few pounds and keeping it off it for a few years is very good. Especially when you consider that you might have instead gained weight without the diet. Having a mechanism to lose a few pounds is what you need to maintain a healthy weight. (I think you are lucky to find such mechanism—I feel lucky the low-carb diet works for me, given that the low-calorie decisively didn’t.)
The diets might have been even more effective if their applications were tweaked. (It’s unlikely the diets were perfectly applied.) Since I’ve found the low-carb diet effective for me, I’ll make a few comments on how the low-carb diet in the study would not have been optimized for me. (I’ve lost 15 pounds three times with this diet, and successfully kept off the weight—between pregnancies. I did not stay on the diet during my pregnancies.)
Further comments on the low-carb diet, based on my experience:
(These are my observations, through systematically studying myself, and I predict these wouldn’t map exactly to someone else’s body and metabolism.)
In their study, they had an induction phase for 2 months, and after that they gradually increased carbs from 20 grams per day to 120 grams per day. Thus it seems that over the 22 months after induction, they increased the number of carbs by 10 grams per month.
Induction phase too short Two months is not long enough to reset an equilibrium weight (or change gut flora, or whatever it is that causes reversals.) It takes three or four months in my case, to notice differences indicating I’m ready to change phases. So I think the induction phase needed to be longer, but on the other hand, it perhaps didn’t need to be so intense.
Induction phase possibly too intense Consider, if the net weight loss over two years was 5 pounds, there was no need to lose that many in the first two months. Looking at the data, there was a transient plateau around months 8--10, indicating that 40 or 50 grams per day might have been low enough to begin losing weight. I would ask myself how I felt about 20 grams per day and whether I could maintain that for four months (no).
Increasing carbs too rapidly thereafter The target maintenance level of 120 grams, or the initial slope of the approach towards 120g, might have been too high to continue losing weight and continue lowering the equilibrium weight. Especially the data at 1 year, when the average weight regain was 2 pounds, would have been an indication to stop increasing the daily amount of carbs. Generally, as long as I’m living with my diet satisfactorily, I don’t increase my carbs unless I have achieved my target weight. This means I spend about 80% of the year restricting my carbs. This raises eyebrows, because I’m at a healthy weight—but it seems our culture doesn’t place enough value on the continuous effort that is required in our culture to be healthy.
Figure 2, included from the 2008 Israeli study is very interesting. Why do all three diets show a reverse in weight loss at 5 months? (It must be a coincidence that it is at five months for all three groups, perhaps the true number would vary for the diets and be at 5 plus or minus 2, especially for the Mediterranean diet which reverses again at month 8.) But generally weight loss occurs for a handful of months and then reverses.
Maybe this is part of weight loss dynamics. A person loses some weight, and then there is a restorative force to put the weight back. (But all the weight is not gained, the diet was still worthwhile.) But this seems indicative that there is some equilibrium weight and dieting has failed to entirely reset that equilibrium. (With the plateau at 1.5 years at a lower weight, the equilibrium seems to have been adjusted a useful amount.)
This is just one data set, but since the study seems well-designed I’ll fold this hypothesis into my paradigm with a tag, ‘continue to examine incoming evidence’.
I think that the data shows the diets are very effective: participants lost 3 to 5 pounds over two years. Losing weight is so difficult, losing a few pounds and keeping it off it for a few years is very good. Especially when you consider that you might have instead gained weight without the diet. Having a mechanism to lose a few pounds is what you need to maintain a healthy weight. (I think you are lucky to find such mechanism—I feel lucky the low-carb diet works for me, given that the low-calorie decisively didn’t.)
The diets might have been even more effective if their applications were tweaked. (It’s unlikely the diets were perfectly applied.) Since I’ve found the low-carb diet effective for me, I’ll make a few comments on how the low-carb diet in the study would not have been optimized for me. (I’ve lost 15 pounds three times with this diet, and successfully kept off the weight—between pregnancies. I did not stay on the diet during my pregnancies.)
Further comments on the low-carb diet, based on my experience: (These are my observations, through systematically studying myself, and I predict these wouldn’t map exactly to someone else’s body and metabolism.)
In their study, they had an induction phase for 2 months, and after that they gradually increased carbs from 20 grams per day to 120 grams per day. Thus it seems that over the 22 months after induction, they increased the number of carbs by 10 grams per month.
Induction phase too short Two months is not long enough to reset an equilibrium weight (or change gut flora, or whatever it is that causes reversals.) It takes three or four months in my case, to notice differences indicating I’m ready to change phases. So I think the induction phase needed to be longer, but on the other hand, it perhaps didn’t need to be so intense.
Induction phase possibly too intense Consider, if the net weight loss over two years was 5 pounds, there was no need to lose that many in the first two months. Looking at the data, there was a transient plateau around months 8--10, indicating that 40 or 50 grams per day might have been low enough to begin losing weight. I would ask myself how I felt about 20 grams per day and whether I could maintain that for four months (no).
Increasing carbs too rapidly thereafter The target maintenance level of 120 grams, or the initial slope of the approach towards 120g, might have been too high to continue losing weight and continue lowering the equilibrium weight. Especially the data at 1 year, when the average weight regain was 2 pounds, would have been an indication to stop increasing the daily amount of carbs. Generally, as long as I’m living with my diet satisfactorily, I don’t increase my carbs unless I have achieved my target weight. This means I spend about 80% of the year restricting my carbs. This raises eyebrows, because I’m at a healthy weight—but it seems our culture doesn’t place enough value on the continuous effort that is required in our culture to be healthy.