Steve Pope wrote:
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
>>Setting aside the problem of not including low carbers, what does the
>>registry say about people who have kept it off for 2+ years? (Among
>>other things the fact that they need to go with a time period that short
>>is not a good sign. The odds don't favor keeping it off until it's been
>>kept off for 5+ years.)
>
> So given your research, what is your estimate of the fraction
> of deliberate weight-loss attempters who, at some point in their
> life, maintain a weight that is less than their previous lifetime
> maximum for 5+ years? (Not counting those who have lost weight
> due to chronic illness.)
>
> I think it's around 20% to 30% but it's a difficult number to pull
> out of the studies. I know of no research that has directly tried
> to answer this question.
>
> One often hears statements that hardly anybody ever does this
> (suggesting 5% or fewer), but those are clearly false once you
> start looking at the data.

Given what I've seen the 5% estimate does seem far better than your
higher numbers. Is that because of the popularity of plans without
maintenance phases (my first criterion for a fad diet)? Partially.

It remains that the best I've seen is an unstable maintenance that is
easy to fall off and as hard to get back on as it was to start the diet
plan in the first place. And most aren't that good. Any diet that
makes the diet still be hungry during maintenance is a diet that *will*
fail for well over 99% of the people who try it while they are in
maintenance. In western civilization there is nearly unlimited food
available at all time and who can resist that and stay hungry forever?

Many lose. Few keep it off. Most consider what they ate when they got
fat to be "normal" eating and they want to return to "normal" as soon as
they hit their goal weight. Simple cause and effect says that all of
the dieters who do this will return to their peak weight again. Eat
what caused you to get fat and you'll get fat all over again.