Steve Pope wrote:
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
>>With any diet no matter what type you have to do it forever or gain it
>>all back.
>
> About a week or two ago, there was a NYT article (Tara Parker Pope)
> that went into some detail about this effect. If you've been
> at a higher weight for a certain minimum time (on the order of 3
> or 4 months), then reduce to a lower weight, the maintenance diet
> regime must last forever to avoid going back up in weight.
> Apparently this notion has now crossed over from being folklore to
> being scientifically established.

That's the set-point theory. People have observed stalls at such levels
for as far back as I've read about dieting. Not the same thing as my
simpler cause and effect point.

To me the cause and effect thing is pretty simple - To quit a plan
generally means to go back to the way you were eating before you
started the plan. Your weight before you started was the result and
eating the way before you started was the result. Therefore quitting
means you will head directly back towards your previous weight.

The set-point theory is about stalls during the loss phase. It says
that if you spent years at a certain weight before resuming long term
gain towards your highest, then you should expect a stall when you hit
that set-point weight as you lose. The cause and effect is no where
near as obvious in thaat case. You're eating in a way that the month
before caused an irregular pattern of loss. Why shouldn't loss continue
with a similar degree of irregularity?