PITTSBURGH (UPI) -- Overweight or obese women may need 55 minutes of exercise a day five days weekly to sustain a weight loss of 10 percent over two years, U.S. researchers say.
John M. Jakicic of the University of Pittsburgh and colleagues enrolled 201 overweight and obese women in a weight-loss intervention from 1999-2003. All the women were told to eat 1,200-1,500 calories per day. They were then assigned to one of four groups based on physical activity amount -- burning 1,000 calories versus 2,000 calories per week and intensity -- moderate versus vigorous.
After six months, women in all four groups had lost an average of 8 percent to 10 percent of their initial body weight. However, most weren't able to sustain this weight loss.
The study, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, found 25 percent of individuals who did maintain a loss of 10 percent or more over two years reported performing more physical activity -- an average of 1,835 calories per week or 275 minutes per week over the baseline level of activity -- than those who lost less weight.
"Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion. You have to set yourself on fire." anonymous
Posts: 4278 | Location: Indianapolis, IN | Registered: March 15, 2004
Originally posted by Tayhudson: PITTSBURGH (UPI) -- Overweight or obese women may need 55 minutes of exercise a day five days weekly to sustain a weight loss of 10 percent over two years, U.S. researchers say.
I would both agree and disagree with this.
Maintining is MUCH easier if a person is active and can eat an extra 300 calories a day or 1500 calories a week.
Not exercising is like trying to be happy on 6 days of food a week, instead of the full 7.
I would disagree this the word "exercise". A person does not have to be on a treadmill for an hour a day. Exercise helps... but "activity" also helps.
For example, I've worn a pedometer and I get about 2,000 steps or walk 1 mile teaching a 2 hour band class. I've visited 3 different teachers (who are all obese by about 75-100 lbs) who teach the class sitting down. Granted, I'm not burning calories like I'm running a marathon or something. But it is the difference between stressing over 2 cups of grapes or 1.
I'm not sure that losing weight would change that habit. I notice all the time "little" things like that... of ways thin people are different from overweight people.
But I would agree that exercise/activity helps because it is really nice to eat 7 days worth of food a week, rather than only 6.
Originally posted by susanrows: It seems to me the most obvious question is whether they were able to continue eating 1,200 calories a day!
Nobody eats 1,200 calories a day to maintain.
The average member of the National Weight Control Registry REPORTS eating 1300 calories a day. When their food logs are corrected for errors, the average is 1,800.
Also, MANY, MANY women/people in the NWCR are NOT maintaining. MANY of them are up in weight and trying to take it off and are in losing mode. Many joined the NWCR after losing weight, but would like to take more off. 1,800 calories a day is an average of people's calories who are both maintaining and in losing mode.
"New research in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition reveals just how many calories, on average, men and women in their forties, fifties and sixties burn each day. Drum roll… please! According to the study, men aged 40 to 69 expend about 2,900 calories. Women of the same age burn 2,300 calories daily. (These averages vary based on a person’s height, weight and activity.)"
If you poll any group of people... especially women who have dieted... virtually NO one thinks that they maintain on 2,300 calories a day. Most people guess that it is 1,400 or 1,600... something like that. And some do claim that they can only eat 1,200 calories a day.
Humans in general are really crappy at accurately reporting what we eat. (And "Restrictive Eaters" are off the charts crappy at it.)
Weight and diet researchers are very frustrated that adult humans really have a difficult time accurately reporting what we eat, and how much we eat, and the calories (and points???) that we eat.
The first sentence in the study below is: “Underreporting is endemic in most dietary studies and presents a serious challenge when interpreting associations between diet and health to avoid spurious associations.”
In really down to earth language: The purpose of the study was to figure out who is the worst at reporting what they eat and/or their calorie intake. ALL humans are bad at this, but if researchers can identify the people who are off the chart bad… they won’t use them in any study where people have to keep a food log.
By some strange twist of reality… this study below shows that women who are “lean” and “restrained eaters” keep THE worst food journals. You would think that thin women with lots of dieting mentality and eating restraint would keep perfect logs… but nope. They turned out to be the very worst at it.
The median error report for women was 29%. Half the woman kept logs where the calorie reporting was off by less than 29%. Half the women kept logs that were off by more than 29%. And restrained, lean women where the worst.
I’ve seen two studies that say restrained eaters are sooooo inaccurate… think twice before letting them into a study that relies on self reported food logs and/or calories.
Nobody in the US is maintaining on 1,200 cals a day. I know from posting on the WW'ers boards for 4+ years... very few people are losing on 1,200 calories a day.
If somebody TELLS you that they are eating 1,200 calories a day... add 30 or 40% or 50% or 60% to that number. Because the calories we REPORT are different from the ones we eat. And people that claim that they can only eat 1,200 calories a day to maintain... almost always meet the definition of a "resticted eater".
This message has been edited. Last edited by: GoingSkiing,
It seems to me the most obvious question is whether they were able to continue eating 1,200 calories a day! That's a drastic drop for someone used to eating much more and might not be enough to fuel a person through a vigorous daily workout. I would hope that credible researchers would take that into account, but this article doesn't say.
