Active Low-Carber Forums - View Single Post - Dr. Jason Fung. The Obesity Code

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...90129124800.htm

Might seem a slight stretch putting this here, but maybe not. They're going after the idea from Newcastle etc. that a sort of short-term modified fast reverses diabetes more reliably than "slow and steady."

Quote:

Faster weight loss no better than slow weight loss for health benefits

Losing weight slowly or quickly won't tip the scale in your favour when it comes to overall health, according to new research. Health researchers at York University found that people who lose weight quickly versus those who lose it slowly don't get any additional health benefits and it's the amount of weight lost overall that can have an impact.

In the study led by Jennifer Kuk, associate professor in York University's Faculty of Health, researchers looked at the data of over 11,000 patients at a publicly-funded clinical weight management program and found that those who lost weight quickly had similar improvements in metabolic health with those who lost weight slowly. Moreover, the rate of weight loss matters less for overall health benefits than the amount of weight you lose.

Normally, individuals are recommended to lose weight at one to two pounds per week, as faster weight loss is related with a slightly higher risk for gallstones. However, there are reasons to believe that faster weight loss may have better effects for cardiovascular disease and diabetes risk factors.

The study is the first study of its kind to look specifically at risk factors for cardiovascular health and diabetes.

"With the same pound for pound weight loss, there is no difference in terms of health benefits if you lose weight fast or slow," says Kuk. "However, given the risk for gallstones with faster weight loss, trying to lose weight at the recommended one to two pounds per week is the safer option."

The study looked at 11,283 patients who attended the Wharton Medical Clinic Weight Management Program between July 2008 and July 2017. Researchers found that patients who lost weight more quickly tended to have a bigger reduction in obesity and better health improvements than patients who lost weight slowly. However, these improvements in health associated with faster weight loss were abolished after adjusting for absolute weight loss.

"The results show that we really need to look at interventions that focus on long-term weight management that can achieve sustained weight loss at the recommended one to two pounds per week," says Kuk.

An important caveat, even if you take things as they want you to--weight loss being equal, benefits were the same. Except blood pressure, that still improved more with the faster weight loss. Weight loss itself--quicker weight loss only resulted in greater benefits when it resulted in greater overall weight loss. Something that might be true if you accept all this, is that quicker weight loss resulted in greater weight than slow and steady.

I suspect something again slightly different. Suppose I eat 2500 calories a day, and am in maintenance at that intake. Now, I eat in such a way that my appetite is satisfied at 2300 calories a day. Pretending that all else is equal--I'll slowly lose weight, until I hit a slightly lower weight, a new equilibrium. A plateau is just an unplanned maintenance here.

Or I eat in a way where my appetite is satisfied at 2000 calories. I'll experience more rapid weight loss--and the new equilibrium is reached at a lower body weight than in the first scenario.

Suppose I experience more metabolic benefits in the second scenario. And someone comes along and says, yeah, well, it's because you lost more weight. Well that's fine, but the first scenario doesn't actually get me there. Sorry if what I'm illustrating here seems too obvious, but if professional obesity researchers don't get this, maybe it's not as obvious as it seems.