My own lifetime of observation and personal experience tells me that the following article is “The Real Deal” on the issue of maintenance of a large weight-loss - including long-term maintenance. 

By “The Real Deal”,  I mean genuine, authentic, true, exact, trustworthy, and clear.

For those who don’t know, for the past 10+ years I’ve been successfully struggling to maintain my 5 ft 0 inch elderly body at a “normal” BMI after years of “morbid obesity”, through a great many different dieting methods.  More information is in  ABOUT ME as well as in many articles about my Status in the ARCHIVES.  I will be writing more about my personal weight and calorie details at the bottom of the following article:


You Should Never Diet Again:
The Science and Genetics of Weight Loss

To maintain a new weight,
you have to fight evolution.
You have to fight biology.
And you have to fight your brain

         by Dr. Traci Mann  .. Excerpted from "Secrets From the Eating Lab". (2015)


I’ve given you the bad news: diets fail in the long run. Now, let’s try to understand why.

In social psychology we often say that if you find that most people behave in the same way, then the explanation for their behavior has very little to do with the kind of people they are. It has to do with the circumstances in which they find themselves. For example, most students in class raise their hands and wait quietly to be called on before speaking. It’s not that they are all timid or overly polite types of people. It’s that the classroom setting is sufficiently powerful that without really thinking about it, nearly everyone ends up following the same unwritten rules. When we think about people who regain weight after dieting, it’s a similar principle. It’s not that they have a weak will or lack discipline, or that they didn’t want it enough, or didn’t care. It’s about the circumstances in which they find themselves, and the automatic behavior that is provoked by those settings. In other words: if you have trouble keeping weight off, it is not a character flaw.

When it comes to keeping weight off, a combination of circumstances conspires against you. Each one on its own makes it difficult, but put them together and you are no longer in a fair fight. One circumstance that makes things hard is our environment of near-constant temptation. Two others are biology and psychology. I realize it may seem odd to you that I am calling these things “circumstances,” but, like a classroom setting and the behavior it produces, we need to acknowledge the context in which you regain weight.

To an important extent, weight regain after a diet is your body’s evolved response to starvation. When you are dieting, it may feel as though you are about to starve to death, but you know that you can open the fridge at any time and find more to eat, if you really wanted to. Your body doesn’t know this, however, and you have no way to tell it that you just want slimmer hips or a flatter stomach. All your body knows is that not enough calories are coming in, so it kicks into survival mode. From an evolutionary perspective, the bodies that were best able to survive in times of scarcity (and then pass their genes on to future generations) were those that could use energy efficiently in order to get by on tiny amounts of food. Another quality that would have helped you survive was psychological: a single-minded pursuit of more fuel—and once you located it, the overwhelming urge to eat lots of every type of food you found.

Together, these biological and psychological forces make regaining lost weight all too easy. Let’s take a closer look at the biological ones first, because they set the stage for everything else.

YOU CAN (PARTLY) BLAME BIOLOGY

Your genes play an important role in determining how much you weigh throughout your life. In fact, your genetic code contains the blueprint for your body type and, more or less, the weight range that you can healthily maintain. Your body tends to stay in that range—which I will refer to as your set weight range—most of your adult life. If your weight strays outside it, multiple systems of your body make changes that push you back toward it. While this may seem controversial—aren’t we all in control of our own weight?—the role of your genes in regulating weight is backed up by solid evidence. And we don’t even need to rely on high-tech gene mapping to understand this; we just need to study people who share the same genetics.

One classic study compared the weight of more than 500 adopted children with that of their biological parents and that of their adoptive parents. Obviously, if genes matter more to weight than does environment, the children’s weight should be similar to the weight of their biological parents. If learned eating habits have more of an impact on weight, their weight should be more like their adoptive parents. In fact, researchers found that the children’s weight correlated strongly with the weight of their biological parents and not at all with the weight of their adoptive parents.

That evidence always blows me away, but if that’s not persuasive enough for you, there’s also evidence from studies of twins. Twin studies are commonly used to see how much genes matter in all sorts of human features, from personality traits to psychological disorders to physical diseases. The problem for eating studies is, while identical twins share all of the same genes, they also typically share the same eating environment. So if features are common in both twins, it is possible that they are the result of a shared environment.

To tease apart the effects of genes from the effects of the shared environment, researchers located identical twins that were raised in separate homes without knowing each other. It may seem surprising that there are enough sets of twins that meet this criteria, but there are. This type of twin research was partly pioneered in the very psychology department in which I work, at the University of Minnesota (coincidentally located in the twin cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul). If you go up to the fifth floor, the walls are covered with photographs of identical twins that were separated at the age of five months (on average) and had been apart for about thirty years before being reunited as adults. The visible similarities are remarkable, as are the many documented behavioral similarities.

The crucial twin study of body weight (which comes from the Swedish Adoption/Twin Study of Aging) included 93 pairs of identical twins raised apart (and 154 pairs of identical twins raised together). Sure enough, the weights of identical twins, whether they were raised together or apart, were highly correlated. That study, along with several others, led scientists to conclude that genes account for 70 percent of the variation in people’s weight. Seventy percent! What is truly remarkable is that this is only slightly lower than the role genes play in height (about 80 percent of the variation). Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying you can’t influence your weight at all, just that the amount of influence you have is fairly limited, and you’ll generally end up within your genetically determined set weight range.

Okay, so maybe you can’t easily influence your weight to achieve long-lasting losses, you might say, but it seems all too easy to influence it in the direction of weight gain, right? Actually, it’s not as easy as you might think. Researchers have studied that side of the equation, too—instead of having people lose weight and then try to maintain the thin weight, they had people gain weight and then try to maintain the fat weight. Staying fat shouldn’t be that difficult, should it? In one set of studies, researchers tried to make people fat by overfeeding them. They didn’t want exercise to get in the way of weight gain, so they did these studies with people they could prevent from doing any exercise at all: prisoners. I’m not wild about using prisoners in research because it is often hard for them to refuse to participate, but the researchers explained their plans fully and got permission from each prisoner.

Several fascinating things happened next. First of all, it was remarkably difficult to make the prisoners fat. The prisoners had to eat enormous quantities of food—some of them over 10,000 calories per day, for four to six months—to gain 20 percent of their starting weight. That’s a lot of extra calories, considering men in the United States tend to average about 2,500 daily calories. Some of the prisoners could not gain that much weight, despite eating huge amounts of food, and the prisoners gained much less weight than the researchers predicted based on the amount of calories they consumed. And most surprising, once the prisoners had gained weight, it was very difficult for them to keep it on. They had to continue eating a large number of calories per day (at least 2,700) just to maintain it; otherwise they would lose the weight. When researchers tried the same study with dedicated student volunteers who were free to walk around and exercise some, they were actually unable to turn them obese. In another study, researchers fed twins an additional 1,000 calories per day over what they would need to eat to maintain their weight. They did this for 100 days. Like the prisoners, these twins were unable to maintain the higher weights.

In addition to showing why it is so difficult to maintain a weight higher or lower than is dictated by our genes, these kinds of studies also offer evidence that our genes control how much weight we gain. Even when study participants were fed the same amount of calories, they gained varying amounts of weight. The pairs of twins that were overfed 1,000 calories per day gained anywhere from 9 to 29 pounds. In other words: the same number of calories led some people to gain three times as much weight as other people. Moreover, each twin gained nearly the same amount as their own twin, even though each pair of twins gained different amounts of weight than the other pairs of twins. All of these studies are evidence that your body is trying to keep you within that genetically determined set weight range. When our weight is within this range, we don’t have to fight to maintain it. It’s easy. We can eat a little more or a little less, exercise a little more or a little less—and it won’t have much of a lasting impact. The hard part is trying to get out of that range, because to do so, you have to battle biology. Your body uses many biological tricks to defend your set range, particularly if you get below it, because this is when your body thinks you are starving to death. To save you, it makes you eat more food, and stores some of the energy you consume in case of emergency.

When you are dieting and hungry, your brain responds differently to tasty-looking food than it does when you are not dieting. The areas of the brain that become unusually active make you more likely to notice food, prompt you to pay more attention to it when you find it, and make it look even more delicious and tempting than usual. These are potent signals to eat. At the same time, activity is reduced in the prefrontal cortex, the “executive function” part of the brain that helps you make decisions and resist impulses. Either one of those responses would make you more likely to indulge, but when you put them together, you don’t stand a chance. Your ability to resist is taking a snooze exactly when you most want its support. To make matters worse, this response has been found to be particularly strong in obese people— and it also gets stronger the longer you diet.

Another way your body defends your set range is through hormonal changes. As you diet and lose weight, you lose body fat. Many of us think of body fat as blubbery stuff that just sits there under our skin and makes us look fat, keeps us warm, and helps us float in the ocean, but body fat (also called adipose tissue) is an active part of the endocrine system. It produces hormones that are involved in the sensations of hunger and fullness, and as you lose body fat, the amount of these hormones circulating in your body changes. The levels of hormones that help you feel full (including leptin, peptide YY, and cholecystokinin) decrease. The levels of hormones that make you feel hungry (including ghrelin, gastric inhibitory polypeptide, and pancreatic polypeptide) increase. Just like with the changes in brain patterns, these hormone changes give you an urge to eat, and to eat a lot. One study found that these changes in hormone levels were still detectable in people a year after they stopped dieting.

While these changes in brain reactivity and hormone production are pushing you to eat more, your metabolism also betrays you. It changes partly because you are thinner, and partly due to the effects of (what it perceives to be) starvation. Whether or not you are dieting, your metabolism is affected by your weight. It takes energy to run all of the metabolic processes in your body every day; the more you weigh, the more energy (calories) your body burns just to keep you alive. When you lose weight, even if starvation has no effect on your metabolism, your body will still burn fewer calories, simply because it is now a smaller body to run. This means that the number of calories you ate to lose weight eventually becomes too many calories to eat if you want to keep losing weight.

On top of that, starvation also has an effect on your metabolism. Because there is not enough food coming in, your metabolism slows down to conserve energy. Unfortunately, this doesn’t make you feel full longer or help you lose weight. Quite the opposite. It uses each calorie in the most efficient manner possible, which allows your body to run on even fewer calories than it would need just based on the size of the body. More calories are left unused and can be stored as fat.

The consequences of these changes are problematic, to say the least. When you aren’t taking in enough calories, your body makes storing those calories as fat the top priority, regardless of the dietary fat content of whatever you ate. That’s right, in certain cases, even non-fat foods can get stored as fat. And more alarmingly, this means that a person who loses weight to reach 150 pounds, for example, is not the same‚ physiologically‚ as a person who normally weighs 150 pounds. To maintain 150 pounds after dieting down to that weight, dieters must eat fewer calories per day than people who were 150 pounds all along (not to mention fewer calories per day than they ate to get to that weight) or else they will gain weight.

You know what I find the most infuriating about this situation? People will blame the weight regain on your self-control, even though you are probably eating less food than they are! To maintain your new weight, you have to fight evolution. You have to fight biology. You have to fight your brain. You have to fight your metabolism. These are the ways your body tries to protect you from starvation, and it is not a fair fight. You have to respect this miracle of being human, but you don’t have to like it.

SAVE SOME OF THE BLAME FOR PSYCHOLOGY

The other foe in the long-term weight loss battle is psychology. When people are dieting and hungry, psychological changes take place. We learned about a lot of these changes from a groundbreaking semi-starvation study that was conducted in the 1940s by Ancel Keys, a professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Minnesota. In it, thirty-six men volunteered to be starved for six months as a humanitarian act so that researchers could test the best ways to help starving people throughout the world. Although this study is always referred to as a starvation or semi-starvation study, I think of it as a diet study, because the men were allowed nearly 1,600 calories per day.

All sorts of things happened to the men during the study, which I will talk more about later, but the most common psychological response was an obsession with food. Before the study started, the men had many interests. They actively followed current events; they were curious about the new city they were living in; and they wanted to become acquainted with each other. Some of them even signed up to take classes on campus. But when the men were starving, the only thing they wanted to think about, or could think about, was food. They lost interest in their humanitarian mission, stopped attending classes, and even lost interest in sex. Their conversations with each other centered on food, their dreams were about food, and their spare time was occupied with thoughts of wonderful meals they had in the past, or plans for what they would eat someday in the distant future. Several of the volunteers vowed to take up careers in the food industry when the study ended—to open a grocery store or restaurant, become a chef, or work on a farm. Even those who had never cooked before started clipping recipes and reading cookbooks (including one volunteer who collected more than twenty-five cookbooks).

This type of behavior would have been useful for our ancestors during times of starvation. Individuals who focused exclusively on food and how to access it would have been more successful at finding some and, therefore, would be more likely to survive than their peers who were able to distract themselves from thoughts of food. But today, it just means that the less we try to eat, the more obsessed we become with food.

To take a closer look at this phenomenon, a collaborator and I examined what happens when people are denied a particular kind of food. We asked the students in my research methods class to participate, and they roped their friends into helping us, too. We had them record how many times they thought about a particular food, every day for three weeks. One of those weeks they were told they were forbidden from eating that food. Sure enough, they thought about the food more often that week than either of the other weeks. This shouldn’t come as a big shock. One of the first stories in the Bible is of Eve struggling not to eat the forbidden fruit. What is surprising, though, is that unlike Eve’s fixation on that delicious, tantalizing apple, the students thought about an off-limits food more frequently even if it was a food they didn’t like very much.

The problem for diets is that almost by definition, you have to forbid yourself from eating all sorts of foods, and for a period longer than a week. On a diet, you will think more about food in general, because you are hungry, and you will especially think about the very foods you have forbidden yourself from having. This just makes the job of avoiding and resisting those foods even harder.

Excerpted from “Secrets From the Eating Lab: The Science of Weight Loss, the Myth of Willpower, and Why You Should Never Diet Again” by Dr. Traci Mann. Published April 2015 by HarperWave, a division of HarperCollins Publishers.

For the past 10 ½ years, I have logged ALL of my food, EVERY DAY in a computer software journal.  Although it is impossible, when living outside a laboratory, to get a totally accurate calorie count, my records are as good as it can get by consistently, weighing, measuring, and recording food. 

What my records show, is that 10 years ago - as a sedentary 60 year old woman who had already been working to maintain a 80 lb weight loss for about 10 years, I dropped another 75 pounds in 16 months by eating what averaged out to be about 1230 calories a day. 

The first 2 or 3 years of maintenance required the same kind of focus and vigilance that it took me to lose the weight, and my records show that I kept the weight off, while eating a yearly average of between 1300 and 1400 daily calories. 

During the 3rd year of maintenance, I had to keep dropping my calorie average in order to maintain, and for several years thereafter, I was able to maintain within my "normal" BMI range while eating a yearly average of about 1050 daily calories. 

One of the Myths I’d  heard and hoped was true, was that after 5 years of maintenance, it would become easier, and I continued on, hoping that my maintenance would get easier after that time.  The 5 year mark came and went, with no easing up, and in fact ... maintenance grew even harder, in that my weight continued to creep upward while eating around a 1030 daily calorie average. 

During the past ten years, no matter what diet or eating method I used I was unable to achieve any further sustainable weight-loss, and in fact …despite my continued efforts - my weight continues to creep steadily upward.  So…. current status report … I achieved my goal of 115 pounds 9+ years ago, and yet, I’m now maintaining around 135 pounds, which is several pounds above a "normal" BMI. 

My records tell me that this past calendar year, my total yearly average calorie count was 713 calories per day.  I can report to you that it takes a great deal of focus and effort - even for a 70 year old sedentary woman - to consistently eat such a very small amount of food.  Over that past year, my daily weight went up and down, depending on which eating method I experimented with, .. however, around one year ago my usual daily weight average was around 135, and right now -- despite this past year's herculean efforts to drop weight and maintain at a lower weight -- my usual daily weight average is again around 135 pounds.  Therefore, based on my records, this past year it took only an average of around 700 daily calories to maintain a weight of 135 pounds.

To keep all of these calorie and weight numbers in perspective, please note that the Mifflin formula says that a 5’0” tall, sedentary, 70 year old “normal” woman needs ONLY a total of 1265 calories daily to maintain a 135 pound weight.   What this means that during this past calendar year, my own personal “reduced fat” body needed only 56% (713) of the “normal” total caloric number (1265) to maintain that same 135 pound weight. 

When a body’s caloric requirements are “normally” this low, there isn’t much room for a caloric reduction,  and the physical limits which exist for me as a 70 year old sedentary female make achieving much of a calorie burn from additional exercise quite ineffective. 

I’ve ordered Dr. Traci Mann’s book which was published April 7, 2015 — just this past week, — and after I’ve read it,  I might choose to review it here at DietHobby. Here is a quote that accurately describes my current personal dilemma.

“I understand that we all have an image in our mind about what we want to weigh.  The problem is that for many of us, that image is outside of our biologically set weight range.  It is possible to maintain a weight outside that range — a small minority of dieters does — but to do so, you would have to make weight maintenance the central focus of your life, above all others, including your relationships with your family and friends, your work, and your emotional well-being.  It would be a life of agonizing self-denial, and for what purpose?”

For now, my choice is to continue my maintenance struggle.  At this point, I find that I cannot voluntarily accept a return back to my Set Point of morbid obesity .. (at 5’0”, my former high weight was 271) — even though I am 70 years old.  See more about Set Point at "Why is it so Hard to Keep  Weight Off".  But, don’t be fooled into thinking that my “weight-loss and maintenance success” is possible for everyone.  While I work to make my situation as positive and enjoyable as possible, … even for me, after 10+ years …  weight-maintenance is imperfect, and it can be accurately described as “a life of agonizing self-denial”.

There is a “widespread misimpression” that weight-loss and maintenance for bodies which have become and stayed obese for more than a couple of years, is essentially the same as that for bodies which always have been:

• normal weight (BMI between 18.5-24.9);
• overweight (BMI between 25-29.9); or
  
• have spent a brief time within Grade 1 obesity (BMI between 30-34.9).
  
  

In a commentary published February 26, 2015 in the journal Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, four weight-loss specialists set out to correct what they view as the widespread misimpression that people who have become and stayed obese for more than a couple of years can, by diet and exercise alone, return to a normal, healthy weight and stay that way.

"Once obesity is established, however, body weight seems to become biologically 'stamped in' and defended," wrote Mt. Sinai Hospital weight management expert Christopher N. Ochner and colleagues from the medical faculties of the University of Colorado, Northwestern University and the University of Pennsylvania.  

“Few individuals ever truly recover from obesity.” Those that do "still have 'obesity in remission,' and are biologically very different from individuals of the same age, sex and body weight who never had obesity." They are constantly at war with their bodies' efforts to return to their highest sustained weight.

That February 2015 commentary together with the August 2013 research article below explain many of the things that I have experienced personally, and that I have personally observed.

An additional article dealing with this issue is located HERE in the DietHobby Archives.

Biological Mechanisms that Promote Weight Regain Following Weight Loss in Obese Humans
          by Christopher N. Ochner; Dulce M. Barrios; Clement D. Lee; F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer
                     Published August 2013

Abstract

Weight loss dieting remains the treatment of choice for the vast majority of obese individuals, despite the limited long-term success of behavioral weight loss interventions. The reasons for the near universal unsustainability of behavioral weight loss in [formerly] obese individuals have not been fully elucidated, relegating researchers to making educated guesses about how to improve obesity treatment, as opposed to developing interventions targeting the causes of weight regain. This article discusses research on several factors that may contribute to weight regain following weight loss achieved through behavioral interventions, including adipose cellularity, endocrine function, energy metabolism, neural responsivity, and addiction-like neural mechanisms. All of these mechanisms are engaged prior to weight loss, suggesting that so called “anti-starvation” mechanisms are activated via reductions in energy intake, rather than depletion of energy stores. Evidence suggests that these mechanisms are not necessarily part of a homeostatic feedback system designed to regulate body weight or even anti-starvation mechanisms per se. Though they may have evolved to prevent starvation, they appear to be more accurately described as anti-weight loss mechanisms, engaged with caloric restriction irrespective of the adequacy of energy stores. It is hypothesized that these factors may combine to create a biological disposition that fosters the maintenance of an elevated body weight and work to restore the highest sustained body weight, thus precluding the long-term success of behavioral weight loss. It may be necessary to develop interventions that attenuate these biological mechanisms in order to achieve long-term weight reduction in obese individuals.

Introduction

Forty-five million Americans attempt weight loss diets each year (1). Traditional cognitive-behavioral therapy-based “lifestyle change” diets often lead to weight loss and medically significant reductions in comorbidities (2). However, up to 50% of lost weight is typically regained by 1-year follow up, with nearly all remaining lost weight regained thereafter in the vast majority of individuals (3). This almost ubiquitous weight regain is witnessed in virtually every clinical weight loss trial, including those specifically aimed at improving weight loss maintenance (4, 5). Even the most well executed and empirically driven efforts to improve the sustainability of behavioral interventions have met with little success (5, 6). Without knowledge of the factors contributing to the long-term failure of behavioral approaches, investigators are limited in their ability to improve the sustainability of these interventions.

The focus of this manuscript is on biological pressures that may contribute to weight regain in obese or formerly obese individuals following behavioral weight loss. As behavioral weight loss remains the overwhelming treatment of choice for obese individuals (1), the discussion in this manuscript addresses the prototypical obese individual living in an industrialized nation who is able to achieve short-term success via energy restrictive diets, but is unable to maintain significant weight loss in the long-term. Factors contributing to initial weight gain, such as genetic predisposition and the food environment, are not discussed; however, it is important to note that the biological pressures to regain lost weight interact with these critical factors to determine the rate and amount of weight regain for each individual (7). Nonetheless, despite large inter-individual variability in genetic and environmental influences, the consistency of weight regain following behavioral weight loss in obese individuals suggests the influence of highly potent biological mechanisms that are consistent across nearly all individuals.

Conventional thought was that human biology included homeostatic feedback mechanisms designed to regulate body weight (8, 9). The average adult gains approximately 0.5 kg per year, which tranlates to approximately 3500 kcal surplus (10-13). Given average consumption of approximately 900,000 kcal per year (10, 11), this translates into only about 0.5% discrepancy, suggesting that homeostatic regulation of energy balance is relatively tight (14). However, the recent rapid spike in obesity rates calls into question the reliability of homeostatic regulation. With evidence that human biology evolved with a preference for energy intake and storage vs. expenditure (9, 15), it was recognized that these “regulatory” mechanims may reflect the same bias (9, 15, 16). As such, some investigators have proposed that these mechanisms may be more accurately described as “anti-starvation mechanisms” rather than regulatory mechanisms (17, 18). However, evidence in this manuscript suggests that the presence of adequate energy stores does not preclude the engagement of biological factors that contribute to weight regain. Thus, “anti-starvation mechanisms” may be as much of a misnomer as “regulatory mechanisms.”

Only recently have there been attempts to identify these individual biologial mechanisms and how they may contribute to weight regain. The mechanisms to be discussed include adipose cellularity, endocrine function, energy metabolism, neurobiology, and addiction-like mechanisms. It should be noted that causal connections between these factors and weight regain following behavioral weight loss remain largely untested. Thus, this manuscript was written as a theoretical article, presenting potential mechanisms for weight regain. The primary goal of this discussion is to promote further study of the potential causal role of these factors in weight regain and encourage the exploration of treatments that may circumvent or counter these biological mechanisms to prevent them from undermining healthy weight loss in obese individuals.

Adipose Cellularity

Excess weight gain typically leads to changes in body composition, including significant alterations in adipose cellularity. Although increases in body mass index (BMI) do not directly predict an absolute increase in body fat content (19), elevated body weight is generally associated with an increase in the diameter of fat cells (hypertrophy), as well as greater amounts of fat (triglycerides) stored within (20, 21). Most literature points to adipocyte hypertrophy as the main feature of obesity; however, alterations in adipocyte number may also be important (22, 23). Upon reaching an upward critical limit in fat cell volume, enlarged adipocytes (fat cells) secrete paracrine factors that induce preadipocyte proliferation (hyperplasia) (24-26). Thus, excess caloric intake may lead to increases in fat cell size and subsequent increases in fat cell number (20, 26, 27). Recent evidence suggests that hyperplasia may occur in overweight (but not obese) individuals (28). However, the preponderance of evidence suggests that hyperplasia occurs primarily in clinically severely obese individuals (27, 29, 30). Thus, if hyperplasia is associated with weight regain, this effect may be relegated to weight regain following weight loss in [formerly] clinically severely obese individuals, for whom returning to a lean body weight through behavioral weight loss is exceedingly difficult (31).

With behavioral weight loss, adipocyte hypertrophy decreases; however, the hyperplasia remains (20, 29, 32-35). Thus, weight loss dieting may reduce the size but not the number of fat cells. A lack of programmed cell death may be responsible for the failure of reductions in fat mass via nonsurgical means to reduce adipocyte number (20, 33). Therefore, relative to never obese individuals, weight-suppressed [formerly] obese individuals (particularly clinically severely obese individuals) may be left with a significantly greater number of adipocytes, which cannot be reduced via behavioral weight loss (34). See Table 1. Liposuction is the only known treatment able to reduce adipocyte number, but carries high complication rates (36).

It is not yet definitively known whether hyperplasia encourages weight regain in weight-suppressed individuals. There is some evidence to suggest that the presence of smaller adipocytes may encourage weight regain by decreasing the overall rate of fat oxidation and increasing the retention of ingested fuel (37-41). Normally, during times of energy deprivation, lipid (fat) stores break down triglycerides into their individuals components, glycerol and free fatty acids (42), which generate energy for the cell. However, the rate of lipolysis (fat breakdown) appears to be related to adipocyte size and cellular surface area (43); smaller cells exhibit lower rates of basal lipolysis (44). Therefore, if size-reduced adipocytes are modified to break down less and store more fat, these cells may expand and promote further proliferation. Although still speculative, there is some evidence to suggest that these cells may be predisposed to reach a particular mean size, allowing them to store similar amounts of lipid as previously formed adipocytes (25, 34). However, small adipocyte number may be sufficient to observe a clinically significant effect in only a percentage of obese (i.e., clinically severely obese) individuals.

An additional line of evidence reports higher levels of insulin in newly size-reduced adipocytes (44, 45). Insulin, which is excreted from pancreatic beta cells in response to rising levels of glucose in the bloodstream, facilitates a preferential utilization of carbohydrates to meet the cell’s energy requirements (40, 46-48). In addition, insulin inhibits lipolysis (49) and stores triglycerides in adipocytes (lipogenesis) (50). Interestingly, although insulin sensitivity seems to improve in weight-reduced individuals, fat metabolism slows, potentially in an attempt to preserve energy stores (37, 38, 49, 50). As a result of these changes in carbohydrate and fat utilization, an abnormal accumulation of triglycerides may give rise to a higher net fat cell content and elevations in body weight (37, 38, 51-53).

Adipocyte size is also correlated with plasma leptin concentrations, which have been shown to affect weight loss maintenance (54). Relative to control, formerly obese weight suppressed participants were found to have reduced fat cell volume and serum leptin levels, despite almost identical percent body fat (35). Because smaller adipocytes in formerly obese individuals may be secreting less leptin following behavioral weight loss (28, 35, 37, 55), an association between increased number of smaller adipocytes and leptin insufficiency has been proposed (28, 35, 37, 55, 56). Although leptin levels are not entirely depleted in weight suppressed formerly obese individuals, their secretions are much more attenuated relative to lean subjects who undergo caloric restriction (35, 55). Thus, with reductions in leptin secretion, heightened appetite and excess food intake may lead to weight regain (28, 54). The potential role of leptin in weight regain is further discussed below.

Endocrine Function

Leptin

Leptin levels are reduced within 24 hours of energy restriction (57) and a number of studies report greater reductions of leptin than would be expected for given losses of adipose tissue (34, 35, 58). It has been suggested that leptin’s primary role is the prevention of starvation, rather than weight regulation per se, questioning the notion of “leptin resistance” (18). Reductions in leptin levels appear to trigger a starvation defense response, despite the persistance of abundant fat stores (57). Evidence suggests that there may be a threshold below which the “anti-starvation” action of leptin is enacted, and this threshold is proposed to increase concurrently with increases in adipose tissue (57). Thus, weight loss dieting in obese individuals may lead to leptin depletion (sub-threshold levels), despite the persistence of relatively high levels of leptin. Sub-threshold leptin levels result in reductions in metabolic rate and physical activity (14), as well as increases in hunger and food intake (59). Thus, behavioral weight loss and weight loss maintenance are accompanied by physiological attributes that resemble those of a leptin-deficient animal: lower energy expenditure, increased hunger, reduced thyroid metabolism, and diminished sympathetic nervous activity (60, 61).

Other Neuroendocrine Signals

In addition to insulin and leptin, a number of hormones secreted from the gastrointestinal tract and adipose tissue have been implicated in the modulation of appetite, food intake, energy expenditure, and body weight (62). Ghrelin, for example, induces hunger (63), while peptide YY3-36 (PYY) and cholecystokinin (CCK) promote satiety (64). Both increases in the orexigenic hormone ghrelin, and decreases in the postprandial satiety signals PYY and CCK, have been observed in weight-reduced individuals (65, 66). Thus, weight loss could induce a simultaneous decrease in satiety and increase in hunger, potentially encouraging formerly obese individuals to overeat and regain lost weight (58). See Table 1. Less consistently, weight loss in obese individuals has been shown to reduce thyroid hormone levels (67, 68), while hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis activity is increased (69, 70). Because thyroid hormone is implicated in increasing metabolic rate (71), decreased thyroid hormone levels may also contribute to simultaneous decreases in fat breakdown and increases in fat storage. As the HPA regulates stress-related elevations in cortisol, increases in this type of hormonal signaling can lead to increased appetite, fat accumulation and potentially, weight regain (72). Finally, catecholamine (epinephrine, norepinephrine) release, indicative of sympathetic activity, may also play a role. Weight-suppressed obese individuals show reductions in muscle sympathetic nerve activity responsible for the regulation of energy expenditure (67, 73, 74). With less circulating epinephrine and norepinephrine, lipid oxidation could be compromised due to decreased heart rate, blood flow, and oxygen delivery to muscle tissues. As suggested, this shift in metabolic activity (stunted triglyceride mobility) may encourage fat storage and weight regain.

Energy Metabolism

Behavioral weight loss necessarily results in the loss of metabolic tissue (both fat and lean mass), resulting in reductions in energy expenditure (60, 75). Although not unequivocal (76, 77), the majority of studies report that behavioral weight loss results in significantly greater reductions in resting and total energy expenditure than would be expected for given losses in metabolic mass, suggesting “metabolic adaptation” (60, 78-82). Thus, energy expenditure during weight loss maintenance may be disproportionately reduced relative to body mass and composition, which may be largely attributable to increased skeletal muscle work efficiency (83). In fact, increases in metabolic efficiency have been reported within hours of caloric restriction, prior to any loss of metabolic tissue (84). In order to overcome this metabolic adaptation, obese individuals would need to continually reduce energy intake and maintain energy intake below that of never obese individuals at the same BMI.

An additional theory points to changes in body composition that may result from the cycles of weight loss and regain endemic to most obese individuals. There is some evidence that the fat-to-lean ratio of mass regained during weight regain is higher than that of the mass lost initially during weight loss diet (85). Thus, with each successive “weight cycle,” and individual’s overall body composition may begin to favor fat vs. lean mass (86). Given the higher contribution of lean vs. fat mass to energy expenditure, such increases in the fat to lean tissue ratio would lead to a decrease in metabolic rate and increase the amount of surplus energy stored (87). Weight cycling has been shown to increase lipogenic enzymes and decrease leptin in rodents (87), but a causal connection with weight regain has not been established. In humans, mostly limited cross-sectional or single-cycle data has been collected, all of which are inconclusive in regards to weight cycling and enhanced weight regain (86, 88). Some prospective studies report associations between weight cycling and lower metabolic rate (89) and weight regain (90); however, the evidence is mixed (87, 91). Thus, the potential contributions of changes in energy metabolism to weight regain remain speculative. See Table 1.

Neural Responsivity

Food intake is primarily mediated by three interactive neural systems, the homeostatic, reward-related and inhibitory systems. The homeostatic system, comprised mainly of the hypothalamus, drives eating in response to caloric need in order to maintain energy balance. Alternatively, the reward-related system drives eating based on the perceived reward value of food, processed primarily through dopaminergic signaling in the mesolimbic pathway. The inhibitory system, comprised primarily of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, is associated with behavioral inhibition and processes attempts to inhibit excess food intake (i.e., dietary restraint) (92). Access to sufficient sustenance is commonplace in most industrialized nations, obviating the need for most homeostatic-driven eating (93). However, the homeostatic system serves to up-regulate the reward-system to increase the perceived reward value of food in response to energy restriction, encouraging the consumption of more high- vs. low- calorie foods and weight regain (94, 95). With energy surplus, there does appear to be an attempt to down-regulate reward-related signaling, which may combine with cognitive restraint represented by inhibitory signaling (95, 96). However, considerable evidence demonstrates that reward-related signaling easily overrides restrictive homeostatic and inhibitory signaling (97), driving food intake despite regulatory signals aimed at preventing excess caloric intake (93, 97). Thus, the hierarchical supremacy of the reward-related system illustrates the same biological bias towards the intake and storage of energy (15). Importantly, it appears as though the neural propensity to consume more high- vs. low- calorie foods persists after behavioral weight loss (54, 98), and may contribute to weight regain. Further, there is some evidence to suggest that neural changes associated with behavioral weight loss may actually increase the neural drive to consume high-calorie foods (54), as discussed below.

Dietary restraint and inhibitory neural responsivity are acutely increased through behavioral weight loss treatment (54, 96, 99). The typical short-term success of behavioral interventions suggests that this increase in inhibitory responsivity (dietary restraint) is temporarily able to overcome the neurobiological drives to consume palatable high-calorie foods. However, decreases in dietary restraint typically follow the cessation of behavioral weight loss treatment are directly associated with weight regain (100), implicating post-treatment erosion of inhibitory neural responsivity in weight regain. Recent evidence also indicates that reward-related neural signaling is activated in conjunction with inhibitory signaling (101, 102), suggesting that reward-related neural responsivity may be increased concurrently with inhibitory responsivity during behavioral weight loss treatment. Increased reward-related responsivity to food cues is seen within hours of caloric restriction (94) and nonsurgical weight loss has been shown to increase reward-related responsivity to food cues (54). See Table 1. This increase in reward-related neural responsivity likely reflects the common increased desire for “forbidden foods” in dieting individuals (103), and illustrates a potential mechanism for the eventual erosion of dietary restraint and subsequent weight regain following behavioral weight loss.

Addiction-Like Neural Mechanisms

Obesity is associated with increased preference for, and consumption of, foods high in fat and sugar (104). It has been speculated that these foods may have addictive properties, similar to those of drugs of abuse (105). Whether the clinical and diagnostic features of addiction can be applied to chronic food intake is a topic of heavy debate (106-108). Withdrawal symptoms commonly seen in addicted mice deprived of their drug of choice have been seen in mice allowed to binge on sugar solutions and then deprived of it, including teeth chattering and head shakes (105). Humans trying to cut back on high-fat and sugar containing foods report unpleasant physical and psychological sensations commonly reported by substance abusers deprived of their drug of choice, including restlessness, insatiable cravings, fatigue and poor mood (109). Self-identified refined food addicts report eating to alleviate feelings of agitation, depression, anxiety, headache, stress and fatigue, which some interpret as psychological manifestations of withdrawal (109). When shown pictures of palatable foods, food addicts identified by the Yale Food Addiction Scale (110) showed activation in the same areas (anterior cingulate gyrus and amygdala) as cocaine addicts shown pictures of crack cocaine, which is proposed to represent the neural correlates of cravings (111). Recent evidence from rodent studies indicates that obesity causes potentially permanent changes in brain reward circuitry that may underlie the cravings and anxiety associated with food withdrawal (106). It is important to note, however, that the symptoms associated with withdrawal from substances of abuse and palatable food are not indistinguishable. For instance, opiate withdrawal is often accompanied by muscle aches/cramping, increased tearing, insomnia, runny nose, yawning, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, goose bumps and dilated pupils, none of which have been reported in humans undergoing caloric restriction (110, 112-114). Further, it is unclear how many obese individuals would qualify for a diagnosis of food addiction, if it exists.

Regardless of whether food addition per se exists, chronic overeating also resembles substance abuse in several additional ways, such as its continued occurrence despite medical and health consequences (115). Analogous to chronic alcohol abusers who stand at higher risks for liver and cardiovascular disease, obese individuals are at increased risk for a number of disorders, including hypertension, diabetes and cardiovascular disease (116). As with substance abusers who typically display frequent attempts to reduce usage, US adults attempt an average of seven weight loss diets in their lifetime (1). Furthermore, rates of weight regain in weight-reduced obese individuals are very reminiscent of the high relapse rates for drug addiction (117, 118), which may relate to the rewarding aspects of the substance (food or drug) and the potential for [neural] habituation to these rewarding aspects (2, 118), discussed below.

Importantly, studies consistently show progressive increases in the amount of substance consumed in chronic substance abusers (119). Similarly, portions sizes tend to increase with the development of obesity (120). Evidence suggests that this increase in usage may be due to habituation to the rewarding aspects of the food or drug (121, 122). Reward experienced from both substances of abuse and palatable foods is thought to result from striatal dopamine (DA) release from the ventral tegmental area to the nucleus accumbens within the dorsal striatum (123). Recent evidence suggests that that chronic stimulation of the dopamine D2 receptor results in reduced striatal DA terminal density (124, 125), and downregulation of the striatal D2 receptors (125). Evidence also suggests that both substance abusers and chronic overeaters increase usage (consumption) in order to make up for this habituation-induced deficit in reward (121, 122). Thus, chronic consumption of highly palatable foods may trigger addiction-like neuroadaptive responses in brain reward circuitries that drive compulsive and chronic overeating (121, 126).

Recent evidence suggests that reductions in experienced reward also persist in weight reduced formerly obese individuals (127), potentially contributing to weight regain. Interestingly, as alluded to in the previous section, users vs. non-users still show elevated reward responsivity to cues (i.e., wanting) associated with drugs and palatable food (122), potentially due to superconsolidation of the initial associations between the substance of abuse and resulting feelings of pleasure (122). Thus, chronic substance users and overeaters appear to be hyper-responsive to drug/food cues, but hypo-responsive to drug/food intake (128), both of which appear to persist after periods of non-use and may encourage recidivism. See Table 1. There is also evidence to suggest that chronic substance abusers display deficits in inhibitory signaling, which may contribute to the eventual failure of attempts to abstain (129); however, it remains unclear whether this is in-born or develops as a consequence of chronic overconsumption. Nonetheless, disinhibition, or the loss of control following consumption of a small amount of the pleasurable stimuli, is endemic to both substance abusers and chronic overeaters (130). Finally, recent evidence in rodents suggests that the permanent changes in reward-related neurocircuitry resulting from chronic overconsumption may be related to overconsumption-related increases in the permeability of the blood brain barrier, allowing potentially damaging elements to enter the brain (131). However, this hypothesis remains speculative until further studies can be conducted.

Discussion

Changes in adipose cellularity and addiciton-like neural habituation result from chronic overconsumption and appear irreversable via behavioral weight loss (24, 34, 122, 129). Thus, these factors are not activated to prevent weight loss but serve to encourage preservation of highest sustained body weight, and may actually promote indefinite increases in energy storage. Alterations in endocrine function (e.g., decreases in leptin and increases in ghrelin), decreases in energy expenditure, and increases in neural responsivity to high-calorie food cues all occur within 24 hours of caloric restriction (Table 1) (57, 84, 132). Regardless of when these mechansism are activated, each has the potential to exert a [neuro]biological influence that may reduce an obese or formerly obese individual’s ability to maintain behavioral weight losses and promote weight regain at least to the individual’s highest sustained lifetime weight. These influences also carry the expected weight regain promoting behavioral correlates. Weight-reduced vs. never-obese subjects report increased food craving (133), a decreased perception of amount eaten (134), decreased postprandial satiety (135) and an increased preference for calorically dense foods (136). With these additional biological influences encouraging the consumption and storage of energy, it is not surprising that weight regain following behavioral weight loss occurs at a faster rate than initial weight gain (135, 137).

These mechanisms appear not to be part of a highly sensitive homeostatic feedback system designed to regulate body weight at any particular “set point,” but mechanisms either aquired via excess weight gain or enacted almost immediately via reduced caloric intake. Importantly, these mechansims operate irrespective of the adequacy of energy stores. Thus, these mechanisms may be more accurately described as anti-weight loss mechanisms, rather than anti-starvation mechansims per se. Regardless, these systems are engaged with very rare exception, and appear not to descriminate by sex, BMI or even genetic makeup. Thus, the consistency of the influence of these mechanisms appears to mirror the consistency of weight regain in weight reduced [formerly] obese individuals (138). Discussion of these factors illustrates the importance of obesity prevention efforts. This is particularly true for children and adolescents, where rates of obesity have seen disproportionately high increases in recent years (139).

Ultimately, the biological forces to maintain highest body weight, resist weight loss and regain lost weight appear insurmountable for most individuals attempting to lose weight through behavioral interventions (138). The presence of these biological forces may explain why relatively drastic surgical procedures (e.g., Roux-en-Y gastric bypass) are the only form of intervention for obesity demonstrating long-term efficacy. Further, it may not be a coincidence that significant changes in several of these mechanisms (e.g., endocrine function (140) and neural responsivity (141)) have been reported following obesity surgery (142). Thus, it may be necessary to circumvent at least some of these biological mechanisms in order to achieve sustainable weight loss.

It is important to note that the hypothesis presented in this paper does not propose to account for individual differences in weight gain over the lifespan. Nor does it attempt to explain the rapid increase in obesity rates in the past 30 years. These issues have been discussed at length in other published work, which are typically explained by differences in genetic makeup and changes in the food environment, respectively (143, 144). The focus of this paper was intentionally relegated to the biological mechanisms consistent across all individuals that may contribute to weight regain. Thus, the concepts discussed here do not explain obesity or individual differences in weight gain, but attempt to offer some potential explanation for the astounding consistency of weight regain following weight loss in obese or formerly obese individuals. We believe that the evidence suggests that the biological pressures discussed here would be more accurately described as pressures to sustain sufficient caloric intake to maintain homeostasis (weight stability) at an individual’s highest sustained body weight, rather than to regain lost weight per se.

Most obese individuals are able to utilize current behavioral techniques, which have been honed through decades of research and experimentation to maximize their effectiveness, to overcome these biological pressures for a relatively short time (typically a few months) and lose some (typically 5-10% initial) weight (2, 4, 145). Eventually, however, these biological pressures win out, as so called “diet fatigue” sets in and individuals are no longer able to maintain the level of cognitive and behavioral discipline necessary to overcome unyielding (and potentially mounting) biological pressures to return to their highest sustained body weight. However, we feel it vital to stress the importance of the necessary interaction between these biological pressures, genetic makeup and the food environment. Although nearly all obese and formerly obese individuals regain weight following behavioral weight loss, some do not (99, 146). Further, those that do regain lost weight, do so at different rates (5). This may be explained by a myriad of different psychological and social factors but is most likely explained by individual differences in genetic makeup and the food environment.

Part of the purpose of this review was to incite further thought and research, as several questions naturally stem from the evidence and theories presented. For example, how might the food environment moderate the effects of these responses, how long do these regulatory responses persist, and can these mechanisms be “reset” so the body defends a healthy (or even just overweight) vs. obese body weight? We would suggest that a toxic or “obesogenic” food environment, such as that currently seen in the US, is neither necessary nor sufficient for weight regain but is a very potent contributing (moderating) factor that makes weight regain much more likely. Few would argue against the notion that a toxic food environment contributes to weight gain, regardless of whether it was preceded by weight loss. However, further research may determine whether this effect is more or less strong for weight suppressed vs. never obese individuals. The evidence presented in this review seems to suggest that these biological pressures toward weight regain persist until caloric intake returns to the level it was at when the individual was at their highest maintained body weight. There is some speculation that gastric bypass (and possibly sleeve gastrectomy) surgery may “reset” some of these mechanisms so that they either do not operate to drive weight regain or at least not operate to the same extent to which they would following behavioral weight loss (147). For example, gastric bypass surgery has been shown to dramatically alter gut peptide signaling (140, 142, 148) and neural responsivity (141, 149, 150), both of which have been shown to be associated with decreased desire to eat calorically-dense foods following surgery (150, 151). Other recent evidence suggests that bypass surgery vs. behavioral weight loss results in greater decrease in circulating amino acids, which may contribute to improvements in glucose homeostasis and sustained weight loss (152). We will look to current and future research to lend support for or refute these hypotheses.

Future Directions

The weight regain promoting actions of the mechanisms discussed in this manuscript remain largely speculative, as evidence demonstrating causal relations between these factors and weight regain is lacking. Future research should seek to elucidate and quantify the contribution of each of these factors, with the goal of developing ways to circumvent those with the greatest contribtion to weight regain. One possibililty may be to identify how bariatric surgery alters some these mechanisms and attempt to replicate this action through nonsurgical means (141, 153). Other factors are likely involved and require more study, particularly the potential moderating effects of the food environment. Additional important factors may include the potential for increased drive to eat, decreased drive to be physically active, altered sympathetic/parasymphathetic tone, and altered gut microflora (154). Future work should also address the possibility that these mechansims act syngeristically to create a biological profile for which weight regain in weight reduced obese individuals is almost inevitable. Finally, future research may also look to determine how long an elevated body weight must be maintained before these biological mechanisms begin to defend that weight.

Conclusion

We have presented evidence that the likelihood of weight regain in weight suppressed obese and formerly obese individuals may be increased by a confluence of biological mechanisms, including increased metabolic efficiency, changes in neuroendocrine signaling (e.g., decreased satiety signaling), and changes in neural responsivity to both food cues (e.g., increased reward-related or decreased inhibitory anticipatory responsivity) and food intake (e.g., decreased consummatory reward through habituation to the rewarding aspects of palatable food). These biological pressures that may undermine weight loss efforts and promote weight regain are almost immediately enacted in obese individuals attempting even modest and healthy weight reduction. Further, these mechanisms operate invariably and appear to defend an individual’s highest sustained body weight. Thus, it is the opinion of these authors that these mechanisms would be more accurated describe as anti-weight loss mechanisms rather than anti-starvation mechanisms. Regardless, obese individuals face an extreme uphill battle in having to overcome powerful biological drives that appear insurmountable via behavioral interventions, illustrating the critical importance of obesity prevention efforts for normal and overweight individuals. This may be particularly pertinent to parents of overweight children, who are significantly more likely to become obese adults (155). It is our hope that future research will further elucidate these mechanisms and provide the opportunity for the development of interventions that counter these mechanisms and enable long-term behavioral weight loss maintenance.

Acknowledgements

Dr. Ochner is supported by NIH grant KL2RR024157. Dr. Pi-Sunyer and the New York Obesity Nutrition Research Center are supported by NIH grant P30DK26687. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Michael Rosenbaum for providing and suggesting a number of resources for this manuscript.

Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest.

References

1. Inc. G [cited 2011 May 12];Six in ten Americans have dieted to lose weight. 2005 Gallup Poll]. Available from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/17890/six-americans-attempted-lose-weight.aspx.

2. Foster GD, Makris AP, Bailer BA. Behavioral treatment of obesity. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Jul;82:230S–5S. [PubMed]

3. Wadden T, Sarwer D. Behavioral treatment of obesity: new approaches to an old disorder. In: Goldstein D, editor. The Management of Eating Disorders. Humana Press; Totowa, NJ: 1996.

4. Wilson G, Brownell KD. Behavioral treatment for obesity. In: Fairburn CB, Brownell KD, editors. Eating Disorders and Obesity: A Comprehensive Handbook. The Guilford Press; New York: 2002. pp. 524–8.

5. Sarlio-Lähteenkorva S, Rissanen A, Kaprio J. A descriptive study of weight loss maintenance: 6 and 15 year follow-up of initially overweight adults. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000 Jan;24:116–25. [PubMed]

6. Lowe M. The effect of training in reduced energy density eating and food self-monitoring accuracy on weight loss maintenance. Obesity (Silver Spring, Md) 2008;16:2016–23. [PubMed]

7. Votruba SB, Blanc S, Schoeller DA. Pattern and cost of weight gain in previously obese women. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2002 Apr;282:E923–30. [PubMed]

8. Speakman JR, Levitsky DA, Allison DB, Bray MS, de Castro JM, Clegg DJ, Clapham JC, Dulloo AG, Gruer L, et al. Set points, settling points and some alternative models: theoretical options to understand how genes and environments combine to regulate body adiposity. Dis Model Mech. 2011 Nov;4:733–45. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

9. Hall KD, Heymsfield SB, Kemnitz JW, Klein S, Schoeller DA, Speakman JR. Energy balance and its components: implications for body weight regulation. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Apr;95:989–94. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

10. Du H, van der A DL, Ginder V, Jebb SA, Forouhi NG, Wareham NJ, Halkjaer J, Tjønneland A, Overvad K, et al. Dietary energy density in relation to subsequent changes of weight and waist circumference in European men and women. PLoS One. 2009;4:e5339. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

11. Forouhi NG, Sharp SJ, Du H, van der A DL, Halkjaer J, Schulze MB, Tjønneland A, Overvad K, Jakobsen MU, et al. Dietary fat intake and subsequent weight change in adults: results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohorts. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Dec;90:1632–41. [PubMed]

12. Lewis CE, Jacobs DR, McCreath H, Kiefe CI, Schreiner PJ, Smith DE, Williams OD. Weight gain continues in the 1990s: 10-year trends in weight and overweight from the CARDIA study. Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults. Am J Epidemiol. 2000 Jun;151:1172–81. [PubMed]

13. Pietrobelli A, Allison DB, Heshka S, Heo M, Wang ZM, Bertkau A, Laferrére B, Rosenbaum M, Aloia JF, et al. Sexual dimorphism in the energy content of weight change. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2002 Oct;26:1339–48. [PubMed]

14. Rosenbaum M, Kissileff HR, Mayer LE, Hirsch J, Leibel RL. Energy intake in weight-reduced humans. Brain Res. 2010 Sep;1350:95–102. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

15. Neel JV. Diabetes mellitus: a “thrifty” genotype rendered detrimental by “progress”? Am J Hum Genet. 1962 Dec;14:353–62. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

16. Schwartz MW, Woods SC, Seeley RJ, Barsh GS, Baskin DG, Leibel RL. Is the energy homeostasis system inherently biased toward weight gain? Diabetes. 2003 Feb;52:232–8. [PubMed]

17. Prentice AM, Hennig BJ, Fulford AJ. Evolutionary origins of the obesity epidemic: natural selection of thrifty genes or genetic drift following predation release? Int J Obes (Lond) 2008 Nov;32:1607–10. [PubMed]

18. Ahima RS, Prabakaran D, Mantzoros C, Qu D, Lowell B, Maratos-Flier E, Flier JS. Role of leptin in the neuroendocrine response to fasting. Nature. 1996 Jul;382:250–2. [PubMed]

19. Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults--The Evidence Report National Institutes of Health. Obes Res. 1998 Sep;6(Suppl 2):51S–209S. [PubMed]

20. Martinsson A. Hypertrophy and hyperplasia of human adipose tissue in obesity. Pol Arch Med Wewn. 1969;42:481–6. [PubMed]

21. Hirsch J, Goldrick RB. Serial studies on the metabolism of human adipose tissue. I. Lipogensis and free fatty acid update and resease in small aspirated samples of subcutaneous fat. J Clin Invest. 1964 Sep;43:1776–92. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

22. Spalding KL, Arner E, Westermark PO, Bernard S, Buchholz BA, Bergmann O, Blomqvist L, Hoffstedt J, Näslund E, et al. Dynamics of fat cell turnover in humans. Nature. 2008 Jun;453:783–7. [PubMed]

23. Sun K, Kusminski CM, Scherer PE. Adipose tissue remodeling and obesity. J Clin Invest. 2011 Jun;121:2094–101. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

24. Marques BG, Hausman DB, Martin RJ. Association of fat cell size and paracrine growth factors in development of hyperplastic obesity. Am J Physiol. 1998 Dec;275:R1898–908. [PubMed]

25. Faust IM, Johnson PR, Stern JS, Hirsch J. Diet-induced adipocyte number increase in adult rats: a new model of obesity. Am J Physiol. 1978 Sep;235:E279–86. [PubMed]

26. Tchoukalova YD, Votruba SB, Tchkonia T, Giorgadze N, Kirkland JL, Jensen MD. Regional differences in cellular mechanisms of adipose tissue gain with overfeeding. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Oct 19;107:18226–31. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

27. Hirsch J, Batchelor B. Adipose tissue cellularity in human obesity. Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1976 Jul;5:299–311. [PubMed]

28. Singh P, Somers VK, Romero-Corral A, Sert-Kuniyoshi FH, Pusalavidyasagar S, Davison DE, Jensen MD. Effects of weight gain and weight loss on regional fat distribution. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Aug;96:229–33. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

29. Björntorp P, Carlgren G, Isaksson B, Krotkiewski M, Larsson B, Sjöström L. Effect of an energy-reduced dietary regimen in relation to adipose tissue cellularity in obese women. Am J Clin Nutr. 1975 May;28:445–52. [PubMed]

30. Ginsberg-Fellner F, Knittle JL. Weight reduction in young obese children. I. Effects on adipose tissue cellularity and metabolism. Pediatr Res. 1981 Oct;15:1381–9. [PubMed]

31. Monkhouse SJ, Morgan JD, Bates SE, Norton SA. An overview of the management of morbid obesity. Postgrad Med J. 2009 Dec;85:678–81. [PubMed]

32. Hirsch J, Han PW. Cellularity of rat adipose tissue: effects of growth, starvation, and obesity. J Lipid Res. 1969 Jan;10:77–82. [PubMed]

33. Gurr MI, Jung RT, Robinson MP, James WP. Adipose tissue cellularity in man: the relationship between fat cell size and number, the mass and distribution of body fat and the history of weight gain and loss. Int J Obes. 1982;6:419–36. [PubMed]

34. Arner P, Spalding KL. Fat cell turnover in humans. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2010 May;396:101–4. [PubMed]

35. Löfgren P, Andersson I, Adolfsson B, Leijonhufvud BM, Hertel K, Hoffstedt J, Arner P. Long-term prospective and controlled studies demonstrate adipose tissue hypercellularity and relative leptin deficiency in the postobese state. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Nov;90:6207–13. [PubMed]

36. Castellano JJ, Jackson RF. A review of the complications of liposuction. American Journal of Cosmetic Surgery. 2011;28:204–2011.

37. MacLean PS, Higgins JA, Jackman MR, Johnson GC, Fleming-Elder BK, Wyatt HR, Melanson EL, Hill JO. Peripheral metabolic responses to prolonged weight reduction that promote rapid, efficient regain in obesity-prone rats. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2006 Jun;290:R1577–88. [PubMed]

38. Jackman MR, Steig A, Higgins JA, Johnson GC, Fleming-Elder BK, Bessesen DH, MacLean PS. Weight regain after sustained weight reduction is accompanied by suppressed oxidation of dietary fat and adipocyte hyperplasia. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2008 Apr;294:R1117–29. [PubMed]

39. Knittle JL, Hirsch J. Effect of early nutrition on the development of rat epididymal fat pads: cellularity and metabolism. J Clin Invest. 1968 Sep;47:2091–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

40. Kelley DE, Goodpaster B, Wing RR, Simoneau JA. Skeletal muscle fatty acid metabolism in association with insulin resistance, obesity, and weight loss. Am J Physiol. 1999 Dec;277:E1130–41. [PubMed]

41. Berggren JR, Boyle KE, Chapman WH, Houmard JA. Skeletal muscle lipid oxidation and obesity: influence of weight loss and exercise. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Apr;294:E726–32. [PubMed]

42. Duncan RE, Ahmadian M, Jaworski K, Sarkadi-Nagy E, Sul HS. Regulation of lipolysis in adipocytes. Annu Rev Nutr. 2007;27:79–101. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

43. Arner P. Control of lipolysis and its relevance to development of obesity in man. Diabetes Metab Rev. 1988 Aug;4:507–15. [PubMed]

44. Smith U. Insulin responsiveness and lipid synthesis in human fat cells of different sizes: effect of the incubation medium. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1970 Dec;218:417–23. [PubMed]

45. Salans LB, Dougherty JW. The effect of insulin upon glucose metabolism by adipose cells of different size. Influence of cell lipid and protein content, age, and nutritional state. J Clin Invest. 1971 Jul;50:1399–410. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

46. Kelley DE, Goodpaster BH, Storlien L. Muscle triglyceride and insulin resistance. Annu Rev Nutr. 2002;22:325–46. [PubMed]

47. Tremblay A, Boulé N, Doucet E, Woods SC. Is the insulin resistance syndrome the price to be paid to achieve body weight stability? Int J Obes (Lond) 2005 Oct;29:1295–8. [PubMed]

48. Yost TJ, Jensen DR, Eckel RH. Weight regain following sustained weight reduction is predicted by relative insulin sensitivity. Obes Res. 1995 Nov;3:583–7. [PubMed]

49. Lazzer S, Vermorel M, Montaurier C, Meyer M, Boirie Y. Changes in adipocyte hormones and lipid oxidation associated with weight loss and regain in severely obese adolescents. Int J Obes (Lond) 2005 Oct;29:1184–91. [PubMed]

50. Nishino N, Tamori Y, Kasuga M. Insulin efficiently stores triglycerides in adipocytes by inhibiting lipolysis and repressing PGC-1alpha induction. Kobe J Med Sci. 2007;53:99–106. [PubMed]

51. Ballor DL, Harvey-Berino JR, Ades PA, Cryan J, Calles-Escandon J. Decrease in fat oxidation following a meal in weight-reduced individuals: a possible mechanism for weight recidivism. Metabolism. 1996 Feb;45:174–8. [PubMed]

52. Bessesen DH, Rupp CL, Eckel RH. Dietary fat is shunted away from oxidation, toward storage in obese Zucker rats. Obes Res. 1995 Mar;3:179–89. [PubMed]

53. Raben A, Andersen HB, Christensen NJ, Madsen J, Holst JJ, Astrup A. Evidence for an abnormal postprandial response to a high-fat meal in women predisposed to obesity. Am J Physiol. 1994 Oct;267:E549–59. [PubMed]

54. Rosenbaum M, Sy M, Pavlovich K, Leibel R, Hirsch J. Leptin reverses weight loss-induced changes in regional neural activity responses to visual food stimuli. The Journal of clinical investigation. 2008;118:2583–91. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

55. Shi H, Akunuru S, Bierman JC, Hodge KM, Mitchell MC, Foster MT, Seeley RJ, Reizes O. Diet-induced obese mice are leptin insufficient after weight reduction. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2009 Sep;17:1702–9. [PubMed]

56. Van Harmelen V, Reynisdottir S, Eriksson P, Thorne A, Hoffstedt J, Lonnqvist F, Arner P. Leptin secretion from subcutaneous and visceral adipose tissue in women. Diabetes. 1998 Jun;47:913–7. [PubMed]

57. Leibel RL. The role of leptin in the control of body weight. Nutr Rev. 2002 Oct;60:S15–9. discussion S68-84, 5-7. [PubMed]

58. Rosenbaum M, Nicolson M, Hirsch J, Murphy E, Chu F, Leibel RL. Effects of weight change on plasma leptin concentrations and energy expenditure. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1997 Nov;82:3647–54. [PubMed]

59. Kissileff HR, Thornton JC, Torres MI, Pavlovich K, Mayer LS, Kalari V, Leibel RL, Rosenbaum M. Leptin reverses declines in satiation in weight-reduced obese humans. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Feb;95:309–17. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

60. Leibel RL, Rosenbaum M, Hirsch J. Changes in energy expenditure resulting from altered body weight. N Engl J Med. 1995 Mar;332:621–8. [PubMed]

61. Jéquier E. Leptin signaling, adiposity, and energy balance. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2002 Jun;967:379–88. [PubMed]

62. Schwartz MW, Woods SC, Porte D, Seeley RJ, Baskin DG. Central nervous system control of food intake. Nature. 2000 Apr;404:661–71. [PubMed]

63. Wren AM, Seal LJ, Cohen MA, Brynes AE, Frost GS, Murphy KG, Dhillo WS, Ghatei MA, Bloom SR. Ghrelin enhances appetite and increases food intake in humans. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2001 Dec;86:5992. [PubMed]

64. Batterham RL, Cowley MA, Small CJ, Herzog H, Cohen MA, Dakin CL, Wren AM, Brynes AE, Low MJ, et al. Gut hormone PYY(3-36) physiologically inhibits food intake. Nature. 2002 Aug;418:650–4. [PubMed]

65. Sumithran P, Prendergast LA, Delbridge E, Purcell K, Shulkes A, Kriketos A, Proietto J. Long-term persistence of hormonal adaptations to weight loss. N Engl J Med. 2011 Oct;365:1597–604. [PubMed]

66. Lien LF, Haqq AM, Arlotto M, Slentz CA, Muehlbauer MJ, McMahon RL, Rochon J, Gallup D, Bain JR, et al. The STEDMAN project: biophysical, biochemical and metabolic effects of a behavioral weight loss intervention during weight loss, maintenance, and regain. OMICS. 2009 Feb;13:21–35. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

67. Rosenbaum M, Hirsch J, Murphy E, Leibel RL. Effects of changes in body weight on carbohydrate metabolism, catecholamine excretion, and thyroid function. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Jun;71:1421–32. [PubMed]

68. Kozłowska L, Rosołowska-Huszcz D. Leptin, thyrotropin, and thyroid hormones in obese/overweight women before and after two levels of energy deficit. Endocrine. 2004 Jul;24:147–53. [PubMed]

69. McKibbin PE, Cotton SJ, McMillan S, Holloway B, Mayers R, McCarthy HD, Williams G. Altered neuropeptide Y concentrations in specific hypothalamic regions of obese (fa/fa) Zucker rats. Possible relationship to obesity and neuroendocrine disturbances. Diabetes. 1991 Nov;40:1423–9. [PubMed]

70. Tomiyama AJ, Mann T, Vinas D, Hunger JM, Dejager J, Taylor SE. Low calorie dieting increases cortisol. Psychosom Med. 2010 May;72:357–64. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

71. Moreno M, de Lange P, Lombardi A, Silvestri E, Lanni A, Goglia F. Metabolic effects of thyroid hormone derivatives. Thyroid. 2008 Feb;18:239–53. [PubMed]

72. Björntorp P. Do stress reactions cause abdominal obesity and comorbidities? Obes Rev. 2001 May;2:73–86. [PubMed]

73. Straznicky NE, Grima MT, Eikelis N, Nestel PJ, Dawood T, Schlaich MP, Chopra R, Masuo K, Esler MD, et al. The effects of weight loss versus weight loss maintenance on sympathetic nervous system activity and metabolic syndrome components. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011 Mar;96:E503–8. [PubMed]

74. Peterson HR, Rothschild M, Weinberg CR, Fell RD, McLeish KR, Pfeifer MA. Body fat and the activity of the autonomic nervous system. N Engl J Med. 1988 Apr;318:1077–83. [PubMed]

75. Gallagher D, Visser M, Wang Z, Harris T, Pierson RN, Heymsfield SB. Metabolically active component of fat-free body mass: influences of age, adiposity, and gender. Metabolism. 1996 Aug;45:992–7. [PubMed]

76. de Groot LC, van Es AJ, van Raaij JM, Vogt JE, Hautvast JG. Energy metabolism of overweight women 1 mo and 1 y after an 8-wk slimming period. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990 Apr;51:578–83. [PubMed]

77. Wyatt HR, Grunwald GK, Seagle HM, Klem ML, McGuire MT, Wing RR, Hill JO. Resting energy expenditure in reduced-obese subjects in the National Weight Control Registry. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Jun;69:1189–93. [PubMed]

78. Astrup A, Gøtzsche PC, van de Werken K, Ranneries C, Toubro S, Raben A, Buemann B. Meta-analysis of resting metabolic rate in formerly obese subjects. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Jun;69:1117–22. [PubMed]

79. Rosenbaum M, Leibel RL. Adaptive thermogenesis in humans. Int J Obes (Lond) 2010 Oct;34(Suppl 1):S47–55. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

80. Johannsen DL, Knuth ND, Huizenga R, Rood JC, Ravussin E, Hall KD. Metabolic slowing with massive weight loss despite preservation of fat-free mass. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012 Jul;97:2489–96. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

81. Camps SG, Verhoef SP, Westerterp KR. Weight loss, weight maintenance, and adaptive thermogenesis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013 Mar; [PubMed]

82. Tremblay A, Chaput JP. Adaptive reduction in thermogenesis and resistance to lose fat in obese men. Br J Nutr. 2009 Aug;102:488–92. [PubMed]

83. Rosenbaum M, Goldsmith R, Bloomfield D, Magnano A, Weimer L, Heymsfield S, Gallagher D, Mayer L, Murphy E, Leibel RL. Low-dose leptin reverses skeletal muscle, autonomic, and neuroendocrine adaptations to maintenance of reduced weight. J Clin Invest. 2005 Dec;115:3579–86. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

84. de Boer JO, van Es AJ, Roovers LC, van Raaij JM, Hautvast JG. Adaptation of energy metabolism of overweight women to low-energy intake, studied with whole-body calorimeters. Am J Clin Nutr. 1986 Nov;44:585–95. [PubMed]

85. Lee JS, Visser M, Tylavsky FA, Kritchevsky SB, Schwartz AV, Sahyoun N, Harris TB, Newman AB, Study HA. Weight loss and regain and effects on body composition: the Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2010 Jan;65:78–83. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

86. Lahti-Koski M, Männistö S, Pietinen P, Vartiainen E. Prevalence of weight cycling and its relation to health indicators in Finland. Obes Res. 2005 Feb;13:333–41. [PubMed]

87. Prentice AM, Jebb SA, Goldberg GR, Coward WA, Murgatroyd PR, Poppitt SD, Cole TJ. Effects of weight cycling on body composition. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992 Jul;56:209S–16S. [PubMed]

88. van der Kooy K, Leenen R, Seidell JC, Deurenberg P, Hautvast JG. Effect of a weight cycle on visceral fat accumulation. Am J Clin Nutr. 1993 Dec;58:853–7. [PubMed]

89. Manore MM, Berry TE, Skinner JS, Carroll SS. Energy expenditure at rest and during exercise in nonobese female cyclical dieters and in nondieting control subjects. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991 Jul;54:41–6. [PubMed]

90. Field AE, Manson JE, Taylor CB, Willett WC, Colditz GA. Association of weight change, weight control practices, and weight cycling among women in the Nurses’ Health Study II. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2004 Sep;28:1134–42. [PubMed]

91. Schmidt WD, Corrigan D, Melby CL. Two seasons of weight cycling does not lower resting metabolic rate in college wrestlers. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1993 May;25:613–9. [PubMed]

92. Le DS, Pannacciulli N, Chen K, Del Parigi A, Salbe A, Reiman E, Krakoff J. Less activation of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in response to a meal: a feature of obesity. The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2006;84:725–31. [PubMed]

93. Lowe M, Levine A. Eating motives and the controversy over dieting: eating less than needed versus less than wanted. Obesity (Silver Spring, Md) 2005;13:797–806. [PubMed]

94. LaBar KS, Gitelman D, Parrish T, Kim Y, Nobre A, Mesulam M. Hunger selectively modulates corticolimbic activation to food stimuli in humans. Behavioral neuroscience. 2001;115:493–500. [PubMed]

95. Berthoud HR. Metabolic and hedonic drives in the neural control of appetite: who is the boss? Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2011 Dec;21:888–96. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

96. Del Parigi A, Chen K, Salbe A, Hill J, Wing R, Reiman E, Tataranni P. Successful dieters have increased neural activity in cortical areas involved in the control of behavior. International journal of obesity (2005) 2007;31:440–8. [PubMed]

97. Petrovich G, Setlow B, Holland P, Gallagher M. Amygdalo-hypothalamic circuit allows learned cues to override satiety and promote eating. The Journal of neuroscience. 2002;22:8748–53. [PubMed]

98. Murdaugh DL, Cox JE, Cook EW, Weller RE. fMRI reactivity to high-calorie food pictures predicts short- and long-term outcome in a weight-loss program. Neuroimage. 2012 Feb;59:2709–21. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

99. Wing RR, Papandonatos G, Fava JL, Gorin AA, Phelan S, McCaffery J, Tate DF. Maintaining large weight losses: the role of behavioral and psychological factors. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2008 Dec;76:1015–21. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
100. McGuire M, Wing R, Klem M, Lang W, Hill J. What predicts weight regain in a group of successful weight losers? J Consult Clin Psychol. 1999;67:177–85. [PubMed]

101. Stice E, Spoor S, Bohon C, Veldhuizen MG, Small DM. Relation of reward from food intake and anticipated food intake to obesity: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J Abnorm Psychol. 2008 Nov;117:924–35. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

102. Burger K, Stice E. Relation of dietary restraint scores to activation of reward-related brain regions in response to food intake, anticipated intake, and food pictures. NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla) 2011;55:233–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

103. Soetens B, Braet C, Van Vlierberghe L, Roets A. Resisting temptation: effects of exposure to a forbidden food on eating behaviour. Appetite. 2008 Jul;51:202–5. [PubMed]

104. Drewnowski A. Intense sweeteners and energy density of foods: implications for weight control. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1999 Oct;53:757–63. [PubMed]

105. Avena NM, Rada P, Hoebel BG. Sugar and fat bingeing have notable differences in addictive-like behavior. J Nutr. 2009 Mar;139:623–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

106. Sharma S, Fernandes MF, Fulton S. Adaptations in brain reward circuitry underlie palatable food cravings and anxiety induced by high-fat diet withdrawal. Int J Obes (Lond) 2012 Dec; [PubMed]

107. Corsica JA, Pelchat ML. Food addiction: true or false? Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2010 Mar;26:165–9. [PubMed]

108. Gold MS, Graham NA, Cocores JA, Nixon SJ. Food addiction? J Addict Med. 2009 Mar;3:42–5. [PubMed]

109. Ifland JR, Preuss HG, Marcus MT, Rourke KM, Taylor WC, Burau K, Jacobs WS, Kadish W, Manso G. Refined food addiction: a classic substance use disorder. Med Hypotheses. 2009 May;72:518–26. [PubMed]

110. Gearhardt AN, Corbin WR, Brownell KD. Preliminary validation of the Yale Food Addiction Scale. Appetite. 2009 Apr;52:430–6. [PubMed]

111. Gearhardt AN, Yokum S, Orr PT, Stice E, Corbin WR, Brownell KD. Neural correlates of food addiction. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011 Aug;68:808–16. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

112. Tintinalli J, Stapczynski J, Ma OJ, Cline D, Cydulka R, Meckler G. In: Emergency Medicine: A Comprehensive Study Guide. 6th ed Tintinalli J, editor. McGraw-Hill; New York, NY: 2004.

113. DG G, BO G, VL S. Withdrawal symptoms: individual differences and similarities across addictive behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences. 1998;24:351–6.

114. Gossop M, Griffiths P, Bradley B, Strang J. Opiate withdrawal symptoms in response to 10-day and 21-day methadone withdrawal programmes. Br J Psychiatry. 1989 Mar;154:360–3. [PubMed]

115. Lawrence VJ, Kopelman PG. Medical consequences of obesity. Clin Dermatol. 2004 Jul-Aug;22:296–302. 2004. [PubMed]

116. Bray GA. Medical consequences of obesity. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004 Jun;89:2583–9. [PubMed]

117. McLellan AT, Lewis DC, O’Brien CP, Kleber HD. Drug dependence, a chronic medical illness: implications for treatment, insurance, and outcomes evaluation. JAMA. 2000 Oct;284:1689–95. [PubMed]

118. Anderson JW, Konz EC, Frederich RC, Wood CL. Long-term weight-loss maintenance: a meta-analysis of US studies. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Nov;74:579–84. [PubMed]

119. Koob GF, Volkow ND. Neurocircuitry of addiction. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2010 Jan;35:217–38. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

120. Young LR, Nestle M. The contribution of expanding portion sizes to the US obesity epidemic. Am J Public Health. 2002 Feb;92:246–9. [PubMed]

121. Volkow ND, Wang GJ, Fowler JS, Telang F. Overlapping neuronal circuits in addiction and obesity: evidence of systems pathology. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008 Oct;363:3191–200. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

122. Wang GJ, Volkow ND, Thanos PK, Fowler JS. Similarity between obesity and drug addiction as assessed by neurofunctional imaging: a concept review. J Addict Dis. 2004;23:39–53. [PubMed]

123. Lee J, Parish CL, Tomas D, Horne MK. Chronic cocaine administration reduces striatal dopamine terminal density and striatal dopamine release which leads to drug-seeking behaviour. Neuroscience. 2011 Feb;174:143–50. [PubMed]

124. Wang G-J, Volkow N, Thanos P, Fowler J. Imaging of brain dopamine pathways: implications for understanding obesity. Journal of addiction medicine. 2009;3:8–18. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

125. Stice E, Yokum S, Blum K, Bohon C. Weight gain is associated with reduced striatal response to palatable food. J Neurosci. 2010 Sep 29;30:13105–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

126. Stice E, Spoor S, Bohon C, Small DM. Relation between obesity and blunted striatal response to food is moderated by TaqIA A1 allele. Science. 2008 Oct;322:449–52. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

127. DelParigi A, Chen K, Salbe AD, Hill JO, Wing RR, Reiman EM, Tataranni PA. Persistence of abnormal neural responses to a meal in postobese individuals. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2004 Mar;28:370–7. [PubMed]

128. Stice E, Spoor S, Ng J, Zald DH. Relation of obesity to consummatory and anticipatory food reward. Physiology & Behavior. 2009;97:551–60. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

129. Volkow ND, Wang GJ, Fowler JS, Tomasi D, Baler R. Food and Drug Reward: Overlapping Circuits in Human Obesity and Addiction. Curr Top Behav Neurosci. 2011 Oct; [PubMed]

130. Fortuna JL. The obesity epidemic and food addiction: clinical similarities to drug dependence. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2012 Jan-Mar;44:56–63. [PubMed]

131. Davidson TL, Monnot A, Neal AU, Martin AA, Horton JJ, Zheng W. The effects of a high-energy diet on hippocampal-dependent discrimination performance and blood-brain barrier integrity differ for diet-induced obese and diet-resistant rats. Physiol Behav. 2012 Aug;107:26–33. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

132. Goldstone AP, Prechtl de Hernandez CG, Beaver JD, Muhammed K, Croese C, Bell G, Durighel G, Hughes E, Waldman AD, et al. Fasting biases brain reward systems towards high-calorie foods. Eur J Neurosci. 2009 Oct;30:1625–35. [PubMed]

133. Chaput JP, Drapeau V, Hetherington M, Lemieux S, Provencher V, Tremblay A. Psychobiological effects observed in obese men experiencing body weight loss plateau. Depress Anxiety. 2007;24:518–21. [PubMed]

134. Rodríguez-Rodríguez E, Aparicio A, Bermejo LM, López-Sobaler AM, Ortega RM. Changes in the sensation of hunger and well-being before and after meals in overweight/obese women following two types of hypoenergetic diet. Public Health Nutr. 2009 Jan;12:44–50. [PubMed]

135. Cornier MA, Grunwald GK, Johnson SL, Bessesen DH. Effects of short-term overfeeding on hunger, satiety, and energy intake in thin and reduced-obese individuals. Appetite. 2004 Dec;43:253–9. [PubMed]

136. Gilhooly CH, Das SK, Golden JK, McCrory MA, Dallal GE, Saltzman E, Kramer FM, Roberts SB. Food cravings and energy regulation: the characteristics of craved foods and their relationship with eating behaviors and weight change during 6 months of dietary energy restriction. Int J Obes (Lond) 2007 Dec;31:1849–58. [PubMed]

137. Peckham SC, Entenman C. The influence of a hypercaloric diet on gross body and adipose tissue composition in the rat. Res Dev Tech Rep. 1962 Feb;:23. [PubMed]

138. Weiss EC, Galuska DA, Kettel Khan L, Gillespie C, Serdula MK. Weight regain in U.S. adults who experienced substantial weight loss, 1999-2002. Am J Prev Med. 2007 Jul;33:34–40. [PubMed]

139. Baskin ML, Ard J, Franklin F, Allison DB. Prevalence of obesity in the United States. Obes Rev. 2005 Feb;6:5–7. [PubMed]

140. Ochner CN, Gibson C, Shanik M, Goel V, Geliebter A. Changes in neurohormonal gut peptides following bariatric surgery. Int J Obes (Lond) 2011;35:153–66. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

141. Ochner CN, Kwok Y, Conceicao E, Pantazatos SP, Puma LM, Carnell S, Teixeira J, Hirsch J, Geliebter A. Selective reduction in neural responses to high calorie foods following gastric bypass surgery. Ann Surg. 2011 Mar;253:502–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

142. Ochner C, Gibson C, Carnell S, Dambkowski C, Geliebter A. The neurohormonal regulation of energy intake in relation to bariatric surgery for obesity. Physiology & Behavior. 2010;100:549–59. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

143. Bouchard C, Tremblay A, Despres JP, Nadeau A, Lupien PJ, Theriault G, Dussault J, Moorjani S, Pinault S, Fournier G. The response to long-term overfeeding in identical twins. N Engl J Med. 1990 May 24;322:1477–82. [PubMed]

144. Loos RJ, Rankinen T. Gene-diet interactions on body weight changes. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005 May;105:S29–34. [PubMed]

145. Wadden T, Brownell K, Foster G. Obesity: responding to the global epidemic. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2002;70:510–25. [PubMed]

146. Wing RR, Phelan S. Long-term weight loss maintenance. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Jul;82:222S–5S. [PubMed]

147. Shin AC, Berthoud HR. Obesity surgery: happy with less or eternally hungry? Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Feb;24:101–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

148. Laferrére B, Teixeira J, McGinty J, Tran H, Egger JR, Colarusso A, Kovack B, Bawa B, Koshy N, et al. Effect of weight loss by gastric bypass surgery versus hypocaloric diet on glucose and incretin levels in patients with type 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Jul;93:2479–85. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

149. Ochner CN, Laferrére B, Afifi L, Atalayer D, Geliebter A, Teixeira J. Neural responsivity to food cues in fasted and fed states pre and post gastric bypass surgery. Neurosci Res. 2012 Oct;74:138–43. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

150. Ochner CN, Stice E, Hutchins E, Afifi L, Geliebter A, Hirsch J, Teixeira J. Relation between changes in neural responsivity and reductions in desire to eat high-calorie foods following gastric bypass surgery. Neuroscience. 2012 May;209:128–35. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

151. Bryant EJ, King NA, Falkén Y, Hellström PM, Juul Holst J, Blundell JE, Näslund E. Relationships among tonic and episodic aspects of motivation to eat, gut peptides, and weight before and after bariatric surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2012 Oct; [PubMed]

152. Laferrére B, Reilly D, Arias S, Swerdlow N, Gorroochurn P, Bawa B, Bose M, Teixeira J, Stevens RD, et al. Differential metabolic impact of gastric bypass surgery versus dietary intervention in obese diabetic subjects despite identical weight loss. Sci Transl Med. 2011 Apr;3:80re2. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

153. Shin AC, Berthoud HR. Food reward functions as affected by obesity and bariatric surgery. Int J Obes (Lond) 2011 Sep;35(Suppl 3):S40–4. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

154. Maclean PS, Bergouignan A, Cornier MA, Jackman MR. Biology’s response to dieting: the impetus for weight regain. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2011 Sep;301:R581–600. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

155. Freedman DS, Khan LK, Serdula MK, Dietz WH, Srinivasan SR, Berenson GS. The relation of childhood BMI to adult adiposity: the Bogalusa Heart Study. Pediatrics. 2005 Jan;115:22–7. [PubMed]

We all have choices on how we are going to live our lives, and where we are going to place our focus.  My choice may not resemble your choice. I am a “reduced obese” person who has maintained a “normal” weight for more than 9 years, after a lifetime of Yo You Dieting. See ABOUT ME for details.

Doing this has required my constant vigilance, ongoing effort, and tremendous focus, and even though I have been more successful than 95% of everyone who has ever accomplished a large weight-loss, it is been a tremendous personal struggle, and year-after-year, despite CONSISTENT and CONSTANT effort, my weight has continued to slowly creep upward in small increments over time.

This is despite the fact that the recorded daily calorie average of my food intake has been dropping lower and lower each year.

For example, at the start of 2015, my weight was the same as it was at the start of 2014, however, the average daily calories of all of my daily food intake during the year of 2014 was only 754 calories.

In 2013, the average daily calories of all of my daily food intake was 1033. So my average daily food intake was about 280 daily calories LESS than the prior year, and during that prior year, from the start of 2013 until the start of 2014, my body gained 8 pounds while eating that 1033 calories per day.

These are my personal facts, based on numbers which I recorded as accurately as humanly possible, every single day for the past 10 years. For years I felt like Garfield in the cartoon below, but now... instead of yelling "Liar" at the scale, I mentally yell "Liar" or "You Idiot" at the 'Diet Experts' who smugly believe the B.S. and provide to us the results of bad Research, while asserting that "Science Doesn't Lie".

NOTE: that I am a 5’0” tall, 70 year old, sedentary woman with a lower than average metabolism, and according to the Mifflin formula, the AVERAGE woman with my numbers requires only 1237 daily calories to maintain her current weight.

I give you this information so you can see that my recorded calorie numbers are not as far out in left field as some of you might first suppose. You can’t accurately compare my body’s numbers with your own body’s personal calorie calculation requirements if you are larger, taller, younger, more active etc.

That said, the difference between 1237 and 754 is around 480 calories, which is a reduction of nearly 40% of the “Average” calorie requirement. Remember, THIS CALORIE AMOUNT is to MAINTAIN my current weight. . which right now is just above the BMI borderline of “normal”

The past 4 years of the DietHobby ARCHIVES contain many articles detailing and discussing my struggles to maintain my weight-loss. Very few people lose as much weight as I have lost, and only about 95% of THOSE successful people have achieved the type of maintenance success that I am currently exhibiting.

I often question how long I can continue to eat such excessively tiny amounts of food while watching my weight continually creep upward; whether I am willing to continue my current behavior for the rest of my lifetime; and I honestly don’t know. Right now, I’m just taking it one-day-at-a-time, while searching for Guidance.

I can vouch for the accuracy, and I do agree with the mindset, of the following article based on my own knowledge and personal experience.

Failed at Dieting?
Welcome to the Almost Everyone Club!
                    by Ragen Chastain, www. danceswithfat

A question that I get asked pretty often is “If dieting doesn’t work, how is it possible that it’s such a popular recommendation even by doctors?”  I’m glad that you asked!

For the last 50 years the research that has been conducted regarding long term weight loss has shown that weight loss almost never works long term.  Yet we are constantly told by the media, the government, our doctors etc. that anybody who tries hard enough can lose weight and keep it off. Plenty of studies have shown that the body has a number of physiological reactions to weight loss that are designed to regain weight and then retain that weight. 

Yet we are told that those who regain their weight have just “gone back to their old habits.” But what really happens?

So a person begins one of a thousand intentional weight loss  (also known as a “lifestyle change”) programs.  They lose weight at first, then between 2 and 5 years after the loss they gain back all of the weight plus more, despite diligently maintaining their diet behaviors (aka “lifestyle changes”). They report these happenings to their doctor only to be told that they must not have been properly counting calories, they must have overestimated their movement. Their experience, they will be told, could not possibly have happened, it is impossible because…physics!  Or they tell their doctor that they couldn’t mentally and physically continue their dieting behaviors (aka “lifestyle change”) and are told again that they just weren’t trying hard enough.

All this despite the fact that their experience is exactly what the research tells us to expect. When millions of credible first person accounts match up with what research has found, typically that’s a good time to jump out of your bathtub and run around naked yelling “Eureka, I’ve found it.”

So why is dieting such a popular recommendation?  Those who are perpetuating this “weight loss works’ culture are doing a couple of things frighteningly well.

First, they are doing a great job of obfuscating the evidence.  Remember when a study found that Weight Watchers participants lost around about 10 pounds in six months and kept off half of that for two years (giving them a 3 year efficacy buffer but who’s counting) and Karren Miller-Kovach, chief scientific officer of Weight Watchers International at the time won the “I Said It With a Straight Face Award” when she told the media: “It’s nice to see this validation of what we’ve been doing.” Five pounds in two years.  Five pounds in two years.  Five freaking pounds in two freaking years?!?!?!?!?!.  But every time I say something about Weight Watchers people tell me how well it works (often, defying all logic, telling me that they’ve “done Weight Watchers 6 times and it worked every time“.)

Or the National Weight Control registry claiming to prove that weight loss works when the truth is that they would need 32,990,000 more success stories just to show a 5% success rate for dieting over the time they’ve been collecting data.  They’ve only managed to gather about 10,000 success stories since 1994, so they just moved the goal post and claimed victory at the fact that their numbers indicate that dieting works .009% of the time which means that if you walk to your Weight Watchers meeting in the rain you are three times more likely to die from a lightning strike than lose weight long term.

The second thing that they do alarmingly well is to discredit what are actually completely credible first person accounts of dieting failure.  Hundreds of thousands of people have diet failures every year.  Some of them have been convinced that they suddenly lost the ability to accurately maintain their diet behaviors, like people are saying “that’s weird, last week I could totally measure a cup of pasta but this week I forgot what a measuring cup is or how it works, so I just ate the whole package of spaghetti.”  They are told that they must be doing something wrong if they are regaining weight.  They are excoriated and discredited as “trying to justify their fatness”  (as if we need justification to exist in our bodies.)

But the diet industry and its cronies do it with shocking success.  Millions of people saying “I had the exact experience that research said was most likely” and somehow the diet industry, the government, and the medical establishment are able to discredit all of us in the eyes of the greater culture, often while continuing to profit.

This is all by way of saying that if you’ve tried dieting and ended up regaining all of your weight, or all of your weight plus more, then welcome to The Almost Everyone Club, we aren’t exclusive and we don’t have jackets (yet!) but we do have evidence and experience.  You have the right to claim and own the fact that you are indeed a credible witness to your experience, and you can refuse to allow someone else to substitute their completely  fabricated (and highly lucrative) experiences for your actual ones, and you can insist that they stop the diet roller coaster because you want to get the hell off.

The fat burning process is a complex biochemical process.

When you “lose” body fat, the fat cell (also called an adipocyte) does not go anywhere or “move into the muscle cell to be burned”. The fat cell itself, (unfortunately) stays right where it was – under the skin in your thighs, stomach, hips, arms, etc., and on top of the muscles – which is why you can’t see muscle “definition” when your body fat is high.

Fat is stored inside the fat cell in the form of triaglycerol. The fat is not burned right there in the fat cell, it must be liberated from the fat cell through somewhat complex hormonal/enzymatic pathways. When stimulated to do so, the fat cell simply releases its contents (triaglycerol) into the bloodstream as free fatty acids (FFA’s), and they are transported through the blood to the tissues where the energy is needed.

A typical young male adult stores about 60,000 to 100,000 calories of energy in body fat cells. What triggers the release of all these stored fatty acids from the fat cell? When your body needs energy because you’re consuming fewer calories than you are burning (an energy deficit), then your body releases hormones and enzymes that signal your fat cells to release your fat reserves instead of keeping them in storage.

For stored fat to be liberated from the fat cell, hydrolysis (lipolysis or fat breakdown), splits the molecule of triaglycerol into glycerol and three fatty acids. An important enzyme called hormone sensitive lipase (HSL) is the catalyst for this reaction. The stored fat (energy) gets released into the bloodstream as FFA’s and they are shuttled off to the muscles where the energy is needed. As blood flow increases to the active muscles, more FFA’s are delivered to the muscles that need them.

An important enzyme called lipoprotein lipase (LPL), then helps the FFA’s get inside the mitochondria of the muscle cell, where the FFA’s can be burned for energy. If you’ve ever taken a biology class, then you’ve probably heard of the mitochondria. This is the “cellular powerhouse” where energy production takes place and this is where the FFA’s go to be burned for energy.

When the FFA’s are released from the fat cell, the fat cell shrinks and that’s why you look leaner when you lose body fat – because the fat cell is now smaller. A small or “empty” fat cell is what you’re after if you want the lean, defined look.

It was once believed that the number of fat cells could not increase after adulthood, only the size of the fat cells could increase (or decrease). We now know that fat cells can indeed increase both in size (hypertrophy) and in number (hyperplasia) and that they are more likely to increase in number at certain times and under certain circumstances, such as 1) during late childhood and early puberty, 2) During pregnancy, and 3) During adulthood when extreme amounts of weight are gained.

Some people are genetically predisposed to have more fat cells than others and women have more fat cells than men. An infant usually has about 5 – 6 billion fat cells. This number increases during early childhood and puberty, and a healthy adult with normal body composition has about 25 to 30 billion fat cells.   A typical overweight adult has around 75 billion fat cells. But in the case of severe obesity, this number can be as high as 250 to 300 billion!

The average size (weight) of an adult fat cell is about 0.6 micrograms, but they can vary in size from 0.2 micrograms to 0.9 micrograms. An overweight person’s fat cells can be up to three times larger than a person with ideal body composition.

Remember, body fat is a reserve source of energy and fat cells operate like reserve storage tanks. Unlike a gas tank in your car which is fixed in size, however, fat cells can expand or shrink in size depending on how “filled” they are.

 Picture a balloon that is not inflated: It’s tiny when not filled with air – maybe the size of your thumb. When you blow it up with air, it can expand 10 or 12 times it’s normal size, because it simply fills up. That’s what happens to fat cells: They start as nearly empty fat storage “tanks” (when you are lean), and when energy intake exceeds your needs, your fat cells “fill up” and “stretch out” like balloons filling up with jelly (not a pretty picture, is it?)

So you don’t actually “lose” fat cells, you “shrink” or “empty out” fat cells.

FAT is not merely an inert storage tank for surplus calories. Fat cells don’t just store fat, the fat tissue is actually very much part of the body. Fat is an active organ than sends chemical signals to other parts of the body. The adipose tissue (FAT), occupies the niche of an endocrine organ, along with the pancreas, thyroid and adrenal gland.

The more traditional organs typically produce one or two hormones. However, fat cells, spit out a huge array of chemicals - at least 80 different substances. Among these hormones is leptin, which controls appetite, and adiponectin, which makes the body more sensitive to insulin and controls blood sugar levels. However, little is known about most of the proteins produced by the billions of fat cells in the adult body. Scientists have identified 80 different proteins produced by fat cells. These include new proteins and 20 proteins that have not been previously detected in human fat cells.

Many of the fat chemicals are not unique to fat cells, but a handful, such as leptin and adiponectin, are only made by fat cells. Scientists are trying to figure out what all these chemicals do, but many of them are involved in inflammation. The official term for all these chemicals being produced by fat cells (adipocytes) is adipokines.

Important Lessons:

Calories count. The signal that triggers your body to release adipose from fat cells is an energy deficit… you have to take in less energy from eating or drinking food than the amount of energy that your body uses ("burns") to sustain all of its ongoing activities.  Most of the body's activities are involuntary (such as breathing, cell repair, pumping blood etc.) which would continue even in a coma.  Voluntary activity, such as normal physical movement - which includes additional exercise/fitness activities - normally accounts for only about 16% to 20% (sedentary) to 25% (physically active) of all of the energy used by the body.

Eating food and fat burning are inter-related. You cannot lose weight without cutting calories, but when you cut calories, your body decreases many of its automatic functions, including the activity of fat burning enzymes that release fat from the cells.

After weight-loss, you must be forever diligent. Your fat cells are not gone, they have merely “shrunk” or “emptied out.” Weight-loss maintenance requires continuing a lower-calorie lifestyle forever.

Genetics and Life-History are factors. You can’t control the number of fat cells you currently have, but you CAN achieve control over SOME of the factors that determine how much fat you store. Reducing and limiting your food intake, through portion controlled eating, is the most important helpful factor in weight-control.

"Approximately two-thirds of people who lose weight will regain it within 1 year, and almost all of them will regain it within 5 years.

Although dieting (ie, caloric restriction) to lose weight is a difficult task, the maintenance of lost weight requires the patient to deploy even greater efforts.

Rather than a simple lack of willpower, the relapse of most individuals to their previous weight after otherwise successful weight loss is largely driven by the coordinated actions of metabolic, neuroendocrine, autonomic, and behavioural changes that oppose the maintenance of reduced body weight.

The few individuals successful at maintaining weight loss (at least 13.6 kg (30 lbs) for at least 1 year) generally have common behaviour and strategies that include consuming low-energy, low-fat diets; engaging in high levels of physical activity; consistent self-monitoring of body weight and food intake; eating breakfast regularly; and demonstrating a high level of dietary restraint.

It is highly unlikely that some of this behaviour can be emulated by most of the population with excess weight.

There is also concern that unhealthy weight control methods (eg, fasting, meal skipping, laxatives, diuretics, stimulants) might ultimately lead to a larger weight regain and pose a risk to both mental and physical health.

Thus, although sustained weight loss with diet alone can be possible for some individuals, agreeing on realistic weight-loss expectations and sustainable behavioural changes is critical to avoid disappointment and nonadherence.

Weight regain (relapse) should not be framed as failure but as an expected consequence of dealing with a chronic and complex condition like obesity."

This has been true for me personally.  See my previous article:  Running DOWN the UP Escalator.

The above article involves a paper about the Widespread Misconceptions About Obesity published in Canadian Family Medicine in November 2014 written by obesity experts - Dr. Sharma et al, and it was originally posted originally posted at his website - Dr. Sharma’s Obesity Notes.