Why Is It So Easy To Regain Weight?

Get the latest science on muscle gain and fat loss every month

Keeping up with the research is tough, so let us do the work for you. Consider signing up for Research Explained in Practical Summaries (REPS). We cover five studies per month and break everything down for you, so you don't need a PhD to interpret the data. Click here to learn more.

Get access to over seven years of past research reviews, video content, and Q&As on training and nutrition

Get access to the Weightology Archives of over 400 video and written research reviews, evidence-based guides, and Q&As. A total of 7.5 years of content! A huge variety of topics related to muscle building, fat loss, nutrition, and fitness are covered. Click here to obtain lifetime access.

5 1 vote

Article Rating

56 Comments

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Vanessa

12 years ago

Hi James,

I found this to be very informative but I was somewhat confused by this article.
Are you saying that people who lose weight, actually become less active than prior to losing weight?

Why? I’m not sure I understand?

Can we control our NEAT?

Also, if we lose weight but not muscle, (or if we work to rebuild it), can we not have such a large reduction in calories?

Sorry for the late question.

If you could help out, that would be great, I have found very few answers that I need on the net and even through nutritionists/doctor.

Author

James Krieger

12 years ago

Reply to Vanessa

Hi, Vanessa,

Yes, I am saying that people who lose weight become less active than prior to losing weight. The mechanisms are still not completely understood by researchers. Yes, you can control NEAT, but the research indicates you need to make a conscious effort to do so; otherwise, you will unconciously become less active. Building muscle will not stop this, as the decrease in NEAT has nothing to do with muscle mass.

Vanessa

12 years ago

Hi James,

I found this to be very informative but I was somewhat confused by this article.
Are you saying that people who lose weight, actually become less active than prior to losing weight?

Why? I’m not sure I understand?

Can we control our NEAT?

Also, if we lose weight but not muscle, (or if we work to rebuild it), can we not have such a large reduction in calories?

Sorry for the late question.

Chris Jack

12 years ago

To what extent can the reduction in calories burnt be explained by a reduction in muscle fibre?

Author

James Krieger

12 years ago

Reply to Chris Jack

Hi, Chris,

It would not be due to a reduction in muscle fiber. The researchers will often express the RMR in relation to lean body mass and they still find a reduction. Plus, muscle does not contribute much to resting metabolic rate (only 6 calories per pound of muscle).

13 years ago

Hi, I know I’m kind of late for this article!

I was just wondering if going from about 200 lbs and a fat percentage of around 19 – 20, down to about 176 – 180 lbs and a fat percentage of 10 – 12 would result in the same decrease in metabolism? I never considered myself “overweight”, but when I started to lose ab-definition I figured I wanted to lose some weight.

I hope that going up to 200 lbs did not ruin my metabolism 🙁

Jackie

12 years ago

Reply to TA

I have been surprised that having been overweight since birth – that now I have gone from 210lbs to 165lbs (yo-yoing in between), I am naturally more active just in day to day life, so as I eat more on maintenance, (now 2000cals/ day as opposed to 1500 cals when dieting), I am not gaining. High intensity exercise is overrated – most can’t maintain it, just keeping off the couch is the answer.

Webin

13 years ago

Easily said than done! You forgot to factor in the ache and pains associated with age. This may be the biggest factor why overweight people became overweight in the first place…tired, aching body. And when they try to lose weight, they regain them for 2 reasons: 1.) They can’t have so much energy expenditures because of tred aching body 2.) They are in celebratory mode that they have successfully lost weight, and that it could be done. They celebrate with food they’ve missed…Problem is the celebratory mode feels better than the dieting mode. So they get fat and regain their… Read more »

Stuart

13 years ago

Reply to Webin

James would I be right in assuming that that high amount of exercise wouldn’t HAVE to be done if calorie intake was monitored just as much as it was when dieting down?
I also couldn’t guarantee to do that amount of exercise either (I know, bad!) however, I don’t see why long term weight maintenance can’t be achieved by still watching the calories??
It may help people like the above poster was referring to.

Author

James Krieger

13 years ago

Reply to Stuart

You are correct that a high amount of exercise would not have to be done if you had very strict control of your calorie intake. Unfortunately, it is very difficult for most people to adhere strictly to low calorie intakes for extended periods of time, which is why high volumes of exercise become a necessity for many.

Stuart

13 years ago

Reply to James Krieger

Thanks for the reply James.

When you say difficult for most, are you referring mainly to keeping track of calories on a daily basis?(basically forever)

Like I said above, I am not so sure I could guarantee to do that amount of exercise but I feel quite confident that I could keep up with watching the calories. Knowing that that would be an option as well is reassuring.

Thanks again.

Andrea

13 years ago

Reply to James Krieger

Just stumbled upon this great article. Very enlightening. It’s very difficult for me, at 48, to get that amount of exercise now. To burn 400 calories now requires a solid hour of heart pumping step aerobics with weight training added in circuits. I used to be able to do it five days a week. I can’t anymore. Between the calf microtears, the iliotibial band syndrome, and the arthritic knees, my body can no longer sustain that level of physical activity. Not to mention that I’m just plain tired the older I get. I’ve had to bring my exercise down to… Read more »

Jackie

13 years ago

Reply to Andrea

Am 59 and lost 45lbs 6 months ago. Lifestyle is the key – biking easier on the knees. Have found am more active on the NEAT level, simply because I’m not carrying around 45lbs of fat – getting the blood moving around my brain makes me feel younger AND able to catch the ‘activists’ (Grandchildren). On about 2000cals/day.

Armistead Legge

14 years ago

James,

For someone losing a lesser amount of weight, (going from 10% BF to 6% BF) do you think the reductions in NEAT would be proportionally smaller? I’ve had some clients plateau at fairly low calorie levels, and I’m guessing there’s a rapid decrease in NEAT under a certain threshold.

Excellent article and I’m looking forward to your book.

-Armi

Author

James Krieger

14 years ago

Reply to Armistead Legge

Armi, Yes, the reduction in NEAT would be proportionally smaller. Remember that NEAT will always decrease with fat loss since you have less weight to move around. However, the research also shows that the decrease in NEAT is greater than you would anticipate based on the weight change alone. I don’t know of any research that has looked at whether there are thresholds for greater drops. For example, does NEAT decrease more rapidly when someone goes from 10% to 6% body fat (essentially losing 40% of their body fat), versus someone going from 25% to 15% (also a 40% reduction)?… Read more »

David Asprey

14 years ago

Reply to James Krieger

That would be an interesting study. I find NEAT extremely fascinating, and it seems to fill a lot of holes in the research on energy balance.
Here’s another thought:

I know high protein diets don’t produce greater weight loss in the long term, despite what might be expected from the higher thermic effect of food. Do you think a reduction in NEAT might be one of the compensatory mechanisms by which this effect is rendered null?

thanks again 🙂

Author

James Krieger

14 years ago

Reply to David Asprey

I don’t think the reduction in NEAT is a compensatory mechanism regarding high protein diets. I think it’s more simply an issue of adherence and “calorie creep.” Over time, people just become more lax about their dietary intake.

Armi Legge

14 years ago

Reply to James Krieger

That makes good sense. Thanks James.

Dr Masterlock

14 years ago

Hi James, this is really a very illustrated experiment. I loved it! I think that, without changing our habits we could take care a little better of our weight. For example, taking the stairs instead of the elevator, or walking instead of taking the bus, or not eating carbohydrates after 6-7 pm, also drink a lot of water… Following this simple rules you can, not loose weigh, but maybe maintain what you have. That’s what I do!!

dan g

15 years ago

This is very interesting and explains a lot of my own observations. I lost 90 pounds about 5 years ago. While losing the weight (on the UCLA RFO program – 920 calorie “fast” and lots of exercise) I could predict my weight loss each week within a tenth of a pound. I used a polar heart rate monitor to estimate calories out, and traditional BMR tables. Over the past 5 years and a massive exercise program I have increased my muscle mass by nearly 40 pounds (bicep from 12 to 16.5; chest from 40 to 46; etc.) and cardio 4… Read more »

Jon

15 years ago

Wonderful article; really been enjoying your blog – nice to have another good science fitness blog. The article highlights what I’ve been constantly afraid of, ever since I lost a significant amount of weight (60 pounds). Even with consistent exercise/lifting, I find that the only way I can stay in a lean state is with the help of ephedrine and caffeine.

Muata

15 years ago

Reply to Jon

Jon, I used to do the EC stack too (I’ve lost and maintained a 120+ pound loss), but I think it was more of a psychological dependency on this fat burning stack. Once I stopped taking them, I just had to figure out how much exercise I needed to do and how much I could eat to stay at a certain size. The best maintenance technique for me over the years (I’ve been around the same size for @ 5 years now) was a simple pair of size 36 jeans. I hate wearing tight pants, so once they started to… Read more »

Paul Skavland

15 years ago

Reply to Muata

Awesome comment and I’d like to add that the same is true for me. The EC stack was very helpful to me when I was losing weight, but I decided I didn’t want to be on pills forever. I agree that after a certain point, for me, it became more of a psychological aid than anything else. I still drink coffee (Seattle native here!) but no more pills for me and I haven’t noticed any change since I stopped. (Tapered off over a period of two weeks and experienced a mild fatigue/tiredness but that ended quickly.) We have to always… Read more »

Author

James Krieger

15 years ago

Reply to Jon

Thanks, Jon, glad you liked the article!

Denise

15 years ago

Used you with a reference and link. Do you know the calorie ranges that people maintained on? The “never lost weight” group ate an average of 2700ish calories a day. And the “maintaining for a year” group ate an average of 2400ish calories a day. That is still a good number of calories. The average women in the National Weight Control Reg reports that she is maintaining on 1350 calories a day, or something ridiculous like that. Granted, no ONE person is “average”… but an average of 2400 calories a day looks pretty good to me! And is WAY better… Read more »

Author

James Krieger

15 years ago

Reply to Denise

Denise,

The calories ranged from 1700 to 3600. Only 4 of the subjects had maintenance intakes of less than 2000 calories per day.

Anyone who claims that they are maintaining on 1350 calories per day is underreporting. There are studies showing that, when you take people who report these low calorie amounts, and actually provide them with the calories they claim to be eating, they lose weight.