Walking 25 miles a week just to maintain?

[Sara1000]

That statement was made in the Oprah article referenced on another thread.

Isn't that kind of a meaningless statement, you have to walk 40k (edited to correct) a week just to maintain weightloss?

Wouldn't that depend on how much you eat, what other exercise you do?

If you walked 5 miles a day five days a week, for most people that is more than an hour of walking. Most people would be discouraged if they thought they had to do that just to maintain. Most people (not us VFrs of course) feel they don't have an hour a day to walk.

It just struck me as kind of an odd statement. I guess they were trying to convince people they might as well accept the weight they're already at, not bother to try to lose it.

[ruby2111]

Maybe it's a round off of the 10,000 steps a day we are supposed to take? 25/7 is about 3.5 miles a day... Did they say to do it all at once or spread out to be more active?

[RedPanda]

I understood that comment to mean:

1) people who are maintaining a substantial weightloss need to exercise a lot more than the "average" person to maintain their weight. I have read this in many studies and my own experience bears this out.
2) the amount of exercise required to maintain substantial weightloss averages out to walking 50k a week. Obviously if the person did more vigorous cardio, they wouldn't need to exercise for that amount of time.

And of course, individual metabolism, body composition (fat-to-muscle ratio), and diet factor in too. I would also add that many comments along these lines tend to focus on cardio and overlook the metabolic effects of building muscle.

[Sara1000]

I corrected the original post - it was 40k not 50 - still about 25 miles I guess.

So is there a consensus it would be impossible to maintain weightloss just by eating less than before the weightloss? I know exercise is supposed to help, but if it's the only way, no wonder a lot of people gain back their weight loss!

The article didn't specify how or when the walking should be done.

[RedPanda]

Originally Posted by Sara1000

So is there a consensus it would be impossible to maintain weightloss just by eating less than before the weightloss? I know exercise is supposed to help, but if it's the only way, no wonder a lot of people gain back their weight loss!

That's my understanding and experience. The "successful losers" at the National Weight Control Registry, of which I am a member, all exercise far more than the "average" person. Eating permanently at sub-maintenance would be counter-productive, as it slows down your metabolism (hope I'm not straying too far into diet talk).

[alikruegs]

Originally Posted by RedPanda

I understood that comment to mean:

1) people who are maintaining a substantial weightloss need to exercise a lot more than the "average" person to maintain their weight. I have read this in many studies and my own experience bears this out.

Why do you think this is true? You're basically saying that someone who weighs 140 but used to weigh 200 has to workout harder at 140 to maintain than someone who has always weighed about 140. Am I right? Is this what your experience has taught you? Do you have a conjecture as to why this would be true / why this was true for you? I'm curious.

Also, walking a total of 25 miles a week is not a lot if you can count every step you take. 3.5 miles a day is not a lot when you count in all the steps you take from getting out of bed in the morning to going to bed at night.

[bubbles76]

Originally Posted by alikruegs

Also, walking a total of 25 miles a week is not a lot if you can count every step you take. 3.5 miles a day is not a lot when you count in all the steps you take from getting out of bed in the morning to going to bed at night.

I hope that's what they mean - cumulatively walking 25 miles a week. But somehow I think it isn't. Someone who weighed 200 pounds but worked as a waiter probably walked more than the average person. That same person who is now down to 140 pounds, but still works as a waiter, probably has to walk 25 miles a week to maintain that weight loss because their body is now used to doing that extra working out. Wouldn't you think? I also wonder do they take into account the kind of walking, as in speed walking, leisurely walking, etc.

[runnermom]

Originally Posted by alikruegs

Why do you think this is true? You're basically saying that someone who weighs 140 but used to weigh 200 has to workout harder at 140 to maintain than someone who has always weighed about 140. Am I right? Is this what your experience has taught you? Do you have a conjecture as to why this would be true / why this was true for you? I'm curious.

I have heard this is true through different places. I wish I could give exact sources but I know the peak performance blog at Runner's World.com often publishes results from interesting studies like that. It could be where I have read it.

[daisysunshine]

Well .. I think so [that you have to work harder to maintain your new weight - because it would be very easy to get back to your previous weight]. last year I had thought when I lost the weight I was done - I didn't have to workout at all - and just eat healthy, and that was very, VERY erronous on my part. Now I don't know if I have to do 25 miles a week or whatever; but I know this time once the weight comes off, that I'm going to exercise [maybe not as HARD] every day to maintain.

[RedPanda]

Originally Posted by alikruegs

Why do you think this is true? You're basically saying that someone who weighs 140 but used to weigh 200 has to workout harder at 140 to maintain than someone who has always weighed about 140. Am I right? Is this what your experience has taught you? Do you have a conjecture as to why this would be true / why this was true for you? I'm curious.

Yep, that's what I mean. I'm basing this on my own experience; lots of anecdotal evidence from people on various blogs, weightloss and exercise forums and people I know in real life; plus the findings of the National Weight Control Registry I mentioned earlier. (I'm too lazy to look the NWCR data up, but I know that the people on it exercise far more than the "average" person.) In fact, I can't think of anyone I know, either online or IRL, who is maintaining a substantial weight loss and who doesn't exercise a lot.

I understand that the reasons for this are:

1) there's a genetic component to being overweight/obese, so people who are maintaining a permanently and substantially lowered weight are, in effect, fighting their body's "natural" state.

2) people who were obese, particularly if they were obese before the age of puberty, have far more fat cells than the "average" person. While fat cells can shrink, they never disappear. Those extra fat cells predispose the formerly fat to regain weight quickly. They are sometimes described as empty balloons just waiting to be filled up.

Also, I understood the reference to walking 25 miles a week to mean in addition to all the steps anyone would take during their normal day.