I would also like to point out that I see an incredible amount of fat-shaming that is rooted in a drumbeat of research that (correctly) shows lower health risks in many areas when BMI is lowered. In reaction to that, it is important to understand that for many people weight loss is neither practical nor maintainable and for that reason it is critical that we continue to advance our treatment of things like sleep apnea.
Based on personal experience, I am quite confident that physicians have absolutely no idea how to give actionable advice in this area, and nutritional specialists are only slightly better. None of them care about your suffering, because that isn't something they measure.
I guess what I'm saying is that yeah, it is possible for anyone to lose and keep off significant amounts of weight, but basically none of you have any idea what it really takes.
It's not about the diet - most diets actually work, if you can stick with them for the rest of your life, but that's a huge if. CICO or keto or IF or carnivore or whatever, doesn't matter. Permanent weight loss requires the much harder task of fundamentally changing your brain's relationship to food. The only way that happens is through practice and painful failure.
You do have control over your weight. But losing fat and maintaining a lean body will be one of the hardest things you ever do.
I've been on this journey for over ten years now -- basically on the practice and pain path you describe. But it wasn't until I read Allen Carr's "Good Sugar Bad Sugar" book that I began to mentally relate to sugar and carbs like any other significant addictive drug like nicotine or heroin. The sugar and carbs are not just passive calories that you ingest -- they actively affect how your brain and body relate to food.
Once you make that mental switch, then it's much easier to drop and stay off them. I mean who would say it's okay to have heroin cheat days?
There are other ways to do this, but they require you to leave your world behind. For many, their environment is what built and maintains their unhealthy relationship to food.
For me, the day I left Texas was the day I started dropping pounds. Then, the day I left Utah for London was the day I dropped even more pounds. Then, the day I started running was the day I began approaching my lower limit (likely bordering into unhealthy body fat % on marathon race day).
The biggest challenge of you and the commenter above you was that you were swimming up stream. Hopping into a stream that leads away from fat behavior, instead of toward it can do much of the work for you.
I fully appreciate that's a luxury, but it's something people who have a choice should consider.
Overthinking it and coming up with horse shit reasons why it's totally fine to eat the amount you're eating and blaming some external factor (e.g. one's body) is the problem.
I find it supremely hilarious that you refer to the person's own body as an external factor.
>I find it supremely hilarious that you refer to the person's own body as an external factor.
It's external in the sense that we have no control over our DNA, which is implicitly being blamed when one speaks of one's own predisposition towards weight gain. It's not that funny.
Operate at an energy deficit and I guarantee you'll lose weight.
Is it going to feel horrible? Hell yes.
A Pound is 3,600 calories. I can easily eat 1,800 calories over my maintenance requirement.
Do you think in one year I am going to gain 180 pounds or .5 pounds per day?
I'd actually be surprised if there's much correlation between understanding physics and having one's weight under control.
Neither your comment nor your parent comment add anything except noise to this discussion.
Weight, health, and fitness are all _correlated_, but sometimes in ways that aren’t intuitive and that western society’s fat-shaming (of which the “just eat less” mantra is a prime example) completely misses the point.
That said, we are not adding noise. We are giving the physics level truth. It's like being told an answer, and being told to show the proof, in my opinion. The answer is to eat less calories, but working the problem isn't so simple. There are a ton of variables into how or why someone can't follow this regime, some valid, some probably not.
Starvation mode is vastly overstated.
I wonder why people in starving nations don't have this magical starvation mode, or glandular problems, or microbiomes that make them fat. Are we exceptional?
You might have to drink a _lot_ of coffee though because there's a lot of hours between morning and dinner. I have a coffee maker that brews right into an vacuum carafe (which keeps it hot up until dinner time) and I also have a yeti mug that keeps a single cup of coffee warm for ~1-2 hours, which helps me nurse fewer cups throughout the day.
1. Try eating more vegetables (tomatoes, cucumbers, coleslaw, but watch for the sauces). They do a wonderful job a filling the stomach, but they would give you like 20x less calories than bacon or fries.
2. The weight you see on the scale is a combination of your fat, liquids retained by the body, food in your pipeline, etc. Based on my personal experience, the non-fat part (that goes away in the 1st week of dieting and easily gets back) can be up to 10-12 lbs. You need some model to account for it when watching your weight, otherwise it gets pretty depressive.
3. It's tough to keep high-calorie foods off every single day and it's tough to diet for weeks in a row. Having a moderate diet for 1 week every month, while eating a bit over for the rest 3 weeks is much more tolerable than the extremes.
4. Do portion control. The subjective pleasure we get from the food scales logarithmically with the amount, the calories scale linearly.
* Maintaining relationships with friends, family, and loved ones
* Excelling at their job
* Reducing bad habits(like drinking, tv watching, smoking, etc)
* Pursuing hobbies
* Raising children
And all of them have had to make significant sacrifices across the board to maintain their weight.
Edit: Saw your note below > "150+ lbs, the past decade"
I thought losing weight was about willpower and starving as well. But you can only keep that up for so long until your willpower breaks. Then I read this book, Allen Carr's "Good Sugar, Bad Sugar: Eat yourself free of sugar & carb addiction". It changed how I view things and now I no longer worry about how much I eat.
The key is in understanding that your hunger is driven by an addiction to sugar and carbs -- they're not what your body considers food so it always feels hungry. Change your diet and you no longer constantly feel hungry while still losing weight.
I've been eating a lower carb diet with portion control for more than 10 years now with little to no exercise. I recently changed into a low carb diet. Over this 10 year period I lost 30% of my body weight.
The only fad I've seen so far is the notion that practicing willpower and portion control while still eating sugar and carbs is a maintainable position.
Best of luck to you. But as others have noted, the rampant obesity in today's society is a recent problem - not something that happened in previous generations. What's different?
Take a look at the top 5 strongest men in the world. They spend their days working out and probably burn more calories in a day than I do in a week. They have big, strong muscles that are covered over by a layer of fat. Same is true of many manual laborers today - landscapers, roofers, builders.
Compare that to body builders (work out, eat lower carb/sugar) or concentration camp prisoners who are underfed (whether they do labor or are almost entirely sedentary).
Comparing the groups (and my own experience) convinced me that eating (rather than exercise) is >80% of how much fat you will carry.
I'd say one of the biggest differences today is that sugar and carbs have become well accepted highly addictive drugs in our society. Feeling down? Go treat yourself to some ice cream! Is it any different with nicotine or heroin addicts?
I look at obese people in the same way that I look at nicotine or heroin addicts. It's not their fault, they're just normal people who are unfortunately caught in the tractor beam of addictive substances and they may not even know it. I didn't know it when I was a carbaholic. I thought I was fine -- didn't really connect my hangry episodes with withdrawal symptoms.
I think most people fail because they expect immediate results and can't stay consistent because they go too hard for immediate results. On WW when presented with an unhealthy meal option I would consider if it was really worth it giving how well I was doing, and I wanted to crush it on the scale every week. I think for me that was the most important driving force to not making bad decisions like eating a pile of cookies. People think they have to sit there depriving themselves with a pile of lettuce but that is exactly what WW discourages. You can eat whatever but it has a cost. For me I was happy eating lean good food like a small sirloin steak with some broccoli.
> and weigh myself everyday
Why???? Every week AT MOST. And even then, TRACK THE LONG TERM TREND.
> I can't keep food in my house
YOU NEED FOOD TO SURVIVE. You need food in your house to PREPARE MEALS that YOU PLAN. A caloric deficit WILL lower your ENERGY LEVELS ... BUT you are NOT REQUIRED to be HUNGRY because of it.
Don't listen to me. I'm not your doctor. I'm not your nutritionist.
When I wake up in the morning, I know I can eat one of a couple different meals. I can have oatmeal, or french toast, or pancakes, or greek yogurt. All of these meals are pre-planned so that I know how many calories I will consume. For a snack I can have almonds or a 100 cal ice cream bar or any one of my other foods. For lunch I'll eat a big salad or greek yogurt or maybe some canned salmon/tuna with blah blah blah.
The point is. I don't track my calories because I have a meal PLAN. I don't just jaunt off to a restaurant, """track""" 1500 calories, and say to myself "Welp guess I'm going hungry for the next 12 hours". That's STUPID.
I have anywhere from 400-600 calories for breakfast. 300-400 for lunch. 400-600 for dinner. 400ish dedicated to snacks. That puts me at about 2000 calories for the day. That's maintenance level (basically, it will vary from person to person). To gain weight I ADD another 150-300 calories meal. To lose, I ease up on snacks or go for the low end numbers on my 3 major meals (400+300+400 == 1200 + 400 snacks == 1600 == caloric deficit).
I'm NEVER hungry. The worst part of a diet is the lower energy levels (drink some coffee). NOT THE HUNGER because there is NONE. Eat a pound a spinach. You will not be hungry!
The times I have successfully managed my weight were when I was able to control what I brought through the door of my apartment. I would always eat before going to the grocery store to reduce impulse buying. With the exceptions of fruit and veggies I aspired to never bring anything through the door that I could eat without having to cook in some way.
My weight has grown since I got married to a woman with a metabolism that allows her to snack seemingly with impunity and who can be in the same apartment with snack food and not feel drawn to it.
If I am aware of delicious food in the house it can be a constant mental battle to not go eat it. In the morning when I'm full of energy it's easy to resist but late in the day when I'm stressed by work or whatever else my reserve of restraint is much less and I often give in.
I've been following microbiome research with interest. I understand that certain gut bacteria have the ability to stimulate the vagus nerve basically to get the kind of food they like. I am battling an enemy that has a direct line to my lizard brain.
The only solution is to not bring that food in the house.
To keep myself honest. I've tried not tracking it and it was too easy to slip into bad habits over time.
>> and weigh myself everyday
> Why???? Every week AT MOST. And even then, TRACK THE LONG TERM TREND.
To keep myself honest. Only weighing myself once a week it was two easy to slip into bad habits because I couldn't see the consequences of my choices for a whole week. Even then, it was too easy to pass off gains as water weight, which can fluctuate 5lbs quite easily over the course of a day. By weighing every day I get more data to work with which allows me to more easily plot the trend over time and be mindful of the effect of fluid retention or loss.
>> I can't keep food in my house
Ugh. Look, I'm sure for you it's real easy to keep yourself from just walking in to the kitchen and making food when you're bored, but like many people who got fat I am a food addict, so it isn't easy for me. If there is food in my house, I will eat it. Mindlessly. Casually. It's too much temptation that I have to expend mental effort to fight. By making sure I only have just enough food to get through the weekend I ensure that the barrier to eating is much higher and it's easier to fight temptation.
I also keep just enough food at work to get through the work week. Work is harder regardless, because people bring in free food all the time and there are convenient vending machines.
> YOU NEED FOOD TO SURVIVE. You need food in your house to PREPARE MEALS that YOU PLAN.
No shit Sherlock. I keep just enough food to meet my plan and no more. Moreover, my plan is the same every single week so I spend as little time thinking about food as possible. I even prepare meals at work thanks to my microwave steamer, the single best decision I ever made for eating better.
> A caloric deficit WILL lower your ENERGY LEVELS
Yes, which has a corresponding effect on one's ability to exercise their willpower. This is well documented.
> ... BUT you are NOT REQUIRED to be HUNGRY because of it.
First of all, I disagree, because in order to lose weight your body literally needs to eat itself. Secondly, I'll repeat that I am a food addict. Hunger is not a requirement of being tempted to eat.
> Don't listen to me. I'm not your doctor. I'm not your nutritionist.
Physicians and nutritionists, in my considered opinion, give only slightly better advice than randos on the internet. I am not in danger of accidentally listening to you, I assure you.
> The point is. I don't track my calories because I have a meal PLAN. I don't just jaunt off to a restaurant, """track""" 1500 calories, and say to myself "Welp guess I'm going hungry for the next 12 hours". That's STUPID.
What happens is I eat my planned meal, for which I track the calories, and then I go hungry anyway. That's just how it is and telling people that they don't have to be hungry to lose weight is one of the reasons people fail at weight loss.
> I'm NEVER hungry.
That must be nice.
Thank you for this comment! I'd like to emphasize this point in particular. It took me a long time to come to this realization on my own, and I regret putting my brother under so much pressure to lose weight out of my own concern for his health. I likely did more harm than good with my efforts, only worsening his mental and physical health.
While losing weight solves a lot of problems, the decision to do so is one's own, and for some, it's an unreasonably difficult task. Not everyone is like you, and not every body is like yours. The best you can do to help someone suffering the consequences of excess weight is to be compassionate and supportive. Feel free to offer solutions and perspectives, but leave your emotions out of it. Respect the dignity and autonomy of others.
Look at history. Even for people working desk jobs, Americans were much less obese than they are today. It's a systemic problem. Go into any gas station and try to grab a snack without sugar. It's difficult to impossible. We have more sugar and starch in our food today. I agree it's not necessarily a personal problem. It's a problem with the entire food industry and access to cheap sugar.
It's starting to affect people in other western countries too and we are missing a lot of education about the dangers of starch and sugar.
Sorry, but I have to call BS on that. Having lost ~50 lbs last year (after my blood pressure started getting scary), I can tell you it's all about planning and self-discipline. You plan a diet that fills your stomach and provides the major types of nutrients, yet gives less calories that your body burns every day, and you stick to it for a couple of months. No bullshit, no cheat days, no "let me just have that 500cal chocolate bar as an exception". And it works like clockwork, solving a bunch of health problems on the way.
As a matter of fact, I would call it very unethical to comfort people into an unhealthy lifestyle associated with major health risks and shorter life expectancy just to get an extra buck from treating numerous symptoms, instead of giving them a strong motivation to resolve the underlying cause.
Having lost and gained weight multiple times, it can be a psychological hell when it seems both the body and the mind are doing everything they can to fight against your discipline and planning and keep you where you are instead.
And that isn't counting the effects of other parts of your body like your gut microbiome.
In my personal endeavors I've found that the amount of self-discipline something requires is inversely proportional to how motivated I am to achieve the end result. If I'm being required or forced by an external circumstance, I end up needing enormous amounts of self-discipline. But if I really want it (as in, if I'm internally motivated) then all I need to do is resist the occasional temptation to veer off the path, so to speak.
Trust me when I say I want to lose weight but have started to succeed multiple times only to eventually fail in my internal battle of will
Trust me, it's too soon to say what you're saying. Source: lost >150lbs and kept it off for the past decade.
Can you see that perhaps your level of commitment is not possible for some people? Some people simply lack the willpower to do this.
It absolutely is. And I say this as someone who, after 25 years smoking, I stopped one day. I wasn't even really wanting or trying to quit. I just... stopped.
I consider myself incredibly fortunate at the complex, unlikely, and non-transferable, set of conditions that made this happen to me. Despite my success, or precisely because of my success, I am the least valid person to help a smoker quit.
Ah, I see, you have the highest possible qualifications in the medical field!
> instead of giving them a strong motivation to resolve the underlying cause.
OK, so, please explain, then, how you treat, for example, various thyroid problems that are the underlying cause for increased body weight and that no real treatment is known for? Given that you are so highly qualified as to call bullshit on a medical professional, you sure will be able to offer more than telling everyone who has superficially similar symptoms to yours that they are too stupid to cure themselves because they don't do what you have done?
And yes thyroid problems make it amazingly difficult to manage your weight.
So what the studies say of everyone who starts a diet some will successfully lose a significant amount of weight. And of those success stories every single study that's followed them for 5-10 years shows that almost everyone regains almost all the weight.
The most famous of these studies was "The Biggest Loser". But are others, but they all show the same effect.
I've tried finding a study that showed sustained long term weight loss through diet, and there aren't any.
If you want to be thin, spend >80% of your effort in the kitchen. If you want to be strong, join a gym.
Anyway, highly recommend a sleep study for anyone here who has symptoms like waking up feeling tired, dozing off in the afternoon, etc.
Best part: You can sleep with a cover over your face and still breathe fresh air.
It's easy to think "why doesn't the pig just eat less." I used to think that way until my diagnosed thyroid conditions (which made me skinny by default) was treated. Karma.
Though some fat acceptance groups go too far when they criticize doctors for telling them to lose weight.
Sure, you die slower, you snore a hell of a lot less, and you feel more rested and energized. That's all (truly, no snark) great.
But it sucks. Spontaneous sleepovers become impossible. Travel becomes a chore. Sleeping with bedfellows now comes with a noisy attachment. You have to rent or buy a relatively expensive machine. You have to get annual checkups, and you have to give up a fair amount of privacy to prove you are complying with the therapy... Not that much fun.
I even heard on Joe Rogan that he has to use one. Not sure why more people don't know about it. I guess it depends on whether your doctor or dentist diagnoses it, but that shouldn't be the case. They should exchange more information!
Dismal compliance numbers say that many to most people who try CPAP feel similarly.
So you're saying that even though the obesity epidemic is an entirely new thing, that there's no way that these people can lose weight and keep it off?
It might require a lifestyle change, but saying it's not possible because change is hard is bullshit.
People need to stop eating processed sugar. Losing and keeping off weight is easy. As soon as I stopped eating, candy, baked shit from coffee shops and crap, fast food, and stopped drinking pop, it became hard to gain weight. That shit's poison. It gives your body nothing. Cutting out nearly all processed sugary food is the easiest way to lose weight with basically no effort. I didn't change my lifestyle, I don't count calories or exercise to any regime. I sat for hours a day at my last job. I just stopped eating garbage and eating food that's actually food. I'm 5'8", I'd been over 200lbs for years and years. I can't get above 150lbs now and all I do is not eat sugar or processed crap. I eat tons of cheese and meat, I have at least one kind of grain and vegetable with each meal.
If the main ingredients of something are chemicals and sugar. It's not food. Don't eat it. Your body will be healthy, you'll lose weight. It's a pretty simple concept. These things give your body nothing. Your body needs certain things to make new cells and perform biological functions, eat those things and you'll be healthy. Eat garbage and poison and you won't be.
Eta: Sorry for the tone of my post. I've sat and watched a good friend of mine slipping in and out of a diabetic coma in a hospital brought on directly by the food he eats and to this day he still refuses to change his diet in anyway and I'm honestly worried it's going to kill him. This topic makes me a little more unreasonable than usual.
It's a vicious catch-22 to not be able to breathe enough to sleep well enough to lose weight so that one can breathe in the first place.
What do you mean by "gold standard"? Is it because it's more effective for severe sleep apnea?
From my perspective, the dental appliance is easier to use, and is better for traveling. I also tried a CPAP but couldn't get the hang of it.
It's also super creepy that CPAPs all seem to have a cell modem that spies on you. (OK, that info also helps the doctor, but still.)
I know a couple other people who are having problems with CPAP, and the doctor has not even made them aware of the dental appliance. They're surprised when I tell them there's an alternative.
And one of these people is a doctor himself! I feel like sleep apnea is being treated very poorly given how common it is, probably for economic reasons.
I know everyone wants to say this about their pet cause -- but it does seem like an "epidemic". The "epidemic" of weight gain seems to be an obvious reason for this. FWIW my BMI is now normal (less than 25, 166-169 at 5'9"), and I still need the dental appliance and to sleep on my side. Either one alone doesn't cut it.
I've also been meaning to write a article about "Why AHI is wrong", which is basically because outliers determine outcomes and AHI doesn't measure outliers. It's a "count". It has a lot of the fallacies that Nassim Taleb talks about in his books.
The AVERAGE minute of sleep doesn't matter; the WORST minute of sleep matters. The worst minute can ruin your whole night's sleep (or at least a REM's cycle worth of sleep), or it can cause you to have a heart attack and die.
My AHI is 6 or 7, and most doctors have dismissed that as not important. However my sleep quality has improved greatly with all these remedies. Several minor health problems have cleared up all at once.
The thing that motivated me to get treated was that I crushed a tooth in my sleep, which many doctors don't realize is related to sleep apnea (but my dentist did thankfully). But I think of all the people who did NOT happen to crush a tooth and are undiagnosed. I guess it's one of those things that kills you over 20 years and used to be called "getting old". But really it was amazing to me how many problems can have the same fundamental cause.
FWIW I highly recommend this book about the "sleep breathing paradigm". It's written by an ENT who has observed a lot of these things in his practice. A key point is that he actually looks at your airway and sees if your tongue obstructs your airway when lying down. I went to 2 ENTs and neither of them did that. They don't understand the mechanism behind sleep apnea! It's geometry and gravity.
This book is not popular, which is a shame. Don't judge a book by its cover :) It's a bit dense but that will be fine for HN readers.
Please think harder.
Do you believe that a smoker that has thrown a cigarette out the window and burned down a home should not have to feel shame because of their actions? If you do then the obese ought to as well. Their obesity exacts great cost to the medical system that we all have to bear, it takes from their productivity that they could offer to others (society and their own family) and benefit from themselves in a multitude of ways. Their actions are the same as the careless cigarette smoker...selfish. And selfish actions are shameful and that shame should be felt. We should not try to be so "noble" as to protect them from it. When we do the selfishness tends to proliferate.
Sorry, but no amount of "truth telling" in this way will come off as anything but being an arse. I'm sure you have your own selfish actions and your own ways of "taking a toll on society". This post reeks of a special kind of arrogance, whether you intend it or not. Your flawed analogy makes it worse. Why not just equate it with smoking itself- instead of something like a house burning down?
It's far more complicated than "person does selfish thing and hurts society because of it". Your post speaks like someone that has never had to lose weight or break out of an addiction.
I don't say any of this to attack you but just how ridiculous and supremely unhelpful this line of thinking is. It's like telling someone to just snap out of depression, or "just stop smoking", or whatever. It's not as simple and devoid of nuance as you'd like to believe.
And trust me, as someone that has gained and lost weight both, the last thing that matters to me is something external and abstract like my effect-in-the-aggregate on society. I'm far more interested in feeling healthier, sleeping better, and gaining the personal benefits from it. The same goes for most people, I would think, and no amount of philosophizing about society will change that.
Being fat isn’t selfish, it’s just self-destructive. Same as smoking (in private, where no other party is exposed to any smoke). Your “and burns a house down” example is an attempt to conflate the two.
This complaint runs into a more fundamental dispute: freedom versus collectivism. In a purely libertarian world, everyone would be absolutely free to do whatever they want. In a completely socialist world, one is only free to do what they want insofar as it has no negative effect on others, or if it does, they should compensate others for the harm they cause.
There are problems with both extremes. Absolute freedom can lead to anarchy which will effectively prevent people from coordinating and building anything collectively. But forcing individuals to adhere to a strict cost/benefit analysis for every action stymies creativity and personal freedoms.
When considering a ban on a particular individual behavior (e.g., eating too much), it's perfectly reasonable to talk about the larger social harms (e.g., increased medical costs). But it's also important to consider the freedoms that are being taken away by such a policy (e.g., the freedom to eat what you want).
Western society has never solely been focused on maximizing overall social well-being, it has also balanced ideals of individual freedom with it. China, in contrast, has focused almost entirely on collective well-being over individual freedom. Many people (myself included), would prefer to live in a less successful but free country rather than a more successful authoritarian one.
You get both individual freedom and remove the harm to others from obesity if you stop forcing service providers to work for free.
The only reason that people who choose to become obese are a drain on others is because there is currently a mechanism for them to force others to absorb the cost of their resulting health care.
Make it so that people have to pay for healthcare for themselves either out of pocket or via insurance instead of forcing hospitals to serve all comers (like any other service that is provided to people), and suddenly you get the best of both worlds: everyone gets to eat what they want, smoke what they want, inject what they want, and nobody else is forced to pay for the poor decisions of anyone else. Everybody wins.
Unfortunately, your argument runs into an opposite extreme. Yes, freedom is important, but it's not the only thing that's important. There is different, but similarly strong argument that society should preserve life.
Freedom dictates that people should be allowed to do what they want, even if it causes self-harm. Life preservation dictates that we should do whatever it takes to preserve life. Both of these values are are pretty fundamental, baked into most religions and political philosophies. Sometimes however, as in the case you point out, these two values butt against each other.
The answer is not to choose one or the other, but to properly balance them.
It’s absolutely not an extreme view. We already do this for food, for example, which is also required to support life. Being hungry does not entitle you to steal from a supermarket, under our system.
Forcing hospitals to treat anyone regardless of ability to pay is really just forcing an unfair tax onto everyone else who happens to use that hospital in the form of increased prices. That’s not a reasonable system.
As for practicality, weight loss is a function of thermodynamics. Caloric deficit == weight reduction. Doesn't matter your physiology.
As for maintainability, well that certainly depends on how a person is taught to diet. If you tell someone they need to eat less to lose weight (which is what almost every diet does) then, yes, it will be hard to maintain. If you tell someone to eat more (low calorie) food then weight loss is easy.
Most obese, untrained people will very readily drop tons of fat weight with little stimulus.
When I diet (whether the intention is gaining or losing weight) I'm probably eating 2x as much food as an obese person who is wondering to themselves "why is my metabolism so slow?". It's not. The foods I eat just contain less energy than the foods they're eating.
True. This is the one piece of weight loss advice that multiple scientific disciplines agree on. However, being true does not make it easy.
> If you tell someone they need to eat less to lose weight (which is what almost every diet does) then, yes, it will be hard to maintain.
My change in weight reflects a change in priorities and habits. Not an inability to maintain.
If you go pick up a 25 lb ham hock or something like that you will notice the volume it takes up. Fat is even less dense so it takes up even more volume. Sure, it does deposit in some places more than others like the waist line, but even things like my ski boots fit me different. They were previously too tight for several seasons so it wasn't just that they broke in. So all that fat is being deposited all over, and some of that is in your tongue, and I'm sure in your soft palate.
I notice a lot of talk about fat shaming here and how telling people just to diet isn't going to solve the problem. This is all true, but is irrelevant really to the conclusion here. Losing weight is a good way to reverse things like sleep apnea and acid reflux along with many other problems. So if one can do it, it is the best way to do it. Not all people with sleep apnea will be cured by losing weight but it goes a long way for many.