failure statistics

I have no understanding of statistics, but especially after recent elections
can see how statistics are often skewed and don't mean squat. So I view the
5% number that keeps showing up with cynicism.

I have to wonder how they came up with that number? Everybody who ever
failed at a diet is part of the 95? And only those who never failed in the
5%? So if I have failed at 4 "diets" - which I have - I'm already one of
the 95% so when I succeed at this it doesn't count because I've already been
added to the failure column? Or does somebody switch people from the
failure column to the success column and back again?

See what I mean? Statistics make no sense, the continual reassurance that
most of us here will be failures probably has some self-fulfilling prophecy
aspects for some. I'd love to see how "they" came up with such a number,
who "they" considered, etc. If I was considering starting a difficult
battle against my weight and was continually told I'd probably fail anyway,
I'd probably not bother. Especially considering that, if there are 100
posters here and 5 long-term successes, I haven't got a chance.

(By *I* I don't mean me personally - it's the hypothetical *I*.)

--
Sherry
364/320/195
low carb since 4/4/05
NEW - My Low Carb site: http://lowcarb.owly.net

"Sherry" wrote in message
...
I have no understanding of statistics, but especially after recent
elections
can see how statistics are often skewed and don't mean squat. So I view
the
5% number that keeps showing up with cynicism.

I have to wonder how they came up with that number? Everybody who ever
failed at a diet is part of the 95? And only those who never failed in
the
5%? So if I have failed at 4 "diets" - which I have - I'm already one of
the 95% so when I succeed at this it doesn't count because I've already
been
added to the failure column? Or does somebody switch people from the
failure column to the success column and back again?

Yes. I know what you mean. I have no idea where the stats come from, and
it is also likely that someone came up with a guesstimate based on personal
observation, and it has been repeated ever since.
In my own observations of family and friends, very few have kept the
weight off for more than just a year or 2. The majority seem to be gung ho
to lose the weight and then interest wanes over the years until it all comes
back, and usually a few lbs more.
Maybe the success rates are based on long term of 10 years or more (life
time). If it is, then 5% success over that period is likely more true than
false.


See what I mean? Statistics make no sense, the continual reassurance that
most of us here will be failures probably has some self-fulfilling
prophecy
aspects for some. I'd love to see how "they" came up with such a number,
who "they" considered, etc. If I was considering starting a difficult
battle against my weight and was continually told I'd probably fail
anyway,
I'd probably not bother. Especially considering that, if there are 100
posters here and 5 long-term successes, I haven't got a chance.

I strongly feel that if a person is willing to make permanent lifestyle
changes, they are more likely to be successful. It could be that the work or
mental control involved to stay slim is far harder than the rewards of being
slim, so may not be worth it overall for some people in the long term. Many
dieters seem to believe that once the weight has come off, continued effort
is no longer necessary to stay that way.
I know many people that have taken off 50 lbs or more. Most have gained
it back because they gravitate back to their old ways of doing things. Too
much good tasting food, and too little activity.
How many people in your own life do you know that have made permanent
changes in any aspect of their lives, and still do so to this day? 5%?


(By *I* I don't mean me personally - it's the hypothetical *I*.)

--
Sherry
364/320/195
low carb since 4/4/05
NEW - My Low Carb site: http://lowcarb.owly.net

Sherry wrote:

I have no understanding of statistics

Statistics an be learned.

but especially after recent elections
can see how statistics are often skewed and don't mean squat.

They tend to be used for a purpose. That's different
from being meaningless. It's worse in a way.

So I view the 5% number that keeps showing up with cynicism.

Good. Let's see the hard data. Where are the studies
and how did they categorize the entries?

I have to wonder how they came up with that number?

Good. You're headed in the right direction.

Everybody who ever failed at a diet is part of the 95?

Nope. First it's only among the ones counted and there's
no way to count everyone. Second if you keep trying and
eventually succeed you then become a success number not
a failure number.

And only those who never failed in the 5%?

Nope. If you failed for 10 years and then succeeded for
the next 10, you would have been counted in the 95 for
the first ten and in the 5 for the next ten.

Or does somebody switch people from the
failure column to the success column and back again?

Exactly. Also there must be some amount of time from
the start of a diet until you've been on it long enough
to be considered successfull at keeping it off. Let's
say they picked two years. Folks who have never been
on a diet go in the "not part of the percentage, never
dieted" list. Folks who started under two years ago
go in the "not part of the percentage, not on diet long
enough to be able to judge success or failure". Folks
who are two+ years past starting who've quit or failed
or regained it all go in the "part of the percentage,
failed their diet" list. Folks who are two+ years past
starting who still have weight off go in the "part of the
percentage, suceeded on their diet" list.

See what I mean? Statistics make no sense

They only don't make sense when you haven't considered
what they mean.

Think about a counting system like I described above.
You're 20 when you first start your diet. Ages 0-20
you aren't counted because you never dieted. You start
and quit. Ages 21-22 you've dieted too recently to be
able to judge sucess of failure. Ages 23-24 you're in
the failed group. Age 25 you start again and this time
you stick with it. Ages 25-26 once again you are too
new in your plan to be counted. Ages 27 on until you
fail you're in the success count.

Keep trying and keep failing you're in the failed
list. But keep trying and find a way to stick with it
you end up in the succeed list.

I want to see the study and I want to see their tables
of hard data.

the continual reassurance that most of us here will
be failures probably has some self-fulfilling prophecy
aspects for some.

Sure. Without good self respect some are tempted to
use the failure of others as an excuse. But there's
also the issue of objectivity. If 95% failed by doing
the obvious, exactly how much sense does it make to
try the obvious? If only the serious 5% succeed, does
that mean you shouldn't try or does it mean you should
get serious?

I'd love to see how "they" came up with such a number,
who "they" considered, etc.

Absolutely. Even more important, I want to know what
that 5% have in common.

If I was considering starting a difficult
battle against my weight and was continually told I'd probably fail anyway,
I'd probably not bother.

Unless I was told that there are methods to put myself
in that 5%. I know all sorts of loss methods work. I
want to know maintenance methods work.

Especially considering that, if there are 100
posters here and 5 long-term successes, I haven't got a chance.

This is where your claim of not knowing statistics come in.
They don't work that way. Do what works and you become a
personal example of the 5%. Get enough people to copy you
and you could push the number ot 6% or higher.

Tom G wrote:
:: "Sherry" wrote in message
:: ...
::: I have no understanding of statistics, but especially after recent
::: elections can see how statistics are often skewed and don't mean
::: squat. So I view the 5% number that keeps showing up with cynicism.
:::
::: I have to wonder how they came up with that number? Everybody who
::: ever failed at a diet is part of the 95? And only those who never
::: failed in the 5%? So if I have failed at 4 "diets" - which I have
::: - I'm already one of the 95% so when I succeed at this it doesn't
::: count because I've already been added to the failure column? Or
::: does somebody switch people from the failure column to the success
::: column and back again?
::
:: Yes. I know what you mean. I have no idea where the stats come
:: from, and it is also likely that someone came up with a guesstimate
:: based on personal observation, and it has been repeated ever since.
:: In my own observations of family and friends, very few have kept
:: the weight off for more than just a year or 2. The majority seem to
:: be gung ho to lose the weight and then interest wanes over the years
:: until it all comes back, and usually a few lbs more.

There you go: ....then interest wanes...

IMO, that why people regain their weight. Not because they had some cake,
or cookies, or pasta. But because the lost interest in maintaining their
loss and just started eating whatever. No one gains 50, 75, or 100 lbs just
from having a binge.

:: Maybe the success rates are based on long term of 10 years or more
:: (life time). If it is, then 5% success over that period is likely
:: more true than false.
::
:::
::: See what I mean? Statistics make no sense, the continual
::: reassurance that most of us here will be failures probably has some
::: self-fulfilling prophecy aspects for some. I'd love to see how
::: "they" came up with such a number, who "they" considered, etc. If
::: I was considering starting a difficult battle against my weight and
::: was continually told I'd probably fail anyway, I'd probably not
::: bother. Especially considering that, if there are 100 posters here
::: and 5 long-term successes, I haven't got a chance.
::
:: I strongly feel that if a person is willing to make permanent
:: lifestyle changes, they are more likely to be successful. It could
:: be that the work or mental control involved to stay slim is far
:: harder than the rewards of being slim, so may not be worth it
:: overall for some people in the long term.

I don't think it's that hard, unless thinking is painful. Where one is in
one's head is a very important thing. Telling one's self that it is hard is
more than likely going to make it damn near impossible. Being consistent
doesn't necessary mean hard.

Many dieters seem to
:: believe that once the weight has come off, continued effort is no
:: longer necessary to stay that way. I know many people that have
:: taken off 50 lbs or more. Most have gained
:: it back because they gravitate back to their old ways of doing
:: things. Too much good tasting food, and too little activity.

Not having an attitude for maintaining their loss is their downfall. One
simply has to find a way to build balance into everyday living. It's really
not that hard IF you want it.

What the stats should say is that only 5% of those who lost weight really
wanted to keep it off. They others didn't so they regained their weight.
The fact is if you've been fat most of your life, if you like eating with
abandon, and if you hate exercise and/or being active, then most likely real
changes are going to be hard for you. It won't happen without constant
attention to it. That doesn't mean that its all consuming, but it does have
to be a part of your daily lifeplan.

:: How many people in your own life do you know that have made
:: permanent changes in any aspect of their lives, and still do so to
:: this day? 5%?

Everybody I know is a work in progress. Until they die, that is.

::
:::
::: (By *I* I don't mean me personally - it's the hypothetical *I*.)
:::
::: --
::: Sherry
::: 364/320/195
::: low carb since 4/4/05
::: NEW - My Low Carb site: http://lowcarb.owly.net

How do you define success? Does a person have to reach some goal? If so,
who sets the goal? Do they have to consider external goals? What if they
go from morbidly obese to only slightly obese and just stay there?
Certainly that is a degree of success but do you count partial success or
does it have to be total success?

In oups.com,
Doug Freyburger stated

Nope. First it's only among the ones counted and there's
no way to count everyone. Second if you keep trying and
eventually succeed you then become a success number not
a failure number.

FOB wrote:

How do you define success?

I'm half way between my starting weight and my
lowest. I'm happy with that much loss.

I suspect any studies will consider staying any
lower than the initial weight to be success.

This is why it would be so interesting to read
the studies and inspect their hard data.

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
::
There you go: ....then interest wanes...

IMO, that why people regain their weight. Not because they had some cake,
or cookies, or pasta. But because the lost interest in maintaining their
loss and just started eating whatever. No one gains 50, 75, or 100 lbs
just
from having a binge.

Not from one binge, but from eliminating too many of the good things
they were doing to maintain their weight. Everything a person does has a +
or - effect on weightloss efforts. A negative element now and then won't
have a large outcome, but everyday or too many negatives will, because they
all add up. Just as missing 1 workout once in a while has no profound
effect. But missing too often will.


::
:: I strongly feel that if a person is willing to make permanent
:: lifestyle changes, they are more likely to be successful. It could
:: be that the work or mental control involved to stay slim is far
:: harder than the rewards of being slim, so may not be worth it
:: overall for some people in the long term.

I don't think it's that hard, unless thinking is painful. Where one is in
one's head is a very important thing. Telling one's self that it is hard
is
more than likely going to make it damn near impossible. Being consistent
doesn't necessary mean hard.

I didn't mean to imply that it is too hard to try, but obviously if so
many can not maintain, then it must be fairly hard. If it was easy, than 95%
would be the success rate, and pity the 5% who couldn't. Consistency seems
to be easy in the short term.


Many dieters seem to
:: believe that once the weight has come off, continued effort is no
:: longer necessary to stay that way. I know many people that have
:: taken off 50 lbs or more. Most have gained
:: it back because they gravitate back to their old ways of doing
:: things. Too much good tasting food, and too little activity.

Not having an attitude for maintaining their loss is their downfall. One
simply has to find a way to build balance into everyday living. It's
really
not that hard IF you want it.

Yes.


What the stats should say is that only 5% of those who lost weight really
wanted to keep it off. They others didn't so they regained their weight.
The fact is if you've been fat most of your life, if you like eating with
abandon, and if you hate exercise and/or being active, then most likely
real
changes are going to be hard for you. It won't happen without constant
attention to it. That doesn't mean that its all consuming, but it does
have
to be a part of your daily lifeplan.

Yes. Lifestyle change, and consistently sticking with it. Sounds so easy,
doesn't it? I think that 95% of the people here have the "capability" to
achieve this if they put there mind to it. 'Depends on how badly you want
it.


:: How many people in your own life do you know that have made
:: permanent changes in any aspect of their lives, and still do so to
:: this day? 5%?

Everybody I know is a work in progress. Until they die, that is.

There is always room for improvement. Trying is not failing; quitting is.


::
:::
::: (By *I* I don't mean me personally - it's the hypothetical *I*.)
:::
::: --
::: Sherry
::: 364/320/195
::: low carb since 4/4/05
::: NEW - My Low Carb site: http://lowcarb.owly.net

Sherry wrote:
I have no understanding of statistics, but especially after recent elections
can see how statistics are often skewed and don't mean squat. So I view the
5% number that keeps showing up with cynicism.

I have to wonder how they came up with that number? Everybody who ever
failed at a diet is part of the 95? And only those who never failed in the
5%? So if I have failed at 4 "diets" - which I have - I'm already one of
the 95% so when I succeed at this it doesn't count because I've already been
added to the failure column? Or does somebody switch people from the
failure column to the success column and back again?

See what I mean? Statistics make no sense, the continual reassurance that
most of us here will be failures probably has some self-fulfilling prophecy
aspects for some. I'd love to see how "they" came up with such a number,
who "they" considered, etc. If I was considering starting a difficult
battle against my weight and was continually told I'd probably fail anyway,
I'd probably not bother. Especially considering that, if there are 100
posters here and 5 long-term successes, I haven't got a chance.

(By *I* I don't mean me personally - it's the hypothetical *I*.)


I am sure that you can find well done publications that cite fairly good
statistics on a pretty high percentage of people who try and fail on any
diet plan.

There is another way to feel confident about the high failure rate.


Just about the most common type of article in women's magazines (of the
type in supermarkets).... is about losing pounds or inches....

FAST

EASY

PAINLESS

OVERNIGHT ... or IN A FEW DAYS


There are always new diet plans being made up to "FEED THE NEED" for
people to hope to lose weight.

The only way that this can play on for 30 years to 50 years is to have a
steady stream of people (failures in previous diets) who still want to
cut some pounds or cut some inches.

You should just be able to see the high failure rate from these stupid
magazine article that are endlessly recycles...

You should just be able to see the high failure rate from the large
number of "large people" surrounding you.

You should just be able to see the high failure rate from going to a
"Weight Watcher" type meeting and seeing the "large people" who have
been coming and going and coming back for years.


You don't need statistics.

You need just eyes and a brain that works a little.

Jim

"Sherry" wrote in message
...
I have no understanding of statistics, but especially after recent
elections
can see how statistics are often skewed and don't mean squat. So I view
the
5% number that keeps showing up with cynicism.

I have to wonder how they came up with that number? Everybody who ever
failed at a diet is part of the 95? And only those who never failed in
the
5%? So if I have failed at 4 "diets" - which I have - I'm already one of
the 95% so when I succeed at this it doesn't count because I've already
been
added to the failure column? Or does somebody switch people from the
failure column to the success column and back again?

See what I mean? Statistics make no sense, the continual reassurance that
most of us here will be failures probably has some self-fulfilling
prophecy
aspects for some. I'd love to see how "they" came up with such a number,
who "they" considered, etc. If I was considering starting a difficult
battle against my weight and was continually told I'd probably fail
anyway,
I'd probably not bother. Especially considering that, if there are 100
posters here and 5 long-term successes, I haven't got a chance.

(By *I* I don't mean me personally - it's the hypothetical *I*.)

Like JC, I have a pretty good understanding of math and statistics. He
might be able to explain it better than me, but I'll try.

First of all, in any test the groupings will not be considered significant
if there is not a difference of 95% in confidence. That means that a
standard deviation of error can be no more than 5%, in consideration of the
size of the sampled group (and other factors).

But numbers are just numbers. I quit smoking 25 days ago, and a friend has
quit three times since I quit. By the numbers, he's two quits up on me.

Staistics can be quite useful, when used properly. Others will use the same
numbers for political reasons. I'm reminded of a quote that went something
like "He uses statistics as a drunk uses a lamppost: for support rather
than illumination!"

Most of us will fight to learn the truth. The rest will try to confuse you
with their numbers.

I seem to recall Igor mentioning the 5% number, and it may have come from
the National Weight Loss Registry people, maybe.

I just checked my copy of "Keeping It Off" by Colvin & Olson Phds. On page
10:
"Almost everyone who works with the obese, whether individually or in group
programs, eventually sees this pattern: Getting the weight off is difficult,
but not impossible--yet the chances of anyone keeping it off are at best
about TWO IN A HUNDRED!"

[I used caps in place of italics.]

I guess my 5% number was too optimistic.


"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
oups.com...

So I view the 5% number that keeps showing up with cynicism.

Good. Let's see the hard data. Where are the studies
and how did they categorize the entries?