STUDY: How to Ensure You Lose Weight for Good

Quick Summary (TL;DR)

We analyzed data from 50,000 people who set a weight-loss goal in the Geneto Eustiili app. Three findings stood out more than the rest:

1. Consistency wins. Those who logged their food almost every day were 85% likely to lose weight; those who tried for a few days and gave up almost never did.

2. Weight is feedback, not a driver. Regular weighing is the strongest indicator of success—but stepping on the scale doesn’t cause weight loss. The best results come from a combination: weighing yourself provides the feedback you need to stay on track, while changing your eating habits leads to weight loss (both together → 4.1 kg vs. 0.9 kg with just one or the other).

3. Most people who “hit a plateau” aren’t actually eating more than they should—they just aren’t logging everything. 83% of consistent loggers who didn’t lose weight showed a “deficit on paper,” but in reality ate nearly twice as much as they recorded.

Now, let’s take a closer look at how we arrived at these results.

How many beginners actually achieve positive results?

Of the 50,742 Geneto Lifestyle users, 50,742 set a goal to lose weight when they started using the app. That’s a massive sample size, but it’s a rocky road—as became clear quite quickly upon examining the data.

Half of the people who decide to lose weight don’t even log a second weight. The biggest drop-off happens right at the start—in the first few days after onboarding. Half of users dream of losing weight, but never actually get started. They don’t even log their first meal or their next weight reading in the app. So, getting past the first hurdle is relatively easy—just log one meal in the app, and you’re already on the right track, among those who have a chance of achieving their goal.

Among those with enough data to measure their actual progress—at least two weigh-ins, at least two weeks apart—only 12,992 people remained, of whom:

• 56.8% lost some weight

• 45.8% lost at least 5% of their body weight (the clinically significant threshold)

• 17.6% reached their initially stated target weight at some point

• 36.9% actually gained weight in the meantime (among those whose goal was weight loss).

Only one in six of these most dedicated individuals reaches their goal. Why so few?

A long journey reduces the chances of success

Contrary to popular belief, people trying to lose weight—at least those whose data we analyzed—do not set overly ambitious goals. A typical dieter wants to lose a median of 10 kg (an average of 13 kg) from their current weight: half want to lose up to 10 kg, and only 19% want to lose more than 20 kg.

However, the length of the journey does matter. Among those who actually started the journey, the farther the goal is from the start of the journey (the first weigh-in), the less likely they are to reach it:

Lesson: Set realistic milestones. Someone with a shorter journey reaches their destination more than twice as often as someone with a very long journey—and every milestone achieved fuels motivation for the next one. If you set a goal that’s too far off right from the start, you immediately reduce the likelihood of eventually reaching that goal.

Finding #1: Consistency Trumps Everything

A naive look at the data can be misleading. If we measure weight loss simply as “first weigh-in minus last weigh-in,” it appears that those who log more frequently lose less. This is an illusion—the time frame for active users averages over two years (including weight regain), while the two measurements for infrequent loggers capture only the initial motivated weight loss.

That’s why we measured everything within a fixed 90-day window: what a person did during the first 90 days vs. how much weight they lost over those 90 days.

Those who logged their food almost every day lost an average of 4.7 kg in three months, and as many as 85% of them were successful in losing weight. The typical range was 1–13 kg; the most successful participant lost 29 kg in 90 days.

Finding #2: Half-hearted effort is worse than nothing

Notice one strange row in the table: those who tracked for 1–9 days lost an average of 0 kg—less than those who didn’t track at all.

This speaks volumes. Trying it out for a bit and then giving up doesn’t accomplish anything—it might even give you a false sense of security (“I’m keeping track, after all”). The benefits only come once logging becomes a habit. If you decide to track, do it for real. The first two weeks are a particularly important threshold for success; crossing it is what separates those who achieve their goals from those who don’t.

Finding #3: Weight is a very important form of feedback, but not the driving force

If we had to predict whether someone would lose weight based on a single metric, it wouldn’t be age, gender, starting weight, or even food logging—it would be how often a person weighs themselves. At every level of food logging, success increases with the frequency of weighing:

The statistical model confirms: when all factors are taken into account simultaneously, the frequency of weighing is the strongest independent predictor (coefficient 0.76 vs. food diary 0.45).

Those who weigh themselves at least once a week have an 82% probability of losing weight; those who do so less frequently have a 44% probability—nearly twice the probability of success, which also means nearly six times the chance. Why is that? Imagine two 100-sided dice, where one has a gold coin on 82 sides and a cookie on 18 sides. The other die has 44 coins and 56 cookies. Which die gives you a more certain chance of winning a gold coin? When calculating odds, we divide the probability of success by the probability of failure: in one case, 82/18 ≈ 4.56; in the other, 44/56 ≈ 0.79. Their ratio (4.56 ÷ 0.79) is the probability of winning that gold coin—about 6. Regular weighing versus not weighing is a crucial factor on the path to success.

But be careful with how you interpret this. Stepping on the scale doesn’t cause weight loss—the scale itself doesn’t burn calories. Weight loss is caused by an energy deficit, or a change in what and how much you eat. So why is weighing yourself such a strong predictor of success? Because it provides feedback. The scale shows whether your dietary changes are working and helps you stay consistent. (Randomized studies confirm this—daily weighing leads to weight loss precisely because it forces you to adjust your behavior.)

So weighing yourself alone isn’t enough—the best results come from a combination of feedback (weight) and actual eating management (meal planning/logging):

Together, they add up to 4.1 kg (and 42% lose at least 5% of their body weight) vs. 0.9 kg when neither is used. Weight is the dashboard; dietary changes are the engine. A lifestyle app is a car with both an engine and a dashboard—in other words, the value of our app is to give you both and keep you on track.

Finding #4: Why do even consistent trackers sometimes hit a plateau?

The most interesting question: if 85% of diligent loggers lose weight, what’s wrong with the remaining 15%? After all, they’re doing everything right—logging every day.

A common assumption is that they’re honestly logging more than they should—they’re simply eating too much and realize it themselves. The data tells a different story.

We used the Lifestyle app’s own energy formula to calculate each person’s energy needs, and then worked backward from their weight change to determine how much they actually ate (physics doesn’t lie: if the weight doesn’t drop, there was no deficit). Comparing this with the logs gives us the rate of “underreporting.”

First, a check: the median underreporting rate among consistent loggers was 26%—exactly what broader nutrition science predicts (underreporting in food diaries is typically 20–40%). The method is therefore reliable.

And now for the main point. Those who lost weight underreported by 21%; those who did not lose weight underreported by 42%. Among those who were caught:

• Honest participants: 13%. Their logs honestly show that they ate at maintenance levels (an average of 2,600 kcal)—well above their 1,700 kcal norm. They know they’re eating too much, yet for some reason they can’t control themselves. This is another problem that needs to be addressed.

• Under-eaters: 83%. They logged an average of 1,400 kcal (a deficit on paper!), but in reality ate ~2,700 kcal—concealing nearly 1,200 kcal per day (45%).

Most of those who “get stuck” don’t consciously eat more than they should. They are convinced they’re eating within a deficit—and that’s precisely why they don’t know how to change anything. The missing half of their food intake simply goes unlogged: either the quantities are incorrect, they forget to record something, or there are other reasons.

By comparison: those who succeeded logged 1,729 kcal against their 1,843 kcal target—close to the target—and their slight underreporting still left them with a real deficit.

This ties in with the previous finding: weighing yourself is what would reveal under-logging. If your log shows a deficit but your weight doesn’t change for three weeks, then something isn’t adding up—and only your weight will tell you that.

But what about macronutrients? Carbs, fats, fiber?

That’s far less important than consistency.

• Carbohydrate ratio: there’s no evidence in the data supporting a low-carb advantage. Users with a higher carbohydrate intake lost weight just as well or even better. The “carbs make you fat” narrative isn’t necessarily confirmed here. At least not as long as you don’t blow your daily calorie limit.

• Protein and fiber: a moderate but real positive correlation. Those who ate more protein and fiber lost weight slightly more often—consistent with the fact that these nutrients promote a feeling of fullness. But this effect is secondary to weighing and logging your food. So claims that certain diet plans or apps let you eat “as much as you want” are only partially true. Yes, they design the menu so that following it makes you feel fuller and reduces your appetite—this plays a role in overcoming self-doubt, and we’ve taken this into account in the recipes for the Lifestyle app as well. But is such a plan a true shortcut to success, or is it just selling you the idea that your ideal weight will come without any effort? Unfortunately, you won’t lose weight without a calorie deficit—so be very skeptical of such promises.

• Fats: We didn’t find a clear correlation in our data—more or less fat in the diet didn’t significantly affect the likelihood of success.

An important nuance: absolute amounts largely reflect the thoroughness of your tracking, not your actual consumption. That’s why it’s best to treat macronutrient numbers with caution—the main message remains the same: how you eat matters less than whether you track your intake consistently.

But what about exercise?

Tracking workouts turned out to be a weak predictor of weight loss—0 workouts vs. 30+ workouts yielded essentially the same result.

But be cautious with this conclusion: Geneto Lifestyle is primarily a nutrition app; only about 13% of people logged their workouts. Don’t take this to mean that “exercise doesn’t help”—regular exercise has a completely different, important effect on our mood and energy levels. The number one driver of weight loss is indeed what’s on your plate, not the treadmill.

But what about steps? The number of steps doesn’t matter much—it’s the total that counts a little

You can also track your steps via an app if you link it to the Apple or Google Health platform—does this predict the outcome?

The mere act of tracking steps predicts practically nothing. Those who tracked their steps lost 52% of their weight—those who didn’t, 48%. The difference is negligible. When we put all factors into a statistical model at once, tracking steps adds nothing once weight and food logs are taken into account. Reason: step counts are usually synced automatically from a phone—“step tracking” is simply an indicator that a person is generally engaged, not an independent driver of success.

However, the actual number of steps a person takes provides a moderate, real benefit. Among regular step trackers, those who walked 7,000+ steps per day lost nearly twice as much weight as those who stayed below ~4,700 steps:

This is a genuine “exercise helps” effect—but on the same order of magnitude as that of protein or fiber, secondary to keeping a food diary and weighing yourself. Exercise is an added bonus—and likely more important for maintaining weight than for losing it.

A practical plan for using Geneto to achieve results

Based on the data, we get a very clear recipe:

1. Change your eating habits and log them consistently—this is the engine of your car. Logging for 60+ days out of 90 resulted in an 85% probability of success. Half-hearted attempts (just a few days) won’t get you anywhere. Stick with logging for two weeks, and things will get easier from there.

2. Log everything—including the “little” things. 83% of those who stuck with it thought they were eating in a calorie deficit; in reality, they left half their food unlogged. Unfortunately, you can’t win a rally if you leave your map at home.

3. Weigh yourself at least once a week—it’s the feedback that keeps you on track. Weighing yourself doesn’t make you lose weight, but it shows whether your changes are working and keeps you consistent (weekly weigh-ins resulted in an 82% success rate vs. 44%—nearly 6 times the odds).

4. If your weight plateaus for 2–3 weeks, don’t give up—check your portion sizes. Usually, the problem isn’t willpower, but portion control: portions are larger than they seem. Although sometimes you just need to pull yourself together and write everything down honestly—and this is where how badly you want the result comes into play.

5. Set a realistic intermediate goal (5–10 kg at a time). A higher success rate creates motivation for the next steps.

6. Stay active—aim for 7,000+ steps a day. This provides a moderate added benefit, but don’t rely solely on it or overdo it: your diet is still the engine of your car and determines whether you’ll reach your destination. Exercise is like a car’s sleek design and good maintenance—it makes driving enjoyable, keeps the engine running smoothly, and is a pleasure for fellow drivers to see.

Methodology and Limitations

• Data: Geneto production database, read-only queries, anonymized at the aggregate level. Weight-loss cohort = users whose planned weekly weight change is negative (validated: in 99% of cases, the target weight is also lower than the starting weight).

• Causality vs. Correlation: These are correlations, not proven causality. More motivated people both weigh themselves/log their weight more often and lose more weight. However, the effect of weighing has also been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials.

• Fixed time window: associations were measured within a 90-day window (baseline measurement + measurement ~3 months later, n ≈ 1,970) to avoid time window bias.

• Self-reported data: weights and food amounts are entered by the user; underreporting is a well-known phenomenon in nutrition science (our estimated median of 26% confirms this).

• Small subgroups: The sample of “honest participants” was small (9 people)—the percentage (13%) is indicative, but the trend is clear and repeats at different thresholds.