STUDY: How to Make Sure You Lose Weight

In Brief (TL;DR)

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

1. Consistency wins. People who logged their food almost every day lost weight with an 85% probability; those who tried for a few days and then gave up almost never did.

2. Weight is feedback, not the engine. Weighing yourself regularly is the strongest indicator of success—but stepping on the scale does not cause weight loss. The best results come from a combination: weighing yourself provides the feedback you need to stay on track, while changing how you eat reduces your weight (both together → 4.1 kg vs 0.9 kg with neither).

3. Most people who are “stuck” are not knowingly eating above their target—they simply do not log everything. Of the consistent loggers whose weight did not decrease, 83% showed a calorie deficit “on paper” but were actually eating almost twice as much as they recorded.

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

How many people who start actually achieve a positive result?

Among Geneto Elustiil users, 50,742 set a weight-loss goal when they started using the app. That is an enormous sample, but the data quickly revealed just how challenging the journey can be.

Half of the people who decide to lose weight never even enter a second weight. The biggest drop-off happens right at the beginning—in the first few days after onboarding. Half of all users may dream of losing weight, but they never actually get started. They do not even enter their first meal in the diary or record another weight. So getting past the first hurdle is relatively simple: log one meal in the app and you are already in the stronger half—the group with a real chance of achieving results.

Among those with enough data to measure their actual journey—at least two weight measurements taken at least two weeks apart—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 originally stated goal weight at some point

• 36.9% gained weight at some point instead (despite having a weight-loss goal).

Only one in six of those who made a serious attempt reached their goal. Why so few?

A longer journey reduces the likelihood of success

Contrary to popular belief, people trying to lose weight—at least those whose data we analyzed—do not set excessively ambitious goals. The typical person wants to lose a median of 10 kg from their current weight (13 kg on average): half want to lose no more than 10 kg, and only 19% want to lose more than 20 kg.

What does matter, however, is the length of the journey. Among those who genuinely started, the farther their goal was from where they began (their first weigh-in), the less likely they were to reach it:

The lesson: set a realistic intermediate goal. Someone with a shorter journey reaches their destination more than twice as often as someone facing a very long one—and every milestone achieved fuels motivation for the next. If you begin by setting a goal that is too far away, you immediately reduce the likelihood of eventually reaching it.

Finding 1: consistency beats everything else

A naïve reading of the data can be misleading. If we measure weight loss simply as “first weight minus last weight,” it looks as though people who log more lose less. That is an illusion: active users have an average observation window of more than two years (including weight regain), while the two measurements recorded by infrequent loggers capture only the early, highly motivated phase of weight loss.

That is why we measured everything within a fixed 90-day window: what a person did during their first 90 days versus how much weight they lost over those 90 days.

Those who logged food almost every day lost an average of 4.7 kg in three months, and as many as 85% succeeded in losing weight. The typical range was 1–13 kg, while the most successful person recorded −29 kg over 90 days.

Finding 2: a half-hearted attempt is worse than doing nothing

Notice one strange row in the table: people who logged for 1–9 days lost an average of 0 kg—less than those who did not log at all.

That is telling. Trying briefly and then giving up achieves nothing—and may even create a false sense of security (“but I am tracking”). The benefits only emerge once logging becomes a habit. If you decide to log, commit to it properly. The first two weeks are a particularly important threshold on the road to success, separating those who achieved results from those who did not reach their goal.

Finding 3: weight is vital feedback, but it is not the engine

If we had to predict whether someone would lose weight using just one indicator, it would not be age, sex, starting weight or even food logging—it would be how often they weigh themselves. At every level of food logging, success increases with weigh-in frequency:

The statistical model confirms this: when all factors are considered simultaneously, weigh-in frequency is the strongest independent predictor (coefficient 0.76 vs 0.45 for food logging).

Someone who weighs themselves at least once a week has an 82% probability of losing weight; for someone who weighs less often, it is 44%—nearly 2× the probability of success, which also translates to nearly 6× the odds. Why? Imagine two 100-sided dice. One has a gold coin on 82 sides and a cookie on 18 sides. The other has 44 coins and 56 cookies. Which die gives you a better chance of winning a gold coin? To calculate the 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) gives the relative odds of getting that winning coin—nearly 6. Weighing yourself regularly rather than not doing so is an extremely important factor on the road to success.

But be careful how you interpret this. Stepping on the scale does not cause weight loss—the scale itself does not burn calories. Weight loss is caused by an energy deficit, meaning a change in what and how much you eat. So why does weighing yourself predict success so strongly? Because it provides feedback. The scale shows whether your dietary changes are working and helps you stay consistent. (Randomized studies confirm the same thing: daily weighing causes weight loss precisely because it prompts people to adjust their behavior.)

So weighing yourself alone is not enough—the best results come from a combination of feedback (weight) and actively managing what you eat (planning/logging food):

Combining the two produces a loss of 4.1 kg (and 42% lose at least 5% of their body weight), compared with 0.9 kg when neither is used. The scale is the dashboard; changing how you eat is the engine. The Elustiil app is a car with both an engine and a dashboard: the value of our app lies in giving you both and keeping you on track.

Finding 4: why do consistent loggers sometimes get stuck?

Here is the most interesting question: if 85% of diligent loggers lose weight, what is going wrong for the remaining 15%? After all, they seem to be doing everything right—they log every day.

A common assumption is that they honestly log more than their target—they simply eat too much and can see that for themselves. The data tell a different story.

We used the Elustiil app’s own energy formula to estimate each person’s energy needs, then worked backward from their weight change to calculate how much they actually ate (physics does not lie: if weight did not decrease, there was no deficit). Comparing this with what they logged gives us their rate of “underreporting.”

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

Now for the key point. Those who lost weight underreported by 21%; those who did not lose weight underreported by 42%. Among those who were stuck:

• Accurate non-losers: 13%. Their logs honestly showed that they were eating around maintenance (~2,600 kcal on average)—far above their 1,700 kcal target. They know they are eating too much, yet for some reason cannot keep it under control. That is a different problem, and one that also needs a solution.

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

Most people who are supposedly stuck are not knowingly eating above their target. They are convinced that they are in a deficit—which is exactly why they do not know what to change. Half of their food simply goes unlogged: the quantities may be wrong, they may forget to record something, or there may be other reasons.

By comparison, successful users logged 1,729 kcal against a target of 1,843 kcal—close to their target, and their lower level of underreporting left them with a genuine deficit.

This also connects to the previous finding: weighing yourself is what exposes under-logging. If your log shows a deficit but your weight has not moved for three weeks, then something does not add up—and only the scale will tell you that.

What about macronutrients—carbohydrates, fats and fiber?

They matter much less than consistency.

• Share of carbohydrates: our data show no advantage for a low-carbohydrate diet. Users who ate a higher proportion of carbohydrates lost weight just as well or better. The claim that “carbs make you fat” is not necessarily supported here—at least as long as you do not exceed your daily calorie target.

• Protein and fiber: there was a modest but genuine positive association. People who ate more protein and fiber lost weight slightly more often—consistent with the fact that these nutrients promote fullness. But the effect is secondary to weighing and logging. This also means that claims from meal plans or apps promising that you can eat “as much as you want” are only partly true. Yes, they design menus that leave you feeling fuller and reduce your appetite—this plays a role in making it easier to manage yourself, and we have taken it into account in the Elustiil app’s recipes. But is such a plan truly a shortcut to success, or is it merely selling you the idea that your ideal weight will arrive without effort? Unfortunately, you will not lose weight without a calorie deficit, so be very skeptical of promises like these.

• Fat: our data show no clear association—the amount of fat in the diet did not significantly affect the probability of success.

An important nuance: absolute amounts largely reflect how thoroughly someone logs, not their actual intake. Macronutrient figures should therefore be treated with caution. The main message remains the same: how you eat matters less than whether you track it consistently.

What about exercise?

Logging exercise proved to be a weak predictor of weight loss—logging 0 workouts versus 30+ workouts produced essentially the same result.

But be careful with that conclusion: Geneto Elustiil is primarily a nutrition app, and only ~13% of people logged workouts. Do not interpret this as “exercise does not help”—regular exercise has an entirely different and important effect on our mood and energy levels. Even so, the number-one engine of weight loss is the dinner table, not the treadmill.

What about steps? Tracking them does not matter; the number matters a little

The app can also count steps when connected to the Apple or Google Health platform—but does this predict results?

The mere fact that someone tracks steps predicts practically nothing. Of those who tracked their steps, 52% lost weight, compared with 48% of those who did not. The difference is negligible. When all factors are included in the statistical model at once, step tracking adds nothing once weighing and food logging have been taken into account. The reason is that steps are generally synced automatically from a phone—“tracking steps” is simply a sign that someone is engaged overall, not an independent engine of success.

However, how much a person actually walks provides a modest, genuine advantage. Among regular step trackers, those who walked 7,000+ steps per day lost nearly twice as much as those who stayed below ~4,700 steps:

This is a genuine “movement helps” effect—but it is similar in magnitude to the effect of protein or fiber and remains secondary to keeping a food diary and weighing yourself. Movement is an added bonus—and probably more important for maintaining weight than for losing it.

A practical plan for using Geneto to achieve results

Based on the data, we can offer a very clear formula:

1. Change how you eat and log it consistently—this is your car’s engine. Logging on 60+ out of 90 days produced an 85% probability of success. A half-hearted attempt lasting a few days achieves nothing. Complete two weeks of logging and it will become easier from there.

2. Log everything—including the “small” things. Of those who were stuck, 83% thought they were eating at a deficit; in reality, they left half their food unlogged. Unfortunately, you cannot win a rally if you leave the map at home.

3. Weigh yourself at least once a week—it is the feedback that keeps you on track. Weighing yourself does not cause weight loss, but it shows whether your changes are working and helps you stay consistent (weekly weighers succeeded 82% of the time vs 44%—nearly 6× the odds).

4. If your weight has not changed for 2–3 weeks, do not give up—check your portions. The problem is usually not willpower but measurement: the portion is larger than it looks. Sometimes, though, you really do need to pull yourself together and record everything honestly—and this is where how badly you want the result begins to matter.

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

6. Stay active—aim for 7,000+ steps per day. This provides a modest additional advantage, but do not rely on it alone or overdo it: the dinner table is still your car’s engine and determines whether you reach your destination. Movement is the car’s attractive design and good maintenance—it makes the journey more enjoyable, keeps the engine running smoothly and looks good to other road users.

Methodology and limitations

• Data: Geneto’s production database, using read-only queries and anonymized aggregate-level data. Weight-loss cohort = users whose planned weekly weight change is negative (validated: for 99%, the goal weight is also lower than the starting weight).

• Causation vs correlation: these are associations, not proven causal relationships. More motivated people both weigh/log more often and lose more weight. However, the effect of weighing has also been demonstrated in randomized studies.

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

• Self-reported data: users enter their own weights and food quantities; underreporting is a well-known phenomenon in nutrition science (our derived median of 26% confirms this).

• Small subgroups: the sample of “accurate non-losers” was small (9 people)—the percentage (13%) is indicative, but the trend is clear and recurs at different thresholds.