Is Your Metabolism Working Against You? For those that have not seen this.
Replies
-
physioprof wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »I fail to see how anything of what you said support what the author said about those things "maximizing" metabolism.
She just said, 'boost.' You can certainly do things to reduce your metabolic rate just like you can do things to increase it, and caffeine and exercise unequivocally increase it. There is plenty of misinformation out there--meal frequency, for instance--and in comparison, this article is pretty sound. It's still 'marketed' toward people who might not know that much about nutrition or metabolism so it has to 'sell', hence the title. I just think it's pretty humorous that a bunch of folks on the internet are bashing the article for its lack of sources...but no one else has any sources to refute her claims either.
How long does caffeine boost your metabolic rate? Seriously. Come on. That's the problem with the article. You yourself said the effect was transient.
0 -
physioprof wrote: »ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=martin+2007+rmr+weight+loss
I mean...since when is this a myth? It's a real thing. It happens.
Well, actually, I'd like to take that on. Give me a minute.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »physioprof wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »I fail to see how anything of what you said support what the author said about those things "maximizing" metabolism.
She just said, 'boost.' You can certainly do things to reduce your metabolic rate just like you can do things to increase it, and caffeine and exercise unequivocally increase it. There is plenty of misinformation out there--meal frequency, for instance--and in comparison, this article is pretty sound. It's still 'marketed' toward people who might not know that much about nutrition or metabolism so it has to 'sell', hence the title. I just think it's pretty humorous that a bunch of folks on the internet are bashing the article for its lack of sources...but no one else has any sources to refute her claims either.
How long does caffeine boost your metabolic rate? Seriously. Come on. That's the problem with the article. You yourself said the effect was transient.
Depending on the dose, up to 6 hours. It's more beneficial as an ergogenic aid. You take it before your workout, then you work harder, then your metabolic rate is increased for hours post-workout. The increases are variable of course, and they aren't huge, but it's not like one exercise bout or one cup of coffee is the solution to weight loss. These incremental changes add up over time.
Someone else mentioned that 'starvation mode' is a myth and this author renamed it 'conservation theory'...it has multiple names and it's not a myth. It's just been a victim of hyperbole and overuse.0 -
Here are my problems with EVERY single study that I've seen that cites either lowered REE or RMR (some, one, or all of these conditions apply):
1. They are short term
2. They were done with either very low calorie diets or very aggressive deficits
3. The macro balances were appallingly low on protein
4. Participants did not do resistance training to preserve lean body mass
I'd like to see some results done in a longitudinal study on formerly obese people who lost weight with reasonable deficits while taking measures to preserve lean body mass and see how their RMR's fared compared to a control group.
THEN I'd take the information seriously.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »I'm all for people selling books, but what you have to realize is that conservative mode doesn't happen without a decrease in activity. When faced with fewer calories, some people respond by sitting around more, while others keep doing most of what they normally do. It isn't so much a metabolism problem as much as it is an attitude problem.
@TimothyFish good call. If could make memes I would0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Here are my problems with EVERY single study that I've seen that cites either lowered REE or RMR (some, one, or all of these conditions apply):
1. They are short term
2. They were done with either very low calorie diets or very aggressive deficits
3. The macro balances were appallingly low on protein
4. Participants did not do resistance training to preserve lean body mass
I'd like to see some results done in a longitudinal study on formerly obese people who lost weight with reasonable deficits while taking measures to preserve lean body mass and see how their RMR's fared compared to a control group.
THEN I'd take the information seriously.
Um...did you read the study? It was a 6-month study with 4 tx: a control, 25% caloric restriction, 12.5% caloric restriction with 12.5% increase in TDEE via exercise, and a VLCD. That's long-term, modest versus extreme caloric deficit, with or without exercise, and habitual diet modified to meet AHA recommendations, so 10-35% protein, 45-65% carbohydrate, less than 30% calories from fat. You can actually access the whole article. Edit: Also they were overweight and this is one arm of a whole study on effects of long-term caloric restriction. There is a LOT of research on this.0 -
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=leibel+1995+10%25+reduction
Here's another one, in obese and non-obese after 6 months of maintenance. Better dietary control here.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »physioprof wrote: »ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=martin+2007+rmr+weight+loss
I mean...since when is this a myth? It's a real thing. It happens.
Well, actually, I'd like to take that on. Give me a minute.
#teammamapeach0 -
physioprof wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Here are my problems with EVERY single study that I've seen that cites either lowered REE or RMR (some, one, or all of these conditions apply):
1. They are short term
2. They were done with either very low calorie diets or very aggressive deficits
3. The macro balances were appallingly low on protein
4. Participants did not do resistance training to preserve lean body mass
I'd like to see some results done in a longitudinal study on formerly obese people who lost weight with reasonable deficits while taking measures to preserve lean body mass and see how their RMR's fared compared to a control group.
THEN I'd take the information seriously.
Um...did you read the study? It was a 6-month study with 4 tx: a control, 25% caloric restriction, 12.5% caloric restriction with 12.5% increase in TDEE via exercise, and a VLCD. That's long-term, modest versus extreme caloric deficit, with or without exercise, and habitual diet modified to meet AHA recommendations, so 10-35% protein, 45-65% carbohydrate, less than 30% calories from fat. You can actually access the whole article.
Compared to how long it takes an obese person to lose weight? That is not long term. The participants in this particular study were also only overweight, not obese.
That is also not long enough to tell if the effect on RMR is lasting or temporary.
It also did not include strength training and since we don't know the bodyweights of these people, macro percentages tell us nothing about protein intake. With that level of calorie restriction? That percentage is likely to be low. The Heart Association guidelines fall short on protein, because dieters need MORE protein than average people to preserve muscle mass. They also need to do some form of resistance training. I did not see that listed on the study under the activities they were doing.
0 -
physioprof wrote: »ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=leibel+1995+10%25+reduction
Here's another one, in obese and non-obese after 6 months of maintenance. Better dietary control here.
He yo-yo dieted them including an 800 calorie liquid diet and then got a funky reading on their metabolic rate?
How surprising.
Here's a pertinent quote from the first study:and not all studies have found that RMR decreases during CR. For example, one year after weight loss surgery, no decrease in RMR, adjusted for changes in body composition, was found among obese women (11), and no decrease in RMR was found after accounting for change in FFM and FM among men and women who were tested during weight maintenance before weight loss surgery and 14 months after surgery (12). Similarly, RMR, expressed in terms of FFM, was found to be unchanged after weight loss (13), and weight-reduced people on the National Weight Control Registry had no decrease in RMR after controlling for FFM, FM, age, and sex compared with a weight-matched sample (14).
I'll trust the finding from the NWCR group myself, you know why? Those people, for the most part, lost weight sensibly, the way most of us on this site are. They have maintained their losses. It seems to me that those findings would have more real-world application.
0 -
pollypocket1021 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »physioprof wrote: »ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=martin+2007+rmr+weight+loss
I mean...since when is this a myth? It's a real thing. It happens.
Well, actually, I'd like to take that on. Give me a minute.
#teammamapeach
Thanks for your faith in me, but I'm just shooting blind here. I've seen this theory advanced about the lowered metabolic rate. I've even seen people mention it in posts here and post studies, and yet... you know, I read the maintenance boards, and it's funny. I never see anyone complaining about how much lower their calories are than expected.
It's just so weird.
0 -
LOL...okay, random person on the internet. I concede that you know more than those of us with advanced degrees and research experience in human metabolism. You win! It's all a myth we perpetuate just to mess with folks. I'm eagerly awaiting your next manuscript.0
-
physioprof wrote: »LOL...okay, random person on the internet. I concede that you know more than those of us with advanced degrees and research experience in human metabolism. You win! It's all a myth we perpetuate just to mess with folks. I'm eagerly awaiting your next manuscript.
And you are any less random how, exactly?0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »physioprof wrote: »LOL...okay, random person on the internet. I concede that you know more than those of us with advanced degrees and research experience in human metabolism. You win! It's all a myth we perpetuate just to mess with folks. I'm eagerly awaiting your next manuscript.
And you are any less random how, exactly?
My username hints at that. I am a little less random when it comes to human metabolism. When you've done research you are cognizant of the limitations and the strengths. Six months is a long time for a prospective study.0 -
physioprof wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »physioprof wrote: »LOL...okay, random person on the internet. I concede that you know more than those of us with advanced degrees and research experience in human metabolism. You win! It's all a myth we perpetuate just to mess with folks. I'm eagerly awaiting your next manuscript.
And you are any less random how, exactly?
My username hints at that. I am a little less random when it comes to human metabolism. When you've done research you are cognizant of the limitations and the strengths. Six months is a long time for a prospective study.
Okay random hinting person. I suppose we should all just bow and take your word for stuff? LMAO.
0 -
physioprof wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »physioprof wrote: »LOL...okay, random person on the internet. I concede that you know more than those of us with advanced degrees and research experience in human metabolism. You win! It's all a myth we perpetuate just to mess with folks. I'm eagerly awaiting your next manuscript.
And you are any less random how, exactly?
My username hints at that. I am a little less random when it comes to human metabolism. When you've done research you are cognizant of the limitations and the strengths. Six months is a long time for a prospective study.
When it comes to something like long-term weight loss effects, it's not, though.
That's why I take the findings from the participants in the NWCR more seriously.
Remember I raised the concern about the effect being temporary or not?
What about the effects of the methods used in the studies to lose the weight in the first place?
I notice you're not addressing ANY of those qualms I have with the studies.
0 -
What exactly is the argument here? That a caloric deficit decreases metabolic rate, or that caffeine and exercise can increase it?0
-
galgenstrick wrote: »What exactly is the argument here? That a caloric deficit decreases metabolic rate, or that caffeine and exercise can increase it?
Currently, I'm arguing, because I'm not entirely convinced, against the prevailing wisdom that there's a long-term lasting effect on metabolic rate due to weight loss. I have issues with the methods used to lose weight in all the studies I've seen that suggest this is the case. I believe they all promoted loss of lean body mass, which would naturally lead to a lower metabolic rate.
I think we've moved past the OP.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »galgenstrick wrote: »What exactly is the argument here? That a caloric deficit decreases metabolic rate, or that caffeine and exercise can increase it?
Currently, I'm arguing, because I'm not entirely convinced, against the prevailing wisdom that there's a long-term lasting effect on metabolic rate due to weight loss. I have issues with the methods used to lose weight in all the studies I've seen that suggest this is the case. I believe they all promoted loss of lean body mass, which would naturally lead to a lower metabolic rate.
I think we've moved past the OP.
I guess I don't see the issue. first we have to define "long term"... If the metabolic slowdown is due to a reduction in LBM, then wouldn't that be considered a "long term" metabolic slowdown considering you would need to correct it by putting on more muscle?0 -
http://news.health.com/2015/05/14/is-your-metabolism-working-against-you-6-simple-ways-to-boost-it/
^^copy pasta from here. It's a pretty bad article.
Premise is not supported by content.
Some points just wrong or misleading, like produce is muscle preserving. Last time I looked, protein was needed for MPS and most produce either has minimal protein and/or the protein is not a complete protein. Talk about stretching a concept. You also need to resistance train to get dat metabolism boosting muscle.
And this one "More proof that a calorie isn’t a calorie came from research conducted at Pomona College. Researchers found that when healthy women consumed meals that were similar in terms of carb, protein, and fat content, they burned about 50% more calories eating whole foods versus highly processed foods. "
Misleading conclusion when you look at the actual study.
The other points are misleading also.0 -
Broscience all the way--the article in the original post, that is.0
-
physioprof wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »I fail to see how anything of what you said support what the author said about those things "maximizing" metabolism.
She just said, 'boost.' You can certainly do things to reduce your metabolic rate just like you can do things to increase it, and caffeine and exercise unequivocally increase it. There is plenty of misinformation out there--meal frequency, for instance--and in comparison, this article is pretty sound. It's still 'marketed' toward people who might not know that much about nutrition or metabolism so it has to 'sell', hence the title. I just think it's pretty humorous that a bunch of folks on the internet are bashing the article for its lack of sources...but no one else has any sources to refute her claims either.
She seems to be talking about TEF or simply the fact that we overestimate calories for things like fiber rich foods. (I think these are great things to eat and I do--for nutrition and satiety--but claiming they boost metabolism is where it starts sounding like an infomercial. I'd be interested in real studies.)
Water boosts metabolism seems even more questionable. Does it help some people feel full? Of course, but more is being claimed.
I skimmed the article, but didn't see anything about exercise, but of course exercise raises TDEE (which is not normally considered the same as raising metabolism, I don't think). Caffeine may, but I'd question the health effects of tons of caffeine, especially if it effects sleep, and if she means caffeine she should say caffeine, not push the woo-like properties of green tea and it's special other compounds.
As for metabolic adaptation, I didn't think it was controversial, but the big questions are what, if anything, can we do to reduce the effects or to correct it after it happens. Saying it's a matter of what you eat is where the article seems to go off into territory that I'd not heard credibly supported before.
The study you cite seems to be this one: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251
If so, I'm interested in any comments on the analysis, which I found very interesting.
I thought it suggested that a lower deficit with exercise was a good thing and left me with some questions, specifically to what extend a bigger deficit made up of more exercise could have the same positive effects of the 25% made up of half and half, as well as how resulted varied in general with different make ups. This interested me because the usual 1-2 lb/week recommendation for a woman who is not all that large will generally be more than 25% off TDEE, and there have been discussions about whether there are negative effects at various levels of aggressiveness.
I'm also interested on effect on muscle mass at various levels and with different amounts of exercise.
I also noted when reading over heybales' discussion again that the protein level was quite low, which surprised me, so I'd be interested in the effect of including more protein in general.
Curious if you have any comments or links to studies, or if anyone else does.0 -
Here is a study that shows that BMR increases with increased caloric intake in sedentary individuals. Which is evidence against the argument that a decreased BMR was due to a decrease in LBM in the other cited study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/167412710 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
physioprof wrote: »LOL...okay, random person on the internet. I concede that you know more than those of us with advanced degrees and research experience in human metabolism. You win! It's all a myth we perpetuate just to mess with folks. I'm eagerly awaiting your next manuscript.
I will congratulate you, it is some accomplishment to be a physio professor at the age of 28.
A professor at age 28? That is commendable. My gifted cousin got her PhD in math and went straight to a university as a math professor when she was about 30, I think.0 -
The only way I know to improve metabolism (if yr healthy) is regular exercise; if yr not healthy, like being hypothyroid or otherwise having issues, once those are addressed, it will improve. So... I had both of those things to do. I feel like lifting is a good answer for a lot of women. Our muscle mass decreases over time unless you deliberately prevent that. I don't feel like the advice presented in the article is bad at all. I do a lot of those things and have gotten good results. Coffee as a preworkout is a winner for example. XD The reasoning behind it, I'm not going to be arguing about all that because I am not a doctor or a nutritionist, but I will say that my doctor advises me to do these things so it's not like someone just made up some random crap.0
-
Also, it's not like I think caffeine makes me lose weight. I just know it makes the workout easier for me to do. That's all I need from it!0
-
Caffeine being a stimulant would help increase heart rate and provide a boost to physical activity. It's been used in diet pills for years because of that. That doesn't mean it has a large enough effect to be of practical effective use, and the dose where it would be a significant boost would probably be dangerous to people.
As for produce and whole foods vs processed foods, I'd wonder if sodium content isn't a factor and if they controlled for that. Honestly, I don't see anything in the OP's article's suggestions that is way off-base or magical, but they don't connect the dots between those suggestions and eating at a deficit to achieve weight loss.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions