Is Your Metabolism Working Against You? For those that have not seen this.
Replies
-
So the old school idea that beans are starches and should not be used much if you are trying to lose weight, is now being replaced with the fact they are high in protein and rich in fiber... I love beans and lentils myself, so should I really add more to my diet? I have been using them rarely and miss them when I am not eating them. I consider myself to be somewhat active, as I work out 3x a week and walk when I am not at the gym. According to MFP I should list myself as sedentary. If I say I am semi active, it shoots my caloric need up to 17xx calories a day! I can't eat that much in a day, no way.0
-
green tea is being looked at for reasons other than caffeine (ie polyphenols)
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/129.abstract
http://www.jissn.com/content/12/1/1
there's some evidence for all those recommendations, i don't know why everyone here freaks out whenever someone suggests eating more vegetables.
with that said, taking all that advice on board at once is going to make at least some people gastrically uncomfortable.
No one is freaking out with a suggestion to eat more vegetables - if they have I missed it - could you point me to all these posts?.
Re green tea: there is also some evidence for not bothering with them. The second study linked did not have a caffeine control. One of the ones I linked did. The first one links to an abstract that does not give much details, but does conclude "However, to date, evidence from human studies to support these adaptations is lacking. Clearly, more studies have to be performed to elucidate the effects of GTE on fat metabolism as well as improve our understanding of the underlying mechanisms."
My point being - it seems to be given a lot of weight in the article for some not very well supported or clear/meaningful benefits.
I am not saying not to use it - its not exactly a bother (unless you do not like it) or spendy - but lets not give it too much weight on affecting your metabolism.
I just meant the culture of the forum in general is inclined to veggie freakouts. Very often, suggesting attending to nutrition is met with derision.
Green tea: yeah, I don't think anything's definitive on that yet, but there's been a lot of work so far. I've also read though (can't find the study, might be the same one the author used) that the minimum amount that made a difference was 5 cups a day. I don't know who's going to go for it, but hey, if they're up for it, why not.
Yeah these kinds of articles do tend to make firm recommendations based on on one or two studies per point, that's just what health magazines do. Still, it's not like she's promoting anything actively harmful. On the contrary
Perhaps you should make it clear you are referring to the forums and not the thread specifically, however, that being said, I have not seen these posts you refer to. I have seen a lot of posts that point out that you do not have to eat nutritionally dense foods all the time - that 'treats' are fine in moderation.
My issue with the article, is that while there is nothing directly harmful, misinformation (either by way of false facts or implying greater importance) can actually detrimental to someone as a whole. Just because an article is not promoting something actively harmful does not mean its a good or necessarily beneficial.
Re bolded - I don't disagree with that general point, but I don't see anything in the suggestions that is not beneficial in some way (other than potentially the green tea, which is at worst a net neutral. But again, I have a hard time imagining anyone actually taking that up).
And there is evidence, more than the studies alluded to, that the recommendations made might actually be beneficial in the ways proposed.
She could have been more equivocal, but I think that too is just part of the way those things are written0 -
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.
Ahhhh, okay this I understand.
0 -
missiontofitness wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »WTF is a pulse...I'm pretty sure I don't want to eat that.
I find green tea disgusting
Sorry OP but this article is horse hockey.mamapeach910 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »WTF is a pulse...I'm pretty sure I don't want to eat that.
I find green tea disgusting
Sorry OP but this article is horse hockey.
Just beans, legumes, and peas!
Actually, it's when you eat the heart of your weight loss rival, and absorb their progress into your own body.
Oh wow! Hehe looks like I will be changing tomorrow's menu.0 -
green tea is being looked at for reasons other than caffeine (ie polyphenols)
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/129.abstract
http://www.jissn.com/content/12/1/1
there's some evidence for all those recommendations, i don't know why everyone here freaks out whenever someone suggests eating more vegetables.
with that said, taking all that advice on board at once is going to make at least some people gastrically uncomfortable.
No one is freaking out with a suggestion to eat more vegetables - if they have I missed it - could you point me to all these posts?.
Re green tea: there is also some evidence for not bothering with them. The second study linked did not have a caffeine control. One of the ones I linked did. The first one links to an abstract that does not give much details, but does conclude "However, to date, evidence from human studies to support these adaptations is lacking. Clearly, more studies have to be performed to elucidate the effects of GTE on fat metabolism as well as improve our understanding of the underlying mechanisms."
My point being - it seems to be given a lot of weight in the article for some not very well supported or clear/meaningful benefits.
I am not saying not to use it - its not exactly a bother (unless you do not like it) or spendy - but lets not give it too much weight on affecting your metabolism.
I just meant the culture of the forum in general is inclined to veggie freakouts. Very often, suggesting attending to nutrition is met with derision.
Green tea: yeah, I don't think anything's definitive on that yet, but there's been a lot of work so far. I've also read though (can't find the study, might be the same one the author used) that the minimum amount that made a difference was 5 cups a day. I don't know who's going to go for it, but hey, if they're up for it, why not.
Yeah these kinds of articles do tend to make firm recommendations based on on one or two studies per point, that's just what health magazines do. Still, it's not like she's promoting anything actively harmful. On the contrary
Perhaps you should make it clear you are referring to the forums and not the thread specifically, however, that being said, I have not seen these posts you refer to. I have seen a lot of posts that point out that you do not have to eat nutritionally dense foods all the time - that 'treats' are fine in moderation.
My issue with the article, is that while there is nothing directly harmful, misinformation (either by way of false facts or implying greater importance) can actually detrimental to someone as a whole. Just because an article is not promoting something actively harmful does not mean its a good or necessarily beneficial.
Re bolded - I don't disagree with that general point, but I don't see anything in the suggestions that is not beneficial in some way (other than potentially the green tea, which is at worst a net neutral. But again, I have a hard time imagining anyone actually taking that up).
And there is evidence, more than the studies alluded to, that the recommendations made might actually be beneficial in the ways proposed.
She could have been more equivocal, but I think that too is just part of the way those things are written
I think you are missing my point. Majoring in the minors. It can lead to adherence and sustainability issues, especially when the article leads them to believe that there will be a greater impact than there actually is.
The points are not all benign, depending on the context and how people read them.
Which 'alluded to' studies are you referring to?
And people do a lot of things that have not shown to be effective because they read something somewhere (or heard it on Dr Oz).0 -
eh? How exactly does a carrot preserve muscle?Is Your Metabolism Working Against You? 6 Simple Ways to Boost It
Eat more produce
We all know that veggies and fruits are nutrient rich, but research shows they may also impact leanness, due to their ability to help preserve metabolism-boosting muscle. In one study, University of Florida researchers found that when two groups consumed the same number of daily calories, those who ate more plant-based foods had smaller waist circumferences, and lower body fat percentages. Aim to eat produce at every meal. One simple formula is to include one serving of fruit in every breakfast and snack, and two serving of veggies in each lunch and dinner.
Ah, there we go.Eat more pulses
You know about beans—black, red, white…well, pulses are a unique food group that includes beans, as well as peas, like chickpeas, and split peas, and lentils. I made a daily dose of pulses a key strategy in the weight loss plan in my new book Slim Down Now, in part because they’re so filling, nutrient rich, and gluten free, but also because of their impact on metabolism. A review published in the British Journal of Nutrition concluded that pulses increase calorie and fat burning, and help reduce visceral fat, the deep internal belly fat known to up the risk of heart disease and type 2 diabetes. To bolster your metabolism, include a half cup of a pulse in one of your daily meals, like a side of black beans with your veggie avocado omelet, lentils in your lunch salad, oven-roasted chickpeas or hummus in a snack, or white bean and kale soup at dinner. You can even incorporate pulses into desserts!
I see.Cynthia Sass is a registered dietitian and Health’s contributing nutrition editor. She privately counsels clients in New York, Los Angeles, and long distance, and is the sports nutrition consultant to the New York Rangers NHL team and the New York Yankees MLB team.
Wonder what she's trying to promote here?
Some of the points she raises are interesting and some are known to be fairly valid... the caffeine thing with exercise for example, however I would absolutely lose to see the references for the majority of these claims she is making to see what's really behind these studies she quotes.0 -
physioprof wrote: »UltimateRBF 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.
Ooh, look kids, this logical fallacy is called "the appeal to authority".
Ah, so now everyone's opinions are equally valid regardless of area of expertise? Great, I'll just bring my car to my neighbor next time the Check Engine light comes on. Can you go ahead a prescribe me something for allergies? Also, I need someone to administer some vaccination boosters to my dog. So if you have a minute...then I wouldn't need to go to a vet.
You can rant about my "opinons" all you want, and wave your degree and credentials at me until you're blue in the face, but you still have no rebuttal to the questions I have about those studies.
And that's what they are at this point: questions.
There are methods employed in those studies to lose weight that are not in line with how a lot of real life people on these boards go about losing weight. I'd like to see findings correlative to that to extrapolate something meaningful.
0 -
green tea is being looked at for reasons other than caffeine (ie polyphenols)
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/129.abstract
http://www.jissn.com/content/12/1/1
there's some evidence for all those recommendations, i don't know why everyone here freaks out whenever someone suggests eating more vegetables.
with that said, taking all that advice on board at once is going to make at least some people gastrically uncomfortable.
Green tea could be declared the most super of all supreme superness.
It's still gross and I wouldn't drink it.
I don't see anyone freaking out over the idea of eating more veggies. I just see the idea of eating them as a solution to permanently raising your metabolic rate being questioned.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »physioprof wrote: »UltimateRBF 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.
Ooh, look kids, this logical fallacy is called "the appeal to authority".
Ah, so now everyone's opinions are equally valid regardless of area of expertise? Great, I'll just bring my car to my neighbor next time the Check Engine light comes on. Can you go ahead a prescribe me something for allergies? Also, I need someone to administer some vaccination boosters to my dog. So if you have a minute...then I wouldn't need to go to a vet.
You can rant about my "opinons" all you want, and wave your degree and credentials at me until you're blue in the face, but you still have no rebuttal to the questions I have about those studies.
And that's what they are at this point: questions.
There are methods employed in those studies to lose weight that are not in line with how a lot of real life people on these boards go about losing weight. I'd like to see findings correlative to that to extrapolate something meaningful.
Did I miss where she actually provided her credentials? Or was it merely the mere hint that her username physioprof may mean she has some type of scientific authority and papers published
I'd like you @physioprof to clearly state what your credentials and life experience are as it seems you have suggested that others part in this discussion and their questions are is in some way less valid than your own
0 -
green tea is being looked at for reasons other than caffeine (ie polyphenols)
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/129.abstract
http://www.jissn.com/content/12/1/1
there's some evidence for all those recommendations, i don't know why everyone here freaks out whenever someone suggests eating more vegetables.
with that said, taking all that advice on board at once is going to make at least some people gastrically uncomfortable.
No one is freaking out with a suggestion to eat more vegetables - if they have I missed it - could you point me to all these posts?.
Re green tea: there is also some evidence for not bothering with them. The second study linked did not have a caffeine control. One of the ones I linked did. The first one links to an abstract that does not give much details, but does conclude "However, to date, evidence from human studies to support these adaptations is lacking. Clearly, more studies have to be performed to elucidate the effects of GTE on fat metabolism as well as improve our understanding of the underlying mechanisms."
My point being - it seems to be given a lot of weight in the article for some not very well supported or clear/meaningful benefits.
I am not saying not to use it - its not exactly a bother (unless you do not like it) or spendy - but lets not give it too much weight on affecting your metabolism.
I just meant the culture of the forum in general is inclined to veggie freakouts. Very often, suggesting attending to nutrition is met with derision.
Green tea: yeah, I don't think anything's definitive on that yet, but there's been a lot of work so far. I've also read though (can't find the study, might be the same one the author used) that the minimum amount that made a difference was 5 cups a day. I don't know who's going to go for it, but hey, if they're up for it, why not.
Yeah these kinds of articles do tend to make firm recommendations based on on one or two studies per point, that's just what health magazines do. Still, it's not like she's promoting anything actively harmful. On the contrary
Perhaps you should make it clear you are referring to the forums and not the thread specifically, however, that being said, I have not seen these posts you refer to. I have seen a lot of posts that point out that you do not have to eat nutritionally dense foods all the time - that 'treats' are fine in moderation.
My issue with the article, is that while there is nothing directly harmful, misinformation (either by way of false facts or implying greater importance) can actually detrimental to someone as a whole. Just because an article is not promoting something actively harmful does not mean its a good or necessarily beneficial.
Re bolded - I don't disagree with that general point, but I don't see anything in the suggestions that is not beneficial in some way (other than potentially the green tea, which is at worst a net neutral. But again, I have a hard time imagining anyone actually taking that up).
And there is evidence, more than the studies alluded to, that the recommendations made might actually be beneficial in the ways proposed.
She could have been more equivocal, but I think that too is just part of the way those things are written
I think you are missing my point. Majoring in the minors. It can lead to adherence and sustainability issues, especially when the article leads them to believe that there will be a greater impact than there actually is.
The points are not all benign, depending on the context and how people read them.
Which 'alluded to' studies are you referring to?
And people do a lot of things that have not shown to be effective because they read something somewhere (or heard it on Dr Oz).
so the University of Florida paper she alluded to (why did you put that in quotes?) but did not name is this one:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-277X.2009.00987.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
sorry here (just copy/pasting, sorry for formatting)
Relationship of the dietary phytochemical index to weight gain, oxidative stress and inflammation in overweight young adults
Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics
Volume 23, Issue 1, pages 20–29, February 2010
H. K. Vincent1, C. M. Bourguignon2 andA. G. Taylor2
Article first published online: 4 SEP 2009
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-277X.2009.00987.x
and it's of course correlational and there are probably many third variables, and it was short. etc.
the idea, though is that it oxidative stress can affect cardiometabolic function
eg
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/cvp/2013/00000011/00000006/art00010
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2012/960427/abs/
www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-9-108.pdf (pdf)
and that polyphenols (in plant based foods, eg) can mitigate this stress
here is a google scholar search on related terms for more
true, people can go nutty with bits of information. this person is just saying "eat more fruit and veg", though. it's hard to imagine anything more benign.
as far as "majoring in the minors" - maybe the % change in metabolic rate isn't massive. but increasing fiber through fruits and veg, getting those micronutrients in, etc., isn't minor with regard to weight loss more generally. it's a pattern of eating that's been associated with long term weight loss success in many studies
however i am done digging up studies for today, if that's ok 0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »physioprof wrote: »UltimateRBF 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.
Ooh, look kids, this logical fallacy is called "the appeal to authority".
Ah, so now everyone's opinions are equally valid regardless of area of expertise? Great, I'll just bring my car to my neighbor next time the Check Engine light comes on. Can you go ahead a prescribe me something for allergies? Also, I need someone to administer some vaccination boosters to my dog. So if you have a minute...then I wouldn't need to go to a vet.
You can rant about my "opinons" all you want, and wave your degree and credentials at me until you're blue in the face, but you still have no rebuttal to the questions I have about those studies.
And that's what they are at this point: questions.
There are methods employed in those studies to lose weight that are not in line with how a lot of real life people on these boards go about losing weight. I'd like to see findings correlative to that to extrapolate something meaningful.
Did I miss where she actually provided her credentials? Or was it merely the mere hint that her username physioprof may mean she has some type of scientific authority and papers published
I'd like you @physioprof to clearly state what your credentials and life experience are as it seems you have suggested that others part in this discussion and their questions are is in some way less valid than your own
I like how I have no rights to ask questions because I'm a rando on the internet. And that's all I've done... ask questions.
It's something I've been wondering about a lot lately, and this topic brought it back to the forefront of my mind.
It's been brought up on these boards before, this whole issue of metabolic damage from weight loss. I know this is tangential to the discussion, but I think it's not too off-topic.
I listed my qualms with every study I've seen done on the topic earlier.
I've yet to see a reasonable response.
So, I'll list out my questions again...
1. Is the decrease in metabolic rate permanent, if in fact there is one IF:
2. Have their been studies done where participants lost weight slowly with increased protein intake and strength training?
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »physioprof wrote: »UltimateRBF 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.
Ooh, look kids, this logical fallacy is called "the appeal to authority".
Ah, so now everyone's opinions are equally valid regardless of area of expertise? Great, I'll just bring my car to my neighbor next time the Check Engine light comes on. Can you go ahead a prescribe me something for allergies? Also, I need someone to administer some vaccination boosters to my dog. So if you have a minute...then I wouldn't need to go to a vet.
You can rant about my "opinons" all you want, and wave your degree and credentials at me until you're blue in the face, but you still have no rebuttal to the questions I have about those studies.
And that's what they are at this point: questions.
There are methods employed in those studies to lose weight that are not in line with how a lot of real life people on these boards go about losing weight. I'd like to see findings correlative to that to extrapolate something meaningful.
Did I miss where she actually provided her credentials? Or was it merely the mere hint that her username physioprof may mean she has some type of scientific authority and papers published
I'd like you @physioprof to clearly state what your credentials and life experience are as it seems you have suggested that others part in this discussion and their questions are is in some way less valid than your own
I like how I have no rights to ask questions because I'm a rando on the internet. And that's all I've done... ask questions.
It's something I've been wondering about a lot lately, and this topic brought it back to the forefront of my mind.
It's been brought up on these boards before, this whole issue of metabolic damage from weight loss. I know this is tangential to the discussion, but I think it's not too off-topic.
I listed my qualms with every study I've seen done on the topic earlier.
I've yet to see a reasonable response.
So, I'll list out my questions again...
1. Is the decrease in metabolic rate permanent, if in fact there is one IF:
2. Have their been studies done where participants lost weight slowly with increased protein intake and strength training?
I'd like to know the answers to those questions too. I know some of the studies at least are based on obese or morbidly obese people, but you often see it touted that 'years of yo-yo dieting have destroyed your metabolism' and the same for highly restrictive eating - that idea that once the damage is done that's it. Now, I've been guilty of both of those (never been obese, and a lot of that yo-yoing was within my healthy weight range, but...). I know I using an N=1 here, and maybe I'm a special snowflake (though I doubt it), but my metabolism is just fine. Losing weight at the rate predicted for my TDEE (actually slightly faster).
That thinking is actually incredibly dangerous IMHO, because it leads to people believing that the only way to keep losing weight is to restrict further and further.0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »physioprof wrote: »UltimateRBF 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.
Ooh, look kids, this logical fallacy is called "the appeal to authority".
Ah, so now everyone's opinions are equally valid regardless of area of expertise? Great, I'll just bring my car to my neighbor next time the Check Engine light comes on. Can you go ahead a prescribe me something for allergies? Also, I need someone to administer some vaccination boosters to my dog. So if you have a minute...then I wouldn't need to go to a vet.
You can rant about my "opinons" all you want, and wave your degree and credentials at me until you're blue in the face, but you still have no rebuttal to the questions I have about those studies.
And that's what they are at this point: questions.
There are methods employed in those studies to lose weight that are not in line with how a lot of real life people on these boards go about losing weight. I'd like to see findings correlative to that to extrapolate something meaningful.
Did I miss where she actually provided her credentials? Or was it merely the mere hint that her username physioprof may mean she has some type of scientific authority and papers published
I'd like you @physioprof to clearly state what your credentials and life experience are as it seems you have suggested that others part in this discussion and their questions are is in some way less valid than your own
I like how I have no rights to ask questions because I'm a rando on the internet. And that's all I've done... ask questions.
It's something I've been wondering about a lot lately, and this topic brought it back to the forefront of my mind.
It's been brought up on these boards before, this whole issue of metabolic damage from weight loss. I know this is tangential to the discussion, but I think it's not too off-topic.
I listed my qualms with every study I've seen done on the topic earlier.
I've yet to see a reasonable response.
So, I'll list out my questions again...
1. Is the decrease in metabolic rate permanent, if in fact there is one IF:
2. Have their been studies done where participants lost weight slowly with increased protein intake and strength training?
I'd like to know the answers to those questions too. I know some of the studies at least are based on obese or morbidly obese people, but you often see it touted that 'years of yo-yo dieting have destroyed your metabolism' and the same for highly restrictive eating - that idea that once the damage is done that's it. Now, I've been guilty of both of those (never been obese, and a lot of that yo-yoing was within my healthy weight range, but...). I know I using an N=1 here, and maybe I'm a special snowflake (though I doubt it), but my metabolism is just fine. Losing weight at the rate predicted for my TDEE (actually slightly faster).
That thinking is actually incredibly dangerous IMHO, because it leads to people believing that the only way to keep losing weight is to restrict further and further.
i can't find the studies right now, however, a bunch have indicated that once-obese people do seem to have permanently altered metabolisms. this blog by an obesity researcher summarizes some of them (sorry, will not be able to direct anyone to particular studies just now) http://www.drsharma.ca/
i have also read that the best way to deal with it, practically, is to use as small a deficit as you can manage, and to aim for a slow rate of loss0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »1. Is the decrease in metabolic rate permanent, if in fact there is one IF:i can't find the studies right now, however, a bunch have indicated that once-obese people do seem to have permanently altered metabolisms. this blog by an obesity researcher summarizes some of them (sorry, will not be able to direct anyone to particular studies just now) http://www.drsharma.ca/
i have also read that the best way to deal with it, practically, is to use as small a deficit as you can manage, and to aim for a slow rate of lossNony_Mouse wrote: »I'd like to know the answers to those questions too. I know some of the studies at least are based on obese or morbidly obese people, but you often see it touted that 'years of yo-yo dieting have destroyed your metabolism' and the same for highly restrictive eating - that idea that once the damage is done that's it. Now, I've been guilty of both of those (never been obese, and a lot of that yo-yoing was within my healthy weight range, but...). I know I using an N=1 here, and maybe I'm a special snowflake (though I doubt it), but my metabolism is just fine. Losing weight at the rate predicted for my TDEE (actually slightly faster).
You may have all seen this before, as it's from 2011, but I discovered it only yesterday when someone posted in another thread. It's about how the body is in what they call a biologically altered state after weight loss. It's a report not a study but various studies are linked within.
I thought these two points from the report were especially pertinent:
1. A person who has been overweight and reduced down to their goal weight requires up to 300 fewer daily calories than a person the same size who has never been overweight. They also require more exercise to maintain the new weight than the person who has never been overweight.
2. The pace of weight loss is unlikely to make a difference in whether the loss is maintained or not.
Both of these things are true in my own experience and observations of people I know.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html?_r=0
1200 calories for life, here we come?!0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »1. Is the decrease in metabolic rate permanent, if in fact there is one IF:i can't find the studies right now, however, a bunch have indicated that once-obese people do seem to have permanently altered metabolisms. this blog by an obesity researcher summarizes some of them (sorry, will not be able to direct anyone to particular studies just now) http://www.drsharma.ca/
i have also read that the best way to deal with it, practically, is to use as small a deficit as you can manage, and to aim for a slow rate of lossNony_Mouse wrote: »I'd like to know the answers to those questions too. I know some of the studies at least are based on obese or morbidly obese people, but you often see it touted that 'years of yo-yo dieting have destroyed your metabolism' and the same for highly restrictive eating - that idea that once the damage is done that's it. Now, I've been guilty of both of those (never been obese, and a lot of that yo-yoing was within my healthy weight range, but...). I know I using an N=1 here, and maybe I'm a special snowflake (though I doubt it), but my metabolism is just fine. Losing weight at the rate predicted for my TDEE (actually slightly faster).
You may have all seen this before, as it's from 2011, but I discovered it only yesterday when someone posted in another thread. It's about how the body is in what they call a biologically altered state after weight loss. It's a report not a study but various studies are linked within.
I thought these two points from the report were especially pertinent:
1. A person who has been overweight and reduced down to their goal weight requires up to 300 fewer daily calories than a person the same size who has never been overweight. They also require more exercise to maintain the new weight than the person who has never been overweight.
2. The pace of weight loss is unlikely to make a difference in whether the loss is maintained or not.
Both of these things are true in my own experience and observations of people I know.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html?_r=0
1200 calories for life, here we come?!
a snip from the articlemost of the patients stuck with the extreme low-calorie diet, which consisted of special shakes called Optifast and two cups of low-starch vegetables, totaling just 500 to 550 calories a day for eight weeks. Ten weeks in, the dieters lost an average of 30 pounds.
proves extreme dieting doesn't work imo.
I am with Mamapeach and feel that the information from the National weight loss register is more relevant than either of these "articles" or "studies"0 -
I agree that we don't have to have a degree in any particular field to have an opinion or have a voice. What you take from the study may be different to what I take from it. Its a question of perspective. Drinking water is good for hydrating the body. Caffeine is a stimulant but some people have a sensitivity to it. Green tea has been around for ages and still tastes vile. I tried Nutrition Headquarters Fat Metaboliser pills which have green tea, kola nut and cayenne pepper extract in it and nothing. Also tried Holland & Barrett KLB6 with that which has apple cider vinegar and it didn't work either. They did when I was younger but not this timw thats why I joined MFP and also got a consultant.
My point is that even though a qualified doctor told me the pills would work, they didn't. Why because what she tried and worked might not work for others. Calorie Deficit, exercise that includes resistance and strength training mixed with cardio can boast your metabolism and help you lose weight. You don't need a degree to find that out for yourself.0 -
Many rules to follow.0
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »1. Is the decrease in metabolic rate permanent, if in fact there is one IF:i can't find the studies right now, however, a bunch have indicated that once-obese people do seem to have permanently altered metabolisms. this blog by an obesity researcher summarizes some of them (sorry, will not be able to direct anyone to particular studies just now) http://www.drsharma.ca/
i have also read that the best way to deal with it, practically, is to use as small a deficit as you can manage, and to aim for a slow rate of lossNony_Mouse wrote: »I'd like to know the answers to those questions too. I know some of the studies at least are based on obese or morbidly obese people, but you often see it touted that 'years of yo-yo dieting have destroyed your metabolism' and the same for highly restrictive eating - that idea that once the damage is done that's it. Now, I've been guilty of both of those (never been obese, and a lot of that yo-yoing was within my healthy weight range, but...). I know I using an N=1 here, and maybe I'm a special snowflake (though I doubt it), but my metabolism is just fine. Losing weight at the rate predicted for my TDEE (actually slightly faster).
You may have all seen this before, as it's from 2011, but I discovered it only yesterday when someone posted in another thread. It's about how the body is in what they call a biologically altered state after weight loss. It's a report not a study but various studies are linked within.
I thought these two points from the report were especially pertinent:
1. A person who has been overweight and reduced down to their goal weight requires up to 300 fewer daily calories than a person the same size who has never been overweight. They also require more exercise to maintain the new weight than the person who has never been overweight.
2. The pace of weight loss is unlikely to make a difference in whether the loss is maintained or not.
Both of these things are true in my own experience and observations of people I know.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html?_r=0
1200 calories for life, here we come?!
a snip from the articlemost of the patients stuck with the extreme low-calorie diet, which consisted of special shakes called Optifast and two cups of low-starch vegetables, totaling just 500 to 550 calories a day for eight weeks. Ten weeks in, the dieters lost an average of 30 pounds.
proves extreme dieting doesn't work imo.
I am with Mamapeach and feel that the information from the National weight loss register is more relevant than either of these "articles" or "studies"
Interestingly the two 'pertinent' points I posted earlier were observations made from people on the National Weight Control Registry (i.e. not the people who were on extreme diets)
It says:
"There is no consistent pattern to how people in the registry lost weight — some did it on Weight Watchers, others with Jenny Craig, some by cutting carbs on the Atkins diet and a very small number lost weight through surgery. But their eating and exercise habits appear to reflect what researchers find in the lab: to lose weight and keep it off, a person must eat fewer calories and exercise far more than a person who maintains the same weight naturally. Registry members exercise about an hour or more each day — the average weight-loser puts in the equivalent of a four-mile daily walk, seven days a week. They get on a scale every day in order to keep their weight within a narrow range. They eat breakfast regularly. Most watch less than half as much television as the overall population. They eat the same foods and in the same patterns consistently each day and don’t “cheat” on weekends or holidays. They also appear to eat less than most people, with estimates ranging from 50 to 300 fewer daily calories."0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »1. Is the decrease in metabolic rate permanent, if in fact there is one IF:i can't find the studies right now, however, a bunch have indicated that once-obese people do seem to have permanently altered metabolisms. this blog by an obesity researcher summarizes some of them (sorry, will not be able to direct anyone to particular studies just now) http://www.drsharma.ca/
i have also read that the best way to deal with it, practically, is to use as small a deficit as you can manage, and to aim for a slow rate of lossNony_Mouse wrote: »I'd like to know the answers to those questions too. I know some of the studies at least are based on obese or morbidly obese people, but you often see it touted that 'years of yo-yo dieting have destroyed your metabolism' and the same for highly restrictive eating - that idea that once the damage is done that's it. Now, I've been guilty of both of those (never been obese, and a lot of that yo-yoing was within my healthy weight range, but...). I know I using an N=1 here, and maybe I'm a special snowflake (though I doubt it), but my metabolism is just fine. Losing weight at the rate predicted for my TDEE (actually slightly faster).
You may have all seen this before, as it's from 2011, but I discovered it only yesterday when someone posted in another thread. It's about how the body is in what they call a biologically altered state after weight loss. It's a report not a study but various studies are linked within.
I thought these two points from the report were especially pertinent:
1. A person who has been overweight and reduced down to their goal weight requires up to 300 fewer daily calories than a person the same size who has never been overweight. They also require more exercise to maintain the new weight than the person who has never been overweight.
2. The pace of weight loss is unlikely to make a difference in whether the loss is maintained or not.
Both of these things are true in my own experience and observations of people I know.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html?_r=0
1200 calories for life, here we come?!
a snip from the articlemost of the patients stuck with the extreme low-calorie diet, which consisted of special shakes called Optifast and two cups of low-starch vegetables, totaling just 500 to 550 calories a day for eight weeks. Ten weeks in, the dieters lost an average of 30 pounds.
proves extreme dieting doesn't work imo.
I am with Mamapeach and feel that the information from the National weight loss register is more relevant than either of these "articles" or "studies"
Interestingly the two 'pertinent' points I posted earlier were observations made from people on the National Weight Control Registry (i.e. not the people who were on extreme diets)
It says:
"There is no consistent pattern to how people in the registry lost weight — some did it on Weight Watchers, others with Jenny Craig, some by cutting carbs on the Atkins diet and a very small number lost weight through surgery. But their eating and exercise habits appear to reflect what researchers find in the lab: to lose weight and keep it off, a person must eat fewer calories and exercise far more than a person who maintains the same weight naturally. Registry members exercise about an hour or more each day — the average weight-loser puts in the equivalent of a four-mile daily walk, seven days a week. They get on a scale every day in order to keep their weight within a narrow range. They eat breakfast regularly. Most watch less than half as much television as the overall population. They eat the same foods and in the same patterns consistently each day and don’t “cheat” on weekends or holidays. They also appear to eat less than most people, with estimates ranging from 50 to 300 fewer daily calories."
@Chrysalid2014, I'm in trouble then cos I skipped breakfast this morning for the first time since starting MFP. I do eat around the same time everyday, not for weight loss but because its handier for me. I eat the same foods but cooked differently, and exercise regularly. Going to walk more everyday as well as what I'm doing thanks to the snippet you posted. That is the type of information I love to see. Going to pull myself together and get the old metabolism working hard again.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »1. Is the decrease in metabolic rate permanent, if in fact there is one IF:i can't find the studies right now, however, a bunch have indicated that once-obese people do seem to have permanently altered metabolisms. this blog by an obesity researcher summarizes some of them (sorry, will not be able to direct anyone to particular studies just now) http://www.drsharma.ca/
i have also read that the best way to deal with it, practically, is to use as small a deficit as you can manage, and to aim for a slow rate of lossNony_Mouse wrote: »I'd like to know the answers to those questions too. I know some of the studies at least are based on obese or morbidly obese people, but you often see it touted that 'years of yo-yo dieting have destroyed your metabolism' and the same for highly restrictive eating - that idea that once the damage is done that's it. Now, I've been guilty of both of those (never been obese, and a lot of that yo-yoing was within my healthy weight range, but...). I know I using an N=1 here, and maybe I'm a special snowflake (though I doubt it), but my metabolism is just fine. Losing weight at the rate predicted for my TDEE (actually slightly faster).
You may have all seen this before, as it's from 2011, but I discovered it only yesterday when someone posted in another thread. It's about how the body is in what they call a biologically altered state after weight loss. It's a report not a study but various studies are linked within.
I thought these two points from the report were especially pertinent:
1. A person who has been overweight and reduced down to their goal weight requires up to 300 fewer daily calories than a person the same size who has never been overweight. They also require more exercise to maintain the new weight than the person who has never been overweight.
2. The pace of weight loss is unlikely to make a difference in whether the loss is maintained or not.
Both of these things are true in my own experience and observations of people I know.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html?_r=0
1200 calories for life, here we come?!
So they were put on an extreme diet that did nothing to teach them better eating habits as they lost weight, then regained after? Really not surprised.0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »1. Is the decrease in metabolic rate permanent, if in fact there is one IF:i can't find the studies right now, however, a bunch have indicated that once-obese people do seem to have permanently altered metabolisms. this blog by an obesity researcher summarizes some of them (sorry, will not be able to direct anyone to particular studies just now) http://www.drsharma.ca/
i have also read that the best way to deal with it, practically, is to use as small a deficit as you can manage, and to aim for a slow rate of lossNony_Mouse wrote: »I'd like to know the answers to those questions too. I know some of the studies at least are based on obese or morbidly obese people, but you often see it touted that 'years of yo-yo dieting have destroyed your metabolism' and the same for highly restrictive eating - that idea that once the damage is done that's it. Now, I've been guilty of both of those (never been obese, and a lot of that yo-yoing was within my healthy weight range, but...). I know I using an N=1 here, and maybe I'm a special snowflake (though I doubt it), but my metabolism is just fine. Losing weight at the rate predicted for my TDEE (actually slightly faster).
You may have all seen this before, as it's from 2011, but I discovered it only yesterday when someone posted in another thread. It's about how the body is in what they call a biologically altered state after weight loss. It's a report not a study but various studies are linked within.
I thought these two points from the report were especially pertinent:
1. A person who has been overweight and reduced down to their goal weight requires up to 300 fewer daily calories than a person the same size who has never been overweight. They also require more exercise to maintain the new weight than the person who has never been overweight.
2. The pace of weight loss is unlikely to make a difference in whether the loss is maintained or not.
Both of these things are true in my own experience and observations of people I know.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html?_r=0
1200 calories for life, here we come?!
So they were put on an extreme diet that did nothing to teach them better eating habits as they lost weight, then regained after? Really not surprised.
Actually those points were observations gathered from studying people on the National Weight Control Registry. Those people weren't extreme dieters (necessarily); the report just noted "There is no consistent pattern to how people in the registry lost weight — some did it on Weight Watchers, others with Jenny Craig, some by cutting carbs on the Atkins diet and a very small number lost weight through surgery."0 -
http://www.nih.gov/news/health/may2015/niddk-11.htm is her source0
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »1. Is the decrease in metabolic rate permanent, if in fact there is one IF:i can't find the studies right now, however, a bunch have indicated that once-obese people do seem to have permanently altered metabolisms. this blog by an obesity researcher summarizes some of them (sorry, will not be able to direct anyone to particular studies just now) http://www.drsharma.ca/
i have also read that the best way to deal with it, practically, is to use as small a deficit as you can manage, and to aim for a slow rate of lossNony_Mouse wrote: »I'd like to know the answers to those questions too. I know some of the studies at least are based on obese or morbidly obese people, but you often see it touted that 'years of yo-yo dieting have destroyed your metabolism' and the same for highly restrictive eating - that idea that once the damage is done that's it. Now, I've been guilty of both of those (never been obese, and a lot of that yo-yoing was within my healthy weight range, but...). I know I using an N=1 here, and maybe I'm a special snowflake (though I doubt it), but my metabolism is just fine. Losing weight at the rate predicted for my TDEE (actually slightly faster).
You may have all seen this before, as it's from 2011, but I discovered it only yesterday when someone posted in another thread. It's about how the body is in what they call a biologically altered state after weight loss. It's a report not a study but various studies are linked within.
I thought these two points from the report were especially pertinent:
1. A person who has been overweight and reduced down to their goal weight requires up to 300 fewer daily calories than a person the same size who has never been overweight. They also require more exercise to maintain the new weight than the person who has never been overweight.
2. The pace of weight loss is unlikely to make a difference in whether the loss is maintained or not.
Both of these things are true in my own experience and observations of people I know.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html?_r=0
1200 calories for life, here we come?!
So they were put on an extreme diet that did nothing to teach them better eating habits as they lost weight, then regained after? Really not surprised.
Actually those points were observations gathered from studying people on the National Weight Control Registry. Those people weren't extreme dieters (necessarily); the report just noted "There is no consistent pattern to how people in the registry lost weight — some did it on Weight Watchers, others with Jenny Craig, some by cutting carbs on the Atkins diet and a very small number lost weight through surgery."
I was referring to the people in the article you linked.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.
And yet, with all your degrees and stuff you should know not to commit the logical sin of arguing from an appeal to authority (your own) or shooting your own position with an ad hom towards mamapeach (aka random internet person).
You could have just addressed her valid questions.
There is evident that the metabolic slow down is long term - in the AT thread I published a while back the research quoted talked about longer term (3y) research - yes, some studies have not seen significant metabolic decreases, once adjusted for lbm loss, but often the absence of sufficient numbers, slower loss, protein and carb sparing factors may account.0 -
green tea is being looked at for reasons other than caffeine (ie polyphenols)
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/129.abstract
http://www.jissn.com/content/12/1/1
there's some evidence for all those recommendations, i don't know why everyone here freaks out whenever someone suggests eating more vegetables.
with that said, taking all that advice on board at once is going to make at least some people gastrically uncomfortable.
No one is freaking out with a suggestion to eat more vegetables - if they have I missed it - could you point me to all these posts?.
Re green tea: there is also some evidence for not bothering with them. The second study linked did not have a caffeine control. One of the ones I linked did. The first one links to an abstract that does not give much details, but does conclude "However, to date, evidence from human studies to support these adaptations is lacking. Clearly, more studies have to be performed to elucidate the effects of GTE on fat metabolism as well as improve our understanding of the underlying mechanisms."
My point being - it seems to be given a lot of weight in the article for some not very well supported or clear/meaningful benefits.
I am not saying not to use it - its not exactly a bother (unless you do not like it) or spendy - but lets not give it too much weight on affecting your metabolism.
I just meant the culture of the forum in general is inclined to veggie freakouts. Very often, suggesting attending to nutrition is met with derision.
Green tea: yeah, I don't think anything's definitive on that yet, but there's been a lot of work so far. I've also read though (can't find the study, might be the same one the author used) that the minimum amount that made a difference was 5 cups a day. I don't know who's going to go for it, but hey, if they're up for it, why not.
Yeah these kinds of articles do tend to make firm recommendations based on on one or two studies per point, that's just what health magazines do. Still, it's not like she's promoting anything actively harmful. On the contrary
Perhaps you should make it clear you are referring to the forums and not the thread specifically, however, that being said, I have not seen these posts you refer to. I have seen a lot of posts that point out that you do not have to eat nutritionally dense foods all the time - that 'treats' are fine in moderation.
My issue with the article, is that while there is nothing directly harmful, misinformation (either by way of false facts or implying greater importance) can actually detrimental to someone as a whole. Just because an article is not promoting something actively harmful does not mean its a good or necessarily beneficial.
Re bolded - I don't disagree with that general point, but I don't see anything in the suggestions that is not beneficial in some way (other than potentially the green tea, which is at worst a net neutral. But again, I have a hard time imagining anyone actually taking that up).
And there is evidence, more than the studies alluded to, that the recommendations made might actually be beneficial in the ways proposed.
She could have been more equivocal, but I think that too is just part of the way those things are written
I think you are missing my point. Majoring in the minors. It can lead to adherence and sustainability issues, especially when the article leads them to believe that there will be a greater impact than there actually is.
The points are not all benign, depending on the context and how people read them.
Which 'alluded to' studies are you referring to?
And people do a lot of things that have not shown to be effective because they read something somewhere (or heard it on Dr Oz).
To add to what Sara is saying - one only has a certain amount of energy to focus on diet and weight loss. So if the effort is focused on Person A:
- drinking lots of water
- Eating vegetable with every meal
- Drink kg tea and coffee
- Eating lots of beans, peas, etc...
- Eating golf balls of nut and tennis balls of fruits
- Eating less processed and more whole
- but doesn't really focus on eating less calories or being more active
person B: eats less calories, watches macros, moves more.
Guess which one is going to lose weight?
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »green tea is being looked at for reasons other than caffeine (ie polyphenols)
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/129.abstract
http://www.jissn.com/content/12/1/1
there's some evidence for all those recommendations, i don't know why everyone here freaks out whenever someone suggests eating more vegetables.
with that said, taking all that advice on board at once is going to make at least some people gastrically uncomfortable.
No one is freaking out with a suggestion to eat more vegetables - if they have I missed it - could you point me to all these posts?.
Re green tea: there is also some evidence for not bothering with them. The second study linked did not have a caffeine control. One of the ones I linked did. The first one links to an abstract that does not give much details, but does conclude "However, to date, evidence from human studies to support these adaptations is lacking. Clearly, more studies have to be performed to elucidate the effects of GTE on fat metabolism as well as improve our understanding of the underlying mechanisms."
My point being - it seems to be given a lot of weight in the article for some not very well supported or clear/meaningful benefits.
I am not saying not to use it - its not exactly a bother (unless you do not like it) or spendy - but lets not give it too much weight on affecting your metabolism.
I just meant the culture of the forum in general is inclined to veggie freakouts. Very often, suggesting attending to nutrition is met with derision.
Green tea: yeah, I don't think anything's definitive on that yet, but there's been a lot of work so far. I've also read though (can't find the study, might be the same one the author used) that the minimum amount that made a difference was 5 cups a day. I don't know who's going to go for it, but hey, if they're up for it, why not.
Yeah these kinds of articles do tend to make firm recommendations based on on one or two studies per point, that's just what health magazines do. Still, it's not like she's promoting anything actively harmful. On the contrary
Perhaps you should make it clear you are referring to the forums and not the thread specifically, however, that being said, I have not seen these posts you refer to. I have seen a lot of posts that point out that you do not have to eat nutritionally dense foods all the time - that 'treats' are fine in moderation.
My issue with the article, is that while there is nothing directly harmful, misinformation (either by way of false facts or implying greater importance) can actually detrimental to someone as a whole. Just because an article is not promoting something actively harmful does not mean its a good or necessarily beneficial.
Re bolded - I don't disagree with that general point, but I don't see anything in the suggestions that is not beneficial in some way (other than potentially the green tea, which is at worst a net neutral. But again, I have a hard time imagining anyone actually taking that up).
And there is evidence, more than the studies alluded to, that the recommendations made might actually be beneficial in the ways proposed.
She could have been more equivocal, but I think that too is just part of the way those things are written
I think you are missing my point. Majoring in the minors. It can lead to adherence and sustainability issues, especially when the article leads them to believe that there will be a greater impact than there actually is.
The points are not all benign, depending on the context and how people read them.
Which 'alluded to' studies are you referring to?
And people do a lot of things that have not shown to be effective because they read something somewhere (or heard it on Dr Oz).
To add to what Sara is saying - one only has a certain amount of energy to focus on diet and weight loss. So if the effort is focused on Person A:
- drinking lots of water
- Eating vegetable with every meal
- Drink kg tea and coffee
- Eating lots of beans, peas, etc...
- Eating golf balls of nut and tennis balls of fruits
- Eating less processed and more whole
- but doesn't really focus on eating less calories or being more active
person B: eats less calories, watches macros, moves more.
Guess which one is going to lose weight?
*raises hand*
Ooh, ooh, is it B??0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »physioprof wrote: »UltimateRBF 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.
Ooh, look kids, this logical fallacy is called "the appeal to authority".
Ah, so now everyone's opinions are equally valid regardless of area of expertise? Great, I'll just bring my car to my neighbor next time the Check Engine light comes on. Can you go ahead a prescribe me something for allergies? Also, I need someone to administer some vaccination boosters to my dog. So if you have a minute...then I wouldn't need to go to a vet.
You can rant about my "opinons" all you want, and wave your degree and credentials at me until you're blue in the face, but you still have no rebuttal to the questions I have about those studies.
And that's what they are at this point: questions.
There are methods employed in those studies to lose weight that are not in line with how a lot of real life people on these boards go about losing weight. I'd like to see findings correlative to that to extrapolate something meaningful.
Did I miss where she actually provided her credentials? Or was it merely the mere hint that her username physioprof may mean she has some type of scientific authority and papers published
I'd like you @physioprof to clearly state what your credentials and life experience are as it seems you have suggested that others part in this discussion and their questions are is in some way less valid than your own
I like how I have no rights to ask questions because I'm a rando on the internet. And that's all I've done... ask questions.
It's something I've been wondering about a lot lately, and this topic brought it back to the forefront of my mind.
It's been brought up on these boards before, this whole issue of metabolic damage from weight loss. I know this is tangential to the discussion, but I think it's not too off-topic.
I listed my qualms with every study I've seen done on the topic earlier.
I've yet to see a reasonable response.
So, I'll list out my questions again...
1. Is the decrease in metabolic rate permanent, if in fact there is one IF:
2. Have their been studies done where participants lost weight slowly with increased protein intake and strength training?
I'd like to know the answers to those questions too. I know some of the studies at least are based on obese or morbidly obese people, but you often see it touted that 'years of yo-yo dieting have destroyed your metabolism' and the same for highly restrictive eating - that idea that once the damage is done that's it. Now, I've been guilty of both of those (never been obese, and a lot of that yo-yoing was within my healthy weight range, but...). I know I using an N=1 here, and maybe I'm a special snowflake (though I doubt it), but my metabolism is just fine. Losing weight at the rate predicted for my TDEE (actually slightly faster).
That thinking is actually incredibly dangerous IMHO, because it leads to people believing that the only way to keep losing weight is to restrict further and further.
i can't find the studies right now, however, a bunch have indicated that once-obese people do seem to have permanently altered metabolisms. this blog by an obesity researcher summarizes some of them (sorry, will not be able to direct anyone to particular studies just now) http://www.drsharma.ca/
i have also read that the best way to deal with it, practically, is to use as small a deficit as you can manage, and to aim for a slow rate of loss
But have the studies been done on people who have lost weight slowly, with higher protein intake, while doing strength training?
That blog is so poorly organized that it's impossible to cull through it to find anything meaningful.
0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »1. Is the decrease in metabolic rate permanent, if in fact there is one IF:i can't find the studies right now, however, a bunch have indicated that once-obese people do seem to have permanently altered metabolisms. this blog by an obesity researcher summarizes some of them (sorry, will not be able to direct anyone to particular studies just now) http://www.drsharma.ca/
i have also read that the best way to deal with it, practically, is to use as small a deficit as you can manage, and to aim for a slow rate of lossNony_Mouse wrote: »I'd like to know the answers to those questions too. I know some of the studies at least are based on obese or morbidly obese people, but you often see it touted that 'years of yo-yo dieting have destroyed your metabolism' and the same for highly restrictive eating - that idea that once the damage is done that's it. Now, I've been guilty of both of those (never been obese, and a lot of that yo-yoing was within my healthy weight range, but...). I know I using an N=1 here, and maybe I'm a special snowflake (though I doubt it), but my metabolism is just fine. Losing weight at the rate predicted for my TDEE (actually slightly faster).
You may have all seen this before, as it's from 2011, but I discovered it only yesterday when someone posted in another thread. It's about how the body is in what they call a biologically altered state after weight loss. It's a report not a study but various studies are linked within.
I thought these two points from the report were especially pertinent:
1. A person who has been overweight and reduced down to their goal weight requires up to 300 fewer daily calories than a person the same size who has never been overweight. They also require more exercise to maintain the new weight than the person who has never been overweight.
2. The pace of weight loss is unlikely to make a difference in whether the loss is maintained or not.
Both of these things are true in my own experience and observations of people I know.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html?_r=0
1200 calories for life, here we come?!
So they were put on an extreme diet that did nothing to teach them better eating habits as they lost weight, then regained after? Really not surprised.
Actually those points were observations gathered from studying people on the National Weight Control Registry. Those people weren't extreme dieters (necessarily); the report just noted "There is no consistent pattern to how people in the registry lost weight — some did it on Weight Watchers, others with Jenny Craig, some by cutting carbs on the Atkins diet and a very small number lost weight through surgery."
I was referring to the people in the article you linked.
Yes, it's quite a long article that quotes a number of sources. It starts out by describing a study that was done on people on an extreme low calorie diet (as you and Stef quickly pointed out), but one of the sections further on interviews the founder of the National Weight Control Registry and makes observations made about people who have successfully maintained a weight loss. (i.e that they eat fewer calories and exercise more than people of a similar weight who have never been fat... and that they lost weight using a variety of methods).0 -
Bump for later reading0
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »1. Is the decrease in metabolic rate permanent, if in fact there is one IF:i can't find the studies right now, however, a bunch have indicated that once-obese people do seem to have permanently altered metabolisms. this blog by an obesity researcher summarizes some of them (sorry, will not be able to direct anyone to particular studies just now) http://www.drsharma.ca/
i have also read that the best way to deal with it, practically, is to use as small a deficit as you can manage, and to aim for a slow rate of lossNony_Mouse wrote: »I'd like to know the answers to those questions too. I know some of the studies at least are based on obese or morbidly obese people, but you often see it touted that 'years of yo-yo dieting have destroyed your metabolism' and the same for highly restrictive eating - that idea that once the damage is done that's it. Now, I've been guilty of both of those (never been obese, and a lot of that yo-yoing was within my healthy weight range, but...). I know I using an N=1 here, and maybe I'm a special snowflake (though I doubt it), but my metabolism is just fine. Losing weight at the rate predicted for my TDEE (actually slightly faster).
You may have all seen this before, as it's from 2011, but I discovered it only yesterday when someone posted in another thread. It's about how the body is in what they call a biologically altered state after weight loss. It's a report not a study but various studies are linked within.
I thought these two points from the report were especially pertinent:
1. A person who has been overweight and reduced down to their goal weight requires up to 300 fewer daily calories than a person the same size who has never been overweight. They also require more exercise to maintain the new weight than the person who has never been overweight.
2. The pace of weight loss is unlikely to make a difference in whether the loss is maintained or not.
Both of these things are true in my own experience and observations of people I know.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html?_r=0
1200 calories for life, here we come?!
So they were put on an extreme diet that did nothing to teach them better eating habits as they lost weight, then regained after? Really not surprised.
Actually those points were observations gathered from studying people on the National Weight Control Registry. Those people weren't extreme dieters (necessarily); the report just noted "There is no consistent pattern to how people in the registry lost weight — some did it on Weight Watchers, others with Jenny Craig, some by cutting carbs on the Atkins diet and a very small number lost weight through surgery."
I was referring to the people in the article you linked.
Yes, it's quite a long article that quotes a number of sources. It starts out by describing a study that was done on people on an extreme low calorie diet (as you and Stef quickly pointed out), but one of the sections further on interviews the founder of the National Weight Control Registry and makes observations made about people who have successfully maintained a weight loss. (i.e that they eat fewer calories and exercise more than people of a similar weight who have never been fat... and that they lost weight using a variety of methods).
When they did a study on those people and adjusted for loss of lean body mass, there was no decrease.
In other words, if you took measures to preserve lean body mass, would the findings still be the same?
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