Is Your Metabolism Working Against You? For those that have not seen this.
Replies
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »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?
Interestingly, I was just looking at that blog you mentioned in your last post, and there's a theory about that, basically that your body will keep trying to regain weight until any LBM you've lost is recovered (see excerpt below).
So, that's interesting if true. My current LBM according to last week's measurement is 140lb but my ideal weight is 125lb...
Of course it's all theories, but from what I've seen in real life formerly overweight people who maintain weight loss don't eat as much or in the same way as 'normal' skinny people.
"In the paper by Dulloo and colleagues published in Obesity Reviews, the authors attribute part of this effect to the so far elusive “proteinstat” – a system, similar but different from the “adipostat” – that is designed to protect your lean body mass.
As the paper nicely delineates, the problem with post-dieting weight regain is that the fat comes back first but that the drive to eat does not cease till you have also regained the lost lean body mass (muscle).
It appears as though there are two complimentary biological systems that regulate weight regain.
The better known system is the “adipostat” that worries about protecting and restoring fat mass – the neuroendocrine players include leptin and perhaps other signals derived from fat tissue that signal fat stores to the brain. This system works (primarily through dropping metabolic rate but also through effects on appetite) to very quickly and effectively restore the depleted fat mass after dieting.
The less known system is the “proteinstat”, that apparenty worries about restoring lean body mass. The system works slower than the “adipostat” but continues its activity (often reaching its peak) even after all the lost fat has been regained and you are back to your original weight. In fact, it continuous working (primarily through appetite and cravings) till lean body mass is restored, even if this means gaining even more fat in the process."
- See more at: http://www.drsharma.ca/#sthash.bN1rC9Rg.dpuf0 -
physioprof = Cynthia Sass?
That would explain a few attitudinal issues, here.
Or else she's just a blowhard.
If I change my username to brainsurgeon, I guess that would make me one and I could lord it over y'all.
-1 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »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?
Interestingly, I was just looking at that blog you mentioned in your last post, and there's a theory about that, basically that your body will keep trying to regain weight until any LBM you've lost is recovered (see excerpt below).
So, that's interesting if true. My current LBM according to last week's measurement is 140lb but my ideal weight is 125lb...
Of course it's all theories, but from what I've seen in real life formerly overweight people who maintain weight loss don't eat as much or in the same way as 'normal' skinny people.
"In the paper by Dulloo and colleagues published in Obesity Reviews, the authors attribute part of this effect to the so far elusive “proteinstat” – a system, similar but different from the “adipostat” – that is designed to protect your lean body mass.
As the paper nicely delineates, the problem with post-dieting weight regain is that the fat comes back first but that the drive to eat does not cease till you have also regained the lost lean body mass (muscle).
It appears as though there are two complimentary biological systems that regulate weight regain.
The better known system is the “adipostat” that worries about protecting and restoring fat mass – the neuroendocrine players include leptin and perhaps other signals derived from fat tissue that signal fat stores to the brain. This system works (primarily through dropping metabolic rate but also through effects on appetite) to very quickly and effectively restore the depleted fat mass after dieting.
The less known system is the “proteinstat”, that apparenty worries about restoring lean body mass. The system works slower than the “adipostat” but continues its activity (often reaching its peak) even after all the lost fat has been regained and you are back to your original weight. In fact, it continuous working (primarily through appetite and cravings) till lean body mass is restored, even if this means gaining even more fat in the process."
- See more at: http://www.drsharma.ca/#sthash.bN1rC9Rg.dpuf
I can't read the whole link! His site keeps stripping off the extension. So weird.
As far as formerly obese people not eating like real life skinny people? I don't see maintainers here complaining about their calories being less than expected.
If they eat in a different manner? How so? All sorts of people eat in all sorts of different ways. My husband likes breakfast. I don't.
We might have to be more mindful for the rest of our lives, but I don't see how that's a metabolic issue.
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?
1) no, not permanent - recovery may take a while (biosphere II study had a three year return period) or not, I've see a chart with 6 weeks return. Here's a study over a year that shows AT: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18842775
2) is a complex question - decreases in metabolism due to a variety of dietary factors ( insufficient protein, fats or carbs or macro nutrients) show up in secondary effects on hormone production. Down regulation of hormonal activity is well established. Different studies on macrocomposition of diet seem to suggest ... Well, I'm not yet convinced...
Here: take a look : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/226279120 -
RE: The TEF thing.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Long study talking about a lot of things.
They also checked differences in TEF between different diets.
They had them at 1500 calories with 15% protein first, then 1500 calories with 35% protein. If you don't want to get the calculator, they substituted 300 calories of carbs and fat with protein.
This resulted in a TEF increase of a stunning, incredible, mindblowing... 21 calories.
Caffeine: http://eprints.uitm.edu.my/8612/1/M.S. Razali.pdf
About an 8% total increase which sounds nice, but the amount of caffeine they were given was equivalent of 7 cups of coffee split up over the day.
Water: 10% of an hour of calorie expenditure is (TDEE of 2000) 2000/24*0.1 = 8 whooping calories more.
So as others have said, that whole article in OP is just majoring in the minors.0 -
EvgeniZyntx 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?
1) no, not permanent - recovery may take a while (biosphere II study had a three year return period) or not, I've see a chart with 6 weeks return. Here's a study over a year that shows AT: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18842775
2) is a complex question - decreases in metabolism due to a variety of dietary factors ( insufficient protein, fats or carbs or macro nutrients) show up in secondary effects on hormone production. Down regulation of hormonal activity is well established. Different studies on macrocomposition of diet seem to suggest ... Well, I'm not yet convinced...
Here: take a look : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22627912
I could kiss you for taking my questions seriously and finding answers. THANK YOU!!!
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Just an FYI, this was posted for informational reasons only, it was edited to remove all the adds that were not necessary to the post. No book promotion going on, this was taken from abc news and the National Institute of Health was the source of the news article. No hidden agenda's anywhere that I could see, just thought it was interesting. However, I'm not as smart as some other people and maybe I missed something, I'm just a fat person trying to lose weight and stay healthy.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »RE: The TEF thing.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Long study talking about a lot of things.
They also checked differences in TEF between different diets.
They had them at 1500 calories with 15% protein first, then 1500 calories with 35% protein. If you don't want to get the calculator, they substituted 300 calories of carbs and fat with protein.
This resulted in a TEF increase of a stunning, incredible, mindblowing... 21 calories.
Caffeine: http://eprints.uitm.edu.my/8612/1/M.S. Razali.pdf
About an 8% total increase which sounds nice, but the amount of caffeine they were given was equivalent of 7 cups of coffee split up over the day.
Water: 10% of an hour of calorie expenditure is (TDEE of 2000) 2000/24*0.1 = 8 whooping calories more.
So as others have said, that whole article in OP is just majoring in the minors.
Yep.
That whole food/ processed food one (aka the stupid sandwich study) compared the TEF of two sandwich meals. And makes a lot of week assumptions about actual cals of the sandwich and it has different fiber content.
And the wopping 50% difference in TEF calories was ... 70 cals +_ 20 cals. Well within an error of measurement. Terrible study.
Author was an undergraduate at the time - it's amazing this article gets cited over and over.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »RE: The TEF thing.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Long study talking about a lot of things.
They also checked differences in TEF between different diets.
They had them at 1500 calories with 15% protein first, then 1500 calories with 35% protein. If you don't want to get the calculator, they substituted 300 calories of carbs and fat with protein.
This resulted in a TEF increase of a stunning, incredible, mindblowing... 21 calories.
Caffeine: http://eprints.uitm.edu.my/8612/1/M.S. Razali.pdf
About an 8% total increase which sounds nice, but the amount of caffeine they were given was equivalent of 7 cups of coffee split up over the day.
Water: 10% of an hour of calorie expenditure is (TDEE of 2000) 2000/24*0.1 = 8 whooping calories more.
So as others have said, that whole article in OP is just majoring in the minors.
Yep.
That whole food/ processed food one (aka the stupid sandwich study) compared the TEF of two sandwich meals. And makes a lot of week assumptions about actual cals of the sandwich and it has different fiber content.
And the wopping 50% difference in TEF calories was ... 70 cals +_ 20 cals. Well within an error of measurement. Terrible study.
Author was an undergraduate at the time - it's amazing this article gets cited over and over.
Well, you could look at it as a barometer of the people who cite it. If they do, don't take what they say seriously.
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.
This is my exact problem with articles like this. It takes some limited science that says at most there is a very small reduction in BMR and turn it into "your metabolism is working against you." One, I want to know more about a reduction in BMR. In my experience it is not significant and it is not permanent. However we see countless times people hearing this, often from professionals with DEGREES....and come here saying that they have RUINED THEIR METABOLISM.
No, you haven't. And as a result people believe that they have to eat even less and therefore these kinds of articles are pretty damaging IMO.
The 6 tips in general I don't really have a problem with, even though what is really important is calories in vs. calories out. I don't like that this article and some others use some barely there and bunk science to say that if you've dieted that the calories out is going to be lower.
I must also be a special snowflake since I could have previously been classified as a yo yo dieter. I once lost weight on a LCD. My maintenance calories are also pretty gosh darn high. I seem to get no reduction in the amount of calories I need to maintain given my vast experience with obesity and dieting. Maybe that prof lady should study me......I could be the topic of her next research study. Wait, am I a member of the Avengers?
Ruined their metabolism, maybe not. Made weight loss significantly harder? Yes. Often.
Non lbm dependent adaptive thermogenesis can be as high as 10-15%. That's upto 300 calories of extra needed cutting, even before we consider lower lbm.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »RE: The TEF thing.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Long study talking about a lot of things.
They also checked differences in TEF between different diets.
They had them at 1500 calories with 15% protein first, then 1500 calories with 35% protein. If you don't want to get the calculator, they substituted 300 calories of carbs and fat with protein.
This resulted in a TEF increase of a stunning, incredible, mindblowing... 21 calories.
Caffeine: http://eprints.uitm.edu.my/8612/1/M.S. Razali.pdf
About an 8% total increase which sounds nice, but the amount of caffeine they were given was equivalent of 7 cups of coffee split up over the day.
Water: 10% of an hour of calorie expenditure is (TDEE of 2000) 2000/24*0.1 = 8 whooping calories more.
So as others have said, that whole article in OP is just majoring in the minors.
Yep.
That whole food/ processed food one (aka the stupid sandwich study) compared the TEF of two sandwich meals. And makes a lot of week assumptions about actual cals of the sandwich and it has different fiber content.
And the wopping 50% difference in TEF calories was ... 70 cals +_ 20 cals. Well within an error of measurement. Terrible study.
Author was an undergraduate at the time - it's amazing this article gets cited over and over.
Well, you could look at it as a barometer of the people who cite it. If they do, don't take what they say seriously.
Yep. It's a "too dumb to read the research" litmus test. TDTRDR - gonna trademark that.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
This is my exact problem with articles like this. It takes some limited science that says at most there is a very small reduction in BMR and turn it into "your metabolism is working against you." One, I want to know more about a reduction in BMR. In my experience it is not significant and it is not permanent. However we see countless times people hearing this, often from professionals with DEGREES....and come here saying that they have RUINED THEIR METABOLISM.
No, you haven't. And as a result people believe that they have to eat even less and therefore these kinds of articles are pretty damaging IMO.
The 6 tips in general I don't really have a problem with, even though what is really important is calories in vs. calories out. I don't like that this article and some others use some barely there and bunk science to say that if you've dieted that the calories out is going to be lower.
I must also be a special snowflake since I could have previously been classified as a yo yo dieter. I once lost weight on a LCD. My maintenance calories are also pretty gosh darn high. I seem to get no reduction in the amount of calories I need to maintain given my vast experience with obesity and dieting. Maybe that prof lady should study me......I could be the topic of her next research study. Wait, am I a member of the Avengers?
Ruined their metabolism, maybe not. Made weight loss significantly harder? Yes. Often.
Non lbm dependent adaptive thermogenesis can be as high as 10-15%. That's upto 300 calories of extra needed cutting, even before we consider lower lbm.
This one appears to be saying that it doesn't affect weight loss but does affect maintenance.
The truth is elusive...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/
Attempts to sustain weight loss invoke adaptive responses involving the coordinate actions of metabolic, neuroendocrine, autonomic, and behavioral changes that “oppose” the maintenance of a reduced bodyweight. This phenotype is distinct from that opposing dynamic weight loss per se. The multiplicity of systems regulating energy stores and opposing the maintenance of a reduced body weight illustrate that body energy stores in general and fat stores in particular are actively “defended” by interlocking bioenergetic and neurobiological physiologies. Important inferences can be drawn for therapeutic strategies by recognizing obesity as a state in which the human body actively opposes the “cure” over long periods of time beyond the initial resolution of symptomatology.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
This is my exact problem with articles like this. It takes some limited science that says at most there is a very small reduction in BMR and turn it into "your metabolism is working against you." One, I want to know more about a reduction in BMR. In my experience it is not significant and it is not permanent. However we see countless times people hearing this, often from professionals with DEGREES....and come here saying that they have RUINED THEIR METABOLISM.
No, you haven't. And as a result people believe that they have to eat even less and therefore these kinds of articles are pretty damaging IMO.
The 6 tips in general I don't really have a problem with, even though what is really important is calories in vs. calories out. I don't like that this article and some others use some barely there and bunk science to say that if you've dieted that the calories out is going to be lower.
I must also be a special snowflake since I could have previously been classified as a yo yo dieter. I once lost weight on a LCD. My maintenance calories are also pretty gosh darn high. I seem to get no reduction in the amount of calories I need to maintain given my vast experience with obesity and dieting. Maybe that prof lady should study me......I could be the topic of her next research study. Wait, am I a member of the Avengers?
Ruined their metabolism, maybe not. Made weight loss significantly harder? Yes. Often.
Non lbm dependent adaptive thermogenesis can be as high as 10-15%. That's upto 300 calories of extra needed cutting, even before we consider lower lbm.
This one appears to be saying that it doesn't affect weight loss but does affect maintenance.
The truth is elusive...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/
Attempts to sustain weight loss invoke adaptive responses involving the coordinate actions of metabolic, neuroendocrine, autonomic, and behavioral changes that “oppose” the maintenance of a reduced bodyweight. This phenotype is distinct from that opposing dynamic weight loss per se. The multiplicity of systems regulating energy stores and opposing the maintenance of a reduced body weight illustrate that body energy stores in general and fat stores in particular are actively “defended” by interlocking bioenergetic and neurobiological physiologies. Important inferences can be drawn for therapeutic strategies by recognizing obesity as a state in which the human body actively opposes the “cure” over long periods of time beyond the initial resolution of symptomatology.
Eh, when you dig a bit and go to the studies that they reference in the part where they talk about the reduced calorie intake for formerly obese individuals?
The findings are based on people who lost weight on VLC liquid diets in the studies.
0 -
I think it's time to pronounce this one dead.
0 -
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
I think I have whiplash from the change in what was being discussed. You have jumped from green tea to plant based foods. I am not sure what the above studies are trying to show in relation to the assertions in the article. If you are referring to my question asking for the studies - those are not it.
You are still missing the point here and focusing on one of the points. No-one is saying 'eat more fruits and vegetables' is not benign.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?
Plus, they do all these things in scenario A, expect a huge loss as those are going to rev up dat metabolism, do not see that huge loss from that metabolic furnace of theirs, get frustrated and despondent and give up.
It's missing some basics - it does not mention protein - which has a higher TEF than other macros and only has a passing nod to exercise.
0 -
There wasn't a coherent thought in the entire article.
Never trust an article that doesn't link to the study it claims to be interpreting.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
I think I have whiplash from the change in what was being discussed. You have jumped from green tea to plant based foods. I am not sure what the above studies are trying to show in relation to the assertions in the article. If you are referring to my question asking for the studies - those are not it.
You are still missing the point here and focusing on one of the points. No-one is saying 'eat more fruits and vegetables' is not benign.
Polyphenols (antioxidants present in fruit/veg) are also in green tea, which I mentioned in an earlier post. The links above suggest oxidative stress contributes to metabolic syndromes, and I think the general logic of the OP (and some of the research in this area) is that antioxidants (polyphenols, in fruit and veg and green tea) might reduce the impact of that stress, and help moderate metabolic issues .
You said "The points are not all benign, depending on the context and how people read them", I was responding to that. People could overdo it with caffeine, that's true, I guess.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."
Appear to? Estimates?
Also I think all the stuff about how the brain and body defend fat stores may just be a fancy way of saying fat girls love food and will tend to return to prior eating patterns and habits. The whole theory of this is what your brain must be doing almost makes the whole process seem involuntary
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
I think I have whiplash from the change in what was being discussed. You have jumped from green tea to plant based foods. I am not sure what the above studies are trying to show in relation to the assertions in the article. If you are referring to my question asking for the studies - those are not it.
You are still missing the point here and focusing on one of the points. No-one is saying 'eat more fruits and vegetables' is not benign.
Polyphenols (antioxidants present in fruit/veg) are also in green tea, which I mentioned in an earlier post. The links above suggest oxidative stress contributes to metabolic syndromes, and I think the general logic of the OP (and some of the research in this area) is that antioxidants (polyphenols, in fruit and veg and green tea) might reduce the impact of that stress, and help moderate metabolic issues .
You said "The points are not all benign, depending on the context and how people read them", I was responding to that. People could overdo it with caffeine, that's true, I guess.
Now I am even more confused as to who 'alluded' to what. The OP did not allude to anything - there was a link to the and article about the study they were referring to. The other comment they made about studies in that point was the rather confusing statement of "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." There was no link to this claim and none of your links seem to be relevant to it. The poster I was actually asking for links from referred to rat studies and related to processed v whole foods.
Also, the links above relate to MetS. One of then actually states that losing weight reducing oxidative stress - I cnot see any mention of polyphenols.
And again, I have never stated that getting a good amount of fruits and veggies is not a good thing - but you seem to be fixated on that point.0 -
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions