Is Your Metabolism Working Against You? For those that have not seen this.

MelodyandBarbells

Chrysalid2014 wrote: »

SezxyStef wrote: »

Chrysalid2014 wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

1. Is the decrease in metabolic rate permanent, if in fact there is one IF:

tomatoey wrote: »

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

Nony_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 article

most 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

Sarauk2sf

tomatoey wrote: »

Sarauk2sf wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

Sarauk2sf wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

Sarauk2sf wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

Sarauk2sf wrote: »

tomatoey 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).

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.