Starvation mode with too much exercise?

stevencloser

maillemaker wrote: »

So that would be next to no exercise/resistance training?

That's what I'm gathering, but I could be wrong.

Muscles being 20% more effective wouldn't result in a 10-15% total reduction though. Because most of your metabolism has absolutely nothing to do with your muscles.

I'll have to go find the quote again, but that's what they said. They said that most of the 10-15% total reduction was due to the increased efficiency of the skeletal muscles.

"Maintenance of a 10% or greater reduction in body weight in lean or obese individuals is accompanied by an approximate 20%-25% decline in 24-hour energy expenditure. This decrease in weight maintenance calories is 10–15% below what is predicted solely on the basis of alterations in fat and lean mass"
So metabolism reduces by 20-25%, but 10-15% of those are further than predicted.

"Some studies 16–18 report no change in REE following weight loss, while in others the maintenance of a reduced body weight is associated with modest reductions in REE accounting for about 10–15% of the decline in TEE beyond that predicted on the basis of body composition changes 11, 12, 19. "
10-15% of those 10-15% are from REE, that's your respiratory system and actually something you can't really do anything about.

Now here's the kicker:
"The pre-eminence of NREE - accounting for as much of 85–90% of the decline in TEE below predicted values in weight-reduced subjects 20, 22 could be due to declines in the actual amount of physical activity performed."
85-90% of the decline below predicted values(so that extra lower than expected amount) is from the NREE and that it could be because of reduced physical activity performed.

After that it talks about the more efficient muscles during exercise.

No matter how I calculate it though, 20% more efficient muscles during moving around do not equate to 85-90% of a metabolism reduction of 15%. Especially not if you barely exercise to begin with.

maillemaker

It's been at least a month since you've been harping on this issue, maybe 6 weeks. Can I ask how much weight you've lost in that time?

maillemaker

No matter how I calculate it though, 20% more efficient muscles during moving around do not equate to 85-90% of a metabolism reduction of 15%. Especially not if you barely exercise to begin with.

See the 38:38 point of this video:

http://videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?live=2993&bhcp=20

By the way, this is a co-author of the study cited above.

maethridge

tough crowd...

stevencloser

I'm sorry but that just doesn't seem to fit with the numbers.
Let's take me as an example. If I was sedentary, BMR around 1750 my calorie expenditure should be around 2100 calories per day according to calculators.

Now if we take that 15% number for a fact that would be 1785 instead, or a reduction of 315 calories below what it should be. 10% of that reduction now are changes in BMR as stated. So 31.5 calories, let's say 32. My BMR is now 1722. The rest are changes to my NREE which is part of the calories between BMR and TDEE. So of the 350 calories I burn from moving around on any given day, I have lost 283, or 80% of them which doesn't make sense no matter how you look at it.
Either my calculation is wrong, the guy is wrong, or both of us misunderstood some significant part of this whole thing.

maillemaker

Another relevant study:

http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/285/1/R183

"Effects of Weight Change on Skeletal Muscle Work Efficiency

Maintenance of a body weight 10% below Wtinitial was associated with significant increases in skeletal muscle GME to generate 10 and 25 W, but not 50 W, of power. The percent increase in GME at Wt-10% compared with Wtinitial steadily diminished as exercise intensity increased. Mean (SD) %change in efficiency at Wt-10% compared with Wtinitial were +26.5 (26.7)% (P < 0.001) to generate 10 W of power, +23.2 (25.8)% (P = 0.027) to generate 25 W of power, and +9.0 (19.4)% (P = 0.062.) to generate 50 W of power (see Table 2). Maintenance of a body weight 10% above Wtinitial was associated with significant decreases in skeletal muscle GME to generate 10 but not 50 W of power. Mean (SD) %change in efficiency at Wt+10% compared with Wtinitial were -17.8 (20.5)% (P = 0.043) to generate 10 W of power and -3.2 (12.1)% (NS) to generate 50 W of power (see Table 2). No significant effects of gender or initial somatotype on changes in skeletal muscle work efficiency were noted."

GME = Gross Mechanical Efficiency.

The way I am reading the above is that for reduced body weight, with moderate exercise, GME remains increased. But with increased exercise (50 watts) the effect was mitigated.

I'm not sure I'm reading it correctly though.

maillemaker

So the answer is you've gained weight? Do you think you would have had more success if you tried to figure out how to lose weight as opposed to looking for the reasons why you are destined to not lose weight?

Are we looking at the same graph?

I have lost weight.

senecarr

Actually, looked up the study cited for the remark 10-20% increase in efficiency:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12609816
There are confounding factors I can't clear from just the summary though - it would be nice to get the whole paper.
From what I can tell, they had the people pedal on a bike an record their efficiency before weight loss, and after. The problem with this is, those aren't completely apples to apples. During the testing at 10% weight loss, they haven't just lost weight - they've practiced the motor patterns for efficiently pedaling a bike.
They're measuring entire energy expenditure versus 10 or 25 W output to a bike. If you've lost weight, including in your legs, pedaling a 10 or 25 W output requires less power to move legs. While they claim the in efficiency can't be accounted for purely by weight, I don't see how much they say can be attributed.
Finally, nothing in the study says that this efficiency is related to being heavy and then thin. Nothing shows that the new efficiency is different for a person who was once heavier versus someone who has always been at their ideal weight.

maillemaker

I'm sorry but that just doesn't seem to fit with the numbers.
Let's take me as an example. If I was sedentary, BMR around 1750 my calorie expenditure should be around 2100 calories per day according to calculators.

Now if we take that 15% number for a fact that would be 1785 instead, or a reduction of 315 calories below what it should be. 10% of that reduction now are changes in BMR as stated. So 31.5 calories, let's say 32. My BMR is now 1722. The rest are changes to my NREE which is part of the calories between BMR and TDEE. So of the 350 calories I burn from moving around on any given day, I have lost 283, or 80% of them which doesn't make sense no matter how you look at it.
Either my calculation is wrong, the guy is wrong, or both of us misunderstood some significant part of this whole thing.

All I know is that scientists in more than one study say that a 10% reduction in weight results in about a 20% increase in skeletal muscle efficiency and about a 10%-15% reduction in overall metabolism.

So if you previously needed 2100 calories to maintain, if you lost 10% of your weight you would need 10%-15% less calories than someone of the same weight who had not lost weight.

maillemaker

There are confounding factors I can't clear from just the summary though - it would be nice to get the whole paper.

The entire paper is here:
http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/285/1/R183

DeguelloTex

MrM27 wrote: »

maillemaker wrote: »

So the answer is you've gained weight? Do you think you would have had more success if you tried to figure out how to lose weight as opposed to looking for the reasons why you are destined to not lose weight?

Are we looking at the same graph?

I have lost weight.

From looking at that up and down chart in the frame of 4/20-4/27 your weight is lower than the very last point of on the chart or right around the same, no? It makes it more difficult to know numbers by looking at lines. Looks like in the last 3 months total you're looking at maybe 6 lbs lost, correct? You know it could be better than that.

It looks more like 22 pounds to me. 284 to 262.

maillemaker

From looking at that up and down chart in the frame of 4/20-4/27 your weight is lower than the very last point of on the chart or right around the same, no? It makes it more difficult to know numbers by looking at lines. Looks like in the last 3 months total you're looking at maybe 6 lbs lost, correct? You know it could be better than that.

I re-started dieting on 2/18. I started weighing on 2/28 with my new scale. I was 272.1 pounds on 2/28. I am currently 261.4, for a loss of 10.7 pounds over 13 weeks, or approximately .82 pounds per week.

The best I have ever achieved was 1.2 pounds per week.

I have MFP set at a 2-pound-per-week loss, and it has me at 1570 calories per day. I don't always hit it.

maillemaker

It looks more like 22 pounds to me. 284 to 262.

I am down 28 pounds from my maximum of 291 pounds on 8/24/2014.



However, I am now about where I was this time last year (MFP charts on PC only goes back one year).

Last year I lost 30 pounds and gained it all back. Since August I have lost it again.

sgirl2009

More calories burned than consumed results in weight loss, no matter what. You could have 100 calories everyday and work-out, and even though it's not recommended, you will still lose weight.

maillemaker

Okay so you've lost .8 per week, even though it could be better that's still progress. Now wouldn't you energy be better spent researching what you can do this time to not gain the weight back or how you can give others advice on what to do the succeed instead of constantly telling people why they will fail? It's kind of like you are setting yourself up for justification as to why you won't have long term or even semi long term success.

I am not "telling people why they will fail."

This is a discussion about the metabolic consequences of weight loss and exercise.

I am providing scientific citations about the metabolic consequences of weight loss.

Weight loss of 10% results in about a 10%-15% reduction in metabolism beyond what is accounted for by the simple loss of body mass. It is a defense reaction to the loss of fat mass.

While this and other defensive reactions almost certainly do contribute to why people fail to maintain weight loss long-term, I have made no comments on that in this thread.

stevencloser

maillemaker wrote: »

I'm sorry but that just doesn't seem to fit with the numbers.
Let's take me as an example. If I was sedentary, BMR around 1750 my calorie expenditure should be around 2100 calories per day according to calculators.

Now if we take that 15% number for a fact that would be 1785 instead, or a reduction of 315 calories below what it should be. 10% of that reduction now are changes in BMR as stated. So 31.5 calories, let's say 32. My BMR is now 1722. The rest are changes to my NREE which is part of the calories between BMR and TDEE. So of the 350 calories I burn from moving around on any given day, I have lost 283, or 80% of them which doesn't make sense no matter how you look at it.
Either my calculation is wrong, the guy is wrong, or both of us misunderstood some significant part of this whole thing.

All I know is that scientists in more than one study say that a 10% reduction in weight results in about a 20% increase in skeletal muscle efficiency and about a 10%-15% reduction in overall metabolism.

So if you previously needed 2100 calories to maintain, if you lost 10% of your weight you would need 10%-15% less calories than someone of the same weight who had not lost weight.

Well, I did lose 10% of my original weight. 20% even. Can't say that my TDEE went down.