'Why you can't blame your slow metabolism for piling on the pounds'

skysiebaby

I know I know, its the Daily Fail BUT it popped up in a friends news feed so I read it and it's actually quite interesting so I thought I would share. And seeing as I had this debate with someone recently.

They measured metabolic rates between two people in the calorimeter rooms at University Hospital Coventry and the conclusion is...well... just what we always knew.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3376765/Why-t-blame-slow-metabolism-piling-pounds-s-excuse-use-unique-experiment-proves-s-poppycock.html

LivingtheLeanDream

its a convenient excuse though...

PaulaWallaDingDong

I remember being so disappointed to find out that I'm actually completely normal and I got to be 250 lbs by being lazy and eating too much. Who gets disappointed that they don't have something wrong with them? We're so good at lying to ourselves.

Colorscheme

There's a few cases where one may not actually be able to lose weight easily at all. For example, Prader Willi Syndrome. It's a disorder where one never actually feels full and there's more to it than that but that's the gist of it. I watched a documentary and a kid had to be kept on an 800 cal diet along with exercise to lose even a little bit of weight from the disease. But that is rare.

There is also Cushing's, which can be treated but until then, weight gain occurs initially. There are also antipsychotics, which cause fatigue and increased hunger.

But for the majority of people, weight loss is possible. No one defies the laws of thermodynamics.

PhoenyxRose

realityfades wrote: »

There's a few cases where one may not actually be able to lose weight easily at all. For example, Prader Willi Syndrome. It's a disorder where one never actually feels full and there's more to it than that but that's the gist of it. I watched a documentary and a kid had to be kept on an 800 cal diet along with exercise to lose even a little bit of weight from the disease. But that is rare.

There is also Cushing's, which can be treated but until then, weight gain occurs initially. There are also antipsychotics, which cause fatigue and increased hunger.

But for the majority of people, weight loss is possible. No one defies the laws of thermodynamics.

Yeah but most of those disorders don't apply to the majority of the population (I.e. Prader willi (and other metabolic disorders) causes mental retardation among other things most people don't have).

Colorscheme

PhoenyxRose wrote: »

realityfades wrote: »

There's a few cases where one may not actually be able to lose weight easily at all. For example, Prader Willi Syndrome. It's a disorder where one never actually feels full and there's more to it than that but that's the gist of it. I watched a documentary and a kid had to be kept on an 800 cal diet along with exercise to lose even a little bit of weight from the disease. But that is rare.

There is also Cushing's, which can be treated but until then, weight gain occurs initially. There are also antipsychotics, which cause fatigue and increased hunger.

But for the majority of people, weight loss is possible. No one defies the laws of thermodynamics.

Yeah but most of those disorders don't apply to the majority of the population (I.e. Prader willi (and other metabolic disorders) causes mental retardation among other things most people don't have).

Which is why I said it is rare and comes with other problems. And then at the end I said that one defies the law of thermodynamics.

The issue is that people would rather find something to blame for their weight gain instead of admitting it's because they eat too much. Denial is a big problem.

juggernaut1974

Well, while I hardly agree that an experiment with a subject population of n=2 proves that everyone has approximately the same metabolic rate (not to mention some of the questionable claims toward the end of the article - I mean it IS the Daily Mail after all); the point should be well taken. Slow metabolism tends to be a convenient excuse. And an even more common mistake is that even in the rare cases where it is applicable, it doesn't invalidate the concepts of CICO. Rather, it merely invalidates the applicability of general population averages to those affected.

redcrow9

my slow metabolism blames my lazy @$$ and I agree with it completely lol

Colorscheme

juggernaut1974 wrote: »

Well, while I hardly agree that an experiment with a subject population of n=2 proves that everyone has approximately the same metabolic rate (not to mention some of the questionable claims toward the end of the article - I mean it IS the Daily Mail after all); the point should be well taken. Slow metabolism tends to be a convenient excuse. And an even more common mistake is that even in the rare cases where it is applicable, it doesn't invalidate the concepts of CICO. Rather, it merely invalidates the applicability of general population averages to those affected.

Society expects quick fixes. Look at this board, there are always posts about fad diets and weight loss pills. If those actually worked then there would be no obesity epidemic. It's more easy to come up with an excuse than it is to get moving and change your lifestyle.

Raynne413

I found the article, and the test, very interesting, but I would be curious to see the results if they tested two women (one serial dieter, one not), and two men (one serial dieter, one not), against each other.

Need2Exerc1se

I can't get the link to work, but two people? Two? That's not enough data to suggest anything.

ultrahoon

I think it's incredibly depressing that so many people will accept a study with n=2 of non random participants purely because it is telling them something they know to be true / really sounds like it should be true to them.

If this was a study claiming that eating cake made you slimmer if you were at maintenance and had the sample size of two, people here would be utterly eviscerating the 'research'.

Standards of proof go both ways people. You can''t have a lower threshold for evidence that supports things you like, that's confirmation bias, and it's how things that are not true in any way shape or form get repeated so often that others believe them to be fact.

(e.g the fact that most people still believe that your hair and nails continue to grow after you die despite it being utterly shredded over and over, all because the first couple of bits of 'research' were not done correctly, but people thought it was cool, so they spread the word.)

AnvilHead

How about a more scientific look at it?: bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/

An excerpt from the summary:

Because in no study that i have ever seen or ever been aware of has the drop in metabolic rate (whether due to the drop in weight or adaptive component) EVER exceeded the actual deficit whether in men or women. Fine, yes, it may offset things, it may slow fat loss (i.e. if you set up a 30% caloric deficit and metabolic rate drops by 20%, your deficit is only 10% so fat loss is a lot slower than expected or predicted) but it has never been sufficient to either stop fat loss completely (or, even to address the even stupider claim being made about this, to cause actual fat gain).

But even when the drop in metabolic rate is massive, sufficient to drastically slow fat loss, even when it occurs it’s only when that person’s body has more or less reached the limits of leanness in the first place. So for ‘hundreds of women who are self-reporting this in emails’ to a certain coach to exist, well; just let me call that what it is: bull****.

I think what’s really going on is you have a bunch of neurotic crazed female dieters, who are misreporting their food intake (especially the crazy food binges we KNOW happen in this population) and who are holding onto massive amounts of water due to the combination of low calories, high-cardio and being bat**** stressed mentally about the whole process. And who magically start losing fat again when their poorly controlled 1200 calories becomes a well-controlled 1250 calories, well….you’ll have to call me incredulous about the whole thing.

Because the science doesn’t support it in any way shape or form. No study in humans in 50 years has ever shown the claimed phenomenon. I mean not ever. Not a single study showing truly stopped fat loss in the face of a controlled deficit much less fat regain. And with plenty of other mechanisms (like water retention) to explain the “apparent” lack of fat loss that make more logical sense (Occam’s razor for the win).

tomteboda

DISCLAIMER: The following is in no way an apologetic for obesity.

Difference Between Metabolism and Catabolism

The chamber in the tabloid article (not study) attempted to measure catabolism, not the full metabolism of each individual. Even in the tabloid article, they clearly stated that metabolic rate was estimated using body tissue analysis estimations, which are blanket and constant for all.

Individual differences in metabolism (not catabolism) do exist, they are well-documented. This in no way invalidates CICO theory. What it means is that for some people, attaining a specific weight will require either fewer calories in or more calories out than for other people. It doesn't take dramatic shifts between individuals to create a difference that's readily apparent; a mere 50 calorie a day difference could account for over 50 lbs in 10 years. Our ability to establish homeostasis with weight is also not well-understood, and its entirely conceivable some individuals find this balance much easier to maintain than others. Certainly the disruptive effects of corticosteroids and antipsychotic medications in this respect are well-established.

These variations are related to variations in enzyme function, microbiome, and other factors that we are only beginning to understand. These metabolic differences affect everything from when people experience puberty or menopause to cancer to heart disease to resistance to infectious diseases to autoimmune disease. Metabolic variations also include variations in insulin sensitivity and the production of hormones such as leptin which regulate the experience of hunger and satiety; a person who biochemically feels hungry more will almost always eat more.

Why weight is somehow "exempt" from the same controls that have variations between individuals (as in people believe metabolism doesn't influence it at all) is really quite baffling.

I had over a dozen references, but honestly I'm a little tired now (and I accidentally closed the window). So I suggest a visit to Google Scholar and the following search terms: "metabolic variation in humans obesity" "homeostasis weight gain" and "homeostasis metabolism variation weight human". Also, you may want to spend some time looking at "insulin resistance weight human". Many of the best articles are behind paywalls. If you are truly curious about them, most can be accessed through institutional subscriptions via a university library. However, merely the abstracts are illuminating in the wide variations that occur between people.

tomteboda

The truth is a lot of people have to work hard to maintain weights that are functionally healthy. Some have to work harder than others, sometimes. It's not bad to admit that. But once you admit it, then you can ask the question, "Am I ready to do what it's going to take FOR ME." Because wallowing in self-pity over an unfair biological reality will only get you a year older and no healthier.

Honestly I'm not going to judge other people for their decisions about how much time and effort they want to spend on their bodies. I'm not going to spend much time listening to them whine that it's impossible, either. It's about as useful as complaining to a pianist that you want to play piano but you don't want to spend 30-60 minutes a day practicing.

amietest

It is a lot harder to lose weight at 45 than at 25, metabolism is slower and the magic exercise and intake numbers are harder to achieve. Doesn't make it impossible but does make it harder

middlehaitch

@amietest Depending on ones gender, height, and weight it is only 50-100 cals a decade.

Being petite I, at 62 have a metabolism, BMI, that according to on line calculators, should be 200 cals less than at 22.

This can be counteracted to a certain extent by being as active as I was at 22 (we naturally slow as we age) and making sure I have a good LBM ( because we slow down we lose muscle and bone density, less muscle and bone = lower metabolism= lower BMI.

Lifting weights/doing resistance training as you age helps counteract lowering ones BMI, and keeps the metabolism higher.

Losing weight when you are young, older, or old can be hard for some; easy for others.

Cheers, h.
Sorry for going a bit off topic there folks.