Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
NYTimes reports that 'Biggest Losers' have decreased metabolism
sprc1616
Posts: 14 Member
in Debate Club
As someone who is just now back in the game after a weight loss rebound, I found this interesting and I admit, a bit depressing. It would be interesting to see if the decrease in metabolic rate is less for people who start from the same weight as the BL contestants but do a less extreme form of diet. I'd also like to hear from people who have kept it off - what was different about their situation?
http:/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html
http:/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html
1
Replies
-
He regained 100 pounds over 6 and a half years, that's just over a pound per month or 0.3 pounds per week. That translates to a mere 150 calorie surplus per day, a banana more per day.
That can happen to anyone if they're not paying attention, if you lost weight before or not, and because it's so slow it creeps up on you.
How they got to 800 calories less than other people their weight I don't know, we'll have to wait until the study is published.12 -
So, according to what I just read 'starvation mode' is no longer a myth?
It seems this proves that if you cut calories, you will suffer a pretty severe decline in the ability to burn calories after you lose significant weight and it is inevitable that hunger will drive people to regain, no matter how hard they try to keep weight down.
Great news, thanks SPRC.....
0 -
Would like some more information as to how they kept to a reasonable level of calories and exercise.0
-
So, according to what I just read 'starvation mode' is no longer a myth?
It seems this proves that if you cut calories, you will suffer a pretty severe decline in the ability to burn calories after you lose significant weight and it is inevitable that hunger will drive people to regain, no matter how hard they try to keep weight down.
Great news, thanks SPRC.....
Personal experience says no, that doesn't generally happen.5 -
What makes it questionable is the evolutionary approach. If your body has the ability to just lower your metabolism by 800 calories and keep you functional despite that, why doesn't it do that all the time? It would help prevent deaths by famine and in turn raise the rate of survival of the species as a whole. It would be a favorable trait that gets passed down as always active.9
-
Thank you for responding Stevencloser. We'll wait for the published report.
My experience has been that for 5 years I kept my weight down. Then I made the conscious decision to stop restricting calories after reading some science on age related metabolism shifts downwards, some statistics on death
rates of older people comparing bmi, and about bone loss and related bmi. So my weight gain wasn't 'biological' as the above artical suggests, it was logical for me. However, my 'free eating' took me above a weight I felt was healthy and now I am trimming again.
I find this recent news is perhaps believable in that I did feel that over the 5 years I kept my old weight off, it seemed I had to eat less than other peopel of my height weight and age. Having said that, I also know that my activity level dropped significantly in the last two years of maintenance. Having said that, the level of activity I had been able to do earlier in maintenance became harder and harder to sustain as I got older. So with the maintenance calories I used and sustaining a high level of activity, I was finding that weakness and hunger got more and more tiresome.
For me that was the catalyst for stopping restricting myself to a certain number of calories.
The article says caloric restriction does not work. Well, they quote one doctor involved on the study as saying that anyways.0 -
This is a really interesting article and I'm looking forward to reading the study too.
My take is that, yes, it could be seen as depressing, but I don't find it that way for a couple of reasons.- I can readily accept that my BMR is lower now than it was when I was obese AND also lower than would be expected for someone else my height and weight who hadn't been obese. However, on a purely practical level, I'm only interested in my own experience, and if I have to eat less than some other mysterious hypothetical person then so what? All I know is the amount I need to eat now to maintain what I've lost.
- I can also readily accept that the short 20-30 min run I do essentially gives me possibly the calorie deficit which I need to maintain my weight. It's like I'm doing my run and it's just a "waste of calories" since I can't, in theory, eat those calories back. But on the other hand, I get a huge amount of satisfaction and personal pleasure from my run, in addition to the wonderful cardiovascular and other benefits, which help to keep my good cholesterol up, my lung capacity functioning, my muscles toned and help me build the strength needed to prevent fractures and falls as I age. So the calorie thing is not something I even really think about. I do my workouts for other reasons.
I do feel terribly for some of these people. But they should hopefully get some comfort from the fact that their experiences will most likely help millions of other people in the future through this study and studies which follow. I'm grateful to them.12 -
dopeysmelly wrote: »This is a really interesting article and I'm looking forward to reading the study too.
My take is that, yes, it could be seen as depressing, but I don't find it that way for a couple of reasons.- I can readily accept that my BMR is lower now than it was when I was obese AND also lower than would be expected for someone else my height and weight who hadn't been obese. However, on a purely practical level, I'm only interested in my own experience, and if I have to eat less than some other mysterious hypothetical person then so what? All I know is the amount I need to eat now to maintain what I've lost.
- I can also readily accept that the short 20-30 min run I do essentially gives me possibly the calorie deficit which I need to maintain my weight. It's like I'm doing my run and it's just a "waste of calories" since I can't, in theory, eat those calories back. But on the other hand, I get a huge amount of satisfaction and personal pleasure from my run, in addition to the wonderful cardiovascular and other benefits, which help to keep my good cholesterol up, my lung capacity functioning, my muscles toned and help me build the strength needed to prevent fractures and falls as I age. So the calorie thing is not something I even really think about. I do my workouts for other reasons.
I do feel terribly for some of these people. But they should hopefully get some comfort from the fact that their experiences will most likely help millions of other people in the future through this study and studies which follow. I'm grateful to them.
I'm glad to see such a positive attitude in your approach. That certainly seems the best option in view of the news we have heard. I'm glad your plan of eating and running is working for you and can give you many healthy years ahead.
I somehow think that the science behind this article will bring insight into the problem of obesity and may open up ways for people to be healtheir.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »He regained 100 pounds over 6 and a half years, that's just over a pound per month or 0.3 pounds per week. That translates to a mere 150 calorie surplus per day, a banana more per day.
That can happen to anyone if they're not paying attention, if you lost weight before or not, and because it's so slow it creeps up on you.
This is a really good point! Another line that stood out to me is the person who said, "“I’d eat five bites. Then I’d black out and eat the whole bag of chips and say, ‘What did I do?’" That definitely reminded me with my own experiences in binge eating candy. I no longer allow myself to buy a theater-size box of candy since I know I'll eat them all at once - I believe that if you know certain foods trigger binges, it might be better to avoid those foods altogether.7 -
Most people know that someone who gained muscle, then stopped training for say 5 years, then restarts training again, can gain muscle back faster than one who is just trying to initially put it on. I'm assuming the same could be happening with fat cells. I'd have to research this more.
As to the contestants having lower metabolic rates, remember they were in CONSISTENT exercise mode 7 days a week for 6 hours a day for months. I'm more than sure that that had an effect on how their hormonal balance responded. I'd like to also know what their testosterone levels and HGH were before and after, but I doubt they measured for that at the beginning of the show.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
7 -
Dopeysmelley, your positive thinking is great. 0
-
I don't really understand the science behind this, but I think losing weight in a speed and manner like the Biggest Loser contestants do is probably just not conducive to keeping weight off long term for other reasons. I don't know how much they are really learning to make long-term lifestyle changes and behaviors from living on a ranch under constant supervision and in a competition atmosphere, working out hours and hours per day and majorly restricting their calories.
It's a great way to lose a ton of weight really quickly, but probably not so helpful at helping people make permanent changes because no one can keep that up forever.7 -
You always have to wonder what lead to the weight gain in the first place ? You always have to fix that first.
the diet etc is easy its why did you ever need to diet is the hard question.4 -
I would be interested to see how this information applies to someone losing slowly through proper diet (meaning sufficient calories instead of this extremely low calorie stuff) and reasonable amounts of exercise. The Biggest Loser is not "reality"--who has time to exercise 7-8 hours a day? I do one hour per day, and some of those are lighter days (if I've worked really hard the day before, I might just do a one-hour walk instead of a harder workout). I'm losing slowly (it's taken 2 1/2 months to lose 17 pounds!). I just wonder if these same effects would be observed in people losing gradually instead of this extreme and rapid loss the Biggest Loser contestants experience.8
-
kmbrooks15 wrote: »I would be interested to see how this information applies to someone losing slowly through proper diet (meaning sufficient calories instead of this extremely low calorie stuff) and reasonable amounts of exercise. The Biggest Loser is not "reality"--who has time to exercise 7-8 hours a day? I do one hour per day, and some of those are lighter days (if I've worked really hard the day before, I might just do a one-hour walk instead of a harder workout). I'm losing slowly (it's taken 2 1/2 months to lose 17 pounds!). I just wonder if these same effects would be observed in people losing gradually instead of this extreme and rapid loss the Biggest Loser contestants experience.
Excellent points. I have always looked at this as a lifestyle change and not a diet. To me a diet is a temporary action. It only makes sense that once the supervision and hard core exercise stop the pounds come back. These people should have developed the tools and discipline to maintain. The other side of it is that its not easy, I am currently trying to lose the twenty pounds I put on when I slacked up on my running.0 -
I read this article and was looking on here to see who had commented!! Yes, at first glance the article is kind of depressing- but as a physician and as someone who has lost weight and kept it off for right at 10 years now, with a few minor ups and downs, I tended to doubt it. There are two main caveats. The first one, as kmbrooks described really well, is that they studied a situation which does not apply to most of us and which we already know is bad. That poor guy was eating SO LITTLE and exercising SO MUCH- it's no wonder his body got totally confused! The second thing is the comment about the Starburst candy. I recently heard a lecture at a medical conference that presented similar data- what causes most of us to gain weight slowly over the years is just that extra paltry 10 or 20 calories a day! Just a little change in our daily routines can make all the difference!
6 -
My gut, non-scientific feeling is that this could be a result of the methods the participants used to lose the weight. It is very interesting and could lead to a better understanding of the human body, but most people do not go about losing weight in such an extreme manner. It would be interesting to compare to individuals who lost slowly.
The people on this show go from sedintary to spending more time exercising than professional athletes. It really shouldn't be surprising there could be consequences to that. Creating 3,500 calorie deficit to lose 1 pound a day for weeks? I really feel bad for them if indeed the case is that they have done permanent damage, but maybe we can get over the quick is better mindset we have. Maybe this could be a cautionary story against extreme measures.
When it comes to permanent weight loss, the tortoise wins.4 -
My gut, non-scientific feeling is that this could be a result of the methods the participants used to lose the weight. It is very interesting and could lead to a better understanding of the human body, but most people do not go about losing weight in such an extreme manner. It would be interesting to compare to individuals who lost slowly.
The people on this show go from sedintary to spending more time exercising than professional athletes. It really shouldn't be surprising there could be consequences to that. Creating 3,500 calorie deficit to lose 1 pound a day for weeks? I really feel bad for them if indeed the case is that they have done permanent damage, but maybe we can get over the quick is better mindset we have. Maybe this could be a cautionary story against extreme measures.
When it comes to permanent weight loss, the tortoise wins.
Yeah, this was a very interesting article, but I think we should be cautious about drawing conclusions for everyone from the information in it. These people created extreme calorie deficits (one guy was going for 3,500 *per day*). I would be interested to see a study of people who lost large amounts of weight using a more reasonable deficit. Would their leptin be totally depleted, as it was for the people in this study? Would their metabolism be impacted so dramatically?1 -
My gut, non-scientific feeling is that this could be a result of the methods the participants used to lose the weight. It is very interesting and could lead to a better understanding of the human body, but most people do not go about losing weight in such an extreme manner. It would be interesting to compare to individuals who lost slowly.
The people on this show go from sedintary to spending more time exercising than professional athletes. It really shouldn't be surprising there could be consequences to that. Creating 3,500 calorie deficit to lose 1 pound a day for weeks? I really feel bad for them if indeed the case is that they have done permanent damage, but maybe we can get over the quick is better mindset we have. Maybe this could be a cautionary story against extreme measures.
When it comes to permanent weight loss, the tortoise wins.
I agree, my first thought was that this was more proof that extreme dieting can cause major issues than the idea that weight loss is impossible.
IIRC, former contestants have talked about using diuretics and being extremely dehydrated to squeeze every last % out of their weight loss. I am pretty sure people have talked about peeing blood before the finale because they were so dehydrated.
If anything, it just indicates the show isn't doing the contestants any favors, and you're better off being a home viewer who is inspired to lose weight normally than you are being a contestant where losing weight comes before basic health needs.
Also, I would be curious if anyone tested their metabolic rates before the show...whether for TV or real, there's been shots of contestants who would eat a whole pizza on their own, stop at the drive thru and still eat dinner when they got home, etc., and that's got to screw up your metabolism even before NBC gets their grubby paws on you.5 -
Soon after starting here I happened upon this blog of heybales' that discusses a study on the effect of a calorie deficit on TDEE. You can link to the study through the blog, and I think the blog is worth reading too, so am linking it: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales?month=201401
The results of this study are that size of deficit makes a difference, and that a deficit of 25% when made up half of exercise and half of calorie cutting (so only cutting 12.5% from original calories and then ramping up exercise/activity) actually resulted in an increased TDEE, whereas the low calorie approach reduced TDEE the most.
Therefore, I would not extrapolate from the BL study to the general dieting population.
Also, Yoni Freedhoff has been writing about this for a while: http://www.weightymatters.ca/2012/04/biggest-loser-destroys-participants.html6 -
Lose a lot of weight very fast in a highly controlled and artificial enviroment bordering on lunacy and then rebound in an uncontrolled environment? Okay. Nothing to see here. See the 3-4 other threads on this topic this morning.1
-
I read this article and was about to post it on the MFP community but I am glad someone else already did. I had similar reaction as other comments, I was both fascinated to have this insight and depressed.
I am surprised that an extreme weight loss challenge such as the Biggest Loser is being used as a credible study. I am no fitness or nutrition expert, but I do know that every body is different and losing weight is a lifestyle change that sometimes takes time. The contestants on the show lose a huge amount of weight so rapidly, that even without knowing details of their grueling and unsustainable regimen I'd say it was unhealthy and going to mess with their body's normal functioning.
This is my first time using MFP. I have now been using it for four months upon recommendation by my personal trainer. My goals are to workout more consistently now and into the future, build muscle and loose weight (12-15 lbs) and keep the weight off. I have lost 9 lbs so far and it has taken a lot of work, but one that I have enjoyed. I started going to the gym consistently since May last year and this is the first time in my life that I have stuck to my fitness routine for a whole year and that is a big change for me.
In the past I have lost weight twice after having my children with Weight Watchers, the last time was about 5-6 yrs ago. I believe MFP is a lot more nuanced and allows you details on your nutrition beyond just calories. But with both I never ate my exercise calories yet I do feel that I am losing weight much more slowly now. I am not concerned about the present but what I would be interested in is a study that offers specifics on how a woman's metabolism changes with age and what can be done to compensate to maintain your weight as long as your lifestyle and eating habits remain the same.
2 -
That's exactly what I was thinking when I read the article. I'm losing at an average rate of 1.8 lbs per week. It will take me a good long time to lose 70 pounds at this rate, but along the way I am learning a lot about why I gained so much weight in the first place, how to make better food choices, and that I actually can enjoy exercise. If it turns out that my actual post-weight loss TDEE is lower than someone of similar age, size and activity, I'm OK with that. What I'm not OK with is making excuses and regaining the weight.kmbrooks15 wrote: »I would be interested to see how this information applies to someone losing slowly through proper diet (meaning sufficient calories instead of this extremely low calorie stuff) and reasonable amounts of exercise..... I just wonder if these same effects would be observed in people losing gradually instead of this extreme and rapid loss the Biggest Loser contestants experience.
4 -
Here is the full article of the study.
Persistent metabolic adaptation 6 years after “The Biggest Loser” competition
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/full2 -
That's exactly what I was thinking when I read the article. I'm losing at an average rate of 1.8 lbs per week. It will take me a good long time to lose 70 pounds at this rate, but along the way I am learning a lot about why I gained so much weight in the first place, how to make better food choices, and that I actually can enjoy exercise. If it turns out that my actual post-weight loss TDEE is lower than someone of similar age, size and activity, I'm OK with that. What I'm not OK with is making excuses and regaining the weight.kmbrooks15 wrote: »I would be interested to see how this information applies to someone losing slowly through proper diet (meaning sufficient calories instead of this extremely low calorie stuff) and reasonable amounts of exercise..... I just wonder if these same effects would be observed in people losing gradually instead of this extreme and rapid loss the Biggest Loser contestants experience.
I doesn't apply. The specific study was an analysis of extreme weight loss.
See also the discussion of
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3387402/
"Although metabolic adaptation acts to decrease the rate of weight loss, it was the subjects with the greatest weight loss who had the greatest metabolic adaptation. This suggests that the magnitude of the intervention plays a role in determining both the degree of weight loss as well as the metabolic response acting to counter weight loss."1 -
stevencloser wrote: »What makes it questionable is the evolutionary approach. If your body has the ability to just lower your metabolism by 800 calories and keep you functional despite that, why doesn't it do that all the time? It would help prevent deaths by famine and in turn raise the rate of survival of the species as a whole. It would be a favorable trait that gets passed down as always active.
Because it is a suboptimal adaptation - this down-regulation seems to result in poor physiological function along the hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroid axis. There are evidently other evolutionary pressures that make a non-slug life likelier to survive to the next generation - we tend to prefer active healthy looking partners and not sallow, sludgy SleepyMcSleepies.0 -
This is the usual scaremonger tactics to discourage weightloss, or more exact, free/unassisted/unpaid weightloss, because it's always followed up by some drastic measure that we can buy/undergo. But fear not! It should be taken as a cautionary tale, to not go to extremes. MFP teaches the opposite of what TBL stands for. I am so grateful I found this site. Keeping weight off can be done, it takes an effort, but it can be done, you just have to be vigilant and kind to yourself.7
-
Vigilant and kind is good. Thank you for thatkommodevaran wrote: »This is the usual scaremonger tactics to discourage weightloss, or more exact, free/unassisted/unpaid weightloss, because it's always followed up by some drastic measure that we can buy/undergo. But fear not! It should be taken as a cautionary tale, to not go to extremes. MFP teaches the opposite of what TBL stands for. I am so grateful I found this site. Keeping weight off can be done, it takes an effort, but it can be done, you just have to be vigilant and kind to yourself.
1 -
Here is the full article of the study.
Persistent metabolic adaptation 6 years after “The Biggest Loser” competition
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/full
Something I posted on different thread on the same subject:
Taking the numbers from table1 and running them through the McArdle equation shows that there is indeed a large metabolic adaptation.
In blue, the numbers from the article.
In green, my calculations for RMR based on Katch-McArdle Formula (x 1.25 activity level for RMR from BMR). This tends to agree with the idea that there is a 400-600 calorie difference from expected to measured.
Given that these individuals showed 1900 ± 460 RMR it actually might mean that those individuals will need to have an unhealthy restriction or very high exercise levels to lose weight (since their average BMI 6 years after was 43.8!!)
This tends to support the idea that metabolic or adaptive thermogenesis does occur during rapid weight loss and should be avoided. For these individuals, "the degree of metabolic adaptation at the end of the competition was not associated with weight regain, but those with greater long-term weight loss also had greater ongoing metabolic slowing," where other studies have shown little to no long term effect with more reasonable weight loss.2 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Given that these individuals showed 1900 ± 460 RMR it actually might mean that those individuals will need to have an unhealthy restriction or very high exercise levels to lose weight (since their average BMI 6 years after was 43.8!!)
Bloody hell.
I wouldn't want those odds...
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions