Biggest Loser Metabolisms

jassnip

Okay, I just need to have some clarification...

First know that this isn't directed at anyone, only a trend I've noticed and don't quite understand.

Link first, Dr. Jason Fung's Blog post on the study of the Biggest Loser contestants post show metabolisms

So my understanding of that post is that if you drop your calories significantly, over time you will also by default depress your metabolism and therefore not be able to eat as much food without gaining weight or needing to drop calories even more to lose weight.

What I'm seeing in the diaries of many of the wonderful new friends I've made on this board are that they are dropping their calories into these types of lower ranges 1000-1450.

Won't that lead to depressed metabolisms?

Truly, I'm confused.

ProCoffeenator

I've got to read the link later. I do t even know what a depressed metabolism is.... I take Effexor though so maybe that will help mine out? Lol

tcunbeliever

Yes, but that's assuming they log accurately...for example, I typically try to leave around 500 calories in my diary because I know I don't weigh everything and I'm probably underestimating...it's possible that people logging 1000 calories are really eating more and just failing to log or failing to log with 100% accuracy.

RowdysLady

Or their deficit isn't as big as it seems.....if a "normal" day before this WOE used to be 1900 cals, then 1450 isn't really a huge leap down for metabolism but a great deficit for loss, I'd think....(I didn't read the link either, so I'm stabbing in the dark here)

Smoked33

@jassnip. You are correct. The longer you eat fewer calories than your body requires, your body will begin to adapt to the low levels which can be described as depressed metabolism. I have struggled with this...The body is a very resilient thing and it will fight you(otherwise weight loss would be easy).

Conventional wisdom as far as I know is that no one, even a slight female should ever dip below 1200 calories(although many do). Really as far as calories in/calories out everyone's goal SHOULD be to eat as much as they can while still losing weight. As reality and theory don't often agree, this doesn't work for everyone, which is at least part of the reason this group exists.

Typically for those that run a caloric deficit for an extended period of time should consider a reverse diet whereby you increase gradually(i.e. 50 cals per week) your caloric intake until you level off an din some cases increase your metabolic rate to allow for a higher maintenance level. I am in the process of doing this along with keto because I'm tired of having to go so low to lose weight

anglyn1

I'm not sure if my metabolism is depressed or not. I usually eat around 1400 calories and I'm basically in maintenance. Some days I eat lower and others a little higher. I'm 38 years old and I'm 4'11, 124 lbs. It's quite possible that I won't get to go much over 1400 and maintain. It's also possible that due to not weighing my food I actually eat more than I think. Honestly I'm happy with my results so I don't see adding a food scale into my day. Also this calorie level allows me to eat when I feel hungry so I'm not really too disappointed if it turns out I can't go above here. All my labs are good. I don't appear to be malnourished.

moonlights

I'm a tiny-boned, 5'2" female and to lose weight on any 'standard' (high carb) diet I've always had to ultimately drop my calories below 1000 which has left me feeling starving. I lost 60lbs years ago on a low calorie medical diet of 600-800 calories a day and messed up my metabolism I suspect.

I think hflc can actually help cure shot metabolisms. I lost 50lbs two years ago on Atkins and I'm back and losing steadily again with my calories between 1500 and 2000 per day - usually around 1800.

Mfp keeps telling I'll lose 3lbs a month at this calorie level. So far it's been very wrong, I'm at 2lb a week on average.

silverfiend

I talked with the biggest loser of the show (can't remember his name), he said the problem was the incredibly fast way they lost weight. You would expect the exercise loads would have increased their metabolism but it didnt. They are hoping the study might reveal some new insight into metabolism changes, diet, exercise and how they interact. He ran his first 5k since regaining the weight with us that day.

T1DCarnivoreRunner

My TDEE is lower because I weight less, not because I've been at a deficit for so long. An online calculator shows my RMR at 1,628 calories. I try to eat at 1,400 and eat back some of my exercise calories for a slow rate of loss. But for me, weight loss isn't all about calories either.

coopscoopc

I think my metabolism has left the body with being over 50! Even on low carb I struggle to lose weight.

kennygang

I found with this WOE and IF I am truly not hungry... I have my BPC in am and then don't eat really until 600 pm for dinner. Sometimes I snack when I get home and cooking dinner. Some days my calories are significantly less since I am really only eating one meal. Then I usually have a small snack/treat after dinner. Not sure if this is ok but I feel good and don't want to eat if I am not hungry.

cstehansen

I know I am the odd one here, but I log well in excess of 3,000 cal a day and sometimes over 4,000. I am and always have been far more active than most. MFP starts me at a base of 2410 with an expectation of losing 1 lb a week and usually says I have earned at least 800 with exercise with my high being 1951. I am down exactly 40 lbs total now but over a few years and have only 7 left to go.

I am familiar with the biggest loser study. Intuitively, it made sense to me after seeing the struggles of so many yo-yo dieters. With that in mind, I will typically push down in 8-12 lb increments and then hold steady for 3-6 months, and then repeat. I think that has helped me maintain a very high metabolism throughout.

I know that is not nearly as convenient for anyone needing to lose a very large amount of weight as the 40 lbs for me took over 3 years. I think the same basic process could be done with a bigger chunks at a time and possibly shorter plateaus to make it a bit faster if someone needed to lose 100+ lbs and still avoid the long term slowing of their metabolism.

I am hoping this last push that just started a couple weeks ago will be my last before just maintaining at 175, which is actually lower than I initially planned on going. At 6'1", I thought I would be fine just getting down to about 190. Starting to really see a six pack developing gave me some motivation for the extra 15. (My wife kind of likes the six pack, too.)

kpk54

Smoked33 wrote: »

Really as far as calories in/calories out everyone's goal SHOULD be to eat as much as they can while still losing weight. As reality and theory don't often agree, this doesn't work for everyone, which is at least part of the reason this group exists.

There is much about the bolded statement that I like. Perhaps The Biggest Losers would not be in the dilemma they are now in had they followed this.

ETA: ...followed this for a longer period of time to not lose so quickly. But then that wouldn't make such an interesting TV show.

Sunny_Bunny_

There was a really good thread on this afew months ago.
I wish i had bookmarked it.

redimock

Dr. Fung doesn't make it very clear in this post (but I've found his book and YT lectures to be pretty clear), but I *think* (and someone please correct me if I am wrong), is that he is saying that when you cut your calories so drastically without doing much to lower your insulin levels (keto, IF, etc.), your body has to slow down your metabolism to compensate (you think you have some control over calories out, but you don't have as much as you think). If you lower your insulin levels through LCHF or IF or both, however, then your body has access to its "on board pantry" (your fat). So, even though you are eating less, your body has easy access to another energy source, and so it doesn't need to slow down your metabolism to compensate.

You might find a lot of us eat what seems like very few calories on some days, just because we aren't hungry, and if we're not hungry, we're not going to eat! That being said, we are "eating" our own fat, so there is no need for our bodies to depress our metabolisms.

I hope that's helpful - it's my simplistic view of a very complicated process.

Sunny_Bunny_

Bottom line is that in the real world, nobody is going to eat that little (low fat crap by the way) AND workout that hard day after day after day.

In the real world, at least on this board, if you come in talking about eating too little and working out really hard and asking for what do next because you simply can't force the weight off, you will be told to knock it off.
Eat the right foods until you're not hungry. Don't eat when not hungry.
Then you don't need to worry about burnt metabolism. Don't starve yourself and work yourself to death. I honestly think we've always known that's a terrible idea. Why that show gets away with it is beyond me!

c2111

Well im 1200, im restarting my metabolism by eating south Beach phase 1 which is low carb, and really works for me. I've done it before with success and maintained for 3 years, so I dont think for me there was a negative effect on my metabolism. I used to eat more, 1600 but I was very very active. Now this time I calculated my tdee as concerned as my needs are very different, I have extreme limited mobility now due to a spinal injury pedestrian car accident, so everythings quite different for me now. But I am losing on 1200 and only physio strength training and short walks, thats about it. I dont know if that helps your question, but I dont think 1200 cal plan slows or affects metabolism. Well, for me personally. Ps sbd has no cal limit eat as much as you want, but because of my reduced tdee im using 1200.