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.
CICO is not the whole equation
Replies
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »But it's not part of what I consider my "weight".
Then I didn't miss the point, I disagreed - just in a roundabout fashion while making other vague points along the way. I'm absolutely of the opinion it matters whether it varies or not - like I said, being consistently off is very nearly as good as being right. Being aware of exactly what portion is clothing is very encouraging even if I only report curb weight (clothed) to MFP.
No. You missed the point leading up to the comment you quoted. The conversation was focused on the impact of a high sodium day causing water retention leading to an increase in the scale reading, and how it was not indicative of fat gain and does not negate CICO. The example was given that you don't consider your clothes as part of your weight, so why consider the extra water retention. It's like saying the fact that I weighed today wearing my winter coat means I'm fatter than I was yesterday when I weighed naked. Go back a page or two to see what the discussion was about. It was not about wearing the same clothes daily when you weigh.
My today is a perfect example of what was being discussed. Scale reading is high and will take a couple of days to fix. But that does not mean I'm not losing fat, I did not gain 5 lbs of fat, CICO has not been violated and it will all work out in the end. Really. I expect it to all come out the end. Hoping soon. Could really use a good poop.9 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »But it's not part of what I consider my "weight".
Then I didn't miss the point, I disagreed - just in a roundabout fashion while making other vague points along the way. I'm absolutely of the opinion it matters whether it varies or not - like I said, being consistently off is very nearly as good as being right. Being aware of exactly what portion is clothing is very encouraging even if I only report curb weight (clothed) to MFP.
No. You missed the point leading up to the comment you quoted. The conversation was focused on the impact of a high sodium day causing water retention leading to an increase in the scale reading, and how it was not indicative of fat gain and does not negate CICO. The example was given that you don't consider your clothes as part of your weight, so why consider the extra water retention. It's like saying the fact that I weighed today wearing my winter coat means I'm fatter than I was yesterday when I weighed naked. Go back a page or two to see what the discussion was about. It was not about wearing the same clothes daily when you weigh.
My today is a perfect example of what was being discussed. Scale reading is high and will take a couple of days to fix. But that does not mean I'm not losing fat, I did not gain 5 lbs of fat, CICO has not been violated and it will all work out in the end. Really. I expect it to all come out the end. Hoping soon. Could really use a good poop.
I agree with you. My weight will fluctuate by 1-3lbs in a single day so I don't consider that I've actually lost or gained weight until I'm in the +/- 5lbs range.0 -
I spent a good while reading all the new posts. Really interesting. But I'm a bit sad the person talking about the big food company seems to be gone.0
-
KatzeDerNacht22 wrote: »I spent a good while reading all the new posts. Really interesting. But I'm a bit sad the person talking about the big food company seems to be gone.
Here is something to keep you occupied until they return:
http://www.conspiracymadlibz.com/they-will-ban-something
2 -
KatzeDerNacht22 wrote: »I spent a good while reading all the new posts. Really interesting. But I'm a bit sad the person talking about the big food company seems to be gone.
Here is something to keep you occupied until they return:
http://www.conspiracymadlibz.com/they-will-ban-something
Omg awesome!! XD thank you so much
1 -
Russellb97 wrote: »Studies have shown that overweight people exercise more often than non-overweight and non-overweight people eat more junk for than those who are overweight.
The average obese woman gets one hour of exercise per year.
Someone 130 pounds above the top end of the normal weight range is obese.
1 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »Studies have shown that overweight people exercise more often than non-overweight and non-overweight people eat more junk for than those who are overweight.
The average obese woman gets one hour of exercise per year.
Someone 130 pounds above the top end of the normal weight range is obese.
A 5'5" woman is obese at 180 pounds (total body weight) or above. When I weighed that much, I was getting at least an hour of vigorous exercise most days. Presumably this means that 364 other obese women were not doing their fair share (365 in leap years!)?
Normal body weight's top end (for 5'5" again) is 149 pounds. At my height, obese is 31 pounds above normal, not 130 pounds above.
I suspect the average non-obese person gets surprisingly little exercise, too.0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »Studies have shown that overweight people exercise more often than non-overweight and non-overweight people eat more junk for than those who are overweight.
The average obese woman gets one hour of exercise per year.
Someone 130 pounds above the top end of the normal weight range is obese.
Where on earth did that come from? Please cite your source, this makes no sense whatsoever.2 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »Studies have shown that overweight people exercise more often than non-overweight and non-overweight people eat more junk for than those who are overweight.
The average obese woman gets one hour of exercise per year.
Someone 130 pounds above the top end of the normal weight range is obese.
Where on earth did that come from? Please cite your source, this makes no sense whatsoever.
The hyperlink is to their source I believe.
2 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »Studies have shown that overweight people exercise more often than non-overweight and non-overweight people eat more junk for than those who are overweight.
The average obese woman gets one hour of exercise per year.
Someone 130 pounds above the top end of the normal weight range is obese.
Where on earth did that come from? Please cite your source, this makes no sense whatsoever.
The hyperlink is to their source I believe.
Thanks, I saw that later but it was too late to edit. From the article
"One expert did note that the definition of vigorous exercise was very limited in the study, and the researchers themselves acknowledged that the device used to track physical activity did not measure swimming or biking very well."
This right here makes the study useless in my mind. Swimming is often the go-to activity for obese/overweight people.4 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »Studies have shown that overweight people exercise more often than non-overweight and non-overweight people eat more junk for than those who are overweight.
The average obese woman gets one hour of exercise per year.
Someone 130 pounds above the top end of the normal weight range is obese.
A 5'5" woman is obese at 180 pounds (total body weight) or above. When I weighed that much, I was getting at least an hour of vigorous exercise most days. Presumably this means that 364 other obese women were not doing their fair share (365 in leap years!)?
Normal body weight's top end (for 5'5" again) is 149 pounds. At my height, obese is 31 pounds above normal, not 130 pounds above.
I suspect the average non-obese person gets surprisingly little exercise, too.
The person I quoted referred to having lost 130 lbs. if you go back to his post, you'll see it.heiliskrimsli wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »Studies have shown that overweight people exercise more often than non-overweight and non-overweight people eat more junk for than those who are overweight.
The average obese woman gets one hour of exercise per year.
Someone 130 pounds above the top end of the normal weight range is obese.
Where on earth did that come from? Please cite your source, this makes no sense whatsoever.
I linked it for a reason.heiliskrimsli wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »Studies have shown that overweight people exercise more often than non-overweight and non-overweight people eat more junk for than those who are overweight.
The average obese woman gets one hour of exercise per year.
Someone 130 pounds above the top end of the normal weight range is obese.
Where on earth did that come from? Please cite your source, this makes no sense whatsoever.
The hyperlink is to their source I believe.
Thanks, I saw that later but it was too late to edit. From the article
"One expert did note that the definition of vigorous exercise was very limited in the study, and the researchers themselves acknowledged that the device used to track physical activity did not measure swimming or biking very well."
This right here makes the study useless in my mind. Swimming is often the go-to activity for obese/overweight people.
It provides some opposition to @Russellb97 claiming that obese people exercise more than those who are normal weight.1 -
In case it was never pointed out in the long chain of sodium related posts: there is another subset of people that said weight does matter to, as I'm sure even @ninerbuff will agree: athletes in sports with weight classes.
We can argue all day that water retention isn't "true weight gain", but tell that to a guy who gets his *kitten* handed to him in the 181 class, because his beef jerky intake pushed him out of the 165. Not many calories, affects nothing in the long term, but his competitiveness is now wrecked on meet/fight day, because of nothing more than salt and water.
Granted, most who compete will have that in check, but definitely not all.2 -
Right, I was very healthy already with 40 lbs more at 175 lbs. never lost that much weight for health reasons. Wanted to look better. Of course if you are 50 plus lbs overweight....different story.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »In case it was never pointed out in the long chain of sodium related posts: there is another subset of people that said weight does matter to, as I'm sure even @ninerbuff will agree: athletes in sports with weight classes.
We can argue all day that water retention isn't "true weight gain", but tell that to a guy who gets his *kitten* handed to him in the 181 class, because his beef jerky intake pushed him out of the 165. Not many calories, affects nothing in the long term, but his competitiveness is now wrecked on meet/fight day, because of nothing more than salt and water.
Granted, most who compete will have that in check, but definitely not all.
While competing comes with specific requirements, we still know it doesn't disprove CICO. It just means you need to manipulate water. Which is why prior to a big event, if you want to cut weight quick, you go keto.. you may feel like crap, but you will deplete glycogen and manipulate water.2 -
Agree. It's sad that athlete's in weight classes are weighed a couple of days before a bout, then magically gain 15lbs. IMO, weigh just before stepping in the ring. If a contestant isn't within the weight range (say 1-2 over the limit), then still fight, but they don't get the win if even if they do.Gallowmere1984 wrote: »In case it was never pointed out in the long chain of sodium related posts: there is another subset of people that said weight does matter to, as I'm sure even @ninerbuff will agree: athletes in sports with weight classes.
We can argue all day that water retention isn't "true weight gain", but tell that to a guy who gets his *kitten* handed to him in the 181 class, because his beef jerky intake pushed him out of the 165. Not many calories, affects nothing in the long term, but his competitiveness is now wrecked on meet/fight day, because of nothing more than salt and water.
Granted, most who compete will have that in check, but definitely not all.
When I competed, we used to weigh just before stepping on stage so there was no distinct advantage. Whatever you weighed was the class you competed in.
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
1 -
Agree. It's sad that athlete's in weight classes are weighed a couple of days before a bout, then magically gain 15lbs. IMO, weigh just before stepping in the ring. If a contestant isn't within the weight range (say 1-2 over the limit), then still fight, but they don't get the win if even if they do.Gallowmere1984 wrote: »In case it was never pointed out in the long chain of sodium related posts: there is another subset of people that said weight does matter to, as I'm sure even @ninerbuff will agree: athletes in sports with weight classes.
We can argue all day that water retention isn't "true weight gain", but tell that to a guy who gets his *kitten* handed to him in the 181 class, because his beef jerky intake pushed him out of the 165. Not many calories, affects nothing in the long term, but his competitiveness is now wrecked on meet/fight day, because of nothing more than salt and water.
Granted, most who compete will have that in check, but definitely not all.
When I competed, we used to weigh just before stepping on stage so there was no distinct advantage. Whatever you weighed was the class you competed in.
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
This is why I actually plan on cutting to at least five pounds below my class ceiling before my meet in December. It's not that day before weigh-ins bother me, but with it being my first meet, I'll have enough to worry about without manipulating electrolytes and food too hard.
Five pounds should give me plenty of buffer to be able to fuel for performance, and still come in a bit light. I'm expecting an asskicking anyway.
0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »Studies have shown that overweight people exercise more often than non-overweight and non-overweight people eat more junk for than those who are overweight.
The average obese woman gets one hour of exercise per year.
Someone 130 pounds above the top end of the normal weight range is obese.
A 5'5" woman is obese at 180 pounds (total body weight) or above. When I weighed that much, I was getting at least an hour of vigorous exercise most days. Presumably this means that 364 other obese women were not doing their fair share (365 in leap years!)?
Normal body weight's top end (for 5'5" again) is 149 pounds. At my height, obese is 31 pounds above normal, not 130 pounds above.
I suspect the average non-obese person gets surprisingly little exercise, too.
Do you think selecting the absolute lowest 'obese' weight for a 5'5" girl is representative, an honest discussion of the issue? I'd expect researchers would look at women between 180-300+ lbs.0 -
-
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »Studies have shown that overweight people exercise more often than non-overweight and non-overweight people eat more junk for than those who are overweight.
The average obese woman gets one hour of exercise per year.
Someone 130 pounds above the top end of the normal weight range is obese.
A 5'5" woman is obese at 180 pounds (total body weight) or above. When I weighed that much, I was getting at least an hour of vigorous exercise most days. Presumably this means that 364 other obese women were not doing their fair share (365 in leap years!)?
Normal body weight's top end (for 5'5" again) is 149 pounds. At my height, obese is 31 pounds above normal, not 130 pounds above.
I suspect the average non-obese person gets surprisingly little exercise, too.
Do you think selecting the absolute lowest 'obese' weight for a 5'5" girl is representative, an honest discussion of the issue? I'd expect researchers would look at women between 180-300+ lbs.
I'd expect researchers to look at a range, absolutely. For 5'5", that would be 180 and up.
What I'm doing in my post is commenting from an n=1. I weighed 183 when I started, and now weigh in the 120s. I used the 5'5" example weights because I'm 5'5".
Part of my remark is joking ("364 other women . . ").
Part is sincere, 3 main points:- "Obese" and "overweight" definitions are at weight levels that surprise many people by how low they are;
- Some obese people are active (including some substantially heavier than I was), though it's obviously unusual; and
- My personal experience with people around me suggests that the average person of any weight probably gets very little exercise, leading a life somewhat similar to those described in the link as characterizing obese people (lots of TV and gaming or other sedentary activities after a sedentary job - even the researcher quoted says "I think they're living the typical life.").
1 -
Part is sincere, 3 main points:
- "Obese" and "overweight" definitions are at weight levels that surprise many people by how low they are;
- Some obese people are active (including some substantially heavier than I was), though it's obviously unusual; and
- My personal experience with people around me suggests that the average person of any weight probably gets very little exercise, leading a life somewhat similar to those described in the link as characterizing obese people (lots of TV and gaming or other sedentary activities after a sedentary job - even the researcher quoted says "I think they're living the typical life.").
Those weights are not that low, for one. And the other is that your experience with people around you is not a representative sample of the general population precisely because it is a non-random self-selected sample of people who generally have the same type of lifestyle.0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Part is sincere, 3 main points:
- "Obese" and "overweight" definitions are at weight levels that surprise many people by how low they are;
- Some obese people are active (including some substantially heavier than I was), though it's obviously unusual; and
- My personal experience with people around me suggests that the average person of any weight probably gets very little exercise, leading a life somewhat similar to those described in the link as characterizing obese people (lots of TV and gaming or other sedentary activities after a sedentary job - even the researcher quoted says "I think they're living the typical life.").
Those weights are not that low, for one. And the other is that your experience with people around you is not a representative sample of the general population precisely because it is a non-random self-selected sample of people who generally have the same type of lifestyle.
I said "that surprise many people by how low they are" not that they are low. This is not a scientific study either ( ), but I've seen people here say they're "not obese" when they're well into the defined range ((cue the BMI discussion)), and heard people in daily life say similar things. Also, this was a reply to a reply to a reply (etc.) - it once had a context, rather than being a bald assertion.
Also, I wasn't aware that comments on this thread required full scientific justification, even when clearly labelled as "personal experience". My bad.
8 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Part is sincere, 3 main points:
- "Obese" and "overweight" definitions are at weight levels that surprise many people by how low they are;
- Some obese people are active (including some substantially heavier than I was), though it's obviously unusual; and
- My personal experience with people around me suggests that the average person of any weight probably gets very little exercise, leading a life somewhat similar to those described in the link as characterizing obese people (lots of TV and gaming or other sedentary activities after a sedentary job - even the researcher quoted says "I think they're living the typical life.").
Those weights are not that low, for one. And the other is that your experience with people around you is not a representative sample of the general population precisely because it is a non-random self-selected sample of people who generally have the same type of lifestyle.
I said "that surprise many people by how low they are" not that they are low. This is not a scientific study either ( ), but I've seen people here say they're "not obese" when they're well into the defined range ((cue the BMI discussion)), and heard people in daily life say similar things. Also, this was a reply to a reply to a reply (etc.) - it once had a context, rather than being a bald assertion.
Also, I wasn't aware that comments on this thread required full scientific justification, even when clearly labelled as "personal experience". My bad.
Only if you're following Roberts Rules of Passive Aggression.
5 -
The way that story defined "exercise", I get very little of it despite averaging over 13k steps/day. Now not even moderate cardio is good enough apparently. Has to be vigorous to "count".4
-
The way that story defined "exercise", I get very little of it despite averaging over 13k steps/day. Now not even moderate cardio is good enough apparently. Has to be vigorous to "count".
Brisk walking and activities like swimming don't even count as vigorous activity, so someone could be exercising daily and still not meeting the threshold of engaging in vigorous exercise. But you can meet guidelines for a healthy amount of exercise without ever doing it vigorously.3 -
After watching a Biggest Loser episode, I googled 'how are they doing now'. Reading a follow up research article in Scientific American was very depressing, and puzzling. They are blaming a slow metabolism for people regaining weight.6 Years after The Biggest Loser, Metabolism Is Slower and Weight Is Back Up
Six years after dramatic weight loss on the TV show "The Biggest Loser," most contestants in a recent study had regained the pounds - and on top of that, their metabolism had slowed and they were burning fewer calories every day than they did before their stint on the show.
...
The group as a whole on average burned 2,607 calories per day at rest before the competition, which dropped to about 2,000 calories per day at the end.
Six years later, calorie burning had slowed further to 1,900 per day, as reported in the journal Obesity, May 2.
If I'm reading this right, they are saying that for about the same weight, their BMR dropped 27%, because of their weight loss journey.
Anyone familiar with this, it sounds like bad science.
As a side, it was yet another missed opportunity to educate people on the need to understand their CO, and control CI accordingly (whatever their CO).0 -
After watching a Biggest Loser episode, I googled 'how are they doing now'. Reading a follow up research article in Scientific American was very depressing, and puzzling. They are blaming a slow metabolism for people regaining weight.6 Years after The Biggest Loser, Metabolism Is Slower and Weight Is Back Up
Six years after dramatic weight loss on the TV show "The Biggest Loser," most contestants in a recent study had regained the pounds - and on top of that, their metabolism had slowed and they were burning fewer calories every day than they did before their stint on the show.
...
The group as a whole on average burned 2,607 calories per day at rest before the competition, which dropped to about 2,000 calories per day at the end.
Six years later, calorie burning had slowed further to 1,900 per day, as reported in the journal Obesity, May 2.
If I'm reading this right, they are saying that for about the same weight, their BMR dropped 27%, because of their weight loss journey.
Anyone familiar with this, it sounds like bad science.
As a side, it was yet another missed opportunity to educate people on the need to understand their CO, and control CI accordingly (whatever their CO).
This was discussed here. I believe the study was done on those maybe a year or two down the line. The issue was severe caloric restriction with extreme exercise causing a large down regulation of their BMR (adaptive thermogenesis) that the body at the point they were studied hadn't recovered from. Whether it would over the long term with reverse dieting I think is unknown but we have had examples of people on the forum having low BMRs (tested) and reverse dieting to the normal range (again tested).1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »After watching a Biggest Loser episode, I googled 'how are they doing now'. Reading a follow up research article in Scientific American was very depressing, and puzzling. They are blaming a slow metabolism for people regaining weight.6 Years after The Biggest Loser, Metabolism Is Slower and Weight Is Back Up
Six years after dramatic weight loss on the TV show "The Biggest Loser," most contestants in a recent study had regained the pounds - and on top of that, their metabolism had slowed and they were burning fewer calories every day than they did before their stint on the show.
...
The group as a whole on average burned 2,607 calories per day at rest before the competition, which dropped to about 2,000 calories per day at the end.
Six years later, calorie burning had slowed further to 1,900 per day, as reported in the journal Obesity, May 2.
If I'm reading this right, they are saying that for about the same weight, their BMR dropped 27%, because of their weight loss journey.
Anyone familiar with this, it sounds like bad science.
As a side, it was yet another missed opportunity to educate people on the need to understand their CO, and control CI accordingly (whatever their CO).
This was discussed here. I believe the study was done on those maybe a year or two down the line. The issue was severe caloric restriction with extreme exercise causing a large down regulation of their BMR (adaptive thermogenesis) that the body at the point they were studied hadn't recovered from. Whether it would over the long term with reverse dieting I think is unknown but we have had examples of people on the forum having low BMRs (tested) and reverse dieting to the normal range (again tested).
It's interesting, I've been listening to some podcasts lately that had some talk regarding metabolic adaptation. One of the podcasts quoted the work of Leibel et al and others, and they are the ones usually cited when discussing these matters. Whenever I've looked at their studies, their subjects invariably dieted hard (on the order of 800 calorie diets) and IIRC, did not have much in the way of physical activity. The number usual quoted by Leibel for adaptation in terms of deviation from what's expected to be maintenance calories is somewhere on the order of 250-300 calories.
Contrast that to the insights shared by Lyle McDonald, who likely looked at a different group of dieters who were getting more activity and perhaps not dieting quite as hard. He quoted a metabolic adaptation of approximately 100 calories.
It should be noted that neither of these findings is anywhere near as drastic as the findings in The Biggest Loser Study.
The takeaway? Don't diet like a fool.5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »After watching a Biggest Loser episode, I googled 'how are they doing now'. Reading a follow up research article in Scientific American was very depressing, and puzzling. They are blaming a slow metabolism for people regaining weight.6 Years after The Biggest Loser, Metabolism Is Slower and Weight Is Back Up
Six years after dramatic weight loss on the TV show "The Biggest Loser," most contestants in a recent study had regained the pounds - and on top of that, their metabolism had slowed and they were burning fewer calories every day than they did before their stint on the show.
...
The group as a whole on average burned 2,607 calories per day at rest before the competition, which dropped to about 2,000 calories per day at the end.
Six years later, calorie burning had slowed further to 1,900 per day, as reported in the journal Obesity, May 2.
If I'm reading this right, they are saying that for about the same weight, their BMR dropped 27%, because of their weight loss journey.
Anyone familiar with this, it sounds like bad science.
As a side, it was yet another missed opportunity to educate people on the need to understand their CO, and control CI accordingly (whatever their CO).
This was discussed here. I believe the study was done on those maybe a year or two down the line. The issue was severe caloric restriction with extreme exercise causing a large down regulation of their BMR (adaptive thermogenesis) that the body at the point they were studied hadn't recovered from. Whether it would over the long term with reverse dieting I think is unknown but we have had examples of people on the forum having low BMRs (tested) and reverse dieting to the normal range (again tested).
It's interesting, I've been listening to some podcasts lately that had some talk regarding metabolic adaptation. One of the podcasts quoted the work of Leibel et al and others, and they are the ones usually cited when discussing these matters. Whenever I've looked at their studies, their subjects invariably dieted hard (on the order of 800 calorie diets) and IIRC, did not have much in the way of physical activity. The number usual quoted by Leibel for adaptation in terms of deviation from what's expected to be maintenance calories is somewhere on the order of 250-300 calories.
Contrast that to the insights shared by Lyle McDonald, who likely looked at a different group of dieters who were getting more activity and perhaps not dieting quite as hard. He quoted a metabolic adaptation of approximately 100 calories.
It should be noted that neither of these findings is anywhere near as drastic as the findings in The Biggest Loser Study.
The takeaway? Don't diet like a fool.
As I have said before, extreme cutting diets are only for people with two things in common: they know what the *kitten* they are doing, and have exceptional self-control. Anyone else is just asking for disaster.4 -
all I know is I have been on countless diets and discovering CICO last May changed my world....4
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »After watching a Biggest Loser episode, I googled 'how are they doing now'. Reading a follow up research article in Scientific American was very depressing, and puzzling. They are blaming a slow metabolism for people regaining weight.6 Years after The Biggest Loser, Metabolism Is Slower and Weight Is Back Up
Six years after dramatic weight loss on the TV show "The Biggest Loser," most contestants in a recent study had regained the pounds - and on top of that, their metabolism had slowed and they were burning fewer calories every day than they did before their stint on the show.
...
The group as a whole on average burned 2,607 calories per day at rest before the competition, which dropped to about 2,000 calories per day at the end.
Six years later, calorie burning had slowed further to 1,900 per day, as reported in the journal Obesity, May 2.
If I'm reading this right, they are saying that for about the same weight, their BMR dropped 27%, because of their weight loss journey.
Anyone familiar with this, it sounds like bad science.
As a side, it was yet another missed opportunity to educate people on the need to understand their CO, and control CI accordingly (whatever their CO).
This was discussed here. I believe the study was done on those maybe a year or two down the line. The issue was severe caloric restriction with extreme exercise causing a large down regulation of their BMR (adaptive thermogenesis) that the body at the point they were studied hadn't recovered from. Whether it would over the long term with reverse dieting I think is unknown but we have had examples of people on the forum having low BMRs (tested) and reverse dieting to the normal range (again tested).
It's interesting, I've been listening to some podcasts lately that had some talk regarding metabolic adaptation. One of the podcasts quoted the work of Leibel et al and others, and they are the ones usually cited when discussing these matters. Whenever I've looked at their studies, their subjects invariably dieted hard (on the order of 800 calorie diets) and IIRC, did not have much in the way of physical activity. The number usual quoted by Leibel for adaptation in terms of deviation from what's expected to be maintenance calories is somewhere on the order of 250-300 calories.
Contrast that to the insights shared by Lyle McDonald, who likely looked at a different group of dieters who were getting more activity and perhaps not dieting quite as hard. He quoted a metabolic adaptation of approximately 100 calories.
It should be noted that neither of these findings is anywhere near as drastic as the findings in The Biggest Loser Study.
The takeaway? Don't diet like a fool.
As I have said before, extreme cutting diets are only for people with two things in common: they know what the *kitten* they are doing, and have exceptional self-control. Anyone else is just asking for disaster.
Yes to both of these. There are ways to cut in the extreme but it has to be very carefully managed.
The Biggest Loser is about ratings so they are dieting like fools with extreme restriction and extreme exercise.3
This discussion has been closed.
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