Undereating = Counterproductive (Explain Metabolism)

Jirachii

Hi guys! So here at MFP, most of us in the community seem to be well aware of CICO. It's just math, and if your calories in are less than your calories out, you lose weight. Easy enough. But some people don't seem to be aware that lowering your CI drastically can lower your CO at rest.

I have a very basic understanding on how metabolism works. When you eat less, your metabolism slows and concentrates less on moving and more on keeping your heart beating and whatnot. This is why some people eat in "zig zags" and have refeeds, to shake things up. This is also why starvation is a very slow and miserable path to losing the weight. Our bodies are stubborn and adapt quickly to new changes.

There is someone I'm helping who does not heed any advice regarding metabolism, and is proud about eating less than 1,000 calories. This only happens on days they log, they aren't anorexic. They don't lose the weight fast enough to keep them motivated, and then give up logging. Two weeks later they ask me to start them off all over again. This has happened maybe 3-4 times now? I have another friend who heeds my advice in not undereating, yet doesn't fully understand why.

How would you guys go about explaining how calories can affect your metabolism in a way that is informative and something to be taken seriously? MFP has warnings regarding undereating, but those seem to just get ignored.

usmcmp

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/lean-body-mass-maintenance-and-metabolic-rate-slowdown-qa.html/
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/

TimothyFish

Metabolism isn't the issue. The problem with undereating is that you are forcing your body to cannibalize itself to make up for missing nutrition. If done for too long and depending on what nutrition is missing, this can lead to organ failure.

lynn_glenmont

I wouldn't waste my time talking about metabolism, because that's far from the most serious effects of chronic undereating. (Is it chronic? If they only do it for a few days or weeks, then go back to overeating for a few weeks, it's probably not as big an issue for their metabolism or health as you're making it out to be, although clearly it's not working as a weight loss strategy for them.)

I'd talk about the unnecessary loss of muscle from an overly aggressive deficit., which is so hard to regain, so that even when they attain their goal weight, they might not like how they look. Plus, your heart is a muscle.

usmcmp

TimothyFish wrote: »

Metabolism isn't the issue. The problem with undereating is that you are forcing your body to cannibalize itself to make up for missing nutrition. If done for too long and depending on what nutrition is missing, this can lead to organ failure.

That's part of the problem. Hormonal changes is another part of the problem. Muscle catabolism reduces BMR as does the hormonal changes. Both can have long term impacts and make it harder to maintain weight loss.

SCoil123

The affect on metabolism is minimal in the short term. A larger concern of mine is loss of muscle mass. Muscles get used for fuel when you don't feed your body enough from other sources.

I struggled with my eating disorder for years and yes I did eventually stop dropping weight at any notable rate but that took a long time reaching that point. It's also true that eating a normal amount without purging caused me to become overweight because my body had adapted to burning very low numbers to maintain. I don't think this is really a risk for most dieters though.

Blitzia

TimothyFish wrote: »

Metabolism isn't the issue. The problem with undereating is that you are forcing your body to cannibalize itself to make up for missing nutrition. If done for too long and depending on what nutrition is missing, this can lead to organ failure.

This. To the OP, I think you need to change your approach. Yes, undereating is bad, but not because it hurts your weight loss. Yes, adaptive thermogenesis is real - if you eat a low number of calories, the number of calories you burn will decrease. However, this is not a dramatic change in your metabolism, it's a minor one. I think talking about changes in metabolism due to VLCDs run the risk of perpetuating the "starvation mode" myth. I can't find my favorite article about why starvation mode is bunk, but this article is decent:

http://www.nowloss.com/starvation-mode-myth.htm

To your potential point about adaptive thermogenesis, there are two studies in that article that show that adaptive thermogenesis does not have a significant effect on weight loss. First, the Michigan starvation experiment. Participants continued to significantly lose weight at only 1540 calories a day (starvation level.) In the second study, a morbidly obese patient completely fasted for over a year and continued to lose weight. Neither of these studies should encourage anyone to try a starvation diet (the participants in the Michigan experiment suffered some terrifying side effects) - the point is merely that starvation doesn't trigger some metabolic change that stops or even (significantly) slows weight loss.

If you want to convince your friend that 1000 calorie diets are bad, I would focus on other starvation side effects. And also, at the end of the day if the issue is that your friend starts dramatic weight loss programs and just gives up when the results aren't instant, there might not be much you can do to help. Any successful weight loss program will take patience and it's hard to teach that to someone else.

SunflowerDaisey

Hello I have been eating 1000 calories. I always meet my protein and carb levels requirements. I also get lots of vitamins from my diet but I take an extra vitamin tablet just in case. I have trouble reaching the fat level. I don't binge on junk either. Is this harmful?

SusanMFindlay

SunflowerDaisey wrote: »

Hello I have been eating 1000 calories. I always meet my protein and carb levels requirements. I also get lots of vitamins from my diet but I take an extra vitamin tablet just in case. I have trouble reaching the fat level. I don't binge on junk either. Is this harmful?

Whether or not it's harmful depends on your size and activity level. If you're 4 feet tall, on the upper end of the healthy weight range (or just slightly overweight), and sedentary, it's probably okay. Otherwise, it's unlikely that you're getting enough nutrition from those 1000 calories. (Bigger bodies need more protein, more fat, more vitamins, more minerals, etc.)

FWIW, I'd try to meet my fat goal if I were you. Meeting the fat and protein goals is far more important than meeting the carb goal. For some of us, it can be difficult. I had to consciously seek out high fat foods that I could tolerate. But it's worth it from a health perspective.

Jirachii

I see! Thank you for all of the input I focused on metabolism because said person doesn't seem to care about muscle deterioration so long as they lose weight. (And muscles increase your CO at rest, so I assumed that could get to them but I guess not.)

Reading what you guys have said, focusing on nutrition seems to be the better go. To answer the question if the undereating is chronic, I think it would be if they continued to log, but since they give up and go back to overeating, no. If they binge once, the whole deal is over and they give up. I just want to convince them to eat a sustainable amount and be patient!

I've been told that your metabolism plays a bigger part than you guys make it out to be, but that may be because I've been reading a lot regarding platues and metabolism in general. Perhaps it's overestimated.

Interesting research regarding the starvation diets. In my AP psych class I took two years ago, I remember learning about research very similar to that (highly restricted calories) that did result in slower than expected weight loss results after a prolonged period. However, I would rather take your word than the word of a vague memory I have from two years ago. I guess I'll have to make my case with something else. Organ failure, muscle deterioration, and lack of energy throughout the day all sound scary to me, but maybe you just can't help some people until they snap out of whatever mindset it is they have regarding something like that.

AnnPT77

Sometimes when people don't care about muscle deterioration, and just want to lose weight fast, it may help to talk about potential negative appearance effects of eating too little: They're risking limp, lifeless hair (or hair that falls out); brittle, peeling nails; a lifeless, sallow complexion; the energy and vivacious charm of a damp kitchen sponge; etc.

Do I think appearance is the most important reason to eat adequate calories and get good nutrition? No. Not even a little.

But that kind of line can sometimes work on the "gotta get skinny and cute right away" believers.

RodaRose

SunflowerDaisey wrote: »

Hello I have been eating 1000 calories. I always meet my protein and carb levels requirements. I also get lots of vitamins from my diet but I take an extra vitamin tablet just in case. I have trouble reaching the fat level. I don't binge on junk either. Is this harmful?

Women should eat 1200 calories minimum. Also women need fat. Fats and oils help brain and nerve function,
transporting fat soluble vitamins like A, D, E through the blood stream and so on.

Eat cheese, hummus, avocados, nuts, cuts of low fat beef, salmon, . .

Jirachii

"the energy and vivacious charm of a damp kitchen sponge"

amusedmonkey

I would veer away from intangible things like metabolism to things the person may care about. Talk energy, hair, skin, nails, gallstones, looking skinny fat, reproductive system issues, torturing themselves only to put the weight back...etc. You know these people and you likely know what they might care about, use that knowledge!

ETA: More loose skin seems to scare many people away from under eating, so add that to arsenal. Quick weight loss does not give skin enough time to catch up so it may look worse for a quick loser than a slow loser at the same weight lost for the same person.

pupntot

It's also worth mentioning that the reason for repeated failure is probably because they are starving themselves. Weight loss methods have to be sustainable in order to make long term changes. Quick fix methods, to me, shows a lack of really understanding why they are overweight in the first place.

PinkamenaD8

usmcmp wrote: »

That's part of the problem. Hormonal changes is another part of the problem. Muscle catabolism reduces BMR as does the hormonal changes. Both can have long term impacts and make it harder to maintain weight loss.

Is what the autor of the links you posted calls "adaptive component of metabolic rate reduction"?

heiliskrimsli

Jirachii wrote: »

When you eat less, your metabolism slows and concentrates less on moving and more on keeping your heart beating and whatnot.

You have to be really starving for it to get to that point.

Have you ever looked up the Minnesota Starvation Experiment? That might be a useful reference.