Metabolism is not the culprit when it comes to weight loss
CheInNY
Posts: 6 Member
I came across this article and thought it is worth sharing and discussing here. It debunks the myth that slow metabolism causes weight gains.
Some key take away:
- It is very hard to change metabolic rate and that it stays steady after certain age.
- Your total movement, with or without gym, accounts for more weight loss/maintenance than your metabolic activity.
https://sciencealert.com/best-way-avoid-gaining-weight-age-metabolism-2018
What are your thoughts?
Some key take away:
- It is very hard to change metabolic rate and that it stays steady after certain age.
- Your total movement, with or without gym, accounts for more weight loss/maintenance than your metabolic activity.
https://sciencealert.com/best-way-avoid-gaining-weight-age-metabolism-2018
What are your thoughts?
2
Replies
-
I mostly agree with the article, from the perspective of age 62. Another factor - perhaps especially so for women - is the maintenance of muscle mass and other lean tissue as we age . . . and that's also related to how much activity we sustain, but for most modern lives perhaps more related to intentional exercise activity than daily life activity. (The average person's job and chores are more sedentary than was the case a generation or two ago, so muscle mass and bone mass in particular are perhaps more linked to levels of intentional exercise, on average).
There's also the potential to get into a vicious cycle: Be inactive, lose physical strength/capability, become more inactive because of the difficulty of doing active things, lose more capability . . . . Sadly, a lot of people my age I know are doing just exactly that.
But there's potential for a virtuous cycle, too: Be more active, get stronger/fitter, become more capable/energetic, do more things, . . . .
I think, though, that your statement "Your total movement, with or without gym, accounts for more weight loss/maintenance than your metabolic activity" is a little misleading, i.e., could be misinterpreted. For most of us (who don't have super active jobs or extensive active hobbies), BMR (basal metabolic rate) is the numerically biggest component of our daily calorie burn; non-exercise activity is second biggest; and intentional exercise is third.
Because BMR is moderately invariant over time and between people, movement - non-exercise activity plus exercise - accounts for more of the difference in our calorie burn at different times, or between different people. In that sense, activity is more meaningful to total daily calorie burn thus weight management, because we have more control/influence over it. BMR still accounts for the numerically largest single chunk of calorie burn for most people, though, compared to the two other big categories. In fact, for a good many, those who are sedentary and generally inactive or even just moderately active, BMR is higher than the sum of the other two.11 -
The premise is good and this information needs to be stressed - you don't alter your metabolism or rate. Weight is an output of behavior - whether this be reduced calories, increased activity, or combination of both. There is no "boosting" or "slowing" your metabolism. If more people were aware of this it would destroy a lot of woo pushers.
9 -
chetanmpatel wrote: »I came across this article and thought it is worth sharing and discussing here. It debunks the myth that slow metabolism causes weight gains.
Some key take away:
- It is very hard to change metabolic rate and that it stays steady after certain age.
- Your total movement, with or without gym, accounts for more weight loss/maintenance than your metabolic activity.
https://sciencealert.com/best-way-avoid-gaining-weight-age-metabolism-2018
What are your thoughts?
Yes...there is very little change in metabolism as we age. I gained all of my weight after 30. I graduated university when I was 30 and went from not owning a vehicle and walking or cycling almost everywhere and working retail, waiting tables, and landscape construction to owning a vehicle to commute and working 10-12 hour days sitting behind a desk for the most part.
It was easy enough at the time to blame my age and getting older and the middle age spread...but it was really going from being very, very active to being more or less sedentary.7 -
I agree with the article... I have been under the impression that our "metabolism slows down" as we age, because typically people are less active as they get older and they lose muscle mass. So as long as we continue to be active we should continue burning roughly the same amount of calories.4
-
This video will never get old. Sure there are a lot of reasons that you *might* be one of the few who for various reasons have a more difficult time with fat loss, however, people tend to jump to that assumption vs ruling out the most obvious one. Under Reporting, overestimating calories burned during exercise; or a combination of both.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA9AdlhB18o 8 -
Yeah, but hormones also play a part in weight gain. This article explains the part hormones play in weight issues and it supports the sciencealert article by stating that movement, along with a healthy diet, is essential to weight loss. http://www.diabeticlivingonline.com/diet/tips/are-your-hormones-making-you-gain-weight11
-
joannwhatley wrote: »Yeah, but hormones also play a part in weight gain. This article explains the part hormones play in weight issues and it supports the sciencealert article by stating that movement, along with a healthy diet, is essential to weight loss. http://www.diabeticlivingonline.com/diet/tips/are-your-hormones-making-you-gain-weight
I would argue that most of these aren't the cause of weight gain but that these hormonal issues are a consequence of weight gain that can make weight loss more difficult until they are better regulated.15 -
This is the best and most important post that I’ve ever read on MFP community!!0
-
@CSARdiver @cwolfman13, I agree fitness is the end result of amount of physical activity.
@AnnPT77, I see your point to an extent. I should have said metabolic rate at which we digest our and burn energy cannot be altered as per the article. If we look at definition of BMR from Wiki "Basal metabolic rate (BMR) is the rate of energy expenditure per unit time by endothermic animals at rest". So, if you can elaborate more on your point regarding the correlation between BMR and my statement regarding activity I will appreciate it. I think they both complementary. If you have lean mass due to any type of activity you have better BMR regardless of your age.
My point is keep moving regardless of gym or not. For example, let's say you have a staircase and an escalator at work - we can control our method of elevation, right?
1 -
joannwhatley wrote: »Yeah, but hormones also play a part in weight gain. This article explains the part hormones play in weight issues and it supports the sciencealert article by stating that movement, along with a healthy diet, is essential to weight loss. http://www.diabeticlivingonline.com/diet/tips/are-your-hormones-making-you-gain-weight
I think one thing that needs to be clarified is that metabolism does not equal appetite. Most of the factors on here note the idea of feeling full or hunger signals, but that doesn't impact how much you're actually burning, just whether you want to eat or not. None of these factors would come into play if you know how much you're eating (via a food diary).
This is why I don't believe people when they say they're "naturally" thin or have a "high" metabolism. They might just have a low appetite (among other factors, including activity). They actually burn less than people at higher weights and similar heights because they weigh less.11 -
joannwhatley wrote: »Yeah, but hormones also play a part in weight gain. This article explains the part hormones play in weight issues and it supports the sciencealert article by stating that movement, along with a healthy diet, is essential to weight loss. http://www.diabeticlivingonline.com/diet/tips/are-your-hormones-making-you-gain-weight
Hormones may impact appetite. They have severely limited influence over hunger.
@cwolfman13 is correct on this - it is impossible to maintain hormonal balance and be overweight. So it ends up as a viscous cycle.
This is also why any weight loss program incorporates some element of understanding the differences between hunger and appetite and how to manage this effectively.7 -
chetanmpatel wrote: »@CSARdiver @cwolfman13, I agree fitness is the end result of amount of physical activity.
@AnnPT77, I see your point to an extent. I should have said metabolic rate at which we digest our and burn energy cannot be altered as per the article. If we look at definition of BMR from Wiki "Basal metabolic rate (BMR) is the rate of energy expenditure per unit time by endothermic animals at rest". So, if you can elaborate more on your point regarding the correlation between BMR and my statement regarding activity I will appreciate it. I think they both complementary. If you have lean mass due to any type of activity you have better BMR regardless of your age.
My point is keep moving regardless of gym or not. For example, let's say you have a staircase and an escalator at work - we can control our method of elevation, right?
I was simply saying that "Your total movement, with or without gym, accounts for more weight loss/maintenance than your metabolic activity" is stated ambiguously. I'm being pedantic, as usual.
I agree with what I think you mean - that movement is the controlling/controllable factor that makes a meaningful difference, because BMR is fairly invariant. (Heck, I created a whole thread about increasing non-exercise (NEAT) movement to improve weight loss. I can't paste a link with this device, but it's stickied, I think in the General Health, Fitness & Diet topic.)
But your statement could be misinterpreted as "accounts for more" in a numeric sense, which would be false for many people. My TDEE, based on experience, is in the low 2000s. Let's say 2300, to be specific. My calculator-estimated BMR is around 1200. My intentional exercise runs around 300, which would imply non-exercise activity around 800. So BMR > non-exercise activity > exercise (1200 > 800 > 300), and BMR > movement (1200 > 1100).
BMR "accounts for more weight loss/maintenance" than movement, numerically. Pedantic!
ETA: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss6 -
With the extreme exception of elite athletes BMR will always be the dominant driver of calorie usage.
My n=1: BMR = 2050 Exercise varies from 300 to 1600/daily, so even on my most challenging days exertion only accounts for 13-44%.
2 -
Sure, but here's the thing: I'm not as fast as I was when I was younger. So even if my metabolism is the same and I do the exact same workout, appearing to exert the same level of activity, I'm slower and I'm less efficient because I'm almost 50. Lung capacity, joints, strength--all of that--it's just not what it was. That 10min mile is waaaay harder now, and I'm in pretty good shape.
It makes sense that age-related weight gain is related to being less active, but they need to define "active" and address the other factors that affect weight gain--less growth hormone, hormonal changes as you age, loss of muscle mass. This seems to oversimplify the issue by implying that staying active alone is the answer. Metabolism can remain unchanged, but other things are clearly going on because I can't drink wine and eat pizza every night anymore!1 -
candicew70 wrote: »Sure, but here's the thing: I'm not as fast as I was when I was younger. So even if my metabolism is the same and I do the exact same workout, appearing to exert the same level of activity, I'm slower and I'm less efficient because I'm almost 50. Lung capacity, joints, strength--all of that--it's just not what it was. That 10min mile is waaaay harder now, and I'm in pretty good shape.
It makes sense that age-related weight gain is related to being less active, but they need to define "active" and address the other factors that affect weight gain--less growth hormone, hormonal changes as you age, loss of muscle mass. This seems to oversimplify the issue by implying that staying active alone is the answer. Metabolism can remain unchanged, but other things are clearly going on because I can't drink wine and eat pizza every night anymore!
"Active" doesn't just mean exercise. When I was in my 20s I rarely did deliberate exercise except for stints here and there in the weight room...but I was active overall. My jobs were active, I was walking around a college campus a lot, I didn't own a car so I walked or biked most places, my buddies and I liked playing frisbee golf and ultimate frisbee, etc. I was active to the point of not having to worry about food or calories or anything and I could drink beer and eat pizza every night.
I'm as active as I can be now, but even with regular, deliberate exercise, it's nowhere close to being as active as I used to be overall because much of my day consists of sitting behind a desk. I can't drink beer and eat pizza every night anymore because even with deliberate exercise, my overall activity pales in comparison to what it used to be.9 -
candicew70 wrote: »Sure, but here's the thing: I'm not as fast as I was when I was younger. So even if my metabolism is the same and I do the exact same workout, appearing to exert the same level of activity, I'm slower and I'm less efficient because I'm almost 50. Lung capacity, joints, strength--all of that--it's just not what it was. That 10min mile is waaaay harder now, and I'm in pretty good shape.
It makes sense that age-related weight gain is related to being less active, but they need to define "active" and address the other factors that affect weight gain--less growth hormone, hormonal changes as you age, loss of muscle mass. This seems to oversimplify the issue by implying that staying active alone is the answer. Metabolism can remain unchanged, but other things are clearly going on because I can't drink wine and eat pizza every night anymore!
I'm 47 and ran my last 5k in just under 20 mins and I was thinking the same thing...until seeing the results and the winner of the race made it in just over 15 mins.
He was 52.
13 -
Unless you have a medical issue which makes losing weight difficult , people who use the metabolism as as an excuse are usually those who don't understand the concept of being in a caloric deficit .13
-
This might be true for most people, but I have a really slow metabolism. My mom told me that when I was a little kid and it wouldn't have changed now. That's the only reason I carry extra weight.
18 -
candicew70 wrote: »Sure, but here's the thing: I'm not as fast as I was when I was younger. So even if my metabolism is the same and I do the exact same workout, appearing to exert the same level of activity, I'm slower and I'm less efficient because I'm almost 50. Lung capacity, joints, strength--all of that--it's just not what it was. That 10min mile is waaaay harder now, and I'm in pretty good shape.
It makes sense that age-related weight gain is related to being less active, but they need to define "active" and address the other factors that affect weight gain--less growth hormone, hormonal changes as you age, loss of muscle mass. This seems to oversimplify the issue by implying that staying active alone is the answer. Metabolism can remain unchanged, but other things are clearly going on because I can't drink wine and eat pizza every night anymore!
I'm 47 and ran my last 5k in just under 20 mins and I was thinking the same thing...until seeing the results and the winner of the race made it in just over 15 mins.
He was 52.
This hits too close to home for me!
I'm not slow, but I'm regularly outrun by people in older age groups. Training goes a long way.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »candicew70 wrote: »Sure, but here's the thing: I'm not as fast as I was when I was younger. So even if my metabolism is the same and I do the exact same workout, appearing to exert the same level of activity, I'm slower and I'm less efficient because I'm almost 50. Lung capacity, joints, strength--all of that--it's just not what it was. That 10min mile is waaaay harder now, and I'm in pretty good shape.
It makes sense that age-related weight gain is related to being less active, but they need to define "active" and address the other factors that affect weight gain--less growth hormone, hormonal changes as you age, loss of muscle mass. This seems to oversimplify the issue by implying that staying active alone is the answer. Metabolism can remain unchanged, but other things are clearly going on because I can't drink wine and eat pizza every night anymore!
I'm 47 and ran my last 5k in just under 20 mins and I was thinking the same thing...until seeing the results and the winner of the race made it in just over 15 mins.
He was 52.
This hits too close to home for me!
I'm not slow, but I'm regularly outrun by people in older age groups. Training goes a long way.
Our brains quit long before our bodies do. That's a harsh lesson on just how much we limit ourselves sacrificing excellence for comfort.4 -
Jacwhite22 wrote: »This might be true for most people, but I have a really slow metabolism. My mom told me that when I was a little kid and it wouldn't have changed now. That's the only reason I carry extra weight.
Keep believing that if you want, but you're selling yourself short.17 -
Jacwhite22 wrote: »This might be true for most people, but I have a really slow metabolism. My mom told me that when I was a little kid and it wouldn't have changed now. That's the only reason I carry extra weight.
Hate to tell you this, but your mom was wrong. (Not really. The worst possibility would be that the problem was outside your control. This is very much within your control.)
Weight is an output of behavior. You carry extra weight because you eat more calories than your activity allows.11 -
candicew70 wrote: »Sure, but here's the thing: I'm not as fast as I was when I was younger. So even if my metabolism is the same and I do the exact same workout, appearing to exert the same level of activity, I'm slower and I'm less efficient because I'm almost 50. Lung capacity, joints, strength--all of that--it's just not what it was. That 10min mile is waaaay harder now, and I'm in pretty good shape.
It makes sense that age-related weight gain is related to being less active, but they need to define "active" and address the other factors that affect weight gain--less growth hormone, hormonal changes as you age, loss of muscle mass. This seems to oversimplify the issue by implying that staying active alone is the answer. Metabolism can remain unchanged, but other things are clearly going on because I can't drink wine and eat pizza every night anymore!
But staying active is (1) the thing we actually have control over, and (2) the biggest part of the answer . . . which makes it the only answer that is even remotely useful for action. Worrying about things we have no control over is kind of a waste of time, though it can be a good excuse-generator . (BTW: #2 seems like the point of the linked article, to me.)
Look at, and really think about, what a (research-based) TDEE calculator will tell you. At my size (5'5", 132lbs), a 20-year-old sedentary woman's TDEE is estimated at around 1600-1700. At 40, it's around 1500-1600. At 60, around 1400-1500.
Around fifty whole calories daily per decade.
The numbers are not huge.
Sure, eventually, physical decline happens. If we're lucky, the reason is advanced aging (vs. earlier disease).
And the eventual difference in exercise performance with aging is real, if we've held other relevant factors steady (training levels, nutrition, etc.). But, as others have said, exercise is less important (numerically) than daily life movement.
There are choices we can make to improve our individual situation, not only with respect to daily life activity, but also with respect to training levels (especially muscle mass), nutrition, etc. I grant the point that occupational factors can limit daily life movement (my job in my early 20s was much more active than my later career). I also appreciate that the situation isn't perfectable: We don't live forever, robustly or otherwise.
I'm 62. Because I was too stupid to be active earlier in life - an advantage those of you who've always been active don't have - I can now say that I'm probably effectively physically younger now than I was at 45. I have friends in their 70s who, capability-wise (and I'd bet TDEE-wise) are younger than others of my friends who are in their 20s, let alone 40s. 4 -
Jacwhite22 wrote: »This might be true for most people, but I have a really slow metabolism. My mom told me that when I was a little kid and it wouldn't have changed now. That's the only reason I carry extra weight.
Did your mom have a medically documented reason for saying this? Have you been told this by a medical professional during your adult life?8 -
Jacwhite22 wrote: »This might be true for most people, but I have a really slow metabolism. My mom told me that when I was a little kid and it wouldn't have changed now. That's the only reason I carry extra weight.
Have you had your RMR lab tested to see if it falls below the expected value, or are you just presuming that your metabolism is slow?6 -
Gonna be honest, I did not take the post about mom seriously, figured it was probably meant to illicit a reaction
I think the whole metabolism thing is one of the most destructive weight loss myths out there. So many people think they are a lost cause because "I've always had a slow metabolism" or "Now that I'm over <enter random age here> my metabolism slowed down and I can't lose weight". They either think there's no point or it just makes them jealous of people they assume won the genetic lottery. That lack of control runs all through so may weight loss myths, but I think most of the people (especially women) I know who have given up believe their slow metabolism has forced their hand
10 -
I have a question here. If someone had "fast metabolism" wouldn't it mean that they digest food faster and their cells take up the nutrients very efficiently, then if it's not used they store the extra energy as fat ? While those who had "slow meatbolism" should have food in their stomach longer, digest it slower, so the nutrients won't be stored that easily. This theory would suggest that those who gain fat easily actually has a "fast metabolism". Yeah, well the truth is that those who say they can't lose weight because of their metabolism eat way more calories than they burn...5
-
Jacwhite22 wrote: »This might be true for most people, but I have a really slow metabolism. My mom told me that when I was a little kid and it wouldn't have changed now. That's the only reason I carry extra weight.
If you truly believe this I think it's worth seeing a doctor to find out for sure. Our beliefs about ourselves are often the things that hold us back the most. And really, unless a medical professional confirms your mother's suspicions how can you really know? People are notorious for not realising how much they're eating and what that means for their weight.
Personally, I always thought I had a fast metabolism, I was always pretty slim, rarely did intentional exercise, was *bad* at sport, at lots of junk food etc. What I didn't take into account was that I walked everywhere (probably at least 20,000 steps per day, likely more) and didn't eat anywhere near as much as I thought I did. It took an illness and medication to make me put on weight. When taking it off, I've put my stats into MFP and lost weight as predicted. Turns out I'm actually pretty normal!5 -
I might have a slightly faster metabolism. At 44 I need to eat about 300kcal over tdee to stay on weight, and my weight loss was faster than expected. Not unhappy for someone driving car to work, sitting at a desk all day and getting in about 4000 steps a day. I do work out though (on and off), running (damn hallux valgus currently prevents me) and living room bodyweight Intervals. And I seem to build muscles faster than most. But I guess that might be somewhat hormonal. Always wondered if there’s a reason I don’t really feel female (but have very female pelvis. Meh!)0
-
Jacwhite22 wrote: »This might be true for most people, but I have a really slow metabolism. My mom told me that when I was a little kid and it wouldn't have changed now. That's the only reason I carry extra weight.
Metabolism does vary that’s true.
The only reason that you carry extra weight is because you consume more calories than your body burns.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions