Article on "Metabolic Adaption" from Stronger by Science

daltontf

The Metabolic Adaptation Manual: Problems, Solutions, and Life After Weight Loss:

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/metabolic-adaptation/

Any feedback on this?

AnnPT77

A good bit of it is not wrong, but, for normal average people wanting to lose weight and get fitter (even substantially fitter), I don't like the tone. I kind of think the article "sciences up" an excuse-oriented way of thinking that plays into myths encouraging us to think of ourselves as victims of our biology.

"Weight loss sucks" "unpleasant side effects" "excessive hunger", etc.

That's disempowering, IMO, and doesn't resonate with my personal experience . . . and oddly enough, given the site it's on, it might encourage people to think they need coaching through all this complexity.

I give it positive points for actually reaching and stating fairly sensible conclusions, rather than obscuring them in a sales pitch. The majority of those conclusions are exactly the strategies you'll see experienced people recommend (much more simply) here on the forums to people getting started: Don't lose too fast, get enough protein, have a plan for how weight loss dovetails into maintenance, consider diet breaks or re-feeds in relevant situations, etc. (The cardio advice is profoundly irrelevant for those of us who pursue CV-intensive activities deliberately, though.)

If someone literally is a bodybuilder or otherwise chasing unusual levels of leanness, there's maybe more relevance for this level of complexity. For the average person, I think the simple conclusions (as we often see here in the forums) are sufficient. When people challenge the simple conclusions, you'll see folks here trot out some of this same science.

PAV8888

If somebody really wants to fact check which parts of the article are based on solid science and which ones are more slanted/pitched towards generating a sales lead they can find a lot of references in the sticky threads at the top of the forum.

it didn't look to me like your article was throwing off the wall ideas out there, but I also didn't get the feeling that they were above slanting some conclusions so as to pitch their services.

I stopped reading halfway without having caught something totally off-the-wall being said. But for a couple of things the inferences drawn by me might have been slightly different than what they presented