Starvation Mode - Adaptive Thermogenesis and Weight Loss
Replies
-
Thanks for the post!
makes me a little sad tho.
A 10% mass reduction for me is 6kg.
I plan to have a 10kg weight reduction. Any suggestions on when to take a 'break' from dieting?
0 -
Well, certainly have a lower EE for a given activity but a lower RMR (corrected for LBM)? I would think so... Yet some research shows the opposite.
See this table
From http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/5/793.full.pdf
Is a bit older and sample size is limited (9) but it suggests the RMR was higher in the trained individuals. Comments, or other research?
That is interesting, I had only looked at some of the former studies this one referenced, and some latter ones with worse sample size, I didn't recall this one. This is good one to include TEF.
Why was I looking?
After my own lower than normal average 3.5 mL/kg/min during baseline VO2max test prep (not true RMR resting 15-20 min, just 5 min) I asked the tech running the test and the Dr later if that was normal.
So tested 1.221 cal/min.
Calculated based on tested LBM expected 1.25.
Not enough to worry about, but considering I thought I was eating more for training, almost maintenance level, I didn't expect any AT to have happened. Perhaps it did though. I know I was burning a whole lot more than expected based on older VO2max test, once I got home and did the comparison. I think it was avg 200 more daily.
They both admitted their view was perhaps skewed, because they tested almost only people with heart problems or confirming if there are (hospital's heart unit), or those aerobically fit that wanted the test to improve performance and paid for it. So to me, from that study for example, healthy otherwise but non-exercising are not tested much by these folks.
But they said it was not at all unusual from what they saw. Hardly scientific study, but if you look at folks that have posted online about their own improvements to VO2max tests, or taking them, or had them and what they changed, if they include their baseline figures (which are almost always obtained), I've always seem them lower. Of course plenty of example where it's not mentioned, so I'd never know.
And the amount of variance the Dr and tech saw was not commented on, just they saw lower.
Then again, I know there are plenty like me, trusting their HRM for calorie burn, and actually burning much more than they expect if even eating back exercise calories.
Perhaps were are in exercise induced greater deficit and AT has hit considering RMR might have been willing to be higher.
I'll have to look at the numbers back then, if RMR could have been higher, how much deficit was I really causing.
Yet another reason to be reasonable with exercise during weight loss, too much potential impact if you get it wrong.
Thanks for finding that, I was recommending wrong direction then it seems if someone saw no loss and did lots of cardio.
Interesting the TEF is decently lower. I guess that should be thought of though.0 -
Thanks for this! Looking at Table 1 - the untrained group was 10% heavier than the trained group - a full 7 kg (15 lbs). The other thing I note is that the trained group had a BF %age of 7.6%, which is incredible, but even the untrained group was all the way down to 13.7%, which is very very good. The untrained group had V02 measured at over 50, which is quite good for that age group, too.
It seems to me this paper is actually comparing two groups of quite fit people...?0 -
Thanks for this! Looking at Table 1 - the untrained group was 10% heavier than the trained group - a full 7 kg (15 lbs). The other thing I note is that the trained group had a BF %age of 7.6%, which is incredible, but even the untrained group was all the way down to 13.7%, which is very very good. The untrained group had V02 measured at over 50, which is quite good for that age group, too.
It seems to me this paper is actually comparing two groups of quite fit people...?
Very true, they aren't unfit by any means, just no regular physical activity or sport.
Perhaps that means they get out on a ride with the family sometimes on the weekend, or throw a job in there from time to time.
I hope it was more than a single question on a form - "Do you do any regular weekly physical activity or sport?"
Someone could read that wrong and think they aren't the regular that is being referenced.
Perhaps that's the difference to prior studies too, they had bigger folks with actually elevated RMR compared to what was expected.
I always think that selection process for participants is interesting in studies - when they care to comment on it.0 -
Thanks for this! Looking at Table 1 - the untrained group was 10% heavier than the trained group - a full 7 kg (15 lbs). The other thing I note is that the trained group had a BF %age of 7.6%, which is incredible, but even the untrained group was all the way down to 13.7%, which is very very good. The untrained group had V02 measured at over 50, which is quite good for that age group, too.
It seems to me this paper is actually comparing two groups of quite fit people...?
Very true, they aren't unfit by any means, just no regular physical activity or sport.
Perhaps that means they get out on a ride with the family sometimes on the weekend, or throw a job in there from time to time.
I hope it was more than a single question on a form - "Do you do any regular weekly physical activity or sport?"
Someone could read that wrong and think they aren't the regular that is being referenced.
Perhaps that's the difference to prior studies too, they had bigger folks with actually elevated RMR compared to what was expected.
I always think that selection process for participants is interesting in studies - when they care to comment on it.
That's a good observation. I'm afraid that I need to read more on this - I think we could find arguments/justification for either - looking forward to seeing more research on this point.0 -
Well, certainly have a lower EE for a given activity but a lower RMR (corrected for LBM)? I would think so... Yet some research shows the opposite.
See this table
From http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/5/793.full.pdf
Is a bit older and sample size is limited (9) but it suggests the RMR was higher in the trained individuals. Comments, or other research?
That is interesting, I had only looked at some of the former studies this one referenced, and some latter ones with worse sample size, I didn't recall this one. This is good one to include TEF.
Why was I looking?
After my own lower than normal average 3.5 mL/kg/min during baseline VO2max test prep (not true RMR resting 15-20 min, just 5 min) I asked the tech running the test and the Dr later if that was normal.
So tested 1.221 cal/min.
Calculated based on tested LBM expected 1.25.
Not enough to worry about, but considering I thought I was eating more for training, almost maintenance level, I didn't expect any AT to have happened. Perhaps it did though. I know I was burning a whole lot more than expected based on older VO2max test, once I got home and did the comparison. I think it was avg 200 more daily.
They both admitted their view was perhaps skewed, because they tested almost only people with heart problems or confirming if there are (hospital's heart unit), or those aerobically fit that wanted the test to improve performance and paid for it. So to me, from that study for example, healthy otherwise but non-exercising are not tested much by these folks.
But they said it was not at all unusual from what they saw. Hardly scientific study, but if you look at folks that have posted online about their own improvements to VO2max tests, or taking them, or had them and what they changed, if they include their baseline figures (which are almost always obtained), I've always seem them lower. Of course plenty of example where it's not mentioned, so I'd never know.
And the amount of variance the Dr and tech saw was not commented on, just they saw lower.
Then again, I know there are plenty like me, trusting their HRM for calorie burn, and actually burning much more than they expect if even eating back exercise calories.
Perhaps were are in exercise induced greater deficit and AT has hit considering RMR might have been willing to be higher.
I'll have to look at the numbers back then, if RMR could have been higher, how much deficit was I really causing.
Yet another reason to be reasonable with exercise during weight loss, too much potential impact if you get it wrong.
Thanks for finding that, I was recommending wrong direction then it seems if someone saw no loss and did lots of cardio.
Interesting the TEF is decently lower. I guess that should be thought of though.
heybales,
Please clarify what you mean by "I was recommending wrong direction ten it seems if someone saw no loss and did lots of cardio".
I have read many of your posts and I cant remember what you recommended. . . .0 -
I just noticed I looked at my wrong records for the comparison of tested to calculated expected RMR.
Tested - 1.221 cal/min.
Cunningham RMR based on tested LBM - 1.3625 cal/min.
x 1440 for daily RMR, leaves tested 204 lower than expected. About 10% below. Significant.
And with TDEE and eating level based on that, wiped out paper deficit.
I'm going to run through those numbers again, plus some VO2max test results that many folks post online for others to see. Some will leave those baseline measurements in there. Then they just need to include enough data to compare to.0 -
heybales,
Please clarify what you mean by "I was recommending wrong direction ten it seems if someone saw no loss and did lots of cardio".
I have read many of your posts and I cant remember what you recommended. . . .
Lowering cal's more.0 -
heybales,
Please clarify what you mean by "I was recommending wrong direction ten it seems if someone saw no loss and did lots of cardio".
I have read many of your posts and I cant remember what you recommended. . . .
Lowering cal's more.
So you are saying you should not lower cals more. I am guessing that it is because this would just cause more AT?
Interested in seeing if anything can be done to reverse AT or if we just wait. . . .0 -
I would think that eating more and forcing EE upwards by exercising to compensate for the additional fuel intake would have to push things in the desired direction.0
-
I've read some interesting info about reversing AT. I wish I had the links bookmarked, but I don't... I'm sure interested parties can find them though. The basics were that one must *slowly* reintroduce a higher caloric intake. Simply switching from a large deficit to what *should* be "maintenance" intake will cause weight gain, because of the AT that has already occurred. When goal weight is reached, it's best to go have your RMR/BMR measured and figure out your *new* level of maintenance intake. If it's lower than it was before, those are the effects of AT. Continuing the same level of exercise and re-introducing calories at a weekly incremental rate of (I think it was) 100-ish daily calories (i.e. eat 100 per day more than your actual maintenance this week, then add another 100 per day next week) was shown to be an effective method. When I get to that point I will probably have my BMR measured every 3-4 weeks to be sure I'm actually increasing it. That assumes I actually experience AT. It's likely that I will, but some people do not. Those that do, experience it at varying levels. I'm trying my hardest to hedge my bets in that direction. The only way to know for sure how much you are affected is to have it measured.1
-
I have seen nothing in any of the research to say it gets worse. That is pure conjecture and I don't think it is logical. The body adapts by expending less energy, not doing some non essential things and somehow being more efficient with the essential things. This is not something the body can just keep doing. You cut your calories 40% and your body responds by lowering metabolism 10% or so. You are still in deficit and still lose. If you cut it less, it lowers less. But if you lowered more, the body can't keep lowering the MR. It never cancels the deficit. there has never been a documented case of cutting calories and having a smaller deficit result. It just won't increase the deficit 1:1 with the calorie reduction if you have the drop in MR. AT is not a reason people don't lose weight, but it is a common excuse.heybales,
Please clarify what you mean by "I was recommending wrong direction ten it seems if someone saw no loss and did lots of cardio".
I have read many of your posts and I cant remember what you recommended. . . .
Lowering cal's more.
So you are saying you should not lower cals more. I am guessing that it is because this would just cause more AT?
Interested in seeing if anything can be done to reverse AT or if we just wait. . . .0 -
Bump. I was away when you posted this and have been meaning to read it. Finally did. Thanks!!0
-
AT is not a reason people don't lose weight, but it is a common excuse.
I don't see it so much as an excuse (you seem to be focusing on intentions or attitudes) but it certainly seems a factor.
Is it important? Let's see...
AT is just one factor among others:
- reduced metabolism due to normal weight loss and reduced LBM
- AT: and here I'll stick to non-exercise, non-LBM related AT
- increased efficiency from activity and lost weight, so that the effective "burn" is lower for a given effort
Together they can have a significant impact on the weight loss strategy.
(Rounding the math from a worksheet)
Consider a person that at 80 kg, 35% BF (LBM is 55 kg) has a BMR of about 1460 and a sedentary TDEE of 1900. Their daily exercise regimen givens then about 600 calories. Total TDEE 2500.
When that person loses 20 kg (WTG!), their new LBM migh reasonably be 53 Kg - minimalistic loss of LBM, it might even be lower) that results in a BMR of 1400. A small change! The new sedentary TDEE is around 1800. just -100 calories! But, given that their activity new produces less of a burn, that might give only 400 calories. Add to that the AT factor and ... Total TDEE 1900.
If that person was cutting at 2000 intially. That would be a hundred excess calories for the lighter person.
So what role does AT have in this fictional example?
Of the total change (only in this example)
- 12% change is due to normal TDEE difference due to LBM changes, might be much higher with more LBM loss.
- 47% due to exercise specific efficiency adaptation
- 41% due to non-LBM related AT
---
And yes, one can always lower calories consumed from that 1900 to 1600 or 1400 or lower to continue on the loss but it does get more difficult to do so and also assure nutritional diversity.1 -
I have seen nothing in any of the research to say it gets worse. That is pure conjecture and I don't think it is logical. The body adapts by expending less energy, not doing some non essential things and somehow being more efficient with the essential things. This is not something the body can just keep doing. You cut your calories 40% and your body responds by lowering metabolism 10% or so. You are still in deficit and still lose. If you cut it less, it lowers less. But if you lowered more, the body can't keep lowering the MR. It never cancels the deficit. there has never been a documented case of cutting calories and having a smaller deficit result. It just won't increase the deficit 1:1 with the calorie reduction if you have the drop in MR. AT is not a reason people don't lose weight, but it is a common excuse.heybales,
Please clarify what you mean by "I was recommending wrong direction ten it seems if someone saw no loss and did lots of cardio".
I have read many of your posts and I cant remember what you recommended. . . .
Lowering cal's more.
So you are saying you should not lower cals more. I am guessing that it is because this would just cause more AT?
Interested in seeing if anything can be done to reverse AT or if we just wait. . . .
Research where it got worse:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6015252
"The adaptive reduction in thermogenesis at plateau was substantial and represented 30·9 % of the compensation in energy balance that led to resistance to further lose body weight. In conclusion, these results show that adaptive reduction in thermogenesis may contribute to the occurrence of resistance to lose fat in obese men subjected to a weight-reducing programme."
And while compliance is the major issue, studies show that AT isn't just an issue but a reasonably important factor.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/200542130 -
Guilty as charged. I think far too people use this kind of information to come up with reasons to give up instead of things to consider that might happen and can be dealt with if they do.AT is not a reason people don't lose weight, but it is a common excuse.
I don't see it so much as an excuse (you seem to be focusing on intentions or attitudes) but it certainly seems a factor.
There are problems (IMO) with your example. Losing that much weight, the person should recalculate during loss and not expect the cut used in the beginning to work for the entire course. But if they did, the deficit would decrease because of the weight loss potentially compounded by MR slowdown. And a decreased deficit would not continue to decrease the MR as much, correct? I still have only seen hypothetical people and not actual subjects from studies that "cross zero" and have a deficit cancelled out completely due to AT.0 -
This all strikes me as strengthening the case for SLOW weight loss using a combination of moderate caloric intake reduction + increase in exercise burn.
Is there a study that looks at AT for three cases:
1. Standard intake reduction of 20% of TDEE
2. Eat at TDEE but add sufficient exercise to create 20% deficit
3. Split the difference - 10% reduction in intake plus 10% of TDEE in additional exercise1 -
Guilty as charged. I think far too people use this kind of information to come up with reasons to give up instead of things to consider that might happen and can be dealt with if they do.AT is not a reason people don't lose weight, but it is a common excuse.
I don't see it so much as an excuse (you seem to be focusing on intentions or attitudes) but it certainly seems a factor.
There are problems (IMO) with your example. Losing that much weight, the person should recalculate during loss and not expect the cut used in the beginning to work for the entire course. But if they did, the deficit would decrease because of the weight loss potentially compounded by MR slowdown. And a decreased deficit would not continue to decrease the MR as much, correct? I still have only seen hypothetical people and not actual subjects from studies that "cross zero" and have a deficit cancelled out completely due to AT.
Yes, absolutely should recalculate along the way. But a lot of people don't and this causes a fake "plateau" (note quotes).
The other study I quoted shows AT as a higher factor (700 calories, wow?!). BUt I agree, that it is only one factor among others. And likely adherence/poor compliance is a bigger concern in general.
Like here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/200542130 -
This all strikes me as strengthening the case for SLOW weight loss using a combination of moderate caloric intake reduction + increase in exercise burn.
Is there a study that looks at AT for three cases:
1. Standard intake reduction of 20% of TDEE
2. Eat at TDEE but add sufficient exercise to create 20% deficit
3. Split the difference - 10% reduction in intake plus 10% of TDEE in additional exercise
I have seen various studies that cover these type of protocols for the role of exercise, type, frequency, etc. but not specific to AT.0 -
There are problems (IMO) with your example. Losing that much weight, the person should recalculate during loss and not expect the cut used in the beginning to work for the entire course. But if they did, the deficit would decrease because of the weight loss potentially compounded by MR slowdown. And a decreased deficit would not continue to decrease the MR as much, correct? I still have only seen hypothetical people and not actual subjects from studies that "cross zero" and have a deficit cancelled out completely due to AT.
This example doesn't get in to how the weight was gained in past year, I'm betting to discouragement and binges during the time. Each binge not long enough to raise metabolism, merely add fat.
Also the estimate of how much being eaten may be off as we know since based on memory. But, if she had been eating more prior, then how did eating more post involvement cause an improvement? So probably valid enough.
Also, the potential RMR was based not on bodyfat%, but if RMR had been legitimately less because of less LBM, it would never have raised either after intervention.
I've found several of these case type studies, not true studies since they only get to start recording info when they see the person, but interesting none-the-less what you can discern from the effects after a treatment is followed. I think it proves several points.
A similar case study was published by Jampolis (2004).
A 51 year old patient complained of a 15 lb weight gain over the last year despite beginning a strenuous triathlon and marathon training program (2 hours per day, 5-6 days per week).
A 3 day diet analysis estimated a daily intake of only 1000-1200 Calories.
An indirect calorimetry revealed a resting metabolic rate of 950 Calories (28% below predicted for age, height, weight, and gender).
After medications and medical conditions such as hypothyroidism and diabetes where ruled out, the final diagnosis was over-training and undereating. The following treatment was recommended:
Increase daily dietary intake by approximately 100 Calories per week to a goal of 1500 calories
32% protein; 35% carbohydrates; 33% fat
Consume 5-6 small meals per day
Small amounts of protein with each meal or snack
Choose high fiber starches
Select mono- and poly- unsaturated fats
Restrict consumption of starch with evening meals unless focused around training
Take daily multi-vitamin and mineral supplement
Perform whole body isometric resistance training 2 times per week
After 6 weeks the patient's resting metabolism increased 35% to 1282 Calories per day (only 2% below predicted).
The patient also decreases percent fat from 37% to 34%, a loss of 5 lbs of body fat.
Jampolis MB (2004) Weight Gain - Marathon Runner / Triathlete. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(5) S148.0 -
Running 10-12 hours a week while carrying 37% body fat is impressive.
EDIT: Ah, just realized that the other data suggests female..0 -
This all strikes me as strengthening the case for SLOW weight loss using a combination of moderate caloric intake reduction + increase in exercise burn.
Is there a study that looks at AT for three cases:
1. Standard intake reduction of 20% of TDEE
2. Eat at TDEE but add sufficient exercise to create 20% deficit
3. Split the difference - 10% reduction in intake plus 10% of TDEE in additional exercise
Considering these studies are using folks that usually have had no weight changes in 3-6 months and not attempting to diet, have the available time to join in on a study that could be a bit time consuming, have professional lab measured starting points and confirming no other outstanding health issues except what weight causes - yes I'd suggest that you and me without that stuff with additional stress on our body, would be a lot smarter and safer doing slow purposely. Not obtaining slow because we tried to over do it.
Here is study that seems to have reasonable deficit amount that changed as needed, and reasonable exercise amount, increasing intensity as needed. With great results to LBM and RMR.
To the study above about cardio increasing RMR, happened here too. Whether that increase in LBM observed was glucose or muscle unknown as unmeasured, but still shows promise.
http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/2/196.full
Corrections were made to facilitate a gradual and consistent weight loss of approximately one to two pounds per week. The nutrition intervention included use of a high-fibre, high-carbohydrate supplement. Based on participants' food records, there were no significant differences in nutrient intake among the three diet groups. Intakes approximated 1194 kilocalories per day, 70% from carbohydrate, 15% from protein and less than 15% from fat.
Subjects in the two groups involved in aerobic exercise exercised three times per week at 70–80% of their functional capacity for 30 to 50 minutes. Duration and intensity were progressively increased. Subjects in the aerobic plus resistance training group also completed 11 exercises following heavy resistance training principles three times per week.
The control group showed no change in body composition over the 12-week period. All three intervention groups had a significant decline in body mass at 6 weeks, and again at 12 weeks for an average total weight loss of 6.2 kg in the diet-only group, 6.8 kg for the diet plus aerobic exercise group, and 7.0 kg for the diet, aerobic and resistance training group (standard deviations only presented graphically). By 12 weeks there were also significant decreases in percentage body fat: 5.8, 8.0 and 4.3%, respectively. However, there were no significant differences between groups. There were no significant changes in fat-free mass in any of the groups at any time period. There were also no significant changes in resting metabolic rate (measured in absolute terms or relative to body mass) within groups over time or between groups over time. Linear regression models between resting metabolic rate and fat-free mass were also tested. These models demonstrated a significant relation only in the diet and aerobic exercise group, such that resting metabolic rate increased as fat-free mass increased (at baseline, y = 442.74 + 23.00x, r = 0.89, P ≤ 0.05; at week 12, y = 88.574 + 29.77x, r = 0.79, P ≤ 0.05).0 -
There is educated guesswork going on here that may have some validity, but you are speculating about the possible history of a hypothetical subject.There are problems (IMO) with your example. Losing that much weight, the person should recalculate during loss and not expect the cut used in the beginning to work for the entire course. But if they did, the deficit would decrease because of the weight loss potentially compounded by MR slowdown. And a decreased deficit would not continue to decrease the MR as much, correct? I still have only seen hypothetical people and not actual subjects from studies that "cross zero" and have a deficit cancelled out completely due to AT.
This example doesn't get in to how the weight was gained in past year, I'm betting to discouragement and binges during the time. Each binge not long enough to raise metabolism, merely add fat.
Also the estimate of how much being eaten may be off as we know since based on memory. But, if she had been eating more prior, then how did eating more post involvement cause an improvement? So probably valid enough.
Also, the potential RMR was based not on bodyfat%, but if RMR had been legitimately less because of less LBM, it would never have raised either after intervention.
I've found several of these case type studies, not true studies since they only get to start recording info when they see the person, but interesting none-the-less what you can discern from the effects after a treatment is followed. I think it proves several points.
A similar case study was published by Jampolis (2004).
A 51 year old patient complained of a 15 lb weight gain over the last year despite beginning a strenuous triathlon and marathon training program (2 hours per day, 5-6 days per week).
A 3 day diet analysis estimated a daily intake of only 1000-1200 Calories.
An indirect calorimetry revealed a resting metabolic rate of 950 Calories (28% below predicted for age, height, weight, and gender).
After medications and medical conditions such as hypothyroidism and diabetes where ruled out, the final diagnosis was over-training and undereating. The following treatment was recommended:
Increase daily dietary intake by approximately 100 Calories per week to a goal of 1500 calories
32% protein; 35% carbohydrates; 33% fat
Consume 5-6 small meals per day
Small amounts of protein with each meal or snack
Choose high fiber starches
Select mono- and poly- unsaturated fats
Restrict consumption of starch with evening meals unless focused around training
Take daily multi-vitamin and mineral supplement
Perform whole body isometric resistance training 2 times per week
After 6 weeks the patient's resting metabolism increased 35% to 1282 Calories per day (only 2% below predicted).
The patient also decreases percent fat from 37% to 34%, a loss of 5 lbs of body fat.
Jampolis MB (2004) Weight Gain - Marathon Runner / Triathlete. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(5) S148.
The case study is interesting as it my shed some light on MR recovery, but the amount of variance and recovery is way outside what is found in most of the studies.
The reason I debate this is just to point out that what the studies show is that AT does exist but does not doom rapid weight loss. It does indicate that slower is likely a better (highly subjective word choice, I know) choice for most people.0 -
Thanks for that link, heybales, that was a good read.
What jumps out at me is the very low protein intake. 15% of 1200 calories is 45g of protein per day. Given that one of the groups was doing "strength training" 3x a week, that falls well below every protein guideline I've ever seen from a strength training specialist. So I'm thinking it's not a surprise body recomp differences didn't show up - insufficient building blocks for the group doing weight training.
At least, that's my initial read on it.0 -
tagging to read later.0
-
tagging to read later.
Ditto.0 -
add me to the must read when I have some downtime list0
-
Thanks for that link, heybales, that was a good read.
What jumps out at me is the very low protein intake. 15% of 1200 calories is 45g of protein per day. Given that one of the groups was doing "strength training" 3x a week, that falls well below every protein guideline I've ever seen from a strength training specialist. So I'm thinking it's not a surprise body recomp differences didn't show up - insufficient building blocks for the group doing weight training.
At least, that's my initial read on it.
Ya, good point. Also, their idea many times of heavy lifting is not what we would call heavy. Like not to failure probably, but good enough.
Good to know you can maintain LBM (I'm assuming it was muscle mass too) with just lifting, even with what might be considered below recommended protein intake.
Just means if you can do all 3 things - reasonable deficit, adequate protein intake, and resistance training, you have a great chance of maintaining muscle mass, and avoiding metabolism slow down beyond what weight loss and efficiency improvements would cause by themselves.
And hopefully no gluten allergy to cause undue stress! ;-)0 -
This post is totally unsuitable for MFP.
Factual information backed up with research that you have actually referenced.
HOW VERY DARE YOU!
:laugh:
Thank you so much for this. It's a great read and I have learnt a lot. :drinker:
Haha! This.0 -
I read recently that starvation is no good for your body0
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