"Metabolic Damage"
Replies
-
layne is supposed to be a scientist yet when he brought up metabolic damage he offered no scientific data. he offered broscience.Metabolic damage is really a misnomer. Yes you do slow down your metabolism and make it do bad things but Layne has been proven wrong on many levels. He has used biased study methods, has had his studies get poor reviews in peer review process.
I am not saying that Layne is a bad person or anything like that, he has helped many but there are many many many more people out there to learn from than that guy.
Whenever you go into ultra low calorie intake and ultra high calorie burn, your metabolism will literally say F#&K you and stop burning fat and actually store every single calorie you put into it because your body is built to survive. If you stay on that ultra low calorie diet for a long time like years, yes you will get really skinny, i.e. anorexia style skinny but otherwise in the short term your body will win the battle and you will actually get bigger vs. smaller.
Bios3training is a place to learn from, Icecreamfittness is another very great resource. Marc Lobliner of Tigerfitness gives excellent advice. (YouTube fitness channels)
If you are willing to put in the time and effort in the gym, you can virtually eat any type of food you want as long as your caloric intake is in a deficit and you will lose weight. I am living proof of that (yes that is anecdotal but it is still working. I bust my butt in the gym and eat whatever I like) Every week I go to the "fat doctor" weigh in and get my bodyfat done and every week I am down fat, up muscle, and bodyfat started 7 weeks ago at 28% and this week I am at 19.2%. I was stuck in neutral running their diet. Eating meat only with a few veg/fruit sprinkled in and ultra low calorie. 1200kcal or less a day, my body said NOPE we will not be losing weight like this. (I was working out too hard and so my metabolism went to survival mode. aka metabolic damage) As soon as I upped my calories, spread out my macros and added in the foods I like but with control, I began to see gains like I could never have hoped for otherwise.
If you're going to make the assertion that Layne is wrong please do reference the specific claims that you disagree with and why. It's not useful to provide an empty critique.
Thank you for doing nothing to further the critique that he's wrong. With or without scientific data--the experiences of NUMEROUS people does not constitute broscience.
ha very funny. when u offer no proof just experiences is broscience!0 -
i understand what you're saying. but you're just arguing semantics. i'm pretty sure everything you just said is the same as what someone else would call "metabolic damage".
Ok....and as I said.
I think that is an inappropriate term for a biological response to stress.
Damage means it is not capable of working.....but what has happened was not damage.....it is working the way it was intended.
Now someone with a messed up thyroid....that I could say is damaged, because then it is not working as it was intended/designed.
So call it as you like.....I just don't agree with the terminology......0 -
Thank you Katie
I don't plan on doing any form of diet with that little cal intake as the food that was "allowed" wasn't enough for me as it messed up my time of the month ( never had one on that so called 'diet' ) and as soon as I started eating normally again my stomach was in agony as I suffer with IBS so this triggered it and haven't been in pain that much since a child.
Like I said I have no idea on food I was always told carbs were not good in a diet (but I like my carbs).
What would u say is a good maximum daily cal intake? 1500?
Thank you
Eating that little can definitely mess up your menstrual cycle. I have not had mine in over a year, and I am trying desperately to get it back (with the help of my GP & a Gyno) I would seek medical help if this happens to you again.
And in regards to your question of how much to eat, I really cannot advise a number for you. It depends on how active you are. But just keep in mind that most women need about 2000 to maintain. This is very arbitrary. I would go to a website with a TDEE calculator to find out. Eating slightly under your maintenance will result in weight loss. Ensure that you are eating enough to fuel any activity you do.
Try this website http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/tdee-calculator.html
the fitness frog is a great website...i go there every 10 pounds or so and get a "tune up".0 -
Keep positive with nutrition fixing your body's issues. Always steer away from pharmacuticals and miracle drugs. If you know anything about doctors they say a Hippocratic Oath
after Hippocrites in Greece, he cured many diseases naturally with food and healthy habits.
In fact the term "doctor" means "I teach" funny that none of them try teaching us anything, except holistic doctors, who sadly, are mocked in the medical world.
Keep healthy eating in mind and you will be amazed at what can happen. The earth offers what we need for survival, dont ever believe or get frusterated and start thinking you need any of the marketed crap again!0 -
IT doesn't mean anything? How about it's a descriptor of what occurs in the body when it determines that self-preservation is at risk.
If you haven't guessed, I wholly agree with Layne Norton and have experienced it myself. At 11-13% bodyfat I was running maybe 70miles a week and lifting, I looked great and I was a mess hormonally, physically, and emotionally. I was eating ~2000-2300 calories a day despite "burning" well over 3000 each day but I was simply maintaining. Any time I'd eat what one would estimate my TDEE at I would gain weight FAST. Real weight, not water weight or a temporary fluctuation. I decreased my workouts to what they should be--maybe an hour or so a day--and quickly gained ~20 pounds in 9 weeks. At the same time I was eating ~2000-2300 calories a day so MAYBE a surplus of 300 calories a day on average--certainly not 1000+ extra calories a day; however, my body simply FREAKED OUT! I have also gone through recovery from anorexia--at which time I gained from 68 pounds up to 95 pounds all by eating 1200-1700 calories a day (and doing some daily exercise). I've done enough research and lived at the extreme where self-preservation is a real risk. I can say without doubt that "metabolic damage" is real and I don't care what anyone chooses to call it. Semantics and technicalities are a way to avoid the underlying message which is quite real and true.
I am not saying that Layne is right or wrong....I don't care.
My view on this is that the metabolism is not damaged...
If you are alive and breathing, then you are "metabloising" something...
When you are dead, you can say that the metabolism is damaged.
If you cut calories, then your body is going to react in a way that preserves itself....no different than a pregnant woman who cuts way back on her caloric intake in order to stay "skinny".....she can do that all she wants, but she will suffer while the body does things to protect the fetus.
Obviously this is a personal experience for you, so my intent is not to offend you.
But I don't think damage is the right word.....
Has the metabolism slowed down?? Yes, very much so.
Will it take time to get it going yes?? Yes. It will.
Will it get back to where it is working as desired?? Most likely yes.
Is that damage? To me no, it is working how it was intended to work. It works to preserve the life.
Your body has amazing coping mechanisms......so when you screw things up, it will take time to get it working right again.
But I don't see it as "damage", I see it as how God (or nature, your choice) intended.
I think "damaged" is intended to mean that it is not functioning optimally which you concede occurs in response to extreme caloric restriction. So i think you do, in fact, agree that it exists despite your dislike of the terminology.0 -
I think "damaged" is intended to mean that it is not functioning optimally which you concede occurs in response to extreme caloric restriction. So i think you do, in fact, agree that it exists despite your dislike of the terminology.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Ok....
But it is working optimally for a condition of severe calorie restriction......it is keeping you alive.
But hey to each his/her own.
Just eat right and keep it balanced.
Don't try shortcuts, until you have put in the effort and discipline to get your diet (meaning food intake, not a plan) right and you are exercising.0 -
I think most of us are in agreement on everything except the terminology. How about metabolic adaptation? Leigh Peele has pretty good information on that as far as it relates to dieting. What I wonder is if the adaptation is more drastic when it is a VCLD and thus even more difficult for the metabolism to re-adapt once the dieter is at maintenance.
http://www.leighpeele.com/starvation-mode#more-104230 -
I think "damaged" is intended to mean that it is not functioning optimally which you concede occurs in response to extreme caloric restriction. So i think you do, in fact, agree that it exists despite your dislike of the terminology.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Ok....
But it is working optimally for a condition of severe calorie restriction......it is keeping you alive.
But hey to each his/her own.
Just eat right and keep it balanced.
Don't try shortcuts, until you have put in the effort and discipline to get your diet (meaning food intake, not a plan) right and you are exercising.
but we're not talking about metabolism DURING severe calorie restriction, we're talking about metabolism AFTER.
i'm no doctor but i do know that metabolism is influenced by many things. i've had an ED before (which landed me in the hospital due to a severe double kidney infection). that and a family intervention were my wake up calls but even after i was "recovered" from my ED, it took several years before i felt my system was functioning normally.0 -
The more muscle you have the higher your BMR or basal metabolic rate (resting metabolism). I doubt you have metabolism damage. If you can get on a regular exercise program of 3 non-consecutive days of weight training about 45 mins of all your major muscle groups and 5 days of cardio (30 mins in your cardio zone) you will be on the road to recovery. Eat within 1 hour of rising and eat every 2-3 hours to keep your blood sugar stable and your energy level up. Myfitness pal is awesome how it breaks down the nutrients for you. However I changed my carbs potein and fat to 60/30/20% because I don't agree with all the carbs that's recommended. Stay within your calorie range and you'll be on your way! Good Luck 0
-
That said, were I in her position, I would calculate my BMR and TDEE, and eat my TDEE (plus eat back exercise calories) for a few weeks. Any gains or losses will allow her to tweak these numbers. Then I'd eat at a sensible deficit to lose the weight I wanted to lose.
Well, since literally TDEE includes everything you do, including exercise - if you ate at TDEE AND ate back your exercise calories, you would be eating in surplus and gaining fat.
Perhaps that is what you are thinking though, eating in surplus.
But literally, you only need to eat at TDEE to unstress the body for a little while. But if you have done crazy diets and lost decent amount of muscle mass, that TDEE will be lower than average person your age, weight, height, gender.
So base the BMR/TDEE on Katch BMR, not Mifflin or Harris BMR. Start with decent estimate of bodyfat for that BMR.0 -
I think most of us are in agreement on everything except the terminology. How about metabolic adaptation? Leigh Peele has pretty good information on that as far as it relates to dieting. What I wonder is if the adaptation is more drastic when it is a VCLD and thus even more difficult for the metabolism to re-adapt once the dieter is at maintenance.
http://www.leighpeele.com/starvation-mode#more-10423
Yes, it will taking longer to come out of suppressed metabolism.
And you are correct, it is metabolic damage.
Metabolic adaptation is what is going to happen when you go on a diet to everyone.
The extreme diets is what can lead to the metabolic damage.
This whole topic below has several studies listed in it.
While several studies show the max hit to metabolism may be up to 20% more than accounted for by lost weight and muscle mass, the effects stay with the person for in some up to a year.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss
I'd call suppressed more than expected damage, especially when the effects can last so long.
Lowered metabolism because of lost muscle mass and LBM and weighing less when moving, that's all expected and is adaptation. Some of that can be recovered quickly.
Shoot, top off glucose stores with the required 2-4 lbs of water weight, you just increased LBM, and just increased metabolism. That's not damage.
Eat at a high correct level with no weight gain or loss, and your tested RMR is 200-400 below what is expected for your measured LBM, that is damage.0 -
Bump0
-
with all due respect, it is the direct opposite of what u r saying. under caloric restriction ur body learns to do activities with less calories. ur metabolism becomes more efficient.
IT doesn't mean anything? How about it's a descriptor of what occurs in the body when it determines that self-preservation is at risk.
If you haven't guessed, I wholly agree with Layne Norton and have experienced it myself. At 11-13% bodyfat I was running maybe 70miles a week and lifting, I looked great and I was a mess hormonally, physically, and emotionally. I was eating ~2000-2300 calories a day despite "burning" well over 3000 each day but I was simply maintaining. Any time I'd eat what one would estimate my TDEE at I would gain weight FAST. Real weight, not water weight or a temporary fluctuation. I decreased my workouts to what they should be--maybe an hour or so a day--and quickly gained ~20 pounds in 9 weeks. At the same time I was eating ~2000-2300 calories a day so MAYBE a surplus of 300 calories a day on average--certainly not 1000+ extra calories a day; however, my body simply FREAKED OUT! I have also gone through recovery from anorexia--at which time I gained from 68 pounds up to 95 pounds all by eating 1200-1700 calories a day (and doing some daily exercise). I've done enough research and lived at the extreme where self-preservation is a real risk. I can say without doubt that "metabolic damage" is real and I don't care what anyone chooses to call it. Semantics and technicalities are a way to avoid the underlying message which is quite real and true.
I am not saying that Layne is right or wrong....I don't care.
My view on this is that the metabolism is not damaged...
If you are alive and breathing, then you are "metabloising" something...
When you are dead, you can say that the metabolism is damaged.
If you cut calories, then your body is going to react in a way that preserves itself....no different than a pregnant woman who cuts way back on her caloric intake in order to stay "skinny".....she can do that all she wants, but she will suffer while the body does things to protect the fetus.
Obviously this is a personal experience for you, so my intent is not to offend you.
But I don't think damage is the right word.....
Has the metabolism slowed down?? Yes, very much so.
Will it take time to get it going yes?? Yes. It will.
Will it get back to where it is working as desired?? Most likely yes.
Is that damage? To me no, it is working how it was intended to work. It works to preserve the life.
Your body has amazing coping mechanisms......so when you screw things up, it will take time to get it working right again.
But I don't see it as "damage", I see it as how God (or nature, your choice) intended.
I think "damaged" is intended to mean that it is not functioning optimally which you concede occurs in response to extreme caloric restriction. So i think you do, in fact, agree that it exists despite your dislike of the terminology.0 -
During the diet, yes. But we're talking about afterwards and using a very extreme diet as an example, as per my discussion with heybales above.
with all due respect, it is the direct opposite of what u r saying. under caloric restriction ur body learns to do activities with less calories. ur metabolism becomes more efficient.
IT doesn't mean anything? How about it's a descriptor of what occurs in the body when it determines that self-preservation is at risk.
If you haven't guessed, I wholly agree with Layne Norton and have experienced it myself. At 11-13% bodyfat I was running maybe 70miles a week and lifting, I looked great and I was a mess hormonally, physically, and emotionally. I was eating ~2000-2300 calories a day despite "burning" well over 3000 each day but I was simply maintaining. Any time I'd eat what one would estimate my TDEE at I would gain weight FAST. Real weight, not water weight or a temporary fluctuation. I decreased my workouts to what they should be--maybe an hour or so a day--and quickly gained ~20 pounds in 9 weeks. At the same time I was eating ~2000-2300 calories a day so MAYBE a surplus of 300 calories a day on average--certainly not 1000+ extra calories a day; however, my body simply FREAKED OUT! I have also gone through recovery from anorexia--at which time I gained from 68 pounds up to 95 pounds all by eating 1200-1700 calories a day (and doing some daily exercise). I've done enough research and lived at the extreme where self-preservation is a real risk. I can say without doubt that "metabolic damage" is real and I don't care what anyone chooses to call it. Semantics and technicalities are a way to avoid the underlying message which is quite real and true.
I am not saying that Layne is right or wrong....I don't care.
My view on this is that the metabolism is not damaged...
If you are alive and breathing, then you are "metabloising" something...
When you are dead, you can say that the metabolism is damaged.
If you cut calories, then your body is going to react in a way that preserves itself....no different than a pregnant woman who cuts way back on her caloric intake in order to stay "skinny".....she can do that all she wants, but she will suffer while the body does things to protect the fetus.
Obviously this is a personal experience for you, so my intent is not to offend you.
But I don't think damage is the right word.....
Has the metabolism slowed down?? Yes, very much so.
Will it take time to get it going yes?? Yes. It will.
Will it get back to where it is working as desired?? Most likely yes.
Is that damage? To me no, it is working how it was intended to work. It works to preserve the life.
Your body has amazing coping mechanisms......so when you screw things up, it will take time to get it working right again.
But I don't see it as "damage", I see it as how God (or nature, your choice) intended.
I think "damaged" is intended to mean that it is not functioning optimally which you concede occurs in response to extreme caloric restriction. So i think you do, in fact, agree that it exists despite your dislike of the terminology.0 -
got it
During the diet, yes. But we're talking about afterwards and using a very extreme diet as an example, as per my discussion with heybales above.
with all due respect, it is the direct opposite of what u r saying. under caloric restriction ur body learns to do activities with less calories. ur metabolism becomes more efficient.
IT doesn't mean anything? How about it's a descriptor of what occurs in the body when it determines that self-preservation is at risk.
If you haven't guessed, I wholly agree with Layne Norton and have experienced it myself. At 11-13% bodyfat I was running maybe 70miles a week and lifting, I looked great and I was a mess hormonally, physically, and emotionally. I was eating ~2000-2300 calories a day despite "burning" well over 3000 each day but I was simply maintaining. Any time I'd eat what one would estimate my TDEE at I would gain weight FAST. Real weight, not water weight or a temporary fluctuation. I decreased my workouts to what they should be--maybe an hour or so a day--and quickly gained ~20 pounds in 9 weeks. At the same time I was eating ~2000-2300 calories a day so MAYBE a surplus of 300 calories a day on average--certainly not 1000+ extra calories a day; however, my body simply FREAKED OUT! I have also gone through recovery from anorexia--at which time I gained from 68 pounds up to 95 pounds all by eating 1200-1700 calories a day (and doing some daily exercise). I've done enough research and lived at the extreme where self-preservation is a real risk. I can say without doubt that "metabolic damage" is real and I don't care what anyone chooses to call it. Semantics and technicalities are a way to avoid the underlying message which is quite real and true.
I am not saying that Layne is right or wrong....I don't care.
My view on this is that the metabolism is not damaged...
If you are alive and breathing, then you are "metabloising" something...
When you are dead, you can say that the metabolism is damaged.
If you cut calories, then your body is going to react in a way that preserves itself....no different than a pregnant woman who cuts way back on her caloric intake in order to stay "skinny".....she can do that all she wants, but she will suffer while the body does things to protect the fetus.
Obviously this is a personal experience for you, so my intent is not to offend you.
But I don't think damage is the right word.....
Has the metabolism slowed down?? Yes, very much so.
Will it take time to get it going yes?? Yes. It will.
Will it get back to where it is working as desired?? Most likely yes.
Is that damage? To me no, it is working how it was intended to work. It works to preserve the life.
Your body has amazing coping mechanisms......so when you screw things up, it will take time to get it working right again.
But I don't see it as "damage", I see it as how God (or nature, your choice) intended.
I think "damaged" is intended to mean that it is not functioning optimally which you concede occurs in response to extreme caloric restriction. So i think you do, in fact, agree that it exists despite your dislike of the terminology.0 -
Whenever you go into ultra low calorie intake and ultra high calorie burn, your metabolism will literally say F#&K you and stop burning fat and actually store every single calorie you put into it because your body is built to survive. If you stay on that ultra low calorie diet for a long time like years, yes you will get really skinny, i.e. anorexia style skinny but otherwise in the short term your body will win the battle and you will actually get bigger vs. smaller.
:noway:
so THAT explains all the fatties running around in 3rd world countries.
Did you read the entire section you quoted? I actually address the 3rd world people on ultra low caloric intake. Its like the anorexic physique. The body cannot win that battle but here in the NOT 3rd world, where food is readily available and people have choice, the body wins over and over. Look at the streets where you and I both live. The body is winning battles everyday. People go from one extreme to the next and do nothing but get bigger and bigger.0 -
with all due respect, i don't think you're quite understanding. severe calorie restriction, especially for extended periods of time, can (and most likely will) result in severe consequences. it can decrease the performance of your organs, circulatory system, endocryn system, nervous system, thyroid gland, digestive system, reproductive system, immune sytem, lympthatic system, basically EVERYTHING. but, in the context of metabolic impact, note that i listed "thyroid gland" and "endocryne system"- probably the two most important in regulating metabolism, although more than just your endocrine system and thyroid have an impact on metabolism- such as your body composition (and muscle atrophy is likely to occur with calorie restriction), your cellular function (gravely impacted by severe calorie resitriction), your activity (and chronic fatigue syndrome is very common because of the imparied immune system- which takes quite a while to build back up), your ability to properly digest food (and your digestive system can be severely impacted by prolonged calorie resitriction-- i know that from experience).
with all due respect, it is the direct opposite of what u r saying. under caloric restriction ur body learns to do activities with less calories. ur metabolism becomes more efficient.I think "damaged" is intended to mean that it is not functioning optimally which you concede occurs in response to extreme caloric restriction. So i think you do, in fact, agree that it exists despite your dislike of the terminology.
all these things, all this damage done to your body, takes time to heal. because of this, metabolism can most definitely be "damaged" by severe calorie restriction. though, to incure these effects, it usually has to be prolonged periods of time.0 -
Whenever you go into ultra low calorie intake and ultra high calorie burn, your metabolism will literally say F#&K you and stop burning fat and actually store every single calorie you put into it because your body is built to survive. If you stay on that ultra low calorie diet for a long time like years, yes you will get really skinny, i.e. anorexia style skinny but otherwise in the short term your body will win the battle and you will actually get bigger vs. smaller.
:noway:
so THAT explains all the fatties running around in 3rd world countries.
Did you read the entire section you quoted? I actually address the 3rd world people on ultra low caloric intake. Its like the anorexic physique. The body cannot win that battle but here in the NOT 3rd world, where food is readily available and people have choice, the body wins over and over. Look at the streets where you and I both live. The body is winning battles everyday. People go from one extreme to the next and do nothing but get bigger and bigger.
i guess i just still don't understand what you're saying. i had anorexia and bulimia for 2.5 years when i was younger. and i pretty damn skinny.0 -
Whenever you go into ultra low calorie intake and ultra high calorie burn, your metabolism will literally say F#&K you and stop burning fat and actually store every single calorie you put into it because your body is built to survive. If you stay on that ultra low calorie diet for a long time like years, yes you will get really skinny, i.e. anorexia style skinny but otherwise in the short term your body will win the battle and you will actually get bigger vs. smaller.
:noway:
so THAT explains all the fatties running around in 3rd world countries.
Did you read the entire section you quoted? I actually address the 3rd world people on ultra low caloric intake. Its like the anorexic physique. The body cannot win that battle but here in the NOT 3rd world, where food is readily available and people have choice, the body wins over and over. Look at the streets where you and I both live. The body is winning battles everyday. People go from one extreme to the next and do nothing but get bigger and bigger.
i guess i just still don't understand what you're saying. i had anorexia and bulimia for 2.5 years when i was younger. and i pretty damn skinny.
BINGO, your body cannot hold up against that kind of punishment. In the short term, VLCD will slow down your metabolism and actually go really wrong for what is being desired. When the mind is stronger than the metabolism and VLCD is maintained, the body loses and you get super skinny. That has been the point each time. The third world has nothing to do with this, this is choosing to be vlc.0 -
with all due respect, it is the direct opposite of what u r saying. under caloric restriction ur body learns to do activities with less calories. ur metabolism becomes more efficient.
No, it just slows down the rate at which it does things, and if not enough energy to do everything needed, you might say a priority list.
So some experience hair and nail growth slow down, low priority.
Some experience hair loss and super bad skin, low priority.
Some get colder in the winter, put on more clothes, low priority.
Compared to many functions that can't be slowed down that much, like dealing with the water levels in the cells, heart beating, organ cleanup (though that can be impaired too in liver).
More efficiency would imply it's doing the same amount of work - it doesn't.
Must like the studies that shows your NEAT will lower your TDEE under severe calorie restriction.
You didn't get more efficient doing all your daily activities and movements - you just stopped doing some of them, or less of them.0 -
friend, lets say on day 1 of an exercise program u run 5mi 30min and burn 600 cals. on day 30 if u run the same distance in the same. do u think u r going to burn the same amount of cals like u did on day 1OR will ur body have adapted to a certain point to the stress put on and become better (more efficient) at running and thus burn less cals.with all due respect, it is the direct opposite of what u r saying. under caloric restriction ur body learns to do activities with less calories. ur metabolism becomes more efficient.
No, it just slows down the rate at which it does things, and if not enough energy to do everything needed, you might say a priority list.
So some experience hair and nail growth slow down, low priority.
Some experience hair loss and super bad skin, low priority.
Some get colder in the winter, put on more clothes, low priority.
Compared to many functions that can't be slowed down that much, like dealing with the water levels in the cells, heart beating, organ cleanup (though that can be impaired too in liver).
More efficiency would imply it's doing the same amount of work - it doesn't.
Must like the studies that shows your NEAT will lower your TDEE under severe calorie restriction.
You didn't get more efficient doing all your daily activities and movements - you just stopped doing some of them, or less of them.0 -
I donlt know if it is damage but this is a good educational video that explains the metabolism in simple speak for people like us without a medical degree.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpllomiDMX0 0 -
with all due respect, it is the direct opposite of what u r saying. under caloric restriction ur body learns to do activities with less calories. ur metabolism becomes more efficient.
IT doesn't mean anything? How about it's a descriptor of what occurs in the body when it determines that self-preservation is at risk.
If you haven't guessed, I wholly agree with Layne Norton and have experienced it myself. At 11-13% bodyfat I was running maybe 70miles a week and lifting, I looked great and I was a mess hormonally, physically, and emotionally. I was eating ~2000-2300 calories a day despite "burning" well over 3000 each day but I was simply maintaining. Any time I'd eat what one would estimate my TDEE at I would gain weight FAST. Real weight, not water weight or a temporary fluctuation. I decreased my workouts to what they should be--maybe an hour or so a day--and quickly gained ~20 pounds in 9 weeks. At the same time I was eating ~2000-2300 calories a day so MAYBE a surplus of 300 calories a day on average--certainly not 1000+ extra calories a day; however, my body simply FREAKED OUT! I have also gone through recovery from anorexia--at which time I gained from 68 pounds up to 95 pounds all by eating 1200-1700 calories a day (and doing some daily exercise). I've done enough research and lived at the extreme where self-preservation is a real risk. I can say without doubt that "metabolic damage" is real and I don't care what anyone chooses to call it. Semantics and technicalities are a way to avoid the underlying message which is quite real and true.
I am not saying that Layne is right or wrong....I don't care.
My view on this is that the metabolism is not damaged...
If you are alive and breathing, then you are "metabloising" something...
When you are dead, you can say that the metabolism is damaged.
If you cut calories, then your body is going to react in a way that preserves itself....no different than a pregnant woman who cuts way back on her caloric intake in order to stay "skinny".....she can do that all she wants, but she will suffer while the body does things to protect the fetus.
Obviously this is a personal experience for you, so my intent is not to offend you.
But I don't think damage is the right word.....
Has the metabolism slowed down?? Yes, very much so.
Will it take time to get it going yes?? Yes. It will.
Will it get back to where it is working as desired?? Most likely yes.
Is that damage? To me no, it is working how it was intended to work. It works to preserve the life.
Your body has amazing coping mechanisms......so when you screw things up, it will take time to get it working right again.
But I don't see it as "damage", I see it as how God (or nature, your choice) intended.
I think "damaged" is intended to mean that it is not functioning optimally which you concede occurs in response to extreme caloric restriction. So i think you do, in fact, agree that it exists despite your dislike of the terminology.
With all do respect, I said "optimally" not "efficiently."0 -
An acquaintance of mine used the HCG diet to lose about 100lbs, but she rapidly gained it all back, plus some. She has quit the program but now she has found she can no longer lose weight normally; despite exercising and eating at a moderate deficit, she says the scale just won't move.<snip>
Unfortunately, as I have been reminded, that is the problem with quick fixes, whether they be bariatric surgery or a fad diet, they do not fix the problem. The problem being lifestyle. My Mother in Law in a Nurse Practitioner and she actually tells he patients that they are *not* allowed to diet. She goes through the life style changes that they need to make. The funny thing is that she does the same for depression and diabetes. Most of these woes can be cured by a clean diet with moderation, exercise, getting outside and drinking enough water. The quick fixes usually result in gaining the weight back, which, even if it does not make it physically harder to lose weight, it is so much harder on us emotionally.0 -
I said that about her doctor too. However she defends him and said that he had advised her against the plan and she went ahead against his advice, so she's not upset that he's being all, "i told you so".... still, a very immature response from a medical proffessional, IMHO.An acquaintance of mine used the HCG diet to lose about 100lbs, but she rapidly gained it all back, plus some. She has quit the program but now she has found she can no longer lose weight normally; despite exercising and eating at a moderate deficit, she says the scale just won't move. Her doctor has pretty much written her off, as "you made your bed, now lay in," and hasn't given her any advice.She knows I lost weight the 'old fashioned way' and has asked for my input. This issue is far beyond my current knowledge, but it is good to read of someone who is coming back from it successfully. It makes me think she should just keep plodding away and doing it the way she is now and that she will eventually see success again. EIther that or take a full diet break for a while and give her body a rest?
Any doctor who "pretty much writes you off" should not be a doctor. She needs to find one who treats her with respect.
That said, were I in her position, I would calculate my BMR and TDEE, and eat my TDEE (plus eat back exercise calories) for a few weeks. Any gains or losses will allow her to tweak these numbers. Then I'd eat at a sensible deficit to lose the weight I wanted to lose.
Even when they told you so, doctors shouldn't say so. Healers heal, not beat down. Can't wait to see my doc on Wednesday. She is going to be pleasantly surprised at my weight loss since my last visit. But probably unhappy that I forgot to go get my fasting labs done...actually, I am unhappy with myself about that, but I'll take the orders with me and go to the lab as soon as it opens on Thursday. I work two buildings over from my docs office, but the lab is downstairs in my building. I can get a blood draw done on my break, I just forgot I needed to do it until today.0 -
Totally anecdotal advice for helping repair metabolic damage, add probiotics to your diet. I have known people who use the expensive live cultures from Whole Foods and people who use the capsules and they swear by them. I am thinking of using them myself for a month or two to help repair damage done by celiac disease, but I'm going to discuss it with my doc first and see what she thinks.0
-
friend, lets say on day 1 of an exercise program u run 5mi 30min and burn 600 cals. on day 30 if u run the same distance in the same. do u think u r going to burn the same amount of cals like u did on day 1OR will ur body have adapted to a certain point to the stress put on and become better (more efficient) at running and thus burn less cals.
If you weigh the same, and you didn't start running on day 1 such that day 30 is a huge increase in efficiency, you are going to burn the same amount of calories.
The increase in efficiency for something like running is minor improvement in calorie burn, unlike something like Zumba or other with complex moves.
Unless you somehow hit a patch of low gravity area, the energy needed to move that mass free from the pull of gravity doesn't change.
Now, after 30 days your heart should not need to beat as fast to supply the oxygen needed to provide that energy.
Also, the energy ratio would likely have shifted a bit from heavy carb burn to heavy fat burn by maybe 10-20%.
But the actual energy spent would have been the same.
Don't let an improvement in HR fool you, look up VO2max improvement, especially the fact you burn the same with lower HR.
Now, outside that answer - terrible analogy.
By your implication, why wouldn't your metabolism improve as life goes on anyway, why does it only take eating too little to improve it's efficiency?
Don't be fooled by the fact that on average, your metabolism goes down as you age. On average, your LBM also goes down. On average, your body slows down repairs too. All reasons for less energy needed.
That's why your metabolism gets slower on average as you age.
I'd suggest that if your premise of more efficient metabolism can happen with reduction in calories in a few months, then it already should be efficient as it could be at probably age 10-15, body should have figured it out by then.0 -
Damaged metabolism, or broken metabolism.
Damaged car, depending on where the damage is, can still be driven.
Broken, not so much. Those with thyroid problems, yes, broken, outside of medicine providing a fix.
I've not seen one comment sounding like a claim of unrecoverable broken metabolism in this thread.
Damaged compared to how it could operate, sure.
The body working the way it wants to protect itself by adapting the metabolism - sure, but that doesn't mean the metabolism is not damaged, but the body as a whole is working as designed albeit with a lot of stress.
Damaged would imply you could fix it, and you can. But while it's damaged doesn't mean the metabolism is working the way it could or would like to.
Neither is the body working the way it would like too.
Is there some benefit to living with a damaged or whatever you want call it metabolism? Is it better not to recognize it's damaged or whatever you want to call it and not try to fix it?0 -
Is there some benefit to living with a damaged or whatever you want call it metabolism? Is it better not to recognize it's damaged or whatever you want to call it and not try to fix it?
I love this. Great point! You are absolutely right, but it requires two things that MANY people in the "weight loss" world lack: patience and knowledge. Depending on how bad the damage is and how long you have been in that condition, will determine how long it will take to restore your metabolism. As you repair your body, you gain body fat and have to keep close track of your calorie intake to ensure you are getting enough every day. I am in my second year and have gained 20+ pounds (125 to 148), 10% body fat (12% to 20-22%) and almost two jean sizes (from a size 1 to 3-5), but I honestly feel like a million bucks, have energy to make it through the day, have intense workouts, am in a good mood, have a sex drive and a relationship again!!!, and I honestly think I look better as well. It takes time, commitment and knowing both the process and YOUR OWN body.0 -
Is there some benefit to living with a damaged or whatever you want call it metabolism? Is it better not to recognize it's damaged or whatever you want to call it and not try to fix it?
I love this. Great point! You are absolutely right, but it requires two things that MANY people in the "weight loss" world lack: patience and knowledge. Depending on how bad the damage is and how long you have been in that condition, will determine how long it will take to restore your metabolism. As you repair your body, you gain body fat and have to keep close track of your calorie intake to ensure you are getting enough every day. I am in my second year and have gained 20+ pounds (125 to 148), 10% body fat (12% to 20-22%) and almost two jean sizes (from a size 1 to 3-5), but I honestly feel like a million bucks, have energy to make it through the day, have intense workouts, am in a good mood, have a sex drive and a relationship again!!!, and I honestly think I look better as well. It takes time, commitment and knowing both the process and YOUR OWN body.
you sound like me to a T except I feel so self conscious and ashamed because the world can see this new body that looks nothing like the one I once had. How did you accept the changes? I wish I had it in me!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 423 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