"Metabolic Damage"
Options
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions