Metabolic Damage: Alan Aragon interviews Lyle McDonald
Replies
-
Bumping metabolic damage for 1200, Alex.0
-
Bump for later0
-
So, now that we've dispensed with the discussion of misogyny, and the use of ad hominem arguments, I have a question about the topic. Is this study in effect saying that starvation mode and "metabolic damage" don't exist? Is the implication then that the 1200 calorie threshold is arbitrary? Can we assume that all these people who say they are eating at 1200 and not losing are lying? (I don't think they all are.) And should we ignore warnings that we shouldn't eat less than that? I'm not talking about the person who eats 1175 and gets a warning when she posts for the day, but the person who is eating 1200 and maybe burning 500 in exercise and not "eating back" calories? We have a lot of people posting who are doing that, and often people jump on board and tell these folks to stop (I know because I often tell them to, old busybody that I am), that they are harming themselves. Maybe we should just let them do what they want as long as they aren't unhealthily thin? If someone is legitimately overweight (not someone with a normal BMI who wants to get into a smaller pair of jeans), should we just say do what you need to do to get the job done and support them?
I believe, based on the article, it is not that it doesn't exist, but that the serious starvation situation only starts to happen when you have already extremely low body fat. As such, someone who has a lot of body fat to lose isn't going to experience it.
IMO, the 1200 limit is arbitrary and I assume it's just some number that floats around without reason. There are a lot of relatively safe, healthy, physician-supervised liquid diets that go below that for extended periods of time.
I doubt they are harming themselves in that aspect as much as the stress + wear and tear on body from all the exercise side of things.0 -
Also, it's important to separate whether it is technically unhealthy from whether the person will have success or not. It is supremely mentally difficult to maintain that level of diet+exercise routine for a long time... thus why people might get delirious and post in a craze here on MFP. The sensible weight loss plan is the one you actually adhere to.0
-
So, now that we've dispensed with the discussion of misogyny, and the use of ad hominem arguments, I have a question about the topic. Is this study in effect saying that starvation mode and "metabolic damage" don't exist? Is the implication then that the 1200 calorie threshold is arbitrary? Can we assume that all these people who say they are eating at 1200 and not losing are lying? (I don't think they all are.) And should we ignore warnings that we shouldn't eat less than that? I'm not talking about the person who eats 1175 and gets a warning when she posts for the day, but the person who is eating 1200 and maybe burning 500 in exercise and not "eating back" calories? We have a lot of people posting who are doing that, and often people jump on board and tell these folks to stop (I know because I often tell them to, old busybody that I am), that they are harming themselves. Maybe we should just let them do what they want as long as they aren't unhealthily thin? If someone is legitimately overweight (not someone with a normal BMI who wants to get into a smaller pair of jeans), should we just say do what you need to do to get the job done and support them?
I believe, based on the article, it is not that it doesn't exist, but that the serious starvation situation only starts to happen when you have already extremely low body fat. As such, someone who has a lot of body fat to lose isn't going to experience it.
IMO, the 1200 limit is arbitrary and I assume it's just some number that floats around without reason. There are a lot of relatively safe, healthy, physician-supervised liquid diets that go below that for extended periods of time.
I doubt they are harming themselves in that aspect as much as the stress + wear and tear on body from all the exercise side of things.
I think it's also partly the issue that large calorie deficits, especially when coupled with a lot of exercise, can be counterproductive to weight loss goals -- throwing off hormones and what not and causing reduced fat loss, excess water retention, etc. So, that's why they draw the line at 1200 since you have to draw the line somewhere. Otherwise, some may do the exact opposite of what they should do in that situation -- cut calories or increase exercise even more and get themselves into even bigger trouble health-wise.
As someone else mentioned, Lyle discussed this idea in one of this other articles: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html
I believe they speak to a lot of the same issues as this article did.0 -
Thanks for sharing the original article.:drinker:0
-
I read the original and found it interesting. As for the woman and doing all cardio, I just took at as an example of a typical client situation that he says...there are tons of guys that underrate and just do a lot of cardio too, so I am sure they would benefit from this as well...0
-
I came for the info...stayed for the butthurt.
Tagging for later .0 -
0 -
While the science behind these articles can be very persuasive, the points could be made without the misogynistic language and characterization of female dieters as neurotic and crazy.
Someone is confused. Let me help:
mi·sog·y·ny
məˈsäjənē/Submit
noun
1. the hatred of women.0 -
in0
-
While the science behind these articles can be very persuasive, the points could be made without the misogynistic language and characterization of female dieters as neurotic and crazy.
Although that made me cringe a bit as well I have to say having watched this forum for a month or so now the amount of "OMG not losing weight and eating 1200 calories a day while doing 7 day a week 2 hour cardio sessions not eating back my calories" threads are 95% women who do seem overly stressed and neurotic. So although it might be a patriarchy culture or inappropriate body-image driving these women at some level you sort of have to admit this does seem to happen more to women than men.
Sometimes unfortunately sterotypes are born from unfortunate realities.
Actually, I've encountered at least two posts from males who were eating around 1200 calories and saying they were not losing. ED behavior is not purely a female problem, although our culture certainly promotes that behavior more in women.
Sure it's not exclusively a female problem but it's much more prevalent in women especially in the context of this forum. That's a statement of observation, not judgement, just to be clear.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that. I don't think it was intended cruelly or misogynistically per se, but to say it doesn't have those undertones, that's more of a stretch. After all, would it have been any different had he just said bat **** crazy dieters, instead of having to say bat **** crazy female dieters? No. And there certainly are bat **** crazy male dieters as well, even if they are not as prolific. It would be equally offensive to malign any other group based on race, religion, etc. unnecessarily.
Your appraisal of the situation is perplexing given the contradictory nature of the above post.
For example, you state that you "don't think that it was intended cruelly or misogynistically per se", then, you contend that he is maligning an entire group. He referenced a very specific sub-group in the female population (extreme dieters). That hardly constitutes attacking an entire group.
You also referenced undertones; undertones alone are not enough to justify hijacking an entire thread that contains useful information.
Someone fired a shot at the border and you decided to invade instead of choosing a more appropriate response.0 -
So when someone complains about not losing at X number of calories there's several possibilities.
1. They aren't really eating X calories. They are logging incorrectly, either not weighing, forgetting binges, or not logging on the weekends, etc.
2. They are losing weight but due to messed up stress hormones they could be retaining an incredibly large amount of water, masking their weight loss.
3. They aren't really eating at a deficit because the weight they've already lost has resulted in a lower TDEE.
4. They aren't really eating at a deficit because their activity level has dropped considerably due to the fatigue caused by eating less calories and/or stress hormones.
5. Or some kind of combination of points 1-4.0 -
That's essentially what I got from it too. Thanks for the Cliff's Notes version. You said it a lot better than Lyle did.So when someone complains about not losing at X number of calories there's several possibilities.
1. They aren't really eating X calories. They are logging incorrectly, either not weighing, forgetting binges, or not logging on the weekends, etc.
2. They are losing weight but due to messed up stress hormones they could be retaining an incredibly large amount of water, masking their weight loss.
3. They aren't really eating at a deficit because the weight they've already lost has resulted in a lower TDEE.
4. They aren't really eating at a deficit because their activity level has dropped considerably due to the fatigue caused by eating less calories and/or stress hormones.
5. Or some kind of combination of points 1-4.
Also, a 25% in TDEE just from losing weight? What, did they lose nothing but muscle? That's crazy! How much weight would you have to lose to go from burning 2000 calories a day in maintenance to just 1500? I might just stay fat. Seriously. I can be hilariously strong, and I can eat too.0 -
That's essentially what I got from it too. Thanks for the Cliff's Notes version. You said it a lot better than Lyle did.So when someone complains about not losing at X number of calories there's several possibilities.
1. They aren't really eating X calories. They are logging incorrectly, either not weighing, forgetting binges, or not logging on the weekends, etc.
2. They are losing weight but due to messed up stress hormones they could be retaining an incredibly large amount of water, masking their weight loss.
3. They aren't really eating at a deficit because the weight they've already lost has resulted in a lower TDEE.
4. They aren't really eating at a deficit because their activity level has dropped considerably due to the fatigue caused by eating less calories and/or stress hormones.
5. Or some kind of combination of points 1-4.
Also, a 25% in TDEE just from losing weight? What, did they lose nothing but muscle? That's crazy! How much weight would you have to lose to go from burning 2000 calories a day in maintenance to just 1500? I might just stay fat. Seriously. I can be hilariously strong, and I can eat too.
There has been some research recently that shows just this reduction. HBO did a short on in specifically. I can't remember the main guy's name but he was with Cornell Medical School and has done a lot of research on leptin.
One of things he showed in a recent study was that after losing more than 10% of your body weight, the person that lost the weight will have a 15-25% slower metabolism than a person of the same weight and body composition who was already that lower weight. He hypothesized that it had to do with leptin regulation and why a lot of people struggle with maintenance and regain a majority of the weight within 5 years. He also said he believed the lowered metabolism to be permanent (as it was still there a year later in his subjects), though I really hope he's wrong about this or that's only the case for a few people. I'll see if I can find the HBO clip.
Edit: Here's the clip:
http://youtu.be/2i_cmltmQ6A
I haven't read the study itself and not sure if it's out yet or coming out. But, some very interesting things about leptin regulation.
Edit2: Vardaeml found this and it looks like it may be the underlying study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22237063
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20595050
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Rosenbaum+M,+Leibel+RL0 -
Bump to read later0
-
So, now that we've dispensed with the discussion of misogyny, and the use of ad hominem arguments, I have a question about the topic. Is this study in effect saying that starvation mode and "metabolic damage" don't exist? Is the implication then that the 1200 calorie threshold is arbitrary? Can we assume that all these people who say they are eating at 1200 and not losing are lying? (I don't think they all are.) And should we ignore warnings that we shouldn't eat less than that? I'm not talking about the person who eats 1175 and gets a warning when she posts for the day, but the person who is eating 1200 and maybe burning 500 in exercise and not "eating back" calories? We have a lot of people posting who are doing that, and often people jump on board and tell these folks to stop (I know because I often tell them to, old busybody that I am), that they are harming themselves. Maybe we should just let them do what they want as long as they aren't unhealthily thin? If someone is legitimately overweight (not someone with a normal BMI who wants to get into a smaller pair of jeans), should we just say do what you need to do to get the job done and support them?
I believe, based on the article, it is not that it doesn't exist, but that the serious starvation situation only starts to happen when you have already extremely low body fat. As such, someone who has a lot of body fat to lose isn't going to experience it.
IMO, the 1200 limit is arbitrary and I assume it's just some number that floats around without reason. There are a lot of relatively safe, healthy, physician-supervised liquid diets that go below that for extended periods of time.
I doubt they are harming themselves in that aspect as much as the stress + wear and tear on body from all the exercise side of things.
I think it's also partly the issue that large calorie deficits, especially when coupled with a lot of exercise, can be counterproductive to weight loss goals -- throwing off hormones and what not and causing reduced fat loss, excess water retention, etc. So, that's why they draw the line at 1200 since you have to draw the line somewhere. Otherwise, some may do the exact opposite of what they should do in that situation -- cut calories or increase exercise even more and get themselves into even bigger trouble health-wise.
As someone else mentioned, Lyle discussed this idea in one of this other articles: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html
I believe they speak to a lot of the same issues as this article did.
"Metabolic damage" or adaptive thermogenesis not only exists but has been integrated into every single current model of weight loss and metabolism. There is a hysteresis effect; your past dieting practices can effect current metabolism beyond the simple BMR equations used. Or in there own words ,..
"Ok, so finishing up, which is not to say that there is not a metabolic adaptation/adjustment to dieting and fat loss; that’s really never been up to debate."
The article does not, in any way go against that idea, but highlights other factors that may be occurring to hide weight loss.
It's a good article by solid researchers. I do believe that the whole leptin discussion is too simple (leptin receptors are apparently of variable sensitivity, etc.) but that's a minor point.
It's a shame that they focuses more on the whole cortisol and leptin discussion and did not mention the other factors creating possible water retention. TOM was mentioned but carb diet variability, immuno response to diet or seasonal colds, medication, hydration, potassium/sodium/renal function. Any one off these can create a masking effect of many pounds.0 -
i wish we could actually bump something for when we really think we will have time to read it. i'll copy pasta the link to mondays food diary notes in hopes of noticing it there. good luck to me. i prolly need this kind of info.0
-
OP - Thank you for posting this. A lot of it seemed to be in a foreign language for me but I think I understood the gist of it and learned a lot. And, being a woman, I was not at all offended by his description of the stressed out female. In fact I was nodding right along with him.0
-
bump0
-
bumpin to check out a bit later ... thanks for posting!0
-
That's essentially what I got from it too. Thanks for the Cliff's Notes version. You said it a lot better than Lyle did.So when someone complains about not losing at X number of calories there's several possibilities.
1. They aren't really eating X calories. They are logging incorrectly, either not weighing, forgetting binges, or not logging on the weekends, etc.
2. They are losing weight but due to messed up stress hormones they could be retaining an incredibly large amount of water, masking their weight loss.
3. They aren't really eating at a deficit because the weight they've already lost has resulted in a lower TDEE.
4. They aren't really eating at a deficit because their activity level has dropped considerably due to the fatigue caused by eating less calories and/or stress hormones.
5. Or some kind of combination of points 1-4.
Also, a 25% in TDEE just from losing weight? What, did they lose nothing but muscle? That's crazy! How much weight would you have to lose to go from burning 2000 calories a day in maintenance to just 1500? I might just stay fat. Seriously. I can be hilariously strong, and I can eat too.
I think it must depend on the person. I eat around 2000 a day and I am very small (I weigh 100 pounds). And I just lift weights and I'm a dancer and lead an enjoyably active lifestyle.0 -
From the article....
"(i.e. if you set up a 30% caloric deficit and metabolic rate drops by 20%, your deficit is only 10% so fat loss is a lot slower than expected or predicted)"
Math is not his strong suit.0 -
That's essentially what I got from it too. Thanks for the Cliff's Notes version. You said it a lot better than Lyle did.So when someone complains about not losing at X number of calories there's several possibilities.
1. They aren't really eating X calories. They are logging incorrectly, either not weighing, forgetting binges, or not logging on the weekends, etc.
2. They are losing weight but due to messed up stress hormones they could be retaining an incredibly large amount of water, masking their weight loss.
3. They aren't really eating at a deficit because the weight they've already lost has resulted in a lower TDEE.
4. They aren't really eating at a deficit because their activity level has dropped considerably due to the fatigue caused by eating less calories and/or stress hormones.
5. Or some kind of combination of points 1-4.
Also, a 25% in TDEE just from losing weight? What, did they lose nothing but muscle? That's crazy! How much weight would you have to lose to go from burning 2000 calories a day in maintenance to just 1500? I might just stay fat. Seriously. I can be hilariously strong, and I can eat too.
I think it must depend on the person. I eat around 2000 a day and I am very small (I weigh 100 pounds). And I just lift weights and I'm a dancer and lead an enjoyably active lifestyle.
But you didn't lose a lot of weight. Someone who was 200lbs, then dieted down to 100lbs will have a lower TDEE than you. The article said that part of the reduction of TDEE was NOT from simply getting smaller.0 -
Saving so I can read it later!
Thanks,
Red0 -
While I agree that severe dieting can slow weight loss for a while, I find his characterization of women to be rather condescending and lame.0
-
While I agree that severe dieting can slow weight loss for a while, I find his characterization of women to be rather condescending and lame.
The point of the article was not that severe dieting can slow weight loss.0 -
Thanks for posting this article. My takeaway: (1) Do not lie to your food diary. (2) Do not put yourself on a diet and exercise regimen that drives you psychologically and physiologically bonkers. You're setting yourself up for a big fall. For example: a binge of two individual Chicago style deep dish pizzas. (I personally don't know anyone who would do this. :^))) That's going to total well over 3500 calories. You average that out over a month. Presto. Your 1200 calorie per day diet jumps to over 1300 calories per day. That's a difference that's going to show up on the scale. Report that binge.0
-
And also I wasn't really so much talking about the absolute number 2000; it just made the math easier. I've been 135 and I've been 195 and I've been everywhere in between numerous times. I think my current TDEE with exercise is approx. 2300, which would be a drop of 575 calories, which is about what I maintained 135 without exercise. I absolutely could not maintain this level of exercise on 1725 calories a day. I've been sticking to 1800 the last few days and it's been pretty crappy. I guess that clinches it. Very slow body recomp for me. I need *way* more muscle!
That's essentially what I got from it too. Thanks for the Cliff's Notes version. You said it a lot better than Lyle did.So when someone complains about not losing at X number of calories there's several possibilities.
1. They aren't really eating X calories. They are logging incorrectly, either not weighing, forgetting binges, or not logging on the weekends, etc.
2. They are losing weight but due to messed up stress hormones they could be retaining an incredibly large amount of water, masking their weight loss.
3. They aren't really eating at a deficit because the weight they've already lost has resulted in a lower TDEE.
4. They aren't really eating at a deficit because their activity level has dropped considerably due to the fatigue caused by eating less calories and/or stress hormones.
5. Or some kind of combination of points 1-4.
Also, a 25% in TDEE just from losing weight? What, did they lose nothing but muscle? That's crazy! How much weight would you have to lose to go from burning 2000 calories a day in maintenance to just 1500? I might just stay fat. Seriously. I can be hilariously strong, and I can eat too.
I think it must depend on the person. I eat around 2000 a day and I am very small (I weigh 100 pounds). And I just lift weights and I'm a dancer and lead an enjoyably active lifestyle.
But you didn't lose a lot of weight. Someone who was 200lbs, then dieted down to 100lbs will have a lower TDEE than you. The article said that part of the reduction of TDEE was NOT from simply getting smaller.0 -
That's essentially what I got from it too. Thanks for the Cliff's Notes version. You said it a lot better than Lyle did.So when someone complains about not losing at X number of calories there's several possibilities.
1. They aren't really eating X calories. They are logging incorrectly, either not weighing, forgetting binges, or not logging on the weekends, etc.
2. They are losing weight but due to messed up stress hormones they could be retaining an incredibly large amount of water, masking their weight loss.
3. They aren't really eating at a deficit because the weight they've already lost has resulted in a lower TDEE.
4. They aren't really eating at a deficit because their activity level has dropped considerably due to the fatigue caused by eating less calories and/or stress hormones.
5. Or some kind of combination of points 1-4.
Also, a 25% in TDEE just from losing weight? What, did they lose nothing but muscle? That's crazy! How much weight would you have to lose to go from burning 2000 calories a day in maintenance to just 1500? I might just stay fat. Seriously. I can be hilariously strong, and I can eat too.
I think it must depend on the person. I eat around 2000 a day and I am very small (I weigh 100 pounds). And I just lift weights and I'm a dancer and lead an enjoyably active lifestyle.
But you didn't lose a lot of weight. Someone who was 200lbs, then dieted down to 100lbs will have a lower TDEE than you. The article said that part of the reduction of TDEE was NOT from simply getting smaller.
Oh, yeah, I understand that. It's true, I never ate a low calorie diet.
Yeah, according to my husbands calculations (he says I underestimate my activity level) I will not gain weight as long as I eat 2300 or less.0
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