Metabolic Damage: Alan Aragon interviews Lyle McDonald

NavyKnightAh13

Bumping for later reading

rosebette

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?

TheLadyBane

tagging for later. thanks for sharing:)

Will_Thrust_For_Candy

Ugh one thread without some butthurt would be so refreshing....especially when it's a thread containing an article full of such useful, helpful, and TRUE information.

Thanks SS. Another great read from 2 of the best. I really took away a lot from this one, especially when regarding the water retention in relation to dieting.

Aaron_K123

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?

My understanding is that the 1200 threshold is based on the minimal caloric intake that is required to satisfy all the micronutrient requirements for basic health and bodily function and has nothing to do with the idea of metabolic damage or "starvation mode".

It also is not saying that you won't lower your metabolism eating to little it is saying that there is never a point where eating less will not result in greater fat loss (with the exception of when you get down to your essential fat).

lindsey1979

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.

I think this whole debate here is another issue that is constantly prevalent, to many people concerned with how the message is delivered as opposed to the context of what is being said. People should just stop nit picking things just because they aren't said in a "nice" way, stop being so sensitive and quit looking for excuses.

Such a common response for things like misogyny. Stop complaining about those "woman" issues....

Since I believe Mr.M is latino, I wonder if he'd have the same response if it were an offensive latino stereotype. Or be totally okay with being told to just not be so sensitive.

wow...just wow lindz..

how do you know he is latin? Are you assuming that because he has dark skin? What if he is native American ...? and what the hell does his heritage have to do with this...

I will ask you once. Do not speak about what you think my heritage is based on my name is or for that matter even say my actual name is in a thread. Regardless of whether it is on my page or not. I'm tired of you coming in constantly to argue with everyone whenever a conversation about calorie in out/out comes up or about women now. It's getting old. So like I said in the beginning of this post do not speak about me personally.

Lindsey, can you not be happy that women are being included in research now?

I'm thrilled when women are included in research. I just don't like it when we're maligned as neurotic, bat ** crazy, etc. As did many other posters.

Otherwise, there is a lot of great information in the article and I think it's a great read.

Aaron_K123

.....moving on? As we requested by the MFP moderator. You can post a new thread about why this article is misogynistic if you wish to continue the conversation elsewhere.

deksgrl

Bumping metabolic damage for 1200, Alex.

ejdp254

Bump for later

TAsunder

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.

TAsunder

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.

lindsey1979

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.

BinaryPulsar

Thanks for sharing the original article.:drinker:

ndj1979

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...

extraordinary_machine

I came for the info...stayed for the butthurt.

Tagging for later .

WendyTerry420

WendyTerry420

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.

Cranquistador

in

Derpes

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.

BusyRaeNOTBusty

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.