What are the Proven Benefits of a "Lifestyle Change"?

Iwishyouwell

Neandermagnon, great post!

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.abstract

It might've been that one I'm remembering.

I joined here maybe 3 years ago and you could hardly read a thread without reading "eating below your BMR is dangerous because it's what your body needs in a coma". I finally deleted that account in frustration over trying to convince people that is a myth.

I'm not at all advocating VLCD or eating below any particular number, I just hate seeing myths presented as facts, especially with scare tactics attached ("starvation mode!", "coma!", "gas tanks!", "metabolic damage!", "burning your LBM!, "regain it all!").

Thanks for the link.

I am absolutely, 100% with you. The scare tactics and common myths really, really dig under my skin. I've experienced enough of the so called "no-nos" to realize that I am either a unique, special byproduct of a union between a snowflake and a unicorn, or lots of people are chalk full of BS.

EvgeniZyntx

Neandermagnon, great post!

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.abstract

It might've been that one I'm remembering.

I joined here maybe 3 years ago and you could hardly read a thread without reading "eating below your BMR is dangerous because it's what your body needs in a coma". I finally deleted that account in frustration over trying to convince people that is a myth.

I'm not at all advocating VLCD or eating below any particular number, I just hate seeing myths presented as facts, especially with scare tactics attached ("starvation mode!", "coma!", "gas tanks!", "metabolic damage!", "burning your LBM!, "regain it all!").

Thanks for the link.

I am absolutely, 100% with you. The scare tactics and common myths really, really dig under my skin. I've experienced enough of the so called "no-nos" to realize that I am either a unique, special byproduct of a union between a snowflake and a unicorn, or lots of people are chalk full of BS.

I think it is reasonable to differentiate between stupid myths and generally good advice.

"Don't eat under your BMR or you will go into starvation mode and kill your metabolism 4eva" is obviously a myth.

"Eating at low calories, for example below your BMR, for extended periods of time increases the risk of muscle loss, concomitant changes in metabolism beyond those experienced just from weight loss, possibly other issues that may occur with rapid weight loss such as increased prevalence of thyroid dysfunction, kidney stones, skin elasticity issues (maybe), etc. Nonetheless, rapid weight loss might make sense for some in some rarer cases." is generally good advice.

It's ok that people have a tendency to shorten the message to what they see as essential.

WalkingAlong

Can you give me one source that says any of that about eating below your BMR, though? I've asked here a hundred times and no one has. They give me sources that say eating VLCD can cause some of that, but VLCD is typically considered to be more like 800 and under. Most people's BMR is double that and higher. Even the 1200 floor MFP uses is 50% over it, and below everyone's BMR (virtually). I do think using BMR as some arbitrary floor value is a myth that you only see here and on some other weight loss forums so I don't consider it generally good advice. Though I know it's well-meaning and people do 100% believe it's true, what they're saying.

EvgeniZyntx

Can you give me one source that says any of that about eating below your BMR, though? I've asked here a hundred times and no one has. They give me sources that say eating VLCD can cause some of that, but VLCD is typically considered to be more like 800 and under. Most people's BMR is double that and higher. Even the 1200 floor MFP uses is 50% over it, and below everyone's BMR (virtually). I do think using BMR as some arbitrary floor value is a myth that you only see here and on some other weight loss forums so I don't consider it generally good advice. Though I know it's well-meaning and people do 100% believe it's true, what they're saying.

A 5'6" woman @130 lbs might have a BMR of 1200 (say about 30% bf)

But let's go a little higher and work with a guy. Say approximately 1,560 calories per day.
Would that work for you? Would you like some research that shows deleterious effects of long-term calorie restriction at that level?

It is called the Minnesota Starvation Experiment.

parkscs

Can you give me one source that says any of that about eating below your BMR, though? I've asked here a hundred times and no one has. They give me sources that say eating VLCD can cause some of that, but VLCD is typically considered to be more like 800 and under. Most people's BMR is double that and higher. Even the 1200 floor MFP uses is 50% over it, and below everyone's BMR (virtually). I do think using BMR as some arbitrary floor value is a myth that you only see here and on some other weight loss forums so I don't consider it generally good advice. Though I know it's well-meaning and people do 100% believe it's true, what they're saying.

A 5'6" woman @130 lbs might have a BMR of 1200 (say about 30% bf)

But let's go a little higher and work with a guy. Say approximately 1,560 calories per day.
Would that work for you? Would you like some research that shows deleterious effects of long-term calorie restriction at that level?

It is called the Minnesota Starvation Experiment.

Okay now that's funny. You seriously think the Minnesota Starvation Experiment stands for the proposition that no one should eat under their BMR? There's simply no comparison between an underweight person eating a large caloric deficit and an overweight person eating a large caloric deficit, and the vast, vast majority of people getting told "Oh noes, don't eat under BMR!" are overweight and trying to cut weight.

If a 5'5", 95 pound girl came on the forums and asked if she should eat under her BMR, good advice would be not to - but then again, good advice for that girl would be to not eat a caloric deficit period, regardless if it's under or over BMR. If your focus is on BMR for purposes other than calculating your calorie goals for the day (e.g., TDEE), odds are you're doing it wrong.

WalkingAlong

Can you give me one source that says any of that about eating below your BMR, though? I've asked here a hundred times and no one has. They give me sources that say eating VLCD can cause some of that, but VLCD is typically considered to be more like 800 and under. Most people's BMR is double that and higher. Even the 1200 floor MFP uses is 50% over it, and below everyone's BMR (virtually). I do think using BMR as some arbitrary floor value is a myth that you only see here and on some other weight loss forums so I don't consider it generally good advice. Though I know it's well-meaning and people do 100% believe it's true, what they're saying.

A 5'6" woman @130 lbs might have a BMR of 1200 (say about 30% bf)

But let's go a little higher and work with a guy. Say approximately 1,560 calories per day.
Would that work for you? Would you like some research that shows deleterious effects of long-term calorie restriction at that level?

It is called the Minnesota Starvation Experiment.

A 30 year old, 5'6" woman at 130 would have a BMR of nearly 1400, and she'd be close to underweight BMI.

And, yes, I'd be ok with studies showing long term negative effects from an *overweight* guy eating at 1560.

parkscs

The more common scenario on the MFP forums is a woman who's 220 pounds, 5'6" and 30 years old, and people advising her that she should never eat under her BMR. Maybe she should, maybe she shouldn't, but either way her BMR isn't the decisive factor.

Iwishyouwell

I just did a post in another thread that got me thinking about the 5% (or whatever) who do maintain.

Some of the studies I've seen have success criteria as little as 1 year, and some I've seen 5 years being the cut off.

It makes me wonder how many people fall off the ship after year 5. Because technically I once fit the "success" statistic. If I was being studied the first time I lost a substantial amount of weight, starting as a teenager, and you checked on me after 5 years, you'd see I had maintained my weight (with fluctuations up and down but never anywhere close to my starting size). I'd be part of the elusive minority who was able to keep it off, a prime candidate for the NWCR.

Yet I eventually regained it all, and doubled that original loss in gains. How many other people in the minority of successful maintainers in any study regained eventually after they were stamped a long term success? I wonder.

Iwishyouwell

It is called the Minnesota Starvation Experiment.

The men in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment:

A. Did not start obese.
B. They were expected to continue their same level of exercise during the starvation phase as the previous ones.

Not a particularly analogous group with the typical overweight and obese person you see around here.

Most people, especially men, who are screamed at to never go below 1200 calories will not look like this after 24 weeks on a 1500 calorie diet:




Hell some of them won't even look like most of these guys BEFORE pictures.