Must-Read INFO on Metabolism, Gaining and Losing
Options
daynerz
Posts: 227 Member
Over and Over again I see posts of people coming to a major hault in their diet life, and bulking phases.
Whether this be losing a lot, and not losing any more, or REGAINING FAT TOO FAST after a diet and significant loss.
I am hear to tell you that in order to lose weight and gain weight with your same optimal metabolism, your process MUST be done slowly. Yes, You will have major weight loss cutting at a 500-1000c deficit, BUT this is too much too soon.
You want your body to have AS MANY CHANCES as POSSIBLE to LOSE WEIGHT. If you do a MAJOR DEFICIT say, in 2 weeks- to a month you dropped allllll this weight, but now, you start adding excercise, and cutting even more calories. Your metabolism is at an all time low with the amount of shock and detriment you put going on a sudden change. This is commonly seen in body builders, they have trainers that put them on 800c diets, 2 weeks later they can't lose any more.
Then the process explains the reason why people GAIN everything back after a diet. You are re-introducing your normal maintenance cals at say 1800, when you were recently dieting at 1000. Your body is now saying, 'OH MAN, CALORIES, I am going to STORE THIS now, because I have been at such a loss'. Now this is your bodies new cycle and its new adaptation. Our bodies were made to STORE not to LOSE. Your body is always trying to keep fat on you for your protection, hence why we get plateaus.
The hard work you put in is now diminishing away after one night out, and you wake up with water weight and fat because you allowed your body to have such a limited amount of food in a SHORT period of time.
What to do? Lose weight AT THE SLIGHTEST CHANGE you CAN. for example, you want to lose weight, and your maintenance is 1600c. WEEK ONE- eat 1500c, see no change? Week 2, deduct 50 more calories, so now you are at 150 Calorie defecit, keep using that deficit if its working for you, THEN once you plateau, keep deducting so slowly, Week 3 and 4, now your at a 200 calorie defecit, (1400c a day) .....
I hope I have painted a clear picture, that you can do significant metabolic damage losing or GAINING to fast.
Once you have reached an ideal weight, this is when you SLOWLY re-introduce calories in again to your maintenance...50-100 calories a week, until you plateau. Works the same way as losing.
The point being you want as many plateaus and chances to LOSE and GAIN as possible!! Your body won't stop trying to work for you and your goals, you will be in a constant rythym and healthy cycle for the rest of your life. In the small increments of calories, you will learn exactly what your numbers are for loss, maintenance and gain.
Briefly about me, I am 22, have studied nutrition for 3 years. I have played ice hockey for years and briefly boxed. I love food, exercising and helping those with their fitness goals. I have trained in the gym, gained and lost. I am 5'8-5'9, 145 lbs. I have tried everything under the sun, all the diets, the fads, out of curiosity and experience. Calories in vs Calories out is the simple truth, I also practice intermittent fasting on a day to day basis. The theory I presented above is also based on my experience, it is sound and valid advice from a doctor and body builder Layne Norton. Layne is a role model and mentor of mine.
I hope this information has helped you. It is not Bro Science, but rather the insight people need to be aware of.
I wish everyone success and optimal health in their goals.
Thanks! Cheers!
Whether this be losing a lot, and not losing any more, or REGAINING FAT TOO FAST after a diet and significant loss.
I am hear to tell you that in order to lose weight and gain weight with your same optimal metabolism, your process MUST be done slowly. Yes, You will have major weight loss cutting at a 500-1000c deficit, BUT this is too much too soon.
You want your body to have AS MANY CHANCES as POSSIBLE to LOSE WEIGHT. If you do a MAJOR DEFICIT say, in 2 weeks- to a month you dropped allllll this weight, but now, you start adding excercise, and cutting even more calories. Your metabolism is at an all time low with the amount of shock and detriment you put going on a sudden change. This is commonly seen in body builders, they have trainers that put them on 800c diets, 2 weeks later they can't lose any more.
Then the process explains the reason why people GAIN everything back after a diet. You are re-introducing your normal maintenance cals at say 1800, when you were recently dieting at 1000. Your body is now saying, 'OH MAN, CALORIES, I am going to STORE THIS now, because I have been at such a loss'. Now this is your bodies new cycle and its new adaptation. Our bodies were made to STORE not to LOSE. Your body is always trying to keep fat on you for your protection, hence why we get plateaus.
The hard work you put in is now diminishing away after one night out, and you wake up with water weight and fat because you allowed your body to have such a limited amount of food in a SHORT period of time.
What to do? Lose weight AT THE SLIGHTEST CHANGE you CAN. for example, you want to lose weight, and your maintenance is 1600c. WEEK ONE- eat 1500c, see no change? Week 2, deduct 50 more calories, so now you are at 150 Calorie defecit, keep using that deficit if its working for you, THEN once you plateau, keep deducting so slowly, Week 3 and 4, now your at a 200 calorie defecit, (1400c a day) .....
I hope I have painted a clear picture, that you can do significant metabolic damage losing or GAINING to fast.
Once you have reached an ideal weight, this is when you SLOWLY re-introduce calories in again to your maintenance...50-100 calories a week, until you plateau. Works the same way as losing.
The point being you want as many plateaus and chances to LOSE and GAIN as possible!! Your body won't stop trying to work for you and your goals, you will be in a constant rythym and healthy cycle for the rest of your life. In the small increments of calories, you will learn exactly what your numbers are for loss, maintenance and gain.
Briefly about me, I am 22, have studied nutrition for 3 years. I have played ice hockey for years and briefly boxed. I love food, exercising and helping those with their fitness goals. I have trained in the gym, gained and lost. I am 5'8-5'9, 145 lbs. I have tried everything under the sun, all the diets, the fads, out of curiosity and experience. Calories in vs Calories out is the simple truth, I also practice intermittent fasting on a day to day basis. The theory I presented above is also based on my experience, it is sound and valid advice from a doctor and body builder Layne Norton. Layne is a role model and mentor of mine.
I hope this information has helped you. It is not Bro Science, but rather the insight people need to be aware of.
I wish everyone success and optimal health in their goals.
Thanks! Cheers!
0
Replies
-
Wait - you are saying that a deficit of 400-500 calories suddenly creates "metabolic damage" but you are practicing intermittent fasting? How quickly is this so-called "metabolic damage" occurring?
You are aware that Layne talks about metabolic crashing at intake rates below 800 cals per day? Not from someone moving from 3000+ to 2400.
While I agree that smaller cuts are the better choice, it's mostly about long term options and hormonal adaptation which are multi week processes. Context is everything and there are situations where large cuts make sense. Please keep that in mind.
Eta: meant Layne not Lyle.0 -
Wait - you are saying that a deficit of 400-500 calories suddenly creates "metabolic damage" but you are practicing intermittent fasting? How quickly is this so-called "metabolic damage" occurring?
You are aware that Lyle talks about metabolic crashing at intake rates below 800 cals per day? Not from someone moving from 3000+ to 2400.
While I agree that smaller cuts are the better choice, it's mostly about long term options and hormonal adaptation which are multi week processes. Context is everything and there are situations where large cuts make sense. Please keep that in mind.
Yup you bet. Intermittent Fasting is about when you eat, not how much you eat, so you can disregard that matter. I have higher energy, rather than eating every two hours, while still take in the same amount of calories but refrain it to a designated eating window.
I recommened you to you tube Layne Norton, a body builder I remind you with a PHD. Yes a significant shock in a fast pace (even in a DAY to decrease at low amounts is very harmful and WILL SLOW) Intermittent fasting cancels that fact out, because there is no actually deficit.
Large cuts make sense to impatient people. Large cuts leave no more chances to have other plateaus or continue a healthy weight loss.
Cheers.0 -
Wait - you are saying that a deficit of 400-500 calories suddenly creates "metabolic damage" but you are practicing intermittent fasting? How quickly is this so-called "metabolic damage" occurring?
You are aware that Lyle talks about metabolic crashing at intake rates below 800 cals per day? Not from someone moving from 3000+ to 2400.
While I agree that smaller cuts are the better choice, it's mostly about long term options and hormonal adaptation which are multi week processes. Context is everything and there are situations where large cuts make sense. Please keep that in mind.
Yup you bet. Intermittent Fasting is about when you eat, not how much you eat, so you can disregard that matter. I have higher energy, rather than eating every two hours, while still take in the same amount of calories but refrain it to a designated eating window.
I recommened you to you tube Layne Norton, a body builder I remind you with a PHD. Yes a significant shock in a fast pace (even in a DAY to decrease at low amounts is very harmful and WILL SLOW) Intermittent fasting cancels that fact out, because there is no actually deficit.
Large cuts make sense to impatient people. Large cuts leave no more chances to have other plateaus or continue a healthy weight loss.
Cheers.
Umm, in my post I meant Layne. Sorry about that.
Thanks, I'm quite aware of him. And no, a single day of calorie decrease is not harmful. This is incorrect - otherwise all the 5:2 IF'ers would be blobs. You are taking good info and pushing it to extremes.
Today I learned IF is magic and there is no actual deficit in weight loss. :laugh:
No, large cuts make sense in certain individuals where rapid loss is appropriate given other health risks or an individual's mental capacity to persevere in a weight loss plan.
Btw, Layne isn't the biggest fan of IF.... (I'm not necessarily agreeing with his points here):I think intermittent fasting has helped a lot of people with a diet they can stick to, however I also see many people use it as an excuse to binge, and that is never healthy. One of the other problems with it is my PhD thesis research demonstrated that if you eat low protein throughout the day, you cannot make up for that lack of anabolic stimulus earlier in the day by eating a huge protein meal later in the day because their is an ‘anabolic cap’ to each meal, so to stimulate muscle protein synthesis maximally it’s wise to consume multiple (probably 4-5) meals rich in high quality protein. You want to make sure you are getting enough protein to hit around 3-4g of leucine at a meal to ensure that you are maxing out anabolism, that is typically around 30-45g of protein for most sources. But as far as meal frequency and it’s impact on fat loss, it does not seem to matter, and if anything eating too frequently actually impedes fat loss. I believe however, that you could get many of the benefits, if not all of the benefits of intermittent fasting by simply intermittently eating carbs but still having multiple protein meals as eating protein with low/no carb would still maintain elevated insulin sensitivity. - See more at: http://www.machinemuscle.com/layne-norton-interview/#sthash.OH2sGfA1.dpuf0 -
Eh, I'm sorry, but I think the metabolic damage stuff is crap. I made huge cuts ( maybe not the healthiest way, but I was going on vacation so I was impatient ) and I have been maintaining at my dream weight. I'm 105 pounds at 5'4. If anything, my metabolism seems to be faster now because I get hungrier quicker and seem to burn through food more. If my metabolism is damaged, why would I have absolutely no trouble maintaining this weight?0
-
Today I learned IF is magic and there is no actual deficit in weight loss. laugh
No, large cuts make sense in certain individuals where rapid loss is appropriate given other health risks or an individual's mental capacity to persevere in a weight loss plan.
Btw, Layne isn't the biggest fan of IF.... (I'm not necessarily agreeing with his points here):
Yes, his name is Layne, Not Lyle!!!!
IF has no food crashes during the day, when people think of fasting they think of no food, obvs your uneducated because of the lack of response lmfao
Layne is a victim himself of what he preaches, but like I said, over your broscience crap, the proof is in the evidence, the evidence of studies. The large defecits that people create do catch up with them! AND YES SLOWWWWWW the metabolism, and indefinately over time
dang
im 220 -
Eh, I'm sorry, but I think the metabolic damage stuff is crap. I made huge cuts ( maybe not the healthiest way, but I was going on vacation so I was impatient ) and I have been maintaining at my dream weight. I'm 105 pounds at 5'4. If anything, my metabolism seems to be faster now because I get hungrier quicker and seem to burn through food more. If my metabolism is damaged, why would I have absolutely no trouble maintaining this weight?
That's fine you think its crap, I am just stating my theory of evidence from a doctor. and personal experience. The first time I lost weight I went balls out, now, my metabolism is not like it was the first time..
Being hungry doesnt mean a faster metabolism Might be from your history of deprivation and your body wants more and more all the time, I can bet you've stumped it at least a little and it the next time you need to go on a lose weight fad, it won't be as effective this time around
but come back and prove me wrong, id like to hear
d0 -
Eh, I'm sorry, but I think the metabolic damage stuff is crap. I made huge cuts ( maybe not the healthiest way, but I was going on vacation so I was impatient ) and I have been maintaining at my dream weight. I'm 105 pounds at 5'4. If anything, my metabolism seems to be faster now because I get hungrier quicker and seem to burn through food more. If my metabolism is damaged, why would I have absolutely no trouble maintaining this weight?
That's fine you think its crap, I am just stating my theory of evidence from a doctor. and personal experience. The first time I lost weight I went balls out, now, my metabolism is not like it was the first time..
Being hungry doesnt mean a faster metabolism Might be from your history of deprivation and your body wants more and more all the time, I can bet you've stumped it at least a little and it the next time you need to go on a lose weight fad, it won't be as effective this time around
but come back and prove me wrong, id like to hear
d
Did you actually do any metabolic testing at any time during your weight loss?0 -
Oh, this looks fun.0
-
Eh, I'm sorry, but I think the metabolic damage stuff is crap. I made huge cuts ( maybe not the healthiest way, but I was going on vacation so I was impatient ) and I have been maintaining at my dream weight. I'm 105 pounds at 5'4. If anything, my metabolism seems to be faster now because I get hungrier quicker and seem to burn through food more. If my metabolism is damaged, why would I have absolutely no trouble maintaining this weight?
During weight loss, a body will adapt, both from a BMR/RMR standpoint and a TDEE standpoint. Bodies that weigh less, just need less calories. And it's not uncommon to lose muscle during your weight loss, so a lower BMR (which is tied to lean body mass) will occur. There really is only one true way to increase metabolic functions... add more mass. Hunger is actually a poor signal of metabolic functions as it can be increased or decrease based on the frequency you eat. IIRC, when you eat more frequently, your increase ghrelin production, when you decrease the amount of meals, you will decrease ghrelin production, which controls hunger signals.0 -
Interesting propose a theory and want others to prove you wrong? Just to say that's not how Science works you do not prove a Negative. All you have quoted is what you 'feel' and from your personal perspective which is view you're entitled to but I would like to see any evidence baking this up because in the majority of the reading I have done. The majority of the populations metabolism stays within normal bounds even if they do go through periods of large deficits.Eh, I'm sorry, but I think the metabolic damage stuff is crap. I made huge cuts ( maybe not the healthiest way, but I was going on vacation so I was impatient ) and I have been maintaining at my dream weight. I'm 105 pounds at 5'4. If anything, my metabolism seems to be faster now because I get hungrier quicker and seem to burn through food more. If my metabolism is damaged, why would I have absolutely no trouble maintaining this weight?
That's fine you think its crap, I am just stating my theory of evidence from a doctor. and personal experience. The first time I lost weight I went balls out, now, my metabolism is not like it was the first time..
Being hungry doesnt mean a faster metabolism Might be from your history of deprivation and your body wants more and more all the time, I can bet you've stumped it at least a little and it the next time you need to go on a lose weight fad, it won't be as effective this time around
but come back and prove me wrong, id like to hear
d0 -
Today I learned IF is magic and there is no actual deficit in weight loss. laugh
No, large cuts make sense in certain individuals where rapid loss is appropriate given other health risks or an individual's mental capacity to persevere in a weight loss plan.
Btw, Layne isn't the biggest fan of IF.... (I'm not necessarily agreeing with his points here):
Yes, his name is Layne, Not Lyle!!!!
IF has no food crashes during the day, when people think of fasting they think of no food, obvs your uneducated because of the lack of response lmfao
Layne is a victim himself of what he preaches, but like I said, over your broscience crap, the proof is in the evidence, the evidence of studies. The large defecits that people create do catch up with them! AND YES SLOWWWWWW the metabolism, and indefinately over time
dang
im 22
I feel like I'm talking to 16 year olds
If I'm not mistaken, weren't these studies done on rats? They're not definitive by any means.0 -
Looking forward to watching this play out.0
-
In for the newb schooling people on "science" with no peer-reviewed research article links.
Also, since you seem blissfully unaware of him, Lyle McDonald is a good read as well.0 -
Today I learned IF is magic and there is no actual deficit in weight loss. laugh
No, large cuts make sense in certain individuals where rapid loss is appropriate given other health risks or an individual's mental capacity to persevere in a weight loss plan.
Btw, Layne isn't the biggest fan of IF.... (I'm not necessarily agreeing with his points here):
Yes, his name is Layne, Not Lyle!!!!
IF has no food crashes during the day, when people think of fasting they think of no food, obvs your uneducated because of the lack of response lmfao
Layne is a victim himself of what he preaches, but like I said, over your broscience crap, the proof is in the evidence, the evidence of studies. The large defecits that people create do catch up with them! AND YES SLOWWWWWW the metabolism, and indefinately over time
dang
im 22
I feel like I'm talking to 16 year olds
You would write it correctly "you're uneducated". Sure, if you want to believe that. I think you are going to find out otherwise.
lol, my broscience crap?
Suggested reading on adaptive thermogenesis - it isn't a one day thing, sorry.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss
We can talk later.
Please feel free to post one study that shows metabolic damage at one day of severe restriction, you won't find it.0 -
LOLOLOL OP.
Yes, you're 22.
I knew everything when I was 22 too.0 -
Just a tip here which might be useful in real life as well as on the forums - a little less over-confidence and a whole load less insults might get you a long way in gaining respect.Layne is a victim himself of what he preaches, but like I said, over your broscience crap, the proof is in the evidence, the evidence of studies. The large defecits that people create do catch up with them! AND YES SLOWWWWWW the metabolism, and indefinately over time
dang
im 22
I feel like I'm talking to 16 year olds
Example of what looks like over-confidence to me...
"3 years studying nutrition" versus Layne Norton ( "renowned prep/physique coach and pro natural bodybuilder/powerlifter with a PhD in Nutritional Sciences").
BTW - my two years of 5:2 doesn't seem to have done me any harm, maybe I move too fast for it to catch up with me?
:wink0 -
Eh, I'm sorry, but I think the metabolic damage stuff is crap. I made huge cuts ( maybe not the healthiest way, but I was going on vacation so I was impatient ) and I have been maintaining at my dream weight. I'm 105 pounds at 5'4. If anything, my metabolism seems to be faster now because I get hungrier quicker and seem to burn through food more. If my metabolism is damaged, why would I have absolutely no trouble maintaining this weight?
That's fine you think its crap, I am just stating my theory of evidence from a doctor. and personal experience. The first time I lost weight I went balls out, now, my metabolism is not like it was the first time..
Being hungry doesnt mean a faster metabolism Might be from your history of deprivation and your body wants more and more all the time, I can bet you've stumped it at least a little and it the next time you need to go on a lose weight fad, it won't be as effective this time around
but come back and prove me wrong, id like to hear
d
I am not on a fad diet. Previously, I ate VERY large amounts for a 5'4 Asian girl. I was one of those people who could "eat all they want and not get fat". However, I was NOT one of those people who could "eat all they want and stay thin". I just hovered at slightly overweight from stuffing my face nonstop. I think this is why it took me so long to lose weight - my options were so difficult. I could either eat all I wanted and be a tiny overweight, or restrict and watch what I eat and be my dream weight. I didn't have a lot of incentive to lose weight until I felt like being healthy and not binge eating.
Now I eat a very appropriate amount for a 105 pound Asian girl and will continue to do so. I eat around 1300 a day and do some strength training. The greatest part of restricting a lot for me is that it helped to control my appetite. For me, my appetite seems to be triggered by EATING. The more I eat, the more I want to eat. I also IF like you, actually, but I also make large cuts. This worked out really, really well for me. Nothing else I have ever done has worked. I am happier than I have ever been with my body, and I feel amazing. I don't feel like I'm suffering and it doesn't stress me out to eat the way I do anymore. My appetite decreased SO MUCH, simply by restricting calories over a period of time. Your body does adjust to eating smaller amounts, and your metabolism responds to however you are eating at that moment. This is why eating small meals often does not "speed up your metabolism". Metabolisms aren't as easily manipulated as people seem to like to think. In my opinion, people like to point fingers at metabolism when weight loss gets hard for them. ( Of course, age does affect metabolism and other health issues, but a healthy metabolism will adjust to your diet. )
In truth, no one knows 100% how it all works. The experts don't know, and you especially don't know.0 -
I needed the chuckle this morning. Thanks, OP.
Overconfident kiddo vs. Scientist. Cage match on Sunday Sunday Sunday.0 -
In to check back later.0
-
Just a tip here which might be useful in real life as well as on the forums - a little less over-confidence and a whole load less insults might get you a long way in gaining respect.Layne is a victim himself of what he preaches, but like I said, over your broscience crap, the proof is in the evidence, the evidence of studies. The large defecits that people create do catch up with them! AND YES SLOWWWWWW the metabolism, and indefinately over time
dang
im 22
I feel like I'm talking to 16 year olds
Example of what looks like over-confidence to me...
"3 years studying nutrition" versus Layne Norton ( "renowned prep/physique coach and pro natural bodybuilder/powerlifter with a PhD in Nutritional Sciences").
BTW - my two years of 5:2 doesn't seem to have done me any harm, maybe I move too fast for it to catch up with me?
:wink
Layne has the humility to be critical of himself and NOT consider that everything he says is some sort of absolute - he's reasonably self-critical and doesn't pretend that his PhD gives him some sort of crystal ball into science. I think our young and immature OP is going to find out the cost of her hubris.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 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
- 982 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions