Exercise slows down metabolism ?

wild_wild_life

Big deficits and stalls / plateaus seem to go hand in hand.

Don't want to hijack the thread, but I am curious about yours and mcarter's take on the above statement. I think both of you are intelligent and knowledgable and I respect your opinions. I frequently see you both going against conventional wisdom and advocating for or supporting the idea that large deficits are not necessarily to be avoided.

When I see a post like "HELP I'M NOT LOOSING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" on the forums, 99% of the time the person has a really large deficit. That, and my own personal experience of success with a small to moderate deficit, makes me think that too big a deficit is detrimental for weight loss. Do you agree? What do you guys think is the best way to determine an optimal deficit?

Thanks!

I think WEIGHT LOSS and stalls/plateaus go hand in hand. It just doesn't come off in a straight line. And people always think they're stalled when it's a slow point. WW defines a stall as 3 weeks with NO scale loss OR body changes. Usually when you press people they'll admit that they are changing and that they have lost something, just not as much as they'd like or not in a perfect linear trend.

I also think it's not so much that the people who log big deficits are the ones reporting stalls, it's that the impatient people who think they can work out 2 hours a day and eat 1100 calories and lose exactly what the math suggests each week are the ones on the boards with the HELP I'M NOT LOSING threads. They add in this huge increase in quantity or intensity of exercise and it makes their muscles retain water and they're miserable with the exercise level and the deficit so they ask for help and advice.

I believe there is another large subset of us that are calm and patient and content and not complaining because we know it takes time and we know this is a safe level for us, so we wouldn't be on the boards asking for advice in any event, anyway. A lot of us are post-40 females who don't have a big window between BMR and TDEE to aim for, and we don't want to be figure competitors, we just want back in our skinny jeans. We know we're not hurting ourselves because we've done WW or a doctor's plan or something before and we know how we lose and what's safe. Yes, we gain back, but 95% of dieters do so it's not really fair to point fingers and say, "It's how you lost it." We've read a lot of books about it and know what we're doing isn't unsafe.

I don't know the best way to determine an optimal deficit but I think if you're patient and eat well and listen to your body that aiming for 2 lbs/week loss isn't unhealthy, even if you only have 20 lbs. to lose. I think 'adding back' is a hassle and the less you can estimate the better. So I'd say estimate your total average expenditure and subtract 500-1000. Ignore if it's below BMR. If you're uncomfortably hungry, eat more.

Thanks for the clarification. Interesting point about the psychology of those who are asking for help vs not asking. I agree a lot of people in that situation have recently started doing much more exercise than they used to and have drastically changed their diet so are likely to be unhappy when the scale inevitably doesn't move as expected.

I also agree with the 500-1000 cut off TDEE being the simplest way to do it and think MFP does make it more complicated than it has to be. I also think it's not a race and 250 is a reasonable cut if you want to lose a couple of pounds a month and not feel deprived. Speaking for myself, a small deficit is a nice way to ease into maintenance and a sustainable way of eating as you approach your goal weight.

Listening to your body is a crucial skill that is really hard to develop, IMO. That's why I still track calories -- to know when I'm done. Kind of sad really.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

mcarter99

I totally agree that a 250 deficit is perfectly sensible and reasonable and healthy. I think it's a hard target to hit, though, and a month is a long time to wait for that feedback and most obese people aren't going to keep doing the logging for 36 months or whatever it takes.

Mainly it's when I see people told they can't aim for 2 lbs/week or they will hurt themselves eating under BMR that I feel like I have to jump in. But I think I'm done. The fears and misinfo are too ingrained here and I'm just banging my head against a wall.

jsl- Thanks for the calm, level-headed discussion! Good luck to you!

susannamarie

Mainly it's when I see people told they can't aim for 2 lbs/week or they will hurt themselves eating under BMR that I feel like I have to jump in. But I think I'm done. The fears and misinfo are too ingrained here and I'm just banging my head against a wall.

Well, I think a lot of us have seen people, both here and offline, who aim for 2 lbs/week by cutting their daily calories drastically, last for a couple of weeks, and then decide 'Dieting isn't worth it, I can't do this' because they've made too big of a change all at once.

wild_wild_life

I totally agree that a 250 deficit is perfectly sensible and reasonable and healthy. I think it's a hard target to hit, though, and a month is a long time to wait for that feedback and most obese people aren't going to keep doing the logging for 36 months or whatever it takes.

Mainly it's when I see people told they can't aim for 2 lbs/week or they will hurt themselves eating under BMR that I feel like I have to jump in. But I think I'm done. The fears and misinfo are too ingrained here and I'm just banging my head against a wall.

jsl- Thanks for the calm, level-headed discussion! Good luck to you!

I'm sorry to hear that. I think discussions benefit from different viewpoints and I agree it can get a little one sided. The more knowledgable, intelligent advice given around here, the better. That's why I have always been impressed with your posts and wanted to ask more about your thoughts. Hope I didn't contribute to any head banging. Good luck to you too.

MaraDiaz

I enjoy these articles. They give me a little more perspective than the belief I've held for 25 years that my body just hates me and wants me to be fat and miserable.

wackyfunster

Research has shown that steady-state cardio slows down metabolism. Resistance training speeds it up. Yet another strike in favor of weight training for weight loss.

ElizabethRoad

The head scratch in all this is OVERWEIGHT PEOPLE ARE WORKING HARDER THAN TRIM PEOPLE!

Why is it that if you are trim and you walk around with a 100 lb pack on your back you're working out. But when you carry that weight around inside your body, 24 - 7, you aren't working out. Everything is harder to do when you are carrying extra weight but you can't expect to see any credit for it in the BMR charts.

scratch, scratch :huh:

Not sure what you're getting at. Obviously the more you weigh, the more you burn. That is accounted for.

iWaffle

The head scratch in all this is OVERWEIGHT PEOPLE ARE WORKING HARDER THAN TRIM PEOPLE!

Why is it that if you are trim and you walk around with a 100 lb pack on your back you're working out. But when you carry that weight around inside your body, 24 - 7, you aren't working out.

Not sure what you're getting at. Obviously the more you weigh, the more you burn. That is accounted for.

She's wondering why it doesn't count as exercise for a heavier person to have an extra 100 pounds of body weight the same as if a lighter person carried an extra 100 pound dumbbell in a backpack all day.

I think it does actually. When I'm not watching what I eat I'll get up to around 245 and from that point my body weight seems to like to stick right around that point as if it were the optimal weight it most easily stays at. I think it's for this very reason. The more I weigh the more calories I burn just walking around. In order to maintain a higher weight I would need to eat an increasing amount of calories in order to account for the increasing calories it takes to carry that weight around. Either that or I would need to decrease my activity level to allow for this weight.

Let's say that my TDEE was 3000 calories. If I eat 3500 a day I'll start gaining a pound a week but only just at first. The increased weight will increase my TDEE and then 3500 calories would just be maintenance calories. Of course your body makes a similar adjustment in the opposite direction. If you lose weight then you won't spend the same calories just walking around and your TDEE will decrease.

I think this is why people often gain the weight back after a successful diet. They eat the correct amount of calories to lose but once they reach their desired weight they go right back to eating what once was maintenance calories for when they weighed 50 lbs more. Of course they're going to gain weight back. You have to change your diet to reflect what your new TDEE is in order to maintain that weight. Same issue in either direction but it's much easier to eat too much than not enough. Calorie dense food is so easy and cheap. It takes planning to eat correctly. It's not difficult but you have to have a mindset that corporations want you to buy their products. Like Planet Fitness handing out free pizza and tootsie rolls. Many companies don't benefit if you eat healthier.

Dave198lbs

Research has shown that steady-state cardio slows down metabolism. Resistance training speeds it up. Yet another strike in favor of weight training for weight loss.

could you cite some of this research?

ElizabethRoad

The head scratch in all this is OVERWEIGHT PEOPLE ARE WORKING HARDER THAN TRIM PEOPLE!

Why is it that if you are trim and you walk around with a 100 lb pack on your back you're working out. But when you carry that weight around inside your body, 24 - 7, you aren't working out.

Not sure what you're getting at. Obviously the more you weigh, the more you burn. That is accounted for.

She's wondering why it doesn't count as exercise for a heavier person to have an extra 100 pounds of body weight the same as if a lighter person carried an extra 100 pound dumbbell in a backpack all day.

But that's what I'm confused about. It DOES count as exercise, or rather as more calories burned. Heavier people have a higher BMR. Of course they do.

taso42

this post seems to be at odds with your profile picture. can't tell which one is tongue-in-cheek

BrianSharpe

This isn't rocket science and, I suspect, the researchers could have predicted the outcome before the trials were even done.

One a calorie restricted diet the dieter will lose both fat and lean muscles mass, the same with calorie restriction and cardio exercise combined (I noticed they didn't say how much protein the subjects were consuming as a % of intake). Fat and muscle are both metabolically active tissue (LMM more so than fat) so if you lose metabolically active tissue your resting metabolic rate will go down. (it's no different than the fact you need fewer calories as your weight declines). Hardly newsworthy........

This is exactly why it's essential for any well rounded fitness/weight management program to include a strength component. You want to lose fat while maintaining, as much as possible, lean muscle mass.

wackyfunster

Research has shown that steady-state cardio slows down metabolism. Resistance training speeds it up. Yet another strike in favor of weight training for weight loss.

could you cite some of this research?

On phone so pardon half-assed response. Quick google yields:
http://www.korr.com/solutions/files/faq-4-3.pdf

Secondary source with tons of primary:
http://articles.elitefts.com/training-articles/women-running-into-trouble/

Will try and dig up the actual studies I was citing later if I have time.

mmapags

bump for later

BrianSharpe

On phone so pardon half-assed response. Quick google yields:
http://www.korr.com/solutions/files/faq-4-3.pdf*

Secondary source with tons of primary:
http://articles.elitefts.com/training-articles/women-running-into-trouble/**

Will try and dig up the actual studies I was citing later if I have time.

* 800 cal liquid diet - what would you expect??

** a blog on a lifting site

These don't prove the "superiority" of lifting vs running it just demonstrates, once again, that the two need to be combined for any well rounded fitness program.

The loss of lean muscle mass on VLCD like to 800 cal liquid diet (can we say extreme?? VLCD) is well documented and of absolutely no surprise (except to those stupid enough to go on them or the doctors negligent enough to recommend them)

wackyfunster

On phone so pardon half-assed response. Quick google yields:
http://www.korr.com/solutions/files/faq-4-3.pdf*

Secondary source with tons of primary:
http://articles.elitefts.com/training-articles/women-running-into-trouble/**

Will try and dig up the actual studies I was citing later if I have time.

* 800 cal liquid diet - what would you expect??

** a blog on a lifting site

These don't prove the "superiority" of lifting vs running it just demonstrates, once again, that the two need to be combined for any well rounded fitness program.

The loss of lean muscle mass on VLCD like to 800 cal liquid diet (can we say extreme?? VLCD) is well documented and of absolutely no surprise (except to those stupid enough to go on them or the doctors negligent enough to recommend them)

Ratio of fat:muscle loss is not determined by deficit, but by genetics, insulin resistance levels, and activity. (only exception would be large deficits in low body fat individuals where potential for fat metabolization in a period of time is exceeded, not applicable to someone who is 'overweight' and losing weight, but definitely to athletes who are cutting from an already lean state... in this study that is definitely not the case).

Edit: Also, I think resistance training being superior to cardio for weight loss (at least for the first ~3 hours/week of training time allocation) is pretty much not even debated any more. Cardio is better for people who have a ton of time, since you can't really train more than 3-4 hours/week on a deficit (or shouldn't, more accurately). If you have the time, why not do both?

Also, blog on a fitness site with 80 primary sources... I don't know what exactly your issue with that is. Find me another fitness article that is half as well researched.

Azdak

First of all, I'm surprised this guy doesn't also sell cats.

Looking at his profile, this is a "celebrity doc" who is trying to make a name by following the standard template for this type of endeavor: write on topics that seem "controversial" or "outside the mainstream". He is also a low-carb proselytizer--not to dismiss low-carb, only question the credibility of those who push it as "True Faith".

His latest book: "Escape the Diet Trap: Lose Weight for Good Without Calorie Counting, Extensive Exercise or Hunger". All he needs is a "But wait....there's MORE!!" tagline and the informercial script is completely written.

Is it suprising that a guy selling a book that says you don't have to exercise to lose weight would write an article questioning the effectiveness of exercise for weight loss? (rhetorical question).

(I wouldn't go into so much detail about the background, except that he is the one promoting himself as "Dr Briffa, Expert". Therefore, it is fair to question his qualifications and credibility).

But let's look at the article on its own.

It basically is a rehash of an article written for TIME magazine about 18 months ago: Exercise doesn't burn that many calories, exercise increases appetite, exercise decreases metabolism, etc.

I'd be more impressed if the author didn't cite 6 articles ranging in age from 18 to 30 years. The article he quotes from (again, from another low-carb true believer) looks at 4 "metabolic studies" that are 20-25 years old and uses slanted and biased language--meaning it is not an honest effort to present science, but more of an editorial or polemic.

More specifics:

When added to dietary change over the medium term (e.g. few months), regular exercise boosts weight loss by about 2 lbs on average.

Compared to what? What is the context? What are the other variables? No specific research is cited, just a number thrown out there. There is no way you can make a general statement like that and make it applicable to everyone.

Let’s say you jog for half an hour and burn about 200 calories more than you would have burned sitting down. That’s obviously better than nothing, but this is not a ton of calories, and as there are about 3,500 calories in a pound of fat, theoretically you’d have to do 17 or 18 of those half-hour runs before you’d lose a pound of fat from your body.

This is another rhetorical trick: choose extreme values and represent them as the "norm". 200 calories for a 30 minute run? A 150lb individual running at a very modest pace will burn at least 300-350, after subtracting BMR. There is not one authority anywhere who claims that a 200-calorie exercise session is sufficient to assist in sustained weight loss. The ACSM recommends 1500-2500 per week calories per week.

Now maybe the point is that "you have to do extensive amounts of exercise for it to be effective". Well, no *kitten* sherlock. Losing weight requires substantial lifestyle changes. That doesn't mean it is ineffective. What else is the alternative? Sit at home and shove more doughnuts up you *kitten*?

The "exercise is no good because you reward yourself with food afterwards" is an equally specious argument. This is as much coincidence as cause. Exercise will not MAKE you eat more food. There is research that also shows that restricing calories is associated with a decrease is casual activity. Does that mean restricting calories is bad too?

If you aren't supposed to exercise and not restrict calories, pray tell, how does one expect to lose weight? Oh, I forgot--buy the book and get the answer. And eat low-carb. (and go on the "low-carb cruise").

And the final strawman argument:

From our perspective, telling heavy people to exercise because it speeds resting metabolism (and thus markedly increasing one’s rate of weight loss) is about as credible as selling them the Brooklyn Bridge.

Well, that might be the case, if it were true. I don't know of any credible health professional making those claims, but I guess you have to make your own windmills sometimes.

As for the claims that

when overweight humans do more than one hour of endurance exercise daily, resting metabolism on average declines between 5 and 15%.

no research is cited, nor the conditions under which the data was gathered. I have not seen studies that would indicate a drop in metablism SOLELY due to endurance exercise. And it's hard to imagine doing a study and having obese people perform an hour of exercise daily and not have them loose weight. So without knowing the methodology, it's difficult to evaluate this statement, other than to accept the author's credibility (which I have shown is seriously suspect).

The problem with articles like these is not that they are competely false: diet IS much more important than exercise, and exercise does play more of a supporting role in initial weight loss. Had he written a factual article that look at all aspects of diet and exercise (including resistance training and HIIT) and looked at the complete context (the critical role that exercise plays in keeping off the weight).

And from the last statement:

My experience tells me that most bang for the buck for weight loss is had by getting the diet right. For me, that means a diet based on real food that it generally higher in fat and lower in carbohydrate than the diet we are traditionally advised to eat. The scientific rationale for such a diet is explained in my book Escape the Diet Trap.

it's pretty obvious the true purpose of the "article".

I get frustrated with stuff like this because it is intellectually lazy. It is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, designed more to obfuscate rather than educate.

There are legitimate issues about the role that exercise plays in weight loss. And some aspects of exercise ARE oversold and need to be challenged. Unfortunately, the poor quality of articles such as this make having an intelligent debate much more difficult.

wild_wild_life

^^ Amen.

I just have one question -- why cats?

Azdak

^^ Amen.

I just have one question -- why cats?

It came up in another related topic.

http://adorablerags.com/DrB/Metabolism.html

Go all the way to the bottom of the "article" and see the link to "Dr Bailey's Adorable Ragdoll Cats".

wild_wild_life

^^ Amen.

I just have one question -- why cats?

It came up in another related topic.

http://adorablerags.com/DrB/Metabolism.html

Go all the way to the bottom of the "article" and see the link to "Dr Bailey's Adorable Ragdoll Cats".

Thanks for the laugh. I'm off to eat small frequent meals in the sauna. I'll let you know when the cats arrive!