Becoming overweight your metabolism is permanently ruined?

emmygrems
emmygrems Posts: 35 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I saw on a documentary, that, once someone is overweight, then they lose the weight, that they can never eat like a normal person does again because they have permanently ruined their metabolism. Such as a normal person can cope with 2000 calories a day, but, a person that was previously overweight and is down to a healthy weight, only needs 1800? (For women).

Is this true? Because that would be really ****ty If for the rest of my life I have to extremely watch what I eat...but I guess that's the price you pay for being overweight to begin with.

Replies

  • 12333beth
    12333beth Posts: 31
    i dont think it would be as severe as you seem to think, our bodies are so smart, and adaptable. I also watched a documentary (and im no scientist or nutritionist so dont quote me) where they did an experiment on about 20 people, increasing their intake by 3000 or so a day and watching the results over time One man only gained a few lbs over a long period of time, as his body had adapted and started excreting energy in other ways like sweating, and respiration. A few others gained weight, but the moment they got back to their normal intake, their body adapted and went back to its 'normal' state (all of us have a comfortable medium somewhere)
  • AbsoluteNG
    AbsoluteNG Posts: 1,079 Member
    Yes it's true. It takes about 3 months for your metabolism to come close to a normal person's metabolism and then the difference isn't so much.
  • AbsoluteNG
    AbsoluteNG Posts: 1,079 Member
    It comes from set point theory. Lyle Mcdonald's take is on it below based off of what he found from his research.

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/set-points-settling-points-and-bodyweight-regulation-part-1.html
  • _Zardoz_
    _Zardoz_ Posts: 3,987 Member
    It comes from set point theory.
    The important word is 'theory' there is no reputable peer reviewed science to back this up. I'm afraid it's just people looking for excuses
  • AbsoluteNG
    AbsoluteNG Posts: 1,079 Member
    It comes from set point theory.
    The important word is 'theory' there is no reputable peer reviewed science to back this up. I'm afraid it's just people looking for excuses

    An excuse for what? Not sure what you are talking about.
  • LeanneGoingThin
    LeanneGoingThin Posts: 215 Member
    It comes from set point theory.
    The important word is 'theory' there is no reputable peer reviewed science to back this up. I'm afraid it's just people looking for excuses

    Theory and science go hand in hand. But this theory seems to be lacking substance indeed.
  • lauren3101
    lauren3101 Posts: 1,853 Member
    I don't really see how or why this would happen. From my knowledge (all be it limited), your metabolism is damaged after prolonged undereating, not by simply being overweight.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    If anything ruins it, it's the diet honestly. If you're consistently eating 500 calories less than you should so you can lose weight, your body will adapt and burn less calories than it would have otherwise. I'd be curious to see how many calories the people who maintain here have been eating, compared to what their TDEE is.
  • pluckabee
    pluckabee Posts: 346 Member
    I don't really see how or why this would happen. From my knowledge (all be it limited), your metabolism is damaged after prolonged undereating, not by simply being overweight.

    Not being overweight, but going from a higher weight to a lower weight.

    Because of course, prolonged undereating is how someone loses weight.
  • Mokey41
    Mokey41 Posts: 5,769 Member
    I don't really see how or why this would happen. From my knowledge (all be it limited), your metabolism is damaged after prolonged undereating, not by simply being overweight.

    Not being overweight, but going from a higher weight to a lower weight.

    Because of course, prolonged undereating is how someone loses weight.

    You shouldn't be losing weight by undereating, you should be losing weight by eating less than you did to gain or maintain your fat. Losing weight should be done by eating an amount that sustains your body functions and provides nutrition. Undereating would be those who try to live on 500 calories a day for rapid weight loss.
  • successby50
    successby50 Posts: 27 Member
    I read something similar in regards to fat cells. Gosh, there is way too much information out there!! (good and bad!).
    It basically said that when an overweight person loses weight, the fat cells still have "memory", and when extra calories are introduced again, the cells grab onto and hold onto any excess they can.
    Not sure how true this is, but it's food for thought....
  • _Resolve_
    _Resolve_ Posts: 735 Member
    No.
  • pluckabee
    pluckabee Posts: 346 Member
    I don't really see how or why this would happen. From my knowledge (all be it limited), your metabolism is damaged after prolonged undereating, not by simply being overweight.

    Not being overweight, but going from a higher weight to a lower weight.

    Because of course, prolonged undereating is how someone loses weight.

    You shouldn't be losing weight by undereating, you should be losing weight by eating less than you did to gain or maintain your fat. Losing weight should be done by eating an amount that sustains your body functions and provides nutrition. Undereating would be those who try to live on 500 calories a day for rapid weight loss.

    Eating less than you need to maintain is, as far as your body is concerned, undereating.
  • Chadomaniac
    Chadomaniac Posts: 1,785 Member
    Eating at a very reduced calorie intake for a long period of time causes metabolic damage , this happened to me but i built as much muscle as possible to speed up the metabolism and recover . Now i basically eat what i want and my BF% stays the same but doesn't increase
  • lcfairbairn74
    lcfairbairn74 Posts: 412 Member
    There is also a theory to do with fat cells. If you gain more than 20% of your body weight, you are supposed to produce more adipose cells, which never go away and therefore, it is easier for you to gain weight.

    I personally believe that once you are overweight you will always be more prone to becoming overweight again, as opposed to a member of the population who has never been. However, I believe this is a multifactoral issue. The reasons you became overweight in the first place, such as being an emotional eater, or just eating too much and not moving enough, will always be an issue unless you deal with them at the root cause.
  • HotrodsGirl0107
    HotrodsGirl0107 Posts: 243 Member
    I saw on a documentary, that, once someone is overweight, then they lose the weight, that they can never eat like a normal person does again because they have permanently ruined their metabolism. Such as a normal person can cope with 2000 calories a day, but, a person that was previously overweight and is down to a healthy weight, only needs 1800? (For women).

    Is this true? Because that would be really ****ty If for the rest of my life I have to extremely watch what I eat...but I guess that's the price you pay for being overweight to begin with.

    No it isn't true, at least for me it wasn't. I have lowered my metabolism in the past by eating to little, plus I have been obese. I maintain at 2500 to 3000 calories. I lost most of my weight netting no less that 1500 (this was after I ate at maintenance to "reset" my metabolism) and I slowly upped my calories as I lost untill I made it to my goal and then I easily transitioned into maintenance.
  • Sean_The_IT_Guy
    Sean_The_IT_Guy Posts: 168
    It comes from set point theory.
    The important word is 'theory' there is no reputable peer reviewed science to back this up. I'm afraid it's just people looking for excuses

    I'm not sure if it's you, or the person who came up with "set point theory", but someone doesn't understand what "theory" means.

    Theory means "best explains the situation and can reliably predict results". It's the closest to a fact you'll ever get in real science.

    A word used to describe "guess, potentially true, but not a lot of evidence backing it up yet" is "hypothesis", not "theory". Saying something is just a theory doesn't dismiss it, in fact quite the opposite. Evolution is "just a theory", but so is gravity and math.
  • 55in13
    55in13 Posts: 1,091 Member
    our bodies are so smart

    I am pretty sure my body's IQ is near zero. This idea is way overblown.

Categories