Starvation Mode - Adaptive Thermogenesis and Weight Loss

Options
1…5681011…24

Replies

  • 19bulldog60
    19bulldog60 Posts: 96 Member
    Options
    Bump for later
  • SkimFlatWhite68
    SkimFlatWhite68 Posts: 1,254 Member
    Options
    Fantastic post, thanks so much, i did read it all.

    As a former fat person - skinny person - fat person - now getting to goal / Yo-Yo dieter, I thoroughly agree with the research and findings. I'm putting my food issues behind me so I don't go through the whole yo-yo thing again, but I'm pretty sure my TDEE is less than it would have been if I hadn't spent the last 25 years on and off "diets".

    Thanks again, appreciate the effort you put into this.
  • retirehappy
    retirehappy Posts: 4,752 Member
    Options
    For reference later.

    Nice work, sir.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Options
    Here is something else to throw into the mix:

    Effects of dieting and exercise on resting metabolic rate and implications for weight management
    http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/2/196.full

    That is a pretty major curve ball, as the results of that study are at odds with a lot of the conclusions reached in the article most of this discussion is based one. A couple of excerpts:
    There were also no significant changes in resting metabolic rate (measured in absolute terms or relative to body mass) within groups over time or between groups over time.
    The findings regarding no loss of fat-free mass in the diet-only group are surprising, as some degree of obligatory loss of fat-free mass is expected with significant weight loss.

    ETA - I am not sure I believe this study is valid, but it is an example of how you can cherry pick between studies with conflicting results to support different conclusions.

    While cherry picking and other types of intellectual fraud do exist, I do think that the authors are careful enough to cite the uncertainty of research and places where conflicting views or research appear.

    As an example, they cite an article titled "No differences in rates of energy expenditure between post-obese women and their matched, lean controls." (Int J Obes. 1992;16:801–08. )

    In fact, they are the only authors citing that research in PubMed.

    As to the article you mention - which is another review of various research which does mention both the AT and the absence of AT you chose to cite the place were AT is not present in a study of questionable methodology as even the review authors note:

    "The calorie level may be of greater importance in explaining retention of fat-free mass. Much of the work regarding changes in fat-free mass and resting metabolic rate in response to hypocaloric diets have implemented diets containing 800–1200 kilocalories per day. Such low calorie diets result in a severe calorie deficit and the need to oxidize protein. Information regarding the participants' dietary intake in this study is scant. Only mean intakes per group for the entire 12-week period are presented. These intakes are approximately 250– 380 kilocalories less than mean baseline resting metabolic rates. In addition, dietary information is based on self-report, and there is a strong likelihood of underreporting of food intake in obese people.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Options
    Sounds like good arguments for changing up your exercise routine regularly so your muscles cannot easily "adapt", as well as the idea that many people on MFP advocate, and that is, eat whatever you want ... within moderation ... as long as it fits into your macros. Again, not allowing your body to easily adjust down to a more efficient expenditure of caloric needs, because of a strict calorie restriction approach.

    Also seems to support the continued need for increasing muscle mass through weight bearing exercise of some sort, while combining calorie burning activities through cardiovascular exercise - so that you can offset any muscle mass loss during weight loss periods, while helping your metabolism to continue effective performance.

    ... And reinforces the need to take reasonable breaks (rest days) in your exercise and diet regimen so your body feels well taken care of.

    Thanks for putting all this info in easy to understand language!

    Although I agree with the idea of mixed programs and IIFYM, overall. I have to say that the research I posted does little to support a position for/or against either. We would be making assumptions in either case.

    Neuromuscular adaptation here is based on apparently dietary and hormonal factors - the research did not undertake to show that changing exercise regimens reduces adapatation. It might occur, it is just that this research shows evidence neither for nor against. Nor does it touch on specific macro or food quality or address IIFYM.

    I like both (but not 100%) and don't (yet) see either addressing the adapative part of thermogensis.

    The part in bold seems a very reasonable conclusion as a strategy to offset AT.

    ... and you are welcome. :)
  • 55in13
    55in13 Posts: 1,091 Member
    Options
    Here is something else to throw into the mix:

    Effects of dieting and exercise on resting metabolic rate and implications for weight management
    http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/2/196.full

    That is a pretty major curve ball, as the results of that study are at odds with a lot of the conclusions reached in the article most of this discussion is based one. A couple of excerpts:
    There were also no significant changes in resting metabolic rate (measured in absolute terms or relative to body mass) within groups over time or between groups over time.
    The findings regarding no loss of fat-free mass in the diet-only group are surprising, as some degree of obligatory loss of fat-free mass is expected with significant weight loss.

    ETA - I am not sure I believe this study is valid, but it is an example of how you can cherry pick between studies with conflicting results to support different conclusions.

    While cherry picking and other types of intellectual fraud do exist, I do think that the authors are careful enough to cite the uncertainty of research and places where conflicting views or research appear.

    As an example, they cite an article titled "No differences in rates of energy expenditure between post-obese women and their matched, lean controls." (Int J Obes. 1992;16:801–08. )

    In fact, they are the only authors citing that research in PubMed.

    As to the article you mention - which is another review of various research which does mention both the AT and the absence of AT you chose to cite the place were AT is not present in a study of questionable methodology as even the review authors note:

    "The calorie level may be of greater importance in explaining retention of fat-free mass. Much of the work regarding changes in fat-free mass and resting metabolic rate in response to hypocaloric diets have implemented diets containing 800–1200 kilocalories per day. Such low calorie diets result in a severe calorie deficit and the need to oxidize protein. Information regarding the participants' dietary intake in this study is scant. Only mean intakes per group for the entire 12-week period are presented. These intakes are approximately 250– 380 kilocalories less than mean baseline resting metabolic rates. In addition, dietary information is based on self-report, and there is a strong likelihood of underreporting of food intake in obese people.
    Well, I did say I am not sure that study is valid, but just an example. I am having trouble finding the other summary article I read that came up with the 4% to 10% reduction in metabolic rate being typical during a reduced calorie diet. I do agree that some slowdown seems common but it does appear to be gradual and that reducing intake always increases deficit, though at some points by less than 1:1. My biggest concern is that people don't get the wrong idea from this and keep both their MR and body weight high.

    Here is an interesting tangent - is lowering or raising MR the true reset? Do we want a higher MR because we need to eat more to be healthy or just because we want more food? The lower MR being discussed is not making people lethargic or dull witted, just more efficient.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Options
    ]Well, I did say I am not sure that study is valid, but just an example. I am having trouble finding the other summary article I read that came up with the 4% to 10% reduction in metabolic rate being typical during a reduced calorie diet. I do agree that some slowdown seems common but it does appear to be gradual and that reducing intake always increases deficit, though at some points by less than 1:1. My biggest concern is that people don't get the wrong idea from this and keep both their MR and body weight high.

    Here is an interesting tangent - is lowering or raising MR the true reset? Do we want a higher MR because we need to eat more to be healthy or just because we want more food? The lower MR being discussed is not making people lethargic or dull witted, just more efficient.

    Ok, for gradual.
    Ok, for somewhere between 4%, 10% and 15% and even "not observed in a 12 week period".
    Ok, that reducing calorie intake is always a physical possibility BUT
    - continued cutting is not something always pyschologically possible (results in constant hunger, binges or is likelier to result in poor nutrition)
    - a strategy of increasing activity and calories might be better - either by increasing workouts and/or just a more active lifestyle. If the cals burned by overall activity are increased beyond the additional calories consumed this results in a higher deficit.

    The Mayo Clinic summarizes these strategies well:

    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/weight-loss-plateau/MY01152/NSECTIONGROUP=2

    - cut more (Is it possible, reasonable, healthy, sustainable?)
    - be more active (Is it possible, reasonable, healthy, sustainable?)

    (In general, my own choice tends to be "more active" - because I like doing things and I enjoy food. There isn't one solution.)

    The lower MR we are discussing does have more than just "efficiency" stamped over it - these are hormonal, muscular and neuro adaptive elements if we agree with what the research is suggesting. These changes *may* affect things like muscle tone and mood. Decrease in twitching and non-exercise activity is reported....
  • toutmonpossible
    toutmonpossible Posts: 1,580 Member
    Options
    Save for later.
  • LizL217
    LizL217 Posts: 217 Member
    Options
    Excellent summary, and well-cited!
    Saving for future reference
  • joshdann
    joshdann Posts: 618 Member
    Options
    This write up has the same intentions as another one I did myself last night, but IMO this one does it better :). Here's a link to mine, for an additional perspective. Everyone should read both of these and keep at least this post at the top of the lists, perhaps even sticky it. There are far too many people on these boards instructing other people without having any idea what they're talking about.

    my post: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080506-important-read-about-starvation-mode

    I tried, and I feel like it's worth a read, but this post is much better thought out and compiled. Hopefully mine is useful as an addendum :)
  • got2befitnow
    got2befitnow Posts: 108 Member
    Options
    Definitely great to have this information. Thanks for summarizing this!!
  • 55in13
    55in13 Posts: 1,091 Member
    Options
    The discussion about inaccuracy in the other study got me thinking more about my own numbers and experience. I always assumed there was a little MR drop in there. I am a runner; lately doing around 20 miles a week. I refer to the burn that Endomondo calculates as a fantasy number because I think it is too high. For example, the other night it gave me 1365 for running 9 miles in 99 minutes (I run long, but not fast :wink: ). I never eat back the amount it gives me. I think that was maybe 1000 - maybe... Anyway, my point is that makes my numbers more than a little suspect but I don't have some crazy slow metabolic rate that prevents me from running that far or working or... Is it only a 4% drop, 10%, 15% ??? the truth is I really don't know, but it has not caused me to stall or feel out of sorts. I don't think this is an issue that should derail anyone.
  • Fabnover40Kat
    Fabnover40Kat Posts: 300 Member
    Options
    bump
  • highland_sky
    highland_sky Posts: 27 Member
    Options
    To try to digest later... bump.
  • kns6374
    kns6374 Posts: 29
    Options
    This is excellent, thank you so much!
  • joshdann
    joshdann Posts: 618 Member
    Options
    bump for actual, real, important information.
  • RockClimber69
    RockClimber69 Posts: 82 Member
    Options
    Bump. Great info.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Options
    This write up has the same intentions as another one I did myself last night, but IMO this one does it better :). Here's a link to mine, for an additional perspective. Everyone should read both of these and keep at least this post at the top of the lists, perhaps even sticky it. There are far too many people on these boards instructing other people without having any idea what they're talking about.

    my post: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080506-important-read-about-starvation-mode

    I tried, and I feel like it's worth a read, but this post is much better thought out and compiled. Hopefully mine is useful as an addendum :)

    Thanks for your write up and also for citing the Nature article. It goes and covers a few more conditions relevant to Adaptive Thermogenesis that neither I nor the articles I referenced covered such as sleep apnea and organochlorines. Worthy reads.
  • Vailara
    Vailara Posts: 2,454 Member
    Options
    Bump to read later - thanks!
  • alyssabrown94
    alyssabrown94 Posts: 49
    Options
    Bump!

Categories