Starvation Mode - Adaptive Thermogenesis and Weight Loss

Options
1111214161724

Replies

  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    Running 10-12 hours a week while carrying 37% body fat is impressive.

    EDIT: Ah, just realized that the other data suggests female..
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    This all strikes me as strengthening the case for SLOW weight loss using a combination of moderate caloric intake reduction + increase in exercise burn.

    Is there a study that looks at AT for three cases:

    1. Standard intake reduction of 20% of TDEE
    2. Eat at TDEE but add sufficient exercise to create 20% deficit
    3. Split the difference - 10% reduction in intake plus 10% of TDEE in additional exercise

    Considering these studies are using folks that usually have had no weight changes in 3-6 months and not attempting to diet, have the available time to join in on a study that could be a bit time consuming, have professional lab measured starting points and confirming no other outstanding health issues except what weight causes - yes I'd suggest that you and me without that stuff with additional stress on our body, would be a lot smarter and safer doing slow purposely. Not obtaining slow because we tried to over do it.

    Here is study that seems to have reasonable deficit amount that changed as needed, and reasonable exercise amount, increasing intensity as needed. With great results to LBM and RMR.

    To the study above about cardio increasing RMR, happened here too. Whether that increase in LBM observed was glucose or muscle unknown as unmeasured, but still shows promise.

    http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/2/196.full

    Corrections were made to facilitate a gradual and consistent weight loss of approximately one to two pounds per week. The nutrition intervention included use of a high-fibre, high-carbohydrate supplement. Based on participants' food records, there were no significant differences in nutrient intake among the three diet groups. Intakes approximated 1194 kilocalories per day, 70% from carbohydrate, 15% from protein and less than 15% from fat.

    Subjects in the two groups involved in aerobic exercise exercised three times per week at 70–80% of their functional capacity for 30 to 50 minutes. Duration and intensity were progressively increased. Subjects in the aerobic plus resistance training group also completed 11 exercises following heavy resistance training principles three times per week.

    The control group showed no change in body composition over the 12-week period. All three intervention groups had a significant decline in body mass at 6 weeks, and again at 12 weeks for an average total weight loss of 6.2 kg in the diet-only group, 6.8 kg for the diet plus aerobic exercise group, and 7.0 kg for the diet, aerobic and resistance training group (standard deviations only presented graphically). By 12 weeks there were also significant decreases in percentage body fat: 5.8, 8.0 and 4.3%, respectively. However, there were no significant differences between groups. There were no significant changes in fat-free mass in any of the groups at any time period. 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. Linear regression models between resting metabolic rate and fat-free mass were also tested. These models demonstrated a significant relation only in the diet and aerobic exercise group, such that resting metabolic rate increased as fat-free mass increased (at baseline, y = 442.74 + 23.00x, r = 0.89, P ≤ 0.05; at week 12, y = 88.574 + 29.77x, r = 0.79, P ≤ 0.05).
  • 55in13
    55in13 Posts: 1,091 Member
    Options
    There are problems (IMO) with your example. Losing that much weight, the person should recalculate during loss and not expect the cut used in the beginning to work for the entire course. But if they did, the deficit would decrease because of the weight loss potentially compounded by MR slowdown. And a decreased deficit would not continue to decrease the MR as much, correct? I still have only seen hypothetical people and not actual subjects from studies that "cross zero" and have a deficit cancelled out completely due to AT.

    This example doesn't get in to how the weight was gained in past year, I'm betting to discouragement and binges during the time. Each binge not long enough to raise metabolism, merely add fat.
    Also the estimate of how much being eaten may be off as we know since based on memory. But, if she had been eating more prior, then how did eating more post involvement cause an improvement? So probably valid enough.
    Also, the potential RMR was based not on bodyfat%, but if RMR had been legitimately less because of less LBM, it would never have raised either after intervention.
    I've found several of these case type studies, not true studies since they only get to start recording info when they see the person, but interesting none-the-less what you can discern from the effects after a treatment is followed. I think it proves several points.

    A similar case study was published by Jampolis (2004).
    A 51 year old patient complained of a 15 lb weight gain over the last year despite beginning a strenuous triathlon and marathon training program (2 hours per day, 5-6 days per week).
    A 3 day diet analysis estimated a daily intake of only 1000-1200 Calories.
    An indirect calorimetry revealed a resting metabolic rate of 950 Calories (28% below predicted for age, height, weight, and gender).
    After medications and medical conditions such as hypothyroidism and diabetes where ruled out, the final diagnosis was over-training and undereating. The following treatment was recommended:

    Increase daily dietary intake by approximately 100 Calories per week to a goal of 1500 calories
    32% protein; 35% carbohydrates; 33% fat
    Consume 5-6 small meals per day
    Small amounts of protein with each meal or snack
    Choose high fiber starches
    Select mono- and poly- unsaturated fats
    Restrict consumption of starch with evening meals unless focused around training
    Take daily multi-vitamin and mineral supplement
    Perform whole body isometric resistance training 2 times per week

    After 6 weeks the patient's resting metabolism increased 35% to 1282 Calories per day (only 2% below predicted).
    The patient also decreases percent fat from 37% to 34%, a loss of 5 lbs of body fat.

    Jampolis MB (2004) Weight Gain - Marathon Runner / Triathlete. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(5) S148.
    There is educated guesswork going on here that may have some validity, but you are speculating about the possible history of a hypothetical subject.

    The case study is interesting as it my shed some light on MR recovery, but the amount of variance and recovery is way outside what is found in most of the studies.

    The reason I debate this is just to point out that what the studies show is that AT does exist but does not doom rapid weight loss. It does indicate that slower is likely a better (highly subjective word choice, I know) choice for most people.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    Thanks for that link, heybales, that was a good read.

    What jumps out at me is the very low protein intake. 15% of 1200 calories is 45g of protein per day. Given that one of the groups was doing "strength training" 3x a week, that falls well below every protein guideline I've ever seen from a strength training specialist. So I'm thinking it's not a surprise body recomp differences didn't show up - insufficient building blocks for the group doing weight training.

    At least, that's my initial read on it.
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    Options
    tagging to read later.
  • jayliospecky
    jayliospecky Posts: 25,022 Member
    Options
    tagging to read later.

    Ditto.
  • HIITMe
    HIITMe Posts: 921 Member
    Options
    add me to the must read when I have some downtime list
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Thanks for that link, heybales, that was a good read.

    What jumps out at me is the very low protein intake. 15% of 1200 calories is 45g of protein per day. Given that one of the groups was doing "strength training" 3x a week, that falls well below every protein guideline I've ever seen from a strength training specialist. So I'm thinking it's not a surprise body recomp differences didn't show up - insufficient building blocks for the group doing weight training.

    At least, that's my initial read on it.

    Ya, good point. Also, their idea many times of heavy lifting is not what we would call heavy. Like not to failure probably, but good enough.

    Good to know you can maintain LBM (I'm assuming it was muscle mass too) with just lifting, even with what might be considered below recommended protein intake.

    Just means if you can do all 3 things - reasonable deficit, adequate protein intake, and resistance training, you have a great chance of maintaining muscle mass, and avoiding metabolism slow down beyond what weight loss and efficiency improvements would cause by themselves.

    And hopefully no gluten allergy to cause undue stress! ;-)
  • wordpainter09
    wordpainter09 Posts: 472 Member
    Options
    This post is totally unsuitable for MFP.

    Factual information backed up with research that you have actually referenced.

    HOW VERY DARE YOU!

    :laugh:

    Thank you so much for this. It's a great read and I have learnt a lot. :drinker:

    Haha! This.
  • cecc55
    Options
    I read recently that starvation is no good for your body
  • juliemouse83
    juliemouse83 Posts: 6,663 Member
    Options
    Bump...for later.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    Just means if you can do all 3 things - reasonable deficit, adequate protein intake, and resistance training, you have a great chance of maintaining muscle mass, and avoiding metabolism slow down beyond what weight loss and efficiency improvements would cause by themselves.

    I track BF% as well as everything else. I know it's not an exact science, but since I'm only looking at intra-measurement deltas, it is useful as a early warning system. Currently my data is tracking as fat loss being just about equal to weight loss - ie, no lean mass loss - but as you say, it does take a conscious choice of heavy lifting, protein consumption, and not-too-big deficit.
  • tigerblue
    tigerblue Posts: 1,526 Member
    Options
    There are problems (IMO) with your example. Losing that much weight, the person should recalculate during loss and not expect the cut used in the beginning to work for the entire course. But if they did, the deficit would decrease because of the weight loss potentially compounded by MR slowdown. And a decreased deficit would not continue to decrease the MR as much, correct? I still have only seen hypothetical people and not actual subjects from studies that "cross zero" and have a deficit cancelled out completely due to AT.

    This example doesn't get in to how the weight was gained in past year, I'm betting to discouragement and binges during the time. Each binge not long enough to raise metabolism, merely add fat.
    Also the estimate of how much being eaten may be off as we know since based on memory. But, if she had been eating more prior, then how did eating more post involvement cause an improvement? So probably valid enough.
    Also, the potential RMR was based not on bodyfat%, but if RMR had been legitimately less because of less LBM, it would never have raised either after intervention.
    I've found several of these case type studies, not true studies since they only get to start recording info when they see the person, but interesting none-the-less what you can discern from the effects after a treatment is followed. I think it proves several points.

    A similar case study was published by Jampolis (2004).
    A 51 year old patient complained of a 15 lb weight gain over the last year despite beginning a strenuous triathlon and marathon training program (2 hours per day, 5-6 days per week).
    A 3 day diet analysis estimated a daily intake of only 1000-1200 Calories.
    An indirect calorimetry revealed a resting metabolic rate of 950 Calories (28% below predicted for age, height, weight, and gender).
    After medications and medical conditions such as hypothyroidism and diabetes where ruled out, the final diagnosis was over-training and undereating. The following treatment was recommended:

    Increase daily dietary intake by approximately 100 Calories per week to a goal of 1500 calories
    32% protein; 35% carbohydrates; 33% fat
    Consume 5-6 small meals per day
    Small amounts of protein with each meal or snack
    Choose high fiber starches
    Select mono- and poly- unsaturated fats
    Restrict consumption of starch with evening meals unless focused around training
    Take daily multi-vitamin and mineral supplement
    Perform whole body isometric resistance training 2 times per week

    After 6 weeks the patient's resting metabolism increased 35% to 1282 Calories per day (only 2% below predicted).
    The patient also decreases percent fat from 37% to 34%, a loss of 5 lbs of body fat.

    Jampolis MB (2004) Weight Gain - Marathon Runner / Triathlete. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(5) S148.

    Okay this is actually encouraging. So much of this seems to indicate that there is little to be done, and even if you do it it might not work, and even if it works, the improvements may be miniscule. So why try?

    But if there is evidence that training and eating a certain way can make a noticiable difference actually worth something? Well that is so much more motivational.

    I will read up on the study.

    Thanks heybales, and all the others who have presented their arguments.
  • pavrg
    pavrg Posts: 277 Member
    Options
    Thanks for that link, heybales, that was a good read.

    What jumps out at me is the very low protein intake. 15% of 1200 calories is 45g of protein per day. Given that one of the groups was doing "strength training" 3x a week, that falls well below every protein guideline I've ever seen from a strength training specialist. So I'm thinking it's not a surprise body recomp differences didn't show up - insufficient building blocks for the group doing weight training.

    At least, that's my initial read on it.
    Not only that, but they only lifted 3x a week, so it's likely that they didn't hit their muscles at least 2x a week like they ought to have.

    As for the triathlete example, it's too extreme to apply to 99% of MFP and shouldn't be taken as evidence for the silly 1200 cal starvation mode myth flying around. His daily energy requirements were probably 3000-3500 calories and he was eating 1200, or 1/3 his daily energy requirements. If there were a linear relationship, it'd be like a sedentary person eating 400-600 cal/day and a person with a regular workout routine eating 500-800 cal/day.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    Lifting 3x a week is plenty, if it's done right.

    Whether or not it was done right remains, of course, an open question.
  • pavrg
    pavrg Posts: 277 Member
    Options
    Lifting 3x a week is plenty, if it's done right.

    Whether or not it was done right remains, of course, an open question.
    It's only plenty if you spend each of those 3 sessions doing 1.5-2 hour workouts to make sure you get everything at least 2x/week. It's much more likely that they hit everything once a week.

    Their cardio plan was relatively weak, too.
  • joshdann
    joshdann Posts: 618 Member
    Options
    I've not seen any studies that support "hitting all muscles 2x per week" as being a necessity. I might be wrong, but that smells like bro science to me.
  • tuckerrj
    tuckerrj Posts: 1,453 Member
    Options
    Starvation mode. Really? As you get smaller you burn less calories. This horse is dead. For heaven's sake, put it to rest!!!
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    It's only plenty if you spend each of those 3 sessions doing 1.5-2 hour workouts to make sure you get everything at least 2x/week.

    Completely disagree with that.

    But each to their own! :)
  • SkimFlatWhite68
    SkimFlatWhite68 Posts: 1,254 Member
    Options
    Thanks EvGen... I've read a lot on Adaptive Thermogenesis lately, and it's very interesting and most of it based on common sense, which isn't that common any more. Think that the re-feeds are a great idea, but agree with I think HeyBales when he said that the problem was often people don't do a re-feed, it's just a binge and then they put on fat. Also agree with whoever said that it is a good argument for SLOW weight loss! Slow and steady wins the race - did we learn nothing from the tortoise and hare fairy tale?

    Our bodies are just so clever all by themselves.

    Anyway, thanks everyone, I enjoyed the read!