"Metabolic Damage"

Metabolic damage is really a misnomer. Yes you do slow down your metabolism and make it do bad things but Layne has been proven wrong on many levels. He has used biased study methods, has had his studies get poor reviews in peer review process.
I am not saying that Layne is a bad person or anything like that, he has helped many but there are many many many more people out there to learn from than that guy.

Whenever you go into ultra low calorie intake and ultra high calorie burn, your metabolism will literally say F#&K you and stop burning fat and actually store every single calorie you put into it because your body is built to survive. If you stay on that ultra low calorie diet for a long time like years, yes you will get really skinny, i.e. anorexia style skinny but otherwise in the short term your body will win the battle and you will actually get bigger vs. smaller.

Bios3training is a place to learn from, Icecreamfittness is another very great resource. Marc Lobliner of Tigerfitness gives excellent advice. (YouTube fitness channels)

If you are willing to put in the time and effort in the gym, you can virtually eat any type of food you want as long as your caloric intake is in a deficit and you will lose weight. I am living proof of that (yes that is anecdotal but it is still working. I bust my butt in the gym and eat whatever I like) Every week I go to the "fat doctor" weigh in and get my bodyfat done and every week I am down fat, up muscle, and bodyfat started 7 weeks ago at 28% and this week I am at 19.2%. I was stuck in neutral running their diet. Eating meat only with a few veg/fruit sprinkled in and ultra low calorie. 1200kcal or less a day, my body said NOPE we will not be losing weight like this. (I was working out too hard and so my metabolism went to survival mode. aka metabolic damage) As soon as I upped my calories, spread out my macros and added in the foods I like but with control, I began to see gains like I could never have hoped for otherwise.

If you're going to make the assertion that Layne is wrong please do reference the specific claims that you disagree with and why. It's not useful to provide an empty critique.

layne is supposed to be a scientist yet when he brought up metabolic damage he offered no scientific data. he offered broscience.

Thank you for doing nothing to further the critique that he's wrong. With or without scientific data--the experiences of NUMEROUS people does not constitute broscience.

Thank you Katie

I don't plan on doing any form of diet with that little cal intake as the food that was "allowed" wasn't enough for me as it messed up my time of the month ( never had one on that so called 'diet' ) and as soon as I started eating normally again my stomach was in agony as I suffer with IBS so this triggered it and haven't been in pain that much since a child.

Like I said I have no idea on food I was always told carbs were not good in a diet (but I like my carbs).

What would u say is a good maximum daily cal intake? 1500?

Thank you

Eating that little can definitely mess up your menstrual cycle. I have not had mine in over a year, and I am trying desperately to get it back (with the help of my GP & a Gyno) I would seek medical help if this happens to you again.

And in regards to your question of how much to eat, I really cannot advise a number for you. It depends on how active you are. But just keep in mind that most women need about 2000 to maintain. This is very arbitrary. I would go to a website with a TDEE calculator to find out. Eating slightly under your maintenance will result in weight loss. Ensure that you are eating enough to fuel any activity you do.

Try this website http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/tdee-calculator.html

IT doesn't mean anything? How about it's a descriptor of what occurs in the body when it determines that self-preservation is at risk.

If you haven't guessed, I wholly agree with Layne Norton and have experienced it myself. At 11-13% bodyfat I was running maybe 70miles a week and lifting, I looked great and I was a mess hormonally, physically, and emotionally. I was eating ~2000-2300 calories a day despite "burning" well over 3000 each day but I was simply maintaining. Any time I'd eat what one would estimate my TDEE at I would gain weight FAST. Real weight, not water weight or a temporary fluctuation. I decreased my workouts to what they should be--maybe an hour or so a day--and quickly gained ~20 pounds in 9 weeks. At the same time I was eating ~2000-2300 calories a day so MAYBE a surplus of 300 calories a day on average--certainly not 1000+ extra calories a day; however, my body simply FREAKED OUT! I have also gone through recovery from anorexia--at which time I gained from 68 pounds up to 95 pounds all by eating 1200-1700 calories a day (and doing some daily exercise). I've done enough research and lived at the extreme where self-preservation is a real risk. I can say without doubt that "metabolic damage" is real and I don't care what anyone chooses to call it. Semantics and technicalities are a way to avoid the underlying message which is quite real and true.

I am not saying that Layne is right or wrong....I don't care.

My view on this is that the metabolism is not damaged...
If you are alive and breathing, then you are "metabloising" something...
When you are dead, you can say that the metabolism is damaged.

If you cut calories, then your body is going to react in a way that preserves itself....no different than a pregnant woman who cuts way back on her caloric intake in order to stay "skinny".....she can do that all she wants, but she will suffer while the body does things to protect the fetus.

Obviously this is a personal experience for you, so my intent is not to offend you.

But I don't think damage is the right word.....
Has the metabolism slowed down?? Yes, very much so.
Will it take time to get it going yes?? Yes. It will.
Will it get back to where it is working as desired?? Most likely yes.
Is that damage? To me no, it is working how it was intended to work. It works to preserve the life.

Your body has amazing coping mechanisms......so when you screw things up, it will take time to get it working right again.
But I don't see it as "damage", I see it as how God (or nature, your choice) intended.

I think most of us are in agreement on everything except the terminology. How about metabolic adaptation? Leigh Peele has pretty good information on that as far as it relates to dieting. What I wonder is if the adaptation is more drastic when it is a VCLD and thus even more difficult for the metabolism to re-adapt once the dieter is at maintenance.
http://www.leighpeele.com/starvation-mode#more-10423

IT doesn't mean anything? How about it's a descriptor of what occurs in the body when it determines that self-preservation is at risk.

If you haven't guessed, I wholly agree with Layne Norton and have experienced it myself. At 11-13% bodyfat I was running maybe 70miles a week and lifting, I looked great and I was a mess hormonally, physically, and emotionally. I was eating ~2000-2300 calories a day despite "burning" well over 3000 each day but I was simply maintaining. Any time I'd eat what one would estimate my TDEE at I would gain weight FAST. Real weight, not water weight or a temporary fluctuation. I decreased my workouts to what they should be--maybe an hour or so a day--and quickly gained ~20 pounds in 9 weeks. At the same time I was eating ~2000-2300 calories a day so MAYBE a surplus of 300 calories a day on average--certainly not 1000+ extra calories a day; however, my body simply FREAKED OUT! I have also gone through recovery from anorexia--at which time I gained from 68 pounds up to 95 pounds all by eating 1200-1700 calories a day (and doing some daily exercise). I've done enough research and lived at the extreme where self-preservation is a real risk. I can say without doubt that "metabolic damage" is real and I don't care what anyone chooses to call it. Semantics and technicalities are a way to avoid the underlying message which is quite real and true.

I am not saying that Layne is right or wrong....I don't care.

My view on this is that the metabolism is not damaged...
If you are alive and breathing, then you are "metabloising" something...
When you are dead, you can say that the metabolism is damaged.

If you cut calories, then your body is going to react in a way that preserves itself....no different than a pregnant woman who cuts way back on her caloric intake in order to stay "skinny".....she can do that all she wants, but she will suffer while the body does things to protect the fetus.

Obviously this is a personal experience for you, so my intent is not to offend you.

But I don't think damage is the right word.....
Has the metabolism slowed down?? Yes, very much so.
Will it take time to get it going yes?? Yes. It will.
Will it get back to where it is working as desired?? Most likely yes.
Is that damage? To me no, it is working how it was intended to work. It works to preserve the life.

Your body has amazing coping mechanisms......so when you screw things up, it will take time to get it working right again.
But I don't see it as "damage", I see it as how God (or nature, your choice) intended.

I think "damaged" is intended to mean that it is not functioning optimally which you concede occurs in response to extreme caloric restriction. So i think you do, in fact, agree that it exists despite your dislike of the terminology.

IT doesn't mean anything? How about it's a descriptor of what occurs in the body when it determines that self-preservation is at risk.

If you haven't guessed, I wholly agree with Layne Norton and have experienced it myself. At 11-13% bodyfat I was running maybe 70miles a week and lifting, I looked great and I was a mess hormonally, physically, and emotionally. I was eating ~2000-2300 calories a day despite "burning" well over 3000 each day but I was simply maintaining. Any time I'd eat what one would estimate my TDEE at I would gain weight FAST. Real weight, not water weight or a temporary fluctuation. I decreased my workouts to what they should be--maybe an hour or so a day--and quickly gained ~20 pounds in 9 weeks. At the same time I was eating ~2000-2300 calories a day so MAYBE a surplus of 300 calories a day on average--certainly not 1000+ extra calories a day; however, my body simply FREAKED OUT! I have also gone through recovery from anorexia--at which time I gained from 68 pounds up to 95 pounds all by eating 1200-1700 calories a day (and doing some daily exercise). I've done enough research and lived at the extreme where self-preservation is a real risk. I can say without doubt that "metabolic damage" is real and I don't care what anyone chooses to call it. Semantics and technicalities are a way to avoid the underlying message which is quite real and true.

I am not saying that Layne is right or wrong....I don't care.

My view on this is that the metabolism is not damaged...
If you are alive and breathing, then you are "metabloising" something...
When you are dead, you can say that the metabolism is damaged.

If you cut calories, then your body is going to react in a way that preserves itself....no different than a pregnant woman who cuts way back on her caloric intake in order to stay "skinny".....she can do that all she wants, but she will suffer while the body does things to protect the fetus.

Obviously this is a personal experience for you, so my intent is not to offend you.

But I don't think damage is the right word.....
Has the metabolism slowed down?? Yes, very much so.
Will it take time to get it going yes?? Yes. It will.
Will it get back to where it is working as desired?? Most likely yes.
Is that damage? To me no, it is working how it was intended to work. It works to preserve the life.

Your body has amazing coping mechanisms......so when you screw things up, it will take time to get it working right again.
But I don't see it as "damage", I see it as how God (or nature, your choice) intended.

I think "damaged" is intended to mean that it is not functioning optimally which you concede occurs in response to extreme caloric restriction. So i think you do, in fact, agree that it exists despite your dislike of the terminology.

with all due respect, it is the direct opposite of what u r saying. under caloric restriction ur body learns to do activities with less calories. ur metabolism becomes more efficient.

During the diet, yes. But we're talking about afterwards and using a very extreme diet as an example, as per my discussion with heybales above.

I think "damaged" is intended to mean that it is not functioning optimally which you concede occurs in response to extreme caloric restriction. So i think you do, in fact, agree that it exists despite your dislike of the terminology.

with all due respect, it is the direct opposite of what u r saying. under caloric restriction ur body learns to do activities with less calories. ur metabolism becomes more efficient.

Whenever you go into ultra low calorie intake and ultra high calorie burn, your metabolism will literally say F#&K you and stop burning fat and actually store every single calorie you put into it because your body is built to survive. If you stay on that ultra low calorie diet for a long time like years, yes you will get really skinny, i.e. anorexia style skinny but otherwise in the short term your body will win the battle and you will actually get bigger vs. smaller.

:noway:

so THAT explains all the fatties running around in 3rd world countries.

Did you read the entire section you quoted? I actually address the 3rd world people on ultra low caloric intake. Its like the anorexic physique. The body cannot win that battle but here in the NOT 3rd world, where food is readily available and people have choice, the body wins over and over. Look at the streets where you and I both live. The body is winning battles everyday. People go from one extreme to the next and do nothing but get bigger and bigger.

i guess i just still don't understand what you're saying. i had anorexia and bulimia for 2.5 years when i was younger. and i pretty damn skinny.

with all due respect, it is the direct opposite of what u r saying. under caloric restriction ur body learns to do activities with less calories. ur metabolism becomes more efficient.

No, it just slows down the rate at which it does things, and if not enough energy to do everything needed, you might say a priority list.

So some experience hair and nail growth slow down, low priority.

Some experience hair loss and super bad skin, low priority.

Some get colder in the winter, put on more clothes, low priority.

Compared to many functions that can't be slowed down that much, like dealing with the water levels in the cells, heart beating, organ cleanup (though that can be impaired too in liver).

More efficiency would imply it's doing the same amount of work - it doesn't.

Must like the studies that shows your NEAT will lower your TDEE under severe calorie restriction.

You didn't get more efficient doing all your daily activities and movements - you just stopped doing some of them, or less of them.

IT doesn't mean anything? How about it's a descriptor of what occurs in the body when it determines that self-preservation is at risk.

If you haven't guessed, I wholly agree with Layne Norton and have experienced it myself. At 11-13% bodyfat I was running maybe 70miles a week and lifting, I looked great and I was a mess hormonally, physically, and emotionally. I was eating ~2000-2300 calories a day despite "burning" well over 3000 each day but I was simply maintaining. Any time I'd eat what one would estimate my TDEE at I would gain weight FAST. Real weight, not water weight or a temporary fluctuation. I decreased my workouts to what they should be--maybe an hour or so a day--and quickly gained ~20 pounds in 9 weeks. At the same time I was eating ~2000-2300 calories a day so MAYBE a surplus of 300 calories a day on average--certainly not 1000+ extra calories a day; however, my body simply FREAKED OUT! I have also gone through recovery from anorexia--at which time I gained from 68 pounds up to 95 pounds all by eating 1200-1700 calories a day (and doing some daily exercise). I've done enough research and lived at the extreme where self-preservation is a real risk. I can say without doubt that "metabolic damage" is real and I don't care what anyone chooses to call it. Semantics and technicalities are a way to avoid the underlying message which is quite real and true.

I am not saying that Layne is right or wrong....I don't care.

My view on this is that the metabolism is not damaged...
If you are alive and breathing, then you are "metabloising" something...
When you are dead, you can say that the metabolism is damaged.

If you cut calories, then your body is going to react in a way that preserves itself....no different than a pregnant woman who cuts way back on her caloric intake in order to stay "skinny".....she can do that all she wants, but she will suffer while the body does things to protect the fetus.

Obviously this is a personal experience for you, so my intent is not to offend you.

But I don't think damage is the right word.....
Has the metabolism slowed down?? Yes, very much so.
Will it take time to get it going yes?? Yes. It will.
Will it get back to where it is working as desired?? Most likely yes.
Is that damage? To me no, it is working how it was intended to work. It works to preserve the life.

Your body has amazing coping mechanisms......so when you screw things up, it will take time to get it working right again.
But I don't see it as "damage", I see it as how God (or nature, your choice) intended.

I think "damaged" is intended to mean that it is not functioning optimally which you concede occurs in response to extreme caloric restriction. So i think you do, in fact, agree that it exists despite your dislike of the terminology.

with all due respect, it is the direct opposite of what u r saying. under caloric restriction ur body learns to do activities with less calories. ur metabolism becomes more efficient.

An acquaintance of mine used the HCG diet to lose about 100lbs, but she rapidly gained it all back, plus some. She has quit the program but now she has found she can no longer lose weight normally; despite exercising and eating at a moderate deficit, she says the scale just won't move. Her doctor has pretty much written her off, as "you made your bed, now lay in," and hasn't given her any advice.She knows I lost weight the 'old fashioned way' and has asked for my input. This issue is far beyond my current knowledge, but it is good to read of someone who is coming back from it successfully. It makes me think she should just keep plodding away and doing it the way she is now and that she will eventually see success again. EIther that or take a full diet break for a while and give her body a rest?

Any doctor who "pretty much writes you off" should not be a doctor. She needs to find one who treats her with respect.

That said, were I in her position, I would calculate my BMR and TDEE, and eat my TDEE (plus eat back exercise calories) for a few weeks. Any gains or losses will allow her to tweak these numbers. Then I'd eat at a sensible deficit to lose the weight I wanted to lose.

I said that about her doctor too. However she defends him and said that he had advised her against the plan and she went ahead against his advice, so she's not upset that he's being all, "i told you so".... still, a very immature response from a medical proffessional, IMHO.

friend, lets say on day 1 of an exercise program u run 5mi 30min and burn 600 cals. on day 30 if u run the same distance in the same. do u think u r going to burn the same amount of cals like u did on day 1OR will ur body have adapted to a certain point to the stress put on and become better (more efficient) at running and thus burn less cals.

Is there some benefit to living with a damaged or whatever you want call it metabolism? Is it better not to recognize it's damaged or whatever you want to call it and not try to fix it?