Supporting scientific techniques and topics

Options
SHBoss1673
SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
in Motivation and Support
There are lots of support groups in MFP, little sub groups of members that cluster around a specific area of common interest. I like my health and fitness topics with a healthy smattering of real, scientific method based research. It's how I've always been about stuff, if I can't test it, reproduce it, and quantify it, I can't say it's fact.

Any way, I know there are others like me out there, lets use this space to chat about stuff we've heard, learned, or even done with regards to health and fitness.

My only request is that you don't link blogs or other pseudo-science based items here, or at least not when speaking of proof or research. Basically if it didn't follow the scientific method, it's only theory (at best) as far as I'm concerned.
«134

Replies

  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    Options
    and with that thought, I'll be the first to post a topic.

    I'll set it up a bit. Lots of talk about starvation mode around here, lots of "theories" out there and lots of people complaining about it, and I agree that people throw around the term rather loosely, but that doesn't lessen the actual science (the actual provable science) behind it (which is quite solid people).

    I found a fantastic study done on starvation mode (essentially) using actual control groups, real measured numbers, and very solid and repeatable conclusions. LOVE this research. And this isn't new science either guys, it's from 1995.

    It's called "Feeding, fasting and starvation: factors affecting fuel utilization"
    BY I. A. MACDONALD AND J. WEBBER
    Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, University of Nottingham Medical School,
    Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH

    here's the link to the full text pdf
    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=789564&jid=PNS&volumeId=54&issueId=01&aid=789556#
  • happily
    happily Posts: 72 Member
    Options
    Thank you, Banks.
  • Fit4Vet
    Fit4Vet Posts: 610 Member
    Options
    Bump. I'm in & I'll be back later to read this study. I really want to understand this. I'm here for the whole learning experience - not just a bunch of "theories"! Thanks Banks.
  • nsueflorence
    nsueflorence Posts: 295 Member
    Options
    bump
  • FrankyOsage
    FrankyOsage Posts: 275
    Options
    Bumpp
  • firegirlred
    firegirlred Posts: 674 Member
    Options
    Bump.
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    Options
    so what do people think about it? The research I posted that is.

    I read it and this is what I think.

    During a 7 day undernourishment study, the body first begins by utilizing it's glycogenic energy stores, for about 48 to 72 hours the body runs happily along using those stores, and upping the fat oxidation for gluconeogenesis and thus keeping energy levels high, even allowing us to increase fat burn. But at around 72 hours that all changes, the metabolism rapidly slows (RMR dropped an average of 16 % from pre-test rates) and adipose tissue storage (fat storage) becomes a primary function in the metabolic pathways. Also stored amino acid is mobilized at a higher rate and muscle mass is used as a fuel substrate at a much higher rate than under normal feeding conditions.
    This tells me that a non-obese individual under a high caloric restriction for multiple days (for instance someone eating about 1/2 of their maintenance calories + exercise calories) will reduce fat loss and increase muscle degeneration, all the while their base RMR will be reduced by approximately 16 percent. This last part is significant because during refeeding (raising your calories to something closer to maintenance) the body will stay at that lower RMR for a short period, meaning greater fat storage. This alone destroys much of the effect of the original weight loss.

    That being said, to me this means that yes, you continue to lose weight when at a severe caloric restriction, but the % of weight lost that is FFM (Fat Free Mass) goes up, meaning muscle loss, and you don't lose enough extra weight to make it a worthy process. I'll note that the overall metabolic changes are slower to occur in obese individuals and require a greater gap in calories than in non-obese individuals which is why those who are obese can afford a larger calorie deficit with less drawbacks.

    Anyone else?
  • saramike5kids
    saramike5kids Posts: 9
    Options
    I agree with your synopsis of the information. I would add that it appears to be beneficial for weight loss to use caloric restriction for short periods of time... less than 72 hours. I actually know a group of women at work who prove this theory over and over again... they do the slim-fast diet 3 days a week for a period of time; they all lose weight. The problem is, they don't increase their activity or make any real changes to their daily diet routine that they plan to sustain... so the weight comes back on.

    I may try this at some point to break through a plateau. But for now, I am satisfied with my very slow reduction in weight. I have focused on trying to stay within my target calorie intake, and get regular exercise. I do drink a low calorie (190 cal) protein shake after exercise, and try to eat a low fat diet. For me, this seems sustainable for a lifetime, and have lost 7 actual pounds since September!
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    Options
    I agree with your synopsis of the information. I would add that it appears to be beneficial for weight loss to use caloric restriction for short periods of time... less than 72 hours. I actually know a group of women at work who prove this theory over and over again... they do the slim-fast diet 3 days a week for a period of time; they all lose weight. The problem is, they don't increase their activity or make any real changes to their daily diet routine that they plan to sustain... so the weight comes back on.

    I may try this at some point to break through a plateau. But for now, I am satisfied with my very slow reduction in weight. I have focused on trying to stay within my target calorie intake, and get regular exercise. I do drink a low calorie (190 cal) protein shake after exercise, and try to eat a low fat diet. For me, this seems sustainable for a lifetime, and have lost 7 actual pounds since September!

    yep, this is commonly referred to as calorie cycling, it's quite common and effective if done correctly. but I also agree, psychological factors need to be taken into account, as the re-feeding portion can be a serious problem, and many studies have proven that "yo-yoing" back and forth from low weight to high weight is worse for you than staying consistently at the high weight (even in obesity). Essentially, for long term maintenance of weight loss, eventually you need to make the change a gradual slope as to not incur the re-feeding penalties associated with severe caloric deficits.
  • pinbotchick
    pinbotchick Posts: 3,904
    Options
    Bump
  • lessertess
    lessertess Posts: 855 Member
    Options
    so what do people think about it? The research I posted that is.

    I read it and this is what I think.

    During a 7 day undernourishment study, the body first begins by utilizing it's glycogenic energy stores, for about 48 to 72 hours the body runs happily along using those stores, and upping the fat oxidation for gluconeogenesis and thus keeping energy levels high, even allowing us to increase fat burn. But at around 72 hours that all changes, the metabolism rapidly slows (RMR dropped an average of 16 % from pre-test rates) and adipose tissue storage (fat storage) becomes a primary function in the metabolic pathways. Also stored amino acid is mobilized at a higher rate and muscle mass is used as a fuel substrate at a much higher rate than under normal feeding conditions.
    This tells me that a non-obese individual under a high caloric restriction for multiple days (for instance someone eating about 1/2 of their maintenance calories + exercise calories) will reduce fat loss and increase muscle degeneration, all the while their base RMR will be reduced by approximately 16 percent. This last part is significant because during refeeding (raising your calories to something closer to maintenance) the body will stay at that lower RMR for a short period, meaning greater fat storage. This alone destroys much of the effect of the original weight loss.

    That being said, to me this means that yes, you continue to lose weight when at a severe caloric restriction, but the % of weight lost that is FFM (Fat Free Mass) goes up, meaning muscle loss, and you don't lose enough extra weight to make it a worthy process. I'll note that the overall metabolic changes are slower to occur in obese individuals and require a greater gap in calories than in non-obese individuals which is why those who are obese can afford a larger calorie deficit with less drawbacks.

    Anyone else?

    I agree. The article stated that the response was less marked for those categorized as "obese" but it would be interesting to be able to compare the data between "average", "overweight" and "obese" not only in starvation or undernourishing but in their response to refeeding.
  • lotusfromthemud
    lotusfromthemud Posts: 5,335 Member
    Options
    I am in. I'm so tired of "because me and this one dude I read on the internet say so" as a foundation for one's belief system about health.

    Bangs head against wall, needs a hug.
  • lotusfromthemud
    lotusfromthemud Posts: 5,335 Member
    Options
    Banks, do you know of any studies in starvation response (or whatever you want to call it) in obese individuals? Or women? I've done basic googling, but found nothing...

    I'm only really aware of the Minnesota study, which used healthy-weight males in its sample. Also, the only thing I remember is that a dude cut off his own finger in order to get out of the underfed group.
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    Options
    Banks, do you know of any studies in starvation response (or whatever you want to call it) in obese individuals? Or women? I've done basic googling, but found nothing...

    I'm only really aware of the Minnesota study, which used healthy-weight males in its sample. Also, the only thing I remember is that a dude cut off his own finger in order to get out of the underfed group.

    there are lots of them, but they tend to focus on one aspect or another with regards to metabolic hormones and processes. So it's hard to generalize. I've read a bunch and pulled some of the basic conclusions out and pieced them together for a more substantial set of information. I would recommend you do the same. If you go to the ajcn website (www.ajcn.org) and type in something like Fasting metabolic rate, you should get a lot of good hits, hundreds of studies, many of them will be involving obese subjects. That's where I'd start.
  • tgh1914
    tgh1914 Posts: 1,036 Member
    Options
    Adding to my topics
  • binary_jester
    binary_jester Posts: 3,311 Member
    Options
    I hope you don't mind my adding these from the British Journal of Medicine stating that meal frequency does not impact weight loss.

    Br J Nutr. 2010 Apr;103(8):1098-101. Epub 2009 Nov 30.
    Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet.
    Cameron JD, Cyr MJ, Doucet E.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985


    Ann Nutr Metab. 1987;31(2):88-97.
    [Thermogenesis in humans after varying meal time frequency]
    [Article in German]

    Wolfram G, Kirchgessner M, Müller HL, Hollomey S.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3592618
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    bump
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    Options
    not at all binary, although for future reference, a link to the studies might be easier, especially if people reply to the post with the quote option.
  • binary_jester
    binary_jester Posts: 3,311 Member
    Options
    Editing...

    Also, do i get a certificate as a nutritionist after reading all this?
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    Options
    I hope you don't mind my adding these from the British Journal of Medicine stating that meal frequency does not impact weight loss.

    Br J Nutr. 2010 Apr;103(8):1098-101. Epub 2009 Nov 30.
    Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet.
    Cameron JD, Cyr MJ, Doucet E.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985


    Ann Nutr Metab. 1987;31(2):88-97.
    [Thermogenesis in humans after varying meal time frequency]
    [Article in German]

    Wolfram G, Kirchgessner M, Müller HL, Hollomey S.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3592618

    Perfect!!!

Categories