Supporting scientific techniques and topics

SHBoss1673
SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
edited September 22 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.
«13

Replies

  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    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
    Thank you, Banks.
  • Fit4Vet
    Fit4Vet Posts: 610 Member
    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
    bump
  • Bumpp
  • firegirlred
    firegirlred Posts: 674 Member
    Bump.
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    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 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
    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
    Bump
  • lessertess
    lessertess Posts: 855 Member
    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
    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
    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
    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
    Adding to my topics
  • binary_jester
    binary_jester Posts: 3,311 Member
    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: 12,294 Member
    bump
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    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
    Editing...

    Also, do i get a certificate as a nutritionist after reading all this?
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    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!!!
  • tgh1914
    tgh1914 Posts: 1,036 Member
    "Sixteen obese adults (n 8 women and 8 men; age 34.6 (sd 9.5)"

    That's a pretty small sample size for a study with sooo many potential variables. Why do they do this? You can't have much confidence in the findings when an experiment like this, by it's nature, has LOTS of variables, then they use a small sample. It doesn't make sense.
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    probably cost. But it's not the only test of it's type. I think that considering how many research studies have been done on Thermogenesis and DIT already, you can take a whole bunch of variables out of the equation. Not that this study proves beyond a reasonable doubt, and in that regard I agree with you, it's to small to be conclusive, but it does prove a hypothesis, now if others can correlate the results with larger tests, I think this one could be seen as ground breaking (relatively speaking).

    FYI, this is how a lot of research is conducted, they first do the study with a small group, if results are as predicted, they look for grants to perform larger studies, if there's enough interest, they get the grant and bingo, large scale studies. It's pretty rare that a study is done on a large group without first testing the hypothesis on a small control, it's just to expensive to bring in hundreds of people for testing over and over again.
  • JoyousRen
    JoyousRen Posts: 3,823 Member
    Marking for furture posts.
  • tabbydog
    tabbydog Posts: 4,925 Member
    bump
  • binary_jester
    binary_jester Posts: 3,311 Member
    What do you think about these studies that show increased metabolic rate after 36-48 hours of fasting?

    Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Jun;71(6):1511-5.
    Resting energy expenditure in short-term starvation is increased as a result of an increase in serum norepinephrine.

    Zauner C, Schneeweiss B, Kranz A, Madl C, Ratheiser K, Kramer L, Roth E, Schneider B, Lenz K.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10837292


    Am J Physiol. 1990 Jan;258(1 Pt 2):R87-93.
    Enhanced thermogenic response to epinephrine after 48-h starvation in humans.

    Mansell PI, Fellows IW, Macdonald IA.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2405717
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    What do you think about these studies that show increased metabolic rate after 36-48 hours of fasting?

    Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Jun;71(6):1511-5.
    Resting energy expenditure in short-term starvation is increased as a result of an increase in serum norepinephrine.

    Zauner C, Schneeweiss B, Kranz A, Madl C, Ratheiser K, Kramer L, Roth E, Schneider B, Lenz K.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10837292


    Am J Physiol. 1990 Jan;258(1 Pt 2):R87-93.
    Enhanced thermogenic response to epinephrine after 48-h starvation in humans.

    Mansell PI, Fellows IW, Macdonald IA.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2405717

    You should read the article I posted, it explains why all this happens. But essentially for the first 60 to 72 hours of a large deficit period (can be a fast, but doesn't have to be) the body uses it's stored glycogen as it's primary fuel substrate, during this phase, the metabolism stays the same, and in some cases actually rises, but at about that 72 hour limit (give or take) the glycogen runs out, and the body starts converting to a Krebs cycle metabolism. That means higher protein substrate for energy as well as fat, but because of the lack of incoming carbohydrates, insulin and cortisol changes how the body requests fuel, basically telling the body to store more fat and burn more protein (this is over simplified, but essentially correct).
  • UpToAnyCool
    UpToAnyCool Posts: 1,673
    -bump-
  • dinos
    dinos Posts: 1,390 Member
    Bump
  • Mindful_Trent
    Mindful_Trent Posts: 3,954 Member
    Adding to my topics... will come back and read the posted articles soon!!
  • leeslim4life
    leeslim4life Posts: 371 Member
    Saving this for later
This discussion has been closed.