"Metabolic Damage"

Interesting vids & comments. Bump for further discussion updates.

no such thing as metabolic damage. even l. norton has back tracked on some of the things he said. there is metabolic adaptation the same way there is cardiovascular adaptation, and muscular adaptation.

Glad you posted this. The reason people think their metabolism is 'damaged' is because they previously lost a great deal of their lean body mass by crazy dieting. This results in a much lower TDEE, and when weight is gained back, a higher percentage of the weight is body fat, and the TDEE remains lower until that is corrected. The fix is to increase calories and muscle mass. But it is not as if the metabolism has somehow become broken. It is working exactly as it is supposed to!

What would you call a measured reduction in metabolism well beyond what the reduction in muscle mass or LBM, or weighing less moving would cause?

First few posts spell out many points being missed in this thread.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss

“Maintenance of a 10% or greater reduction in body weight in lean or obese individuals is accompanied by an approximate 20%-25% decline in 24-hour energy expenditure. This decrease in weight maintenance calories is 10–15% below what is predicted solely on the basis of alterations in fat and lean mass. Thus, a formerly obese individual will require ~300–400 fewer calories per day to maintain the same body weight and physical activity level as a never-obese individual of the same body weight and composition. Studies of individuals successful at sustaining weight loss indicate that reduced weight maintenance requires long-term lifestyle alterations. The necessity for these long-term changes is consistent with the observation that the reduction in twenty four hour energy expenditure (TEE) persists in subjects who have sustained weight loss for extended periods of time (6 months – 7 years) in circumstances of enforced caloric restriction in the biosphere 2 project, bariatric surgery and lifestyle modification.”

How is that not a damaged metabolism when it's lower than it could be, by the mere fact you dieted down to a weight?

So yes you are correct you yo-yo diet for years each time burning off valuable muscle mass, making it easier and faster to gain the weight back when you try to eat at what you think is maintenance, or go well above because you stopped watching again.
Each time getting harder to lose.

But even at that reduced muscle mass state and therefore expected slower metabolism compared to someone else your age, weight, height - your metabolism is STILL lower than would be expected for that LBM.

Again (and as others have said) it is not 'damaged'. Your body is (again) doing what it is supposed to be doing (keeping you alive) taking into account what it has experienced.

Again, people are referring to the reduction in metabolic result in order to "keep you alive" when they say "damaged." Now we're quibbling over semantics. I don't care what it's called--the phenomenon that I UNDOUBTEDLY believe exists is that the metabolic rate is markedly lower than one would predict based on weight, bodyfat, age, and activity level as a result of caloric restriction and/or over-exercising (two sides of the same coin).

Does anyone here subscribe to the AARR?
If so, go read the Apr/May 2013 AARR.

Alan did an interview with Lyle McDonald on the issue of "metabolic damage"......

Cliff note version:
Lyle does not believe in metabolic damage, he believes it is just the way the body works naturally and through adaptation.
He also noted, that most likely those on very low calorie diets, and high amounts of exercise, eventually crack and go on a binge eating period, which wipes out any caloric deficit the person may have had for the week.

Honestly, the term "metabolism" refers to the sum total of all the biochemical reactions that are required to sustain life. It especially refers to the processes required to convert energy from one source to another (transduction).

Metabolic "perturbation" definitely occurs whenever you change your food intake, energy expenditure, nutrient intake, etc. Without certain raw materials, for instance, certain reactions can't occur.

Now, call it what you will, but I feel "perturbation" is a better term. Let me give you an example as to why:

If a person at a low bodyfat percentage undereats for a year, they will lose significant lean body mass. As a result, less energy input will be needed. So the metabolism (sum total of reactions occuring) in the muscle has "decreased". The person now needs less calories because fewer molecules are being burned for energy. Studies have shown that BMR reduction is essentially a function of nutrient intake and that LBM loss is intimitely coupled with it. That's why this "calore reduction" fad has me shaking my head. Proponents say you can more readily build muscle/keep muscle on such a plan. But that's not true in my experience. Every time I've eaten too few calories, I've lost LBM, and my BMR has decreased as a result. They also claim that because your cells are intaking less energy, and dividing less, etc, that the limit (Hayflick limit) won't be reached as fast. Therefore, you supposedly live longer, and have a lower chance of cell division errors (like cancer). But what they don't advertise is that undernutrition is dangerous in and of itself.

If you want to call this effect metabolic "damage", ok. But I feel "perturbation" is a more precise, scientific term. Damage implies that organs are damaged and will no longer work properly even when nutrient balance is restored. Liver disease is a type of damage. So is thyroid disease, adrenal disease, etc.

There is probably a fine line between perturbation and damage, though. Restrict calories in general, or more precisely, a certain macronutrient, and your body suffers. Too little protein--> muscle wasting. Too little fat--> hormone synthsesis is decreased. Lack of micronutrients/cofactors/vitamins--> reactions can't happen as readily.

The difference between strict perturbation and true damage is that the body can recover readily from perturbation when nutrient balance is restored. "Damage" doesn't always recover, on the other hand. I doubt most people have extensive damage from dieting, unless they've injured their organs beyond the point that they can repair themselves. Some popular books have been written, talking about how every food known to man can damage one organ/system or another. I feel there's some truth to the idea, but I think it's exaggerated to scare people.

Honestly, if one really thinks about what I've written above, it will be clear that it reconciles the difference of opinion between the two camps.

ok so maintaining now on roughly say 1750... will perturbation be restored once I gain LBM? Thank you for your extensive reply. I have had several checks and ECG's are all perfect, blood work etc although I do have low oestrogen (PCOS) PROB due to history of anorexia. I recently went and had a body composition analysis done and it said my BMR is 1200 and TEE is 1840... will this be wrong then because my BMR COULD be lower due to weight loss..? xx

so lots of vitamins, protein, healthy fats and muscle building and I should b ok?!

Not exactly. But LBM gain would be evidence of reversal of negative metabolic perturbation! In fact by doing so, you'd be inducing a positive form of perturbation. (Which is what I'm doing since I'm bulking. Less catabolism--breaking down...and more anabolism--building up).

My point was, if your organs are working right, they will probably readjust within some period of time (months?). If you ate enough, you would maintain. That would be evidence that you didn't actually "damage" them. (That and having good blood levels of hormones!) Rather, you perturbed your metabolism by eating less, but then un-perturbed it.

btw, "perturbation" is a scientific word used to discuss altering an equilibrium point in any dynamic system. I don't know if anyone has actually used the word in reference to metabolism before I did here. (If not, I'd be surprised.)

Edit: Yeah, looks like they have: https://google.com/#q=metabolic+perturbation
So I'm not the first....

For example: "GC/TOFMS analysis of metabolites in serum and urine reveals metabolic perturbation of TCA cycle in db/db mice involved in diabetic nephropathy."

So yeah, there's definitely a fine line between perturbation and "damage" or "disease". My interpretation is that perturbation must exist when there's damage, but not all perturbation leads to damage.

btw, I see "damage" or "disease" or "pathology" as a negative adaptation to a stimulus. "Health" is the absence of disease!

ok, I have a question... recovering from mild undereating and sllllowly lost a few kg,
like the minimum I would eat on a sedentary day being 1400 and a busy day 1600 ish and very very slowly lost weight and now maintain it with a LBF of 11% on 17-1800.. recently bumped it up to 1800 and gained 1.5KG quite quick, in like a week. I weigh about 50kg ish and my bmi is just about 18.5-19... have I damaged my metabolism? will i gain uber uber super super quick if I was to increase it??????????????????????????/ worried!!!!

Just so you know, if you increased calories that small amount, but gained that much, you know it's not fat, right?

Unless a meal was much higher sodium than normal, it was likely finally topping off glucose stores in the muscles, which stores with water.
So basically good beneficial water weight.

And that would imply that if there were even stores to top off, you were not previously eating at maintenance, or TDEE. One of the first things to drop when someone starts a diet is water weight, some from sodium because of watching what they eat more, but also from the body just deciding not to store as much glucose.

I agree damage is a unlikely word, depends on what you mean. Some recent studies have show you undereat too much and you do make your body more efficient from metabolism to daily activity to exercise - you burn less then you would have otherwise.
There is some recovery to that, though one study showed up to 6 years to get back to where it was expected to be.
So is that damage because it could have been higher? Or the body did exactly what it needed to do, and will keep doing in case the craziness starts up again?

Now the other stuff you can recover from, besides the muscle mass discussed above, is increasing your spontaneous daily activity. Several studies have shown that if you undereat too much the body adapts by cutting back on some daily activity.
Eat more and you can get that back.
Many report eating say just 200 more than before, they got their energy back, and they started losing again. Well, if that extra 200 eaten allowed the body to feel good burning 400 more daily in activity - then net improvement by eating more.

I'd suggest stick at that higher level, because when in a slight deficit, you get less improvements from exercise too.

ok so maintaining now on roughly say 1750... will perturbation be restored once I gain LBM? Thank you for your extensive reply. I have had several checks and ECG's are all perfect, blood work etc although I do have low oestrogen (PCOS) PROB due to history of anorexia. I recently went and had a body composition analysis done and it said my BMR is 1200 and TEE is 1840... will this be wrong then because my BMR COULD be lower due to weight loss..? xx

so lots of vitamins, protein, healthy fats and muscle building and I should b ok?!

Not exactly. But LBM gain would be evidence of reversal of negative metabolic perturbation! In fact by doing so, you'd be inducing a positive form of perturbation. (Which is what I'm doing since I'm bulking. Less catabolism--breaking down...and more anabolism--building up).

My point was, if your organs are working right, they will probably readjust within some period of time (months?). If you ate enough, you would maintain. That would be evidence that you didn't actually "damage" them. (That and having good blood levels of hormones!) Rather, you perturbed your metabolism by eating less, but then un-perturbed it.

btw, "perturbation" is a scientific word used to discuss altering an equilibrium point in any dynamic system. I don't know if anyone has actually used the word in reference to metabolism before I did here. (If not, I'd be surprised.)

Edit: Yeah, looks like they have: https://google.com/#q=metabolic+perturbation
So I'm not the first....

For example: "GC/TOFMS analysis of metabolites in serum and urine reveals metabolic perturbation of TCA cycle in db/db mice involved in diabetic nephropathy."

So yeah, there's definitely a fine line between perturbation and "damage" or "disease". My interpretation is that perturbation must exist when there's damage, but not all perturbation leads to damage.

btw, I see "damage" or "disease" or "pathology" as a negative adaptation to a stimulus. "Health" is the absence of disease!

The metabolic response to calorie intake is apparently path dependent, the effects of restriction and the adjustments to factors such as hormonal response to new intake that are not just LBM driven. I covered a lot of this in the work here:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss

I'm ok with the idea that it's "metabolic damage" as it's an unwanted effect on metabolism that has negative consequences on health - it's more difficult to maintain a specific weight range in someone with a functionally reduced TDEE and the resulting change does have health consequences.

As to the idea that it is non-permanent, most likely, most of the time, but somewhere along the way we know that severe restriction leads to permanent organ and tissue damage. The prevalence of adrenal/pituitary damage, as one example, in people with a history of disordered eating does raise the possibility of irreversible processes. But, like many biological systems, the fact that there is a risk of permanent damage doesn't mean there will always be that type of damage.

I would suggest that the semantic elements are both a sterile discussion - in the sense that it doesn't provide guidance for someone trying to get back on the right path - and a fascinating discussion - not only about the exactitude of expression but as social more, medical thought and how social ideas evolve. For example, the concept of Monsters comes from "montre" or to show in French - which is what was done to medical "freaks" in the 18th Century. Obviously, attitudes and society around these concepts have changed. More recently we are seeing a shifts in concepts of disease, obesity, metabolic syndrome which are far from anodyne with respect to social acceptance, healthcare choices, treatment and financial consequences.

~ You can't really damage your metabolism. It is true that those who are recovered from their eating disorder will have a lower metabolism, but its mostly due to muscle loss.

All true. Only this point has been expanded in recent studies.

The amount of energy spent by muscle is relatively minor compared to the metabolically active organs.
Obviously more muscle used all day increases TDEE compared to have less using it all day. But not the 250-500 cal reduction just based on that.

This study gets in to the metabolic efficiency improvements, over and above like muscle mass and reduction of spontaneous activity.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales?month=201401

[/quote]
[/quote]

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.


[/quote]
[/quote]

Ya i had to gain 12 pounds for my period to come back after 2 years.