"Metabolic Damage"

Options
1234568»

Replies

  • ChaosMoosie
    ChaosMoosie Posts: 77 Member
    Options
    look in to the Fast Metabolism Diet - I've seen some negative reviews of it (claiming it's super low calorie, etc.) but that is pure hogwash if you follow what the nutritionist who wrote the book says (Haylie Pomroy). I've been on it for 3 weeks and one day as of today, I have lost 12.8 pounds - very respectable, have never been hungry, eat a diet that is open to be read and has been given high marks by critics who KNOW what they're talking about, and I'm happy as a lark with it.

    My metabolism seems to have sped up - I've more energy, feel better and work faster than I've ever done before. Nice feeling. In fact it's made me feel younger than I have in years, and I don't hurt all over like I used to. Nice side effects.

    12.8 lbs of weight, but was was the weight lost in 22 days?
    Water, fat, muscle mass?

    If you think that was all fat, then the following would apply.

    12.8 lbs x 3500 = 44800 deficit created / 22 days = 2036 calorie deficit daily.

    Do you imagine you really sped up your metabolism so much that you could eat at a healthy diet, and still have a deficit of 2000 calories daily, from whatever you think your maintenance was sped up to.

    So if you ate 1200 (you said not low calorie, but the minimum safety for a sedentary woman isn't great for a man), that would assume your maintenance was somehow up at 3200, while normal maintenance was probably around 2000. So 1200 speed up in metabolism to get from 2000 normal to required 3200, in order to create a 2000 calorie deficit daily.

    Ya - didn't happen. You are losing more than fat, sad to say. You will regret that later.

    Now like anyone that starts a diet, you probably lost 3 lbs of water associated with glycogen stores no longer topped off, and you are in constant state of depletion to some degree.
    You can confirm that between 2 days of weighing. Eat 2 bagels as bedtime snacks and class of water, see how much more you weigh in the morning.

    Depending on prior eating habits, merely cutting some sodium could also drop 2 lbs easily.

    So that leaves 7.8 lbs x 3500 / 22 = 1240 deficit daily

    That might be a tad more realistic, but sadly unless your are morbidly obese, your body probably can't support that deficit, and still losing muscle mass.

    Since you are excited by the results, pretty sure nothing will change, so please do the favor of saving this topic post in a blog or on your profile wall, to update when you reach 30 lbs lost.

    I've never seen anyone that had these big losses ever come back and tell a prior thread that everything worked wonderfully with the plan as it was going at the start.
    But I have seen at minimum 4 such come back after some months and weight was stalled and they were skinny fat and still not at goal weight. They still didn't update the topic where they were hopeful and sure, but I knew the usernames because I saved them.

    Hope it works for you. Quick weight loss without worrying about what it is always backfires.

    The only REAL difference I made in the diet, per se, is cutting out snacks (i.e. unsalted peanuts, candy, occasional soft drink, popcorn). I did not change the sodium content other than that. Additionally I added cardio and weights, with the cardio on two days of carb shading, weights on two days of enhanced protein. Both these have increased use and endurance, even over this short a period of time. I am sure some of it is water, but the major loss in inches has been around my waist - not my thighs, calves, hips, forearms, biceps or chest.

    I'm not claiming miracles here - there is also a modicum of hard work going with this, hand in hand. And I'm not a diet fanatic. However this eating regime makes more sense than going down and eating 1800 calories in ice cream, then claiming I was under my caloric 'goal'.

    My comments were made simply to add to a discussion, not criticize anyone. However, your comments border on little but criticism and, as you've no Idea who I am, what I am doing, or how I have been eating, you've little to base your comments on and quite less to use as a base for criticism. Simply saying.

    Maintenance for me is approximately 2400 calories per day, balanced foods. MFP goals for 1 pound per week loss are 1880 per day with sodium below 2300. My average caloric intake prior to starting this over the last four months was approximately 1730 per day - mostly balanced foods but with the aforementioned 'snacks' included and sometimes running the cumulative total over the average. Since starting this eating plan, the caloric intake has been averaging 1829 calories per day as of my last calculations. Sodium intake has dropped from about 2200-2400 to around 1500-1600 due to the lack of snacks.

    Personally, I attribute the loss to a healthier diet, lower sodium intake (small gain there), slightly elevated activity level (walking and weights), and mostly from eating home prepared meals rather than 'healthy choices when eating out' as if there really was such a thing. I also attribute the losses to what could be called dietary confusion. Since I am never eating the same types of foods more than two or three days at a time, my digestive system has not fallen into an anticipatory rhythm.

    As I said, this is the first three weeks. I've substantially more to lose. We shall see how the loss goes and how the remaking of the body goes. Right now, the chest is winning - the stomach losing. And that, is all right with me.
  • ChaosMoosie
    ChaosMoosie Posts: 77 Member
    Options
    BMR - 2116 start; 2035 present.
    RMR - 2280 start; 2184 present.

    Just a fyi.
  • ChaosMoosie
    ChaosMoosie Posts: 77 Member
    Options
    As far as coming back to this thread and bringing all up to date to 'satisfy your need to know', I most probably will not.

    I work. I work a LOT. and in the summer I work a good solid 18 hours out of every 24. In two months or so, I will be quite busy, and MFP by itself will be a chore to keep up. So, unless one wants to keep up with my timeline, I won't be doubling the amount of time I have to dedicate to pursuit of activities that have no meaning to me, nor any personal involvement.

    So please, haymaker - don't expect me to come back and update you. I'm sure you're nice enough guy and I'm sure that I'd enjoy repartee' with you, but honestly, I will not have the time to spare, success or failure of this eating program or not.

    I guess that's just life in the fast lane, eh?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    As far as coming back to this thread and bringing all up to date to 'satisfy your need to know', I most probably will not.

    I work. I work a LOT. and in the summer I work a good solid 18 hours out of every 24. In two months or so, I will be quite busy, and MFP by itself will be a chore to keep up. So, unless one wants to keep up with my timeline, I won't be doubling the amount of time I have to dedicate to pursuit of activities that have no meaning to me, nor any personal involvement.

    So please, haymaker - don't expect me to come back and update you. I'm sure you're nice enough guy and I'm sure that I'd enjoy repartee' with you, but honestly, I will not have the time to spare, success or failure of this eating program or not.

    I guess that's just life in the fast lane, eh?

    Sorry I didn't mean to come across a certain way.

    But when weight loss is thrown out there with a claim that this or that works great, doing as I did with the math, shows what the weight can and cannot be.

    If you reread my original comments, you'll notice a lot of if's - because that is indeed the qualifier.

    If you don't think it's all fat, then great, the math doesn't apply, and you know you've lost water weight and likely some muscle mass and some fat.

    If you think it is all fat, I don't need to know your routine and diet and specifics, the math spells out what kind of deficit you must be creating to cause that amount of fat loss.

    There's not much difference between humans in this regard, there are no special snowflakes at the level I'm talking about.

    That's fine with no updates. Just keep in mind the math so you'll know what happens with fast gain or loss for that matter.

    As to creating a 2000 calorie deficit, I could do it walking 3.6 mph with avg incline of 2% for 6 hrs daily. And since that is mostly fat burn, probably could eat at non-exercise maintenance of around 2400 calories and not impact the system too bad. But every day with weight loss, would need to walk longer and longer to accomplish same burn. And with no recovery I think that speed would start dropping badly too, so going longer and longer.
    1200 deficit even easier.
  • MrGonzo05
    MrGonzo05 Posts: 1,120 Member
    Options
    Metabolic damage is overblown. You can certainly reduce your TDEE by:

    1) losing a large amount of muscle by dieting too fast, not engaging in effective strength training, and not eating enough protein

    So don't do those things..

    2) the hormone changes that occur with a sustained calorie deficit, especially if you are lean

    And it will often self correct if you just eat enough for long enough. Don't try to be underweight.

    3) legitimate thyroid issues, from childhood or onset.

    Easily diagnosed and manageable with a cheap prescription.

    4) losing weight

    Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it?

    5) sedentary lifestyle

    Get moving.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Metabolic damage is overblown. You can certainly reduce your TDEE by:

    1) losing a large amount of muscle by dieting too fast, not engaging in effective strength training, and not eating enough protein

    So don't do those things..

    2) the hormone changes that occur with a sustained calorie deficit, especially if you are lean

    And it will often self correct if you just eat enough for long enough. Don't try to be underweight.

    3) legitimate thyroid issues, from childhood or onset.

    Easily diagnosed and manageable with a cheap prescription.

    4) losing weight

    Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it?

    5) sedentary lifestyle

    Get moving.

    More reasons than that, and more effects than that, and more people effected than perhaps thought of.
    The end result is basically making your body more metabolically efficient, effecting everything from BMR to full TDEE with lower than needed calorie levels.

    Right on though for ways to avoid and possibly get out of it - but that time taken could be long. Might as well avoid in the first place.

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

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i_cmltmQ6A Weight of Nation study comments

    http://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/truth-about-metabolic-damage

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales?month=201401
  • allysteven880
    allysteven880 Posts: 75
    Options
    I have only tried my regular diet plan and some cardio which is very helpful my BMR. I don't know anything more about it. I only take healthy meal and do cardio as per the daily routine.
  • kristimayeske
    kristimayeske Posts: 1 Member
    Options
    BUMP
  • jellybeanhed313
    jellybeanhed313 Posts: 344 Member
    Options
    bump
  • ChaosMoosie
    ChaosMoosie Posts: 77 Member
    Options
    As far as coming back to this thread and bringing all up to date to 'satisfy your need to know', I most probably will not.

    I work. I work a LOT. and in the summer I work a good solid 18 hours out of every 24. In two months or so, I will be quite busy, and MFP by itself will be a chore to keep up. So, unless one wants to keep up with my timeline, I won't be doubling the amount of time I have to dedicate to pursuit of activities that have no meaning to me, nor any personal involvement.

    So please, haymaker - don't expect me to come back and update you. I'm sure you're nice enough guy and I'm sure that I'd enjoy repartee' with you, but honestly, I will not have the time to spare, success or failure of this eating program or not.

    I guess that's just life in the fast lane, eh?

    Sorry I didn't mean to come across a certain way.

    But when weight loss is thrown out there with a claim that this or that works great, doing as I did with the math, shows what the weight can and cannot be.

    If you reread my original comments, you'll notice a lot of if's - because that is indeed the qualifier.

    If you don't think it's all fat, then great, the math doesn't apply, and you know you've lost water weight and likely some muscle mass and some fat.

    If you think it is all fat, I don't need to know your routine and diet and specifics, the math spells out what kind of deficit you must be creating to cause that amount of fat loss.

    There's not much difference between humans in this regard, there are no special snowflakes at the level I'm talking about.

    That's fine with no updates. Just keep in mind the math so you'll know what happens with fast gain or loss for that matter.

    As to creating a 2000 calorie deficit, I could do it walking 3.6 mph with avg incline of 2% for 6 hrs daily. And since that is mostly fat burn, probably could eat at non-exercise maintenance of around 2400 calories and not impact the system too bad. But every day with weight loss, would need to walk longer and longer to accomplish same burn. And with no recovery I think that speed would start dropping badly too, so going longer and longer.
    1200 deficit even easier.

    This will likely be my last post here because of time constraints.

    % body fat three weeks before starting my 'diet' was 30.9. Percentage body fat at this point, four weeks in (so seven weeks later is 29.6. Lean mass has increased by approximately the same as the loss seen.

    I am a researcher with backgrounds in mathematics, physics and statistics and understand well the formulae used in statistics. As I love to quote, there are four kinds of liars - liars, damned liars, statisticians (who we can catch out quite easily) and politicians. Of the four only the first pair and the last are ones to worry about - the first two because they are unpredictable and the last one because they will take your money and your freedom 'for the public good' (right!). The remaining one, simply discount.

    My chest has changed slightly - approximately 1/2" increase, and I've seen increases in my calves and thighs by a miniscule amount. I don't expect much because of my age. However going up a bit on the chest and seeing a corresponding reshape in the mirror does tend to make me a bit more self satisfied. At 22, I had a 44" chest, 14.5" arms, 13" forearms and a 31" waist. My thighs were 29.5" and 30.5" and I never measured the calves. 45 years later I have a 48" chest, 14.5" arms, 13.5" forearms, a 43" waist and 26" thighs with 14" calves. I walk between two and 12 miles per day, I lift moderate weights (less than 150#) going for reps over max lifts, and I hate the ball but use it. I paddle canoes so my shoulders and back get long stretches, and they keep going for several hours per session (else I won't get back home). Sessions are occasional - once or twice per month.

    And then I have my second job landscaping. I work at that in the spring, summer and fall, and that uses a whole new set of tools.

    I attribute the weight loss pretty much to the diet with a little added for slightly increased lifting and walking. However I had plateaued while eating less for nearly 9 months.

    This is taking me to a new level.

Categories