Metabolic Damage: Alan Aragon interviews Lyle McDonald

Bumping metabolic damage for 1200, Alex.

So, now that we've dispensed with the discussion of misogyny, and the use of ad hominem arguments, I have a question about the topic. Is this study in effect saying that starvation mode and "metabolic damage" don't exist? Is the implication then that the 1200 calorie threshold is arbitrary? Can we assume that all these people who say they are eating at 1200 and not losing are lying? (I don't think they all are.) And should we ignore warnings that we shouldn't eat less than that? I'm not talking about the person who eats 1175 and gets a warning when she posts for the day, but the person who is eating 1200 and maybe burning 500 in exercise and not "eating back" calories? We have a lot of people posting who are doing that, and often people jump on board and tell these folks to stop (I know because I often tell them to, old busybody that I am), that they are harming themselves. Maybe we should just let them do what they want as long as they aren't unhealthily thin? If someone is legitimately overweight (not someone with a normal BMI who wants to get into a smaller pair of jeans), should we just say do what you need to do to get the job done and support them?

I believe, based on the article, it is not that it doesn't exist, but that the serious starvation situation only starts to happen when you have already extremely low body fat. As such, someone who has a lot of body fat to lose isn't going to experience it.

IMO, the 1200 limit is arbitrary and I assume it's just some number that floats around without reason. There are a lot of relatively safe, healthy, physician-supervised liquid diets that go below that for extended periods of time.

I doubt they are harming themselves in that aspect as much as the stress + wear and tear on body from all the exercise side of things.

So, now that we've dispensed with the discussion of misogyny, and the use of ad hominem arguments, I have a question about the topic. Is this study in effect saying that starvation mode and "metabolic damage" don't exist? Is the implication then that the 1200 calorie threshold is arbitrary? Can we assume that all these people who say they are eating at 1200 and not losing are lying? (I don't think they all are.) And should we ignore warnings that we shouldn't eat less than that? I'm not talking about the person who eats 1175 and gets a warning when she posts for the day, but the person who is eating 1200 and maybe burning 500 in exercise and not "eating back" calories? We have a lot of people posting who are doing that, and often people jump on board and tell these folks to stop (I know because I often tell them to, old busybody that I am), that they are harming themselves. Maybe we should just let them do what they want as long as they aren't unhealthily thin? If someone is legitimately overweight (not someone with a normal BMI who wants to get into a smaller pair of jeans), should we just say do what you need to do to get the job done and support them?

I believe, based on the article, it is not that it doesn't exist, but that the serious starvation situation only starts to happen when you have already extremely low body fat. As such, someone who has a lot of body fat to lose isn't going to experience it.

IMO, the 1200 limit is arbitrary and I assume it's just some number that floats around without reason. There are a lot of relatively safe, healthy, physician-supervised liquid diets that go below that for extended periods of time.

I doubt they are harming themselves in that aspect as much as the stress + wear and tear on body from all the exercise side of things.

I think it's also partly the issue that large calorie deficits, especially when coupled with a lot of exercise, can be counterproductive to weight loss goals -- throwing off hormones and what not and causing reduced fat loss, excess water retention, etc. So, that's why they draw the line at 1200 since you have to draw the line somewhere. Otherwise, some may do the exact opposite of what they should do in that situation -- cut calories or increase exercise even more and get themselves into even bigger trouble health-wise.

As someone else mentioned, Lyle discussed this idea in one of this other articles: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html

I believe they speak to a lot of the same issues as this article did.

in

So when someone complains about not losing at X number of calories there's several possibilities.

1. They aren't really eating X calories. They are logging incorrectly, either not weighing, forgetting binges, or not logging on the weekends, etc.

2. They are losing weight but due to messed up stress hormones they could be retaining an incredibly large amount of water, masking their weight loss.

3. They aren't really eating at a deficit because the weight they've already lost has resulted in a lower TDEE.

4. They aren't really eating at a deficit because their activity level has dropped considerably due to the fatigue caused by eating less calories and/or stress hormones.

5. Or some kind of combination of points 1-4.

So when someone complains about not losing at X number of calories there's several possibilities.

1. They aren't really eating X calories. They are logging incorrectly, either not weighing, forgetting binges, or not logging on the weekends, etc.

2. They are losing weight but due to messed up stress hormones they could be retaining an incredibly large amount of water, masking their weight loss.

3. They aren't really eating at a deficit because the weight they've already lost has resulted in a lower TDEE.

4. They aren't really eating at a deficit because their activity level has dropped considerably due to the fatigue caused by eating less calories and/or stress hormones.

5. Or some kind of combination of points 1-4.

That's essentially what I got from it too. Thanks for the Cliff's Notes version. You said it a lot better than Lyle did.

Also, a 25% in TDEE just from losing weight? What, did they lose nothing but muscle? That's crazy! How much weight would you have to lose to go from burning 2000 calories a day in maintenance to just 1500? I might just stay fat. Seriously. I can be hilariously strong, and I can eat too.

There has been some research recently that shows just this reduction. HBO did a short on in specifically. I can't remember the main guy's name but he was with Cornell Medical School and has done a lot of research on leptin.

One of things he showed in a recent study was that after losing more than 10% of your body weight, the person that lost the weight will have a 15-25% slower metabolism than a person of the same weight and body composition who was already that lower weight. He hypothesized that it had to do with leptin regulation and why a lot of people struggle with maintenance and regain a majority of the weight within 5 years. He also said he believed the lowered metabolism to be permanent (as it was still there a year later in his subjects), though I really hope he's wrong about this or that's only the case for a few people. I'll see if I can find the HBO clip.

Edit: Here's the clip: http://youtu.be/2i_cmltmQ6A

I haven't read the study itself and not sure if it's out yet or coming out. But, some very interesting things about leptin regulation.

Edit2: Vardaeml found this and it looks like it may be the underlying study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22237063
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20595050
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Rosenbaum+M,+Leibel+RL

So, now that we've dispensed with the discussion of misogyny, and the use of ad hominem arguments, I have a question about the topic. Is this study in effect saying that starvation mode and "metabolic damage" don't exist? Is the implication then that the 1200 calorie threshold is arbitrary? Can we assume that all these people who say they are eating at 1200 and not losing are lying? (I don't think they all are.) And should we ignore warnings that we shouldn't eat less than that? I'm not talking about the person who eats 1175 and gets a warning when she posts for the day, but the person who is eating 1200 and maybe burning 500 in exercise and not "eating back" calories? We have a lot of people posting who are doing that, and often people jump on board and tell these folks to stop (I know because I often tell them to, old busybody that I am), that they are harming themselves. Maybe we should just let them do what they want as long as they aren't unhealthily thin? If someone is legitimately overweight (not someone with a normal BMI who wants to get into a smaller pair of jeans), should we just say do what you need to do to get the job done and support them?

I believe, based on the article, it is not that it doesn't exist, but that the serious starvation situation only starts to happen when you have already extremely low body fat. As such, someone who has a lot of body fat to lose isn't going to experience it.

IMO, the 1200 limit is arbitrary and I assume it's just some number that floats around without reason. There are a lot of relatively safe, healthy, physician-supervised liquid diets that go below that for extended periods of time.

I doubt they are harming themselves in that aspect as much as the stress + wear and tear on body from all the exercise side of things.

I think it's also partly the issue that large calorie deficits, especially when coupled with a lot of exercise, can be counterproductive to weight loss goals -- throwing off hormones and what not and causing reduced fat loss, excess water retention, etc. So, that's why they draw the line at 1200 since you have to draw the line somewhere. Otherwise, some may do the exact opposite of what they should do in that situation -- cut calories or increase exercise even more and get themselves into even bigger trouble health-wise.

As someone else mentioned, Lyle discussed this idea in one of this other articles: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html

I believe they speak to a lot of the same issues as this article did.

"Metabolic damage" or adaptive thermogenesis not only exists but has been integrated into every single current model of weight loss and metabolism. There is a hysteresis effect; your past dieting practices can effect current metabolism beyond the simple BMR equations used. Or in there own words ,..
"Ok, so finishing up, which is not to say that there is not a metabolic adaptation/adjustment to dieting and fat loss; that’s really never been up to debate."

The article does not, in any way go against that idea, but highlights other factors that may be occurring to hide weight loss.

It's a good article by solid researchers. I do believe that the whole leptin discussion is too simple (leptin receptors are apparently of variable sensitivity, etc.) but that's a minor point.

It's a shame that they focuses more on the whole cortisol and leptin discussion and did not mention the other factors creating possible water retention. TOM was mentioned but carb diet variability, immuno response to diet or seasonal colds, medication, hydration, potassium/sodium/renal function. Any one off these can create a masking effect of many pounds.

OP - Thank you for posting this. A lot of it seemed to be in a foreign language for me but I think I understood the gist of it and learned a lot. And, being a woman, I was not at all offended by his description of the stressed out female. In fact I was nodding right along with him.

bumpin to check out a bit later ... thanks for posting!

From the article....

"(i.e. if you set up a 30% caloric deficit and metabolic rate drops by 20%, your deficit is only 10% so fat loss is a lot slower than expected or predicted)"

Math is not his strong suit.

Saving so I can read it later!

Thanks,
Red

While I agree that severe dieting can slow weight loss for a while, I find his characterization of women to be rather condescending and lame.

The point of the article was not that severe dieting can slow weight loss.

So when someone complains about not losing at X number of calories there's several possibilities.

1. They aren't really eating X calories. They are logging incorrectly, either not weighing, forgetting binges, or not logging on the weekends, etc.

2. They are losing weight but due to messed up stress hormones they could be retaining an incredibly large amount of water, masking their weight loss.

3. They aren't really eating at a deficit because the weight they've already lost has resulted in a lower TDEE.

4. They aren't really eating at a deficit because their activity level has dropped considerably due to the fatigue caused by eating less calories and/or stress hormones.

5. Or some kind of combination of points 1-4.

That's essentially what I got from it too. Thanks for the Cliff's Notes version. You said it a lot better than Lyle did.

Also, a 25% in TDEE just from losing weight? What, did they lose nothing but muscle? That's crazy! How much weight would you have to lose to go from burning 2000 calories a day in maintenance to just 1500? I might just stay fat. Seriously. I can be hilariously strong, and I can eat too.

I think it must depend on the person. I eat around 2000 a day and I am very small (I weigh 100 pounds). And I just lift weights and I'm a dancer and lead an enjoyably active lifestyle.

But you didn't lose a lot of weight. Someone who was 200lbs, then dieted down to 100lbs will have a lower TDEE than you. The article said that part of the reduction of TDEE was NOT from simply getting smaller.

And also I wasn't really so much talking about the absolute number 2000; it just made the math easier. I've been 135 and I've been 195 and I've been everywhere in between numerous times. I think my current TDEE with exercise is approx. 2300, which would be a drop of 575 calories, which is about what I maintained 135 without exercise. I absolutely could not maintain this level of exercise on 1725 calories a day. I've been sticking to 1800 the last few days and it's been pretty crappy. I guess that clinches it. Very slow body recomp for me. I need *way* more muscle!