Is Your Metabolism Working Against You? For those that have not seen this.
Options
Replies
-
UltimateRBF wrote: »WTF is a pulse...I'm pretty sure I don't want to eat that.
I find green tea disgusting
Sorry OP but this article is horse hockey.
Just beans, legumes, and peas!
0 -
booksandchocolate12 wrote: »Sounds like someone who believes the starvation mode myth, but cleverly renamed it "conservation mode", so that the fact that it's bullcrap wouldn't be immediately obvious.
Bingo!
0 -
Actually, multiple twin studies have shown that anywhere from 25-40% of adiposity is genetic. Of course, genes only 'load' the gun, and individuals pull the trigger, but that does explain some of the variability seen in responsiveness to various weight loss methods. Also, multiple studies have shown that a reduction in weight--which includes both fat mass and muscle mass, regardless of weight loss method--does decrease metabolic rate. I have seen anywhere from a reduction of 3-4 Calories per day up to a 6% decrease in resting metabolic rate. Regular ingestion of water can cause stomach distension that will activate satiety centers, as will eating a large volume of produce; neither one contributes many (or any) Calories. Caffeine is a potent and efficacious ergogenic aid that causes a transient increase in metabolic rate and exercise performance. Pulses are an excellent source of fiber and some protein, both of which increase satiety.
This article is actually scientifically-sound, which is no surprise considering the author is an RD.
0 -
UltimateRBF wrote: »WTF is a pulse...I'm pretty sure I don't want to eat that.
I find green tea disgusting
Sorry OP but this article is horse hockey.mamapeach910 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »WTF is a pulse...I'm pretty sure I don't want to eat that.
I find green tea disgusting
Sorry OP but this article is horse hockey.
Just beans, legumes, and peas!
Actually, it's when you eat the heart of your weight loss rival, and absorb their progress into your own body.
0 -
I fail to see how anything of what you said support what the author said about those things "maximizing" metabolism.0
-
missiontofitness wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »WTF is a pulse...I'm pretty sure I don't want to eat that.
I find green tea disgusting
Sorry OP but this article is horse hockey.mamapeach910 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »WTF is a pulse...I'm pretty sure I don't want to eat that.
I find green tea disgusting
Sorry OP but this article is horse hockey.
Just beans, legumes, and peas!
Actually, it's when you eat the heart of your weight loss rival, and absorb their progress into your own body.
Kind of like a gory Vulcan mind-meld?0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »WTF is a pulse...I'm pretty sure I don't want to eat that.
I find green tea disgusting
Sorry OP but this article is horse hockey.mamapeach910 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »WTF is a pulse...I'm pretty sure I don't want to eat that.
I find green tea disgusting
Sorry OP but this article is horse hockey.
Just beans, legumes, and peas!
Actually, it's when you eat the heart of your weight loss rival, and absorb their progress into your own body.
Kind of like a gory Vulcan mind-meld?
Exactly.
(Really though...I've seen recipes that call for beef heart. Blehhhh.)
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »I fail to see how anything of what you said support what the author said about those things "maximizing" metabolism.
She just said, 'boost.' You can certainly do things to reduce your metabolic rate just like you can do things to increase it, and caffeine and exercise unequivocally increase it. There is plenty of misinformation out there--meal frequency, for instance--and in comparison, this article is pretty sound. It's still 'marketed' toward people who might not know that much about nutrition or metabolism so it has to 'sell', hence the title. I just think it's pretty humorous that a bunch of folks on the internet are bashing the article for its lack of sources...but no one else has any sources to refute her claims either.0 -
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=martin+2007+rmr+weight+loss
I mean...since when is this a myth? It's a real thing. It happens.0 -
physioprof wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »I fail to see how anything of what you said support what the author said about those things "maximizing" metabolism.
She just said, 'boost.' You can certainly do things to reduce your metabolic rate just like you can do things to increase it, and caffeine and exercise unequivocally increase it. There is plenty of misinformation out there--meal frequency, for instance--and in comparison, this article is pretty sound. It's still 'marketed' toward people who might not know that much about nutrition or metabolism so it has to 'sell', hence the title. I just think it's pretty humorous that a bunch of folks on the internet are bashing the article for its lack of sources...but no one else has any sources to refute her claims either.
How long does caffeine boost your metabolic rate? Seriously. Come on. That's the problem with the article. You yourself said the effect was transient.
0 -
physioprof wrote: »ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=martin+2007+rmr+weight+loss
I mean...since when is this a myth? It's a real thing. It happens.
Well, actually, I'd like to take that on. Give me a minute.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »physioprof wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »I fail to see how anything of what you said support what the author said about those things "maximizing" metabolism.
She just said, 'boost.' You can certainly do things to reduce your metabolic rate just like you can do things to increase it, and caffeine and exercise unequivocally increase it. There is plenty of misinformation out there--meal frequency, for instance--and in comparison, this article is pretty sound. It's still 'marketed' toward people who might not know that much about nutrition or metabolism so it has to 'sell', hence the title. I just think it's pretty humorous that a bunch of folks on the internet are bashing the article for its lack of sources...but no one else has any sources to refute her claims either.
How long does caffeine boost your metabolic rate? Seriously. Come on. That's the problem with the article. You yourself said the effect was transient.
Depending on the dose, up to 6 hours. It's more beneficial as an ergogenic aid. You take it before your workout, then you work harder, then your metabolic rate is increased for hours post-workout. The increases are variable of course, and they aren't huge, but it's not like one exercise bout or one cup of coffee is the solution to weight loss. These incremental changes add up over time.
Someone else mentioned that 'starvation mode' is a myth and this author renamed it 'conservation theory'...it has multiple names and it's not a myth. It's just been a victim of hyperbole and overuse.0 -
Here are my problems with EVERY single study that I've seen that cites either lowered REE or RMR (some, one, or all of these conditions apply):
1. They are short term
2. They were done with either very low calorie diets or very aggressive deficits
3. The macro balances were appallingly low on protein
4. Participants did not do resistance training to preserve lean body mass
I'd like to see some results done in a longitudinal study on formerly obese people who lost weight with reasonable deficits while taking measures to preserve lean body mass and see how their RMR's fared compared to a control group.
THEN I'd take the information seriously.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »I'm all for people selling books, but what you have to realize is that conservative mode doesn't happen without a decrease in activity. When faced with fewer calories, some people respond by sitting around more, while others keep doing most of what they normally do. It isn't so much a metabolism problem as much as it is an attitude problem.
@TimothyFish good call. If could make memes I would0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Here are my problems with EVERY single study that I've seen that cites either lowered REE or RMR (some, one, or all of these conditions apply):
1. They are short term
2. They were done with either very low calorie diets or very aggressive deficits
3. The macro balances were appallingly low on protein
4. Participants did not do resistance training to preserve lean body mass
I'd like to see some results done in a longitudinal study on formerly obese people who lost weight with reasonable deficits while taking measures to preserve lean body mass and see how their RMR's fared compared to a control group.
THEN I'd take the information seriously.
Um...did you read the study? It was a 6-month study with 4 tx: a control, 25% caloric restriction, 12.5% caloric restriction with 12.5% increase in TDEE via exercise, and a VLCD. That's long-term, modest versus extreme caloric deficit, with or without exercise, and habitual diet modified to meet AHA recommendations, so 10-35% protein, 45-65% carbohydrate, less than 30% calories from fat. You can actually access the whole article. Edit: Also they were overweight and this is one arm of a whole study on effects of long-term caloric restriction. There is a LOT of research on this.0 -
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=leibel+1995+10%25+reduction
Here's another one, in obese and non-obese after 6 months of maintenance. Better dietary control here.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »physioprof wrote: »ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=martin+2007+rmr+weight+loss
I mean...since when is this a myth? It's a real thing. It happens.
Well, actually, I'd like to take that on. Give me a minute.
#teammamapeach0 -
physioprof wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Here are my problems with EVERY single study that I've seen that cites either lowered REE or RMR (some, one, or all of these conditions apply):
1. They are short term
2. They were done with either very low calorie diets or very aggressive deficits
3. The macro balances were appallingly low on protein
4. Participants did not do resistance training to preserve lean body mass
I'd like to see some results done in a longitudinal study on formerly obese people who lost weight with reasonable deficits while taking measures to preserve lean body mass and see how their RMR's fared compared to a control group.
THEN I'd take the information seriously.
Um...did you read the study? It was a 6-month study with 4 tx: a control, 25% caloric restriction, 12.5% caloric restriction with 12.5% increase in TDEE via exercise, and a VLCD. That's long-term, modest versus extreme caloric deficit, with or without exercise, and habitual diet modified to meet AHA recommendations, so 10-35% protein, 45-65% carbohydrate, less than 30% calories from fat. You can actually access the whole article.
Compared to how long it takes an obese person to lose weight? That is not long term. The participants in this particular study were also only overweight, not obese.
That is also not long enough to tell if the effect on RMR is lasting or temporary.
It also did not include strength training and since we don't know the bodyweights of these people, macro percentages tell us nothing about protein intake. With that level of calorie restriction? That percentage is likely to be low. The Heart Association guidelines fall short on protein, because dieters need MORE protein than average people to preserve muscle mass. They also need to do some form of resistance training. I did not see that listed on the study under the activities they were doing.
0 -
physioprof wrote: »ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=leibel+1995+10%25+reduction
Here's another one, in obese and non-obese after 6 months of maintenance. Better dietary control here.
He yo-yo dieted them including an 800 calorie liquid diet and then got a funky reading on their metabolic rate?
How surprising.
Here's a pertinent quote from the first study:and not all studies have found that RMR decreases during CR. For example, one year after weight loss surgery, no decrease in RMR, adjusted for changes in body composition, was found among obese women (11), and no decrease in RMR was found after accounting for change in FFM and FM among men and women who were tested during weight maintenance before weight loss surgery and 14 months after surgery (12). Similarly, RMR, expressed in terms of FFM, was found to be unchanged after weight loss (13), and weight-reduced people on the National Weight Control Registry had no decrease in RMR after controlling for FFM, FM, age, and sex compared with a weight-matched sample (14).
I'll trust the finding from the NWCR group myself, you know why? Those people, for the most part, lost weight sensibly, the way most of us on this site are. They have maintained their losses. It seems to me that those findings would have more real-world application.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions