Is Your Metabolism Working Against You? For those that have not seen this.

LOL...okay, random person on the internet. I concede that you know more than those of us with advanced degrees and research experience in human metabolism. You win! It's all a myth we perpetuate just to mess with folks. I'm eagerly awaiting your next manuscript.

snickerscharlie wrote: »

physioprof wrote: »

LOL...okay, random person on the internet. I concede that you know more than those of us with advanced degrees and research experience in human metabolism. You win! It's all a myth we perpetuate just to mess with folks. I'm eagerly awaiting your next manuscript.

And you are any less random how, exactly?

My username hints at that. I am a little less random when it comes to human metabolism. When you've done research you are cognizant of the limitations and the strengths. Six months is a long time for a prospective study.

physioprof wrote: »

snickerscharlie wrote: »

physioprof wrote: »

LOL...okay, random person on the internet. I concede that you know more than those of us with advanced degrees and research experience in human metabolism. You win! It's all a myth we perpetuate just to mess with folks. I'm eagerly awaiting your next manuscript.

And you are any less random how, exactly?

My username hints at that. I am a little less random when it comes to human metabolism. When you've done research you are cognizant of the limitations and the strengths. Six months is a long time for a prospective study.

When it comes to something like long-term weight loss effects, it's not, though.

That's why I take the findings from the participants in the NWCR more seriously.

Remember I raised the concern about the effect being temporary or not?

What about the effects of the methods used in the studies to lose the weight in the first place?

I notice you're not addressing ANY of those qualms I have with the studies.

galgenstrick wrote: »

What exactly is the argument here? That a caloric deficit decreases metabolic rate, or that caffeine and exercise can increase it?

Currently, I'm arguing, because I'm not entirely convinced, against the prevailing wisdom that there's a long-term lasting effect on metabolic rate due to weight loss. I have issues with the methods used to lose weight in all the studies I've seen that suggest this is the case. I believe they all promoted loss of lean body mass, which would naturally lead to a lower metabolic rate.

I think we've moved past the OP.

http://news.health.com/2015/05/14/is-your-metabolism-working-against-you-6-simple-ways-to-boost-it/

^^copy pasta from here. It's a pretty bad article.

Premise is not supported by content.

Some points just wrong or misleading, like produce is muscle preserving. Last time I looked, protein was needed for MPS and most produce either has minimal protein and/or the protein is not a complete protein. Talk about stretching a concept. You also need to resistance train to get dat metabolism boosting muscle.

And this one "More proof that a calorie isn’t a calorie came from research conducted at Pomona College. Researchers found that when healthy women consumed meals that were similar in terms of carb, protein, and fat content, they burned about 50% more calories eating whole foods versus highly processed foods. "

Misleading conclusion when you look at the actual study.

The other points are misleading also.

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.

She seems to be talking about TEF or simply the fact that we overestimate calories for things like fiber rich foods. (I think these are great things to eat and I do--for nutrition and satiety--but claiming they boost metabolism is where it starts sounding like an infomercial. I'd be interested in real studies.)

Water boosts metabolism seems even more questionable. Does it help some people feel full? Of course, but more is being claimed.

I skimmed the article, but didn't see anything about exercise, but of course exercise raises TDEE (which is not normally considered the same as raising metabolism, I don't think). Caffeine may, but I'd question the health effects of tons of caffeine, especially if it effects sleep, and if she means caffeine she should say caffeine, not push the woo-like properties of green tea and it's special other compounds.

As for metabolic adaptation, I didn't think it was controversial, but the big questions are what, if anything, can we do to reduce the effects or to correct it after it happens. Saying it's a matter of what you eat is where the article seems to go off into territory that I'd not heard credibly supported before.

The study you cite seems to be this one: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251

If so, I'm interested in any comments on the analysis, which I found very interesting.

I thought it suggested that a lower deficit with exercise was a good thing and left me with some questions, specifically to what extend a bigger deficit made up of more exercise could have the same positive effects of the 25% made up of half and half, as well as how resulted varied in general with different make ups. This interested me because the usual 1-2 lb/week recommendation for a woman who is not all that large will generally be more than 25% off TDEE, and there have been discussions about whether there are negative effects at various levels of aggressiveness.

I'm also interested on effect on muscle mass at various levels and with different amounts of exercise.

I also noted when reading over heybales' discussion again that the protein level was quite low, which surprised me, so I'd be interested in the effect of including more protein in general.

Curious if you have any comments or links to studies, or if anyone else does.

MrM27 wrote: »

physioprof wrote: »

LOL...okay, random person on the internet. I concede that you know more than those of us with advanced degrees and research experience in human metabolism. You win! It's all a myth we perpetuate just to mess with folks. I'm eagerly awaiting your next manuscript.

I will congratulate you, it is some accomplishment to be a physio professor at the age of 28.

A professor at age 28? That is commendable. My gifted cousin got her PhD in math and went straight to a university as a math professor when she was about 30, I think.

Also, it's not like I think caffeine makes me lose weight. I just know it makes the workout easier for me to do. That's all I need from it!