Is "metabolic damage" real?

Yes it is real, it may require some dietary adjustments but it may also be related to loss of muscle from yo-yo dieting. It isn't about cells but complex metabolic changes induced during dieting and the sedentary life.

Here, extended coverage of the subject:

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

Yes it is real, it may require some dietary adjustments but it may also be related to loss of muscle from yo-yo dieting. It isn't about cells but complex metabolic changes induced during dieting and the sedentary life.

Here, extended coverage of the subject:

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss

You've obviously done a deep dive on the topic. I guess I think of adaptive thermogenesis differently than metabolic damage.

Usually when the term "metabolic damage" is thrown around the implication is that "it isn't your fault you are heavy, you are damaged and you should just resign yourself to being fat you poor thing".

I don't buy that. In 2012 I did a long term VLCD where I consumed between 800-1000 calories a day. I lost 100 pounds in about a year. Then, due to a return to bad habits combined with stress I regained 50+.

Now I'm back here on MFP and losing steadily with a range of 1200 - 1400 a day. Yeah, I exercise, but I did that with the VLCD too.

Maybe if I didn't have a history of extreme restriction/weight loss I would lose just as much on a couple hundred calories more. Maybe.

But we all have to start from an estimate for our energy balance and then work up or down based on real life feedback.

SezxyStef wrote: »

ilex70 wrote: »

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

Yes it is real, it may require some dietary adjustments but it may also be related to loss of muscle from yo-yo dieting. It isn't about cells but complex metabolic changes induced during dieting and the sedentary life.

Here, extended coverage of the subject:

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss

You've obviously done a deep dive on the topic. I guess I think of adaptive thermogenesis differently than metabolic damage.

Usually when the term "metabolic damage" is thrown around the implication is that "it isn't your fault you are heavy, you are damaged and you should just resign yourself to being fat you poor thing".

I don't buy that. In 2012 I did a long term VLCD where I consumed between 800-1000 calories a day. I lost 100 pounds in about a year. Then, due to a return to bad habits combined with stress I regained 50+.

Now I'm back here on MFP and losing steadily with a range of 1200 - 1400 a day. Yeah, I exercise, but I did that with the VLCD too.

Maybe if I didn't have a history of extreme restriction/weight loss I would lose just as much on a couple hundred calories more. Maybe.

But we all have to start from an estimate for our energy balance and then work up or down based on real life feedback.

adaptive thermogenesis is not metabolic damage.

Metabolic damage occurs after starvation...ie famines, anorexic/bulimia etc.

There are specific actions that have to be taken to fix it.

Metabolic damage happens after years and years of VLCD either forced or self inflicted.

No disagreement. Just replying to EvgeniZyntx post...it is multi-part at the posted link.

Metabolic damage can happen, but it's more due to extreme disordered eating (much more on the less, than more side).
Yo-yo dieters (in general) aren't people I'd consider having issues with metabolic damage.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

SezxyStef wrote: »

ilex70 wrote: »

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

Yes it is real, it may require some dietary adjustments but it may also be related to loss of muscle from yo-yo dieting. It isn't about cells but complex metabolic changes induced during dieting and the sedentary life.

Here, extended coverage of the subject:

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss

You've obviously done a deep dive on the topic. I guess I think of adaptive thermogenesis differently than metabolic damage.

Usually when the term "metabolic damage" is thrown around the implication is that "it isn't your fault you are heavy, you are damaged and you should just resign yourself to being fat you poor thing".

I don't buy that. In 2012 I did a long term VLCD where I consumed between 800-1000 calories a day. I lost 100 pounds in about a year. Then, due to a return to bad habits combined with stress I regained 50+.

Now I'm back here on MFP and losing steadily with a range of 1200 - 1400 a day. Yeah, I exercise, but I did that with the VLCD too.

Maybe if I didn't have a history of extreme restriction/weight loss I would lose just as much on a couple hundred calories more. Maybe.

But we all have to start from an estimate for our energy balance and then work up or down based on real life feedback.

adaptive thermogenesis is not metabolic damage.

Metabolic damage occurs after starvation...ie famines, anorexic/bulimia etc.

There are specific actions that have to be taken to fix it.

Metabolic damage happens after years and years of VLCD either forced or self inflicted.

Would you care to describe what the factors of metabolic damage are that aren't part of AT?
Remember that the Minnesota Starvation experiment saw and reported AT.

The Minnesota study16 figures among the early demonstration of an adaptive decrease in thermogenesis in response to energy restriction. In this study, EE, body mass, and body composition were measured in 32 men subjected to semi-starvation (half of their energy needs) during 24 weeks.7 Comparison with baseline control period showed that fat-free mass and fat mass loss-adjusted basal metabolic rate was reduced by approx20 and approx25% after 12 and 24 weeks of starvation, respectively, representing a approx1490 and approx1700 kJ/day greater than predicted decrease in basal metabolic rate. More recently, the study of Leibel et al.4 contributed substantially to the quantification of adaptive thermogenesis, also in circumstances of severe energy restriction and body weight changes. This study described the changes in EE in non-obese and obese individuals subjected to a 10% body weight gain and to a 10 and 20% diet-induced (800 kcal/day) body weight loss.4 Total and resting EEs were measured by indirect calorimetry using a respiratory chamber and a ventilated hood, respectively, at the beginning of the study and at each weight plateau after at least 14 days of weight stability. Predicted values of EE were also determined at each weight plateau with regression equations relating initial measures of EE to fat-free mass and fat mass at the initial body weight. The difference between measured and predicted EE was then calculated for each weight plateau and was found to be significant. Indeed, the adaptive thermogenesis termed 'observed-minus-predicted total EE' in this study was -244 and -301 kcal/day (approx1025 and 1264 kJ/day) following a 10 and 20% body weight loss, respectively, in the obese individuals.4

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v31/n2/full/0803523a.html

I can understand why people might think of them as different things, but they are a spectrum of continuity of the same processes. AT talks about the effects of hormonal and systemic changes to metabolic energy use.

Some types of AT are not something that resolve themselves easily.

Not clear to me why you consider them as different?

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

SezxyStef wrote: »

ilex70 wrote: »

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

Yes it is real, it may require some dietary adjustments but it may also be related to loss of muscle from yo-yo dieting. It isn't about cells but complex metabolic changes induced during dieting and the sedentary life.

Here, extended coverage of the subject:

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss

You've obviously done a deep dive on the topic. I guess I think of adaptive thermogenesis differently than metabolic damage.

Usually when the term "metabolic damage" is thrown around the implication is that "it isn't your fault you are heavy, you are damaged and you should just resign yourself to being fat you poor thing".

I don't buy that. In 2012 I did a long term VLCD where I consumed between 800-1000 calories a day. I lost 100 pounds in about a year. Then, due to a return to bad habits combined with stress I regained 50+.

Now I'm back here on MFP and losing steadily with a range of 1200 - 1400 a day. Yeah, I exercise, but I did that with the VLCD too.

Maybe if I didn't have a history of extreme restriction/weight loss I would lose just as much on a couple hundred calories more. Maybe.

But we all have to start from an estimate for our energy balance and then work up or down based on real life feedback.

adaptive thermogenesis is not metabolic damage.

Metabolic damage occurs after starvation...ie famines, anorexic/bulimia etc.

There are specific actions that have to be taken to fix it.

Metabolic damage happens after years and years of VLCD either forced or self inflicted.

Would you care to describe what the factors of metabolic damage are that aren't part of AT?
Remember that the Minnesota Starvation experiment saw and reported AT.

The Minnesota study16 figures among the early demonstration of an adaptive decrease in thermogenesis in response to energy restriction. In this study, EE, body mass, and body composition were measured in 32 men subjected to semi-starvation (half of their energy needs) during 24 weeks.7 Comparison with baseline control period showed that fat-free mass and fat mass loss-adjusted basal metabolic rate was reduced by approx20 and approx25% after 12 and 24 weeks of starvation, respectively, representing a approx1490 and approx1700 kJ/day greater than predicted decrease in basal metabolic rate. More recently, the study of Leibel et al.4 contributed substantially to the quantification of adaptive thermogenesis, also in circumstances of severe energy restriction and body weight changes. This study described the changes in EE in non-obese and obese individuals subjected to a 10% body weight gain and to a 10 and 20% diet-induced (800 kcal/day) body weight loss.4 Total and resting EEs were measured by indirect calorimetry using a respiratory chamber and a ventilated hood, respectively, at the beginning of the study and at each weight plateau after at least 14 days of weight stability. Predicted values of EE were also determined at each weight plateau with regression equations relating initial measures of EE to fat-free mass and fat mass at the initial body weight. The difference between measured and predicted EE was then calculated for each weight plateau and was found to be significant. Indeed, the adaptive thermogenesis termed 'observed-minus-predicted total EE' in this study was -244 and -301 kcal/day (approx1025 and 1264 kJ/day) following a 10 and 20% body weight loss, respectively, in the obese individuals.4

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v31/n2/full/0803523a.html

I can understand why people might think of them as different things, but they are a spectrum of continuity of the same processes. AT talks about the effects of hormonal and systemic changes to metabolic energy use.

Some types of AT are not something that resolve themselves easily.

Not clear to me why you consider them as different?

I consider them different because AT happens when you lose weight even 20lbs.

At 205 my BMR was higher than it is now at 155...AT right...but not Metabolic Damage.

But really when it comes down to this debate it's semantics right? Metabolic Damage is on the spectrum of AT but at one end but remember AT also includes heat, cold, drugs, stress, fear etc that can affect the rate of energy expenditure but does not require a doctor to help you fix it...it doesn't need fixed....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20935667 speaks about AT in a way that explains why it's harder to keep weight off once it's lost.

Metabolic Damage needs medical intervention to fix...

If you prefer we can call them these names instead

Metabolic compensation
Metabolic resistance
Metabolic damage

SezxyStef wrote: »

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

SezxyStef wrote: »

ilex70 wrote: »

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

Yes it is real, it may require some dietary adjustments but it may also be related to loss of muscle from yo-yo dieting. It isn't about cells but complex metabolic changes induced during dieting and the sedentary life.

Here, extended coverage of the subject:

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss

You've obviously done a deep dive on the topic. I guess I think of adaptive thermogenesis differently than metabolic damage.

Usually when the term "metabolic damage" is thrown around the implication is that "it isn't your fault you are heavy, you are damaged and you should just resign yourself to being fat you poor thing".

I don't buy that. In 2012 I did a long term VLCD where I consumed between 800-1000 calories a day. I lost 100 pounds in about a year. Then, due to a return to bad habits combined with stress I regained 50+.

Now I'm back here on MFP and losing steadily with a range of 1200 - 1400 a day. Yeah, I exercise, but I did that with the VLCD too.

Maybe if I didn't have a history of extreme restriction/weight loss I would lose just as much on a couple hundred calories more. Maybe.

But we all have to start from an estimate for our energy balance and then work up or down based on real life feedback.

adaptive thermogenesis is not metabolic damage.

Metabolic damage occurs after starvation...ie famines, anorexic/bulimia etc.

There are specific actions that have to be taken to fix it.

Metabolic damage happens after years and years of VLCD either forced or self inflicted.

Would you care to describe what the factors of metabolic damage are that aren't part of AT?
Remember that the Minnesota Starvation experiment saw and reported AT.

The Minnesota study16 figures among the early demonstration of an adaptive decrease in thermogenesis in response to energy restriction. In this study, EE, body mass, and body composition were measured in 32 men subjected to semi-starvation (half of their energy needs) during 24 weeks.7 Comparison with baseline control period showed that fat-free mass and fat mass loss-adjusted basal metabolic rate was reduced by approx20 and approx25% after 12 and 24 weeks of starvation, respectively, representing a approx1490 and approx1700 kJ/day greater than predicted decrease in basal metabolic rate. More recently, the study of Leibel et al.4 contributed substantially to the quantification of adaptive thermogenesis, also in circumstances of severe energy restriction and body weight changes. This study described the changes in EE in non-obese and obese individuals subjected to a 10% body weight gain and to a 10 and 20% diet-induced (800 kcal/day) body weight loss.4 Total and resting EEs were measured by indirect calorimetry using a respiratory chamber and a ventilated hood, respectively, at the beginning of the study and at each weight plateau after at least 14 days of weight stability. Predicted values of EE were also determined at each weight plateau with regression equations relating initial measures of EE to fat-free mass and fat mass at the initial body weight. The difference between measured and predicted EE was then calculated for each weight plateau and was found to be significant. Indeed, the adaptive thermogenesis termed 'observed-minus-predicted total EE' in this study was -244 and -301 kcal/day (approx1025 and 1264 kJ/day) following a 10 and 20% body weight loss, respectively, in the obese individuals.4

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v31/n2/full/0803523a.html

I can understand why people might think of them as different things, but they are a spectrum of continuity of the same processes. AT talks about the effects of hormonal and systemic changes to metabolic energy use.

Some types of AT are not something that resolve themselves easily.

Not clear to me why you consider them as different?

I consider them different because AT happens when you lose weight even 20lbs.

At 205 my BMR was higher than it is now at 155...AT right...but not Metabolic Damage.

But really when it comes down to this debate it's semantics right? Metabolic Damage is on the spectrum of AT but at one end but remember AT also includes heat, cold, drugs, stress, fear etc that can affect the rate of energy expenditure but does not require a doctor to help you fix it...it doesn't need fixed....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20935667 speaks about AT in a way that explains why it's harder to keep weight off once it's lost.

Metabolic Damage needs medical intervention to fix...

If you prefer we can call them these names instead

Metabolic compensation
Metabolic resistance
Metabolic damage

It is a semantics term discussion - In the literature you'll find AT cover things from LBM loss, all the way down to irreversible hormonal and brain chemistry changes that may occur during long term calorie restriction. On the other hand metabolic damage assumes the something is "damaged" and needs to be fixed.

So getting down to specifics - someone who diets severely and moves from an active lifestyle to a sedentary lifestyle will see a reduction in metabolism from a variety of factors - this may include (among many other things) reduced cortisol sensitivity and adrenal response and reduced mitochondrial count in tissue. Both of which may respond to medical intervention (T3 therapy, metformin, etc.) or exercise and diet, depending on severity and age.
So if a doctor gets involved it is "metabolic damage" and if it is managed via exercise it is just "AT"?

Conditions aren't defined by the fact that "medical intervention" is needed but by aetiologies. In the absence of distinct differentials metabolic damage and AT are the same thing with possible different levels of severity.

But I'm perfectly ok if you prefer to reserve "damage" to the most severe types - it also addresses the frequency of the question on the boards and the intent of "am I damaged" as a way of capitulating to the situation. Most people aren't irreversibly damaged.

In light of that - I'd suggest that someone might have more difficulty losing weight for a variety of metabolic, medical and functional reasons after time yo-yoing or with severe weight gain or loss but that it isn't a fatality, in of itself. The factors that influence that, and how to address some of them, remain relevant in the deep dive thread I posted.

Alongside determine if issues like metabolic syndrome or PCOS are present - things like exercise level monitoring, macro partitioning may help specific individuals find personal solutions.

Edit:typo.