Obesity Journal study: It's not just CICO

Options
12357…23

Replies

  • scolaris
    scolaris Posts: 2,145 Member
    Options
    I need to reread.... you're extrapolating too much here I believe. Other legitimate studies show the metabolism heals with time. And VLCDs are for chumps. As are many bands. People don't deal with their real issues & are doomed to fail at maintenance.
  • LPflaum
    LPflaum Posts: 174 Member
    Options
    This is a really interesting study. But, as a lot of people have mentioned, the effects aren't necessarily shocking. When you think about the human body as a whole, we've been around for about 200,000 years, agriculture and the domestication of animals happened roughly 189,000 years AFTER we became a species, and large numbers of humans have only had consistent access to plentiful food for about the last 200 years (or 199,800 years after our species evolved). It makes sense to me that our bodies would react like this, for over 190,000 years weight loss = starvation. The biological response to starvation is to hoard as many calories as you can, ie slow the metabolism. Once the starving human has access to food again, it makes sense that the body would want to get back up to the maintenance level. I think what's really interesting is that these people's metabolisms aren't recovering. It's almost as if the body is saying "crap... we're in a situation where we starve now, we don't know when this will end... we should probably keep hoarding in case that happens again." The human body is really a fascinating thing and it's incredible how little we really know about how our metabolism actually works.
  • cavia
    cavia Posts: 457 Member
    Options
    NotSoPerfectPam wrote: »
    New York Times story details that a study of Biggest Loser contestants found they regained much of the weight they lost and ruined their metabolism -- all had metabolisms that burned much less than a person their weight should have been burning.

    So, OK, it is CICO, but if you're overweight and trying to lose weight, it may mean that your calories in is a lot lower than your calculated BMR or TDEE. So the question is, how do we get our BMR really tested....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html

    A cautionary tale about eating starvation level calories?

    I set a 500cal/day deficit, lost 45+lbs. Did several bulks and cuts and can diet now on what used to be my maintenance calories.
  • NinaSharp
    NinaSharp Posts: 101 Member
    Options
    LPflaum wrote: »
    This is a really interesting study. But, as a lot of people have mentioned, the effects aren't necessarily shocking. When you think about the human body as a whole, we've been around for about 200,000 years, agriculture and the domestication of animals happened roughly 189,000 years AFTER we became a species, and large numbers of humans have only had consistent access to plentiful food for about the last 200 years (or 199,800 years after our species evolved). It makes sense to me that our bodies would react like this, for over 190,000 years weight loss = starvation. The biological response to starvation is to hoard as many calories as you can, ie slow the metabolism. Once the starving human has access to food again, it makes sense that the body would want to get back up to the maintenance level. I think what's really interesting is that these people's metabolisms aren't recovering. It's almost as if the body is saying "crap... we're in a situation where we starve now, we don't know when this will end... we should probably keep hoarding in case that happens again." The human body is really a fascinating thing and it's incredible how little we really know about how our metabolism actually works.

    This. All of this. You said it better than I did.
  • robininfl
    robininfl Posts: 1,137 Member
    Options
    I am sure that a healthy body responds differently than one that has been overfed then starved - the Biggest Loser people are big enough at the start that they aren't healthy, then they are starved into losing a bunch of weight as fast as possible - if I were their body I'd react badly, too.

    What I don't think, is that it's a permanent reaction. There is no way that a body wants to be morbidly obese. If one maintains a healthy weight and lifestyle for years, I am sure that the body adjusts because it's more functional like that. It's a living system, it needs time to heal from the overweight and the stress of the big loss.
  • sunnybeaches105
    sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,831 Member
    Options
    LPflaum wrote: »
    This is a really interesting study. But, as a lot of people have mentioned, the effects aren't necessarily shocking. When you think about the human body as a whole, we've been around for about 200,000 years, agriculture and the domestication of animals happened roughly 189,000 years AFTER we became a species, and large numbers of humans have only had consistent access to plentiful food for about the last 200 years (or 199,800 years after our species evolved). It makes sense to me that our bodies would react like this, for over 190,000 years weight loss = starvation. The biological response to starvation is to hoard as many calories as you can, ie slow the metabolism. Once the starving human has access to food again, it makes sense that the body would want to get back up to the maintenance level. I think what's really interesting is that these people's metabolisms aren't recovering. It's almost as if the body is saying "crap... we're in a situation where we starve now, we don't know when this will end... we should probably keep hoarding in case that happens again." The human body is really a fascinating thing and it's incredible how little we really know about how our metabolism actually works.

    Some reading: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1
  • 85Cardinals
    85Cardinals Posts: 733 Member
    Options
    BarbieAS wrote: »
    CICO based on internet calculators of TDEE is not accurate for everyone, and can be significantly off for some people. Period. Of course they work for MOST people. They're averages, and those averages have to be based on something. But there are going to be outliers.

    I don't think it's unreasonable to, after an individual has (1) given a reduced calorie intake enough time to have good data and actually see results, (2) ensured that logging is happening accurately - food is weighed, liquids are measured, etc., and (3) received a full medical workup, to suggest that they have their RMR tested.

    Everyone here on MFP is so quick to INSIST that CICO is the answer, is science, and cannot be violated or cheated. And they're 100% right. But what people fail to do is acknowledge that the "CO" side can be the wild card, rather than assuming that the only answer is that they're doing something wrong on the CI side. Some people really might be eating 1300 calories most days and not losing. It's possible.

    I'm a prime example. I successfully lost about 90lbs in college (sensibly, and relatively easily - used Weight Watchers and lost that weight over a little more than full year, about 1.5lbs/week), and then gained it all back while I was pregnant and my kids were babies. I started trying to lose again by joining MFP just shy of 4 years ago, when my second and last child was about 9 months old. I've lost about 25lbs in that entire 4 years. All the info out there - Fitbits, online calculators, HRMs, EVERYTHING - was telling me that based on my stats and activity I should be easily losing 1-2 lbs per week eating about 1,500-1,700 calories per day even before exercise calories (which I did eat some of), but the scale barely budged. Every morsel I consumed was put on a scale first. Doctor's appointments confirmed that I was in near perfect health except for my weight. Finally, last November my doctor got my RMR tested. The result was that my RMR was 25-30% lower than any calculation that existed for my statistics (depending on what it was), which makes a lot more sense when compared to my actual change in weight over time. I even have decent muscle mass for my size, and I do and have always lifted weights, but that hasn't helped. It just turns out that, for whatever unknown reason, instead of burning 2,200 calories on a super sedentary day and 3,000+ on a very good day, my range is more like 1,500-2,000. You can see why I wasn't losing, I'm sure.

    Since then, I've adjusted my intake, since it's clear that I need to stay under 1,300/day to lose even 0.75-1lbs per week, and that one bad day on a weekend could wipe out an entire week's worth of work. I've lost about 4 more lbs. However, if I ever do lose the weight (I'm still 60lbs over my goal weight) it's just going to get worse and worse - I may end up in a situation where 1,300 or less is my maintenance, even at 160lbs and with a moderately active lifestyle.

    I'm not arguing that CICO isn't solid science, or that assuming that you have a crap metabolism should be something that people jump to when things aren't working for them - there are a LOT of steps to take first. But it needs to be recognized that some people really honestly DO burn significantly less than expected.

    very well put

  • LPflaum
    LPflaum Posts: 174 Member
    Options
    robininfl wrote: »
    I am sure that a healthy body responds differently than one that has been overfed then starved - the Biggest Loser people are big enough at the start that they aren't healthy, then they are starved into losing a bunch of weight as fast as possible - if I were their body I'd react badly, too.

    What I don't think, is that it's a permanent reaction. There is no way that a body wants to be morbidly obese. If one maintains a healthy weight and lifestyle for years, I am sure that the body adjusts because it's more functional like that. It's a living system, it needs time to heal from the overweight and the stress of the big loss.

    I didn't notice in the article, but did they track the contestant's diet and exercise habits consistently over the 6 years? It would be interesting to factor in any crash dieting or massive calorie reductions and see what that did to overall metabolism. My theory above (based on literally zero science) is that once the body experiences a starvation event equivalent to what these people saw (which, 50,000 years ago, would likely have been an extinction level event), it works overtime to keep that from happening. Maybe you could re-train your body out of it with several years of not throwing it back into starvation mode, but i would think every time you try to create another massive deficit your body reads that as another starvation event and starts trying to hoard.

    Those of us on this planet did not get here by chance. We have 200,000 years worth of ancestors who were better at storing fat and energy than all of the other humans. That's how they survived long enough to reproduce, then they passed those amazing fat storage genetics on to us, and then we invented chick-fil-a.
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    Options
    sunnybeaches105 wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    eeejer wrote: »
    sunnybeaches105 wrote: »
    eeejer wrote: »
    sunnybeaches105 wrote: »
    eeejer wrote: »
    sunnybeaches105 wrote: »
    eeejer wrote: »
    if you don't lift weights while losing fat your BMR will go down more than you want. This is just 101 stuff.

    I think you're overstating it a bit there. There are plenty of exercises that can help that don't involve lifting weights. Body weight training, swimming, biking, etc. can all help maintain and build muscle mass to help with BMR. Weight training has the advantage of allowing one to change weight and rep schemes down to a rather fine degree.

    none come close to strength training.

    Weights are not the only way to strength train.

    no, but they are the only worthwhile way for the majority of people. What are you arguing exactly? Not to strength train while cutting? I mean, go for it if you want. It is very obvious this is important to most people.

    Read my initial response. It was a clarification not an argument. You're confusing strength training and weight lifting even in your last post. And, as for "most people" it still depends on their goals.

    I lift, my wife lifts, I love lifting, but it's not the only or even best way for all people.

    Well, I would argue that it is. Strength training involves weights. It involves progressive loading. It is the best way for the majority of people, even if they do other activities. Strength is applicable in all sports.

    Keep in mind there are a number of people who won't or can't lift for various reasons. The percentage of those people increases with age. It's not helpful for them to think there is no other way to strength train.

    Agreed. I've seen plenty of injured vets successfully using TRX straps for example. My wife's PT after cancer treatment specialized in working around the limitations of injured vets, cancer patients, and others with serious limitations. One can strength train even if weights are off limits.

    And beyond physical limitations that prevent lifting weights, some people have no access to weights, for a variety of reasons. Suspension systems and bodyweight exercises are great alternatives and certainly qualify as progressive resistance. At a certain point it may get difficult to progress but most people I know who are into bodyweight enjoy the challenge of working on and finding more difficult progressions.
  • bwogilvie
    bwogilvie Posts: 2,130 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    jemhh wrote: »
    It would be interesting to compare the Biggest Loser folks' BMRs to those who lost similar amounts of weight using less extreme deficits. It says that one person had a daily goal deficit of 3500. How does his BMR compare to a person who lost using much more moderate (or even low) deficit and who took diet breaks, etc?

    I'm coming late to this party, but there's an interesting article by some of the same researchers published in 2014 that compared Biggest Loser participants (not this group) to people who had lost weight by a gastric bypass (Roux-en-Y). They found significant metabolic adaptation in the Biggest Loser contestants, even after weight loss had ended, while the bypass patients had some metabolic adaptation during weight loss (6 months in) but none at 12 months, once they had stopped losing. Even more interestingly, the Biggest Loser contestants retained more lean body mass (Fat Free Mass in this study), yet they were the ones who experienced persistent metabolic adaptation.

    The conclusion: even some extreme forms of weight loss are better than others, and - wild speculation here - the stomach might have something to do with it, since the bypass patients didn't have much active stomach left.
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    Options
    bwogilvie wrote: »
    jemhh wrote: »
    It would be interesting to compare the Biggest Loser folks' BMRs to those who lost similar amounts of weight using less extreme deficits. It says that one person had a daily goal deficit of 3500. How does his BMR compare to a person who lost using much more moderate (or even low) deficit and who took diet breaks, etc?

    I'm coming late to this party, but there's an interesting article by some of the same researchers published in 2014 that compared Biggest Loser participants (not this group) to people who had lost weight by a gastric bypass (Roux-en-Y). They found significant metabolic adaptation in the Biggest Loser contestants, even after weight loss had ended, while the bypass patients had some metabolic adaptation during weight loss (6 months in) but none at 12 months, once they had stopped losing. Even more interestingly, the Biggest Loser contestants retained more lean body mass (Fat Free Mass in this study), yet they were the ones who experienced persistent metabolic adaptation.

    The conclusion: even some extreme forms of weight loss are better than others, and - wild speculation here - the stomach might have something to do with it, since the bypass patients didn't have much active stomach left.

    That is really interesting. Thank you for the summary and the link.
  • rontafoya
    rontafoya Posts: 365 Member
    Options
    Permanent alteration of metabolism is BS. In addition to the obvious factors (weight, age, bodyfat percentage, gender, etc.) hormones are a big component. Which is why in general men do better (testosterone), young men do better (testosterone), thyroid issues make it tough (again, hormones). Well, the obese basically have screwed up hormones, lower insulin sensitivity (a hormonal issue as well), and with proper exercise and diet some or all of those issues can be corrected over time, to varying extent.
  • bwogilvie
    bwogilvie Posts: 2,130 Member
    Options
    vismal wrote: »
    [No, we're actually only talking about the New York Time's interpretation of a study that may or may not have made those claims because journalists are notoriously guilty of misrepresenting research data. So in reality it's even less applicable to the general population. :wink:

    Gina Kolata is a pretty good health and fitness journalist. But you can look at the actual study yourself; it was published online today, and it's open access. Abstract of results:
    Of the 16 “Biggest Loser” competitors originally investigated, 14 participated in this follow-up study. Weight loss at the end of the competition was (mean ± SD) 58.3 ± 24.9 kg (P < 0.0001), and RMR decreased by 610 ± 483 kcal/day (P = 0.0004). After 6 years, 41.0 ± 31.3 kg of the lost weight was regained (P = 0.0002), while RMR was 704 ± 427 kcal/day below baseline (P < 0.0001) and metabolic adaptation was −499 ± 207 kcal/day (P < 0.0001). Weight regain was not significantly correlated with metabolic adaptation at the competition's end (r = −0.1, P = 0.75), but those subjects maintaining greater weight loss at 6 years also experienced greater concurrent metabolic slowing (r = 0.59, P = 0.025).
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    Options
    bwogilvie wrote: »
    vismal wrote: »
    [No, we're actually only talking about the New York Time's interpretation of a study that may or may not have made those claims because journalists are notoriously guilty of misrepresenting research data. So in reality it's even less applicable to the general population. :wink:

    Gina Kolata is a pretty good health and fitness journalist. But you can look at the actual study yourself; it was published online today, and it's open access. Abstract of results:
    Of the 16 “Biggest Loser” competitors originally investigated, 14 participated in this follow-up study. Weight loss at the end of the competition was (mean ± SD) 58.3 ± 24.9 kg (P < 0.0001), and RMR decreased by 610 ± 483 kcal/day (P = 0.0004). After 6 years, 41.0 ± 31.3 kg of the lost weight was regained (P = 0.0002), while RMR was 704 ± 427 kcal/day below baseline (P < 0.0001) and metabolic adaptation was −499 ± 207 kcal/day (P < 0.0001). Weight regain was not significantly correlated with metabolic adaptation at the competition's end (r = −0.1, P = 0.75), but those subjects maintaining greater weight loss at 6 years also experienced greater concurrent metabolic slowing (r = 0.59, P = 0.025).

    Thanks for posting the link! So from skimming the abstract, two things jump out at me...

    "RMR was determined... at the end of the 30 week competition and 6 years later." So no, they did not have their BMR from when they first signed up for the show to compare to. So theoretically, their RMR could have been naturally lower, perhaps contributing to them getting so overweight in the first place.

    And the conclusion, "Metabolic adaptation persists over time and is likely a proportional, but incomplete, response to contemporaneous efforts to reduce body weight". There are lots of fancy words in there, but it doesn't say everyone who loses weight experiences metabolic adaptation. It says IF you experience metabolic adaptation, it doesn't go away as quickly as one might think. And it says metabolic adaptation is proportional to your efforts. To me that says the faster and more extreme your weight loss, the more extreme the effect on your metabolism, right?
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    bwogilvie wrote: »
    vismal wrote: »
    [No, we're actually only talking about the New York Time's interpretation of a study that may or may not have made those claims because journalists are notoriously guilty of misrepresenting research data. So in reality it's even less applicable to the general population. :wink:

    Gina Kolata is a pretty good health and fitness journalist. But you can look at the actual study yourself; it was published online today, and it's open access. Abstract of results:
    Of the 16 “Biggest Loser” competitors originally investigated, 14 participated in this follow-up study. Weight loss at the end of the competition was (mean ± SD) 58.3 ± 24.9 kg (P < 0.0001), and RMR decreased by 610 ± 483 kcal/day (P = 0.0004). After 6 years, 41.0 ± 31.3 kg of the lost weight was regained (P = 0.0002), while RMR was 704 ± 427 kcal/day below baseline (P < 0.0001) and metabolic adaptation was −499 ± 207 kcal/day (P < 0.0001). Weight regain was not significantly correlated with metabolic adaptation at the competition's end (r = −0.1, P = 0.75), but those subjects maintaining greater weight loss at 6 years also experienced greater concurrent metabolic slowing (r = 0.59, P = 0.025).

    Thanks for posting the link! So from skimming the abstract, two things jump out at me...

    "RMR was determined... at the end of the 30 week competition and 6 years later." So no, they did not have their BMR from when they first signed up for the show to compare to. So theoretically, their RMR could have been naturally lower, perhaps contributing to them getting so overweight in the first place.

    And the conclusion, "Metabolic adaptation persists over time and is likely a proportional, but incomplete, response to contemporaneous efforts to reduce body weight". There are lots of fancy words in there, but it doesn't say everyone who loses weight experiences metabolic adaptation. It says IF you experience metabolic adaptation, it doesn't go away as quickly as one might think. And it says metabolic adaptation is proportional to your efforts. To me that says the faster and more extreme your weight loss, the more extreme the effect on your metabolism, right?

    That's interesting. In the later shows at least I believe they wear calorie tracking devices, so it seems that their RMR could be tracked over time pretty well (figure TDEE from losses and subtract the active calories as counted by the device) -- first 4 weeks (probably not as the initial big water loss would interfere), next 4 weeks, next four weeks, so on. Not perfect, but might be interesting.

Categories