Are we doomed?

Options
24

Replies

  • jandsstevenson887
    jandsstevenson887 Posts: 296 Member
    Options
    CoffeeNCardio wrote: »
    They kept saying "have slower metabolisms when they lost the weight" when I think what they were really talking about was the completely normal situation where being thinner means you need fewer calories.

    What the heck did the author think was gonna happen? That a 190 lb man and a 430lb man can have the same calorie needs?

    And everyone here knows exactly why they gained back the weight. NBC just pushed them to lose as many lbs as possible as fast as possible and as a result they learned NOTHING about sustainable weight loss techniques. That's just what happens when you lose weight by using tactics you don't intend to use for the rest of your life.

    I may not log for the rest of my life, but at least when I'm at goal, I'll know how to stay there: by watching my intake.

    I'm wondering this myself. I took it as, their metabolism was much slower than a person the same as their new size but I'm not sure.
    I read this today and it did concern me that maybe some people do develop a much slower metabolism. I do think what they do on the show is unsustainable.
  • Hiro_Protagonist
    Hiro_Protagonist Posts: 40 Member
    Options
    https://youtu.be/s2jvANh2aEc
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Options
    DrewMontoya wrote: »
    Here's the actual study, not some pop rag's interpretation of it.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/epdf

    Now, look at Table 1. Enter those average stats into your favorite TDEE/BMR calculator. 3. Compare your calculated numbers with the RMR values in Table 1. The 30 week numbers are surprisingly close, and in fairness, the 6 year numbers are quite different once you enter the 6 year stats into the calculator. However, the article makes it sound as if a 1900 kcal BMR means you'll be on an unhealthy restriction to keep the weight off.

    Taking those numbers from that table and running them through the McArdle equation shows that there is indeed a large metabolic adaptation.

    zb4mhnhxaoi2.png

    In blue, the numbers from the article.

    In green, my calculations for RMR based on Katch-McArdle Formula (x 1.25 activity level for RMR from BMR). This tends to agree with the idea that there is a 400-600 calorie difference from expected to measured.

    Given that these individuals showed 1900 ± 460 RMR it actually might mean that they will need to have an unhealthy restriction or very high exercise levels to lose weight (since their average BMI 6 years after was 43.8!!)

  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 24,870 Member
    Options
    CoffeeNCardio wrote: »
    They kept saying "have slower metabolisms when they lost the weight" when I think what they were really talking about was the completely normal situation where being thinner means you need fewer calories.

    What the heck did the author think was gonna happen? That a 190 lb man and a 430lb man can have the same calorie needs?

    And everyone here knows exactly why they gained back the weight. NBC just pushed them to lose as many lbs as possible as fast as possible and as a result they learned NOTHING about sustainable weight loss techniques. That's just what happens when you lose weight by using tactics you don't intend to use for the rest of your life.

    I may not log for the rest of my life, but at least when I'm at goal, I'll know how to stay there: by watching my intake.

    +1
  • extra_medium
    extra_medium Posts: 1,525 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    Look at it logically. The contestants had built up bad habits over the course of their entire lives, went on a TV show where every aspect of their lifestyle was completely controlled, then were released back into the wild after several weeks.

    Of course they lost weight while in the program, and of course they slowly (or quickly) slipped back into their old lifestyles after the show was over. It has nothing to do with "my metabolism can't recover" nonsense.
  • robininfl
    robininfl Posts: 1,137 Member
    Options
    CoffeeNCardio wrote: »
    They kept saying "have slower metabolisms when they lost the weight" when I think what they were really talking about was the completely normal situation where being thinner means you need fewer calories.

    What the heck did the author think was gonna happen? That a 190 lb man and a 430lb man can have the same calorie needs?

    No, the study is saying that the 190 pound man who got there by starting at 435 and doing an extreme weight loss diet cannot eat as much, to maintain that 190 pounds, as an average 190 pound man. If they eat to maintain 190 like most guys can, they will gain weight. If they want to maintain at 190, they must eat as though they are much lighter, or as thought they are still trying to lose. Normal calculations will not work. Their bodies have adapted to run on less energy than would be expected.


    Which makes sense, logically. Because they were obese, and then starved, and survived it. If a body could think, and it had survived starvation conditions by making itself obese once, it seems like a good strategy to put the fat back on, in case you experience another starvation.

  • rnewyn
    rnewyn Posts: 12 Member
    Options
    They put their bodies in starvation mode. They basically acted in the same way someone with a severe, life threatening eating disorder would. The take away isn't "you can't move from obese to healthy", it's "don't treat your body like you're in a concentration camp and expect the change to last"
  • _Waffle_
    _Waffle_ Posts: 13,049 Member
    Options
    robininfl wrote: »
    CoffeeNCardio wrote: »
    They kept saying "have slower metabolisms when they lost the weight" when I think what they were really talking about was the completely normal situation where being thinner means you need fewer calories.

    What the heck did the author think was gonna happen? That a 190 lb man and a 430lb man can have the same calorie needs?

    No, the study is saying that the 190 pound man who got there by starting at 435 and doing an extreme weight loss diet cannot eat as much, to maintain that 190 pounds, as an average 190 pound man. If they eat to maintain 190 like most guys can, they will gain weight. If they want to maintain at 190, they must eat as though they are much lighter, or as thought they are still trying to lose. Normal calculations will not work. Their bodies have adapted to run on less energy than would be expected.


    Which makes sense, logically. Because they were obese, and then starved, and survived it. If a body could think, and it had survived starvation conditions by making itself obese once, it seems like a good strategy to put the fat back on, in case you experience another starvation.

    This just makes me have more admiration for the human body and shows why we're the pinnacle of evolution. We can adapt to things that should kill us. Imagine our cars adapting to only getting half the gas that they typically run off of.
  • tomteboda
    tomteboda Posts: 2,171 Member
    Options
    EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
    Taking those numbers from that table and running them through the McArdle equation shows that there is indeed a large metabolic adaptation.

    zb4mhnhxaoi2.png

    In blue, the numbers from the article.

    In green, my calculations for RMR based on Katch-McArdle Formula (x 1.25 activity level for RMR from BMR). This tends to agree with the idea that there is a 400-600 calorie difference from expected to measured.

    Look at the magnitude of the standard deviation on those numbers. Wow.

  • caimay199
    caimay199 Posts: 39 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    CoffeeNCardio wrote: »
    They kept saying "have slower metabolisms when they lost the weight" when I think what they were really talking about was the completely normal situation where being thinner means you need fewer calories.

    What the heck did the author think was gonna happen? That a 190 lb man and a 430lb man can have the same calorie needs?

    I've often wondered - and never seemed to get a clear answer - about whether this 'reduced metabolism' so frequently referenced is simply what you said, where 135lb me requires less energy than 225lb me, or if what they're saying is me at 135lbs has to eat less than a person who weighs 135lbs who's never been overweight, due to changes that happened during weight loss. :/

    ETA - Robininfl, just saw your post which answered my question.
  • msf74
    msf74 Posts: 3,498 Member
    Options
    zRzagui.gif

    (If we follow extreme methods for extended periods of time based on nonsensical protocols advanced in the name of an utterly stupid entertainment show and give up our critical faculties entirely.)

    (So we're not doomed.)
  • karmelpopcorn
    karmelpopcorn Posts: 77 Member
    Options
    I think it makes things very complicated for some. I think there needs to be more research on metabolism, metabolic damage from high-sugar western diets, and the science of weight maintenance. It's not an excuse, but many people come here frustrated by lackluster outcomes in their fitness/health journeys, and there could be another culprit outside of their presumed unwillingness to weight their food by the gram.
  • briggsykim
    briggsykim Posts: 75 Member
    Options
    It's bunk. I have lost a lot of weight since early adulthood. I have maintained well and continue to work on eating healthy for the past 20 years.
  • enterdanger
    enterdanger Posts: 2,447 Member
    Options
    I only watch this show in the first week or two when they exercise and puke.

    There was a good show on TLC that got cancelled after like 1 season called "Honey, We're Killing Our Kids." I liked it because it had the whole family learn good habits together. Pretty sure when it came out 10 years ago people weren't ready for it.
  • golden6911
    golden6911 Posts: 50 Member
    Options
    vingogly wrote: »
    CoffeeNCardio wrote: »

    I've learned this over 50 years of struggling with my weight, and seeing weight creep back on again over and over again. Permanent maintenance is absolutely key, and from reading the forums here a lot of people are clueless about this. I believe I'll need to monitor my weight regularly and eat in a conscious and aware fashion -- whether I need to log food for the rest of my life remains to be seen. I don't resent this, any more than I resent having to be on blood thinners for the rest of my life

    I think this is a really healthy way to look at it. Once you become significantly overweight, it is a permanent disease that needs to be managed for the rest of your life, like diabetes.
  • jandsstevenson887
    jandsstevenson887 Posts: 296 Member
    Options
    enterdanger wrote: »
    I only watch this show in the first week or two when they exercise and puke.

    There was a good show on TLC that got cancelled after like 1 season called "Honey, We're Killing Our Kids." I liked it because it had the whole family learn good habits together. Pretty sure when it came out 10 years ago people weren't ready for it.

    I actually hated that show because I thought they tried to make too radical of changes too quickly. They would take a family who ate nothing but frozen chicken tenders and give them a 2 hour long recipe for making steamed clams or something equally stupid instead of teaching them how to make quick, healthier baked chicken tenders. My husband and I were so frustrated by the experts because their suggestions seemed over the top.

Categories