Are we doomed?
Replies
-
Yes, we are doomed when we base our health and fitness on an extreme weight loss show.12
-
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.2 -
-
That article has so much wrong with it!
First: Biggest Loser is a very flawed show. People are whisked off to their special 'fantasy island' style fat ranch where they are cajoled all day into extreme work out & dietary strategies which teach them exactly diddly squat about managing their own real life situations. Medically supervised VLCDs do the same, as do surgical interventions like sleeves and bands. All of these have a 'surprising' percentage of recidivism & weight regain among subjects. Gee whiz... Whooda thunk?
Second: I have personally seen metabolic studies that refute what this author implies: that metabolic downscaling is permanent and irreversible. Since each study in and of itself is sort of a discreet 'snapshot' of these issues, you can weave together whatever narrative suits your bias. Smaller people will always need fewer calories to maintain. Older people will always need fewer calories to maintain. People with less muscle mass pound for pound will always need fewer calories to maintain. I don't think that's newsworthy. Sorry.
Third: why in the world wouldn't the author consider contrasting this with a cross section of the population who lost weight slowly, gradually and without these sort of extreme interventions? Oh because that doesn't sell newspapers OR biggest loser t shirts! Doh!10 -
I've lost over 50 lbs still got 15 to 20 to go, it's taken forever, but the weight has not come back. NO SUCH THING AS DOOMED, there's only want, will, and need.6
-
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.
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!!)
3 -
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.
+10 -
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?
It's an eye opener to use a calorie calculator to get your maintenance calories at various weights. He can't go back to eating like when he was 430 lb because he has a lot less tissue to feed. This isn't something I really thought much about until fairly recently -- and it's not mentioned as far as I know in a lot of the "diet programs" I've been involved in over the decades.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.
This is what happens when people divide their lives into "Dieting" and "Non-Dieting" parts. Once you say "Gee, I'm looking forward to not being on a diet any more" you're in trouble. If you don't realize you're in it for the long haul and will have to make PERMANENT lifestyle changes, it will creep back on. It doesn't matter what percentage of this is physiological, what percent is genetic, or what percent is behavioral -- eternal vigilance is the price of having once been a fat person. I consider shows like "Biggest Loser" as dangerous; they're not doing the public any good, they're perpetuating a sick and self-defeating attitude toward weight loss.
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 remember doing MediFast back in 1988 and I lost a lot of weight quickly -- but there was absolutely no behavioral component as I went into maintenance. What I got was a handout with advice for me on leaving the program. I went on to NutriSystems; same deal. It's no wonder the people of the USA are fat and getting fatter year by year.8 -
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.2 -
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.
4 -
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"3
-
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.
1 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Taking those numbers from that table and running them through the McArdle equation shows that there is indeed a large metabolic adaptation.
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.
0 -
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.0 -
(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.)3 -
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.0
-
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.0
-
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.2 -
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.0 -
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.3
https://youtu.be/s2jvANh2aEc
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 389.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.1K Getting Started
- 259.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.2K Recipes
- 232.1K Fitness and Exercise
- 359 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.4K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.4K Motivation and Support
- 7.7K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 746 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions