NPR article - Biggest Loser and metabolic slowing
Options
temazur
Posts: 76 Member
NPR - http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/02/476498729/biggest-loser-lessons-why-the-body-makes-it-hard-to-keep-pounds-off?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160502
Actual research - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/
So, I know the usual weight loss bible says calories in, calories out, but this is showing a pretty big difference in what it takes, calories wise, for these folks to keep the lost weight off. If they were using something like MFP, even weighing food religiously, they'd put back on about a pound a week on the maintenance recommendations.
Then again, there's a whole lot of science in the research I'm not well-versed in at all, so I might be misinterpreting. Mostly, I'm curious if it's saying the speed of the loss is responsible and if you're less screwed for a slow down if you lose much more slowly.
And curious as to what everyone else here thinks.
And please, please, please don't just post up the picture of the flow chart about "are you weighing your food" and tell me CICO, I know that. I'm happy with my weight loss progress, I'm not looking for advice. I just know that messing up your metabolism is hard to do, but I didn't realize it could last for so long and was wondering what people who really are into the crunchy science part of this in this community have to say about it. I have no dog in this fight and am not defending one side of research or the other, just looking at all sides.
Actual research - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/
So, I know the usual weight loss bible says calories in, calories out, but this is showing a pretty big difference in what it takes, calories wise, for these folks to keep the lost weight off. If they were using something like MFP, even weighing food religiously, they'd put back on about a pound a week on the maintenance recommendations.
Then again, there's a whole lot of science in the research I'm not well-versed in at all, so I might be misinterpreting. Mostly, I'm curious if it's saying the speed of the loss is responsible and if you're less screwed for a slow down if you lose much more slowly.
And curious as to what everyone else here thinks.
And please, please, please don't just post up the picture of the flow chart about "are you weighing your food" and tell me CICO, I know that. I'm happy with my weight loss progress, I'm not looking for advice. I just know that messing up your metabolism is hard to do, but I didn't realize it could last for so long and was wondering what people who really are into the crunchy science part of this in this community have to say about it. I have no dog in this fight and am not defending one side of research or the other, just looking at all sides.
0
Replies
-
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10382871/obesity-journal-study-its-not-just-cico/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10382891/are-we-doomed
... to name a couple. Just do a search on nyt or new york times ...
2 -
What I take away from it, is that if you lose your weight excessively fast like these people have done, you will botch up your metabolism for the rest of your life. Slow and steady will win the race.1
-
machka9 - sorry, didn't see the topics over the last few days. Did a quick look this morning before I put this up and missed it. I don't have as much time as I would like to browse threads here (maybe 10-15 minutes a day)2
-
It couldn't possibly be due to the fact that these people are no longer part of a TV show that highly regulated every part of their lifestyle and they slip back into the bad habits they had their entire lives that got them into the situation in the first place. If they continued keeping their calories under control they wouldn't regain any weight.2
-
If you do incredibly punishing and unhealthy things to your body to lose a lot of weight fast then you damage it.
They are still able to lose or maintain but have to deal with the damage they did.
From what I have read, it does not seem like they compared maintenance results of Biggest Loser contestants to those who lost the similar amounts of weight at a slower rate with sustainable changes to diet and exercise.
I wouldn't worry about screwing up your metabolism if you lose at the recommended rate of 2 lb a week or less.1 -
If you do incredibly punishing and unhealthy things to your body to lose a lot of weight fast then you damage it.
They are still able to lose or maintain but have to deal with the damage they did.
From what I have read, it does not seem like they compared maintenance results of Biggest Loser contestants to those who lost the similar amounts of weight at a slower rate with sustainable changes to diet and exercise.
I wouldn't worry about screwing up your metabolism if you lose at the recommended rate of 2 lb a week or less.
I guess this is what I want to hear. I only needed to lose about 25lbs and I am losing it over 6 months so I'm hoping that doesn't cause any long term metabolism damage.1 -
extra_medium wrote: »It couldn't possibly be due to the fact that these people are no longer part of a TV show that highly regulated every part of their lifestyle and they slip back into the bad habits they had their entire lives that got them into the situation in the first place. If they continued keeping their calories under control they wouldn't regain any weight.
Um, did you read the study? It isn't just about calories eating, but the metabolic rate in general and how theirs is lower than it should be.0 -
NPR - http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/02/476498729/biggest-loser-lessons-why-the-body-makes-it-hard-to-keep-pounds-off?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160502
Actual research - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/
So, I know the usual weight loss bible says calories in, calories out, but this is showing a pretty big difference in what it takes, calories wise, for these folks to keep the lost weight off. If they were using something like MFP, even weighing food religiously, they'd put back on about a pound a week on the maintenance recommendations.
Then again, there's a whole lot of science in the research I'm not well-versed in at all, so I might be misinterpreting. Mostly, I'm curious if it's saying the speed of the loss is responsible and if you're less screwed for a slow down if you lose much more slowly.
And curious as to what everyone else here thinks.
And please, please, please don't just post up the picture of the flow chart about "are you weighing your food" and tell me CICO, I know that. I'm happy with my weight loss progress, I'm not looking for advice. I just know that messing up your metabolism is hard to do, but I didn't realize it could last for so long and was wondering what people who really are into the crunchy science part of this in this community have to say about it. I have no dog in this fight and am not defending one side of research or the other, just looking at all sides.
There really are about 6 other threads on this topic by now. You might want to check out the others.
I don't understand why some people see this as contrary to CICO. NONE of those calculators, including MFP, are supposed to be anything but estimates. If you aren't getting the results you want because of higher or lower TDEE than the stats would suggest, you adjust.
In a couple of the other threads I posted a link to a blog about a study (it had a link to the study) showing a huge variation in how different ways of dieting affected metabolism. A VLCD had the worst effect among those in the study, whereas a moderate deficit (cutting 12.5% of calories from sedentary TDEE and then doubling the deficit through exercise) had almost no negative effect initially and then after time ended up increasing TDEE. I don't have the link now, but maybe you can find the other threads. Anyway, my own personal experience is that I seem to have about the metabolism one would expect for someone of my size, despite losing 95 lbs, although it is hard to know for sure since I am quite active. In any case, my TDEE is fine. So I wouldn't extrapolate from the results of BL, which is SO extreme in the methods.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »NPR - http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/02/476498729/biggest-loser-lessons-why-the-body-makes-it-hard-to-keep-pounds-off?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160502
Actual research - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/
So, I know the usual weight loss bible says calories in, calories out, but this is showing a pretty big difference in what it takes, calories wise, for these folks to keep the lost weight off. If they were using something like MFP, even weighing food religiously, they'd put back on about a pound a week on the maintenance recommendations.
Then again, there's a whole lot of science in the research I'm not well-versed in at all, so I might be misinterpreting. Mostly, I'm curious if it's saying the speed of the loss is responsible and if you're less screwed for a slow down if you lose much more slowly.
And curious as to what everyone else here thinks.
And please, please, please don't just post up the picture of the flow chart about "are you weighing your food" and tell me CICO, I know that. I'm happy with my weight loss progress, I'm not looking for advice. I just know that messing up your metabolism is hard to do, but I didn't realize it could last for so long and was wondering what people who really are into the crunchy science part of this in this community have to say about it. I have no dog in this fight and am not defending one side of research or the other, just looking at all sides.
There really are about 6 other threads on this topic by now. You might want to check out the others.
I don't understand why some people see this as contrary to CICO. NONE of those calculators, including MFP, are supposed to be anything but estimates. If you aren't getting the results you want because of higher or lower TDEE than the stats would suggest, you adjust.
In a couple of the other threads I posted a link to a blog about a study (it had a link to the study) showing a huge variation in how different ways of dieting affected metabolism. A VLCD had the worst effect among those in the study, whereas a moderate deficit (cutting 12.5% of calories from sedentary TDEE and then doubling the deficit through exercise) had almost no negative effect initially and then after time ended up increasing TDEE. I don't have the link now, but maybe you can find the other threads. Anyway, my own personal experience is that I seem to have about the metabolism one would expect for someone of my size, despite losing 95 lbs, although it is hard to know for sure since I am quite active. In any case, my TDEE is fine. So I wouldn't extrapolate from the results of BL, which is SO extreme in the methods.
How long have you been in maintenance? I don't think the below is your lost link. I can't remember which of these many threads it was on. But it says:
http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2016/04/14/Study-suggests-method-to-maintain-stable-weight-loss/3191460643328/
"This study shows that if an overweight person is able to maintain an initial weight loss -- in this case for a year -- the body will eventually 'accept' this new weight and thus not fight against it, as is otherwise normally the case when you are in a calorie-deficit state," Torekov said."0 -
I'm getting quite confused. This keeps appearing on the message board lately. But isn't this old news? I swear this has been circulating for a while.
Or maybe it was a different article that I read about the biggest loser contestants gaining weight. I can't remember.1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »NPR - http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/02/476498729/biggest-loser-lessons-why-the-body-makes-it-hard-to-keep-pounds-off?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160502
Actual research - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/
So, I know the usual weight loss bible says calories in, calories out, but this is showing a pretty big difference in what it takes, calories wise, for these folks to keep the lost weight off. If they were using something like MFP, even weighing food religiously, they'd put back on about a pound a week on the maintenance recommendations.
Then again, there's a whole lot of science in the research I'm not well-versed in at all, so I might be misinterpreting. Mostly, I'm curious if it's saying the speed of the loss is responsible and if you're less screwed for a slow down if you lose much more slowly.
And curious as to what everyone else here thinks.
And please, please, please don't just post up the picture of the flow chart about "are you weighing your food" and tell me CICO, I know that. I'm happy with my weight loss progress, I'm not looking for advice. I just know that messing up your metabolism is hard to do, but I didn't realize it could last for so long and was wondering what people who really are into the crunchy science part of this in this community have to say about it. I have no dog in this fight and am not defending one side of research or the other, just looking at all sides.
There really are about 6 other threads on this topic by now. You might want to check out the others.
I don't understand why some people see this as contrary to CICO. NONE of those calculators, including MFP, are supposed to be anything but estimates. If you aren't getting the results you want because of higher or lower TDEE than the stats would suggest, you adjust.
In a couple of the other threads I posted a link to a blog about a study (it had a link to the study) showing a huge variation in how different ways of dieting affected metabolism. A VLCD had the worst effect among those in the study, whereas a moderate deficit (cutting 12.5% of calories from sedentary TDEE and then doubling the deficit through exercise) had almost no negative effect initially and then after time ended up increasing TDEE. I don't have the link now, but maybe you can find the other threads. Anyway, my own personal experience is that I seem to have about the metabolism one would expect for someone of my size, despite losing 95 lbs, although it is hard to know for sure since I am quite active. In any case, my TDEE is fine. So I wouldn't extrapolate from the results of BL, which is SO extreme in the methods.
How long have you been in maintenance? I don't think the below is your lost link. I can't remember which of these many threads it was on. But it says:
http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2016/04/14/Study-suggests-method-to-maintain-stable-weight-loss/3191460643328/
"This study shows that if an overweight person is able to maintain an initial weight loss -- in this case for a year -- the body will eventually 'accept' this new weight and thus not fight against it, as is otherwise normally the case when you are in a calorie-deficit state," Torekov said."
No, it was to heybales' blog. A discussion of a study with 3 different groups -- one VLCD, one 25% deficit, food only, and one 12.5% deficit food/12.5% deficit exercise. The latter group did especially well.
I like the one you are talking about too.
I've been in maintenance for about a year, although I keep meaning to try to lose more (I'm at 125, my goal is 118). I never really noticed a drop in TDEE/BMR, although it's hard to say given how hard it is to quantify activity. I feel like I can eat plenty of food at maintenance and am not hungry doing so.
I did have an RMR test late in my weight loss--I was about 140--and it was a bit below average for my stats, but not meaningfully so, and not outside the range of what a calculator would give you.0 -
RosieRose7673 wrote: »I'm getting quite confused. This keeps appearing on the message board lately. But isn't this old news? I swear this has been circulating for a while.
Or maybe it was a different article that I read about the biggest loser contestants gaining weight. I can't remember.
Yeah, I think they review the data and do more analyses every few years. There was something in 2013 and 2009 that I saw when I searched based on the same recollection.0 -
If you weigh yourself weekly or biweekly in maintenance, and adjust your caloric intake if you see the level you're at is resulting in a slow weight gain, I would think that would be enough to catch any problems whether or not they're metabolic.
The second paragraph in the linked article states:But once the lights, cameras, nutritionists and trainers go away, the contestants must find a way to keep the pounds off.
It's pretty clear the contest "winners" didn't have a plan for how they were going to maintain their changes for the rest of their lives. My maintenance plan is this (I have 10-15 lbs to go yet):
1. gradually ramp up my caloric intake
2. continue to monitor my weight as I do so
3. stop increasing calories when I reach an equilibrium
4. if I gain five pounds, reduce my calories until the pounds are gone1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions