NYC Biggest Loser Study, Metabolism & Leptin

I'd take it with a grain of salt. These are people that lost weight very rapidly while eating low calorie diets and exercising for HOURS every day. That's a vastly different scenario from those losing slowly while eating a reasonable number of calories and doing reasonable amounts of exercise. I don't think you can really compare the two. Many studies have shown that rapid weight loss is not sustainable; this probably explains why. But those who lose slowly through lifestyle changes tend to be more successful, probably because the body has time to adjust to the changes in weight.

I have lost close to 40 lbs in two months using a combination of calorie counting, low carbs, and walking on an inclined treadmill 40 minutes everyday. Once I get to my target weight I will recalibrate my calories in the MyFitnessPal app and only walk the treadmill three days per week so that I can maintain that weight. Is that a good strategy?

I agree with kmbrooks15 ... You need to focus on long term life style changes to sustain weight loss.

It shouldn't be deflating for you unless you're crashing your diet and doing ridiculous amounts of exercise...if that's the case, then yeah...you're jacking your hormones up and destroying lean mass. If you're eating at a reasonable deficit and getting in some light to moderate exercise on a regular basis like a normal person then you'll be fine.

I lost 80 lbs three 1/2 yrs ago and have kept it off through extreme vigilance. You have to be determined not to put the weight back on and not slip back into your old ways of eating and non-exercise. I could only do that by staying with MFP, planning my food, and weighing myself once a week. I watched a good HBO series called "Weight of the Nation" that had some scientists saying that after losing a lot of weight, a person has to eat 20-30% fewer calories than someone weighing the same but who has always been at that weight. In other words, the body's metabolism is forever slowing down on the person who lost the weight to get you back to that original weight. No wonder the Biggest Loser contestants put the weight back on - there was no way they could lower their calorie intake by 20%, or increase their exercise because they were already doing the extreme on both.

Just in the last few months I felt my metabolism slowing even more because even with reducing calories and increasing exercise, I was seeing some lbs creep back on. Since I don't want to be deprived of all good food, 6 weeks ago I started the 5:2 Fast diet and actually reduced my exercise to more manageable levels. Two non-consecutive days a week I fast (not totally, I eat 500 healthy calories). The other 3 weekdays I eat normally (about 2000 calories) with even two days of splurging on the weekends (2500 calories or so). I have lost 5 pounds and am happy I lost the weight back to the low end of my ideal range. I was looking for something to confuse my metabolism and 5:2 did it for me. I still love food and this allows me to eat again without guilt. Being a good MFP calorie counter and adjustment to living a healthy lifestyle make 5:2 (and eventually 6:1!) a simple way for maintaining ideal weight without deprivation.

This is actually not the first study to publish these sorts of findings. Here is one from 2009: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19198647

Here's an interesting article from 2015 on Science2.0 website discussing another, earlier study on the same topic:

http://www.science20.com/deconstructing_obesity/blog/metabolic_adaptations_to_weight_loss-156281

Gamliela wrote: »

pmart611 wrote: »

I lost 80 lbs three 1/2 yrs ago and have kept it off through extreme vigilance. You have to be determined not to put the weight back on and not slip back into your old ways of eating and non-exercise. I could only do that by staying with MFP, planning my food, and weighing myself once a week. I watched a good HBO series called "Weight of the Nation" that had some scientists saying that after losing a lot of weight, a person has to eat 20-30% fewer calories than someone weighing the same but who has always been at that weight. In other words, the body's metabolism is forever slowing down on the person who lost the weight to get you back to that original weight. No wonder the Biggest Loser contestants put the weight back on - there was no way they could lower their calorie intake by 20%, or increase their exercise because they were already doing the extreme on both.

Just in the last few months I felt my metabolism slowing even more because even with reducing calories and increasing exercise, I was seeing some lbs creep back on. Since I don't want to be deprived of all good food, 6 weeks ago I started the 5:2 Fast diet and actually reduced my exercise to more manageable levels. Two non-consecutive days a week I fast (not totally, I eat 500 healthy calories). The other 3 weekdays I eat normally (about 2000 calories) with even two days of splurging on the weekends (2500 calories or so). I have lost 5 pounds and am happy I lost the weight back to the low end of my ideal range. I was looking for something to confuse my metabolism and 5:2 did it for me. I still love food and this allows me to eat again without guilt. Being a good MFP calorie counter and adjustment to living a healthy lifestyle make 5:2 (and eventually 6:1!) a simple way for maintaining ideal weight without deprivation.

Wow, have to eat 20% less to maintain than a normal person! It is depressing to think that anyone who has been obese won't ever get back to a normal metabolism. Are you sure that has been proved?

That's not true. That's rubbish. Please, don't listen to it.

The only truth I believe in that is if said person was now inactive and had lost a lot of muscle.

If you want to avoid that, it's really simple. Life weights, do calisthenics (build and maintain lean body mass aka muscle) and also exercise regularly (cardio).

The article doesn't give a clear picture. The Atlantic responds to this article with a more reasoned approach--http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/05/doomed-to-be-the-biggest-losers/482094/

After reading both of these I tracked down this article-- http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.full The full text pdf is free.

HBO's "Weight of the Nation" series explores some of these same issues and does a better job than the NYT article.

But really, I'm learning to view all of this rapid-fire "reportage" with more than a grain of salt. There is enough evidence now so that one thing is clear--NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING FOR CERTAIN. Here is something to read that illustrates this--

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/upshot/surprising-honey-study-shows-woes-of-nutrition-research.html?_r=0

Gamliela wrote: »

He he hee! That's OK for you mommarnurse, it may be simple! Yay and go you building muscle to make a major metabolism shift, at my age, not happening. My understanding is that everyone loses muscle if they ar losing weight and the way to gain muscle weight is to eat at a surplus.

Which brings me to another question. Any science on how just gaining weight adds muscle, even in those people who are going about their daily activities and don't get to the gym? I think gaining weight means gaining some muscle, even if its not as much as when lifting weights.

@Gamliela, you're not much older than I (I'm 60). Two things, FWIW.

My n=1 suggests that metabolic slowdown is not inevitable with weight loss, and that you don't need to be 27 to build muscle. After losing 60+ pounds in around 9-10 months, my maintenance calories are several hundred calories higher than TDEE calculators estimate for people our age. I don't really know why, but one possibility is the fact that I'm more muscular than average for our age. (I have not been fit my whole life; I'd say I starting working on being so in my late 40s, which for me was after (chemotherapy-induced) menopause.)

There's a bunch of research out there showing material strength/muscle gains in "the elderly" (i.e., people our age) with strength training. Enough so for metabolic advantage? That I don't know for sure.

Also: Then read this study, paying special attention to the (CR+EX) arm of the study: journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0004377 . Metabolic damage from weight loss is not inevitable, it suggests.

There are a number of studies showing that major muscle loss is also not inevitable during weight loss, if one undertakes strength training during that loss. (While large muscle gain is not likely during weight loss, muscle maintenance is reasonably achievable).

As far as whether simply gaining weight adds muscle, I haven't seen any studies . . . but it doesn't seem likely to me, beyond maybe a small increase in the muscles needed to move that extra weight around the planet, because muscle gain happens when one works the little suckers. Without work to build the muscle, weight gain is likely to be mostly fat gain, IMO. Weight training is not the only way to build muscle/strength, but it's probably the easiest/quickest. (I mostly don't weight train, but still built muscle.)