Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
NYTimes reports that 'Biggest Losers' have decreased metabolism
Replies
-
Open Letter to the Producers Following The Biggest Loser Study
http://www.strongcoffey.com/open-letter-biggest-loser-study/0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »Open Letter to the Producers Following The Biggest Loser Study
http://www.strongcoffey.com/open-letter-biggest-loser-study/
I see nothing in that letter about people taking ownership over their own lives. I don't like the show at all because it does focus so much on rapid and unsustainable weight loss, but that letter seemed to run to the opposite corner of "it's all your fault."0 -
If some rich people ruined my metabolism, I'd sue!0
-
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Wetcoaster wrote: »Open Letter to the Producers Following The Biggest Loser Study
http://www.strongcoffey.com/open-letter-biggest-loser-study/
I see nothing in that letter about people taking ownership over their own lives. I don't like the show at all because it does focus so much on rapid and unsustainable weight loss, but that letter seemed to run to the opposite corner of "it's all your fault."
Agreed.0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »Open Letter to the Producers Following The Biggest Loser Study
http://www.strongcoffey.com/open-letter-biggest-loser-study/
That seemed to be really loud but without saying anything?
"it's all your fault, this proves that it's not just CICO, blah blah blah, teach them that it's NOT just a calorie deficit but that every day......you should strive to be in a calorie deficit."1 -
What frustrates me about these sort of studies is that they always seem to use extremely fast weight loss. For example the winner's goal while in the at home segment was to lose 1 pound a day, that's right, a 3500 calorie deficit each and every day. That is crazy even for someone with as much weight as he had to lose. All the studies mentioned here tell us is that if a person loses their weight through an extreme deficit it will cause long term negative effects on metabolism. The exceptions to this are apparently gastric bypass patients. However, extrapolating this to people losing in a radically different way using a moderate deficit does not follow. It may be true for them (that the the general user here on MFP), but this study will not tell you that. Nor will the others cited in the article.2
-
rileysowner wrote: »What frustrates me about these sort of studies is that they always seem to use extremely fast weight loss. For example the winner's goal while in the at home segment was to lose 1 pound a day, that's right, a 3500 calorie deficit each and every day. That is crazy even for someone with as much weight as he had to lose. All the studies mentioned here tell us is that if a person loses their weight through an extreme deficit it will cause long term negative effects on metabolism. The exceptions to this are apparently gastric bypass patients. However, extrapolating this to people losing in a radically different way using a moderate deficit does not follow. It may be true for them (that the the general user here on MFP), but this study will not tell you that. Nor will the others cited in the article.
Actually, the body of research covers a lot of different conditions - you'll find some summaries here: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss
0 -
I'd hire a lawyer and use this science to say by the BL tactics Obesity is no longer my fault, its BL's fault. What else?
I'm not serious... lol
0 -
It was interesting to me that weight loss surgery seemed to be seen as the one option that didn't mean a forever low rmr.
But maybe 6 years isn't enough time for the body to heal from the BL experience and given time the rmr returns to normal?0 -
0
-
0
-
Excellent points. I have always looked at this as a lifestyle change and not a diet. To me a diet is a temporary action. It only makes sense that once the supervision and hard core exercise stop the pounds come back. These people should have developed the tools and discipline to maintain. The other side of it is that its not easy, I am currently trying to lose the twenty pounds I put on when I slacked up on my running.
It is possible that running has set-pointed your metabolic rate ( as your body is adapitve )
and then stopping .. You have to cope with that metabolic set point - you are different than the average person's rmr.
0 -
maggieeric1 wrote: »Excellent points. I have always looked at this as a lifestyle change and not a diet. To me a diet is a temporary action. It only makes sense that once the supervision and hard core exercise stop the pounds come back. These people should have developed the tools and discipline to maintain. The other side of it is that its not easy, I am currently trying to lose the twenty pounds I put on when I slacked up on my running.
It is possible that running has set-pointed your metabolic rate ( as your body is adapitve )
and then stopping .. You have to cope with that metabolic set point - you are different than the average person's rmr.
I think thats what happened with the BL's too, according to the published research.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Given that these individuals showed 1900 ± 460 RMR it actually might mean that those individuals 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!!)
Bloody hell.
I wouldn't want those odds...
That's the 'reality' of it
However. There must be a way to reset the metabolic point. We know it is and isn't cico.
It is hunger and cravings and energy and recovery and rest and sore muscles... Hormones a whole cocktail of hormones. So there must be somebody doing research on tweaking those satiation hormones... And using the body's natural responses to exercise and rest and food to reset a damaged metabolism. I'd seek out those people.0 -
I was a beta tester for "metabolic aftershock". It is a diet and workout program. Very sensible and smart. Very good for the out of shape person. I think the makers of the program, which is now out of beta, are onto something because they have studied the cocktail of hormones that the body makes in response to workouts of different types and rest and food.0
-
I'm thinking it takes longer than 6 years. Probably 6 years of resting and eating unrestrictedly to undo the damage of doing the BL Show maybe?0
-
In the study I posted: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales?month=201401
People who cut calories 25%, half by calorie cutting, half by exercise were better off after the weight loss. So I think doing a sensible thing focusing on muscle maintenance can make a difference.
My own experience is I've lost about 95 lbs, and on a RMR test at 140 was told my RMR was about 4% less than expected, so no big thing - about 1350 vs. 1415 or some such.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Soon after starting here I happened upon this blog of heybales' that discusses a study on the effect of a calorie deficit on TDEE. You can link to the study through the blog, and I think the blog is worth reading too, so am linking it: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales?month=201401
The results of this study are that size of deficit makes a difference, and that a deficit of 25% when made up half of exercise and half of calorie cutting (so only cutting 12.5% from original calories and then ramping up exercise/activity) actually resulted in an increased TDEE, whereas the low calorie approach reduced TDEE the most.
Therefore, I would not extrapolate from the BL study to the general dieting population.
Also, Yoni Freedhoff has been writing about this for a while: http://www.weightymatters.ca/2012/04/biggest-loser-destroys-participants.html
Thank you for these links. Good, clear and concise information.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
In green, my calculations for RMR based on Katch-McArdle Formula (x 1.25 activity level for RMR from BMR).
why 25% more for resting metabolic rate than basal metabolic rate ? https://www.acefitness.org/blog/616/bmr-versus-rmr is in line with my understanding that the two are close. There is no "activity" in RMR
Have you run the numbers with other predictions eg the MFP calculator ?
If I use the K-M formula as-is then the current RMR is but 1% higher than predicted, the post-BL value was 13% above and the baseline 23% above. I suspect one should use individual values for accuracy, given how individual subjects varied in their responses.
I also note the measured 6y TDEE is 3,429 ± 581 which is hardly a "destroyed metabolism". Fasting insulin is up by a factor of three and BG by 50%. Diabetes en route.0 -
I wonder how many here on mfp could actually really compare themselves to any of the BL people anyway.
Who here has cut calories that much and done insane amounts of hours of ex ersize and lost that many pounds in that short of a time.
So really, how is this research applying to the average weight loss person? not too much4 -
I wonder how many here on mfp could actually really compare themselves to any of the BL people anyway.
Who here has cut calories that much and done insane amounts of hours of ex ersize and lost that many pounds in that short of a time.
So really, how is this research applying to the average weight loss person? not too much
agreed, eating ~1300 calories and running a TDEE over 3000 is a minority interest sport.2 -
LOL!0
-
maggieeric1 wrote: »Excellent points. I have always looked at this as a lifestyle change and not a diet. To me a diet is a temporary action. It only makes sense that once the supervision and hard core exercise stop the pounds come back. These people should have developed the tools and discipline to maintain. The other side of it is that its not easy, I am currently trying to lose the twenty pounds I put on when I slacked up on my running.
It is possible that running has set-pointed your metabolic rate ( as your body is adapitve )
and then stopping .. You have to cope with that metabolic set point - you are different than the average person's rmr.
Maybe I'm reading @rsclause post incorrectly, but it looks to me like they're saying they slacked off on running but did not also cut back enough on eating, which is why he/she gained twenty pounds. Not that metabolic rate had anything to do with it.
That's pretty common. You get used to eating more, it can be difficult to reign yourself back in.
2 -
Paradoxically, I think the value in this study comes from how unusual TBL contestants are. You would NEVER get ethical approval to carry out this study by recruiting volunteers to be bullied, humiliated, starved and injured in the pursuit of dramatic and unhealthy weight loss. But somehow it's OK for a TV show... If it were done for research, the drop out rate would be about 100% instead of 2 out of 16 (the number of contestants who did not take part in the study).
There were a few things that stood out to me:
1. The degree of metabolic adaptation was extraordinary. To have a group who weigh an average of about 130kg maintaining that weight with an RMR of about 1900 cal- wow. And the fact that this was not significantly different to their post-competition RMR despite their average weight at that point being about 90kg.
2. "The relatively greater success at maintaining lost weight in “The Biggest Loser” participants"- generally diets fail. 57% of these guys kept at least 10% off and this is much more than the 20% success in most published research. The best indicator of maintenance success is the initial rate of weight loss. I do find the fact that all these horrible numbers is "success" depressing.
3. The guy who had a roux-en-y had his metabolism "fixed"! One data point, sure, but combined with the comparison to similar data sets on bariatric surgery which show minimal metabolic adaptation I found that hopeful for the success of bariatrics. I'm guessing my viewpoint may not be well received on a dieting site but I do support the use of weight loss surgery for certain populations.
4. The leptin levels- almost zero at the end of competition (I can imagine how hungry they were), but also only about half at the end of the study. So if you've been on TBL or have similarly crash dieted, you're almost sentenced to a life of constant hunger or to being very heavy. Also depressing.
TLDR; don't go on The Biggest Loser.
PS: I really like watching Extreme Weight Loss with Chris and Heidi Powell. I stand by saying that it's better than TBL in terms of attitudes etc- but I worry that metabolically the effects are the same. It's always been a "guilty pleasure" but maybe even more so now. There's just something captivating about watching people shrink even though doing in in an "extreme" way might be a really bad idea.0 -
This website has some contestants who have maintained their weight loss (roughly). I used to watch it, and I will readily admit that it set up a certain mental expectation to lose weight quickly. Thankfully, I am choosing to do it the right way. Slowly. And a way I can sustain after the loss. I cannot imagine how these individuals (or those who get bypass surgery) do when faced with normal life afterwards. Nothing is done to correct mental/emotional issues that led to it. Nor does it seem like they are taught coping mechanisms that do not involve food.
How could anyone sustain that type of loss? You can't! I am 362 pounds. I have lost almost 20 so far. My daily intake with a 2 pound loss per week is 1900. Who in their right mind would shoot for a 3500 deficit a day?0 -
I read this article and was about to post it on the MFP community but I am glad someone else already did. I had similar reaction as other comments, I was both fascinated to have this insight and depressed.
I am surprised that an extreme weight loss challenge such as the Biggest Loser is being used as a credible study. I am no fitness or nutrition expert, but I do know that every body is different and losing weight is a lifestyle change that sometimes takes time. The contestants on the show lose a huge amount of weight so rapidly, that even without knowing details of their grueling and unsustainable regimen I'd say it was unhealthy and going to mess with their body's normal functioning.
This is my first time using MFP. I have now been using it for four months upon recommendation by my personal trainer. My goals are to workout more consistently now and into the future, build muscle and loose weight (12-15 lbs) and keep the weight off. I have lost 9 lbs so far and it has taken a lot of work, but one that I have enjoyed. I started going to the gym consistently since May last year and this is the first time in my life that I have stuck to my fitness routine for a whole year and that is a big change for me.
In the past I have lost weight twice after having my children with Weight Watchers, the last time was about 5-6 yrs ago. I believe MFP is a lot more nuanced and allows you details on your nutrition beyond just calories. But with both I never ate my exercise calories yet I do feel that I am losing weight much more slowly now. I am not concerned about the present but what I would be interested in is a study that offers specifics on how a woman's metabolism changes with age and what can be done to compensate to maintain your weight as long as your lifestyle and eating habits remain the same.
Sorry for the off topic folks....
@pjoh127 you may find this interesting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8361073/
Cheers, h.
Not sure of your age but this may interest you also.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2760315/1 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
In green, my calculations for RMR based on Katch-McArdle Formula (x 1.25 activity level for RMR from BMR).
why 25% more for resting metabolic rate than basal metabolic rate ? https://www.acefitness.org/blog/616/bmr-versus-rmr is in line with my understanding that the two are close. There is no "activity" in RMR
Have you run the numbers with other predictions eg the MFP calculator ?
If I use the K-M formula as-is then the current RMR is but 1% higher than predicted, the post-BL value was 13% above and the baseline 23% above. I suspect one should use individual values for accuracy, given how individual subjects varied in their responses.
I also note the measured 6y TDEE is 3,429 ± 581 which is hardly a "destroyed metabolism". Fasting insulin is up by a factor of three and BG by 50%. Diabetes en route.
I while ago I went back to look at the Katch-McArdle "research" on that equation and found, rather surprising that it is only from their book and not peer reviewed research. Their mix of BMR and RMR in the book corresponds to sedentary, despite what ACE says.
I did a comparison of the equations on a data set back then - it's clear that to get matching numbers you need a multiplier on their equation.
Given that the equation is a simple multiplier sum equation the average of the median will be the same as the average of the individual values. I didn't report variance.
I have not run the numbers with other predictors. Not sure it is possible without the full data set. Edit: It is something the authors did with Mifflin St Jeer equation and found no statistical difference with pre-loss data.1 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
I did a comparison of the equations on a data set back then - it's clear that to get matching numbers you need a multiplier on their equation.
your saying Katch McArdle needs a multiplier to get to RMR ? If you use an overweight dataset I can see that happening, but otherwise not.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions