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.
Metabolism "healing" or going back to "normal"
Replies
-
Hand up, I did ultimate diet for a few weeks.
I think my brain snapped and I've never been the same since. Haha!0 -
Guys....I obviously never posted about it because it would be blasphemous on this site, but I'm kind of glad you all spoke up and said you tried it or a version of it.3
-
^^ same here! It's kind of a no-go subject on MFP.0
-
Interestingly enough, Lyle's PSMF protocol is rarely discussed on this forum (I have seen it only discussed one time). And generally, the people who do follow it, are already extremely knowledgeable in diet and nutrition.0
-
trigden1991 wrote: »I have done an 11 day Cat 1 run of RFL. It was by no means fun but I did make more progress in those 11 days than I could have done in 6-8 weeks on a slight deficit.
Kudos to you man for not snapping back from that by binging. I wasn't strong enough.
I couldn't stop myself. I undid all the progress I made on the thing and the net result I had from my time trying RFL was a gain.
But I was stupid. I didn't really pull back on training volume or cardio.
1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »I have done an 11 day Cat 1 run of RFL. It was by no means fun but I did make more progress in those 11 days than I could have done in 6-8 weeks on a slight deficit.
Kudos to you man for not snapping back from that by binging. I wasn't strong enough.
I couldn't stop myself. I undid all the progress I made on the thing and the net result I had from my time trying RFL was a gain.
But I was stupid. I didn't really pull back on training volume or cardio.
Super hard to pull back on the volume. For me as well. My ego couldn't take it lol.0 -
Interestingly enough, Lyle's PSMF protocol is rarely discussed on this forum (I have seen it only discussed one time). And generally, the people who do follow it, are already extremely knowledgeable in diet and nutrition.
Too many beginners posting and lurking. Obviously I wouldn't go suggesting it to anyone. When I first read the book I felt like I was doing something dirty lol4 -
Interestingly enough, Lyle's PSMF protocol is rarely discussed on this forum (I have seen it only discussed one time). And generally, the people who do follow it, are already extremely knowledgeable in diet and nutrition.
PSMF is a brutal way to lose weight, being both essentially keto and VLCD rolled into one package. It's definitely not the first on anyone's list of choices to lose weight overall, and Lyle pretty much admits there's very few specific use cases for it.
Those who've used it almost universally say that it gets results and it's brutally hard.2 -
CipherZero wrote: »Interestingly enough, Lyle's PSMF protocol is rarely discussed on this forum (I have seen it only discussed one time). And generally, the people who do follow it, are already extremely knowledgeable in diet and nutrition.
PSMF is a brutal way to lose weight, being both essentially keto and VLCD rolled into one package. It's definitely not the first on anyone's list of choices to lose weight overall, and Lyle pretty much admits there's very few specific use cases for it.
Those who've used it almost universally say that it gets results and it's brutally hard.
Oh most definitely.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I'm pretty sure science says your metabolism doesn't change when you are dieting. You become smaller so you require fewer calories but the only way that goes "back to normal" is if you put the weight back on.
It depends, but adaptive thermogenesis seems to persist for life but isn't a huge drop. It's about 5-8% of BRM IIRC. Studies that I have read indicate that those who have lost weight, even 2 years prior, have a slightly slower metabolism than those who have never dieted, but the difference isn't drastic and you just have to adjust your exercise and eating habits to accommodate this. I have heard that the Biggest Loser contestants have been studied and the metabolic rates are indeed slower even after several years.
It probably sounds more depressing than it really is TBH.1 -
CipherZero wrote: »Interestingly enough, Lyle's PSMF protocol is rarely discussed on this forum (I have seen it only discussed one time). And generally, the people who do follow it, are already extremely knowledgeable in diet and nutrition.
PSMF is a brutal way to lose weight, being both essentially keto and VLCD rolled into one package. It's definitely not the first on anyone's list of choices to lose weight overall, and Lyle pretty much admits there's very few specific use cases for it.
Those who've used it almost universally say that it gets results and it's brutally hard.
Oh most definitely.
I've found it to be acceptably unpleasant. Then again, due to my habit of hedging my bets against lean mass loss, I ran a protein intake about a quarter of a gram per pound higher than Lyle's recommendation, which put me around 1000 kcals total. Assuming that I decide to use it for any further hellcuts, I'll likely follow the recommendations more strictly.1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I'm pretty sure science says your metabolism doesn't change when you are dieting. You become smaller so you require fewer calories but the only way that goes "back to normal" is if you put the weight back on.
It depends, but adaptive thermogenesis seems to persist for life but isn't a huge drop. It's about 5-8% of BRM IIRC. Studies that I have read indicate that those who have lost weight, even 2 years prior, have a slightly slower metabolism than those who have never dieted, but the difference isn't drastic and you just have to adjust your exercise and eating habits to accommodate this. I have heard that the Biggest Loser contestants have been studied and the metabolic rates are indeed slower even after several years.
It probably sounds more depressing than it really is TBH.
Honestly, it's not a hardship. I've been at this long enough that I'm in the territory where I'm experiencing it.
I got a Fitbit with move reminders to up my NEAT and have to maybe eat 100 calories less than expected from my TDEE.
It's not a big deal.3 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I'm pretty sure science says your metabolism doesn't change when you are dieting. You become smaller so you require fewer calories but the only way that goes "back to normal" is if you put the weight back on.
It depends, but adaptive thermogenesis seems to persist for life but isn't a huge drop. It's about 5-8% of BRM IIRC. Studies that I have read indicate that those who have lost weight, even 2 years prior, have a slightly slower metabolism than those who have never dieted, but the difference isn't drastic and you just have to adjust your exercise and eating habits to accommodate this. I have heard that the Biggest Loser contestants have been studied and the metabolic rates are indeed slower even after several years.
It probably sounds more depressing than it really is TBH.
I suspect that has to do when many people diet, they don't monitor protein or do resistance training and tend to end up with poorer body composition compared to those who have never dieted.3 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
hellcutsCipherZero wrote: »Interestingly enough, Lyle's PSMF protocol is rarely discussed on this forum (I have seen it only discussed one time). And generally, the people who do follow it, are already extremely knowledgeable in diet and nutrition.
PSMF is a brutal way to lose weight, being both essentially keto and VLCD rolled into one package. It's definitely not the first on anyone's list of choices to lose weight overall, and Lyle pretty much admits there's very few specific use cases for it.
Those who've used it almost universally say that it gets results and it's brutally hard.
Oh most definitely.
Brilliant.
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I'm pretty sure science says your metabolism doesn't change when you are dieting. You become smaller so you require fewer calories but the only way that goes "back to normal" is if you put the weight back on.
It depends, but adaptive thermogenesis seems to persist for life but isn't a huge drop. It's about 5-8% of BRM IIRC. Studies that I have read indicate that those who have lost weight, even 2 years prior, have a slightly slower metabolism than those who have never dieted, but the difference isn't drastic and you just have to adjust your exercise and eating habits to accommodate this. I have heard that the Biggest Loser contestants have been studied and the metabolic rates are indeed slower even after several years.
It probably sounds more depressing than it really is TBH.
I suspect that has to do when many people diet, they don't monitor protein or do resistance training and tend to end up with poorer body composition compared to those who have never dieted.
This was my thought too, that body composition worsens but some studies did seem to take that into consideration and still found a slight drop from expected metabolism. However, all of these studies are post hoc and I would like to see a well controlled study of that compares pre and post diet metabolic rates. I have a suspicion that many people that do diet already have a slightly depressed metabolism compared to those who have never dieted. It's certainly worth investigating.
If I have time, and can find it again, I will post a link to a paper I saw that goes over all the changes that occur as part of adaptive thermogenesis. There is a table that shows the effects of the weight loss and the expected time to return to baseline values for those changes. I believe that T3 and T4 are permanently altered while changes to mitochondrial efficiencies are transient but that's going by memory.
3 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I'm pretty sure science says your metabolism doesn't change when you are dieting. You become smaller so you require fewer calories but the only way that goes "back to normal" is if you put the weight back on.
It depends, but adaptive thermogenesis seems to persist for life but isn't a huge drop. It's about 5-8% of BRM IIRC. Studies that I have read indicate that those who have lost weight, even 2 years prior, have a slightly slower metabolism than those who have never dieted, but the difference isn't drastic and you just have to adjust your exercise and eating habits to accommodate this. I have heard that the Biggest Loser contestants have been studied and the metabolic rates are indeed slower even after several years.
It probably sounds more depressing than it really is TBH.
I suspect that has to do when many people diet, they don't monitor protein or do resistance training and tend to end up with poorer body composition compared to those who have never dieted.
This was my thought too, that body composition worsens but some studies did seem to take that into consideration and still found a slight drop from expected metabolism. However, all of these studies are post hoc and I would like to see a well controlled study of that compares pre and post diet metabolic rates. I have a suspicion that many people that do diet already have a slightly depressed metabolism compared to those who have never dieted. It's certainly worth investigating.
If I have time, and can find it again, I will post a link to a paper I saw that goes over all the changes that occur as part of adaptive thermogenesis. There is a table that shows the effects of the weight loss and the expected time to return to baseline values for those changes. I believe that T3 and T4 are permanently altered while changes to mitochondrial efficiencies are transient but that's going by memory.
I can assure you that I've dieted with sufficient protein intake and have done resistance training the whole time.
I'm still having issues getting my body fat (and weight) lower now that I've been eating at deficit for two years.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I'm pretty sure science says your metabolism doesn't change when you are dieting. You become smaller so you require fewer calories but the only way that goes "back to normal" is if you put the weight back on.
While the Laws of Thermodynamics don't change, the Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis, NEAT, can and does change in response to our prolonged maintenance of a calorie deficit or a calorie surplus. Lest any think that this gives them carte blanche to go 30% under or over maintenance for free, it doesn't. NEAT can change by maybe as much as 10%. The 10-14 days for NEAT to revert to normal is simply all that the science understands of NEAT at this time. It's still early days in the scientifically rigorous understanding of NEAT variability.
The anecdotal evidence you see of this on this site is the many people who claim that taking a 1-week or 2-week break from their cutting, to eat at maintenance, before resuming the cut allows them to reduce weight successfully. They were allowing their NEAT to revert to normal, allowing their subsequent cut to be successful at reducing fat.
2 -
If you all want more information regarding adaptive thermogensis, I would consider reading: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1
1 -
There was/is a group for PSMF or RFL on MFP : http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/4882-rfl-psmf
But it appears to be dead. If anyone is seriously considering a round in the near future maybe we could create a new group? I'm not currently on RFL but may run another round before the end of the year.0 -
StealthHealth wrote: »There was/is a group for PSMF or RFL on MFP : http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/4882-rfl-psmf
But it appears to be dead. If anyone is seriously considering a round in the near future maybe we could create a new group? I'm not currently on RFL but may run another round before the end of the year.
I am currently on a 4-6 week maintenance/bulk but I will be doing a full Cat 1 RFL run before moving to a more moderate deficit. Would be good to have a place to log progress etc without being scrutinized by people who have no understanding of Lyle's brilliance.1 -
trigden1991 wrote: »StealthHealth wrote: »There was/is a group for PSMF or RFL on MFP : http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/4882-rfl-psmf
But it appears to be dead. If anyone is seriously considering a round in the near future maybe we could create a new group? I'm not currently on RFL but may run another round before the end of the year.
I am currently on a 4-6 week maintenance/bulk but I will be doing a full Cat 1 RFL run before moving to a more moderate deficit. Would be good to have a place to log progress etc without being scrutinized by people who have no understanding of Lyle's brilliance.
I concur. I'm actually finally to the point where I'm disgusted with the results of my current "fulk", so I'll be going for a two week round starting Saturday. I may then do a single refeed followed by another round, dependant entirely upon results of the first.0 -
It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.0
-
I've created a group http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/116620-bodyrecomposition-support-forum if you're interested msg me and I'll get you in.1
-
Parkersspace wrote: »They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
The study was in 1959, and the people in the study were "given a diet" and sent on their way. There's never been a follow-up to show that 95% number is even close to true.
[edit]
A bit of searching showed a study where 20% reported keeping 20lbs+ off; the main factors is success were:- engaging in high levels of physical activity
- eating a diet that is low in calories and fat
- eating breakfast
- self-monitoring weight on a regular basis
- maintaining a consistent eating pattern
- catching “slips” before they turn into larger regains
So, pretty much what using MFP does for people.
One further factor mentioned was escaping "toxic environments" where overeating is encouraged - much like an addict needing to leave his addict 'friends' behind.6 -
Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
And biggest loser candidates, who are forced to do bootcamp-like exercise 7 days a week while nowhere near the physical shape to do that kind of stuff healthily while barely fuelling their bodies the bare minimum if even are a good representation of the general public?7 -
CipherZero wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
The study was in 1959, and the people in the study were "given a diet" and sent on their way. There's never been a follow-up to show that 95% number is even close to true.
[edit]
A bit of searching showed a study where 20% reported keeping 20lbs+ off; the main factors is success were:- engaging in high levels of physical activity
- eating a diet that is low in calories and fat
- eating breakfast
- self-monitoring weight on a regular basis
- maintaining a consistent eating pattern
- catching “slips” before they turn into larger regains
So, pretty much what using MFP does for people.
One further factor mentioned was escaping "toxic environments" where overeating is encouraged - much like an addict needing to leave his addict 'friends' behind.
I've actually never heard the 95% regain figure but I've heard 80-90% quite regularly but I'm not sure the quality of those studies, but certainly the regain numbers are high.0 -
Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
The lost on average 4.2lbs per week. How much of that do you think was also muscle? Muscle drives metabolic rate. When you lose a ton of muscle, by starving yourself and working out 7 hours a day, it's no wonder why they metabolism went down the crapper.6 -
Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
The lost on average 4.2lbs per week. How much of that do you think was also muscle? Muscle drives metabolic rate. When you lose a ton of muscle, by starving yourself and working out 7 hours a day, it's no wonder why they metabolism went down the crapper.
These studies usually try to account for body composition, at least the good ones but if they don't then that's certainly an issue.
ETA: Just read some of that article and it's probably the only study I've seen that did a pre and post test metabolic rate check. What strikes me as strange is that the average weight of them before is 328 pounds but their BMR average was well below what should be expected at a mere 2607. This dropped further to 2000 but their BF% and weight was lower as well. Seems they may have done long term damage to their metabolism but they also had massive caloric deficits during the show as you mention so that could be more of the issue.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
The lost on average 4.2lbs per week. How much of that do you think was also muscle? Muscle drives metabolic rate. When you lose a ton of muscle, by starving yourself and working out 7 hours a day, it's no wonder why they metabolism went down the crapper.
These studies usually try to account for body composition, at least the good ones but if they don't then that's certainly an issue.
ETA: Just read some of that article and it's probably the only study I've seen that did a pre and post test metabolic rate check. What strikes me as strange is that the average weight of them before is 328 pounds but their BMR average was well below what should be expected at a mere 2607. This dropped further to 2000 but their BF% and weight was lower as well. Seems they may have done long term damage to their metabolism but they also had massive caloric deficits during the show as you mention so that could be more of the issue.
I haven't seen the original study, but I didn't see any references to body composition.
Interesting and anecdotal, but I was working with someone who did 3 rounds of HCG (500 calories for 3 months, 1 month off, rinse and repeat) and her maintenance was fairly low... like 1400 calories with 6 hours of exercise a week @ 120lbs and 5'3". It took about a year, of lifting heavy (NROL4W) and eating around maintenance to get that up. After a year, things seemed to rebound to around 1700.
0 -
Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions