Failed Weightlosses Damage your Body?

10lbs, I doubt it. 50lbs or more, probably.

PAV8888 wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure Nony.

There is some data that suggests that it would. Possibly from non fully recovered adaptations but much more so from unfavorable recomposition.

However you should probably (re)evaluate what this means.

There May be a potential cost to buying a ticket.

But buying one is the only way to enter the maintenance dance.

Haha, that was a bit of a drive by, wasn't it @PAV8888? I was basing it on it only apparently being 10lbs of ups and downs. With larger losses over a sustained time period, regaining, losing again, then yeah, especially if not strength training. But as you know, I've done some *puppy* awful things to my body over the years, including a few bouts very rapid losses of up to twice that amount (which absolutely not recommending, ED, god knows what other damage I did), but either I had one hell of a metabolism before that, or it hasn't had any long term impact on my ability to lose weight.

I thought that last post in that thread kind of summarize things pretty well there Ann

Mycophilia wrote: »

Menno Henselmans did a study looking at Metabolic damage, I think he sums it up pretty nicely.

TL;DR it isn't a thing (shocker)

Not TL; D(id)R. My take:

Menno seems to be talking about "metabolic damage" as a permanent RMR change in cases where body composition has been restored. Apparently that's the metabolic research definition of the term.

We're talking here about long term (not necessarily permanent) decline in TDEE/NEAT via gradual body composition degradation (more body fat vs. muscle at any given weight) induced by many iterations of yo-yo dieting without sufficient exercise interventions.

Two materially different things.

PAV8888 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Not TL; D(id)R. My take:

Menno seems to be talking about "metabolic damage" as a permanent RMR change in cases where body composition has been restored. Apparently that's the metabolic research definition of the term.

We're talking here about long term (not necessarily permanent) decline in TDEE/NEAT via gradual body composition degradation (more body fat vs. muscle at any given weight) induced by many iterations of yo-yo dieting without sufficient exercise interventions.

Two materially different things.

Adaptive thermogenecis is usually fully reversed in the case of the classic regain to previous weight + a few lbs. Several theories exist as to why previous weight + a few lbs. (and there is no implication by me that AT is the only (or even the main) driver of weight regain)

One interesting one I saw a while back (sorry, no reference and not sure if it was a study) is that weight regain continues till at least previous weight AND previous lean mass is restored.

But unless appropriate exercise measures are being taken during the regain, lean mass is restored after fat mass has been restored.

So at previous max weight lean mass is less than before and regain continues till both conditions are met.

Not sure why it is so hard to believe that AT may exist at varying degrees for people both while they lose weight and after, and that it can ALSO be managed OR over-come or a combination of both. Just a few too many studies measuring adaptation beyond that expected by weight loss and lean mass lost, and more so under some conditions as compared to others.

To the bolded: especially since a lot of what we think we know about AT comes from studies done on people who were dieted down on VLCD's (usually 800 calorie a day liquid diets) without exercise.

AFAIK, the effects of AT on dieters who have done more to retain lean mass are largely down to decreases in NEAT due to having low energy from chronic caloric restriction, I'd assume. At least that's what I remember Lyle McDonald saying.

Presumably, those with preserved lean mass (ensured through exercise and adequate protein intake while dieting) could most assuredly remedy any NEAT decreases encountered by ongoing deficit eating by... no longer eating at deficit, which they'd presumably be doing once entering maintenance.

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

PAV8888 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Not TL; D(id)R. My take:

Menno seems to be talking about "metabolic damage" as a permanent RMR change in cases where body composition has been restored. Apparently that's the metabolic research definition of the term.

We're talking here about long term (not necessarily permanent) decline in TDEE/NEAT via gradual body composition degradation (more body fat vs. muscle at any given weight) induced by many iterations of yo-yo dieting without sufficient exercise interventions.

Two materially different things.

Adaptive thermogenecis is usually fully reversed in the case of the classic regain to previous weight + a few lbs. Several theories exist as to why previous weight + a few lbs. (and there is no implication by me that AT is the only (or even the main) driver of weight regain)

One interesting one I saw a while back (sorry, no reference and not sure if it was a study) is that weight regain continues till at least previous weight AND previous lean mass is restored.

But unless appropriate exercise measures are being taken during the regain, lean mass is restored after fat mass has been restored.

So at previous max weight lean mass is less than before and regain continues till both conditions are met.

Not sure why it is so hard to believe that AT may exist at varying degrees for people both while they lose weight and after, and that it can ALSO be managed OR over-come or a combination of both. Just a few too many studies measuring adaptation beyond that expected by weight loss and lean mass lost, and more so under some conditions as compared to others.

To the bolded: especially since a lot of what we think we know about AT comes from studies done on people who were dieted down on VLCD's (usually 800 calorie a day liquid diets) without exercise.

AFAIK, the effects of AT on dieters who have done more to retain lean mass are largely down to decreases in NEAT due to having low energy from chronic caloric restriction, I'd assume. At least that's what I remember Lyle McDonald saying.

Presumably, those with preserved lean mass (ensured through exercise and adequate protein intake while dieting) could most assuredly remedy any NEAT decreases encountered by ongoing deficit eating by... no longer eating at deficit, which they'd presumably be doing once entering maintenance.

That seems logical to me (both of the last 2 posts quoted).

Anecdotally (here in MFP & elsewhere) there are enough stories of people improving NEAT over time, and I've read various bits of research about avoiding or recovering from AT, too.

I still believe, though, that some people (many of them women) achieve a gradual down-spiral in NEAT by some combination of (1) yo-yo dieting (often extreme, if only briefly) resulting in progressive LBM loss (noting that muscle is slower to regain as we age, too, even if we're trying), and (2) subtle reduction in daily activity due to calorie restriction abetted by muscle loss creating disinclination to do certain things (plus said changes becoming habitual even after deficit ends).

I absolutely believe that effect would be reversible, but it might require intentional action beyond regain from ad libitum eating.

As an aside - and this is wild theorizing unsupported by science - I suspect there have been cultural pressures, in at least some social groups, that encourage AT among women in particular: Social bonding over whacky fad VLCDs, "don't lift weights or you'll get bulky", "here, let me lift that heavy thing for you, little lady", what I perceive as odd protein-avoidance by women (as if salads and carbs were somehow more refined or dainty? - I know more women vs. men undereating protein needs substantially), etc. (Not a conspiracy, not universal, not irresistible . . . but ideas that are out here in the wild and have some influence.)

As another aside, also not supported scientifically, it seems to me that evolution has designed our bodies to get good at what we repeatedly do, from a survival perspective.

If we sustain calorie deficits long-term, our daily activity down regulates. If we exercise very intensely, the same can happen in compensation. If we move more (without over doing) and eat more and do that persistently, daily activity can increase for a higher NEAT. There's at least some research evidence for those things.

What does the body learn, how does it adapt, if we repeatedly "starve" (VLCD) and regain: Does it make adaptations over the long haul that make it more fit for cyclical "famine"? AT is in there, but is there anything else (or just unique aspects of AT, maybe) that comes into play?

Edited:typo

PAV8888 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

I absolutely believe that effect would be reversible, but it might require intentional action beyond regain from ad libitum eating.

Either/or/or both in combination.

I think that it is fairly safe to assume that by the time you have full regain with previous lean mass restoration and additional fat over and beyond the original amount as a result of ad libitum eating (which is where we tend to end up when we stop exerting oversight--excluding the mythical case of previously obese people who lack the default inclination to over-eat relative to their activity level) any AT slow down will be remediated.

Admittedly, not quite the way most of us would like it to be. And as mentioned I don't know if AT would be the primary driver for that regain. I would think that behavioural, psychological and social issues have even more of a play in weight regain situations.

Now in order to remediate AT in a way we would WANT it to be remediated, then intentional action might be the answer. Maybe along the lines of an intentional bulk with progressive training to build up relative lean mass. Or maybe even along the lines of:

AnnPT77 wrote: »

If we sustain calorie deficits long-term, our daily activity down regulates. If we exercise very intensely, the same can happen in compensation. If we move more (without over doing) and eat more and do that persistently, daily activity can increase for a higher NEAT.

However a lot of these conjectures requires long term research. And long term research where variables are controlled and the results are not based on questionnaires and participant recall seems to be very difficult to conduct.

I am sure that at some point in the [possibly near] future resources such as MFP or Fitbit/ Jawbone/ Garmin/ Polar/ Apple/ Google/ Microsoft will get data mined to test some of these hypotheses... maybe And the accuracy question will still be up for grabs based on the way many (dare I even say most) people log!

PAV, if it were simple loss & regain past the previous high weight to restored LBM that may well be so. In the wild (so to speak), I'm not convinced that's how it plays out. I'm not basing that on research, but on watching friends do silly things.

Weight gain in real life isn't always to/past the previous high weight among serial yo-yo-ers. Weight loss includes shocking nutrition via fad diets or insane myths (no fats! no fats!). Aging limits muscle growth rates. Protein is often seriously under-consumed even in calorie surplus. No exercise - decreasing exercise and activity, it seems like, with each loss (no energy) regain (too tiring/discouraging). Appearance often gets cumulatively - I dunno - less robust? dumpier? flabbier?, and that tends by the person to be attributed to age. Effects of the drugs that get added into the mix for blood pressure, blood sugar, osteopenia and what not, at the extreme. So, I think there's a really slow, gradual down-spiral that's not too uncommon.

Reversible, though . . . if the person believes it is possible, finds a path. Which is not all that common.

Hence what I said about intentional action - it's the context of not only biological aspects, but psychological components, mistaken beliefs, culture, etc.