Starvation mode and the Biggest Loser participants
Replies
-
CarvedTones wrote: »
There is some good info in there, but he does some serious damage to his credibility with this sort of stuff:So combine your typical headcase female dieter (who is already mentally stressing themselves out), add a massive caloric restriction, add tons of cardio. And cortisol goes through the roof. And this is worse in some personality types. You can always tell them on Internet forums, they type in all caps with lots of !!!
Yes, he does come across and anti-female at times. Doesn't make him wrong though. And you must have seen posts like that here, yes? I sure have.0 -
psychod787 wrote: »Well I guess I am just posting from "my" experience. Honestly, maybe I got too lean. Sub 9% bf. I have been in a lean bulk for maybe 6 months, and trends are only up 2-3lbs. As of today, actually weight gain is 4.2 up from my lowest of 176.2 to 180.4. I will say, I am always hungry. I will still be as low as 178 on some AM weigh ins. Maybe other folks here who have lost 150lbs and got too lean can help me. Will it get better? Kitten, I will eat a large meal and be full for all of about an hour. I look forward to someone who may have dealt with this. If you have, please respond.
It may not get any better. I know that my wife fights this battle constantly trying to maintain. She even feels this way on a leanish bulk. Her appetite is way beyond her caloric requirements - but I also think it's party because she's a volume eater that refuses to eat things that fall into this kind of eating. She loves rich, calorie dense options and because of this her portions have to remain relatively small. I'm perfectly happy having a small portion of what I love and a large portion of something like broccoli to fill that void.
8 -
CarvedTones wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »What's the current consensus on starvation mode after it was discovered that Biggest Loser winners had drastically reduced metabolic rates? Has there been any further research?
General consensus is that reduced BMR is a real thing and depending on the scale/scope of the damage determines the time taken for recovery. Although some variation is to be expected, and some damage may take years to fully recover.
The article I read said that after 6 years there was still no improvement in the contestants reduced BMR even if they had gained back all the weight and more. It's still early to be sure, but they might be screwed for life. There probably needs to be some sort of intervention (medical?) to get it to return to the prior state, but this last part is just me guessing.
Is this the Scientific American article based on Kevin D. Hall's research? I cannot find any objective data to support this. It appears that Dr. Hall's confirmation bias has exceeded the level of research:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/
Scientific American's standards appear to have decreased immensely...and this was never great to begin with. There is no cited study and appears to be based upon the fallacy of "set point" and largely disregards the fact that behavior drives weight management.
This appears to be nothing more than a advertisement for gastric bypass.
Yes, that's the one. It says their maintenance level was actually slightly lower after 6 years than it was with the initial damage. I hadn't really noticed the way it plays up gastric bypass; I kind of skimmed through that part as it wasn't relevant to me.
I have seen another study that indicated it didn't just bounce back. I will have to poke around for it if needed. I felt sorry for the participants in that one. They overfed them to get them overweight, then underfed to lose the weight and saw the drop in metabolism. Then they were back at their original weight with lowered metabolism. Oops, sorry; have a nice day...0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »
There is some good info in there, but he does some serious damage to his credibility with this sort of stuff:So combine your typical headcase female dieter (who is already mentally stressing themselves out), add a massive caloric restriction, add tons of cardio. And cortisol goes through the roof. And this is worse in some personality types. You can always tell them on Internet forums, they type in all caps with lots of !!!
Yes, he does come across and anti-female at times. Doesn't make him wrong though. And you must have seen posts like that here, yes? I sure have.
Yes, I have seen such posts here and it also causes me to question their credibility as well. It's not just a touchy feely thing (it is that, but not just that); personal prejudice is at odds with cold logic.3 -
Here's how it was explained to me. If there is such a thing as starvation mode, there would be no starving children in Africa because their bodies would hold onto every bit of food they eat.2
-
CarvedTones wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »What's the current consensus on starvation mode after it was discovered that Biggest Loser winners had drastically reduced metabolic rates? Has there been any further research?
General consensus is that reduced BMR is a real thing and depending on the scale/scope of the damage determines the time taken for recovery. Although some variation is to be expected, and some damage may take years to fully recover.
The article I read said that after 6 years there was still no improvement in the contestants reduced BMR even if they had gained back all the weight and more. It's still early to be sure, but they might be screwed for life. There probably needs to be some sort of intervention (medical?) to get it to return to the prior state, but this last part is just me guessing.
Is this the Scientific American article based on Kevin D. Hall's research? I cannot find any objective data to support this. It appears that Dr. Hall's confirmation bias has exceeded the level of research:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/
Scientific American's standards appear to have decreased immensely...and this was never great to begin with. There is no cited study and appears to be based upon the fallacy of "set point" and largely disregards the fact that behavior drives weight management.
This appears to be nothing more than a advertisement for gastric bypass.
Yes, that's the one. It says their maintenance level was actually slightly lower after 6 years than it was with the initial damage. I hadn't really noticed the way it plays up gastric bypass; I kind of skimmed through that part as it wasn't relevant to me.
I have seen another study that indicated it didn't just bounce back. I will have to poke around for it if needed. I felt sorry for the participants in that one. They overfed them to get them overweight, then underfed to lose the weight and saw the drop in metabolism. Then they were back at their original weight with lowered metabolism. Oops, sorry; have a nice day...
I would appreciate any evidence to the contrary.
I despise the biggest loser and all related sensationalism/exploitation. It's the equivalency of cramming for a test and holding this behavior as something to be modeled. It is only possible with a massive support system e.g. boot camp. The participants are not taught the essentials for long term success and just exploited and cast aside.
BMR is quite stable and steady. If it wasn't then life wouldn't exist. Biochemical pathways don't change because you alter the incoming volume. You can force extreme situations skew result, but to what purpose? What were the results of the control group? Was there a control group? What is the degree of instrumental error?
Without these essentials any study loses all credibility.4 -
CSARdiver I am sure you are on a completely different plane of ability than I am about these studies. I hope that they do a real long term study with people like this. I will be honest, I have never actually watched the show, even when I was larger. They will never get my entertainment $'s1
-
CarvedTones wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »
There is some good info in there, but he does some serious damage to his credibility with this sort of stuff:So combine your typical headcase female dieter (who is already mentally stressing themselves out), add a massive caloric restriction, add tons of cardio. And cortisol goes through the roof. And this is worse in some personality types. You can always tell them on Internet forums, they type in all caps with lots of !!!
Yes, he does come across and anti-female at times. Doesn't make him wrong though. And you must have seen posts like that here, yes? I sure have.
Yes, I have seen such posts here and it also causes me to question their credibility as well. It's not just a touchy feely thing (it is that, but not just that); personal prejudice is at odds with cold logic.
Actually, I meant the sort of "HELP!!! CAN'T LOSE WEIGHT ON 1200 CALORIES PLUS EXERCISE!!!" posts Lyle is talking about.7 -
CarvedTones wrote: »KWlosingit wrote: »I have always wondered if some of those that have a lower BMR than should be calculated are people that always had a lower BMR and that is why they gained weight before. So now they lost weight and yes still have the lower BMR.
This is not in the Biggest Loser article I read, but in some other "Adaptive Thermogenesis study" (google that and you will find several) they checked BMR before weight loss and it is the weight loss that causes the change.
??? Of course BMR goes down with weight loss. Did they expect that someone would need as many calories to maintain at 140 lbs as they needed at 250 lbs?10 -
I used to watch this show until most of them ate it all back. Sigh and alas. Dropping it like it's hot is like cramming for a test. It will get you by but you don't really learn much from it. Metabolic blowback, I want the truth. I can handle the truth. There are repeat customers here and many have reported it's more difficult the 2nd or 3rd time around to take that 100 lbs off again. Is that the aging process along with messed up leptin and insulin resistance that was always there in the first place.
"People who struggle with obesity simply do not have the same ability as normal weight people to "listen to their hunger cues". First, the obesity has messed up their hormones. Many are resistant to insulin making them eat more AND leptin making them unable to stop eating when they are full. So, telling obese people to listen to their hunger signals is simply impossible."
https://www.anareisdorf.com/single-post/2017/08/23/Why-Intuitive-Eating-is-a-Cop-Out-12 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »KWlosingit wrote: »I have always wondered if some of those that have a lower BMR than should be calculated are people that always had a lower BMR and that is why they gained weight before. So now they lost weight and yes still have the lower BMR.
This is not in the Biggest Loser article I read, but in some other "Adaptive Thermogenesis study" (google that and you will find several) they checked BMR before weight loss and it is the weight loss that causes the change.
??? Of course BMR goes down with weight loss. Did they expect that someone would need as many calories to maintain at 140 lbs as they needed at 250 lbs?
Sorry, I should have said it went down more than expected. The person losing from 250 to 140 will have a lower BMR that the person who has pretty much always been 140.3 -
I definitely think your metabolism adjusts. My mom went from a size 3x to a size 4. While "dieting" she ate 1300 calories per day with about 1.5 hours of very low intensity exercise most days (mostly walking, so although that sounds like a lot, it'd be similar to someone getting their 10,000 steps on fitbit). She also did 4 one serving desserts for every 6 week period that she didn't count. Everything else was counted.
Her maintenance plan is still the standard 1300 calories per day most days, with 4 1600 calorie days per month and one "free" day per month. She now does 1.5 hours of moderate intensity exercise (elliptical, weights, stationary bike, etc.) 3 days per week. She never ate exercise calories back in either plan. She's kept it off for almost 10 years, so it IS possible, but as you can see, her maintenance plan is barely different from her "diet" plan. I don't know her exact weight, but I would guess maybe 130 pounds. No way would someone who has always been about 130 pounds need to follow that strict of a diet. I have always noticed that almost always the "healthiest" or "most conscious" eaters are people that used to be fat.
When I was in high school I dieted down to 120 pounds from just around 140 pounds using calorie counting and exercise. I had to continue following my "diet" plan to maintain the 120 pounds. I didn't lose or gain following the exact same plan I did to lose the weight in the first place. Obviously at some point I quit following the plan, or I wouldn't be here right now
.
I think those who are able to eat these high calorie "maintenance" plans are very fortunate. I'm going in with the assumption that I'm pretty much going to have to follow my "diet" plan for the rest of my life, which is why I'm trying to make it as sustainable as possible. The problem with the Biggest Loser contestants is they can't do that, because their diet plan wasn't at all sustainable. They were exercising for hours upon hours per day, eating a crazy low amount of calories per day, having NO treats ever, and losing weight was their full time job.
3 -
CarvedTones wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »
There is some good info in there, but he does some serious damage to his credibility with this sort of stuff:So combine your typical headcase female dieter (who is already mentally stressing themselves out), add a massive caloric restriction, add tons of cardio. And cortisol goes through the roof. And this is worse in some personality types. You can always tell them on Internet forums, they type in all caps with lots of !!!
Yes, he does come across and anti-female at times. Doesn't make him wrong though. And you must have seen posts like that here, yes? I sure have.
Yes, I have seen such posts here and it also causes me to question their credibility as well. It's not just a touchy feely thing (it is that, but not just that); personal prejudice is at odds with cold logic.
Until you learn that he recently wrote/published the largest, most comprehensive/evidence-based women's book ever, specifically targeted at female dieting/nutrition/training/health issues. And currently coaches a female physique athlete turned powerlifter who holds multiple records in her weight class.
Tactfulness may be one of Lyle's issues; credibility is not.15 -
CarvedTones wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »
There is some good info in there, but he does some serious damage to his credibility with this sort of stuff:So combine your typical headcase female dieter (who is already mentally stressing themselves out), add a massive caloric restriction, add tons of cardio. And cortisol goes through the roof. And this is worse in some personality types. You can always tell them on Internet forums, they type in all caps with lots of !!!
Yes, he does come across and anti-female at times. Doesn't make him wrong though. And you must have seen posts like that here, yes? I sure have.
Yes, I have seen such posts here and it also causes me to question their credibility as well. It's not just a touchy feely thing (it is that, but not just that); personal prejudice is at odds with cold logic.
Until you learn that he recently wrote/published the largest, most comprehensive/evidence-based women's book ever, specifically targeted at female dieting/nutrition/training/health issues. And currently coaches a female physique athlete turned powerlifter who holds multiple records in her weight class.
Tactfulness may be one of Lyle's issues; credibility is not.
He is pretty damn brilliant. He states he is bipolar "light". He either goes off the rails or he can complete a book in like 2 weeks.6 -
kshama2001 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »
There is some good info in there, but he does some serious damage to his credibility with this sort of stuff:So combine your typical headcase female dieter (who is already mentally stressing themselves out), add a massive caloric restriction, add tons of cardio. And cortisol goes through the roof. And this is worse in some personality types. You can always tell them on Internet forums, they type in all caps with lots of !!!
Yes, he does come across and anti-female at times. Doesn't make him wrong though. And you must have seen posts like that here, yes? I sure have.
And yet he's written the most only comprehensive book on females and strength training out there.
https://store.bodyrecomposition.com/product/the-womens-book-vol1/11 -
psychod787 wrote: »CSARdiver I am sure you are on a completely different plane of ability than I am about these studies. I hope that they do a real long term study with people like this. I will be honest, I have never actually watched the show, even when I was larger. They will never get my entertainment $'s
My big gripe with these "studies" isn't typically the studies - it's the journalistic overreach. The article I cited is heavily biased and a marketing gimmick for bariatric surgery. I cannot find any actual study that the article references. Certainly none that suggest that there is any truth to the notion of metabolic damage.
The other issue is that it leads people looking for help in the wrong direction. Weight management is an output of behavior. Behavior is addressed completely differently than metabolic issues and is modified through a specific series - pre-contemplation, contemplation, determination, action, maintenance, and review. Our minds work much in the same way as grooves on a record. Once established it is almost impossible to remove, but they can be "replaced". This is why most programs designed to break habits fail. You cannot simply end one habit without replacing it with another. The key is to replace a "bad" habit with a "good" habit - one that helps you achieve your goal.
5 -
As a male, I lost 90 pounds in only 7-8 months on 1000-1200 calories a day (252 to 162 pounds). Obviously I don't recommend doing this for health reasons but starvation mode is definitely a myth. Metabolic adaptation is a thing, but your body is not going to stop losing weight when you are in a calorie deficit.
Wow. I'm currently 252. I couldn't imagine eating so little every day. Just eating 800 when trying the 5:2 is enough for me twice a week. Why did you reduce SO drastic if you don't mind me asking?0 -
psychod787 wrote: »CSARdiver I am sure you are on a completely different plane of ability than I am about these studies. I hope that they do a real long term study with people like this. I will be honest, I have never actually watched the show, even when I was larger. They will never get my entertainment $'s
My big gripe with these "studies" isn't typically the studies - it's the journalistic overreach. The article I cited is heavily biased and a marketing gimmick for bariatric surgery. I cannot find any actual study that the article references. Certainly none that suggest that there is any truth to the notion of metabolic damage.
The other issue is that it leads people looking for help in the wrong direction. Weight management is an output of behavior. Behavior is addressed completely differently than metabolic issues and is modified through a specific series - pre-contemplation, contemplation, determination, action, maintenance, and review. Our minds work much in the same way as grooves on a record. Once established it is almost impossible to remove, but they can be "replaced". This is why most programs designed to break habits fail. You cannot simply end one habit without replacing it with another. The key is to replace a "bad" habit with a "good" habit - one that helps you achieve your goal.
I think this may be the study the article is alluding to...They did a 6 year follow up with the biggest loser contestants and found that their BMR was lower than expected.
“Mean RMR after 6 years was ~500 kcal/d lower than expected based on the measured body composition changes and the increased age of the subjects.”
Their BMR was found to be normal before dieting, below normal at the end of 6 months based on their expected BMR (calculated by looking at their body composition, age, and sex), and below normal 6 years based on their expected BMR (calculated by looking at their body composition, age, and sex).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4989512/#!po=53.00000 -
psychod787 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »
There is some good info in there, but he does some serious damage to his credibility with this sort of stuff:So combine your typical headcase female dieter (who is already mentally stressing themselves out), add a massive caloric restriction, add tons of cardio. And cortisol goes through the roof. And this is worse in some personality types. You can always tell them on Internet forums, they type in all caps with lots of !!!
Yes, he does come across and anti-female at times. Doesn't make him wrong though. And you must have seen posts like that here, yes? I sure have.
Yes, I have seen such posts here and it also causes me to question their credibility as well. It's not just a touchy feely thing (it is that, but not just that); personal prejudice is at odds with cold logic.
Until you learn that he recently wrote/published the largest, most comprehensive/evidence-based women's book ever, specifically targeted at female dieting/nutrition/training/health issues. And currently coaches a female physique athlete turned powerlifter who holds multiple records in her weight class.
Tactfulness may be one of Lyle's issues; credibility is not.
He is pretty damn brilliant. He states he is bipolar "light". He either goes off the rails or he can complete a book in like 2 weeks.
You aren't making a very strong case for me to like the guy. First it was his comments about women. Now this. I have type II bipolar disorder. People throwing around the term like it is something different than a mental illness is a pet peeve of mine.6 -
CarvedTones wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »
There is some good info in there, but he does some serious damage to his credibility with this sort of stuff:So combine your typical headcase female dieter (who is already mentally stressing themselves out), add a massive caloric restriction, add tons of cardio. And cortisol goes through the roof. And this is worse in some personality types. You can always tell them on Internet forums, they type in all caps with lots of !!!
Yes, he does come across and anti-female at times. Doesn't make him wrong though. And you must have seen posts like that here, yes? I sure have.
Yes, I have seen such posts here and it also causes me to question their credibility as well. It's not just a touchy feely thing (it is that, but not just that); personal prejudice is at odds with cold logic.
Until you learn that he recently wrote/published the largest, most comprehensive/evidence-based women's book ever, specifically targeted at female dieting/nutrition/training/health issues. And currently coaches a female physique athlete turned powerlifter who holds multiple records in her weight class.
Tactfulness may be one of Lyle's issues; credibility is not.
He is pretty damn brilliant. He states he is bipolar "light". He either goes off the rails or he can complete a book in like 2 weeks.
You aren't making a very strong case for me to like the guy. First it was his comments about women. Now this. I have type II bipolar disorder. People throwing around the term like it is something different than a mental illness is a pet peeve of mine.
Start here: https://bodyrecomposition.com/bipolar/5 -
CarvedTones wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »
There is some good info in there, but he does some serious damage to his credibility with this sort of stuff:So combine your typical headcase female dieter (who is already mentally stressing themselves out), add a massive caloric restriction, add tons of cardio. And cortisol goes through the roof. And this is worse in some personality types. You can always tell them on Internet forums, they type in all caps with lots of !!!
Yes, he does come across and anti-female at times. Doesn't make him wrong though. And you must have seen posts like that here, yes? I sure have.
Yes, I have seen such posts here and it also causes me to question their credibility as well. It's not just a touchy feely thing (it is that, but not just that); personal prejudice is at odds with cold logic.
Until you learn that he recently wrote/published the largest, most comprehensive/evidence-based women's book ever, specifically targeted at female dieting/nutrition/training/health issues. And currently coaches a female physique athlete turned powerlifter who holds multiple records in her weight class.
Tactfulness may be one of Lyle's issues; credibility is not.
He is pretty damn brilliant. He states he is bipolar "light". He either goes off the rails or he can complete a book in like 2 weeks.
You aren't making a very strong case for me to like the guy. First it was his comments about women. Now this. I have type II bipolar disorder. People throwing around the term like it is something different than a mental illness is a pet peeve of mine.
Start here: https://bodyrecomposition.com/bipolar/
You should have led with that; he is a kindred spirit. Saying things that maybe would have been better left unsaid is not uncommon; it's possible I may even done it a few times.3 -
CarvedTones wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »
There is some good info in there, but he does some serious damage to his credibility with this sort of stuff:So combine your typical headcase female dieter (who is already mentally stressing themselves out), add a massive caloric restriction, add tons of cardio. And cortisol goes through the roof. And this is worse in some personality types. You can always tell them on Internet forums, they type in all caps with lots of !!!
Yes, he does come across and anti-female at times. Doesn't make him wrong though. And you must have seen posts like that here, yes? I sure have.
Yes, I have seen such posts here and it also causes me to question their credibility as well. It's not just a touchy feely thing (it is that, but not just that); personal prejudice is at odds with cold logic.
Until you learn that he recently wrote/published the largest, most comprehensive/evidence-based women's book ever, specifically targeted at female dieting/nutrition/training/health issues. And currently coaches a female physique athlete turned powerlifter who holds multiple records in her weight class.
Tactfulness may be one of Lyle's issues; credibility is not.
He is pretty damn brilliant. He states he is bipolar "light". He either goes off the rails or he can complete a book in like 2 weeks.
You aren't making a very strong case for me to like the guy. First it was his comments about women. Now this. I have type II bipolar disorder. People throwing around the term like it is something different than a mental illness is a pet peeve of mine.
Start here: https://bodyrecomposition.com/bipolar/
You should have led with that; he is a kindred spirit. Saying things that maybe would have been better left unsaid is not uncommon; it's possible I may even done it a few times.
I was actually quoting Lyle. I was Not making fin of being bipolar4 -
psychod787 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »
There is some good info in there, but he does some serious damage to his credibility with this sort of stuff:So combine your typical headcase female dieter (who is already mentally stressing themselves out), add a massive caloric restriction, add tons of cardio. And cortisol goes through the roof. And this is worse in some personality types. You can always tell them on Internet forums, they type in all caps with lots of !!!
Yes, he does come across and anti-female at times. Doesn't make him wrong though. And you must have seen posts like that here, yes? I sure have.
Yes, I have seen such posts here and it also causes me to question their credibility as well. It's not just a touchy feely thing (it is that, but not just that); personal prejudice is at odds with cold logic.
Until you learn that he recently wrote/published the largest, most comprehensive/evidence-based women's book ever, specifically targeted at female dieting/nutrition/training/health issues. And currently coaches a female physique athlete turned powerlifter who holds multiple records in her weight class.
Tactfulness may be one of Lyle's issues; credibility is not.
He is pretty damn brilliant. He states he is bipolar "light". He either goes off the rails or he can complete a book in like 2 weeks.
You aren't making a very strong case for me to like the guy. First it was his comments about women. Now this. I have type II bipolar disorder. People throwing around the term like it is something different than a mental illness is a pet peeve of mine.
Start here: https://bodyrecomposition.com/bipolar/
You should have led with that; he is a kindred spirit. Saying things that maybe would have been better left unsaid is not uncommon; it's possible I may even done it a few times.
I was actually quoting Lyle. I was Not making fin of being bipolar
I meant Lyle saying things that would have been better left unsaid. When the roller coaster is at the top, I have been referred to as an arrogant *kitten*.2 -
Certainly none that suggest that there is any truth to the notion of metabolic damage.
The other issue is that it leads people looking for help in the wrong direction. Weight management is an output of behavior.
Behavior is addressed completely differently than metabolic issues and is modified through a specific series - pre-contemplation, contemplation, determination, action, maintenance, and review.
Our minds work much in the same way as grooves on a record. Once established it is almost impossible to remove, but they can be "replaced". This is why most programs designed to break habits fail. You cannot simply end one habit without replacing it with another.
The key is to replace a "bad" habit with a "good" habit - one that helps you achieve your goal.
You've mentioned before that you haven't seen any evidence that long term adaptation / "metabolic damage" exists. And in the same thread wrote a powerful message drawn from your own life about overcoming adversity.
I am with you in part. If you want eat or drink and all you have is lemons, making lemonade is probably a great strategy!
What I don't get is the necessity to label our lemons as "sweet yellow oranges".
I don't know how, short of pharmacological or other medical intervention (all of the interventions being currently in their infancy), one overcomes physical etiology-other than through behaviour modification!
In other words we both agree that behaviour modification is our only hope!
But why would denying the possible existence of a physical component make the necessary behaviour modification more likely to succeed?
I draw your attention to post #3 by @EvgeniZyntx in the stickied https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1 reference thread.
His post relies heavily on this review of studies: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/
It doesn't seem to me to be the case that adaptive thermogenesis--specifically defined as a drop *larger* than what is explained by the reduction in weight and lean mass--is THAT difficult to run into when one looks at various studies!
I am sure that many of these studies are not very good and can be criticised. And I am sure that similar criticisms can be levied against studies that don't find evidence of AT.
So unless you think that there is a cabal of AT proponents trying to generate AT smoke... I will consider the existence of AT as probable based on the existence of enough smoke.
And I've certainly observed SOME AT evidence with myself. Not enough to derail or bring things to a stand-still. But certainly more than zero.
To my mind the "only" open questions have to do with the degree of adaptation, the persistence of the adaptation, and whether we can do anything about it and what.
Given the paucity of long term data, frankly, we don't really know what happens.
When you look 5 to 7 years out too many changes have taken place, we are not quite the same people, and most studies that extend that far are recall based questionnaires.
So when I see figures ranging from 6 months to 7 years, what I DO know is that when people congratulate me on my weight loss, I tell them to talk to me in another 3 to 5 years!
And no, it is not just the loss of blubber that is making you feel cold when you have been persistently eating less calories than you spend...5 -
Certainly none that suggest that there is any truth to the notion of metabolic damage.
The other issue is that it leads people looking for help in the wrong direction. Weight management is an output of behavior.
Behavior is addressed completely differently than metabolic issues and is modified through a specific series - pre-contemplation, contemplation, determination, action, maintenance, and review.
Our minds work much in the same way as grooves on a record. Once established it is almost impossible to remove, but they can be "replaced". This is why most programs designed to break habits fail. You cannot simply end one habit without replacing it with another.
The key is to replace a "bad" habit with a "good" habit - one that helps you achieve your goal.
You've mentioned before that you haven't seen any evidence that long term adaptation / "metabolic damage" exists. And in the same thread wrote a powerful message drawn from your own life about overcoming adversity.
I am with you in part. If you want eat or drink and all you have is lemons, making lemonade is probably a great strategy!
What I don't get is the necessity to label our lemons as "sweet yellow oranges".
I don't know how, short of pharmacological or other medical intervention (all of the interventions being currently in their infancy), one overcomes physical etiology-other than through behaviour modification!
In other words we both agree that behaviour modification is our only hope!
But why would denying the possible existence of a physical component make the necessary behaviour modification more likely to succeed?
I draw your attention to post #3 by @EvgeniZyntx in the stickied https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1 reference thread.
His post relies heavily on this review of studies: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/
It doesn't seem to me to be the case that adaptive thermogenesis--specifically defined as a drop *larger* than what is explained by the reduction in weight and lean mass--is THAT difficult to run into when one looks at various studies!
I am sure that many of these studies are not very good and can be criticised. And I am sure that similar criticisms can be levied against studies that don't find evidence of AT.
So unless you think that there is a cabal of AT proponents trying to generate AT smoke... I will consider the existence of AT as probable based on the existence of enough smoke.
And I've certainly observed SOME AT evidence with myself. Not enough to derail or bring things to a stand-still. But certainly more than zero.
To my mind the "only" open questions have to do with the degree of adaptation, the persistence of the adaptation, and whether we can do anything about it and what.
Given the paucity of long term data, frankly, we don't really know what happens.
When you look 5 to 7 years out too many changes have taken place, we are not quite the same people, and most studies that extend that far are recall based questionnaires.
So when I see figures ranging from 6 months to 7 years, what I DO know is that when people congratulate me on my weight loss, I tell them to talk to me in another 3 to 5 years!
And no, it is not just the loss of blubber that is making you feel cold when you have been persistently eating less calories than you spend...
My intent isn't to label lemons as lemonade. Life is damn hard, it's supposed to be. Life is a constant struggle, but that's a good thing. Life without resistance results in death. What I'm railing against is the idea that what is outside our control is very much within our control.
In this case I've read the studies, but find these lacking, disturbingly so. Specifically the lack of comparative evidence to a control group. Normal variance of BMR is 5%, so it is expected that any population will fall within this range.
Adaptive thermogenesis is very real, but scientists are continually committing overreach of the objective information. It may very well have impact on the hormonal response, but the link between BMR/RMR/REE has not been established. Correlation does not imply causation.
Points I find particularly interesting - note the drop of weight and BMR during the second evaluation period. This suggests that the participants were dieting during this period, although there is no discussion and no stated control around this, where in any paper a follow up study would be immediately launched to determine significance. We know that anyone in a caloric deficit will experience a reduction to BMR - is this less than/greater than or equal to a control group not in a deficit?
I've experienced and documented adaptive thermogenesis myself, but nothing outside the range of instrumentation error, standard deviation, or normal variance.
As you say it may have an impact, but it currently does not. What I don't understand is the desire to have this mean more than it does.
Behavioral modification is an undeniable necessity. Fighting against this is a losing battle. Even in extreme cases where surgical intervention is implemented long term success is only possible by modifying behavior.4 -
Points I find particularly interesting - note the drop of weight and BMR during the second evaluation period. This suggests that the participants were dieting during this period, although there is no discussion and no stated control around this, where in any paper a follow up study would be immediately launched to determine significance. We know that anyone in a caloric deficit will experience a reduction to BMR - is this less than/greater than or equal to a control group not in a deficit?
You won't find me defending the 'biggest loser' study. There is just too much of a likelihood that the participants dieted in the period before the follow up measurements. Knowing what we know about how they would be likely to diet, a huge drop in NEAT would be expected!
I disagree that the issue that the study highlights is irrelevant.
I think it is relevant enough that people who are dieting should be taking it into consideration while they diet and attempt to minimize the effects of AT. Smaller deficits, re-feeds, diet-breaks, attention to preserving lean mass. NOT trying to eat as little as possible while working out as much as possible especially once energy stores are no longer at obese levels.
AND ABSOLUTELY YES behaviour modification. Especially for people, such as myself, who start at the obese+ range. We didn't fist get there just because our metabolism was damaged.
This is often called "a lifestyle change". People apparently frown at the term!
BTW: I note that the two goals are compatible. Behaviour modification takes time. Losing weight using reasonable deficits over a longer period of time also takes time.3 -
Points I find particularly interesting - note the drop of weight and BMR during the second evaluation period. This suggests that the participants were dieting during this period, although there is no discussion and no stated control around this, where in any paper a follow up study would be immediately launched to determine significance. We know that anyone in a caloric deficit will experience a reduction to BMR - is this less than/greater than or equal to a control group not in a deficit?
You won't find me defending the 'biggest loser' study. There is just too much of a likelihood that the participants dieted in the period before the follow up measurements. Knowing what we know about how they would be likely to diet, a huge drop in NEAT would be expected!
I disagree that the issue that the study highlights is irrelevant.
I think it is relevant enough that people who are dieting should be taking it into consideration while they diet and attempt to minimize the effects of AT. Smaller deficits, re-feeds, diet-breaks, attention to preserving lean mass. NOT trying to eat as little as possible while working out as much as possible especially once energy stores are no longer at obese levels.
AND ABSOLUTELY YES behaviour modification. Especially for people, such as myself, who start at the obese+ range. We didn't fist get there just because our metabolism was damaged.
This is often called "a lifestyle change". People apparently frown at the term!
I totally agree with the lifestyle change. I do find it awesome that the people who managed to keep off most of their weight were doing almost everything the NWCR members do. I have made one observational note. There tends to be something that happens to people around the 3 year mark when trying to maintain. They tend to regain weight. I wonder if it has to do with body adaptation or just loosening up of their activity and diet? That's the kind of study we need. Any volunteers to go into a metabolic wars for 3 years? Lol1 -
Well, there exist a FEW problems with long term studies
You mention NWCR.
Did I use their studies for ideas and inspiration when I was starting out? Absolutely.
But, looking back at their studies I really don't think that they are particularly useful at demonstrating causation.
Just a bunch of correlations basically.
Hopefully along the lines of: "reduced physical activity scales with obesity".
As opposed to along the lines of: "diet pop consumption scales with obesity"
4 -
Points I find particularly interesting - note the drop of weight and BMR during the second evaluation period. This suggests that the participants were dieting during this period, although there is no discussion and no stated control around this, where in any paper a follow up study would be immediately launched to determine significance. We know that anyone in a caloric deficit will experience a reduction to BMR - is this less than/greater than or equal to a control group not in a deficit?
You won't find me defending the 'biggest loser' study. There is just too much of a likelihood that the participants dieted in the period before the follow up measurements. Knowing what we know about how they would be likely to diet, a huge drop in NEAT would be expected!
I disagree that the issue that the study highlights is irrelevant.
I think it is relevant enough that people who are dieting should be taking it into consideration while they diet and attempt to minimize the effects of AT. Smaller deficits, re-feeds, diet-breaks, attention to preserving lean mass. NOT trying to eat as little as possible while working out as much as possible especially once energy stores are no longer at obese levels.
AND ABSOLUTELY YES behaviour modification. Especially for people, such as myself, who start at the obese+ range. We didn't fist get there just because our metabolism was damaged.
This is often called "a lifestyle change". People apparently frown at the term!
BTW: I note that the two goals are compatible. Behaviour modification takes time. Losing weight using reasonable deficits over a longer period of time also takes time.
This is a good point - it's irrelevant in the scientific realm without context and clarity. The data could be very useful, but I'm afraid that without context and clarity it could easily be misused - note how the comment on bariatric surgery is so clumsily inserted.
I very much agree with this point and that dramatic interventions rarely if ever work out successfully. I think I would be more on board with this study if it did this. Say a comparative analysis of moderate deficit vs. a dramatic deficit.
I review the metabolic panels of hundreds of patients every week - thousands over the years...and have yet to encounter one "broken metabolism" and these are largely patients with diagnosed hormonal disorders. If metabolic damage existed, we would have seen it.
6 -
psychod787 wrote: »Points I find particularly interesting - note the drop of weight and BMR during the second evaluation period. This suggests that the participants were dieting during this period, although there is no discussion and no stated control around this, where in any paper a follow up study would be immediately launched to determine significance. We know that anyone in a caloric deficit will experience a reduction to BMR - is this less than/greater than or equal to a control group not in a deficit?
You won't find me defending the 'biggest loser' study. There is just too much of a likelihood that the participants dieted in the period before the follow up measurements. Knowing what we know about how they would be likely to diet, a huge drop in NEAT would be expected!
I disagree that the issue that the study highlights is irrelevant.
I think it is relevant enough that people who are dieting should be taking it into consideration while they diet and attempt to minimize the effects of AT. Smaller deficits, re-feeds, diet-breaks, attention to preserving lean mass. NOT trying to eat as little as possible while working out as much as possible especially once energy stores are no longer at obese levels.
AND ABSOLUTELY YES behaviour modification. Especially for people, such as myself, who start at the obese+ range. We didn't fist get there just because our metabolism was damaged.
This is often called "a lifestyle change". People apparently frown at the term!
I totally agree with the lifestyle change. I do find it awesome that the people who managed to keep off most of their weight were doing almost everything the NWCR members do. I have made one observational note. There tends to be something that happens to people around the 3 year mark when trying to maintain. They tend to regain weight. I wonder if it has to do with body adaptation or just loosening up of their activity and diet? That's the kind of study we need. Any volunteers to go into a metabolic wars for 3 years? Lol
I don't understand the pushback against lifestyle change. This is exactly what is required for a successful change - your entire life! ...or maybe that's it. If you are obsessed with the simplistic notion that all is required is to move more and eat less, then you don't understand the difference between theory and implementation.
Successful people eat less and have multiple mechanism built up to ensure they eat less. They move more and have multiple mechanisms built up to ensure they move more. They tend to regain weight as time passes by and priorities in life shift...then they catch themselves and re-implement the same processes and get back on path.
My N of 1 is pretty consistent over the past three years, observing a 5% fluctuation from high to low, largely influenced by the amount of food I ate recently.5
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 427 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