New Discovery: Protein shuts down Fat burning

2

Replies

  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,456 Member
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    In fairness, we all took it to mean dietary protein. OP simply said "Protein"... That's on us as much as it is on OP, no?

    That was my thought, too, but I'll admit I was biased coming in, because I had read the Atlantic article before I ever saw anybody posting about it on MFP, so I already knew it was "a" protein acting as a receptor blocker or the like, not dietary protein.
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,088 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    TallGent66 wrote: »
    Would Cellular Protein have been a better title?

    Most seem to have skipped this paragraph:

    "Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...."

    Not negating that many, or most, can lose weight on a caloric deficit.

    It would be interesting if they reviewed all of the Biggest Losers. A tough subgroup. Did they go back to their old ways, stop exercising? One of the Juice Guys lost a ton of weight, became famous, had life changes, and put most of the weight back on.

    But I don't know that this: "Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...." is an accurate statement. It's at least misleading. Weight loss still comes down to calorie deficits and energy expenditures for everyone, but those with hormonal conditions may need to be properly treated to get their numbers in line. They still lose weight the same way, but untreated, they will have an unusual CO. The science is the same, their route to figuring out the numbers might be a bit more complicated.

    And again the author of this article was being less than accurate when saying that "no one knew why" the Biggest Losers struggled. There were many pros in the weight loss industry who put forward pretty apparent reasons why. There was a ton of info about the Biggest Loser study participants back when it first hit the media, and when we discussed it here, it seemed pretty logical that most of them struggle and end up regaining. They lose in an incredibly aggressive and unsustainable manner, the rapid weight loss messes with their TDEE, and they don't learn how to eat for their new much lighter weight, especially without a trainer screaming at them and a chef preparing their meals. That's why we often suggest to people here that they avoid under-eating or crazy exercise schedules to lose the weight fast.

    Did you click through to the actual study and try to translate it at all yourself? Unfortunately reading an article about a study often gives a very warped idea of what the study actually proves or even suggests. I haven't had a chance myself to dig into it yet...

    I have kept a keen interest in the BL data set. I think it has little to do with how aggressive their weight loss was. I think it has more to do with lifestyle. We dont always get an accurate view of things because the media like to sensationalize things. Inside these groups many people have kept off lots of weight long term. They adapted a lower energy density lifestyle or calorie counting and kept a high PAL. in most cases 1.75 or higher. Some regain is bound to happen as their body's recover. If one lost 200 lbs and regained 50. Most people would think that's a failure. Though it's much akin to someone losing 20 and regaining 5 as an overall percentage of weight lost. A win in my view.
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,088 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    TallGent66 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    TallGent66 wrote: »
    Would Cellular Protein have been a better title?

    Most seem to have skipped this paragraph:

    "Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...."

    Not negating that many, or most, can lose weight on a caloric deficit.

    It would be interesting if they reviewed all of the Biggest Losers. A tough subgroup. Did they go back to their old ways, stop exercising? One of the Juice Guys lost a ton of weight, became famous, had life changes, and put most of the weight back on.

    When a general-interest writer (not an endocrinologist) writes the bolded, what does it mean? Nearly nothing.

    Everyone can lose weight in what is for them a calorie deficit. They can also keep that weight off in calorie balance.

    Compliance (via satiation, satisfaction, sustainability) are extremely variable among individuals. Activity levels are individual. I'm convinced that short-run energy-expenditure adaptation to calorie deficit is pretty individual (can't prove it). Nutrition plays a role in satiation and energy level. Psychology is individual (stress compensation, boredom, etc., play in here.) Normative behavior (what your family did, what the people around you do) is relevant. And there's more.

    Weight loss is simple: Calories in less than calories out. But it's also complicated: Compliance, adaptation, nutrition, psychological factors, social factors, and more.

    One thing I think doesn't help: Making people think the whole thing is outside their influence or control, thus is hopeless. If genes are doom, it's outside our control, right? It's a good excuse, but it leaves us powerless.

    We're not.

    Everyone? False.

    There was a young woman in my college dorms decades ago who ate like a bird, was a very good athlete, and was a big woman. Her roommate confirmed she ate very little. Some kind of glandular problem.

    Same dorm complex, a super thin Asian woman would out eat football players. One hundred pounds or less. She had to force herself to eat due to an incredibly high metabolism. Plate after plate. People from other dorms gave her a cruel name for her eating needs.

    Sure, many or most can lose weight. Go to Europe. Most people thin or average. Smaller meals, lots of walking, less fast food, etc.

    Nature does prefer variation, right? Same as a Somoan neighbor in my high school years who gained 30, 40 pounds of good weight - one summer. Looked like Adonis. I asked him how he gained weight, "I eat 3 avocados every day."

    My Mom understood the complications of avocados, I didn't! Technically impossible.... A college coach later told me the max lean muscle weight that could be gained in a year is 7 pounds.

    You ignored "what is for them a calorie deficit" in my PP.

    For example, if someone tiny outeats football players without gaining, they're either failing to effectively metabolize what's eaten, or expending energy in unusual ways. They're not defying the laws of physics through magic.

    There have been numerous research studies about calories in humans. Those humans haven't always matched online calorie calculator predictions, but none have defied physics.

    I maintain on 25-30% more calories than MFP estimates, for reasons not related to exercise calorie expenditure or activity level. I can still gain weight (or lose it) by counting calories, and do so at predictable rates.

    Speculatively, some people may have a more confounding set of circumstances, such as an extreme calorie-expenditure slowdown in response to calorie-intake restriction. That doesn't mean there's no calorie level at which they'll starve to death.

    Actually... you can gain .25 to.5 lbs a week in a realistic newbie lifter of lean mass... if You are geared... up to 1lb a week. Lol
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 25,700 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    TallGent66 wrote: »
    Would Cellular Protein have been a better title?

    Most seem to have skipped this paragraph:

    "Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...."

    Not negating that many, or most, can lose weight on a caloric deficit.

    It would be interesting if they reviewed all of the Biggest Losers. A tough subgroup. Did they go back to their old ways, stop exercising? One of the Juice Guys lost a ton of weight, became famous, had life changes, and put most of the weight back on.

    But I don't know that this: "Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...." is an accurate statement. It's at least misleading. Weight loss still comes down to calorie deficits and energy expenditures for everyone, but those with hormonal conditions may need to be properly treated to get their numbers in line. They still lose weight the same way, but untreated, they will have an unusual CO. The science is the same, their route to figuring out the numbers might be a bit more complicated.

    And again the author of this article was being less than accurate when saying that "no one knew why" the Biggest Losers struggled. There were many pros in the weight loss industry who put forward pretty apparent reasons why. There was a ton of info about the Biggest Loser study participants back when it first hit the media, and when we discussed it here, it seemed pretty logical that most of them struggle and end up regaining. They lose in an incredibly aggressive and unsustainable manner, the rapid weight loss messes with their TDEE, and they don't learn how to eat for their new much lighter weight, especially without a trainer screaming at them and a chef preparing their meals. That's why we often suggest to people here that they avoid under-eating or crazy exercise schedules to lose the weight fast.

    Did you click through to the actual study and try to translate it at all yourself? Unfortunately reading an article about a study often gives a very warped idea of what the study actually proves or even suggests. I haven't had a chance myself to dig into it yet...

    I have kept a keen interest in the BL data set. I think it has little to do with how aggressive their weight loss was. I think it has more to do with lifestyle. We dont always get an accurate view of things because the media like to sensationalize things. Inside these groups many people have kept off lots of weight long term. They adapted a lower energy density lifestyle or calorie counting and kept a high PAL. in most cases 1.75 or higher. Some regain is bound to happen as their body's recover. If one lost 200 lbs and regained 50. Most people would think that's a failure. Though it's much akin to someone losing 20 and regaining 5 as an overall percentage of weight lost. A win in my view.

    I lost 20 lbs. I've since gained back 5ish lbs (okay, 7!) due to my own behavior and am currently trying to lose it, because 5 lbs is a lot in my perspective. If that had happened automatically once I reached my 20 lb goal, I would NOT have still considered it a win. I understand that someone who had 200 lbs to lose is still in a much better place if they end up at 150 lbs down in the end though, assuming they are prepared for that and they themselves see it as a win. If they see it as a failure, I'd think they are at a pretty high risk of ending up putting more back on.


    I'd respectfully disagree that the aggressive weight loss had little to do with regain. At the very least, the lifestyle issues may very well be easier to bring into line when weight loss happens at a manageable pace through sustainable means. Whether the speed of weight loss affects their CICO balance once one gets to goal is something I admittedly have a second-hand opinion on and no memory of the sources I drew that opinion from, so I'm happy to leave that be. But I do think someone who loses weight very fast with trainers and nutritionists they can't afford permanently pushing them through the ordeal is far less prepared for maintenance than someone who took a less dramatic path.


    Of course none of this has much of anything to do with the study in the OP, and I'm not sure why it was included in the OP's thought process in the first place. If it was just to bolster the argument that weight gain and loss is often outside of our control because our bodies are genetically determined to gain or lose weight for no behavioral reason, I strongly disagree and I doubt the research in question would change my mind :wink:

    Agreeing so much with the first bolded.

    Re the second bolded, Biggest Loser is likely referenced in the OP because it was referenced in the article https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/07/weight-loss-rage-proteins/594073/

    The first bolded explains what happened to the BL contestants far better than what the author of the article is trying to do.

    Does the actual study mention BL?
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,088 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    TallGent66 wrote: »
    Would Cellular Protein have been a better title?

    Most seem to have skipped this paragraph:

    "Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...."

    Not negating that many, or most, can lose weight on a caloric deficit.

    It would be interesting if they reviewed all of the Biggest Losers. A tough subgroup. Did they go back to their old ways, stop exercising? One of the Juice Guys lost a ton of weight, became famous, had life changes, and put most of the weight back on.

    But I don't know that this: "Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...." is an accurate statement. It's at least misleading. Weight loss still comes down to calorie deficits and energy expenditures for everyone, but those with hormonal conditions may need to be properly treated to get their numbers in line. They still lose weight the same way, but untreated, they will have an unusual CO. The science is the same, their route to figuring out the numbers might be a bit more complicated.

    And again the author of this article was being less than accurate when saying that "no one knew why" the Biggest Losers struggled. There were many pros in the weight loss industry who put forward pretty apparent reasons why. There was a ton of info about the Biggest Loser study participants back when it first hit the media, and when we discussed it here, it seemed pretty logical that most of them struggle and end up regaining. They lose in an incredibly aggressive and unsustainable manner, the rapid weight loss messes with their TDEE, and they don't learn how to eat for their new much lighter weight, especially without a trainer screaming at them and a chef preparing their meals. That's why we often suggest to people here that they avoid under-eating or crazy exercise schedules to lose the weight fast.

    Did you click through to the actual study and try to translate it at all yourself? Unfortunately reading an article about a study often gives a very warped idea of what the study actually proves or even suggests. I haven't had a chance myself to dig into it yet...

    I have kept a keen interest in the BL data set. I think it has little to do with how aggressive their weight loss was. I think it has more to do with lifestyle. We dont always get an accurate view of things because the media like to sensationalize things. Inside these groups many people have kept off lots of weight long term. They adapted a lower energy density lifestyle or calorie counting and kept a high PAL. in most cases 1.75 or higher. Some regain is bound to happen as their body's recover. If one lost 200 lbs and regained 50. Most people would think that's a failure. Though it's much akin to someone losing 20 and regaining 5 as an overall percentage of weight lost. A win in my view.

    I lost 20 lbs. I've since gained back 5ish lbs (okay, 7!) due to my own behavior and am currently trying to lose it, because 5 lbs is a lot in my perspective. If that had happened automatically once I reached my 20 lb goal, I would NOT have still considered it a win. I understand that someone who had 200 lbs to lose is still in a much better place if they end up at 150 lbs down in the end though, assuming they are prepared for that and they themselves see it as a win. If they see it as a failure, I'd think they are at a pretty high risk of ending up putting more back on.


    I'd respectfully disagree that the aggressive weight loss had little to do with regain. At the very least, the lifestyle issues may very well be easier to bring into line when weight loss happens at a manageable pace through sustainable means. Whether the speed of weight loss affects their CICO balance once one gets to goal is something I admittedly have a second-hand opinion on and no memory of the sources I drew that opinion from, so I'm happy to leave that be. But I do think someone who loses weight very fast with trainers and nutritionists they can't afford permanently pushing them through the ordeal is far less prepared for maintenance than someone who took a less dramatic path.


    Of course none of this has much of anything to do with the study in the OP, and I'm not sure why it was included in the OP's thought process in the first place. If it was just to bolster the argument that weight gain and loss is often outside of our control because our bodies are genetically determined to gain or lose weight for no behavioral reason, I strongly disagree and I doubt the research in question would change my mind :wink:

    @kimnyc72 .... you know I love ya girl! 😘
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,088 Member
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Anecdotes aren't science.

    If you accept what most of us learned in school that "energy can neither be created or destroyed" can you explain how any person in a genuine and personal energy deficit isn't going to be running down their energy stores over time?

    Exactly the point I was going to make.

    Additionally, CICO isn't simply how much you exercise vs how much volume you eat. There is always more to it than that, sometimes a great deal more.

    Agreed.. ei vs eo... though the things that attribute to ei are a whole different ball of wax!🤔
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,027 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    TallGent66 wrote: »
    Would Cellular Protein have been a better title?

    Most seem to have skipped this paragraph:

    "Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...."

    Not negating that many, or most, can lose weight on a caloric deficit.

    It would be interesting if they reviewed all of the Biggest Losers. A tough subgroup. Did they go back to their old ways, stop exercising? One of the Juice Guys lost a ton of weight, became famous, had life changes, and put most of the weight back on.

    But I don't know that this: "Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...." is an accurate statement. It's at least misleading. Weight loss still comes down to calorie deficits and energy expenditures for everyone, but those with hormonal conditions may need to be properly treated to get their numbers in line. They still lose weight the same way, but untreated, they will have an unusual CO. The science is the same, their route to figuring out the numbers might be a bit more complicated.

    And again the author of this article was being less than accurate when saying that "no one knew why" the Biggest Losers struggled. There were many pros in the weight loss industry who put forward pretty apparent reasons why. There was a ton of info about the Biggest Loser study participants back when it first hit the media, and when we discussed it here, it seemed pretty logical that most of them struggle and end up regaining. They lose in an incredibly aggressive and unsustainable manner, the rapid weight loss messes with their TDEE, and they don't learn how to eat for their new much lighter weight, especially without a trainer screaming at them and a chef preparing their meals. That's why we often suggest to people here that they avoid under-eating or crazy exercise schedules to lose the weight fast.

    Did you click through to the actual study and try to translate it at all yourself? Unfortunately reading an article about a study often gives a very warped idea of what the study actually proves or even suggests. I haven't had a chance myself to dig into it yet...

    I have kept a keen interest in the BL data set. I think it has little to do with how aggressive their weight loss was. I think it has more to do with lifestyle. We dont always get an accurate view of things because the media like to sensationalize things. Inside these groups many people have kept off lots of weight long term. They adapted a lower energy density lifestyle or calorie counting and kept a high PAL. in most cases 1.75 or higher. Some regain is bound to happen as their body's recover. If one lost 200 lbs and regained 50. Most people would think that's a failure. Though it's much akin to someone losing 20 and regaining 5 as an overall percentage of weight lost. A win in my view.

    I lost 20 lbs. I've since gained back 5ish lbs (okay, 7!) due to my own behavior and am currently trying to lose it, because 5 lbs is a lot in my perspective. If that had happened automatically once I reached my 20 lb goal, I would NOT have still considered it a win. I understand that someone who had 200 lbs to lose is still in a much better place if they end up at 150 lbs down in the end though, assuming they are prepared for that and they themselves see it as a win. If they see it as a failure, I'd think they are at a pretty high risk of ending up putting more back on.


    I'd respectfully disagree that the aggressive weight loss had little to do with regain. At the very least, the lifestyle issues may very well be easier to bring into line when weight loss happens at a manageable pace through sustainable means. Whether the speed of weight loss affects their CICO balance once one gets to goal is something I admittedly have a second-hand opinion on and no memory of the sources I drew that opinion from, so I'm happy to leave that be. But I do think someone who loses weight very fast with trainers and nutritionists they can't afford permanently pushing them through the ordeal is far less prepared for maintenance than someone who took a less dramatic path.


    Of course none of this has much of anything to do with the study in the OP, and I'm not sure why it was included in the OP's thought process in the first place. If it was just to bolster the argument that weight gain and loss is often outside of our control because our bodies are genetically determined to gain or lose weight for no behavioral reason, I strongly disagree and I doubt the research in question would change my mind :wink:

    Agreeing so much with the first bolded.

    Re the second bolded, Biggest Loser is likely referenced in the OP because it was referenced in the article https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/07/weight-loss-rage-proteins/594073/

    The first bolded explains what happened to the BL contestants far better than what the author of the article is trying to do.

    Does the actual study mention BL?

    Good catch. So I'm actually not sure why the BL was included in the article then :lol: and suspect it was for the same reasons I attributed to the OP :wink:
  • bigbandjohn
    bigbandjohn Posts: 773 Member
    TallGent66 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    TallGent66 wrote: »
    Would Cellular Protein have been a better title?

    Most seem to have skipped this paragraph:

    "Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...."

    Not negating that many, or most, can lose weight on a caloric deficit.

    It would be interesting if they reviewed all of the Biggest Losers. A tough subgroup. Did they go back to their old ways, stop exercising? One of the Juice Guys lost a ton of weight, became famous, had life changes, and put most of the weight back on.

    But I don't know that this: "Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...." is an accurate statement. It's at least misleading. Weight loss still comes down to calorie deficits and energy expenditures for everyone, but those with hormonal conditions may need to be properly treated to get their numbers in line. They still lose weight the same way, but untreated, they will have an unusual CO. The science is the same, their route to figuring out the numbers might be a bit more complicated.

    And again the author of this article was being less than accurate when saying that "no one knew why" the Biggest Losers struggled. There were many pros in the weight loss industry who put forward pretty apparent reasons why. There was a ton of info about the Biggest Loser study participants back when it first hit the media, and when we discussed it here, it seemed pretty logical that most of them struggle and end up regaining. They lose in an incredibly aggressive and unsustainable manner, the rapid weight loss messes with their TDEE, and they don't learn how to eat for their new much lighter weight, especially without a trainer screaming at them and a chef preparing their meals. That's why we often suggest to people here that they avoid under-eating or crazy exercise schedules to lose the weight fast.

    Did you click through to the actual study and try to translate it at all yourself? Unfortunately reading an article about a study often gives a very warped idea of what the study actually proves or even suggests. I haven't had a chance myself to dig into it yet...

    "Weight loss still comes down to calorie deficits and energy expenditures ***for everyone,*** "

    I wouldn't agree "for everyone".

    One woman in college ate like a bird, her roommate confirmed she ate like a bird, and she was a big woman.

    One of my dorm mates was a petite Asian woman who weighed maybe 100 pounds, stick thin, and she out ate football players. It was a burden to her, some gave her a cruel nickname, but she had a super high metabolism.

    I understand these are exceptions. While caloric deficits may apply to most, I'm guessing Mother Nature may also have individuals in between 'the norm' and the exceptions.

    Yet you prove the point that was made..... We are not saying everyone requires the same caloric intake. The person eating like a bird and gaining weight requires less intake than the skinny person who eats a lot. The "exception" is the metabolism, not CICO.