What *ACTUALLY* boosts metabolism
Options
Replies
-
One thing that can influence metabolism is thyroid problems. Particularly if you are a woman of a certain age, when thyroid issues often appear for the first time, get your thyroid checked and if there is a problem, get on the right medication. The difference isn’t huge compared to the effect of diet, but for me, having my thyroid within range made everything - not just weight loss but also exercise and daily living - much easier.3
-
candylilacs wrote: »Cinnamon, chiles (cayenne and others), ginger and tumeric, are all a "boost" to your metabolism. Now, I can't pinpoint exactly what boost: 0.05-15%, that's for you to judge.
Suprised this got quite as many "disagrees" as it did. There's at least some evidence that that's true, IMU, for some of those things.
But pay attention to the percentages: Once again, it's arithmetic FTW!
Let's say I eat a material amount of chiles (we're not talking "just a sprinkle" here). My "metabolism" (BMR/RMR) is estimated by most calculators to be around 1200 calories/day.
A 0.05% boost would be 0.6 calories. Whee!
A 15% boost would be 180 calories (which would be nice, but I've personally never seen research that had anything like nearly that big an effect, but I haven't seen all the world's research - that number you'd have to ask @candylilacs about).
. . . if the effect lasted all day. Which, IIRC, from most of what I've read, there's not much evidence.
Tiny. Tiny. Tiny. Lost in the noise of estimating error. Not worth considering. And who wants to eat chiles (or ginger, etc.) by the shovelful?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20826626
Note that that study only sees results after a month of using a supplement (concentrated) form of capsinoid (chile derivative) routinely, that only reaches significance when they pool numbers (and do some other really questionable stuff, statistically speaking), relies on measurements at points in time relatively close to fasted consumption of the supplement. And then the effect is so small as to be within the range of normal daily RMR variation. Whoopee.
Don't waste your time chasing "metabolism boosting" individual foods. You'd burn more calories clicking keys looking for the research that discounts it.
I think your post is indicative as to why the other one got so many disagrees. the differences are so small as to get get lost in the wash of logging errors and N.E.A.T. variations and normal RMR. When people focus on this kind of minutia I really think they are searching for a "hack" that's going to make a difference and, as a variation of what you state above, one burns more calories looking for the hack than the hack itself does.
Bottom line is there are no hacks that do anything of significance. The basics, reasonable calorie deficit, exercise and patience, are what work.11 -
candylilacs wrote: »Cinnamon, chiles (cayenne and others), ginger and tumeric, are all a "boost" to your metabolism. Now, I can't pinpoint exactly what boost: 0.05-15%, that's for you to judge.
Suprised this got quite as many "disagrees" as it did. There's at least some evidence that that's true, IMU, for some of those things.
But pay attention to the percentages: Once again, it's arithmetic FTW!
Let's say I eat a material amount of chiles (we're not talking "just a sprinkle" here). My "metabolism" (BMR/RMR) is estimated by most calculators to be around 1200 calories/day.
A 0.05% boost would be 0.6 calories. Whee!
A 15% boost would be 180 calories (which would be nice, but I've personally never seen research that had anything like nearly that big an effect, but I haven't seen all the world's research - that number you'd have to ask @candylilacs about).
. . . if the effect lasted all day. Which, IIRC, from most of what I've read, there's not much evidence.
Tiny. Tiny. Tiny. Lost in the noise of estimating error. Not worth considering. And who wants to eat chiles (or ginger, etc.) by the shovelful?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20826626
Note that that study only sees results after a month of using a supplement (concentrated) form of capsinoid (chile derivative) routinely, that only reaches significance when they pool numbers (and do some other really questionable stuff, statistically speaking), relies on measurements at points in time relatively close to fasted consumption of the supplement. And then the effect is so small as to be within the range of normal daily RMR variation. Whoopee.
Don't waste your time chasing "metabolism boosting" individual foods. You'd burn more calories clicking keys looking for the research that discounts it.
I think your post is indicative as to why the other one got so many disagrees. the differences are so small as to get get lost in the wash of logging errors and N.E.A.T. variations and normal RMR. When people focus on this kind of minutia I really think they are searching for a "hack" that's going to make a difference and, as a variation of what you state above, one burns more calories looking for the hack than the hack itself does.
Bottom line is there are no hacks that do anything of significance. The basics, reasonable calorie deficit, exercise and patience, are what work.
To me, "potentially real, but ridiculously small" is a more informative answer than "disagree", based on some of the (admittedly questionable) research results. Often, the simple one-click "answers" are slightly wrong, and (IMO) do no credit to those who advance them (anonymously ).
I acknowledge that I do like nuance and hair-splitting, by nature, though.7 -
candylilacs wrote: »Cinnamon, chiles (cayenne and others), ginger and tumeric, are all a "boost" to your metabolism. Now, I can't pinpoint exactly what boost: 0.05-15%, that's for you to judge.
Suprised this got quite as many "disagrees" as it did. There's at least some evidence that that's true, IMU, for some of those things.
But pay attention to the percentages: Once again, it's arithmetic FTW!
Let's say I eat a material amount of chiles (we're not talking "just a sprinkle" here). My "metabolism" (BMR/RMR) is estimated by most calculators to be around 1200 calories/day.
A 0.05% boost would be 0.6 calories. Whee!
A 15% boost would be 180 calories (which would be nice, but I've personally never seen research that had anything like nearly that big an effect, but I haven't seen all the world's research - that number you'd have to ask @candylilacs about).
. . . if the effect lasted all day. Which, IIRC, from most of what I've read, there's not much evidence.
Tiny. Tiny. Tiny. Lost in the noise of estimating error. Not worth considering. And who wants to eat chiles (or ginger, etc.) by the shovelful?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20826626
Note that that study only sees results after a month of using a supplement (concentrated) form of capsinoid (chile derivative) routinely, that only reaches significance when they pool numbers (and do some other really questionable stuff, statistically speaking), relies on measurements at points in time relatively close to fasted consumption of the supplement. And then the effect is so small as to be within the range of normal daily RMR variation. Whoopee.
Don't waste your time chasing "metabolism boosting" individual foods. You'd burn more calories clicking keys looking for the research that discounts it.
I think your post is indicative as to why the other one got so many disagrees. the differences are so small as to get get lost in the wash of logging errors and N.E.A.T. variations and normal RMR. When people focus on this kind of minutia I really think they are searching for a "hack" that's going to make a difference and, as a variation of what you state above, one burns more calories looking for the hack than the hack itself does.
Bottom line is there are no hacks that do anything of significance. The basics, reasonable calorie deficit, exercise and patience, are what work.
To me, "potentially real, but ridiculously small" is a more informative answer than "disagree", based on some of the (admittedly questionable) research results. Often, the simple one-click "answers" are slightly wrong, and (IMO) do no credit to those who advance them (anonymously ).
I acknowledge that I do like nuance and hair-splitting, by nature, though.
Same here with the hair splitting. Its ok ma'am. I have my own woo crew. They're just jealous because I am prettier than they are! 🤟9 -
I happen to know things. They can disagree all they want. I dislike ginger.
4 -
candylilacs wrote: »Cinnamon, chiles (cayenne and others), ginger and tumeric, are all a "boost" to your metabolism. Now, I can't pinpoint exactly what boost: 0.05-15%, that's for you to judge.
Suprised this got quite as many "disagrees" as it did. There's at least some evidence that that's true, IMU, for some of those things.
But pay attention to the percentages: Once again, it's arithmetic FTW!
Let's say I eat a material amount of chiles (we're not talking "just a sprinkle" here). My "metabolism" (BMR/RMR) is estimated by most calculators to be around 1200 calories/day.
A 0.05% boost would be 0.6 calories. Whee!
A 15% boost would be 180 calories (which would be nice, but I've personally never seen research that had anything like nearly that big an effect, but I haven't seen all the world's research - that number you'd have to ask @candylilacs about).
. . . if the effect lasted all day. Which, IIRC, from most of what I've read, there's not much evidence.
Tiny. Tiny. Tiny. Lost in the noise of estimating error. Not worth considering. And who wants to eat chiles (or ginger, etc.) by the shovelful?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20826626
Note that that study only sees results after a month of using a supplement (concentrated) form of capsinoid (chile derivative) routinely, that only reaches significance when they pool numbers (and do some other really questionable stuff, statistically speaking), relies on measurements at points in time relatively close to fasted consumption of the supplement. And then the effect is so small as to be within the range of normal daily RMR variation. Whoopee.
Don't waste your time chasing "metabolism boosting" individual foods. You'd burn more calories clicking keys looking for the research that discounts it.
I think your post is indicative as to why the other one got so many disagrees. the differences are so small as to get get lost in the wash of logging errors and N.E.A.T. variations and normal RMR. When people focus on this kind of minutia I really think they are searching for a "hack" that's going to make a difference and, as a variation of what you state above, one burns more calories looking for the hack than the hack itself does.
Bottom line is there are no hacks that do anything of significance. The basics, reasonable calorie deficit, exercise and patience, are what work.
To me, "potentially real, but ridiculously small" is a more informative answer than "disagree", based on some of the (admittedly questionable) research results. Often, the simple one-click "answers" are slightly wrong, and (IMO) do no credit to those who advance them (anonymously ).
I acknowledge that I do like nuance and hair-splitting, by nature, though.
I get you Ann and I think you know I have a high degree of respect for your perspective.
For me, it's a bottom line kind of issue. In my mind, if these nuances won't make a significantly contribution difference to achieving one's goals, then, functionally, they are just noise. And distracting noise at that.
So many people get so hung up on gaming the system as opposed to focusing on the fundamentals and, IMHO, that is so very counterproductive.
PS: one of those disagrees was mine for the reasons stated above.9 -
candylilacs wrote: »Cinnamon, chiles (cayenne and others), ginger and tumeric, are all a "boost" to your metabolism. Now, I can't pinpoint exactly what boost: 0.05-15%, that's for you to judge.
Suprised this got quite as many "disagrees" as it did. There's at least some evidence that that's true, IMU, for some of those things.
But pay attention to the percentages: Once again, it's arithmetic FTW!
Let's say I eat a material amount of chiles (we're not talking "just a sprinkle" here). My "metabolism" (BMR/RMR) is estimated by most calculators to be around 1200 calories/day.
A 0.05% boost would be 0.6 calories. Whee!
A 15% boost would be 180 calories (which would be nice, but I've personally never seen research that had anything like nearly that big an effect, but I haven't seen all the world's research - that number you'd have to ask @candylilacs about).
. . . if the effect lasted all day. Which, IIRC, from most of what I've read, there's not much evidence.
Tiny. Tiny. Tiny. Lost in the noise of estimating error. Not worth considering. And who wants to eat chiles (or ginger, etc.) by the shovelful?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20826626
Note that that study only sees results after a month of using a supplement (concentrated) form of capsinoid (chile derivative) routinely, that only reaches significance when they pool numbers (and do some other really questionable stuff, statistically speaking), relies on measurements at points in time relatively close to fasted consumption of the supplement. And then the effect is so small as to be within the range of normal daily RMR variation. Whoopee.
Don't waste your time chasing "metabolism boosting" individual foods. You'd burn more calories clicking keys looking for the research that discounts it.
I think your post is indicative as to why the other one got so many disagrees. the differences are so small as to get get lost in the wash of logging errors and N.E.A.T. variations and normal RMR. When people focus on this kind of minutia I really think they are searching for a "hack" that's going to make a difference and, as a variation of what you state above, one burns more calories looking for the hack than the hack itself does.
Bottom line is there are no hacks that do anything of significance. The basics, reasonable calorie deficit, exercise and patience, are what work.
To me, "potentially real, but ridiculously small" is a more informative answer than "disagree", based on some of the (admittedly questionable) research results. Often, the simple one-click "answers" are slightly wrong, and (IMO) do no credit to those who advance them (anonymously ).
I acknowledge that I do like nuance and hair-splitting, by nature, though.
I get you Ann and I think you know I have a high degree of respect for your perspective.
For me, it's a bottom line kind of issue. In my mind, if these nuances won't make a significantly contribution difference to achieving one's goals, then, functionally, they are just noise. And distracting noise at that.
So many people get so hung up on gaming the system as opposed to focusing on the fundamentals and, IMHO, that is so very counterproductive.
PS: one of those disagrees was mine for the reasons stated above.
We agree that it's noise, 100%.
Seemingly, a few people want to chase effortless results; readily achievable results that require effort or sacrifice are just not as appealing as effortless ones.
I get it, I do. But it's a waste of time. Which is why I replied to the post with more specifics. That's how I like to waste my time.
7 -
candylilacs wrote: »I happen to know things. They can disagree all they want. I dislike ginger.
If you want to continue to eat cinnamon, chillies, ginger and turmeric for a couple of extra pieces of lettuce a day then go for it. Personally I'd only eat those things if I enjoyed them as their impact on metabolism is insignificant in the scheme of things.14 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »candylilacs wrote: »I happen to know things. They can disagree all they want. I dislike ginger.
If you want to continue to eat cinnamon, chillies, ginger and turmeric for a couple of extra pieces of lettuce a day then go for it. Personally I'd only eat those things if I enjoyed them as their impact on metabolism is insignificant in the scheme of things.
I think there are some compelling reasons for eating all of those items. The anti inflammatory effects of curcumin and chiles. The digestive benefits of ginger. The positive impact of cinnamon on blood glucose, plus many of these things are just plain delicious!
But for increased calorie burn? Nah. It's meaningless.16 -
The OP poster said:
And I quoted her necessary "boosts" in metabolism. I couldn't give it an actual number, scientists don't know for sure, but I know for sure it helps. Spicy food generally helps.Now the losing weight process is getting harder and I’m wondering what actually boosts your metabolism?
I dislike ginger (if you read above) and I'm so-so on tumeric. I love chai tea latte (with whole milk) and I have been known to drink cinnamon tea. Variety is the spice of life!Nah. It's meaningless.
No, it's not. It's meaningful for the OP and it's all those posing questions about giving a boost to her/his metabolism.4 -
candylilacs wrote: »Cinnamon, chiles (cayenne and others), ginger and tumeric, are all a "boost" to your metabolism. Now, I can't pinpoint exactly what boost: 0.05-15%, that's for you to judge.
Suprised this got quite as many "disagrees" as it did. There's at least some evidence that that's true, IMU, for some of those things.
But pay attention to the percentages: Once again, it's arithmetic FTW!
Let's say I eat a material amount of chiles (we're not talking "just a sprinkle" here). My "metabolism" (BMR/RMR) is estimated by most calculators to be around 1200 calories/day.
A 0.05% boost would be 0.6 calories. Whee!
A 15% boost would be 180 calories (which would be nice, but I've personally never seen research that had anything like nearly that big an effect, but I haven't seen all the world's research - that number you'd have to ask @candylilacs about).
. . . if the effect lasted all day. Which, IIRC, from most of what I've read, there's not much evidence.
Tiny. Tiny. Tiny. Lost in the noise of estimating error. Not worth considering. And who wants to eat chiles (or ginger, etc.) by the shovelful?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20826626
Note that that study only sees results after a month of using a supplement (concentrated) form of capsinoid (chile derivative) routinely, that only reaches significance when they pool numbers (and do some other really questionable stuff, statistically speaking), relies on measurements at points in time relatively close to fasted consumption of the supplement. And then the effect is so small as to be within the range of normal daily RMR variation. Whoopee.
Don't waste your time chasing "metabolism boosting" individual foods. You'd burn more calories clicking keys looking for the research that discounts it.
I think your post is indicative as to why the other one got so many disagrees. the differences are so small as to get get lost in the wash of logging errors and N.E.A.T. variations and normal RMR. When people focus on this kind of minutia I really think they are searching for a "hack" that's going to make a difference and, as a variation of what you state above, one burns more calories looking for the hack than the hack itself does.
Bottom line is there are no hacks that do anything of significance. The basics, reasonable calorie deficit, exercise and patience, are what work.
To me, "potentially real, but ridiculously small" is a more informative answer than "disagree", based on some of the (admittedly questionable) research results. Often, the simple one-click "answers" are slightly wrong, and (IMO) do no credit to those who advance them (anonymously ).
I acknowledge that I do like nuance and hair-splitting, by nature, though.
I get you Ann and I think you know I have a high degree of respect for your perspective.
For me, it's a bottom line kind of issue. In my mind, if these nuances won't make a significantly contribution difference to achieving one's goals, then, functionally, they are just noise. And distracting noise at that.
So many people get so hung up on gaming the system as opposed to focusing on the fundamentals and, IMHO, that is so very counterproductive.
PS: one of those disagrees was mine for the reasons stated above.
I think there are several things people forget because we rather argue semantics. First and most powerful, is power of the placebo. Even those many of those are minimal effects on actual metabolism, if doing these "hacks" makes one more compliant, or helps "cravings" than its worth doing... The same is one of the "benefits" of many supplements. And there are endless studies supporting placebo effects. Its also one reason why hospitals discharge you quickly after surgery. So what you and even I see as noise, could be much more to someone else. I have seen this with people i train. One of the ladies believes BCAAs are what helps her recover faster. Whether or not it actually does isn't as important as her belief that it is. And the belief has driven her to have a 405lb hip thrust at 110 lbs. Ironically, even told her that most of the evidence regarding BCAAs isn't promising.
Second, while current evidence should be at the forefront of conversation, a person still needs to understand the individual response. Both Layne Norton and Eric Helms have talked about it. What i mean, it doesn't matter what the evidence says about what is optimal if a person can't recover, adhere to or enjoy. So while it's beneficial to focus the big 5 lifts, if a person can't get comfortable or don't enjoy them, its worth adjusting to something else.
6 -
candylilacs wrote: »The OP poster said:
And I quoted her necessary "boosts" in metabolism. I couldn't give it an actual number, scientists don't know for sure, but I know for sure it helps. Spicy food generally helps.Now the losing weight process is getting harder and I’m wondering what actually boosts your metabolism?
I dislike ginger (if you read above) and I'm so-so on tumeric. I love chai tea latte (with whole milk) and I have been known to drink cinnamon tea. Variety is the spice of life!Nah. It's meaningless.
No, it's not. It's meaningful for the OP and it's all those posing questions about giving a boost to her/his metabolism.
Unless you can produce a sound research study demonstrating otherwise for one of these cases: It's arithmetically meaningless. A tiny effect at best, typically only when quite a daunting amount of the food is involved. "Scientists don't know for sure" is a dodge. There's been research. The results have been underwhelming, in what I've read.
Did you read the study I linked? They went through a number of questionable statistical gyrations to arrive at an effect - from a concentrated supplement of a chemical that exists in chiles, not from a food - of around 50 calories per day. Poorly substantiated, given the gyrations. And a result number that falls within the random unexplained daily variation in a typical person's BMR/RMR. Compared to working on increasing one's NEAT, let along managing one's intake, it's so trivial as to be meaningless.
Psu's point about placebo effect is well taken . . . but we could push anything as a placebo (and various internet hucksters do). If there's a point in talking about these things at all, there's a point in talking about them as accurately as we can manage.
Tiny numbers. At best. Not worth the time and energy to research, buy, consume, unless they're foods you want to eat in quantities you want to eat anyway.11 -
Why are you trying to convey "Tiny numbers"? Is it the hill you want to die on?Tiny numbers. At best. Not worth the time and energy to research, buy, consume, unless they're foods you want to eat in quantities you want to eat anyway.
The overwhelming majority can see on this board is this "Sure, AnnPT, while she's quite oblivious and she's wrong anyway, and you're right! N.E.A.T. variations and normal RMR/BMR! You're a cute grandma!" You're the in-crowd, and mine is the out-crowd.
I'm not in favor of food scales, BMR/RMR/NEAT (I don't know what's that means), but I do know that the body is taking too much of your time.
2 -
candylilacs wrote: »Why are you trying to convey "Tiny numbers"? Is it the hill you want to die on?Tiny numbers. At best. Not worth the time and energy to research, buy, consume, unless they're foods you want to eat in quantities you want to eat anyway.
The overwhelming majority can see on this board is this "Sure, AnnPT, while she's quite oblivious and she's wrong anyway, and you're right! N.E.A.T. variations and normal RMR/BMR! You're a cute grandma!" You're the in-crowd, and mine is the out-crowd.
I'm not in favor of food scales, BMR/RMR/NEAT (I don't know what's that means), but I do know that the body is taking too much of your time.
In or out crowd, its simple: eat that stuff because you like it and it makes you feel better in the self optimizing phase when you've already got the base results you want.
Worry about your base caloric balance to get the results in the first place.
All the hacks in the world won't get that first base balance and result by themselves.
Personally I think that Ann is too fru fru about accepting touchy feeley unproven things as possibilities and prefer to spend my time where there can be more substantial results.
I still consume vast amounts of caffeine and spice my food strongly because I enjoy both and they both help control how much I eat. Not because they boost my metabolism 😘
As for not being in favour of scales or of not knowing about and managing your caloric expenditure I am not sure how this is something to be proud about when posting in the discussion board of a calorie counting website, unless your argument is that people should not be using the capabilities of the site. I mean if all you need to do is keep a rough tally, you could use a napkin instead!19 -
candylilacs wrote: »Why are you trying to convey "Tiny numbers"? Is it the hill you want to die on?Tiny numbers. At best. Not worth the time and energy to research, buy, consume, unless they're foods you want to eat in quantities you want to eat anyway.
The overwhelming majority can see on this board is this "Sure, AnnPT, while she's quite oblivious and she's wrong anyway, and you're right! N.E.A.T. variations and normal RMR/BMR! You're a cute grandma!" You're the in-crowd, and mine is the out-crowd.
I'm not in favor of food scales, BMR/RMR/NEAT (I don't know what's that means), but I do know that the body is taking too much of your time.
Maam.. or Sir..? First off, that "Granny" knows more in one finger than you have in your noggin. I might suggest you listen and learn. Just like you think you "cured" your diabetes with keto fairy dust. You have a massive lack of understanding of human physiology. Afraid to break it to you... once a dm 2, always one. Even if the symptoms are in remission. Second , Ms. Anne has done something you haven't. Lost over 70lbs and kept it off for 5 years I believe. I have seen your post. Always on and off some invisible wagon. Third, the "in" crowd? WTF? Are we in high school? I'm a borderline fringe-ist myself, but you make me go woo. Well... back to MFP jail... peace.21 -
candylilacs wrote: »Why are you trying to convey "Tiny numbers"? Is it the hill you want to die on?Tiny numbers. At best. Not worth the time and energy to research, buy, consume, unless they're foods you want to eat in quantities you want to eat anyway.
The overwhelming majority can see on this board is this "Sure, AnnPT, while she's quite oblivious and she's wrong anyway, and you're right! N.E.A.T. variations and normal RMR/BMR! You're a cute grandma!" You're the in-crowd, and mine is the out-crowd.
I'm not in favor of food scales, BMR/RMR/NEAT (I don't know what's that means), but I do know that the body is taking too much of your time.
It isn't that you are in the out crowd. It is because what you are posting can not be found in scientific research. This evidence shows that the extra calories gained from these foods are insignificant. You would burn so many more calories with a 5 minute walk. The fact that you don't even know what BMR, RMR and NEAT are speaks volumes for your lack of knowledge when it comes to weight loss.23 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »candylilacs wrote: »Why are you trying to convey "Tiny numbers"? Is it the hill you want to die on?Tiny numbers. At best. Not worth the time and energy to research, buy, consume, unless they're foods you want to eat in quantities you want to eat anyway.
The overwhelming majority can see on this board is this "Sure, AnnPT, while she's quite oblivious and she's wrong anyway, and you're right! N.E.A.T. variations and normal RMR/BMR! You're a cute grandma!" You're the in-crowd, and mine is the out-crowd.
I'm not in favor of food scales, BMR/RMR/NEAT (I don't know what's that means), but I do know that the body is taking too much of your time.
It isn't that you are in the out crowd. It is because what you are posting can not be found in scientific research. This evidence shows that the extra calories gained from these foods are insignificant. You would burn so many more calories with a 5 minute walk. The fact that you don't even know what BMR, RMR and NEAT are speaks volumes for your lack of knowledge when it comes to weight loss.
And that is why @AnnPT77 will succeed and @candylilacs will fail. She will fall off her magic wagon. Hell, maybe i am wrong, but my money is on ann.....13 -
The lighter you get, the lower you metabolic rate goes. Hence the lower calories needed to maintain. You can do LONGER physical activities to keep calories burning, but really to keep things in check is based more around activity AND diet.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
6 -
psychod787 wrote: »UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »If by "metabolism" you mean the calories you burn doing nothing but hanging out being alive (RMR/BMR), then there isn't much way to increase it significantly, at least not legally/safely. A pound of muscle only burns a couple of calories (literally) per day more than a pound of fat. There are some other tiny things that could be positive/negative (like undereating so much that your body slows down hair growth and whatnot - it won't stop a person losing weight if they're still eating fewer calories than they burn, but it can lead to negative health outcomes).
If you simply want to increase the number of calories your body burns, there are two productive routes: Exercise and daily life activity, not necessarily in that order (varies). One tricky thing is that it's possible to increase exercise so much that you're fatigued, and reduce daily life activity (chores, work, non-exercise hobbies, etc.) so much that you wipe out a good chunk of the exercise calorie benefit. Conversely, you can amp up daily life activity so much that workout intensity (or willingness/compliance) could be affected. So, there's a balance, and I'd bet the balance point depends on your starting conditions (fitness, daily habits, etc., at the start).
You probably know how to increase exercise calorie expenditure: Pick a type of exercise that burns more calories per minute, or do what you normally do more intensely, more often, or for a longer duration. Watch out for over-fatigue.
There's a thread here about ideas for increasing daily life activity:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss
For some, that produces meaningful results.
There are some other very, very minor things. For example, thermic efficiency of food, TEF, is one: There's a bare chance that eating more protein or more whole foods might burn a truly tiny number of extra calories in the digestive/metabolization processes, but it's iffy and minor. Better to focus on nutrition, satiation, and general enjoyment in that realm, I think, vs. chasing burning a tiny number more calories, on a speculative and non-measurable basis.
Probably the biggest helps in your kind of scenario are consistency, patience, persistence, and precision (of logging), realistically. Not what you'd wanted to hear, I suspect. :drinker:
Exercise... yes.... cardio is great for just burning calories. Resistance training IMHO is just overlooked to much. You burn some energy during lifting. Slight bump in rmr over 48hr period most likely from increased protein turn over. Small amount of rmr bump dt increased/ sustaining muscle mass. It also might help decrease skeletal muscle efficiency that seems to happen after weight loss. Protein levels of 1.6/kg seem to also blunt the slight decrease in rmr as well...
Lol I understood nothing from this hahah , enlighten me please
Here are some research reviews that might help.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/30260099/
https://academic.oup.com/jn/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jn/nxz281/5637681
Or, with apologies to Mr. Psychod787 :flowerforyou: , if you were looking for a less academic restatement, I think he was wanting to say that:
* Too many people ignore how useful strength training is (maybe especially during weight loss)
* You do burn some calories during lifting, even if not quite as many calories per minute as during most cardio
* Strength training also causes a very small extra calorie burn after the workout ("bump in RMR", or resting metabolic rate), probably from rebuilding the muscles that you worked out
* Sometimes people who lose weight, also lose strength and muscle (a bad thing) along with fat; and strength training while losing weight can help avoid that bad effect
* Getting enough protein from one's diet seems to help avoid losing muscle while losing weight, too; and 1.6g of protein daily seems to be a good minimum to hit (let's call that 0.75g protein per pound, more or less, if you use pounds vs. kg). I suspect he might mean per kg/pound of healthy goal weight, or maybe even per kg/pound of lean body mass, but I'm not sure - he didn't say.
I may've missed a point or two in there about resting metabolic rate and protein, or muscular efficiency, not sure, but I think that's the gist.
Super insightful thank you
7 -
This sub-branch of this thread started when I essentially defended your statement that foods like chiles, etc., may increase "metabolism" (which pretty much is RMR/BMR - resting metabolic rate, basal metabolic rate, BTW), by amounts like 0.05%.candylilacs wrote: »Why are you trying to convey "Tiny numbers"? Is it the hill you want to die on?
Speaking of hills, and locations for eventual mortality.Tiny numbers. At best. Not worth the time and energy to research, buy, consume, unless they're foods you want to eat in quantities you want to eat anyway.
The overwhelming majority can see on this board is this "Sure, AnnPT, while she's quite oblivious and she's wrong anyway, and you're right! N.E.A.T. variations and normal RMR/BMR! You're a cute grandma!" You're the in-crowd, and mine is the out-crowd.
I'm not in favor of food scales, BMR/RMR/NEAT (I don't know what's that means), but I do know that the body is taking too much of your time.
I hope you'll be very successful, using your chosen methods, sincerely. :flowerforyou:
I reserve the ability to respond to posts here as I see fit, as long as I do so politely and within the terms of service, in an effort to keep threads in the general region of science, not supposition.
I've not seen any reasonable demonstration of effects in the 15% of metabolism range. I'd be happy to see and evaluate research that demonstrates any food (or even supplement) increasing metabolism by 15%. That would be an excellent, useful thing, assuming the food/supplement was one that would be safe and reasonably pleasant, in the needed amounts.
I also reserve the ability to spend my time as I choose, and hope you'll do likewise.
I think the whole idea of in-crowds and out-crowds is kind of out there. I don't know anyone on this forum in real life, so it's hard to be part of any kind of a crowd. Here, we're each the sum of our posts, nothing more or less.
I acknowledge that the cumulative body of our individual posts here will create, in other people's minds, a sort of reputation for each of us. That's unavoidable.22
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions