Exercise slows down metabolism ?
yarwell
Posts: 10,477 Member
Controversial, but worth a read -
http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/06/15/exercise-boosts-the-metabolism-it-seems-the-reverse-might-be-true/
I often see postings along the lines "I'm eating {sensible number of calories} and exercising five times a week but haven't lost a pound since Easter / Xmas / other milestone". Big deficits and stalls / plateaus seem to go hand in hand.
Does exercise have its own "starvation mode" ?
Is the conventional logic inadequate - " First, exercise builds muscle, and muscle burns energy even at rest. Second, there are a lot of skinny athletes out there who think they are skinny because they train hard (as opposed to being able to train hard because they are skinny). Third, it is a common observation that heavy people tend not to exercise much, so it is easy to blame their weight problem on a lack of exercise."
Exercise less to weigh less ? Who knows.
http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/06/15/exercise-boosts-the-metabolism-it-seems-the-reverse-might-be-true/
I often see postings along the lines "I'm eating {sensible number of calories} and exercising five times a week but haven't lost a pound since Easter / Xmas / other milestone". Big deficits and stalls / plateaus seem to go hand in hand.
Does exercise have its own "starvation mode" ?
Is the conventional logic inadequate - " First, exercise builds muscle, and muscle burns energy even at rest. Second, there are a lot of skinny athletes out there who think they are skinny because they train hard (as opposed to being able to train hard because they are skinny). Third, it is a common observation that heavy people tend not to exercise much, so it is easy to blame their weight problem on a lack of exercise."
There are 4 well-controlled, inpatient, metabolic ward studies (the gold standard for human research) published from 1982 thru 1997 that showed statistically significant reductions in resting metabolic rate when overweight subjects performed 300-600 Calories per day of endurance exercise for weeks at a time [1-4]. There are no equally rigorous human studies showing the opposite.
Exercise less to weigh less ? Who knows.
0
Replies
-
Kind of makes logical sense to me that a more efficient body would need less food to survive if you aren't doing very much? Dunno though, I'm not a scientist!
0 -
"when overweight humans do more than one hour of endurance exercise daily, resting metabolism on average declines between 5 and 15%."
Is 5-15% significant? !5% sure "sounds" significant, but I really dont know what that impact would be taken into the whole scheme of an over weight person trying to get fit and slimmer.
what do they mean by "more than one hour" is that 3 hours? or one hour and one minute?
to be honest, given the benefits of moderate exercise, Im not going to worry too much about this and also wonder why it wasn't "bigger" news if it is significant0 -
This is more sensationalistic crap. It refers to "exercise" as aerobic activities, while terms like "strength training", "weight lifting" "anaerobic" not only don't show up in this article, let alone countless studies performed over the span of decades which almost all conclusively demonstrate the effects of anaerobic activities on RMR.0
-
Well, if it slows down your resting metabolic rate 5%, that is only 65 calories less a day for a 150 lb person.
If that same 150 lb person is exercising 60 minutes (to create that effect), he or she is burning at least 600 calories.
SO... you are still burning 535 more calories for the day than if you didn't work out, regardless of the drop in the metabolic rate.
If you drop it 15%, it cuts 225 calories--but you are still burning more through your exercise to compensate for the lowered metabolic rate. You would lose more weight than if you did not exercise at all.0 -
It makes sense that it would slow down metabolism due to either (1) the people lost weight (I'm assuming they didn't as the study would've controlled for that or at least mentioned it) or (2) their resting heart rates decreased, implying their cardiovascular system got healthier and more efficient.
People don't seem to take into account that a 'slowed down metabolism' has positive implications for overall health. It means your body processes function more efficiently, not that they're damaged.0 -
Big deficits and stalls / plateaus seem to go hand in hand.
Don't want to hijack the thread, but I am curious about yours and mcarter's take on the above statement. I think both of you are intelligent and knowledgable and I respect your opinions. I frequently see you both going against conventional wisdom and advocating for or supporting the idea that large deficits are not necessarily to be avoided.
When I see a post like "HELP I'M NOT LOOSING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" on the forums, 99% of the time the person has a really large deficit. That, and my own personal experience of success with a small to moderate deficit, makes me think that too big a deficit is detrimental for weight loss. Do you agree? What do you guys think is the best way to determine an optimal deficit?
Thanks!0 -
Exercise less to weigh less ? Who knows.
Sure. If you're not losing weight the best thing to do would be to exercise less or stop all together. That and eat more calories. Those two things will most definitely make you lose weight.
[/sarcasm]0 -
It makes sense that it would slow down metabolism due to either (1) the people lost weight (I'm assuming they didn't as the study would've controlled for that or at least mentioned it) or (2) their resting heart rates decreased, implying their cardiovascular system got healthier and more efficient.
People don't seem to take into account that a 'slowed down metabolism' has positive implications for overall health. It means your body processes function more efficiently, not that they're damaged.
I have noticed that my typical pulse has dropped at least 30 beats per minute since I've lost weight.0 -
It makes sense that it would slow down metabolism due to either (1) the people lost weight (I'm assuming they didn't as the study would've controlled for that or at least mentioned it) or (2) their resting heart rates decreased, implying their cardiovascular system got healthier and more efficient.
People don't seem to take into account that a 'slowed down metabolism' has positive implications for overall health. It means your body processes function more efficiently, not that they're damaged.
This was my initial thought even before I read the article. I think more recent studies would also provide a more concrete foundation to the claim.0 -
I exercise between 2 and 4 hours daily, and I can eat right at 4000 calories and never gain an ounce.
This study sounds like junk.
The MFP numbers are spot on for both me and the wife, and every time we plug in, we both lose exactly what's supposed to come off each week.
High amounts of exercise have done nothing but make me fit as can be with a HIGH METABOLISM:drinker:0 -
Controversial, but worth a read -
http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/06/15/exercise-boosts-the-metabolism-it-seems-the-reverse-might-be-true/
I often see postings along the lines "I'm eating {sensible number of calories} and exercising five times a week but haven't lost a pound since Easter / Xmas / other milestone". Big deficits and stalls / plateaus seem to go hand in hand.
Does exercise have its own "starvation mode" ?
Is the conventional logic inadequate - " First, exercise builds muscle, and muscle burns energy even at rest. Second, there are a lot of skinny athletes out there who think they are skinny because they train hard (as opposed to being able to train hard because they are skinny). Third, it is a common observation that heavy people tend not to exercise much, so it is easy to blame their weight problem on a lack of exercise."There are 4 well-controlled, inpatient, metabolic ward studies (the gold standard for human research) published from 1982 thru 1997 that showed statistically significant reductions in resting metabolic rate when overweight subjects performed 300-600 Calories per day of endurance exercise for weeks at a time [1-4]. There are no equally rigorous human studies showing the opposite.
Exercise less to weigh less ? Who knows.
Makes sense, it doesn't usually take too long to become more cardio vascularly fit, especially from the state of having done no cardio.
So initially you may get some great calorie burns, but then your system becomes more efficient overall, and that extends into the other 23 hrs of the day.
Plus the fact some other studies have shown folks that are new to exercise tend to do less in the day of activity when they exercise, so you burn 600 in an hr, but for say 2 hrs later in the day you might have been activity enough to burn 200 cal over RMR, you sit around and burn no extra. So the workout only brought you net 400 gain to the day, plus it's made you more efficient, so now the whole day burns say 200 less, that means the net burn was only 200.
Hence those studies we've all seen where the diet and resistance group does best at keeping LBM, better than even the diet and cardio group.
Really shows how walking, as a way to just make up for our generally inactive lifestyle, can be a enough cardio. Helps make up for the extra sitting we do, mainly fat burning, don't improve so fast in efficiency because it's not as stressful and demands less improvements, ect.0 -
Interesting article. Thank You. It is an especially interesting read for me, because I have been finding that the more I exercise, the less I seem to lose. Now, I'm not saying exercise is bad, but the harder I try to use exercise to lose weight, the slower my losses. I find that the optimum level of exercise for me seems to be just about a 1 mile walk/day and/or just working on increasing my overall level of activity. I'm not saying I'm hitting a "starvation mode", but I also find this correlates to calories also. The less calories I eat, even if I'm not really hungry, the harder time I have actually losing weight. I seem to have a very fine line for my optimum weight loss. It appears that my body would have been amazing at surviving in times of great famine.0
-
Wow. That's really intriguing. Definitely controversial but interesting none the less.0
-
this is probably a study that's been paid for by couch and big screen TV manufacturers
anyway, i dont exercise to lose weight or boost my metabolism. in fact i exercised the entire time as i gained 80 pounds. i exercise because i like it
0 -
This is more sensationalistic crap. It refers to "exercise" as aerobic activities, while terms like "strength training", "weight lifting" "anaerobic" not only don't show up in this article, let alone countless studies performed over the span of decades which almost all conclusively demonstrate the effects of anaerobic activities on RMR.
^^This. The way that this article comes across is very "it's not your fault you're fat".0 -
Interesting read. I find the comments even more interesting.0
-
^^This. The way that this article comes across is very "it's not your fault you're fat".
I don't agree. It doesn't make excuses for people at all. It just points out that a person may not be getting the benefit they expect from just doing cardio. If that turns out to be true, I think it's important for people to know that. It would have been better if he'd pointed out that weight lifting may be a more effective alternative.0 -
^^This. The way that this article comes across is very "it's not your fault you're fat".
I don't agree. It doesn't make excuses for people at all. It just points out that a person may not be getting the benefit they expect from just doing cardio. If that turns out to be true, I think it's important for people to know that. It would have been better if he'd pointed out that weight lifting may be a more effective alternative.
But that's kind of my point- it refers only to cardio with out taking anything else into account. So someone who's "running for a half an hour a day" to use the same example as the article does, may never have the thought that lifting could actually be, you know, GOOD for them, and a viable alternative to running every day.0 -
This is more sensationalistic crap. It refers to "exercise" as aerobic activities, while terms like "strength training", "weight lifting" "anaerobic" not only don't show up in this article, let alone countless studies performed over the span of decades which almost all conclusively demonstrate the effects of anaerobic activities on RMR.
^^This. The way that this article comes across is very "it's not your fault you're fat".
If anyone wants onboard, I'm launching a class action lawsuit against Precor. Use of their equipment has caused my metabolism to slow down and I want compensation for my physical and mental stress. They are destroying America by preaching exercise and we must make our voices heard!0 -
Sure. If you're not losing weight the best thing to do would be to exercise less or stop all together. That and eat more calories. Those two things will most definitely make you lose weight.
[/sarcasm]
When you have to label it sarcasm, it takes away all the fun.0 -
BINGO!This is more sensationalistic crap. It refers to "exercise" as aerobic activities, while terms like "strength training", "weight lifting" "anaerobic" not only don't show up in this article, let alone countless studies performed over the span of decades which almost all conclusively demonstrate the effects of anaerobic activities on RMR.
^^This. The way that this article comes across is very "it's not your fault you're fat".
You just nailed it. And people are fast to shrug off responsibility and embrace ANYTHING that can possibly be used as an excuse not to exercise or take ownership of personal health and fitness.0 -
As I lose weight and become more efficient at exercise I burn less calories than I used to doing the same amount of cardio. NO surprise there. I can now go longer and harder for the same amount of calories. I have to keep pushing myself to become even stronger. THAT IS THE POINT!0
-
To my logic (I'm a numbers banking gal and have no medical expertise save my and my friends experiences) this makes sense as an overweight person already has a pretty fast metabolism. All the extra food and lack of physical exertion would signal to that Neanderthal part of our brain that we're in times of plenty so there's no need to slow the metabolism down and store every little morsel of food for famine times. Now all the sudden you're burning calories that you aren't used to burning and you're probably also eating healthier (most times those go hand in hand especially in a hospital type setting that it sounds like these studies were done) and your Neanderthal brain says "holy crap what's going on?!?" and starts preparing for the famine that must be coming to justify all this work and the lack of an over abundance of food.
As was already stated, that was such a small percentage and the amount of calories burned more than covers the slow down so I wouldn't worry about it.0 -
This is more sensationalistic crap. It refers to "exercise" as aerobic activities, while terms like "strength training", "weight lifting" "anaerobic" not only don't show up in this article, let alone countless studies performed over the span of decades which almost all conclusively demonstrate the effects of anaerobic activities on RMR.
^^This. The way that this article comes across is very "it's not your fault you're fat".
If anyone wants onboard, I'm launching a class action lawsuit against Precor. Use of their equipment has caused my metabolism to slow down and I want compensation for my physical and mental stress. They are destroying America by preaching exercise and we must make our voices heard!
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:0 -
As I lose weight and become more efficient at exercise I burn less calories than I used to doing the same amount of cardio. NO surprise there. I can now go longer and harder for the same amount of calories. I have to keep pushing myself to become even stronger. THAT IS THE POINT!
Exactly and the more strength training you do the easier it becomes to lift that weight. You have to increase the weight to get the same benefit from the exercise. I thought all of this was exactly what people wanted. To be stronger, faster, leaner, and more efficient at doing whatever it is that they do.0 -
As I lose weight and become more efficient at exercise I burn less calories than I used to doing the same amount of cardio. NO surprise there. I can now go longer and harder for the same amount of calories. I have to keep pushing myself to become even stronger. THAT IS THE POINT!
Exactly and the more strength training you do the easier it becomes to lift that weight. You have to increase the weight to get the same benefit from the exercise. I thought all of this was exactly what people wanted. To be stronger, faster, leaner, and more efficient at doing whatever it is that they do.
:drinker: Perfectly said.0 -
I had tried to lose weight for about 10 years. I would watch what I ate and go to the gym and workout like a madwoman. I would give up after 4 to 6 weeks because I had lost nothing. I finally got a trainer who got me to slow down on the machines and got a HRM so that I stayed in the zone for burning fat. It worked, the pounds are finally coming off. Recently, the weight loss slowed, so I tried the madwoman routine again. Weight loss has begun again! What does this show? Low to moderate exercise may be what is needed for the severely overweight. Now I include both high calorie burn and moderate calorie burn in my workouts.0
-
The head scratch in all this is OVERWEIGHT PEOPLE ARE WORKING HARDER THAN TRIM PEOPLE!
Why is it that if you are trim and you walk around with a 100 lb pack on your back you're working out. But when you carry that weight around inside your body, 24 - 7, you aren't working out. Everything is harder to do when you are carrying extra weight but you can't expect to see any credit for it in the BMR charts.
scratch, scratch :huh:0 -
The head scratch in all this is OVERWEIGHT PEOPLE ARE WORKING HARDER THAN TRIM PEOPLE!
Why is it that if you are trim and you walk around with a 100 lb pack on your back you're working out. But when you carry that weight around inside your body, 24 - 7, you aren't working out. Everything is harder to do when you are carrying extra weight but you can't expect to see any credit for it in the BMR charts.
scratch, scratch :huh:
BMR does take weight into account, so I'm confused.0 -
Big deficits and stalls / plateaus seem to go hand in hand.
Don't want to hijack the thread, but I am curious about yours and mcarter's take on the above statement. I think both of you are intelligent and knowledgable and I respect your opinions. I frequently see you both going against conventional wisdom and advocating for or supporting the idea that large deficits are not necessarily to be avoided.
When I see a post like "HELP I'M NOT LOOSING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" on the forums, 99% of the time the person has a really large deficit. That, and my own personal experience of success with a small to moderate deficit, makes me think that too big a deficit is detrimental for weight loss. Do you agree? What do you guys think is the best way to determine an optimal deficit?
Thanks!
I think WEIGHT LOSS and stalls/plateaus go hand in hand. It just doesn't come off in a straight line. And people always think they're stalled when it's a slow point. WW defines a stall as 3 weeks with NO scale loss OR body changes. Usually when you press people they'll admit that they are changing and that they have lost something, just not as much as they'd like or not in a perfect linear trend.
I also think it's not so much that the people who log big deficits are the ones reporting stalls, it's that the impatient people who think they can work out 2 hours a day and eat 1100 calories and lose exactly what the math suggests each week are the ones on the boards with the HELP I'M NOT LOSING threads. They add in this huge increase in quantity or intensity of exercise and it makes their muscles retain water and they're miserable with the exercise level and the deficit so they ask for help and advice.
I believe there is another large subset of us that are calm and patient and content and not complaining because we know it takes time and we know this is a safe level for us, so we wouldn't be on the boards asking for advice in any event, anyway. A lot of us are post-40 females who don't have a big window between BMR and TDEE to aim for, and we don't want to be figure competitors, we just want back in our skinny jeans. We know we're not hurting ourselves because we've done WW or a doctor's plan or something before and we know how we lose and what's safe. Yes, we gain back, but 95% of dieters do so it's not really fair to point fingers and say, "It's how you lost it." We've read a lot of books about it and know what we're doing isn't unsafe.
I don't know the best way to determine an optimal deficit but I think if you're patient and eat well and listen to your body that aiming for 2 lbs/week loss isn't unhealthy, even if you only have 20 lbs. to lose. I think 'adding back' is a hassle and the less you can estimate the better. So I'd say estimate your total average expenditure and subtract 500-1000. Ignore if it's below BMR. If you're uncomfortably hungry, eat more.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions