swmtnbackpacker
Trail Wise!
Back but probably posting soon under my real name ... Rico Sauve
Posts: 4,886
|
Post by swmtnbackpacker on May 6, 2016 5:17:18 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by rwtb123 on May 6, 2016 7:06:55 GMT -8
Well,I don't watch TV,have never even heard of that show, and actually have the opposite body type and set of challenges, but I think the key takeaway from that article is “long-term weight loss requires vigilant combat against persistent metabolic adaptation that acts to proportionally counter ongoing efforts to reduce body weight.”.
As WM and I discussed in the past,I think he had the right approach to weight loss in making it a lifestyle change not a short/intermediate term competition.At some point if you rely on diet and a minimum of exercise to lose weight, you will run into a brick wall in weight loss efforts(particularly if you are losing weight rapidly). The metabolism will start to slow down as the body works harder to try to retain remaining body fat(an evolutionary response to what the body views as starvation mode).You will need to convince the body it is not starving by increasing the calories,somewhat, and jump start the metobolism with exercise, such as weight training or fast paced aerobics(intervals,sprints etc.).
|
|
BigLoad
Trail Wise!
Pancakes!
Posts: 12,948
Member is Online
|
Post by BigLoad on May 6, 2016 12:05:34 GMT -8
I think the interesting part of the findings is that, at least for people who lost very large amounts of weight, the reduction in metabolic rate appears more or less permanent. It does not rise back up to a typical level for the end weight, even after years. It's less an issue of using exercise to "jump start" the metabolism than it is of permanently needing considerably more exercise to make up the difference between a moderate to low caloric intake and a permanently depressed BMR. That might also be true for people who lose less weight, but it may be less obvious due to the smaller changes involved.
It would be interesting to see some biochemical hypotheses for why low BMR can persist for years. Is there a reset mechanism? Over what range of weight loss does this phenomenon apply and how does it scale with loss?
|
|
|
Post by rwtb123 on May 6, 2016 13:54:03 GMT -8
It's body type.Everyone doesn't start with the same metabolic rate.Endomorphs,who are easy gainers,have a naturally slow metabolism.This is a major reason they gained all the weight in the first place.That said,there is a further more temporary reduction in metabolism as the body goes into starvation mode that can be reversed with diet(which was the cause in the first place).
The faster paced exercise recommendation ,applies, to endomorphs at all stages.It won't permanently boost their metabolism except to the extent they permanently exercise fast paced.
|
|
BigLoad
Trail Wise!
Pancakes!
Posts: 12,948
Member is Online
|
Post by BigLoad on May 6, 2016 14:59:46 GMT -8
That said,there is a further more temporary reduction in metabolism as the body goes into starvation mode that can be reversed with diet(which was the cause in the first place). Whether or not that all of that reduction is temporary is what the study calls into question. I don't think the possibility can be dismissed out of hand.
|
|
|
Post by rwtb123 on May 6, 2016 15:18:43 GMT -8
I haven't seen the study so I can't really comment.But, I do know for most people when the body senses it is being starved it will shut off fat burning and start catabolizing muscle for fuel.This is why on long hikes or bike rides when you start running low on carbs you "bonk".I know my episodes with this have done nothing to permanently slow down my fast metabolism.Perhaps,for those in these contests losing weight too rapidly,which is not real smart anyway for numerous reasons,this is an issue.
ETA OK,I read the article again,more closely this time.From the sound of it,the contestants are keeping their low calorie diet which would tend to keep the metabolism permanently depressed.What I suggested (and is pretty standard advice for those losing weight gradually and permanently)is that you will need to eventually increase the calories(carbs)as your fat levels decrease to continue making progress in fat reduction.Since the study wasn't linked, I still haven't actually seen it though.
ETA(2) I did look at the study conclusions,and what it seems to be saying is that if you lose a large amount of weight rapidly there is a metabolic(and unsaid but ,perhaps, hormonal) adaption to try to regain that weight.While 15 participants is far from conclusive, this would seem to make sense from an evolutionary standpoint.What isn't able to be determined is if more gradual weight loss would have the same effect.I would guess,no.As people who lose weight more gradually,tend to have more success keeping it off.
And,to expand on this,I seem to recall the weight loss thinking was always that a large calorie deficit does cause these metabolic and hormonal responses to stimulate appetite and burn fewer calories(and this study seems to be supporting that). So, the smart people run a slight calorie deficit to lose weight at a more sustainable pace and avoid the yo-yo effect.Rather than reduce calories when I try to lose fat, I prefer to increase both exercise(to increase metabolism)and calories(to fuel the increased exercise),plus add muscle which itself also increases the metabolism more permanently.
The key is that you do not want to get into starvation mode.For awhile you can lose weight by diet(preferable with only a modest calorie deficit) without doing so.But,eventually when fat levels start getting lower it is harder to avoid.Which is why I said at that point increase calories and exercise intensity if you are not doing so already.It is like my weight training and the dreaded over training.I will push to the edge of over training and then back off.It allows me maximum intensity while still avoiding over training.
|
|
swmtnbackpacker
Trail Wise!
Back but probably posting soon under my real name ... Rico Sauve
Posts: 4,886
|
Post by swmtnbackpacker on May 6, 2016 19:08:32 GMT -8
Eating clean doesn't mean low calorie, ... just avoiding processed foods. My brother does the eating clean with Crossfit and it can be several decent servings daily of meat, vegetable, and plant carbs with "skin on"
|
|
|
Post by rwtb123 on May 6, 2016 19:28:04 GMT -8
Eating clean doesn't mean low calorie, I would assume they are eating fairly clean if they are losing so much weight, but the issue,in my opinion, is more the size of the calorie deficit they are running to do so.And,I would further assume the size of the deficit is fairly large if they are losing more than a few pounds a week.I think the basic problem is this style of weight loss is not sustainable. I think it is an evolutionary response, as during times of famine, people would lose a lot of weight fast (a crash diet if you will).Then, when food became plentiful again ,those that survived, pulled all stops and feasted to get back to their "normal" weight as protection from the next period of famine. So, the trick is to lose weight slowly with a modest calorie deficit, and when you hit those inevitable plateaus,stay there awhile to let the body get use to it and reset it as the new "normal".This has always been the way it is recommended to lose weight, and this new study seems to confirm this approach and one reason why crash/fad/yoyo diets do not work.
|
|