After ‘The Biggest Loser,’ Their Bodies Fought to Regain Weight(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
After ‘The Biggest Loser,’ Their Bodies Fought to Regain Weight
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html
364 コメント
The results of this study, while interesting, seem flawed to me because losing 200+lbs in only 8 months' time is ridiculously fast. I would be more interested in a study following people who lost weight very slowly and steadily over time, and curious about their metabolisms and recidivism rates.
I've lost 100lbs over the last three years and have had zero issue (so far, not saying I won't ever) with keeping at this weight. I maintained the same weight, +/- 3lbs, for most of 2015 without counting calories or following a diet. In December 2015, I decided I was ready to start intentionally losing more weight, so I tracked calories and lost an additional 15lbs over the course of three months. My experience with losing weight and maintaining weight loss are completely different than the results of the study in the OP, and I am curious how much of that difference can be chalked up to how long it took me to lose that weight.
Studies like the one in the OP are fascinating to me because no one seems to go "Hey, your body achieved homeostasis at 450lbs (maintaining that homeostasis for however many years the person was at that weight) and it probably royally screwed with everything dropping half your body weight in 8 month's time." It seems obvious to me that at that point the body is in full blown crisis mode trying to get back to the homeostasis it had developed previously. Eight months is not a long enough time to adapt to a new homeostasis, not to mention whether or not the body is freaking out because it's "starving" and dropping fat stores at such a high rate.
I've lost 100lbs over the last three years and have had zero issue (so far, not saying I won't ever) with keeping at this weight. I maintained the same weight, +/- 3lbs, for most of 2015 without counting calories or following a diet. In December 2015, I decided I was ready to start intentionally losing more weight, so I tracked calories and lost an additional 15lbs over the course of three months. My experience with losing weight and maintaining weight loss are completely different than the results of the study in the OP, and I am curious how much of that difference can be chalked up to how long it took me to lose that weight.
Studies like the one in the OP are fascinating to me because no one seems to go "Hey, your body achieved homeostasis at 450lbs (maintaining that homeostasis for however many years the person was at that weight) and it probably royally screwed with everything dropping half your body weight in 8 month's time." It seems obvious to me that at that point the body is in full blown crisis mode trying to get back to the homeostasis it had developed previously. Eight months is not a long enough time to adapt to a new homeostasis, not to mention whether or not the body is freaking out because it's "starving" and dropping fat stores at such a high rate.
I managed to lose 40 pounds last year, using intermittent fasting. That impressed people, but what's impressed me is how easy it was to keep it off. I expected to have to do a lot more work than I have, I really seemed to have found a new 'set point', where I can simply let my body self-regulate eating and I won't gain weight. Sometimes it even goes down.
I think a person's state of mind plays a huge role. I used IF because it seemed the easiest way to incorporate a sustained caloric deficit into my lifestyle. The knob of "how many times a day I'm eating" was far easier to tweak than "what I'm eating" or "how much I eat when I'm eating." I'm just really fucking lazy and found that over time, skipping meals works with my laziness.
With IF, I can eat what I want, as much as I want, just only once a day. I used to be really strict about once a day, now I'll have a snack here and there, sometimes I'll even have what amounts to a light meal outside of my main one. Getting adjusted was a pain, but I'd alleviate it by eating small amounts outside of the 'window' and trust that I'd cheat less over time. Which I more or less did.
Ultimately I feel it's not really worth it to try to fight your body too hard. If your system perceives a shock, it will defend itself. But humans seem hard-wired for big, dramatic gestures, and so they'll do grievous damage to their metabolic systems like crash dieting simply because they can't trust themselves to maintain a safer, more sustainable course of action like simply "eating less and exercising more." I think a lot of people think of the idea of "sustained lifestyle change" and balk. Like they can never eat ice cream again or something.
I think a person's state of mind plays a huge role. I used IF because it seemed the easiest way to incorporate a sustained caloric deficit into my lifestyle. The knob of "how many times a day I'm eating" was far easier to tweak than "what I'm eating" or "how much I eat when I'm eating." I'm just really fucking lazy and found that over time, skipping meals works with my laziness.
With IF, I can eat what I want, as much as I want, just only once a day. I used to be really strict about once a day, now I'll have a snack here and there, sometimes I'll even have what amounts to a light meal outside of my main one. Getting adjusted was a pain, but I'd alleviate it by eating small amounts outside of the 'window' and trust that I'd cheat less over time. Which I more or less did.
Ultimately I feel it's not really worth it to try to fight your body too hard. If your system perceives a shock, it will defend itself. But humans seem hard-wired for big, dramatic gestures, and so they'll do grievous damage to their metabolic systems like crash dieting simply because they can't trust themselves to maintain a safer, more sustainable course of action like simply "eating less and exercising more." I think a lot of people think of the idea of "sustained lifestyle change" and balk. Like they can never eat ice cream again or something.
Extreme diligence seems to be the only way to fight this. If I stop exercising, the pounds pack on within weeks. If I insure I burn at least 3000 calories a day (usually much more), I can maintain my weight indefinitely. But I walk to work and I exercise for 1-2 hours daily. Most people cannot or will not do this.
Add in the extreme carbohydrate and fat-laden diets most readily available to America and it's a perfect storm for our Wall-E future, no?
When I cook at home, I can avoid this by eating a little bit of meat/tofu/tempeh/etc with a pile of greens, but restaurant fare is a little bit of vegetables, a small slab of meat, and a super-size portion of some fancy grain of the week if not just white rice. Sigh...
Add in the extreme carbohydrate and fat-laden diets most readily available to America and it's a perfect storm for our Wall-E future, no?
When I cook at home, I can avoid this by eating a little bit of meat/tofu/tempeh/etc with a pile of greens, but restaurant fare is a little bit of vegetables, a small slab of meat, and a super-size portion of some fancy grain of the week if not just white rice. Sigh...
> A study of Season 8’s contestants has yielded surprising new discoveries about the physiology of obesity
No it didn't. Just another example of junk science.
> Now burns 800 fewer calories a day than would be expected for a man his size.
"Expected for a man of his size" is a fiction. What they are insinuating here is that the rapid weight loss did long term damage to his metabolism. But to confirm that, you have to have data on what is burn rate was when he was previously at his current 295 weight. (Which he must have reached at some point in his life long before the participation of Biggest Loser, on his way to becoming 400-something). Comparing to what can be "expected" based on plugging 295 into some model is not adequate.
Maybe he previously also burned hundreds of calories less than what can be expected of someone of his weight. Maybe it's been like that most of his life!
No it didn't. Just another example of junk science.
> Now burns 800 fewer calories a day than would be expected for a man his size.
"Expected for a man of his size" is a fiction. What they are insinuating here is that the rapid weight loss did long term damage to his metabolism. But to confirm that, you have to have data on what is burn rate was when he was previously at his current 295 weight. (Which he must have reached at some point in his life long before the participation of Biggest Loser, on his way to becoming 400-something). Comparing to what can be "expected" based on plugging 295 into some model is not adequate.
Maybe he previously also burned hundreds of calories less than what can be expected of someone of his weight. Maybe it's been like that most of his life!
There are at least three equilibriums that are apparently of relevance, based on what I have read. These are:
1. the hunger cycle - the hormones emitted during hunger
2. the metabolic cycle - the neuropeptide y's and other such unmemorable names, near the decision making part of the brain
3. the hydrocarbon cycle – the hormones emitted as a result of fat cells that are not flush with hydrocarbons
Diets address number 1. Number 2 and 3 are the more relevant for long-term success, but not enough is understood about them.
Here's a TED talk with some illumination:
https://www.ted.com/talks/sandra_aamodt_why_dieting_doesn_t_...
Research about weight control and loss is further conflated by profit-oriented companies that derive their primary income from "diet cycles".
That said, the failure of dieting is not new information: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Dieting-Does-Not-Work-UCLA...
The only known sure way to achieve substantial long-term weight loss is hyper-diligence in portion control and metabolic stimulation. Few can do it.
One of the unknowns is whether fasting survives long-term trends, such as the "5-2 fast" https://thefastdiet.co.uk/
All to say, the long-term results of the biggest loser accord with the latest research in weight control and loss.
1. the hunger cycle - the hormones emitted during hunger
2. the metabolic cycle - the neuropeptide y's and other such unmemorable names, near the decision making part of the brain
3. the hydrocarbon cycle – the hormones emitted as a result of fat cells that are not flush with hydrocarbons
Diets address number 1. Number 2 and 3 are the more relevant for long-term success, but not enough is understood about them.
Here's a TED talk with some illumination:
https://www.ted.com/talks/sandra_aamodt_why_dieting_doesn_t_...
Research about weight control and loss is further conflated by profit-oriented companies that derive their primary income from "diet cycles".
That said, the failure of dieting is not new information: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Dieting-Does-Not-Work-UCLA...
The only known sure way to achieve substantial long-term weight loss is hyper-diligence in portion control and metabolic stimulation. Few can do it.
One of the unknowns is whether fasting survives long-term trends, such as the "5-2 fast" https://thefastdiet.co.uk/
All to say, the long-term results of the biggest loser accord with the latest research in weight control and loss.
Now, here's my opinion, and I know it might be wrong. Anyone, please feel free to correct me, but:
Everything I've read suggests that 1lb muscle requires about 50 calories a day to maintain.
The workout programs these contestants are using are focused solely on cardio, or very heavily focused on cardio.
If as part of the 239lb weight loss, Mr Cahill lost 8lbs-10lbs of muscle (and never regained it), there's your entire 400-500 calorie difference right there.
Like I said, I could totally be wrong, but over the last year I lost 93lbs (as of today), but my measured BMR is actually higher than it should be (and higher than it was when I started). I attribute that difference to my focus on lifting weights more than cardio.
Everything I've read suggests that 1lb muscle requires about 50 calories a day to maintain.
The workout programs these contestants are using are focused solely on cardio, or very heavily focused on cardio.
If as part of the 239lb weight loss, Mr Cahill lost 8lbs-10lbs of muscle (and never regained it), there's your entire 400-500 calorie difference right there.
Like I said, I could totally be wrong, but over the last year I lost 93lbs (as of today), but my measured BMR is actually higher than it should be (and higher than it was when I started). I attribute that difference to my focus on lifting weights more than cardio.
> The difficulty in keeping weight off reflects biology, not a pathological lack of willpower affecting two-thirds of the U.S.A.
Fifty years ago, two-thirds of the USA were not obese. Biology has not changed in that time. What has?
Fifty years ago, two-thirds of the USA were not obese. Biology has not changed in that time. What has?
In the other direction, see the documentary "Why Are Thin People Not Fat" where a group of thin volunteers are overfed by about double their normal calories for 4 weeks:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7838668.stm
http://youtu.be/U1hbPXooB1U
They all easily return to their starting weight, and at least one volunteer gains muscle but not fat. The body is amazing at maintaining homeostasis. Here's an nytimes article from 2011 that discusses much the same thing as the article submitted:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7838668.stm
http://youtu.be/U1hbPXooB1U
They all easily return to their starting weight, and at least one volunteer gains muscle but not fat. The body is amazing at maintaining homeostasis. Here's an nytimes article from 2011 that discusses much the same thing as the article submitted:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-...
From the article (emphasis mine):
> Mr. Cahill was one of the worst off. As he regained more than 100 pounds, his metabolism slowed so much that, just to maintain his current weight of 295 pounds, he now has to eat 800 calories a day less than a typical man his size. Anything more turns to fat.
Presenting the numbers like this seems intentionally confusing. Casually reading this seems like he's eating 800 calories a day and still gaining weight.
What they're really saying is that he's eat $AVG_295_LB_MAN_CALORIES - 800 per day. That's probably around 4000 calories a day.
> Mr. Cahill was one of the worst off. As he regained more than 100 pounds, his metabolism slowed so much that, just to maintain his current weight of 295 pounds, he now has to eat 800 calories a day less than a typical man his size. Anything more turns to fat.
Presenting the numbers like this seems intentionally confusing. Casually reading this seems like he's eating 800 calories a day and still gaining weight.
What they're really saying is that he's eat $AVG_295_LB_MAN_CALORIES - 800 per day. That's probably around 4000 calories a day.
I really need to lose weight, my heaviness has started to lead to other health problems, but I find that whenever I try to eat significantly less, I have difficulty concentrating on heavy mental tasks (i.e. programming, my job).
The constant feeling of hunger distracts me, or my mind just drifts, until I get some food in me again.
I never see any of these articles even acknowledge this as an issue, either as if no one else has this problem, or no one else who is dieting has a job that requires so much brain power.
Since there's other programmers here, I was curious if other people have noticed something similar, and how they addressed it.
My current plan is not so much to limit my eating (beyond some mild calorie restriction) and instead force myself to exercise more often, but I'd like to be a bit more aggressive with my diet if possible.
The constant feeling of hunger distracts me, or my mind just drifts, until I get some food in me again.
I never see any of these articles even acknowledge this as an issue, either as if no one else has this problem, or no one else who is dieting has a job that requires so much brain power.
Since there's other programmers here, I was curious if other people have noticed something similar, and how they addressed it.
My current plan is not so much to limit my eating (beyond some mild calorie restriction) and instead force myself to exercise more often, but I'd like to be a bit more aggressive with my diet if possible.
It seems like exposing your body to colder temperatures is a sure-fire way to increase your metabolism:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/does-glo...
May be a little uncomfortable, but way better than screwing up your metabolism via extreme dieting. I'm consistently perplexed as to why the ice-vest-under-the-clothes weight loss method hasn't taken off yet.
May be a little uncomfortable, but way better than screwing up your metabolism via extreme dieting. I'm consistently perplexed as to why the ice-vest-under-the-clothes weight loss method hasn't taken off yet.
I can give personal, anecdotal experience as to why this happens and a chart from Withings will illustrate perfectly. I know what I have to do now, and I'm fighting like hell to make it happen.
http://i.imgur.com/LR1wbH8.png
http://i.imgur.com/LR1wbH8.png
Boxers and other people doing martial arts competitively have always known this. There has been a "walking around weight" concept since I can remember. Maintaining lower or, even more importantly in that context, higher weight takes concentrated effort.
BTW it's a really weird post-Christian belief that there is some you apart from your body and it can do things against your will.
BTW it's a really weird post-Christian belief that there is some you apart from your body and it can do things against your will.
"Soon the scale hit 265. Mr. Cahill started weighing and measuring his food again and stepped up his exercise. He got back down to 235 to 240 pounds. But his weight edged up again, to 275, then 295.
His slow metabolism is part of the problem, and so are his food cravings. He opens a bag of chips, thinking he will have just a few. “I’d eat five bites. Then I’d black out and eat the whole bag of chips and say, ‘What did I do?’”"
The article is light on the details post-TBL, but it sounds like recidivism in terms of diet is probably a major root cause of weight gain. Also, maybe it's hard to tell whether they're doing steady-state cardio or high-intensity interval training (steady-state cardio has been shown to paradoxically cause weight gain in people). In any case, it sounds like they need more guidance and check-ins post-show.
His slow metabolism is part of the problem, and so are his food cravings. He opens a bag of chips, thinking he will have just a few. “I’d eat five bites. Then I’d black out and eat the whole bag of chips and say, ‘What did I do?’”"
The article is light on the details post-TBL, but it sounds like recidivism in terms of diet is probably a major root cause of weight gain. Also, maybe it's hard to tell whether they're doing steady-state cardio or high-intensity interval training (steady-state cardio has been shown to paradoxically cause weight gain in people). In any case, it sounds like they need more guidance and check-ins post-show.
There was an article on /r/science 1 or 2 weeks ago which stated that the body needs about a year after the weight-loss to accept the new weight as normal. Before that normalization is done it is very easy to regain the initial weight, after the normalization it gets easier.
I encourage everyone to read the "physiology" chapter at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adipose_tissue
TLDR: Blood sugar spikes above certain level are toxic, so the body responds with an emergency action of stashing the sugar wherever possible, including muscle, liver, and fat tissue. The former two are rather limited in their capacity, while the latter is unlimited. Ongoing elevated levels of sugars in the bloodstream is an ongoing cleanup job for the fat cells, and they never get aground to release the accumulated energy back into circulation.
At the "hardware" level, that's all there is to obesity - overabundance of quick carbs (sugars, flour, starch).
TLDR: Blood sugar spikes above certain level are toxic, so the body responds with an emergency action of stashing the sugar wherever possible, including muscle, liver, and fat tissue. The former two are rather limited in their capacity, while the latter is unlimited. Ongoing elevated levels of sugars in the bloodstream is an ongoing cleanup job for the fat cells, and they never get aground to release the accumulated energy back into circulation.
At the "hardware" level, that's all there is to obesity - overabundance of quick carbs (sugars, flour, starch).
I'm curious about how the metabolic rate of these former contestants is determined. Are they confined to a lab where their dietary intake and physical activity can be accurately measured for an extended period of time? Probably not. My best guess is that the subjects being studied are asked to keep food and activity journals and then these, plus their weight, is used to calculate their metabolic rate.
I've experimented with keeping a food journal in the past, and it's exceptionally difficult to keep track of everything you eat without this extra work impacting your food choices. e.g. The chore of writing stuff down might prevent me from casually snagging a handful of nuts on my way through the kitchen, and consciousness about how it will look in the journal might make me pass on those chips. Even ignoring these problems, it takes a lot of effort to produce even remotely useful data. e.g. "I ate a pear." is actually pretty vague. Breed, size, and ripeness all have a pretty big impact on the nutrients you'll get from that pear. You need to weigh everything as a bare minimum. Also, you need to keep the journal all of the time, because if you keep it for just a week or two that sample likely won't be very representative of your normal habits.
Likewise, activities are hard to keep track of. With a fairly standard ergometer (such as a Concept2 rower) you can get a reasonable measure of activity level in a workout. Lifting weights, running, walking, etc. are all much, much vaguer. 30 minutes of "moderate jogging" means different things to different people. Most people are likely to overestimate or habitually pad their activities.
So, you have a really vague, spitballed idea of what these people are eating and doing, combined with weight gain. Are their metabolisms really slower than expected, or is there a systematic error common to these people in that, after a period of extreme privation (i.e. the competition) in which some of them lost more than a pound a day, they are now underestimating their food intake and overestimating their activity levels?
How much can basal human metabolism really vary anyways? If humans can get by on substantially fewer calories, why don't we all typically do this? Where does all the extra energy normal people inefficiently burn off go?
I've experimented with keeping a food journal in the past, and it's exceptionally difficult to keep track of everything you eat without this extra work impacting your food choices. e.g. The chore of writing stuff down might prevent me from casually snagging a handful of nuts on my way through the kitchen, and consciousness about how it will look in the journal might make me pass on those chips. Even ignoring these problems, it takes a lot of effort to produce even remotely useful data. e.g. "I ate a pear." is actually pretty vague. Breed, size, and ripeness all have a pretty big impact on the nutrients you'll get from that pear. You need to weigh everything as a bare minimum. Also, you need to keep the journal all of the time, because if you keep it for just a week or two that sample likely won't be very representative of your normal habits.
Likewise, activities are hard to keep track of. With a fairly standard ergometer (such as a Concept2 rower) you can get a reasonable measure of activity level in a workout. Lifting weights, running, walking, etc. are all much, much vaguer. 30 minutes of "moderate jogging" means different things to different people. Most people are likely to overestimate or habitually pad their activities.
So, you have a really vague, spitballed idea of what these people are eating and doing, combined with weight gain. Are their metabolisms really slower than expected, or is there a systematic error common to these people in that, after a period of extreme privation (i.e. the competition) in which some of them lost more than a pound a day, they are now underestimating their food intake and overestimating their activity levels?
How much can basal human metabolism really vary anyways? If humans can get by on substantially fewer calories, why don't we all typically do this? Where does all the extra energy normal people inefficiently burn off go?
It's worth noting that the amounts by which their metabolism was lowered are not as shocking as they seem at first.
The 300 calories a day difference in calories burned is very limiting if your BMR is 1800. But for some of these contestants their BMR, even at the lower weights, might be 2000 calories per day. And if they do moderate exercise, they can burn up to 1000 calories more than this. If you are expending 3000 calories per day then a 300 calorie difference is minimal.
The 300 calories a day difference in calories burned is very limiting if your BMR is 1800. But for some of these contestants their BMR, even at the lower weights, might be 2000 calories per day. And if they do moderate exercise, they can burn up to 1000 calories more than this. If you are expending 3000 calories per day then a 300 calorie difference is minimal.
Isolating a few of the variables would help clarify some of the questions this study raises:
1) Amount of excess weight / median weight. E.g. Does the effect of the bodies homeostasis change as a person gets more severely overweight?
2) Speed of weight loss. Does loosing 1lb/day/week/month affect the bodies homeostasis differently?
3) Types of foods affect on homeostasis. Do substances like sugar have a worse effect than others? Does a diet high in something like vegetables tend towards a healthier homeostasis?
4) Amount of time for homeostatic change. Does being 100lbs overweight for a year or 5 years make a difference?
>> And with his report from Dr. Hall’s group showing just how much his metabolism had slowed, he stopped blaming himself for his weight gain.
Its critical to help people struggling with weight loss to deal not only with the nutritional challenges, but also psychological issues behind weight loss (guilt, depression, helplessness). However, presenting the problem as a binary (purely biological vs purely will) may actually not be the best approach. The individuals still played a part in their initial weight gain. The repeated dietary decisions leading to obesity are obviously complicated by family history, misinformation, failure to realize the full consequences, and other factors both within and outside the control of the person. And neither does the person's complicity, to whatever extent, in gaining weight mean they should receive any less sympathy or help. I say this because of the persistence of the myth that weight gain can be easily undone with just a few weeks/months of discipline, a myth perpetuated by shows like The Big Loser. Weight gain is an insidious danger that can have long lasting implications and be very difficult to extricate oneself from. That point seems quite clear from the research but never addressed in the article.
1) Amount of excess weight / median weight. E.g. Does the effect of the bodies homeostasis change as a person gets more severely overweight?
2) Speed of weight loss. Does loosing 1lb/day/week/month affect the bodies homeostasis differently?
3) Types of foods affect on homeostasis. Do substances like sugar have a worse effect than others? Does a diet high in something like vegetables tend towards a healthier homeostasis?
4) Amount of time for homeostatic change. Does being 100lbs overweight for a year or 5 years make a difference?
>> And with his report from Dr. Hall’s group showing just how much his metabolism had slowed, he stopped blaming himself for his weight gain.
Its critical to help people struggling with weight loss to deal not only with the nutritional challenges, but also psychological issues behind weight loss (guilt, depression, helplessness). However, presenting the problem as a binary (purely biological vs purely will) may actually not be the best approach. The individuals still played a part in their initial weight gain. The repeated dietary decisions leading to obesity are obviously complicated by family history, misinformation, failure to realize the full consequences, and other factors both within and outside the control of the person. And neither does the person's complicity, to whatever extent, in gaining weight mean they should receive any less sympathy or help. I say this because of the persistence of the myth that weight gain can be easily undone with just a few weeks/months of discipline, a myth perpetuated by shows like The Big Loser. Weight gain is an insidious danger that can have long lasting implications and be very difficult to extricate oneself from. That point seems quite clear from the research but never addressed in the article.
Well of course they did.
That show had them losing a POUND PER DAY - that's insane.
You'll never be able to maintain that kind of metabolism and calorie burn, it would be a full time job and then some.
I spent the last year losing a pound per week and that was challenging enough.
I still can't touch more than 2000 calories per day or I will gain weight and I run every morning.
That show had them losing a POUND PER DAY - that's insane.
You'll never be able to maintain that kind of metabolism and calorie burn, it would be a full time job and then some.
I spent the last year losing a pound per week and that was challenging enough.
I still can't touch more than 2000 calories per day or I will gain weight and I run every morning.
This jibes pretty well with my experience. Used to weigh about 220 at my peak, and I was eating a lot those days. Cut back, drank less, exercised more (running). Lost about 45 pounds.
However, at that point, I was running about 1000 calories a day, sometimes less (a big reason I think The Martian is bullshit). I was not starving. My body wasn't starving. You can (and many people should) subsist on far less than the recommended daily allowance of calories.
If I eat a typical 2000 calorie diet, I will not just gain weight, but I will gain weight at a rate of about a pound or two a month.
I've currently gained back about 10 pounds of what I lost, so I'm going to have to turn on the afterburners again, but we really need to change the dialogue of what a standard of consumption and health is.
It's very simple: if your body has a slow metabolism, you have to eat a lot less than most people.
However, at that point, I was running about 1000 calories a day, sometimes less (a big reason I think The Martian is bullshit). I was not starving. My body wasn't starving. You can (and many people should) subsist on far less than the recommended daily allowance of calories.
If I eat a typical 2000 calorie diet, I will not just gain weight, but I will gain weight at a rate of about a pound or two a month.
I've currently gained back about 10 pounds of what I lost, so I'm going to have to turn on the afterburners again, but we really need to change the dialogue of what a standard of consumption and health is.
It's very simple: if your body has a slow metabolism, you have to eat a lot less than most people.
Practicing weight maintenance before going on a diet helps to keep the weight off after a diet. Many people who struggle with their weight "yo-yo" as they go on various short-term diets, losing and regaining weight and never learning how to maintain a specific level.
I am curious if this same effect is also seen in those who lost weight via a calorie restricted diet without exercise. It could be plausible that the extreme exercise regimen alone causes the body to become more efficient.
Very little was said about the type of exercise they were doing. I'd guess that most of it was "cardio." Would they have different results if they were involved in more specifically muscle building exercises, i.e, weight lifting (and with adequate rest)?
I've been following McGuff's Body By Science protocol for the past 6 months and I believe that with increased muscle my overall health is improving much more than would have resulted from typical long and slow cardio.
Has anybody else tried this?
I've been following McGuff's Body By Science protocol for the past 6 months and I believe that with increased muscle my overall health is improving much more than would have resulted from typical long and slow cardio.
Has anybody else tried this?
I have followed "The Perfect Ten Diet" and began swimming. Within a year, I went from a size 40 jeans to a size 33. I think I'm now a size 32. I haven't weighed myself yet. I'm a lacto vegetarian (butter, cheese and curd, no milk).
I think that barring health reasons (e.g. Thyroid issues), it should be possible for an individual to eat healthier and shed excess weight. But it also comes down to "How badly do you want it?"
I think that barring health reasons (e.g. Thyroid issues), it should be possible for an individual to eat healthier and shed excess weight. But it also comes down to "How badly do you want it?"
I wonder if it would be possible to ramp down like 10% in calories one year at a time instead of binge dieting like this. We are always looking for quick fixes.
I think the biggest thing we should take away from this study is that losing weight "The Biggest Loser" style is bad for your long term health, not that everyone who loses weight will gain it all back or that weight loss is impossible. In other words, don't follow a "Biggest Loser" style program to lose weight.
And I'm in the second week of the Fast 5/2 diet. Not very encouraging to read this.
Problem though is that I have to diet, my triglycerides are off the chart, my LDL cholesterol too and my fasting blood sugar are at the limit.... Hope I can keep my weight off somehow later.
Problem though is that I have to diet, my triglycerides are off the chart, my LDL cholesterol too and my fasting blood sugar are at the limit.... Hope I can keep my weight off somehow later.
Here's a link to the paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/full
Last December, I was diagnosed with T2 diabetes. After talking with a researcher about this (have worked with diabetes research school locally due to job), I came across a few things:
1. Damage is done to the pancreas at 140mg/dL 2. Too long at 140mg/dL or above can cause permanent damage to the pancreas. 3. Early estimates indicate that 110mg/dL is a lower limit of beginning damage to the pancreas
Ok. There's a lot of moving parts in food. Nutritionists will tell you all sorts of bunkum, other than mineral assays and tests have discovered. But there's a simple way here: keep blood sugar under 140mg/dL, no matter what.
Is that possible? To keep your blood sugar under 140mg/dL? Yes. The answer is "Don't eat foods that raise your blood sugar above 140mg/dL". That's interestingly easy. What it amounts to, is cutting out sugars and carbohydrates out of your diet, and extensively testing when you come across foods you're unsure of.
My research shows that all the standard sugars are bad for me (Sucrose, glucose, fructose, lactose). I spike, and then fall. It also depends on what I'm eating with them. In those cases the rise and fall are longer.
Some complex carbohydrates I can handle. Potatoes are a nope, as are bread products. But spaghetti squash works with me well. I can handle it nicely, with a very low rise and fall.
I also end up eating a lot of fats, protein, and veggies. But I don't crave sugar at all. I've always liked meats, and this gives me the ability to continue that.