[Closed] Weight loss and metabolism

Interesting read. Thanks!

Obv diet is important - when I say 'dieting' I mean 'calorie restricted diet'.

thanks Molly, good read, interesting

What? Four posts and no-one's called every one with BMI over 23 a pathetic weak minded simpleton? You lot are slacking.

Well it's self-evident innit?

Sounds like he's been gifted poor genes.

So a game show where you win by losing as much weight as possible as quickly as you can might not be healthy? Who'd have thought it. Was he ever shown how to live a normal, healthy lifestyle? Did he keep excercising, etc, after the game show finished? Is this at all relevant to anyone who adopts a genuine lifestyle change in order to be healthier?

I thought this was old news? Exercise increases your metabolism, but if you don't feed your metabolism you restrict it and your body goes into fat saving mode. I think it is more about what you eat and the quality of what you eat rather than how much you eat (within reason of course).

Did he keep excercising, etc, after the game show finished?

If you read the article, yes, he did.

Useful that. It might explain that whilst 20 years ago I had to work hard to get on 12.5 to 13.5 stone for Rugby, I've now slimmed to 11.5 stone for cycling but really struggle to maintain a low calorie - not that low just 2050 - diet. Without use of mfp I'd easily put about a stone back on just by "living" and not overindulging, everyday seems a constant mental battle not to eat too much. My guess based in that article is that my body is trying to get me back to 12.5 constantly.

except in the case of on STW wobbliscott .

on here the laws are different , you can eat nothing but a lime air and still do 100 miles a day and gain weight. 😉

This is taken from the NHS website which gives a different point of view re metabolic rates

Am I fat because of a slow metabolism?
People who struggle to lose weight often blame a slow metabolism. However, numerous studies involving thousands of people worldwide have failed to find evidence to support the widely held belief that overweight people must have slower metabolic rates.
In fact, the opposite appears true: overweight people may actually have a higher metabolism than their leaner counterparts, reflecting the energy requirements of maintaining a larger body size. When you account for differences in body size and composition, there is a remarkable similarity in energy expenditure between individuals.
Research has also shown that people tend to eat more than they think they do. When asked to write down everything they've consumed in a day, many people tend to report eating far less than they actually do.
More often than not, the reason you’re putting on weight is not because of a slow metabolism, it’s because you’re eating and drinking more calories than you're burning. It may be hard to accept, but staying on top of the number of calories you eat is key to losing weight and keeping it off. Our 12-week weight loss plan will help you lose weight by tracking your calories.

This is taken from the NHS website which gives a different point of view re metabolic rates
....

What the specific study, of a very discrete group of subjects, showed was that the link between size and metabolic rate is somewhat broken when those subjects have undergone severe weight loss.
e.g. for a guy who weighs 400 lb, you can expect a basal metabolic rate of 3000 calories. After weight loss, and (crucially) regain, that same 400lb guy only has a metabolic rate of 2500.

I'm pretty sure the medical world won't be changing it's advice of the back of it, but it warrants further study...

Bear that's written in a different context. The article I posted is about how your metabolism changes when you are on a calorie restricted diet, and how that can cause problems later.

Point is that people who are trying to train and become lean could use this information. Whilst simply eating less and moving more works in general, it does not work after a certain point as your metabolism and performance can slow to counter the reduced intake.

So train and eat to avoid this, perhaps.

Mrs Spekkie has just been telling me about the article in question.

Seems some people are programmed to be bigger, and no amount of effort is going to change that fact for them.

What is interesting from that article is that although all of them were very successful in initially losing weight, they all still craved (and would still) over-eat when the opportunity arose

They constantly battled hunger, cravings and binges

The moment I started drinking beer, there goes another 20 pounds.

Two treats can turn into a binge over a three-day period. That is what I struggle with.

It is as if they want to loose the weight, and then begin again on a diet that includes some "junk" food. Losing weight more and more in successful dieters more and more resembles stopping smoking, and it's clearly a mind game

This is quite an interesting one for me as I am trying to lose between 40 and 50 kg over the course of a year, as outlined on my thread about it. I started off by working out what a man my age/weight/height should burn in a day and then taking 1000 calories off that. I also add on any calories I use up exercising so as not to have too much of a deficit - I'm doing either 2 hrs walking, 1 hour swimming or up to 2 hours biking most days, which are in the region of 1000 calories or more (I know the calculators for these - I use the FatSecret app for it all which seems similar to MFP - are very much a rough guess, but they'll do for know). I was tempted to make the deficit with less food then increase it with the exercise, but in the end thought that would get silly and lead to problems. What I'm doing seems to work well - when I'm at home and able to accurately record what I eat, not on the road, I'm losing weight steadily but have plenty of energy too.

Seems some people are programmed to be bigger, and no amount of effort is going to change that fact for them.

Err, no. All the article is saying is that over a period of time of limited calorie intake the body will adapt, which is obvious when you think about it.

The reason some people are bigger is the giant portion of fish + chips on a Friday; the fry-up on a Sunday; the so-called "healthy salads" that are 500 kCal or more; "Grab Bags" of crisps; taking the car for a journey of half a mile; McDonalds on the way home; using a lift to go one floor; the UltraMegaFrappaChocoChino five times a week; alcohol consumption; etc. etc.

Genetics largely determines athletic performance, not weight. Although I'll grant you that life without any of the above would be exceptionally boring, the point is that the average person does ALL of it and then wonders why they're overweight.

Low calorie deficit diets don't always work.

I find exercising vigorously works for me while eating healthy and avoiding junk food.

Sleep and plenty of water.

Keep high stress away.

Dropped 28kg in 3 months.

Seems some people are programmed to be bigger, and no amount of effort is going to change that fact for them.

That's not quite what it says. It's HARDER for some people than others, very clearly, but the article says that your body has a stasis weight that it wants to keep, and changing THAT is the aim - not simply losing it in the first place.

Slightly different target, so different methods required.

Genetics largely determines athletic performance, not weight.

Genetics makes it much easier or harder to be skinny. I know people who eat loads and are skinny, without doing much exercise. Plus I know people who ride loads and are still chubby.

The reason some people are bigger is..

Undoubtedly true for some fat biffers, but it's a lot more complicated than that for others, as we've shown over and over again on here and has also been shown in many scientific articles. You are citing the case of the junk food eating fat biffer. There are many other cases that lead to people being heavier than they want.

Odd how the world wasn't full of "naturally bigger" people a hundred years ago. Even if genetics and metabolism plays some part, exercise and eating plays a much bigger one.

100% of the "naturally bigger" people I've met in real life eat lots of calorie-dense food and don't take much exercise. I'm not saying real cases don't exist, but IMO the vast majority are simply kidding themselves.

Odd how the world wasn't full of "naturally bigger" people a hundred years ago.

I bet you there were plenty.

I'm not saying real cases don't exist, but IMO the vast majority are simply kidding themselves.

Thank god we have science instead of opinionated bullshit, eh?

No one doesn't agree that food is both much more readily available, cheap, and calorie dense than it was even 20 years ago, let alone 100...and I wouldn't have thought for a minute these folk don't realise that they haven't helped themselves, BUT the point of the article is to point out that some people's bodies don't seem to function in the same way that other's do once they are back to a reasonable weight. There are many factors at play, (metabolism, genetics, hormones) and of course what and how much food you eat (and why)

Thank god we have science instead of opinionated bullshit, eh?

One of my favourite lines ever. 😀

the best thing about science though molgrips is that with most things there is a proven stance in almost all corners with "data" to back it up.

Just read that article...

Pretty shocking news if you're trying to diet - your body can effectively fight you for years!

I know, trail_rat, that's why I posted an article with science in it.

My comments were related to the validity of thecaptain's opinion and the proclamations derived from it.

your body can effectively fight you for years!

My body's fighting me.

I'm pedalling like a maniac to lose weight.

I now have the legs of Chris Hoy and the belly and face of Chris Biggins.

Err, no. All the article is saying is that over a period of time of limited calorie intake the body will adapt, which is obvious when you think about it.

Worse than that, the reduced metabolism may never adjust back even if you go back to the original weight, which would make just staying at the pre-diet weight harder than if you've never dieted in the first place.

Which would explain why people who've always been junkfood eating couch potatoes (whom I shall now call JFECPs) can lose loads of weight just by eating normally and exercising, whereas those who've been trying for years don't get the same results by eating and doing the same things.

Rather perverse and depressing that the more attempts you have at 'doing the right thing', the harder you may be making it for yourself.

They need to find a drug which can reset someone's metabolism set point.

Synthetic leptin might be a good start. The leptin wiki article is interesting.

Thank god we have science instead of opinionated bullshit, eh?

Exactly. I was so glad when science solved the weight/metabolism issue once and for all.

I was so glad when science solved the weight/metabolism issue once and for all.

Smartarse. Science is working on it. Would you rather they gave up and started throwing bread rolls at fat people instead?

Just because you're ignorant of the science, doens't mean it's not out there 🙂

Smartarse. Science is working on it. Would you rather they gave up and started throwing bread rolls at fat people instead?

My point being is that some of the most opinionated bullshit comes from scientists on different sides of the debate.

re: The rolls. Would the fat people have to chase them, like throwing a ball for a dog?

My point being is that some of the most opinionated bullshit comes from scientists on different sides of the debate.

Some of it, but most of it seems to come from thin people who think they know it all cos they're thin 🙂

re: The rolls. Would the fat people have to chase them

I lol'ed

I feel bad now...I blame bongo...

The OP article is hardly shocking, nor is it contradictory to the NHS advice.

Faddy crash diets don't work long term. Long term healthy eating and active lifestyles will work long term.

The OP just adds to the evidence that it has to be long term, realistic lifestyle changes not fad diets. Personally I exercise a tonne and lost about 1.5 stone, but I'm still 13.5 stone and seem to eat a lot less than I did initially when I started exercising more (I eat based on appetite rather than calorie counting, so it could just be that I'm used to eating more though). I could certainly move my diet a little way along the spectrum towards the healthy end, and if I really wanted to lose more weight this is what I'd do as restricting calories just leaves me craving things (but I've had success in stopping a spreading gut previously by eating healthier).

By the way, full paper the article is about is available for free online:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/abstract

Edit: Whoops...missed it was already linked in the article.

If we wanted the fat people to chase the rolls, do we need someone to create a bread roll cannon randomly programmed on distance otherwise they might just stand where the rolls land with their mouths open.
They are just fat, not stupid (usual caveats apply), and they are being incentivised to figure it out

Not sure 'fad' is the right word. Calorie restriction isn't considered a fad, is it? But low GI eating probably is. However we've shown that excessive calorie restriction can be counter productive, and that eating to satiety with low GI food can be very good.

As I've said before, last summer I did plenty of riding and successfully ate little, I stayed 90.5kg or thereabouts. My metabolic rate slowed and my maximum intensity reduced (although I was fitter overall and had great endurance). I slacked off since about November, ate normally (including treats), didn't do a lot of riding and this morning I was 89.3kg.

For me, what works is the right kind and amount of riding AND the diet to support that. They both have to match and complement each other.

If we wanted the fat people to chase the rolls, do we need someone to create a bread roll cannon randomly programmed on distance otherwise they might just stand where the rolls land with their mouths open.

No need to create a bread cannon. Just use the most projectile shaped bread.

So a baguette in a rocket launcher should be fine.

A baguette? That could be really dangerous, would be like high velocity sword swallowing with bread

Remember the audience of some of these articles. As this is a mountain bike forum (insert joke about nobody riding MTB here) we are probably not that target audience.

A lot of the British public think exercise is driving to the gym, spending 15 mins on the recumbent bike followed by a bit of a dance around and that will have earned them 1000 calories for the fish supper they pick up on the way home.

Agreed with above though, I can run and cycle 6 days a week and although I will get fitter, I will lose very little weight. The only way I lose weight is by restricting what I eat, by cycling as well, I don't need to restrict my diet quite as much.