Sleep your way to fat loss!

[ClutchClark]

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I have a problem with your bullying posting behavior trying to use me as your whipping man to dominate this forum with your simplistic and unscientific morality based ideology on weight issues.

 

Stop with your nonsense.

 

Its embarassing for you and its not fair to a poster who has responded honestly about healthy habits on this forum for as long as I have been reading his posts.

 

May I ask the Mods if this thread can be Closed?  

Edited October 9, 2016 by ClutchClark

[Jingthing]

 

http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/R-D/Portion-size-and-eating-more-often-largely-responsible-for-obesity-Study

 

No morality here.. just research that shows that obesity is caused by eating too much and that the larger portions are to blame. 

 

So telling people to eat less is only right. 

 

Research shows that in the USA they added 571 calories a day if you compare it with 1977 (when people were a lot slimmer)

That is a HUGE increase.. and has nothing to do with bad genes.. So its only normal to tell people to eat less.

Why are you projecting the genes factor on me? Did I mention genes once here? Have I ever anywhere said said genes were always a major factor? Have I here or ever said portion control and food choice aren't important? This is part of the bully game you play and you need to stop it. It's clever but you're busted.

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Why are you projecting the genes factor on me? Did I mention genes once here? Have I ever anywhere said said genes were always a major factor? Have I here or ever said portion control and food choice aren't important? This is part of the bully game you play and you need to stop it. It's clever but you're busted.

You are constantly saying its hard.. and there are other influences.. while data just shows its because people are eating too much. Not gut bacteria.. not insulin resistance not genes.. no just plain and simple eating too much. 

 

Now I do agree that those other factors play their part but the largest part is just that people are eating too much so its not immoral like your constantly say to tell people to eat less. 

[Jingthing]

You are constantly saying its hard.. and there are other influences.. while data just shows its because people are eating too much. Not gut bacteria.. not insulin resistance not genes.. no just plain and simple eating too much. 

 

Now I do agree that those other factors play their part but the largest part is just that people are eating too much so its not immoral like your constantly say to tell people to eat less. 

There you go again. More lies. Did I ever once say it's not important to eat less?

Data shows. That's funny. You never have a real answer for the massively high failure rates long term for those with obesity that have lost weight. Data shows. The will power is everything ideology blame all failure on will power. That's not data or science. It's moralistic ideology.

[tropo]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

JT i stick with my guns and feel its not bullying. I also stick with the notion that eating out in restaurants if worse for weight control then cooking your own foods. 

 

 

A new form of bullying. Sticking to your views and reasserting them often - how dare you!

Edited October 9, 2016 by tropo

[tropo]

1 hour ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Stop with your nonsense.

 

Its embarassing for you and its not fair to a poster who has responded honestly about healthy habits on this forum for as long as I have been reading his posts.

 

May I ask the Mods if this thread can be Closed?  

Let's keep it open. It's a good thread. If that member is too much to bare, do as I have - try to ignore him. 

[tropo]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

You are constantly saying its hard.. and there are other influences.. while data just shows its because people are eating too much. Not gut bacteria.. not insulin resistance not genes.. no just plain and simple eating too much. 

 

Now I do agree that those other factors play their part but the largest part is just that people are eating too much so its not immoral like your constantly say to tell people to eat less. 

LOL> how dare you suggest that people who are fat should eat less. That couldn't possibly be the reason people are overweight. There must be another scientific mystery behind it.

Edited October 9, 2016 by tropo

[ClutchClark]

12 minutes ago, tropo said:

Let's keep it open. It's a good thread. If that member is too much to bare, do as I have - try to ignore him. 

 

I know what you are saying but lets face it...how many ways are there to say "Eat Less...Move More"  

 

In the US nowadays every child gets an award...there are no losers.

 

I fear it has resulted in some of them growing into adults and not having learned to accept defeat or be a good sport. 

Edited October 9, 2016 by ClutchClark

[tropo]

2 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

I know what you are saying but lets face it...how many ways are there to say "Eat Less...Move More"  

 

In the US nowadays every child gets an award...there are no losers.

 

I fear it has resulted in some of them growing into adults and not having learned to accept defeat.

This thread could end up as the encyclopedia of reasons why eating too much has nothing to do with obesity. A one stop for people looking for valid reasons not to diet. 

 

Just remember these threads are Googleable:

 

Google the words "sleep your way to fat loss" + ("thailand" or "I'm too fat" or "forum") and you get the first hit. Same with Bing.

[dontoearth]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

 

The answer is .. they abandoned the exercise and diet, they should have slowly gone to a healthy maintenance diet and kept the weight off. But putting them back in their old environment without a reward for staying on weight would surely make most fall back in their old habits. There should have been a period that they were under supervision of trainers and diëtist to change their habits.  

 

I don't follow programs like that .. did they ALL  gain the weight back of just a few ? I would have thought that for some at least being at a lower weight would be a nice starting point for a healthy life. 

      The contestants were badly metabolically damaged by the diet and exercise program they followed from the Biggest Loser and NOT ONLY DID THEY NOT HAVE A NICE STARTING POINT FOR A HEALTHY life...most didn't recover from the damage.

 

       http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html

 

       The problem is researchers have found NO HEALTHLY MAINTENACE DIET program to keep the weight off.   Many of these individuals will need to stay on around 60% or less of the normal calories for a person in their weight class and size for years.  The graphics in the article from the link are astounding!  They show some poor candidates would need to cut out 800 calories of food a day indefinitely!   Forever! 

       They know this to be a scientific fact! Pesky science types! They don't yet have any solution.  They know this is the major problem that must be solved to make any progress on the obesity epidemic. 

       I am glad they are working on it.  In the meantime the eat less move more crowd will continue to chant the mantra!  Intelligent people will know better!

      Originally, I joined this forum to find out what people might know about this particular problem.  The posters seem to be clueless this problem even exist and parrot old completely discredited nonsense.  Shame really.

       Read the article in its entirety if you want to comment!  It is great to have intelligent well thought out conversations.  Endless bickering gets old.

 

 

     

[Jingthing]

Thanks but you're sharing inconvenient it's only will power busting facts to the terminally closed minded. Like I said this subforum is largely like the hostile comments section on any article online that gets deeper into these issues than eat less move more and shut up!

[robblok]

9 minutes ago, dontoearth said:

      The contestants were badly metabolically damaged by the diet and exercise program they followed from the Biggest Loser and NOT ONLY DID THEY NOT HAVE A NICE STARTING POINT FOR A HEALTHY life...most didn't recover from the damage.

 

       http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html

 

       The problem is researchers have found NO HEALTHLY MAINTENACE DIET program to keep the weight off.   Many of these individuals will need to stay on around 60% or less of the normal calories for a person in their weight class and size for years.  The graphics in the article from the link are astounding!  They show some poor candidates would need to cut out 800 calories of food a day indefinitely!   Forever! 

       They know this to be a scientific fact! Pesky science types! They don't yet have any solution.  They know this is the major problem that must be solved to make any progress on the obesity epidemic. 

       I am glad they are working on it.  In the meantime the eat less move more crowd will continue to chant the mantra!  Intelligent people will know better!

      Originally, I joined this forum to find out what people might know about this particular problem.  The posters seem to be clueless this problem even exist and parrot old completely discredited nonsense.  Shame really.

       Read the article in its entirety if you want to comment!  It is great to have intelligent well thought out conversations.  Endless bickering gets old.

 

 

     

If I am so clueless how come I and other lost the weight and kept it off ? Does not sound like clueless to me.

 

Oh and that they have to cut more calories then someone their size was to be expected. Its in the 20% range.. amazing is it not that these guys the worst of the worst have a metabolic rate that is slowed by around 20%. That is actually the max research has ever found. So the worst of the worst 20% slow down.. now most of us are not the worst of the worst and still many act on this forum like its an impossibility.  

 

Your 60% is totally wrong.. its 20-25% max less caloies one is 500 cals lower.. that is a far cry from 60%.. the 60% is before corrected for weight.

Edited October 9, 2016 by robblok

[tropo]

9 minutes ago, dontoearth said:

      The contestants were badly metabolically damaged by the diet and exercise program they followed from the Biggest Loser and NOT ONLY DID THEY NOT HAVE A NICE STARTING POINT FOR A HEALTHY life...most didn't recover from the damage.

 

       http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html

 

       The problem is researchers have found NO HEALTHLY MAINTENACE DIET program to keep the weight off.   Many of these individuals will need to stay on around 60% or less of the normal calories for a person in their weight class and size for years.  The graphics in the article from the link are astounding!  They show some poor candidates would need to cut out 800 calories of food a day indefinitely!   Forever! 

       They know this to be a scientific fact! Pesky science types! They don't yet have any solution.  They know this is the major problem that must be solved to make any progress on the obesity epidemic. 

       I am glad they are working on it.  In the meantime the eat less move more crowd will continue to chant the mantra!  Intelligent people will know better!

      Originally, I joined this forum to find out what people might know about this particular problem.  The posters seem to be clueless this problem even exist and parrot old completely discredited nonsense.  Shame really.

       Read the article in its entirety if you want to comment!  It is great to have intelligent well thought out conversations.  Endless bickering gets old.

 

If this thread bothers you so much, then go away. No one is forcing you to click. If you seriously want contributors to consider your theories, I would suggest you eliminate insults, such as:

 

1. Calling other theories "nonsense" without explaining why. Upon closer examination a lot of your "proof" can be discredited quite easily.

 

2., "Intelligent people will know better!"... which suggests only people who agree with you are intelligent and the rest are clueless fools.

 

3. "Posters seem to be clueless".

 

Could it be you're the clueless on here? I see JT liked your post - he's the other clueless one.

[tropo]

34 minutes ago, robblok said:

If I am so clueless how come I and other lost the weight and kept it off ? Does not sound like clueless to me.

 

Oh and that they have to cut more calories then someone their size was to be expected. Its in the 20% range.. amazing is it not that these guys the worst of the worst have a metabolic rate that is slowed by around 20%. That is actually the max research has ever found. So the worst of the worst 20% slow down.. now most of us are not the worst of the worst and still many act on this forum like its an impossibility.  

 

Your 60% is totally wrong.. its 20-25% max less caloies one is 500 cals lower.. that is a far cry from 60%.. the 60% is before corrected for weight.

Apart from that, most of us are discussing fat loss for the average overweight person who is still able to function normally and not morbidly obese. We are not doctors and don't presume to give advice for people who are incapacitated due to the medical condition of being morbidly obese... which is actually a disease. They need medical supervision.

 

Morbid: "of the nature of or indicative of disease"

 

Isn't that the type (morbidly obese) you see on reality TV's: The Greatest Loser? (sorry, I don't watch this). I would say they are trying to push them too hard and trying to get results too quickly, as it is entertainment. Trying to repair decades of metabolic damage over the course of short TV series (3 - 6 months?) would seem far too severe and failure is not surprising.

 

Edited October 9, 2016 by tropo

[dontoearth]

  The OP gives good and interesting links and commentary.  He always has excellent postings.  This thread started with him asking us to read a webpage which almost no one bothered to read!  Plenty of people had comments on the subject anyway!  Sort of says it all!

 

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, dontoearth said:

  The OP gives good and interesting links and commentary.  He always has excellent postings.  This thread started with him asking us to read a webpage which almost no one bothered to read!  Plenty of people had comments on the subject anyway!  Sort of says it all!

 

 

Because you can't sleep your way to fat loss. 

[tropo]

20 minutes ago, dontoearth said:

  The OP gives good and interesting links and commentary.  He always has excellent postings.  This thread started with him asking us to read a webpage which almost no one bothered to read!  Plenty of people had comments on the subject anyway!  Sort of says it all!

 

(Threads on forums usually take on a life of their own. It's about fat loss, so anything on that subject is on topic IMO)

 

How did you jump to the conclusion that "almost no one bothered to read" the link? Theories that sleep helps with fat loss are not new and most of us have heard them before. Obviously an optimum amount of sleep would best suit people trying to lose weight, but what is that optimum level? Answer that question first and good luck finding any consensus on that.

 

If you go over that optimum level of sleep (whatever it is), you will become lethargic and lazy, which is what too much sleep tends to do. That won't help anyone lose fat.

 

Edited October 9, 2016 by tropo

[Jingthing]

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Because you can't sleep your way to fat loss. 

This is just semantics.

 

The OP is rather sensationalist but there is now a lot of good documentation that lack of sleep promotes weight gain.

 

In other word: PREVENTION!

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20041116/sleep-more-to-fight-obesity

 

Quote

 

Sleep More to Fight Obesity

Obesity Tied to Lack of Sleep, Say Researchers

 

 

HOWEVER ... I do think the idea sleeping adequately helps with weight LOSS is probably not well documented.

Was anyone suggesting that was the ONLY tactic to  try? I don't think so.

Successful approaches to weight control involve employing MULTIPLE methods and tactics.

Always keep in with overweight there is prevention and then there are tactics when it's too late for prevention. 

On the other hand, if a person is moderately overweight, getting adequate sleep at the very least may be HELPFUL in prevention of ADDITIONAL weight gain.  

For a person effected by overweight or obesity, there are different levels to go from there.

Gaining more weight (least desirable) / Keeping the status quo / Losing a minor percentage / Losing a major percentage ... up to so called ideal body weight (most desirable but statistically poor odds to maintain long term). 

Keeping the status quo is at least not the worst outcome! 

Edited October 9, 2016 by Jingthing

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

This is just semantics.

 

The OP is rather sensationalist but there is now a lot of good documentation that lack of sleep promotes weight gain.

I do think the idea sleeping adequately helps with weight LOSS is probably not well documented

Always keep in with overweight there is prevention and then there are tactics when it's too late for prevention. 

On the other hand, if a person is moderately overweight, getting adequate sleep at the very least be HELPFUL in prevention of ADDITIONAL weight gain.  

For a person effected by overweight or obesity, there are difficult levels from there.

Gaining more weight / Keeping the status quo / Losing a minor percentage / Losing a major percentage ... up to so called ideal body weight. 

Keeping the status quo is at least not the worst outcome! 

 

Yep, sleep is important. I can't think of any good reason not to get enough sleep. Kinda stone age all this really... Like drinking water or keeping warm. 

 

I don't know about anybody else, but my body clock is switched on. 7 sometimes 8 hours and I'm done. Gotta get up going by what the body is telling me. 
 

Oversleep and I'm dragging ass all day. 

 

"So called ideal body weight" 

Edited October 9, 2016 by Strange

[Jingthing]

It's really not stone age. In this modern ere, with all our screens, light, noise, morning work schedules, etc. the trend is probably strongly for less sleep and certainly the trend is more obesity. Obviously it's not the only factor, but it's a factor and knowledge is power in this case.

[tropo]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

 

Yep, sleep is important. I can't think of any good reason not to get enough sleep. Kinda stone age all this really... Like drinking water or keeping warm. 

 

I don't know about anybody else, but my body clock is switched on. 7 sometimes 8 hours and I'm done. Gotta get up going by what the body is telling me. 
 

Oversleep and I'm dragging ass all day. 

 

"So called ideal body weight" 

Some studies suggest that lack of sleep stimulates a preference for higher calorie foods.

 

I think another theory makes a lot of sense. People who don't sleep enough (under 5 hours), or too much (over 9 hours) gain weight because they are fatigued and have less energy to exercise.

 

One could also make a case that an undersleeper has more time to eat. i.e. 2 or 3 hours per day more... that's 14 to 21 hours a week, or 60 - 91 hours a month. That's almost 4 days a month extra eating time. That could add on a lot of extra calories over a year... and they're lethargic most of the time, so do little exercise. It could even result in an extra meal a day. Imagine that! 365 extra meals a year. 

 

I certainly don't gain weight when I undersleep, as I can control what I eat and exercise, but many can't or won't. Most people have little self control. It comes back to that word that so many fat people hate: willpower. "how dare people on here suggest I'm fat because I lack willpower" I can hear them saying.

 

For one particular member, if there were less hours in the day to eat and review restaurants, a lot of extra calories could be avoided.

Edited October 9, 2016 by tropo

[robblok]

 

10 hours ago, tropo said:

Apart from that, most of us are discussing fat loss for the average overweight person who is still able to function normally and not morbidly obese. We are not doctors and don't presume to give advice for people who are incapacitated due to the medical condition of being morbidly obese... which is actually a disease. They need medical supervision.

 

Morbid: "of the nature of or indicative of disease"

 

Isn't that the type (morbidly obese) you see on reality TV's: The Greatest Loser? (sorry, I don't watch this). I would say they are trying to push them too hard and trying to get results too quickly, as it is entertainment. Trying to repair decades of metabolic damage over the course of short TV series (3 - 6 months?) would seem far too severe and failure is not surprising.

 

 

Nope.. almost anyone gets this problem, if you lose a lot of weight you will have to eat less calories always. 

 

For instance if you take how much I should eat to stay at maintenance (no weight loss) and how much I really have to eat to stay on maintenance it can be as much as 500-800 calories less (depending on the formula one that really takes into account how lean and active I am will put me at the higher range ones that look at BMI go to the lower range).

 

So I have no problem believing that people who lost weight will have to permanently eat less to stay on the same weight. However many have shown that this is not impossible. I have a friend who lost so much weight that he needed to have surgery get some skin removed. He stayed on his new weight. I also stay on my weight after having lost around 25% !!! of my body-weight. But if i compare what i can eat its not much. 

 

However even with the biggest loser they did not do the one thing that would have shown the true extent of the metabolic damage. That is to have put them on a machine and calculate their metabolic rate before and after. (have checked they did not do this). Same as with me they use formula's and who knows I or they might have a slower rate as the formula stated to begin with. 

 

But make no mistake.. this metabolic damage is real and will happen to almost anyone who keeps a lower weight after having been overweight. Plenty of research to back that up. 

 

That is why I have started taking bromocryptine because that would help to work on leptin and thus metabolic rate. I think it works.. but again its hard to tell.  Also hunger.. by ghrelin can be combatted by protein.. its said that protein is the most effective way to combat ghrelin. 

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/bromocriptine  (more to find on his site about this then just this part to sell his book just search for it)

Edited October 10, 2016 by robblok

[tropo]

8 hours ago, robblok said:

 

 

Nope.. almost anyone gets this problem, if you lose a lot of weight you will have to eat less calories always. 

 

What are you saying "nope" to? I made a lot of different points. Are you disagreeing with everything?

[tropo]

9 hours ago, robblok said:

For instance if you take how much I should eat to stay at maintenance (no weight loss) and how much I really have to eat to stay on maintenance it can be as much as 500-800 calories less (depending on the formula one that really takes into account how lean and active I am will put me at the higher range ones that look at BMI go to the lower range).

Could you explain this - it makes no sense.

[tropo]

9 hours ago, robblok said:

But make no mistake.. this metabolic damage is real and will happen to almost anyone who keeps a lower weight after having been overweight. Plenty of research to back that up. 

Sorry, I don't believe this. I don't believe you have metabolic damage from dieting off your excess fat 6 years ago. There's no way you can make a comparison of your metabolic rate now to when you were fat, and at that stage you were continuing to get fatter until you decided to stop the process and lose it, so you were never on a maintenance diet. You have to find out what your metabolic rate was many years ago, before you got fat, if there was a time, and even if you did have numbers from way back then (in your 20's or 30's) the only "damage" you observe now is due to aging, not your recent dieting.

 

I'll tell you what is real. When you're older you can't consume the food you could when you were younger and stay lean. It's a change in the hormonal systems as we age, not damage from dieting.

 

Talking about metabolic damage in extremely overweight individuals caused by competing in a reality TV show is absurd. They were seriously metabolically damaged before they started their diets and were most likely getting fatter by the year.

[robblok]

15 minutes ago, tropo said:

Could you explain this - it makes no sense.

 

What i mean is that the numbers for someone of my size are far higher than the actual amount I can consume without gaining weight. Meaning I burn far less than I should given my stats. 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, tropo said:

Sorry, I don't believe this. I don't believe you have metabolic damage from dieting off your excess fat 6 years ago. There's no way you can make a comparison of your metabolic rate now to when you were fat, and at that stage you were continuing to get fatter until you decided to stop the process and lose it, so you were never on a maintenance diet. You have to find out what your metabolic rate was many years ago, before you got fat, if there was a time, and even if you did have numbers from way back then (in your 20's or 30's) the only "damage" you observe now is due to aging, not your recent dieting.

 

I'll tell you what is real. When you're older you can't consume the food you could when you were younger and stay lean. It's a change in the hormonal systems as we age, not damage from dieting.

 

Talking about metabolic damage in extremely overweight individuals caused by competing in a reality TV show is absurd. They were seriously metabolically damaged before they started their diets and were most likely getting fatter by the year.

You might not want to believe it but its in all the literature about losing weight that once you remain at a lower weight you would have to consume far less than if you started at that weight.  Its a fact.. how much the damage is depends. I tend to think that I had a lower metabolic rate to start with. 

 

But your right the only sure way to know and the thing I have against the numbers for the biggest loser is that they have not been done properly. For this you need to make accurate measurement (in a lab) from before and after. 

 

But that people who lose weight have to consume less then those who are naturally at that weight is a fact. 

[tropo]

26 minutes ago, robblok said:

You might not want to believe it but its in all the literature about losing weight that once you remain at a lower weight you would have to consume far less than if you started at that weight.  Its a fact.. how much the damage is depends. I tend to think that I had a lower metabolic rate to start with. 

 

But your right the only sure way to know and the thing I have against the numbers for the biggest loser is that they have not been done properly. For this you need to make accurate measurement (in a lab) from before and after. 

 

But that people who lose weight have to consume less then those who are naturally at that weight is a fact. 

I'm not buying it. There's no way to make a meaningful comparison. Most obese people have been overfeeding themselves for decades, starting at a time when they were much younger. They were damaged before they started dieting. There's no way you can make any meaningful comparison in your own case either, as the time factor probably covers decades, starting when you were much younger.

 

I think this is just another excuse not to diet.

 

If anything, eating healthier food and exercising will improve the metabolism, not damage it. It will help to "undamage" things like insulin resistance.

 

[robblok]

3 hours ago, tropo said:

I'm not buying it. There's no way to make a meaningful comparison. Most obese people have been overfeeding themselves for decades, starting at a time when they were much younger. They were damaged before they started dieting. There's no way you can make any meaningful comparison in your own case either, as the time factor probably covers decades, starting when you were much younger.

 

I think this is just another excuse not to diet.

 

If anything, eating healthier food and exercising will improve the metabolism, not damage it. It will help to "undamage" things like insulin resistance.

 

you might not be buying it but if you read up you might learn a few things. This is something that has been known for ages. It has to do with body setpoints and leptin. The body will slow down more and more if you get leaner (even if you take into account the weight loss). The body is desperately struggling to get back to its original setpoint. 

 

I don't see this as an excuse not to diet, I just see it as something to overcome. I do think that my metabolic rate was slow way before i started to diet but if I tell you that I am eating between 1300 and 1600 cals a day and almost no weight loss that gives you an idea of my metabolic rate. Now if i go to sites like 

http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/#mostaccuratecaloriecalculator that gives me 2800 cals per day to stay on weight when i train 4 times a week. then that gives you a bit of an indication that my metabolic rate is indeed slow. 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2016490  (show how much a metabolic rate drops during a diet) Now the 24% drop has to be corrected for weight loss but it is still more then what it should be. There is plenty of research out there that shows the same. 

 

Again.. i don't see this as an excuse not to diet.. but it does show that it can be much harder for some people to stay lean than for others.

Quote

 

But there is also evidence for what is called an adaptive component of metabolic rate reduction. Let me explain. Let’s say that someone loses twenty pounds and based on all of the math you’d expect a drop in metabolic rate of 10%. But when you measure it you actually see a reduction in 15%.

That is, the drop in metabolic rate is greater than what you’d predict based on the drop in bodyweight. That extra 5% is the adaptive component of metabolic rate reduction. And it’s hormonally driven, the drop in leptin, the drop in thyroid levels (conversion of T4 to T3 is impaired on a diet), there is a drop in sympathetic nervous system activity (part of why the ephedrine/caffeine stack helps, it offsets this drop), you get the idea.

The thing is that not every study has found this. Some do some don’t. A lot of it depends on starting body fat, the length of the diet, genetic individuality and all that stuff. But in dieting bodybuilders or fitness people, it is going to have an impact. But the preponderance of studies say that it does exist; I’d certainly expect it to occur in lean hard dieting physique athletes who is who we are concerned with (typically when it doesn’t show up is in studies of extremely overfat individuals whose hormones don’t really get mucked up until they have lost a lot of weight).
 

 from the site of lyle mc donald  

 

But irrespective of that, let’s address what seems like a fairly simple question: Can the drop in metabolic rate, due to the drop in bodyweight and the adaptive component EVER be sufficient to completely eliminate true fat loss?

And the answer, at least based on the last 80 years of studies into the topic (in humans, NOT animal models) says no. Perhaps the classic study in this regard was the oft-quoted (and oft- misunderstood) Minnesota Semi-Starvation Study. In it, a dozen or so war objectors got to avoid going to war and arguably got into something worse. That is, researchers wanted to study long- term starvation as might occur during war or famine or being held in a prisoner camp.

Specifically the men were put on 50% of their maintenance calories, subject to forced daily activity (walking, NO weight training) and basically had their lives controlled and managed for 6 months. And in various sub-analyses, it was found that, by the end of the study the total drop in metabolic rate was nearly 40%. That is, of the original 50% deficit in calories, 80% of it had been offset. Of that 40%, a full 25% was simply due to the reduced bodyweight. Again, lighter bodies burn less calories and there’s no getting around it. But that also means that the adaptive component

 

Edited October 10, 2016 by robblok

[tropo]

5 hours ago, robblok said:

you might not be buying it but if you read up you might learn a few things. This is something that has been known for ages. It has to do with body setpoints and leptin. The body will slow down more and more if you get leaner (even if you take into account the weight loss). The body is desperately struggling to get back to its original setpoint. 

 

I don't see this as an excuse not to diet, I just see it as something to overcome. I do think that my metabolic rate was slow way before i started to diet but if I tell you that I am eating between 1300 and 1600 cals a day and almost no weight loss that gives you an idea of my metabolic rate. Now if i go to sites like 

http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/#mostaccuratecaloriecalculator that gives me 2800 cals per day to stay on weight when i train 4 times a week. then that gives you a bit of an indication that my metabolic rate is indeed slow. 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2016490  (show how much a metabolic rate drops during a diet) Now the 24% drop has to be corrected for weight loss but it is still more then what it should be. There is plenty of research out there that shows the same. 

 

Again.. i don't see this as an excuse not to diet.. but it does show that it can be much harder for some people to stay lean than for others.

 from the site of lyle mc donald  

 

 

 

 

(LOL> I might learn a few things? - a great way to start a debate. I'm sure we can both learn a lot)

 

I didn't mean you were using this as an excuse, but many others may, others who don't have the drive and determination you have.

 

I think we're talking about different things. I'm not doubting that the metabolism can slow down during extreme dieting. I don't believe it will slow down much during moderate dieting, as long as you maintain a high level of activity. I believe in the slow approach to weight loss anyway, and the way I do it my metabolism probably doesn't slow down to any perceivable degree.

 

What I don't buy is that you permanently impair (slow down) your metabolic rate when you diet.

 

The only way to prove it would be to run 2 clones of yourself, over a couple of years. Both clones would have to eat the same food and exercise the same over the period of trial. They would have to live exactly the same lifestyle... the intake of everything would need to be equal (drugs, vitamin and other supplements). Clone A maintains a steady body weight. Clone B eats too much (of the same food) and gains weight. At the end of 2 years, Clone B diets and over a period of say 6 months, loses his extra 25kg of fat to equal the weight of Clone A. Both Clones would need to have accurate bodyfat and muscular weight percentages checked throughout the trial, and especially at the end where the final comparison is made.

 

This same experiment should be run for many other pairs of clones too.

 

Of course we can never experiment without ourselves. I don't see how a 2016 version of yourself can be compared to a 2006 and a 1996 version (for example) of yourself and come to the conclusion that you've impaired your metabolic rate compared to the previous versions due to strict dieting. Previous versions were fat and getting fatter until you put a stop to it. You don't have an equivalent version to compare yourself to. Previous version were also younger with more efficient hormonal and enzyme systems. Aging is a bitch - your metabolism will slow down whether you diet or not. You'll gain fat and lose muscle as part of the aging process unless you take drastic measures to slow it down, and even then you won't stop father time.

 

Another problem: How are you going to measure your metabolic rate without living in a lab? We can't even accurately measure fat and muscle percentages her in Thailand - it's all guess work... and to make comparisons you'll need to have accurate measurements of your previous self too.