ericknight74's Forum Posts

I’m not dismissing metabolic changes as a myth. If someone is eating 600-800 kcals a day for a year, then yes, they have slowed their metabolism. However, it isn’t going to happen in a few weeks, or likely even a month. A recent clinical case of a female runner showed some interesting results. Published by Jampolis (2004): A 51 year old patient complained of a 15 lb weight gain over the last year despite beginning a strenuous triathlon and marathon training program (2 hours per day, 5-6 days per week). A 3 day diet analysis estimated a daily intake of only 1000-1200 Calories. An indirect calorimetry revealed a resting metabolic rate of 950 Calories (below predicted for age, height, weight, and gender, which was at 1360). It took her A YEAR to slow her metabolism down 28%. Undereating for a few weeks isn’t going to make the difference that Fazza implied it would. -EK

Jampolis MB (2004) Weight Gain – Marathon Runner / Triathlete. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(5) S148.

Topic: Diet and Nutrition / It's about calories in and calories out. That's it.

It actually is a GREAT example of what I meant, because not only is there a calorie deficit created by undereating, but a further one created by the training- it’s exactly WHY I referenced this case. If it took her a year to have such a small drop in metabolism with the “double whammy” of undereating AND burning more calories through her training, how long do you think it will take an average person? Drastuic changes in RMR are just not as prevalent as Fazza stated, and that was my point. Why you are even still going on about the rest is beyond me. NO ONE said eat chocolate and ice cream. I was proving a point that fat can be lost on a calorie restriction regardless of where those calories come from. Just because it CAN be done, doesn’t mean I said it SHOULD be done. It’s interesting that you say, " If it were truely just down to calories in vs calories out and the source of those calories didn’t really matter, then why is it so many people are still fat or overweight." when the answer is obvious- TOO MANY CALORIES, and too little activity. If you still want to make a debate out of this, explain to me how Asians eat tons of rice and noodles (oh no! carbs!!) and are significanty thinner than Americans; or how about the Mediterranean diet, which includes far more grains than many other diets, but is still successful? What do these diets have in common? Irrespective of where the calories come from, the dieter still has to eat under BMR. -EK

Topic: Diet and Nutrition / It's about calories in and calories out. That's it.

I’m not really sure what your point is. This entire thread was not about the debate between fat loss and weight loss. You introduced that in for reasons unknown to me. The OP’s entire post was based on cals in-cals out and the laws of thermodynamics. You keep posting these ridiculous, long diatribes in which you bring in all kinds of things that- while correct- are long-winded and off-topic. It’s as if you have accumulated all this knowledge and are not happy unless everyone knows how smart you are. How several essay-long posts in this thread is supposed to be beneficial escapes me, but I can tell you this with certainty: I have been a personal trainer and sports nutritionist for 15 years now, and have seen several trainers, nutritionists, and dieticians who were so much smarter than me it was ridiculous, yet they tried to impress clients with all of their knowledge, and quite frankly, scared them off. Beginners, especially, often do not care about the biochemistry behind these things. They want to see some results for their hard work, and feel like they are not overwhelmed with scientific jargon. If you interacted with clients at the gyms or wellness center i work at the way you post here, you would be losing clients, and helping no one. That’s my point- you’re making things more complicated than they need to be, and going off on these tangents that have nothing to do with the OP (as when you kept saying people shouldn’t eat junk food to lose weight- no one said they should).
As for the marathon runner- yes she may be using fuel more efficiently, but you keep ignoring the fact that her calorie debt also makes her store calories more efficiently as well, which is why her metabolism slowed down, but only very slightly- which was my point to start with- “tanking” your metabolism, as Fazza stated (as soon as you reach a plateau, your metabolism somehow slows down is what she argues) is incredibly difficult. But since you are not convinced by the study I posted, here’s one you may find better.
Weinsier, Roland L et al. Do adaptive changes in metabolic rate favor weight regain in weight-reduced individuals? An examination of the set-point theory. Am J Clin Nut 2000;72:1206-13

The study involved a group of 24 postmenopausal women who were all overweight and were matched with a control group of 24 never-overweight subjects. As predicted, the overweight women’s RMR decreased in response to dieting, falling 6% within 10 days of calorie restriction but remained at 6% below baseline despite 3-5 months of continued calorie restriction. There was no further metabolic downgrade at this point. Within 10 days of restoring energy balance while remaining in the weight-reduced state, the formerly-overweight subjects’ RMR’s, after adjustment for body composition, were similar to the RMRs of the never-overweight control group. These findings suggest that the set point theory might have come about through measurements of RMR taken immediately following calorie restriction, but before energy balance had been restored, thus giving the misleading impression that weight-reduced persons were hypometabolic and hence more prone to weight regain. -EK

Topic: Diet and Nutrition / It's about calories in and calories out. That's it.

I didn’t miss your point. I disagreed with it. Restating it several times and in several different ways isn’t going to change that. My very first sentence, regarding cals in-cals out was “For beginners, I would agree, it really can be that simple.” Re. Fazza’s post and my “dismissal” of metabolic downgrading- I may not have been as clear as I should have, so let me rephrase my POV: you are not going to crash your metabolism and reach some sort of dietary plateaue in a few weeks, and likely not in a few months. She made it sound as if you cut calories and use the scale, somehow when you reach a plateau, your body magically begins storing fat because you have compromised your metabolic rate, which simply is not the case. I hear the term “starvation mode” thrown around so much, like it haphazardly happens to dieters daily, like some sort of punishment for dieting too hard. Even the Minnesota semi-starvation experiment proved this- the men kept losing weight even when they were at caloric rates 40% below baseline. In fact, I don’t know of ANY study the proves cutting your calories in any manner will lead to an absolute downgrade of metabolism. There’s a lot of research on both sides of the argument suggesting this, but the hard data that I’m familiar with does not back up the notion that you will plateau from dieting and immediately gain more weight/fat. From an interview with Lyle McDonald, who has done more research on the topic than I have:
“But here’s the thing: in no study I’ve ever seen has the drop in metabolic rate been sufficient to completely offset the caloric deficit. That is, say that cutting your calories by 50% per day leads to a reduction in the metabolic rate of 10%. Starvation mode you say. Well, yes. But you still have a 40% daily deficit.

In one of the all-time classic studies (the Minnesota semi-starvation study), men were put on 50% of their maintenance calories for 6 months. It measured the largest reduction in metabolic rate I’ve ever seen, something like 40% below baseline. Yet at no point did the men stop losing fat until they hit 5% body fat at the end of the study.

Other studies, where people are put on strictly controlled diets have never, to my knowledge, failed to acknowledge weight or fat loss.

This goes back to the under-reporting intake issue mentioned above. I suspect that the people who say, “I’m eating 800 calories per day and not losing weight; it must be a starvation response” are actually eating far more than that and misreporting or underestimating it. Because no controlled study that I’m aware of has ever found such an occurrence.

So I think the starvation response (a drop in metabolic rate) is certainly real but somewhat overblown. At the same time, I have often seen things like re-feeds or even taking a week off a diet do some interesting things when people are stalled. One big problem is that, quite often, weekly weight or fat loss is simply obscured by the error margin in our measurements.

Losing between 0.5 and 1 pound of fat per week won’t show up on the scale or calipers unless someone is very lean, and changes in water weight, etc. can easily obscure that. Women are far more sensitive to this. Their weight can swing drastically across a month’s span depending on their menstrual cycle.

Thing is this, at the end of the day, to lose weight or fat, you have to create a caloric deficit, there’s no magical way to make it happen without affecting energy balance. You either have to reduce food intake, increase activity, or a combination of both."

-EK

Topic: Diet and Nutrition / It's about calories in and calories out. That's it.

“Interestingly you mention refeeds and diet breaks in your last post and I find this somewhat of a contradiction to your previous comments. Both these methods are used as a way of reboosting the metabolism either after a period of restrictive calories or when reaching a plateau. You have stated time and time again that my point of how metabolism can be affected from low calorie dieting to be a myth, so why therefore would you suggest refeeds etc? Unless of course you are speaking about this from a psychological point of view? Another reason these are both recommended.”

Completely untrue. They do not “reboost” your metabolism in any way, because as I stated, it hasn’t “crashed.” Refeeds are not simply eating more calories in order to somehow increase metabolic function. Directly from Layne Norton’s site on why refeeds are used: “One should also incorporate re-feeds into their diet plan. Re-feeds help boost a hormone called leptin, which is the mother of all fat burning hormones. As one diets, leptin levels drop in an attempt by the body to spare body fat. Periodic, proper re-feeding can raise leptin levels and help one continue to burn fat an optimum rate. A person who is lean will need to re-feed more frequently than someone who has a higher body fat percentage. For those who are below 10%, it is probably a wise idea to incorporate re-feeds two times per week.”

It’s all about hormone manipulation, and has nothing to do with jump-starting metabolism. In fact, he is specific in setting up a refeed in such a manner that you drop your protein and fat levels and drastically increase carbs (but not fructose) all because of their effect of hormones, NOT metabolism:

“•Re-feed on the day you work your worst body part(s) as re-feeding will not only raise leptin, but be quite anabolic.
•Keep fat as low as possible during re-feed days as high insulin levels will increase dietary fat transport into adipose tissue. In addition dietary fat has little to no impact on leptin levels.
•Reduce protein intake to 1 g/lb bodyweight.
•Consume as little fructose as possible as fructose does not have an impact on leptin levels.
•Increase calories to maintenance level (or above if you are an ectomorph) and increase carbs by at least 50-100% (endo’s stay on the low end, while ecto’s should stay on the high end) over normal diet levels”

Fazza, I’m sorry you weren’t more clear in your initial post, but your words (not mine) were, “What happens when you reach the inevitable plateau and you slow down your metabolism so much that any extra calories consumed are stored as fat!” That sounds to me pretty clearly like when you plateau, you do so because your metabolism has slowed down. As I have stated, this doesn’t happen. -EK

Topic: Diet and Nutrition / It's about calories in and calories out. That's it.

Jwu- I actually think we are pretty close to being on the same page with this stuff. I tend to think that beginners can make substantial, time-limited gains JUST cutting calories, with sensible macro ratios (again, I don’t think that the Twinkie diet is for everyone, just wanted to use it as an example that it CAN be done), but do agree that once thoe gains start to slow a more critical approach is needed. I do not believe that metabolic adaptation occurs as easily as Fazza made it appear, though, as LBM-RMR correlation is not absolutely linear. Not sure where your info came from on the Minnesota Starvation experiment, but during the 24 week “starvation period,” the subjects were fed foods typically available in Europe during the latter stages of the war: potatoes, turnips, bread and macaroni – i.e. starchy carbohydrates." There was not a substantial amount of protein involved, and yet fat loss continued, thus the metabolic downgrade was no significant. -EK

Topic: Diet and Nutrition / It's about calories in and calories out. That's it.

Ridiculous. I didn’t dismiss anything. I quoted you directly. I also provided the most widely know experimental data to show that even in the most extreme situation, metabolism doesn’t slow down, and fat loss- not weight loss, but FAT loss- continued until the subjects were at 5%, even in a 40-50% caloric deficit. Until you can show me a peer-reviewed, clinical trial that shows metabolic down-regulation occurs coincidental to plateauing (again, your words, not mine), what you have stated is not correct. You can claim I’m dismissing it all you want, but that doesn’t make it so; not dismissing- disagreeing.

Jwu- I should have been clearer in what I was stating regarding metabolic function and hormones. Looking back that does sound like crazy-talk! What I meant (and should have said) was that refeeds do not somehow jack up your RMR because you have more calories. That’s how I interpreted Fazza’s initial post, and I was making a clarification between the fact that refeeds- as is my understanding- work to utilize calories more efficiently, but do not change the baseline caloric needs of a person. Is that any more sensible? -EK

Topic: Diet and Nutrition / It's about calories in and calories out. That's it.

I’m not at all arguing metabolic rate decreases as body weight drops, but I’m not convinced that dropping calories creates an adaptation in which your metabolism decrease to the point that “starvation mode” results. The way she made it sound in her first post- whether intentionally or not- was that dropping calories drastically will downgrade metabolism such that at soon as you eat more, you gain fat because your metabolism is suddenly so slow. That’s not even close to what happens; that was my point.

Regarding the studies you posted, there is nothing to support the idea that metabolic downgrading is caloric based or dependent, only that as the men lost weight/fat, their metabolism decreased. Perhaps you will find the following interesting:

Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Dec;25 Suppl 5:S22-9.
An adipose-specific control of thermogenesis in body weight regulation.Dulloo AG, Jacquet J.

’ “adaptive thermogenesis”… is dictated solely by signals arising from the state of depletion of the adipose tissue fat stores; it is hence referred to as the adipose-specific control of thermogenesis… supression of this adipose-specific thermogenesis during .. starvation ..leads to energy conservation,"

Sports Med. 2006;36(3):239-62.Links
The role of diet and exercise for the maintenance of fat-free mass and resting metabolic rate during weight loss.Stiegler P, Cunliffe A.
Department of Human and Health Sciences, University of Westminster, London, UK.

“Changes in RMR can only partly be accounted for by alterations in respiring tissues,”

Even the Biospshere 2 project showed that after 2 YEARS of caloric restriction, the energy expenditure was only 6% lower than predicted. 6% in 2 years? You’re seriously selling that as a drop in metabolic rate? -EK

Topic: Diet and Nutrition / It's about calories in and calories out. That's it.

What are your vitals (height, weight, age, and gender)? -EK

Topic: General Discussion / Setup page and activity level question

2 points-
1) How can you “tell” the whey is kicking in quicker?
2) Be aware that overall, meeting your protein requirements for the day is more important than when you get the protein in. Recent studies seem to indicate that a blend of proteins (casein and whey) seem to yield better results than a quick digesting whey-only shake post-workout. If you are doing an hour and a half of cardio, I would revisit the amount fo cardio you are doing in one session (seems like overtraining to me), and the need for BCAAs trumps creatine on those days, if you intend to keep doing this amount. Have you looked into HIIT training as opposed to such long durations of lower intensity? -EK

Topic: Supplements / Whey on Cardio days?

Totally get that. I would completely get how someone using a trial size of ONE, would have more reliable results than several clinical trials indicating otherwise. Well played!

Your body – too many calories = muscle loss + slower metabolism.
Only if you are not exercising and your protein levels are too low. Definitely not a blanket, universal truth. During your “yo-yo” periods, were you weight training? Were you eating enough protein? How do you account for numerous natural bodybuilders who rely on bulk and cut cycles to grow and shed fat for contest? What about the two guys who I mentioned in my first post? One is a nutrition professor for goodness sake. I’m supoosed to take the word of someone on an internet forum over a nutrition professor regarding fat loss? Seriously? Facepalm! -EK

Topic: Diet and Nutrition / It's about calories in and calories out. That's it.

LOL really? Try a current NFL lineman for the Chiefs and the only Miss Teen USA to EVER score a perfect score in the swimsuit round. How about over a dozen competitive powerlifters and bodybuilder? Or the fact that I competed myself at a ridiculously light weight (132s/148s) and won 3 national powerlifting titles, never having had a problem making weight? How are those examples? Don’t attack my character or start asking for a resume. -EK

Topic: Diet and Nutrition / It's about calories in and calories out. That's it.

Um…yes you DID totally say, “giving examples of people you have actually helped!” Now that I gave them, you’re backpedaling? You can believe whatever you want- you clearly do, despite any clinical literature that contradicts what you hold true (how you can dismiss the MSE is beyond me- it was the longest and most comprehensive study of its kind and the results have been reproduced in the second Biosphere trial), but know that if you insist on telling people that just because YOUR metabolism crashed when you yo-yo dieted (never answered me about if you were weight training or what your protein consumption was like), it will inevitably happen to them, I am going to pipe up and correct you. Riddle me this- when dieticians- people who hold medical degrees in dietetics, not Joe Nutritionist at the gym, but actual dieticians- compose diet plans for obese people, why do they not use a standard BMR formula for caloric goal? They use an adjusted body weight formula that yields a caloric goal 1000-2000 calories BELOW what would be predicted by standard BMR. Why are they not concerned that they will “tank” a patient’s metabolism? What is it you know that they don’t? There exists scientific literature that metabolic rate does not slow down during short-term fasting. It actually increases slightly. If you don’t believe me have a read for yourself:
“Resting energy expenditure in short-term starvation is increased as a result of an increase in serum norepinephrine1,2

Christian Zauner, et al.

Results: Resting energy expenditure increased significantly from 3.97 ± 0.9 kJ/min on day 1 to 4.53 ± 0.9 kJ/min on day 3 (P < 0.05). The increase in resting energy expenditure was associated with an increase in the norepinephrine concentration from 1716. ± 574 pmol/L on day 1 to 3728 ± 1636 pmol/L on day 4 (P < 0.05). Serum glucose decreased from 4.9 ± 0.5 to 3.5 ± 0.5 mmol/L (P < 0.05), whereas insulin did not change significantly.

Conclusions: Resting energy expenditure increases in early starvation, accompanied by an increase in plasma norepinephrine. This increase in norepinephrine seems to be due to a decline in serum glucose and may be the initial signal for metabolic changes in early starvation.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/71/6/1511.abstract -EK

Topic: Diet and Nutrition / It's about calories in and calories out. That's it.

Jwu- I get that. But if someone flat states “why dodn’t you show an example of someone you’ve helped?” and I do, how does that make me the bad guy? Further, stating “Your body – too many calories = muscle loss + slower metabolism” is not an oversimplification; it’s incorrect, unless we are talking about something insane like 700 calories, which I think we can all agree that we are not. At the very least, it would be something like, “You body-too mny calories coupled with not enough protein= muscle loss+ slower metabolism.” And even there, a pound of muscle burns burns about 6 calories at rest; fat? About 2. So that’s the basis of her argument? That those four calories are going to make a substantial enough difference to significantly effect metabolism? When some new person reads something like, “you need to eat more or your metabolism will break” (like it’s an arm or a leg), it’s waaaaay overblown and not correct. What does the beginning dieter do? Eats more, doesn’t lose as quickly, wonders what happened, quits. No better than yo-yo’ers. Again, this is why dieticians use an adjusted bw when composing diets. You can’t tell a guy who is 350 pounds, 30 years old, and 6’0" tall to cut his calories to 3000 calories per day (500 off of their “predicted” BMR) and think he will lose fat. He’s still eating 3000 calories per day. You would use an adjusted bw of 242 (same as for RX dosing) which would yield 2241 calories- nearly 800 less than the previous number. If our guy consumes 3000 calories, that’s over a half a pound LESS per week of fat- in theory- he is losing, but at least he won’t mess up his metabolism, right? You see why I don’t buy into the whole “cutting calories too much” theory? -EK

Topic: Diet and Nutrition / It's about calories in and calories out. That's it.

What point am I ignoring. I have said- from the start, and several times over- that for beginners, calories in-calories out is the best apporach to start with. SHE disputed that with the statement, "What happens when you reach the inevitable plateau and you slow down your metabolism so much that any extra calories consumed are stored as fat! " That’s untrue and oversimplified. I never disputed that once a plateau is reached macros become more important. I never disagreed with you that LBM is a critical factor. What I disagree with is that VLCDs will somehow cause a metabolic downregulation. There’s absolutely NO data to support this other than Fazza’s personal experience. There is not one piece of clear cut evidence that severe calorie restriction causes your metabolism to crash, independent of LBM decreases. NOT ONE. So, you can agree with her that “Your body – too few calories = LBM/muscle loss + slower metabolism,” if you want. I don’t buy it to the extent that she is making it seem, and have not found a single piece of literature stating it does. You accused me of Googling everything- well here’s one right off the top of my head- if severe caloric restriction causes metbolic downgrading, why is it that concentration camp victims- and I mean this with all the respect in the world, not trying to make light of anything they went through- didn’t just balloon up when they got back into the “real world?” Why have I never seen an obese concentration camp victim- EVER- once they are reintegrated into society, if their metabolism have been so severely compromised due to a calorie restriction? -EK

Topic: Diet and Nutrition / It's about calories in and calories out. That's it.