[PinkHoodie]

I heard a talk today by Professor at one of our local college's. And she gave a lot of interesting facts about weight/weight loss/exercise. A few of the things were like, okay now that makes sense.
One thing she is said (all of these studies were on a national level, and published in medical journals) is that ALL diets regardless of which one it is Low Calorie (calorie counting), Atikins, Zone...any of those will eventually plateau. There hasn't been a lot of research on why but she said early evidence is pointing to the fact that the brain see's that you are in a deficit and is able to somehow go into survival mode. Essentially your brain see's it as you could potentially die, so it is able to somehow slow or halt weight loss. And that makes sense to me.
Also they did a study on women who exercised vs. those who didn't over 13 years and found that regardless of whether they exercised or not both groups gained an average of 5 pounds over the 13 years.
There was more but these two things were interesting. It doesn't make sense that weight loss is so hard when you think about it, but statistically even those who lose weight will gain it back and even a little more. It makes you wonder how to by pass some of the information in the brain. Its sending and recieving so much information all the time on the condition of the body, that it almost seems its the barrier!! Just thought I would share. I find this stuff interesting for some reason.

[stacygee]

Thanks for sharing... I hope I can trick my brain out of any plateau!

[mkroyer]

PInk-the professor was referring to metabolic adaptation (commonly confused as, and interpreted as starvation mode~ a myth in my opinion) The adaptation occurs when you are in a substantial caloric deficit for long enough, that the body becomes more efficient, and learns how to (or ADAPTS) operate on less calories than it used to use. Basically your BMR goes down, and your rmr. Where fat loss is concerned, we DONT want to become more efficient!! Efficiency means less calories burned (like fuel efficiency means less gas used). The body will also adapt by shutting down, or slowing down, none essential functions, like hair growth and menstrual cycles. I am one who suffers from severe metabolic adaptation. I trained for, and completed 3 marathons on only 1200 calories a day. My body knows how m=to make use of every darn calorie i consume, and ANY excess gets stored immediately. I wish i could go back in time, and do things differently.
For instance, the adaptation can be lessend by engaging in frequent re-feeds, diet breaks and "off weeks" . COnsuming above maintence calories of High GI carbs helps to reset falling hormone levels. You may take a step backward (ie, gain a pound or two temporarily) but in the long run you will be FAR better off

[kaplods]

My metabolism is insanely lower than it once was. I still can't wrap my brain around the fact that what I'm eating to maintain my weight, is the same calorie level I once lost 5 to 8 lbs per week on (and I'm not counting the first few weeks where I'd lose as much as 10 or 11 lbs the first week).

That doesn't mean my situation is hopeless, just that it's harder. There are also ways to increase your metabolism too (exercise being the main one).

It can make weight loss seem hopeless, but I don't think that's true (or I wouldn't be here), it just means it's harder, and the sooner you can get it right the better.

[JenMusic]

Originally Posted by mkroyer

For instance, the adaptation can be lessend by engaging in frequent re-feeds, diet breaks and "off weeks" . COnsuming above maintence calories of High GI carbs helps to reset falling hormone levels. You may take a step backward (ie, gain a pound or two temporarily) but in the long run you will be FAR better off

I would love to hear more information about this. I've heard of the "set point," but don't really understand it. Are you saying upping calories occasionally can help our metabolisms?

This is something I think about - since I'm shorter already, I really would rather not end up maintaining on a really low calories allotment.

[findingfawn]

I'm guessing this is where calorie cycling comes in handy.

[Eliana]

This is why I'm really partial to eating small, more frequent meals.

[mkroyer]

Jen,
Yes, i amsaying that taking STRUCTURED refeeds and diet breaks CAN help re-set a falling metabolism. Anyone who is in a caloric deficit is going to experience some metabolic adaptation.

For someone whos adaptation is severe, a structured weeklong to 10 day refeed, where you eat ABOVE your maintence calories, and a lot of high glycemic index carbs (sugars!).

For those just starting a particular round of fat loss, alot of times a weeklong refeed is rcommended for every 8 to 12 weeks of dieting down. For people who are already at low Body fat levels, trying to get leaner, a refeed of a day or 2, every 10 days to 2 weeks is a good place to start. here is a link to an article explaining more

hubpages.com/hub/All_About_Refeeds

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/sclark60.htm

[JenMusic]

mkroyer -

Oops, forgot to suscribe to the thread and just found your answer. I'm going to go look at the links you provided. Thanks!

[rockinrobin]

I would dispute much of what this woman says. Sorry, that's just my opinion.

Plateauing is 100% not a given. That is a fact, not just an opinion. I never plateaued and neither did many other maintainers right here at 3FC.

Starvation mode? Not buying it. You have fat on, you keep creating a calorie deficit, the body - it's not so worried!

Survival mode? My body was in full out survival mode once I made the decision to lose the weight. My body obviously, desperately wanted me to survive and dropped the pounds.

Metabolisms slow down as we age (as do lots of things) mostly due to loss of muscle as we age. You keep that muscle up, you CAN keep your metabolism at or close to a similar rate. And if not, it's up to us to recognize it and adjust our food intake/activity level accordingly.

Weight loss statistics have *not much* meaning and is easy to manipulate, as weight loss/maintenance is not something left up to chance, but up to choice.

It is our responsibility to be on top of our health.

[kerielaine]

Originally Posted by kaplods

My metabolism is insanely lower than it once was. I still can't wrap my brain around the fact that what I'm eating to maintain my weight, is the same calorie level I once lost 5 to 8 lbs per week on (and I'm not counting the first few weeks where I'd lose as much as 10 or 11 lbs the first week).

That doesn't mean my situation is hopeless, just that it's harder. There are also ways to increase your metabolism too (exercise being the main one).

It can make weight loss seem hopeless, but I don't think that's true (or I wouldn't be here), it just means it's harder, and the sooner you can get it right the better.

I agree! My first week I lost 10 pounds. Now it's taking me months to lose 5. It's frustrating but it just means I need to keep on going. And eventually the numbers will go down again.

IJWTS that you have done an amazing job! 80ish pounds!? That's wonderful. Keep at it!

[Rosinante]

I like to hear all the "-ology" of weightloss, although I don't have enough personal knowledge to assess much of it.

I Have known times where loss has ground to a virtual standstill, I have a higher calorie week and it kicks off again; but of course, I have no way of knowing whether it would have done anyway.

I suppose my take might be:
that it takes more calories for a large body to move around and exist than a smaller one
so we curtail calories and create a deficit and lose weight
but then, having lost weight, our body needs fewer calories, so the deficit is smaller, so the weightloss is less
so we have to either drop a few more calories or do a bit more exercise, to maintain the deficit. if we don't, the weightloss will 'stall'.

I dropped 200 calories 9 days ago to 1200, and in that time have lost 4.7lbs, so dropping calories doesn't seem to have hurt either. This is why I have to say that I just don't understand enough.

I think the one thing I'd counsel to be careful of is where statistics lead us to believe that stalling or re-gain is inevitable. Of course it is if we don't eat properly, that's kind of a Duh; but if we concentrate and take responsibility for ourselves, it really really won't (barring a few illnesses or conditions). Some authorities seem to try and sell us statistics designed to make us give up. Being fat is not inevitable.

[JayEll]

It's not a finding that anyone likes, but you can't just reject something because you don't like it. Metabolic adaptation may actually happen. Perhaps it doesn't happen to everyone, though. No way of telling whether it will happen to you.

My experience since losing the 50 pounds back in 2007 seems somewhat like what is being described. I kept my weight stable for months, but then it began to creep up. And it continued to creep. It was slow because I was trying to counteract it with renewed diet restriction, but I found I could not hang on as successfully as I had with my initial weight loss. I'm sure part of that was because I was so tired of the routine, but there also seemed to be a physical component I hadn't experienced the first time through. It's like my body was "fighting back."

But, that's just anecdotal experience. I'm three years older now, and metabolism slows as one gets older. I probably have some insulin resistance as well.

What I take away from checking out a few papers on metabolic adaptation is that exercising and being physically active is really important for maintenance, but if you're going to exercise, you have to eat to support your exercise. As mkroyer noted, eating 1200 calories a day while training and running 3 marathons is just not going to do good things to your body, period.

Jay