Oh--here is something I found about BMR and the Minnesota Starvation Study, from another source:
Quote:
Various changes reflected an overall slowing of the body's physiological processes. There were decreases in body temperature, heart rate, and respiration, as well as in basal metabolic rate (BMR). BMR is the amount of energy (in calories) that the body requires at rest (i.e., no physical activity) in order to carry out normal physiological processes. It accounts for about two-thirds of the body's total energy needs, with the remainder being used during physical activity. At the end of semistarvation, the men's BMRs had dropped by about 40% from normal levels. This drop, as well as other physical changes, reflects the body's extraordinary ability to adapt to low caloric intake by reducing its need for energy. More recent recent research has shown that metabolic rate is markedly reduced even among dieters who do not have a history of dramatic weight loss (Platte, Wurmser, Wade, Mecheril & Pirke, 1996). During refeeding, Keys et al. found that metabolism speeded up, with those consuming the greatest number of calories experiencing the largest rise in BMR. The group of volunteers who received a relatively small increment in calories during refeeding (400 calories more than during semistarvation) had no rise in BMR for the first 3 weeks. Consuming larger amounts of food caused a sharp increase in the energy burned through metabolic processes.
"At the end of semistarvation, the men's BMRs had dropped by about 40% from normal levels." This scares the CRAP out of me! Dropped by almost half, meaning I would have to drop my calories by almost half to compensate.
"metabolism speeded up, with those consuming the greatest number of calories experiencing the largest rise in BMR." This is very encouraging news until you read the next sentence:
"The group of volunteers who received a relatively small increment in calories during refeeding (400 calories more than during semistarvation) had no rise in BMR for the first 3 weeks" How many times have people bumped calories up by meager amounts (200 or so) because they are afraid to go too high and gain it all back? And not kept at it for at least 3 weeks.
And when you do add large numbers back in a refeed, conquering the FEAR that you will gain is probably harder than conquering the actual gain.
"At the end of semistarvation, the men's BMRs had dropped by about 40% from normal levels." This scares the CRAP out of me! Dropped by almost half, meaning I would have to drop my calories by almost half to compensate.
"metabolism speeded up, with those consuming the greatest number of calories experiencing the largest rise in BMR." This is very encouraging news until you read the next sentence:
"The group of volunteers who received a relatively small increment in calories during refeeding (400 calories more than during semistarvation) had no rise in BMR for the first 3 weeks" How many times have people bumped calories up by meager amounts (200 or so) because they are afraid to go too high and gain it all back? And not kept at it for at least 3 weeks.
And when you do add large numbers back in a refeed, conquering the FEAR that you will gain is probably harder than conquering the actual gain.
. . .Sneaking back out again.
Well, I think we have to be careful about comparing these results to ourselves. The participants in the study were young, healthy, presumably normal and stable weight men whose calorie intake was cut in half. That doesn't necessarily apply to us: overweight/obese, possibly overeating, gaining/losing women (I think most of us are women on this thread), many of whom are older... (well, myself at least). Cutting our calories in half may have different outcomes.
I also wonder if we do a better job of measuring any of these variables in the 60+ years since the study was conducted. Also, in the 1940s (when the study was conducted), people presumably had very different eating habits... less fast food, processed food.
I wonder, has there been any research like this since then? Science relies on replication, and as most of the data relied on 32 carefully selected participants, I'm hesitant to apply it to everyone, much less us.
heather, there have been follow-up studies, but most of them are in scientific journals that require a subscription in order to read. From the abstracts, though, it doesn't seem like any of the studies refute the findings.
I do agree that a study using only young men doesn't give the whole picture. That used to be how science was done--a not-too-subtle form of sexism, as though women are just like men, only with different reproductive organs.
I thought it was interesting that some of the men developed binge-eating disorder during and after the semi-starvation diet, whereas none had had this problem before. I've seen posters on 3FC complain about this.
goodforme, I think the point was that the worst thing you could do would be to drop your calories by half to compensate. And as for the fear of regain--I think somewhere else it said that the men regained back to their starting level, plus ten percent. But over the next few years, that 10 percent went away.
As heather pointed out, these were young men who were not obese to begin with, and they were never trying to maintain the lower weight that they got to by semi-starvation.
I think the information is interesting because it shows that we don't necessarily know that the outcome of dieting, especially of severe restriction, is going to be what we want it to be. And the transition from dieting to maintaining seems a lot trickier that I had thought...
I also found the study interesting because it introduced binge eating into their lives. I personally don't think binge eating is as "emotional" as everyone claims it is, or as certain articles and authors on the internet want you to believe. Yes, it has an emotional component - but that emotional component is often highly connected to restricting, restricting, restricting - and then experiencing a mental/bodily rebellion.
Actually, when people on the boards discuss binge eating, I simply wish it wasn't only such a 'personal' matter that they have to dig down deep to fix, restricting - or even just thinking about restricting, also causes binging behavior.
Regarding the metabolism problem - I agree that female bodies are quite different from their male counterparts!
Btw, have you ever heard of anyone on 3FC having their metabolic rate measured and calculated by a scientist/medical professional? I'm just wondering how common it is... I mean this study is quite old and they knew how to measure metabolisms.....
The Harris-Benedict formulas for Basal Metabolic Rate have been around since 1919. You can do a search and find out the specifics. From BMR, one can calculate one's average daily caloric burn, by including a factor for activity level.
The direct way to test BMR is through gas analysis, but it has to be done under rigorous conditions. It's not something easy to do, I gather. But, I would expect that it was done for the Minnesota study. I haven't looked up what methodology they used, however.
Using the calculation method, I come up with a BMR value of 1438 calories. Multiplying by an activity value of 1.375 I come up with an average daily burn of 1977 calories.
The problem most of us have with these calculated values is that our own experience has shown that the values aren't accurate. I seem to gain weight if I consistently eat more than 1600 calories. Is this because of the period of time when I restricted my intake? That is, am I getting some kind of "rebound" effect? Or am I getting a calculated value that has not been corrected for my having been obese? Or, is my value within standard deviation, even though not near the average?
But I am thinking--even if we had an accurate calcuation, or were able to have the more direct test, what would that really tell us? Do we really need a better number against which to measure ourselves?
Today is my weighing day, and I'm up a couple of pounds--basically, back to where I started three weeks ago. This isn't unexpected because I have been eating more in the past week--plus last night was restaurant food and I expected water retention from it.
I'm going to continue with my weekly weighing, my going to the gym when possible, and eating reasonably without tracking.
I think this is working for me better than the cycles I was in before--where I would restrict, then overeat, and then feel miserable.
I am so happy to find this thread! I knew that my weight had been creeping up for awhile, but I hadn't gotten on a scale in a LONG time - until yesterday. I don't want to do anything drastic, but I WOULD like to reverse this trend and get back to the weight where I feel best (150). It's been very helpful to read everything that's been posted thus far!
Last edited by mackinac19; 03-11-2011 at 07:46 AM.
Well, I tried to do a day of dieting yesterday - not even a drastic day. (I was aiming for 1800 cals.) But by late night, I was starving so I binged. It wasn't a horrible binge, but my total food for the day was considerably more than it usually is. It really felt like a 'reaction to dieting' binge - and it was on the very first day! Just a reminder of how hard this is!
mackinac19, it's an unfortunate thing when one has eaten the "limit" for the day and still feels "starving." The choices seem to be, go over the limit, or suffer through until bedtime.
What if you tried just planning your meals and snacks for the day, without counting up the calories? You probably have enough experience that you know what foods to choose and how much without knowing the numbers. Perhaps you wouldn't have the same reaction--I don't know.
Yesterday I was out of town, and I'll be gone most of today, too. I left half of yesterday's lunch because I didn't need the carbs... But I made up for it on the way home, since I was still hungry.
Figuring out food today is a problem. I'm attending an event where everyone brings food for afterward, and it's vegetarian, which means there will be way too many sweet things and not enough protein. That's just the way these turn out. I'm having to plan ahead for this or I'll be starving by the time it's over (taking a cooler in the car with some sandwiches, protein bars, diet soda).
Thanks, Jay! Good luck on your planning for today. I've been thinking it over, and I've decided that I will return to intuitive eating, which is what I have been doing for the last several years. I started right after I read a book called Overcoming Overeating - a book that I found to be very inspiring, because it recommends giving up dieting and listening to your body. The thing is, though, I had already lost the weight I wanted to lose when I read the book, and over the last two years or so I've 'intuited' myself to a considerable gain. It could be that my body is settling at this weight naturally - but I don't think so. I know there have been too many times when I didn't listen to my body - and ate until I was past full. I'm not beating myself up over this, but the fact is that I would prefer to be lighter than I am; I have gone over the weight where I feel best, and I don't want to creep up further. I know that there is an intuitive eating thread on 3FC, so I'll check that out. In regard to planning, the OO book recommends carrying a 'food bag' so that one never reaches the point of being starved. One big point the authors make is that if we surround ourselves with food that we love, and we know it's ALWAYS there, we get used to having it around and are less likely to binge. I've found this to be true for myself (although, having read the 3FC boards for years, I get the sense that most members try to keep such 'binge' foods out of their houses). Maybe I've slowly gained weight because I've had 'junk' in the house - but ironically I think I would be subject to gaining more if I restricted and then had compensatory binges. If I were in the 'high' of weight loss mode, I think I could do it, but right now I've realized that attempting to restrict may backfire and cause me to regain MORE. So - I'm going to try intuitive eating again. I'll eat what I like when I want it, but perhaps try to stop eating a BIT before I'm full. Hopefully that will lead to weight stabilization and maybe even a gradual loss.
Last edited by mackinac19; 03-13-2011 at 12:52 PM.
Ya know, the ONLY times I feel hungry are at about 10 AM and 3 PM. Those are the prime snacking times for me. After dinner? Even if I feel slightly hungry, I never succumb to it--I guess that much is good. Usually 10 AM, if I'm strong, means eating a grapefruit (weak = mini candy bar). At 3 PM, it generally involves chips....Must rid home of chips!
This scares the CRAP out of me! Dropped by almost half, meaning I would have to drop my calories by almost half to compensate.
