If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
lowering of metabolism after weight loss
A while ago there was some discussion on if the body adjusts metabolism after weight loss to maintain the higher weight. Here's an article that talks about the issue: Why lost weight returns after dieting http://www.news-medical.net/?id=2955 The data suggests that weight loss in obese, obesity-prone rats, induced by caloric restriction, is accompanied by metabolic adaptations that predispose one to regain the lost weight. In rats that are losing weight, this is exhibited by a significant reduction in metabolic rate, measured as both 24-hour energy expenditure and sleeping metabolic rate, both independent of metabolic mass and energy intake. This adaptation persists after eight weeks of intake-regulated weight maintenance, but is no longer present with eight subsequent weeks of feeding at-will where rats are regaining lost weight. While rats that are regaining weight may have a shift in appetite that would contribute to their high rate of weight regain, the drive to increase food intake remains the most critical factor in the predisposition to regain lost weight. This adjustment clearly weighs more on the energy balance equation than the metabolic adjustment on energy expenditure observed in this or any other study. Additionally, the effect that energy intake, or more particularly, carbohydrate intake, has on respiratory quotient [dividing the amount of CO2 produced (VCO2) by the amount of oxygen uptake (VO2)]. RQ is much more dramatic than the metabolic adjustment observed from weight reduction. This drive to increase food intake likely involves environmental stimuli (diet composition, food palatability, physical activity) influencing motivational and metabolic components of a genetically determined set of central systems. While the data suggest that these metabolic adaptations might hinder successful weight maintenance, it should not imply that successful weight maintenance is unachievable. Even with the increased intake of carbohydrates, regular physical exercise may be the key factor that counteracts these metabolic adaptations to weight loss. ---- I notice that after everyone of these pronouncements saying how hard weight is to lose they say something like it's not unachievable. How hard does something have to be before people stop trying to achieve it? Not very hard. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
regular physical exercise may be the key factor that counteracts these metabolic adaptations to weight loss. for me its the only way to do it. -- Tom Exercise Today = Life Tomorrow Information you can trust from the diabetes experts... Your American Diabetes Association http://www.diabetes.org/home.jsp the American Diabetes Association's Message Boards http://community.diabetes.org/n/pfx/...tesz&nav=index ---- I notice that after everyone of these pronouncements saying how hard weight is to lose they say something like it's not unachievable. How hard does something have to be before people stop trying to achieve it? Not very hard. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ignoramus21798 wrote:
It all depends on how much you want it. So if you want it bad enough you can be a four minute miler? I think not. Your physical body establishes what is ultimately possible. Numerous people lose weight and keep it off, not without difficulties. It is not impossible. Nor is it easy enough to expect even the majority of people to be able to do it. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On 4/14/2005 2:55 PM, wendy wrote:
Numerous people lose weight and keep it off, not without difficulties. It is not impossible. Nor is it easy enough to expect even the majority of people to be able to do it. Don't you think that the majority of people *diet* rather than have a lifestyle change? I agree that people who think, "I will go on this diet until I am a size X." Then when they become a size X, "Woo Hoo. GOAL BABY! Now I can EAT whatever I WANT." If that is the person's mindset, of course they will most likely be on a rollercoaster. OTOH, if people go into this thinking, in order to be more healthy, I should eat X and exercise Y, I do feel that they will have long term success. It's all about the mindset/attitude. -- jmk in NC |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ignoramus21798 wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:55:30 -0700, wendy wrote: Ignoramus21798 wrote: It all depends on how much you want it. So if you want it bad enough you can be a four minute miler? I think not. Your physical body establishes what is ultimately possible. Any fat person can lose weight if they are calorie restricted (for example, confined in a cage with limited food). It is unlike running. That's not really the point though. What is important is how do you keep the weight off when you are free in the wild. Surely, we know that the majority of people cannot lose weight, and the majority of those who can lose weight does not keep it off. So, here, I agree with you. I don't know about cannot, but it's a lot harder than people want to admit. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
jmk wrote:
OTOH, if people go into this thinking, in order to be more healthy, I should eat X and exercise Y, I do feel that they will have long term success. It's all about the mindset/attitude. But it's not. It's more about how our bodies are. Just like running. You'll never be as fast as person with a lot of fast twitch muscle fibres. Clearly to be a world class athelete requires an immense amount of work and steroids, but it's difficult to overcome your genetic heritage. If you are born with fewer dopamine receptors you are much more likely to be an addict and/or overweight. Plus a dozen other hormone interactions that are genetic. Plus the instinct to eat in our fat/sugar environment. Plus we don't need to exercise to survive anymore. To say it's all about mindset is to not really understand what's going on. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"wendy" wrote in message ... jmk wrote: OTOH, if people go into this thinking, in order to be more healthy, I should eat X and exercise Y, I do feel that they will have long term success. It's all about the mindset/attitude. But it's not. It's more about how our bodies are. Just like running. You'll never be as fast as person with a lot of fast twitch muscle fibres. Clearly to be a world class athelete requires an immense amount of work and steroids, but it's difficult to overcome your genetic heritage. If you are born with fewer dopamine receptors you are much more likely to be an addict and/or overweight. Plus a dozen other hormone interactions that are genetic. Plus the instinct to eat in our fat/sugar environment. Plus we don't need to exercise to survive anymore. To say it's all about mindset is to not really understand what's going on. But broadly speaking, we are all the same - at each end there are extremes - supreme atheletes at one end and at the other there are the people with a major lack of dopamine receptors or whatever, but the vast vast bulk of us are averagely in the middle. Not sure about this rat thing anyway - they didn't have to think about whether they want to gain, lose or maintain weight. The psychological thing is too important to be ignored. Rachael 176/118/111 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"wendy" wrote in message
... Ignoramus21798 wrote: On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:55:30 -0700, wendy wrote: Ignoramus21798 wrote: It all depends on how much you want it. So if you want it bad enough you can be a four minute miler? I think not. Your physical body establishes what is ultimately possible. Any fat person can lose weight if they are calorie restricted (for example, confined in a cage with limited food). It is unlike running. That's not really the point though. What is important is how do you keep the weight off when you are free in the wild. Surely, we know that the majority of people cannot lose weight, and the majority of those who can lose weight does not keep it off. So, here, I agree with you. I don't know about cannot, but it's a lot harder than people want to admit. Well...it's not rocket science either. Losing weight simply requires consuming a few less calories per day than one burns. That said, in today's world where calorie-dense food is ever present in enormous quantities, and where most of us spend most of our days sitting on our rear ends, it does require a degree of dedication to lose weight. As with many other things in life, anything that requires patience and persistence will tend to have a low rate of success. It's just a lot easier for most people to reach for the bag of snacks and the remote control, rather than get up off the couch and go for a walk. But, that's more an issue of personal priorities than metabolism. GG |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"wendy" wrote in message
... jmk wrote: OTOH, if people go into this thinking, in order to be more healthy, I should eat X and exercise Y, I do feel that they will have long term success. It's all about the mindset/attitude. But it's not. It's more about how our bodies are. Just like running. You'll never be as fast as person with a lot of fast twitch muscle fibres. Clearly to be a world class athelete requires an immense amount of work and steroids, but it's difficult to overcome your genetic heritage. If you are born with fewer dopamine receptors you are much more likely to be an addict and/or overweight. Plus a dozen other hormone interactions that are genetic. Plus the instinct to eat in our fat/sugar environment. Plus we don't need to exercise to survive anymore. To say it's all about mindset is to not really understand what's going on. No offense, but it sounds like you are in search of excuses. GG |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"wendy" wrote in message
... A while ago there was some discussion on if the body adjusts metabolism after weight loss to maintain the higher weight. Here's an article that talks about the issue: Why lost weight returns after dieting http://www.news-medical.net/?id=2955 The data suggests that weight loss in obese, obesity-prone rats, induced by caloric restriction, is accompanied by metabolic adaptations that predispose one to regain the lost weight. In rats that are losing weight, this is exhibited by a significant reduction in metabolic rate, measured as both 24-hour energy expenditure and sleeping metabolic rate, both independent of metabolic mass and energy intake. This adaptation persists after eight weeks of intake-regulated weight maintenance, but is no longer present with eight subsequent weeks of feeding at-will where rats are regaining lost weight. While rats that are regaining weight may have a shift in appetite that would contribute to their high rate of weight regain, the drive to increase food intake remains the most critical factor in the predisposition to regain lost weight. This adjustment clearly weighs more on the energy balance equation than the metabolic adjustment on energy expenditure observed in this or any other study. Additionally, the effect that energy intake, or more particularly, carbohydrate intake, has on respiratory quotient [dividing the amount of CO2 produced (VCO2) by the amount of oxygen uptake (VO2)]. RQ is much more dramatic than the metabolic adjustment observed from weight reduction. This drive to increase food intake likely involves environmental stimuli (diet composition, food palatability, physical activity) influencing motivational and metabolic components of a genetically determined set of central systems. While the data suggest that these metabolic adaptations might hinder successful weight maintenance, it should not imply that successful weight maintenance is unachievable. Even with the increased intake of carbohydrates, regular physical exercise may be the key factor that counteracts these metabolic adaptations to weight loss. ---- I notice that after everyone of these pronouncements saying how hard weight is to lose they say something like it's not unachievable. How hard does something have to be before people stop trying to achieve it? Not very hard. That study reduced the rat's food intake rather drastically. Specifically, "weight loss was induced by limiting calories to approximately 60 percent of energy expenditure". This would be equivalent to a person who burns 2500 calories per day being limited to only 1500 calories per day. There's also the issue of time frame. In the experiment, they took 16 weeks to allow the rats to gain 10-15% body weight. But, they allowed only 2 weeks to reduce their body weight by that much. It's possible the effect on metabolism seen in those rats was due to a "starvation" response. If they had lost weight the weight slowly (the same way they had gained it), it's possible the effect on metabolism would have been different. -- GG http://www.WeightWare.com Your Weight and Health Diary |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ok, fine, whatever, I give up | Luna | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 101 | November 1st, 2005 04:33 AM |
Principles of Effective Weight Loss | Gary Matthews | Weightwatchers | 0 | March 31st, 2005 10:46 AM |
Adherene to, not type of diet important for fat loss ( 4 popular diets compared ) | [email protected] | General Discussion | 5 | January 5th, 2005 06:57 PM |
Ping Dally | Barbara Hirsch | General Discussion | 2 | August 20th, 2004 11:11 AM |
Weight Loss Support Groups | Paul | General Discussion | 0 | November 20th, 2003 04:43 PM |