lowering of metabolism after weight loss

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 01:52:29 +0200, "Polar Light"
wrote:

Being skinny does come naturally to some people. I believe it was
super-model Twiggy who started the skinny trend in the 60s, I also believe
she was naturally thin, she didn't starve herself since it hadn't yet become
fashionable to be that thin. Desirable in those days meant curvaceous like
Marilyn Monroe.

I'm not sure if this is quite true. Don't underestimate the huge
change in culture and fashion that took place around the early 60s.
Marilyn died in the early 60s, and Twiggy's career took off not long
after that, by which time the 50s look had been completely replaced by
60s culture. Besides, I believe it's true to say that Marilyn was
criticised by some as being too plump even in her lifetime.

janice
who remembers the 50s and the 60s

"janice" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 01:52:29 +0200, "Polar Light"
wrote:

Being skinny does come naturally to some people. I believe it was
super-model Twiggy who started the skinny trend in the 60s, I also believe
she was naturally thin, she didn't starve herself since it hadn't yet
become
fashionable to be that thin. Desirable in those days meant curvaceous like
Marilyn Monroe.

I'm not sure if this is quite true. Don't underestimate the huge
change in culture and fashion that took place around the early 60s.
Marilyn died in the early 60s, and Twiggy's career took off not long
after that, by which time the 50s look had been completely replaced by
60s culture. Besides, I believe it's true to say that Marilyn was
criticised by some as being too plump even in her lifetime.

janice
who remembers the 50s and the 60s

You know what they say: if you remember the 60s you weren't there!
LOL ;-)

So for cancer is it an obsticle to look at the causes for cancer and the
solution to get rid of it? Or should I just have a desire to get rid of
cancer?

Personally, I'd worry about getting rid of the cancer. Cancer is not as
preventable as obesity is. If I'm genetically destined to get breast
cancer I can do things to keep myself healthy (exercise, manage weight,
don't smoke, etc.) but it's not going to guarantee I don't end up with it
some day.

Very good point:being a healthy weight, eating healthy & living a healthy
lifestyle doesn't guarantee good health, only increases your chances of
being in good health.

Unless you have Prader-Willi syndrome, obesity is usually preventable

....and usually curable too, without the need for extreme treatments like
chemo.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:50:45 -0700, wendy Huffed
and Puffed the following into the madness of usenet:

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
Decreasing intake down to the **right** amount does work every time for
helping folks achieve lasting weight loss:

That's the same for any diet. If you could stay on any diet that would
work. But people don't stay on a diet. And I know, your approach isn't a
diet.

the why is it called the 2 pound Diet?

"wendy" wrote in message
...
GaryG wrote:
So, we should all just give up then? Look for help through drugs and
surgery?

Neither of which work either. I didn't say give up. But you also have
to have a realistic idea of what your are trying to accomplish.

A wise person once said, "If you think you can, or you think you
can't...you
are correct."

I think i can fly by flapping my arms. I must be correct.

All your logic on htis topic suggests you are flapping your wings. No,
wait, that would be a form a exercise and a way balance one's caloric
intake. You are correct there are other factors that tug you in the
wrong direction and mostly self control. Eat a bit less(especially ****
sugar crap), exercise a bit more and you will slim down slowly but
steady. The science to lose weight is simple, take in less than you
need. The rest is willpower and only YOU can decide what quality of life
you want.

-DF

GaryG wrote:
wendy wrote:

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:

It's a very common topic on ASDLC. Many focus on the
simple fact that calories in equals calories out. Then
they falsely assume that calories out is fixed and come
to the incorrect conclusion that reducing calories in
without any further detail must automatically reduce
weight. Metabolism does fall in many cases.

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.

This is why it's important to consider whether what you're doing
is reducing your metabolism.

While the data suggest that these metabolic adaptations might
hinder
successful weight maintenance, it should not imply that successful
weight maintenance is unachievable.

Not impossible, just too difficult for 90+% of folks.

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.

Good point but it still misses something. Folks can and do
find ways to keep their loss off. Ways that don't drop
metabolism and also that don't trigger appetite.

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.

This is part of the reason why I preach moderate slower
approaches. Very many what fad diet systems with the
fastest possible loss, but those are exactly the types of
fad diets imposed on these test mice.

It's possible the effect on metabolism seen in those rats was due to
a
"starvation" response.

Starvation response. Reduced resting metabolism. Two
expressions that mean exactly the same thing. Check.

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.

Yup. Non-extreme plans are hard to want, but it is the
non-extrem plans that work the best via wroking the longest.
For Atkins, staying on Induction is an extreme approach
while following all 4 phases on schedule is non-extreme.

Doug Freyburger wrote:

Good point but it still misses something. Folks can and do
find ways to keep their loss off.

Very few. It's interesting when our schools fail to graduate a large
percentage of students we want to change the schools to be more
effective. We don't say the students should be able to graduate no
matter how bad the schools are. Yet for weight, no matter hard it is for
someone to lose weight it's their fault and their fault alone. We don't
think about how to improve the entire system to help people, which is
really what needs to happen for masses of people to change. Talking
about individual successes is interesting, but in every other case we
call that ancedotal evidence.


Ways that don't drop
metabolism and also that don't trigger appetite.

The problem is appetite isn't the only mechanism that triggers eating.
The dopamine reward system is another largely independent system for
encouraging eating.

As for the diet, people don't stay on diets in general? Why is that?
It's rooted in our biology.

Doug Freese wrote:
You are correct there are other factors that tug you in the
wrong direction and mostly self control.

What if it's not a tug? Some people feel no tug at all. They will be
thing without effort. Others find it a tug then yank then a strong pull.
Why is there a tug at all? Why is it so hard to practice self control
when i don't have the same problems drinking water, for example? By
ignoring the why behind you are minimizing and trivializing that "tug"
when that's really the heart of the matter.



The science to lose weight is simple, take in less than you
need. The rest is willpower and only YOU can decide what quality of life
you want.

People don't seem very interested in science. Talking about willpower is
as anti-science as it gets.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 10:14:57 -0400, Ma¢k
wrote:

the why is it called the 2 pound Diet?

To have an excuse to eat 2 pd lard daily without feeling any guilt.

Stacey Bender wrote:

Doug Freese wrote:
You are correct there are other factors that tug you in the
wrong direction and mostly self control.

What if it's not a tug? Some people feel no tug at all. They will be
thing without effort. Others find it a tug then yank then a strong pull.
Why is there a tug at all? Why is it so hard to practice self control
when i don't have the same problems drinking water, for example? By
ignoring the why behind you are minimizing and trivializing that "tug"
when that's really the heart of the matter.

It is the fear of hunger that drives many people to overeat.

Many would be helped if they would choose to recognize that hunger is a
healthy appetite.

The science to lose weight is simple, take in less than you
need. The rest is willpower and only YOU can decide what quality of life
you want.

People don't seem very interested in science. Talking about willpower is
as anti-science as it gets.

It does invoke issues of spirituality.

From a more scientific standpoint, people do need to learn how to
reliably **quantify** how much they are eating and what is the **right**
amount of food to eat & drink.

At His service,

Andrew

--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?V113154DA
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129