Rake Busting - The less you eat - the more you lose.

I understand the need to maintain a HEALTHY diet protocol - this includes consuming enough calories to cause a slow and even weight loss.  I understand the NEED to promote at least a 1200 calorie a day diet on this forum to avoid promoting eating disorders - we don't want to kill anyone here.

That said - I am worried when a constantly read posts that say if you don't eat enough calories you won't lose weight - not because it is anecdotally correct (because people always lie about calorie consumption) - but because there are people out there who actually think that if you do under eat somehow your body will "store" fat - or "burn less".

So here is the - until your body fat percentage hit VERY LOW there are no appreciable metabolic changes with a reduced calories diet.

In other words – all things being equal - until you look like a RAKE – the less you eat – the more weight you will lose

Take the scenario (quite common) that a 170lbs woman is claiming to eat 1200 cals a day and is claiming not to lose weight....  

There are only two possible situations i.e. either the person is telling the truth or they are not.   If they are (for whatever reason) not telling the truth then the advice is going to be that they should recheck their calorie intake, weighing and measuring portions to be sure that it's accurate.  Their failure to lose weight is simply that they are 'eating too much'.  They are deluded about their intake.

But if the person is telling the truth - and I have no doubt that this can be the case - something else must be happening.  And the 'something else' is (logically)  that they are not using more than 1200 cals of energy.   If, by every chart going, even the most sedentary, bedridden 170lbs woman needs 1600-1700 cals to maintain her weight there is a mismatch going on.  It may not be a reduction in metabolic rate per se.  Call it a  'adaptive thermogenisis', 'starvation mode', 'famine response', call it what you will ... but this person is not using up as much energy as they are meant to.

The most common example that tends to go against your last statement ''the less you eat - the more weight you will lose' are patients post gastric surgery.  Physically unable to consume normal amounts of food the prognosis is that they will only lose half their excess weight.   They will often never achieve 'rake thin' and yet they are clearly using a lot less energy than predicted for someone their size.

Original Post by legaleli:

So here is the - until your body fat percentage hit VERY LOW there are no appreciable metabolic changes with a reduced calories diet.

source?

The OP may wish to see this Post, which includes links to factual studies and documents...

http://caloriecount.about.com/truth-starvatio n-mode-ft28742

He may also like to take this post as a template on how to post factual information rather than make personal oinions sound like facts.

I found when I eat less calories I like to make sure I eat more high nutrient rich foods and no pills.  My body  knows it is not starving because I am always comfortably full, on my approximately 1200 calorie a day diet.   It never is right on 1200, I know that but when I tried the 2000 cal a day diet, it never worked for me because I was always doing extra calories.

Your body is a motor, you need good fuel in it and you need to keep it tuned up.

To confirm you are doing things right, I like to ask these questions: 1- is your blood pressure healthy 2-are you sleeping at night  4-do you feel happy 5- do have lots of energy 6-do you have stamina.

If I can answer all 6 with a "yes" I am okay because I will be losing weight too.

I know quite a bit about this. 

Show me one study that demonstrates metabolism is significantly affected by calorie consumption.  All I read is anecdotal evidence.

There are good studies for metabolic ties to the amount of lean body mass, gender, body temperature, of course thyroid hormone, age, pregnancy/breast feeding, rapid growth, injury, tobacco use, and heredity.

Yes eating less (dieting) has been shown to marginally, slow metabolic rate, and telling someone to increase calorie intake is a fine suggestion if we know all the major parameters in their program... like if I was their PT monitoring them daily but in the absence of that kind of data, it is not a good deduction especially in a 600 / 800 calorie deficit. 

Macronutrient ratios would be critical - if I eat 1200 calories of deep fried flour and then switch to 1800 of salmon, I will likely lose weight! 

Now, if the person with the issue went from 2000 calories to 500 calories intake per day, saw some weight loss quickly and then saw it stall, that would be different again

Yes TEF (thermic effect of food) is minor, but important (all sources of NEAT - non-exercise activated thermogenesis - should be considered as playing a role).  An example would be, for theatres sake METHAMPHETAMINE – you take meth – your BMR goes up.

In a basic model, slow drop in consumption should not create a radical change in BMR. At the same time, caloric overeating can increase BMR (hence the one of the purported mechanisms for the effectiveness of ketogenic diets, which would also diminish the importance of calories)

Some good reading is here:

http://mayoresearch.mayo.edu/mayo/research/le vine_lab/about.cfm

I read it... it is oversimplified and simply misleads people about what metabolism is.  

But I see your bottom line.  If you follow the studies and want to increase your BMR you should take up smoking, get pregnant, do meth, and catch swine flu - obviously not good ideas!

But my point is that "starvation mode" is a practical myth - and sure - it might have some statistical significance - it does not have practical significance except in a very few - mostly skinny - people.

Original Post by windra06:

The OP may wish to see this Post, which includes links to factual studies and documents...

http://caloriecount.about.com/truth-starvatio n-mode-ft28742

He may also like to take this post as a template on how to post factual information rather than make personal oinions sound like facts.

Original Post by legaleli:

 All I read is anecdotal evidence.

And that's a bad thing, why?.....     If 100's of people experience the same phenomena but researchers can't particularly pin it down scientifically, does that automatically make the experience invalid?   Or simply worth more investigation?

Personally, I'm very pleased someone once advised me to eat more than I was doing.... my weight-loss sparked up considerably as a result, I had more energy, was better nourished and it felt good.  I don't really want to check out learned papers on why that happened..... it seemed to be a win-win-win situation.    By contrast,  there seems to be any number of scientific papers that people can copy/paste links to on why I should adopt, let's say, a virtually carb-free diet.   But since that just 'feels wrong' I'm not in any hurry to try it out.

I don't really see the point of your original post, if I'm honest. 

Original Post by gi-jane:

Personally, I'm very pleased someone once advised me to eat more than I was doing.... my weight-loss sparked up considerably as a result, I had more energy, was better nourished and it felt good.  I don't really want to check out learned papers on why that happened..... it seemed to be a win-win-win situation.    By contrast,  there seems to be any number of scientific papers that people can copy/paste links to on why I should adopt, let's say, a virtually carb-free diet.   But since that just 'feels wrong' I'm not in any hurry to try it out.

I don't really see the point of your original post, if I'm honest. 

Scientific "learned" call it what you will PAPERS usually don't suggest anything - they state findings.   Then others take those papers and make their own conclusions like "don't eat carbs" (which says nothing).

I'm more concerned that you - a VERY respected person on this site - would say "I don't really want to check out learned papers on why that happened....."

I really don't believe you there - you seem VERY interested in knowing the reasons why thigns happen.

I see what you might be saying though - "if it works - do it... leave the scientific babble for the academics".  If that's the case - I can't disagree with you.

Original Post by legaleli:

Show me one study that demonstrates metabolism is significantly affected by calorie consumption.  All I read is anecdotal evidence.

 Here you go.

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by legaleli:

Show me one study that demonstrates metabolism is significantly affected by calorie consumption.  All I read is anecdotal evidence.

 Here you go.

I'm aware of this article but I don't have it - I see where you are going with it.  What this article says in plain language is that PEOPLE DO LESS WHEN THEY EAT LESS - "CR results in a metabolic adaptation and a behavioral adaptation with decreased physical activity levels".

But it is a very interesting article.

This one is also interesting - but says essentially what I am trying to say - if you're overweight - there no adaptation.

Original Post by legaleli:

I really don't believe you there - you seem VERY interested in knowing the reasons why thigns happen.

 Better believe it.  I like to have a working knowledge of how things happen but absolutely not the minutiae.   I know I have to give my DVD player a clean every so often but I have no interest whatsoever in knowing how the thing works in detail. 

Where I come from is that people used to know how to eat.  Not from scientists or learned papers but basically from their mothers.   We learned that it's as unwise to eat a green potato as it is to eat yellow snow...   'Mother' couldn't give us chapter and verse on the chemical reactions within a green potato that render it poisonous but the warning that 'it'll give you stomach ache' is good enough.  However, some people are now so cowed by the level of contradictory academic advice on nutrition and so nervous around food as a result that they won't believe a simple explanation unless there is a weblink to the appropriate Harvard study on the subject. 

So yes, 'leave the scientific babble for the academics'.... 100%.  Let's get back to commonsense and shared knowledge around food instead of waiting for some professor to tell us why it's good to eat an apple.    And if 100 people or 1000 people tell you that every time they crash diet they eventually stop losing weight and regain it pretty quickly ...in whatever layman's terms they choose to express it....  maybe that's what we should take notice of?

Original Post by legaleli:

This one is also interesting - but says essentially what I am trying to say - if you're overweight - there no adaptation.

Did you read abstract you just posted? it clearly states that there was metabolic adaptation: "Body weight is defended in non-obese participants during modest caloric restriction, evidenced by metabolic adaptation of RMR and reduced energy expenditure through physical activity."

It also showed a decrease in RMR with calorie restriction when activity level was controlled for.

Original Post by gi-jane:

So yes, 'leave the scientific babble for the academics'.... And if 100 people tell you that every time they crash diet they eventually stop losing weight and regain it pretty quickly ...in whatever layman's terms they choose to express it....  maybe learn from the collective experience?

The best collective experience is almost always helpful.  And I am with you there.  But there are also collective mistakes - fad diets - misconceptions - that slow the process of weight loss.

I occasionally help a formerly grossly obese person in my home town lose some extra weight - and my plan is always the same - exercise more, eat less - keep your food interesting - stay away from combination foods (sandwiches - cream sauces - pre-prepared anything), sleep 7 hours a night - the basic.  These are all collective experience ideas.

Unfortunately sometimes people who are obese and not losing weight who look for excuses - they find easy ones here.  All they have to do is lie to themselves a little bit and the rest will come from people who genuinely want to help but end up suggesting "starvation mode" is the reason - or other things.

I'm not trying to tar everyone who is having trouble losing weight with the same "you don't try" brush - but I am saying that some people who want to help by offerring suggestions might be offerring excuses instead.

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by legaleli:

This one is also interesting - but says essentially what I am trying to say - if you're overweight - there no adaptation.

Did you read abstract you just posted? it clearly states that there was metabolic adaptation: "Body weight is defended in non-obese participants during modest caloric restriction, evidenced by metabolic adaptation of RMR and reduced energy expenditure through physical activity."

It also showed a decrease in RMR with calorie restriction when activity level was controlled for.

OH MY GOD all you want to do is fight!!!

Body weight is defended in non-obese participants during modest caloric restriction, evidenced by metabolic adaptation of RMR and reduced energy expenditure through physical activity."

Non-obese...  and incidentally, in NON OBESE people the metabolic adaptation may be the result of reduced activity and/or partitioning.

Original Post by legaleli:

OH MY GOD all you want to do is fight!!!

Who's fighting? you asked for a study that showed something, I provided one.  Then you provided one that demonstrated the same thing, but you claimed it showed the opposite, which I corrected.

Original Post by legaleli:

Body weight is defended in non-obese participants during modest caloric restriction, evidenced by metabolic adaptation of RMR and reduced energy expenditure through physical activity."

Non-obese...  and incidentally, in NON OBESE people the metabolic adaptation may be the result of reduced activity and/or partitioning.

You made the claim that in overweight people there was no metabolic adaption, but the study you sited showed a metabolic adaption for non-obese (but still potentially over-weight) people.

The abstract you also points out that "Changes in SPA in the chamber [their measure of activity]  and free-living PAL [measure of total energy output] were not related." And RMR, which was shown to decrease with calorie restriction in this study, is a measure that is independent of activity level.

Personal experience, addressing many of the above points:

-1000 calorie per day deficits steadily produced 1-2 pound per week weight loss.  The cc method worked, for me anyway.

-Reduced eating works for weight loss starting severely overweight or obese (BMI>30).  At normal weight (BMI<25) it is impossible to respect the cc eating minimums (1200F, 1500M) and generate 1000 calorie per day deficits by undereating.

-The most effective way to increase metabolism is to exercise.  It is also the only healthy way to generate weight loss starting at normal weight.

-Weight loss detoxifies the body, at least on a circumstantial basis.  The loss of visceral fat (measured by waistline reduction) correlated with an ability to control my blood sugar and reduce my systolic and diastolic blood pressure.  

So (and not trying to fight, just trying to understand where you're going with this)...

- If you are not obese, and you reduce calories, you might stop moving as much (you might exercise, but during your sedentary times, you are more sedentary - less likely to get up and walk around during the day, or sleep more), and so your total burn decreases, making it harder to lose weight, as you aren't keeping the deficit the calculators say you are.

- If you are obese, and you reduce calories, you don't reduce your movements because... what? Fat people are already lazy? That doesn't seem right to me.

I don't care if it's that RMR (or BMR) gets reduced when you eat too little, or if it's just your actual daily burn that gets reduced, due to moving less (although the comment floggingsully added, that the article he posted "also showed a decrease in RMR with calorie restriction when activity level was controlled for" would make it seem like it could be the former).

From my experience, eating a little more helped me lose weight. It could have been that it somehow affected my RMR. More likely, it was that I was a) miserable eating so little, b) moving less because I was always tired, and even not working out because I didn't have energy, c) more likely to eat more on the weekends because I "deserved it", and d) even more likely to overeat during the week, because if I wasn't meeting my too-low goal, I might as well just make it a maintenance day.

I upped my calories by just a little (from a goal of 1300 to 1500) and started losing weight.  I don't think I was defying the laws of physics when I wasn't losing - but I clearly wasn't doing myself any favors.

There are reasons (like getting enough nutrition and getting enough calories so that your vital organs can function) not to go too low. And for some people, eating the bare minimum might work fine, because they don't slow down at all, and they aren't miserable feeling like they can only eat rabbit food if they are going to lose weight.

But since slow weight loss seems to have more staying power (I can't quote studies, but I'm sure I've seen it sited that slower weight loss leads to a more sustainable maintenance), why rush it, when eating too little can have negative effects? Plus, I like the idea of not eating a too far off from how much I eat now that I'm maintaining - I'd rather learn how to eat right from the beginning, rather than put myself through hell (just my opinion on eating too little), only to have to completely change my way of life to maintain my goals.

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by legaleli:

OH MY GOD all you want to do is fight!!!

Who's fighting? you asked for a study that showed something, I provided one.  Then you provided one that demonstrated the same thing, but you claimed it showed the opposite, which I corrected.

Original Post by legaleli:

Body weight is defended in non-obese participants during modest caloric restriction, evidenced by metabolic adaptation of RMR and reduced energy expenditure through physical activity."

Non-obese...  and incidentally, in NON OBESE people the metabolic adaptation may be the result of reduced activity and/or partitioning.

You made the claim that in overweight people there was no metabolic adaption, but the study you sited showed a metabolic adaption for non-obese (but still potentially over-weight) people.

The abstract you also points out that "Changes in SPA in the chamber [their measure of activity]  and free-living PAL [measure of total energy output] were not related." And RMR, which was shown to decrease with calorie restriction in this study, is a measure that is independent of activity level.

 After reading the abstract, it looks to me that they said non-obese people because the study was on "Forty-eight (36.8+/-1.0 y), overweight (BMI 27.8+/-0.7 kg/m(2)) participants".  There were no obese participants, therefore they could not apply their findings to obese people.  The study most certainly did not prove that there is no adaptation in obese people as the OP appears to have read into it.  It made no conclusions at all about the obese.

Original Post by amethystgirl:

So (and not trying to fight, just trying to understand where you're going with this)...

- If you are not obese, and you reduce calories, you might stop moving as much (you might exercise, but during your sedentary times, you are more sedentary - less likely to get up and walk around during the day, or sleep more), and so your total burn decreases, making it harder to lose weight, as you aren't keeping the deficit the calculators say you are.

- If you are obese, and you reduce calories, you don't reduce your movements because... what? Fat people are already lazy? That doesn't seem right to me.

I don't care if it's that RMR (or BMR) gets reduced when you eat too little, or if it's just your actual daily burn that gets reduced, due to moving less (although the comment floggingsully added, that the article he posted "also showed a decrease in RMR with calorie restriction when activity level was controlled for" would make it seem like it could be the former).

From my experience, eating a little more helped me lose weight. It could have been that it somehow affected my RMR. More likely, it was that I was a) miserable eating so little, b) moving less because I was always tired, and even not working out because I didn't have energy, c) more likely to eat more on the weekends because I "deserved it", and d) even more likely to overeat during the week, because if I wasn't meeting my too-low goal, I might as well just make it a maintenance day.

I upped my calories by just a little (from a goal of 1300 to 1500) and started losing weight.  I don't think I was defying the laws of physics when I wasn't losing - but I clearly wasn't doing myself any favors.

There are reasons (like getting enough nutrition and getting enough calories so that your vital organs can function) not to go too low. And for some people, eating the bare minimum might work fine, because they don't slow down at all, and they aren't miserable feeling like they can only eat rabbit food if they are going to lose weight.

But since slow weight loss seems to have more staying power (I can't quote studies, but I'm sure I've seen it sited that slower weight loss leads to a more sustainable maintenance), why rush it, when eating too little can have negative effects? Plus, I like the idea of not eating a too far off from how much I eat now that I'm maintaining - I'd rather learn how to eat right from the beginning, rather than put myself through hell (just my opinion on eating too little), only to have to completely change my way of life to maintain my goals.

Awesome reply!  You state that eating too little MIGHT have slowed your metabolism, but... "More likely, it was that I was a) miserable eating so little, b) moving less because I was always tired, and even not working out because I didn't have energy, c) more likely to eat more on the weekends because I "deserved it", and d) even more likely to overeat during the week, because if I wasn't meeting my too-low goal, I might as well just make it a maintenance day."

Honestly - this is the kind of advice I think people who eat too little and can't lose weihgt should get... the "hard look at yourself and what you're doing by eating too little" speech.

Original Post by clharr:

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by legaleli:

OH MY GOD all you want to do is fight!!!

Who's fighting? you asked for a study that showed something, I provided one.  Then you provided one that demonstrated the same thing, but you claimed it showed the opposite, which I corrected.

Original Post by legaleli:

Body weight is defended in non-obese participants during modest caloric restriction, evidenced by metabolic adaptation of RMR and reduced energy expenditure through physical activity."

Non-obese...  and incidentally, in NON OBESE people the metabolic adaptation may be the result of reduced activity and/or partitioning.

You made the claim that in overweight people there was no metabolic adaption, but the study you sited showed a metabolic adaption for non-obese (but still potentially over-weight) people.

The abstract you also points out that "Changes in SPA in the chamber [their measure of activity]  and free-living PAL [measure of total energy output] were not related." And RMR, which was shown to decrease with calorie restriction in this study, is a measure that is independent of activity level.

 After reading the abstract, it looks to me that they said non-obese people because the study was on "Forty-eight (36.8+/-1.0 y), overweight (BMI 27.8+/-0.7 kg/m(2)) participants".  There were no obese participants, therefore they could not apply their findings to obese people.  The study most certainly did not prove that there is no adaptation in obese people as the OP appears to have read into it.  It made no conclusions at all about the obese.

I'm not sure if they did include obese people - abstracts are just that - but that said - there isn't a need - obese people's RMR will remain pretty constant even if they starve themselves (a dumb thing to do).  Now... "partitioning" is a far more interesting topic for both obese people and overweight, and hefty, thin, skinny, and rake-like.