After the Biggest Loser - New damning study

[Thor]

This article has really gotten widely shared and discussed, and for that I'm very glad. The danger of such rapid weight loss in a calorie reduced, high intense workout regime kills the contestants metabolism making it very hard for them not to return to their starting weight (set point.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/he...loss.html?_r=0

Take a look not at the image showing the weight loss and gain on the contestants they followed, but the the metabolic damage they have gone through.

This is so damning, and more and more research is showing us how utterly brutal the odds are against obese losing and keeping weight off, I often cite a study that followed over 1200 obese people who lost weight and were followed for a 5 year period.

1 of them succeeded in keeping the weight off, the rest returned to their previous weight, gained more than their start point or had returned significant weight in the 5 years since a serious weight loss.

The joy for me is that co-sponsor of this study was Dr H, the Biggest loser Doc who has been widely blasted for standing by the show, his own study ended up showing how wrong he was and that gives me some pleasure.

Biggest loser needs to stop, and we need to rethink lots of things about the health and fitness industry which has massively failed us. The complexity of the obesity epidemic makes this a tough nut to crack but at least we are getting somewhere in the fields of gene splicing and the most promising area of recent research, the brain-gut connection.

But Dr. Ludwig said that simply cutting calories was not the answer. “There are no doubt exceptional individuals who can ignore primal biological signals and maintain weight loss for the long term by restricting calories,” he said, but he added that “for most people, the combination of incessant hunger and slowing metabolism is a recipe for weight regain — explaining why so few individuals can maintain weight loss for more than a few months.”

Dr. Rosenbaum agreed. “The difficulty in keeping weight off reflects biology, not a pathological lack of willpower affecting two-thirds of the U.S.A.,” he said.

Mr. Cahill knows that now. And with his report from Dr. Hall’s group showing just how much his metabolism had slowed, he stopped blaming himself for his weight gain.

“That shame that was on my shoulders went off,” he said.

[Hockeyguy15]

Have you had any issues Thor?

[CMPunk]

Fata, and from your own thread no less

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=139184

Though I'm sure posting it here will get more eyes on it

[Thor]

Originally Posted by CMPunk

Fata, and from your own thread no less

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=139184

Though I'm sure posting it here will get more eyes on it

Yeah, that thread is not about this specific issue, so I think it deserves the honor of Off Topic discussion

As to my health, I regained most of my weight 2 years after the show, of season 1 BL Iceland, only 1 has kept weight off close to her final weight, but its a big struggle for her, thankfully she is a workhorse and loves the gym.

Season 2 is even worse, within a year 80% of them were back already at their starting weight, the ones not fully back to starting weight are not far off minus one or two I believe.

[nik-]

a permanent 800 calorie reduction in metabolism ... how is that possible?

that would be like 40% reduction in my BMR. What's a safe rate to lose weight and not mess up the body like that?

[rubecube]

I honestly don't know enough about the subject, but is it the sudden weight loss that's largely to blame? Would a more sustained and gradual program cause the same results. At my heaviest I was 225 lbs and probably close to 25% BF. At my leanest I was 165 and around10-12% BF. Currently I'm sitting at around 173 and 14-16% BF. I've found from personal experience that crash dieting is just terrible but that I can get myself into pretty good shape if I exercise hard enough (two a day training) and mildly restrict my caloric intake, and that I only really start to gain weight if I gorge and stay sedentary. I'm not saying that there aren't biological factors at play. With my body type, getting into the sub 10% range is pretty much a pipe dream and I'm at peace with that but is there way for people to get into a range that's healthy compared to where they're at even if it's not what we would traditionally define as fit?

[pylon]

Thor feel free not to answer this question. But where are you sitting in relation to your start weight when you competed on the show?

I have always hated that show for a lot of reasons, the biggest one being, there is no 90 or 120 day fix to lose such extreme amounts of weight, and it preys on our societies 'NOW!' mentality. One of the things that drives me absolutely nuts, is they do it so quick and so extreme, the contestants end up with permanent skin stretching from the shock, which almost every person that ends up with that does extreme weight loss, and ends up wanting it fixed, because they look worse than before. Which means a severe surgery, and a long recovery time. Where as if you stretched out the weight loss of a few years, the effects wouldn't be so harsh, and the skin would have time to adjust properly.

But hey, anything for ratings... right?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by nik-

a permanent 800 calorie reduction in metabolism ... how is that possible?

that would be like 40% reduction in my BMR. What's a safe rate to lose weight and not mess up the body like that?

That is a pretty extreme case, and like Yoni Friedhoff the Canadian obesity doc who blasts this show said, this is one study but the damage to metabolism is happening because of a few factors:

1. Diet restriction, eating less calories than you need, body treats this as you are going through biologically speaking a "drought" and will slow the metabolism down in order to preserve during lean times. This is especially dramatic for obese people who go say from eating 3000 cal a day down to 800, this is dramatic to the body and it goes into conservation mode.

2. The rate of weight loss, in order to do less to your metabolism, slow and steady is the key to having as little effect on metabolism, however there is always some because your body if you have been at a certain weight for many years has its "set point" which after the weight loss will want to return to.

There is a lot of research being done of course, but we have learned that the reason 95% or more diets fail is for this reason, the rate of failure for obese people is a staggering 99%.

I am going for Gastric Bypass in September, which has had some outstanding results and about 10-15 years worth of scientific scrutiny, the surprise benefit that came from this surgery is that by bypassing the stomach the brain-gut connection that is messed up with obese people is reset and gives people a real chance to turn things around.

There has also been some genes identified that have a direct affect on metabolic rate in rats which is likely to be the case in humans, might be ideal candidate for the gene splicing technology called CRISPR, which has a great deal of promise as a partial help in a treatment that would increase metabolism in people with low metabolism. However that is likely 10 years or more away from every making FDA approval, it is very early on in this research.

But the big focus has been on the gut mind connection, the biome side of things, which seems to be a major factor in obesity, outside of course the horrible food supply we have, the crazy amount of sugar in our food supply, the processed foods, etc...

This is why obesity is such a tough nut to crack, and why I think we are still 10-20 years away from any significant breakthrough in treating it medically.

Of course lots can be done, we know that eating the calories you need daily with healthy, energy rich foods and lots of veggies is vastly superior to restrictive diets where you cut caloric intake for weight loss. A lifestyle change if you will.

But the biggest problem is how hard the body works against you when you are obese and try to lose weight, in a number of ways.

[nik-]

This is a question I have about calorie limiting.

Lets say my BMR is 2100. To lose a pound a week, my calorie deficit needs to be 3500 a week which puts me at 1600 a day.

If I eat 1600 calories a day, and burn 500 via walking and exercise (bringing my total net to 1100, way lower than the number), does my body consider that starving? Or is it kosher because I still ate a reasonable amount of calories? What if I have a really active day and burn 1000 calories and still eat that 1600, does my body punish me for this?

TLDR: Does the body do this shutdown based on total calories minus exercise or calories eaten.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I honestly don't know enough about the subject, but is it the sudden weight loss that's largely to blame?

Yes, partially but I responded as you wrote this post so its covered there.

Would a more sustained and gradual program cause the same results. At my heaviest I was 225 lbs and probably close to 25% BF. At my leanest I was 165 and around10-12% BF. Currently I'm sitting at around 173 and 14-16% BF. I've found from personal experience that crash dieting is just terrible but that I can get myself into pretty good shape if I exercise hard enough (two a day training) and mildly restrict my caloric intake, and that I only really start to gain weight if I gorge and stay sedentary. I'm not saying that there aren't biological factors at play. With my body type, getting into the sub 10% range is pretty much a pipe dream and I'm at peace with that but is there way for people to get into a range that's healthy compared to where they're at even if it's not what we would traditionally define as fit?

That is exactly the best current method we have, and as you know takes a great deal of effort and dedication. Its definitely possible to get healthier depending on how you define it, the fact you eat healthier, move more means the extra pounds are not an indicator of poor health, its often thought that a skinny guy is automatically healthier than a guy with a gut, but that is a horrible indicator of actual health.

The only help I could think of getting that last bit off if its genetically possible for you is to massively increase your vegetable intake. Yoni recommends 1 pound of veggies a day!

Originally Posted by pylon

Thor feel free not to answer this question. But where are you sitting in relation to your start weight when you competed on the show?

Not shy about it at all, I am back within 10% of my starting weight, which before my surgery in September I should be around 15% below my starting weight of 176.5 Kilos.

[Red]

Originally Posted by nik-

This is a question I have about calorie limiting.

Lets say my BMR is 2100. To lose a pound a week, my calorie deficit needs to be 3500 a week which puts me at 1600 a day.

If I eat 1600 calories a day, and burn 500 via walking and exercise (bringing my total net to 1100, way lower than the number), does my body consider that starving? Or is it kosher because I still ate a reasonable amount of calories? What if I have a really active day and burn 1000 calories and still eat that 1600, does my body punish me for this?

TLDR: Does the body do this shutdown based on total calories minus exercise or calories eaten.

Far from an expert on this, but from what I heard is you should eat often in small doses to not go in starvation mode. And eat healthy foods rich in protein and not just empty calories.

[Bonded]

The one thing I don't like about the NYT article and others like it that pop every now and then is the fact they make it sound like it is impossible to lose weight. Combine that with Health at Every Size (HAES) movement and I think we are setting up people with a defeatist attitude.

Now maybe shaming isn't the way to go with weight loss, but, I do not think we should be promoting severe obesity.

I think one of the biggest problems with the weight loss cycle is that many people diet without making a committed lifestyle change. Diet for a month, lose weight, and then go back to the habits that made them obese.

It is possible to lose weight and keep it off. Diets are not the answer, lifestyle changes are.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-ppr051116.php

[Thor]

Originally Posted by nik-

This is a question I have about calorie limiting.

Lets say my BMR is 2100. To lose a pound a week, my calorie deficit needs to be 3500 a week which puts me at 1600 a day.

If I eat 1600 calories a day, and burn 500 via walking and exercise (bringing my total net to 1100, way lower than the number), does my body consider that starving? Or is it kosher because I still ate a reasonable amount of calories? What if I have a really active day and burn 1000 calories and still eat that 1600, does my body punish me for this?

TLDR: Does the body do this shutdown based on total calories minus exercise or calories eaten.

I hesitate to give much more than broad advice, do seek out Yoni Friedhoff on Facebook and youtube for sure.

But to what I think is the ideal way to go is not restrict your diet so to speak, eat 2100 calories a day if that is what you require (that is a hard number to know unless you do some very specific testing), BUT eating very healthy with loads of veggies, cut the sugar, don't be afraid of fats, and find something you enjoy doing to move around, biking, walking, the gym if you don't loathe it lol.

Just finding someone like Yoni helped me a lot, his Obesity clinic and his vast knowledge as a scientific skeptic and harsh critic of health Canada, the sugar epidemic made me a big fan after being introduced to him by Kai Hibbard the BL US contestant that has been blasting the show for over a decade.

Sadly there is no great answer, we need more research in to the declining metabolic rate in dieters, we need to find more specific reasons, replicate the results and that will take more time. This study on BL contestants is not the first time this has been seen, but it certainly is the one which is getting the most attention, which is great.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Bonded

The one thing I don't like about the NYT article and others like it that pop every now and then is the fact they make it sound like it is impossible to lose weight. Combine that with Health at Every Size (HAES) movement and I think we are setting up people with a defeatist attitude.

Science just says what it discovers, and yes the harsh truth is the last decades of diet fads failed miserably. People get a defeatist attitude when they try over and over again different ways of losing weight only to return to previous weight or usually worse (yo yo dieting).

Now maybe shaming isn't the way to go with weight loss, but, I do not think we should be promoting severe obesity.

lol where are we promoting obesity?? Fat shaming is not only horrible, it does the opposite of helping people, it only makes them feel worse, and what to people with obesity issues do when they feel bad, eat more...

I think one of the biggest problems with the weight loss cycle is that many people diet without making a committed lifestyle change. Diet for a month, lose weight, and then go back to the habits that made them obese.

Partially correct, that is a very simplistic outlook at the problem however. When you say committed lifestyle change, people do this all the time, the problem is however the body fights you tooth and nail to get back to its previous weight (set point) and even your own hormones in your stomach work against you.

[quote]It is possible to lose weight and keep it off. Diets are not the answer, lifestyle changes are.[/quote

Well obviously lol, but that still does not change the fact the overwhelming majority fail, and if you want to blame that on the individuals for being lazy, lacking willpower, etc like so often people do (usually people who have never dealt with a serious weight problem), then I feel sorry for you, because that doesn't jive with the reality of the science and biology as we know today.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-ppr051116.php

I love these kinds of programs, people who enter group activities for physical exercise, eating healthy support groups do fare better. Again the key being slow and steady weight loss.

[Erick Estrada]

Diets don't work. Lifestyles are what you need to change.

[OMG!WTF!]

I ran on an NCAA track team in the early '90's and missing any one of six meals in a day plus supplements was a worse offense than missing a training session. I've never eaten so much in my life. This seems like very old knowledge to me. You've always had to eat to meet the demands on your body. The premise of this show does seem willfully negligent.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Diets don't work. Lifestyles are what you need to change.

That's probably most important.

There is a show on tv where the trainer gets fat and then works off the extra weight with the obese client. Kind of a way of supporting and understanding the difficulty of weight loss.
I bet 90 percent of the obese people re-gain the weight and the trainers maintain theirs. Cause both will be back to their own habits.
That article itself mentions these guys fighting temptations, eating a whole bag of chips etc. Not surprised they gain weight. But at the same time I can't discredit that study, there may be something to it.

[mrkajz44]

Maybe I'm over-simplifying this but...

Isn't this exactly what you would expect? If you drop say 25% of your body weight, would it not follow that your BMR would go down around 25% as well? You are now a smaller person, likely more healthy too, so your body just needs less energy than it did before.

Again, I'm just making up numbers and I'm sure the correlation is not linear, but I think it makes sense that your BMR would go down as you lose weight.

[FlamesAddiction]

I remember reading an article a while ago based on a study that suggested body mass at the time of puberty sets the baseline that the person's metabolism tries to maintain for the rest of their life. To make a long story short, if a child is over weight around the age of 12, they will struggle with the issue for the rest of their lives and will have to work harder to control it than someone with less body mass when they hit puberty. It's basically like a metabolic memory. And the opposite was also true in that kids that were in shape did not need to work as hard to stay in shape as an adult.

It really nailed home the importance of instilling proper habits in children and the socio-economic role (i.e., families that could not afford to have their kids in activities or eat properly, tended to have more weight issues).

I wish I could find it. It was really interesting (in fact, I bet it was posted on here).

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Thor

Science just says what it discovers, and yes the harsh truth is the last decades of diet fads failed miserably. People get a defeatist attitude when they try over and over again different ways of losing weight only to return to previous weight or usually worse (yo yo dieting).

Don't disagree there. I think the main thing there is fad diet

lol where are we promoting obesity?? Fat shaming is not only horrible, it does the opposite of helping people, it only makes them feel worse, and what to people with obesity issues do when they feel bad, eat more...

Not you necessarily, but Tess Munster and Whitney Thore should not be people you build your life choices around.

Partially correct, that is a very simplistic outlook at the problem however. When you say committed lifestyle change, people do this all the time, the problem is however the body fights you tooth and nail to get back to its previous weight (set point) and even your own hormones in your stomach work against you.

Mind you, I could have been reading old sources, but from my understanding not every one in the medical field buys into set points and starvation mode arguments.

Well obviously lol, but that still does not change the fact the overwhelming majority fail, and if you want to blame that on the individuals for being lazy, lacking willpower, etc like so often people do (usually people who have never dealt with a serious weight problem), then I feel sorry for you, because that doesn't jive with the reality of the science and biology as we know today.

I don't think it is easy to lose weight because you have to change ingrained habits, but looking at obesity rates, I do not buy that there has been major metabolic shift in the general populace in 50 years. I buy into the simpler explanation that people are eating more calorie dense foods and leading more sedentary lifestyles. Thin people are not eating 4,000 calories and staying thin, just like overweight people are not eating 1,000 calories and staying morbidly obese.

I love these kinds of programs, people who enter group activities for physical exercise, eating healthy support groups do fare better. Again the key being slow and steady weight loss.

Exactly, I think that message should get blasted more than the never diet because it won't work.

I also think that there needs to be a big push in alleviating childhood obesity rates and disordered eating habits. I am guessing that an obese child is more likely to remain obese and a thin child will more likely stay thin in adulthood.