Sleep your way to fat loss!

[robblok]

4 hours ago, tropo said:

(LOL> I might learn a few things? - a great way to start a debate. I'm sure we can both learn a lot)

 

I didn't mean you were using this as an excuse, but many others may, others who don't have the drive and determination you have.

 

I think we're talking about different things. I'm not doubting that the metabolism can slow down during extreme dieting. I don't believe it will slow down much during moderate dieting, as long as you maintain a high level of activity. I believe in the slow approach to weight loss anyway, and the way I do it my metabolism probably doesn't slow down to any perceivable degree.

 

What I don't buy is that you permanently impair (slow down) your metabolic rate when you diet.

 

The only way to prove it would be to run 2 clones of yourself, over a couple of years. Both clones would have to eat the same food and exercise the same over the period of trial. They would have to live exactly the same lifestyle... the intake of everything would need to be equal (drugs, vitamin and other supplements). Clone A maintains a steady body weight. Clone B eats too much (of the same food) and gains weight. At the end of 2 years, Clone B diets and over a period of say 6 months, loses his extra 25kg of fat to equal the weight of Clone A. Both Clones would need to have accurate bodyfat and muscular weight percentages checked throughout the trial, and especially at the end where the final comparison is made.

 

This same experiment should be run for many other pairs of clones too.

 

Of course we can never experiment without ourselves. I don't see how a 2016 version of yourself can be compared to a 2006 and a 1996 version (for example) of yourself and come to the conclusion that you've impaired your metabolic rate compared to the previous versions due to strict dieting. Previous versions were fat and getting fatter until you put a stop to it. You don't have an equivalent version to compare yourself to. Previous version were also younger with more efficient hormonal and enzyme systems. Aging is a bitch - your metabolism will slow down whether you diet or not. You'll gain fat and lose muscle as part of the aging process unless you take drastic measures to slow it down, and even then you won't stop father time.

 

Another problem: How are you going to measure your metabolic rate without living in a lab? We can't even accurately measure fat and muscle percentages her in Thailand - it's all guess work... and to make comparisons you'll need to have accurate measurements of your previous self too.

 

The learning thing was not a flame.. but if you really have no knowledge of this while it has been clearly documented then indeed you can learn new stuff.

 

Actually, there have been experiments just like the one i shown you that show once you correct for weight loss you still have a slower metabolic rate. They do this with breathing tests (from your exhaling they can measure your metabolic rate) So its pretty accurate. If I have time I will send you some links of shows from the BBC (great info there) that show this.

 

Also you have to understand that fat checks how much we eat and how much fat we have left. If this goes down (away from homo stasis) it will use leptin to slow down your metabolic rate and promote fat storage and even hunger. That is why leptin is so important. Once your at a lower weight fat still fights to get back to the (previous) normal weight. This means there is a slowdown below what you would expect purely on the loss of muscle. (if you read the articles I posted this is confirmed by science not much to debate about). The problem is we all have different body setpoints and your body will defend that set point.. if your lucky you have a naturally lower body-fat setpoint. Research is still not clear on the fact if you can shift your setpoint down (shifting it up is possible because our body loves to store fat)

 

Now how much this is that is open for debate those guys in the Minnesota starvation experiment recorded a 20% more then to be expected lower metabolic rate. No other experiment ever came close and it was one of the most extreme ones in its kind (would be outlawed by today's standards). I think its pretty safe to say that the 20% extra on top of the lower metabolic rate because of lower body-weight is the maximum. (i really doubt its ever that high if you diet and exercise down in a good way)

 

Now what they are talking about int he graphs of the biggest loser is to compare their new caloric intake with someone of equal size. That is actually what I did too comparing myself with a formula. I think that is highly inaccurate and does not reflect true values. I think that I and those on the biggest loser just had a slow metabolic rate to start with. It might have gotten a bit worse but not as much as shown there.. Had they done the true experiment with measuring by breathing before and after the weight loss it would have been far more accurate but they did not. 

 

I have actually seen an experiment on the BBC where they were overfeeding people.. and with one guy (asian guy) his body was fighting back and without exercise he got more muscle. Others had a hard time gaining the extra weight.. was quite a nice show they were again measured in bod pods and stuff like that. It was fun to see how those slim guys their body in general defended even against going up in weight (not all but a large portion of the group)

 

In the end I am still of the opinion that you can control your weight and that exercise and diet work. It just takes more work for some than for others. 

[tropo]

11 hours ago, robblok said:

The learning thing was not a flame.. but if you really have no knowledge of this while it has been clearly documented then indeed you can learn new stuff.

 

Actually, there have been experiments just like the one i shown you that show once you correct for weight loss you still have a slower metabolic rate. They do this with breathing tests (from your exhaling they can measure your metabolic rate) So its pretty accurate. If I have time I will send you some links of shows from the BBC (great info there) that show this.

 

Also you have to understand that fat checks how much we eat and how much fat we have left. If this goes down (away from homo stasis) it will use leptin to slow down your metabolic rate and promote fat storage and even hunger. That is why leptin is so important. Once your at a lower weight fat still fights to get back to the (previous) normal weight. This means there is a slowdown below what you would expect purely on the loss of muscle. (if you read the articles I posted this is confirmed by science not much to debate about). The problem is we all have different body setpoints and your body will defend that set point.. if your lucky you have a naturally lower body-fat setpoint. Research is still not clear on the fact if you can shift your setpoint down (shifting it up is possible because our body loves to store fat)

 

Now how much this is that is open for debate those guys in the Minnesota starvation experiment recorded a 20% more then to be expected lower metabolic rate. No other experiment ever came close and it was one of the most extreme ones in its kind (would be outlawed by today's standards). I think its pretty safe to say that the 20% extra on top of the lower metabolic rate because of lower body-weight is the maximum. (i really doubt its ever that high if you diet and exercise down in a good way)

 

Now what they are talking about int he graphs of the biggest loser is to compare their new caloric intake with someone of equal size. That is actually what I did too comparing myself with a formula. I think that is highly inaccurate and does not reflect true values. I think that I and those on the biggest loser just had a slow metabolic rate to start with. It might have gotten a bit worse but not as much as shown there.. Had they done the true experiment with measuring by breathing before and after the weight loss it would have been far more accurate but they did not. 

 

I have actually seen an experiment on the BBC where they were overfeeding people.. and with one guy (asian guy) his body was fighting back and without exercise he got more muscle. Others had a hard time gaining the extra weight.. was quite a nice show they were again measured in bod pods and stuff like that. It was fun to see how those slim guys their body in general defended even against going up in weight (not all but a large portion of the group)

 

In the end I am still of the opinion that you can control your weight and that exercise and diet work. It just takes more work for some than for others. 

I must admit I've seen enough BBC shows to have an attitude that I don't want to waste anytime watching more of them. The conclusions they make have so many holes it's a joke. It's entertainment for people who don't think too much, nothing more. I once critiqued a BBC documentary in this forum, explaining how ridiculous the conclusions were. Yes, they used Bodpods too - maybe it was the same show.

 

You're still debating something different. You're saying that the metabolic rate slows down with extreme dieting. I'm not disputing that.

 

I'm not buying the "metabolic damage" theory.

 

You're comparing the metabolic rates of a fat person before and after they've been on a diet. You're not comparing the same individual after the diet to how he was before he became fat. That won't be possible for many reasons.

 

I'm going to put different spin on this now:

 

People are calling it "metabolic damage". In actual fact metabolic slowdown is a function of aging. You can slow it down, sure, but you can't stop it.

 

I've been in the muscle game for over 40 years. I started at age 15. In my teens, 20's and 30's I could eat like a horse and not gain weight. Back those days, my friends and I that were also into bodybuilding used to force feed ourselves in a effort to gain weight. There's a funny story about how one of our friends used to force feed Weetbix every day until he got sick. We didn't take drugs. It was hard work to gain weight - very hard! It was harder than the training. We used to stress out if we didn't eat enough, because our weight on the scales would drop.

 

Some people eat to live, some live to eat. I'm a person who finds eating a chore - buying and preparing food all the time - it's work, a daily grind. I eat because I have to eat, not because I want to.

 

When I got to my 40's I realised I didn't have to eat much food anymore to maintain my body weight, and putting on fat became easy. I considered this a blessing. My metabolism was slowing down and I never dieted once over all those years.

 

So what people who like to eat all the time call "metabolic damage" I would call "metabolic efficiency", or a "metabolic blessing". I could eat less and still maintain my muscle mass. That was good news among all the bad news that aging brings.

 

Any metabolic slowdown after an extreme diet is not damage, but the body's response to stress. It goes into survival mode. It becomes more efficient when food is scarce. This survival mode also aids the rapid restoration of fat levels when the person starts eating a lot again. It's all a natural process - there is no "damage".

 

You can avoid an extreme metabolic slowdown by taking it slow and exercising a lot. Going on a show to compete against other fat people is just entertainment. It's not the way to succeed long term and we shouldn't be drawing too many conclusions from these individuals.

 

 

 

[robblok]

31 minutes ago, tropo said:

I must admit I've seen enough BBC shows to have an attitude that I don't want to waste anytime watching more of them. The conclusions they make have so many holes it's a joke. It's entertainment for people who don't think too much, nothing more. I once critiqued a BBC documentary in this forum, explaining how ridiculous the conclusions were. Yes, they used Bodpods too - maybe it was the same show.

 

You're still debating something different. You're saying that the metabolic rate slows down with extreme dieting. I'm not disputing that.

 

I'm not buying the "metabolic damage" theory.

 

You're comparing the metabolic rates of a fat person before and after they've been on a diet. You're not comparing the same individual after the diet to how he was before he became fat. That won't be possible for many reasons.

 

I'm going to put different spin on this now:

 

People are calling it "metabolic damage". In actual fact metabolic slowdown is a function of aging. You can slow it down, sure, but you can't stop it.

 

I've been in the muscle game for over 40 years. I started at age 15. In my teens, 20's and 30's I could eat like a horse and not gain weight. Back those days, my friends and I that were also into bodybuilding used to force feed ourselves in a effort to gain weight. There's a funny story about how one of our friends used to force feed Weetbix every day until he got sick. We didn't take drugs. It was hard work to gain weight - very hard! It was harder than the training. We used to stress out if we didn't eat enough, because our weight on the scales would drop.

 

Some people eat to live, some live to eat. I'm a person who finds eating a chore - buying and preparing food all the time - it's work, a daily grind. I eat because I have to eat, not because I want to.

 

When I got to my 40's I realised I didn't have to eat much food anymore to maintain my body weight, and putting on fat became easy. I considered this a blessing. My metabolism was slowing down and I never dieted once over all those years.

 

So what people who like to eat all the time call "metabolic damage" I would call "metabolic efficiency", or a "metabolic blessing". I could eat less and still maintain my muscle mass. That was good news among all the bad news that aging brings.

 

Any metabolic slowdown after an extreme diet is not damage, but the body's response to stress. It goes into survival mode. It becomes more efficient when food is scarce. This survival mode also aids the rapid restoration of fat levels when the person starts eating a lot again. It's all a natural process - there is no "damage".

 

 

 

 

What I am saying is that after losing weight your metabolic rate is lower then it should be if you take into account the weight loss. This is something nobody disputes I don't know why your going in against something that is proven already. Plenty of research to back this up. Lyle McDonald is like us a guy who likes exercise but even he came to the conclusion that this is fact. Also the experiment that I shown you and posted a few times the Minnesota experiment shows this. So its a fact. Now the thing that is debatable is how much extra the slowdown is and if it happens to everyone. No need to buy it its a fact and you should read more into body setpoints and leptin. Your ignoring what I posted that is fine but that is not being open minded. This has nothing to do with aging at all. 

 

Your last paragraph is exactly what it is, your body fighting to get back the fat after it has lost it. Problem is only some have higher set point so the body fights more to get back to that state. It is slowing your metabolic rate down below what it should be. And yes its a natural process. But the problem is  that some have a higher body fat setpoint and so on. 

 

But yes its something natural but people call it metabolic damage.. sure if you crash diet the effect will be worse. 

 

But this whole mechanism is regulated by leptin (and Ghrelin in a lesser extent). 

 

I still don't see this as an excuse not to lose weight but it sheds some light on why its hard to maintain your new weight because your body is fighting with hunger and your own metabolic rate to get back to the previous weight. 

 

Say you got 2 people .. one is natural lean at 200lbs and the other guy had to diet to get there.. the one that had to diet to get there will have a far lower metabolic rate and more hunger and its harder to keep his weight.. moral of this story.. dont get fat. 

 

Plus we are all different not only in how much muscle we can gain but also how much fat we burn. I still believe we can all improve on ourselves and don't see this as an excuse. There is even some research done why some people have the luck that all the food gets converted to muscle and others get more fat (its for a large part genetic). 

 

But what you said when you were young.. i never had that problem.. a skinny friend of mine had .. my younger brother too.. not me I was always a bit bigger (not fat). I just always have had a slower metabolic rate that is why i need to go to more extremes. I don't care much about the metabolic rate.. but my hunger is comparable with normal rate.. and that is the problem. 

 

Though since i have been taking the bromocriptine it is a bit better. (influences leptin)

[robblok]

Actually I don't care much about metabolic rate or food.. I can eat the same foods each and every day (my oatmeal and stuff). The problem is more that hunger and cravings don't match the metabolic rate. 

 

So that one is still hungry even if enough food is eaten and more will lead to fat gain. That is what is the biggest problem and that is what is happening  when your body is fighting your current weight.  

[tropo]

56 minutes ago, robblok said:

 

What I am saying is that after losing weight your metabolic rate is lower then it should be if you take into account the weight loss. This is something nobody disputes I don't know why your going in against something that is proven already. Plenty of research to back this up. Lyle McDonald is like us a guy who likes exercise but even he came to the conclusion that this is fact. Also the experiment that I shown you and posted a few times the Minnesota experiment shows this. So its a fact. Now the thing that is debatable is how much extra the slowdown is and if it happens to everyone. No need to buy it its a fact and you should read more into body setpoints and leptin. Your ignoring what I posted that is fine but that is not being open minded. This has nothing to do with aging at all. 

 

Your last paragraph is exactly what it is, your body fighting to get back the fat after it has lost it. Problem is only some have higher set point so the body fights more to get back to that state. It is slowing your metabolic rate down below what it should be. And yes its a natural process. But the problem is  that some have a higher body fat setpoint and so on. 

 

You're still arguing sideways. I can't dispute what I'm not discussing.

 

I'm talking about a normal weight person who puts on weight, then takes it off again. Has his BMR been permanently lowered?

 

For the umpteenth time, I'm not debating that dieting lowers the metabolic rate, however, have you got evidence that this lowering is permanent or can it normalize after a period of maintenance. 

 

Will BMR be permanently lower (you call it damage) as a result of dieting? Of course aging will have to be accounted for too as the process of getting fat can span many years or decades. It will have to account for the natural slowing down of the metabolism as people age.

 

The studies you keep siting are about a lower metabolic rate in people who dieted down to a certain weight. I'm also not discussing the mechanism behind the lowering of BMR during periods of calorie restriction.

 

They have no stats on what those people's BMR was before they started getting fat, and a slow metabolic rate was probably one of the reasons they got fat in the first place, compared to statistically normal people.

 

As for you, you state you always had a slow metabolic rate, so you're back where you started only lower due to the natural aging process. You're in that decade where things really start to slow down, dieting or not. (welcome to the decade of denial). If you did any damage it's more likely caused due to certain fat loss "supplements" you've taken rather than calorie restriction. 

 

I've gone from a very high BMR when I was young to a rather sluggish one now in my 50's. The only reason I can handle some dietary luxuries without getting fat is by doing a lot of hard exercise.

 

 

 

 

[robblok]

10 hours ago, tropo said:

You're still arguing sideways. I can't dispute what I'm not discussing.

 

I'm talking about a normal weight person who puts on weight, then takes it off again. Has his BMR been permanently lowered?

 

For the umpteenth time, I'm not debating that dieting lowers the metabolic rate, however, have you got evidence that this lowering is permanent or can it normalize after a period of maintenance. 

 

Will BMR be permanently lower (you call it damage) as a result of dieting? Of course aging will have to be accounted for too as the process of getting fat can span many years or decades. It will have to account for the natural slowing down of the metabolism as people age.

 

The studies you keep siting are about a lower metabolic rate in people who dieted down to a certain weight. I'm also not discussing the mechanism behind the lowering of BMR during periods of calorie restriction.

 

They have no stats on what those people's BMR was before they started getting fat, and a slow metabolic rate was probably one of the reasons they got fat in the first place, compared to statistically normal people.

 

As for you, you state you always had a slow metabolic rate, so you're back where you started only lower due to the natural aging process. You're in that decade where things really start to slow down, dieting or not. (welcome to the decade of denial). If you did any damage it's more likely caused due to certain fat loss "supplements" you've taken rather than calorie restriction. 

 

I've gone from a very high BMR when I was young to a rather sluggish one now in my 50's. The only reason I can handle some dietary luxuries without getting fat is by doing a lot of hard exercise.

 

 

 

 

Normal weight person.. gains weight loses it again.. you ask if that person will have a lower metabolic rate permanently.. that depends on if he has been on the heavier weight long enough for it to have become a set point or not. Because the moment that happens that heavier weight is his new setpoint.  The body will always try to get back to its set point. (your lucky if you got a natural low setpoint and I have so far not found anything about permanently lowering your setpoint though some suggest exercise will help and staying that weight long)

 

I am saying that even after you stop the diet your metabolic rate will be slower until the moment your back to the weight your body considers normal. 

 

Not arguing that a slow metabolic rate combined with eating too much (as I have shown portion sizes of Americans went up a massive 500 calories over the years that is a complete exta meal). I am also not saying people can't lose the weight its just harder when you get a higher body setpoint. Its not so much the lower caloric (for some it is) but the hunger that comes with it. I for one (certainly during the diet phase) am always left a bit hungry after a meal (but its getting better and in maintenance its not a real issue unless eating bad foods that enhance cravings)

 

If i was convinced my body could rule me I would have given up ages ago but I transformed and many can do the same it just takes time and dedication and setting the right priorities. .However I can fully understand its not for everyone 4-8 hours of excise a week is a lot for most (4 weights 8 with cardio), also being careful about what you eat is not fun. For many people its not worth it and wont put in that effort. 

 

But its good to know what the body does to "sabotage" your efforts and how its regulated. By understanding how leptine can work against you and how you can fool it (cyclic diets / bromocriptine) and by understanding that insulin is not always bad (need to get the energy / protein into the muscle) you can make small changes.

 

Also I don't believe that the metabolic changes are so big you can't get to a normal level of  weight.. going much lower is harder. 

 

I just think we have to accept that its harder for some then for others but we all can improve (unless we have done so already)