based on NYT Article re: Biggest Loser, will we all fail?

For those questions and discussions on the McDougall program that don’t seem to fit in any other forum.

Moderators: JeffN, f1jim, John McDougall, carolve, Heather McDougall

Re: based on NYT Article re: Biggest Loser, will we all fail

Postby petero » Mon May 02, 2016 7:42 pm

EvanG wrote:this data for the biggest loser cohort is confirming the idea of something like starvation mode as a possibility in some instances.


Yeah, heard this on NPR today, and the name "Pennington Research Center" sure sounds credible, but I wonder if the researcher was overgeneralizing. Maybe, like Jim said, the lowered metabolism is due to the tremendous calories they burn. There is no way to lose the weight they lose by diet + normal amounts of exercise so it's extremely unnatural. Yet, the researcher said that the lowered metabolism was a normal consequence of dieting. She did say that it was much better for them to have lost the weight.

edit: Now I read the article. Even with the lower metabolism, the only reason their maintenance is so "hard" is because they know the principles of deprivation and not calorie density.
It's easy to be a naive idealist. It's easy to be a cynical realist. It's quite another thing to have no illusions and still hold the inner flame. -- Marie-Louise von Franz
User avatar
petero
 
Posts: 839
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:45 am
Location: Gatlinburg, TN

Re: based on NYT Article re: Biggest Loser, will we all fail

Postby Dougalling » Mon May 02, 2016 8:15 pm

Hello

My 2 cents worth. If someone eats oil on a regular basis, if someone eats sugar on a regular basis then someone is bound to overeat on a regular basis.
Image
User avatar
Dougalling
 
Posts: 1944
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:10 am

Re: based on NYT Article re: Biggest Loser, will we all fail

Postby iowamv » Mon May 02, 2016 8:22 pm

I'm mindful of this video by one of the authors of the study, Kevin Hall. I'm pretty sure someone on here posted this within the last year or so. It is well worth watching, in my estimation.

Toward the end, at about this point, he addresses the fundamental question: how many calories less per day would it have taken for people to have kept the weight off? The answer is 10 calories (technically, 10 kilocalories) per pound of weight they had lost. So if you've lost 40 pounds, you have to consume about 400 calories less per day than you did prior to losing weight, just to maintain. He says in the video that it isn't much, but that depends on the situation, doesn't it? 400 calories is quite a bit, in my book! Sure helps if you've decided to eliminate oil, and to keep a tight lid on added sugars.
iowamv
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 8:15 am

Re: based on NYT Article re: Biggest Loser, will we all fail

Postby petero » Mon May 02, 2016 8:45 pm

Also, isn't there another problem? All of these measurements were taken after the dieting, and the discrepancy was assumed to be because of the dieting. But the people were much more overweight than the average person. So why would you expect them to have an average metabolism to begin with?
It's easy to be a naive idealist. It's easy to be a cynical realist. It's quite another thing to have no illusions and still hold the inner flame. -- Marie-Louise von Franz
User avatar
petero
 
Posts: 839
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:45 am
Location: Gatlinburg, TN

Re: based on NYT Article re: Biggest Loser, will we all fail

Postby colonyofcells » Mon May 02, 2016 9:15 pm

The body is quite reprogrammable so I would guess metabolism can be reprogrammed too.
colonyofcells
 
Posts: 6377
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 2:14 pm
Location: san mateo ca

Re: based on NYT Article re: Biggest Loser, will we all fail

Postby iowamv » Tue May 03, 2016 7:01 am

colonyofcells wrote:The body is quite reprogrammable so I would guess metabolism can be reprogrammed too.


Don't know whether it is reprogramming, but if you change to the McDougall way of eating from SAD, it is just about inevitable that you'll be permanently lowering daily calories. If you eliminate all of that oil, cheese, sugar, etc. that most people consume and replace it with fruits, vegetables and whole grains, it'd be hard to eat enough to take in as many calories as before adopting the McDougall diet. So, stay with McDougall and maintain weight loss. Seems like a simple path! Added bonus: we don't have to count calories to do it!

Just my 2 cents. :)
iowamv
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 8:15 am

Re: based on NYT Article re: Biggest Loser, will we all fail

Postby bethannerickson » Tue May 03, 2016 7:08 am

Well, this is fascinating:

"Dr. Barnard, who’s the president of the Physicians’ Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) and a professor at George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, noticed that in one of his studies, after transitioning a group of individuals with chronic weight problems onto an entirely plant-based diet that was low in oils, their metabolic rates (or how fast their body turned fuel into energy) seriously soared."

Source: http://www.wellandgood.com/good-advice/ ... -calories/

Beth :)
User avatar
bethannerickson
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:53 am
Location: Minnesota

Re: based on NYT Article re: Biggest Loser, will we all fail

Postby VeggieSue » Tue May 03, 2016 11:55 am

And Dr. Fuhrman has written many times about how WFPB diets can lower metabolic rates, and that's a *good* thing to him:

https://www.drfuhrman.com/library/metabolism_longevity.aspx
User avatar
VeggieSue
 
Posts: 3505
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:34 pm
Location: gritty urban NJ

Re: based on NYT Article re: Biggest Loser, will we all fail

Postby roundcoconut » Tue May 03, 2016 12:08 pm

VeggieSue wrote:And Dr. Fuhrman has written many times about how WFPB diets can lower metabolic rates, and that's a *good* thing...


I'm so glad you said that! I find this bit about metabolism to be some kinda weird unkillable zombie created by the diet industry -- my god, this metabolic rate nonsense has just got to DIE.

When you shift your dietary patterns so that you are achieving far more satiety by eating whole natural plant foods, then the calorie count of the food you're eating to maintain your weight is neither here nor there. People eating whole natural foods, with starches as the center of their inttake, are achieving satiety and meeting all of their nutritional needs, and still eating a truckload of food.

The reason that metabolic rate becomes this big scary boogeyman is that people feel like, "If my body needs six potatoes and two stalks of broccoli per day at my new weight, but I do not experience satiety until I've eaten seven potatoes and three stalks of broccoli, then MAN am I screwed!" But that is not the case.

So -- fear tactics!
User avatar
roundcoconut
 
Posts: 2530
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:55 pm

Re: based on NYT Article re: Biggest Loser, will we all fail

Postby pattinput » Wed May 04, 2016 2:23 pm

I enjoyed this article. I’m surprised at how much I relate to the biggest loser group, although I never watched the show. They are talking about things like elation at having succeeded in weight loss, cravings, importance of exercise—all of that is me! I don’t think my metabolism has slowed down, though, and I wonder if it’s because I eat what I want and when I want to, following the McDougall plan. When I’ve logged what I eat, it turns out to be between 1500 and 2200 calories a day, so a 500 calorie slowdown probably wouldn't be noticeable. But I've been bingeing for a few months now, many days with 4000 or more calories, and I’ve gained weight. Many people at this site have shared their struggle with binge eating, and the only biggest loser who did not gain her weight back said that she is always on guard against the binge. I did not have a significant binge since I started this WOE in August 2010, and before that all I did was binge. Knowing that I am susceptible to binge eating is not the worst thing that could happen, but I wish it wasn’t so. I’m back on track lately—walking and hiking again and avoiding suspected triggers for now. I have a lot of feelings about my recent binge and some of those feelings were expressed pretty well in this article. I may not be on the same journey as the biggest loser group, but I can relate to their struggle. Whether the researchers prove their ideas or not probably won’t change anything for me, but I’m fascinated by the human side of weight struggles.
pattinput
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 10:59 am
Location: Hudson Valley NY

Re: based on NYT Article re: Biggest Loser, will we all fail

Postby petero » Wed May 04, 2016 2:56 pm

VeggieSue wrote:metabolic rates, and that's a *good* thing


What if it lowered mental speed?
It's easy to be a naive idealist. It's easy to be a cynical realist. It's quite another thing to have no illusions and still hold the inner flame. -- Marie-Louise von Franz
User avatar
petero
 
Posts: 839
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:45 am
Location: Gatlinburg, TN

Re: based on NYT Article re: Biggest Loser, will we all fail

Postby roundcoconut » Wed May 04, 2016 3:25 pm

petero wrote:What if it lowered mental speed?


What makes you think cognitive functioning is in any way impaired?

A 250 pound woman burns more calories than a 150 pound woman. Do we have any reason to believe that the 250 pound woman performs better at tests of recall, tests of problem solving or tests of learning speed? Of course not!

Do we have any reason to believe that the same woman functioned better at her 250 lb weight, than if she were to weigh 150? But she would certainly be requiring much lower quantities of food (as measured in calories) to keep her major organs functioning.

The data on calorie reduction with optimum nutrition doesn't seem to suggest zombies who think poorly or slowly, but CR definitely reduces metabolic rate.

The data on Intermediate Fasting seems to point in the same direction -- bodies that are not requiring massive caloric upkeep to keep those organs functioning, but still with full cognitive abilities.

I don't know of any data to suggest otherwise, and if I did, I would be eating differently! Can anyone point to any different data on brain functioning?
User avatar
roundcoconut
 
Posts: 2530
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:55 pm

Re: based on NYT Article re: Biggest Loser, will we all fail

Postby petero » Thu May 05, 2016 5:39 am

roundcoconut wrote:What makes you think cognitive functioning is in any way impaired?


I don't. I was just kind of raising the question and not being 100% serious. I would assume the brain tries to protect itself so you can get food and get out of the calorie slump, but it might be an interesting question for a researcher to look into.

(I did reskim the NYT article and they did apparently measure the contestants metabolism before and found it to be normal, so I was wrong about that.)
It's easy to be a naive idealist. It's easy to be a cynical realist. It's quite another thing to have no illusions and still hold the inner flame. -- Marie-Louise von Franz
User avatar
petero
 
Posts: 839
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:45 am
Location: Gatlinburg, TN

Re: based on NYT Article re: Biggest Loser, will we all fail

Postby StarchHEFP » Thu May 05, 2016 6:05 pm

petero wrote:(I did reskim the NYT article and they did apparently measure the contestants metabolism before and found it to be normal, so I was wrong about that.)


So this reinforces the fact that it's not a slow metabolism that CAUSED obesity, it's probably overconsumption and underexpenditure of energy after all! Many of my severely obese patients drastically underestimate what they actually are taking in for calories, and research backs this up:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1454084

What messes them up, is the yo-yo dieting that is promoted by basically, everybody except the plant-based weight loss experts like Dr. McDougall. Shows like the "biggest loser" seem to have Fouled up their metabolism permanently! Maybe Dr. McDougall should reach out to the "biggest loser" people and offer them 10 days at the program in exchange for filming them reality-show style!!
StarchHEFP
 
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 2:19 pm

Re: based on NYT Article re: Biggest Loser, will we all fail

Postby StarchHEFP » Thu May 05, 2016 6:12 pm

Here are Dr. Garth Davis' thoughts on the same topic:

http://proteinaholic.com/what-i-hate-about-the-biggest-loser/

And Howard Jacobsen's thoughts (coauthor of the same book as Dr. Garth Davis Proteinaholic as well as coauthor of Whole)

http://trianglebewell.com/the-wrongest-lessons-from-the-biggest-loser/?utm_source=Triangle+Be+Well&utm_campaign=1c02b82bab-TBW_2016_05_05&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_100f8d0772-1c02b82bab-71703625
StarchHEFP
 
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 2:19 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests



Welcome!

Sign up to receive our regular articles, recipes, and news about upcoming events.