6 ms·

The more frequent the dieting and steeper the caloric deficit, the worse metabolic adaptation gets, and the longer it takes to return to normal. As I understand

The more frequent the dieting and steeper the caloric deficit, the worse metabolic adaptation gets, and the longer it takes to return to normal. As I understand it that's the result discerned from more than just one paper. Layne Norton explores this at length in his book Fat Loss Forever and yt channel. The interesting thing in this link was the impact of change in exercise regimen. We know that exercise in itself can mitigate metabolic adaptation and leads to better outcomes, so maybe that should not be surprising (when they quit). The outsized impact is interesting. I wonder if those who sustained higher levels of exercise were actually in a steeper caloric deficit. It's possible to lose weight sustainably even without exercise, so perhaps it's fair to say that if you're going to exercise, you best sustain it. "damaged metabolism" was always kind of a semantic misnomer.

cbsmith 3y ago
Wait. What this analysis seems to suggest is that the exercise (as long as it is a significant increase) actually encourages metabolic adaption.
- slothtrop 3y ago
  Yeah I saw. But you'll see that the Biggest Loser contestants chased weight-loss on a very aggressive timeline. They have a steep deficit, and relatively high intensity exercise regimen. Which could just further exacerbate the effects of a steep deficit. At any rate, all of them had lastingly bad metabolic adaptation, even if those who exercised more had it worse. In other studies (alluded to here as those where participants don't undergo anything so extreme), exercise is both a strong predictor of long-term weight-loss success, and can dampen metabolic adaptation (since more muscle and good cardiovascular shape boosts metabolism, usually). I'm not sure what the lesson is yet, but I would hazard that, in the long-term, it's more important to sustain tracking energy balance (sustainability of your diet is #1). Moderate exercise can probably help, but perhaps it should also be sustainable, and in that capacity there are rapidly diminishing returns to intensity of exercise (and perhaps going hard and then quitting is a risk factor for weight regain).
  - cbsmith 3y ago
    > At any rate, all of them had lastingly bad metabolic adaptation, even if those who exercised more had it worse. Yes, but as I read it, they all lastingly changed the level of exercise they were getting, and the extent of the "bad" metabolic adaptation seemed to correlate strongly with how big of a lasting change they made in exercise. > In other studies (alluded to here as those where participants don't undergo anything so extreme), exercise is both a strong predictor of long-term weight-loss success, and can dampen metabolic adaptation (since more muscle and good cardiovascular shape boosts metabolism, usually). Yes, trading fat for muscle increases your baseline caloric consumption, but that's not the same as long-term weight-loss. I'm curious about what studies you've seen, because I've seen several other studies that suggest the opposite: that diet is a stronger predictor than exercise of long-term weight-loss success, and this analysis suggests that the more exercise the more likely it is that it will feed in to metabolic adaptation. > I'm not sure what the lesson is yet, but I would hazard that, in the long-term, it's more important to sustain tracking energy balance (sustainability of your diet is #1). Moderate exercise can probably help, but perhaps it should also be sustainable, and in that capacity there are rapidly diminishing returns to intensity of exercise (and perhaps going hard and then quitting is a risk factor for weight regain). My speculation is that the lesson is that in general there are diminishing returns from having a caloric deficit, regardless of the means to achieve it. Which fits with the idea that it is easier succeed with small, lasting changes than to create a more significant deficit for a shorter period of time. It would explain the insane failure rate of the weight loss industry, which for obvious reasons needs to show significant short-term results.
    - slothtrop 3y ago
      > Yes, but as I read it, they all lastingly changed the level of exercise they were getting, and the extent of the "bad" metabolic adaptation seemed to correlate strongly with how big of a lasting change they made in exercise. This doesn't contradict me. > I've seen several other studies that suggest the opposite: that diet is a stronger predictor than exercise of long-term weight-loss success That is not the opposite. I am not claiming that exercise is a stronger predictor than energy balance. I am claiming that it is a strong predictor. I am not going to dig them up. Go check google scholar and check out Layne Norton's book Fat Loss Forever. > there are diminishing returns from having a caloric deficit The evidence seems to suggest that it's better to lose weight slowly to mitigate metabolic adaptation. If that's what you mean, it appears to be correct. I would reiterate that I think the impact of exercise might be different with a small/modest caloric deficit.
arcticbull 3y ago
> It's possible to lose weight sustainably even without exercise, so perhaps it's fair to say that if you're going to exercise, you best sustain it. Exercise is for muscle gain and general health, not for weight loss. You have to exercise a truly absurd about to burn enough calories to lose any meaningful amount of weight. You'd have to run from SF to LA to lose 10lbs, and that's assuming you eat nothing else to compensate which humans are notorious for doing. Your body has a very strong homeostatic drive, and will absolutely push you to eat more and to be more sedentary outside of work-out time to compensate for any additional exercise you do. There's no studies or evidence whatsoever that shows it has a meaningful impact on weight loss. Weight loss comes from what you put in (or rather don't). This write-up from 2016 references 60 studies and meta-analysis which all show the same. [1] tl;dr: you should exercise for health and for muscle gain, not for weight loss. [edit] Note that metabolic adaptation results from caloric restriction dieting too, which is why 95% of diets fail. Basically only GLP-1s and gastric bypass have been clinically shown to result in meaningful, sustained, long-term weight loss. Obesity is a dysfunction of the gabaergic central nervous system. That's why everyone's so excited about GLP-1s. [1] https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-exercise-myth-burn-calories https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-exercise-...
- slothtrop 3y ago
  You're confusing things. The real gains qua WL from exercise are what is lost from resting metabolic rate, not calories burned "during" exercise. Also: satiety, and other health benefits that have an impact. > There's no studies or evidence whatsoever that shows it has a meaningful impact on weight loss. Absolutely not true. > Weight loss comes from what you put in (or rather don't). It's energy balance. But just as increasing satiety helps (through food choices), exercise is a strong predictor of long-term WL success. > This write-up from 2016 references 60 studies and meta-analysis which all show the same. You're quoting a vox article, and it's making the aforementioned erroneous conflation about calories burned during exercise.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    > Absolutely not true. Please cite a study that shows that exercise results in long-term sustained, clinically meaningful (>5%) weight loss. I have looked extensively and found none. And that's not for a lack of extant studies. > It's energy balance. But just as increasing satiety helps (through food choices), exercise is a strong predictor of long-term WL success. As far as I can see, there aren't any successful long-term (>2y) weight loss studies that don't involve GLP-1s or bariatric surgery, so maybe that's where the issue lies. > You're quoting a vox article, and it's making the aforementioned erroneous conflation about calories burned during exercise. I don't think it is, I looked over the studies they link to, but I'm open to being wrong. I don't really have a horse in this race.
waterheater 3y ago
I don't mean to be overly repetitive, but the answer is leptin. I just wrote a post about it and quoted some of your comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38942521 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38942521

cbsmith 3y ago

Wait. What this analysis seems to suggest is that the exercise (as long as it is a significant increase) actually encourages metabolic adaption.

slothtrop 3y ago
Yeah I saw. But you'll see that the Biggest Loser contestants chased weight-loss on a very aggressive timeline. They have a steep deficit, and relatively high intensity exercise regimen. Which could just further exacerbate the effects of a steep deficit. At any rate, all of them had lastingly bad metabolic adaptation, even if those who exercised more had it worse. In other studies (alluded to here as those where participants don't undergo anything so extreme), exercise is both a strong predictor of long-term weight-loss success, and can dampen metabolic adaptation (since more muscle and good cardiovascular shape boosts metabolism, usually). I'm not sure what the lesson is yet, but I would hazard that, in the long-term, it's more important to sustain tracking energy balance (sustainability of your diet is #1). Moderate exercise can probably help, but perhaps it should also be sustainable, and in that capacity there are rapidly diminishing returns to intensity of exercise (and perhaps going hard and then quitting is a risk factor for weight regain).
- cbsmith 3y ago
  > At any rate, all of them had lastingly bad metabolic adaptation, even if those who exercised more had it worse. Yes, but as I read it, they all lastingly changed the level of exercise they were getting, and the extent of the "bad" metabolic adaptation seemed to correlate strongly with how big of a lasting change they made in exercise. > In other studies (alluded to here as those where participants don't undergo anything so extreme), exercise is both a strong predictor of long-term weight-loss success, and can dampen metabolic adaptation (since more muscle and good cardiovascular shape boosts metabolism, usually). Yes, trading fat for muscle increases your baseline caloric consumption, but that's not the same as long-term weight-loss. I'm curious about what studies you've seen, because I've seen several other studies that suggest the opposite: that diet is a stronger predictor than exercise of long-term weight-loss success, and this analysis suggests that the more exercise the more likely it is that it will feed in to metabolic adaptation. > I'm not sure what the lesson is yet, but I would hazard that, in the long-term, it's more important to sustain tracking energy balance (sustainability of your diet is #1). Moderate exercise can probably help, but perhaps it should also be sustainable, and in that capacity there are rapidly diminishing returns to intensity of exercise (and perhaps going hard and then quitting is a risk factor for weight regain). My speculation is that the lesson is that in general there are diminishing returns from having a caloric deficit, regardless of the means to achieve it. Which fits with the idea that it is easier succeed with small, lasting changes than to create a more significant deficit for a shorter period of time. It would explain the insane failure rate of the weight loss industry, which for obvious reasons needs to show significant short-term results.
  - slothtrop 3y ago
    > Yes, but as I read it, they all lastingly changed the level of exercise they were getting, and the extent of the "bad" metabolic adaptation seemed to correlate strongly with how big of a lasting change they made in exercise. This doesn't contradict me. > I've seen several other studies that suggest the opposite: that diet is a stronger predictor than exercise of long-term weight-loss success That is not the opposite. I am not claiming that exercise is a stronger predictor than energy balance. I am claiming that it is a strong predictor. I am not going to dig them up. Go check google scholar and check out Layne Norton's book Fat Loss Forever. > there are diminishing returns from having a caloric deficit The evidence seems to suggest that it's better to lose weight slowly to mitigate metabolic adaptation. If that's what you mean, it appears to be correct. I would reiterate that I think the impact of exercise might be different with a small/modest caloric deficit.

arcticbull 3y ago

> It's possible to lose weight sustainably even without exercise, so perhaps it's fair to say that if you're going to exercise, you best sustain it. Exercise is for muscle gain and general health, not for weight loss. You have to exercise a truly absurd about to burn enough calories to lose any meaningful amount of weight. You'd have to run from SF to LA to lose 10lbs, and that's assuming you eat nothing else to compensate which humans are notorious for doing. Your body has a very strong homeostatic drive, and will absolutely push you to eat more and to be more sedentary outside of work-out time to compensate for any additional exercise you do. There's no studies or evidence whatsoever that shows it has a meaningful impact on weight loss. Weight loss comes from what you put in (or rather don't). This write-up from 2016 references 60 studies and meta-analysis which all show the same. [1] tl;dr: you should exercise for health and for muscle gain, not for weight loss. [edit] Note that metabolic adaptation results from caloric restriction dieting too, which is why 95% of diets fail. Basically only GLP-1s and gastric bypass have been clinically shown to result in meaningful, sustained, long-term weight loss. Obesity is a dysfunction of the gabaergic central nervous system. That's why everyone's so excited about GLP-1s. [1] https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-exercise-myth-burn-calories https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-exercise-...

slothtrop 3y ago
You're confusing things. The real gains qua WL from exercise are what is lost from resting metabolic rate, not calories burned "during" exercise. Also: satiety, and other health benefits that have an impact. > There's no studies or evidence whatsoever that shows it has a meaningful impact on weight loss. Absolutely not true. > Weight loss comes from what you put in (or rather don't). It's energy balance. But just as increasing satiety helps (through food choices), exercise is a strong predictor of long-term WL success. > This write-up from 2016 references 60 studies and meta-analysis which all show the same. You're quoting a vox article, and it's making the aforementioned erroneous conflation about calories burned during exercise.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  > Absolutely not true. Please cite a study that shows that exercise results in long-term sustained, clinically meaningful (>5%) weight loss. I have looked extensively and found none. And that's not for a lack of extant studies. > It's energy balance. But just as increasing satiety helps (through food choices), exercise is a strong predictor of long-term WL success. As far as I can see, there aren't any successful long-term (>2y) weight loss studies that don't involve GLP-1s or bariatric surgery, so maybe that's where the issue lies. > You're quoting a vox article, and it's making the aforementioned erroneous conflation about calories burned during exercise. I don't think it is, I looked over the studies they link to, but I'm open to being wrong. I don't really have a horse in this race.

waterheater 3y ago

I don't mean to be overly repetitive, but the answer is leptin. I just wrote a post about it and quoted some of your comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38942521 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38942521