3 ms·

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 i

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.

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.