4 ms·
I based my comment on this: > Collectively, these results underline the possibility that the metabolic adaptations that occur in response to prolonged energy d
by xk_id 3y ago
I based my comment on this:
> Collectively, these results underline the possibility that the metabolic adaptations that occur in response to prolonged energy deficit persist in time and that constant efforts may need to be deployed in the form of increased energy expenditure from exercise or strict adherence to lowered EI, similar to the characteristics of successful long-term weight-loss maintainers.
It references two studies which found that metabolic rate had not fully recovered at 12 weeks and 1 year after ending the caloric deficit/weight loss diet.
- sn9 3y agoThat isn't nearly enough time to conclude that the changes are irreversible and it's frankly irresponsible to make that inferential jump.
- xk_id 3y agoI’m assuming you mean that purely on semantic grounds. Due to plasticity, regeneration or periodic cycles, in biology there is seldom irreversible change in the absolute sense; some kind of cut off point is implied. Another example is “irreversible enzyme inhibition” [0] - which is relative to the rate at which the protein is expressed and therefore could refer to a period of a couple of weeks. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme_inhibitor#Irreversible_inhibitors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme_inhibitor#Irreversible_...
- sn9 3y agoIf you know that, then you were be unnecessarily hyperbolic in a way that was misleading.
- strken 3y agoMy bad, I was reading the wrong reference the whole time! Thank you. I've found the right paper now. A 5.1% reduction compared to predicted caloric expenditure over the long term seems quite believable. I wonder if it can go higher or if that's the maximum extent, and what refeeding does.