Quote (Lightman @ Dec 22 2013 01:01pm)
read it all, fail to see point.
the forces working against long term sustainable fat loss and the fail statistics are apparent, but how do they pertain to actual metabolic damage? Most factors can be summarized in low dopamine levels pushing people over the edge of binging, and there are a few ways to satiate them:
adding more fiber, drinking more water and doing more aerobics which facilitates larger serotonine levels mimicking dopamine satiety and lowering appetite (even after consuming back the same net calories lost from the activity).
So, metabolic dmg or not, low dopamine/high ghrelin are still going to be there whenever you reach a truly lean state. i do however agree with dispersing the kcal drops over a much larger time span to help adapt to diminishing dopamine levels via reverse dieting protocols, but you can fix your calories if too low at any given time and not have to wait xx time to "reverse the effect on ur metabolism".
Agreed, plus he said my links showed metabolic adaption/damage was real?
I feel like the first link makes a few good points as to why people believe in the metabolic damage:
"Dieting does not lead to an abnormal decrease in basal metabolic rate. A lower body weight does mean a lower BMR, however it is not abnormal to the new reduced weight level."
"Dieting does not affect the future ease/difficulty of regaining/losing weight (at least from a physiological basis)."
"Shetty reported that many studies on malnourished subjects, have failed to demonstrate any significant decrease in metabolic rate when adjusted per kg/FFM." (I think this is one of the main problems.. of course BMR/RMR lower, but overall body weight and lean mass are also lower.. so.. duh?)
There's more ofc but yeah