Metabolic damage??

[Trent Bologna]

Hey Jordan what do you think about the phenomenon that Layne Norton describes as "metabolic damage" -- from my understanding he says that if you're on a severely restricted diet for too long that your body will actually stop losing bodyfat. The result is a slow metabolism which he calls "metabolic damage". I hope I'm getting all of that right. Anyway I'm pretty overweight (down from obese) and although I've been on a 1000 Kcal/day diet I can't seem to lose any more bodyfat.

Thanks,
Trent

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

I think it's not only plausible given what some of the current research states, but it's pretty likely as well.

You'll have to play with your macros and conditioning levels in order to continue to lose weight. How old are you and what do you weigh?

[Trent Bologna]

Can you expand on the research that you're aware of? Doctors Jason Blaha and Lyle McDonald have been very critical of Layne Norton's "metabolic damage" theory. They claim there is absolute no science to back it up.

I'm 45 and I weigh 290lbs.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

Neither Jason Blaha or Lyle McDonald are doctors or have ever actually contributed to the research. Dr. Norton has supported his claim quite well in my opinion. One of the best papers I've seen out there right now on the topic: http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/301/3/R581

Blaha and McDonald both do good things for the community, but I'm not sure why they're trying to pick a fight with Dr. Norton.

[Subsistence]

I can't speak for Lyle, but best I can tell he never disagreed with the idea of physiological set points or metabolic slowdown during weight loss. If anything he's written somewhat extensively on both. The point of disagreement seems to revolve around the idea that a long term decrease in metabolism can result in adults as a result of too rapid weight loss (or too much cardio). Or that slow changes in food intake (adding in a few g of carbs/fat each day or week) can cause an increase in metabolic rate in a way that a quicker return to maintenance would not.

IIRC Layne spoke of countless examples of bodybuilders damaging their metabolisms so severely after a few shows that they would only be able to maintain their weights on drastically low calorie counts, and have no room left to even make a deficit and cut weight with for the next show. Lyle claimed that the extent and duration of this claimed metabolic damage is not existent in the literature and is likely a result of neurotic bodybuilders binging and freaking over the corresponding weight regain. The article you posted does seem to provide support for the psychological drive to binge following weight loss.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

The point of disagreement seems to revolve around the idea that a long term decrease in metabolism can result in adults as a result of too rapid weight loss (or too much cardio)

Well this is very extensively shown in the literature so I'm not sure why he would disagree with it. It's fairly well accepted.

Or that slow changes in food intake (adding in a few g of carbs/fat each day or week) can cause an increase in metabolic rate in a way that a quicker return to maintenance would not

If this is his concern, that'd be valid since it has not been studied yet. On the other hand, practical experience from my own personal and professional capacity indicate that Layne is on to something here. I've seen much better results with a slow titration upwards of cals/macros.

Lyle claimed that the extent and duration of this claimed metabolic damage is not existent in the literature and is likely a result of neurotic bodybuilders binging and freaking over the corresponding weight regain.

There's quite a bit of research suggesting that weight regain after starvation or restriction occurs at a greater rate than would be predicted based on equations. On the other hand, there definitely needs to be more research in metabolic wards on this topic. As far as the psychology of it all, that's something I'm writing about extensively and Layne would agree considering his latest article he tweeted.

In sum, I think there's less of a disagreement than we're led to believe but Lyle is just an aggressive character on the Internet and maybe it comes across that way.

[sbhikes]

I wish I could understand that paper you linked to. I can read the words but little of it is understood.

I know that I have experienced this metabolic whatever. And the rebound after. It's not fun. Fortunately the level of obesity that I achieve is relatively small.

The thing I find interesting is that as a person prone to fatness, focusing my efforts on building muscle and consuming a lot of calories in all real food and lots of protein, it really does change what's going on on the inside and how my body works.

[Subsistence]

Fair enough.

For the sake of completeness here's a brief summary Lyle has posted about his thoughts on metabolic damage. I wouldn't want to have misrepresented anything. Be cautioned about the inflammatory tone.

http://imgur.com/a/46U1V

Thanks for your response.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

Fair enough.

For the sake of completeness here's a brief summary Lyle has posted about his thoughts on metabolic damage. I wouldn't want to have misrepresented anything. Be cautioned about the inflammatory tone.

http://imgur.com/a/46U1V

Thanks for your response.

Well that's not the real question we are talking about, I'd have to concede I haven't seen much data out there I think is good on the topic, as most studies showing weight gain on low calories (like the marathon study I posted before, the nurse's health study, etc.) all are based on dietary reports/questionnaires and not metabolic ward studies. Still, that's not what Dr. Norton is talking about explicitly when discussing metabolic damage.

Metabolic damage, as I understand it, is a series of changes occurring at both the cellular and hormonal level that cause adaptation to the caloric input/output and thus make the weight change different than what is predicted by the equations. We know that mitochondrial proteins (uncoupling proteins) change in response to different training modalities and dietary practices. We also know that resting energy expenditure changes in response to dieting and it seems awfully feasible that a combination of a significant energy restriction + lots of cardio too often, too frequent, etc. may indeed cause a more robust adaptation of the organism.

Again, Lyle has done some great things for our little field here but I'm just not sure why he is so dead set on going to war with Norton? Lyle does not have the practical experience that Norton does, which I think gives Norton a little extra insight.

[madmaxaus]

Fair enough.

For the sake of completeness here's a brief summary Lyle has posted about his thoughts on metabolic damage. I wouldn't want to have misrepresented anything. Be cautioned about the inflammatory tone.

http://imgur.com/a/46U1V

Thanks for your response.

I'm not sure why he is so aggressive with his language, calling the theory 'moronic' and 'retarded' is hardly in line with McDonald's mantra of 'cutting edge, scientifically based information'. And to be fair there's nothing explicitly stated in the literature that states Dr Norton is incorrect, and having read a substantial amount of Dr Norton's work I'm inclined to believe he's probably onto something, especially in regards to the slow addition of calories.

In addition I value Norton's insights because he has the unique combination of substantial practical experience and significant academic credentials, this is pretty rare, and this is also why Jordan is such a good resource for the board.

I haven't read as much of McDonald's work, but in general I think he's pretty switched on and has some valuable insight into nutrition. However he doesn't have the practical experience, or academic knowledge of Dr Norton, so starting an internet flame war is probably unwise.

Furthermore, belittling the research of Dr Norton is pretty immature IMO.