|
|
calory restriction VS "metabolic damage"
Posted by:
Panchito
()
Date: April 19, 2015 04:30PM It is scientifically proven that calory restriction (done properly) extends life. There is a new backyard sicence emerging about "metabolic damage," which apparently results from not eating enough calories, the opposite of calory restriction in terms of calories.
If a person is overweight, do you think that eating more (and recover from a possible "metabolic damage"  will fix the problem?
If a person had a past low caloric diet, do you think that eating more and becoming overweight, overshooting from "metabolic damage," is a normal and healthy expectation? Or, do you think that "metabolic damage" is a coined term only used for people that eat a high calory carb diet, try to lose weight, but get fat? Do you believe in "metabolic damage"? Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2015 04:34PM by Panchito. Re: calory restriction VS "metabolic damage"
Posted by:
fresh
()
Date: April 20, 2015 03:16AM This study seems to support the concept, thus validating the position of DR which from what I recall, may imply that it takes a long time to adjust to dietary change and that resistance to fat loss exists.
what do you think? "Maintenance of a 10% or greater reduction in body weight in lean or obese individuals is accompanied by an approximate 20%-25% decline in 24-hour energy expenditure. This decrease in weight maintenance calories is 10–15% below what is predicted solely on the basis of alterations in fat and lean mass 11, 12. Thus, a formerly obese individual will require ~300–400 fewer calories per day to maintain the same body weight and physical activity level as a never-obese individual of the same body weight and composition" [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] Re: calory restriction VS "metabolic damage"
Posted by:
Panchito
()
Date: April 21, 2015 01:54AM the study itself uses the term "adaptative thermogenesis" and defines it as a combination of psychological (behavioral), physiological (metabolic), and hormonal (endocrine). It also blames the genes. There is nothing else left in the whole body to blame except for the caloric intake, the subject of this topic and principal suspect. Psychological factors can make you eat more calories. Physiological factors can reduce your basal metabolism and make you use less calories. And hormonal factors can make you less active for example, thus expending less energy. The gene blame would start from early age. The neurological blame could is from watching too much TV. Who knows? All that many blames avoid looking at the problem straight face, calories taken vs calories spent.
Re: calory restriction VS "metabolic damage"
Posted by:
fresh
()
Date: April 21, 2015 02:29AM seems like they are saying there is an efficiency of movement at a lower weight.
so if 200lb person needs 3000 calories and a 100 lb person needs 1500 calories (expected) the actual calories needed without gaining weight for the 100lb person turns out to be really 1400 calories due to the economy of movement. not sure if valid. i don't think it would explain the weight gain seen on 30bad - i think food mistakes or excess calories - but people are not forthcoming with their details so who knows. Re: calory restriction VS "metabolic damage"
Posted by:
Panchito
()
Date: April 22, 2015 02:17AM it is not a numerical exact science. There are many many reactions, pathways, feedback networks, etc. The amount of factors is incredibly huge. For example, the number of mitochondria (calory burners) in the cells changes with phisical condition. The less you exercise, the fewer mitochondria. Re: calory restriction VS "metabolic damage"
Posted by:
SueZ
()
Date: April 23, 2015 02:10AM Panchito Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------- There are > many many reactions, pathways, feedback networks, > etc. The amount of factors is incredibly huge. For > example, the number of mitochondria (calory > burners) in the cells changes with phisical > condition. It's even more complicated than that. And dry weight-wise we are approximately one half mitochondria. We, each of us, is essentially a zoo with all lower kingdoms represented within us. If we don't know this we don't know ourselves. Re: calory restriction VS "metabolic damage"
Posted by:
Panchito
()
Date: April 23, 2015 02:48AM plants have mitochondria but don't exercise. Mitochondria also have a different independent genome than the cell, and we get it from the mother. So I guess that food selection could affect its expression too. If those genes go bad, you could get metabolic problems under the experts radar. There are many ways the genes can go bad. It does not necessarily mean bad DNA data. Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
|
|
