Is it possible to not lose body fat because you’re eating too little?

Excellent article by Tom

Q: Tom, Is it possible to not lose body fat because you’re eating too little?

A: Yes and no. This gets a little complicated so let me explain both sides.

Part one of my answer: I say NO, because if you are in a calorie deficit you WILL lose weight.

We all hear stories of the dieter who claims to be eating 800 calories a day or some starvation diet level of intake and yet is not losing fat. Like the mythical unicorn, such an animal does not exist. Every time you take a person like that and put them in a hospital research center or metabolic ward where their food can be counted, weighed, measured and almost literally “spoon fed” to them, a calorie deficit always produces weight loss.

There are no exceptions, except possibly in rare diseases or mutations. Even then I think metabolic or hormonal defects or diseases merely lead to energy imbalance via increases in appetite, decreases in energy expenditure or changes in energy partitioning. So at the end of the day it’s STILL calories in versus calories out. In other words, NO – it’s NOT your thyroid (unless you’ve got a confirmed diagnosis as such…and then guess what… it’s STILL calories in vs calories out, you’re just not burning as many as someone should at your height and weight).

One famous study that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine years ago proved this point rather dramatically. After studying obese people – selected specifically because they swore they were eating less than 1200 calories but could not lose weight – Steven Lichtman and his colleages at St. Luke’s Roosevent Hospital in New York came to the following conclusion:

“The failure of some obese subjects to lose weight while eating a diet they report as low in calories is due to an energy intake substantially higher than reported and an overestimation of physical activity, not to an abnormality in thermogenesis.”

That’s right – the so-called “diet-resistant” subjects were eating more than they thought and moving less than they thought. This was probably the single best study ever published that debunks the “I’m in a calorie deficit but I can’t lose weight” myth: The lesson contained here is so important,

I did a full write-up on this research paper for my inner circle members:

The Real Reason For “Diet Resistance” And Weight Loss Plateaus:
Study Reveals The Shocking Truth
www.burnthefatinnercircle.com/members/344.cfm

(burn the fat inner circle members only)

You can read the study abstract on Pub Med (US National Library of Medicine) for free: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1454084

Part two of my answer, YES, because:

1) Energy intake increases. Eating too little causes major, sometimes almost irresistible increases in appetite. With hunger raging out of control, you lose your deficit by overeating. this happens in many ways, such as giving in to cravings, binge eating, eating more on weekends or simply being inconsistent, so some days you’re on your prescribed 1600 calories a day or whatever is your target amount, but on others you are taking in 2200, 2500, 3000 etc and you don’t realize it or remember it. The overeating days wipe out the deficit days.

2) Metabolism decreases due to smaller body mass. Any time at all when you are losing weight, your metabolism is slowly decreasing due to your reduced body mass. The smaller and lighter you get, especially if there is a large drop in skeletal muscle mass, the fewer calories you need. So your calorie deficit slowly shrinks over time as your diet progresses. As a result, your weight loss slows down even though you haven’t changed how much you eat.

With starvation, you always lose weight, but eventually you lose so much weight/body mass that you can reach energy balance at the same caloric intake you used to lose weight on. You might translate that as “I went into starvation mode” which wouldn’t be incorrect, but it would be more accurate to say that your calorie needs decreased.

3) Metabolism decreases due to adaptive thermogenesis. Eating too little also causes a starvation response (adaptive thermogenesis) where metabolic rate can decrease above and beyond what can be accounted for from the change in body mass (#2 above). This is “starvation response” in the truest sense. It does exist and it is well documented. However, the latest research says that the vast majority of the decrease in metabolism comes from reduced body mass. The adaptive component of the reduced metabolic rate is fairly small, perhaps 10% (ie, 220 calories for an average female with a 2200 TDEE). The result is when you don’t eat enough, your actual weight loss is less than predicted on paper, but weight loss doesn’t stop completely.

There is a BIG myth about starvation mode (adaptive thermogenesis) that implies that if you don’t eat enough, your metabolism will slow down so much that you stop losing weight. That can’t happen, it only appears that way because weight loss stops for other reasons. What happens is the math equation changes!

Energy balance is dynamic, so your weight loss slows down and eventually stops over time if you fail to adjust your calories and activity levels in real time each week. I teach a system for how to adjust calories and activity weekly using a feedback loop method in my Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle program.

So what can be done to stop this metabolic slowdown caused by low calorie dieting and the dreaded fat loss plateau that follows? I recommend the following:

1) Lose weight slowly. Slow and steady wins in long term fat loss and maintenance every time. Rapid weight loss correlates strongly with weight relapse and loss of lean body mass. Aim for one to two pounds per week, or no more than 1% of total body weight (ie, 3 lbs per week if you weigh 300 lbs). For more info, read: The Two Pounds Per Week Rule and Faster Fat Loss

2) Use a higher energy flux program. If you are physically capable of exercise, then use weight training AND cardio to increase your energy expenditure, so you can still have a calorie deficit, but at a higher food intake (also known as a “high energy flux” program, or as we like to say in Burn The Fat, “eat more, burn more.”)

3) Use a conservative calorie deficit. You still need a calorie deficit to lose fat, but your best bet is to keep the deficit small. This helps you avoid triggering the starvation response, which includes the increased appetite and potential to binge that comes along with starvation diets. I recommend a 20% deficit below your maintenance calories (TDEE), a 30% deficit at most for those with high body fat.

4) Refeed. Increase your calories (re-feed) for a full day periodically (once a week or so if you are heavy, twice a week if you are already lean), to restimulate metabolism. On the higher calorie day, take your calories to maintenance or even 10, 15, 20% above maintenance and add the extra calories in the form of carbs (carb cycling). The leaner you get, and the longer you’ve been on reduced calories, the more important the re-feeds will be.

5) Take periodic diet breaks. Take 1 week off your calorie restricted diet approximately every 12 weeks or so. During this period, take your calories back up to maintenance, but continue to eat healthy, “clean” foods. Alternately, go into a muscle building phase if that is one of your goals. This will bring metabolism and regulatory hormones back up to normal and keep lean body mass stable.

As new research has emerged which helps clarify the complex nature of adaptive thermogenesis and neuroendocrine control of appetite, I have continued to update my information. What you have just read is the best quick explanation I can give based on the current scientific body of knowledge, plus what I know from many years of experience with both heavy and lean dieters – from the obese to the bodybuilding competitor.

There is much confusion about how your metabolism, hormones and appetite mechanisms are affected when you’re dieting, so this was really one of the most important questions anyone could have asked. If this didn’t click – I mean REALLY click – then please read my answer again because misunderstanding this stuff leads more people to remain frustrated and stuck at plateaus than anything else I can think of.


Swine Flu – XKCD beat CNN to the post

So XKCD posted this yesterday ……

Now CNN made this post http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/04/27/swine.flu.twitter/index.html

(CNN) — The swine flu outbreak is spawning debate about how people get information during health emergencies — especially at a time when news sources are becoming less centralized.

Buzz about swine flu on Twitter is stirring conversations about how people get health news.

Buzz about swine flu on Twitter is stirring conversations about how people get health news.

Some observers say Twitter — a micro-blogging site where users post 140-character messages — has become a hotbed of unnecessary hype and misinformation about the outbreak, which is thought to have claimed more than 100 lives in Mexico.

“This is a good example of why [Twitter is] headed in that wrong direction, because it’s just propagating fear amongst people as opposed to seeking actual solutions or key information,” said Brennon Slattery, a contributing writer for PC World. “The swine flu thing came really at the crux of a media revolution.”

Twitter’s popularity has exploded in recent months, and Slattery said it’s a new development that a wide number of people would turn to the site in search of information during an emergency.

Others take a softer approach to the buzz on Twitter.

Writing for CNET, a CNN partner site, Larry Magid advises online readers to take medical advice with a grain of salt.

The Internet is “a great way to get general information, prevention tips and information on how to handle a known condition, but be cautious when using it to try to diagnose yourself,”he writes.

Several dozen cases of swine flu worldwide have been confirmed by the World Health Organization and hundreds more are feared. Read more about the situation

That information needs to be put in context by journalists, especially given the fact that so many deaths from the common flu occur each year and go underreported by the news media, said Al Tompkins, who teaches broadcast and online news at the Poynter Institute, a school for journalists.

About 36,000 people die from flu-related symptoms each year in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

The fast pace of new swine flu cases and their relevance to global public health policy makes the situation newsworthy, Tompkins said.

Tompkins said there is a tendency for television stations to hype health emergencies to boost their ratings, but so far coverage of the swine flu outbreak has been responsible. Coverage of the story is just ramping up, though, he said.

Of the swine flu news on Twitter, Tompkins said, “Bad news always travels faster than good news. I’m sure that was true in smoke signal days.”

Unofficial swine flu information on Twitter may lead people to unwise decisions, said Evgeny Morozov, a fellow at the Open Society Institute and a blogger on ForeignPolicy.com.

For example, some Twitter users told their followers to stop eating pork, he said. Health officials have not advised that precaution. Read about how the virus is transmitted

Morozov said there’s incentive for Twitter users to post whatever is on their mind because it helps them grow their online audiences.

But in an emergency, that tendency means people write about their own fears of symptoms and widespread deaths, which can create an uninformed hysteria, he said.

The debate about swine flu on Twitter is not one-sided, however. And the site is not the only place online where people are talking about the outbreak.

Some Twitter users have expressed concern that the swine flu story is being hyped. Several media outlets, including the BBC and CNN’s iReport.com, give readers and viewers a chance to express their own views about the outbreak.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also maintains its own Twitter account where official government information is given straight to the public.

And on Monday, President Obama seemed to try to calm national fears by saying the outbreak is “cause for concern and requires a heightened state of alert,” but is not a “cause for alarm,” CNN reported.

Twitter traffic about swine flu has been strong. According to Nielsen Online, swine flu has worked its way into about 2 percent of all notes posted on the site on Monday. You can follow that Twitter conversation here.

Chatter about swine flu is also loud elsewhere online. About 10 times more people are writing online about swine flu than wrote about the salmonella and peanut butter scares from this winter, Nielsen says.

On Google, an interactive map lets Internet users see where outbreak deaths have been confirmed and where they are suspected. See a CNN map

Slattery, the PC World writer, said he generally was excited about Twitter until recently. Now he finds the site to be “an incredibly unreliable source of information.”

Tompkins said people who post information on social media sites should think about the credibility of their sources before they pass something on.

That’s the “online equivalent of washing your hands,” he said.

“Before you pass it on, wash your hands a little.”

And yes i did bold the “About 36,000 people die from flu-related symptoms each year in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention” , as I think its fairly relevant to the panicdemic about swineflu. It only has a 4% or less hit rate. Though we have lots of ways to get it around the world really fast, we also have a LOT better ways of dealing with it and medicines and other similar things than say the previous pandemics that the world has seen.

So if I were you, i wouldnt panic just yet. Thank god its not something else, Bird flu fatality rate was 60%, SARS was 9.6% (though these figures probably vary depending on the countries socio-economic development as well as many other factors)  – and they havn’t and wont rule out Bird flu, its a matter of time rather than ‘you said it was coming and it never did’.