Kevin Hall Weight-loss Plateau Study

[VirginiaEdie]

Here’s when your weight loss will plateau, according to science | CNN

We frequently have discussions on the forum about calories-in versus calories-out. While I understand that weight loss is not just as simple as that, I believe calories still matter. I have found that with myself.

This news story on CNN discusses a study done by Kevin Hall. According to his study, the reason we plateau is because the longer we keep our calories low, the more our hunger starts to compensate over time and we find it difficult to maintain the calorie deficit.

The reason the new weight-loss drugs such as Ozempic and Wegovy and bariatric surgery have greater success is because they lengthen the time for the hunger signals to kick in and therefore increase the amount of time before a plateau occurs.

This got me thinking about keto. Many, but not all, have great weight loss at the start of the diet, but stop losing weight after a while. Could this be for a similar reason as mentioned in the study? Once our bodies get fat adapted we are not naturally cutting calories as much as when we first started following this WOE. We are not only better at processing the new energy source, fat, but actually eating more. Then we end up maintaining at the plateau. Kind of in a natural equilibrium at that point.

Again, I understand that keto is not just for weight loss but for healing. It seems though that once the healing occurs and blood sugar is stabilized, continued weight loss will still required calorie cutting or at least maintaining food intake levels similar to when first beginning this WOE.

Looking forward to hearing other’s thoughts for debate.

P.S. I tried to find the paper to link but ran out of time.

[ctviggen]

This news story on CNN discusses a study done by Kevin Hall. According to his study, the reason we plateau is because the longer we keep our calories low, the more our hunger starts to compensate over time and we find it difficult to maintain the calorie deficit.

How did he rule out a reduction in basal metabolic rate? Not hunger, just the body is protecting itself and lowering calories burnt.

Edit: Is this the study?

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/oby.24027

Edit2: Uses a model. I hate models.

[VirginiaEdie]

How did he rule out a reduction in basal metabolic rate? Not hunger, just the body is protecting itself and lowering calories burnt.

For example, one theory has been that weight loss damages metabolism, so people end up burning far fewer calories at rest than when they started and can regain weight very easily.

Hall says metabolism does drop after weight loss, “but not anywhere near the amount that will be required to explain the timing or magnitude of the weight loss plateau,” he said.

Edit: Yes, that was the study. Thanks for linking.

[ctviggen]

It’s very complex. I’d expect metabolism to drop some, as if you weigh less, you should also burn less. Take this for instance:

The first two sets of graphs are for “intensive calorie restriction”. Why aren’t you hungry on day 1? Why does any rebound for hunger not occur for a year?

My wife and I have tried a while with Maria Emmerich’s PSMF diet, which is basically low calorie, high protein, with some PSMFs thrown in. It does work, but I was freaking starving by day 2. And I started getting cold, which to me meant that my body was lowering my calories.

I’m trying another week this week, but I’m adding some calories so that I’m hungry but not starving.

But when I started keto, I ate as much as I wanted and was never hungry and lost quite a bit of weight. There was no hunger.

And while I have plateaued, I’m not hungry during my plateau, if I eat normally. In fact, I’ve been slowly losing weight while not being hungry. (Trying Emmerich’s PSMF to see what happens and maybe speed things up.)

Now, could I have some average level of hunger that causes a plateau instead of allowing me to keep going down (faster than I am)? I don’t know, and there’s no way to test this.

And I’ve had no real rebound in 11 years, except twice: (1) shoulder surgery; and (2) the high-saturated-fat/croissant diet. Both times, I gained weight. But I’ve since lost most of that, if not all. (Hard to tell, because I’m also a lot stronger than I was; gained some muscle, but haven’t had a DEXA scan in many years.)

For me, my weight will be stable without hunger. It’s getting lower in weight that’s harder.

I do think there’s something off with my hormones, as I will sometimes not be hungry at dinner. If I start to eat, though, I’ll get hungry. I’ll start with a minor amount of food, then eating causes hunger, and I’ll end up eating a normal meal when I started not hungry at all.

In fact, Maria designs her PSMF days with 2 meals, but I instead eat OMAD, because I know that first meal will make me hungrier than if I just skip it and eat all the calories at dinner.

And the drugs he’s comparing this to do affect hormones, which is how they work.

I don’t really know why there’s a plateau Could it be that hunger signals are such that they create the plateau? Maybe.

And maybe that’s why Maria Emmerich’s PSMF works for many: you’re forcing yourself to break through that hunger level.

[Just_Juju]

This is good to hear because now I know I will never do Maria’s diet. Hunger is the only thing I can’t abide. And like you I don’t often get hungry on the regular Keto diet at all. The protein and fat satiates me. That’s why I love it. But I hit a plateau that lasted a year and I just started to lose again without changing anything up. It just kicked in again. Since I only have 20lbs to go, I bet it will take 2-3x as long as it took me to lose my first 45lbs.

[Geezy56]

That article may hold water for the standard diets that don’t really work but nothing it said applies to my experience with carnivore.
I only eat when I’m hungry and then I eat all I want until I’m completely satisfied. The calories don’t matter, it’s all about how my body feels. Besides all of the healing my body went through I lost 58 pounds in ten months. Sure, I plateaued a few times, once even for 90 days but I don’t believe it had anything to do with calorie restriction. It was just my body adjusting and healing. I never changed anything in my eating and just accepted it as my weight optimizing itself. I have never restricted calories. I generally eat OMAD and I don’t get hungry between meals. My weight is now at 167lbs on a six foot frame. Im not plateaued. My body has just reached its optimal weight. I may loose a little more or I may gain a little back but I’m pretty sure it has nothing to do with anything that was mentioned in that article.

[OldDoug]

It seems though that once the healing occurs and blood sugar is stabilized, continued weight loss will still required calorie cutting or at least maintaining food intake levels similar to when first beginning this WOE.

Edith, ‘plateaus’ and ‘set-points’ have always been a fascinating thing to me. What drives them, what makes them appear with seemingly more force for some people versus others?

I think what you say about finding a natural equilibrium makes sense. There’s the well-known tendency for the body to store energy - its genetic programming to guard against starvation, to increase the chances for survival.

While eating a lot of carbs makes this worse - at least in my opinion - (the basic carbohydrate-insulin-model) - eating very low carbs or no carbs at all isn’t going to make that programming go away.

And whatever the case, if we want the body to lose fat, then something has to make it take fat out of storage on a net basis.

Kevin Hall - rather a big name among dietary researchers, but one, again - in my opinion - who has demonstrated prejudice against the carbohydrate-insulin-model, and a willingness to ignore evidence in its favor and pretend about other causes and explanations.

[VirginiaEdie]

I was looking closely at the graph you provided yesterday. I have to say I’m a little disappointed the y-axis scales were not kept identical. If one doesn’t pay attention to the scaling, it makes the calorie restriction look almost as good as the drug/surgical intervention.

I’m listening to a fitness podcast called MindPump. One of the hosts is taking a semaglutide as an experiment, so he can share his experience with clients and overweight family members. He is not overweight, so I’m not sure if his experience would truly compare to those with metabolic disfunction.

He has noticed that his desire for food has gone way done. He also says that he is less likely to want hedonic/highly palatable food and really is tending towards the more healthy choices. I find that interesting, because keto and carnivore tend to have that same effect. If seems that those that are willing to stick to this WOE are reaping the effects of semaglutide without the side effects or expense. Too bad a ketogenic diet was not included in the types of interventions studied.

[VirginiaEdie]

There’s the well-known tendency for the body to store energy - its genetic programming to guard against starvation, to increase the chances for survival.

I believe this quotes fits with what you said.
“While it may stymie dieters, the appetite feedback circuit is actually a good thing, he said. It would be dangerous if a drug or treatment got rid of appetite entirely. If that happened, a person might stop eating entirely until they died.”

Our bodies will do what it takes to survive. Increasing hunger says, “You better get out there and start hunting!”

[ctviggen]

If anyone listens to Gabor Erdosi, he was saying that if you ate pasta that had protein in it (like egg noodles), it would be processed in a location in the body that naturally produced a GLP1 inhibitor/agonist, the same hormone as some of these drugs. Meanwhile, if you eat regular pasta (no protein), it gets processed where a hormone that encourages eating is produced. The body is astoundingly complex. (And this is yet another reason why all calories aren’t the same.)

Anyway, let’s assume everything Kevin Hall says in this study is true. What do we do with this info? What hormones are involved? Is it only hormones that cause the “hunger”? If we don’t want to take drugs but want to keep losing weight, how do we modify those hormones/hunger?

I have often wondered why plateaus occur. Why do some people fly down to their “teenage” (or other low) weight, yet others don’t? (One of my theories: the ones that don’t have done more damage to their metabolisms, including hormones.)

And then toss things in like protein being harder for the body to process than fat, such that it takes more calories to process protein than fat, and becomes difficult to ascertain what’s going on. Would two identical people reach two different ending weights if one ate higher protein and lower fat?

@Just_Juju For the Maria Emmerich diet, I would suggest trying it. My wife was stuck on keto and lost quite a bit doing Maria’s diet. The hardest days for her were the PSMF days, which are very low calorie and 2 meals a day. The other days weren’t bad, and the PSMF is only 1-2 days a week usually.

I also only used her “height” calculator. Supposedly, she has a better calculator that gets closer to your calorie needs, though one of the ideas is reduced calorie.

I’m trying Maria’s diet again, as all my belts are down by one hole, and I’ve gotten into all my “slim” 34s (waist size in inches) with ease. My wedding ring also comes off my finger quite easily, and that’s one indicator of weight for me.

I’m trying to avoid too much hunger, so I’m eating more than what her simple calculator says, and we’ll see what happens.

[robintemplin]

I dunno if a blanket statement will work here. But I understand your question.
I have steadily eaten more over these past four years. And in the 3rd and 4th year, I lost another 20 pounds. And now holding steady. And eating all I want.