Lowered metabolism - why is this a problem?

(Kaiden) #41

I think I figured it out.

“Lowered metabolic rate” is a useless description. In and of itself, it’s not a problem. Alligators, for example, can survive on a single chicken a week. Could they eat more? Maybe, but they’re not hungry.

The problem is excessive hunger, by which I mean hunger in excess of metabolic needs. When a person loses a large amount of weight via a Biggest Loser type of diet, their body adjusts to the lowered caloric intake and energy demands, but their appetite does not.

Time restricted eating eventually leads to a lowered metabolism, but lowered along with apittie correction. It’s a fairly steady weight loss, about a pound of fat per week, without being too hungry. You might experience hunger outside of the appetite correcting eating schedule, but eventually off-the-clock hunger is dismissed as background noise, and the body adjusts (oh no! don’t let it do that… you have to mix it up or you’ll wreck your metabolism) to the new rules and you wind up being simply not hungry, not even temptible, outside of the time you’ve set aside for eating.

Slow and steady wins the race.

#42

@Kaiden – I’m agreeing with you 96.7% I look at it the same way – if my hunger and satiety signaling is commensurate with my metabolism, I’d prefer lower than higher (again, assuming I’m not missing something). A lower food bill and possible increase in longevity - sounds good to me.

And I’m finding that the more I IF, the easier it is, and the less I’m tempted to snack outside my window. In the last 3 weeks of IF and a 3 day EF, I’ve experienced not a single episode of ravenous hunger.

The one fly in the ointment are the seemingly intractable stalls I continue to see reported accompanied by little actionable advice other than “be patient” and “increase your calorie consumption”.

I find it hard to believe that if my metabolism is adapted to meet my 1,500 calorie consumption and I increase my consumption to 2,000 or 2,500 calories, my metabolism will then increase MORE than the increase in consumption and I’ll then lose weight. Including the additional weight I took on when I initially increased my consumption. I’m more inclined to do a series of 3-4 day EF’s and lose a half pound of fat a day (as discussed by Jason Fung in his interview with Ben Greenfield), combined with moderate consumption during feeding days. Seems like that would have to cut the weight. But, i could be missing something.

(Kaiden) #43

I’d like to hear a discussion among the three most vocal non-fasters: Phiney, Person, and Nally. Maybe add the OMAD Revolution guy and Bert Herring.

I didn’t stall until I allowed someone to scare me into thinking that Fast-5 would ruin my metabolism. I’m only 10 pounds above my lowest adult weight, and that’s much lower than I was able to reach on NeanderThin or on Fast-5 by itself.

If you can do it, more power to you. I felt a moral obligation to fast for an extended period of time, not to repent myself of fat, but as a magic ritual against cancer, per Seyfried’s recommendation. And I would still like to try, but I tend to be provoked easily into stress. I think I should work on other issues first before I try a one week water fast.

In addition to the stall, which could have happened anyway, my other problem with Fungian Fasting is that I summarize my dietary goals with one pericope from the Satanic Bible, “I live as the beasts in the field, rejoicing in the fleshly life! I favor the just and curse the rotten!” In the context of the book it’s found in, my goals are exactly opposite Fungian Fasting, which is all about Sin And Repentance. Eat wedding cake, repent by fasting.

https://books.google.com/books?id=8RBDDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq="jason+fung"+"wedding+cake"&source=bl&ots=tYMxg2edGA&sig=iXr3NF3eFo4rLRnlgzRrsovkbkI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikqbDx-8PbAhWWyIMKHVWnA0kQ6AEIWzAL#v=onepage&q="jason%20fung"%20"wedding%20cake"&f=false

I didn’t eat cake at my own wedding. I didn’t drink champaign, either. I believe in doing things right the first time. If I do things wrong, it’s because I’m ignorant, not because I’m sinful, and as soon as I know better, I do better.____

(mole person) #44

And I do crossfit three times a week and walk over 20 km each day and mine is over 90 usually. :\

(mole person) #45

I started keto just over a year ago at about 25 pounds over my current weight of 108 which is my target. I completely stalled out after about 15 pounds of loss. I started IF and found OMAD very easy and, like you, it made being compliant a cinch. The weight came off steadily from that moment on, only stalling if I broke with it for a few days. Even at my lower body weight I lost (and honestly am still losing) over a pound a week. I’m virtually certain my metabolism has gone up with it. I have crazy amounts of energy, I sleep fewer hours, and I have pink in my cheeks for the first time in my life.

(Kaiden) #46

I hope this is a good thing.

I did the high-protein hack (per the Keto Hacking MD podcast) for two days, when my wife noticed not only was I not sleeping that well, I had red cheeks that were flaking off. I think I had revved up my metabolism, so my cells were rapidly dividing. I don’t think two days was enough to boost my cancer risk, but she told me I was ruining my skin. I’d rather have a ruined metabolism than ruined skin. I also noticed my blood sugar was revved up and my ketones were gone.

#47

@Kaiden – I just googled and found that podcast (thank you!) and a number of episodes on the high-protein hack, which I’ll listen to over the next week.

Can you summarize what this hack is and how and why it’s supposed to work?

(Kaiden) #48

How it works: Take your lean body mass, in pounds, and multiply that by one and a half. That’s the amount of protein you can eat, although you can eat less. It’s “to satiety.” The ratio of protein to fat, in terms of grams, is 3:1. They did a 0-carb version, but the episode where they talked to people who did well on it, those people were allowed 20-30 grams of carbohydrates, so that’s what I did, too.

Why it works: In animals that don’t track macros, from grasshoppers to gazelles to gorillas, they eat until they have a certain amount of protein, and that’s it. When humans are eating only animals and eating them “nose to tail,” animals are generally 3:1 protein to fat.

(mole person) #49

My skin is great. It’s just a sort of peaches and cream complexion. I love it.

(Mark) #50

Very good question. I agree that a slower metabolism might just be a more efficient one! :slight_smile:

#51

Right? I’m still looking for the downside.

That said, I’m finding I do get chilled more easily and on my bike rides take a little longer for me to get fully warmed up and up to speed. Also, I completed a 3 day Extended Fast last Wednesday and found my energy level was highest at the end – presumably that was due to a higher metabolism.

(Ron) #52
#53

Congratulations on your hard work and success so far!

(Anne Brodie) #54

I know this thread is over a month old but was eager to find it as I’ve been trying to understand this exact thing. In addition, I want to know how to tell if one is “starving” or otherwise harming his or herself. I am so interested in this because I eat half the calories often recommended for my weight and I read/am told that this slows metabolism. I’m wondering… so what? And I realize calories are not the focus with keto but I’m using the term as a simplified way to convey general amount of food intake without writing out specific grams of protein and fat.

If I feel good, maintain my weight, not losing muscle mass, and my blood work looks good, at what point is the amount I eat a concern for health reasons? I enjoy eating and would like to eat more while maintaining these attributes, but what are markers of healthful or unhealthful?

Let’s say instead of 20 g carbs + x grams protein + y grams fat = z total calories, I eat approximately three quarters as much. Calories or total grams, whichever works for your view. What if I ate half as much? A quarter as much? At what point, if any, should I be concerned and how do I know if I reached that point?

As an example (again, please understand I am just using “calorie” to shorten the question and the same example could be given in grams or grams of fat etc.) I’ve had people say as long as I average 1200/day or more not to worry. Or oh, my! Whatever you do don’t go below 1000 average a day. WHY? They don’t have an answer. What if I had 600 total calories a day? 200? What are the markers to know if this is healthful?

I hope this all makes sense. I am so eager to understand more!

#55

Well, I’m interested to read this.
Very happy that other people experience a slowed metabolism as something good. Not my experience though.

I developed some hormone problems in my teens, which led to significant weight gain.
Back in those days the trendy weight loss diet was 330 calories a day, in vile shakes.
So that is what I did. For months.
Didn’t lose much weight but I managed to teach my metabolism to slow down and become exceedingly efficient.

Yes, I know that Fung says ‘fasting’ doesn’t slow metabolism whereas low calorie does. Well apparently my body thinks 330 cals = low cal, not fasting, and = what Fung describes as ‘starvation mode’. Even though he says that fasting covers up to 500 cals approx.

So, being a teenager I yo-yoed up and down the scales, starving myself, then experiencing uncontrollable re-feeding cravings and weight regain 3x and each time My body learned the lesson even better. Nowadays my body will slow its metabolic rate within 3-5 days of intermittent fasting. Whoopee. Stalls weight loss on a dime. Every time. Working to get my metabolism back up again then causes weight gain. Double whoopee!!

30 yrs on from those first terribly damaging and misguided diets, losing weight is fiendishly difficult, my appetite always exceeds my actual needs. Eating enough food to provide adequate nutrition means that I would be eating to exceed my metabolic requirements. I can run indefinitely on 1000cals a day, no weight loss. Various online calculators suggest that I should be losing weight on anything less than 2000 calories. That is bollocks. My metabolism is FAR more ‘efficient’ than that.

My opinion is that while metabolisms slow for many reasons (age, health, activity, etc), doing anything that may cause a slowdown for anyone who is metabolically challenged is unwise - and may cause serious unwanted long term effects.

I find it disturbing and worrying that people blithely talk about metabolic slowdown as a good thing. That view is shortsighted and potentially harmful. I suspect that if we fast forward 10 or 15 years there will be a heck of a lot of people who look back at their ‘fasting’ or ‘low calorie’ phases with deep regret. Especially if they have any other hormonal issues going on.

Trouble is, by the time they recognise how much damage has been done, it will be far too late to do much about it.

(Brian) #56

Brunneria, I’m gonna stick with Dr. Fung on this one. Fasting=good. Calorie restriction=bad. I would think that as a doctor with a lot of patients using fasting as a tool, he’d have pretty good insight as to what happens to them over time. He didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday and start practicing medicine. He’s not a reporter trying to hack out articles for some rag news outlet for $20 per 500 words. He’s not a PhD with a major in Art History who’s suddenly decided to capitalize on his “doctor” status so he can tell us all how to be healthy. He’s a real doctor with real patients and real experience in the field of fasting. That means something to me.

If you are really that messed up, maybe you should seek out Dr. Fung or someone like him, and see if you can get some personal one-on-one consultation about your specific health issues. Maybe there are some things he or a someone similar could do for you that is beyond the scope of a chat forum like this. We can suggest things we think might be appropriate or things that we think may have worked for us in the past. But a doctor seeing you personally would be able to do way more, including bloodwork and tests for various things we (or you) might not have any idea you could be suffering with.

Not meaning to be critical but a good doctor is a person worth having in your life, especially when dealing with health issues.

Wishing you all the best.

(Doug) #57

Right on, Brian. In the fourth day of fasting, the average person’s metabolism has increased by 14% - Dr. Fung mentioned this and referenced the study.

#58

Thanks guys - having read everything that Fung has published, both online and in print,I am very familiar with his statements and opinions. I also think he offers a fab service and makes huge beneficial changes to his patients lives.

I do not, however, believe he is an all-knowing guru whose every word carries the weight of divinity.

Tell you what, let’s shelve this conversation for a decade or two, and then pick up where we left off. Bet there will be others who have had similar experiences to me. And I will be very, very, sorry to hear their voices.

(Ron) #59

Why would you assume that you are exclusive to date and that there are not others who lived your lifestyle one or two decades ago?
Maybe there is someone watching this conversation that asked that very question 20 years ago. :thinking::wink:

#60

:blush:
I know of quite a few people in the same boat as me, including some posts here on ketodudes.

The problem is that there are now so many fervant fasters and extreme dieters (since low carb, keto, fasting, Newcastle Diet, etc. have gone mainstream) that the numbers of people negatively affected by metabolic slowdown are (IMHO) about to explode.

It is a huge uncontrolled experiment, the like of which we haven’t seen since the Low Fat Debacle hit in the 60s.

And, in the interest of clarity, I should explain that I have been low carbing for decades, ketoing for years, and recently ZC. I am not knocking the keto lifestyle. I am knocking the idea that metabolic slowdown is harmless and can be dismissed as unimportant.