What are the metabolic and behavioral adaptations that slow weight loss? 
 
Thanks to millions of years of evolution hard-wiring us to survive scarcity, our body has compensatory survival mechanisms to defend against weight loss. When we start losing weight, we may unconsciously begin to move less as a “behavioral adaptation” to conserve energy. There are metabolic adaptations as well; our metabolism slows down. Every pound of weight loss may reduce our resting metabolic rate by seven calories a day. This may only translate to a few percent differences for most, but it can rapidly snowball for those who achieve massive weight loss. I discuss this phenomenon in my video The Reason Weight Loss Plateaus When You Diet.

During one season of the television show The Biggest Loser, some of the contestants famously had their metabolic rates tracked. As you can see in the graphs below, above and beyond the hundreds of fewer calories it takes to just exist when more than a hundred pounds lighter (at 0:55 in my video), by the end of the season, their metabolic rates had slowed by an extra 500 calories a day (at 1:03 in my video). 

What’s mind-blowing is that when they were retested six years later, they still had the 500-calorie-a-day handicap. So, the contestants had to cut 500 more calories than anyone else their size to maintain the same weight loss. No wonder the bulk of their weight loss was regained. As you can see in the graph below and at 1:23 in my video, most remained at least 10 percent lower than their starting weight, though. 

Even a 7 percent drop has been shown to cut diabetes rates about in half, as seen in the graph below and at 1:31 in my video. Still, the metabolic slowing means you have to work that much harder than everyone else just to stay in place. Analyzing four seasons of The Biggest Loser minute-by-minute, researchers noted that 85 percent of the focus was on exercise rather than diet, though the exercise component accounted for less than half of the weight loss. Even six years after their season ended, the contestants had been maintaining an hour of daily, vigorous exercise, yet still regained most of the weight they had lost. Why? Because they had started eating more. They could have limited their exercise to just 20 minutes a day and still maintained 100 percent of their initial weight loss if they had just been able to keep their intake to less than 3,000 calories a day. That may not sound like much of a challenge, but weight loss doesn’t just slow your metabolism. It also boosts your appetite.

If it were just a matter of your weight settling at the point at which your reduced caloric intake matches your reduced caloric output, it would take years for your weight loss to plateau. Instead, it often happens within six to eight months. You can see illustrative graphs below and at 2:34 and 2:43 in my video. You may know the drill: Start the diet, stick to the diet, then weight loss stalls six months later. What happened? Don’t blame your metabolism—that only plays a small part. Instead, you likely stopped sticking to your diet because your appetite went on a rampage. 

Let’s break it down. If you cut 800 calories out of your daily diet—going from 2,600 calories a day down to 1,800, for instance—and your weight loss stalls after six months, what may have happened is, at the end of the first month, you think you’re still cutting 800 calories, but you may actually only be down about 600 calories a day. By month two, you may only be down about 500 calories, 300 by month three, and, by month six, you may only be eating 200 calories less than before you went on the diet. In other words, you may have inadvertently suffered an exponential increase in caloric intake over those six months. But, you may not even realize it because, by that time, your body may have ramped up your appetite by 600 calories. So, it still feels as if you are eating 800 calories less, but it’s actually only 200 fewer calories. Since an 800-calorie drop in intake may slow your metabolism and physical activity by about 200 calories a day, with no difference between calories in and calories out at six months, no wonder your weight loss grinds to a complete halt.

The slow upward drift in caloric intake on a new diet is not because you got lazy. Once your appetite is boosted by 600 calories after dieting for a while, eating 200 fewer calories at the end is as hard as eating 800 fewer calories at the beginning. So, you can maintain the same disciplined level of willpower and self-control yet still end up stagnating. To prevent this from happening, you need to maintain the calorie deficit. How is that possible in the face of a ravenous appetite? 
 
Hunger is a biological drive. Asking someone to eat smaller portions is like asking someone to take fewer breaths. You can white-knuckle it for a bit, but, eventually, nature wins out. That’s why I wrote How Not to Diet. There are foods that can counter the slowing of our metabolism and suppress our appetite, as well as ways of eating to counter the behavioral adaptation and even eat more food—yet still lose weight. 
 
Due to “the ongoing slowing of metabolism and increased appetite associated with the lost weight,” sustained weight loss requires a persistent calorie deficit of 300 to 500 calories a day. This can be accomplished without reducing portion sizes simply by lowering the calorie density of meals, which can result in the rare combination of weight loss with both an increase in quality and even quantity of food consumed. (See the two graphs below and at 5:34 and 5:40 in my video.) The bottom line is that sustainable weight loss is not about eating less food. It’s about eating better food.

In my previous video, I dive into how The 3,500 Calorie per Pound Rule Is Wrong. In that case, what’s The New Calories per Pound of Weight Loss Rule? Watch that video to find out. 
 
My book How Not to Diet is all about weight loss and how to break the diet cycle. For more on weight loss, see related videos below.

See the Weight Loss topic page for more relevant videos. 

from NutritionFacts.org https://ift.tt/LIqmbJ7
via IFTTT

How many fewer calories do you have to eat every day to lose one pound of body fat? 

The first surgical attempt at body sculpting was in 1921 on a dancer “who wanted to improve the shape of her ankles and knees.” The surgeon apparently scraped away too much tissue and tied the stitches too tight, resulting in necrosis, amputation, and the first recorded malpractice suit in the history of plastic surgery. Liposuction is much safer today, killing only about 1 in 5,000 patients, mostly from unknown causes, such as throwing a clot into your lung or perforating your internal organs. You can see a “Cause of Death” chart below and at 0:37 in my video The 3,500 Calorie per Pound Rule Is Wrong. 

Liposuction currently reigns as the most popular cosmetic surgery in the world, and its effects are indeed only cosmetic. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine assessed obese women before and after having about 20 pounds of fat sucked out of their bodies, resulting in a nearly 20 percent drop in their total body fat. Normally, if you lose even just 5 to 10 percent of your body weight in fat, you get significant improvements in blood pressure, blood sugars, inflammation, cholesterol, and triglycerides. But liposuction sucks. None of those benefits materialized even after massive liposuction, which suggests that the problem is not subcutaneous fat, the fat under our skin. The metabolic insults of obesity arise from the visceral fat, the fat surrounding or even infiltrating our internal organs, like the fat marbling our muscles and liver. The way you lose that fat, the dangerous fat, is to take in fewer calories than you burn. 
 
Anyone who’s seen The Biggest Loser television programs knows that with enough caloric restriction and exercise, hundreds of pounds can be lost. Similarly, there are cases in the medical literature of what some refer to as “super obesity.” In one case, a man lost a massive amount of weight “largely without professional help and without surgery” and kept it off for years. He dropped 374 pounds, losing about 20 pounds a month by cycling two hours a day and reducing his daily intake to 800 calories, which is down around what some prisoners got at concentration camps in World War II. 
 
Perhaps “America’s most celebrated weight loss” seen on television was Oprah’s. She pulled out a wagon full of fat, representing the 67 pounds she had lost on a very-low-calorie diet. How many calories did she have to cut to achieve that weight loss within four months? If you consult with leading nutrition textbooks or refer to trusted authorities like the Mayo Clinic, you’ll learn the simple weight loss rule: 1 pound of fat equals 3,500 calories. Quoting from the Journal of the American Medical Association, “A total of 3500 calories equals 1 pound of body weight. This means if you decrease (or increase) your intake by 500 calories daily, you will lose (or gain) 1 pound per week. (500 calories per day × 7 days = 3500 calories.)” 
 
It’s the simple weight-loss rule that is simply not true. 
 
The 3,500-calorie rule can be traced back to a paper published in 1958. The author noted that since fatty tissue in the human body is 87 percent fat, a pound of body fat would have about 395 grams of pure fat. Multiplying that by nine calories per gram of fat gives you that “3,500 calories per pound” approximation. The fatal flaw that leads to “dramatically exaggerated” weight-loss predictions is that the 3,500-calorie rule fails to take into account the fact that changes in the Calories-In side of the energy-balance equation automatically lead to changes in the Calories-Out side—for example, metabolic adaption, the slowing of metabolic rate that accompanies weight loss. That’s one reason weight loss plateaus. 
 
Imagine a sedentary, 30-year-old woman of average height who weighs 150 pounds. According to the 3,500-calorie rule, if she cuts 500 calories out of her daily diet, she’d lose a pound a week or 52 pounds a year. In three years, she would vanish. She’d go from 150 pounds to -6. Obviously, that doesn’t happen. Instead, as you can see in the graph below and at 4:33 in my video, in the first year, she’d likely lose 32 pounds, not 52. Then, after a total of three years, she’d probably stabilize at about 100 pounds. This is because it takes fewer calories to exist as a thin person.  

Part of it is “simple mechanics”: More energy is required to move a heavier mass, in the same way a Hummer requires more fuel than a compact car. Think how much more effort it would take to just get up from a chair, walk across the room, or climb a few stairs if you were carrying a 50-pound backpack. Even when you’re at rest, sound asleep, there’s simply less of your body to maintain as you lose weight. Every pound of fat tissue lost may mean one less mile of blood vessels through which your body has to pump blood every minute. So, the basic upkeep and movement of thinner bodies take fewer calories. As you lose weight by eating less, you end up needing less. That’s what the 3,500-calorie rule doesn’t take into account. 
 
Imagine it another way: A 200-pound man starts consuming 500 more calories a day, maybe by drinking a large soda or eating two donuts. According to the 3,500-calorie rule, in ten years, he’d weigh more than 700 pounds. That doesn’t happen because, the heavier he is, the more calories he burns just by existing. If you’re 100 pounds overweight, it’s as if there’s a skinny person inside you trying to walk around balancing 13 gallons of oil or lugging around a sack filled with 400 sticks of butter. As you can see in the graph below and at 6:13 in my video, it takes about two donuts’ worth of extra energy just to live at 250 pounds, so that’s where you’d plateau if you kept it up. Given a certain calorie excess or deficit, weight gain or weight loss is a curve that flattens out over time, rather than a straight line up or down. 

Nevertheless, the 3,500-calorie rule continues to crop up, even in obesity journals. Public health researchers used it to calculate how many pounds children might lose every year if, for example, fast-food kids’ meals swapped in apple slices for french fries. You can see the “Counting Calories in Kids’ Meals” graphic below and at 6:39 in my video. 

They figured that two meals a week could add up to about four pounds a year. The actual difference, National Restaurant Association–funded researchers were no doubt delighted to point out, would probably add less than half a pound—ten times less than the 3,500-calorie rule would predict, as you can see below and at 7:06 in my video. That original article was subsequently retracted. 

 
The 3,500 Calorie per Pound Rule Is Wrong is the first of 14 videos that are part of my fasting series, about which I did two webinars. The videos are on NutritionFacts.org, or you can get them all now in a digital download at Intermittent Fasting. You may also be interested in my webinars on Fasting and Disease Reversal and Fasting and Cancer.

Other videos in this series are included in related videos below. 
 
Check out some other popular videos on weight loss.

I also recently tackled the ketogenic diet.

from NutritionFacts.org https://ift.tt/UMztkiZ
via IFTTT

What are the effects of the female sex hormones in cow’s milk on men, women, and children? 
 
All foods of animal origin contain hormones, but most of our dietary exposure to hormones comes from dairy products. By quantity, as you can see below and at 0:16 in my video The Effects of Hormones in Dairy Milk on Cancer, it is mostly prolactin, corticosteroids, and progesterone, but there are also a bunch of estrogens, which concentrate even further when other dairy products are made. For instance, hormones are five times more concentrated in cream and cheese, and ten times more in butter. 

When it comes to steroid hormones in the food supply, about three-quarters of our exposure to ingested female sex steroids come from dairy, and the rest is split evenly between eggs and meat (including fish). Indeed, eggs contribute about as much as all meat combined, which makes a certain amount of sense since an egg comes straight from a hen’s ovary. Among the various types of meat, you get as much from white meat (fish and poultry) as you do from pork and beef, and this is just from natural hormones—not added hormone injections, like bovine growth hormone. So, it doesn’t matter if the meat is organic. Animals produce hormones because they’re animals, and their hormones understandably end up in animal products. 
 
About half of the people surveyed “did not know that milk naturally contains hormones,” and many “lacked basic knowledge (22% did not know that cows only give milk after calving)”—that is, they didn’t realize what milk is for—feeding baby calves. Researchers suggested we ought to inform the public about dairy production practices. In response, one Journal of Dairy Science respondent wrote that telling the public about the industry’s new technologies, like transgenic animals (meaning genetically engineered farm animals), “or contentious husbandry practices” (such as taking away that newly born calf so we can have more of the milk or “zero-grazing for dairy cows”—i.e., not letting cows out on grass), “does not result in high rates of public approval,” so ixnay on the educationay. 
 
The public may not know the extent to which they are exposed to estrogen through the intake of commercial milk produced from pregnant cows, which has potential public health implications. “Modern genetically improved dairy cows, such as the Holstein,” the stereotypical black and white cow, can get reimpregnated after giving birth and lactate throughout almost their entire next pregnancy, which means that, these days, commercial cow’s milk contains large amounts of pregnancy hormones, like estrogens and progesterone. 
 
As you can see in the graph below and at 2:42 in my video, during the first eight months of a pregnant cow’s nine-month gestation, hormone levels in her milk shoot up more than 20-fold. Even so, we’re only talking about a millionth of a gram per quart, easily 10 to 20 times less estrogen hormones than you’d find in a birth control pill. In that case, would drinking it really have an effect on human hormone levels? 

Researchers analyzed three different estrogens and one progesterone metabolite flowing through the bodies of seven men before and after they drank about a liter of milk. Within hours of drinking the milk, their hormone levels shot up, as you can see in the graph below and at 3:08 in my video. 

The researchers also looked at the average levels of female sex steroids flowing through the bodies of six schoolchildren (with an average age of eight) before and after they drank about two cups of milk. Within hours of drinking the milk, their levels shot up, tripling or quadrupling their baseline hormone levels, as you can see in the graph below and at 3:23 in my video. So, one can imagine the effects milk might have on men or prepubescent children, but what about women? Presumably, women would have high levels of estrogen in their body in the first place, wouldn’t they? Well, not all women. 

What about postmenopausal women and endometrial cancer, for example? Estrogens have “a central role” in the development of endometrial cancer, cancer of the lining of the uterus. “Milk and dairy products are a source of steroid hormones and growth factors that might have physiological effects in humans.” So, Harvard researchers followed tens of thousands of women and their dairy consumption for decades and found a significantly higher risk of endometrial cancer among postmenopausal women who consumed more dairy, as shown below and at 4:19 in my video. 
What about dietary exposure to hormones and breast cancer? Unfortunately, “understanding the role of dietary hormone exposure in the population burden of breast cancer is not possible at this time.” 

For more on the relationship between cancer and dairy, see related videos below. 

I talk about the effect of dairy estrogen on men in Dairy Estrogen and Male Fertility.

What about the phytoestrogens in soy? See here.

from NutritionFacts.org https://ift.tt/BmRzCQ3
via IFTTT