That link is debunking the myth that dieting - and then restoring weight to "normal" for you - leads to "conservation". I agree that is a myth, and it really makes no sense if you think about it. Even if we tie the "yo yo dieting destroys metabolism" theory into the "excess fat cells contribute to conservation mode at higher weights & weight loss resistance" theory (i.e. yo yo dieting leads to more fat cells)... it STILL doesn't make sense. Because, we are assuming we are talking about people with a dieting history who are presently making no attempts to suppress or manipulate weight. Therefore, their fat cells should be adequately filled (even if more numerous due to a life of starving/binging cycles and therefore set point is now very high).

While I do believe repeated dieting can lead to a proliferation of fat cells and a RAISING of set point, I don't believe anyone is arguing that yo-yo dieting causes bodies to permanently be in conservation mode.

It works like this...
diet (starvation) at 160 lbs ---> weight loss to 130 ---> body begins to reject the deprivation (leptin depletion) ---> body triggers behaviors which lead to fat gain (diet attrition / binge eating) ---> fat gain is precipitated by hyperinsulinemia triggered from over eating ---> hyperinsulinemia and rapid weight gain leads to fat cell proliferation ---> fat cell proliferation results in old weight of 160 now being raised to a new set point of 165 ---> starvation / dieting at 165.... repeat until one becomes huge.


So that link is really a moot point in this discussion.

Now as to whether or not conservation mode in ACTIVE weight suppression is real... hehe.
"Conservation mode" in response to abnormally shrunk fat cells is most definitely a very real thing. I'm actually sitting here laughing a little because I'm living it, so for me to argue that it's real is kind of like arguing the sky is blue it's just so self evident to me. First let me say it's the sort of thing you have to first hand experience, and then you KNOW it's real. Trust me kwikdriver, I'm not imagining dry papery skin, amenorrhea, dull thin hair, flaky/slow growing nails, etc. It's kind of like insulin resistance/carbohydrate sensitivity in that those who don't have it are reluctant to believe it's real because it challenges previously held notions (my brother, who doesn't have it, thinks I'm crazy and just "need to use willpower" like all those other fat slobs).

I don't expect you to take my first hand testimony as "proof", if situations were reversed I wouldn't believe you either. However, there's a LOT of research out there on how/why the body conserves energy in response to dramatic fat loss and becoming underweight.
I know it was established earlier in the discussion that we should separate becoming "underweight" from attempting to suppress weight to normal levels, but I don't think this is possible. This is because "underweight" for a formerly obese person is usually normal or even slightly overweight for the general population! That's the crux of this debate - that suppressing weight to "normal" isn't healthy for those who are extremely obese.
It's important to note that evidence suggests that some arbitrary height/weight chart or "pounds of body fat" or "percentage of body fat" do not determine the individual point at which you become underweight for your body, and thus begin to enter "conservation mode". For the general population they (charts/body fat calipers/etc) are useful, but for those who are extreme deviations of normal size (i.e. a woman who was 300 pounds), they aren't that important since we have waaay more fat cells and thus a higher need for fat to keep cells full.
What determines how "underweight" you are, and thus how deep in conservation mode you are, is amount of fat relative to amount of fat cells. It is the size of fat cells, how much fat they contain, which affects how those cells function, and whether or not they produce the hormones/chemicals that keep the body functioning well.
A very famous gastric bypass success story - she lost well over 200 pounds - started to become amenorrhetic at 150 pounds. She now takes birth control pills to bring on menses. I became amenorrhetic at 140 pounds and it remains uncorrected.

So yes, conservation mode is VERY real and yes, it is possible to enter conservation mode at "normal weight" if you have a tremendous excess of fat cells.
If interested, here's a link which goes into greater detail of the features of conservation mode. Please note this link deals specifically with starvation - total and complete malnutrition - but it's important to realize that this extreme manifestation of energy conservation is also occurring to a lesser degree in minor restricted eating/weight suppression.
http://www.merck.com/mrkshared/mman...chapter2/2b.jsp


First of all most of the studies praising the virtues of energy restriction and conservation mode have been confined to very simple organisms with very short lifespans. These animals are just a cluster of cells, extremely simple things. Restricting energy in complex animals with long lifespans, like humans, well it's apples and oranges. First of all, flies and creatures like that have a "low investment" strategy - they breed in HUGE quantities and live very short lives. They don't get "diseases": they don't get fractures and osteoporosis and muscle wasting and low energy and listlessness and depression, because they live and die in the blink of an eye. There's no such thing as a "healthy" fly and an "unhealthy" fly. Ever heard of a disease that affects a worm or a fruit fly?

Saying starvation helps flies live a few days longer, so it's a good idea for humans to live their extremely long lives in a chronically depleted state is just simplified ridiculously. Even if we assume there is some longevity & health benefit (example, there's likely a reduced risk of cancer) to reducing insulin activity, slowing anabolism/cell proliferation and decreasing the amount of free radicals in the byproduct of metabolism (by essentially inducing hypothyroidism and low metabolism through starvation)... in humans at least, it is very likely these benefits are outweighed by the numerous consequences of deprivation.


As to all those websites out there devoted to a calorie restricted way of life... well, there were a lot of sites out there which believe that the hale bopp comet would usher away the heavens gate cult into space after a mass suicide. Frankly, I think the sort of person who would be attracted to calorie restriction is a breath away from being diagnosed as eating disordered. It's extremely mentally unhealthy to feel being able to run on "less" will make you stronger or more powerful or somehow better, even if you are using badly interpreted science to justify your wacky crusade.

An interesting news article from the Ottawa Health Research Institute:
Bad news for dieters fat fights back: Ottawa researchers find fat cells are resistant to death
I've done a few searches and can't find how long it typically takes for them to die off. Anyone come across this?

Kwikdriver, I don't know how heavy you are currently or where you are starting from, but I never said partial reduction of obesity - naturally and totally healthfully - is possible. Most very obese people not only have numerous fat cells BUT they also have them filled to a very large size. So, they usually CAN naturally and healthfully and permanently reduce weight somewhat if the original source of over eating behavior or fat storage is corrected. This will not trigger any sort of starvation response because this is "extra" fat and there is still enough total body fat to keep fat cells full.

However, once the plateaus start happening, once the body starts resisting the losses, once the body starts acting like it's got only a little bit of fat left even though you're a good 60, 50, 40, 30 pounds overweight compared to "normal" people (or possibly even MORE if you were extremely obese) ... that's when it becomes pretty self evident that the body wants to hold on to its fat, very likely because losing more means shrinking fat cells to an uncomfortably small size ( due to their numerous quantities ).

I've been looking for this answer for a long time. I search every few months and have just never found anything. I don't think the scentists know yet.


I've often wondered how the body actually reduces the fat in cells. If you have 100 cells, are they all half emtpy or are 50 of them empty and 50 of them adequately full? Or are 75 of them empty and 25 are still overfull? My guess is that while we are losing, there are 75 of them empty and 25 are still overful. That people lose a lot of fat in certain places first (like the top half of the body) might support this theory.

I wonder then, if once you stop losing fat, the body begins to balance out to get to all of them being filled to about the same amount. Is this the process of fat redistribution that occurs once weight loss stops that people talk about? If that's the case, then maybe all those empty cells are crying out for food, but once the redistribution occurs and they are all partially filled, it cuts back on "crying for food" and you feel more normal. In a previously obese person, after redistribution, the cells might only be for example, 25% full, whereas in a never obese person they might be 75% full. This could also help explain why people who quit following a "diet" regain so much and why it might take a really long time for the fat cells to die. They are "in use" so to speak, so why should they die?

So if that's the case, then the issue becomes one of how to keep some of the fat cells empty long enough for them to die off. I know this is more supposition on top of supposition, but it is rather interesting.

Hello folks, this is very interesting, but too much info for me to process, can somebody give a summary of the viewpoints (please)

I think people lose weight in the way we do because of natural selection. As unsightly as some of us find it, the belly/midsection is physiologically the most convenient place for our bodies to store fat. It affects balance the least there, and is least restrictive to movement. People who stored fat elsewhere, the arms, for example, might not have been so good at throwing spears or gathering vegetables or running away from sabertooths or whatever, and found themselves selected out of the gene pool. An even better example is our legs. Leg fat is obviously extremely restrictive to movement; in a society that depended on movement -- fighting and fleeing -- that is lethal. IIRC, legs are the last place our bodies begin storing fat, and the first place it begins mobilizing it from as we lose. It makes sense.

That's really an interesting thought. A really good one, too. There seems to be so little research on the topic at all, and I've certainly never heard that point considered.

OM

Actually it doesn't say "restoring weight to normal;" it simply said the women were obese. Since they were apparently dieting during the study, it rather suggests they were under their "set points," if such things exist, during the time of the research. It isn't conclusive; nor was it meant to be. I used it to show how speculation was being built upon speculation to support a (pre-determined?) conclusion, which conclusion was speculative in its own right.




My concern here is that you are assuming the correctness of your deductions, while eliminating other, more plausible, explanations for the problems you are experiencing -- thus, the reference to Occam's Razor. I'm at a massive caloric deficit right now -- my deficit is probably greater than the # of calories you should be eating to maintain per day, and the only negative effects I'm experiencing is slowness of healing, and (possibly, there are some other potential causes I haven't ruled out), sleeping much more than I have historically. Other than that, I've seldom felt this good in my entire life.





I think you need to go over the research on this again. Monkeys are quite a bit more complex than fruit flies, and there is research out there on calorie restriction and monkeys.

Oh geez kwikdriver -- I guess this means I'm doomed to be eliminated in the process of natural selection -- I have HORRID leg fat!! I seem to be losing weight from the top down instead of the bottom up.....dang it, I've always been backwards!

I'm pretty sure this is only true for men. Men tend to get belly fat first and keep it until last.

Women tend to get fat in the hips and thighs, and that's where we generally lose last.

I think you're right, after reviewing some sources. And as the hunters/warriors, men gaining in the stomach makes sense from the standpoint of survival. Now, why would women gain in the hips and thighs? I can't think of an advantage from an evolutionary standpoint.

To help keep those skinny hunters warm at night.

Hips probably to protect the unborn child. Don't know why thighs, though, unless it was just spillover from the hips...

1234567890

Complete conjecture, but I'll guess it has to do with center of gravity.

A mans center is at the belly. Piling the weight there affects the balance least.

A woman's center is much lower, at the hips. Piling the weight there adds ballast, making us a little more sturdy, especially if trying to out run a bandersnatch while carrying a small child. Women's hips are wider and jointed a little differently, leaving plenty of room for some fat without interfering with movement.

Maybe?