Why is it a problem to “run cool” as I have described it?
It’s not. It’s a natural adaptation to a caloric deficit. If you think that’s what I’m arguing, then we’ve got a pretty big misunderstanding.
To make sure we’re talking about the same things, I’d like to clarify my understanding of “running cool.” You say that a person’s average calorie intake per day for weight maintenance is (for example) 2000 calories. If you eat 1900 calories for a week, you won’t lose the 1/5th of a pound you’d expect. Your metabolism might shift down to about 1950 per day, and you’d only lose 1/10th of a pound. Likewise, if you eat 2100 calories for a week, you won’t gain 1/5th of a pound. You’d fidget more, put off more body heat, etc and maybe gain 1/10th of a pound. Is that about right?
The extension that I’d make is that eventually the body completely adapts to the new calorie level, such that 1900 calories no longer results in any weight loss at all. It’s the new maintenance point. This is the downregulation I am talking about.
If our hypothetical-person started with a 500 calorie deficit, they’d likely get about 450 calories per day of weight loss and 50 calories of metabolic downregulation, or running cool. Eventually, 1,500 calories a day becomes the maintenance point, and you have to eat less food to continue to lose weight.
I would ask that you demonstrate actual harm from what you describe as “metabolic damage” or use a less loaded phrase.
Did you watch the videos or just turn them off after the extraordinary claim? The videos pretty clearly explain what happens to cause this situation. It’s not like a person would start off eating 800 calories, 2 hours of cardio, and not lose weight. The situation develops over a great deal of time. A person would start off with 2,000 calorie maintenance, and then eat 1,800 calories to lose weight. Eventually, fat loss stalls, and calorie intake has to go down to 1,600. Eventually, that stalls, and calories have to go down again. This repeats until you’re at a very low calorie intake level, such that the only way you can lose weight is by going into the actual starvation mode.
Does that sound good to you? I can see the benefit from an evolutionary standpoint to have the ability to survive that sort of intake with that energy output. But it isn’t something I’d want for myself, and it’s counterproductive to the goal of ‘losing fat’.
Fine, then please stop referring to it as “damage.” It’s not damage, it’s a perfectly normal and healthy way to live and it’s probably healthier than running hot.
The extension that I’d make is that eventually the body completely adapts to the new calorie level, such that 1900 calories no longer results in any weight loss at all. It’s the new maintenance point. This is the downregulation I am talking about.
That may very well be true.
Did you watch the videos or just turn them off after the extraordinary claim?
Turned them off.
This repeats until you’re at a very low calorie intake level, such that the only way you can lose weight is by going into the actual starvation mode.
I don’t believe this either. While there may exist some people with bona fide health problems whose bodies break down muscle and organs instead of fat deposits, as far as I know that’s extremely rare. Also I am extremely skeptical that calorie deprivation could cause such a problem.
Anyway, the bottom line is that you have failed to point demonstrate any actual harm in people with “damaged” metabolisms. So please stop misusing the word “damage”
Fine, then please stop referring to it as “damage.” It’s not damage, it’s a perfectly normal and healthy way to live and it’s probably healthier than running hot.
Sigh. Again, “running cool” is not “metabolic damage.” I’m not going to explain it again, as you’ve demonstrated an unwillingness to listen and consider what I’m saying or looking at the links I’ve provided.
Yes it is, using your own definition. And you have failed to demonstrate any actual harm which comes from “metabolic damage” So please stop misusing the word “damage”
I’m not going to explain it again, as you’ve demonstrated an unwillingness to listen and consider what I’m saying or looking at the links I’ve provided.
Nonsense, I’ve considered your argument carefully. As far as the links go, it’s not my responsibility to wade through an hour’s worth of youtube videos looking for evidence supporting or explanations of your point.
The fact is that you’ve made a couple extraordinary claims and you refuse to provide strong evidence, let alone extraordinary evidence to support those claims. You insist on misusing the word “damage” even while professing a distaste for the misuse of words. The problem isn’t my unwillingness to consider your point; the problem is your unwillingness to consider the flaws in your own point.
It’s not. It’s a natural adaptation to a caloric deficit. If you think that’s what I’m arguing, then we’ve got a pretty big misunderstanding.
To make sure we’re talking about the same things, I’d like to clarify my understanding of “running cool.” You say that a person’s average calorie intake per day for weight maintenance is (for example) 2000 calories. If you eat 1900 calories for a week, you won’t lose the 1/5th of a pound you’d expect. Your metabolism might shift down to about 1950 per day, and you’d only lose 1/10th of a pound. Likewise, if you eat 2100 calories for a week, you won’t gain 1/5th of a pound. You’d fidget more, put off more body heat, etc and maybe gain 1/10th of a pound. Is that about right?
The extension that I’d make is that eventually the body completely adapts to the new calorie level, such that 1900 calories no longer results in any weight loss at all. It’s the new maintenance point. This is the downregulation I am talking about.
If our hypothetical-person started with a 500 calorie deficit, they’d likely get about 450 calories per day of weight loss and 50 calories of metabolic downregulation, or running cool. Eventually, 1,500 calories a day becomes the maintenance point, and you have to eat less food to continue to lose weight.
Did you watch the videos or just turn them off after the extraordinary claim? The videos pretty clearly explain what happens to cause this situation. It’s not like a person would start off eating 800 calories, 2 hours of cardio, and not lose weight. The situation develops over a great deal of time. A person would start off with 2,000 calorie maintenance, and then eat 1,800 calories to lose weight. Eventually, fat loss stalls, and calorie intake has to go down to 1,600. Eventually, that stalls, and calories have to go down again. This repeats until you’re at a very low calorie intake level, such that the only way you can lose weight is by going into the actual starvation mode.
Does that sound good to you? I can see the benefit from an evolutionary standpoint to have the ability to survive that sort of intake with that energy output. But it isn’t something I’d want for myself, and it’s counterproductive to the goal of ‘losing fat’.
Fine, then please stop referring to it as “damage.” It’s not damage, it’s a perfectly normal and healthy way to live and it’s probably healthier than running hot.
That may very well be true.
Turned them off.
I don’t believe this either. While there may exist some people with bona fide health problems whose bodies break down muscle and organs instead of fat deposits, as far as I know that’s extremely rare. Also I am extremely skeptical that calorie deprivation could cause such a problem.
Anyway, the bottom line is that you have failed to point demonstrate any actual harm in people with “damaged” metabolisms. So please stop misusing the word “damage”
Sigh. Again, “running cool” is not “metabolic damage.” I’m not going to explain it again, as you’ve demonstrated an unwillingness to listen and consider what I’m saying or looking at the links I’ve provided.
Yes it is, using your own definition. And you have failed to demonstrate any actual harm which comes from “metabolic damage” So please stop misusing the word “damage”
Nonsense, I’ve considered your argument carefully. As far as the links go, it’s not my responsibility to wade through an hour’s worth of youtube videos looking for evidence supporting or explanations of your point.
The fact is that you’ve made a couple extraordinary claims and you refuse to provide strong evidence, let alone extraordinary evidence to support those claims. You insist on misusing the word “damage” even while professing a distaste for the misuse of words. The problem isn’t my unwillingness to consider your point; the problem is your unwillingness to consider the flaws in your own point.