calorie cycling or steady calories??

I eat every 2-3 hours 200-400 calorie meals, I stay within 1700-1800 calories a day.

In a recent forum the topic of calorie cycling came up.

My question is, is it better to have a steady state of calories per day, or cycle the amounts?

Steady state would be the same amount within 100 calories of your goal everyday.

Cycle would be 2000 one day, 1500 another day, then 1700, and so on and so forth.

Which is better for your metabolism? steady or cycle?

Replies

Snikkee

SideSteel

I would base this decision on personal preference and gym performance.

LaurenAOK

Oh god I just came from that other thread, hope this one doesn't turn into as much of a mess as that one did!!

Anyway, I don't think one is necessarily "better" for weight loss. It's up to personal preference. Personally, I like calorie cycling. I like being able to go over my "steady" goal sometimes and not worry about it. I also think there are studies out there that show the benefits of calorie cycling for your metabolism (I'm too lazy to look some up right now, sorry).

Plenty of people have great success with steady calories, too, though. So it's really whatever you want! I think some people have problems with calorie cycling triggering them to binge more often. If you have issues with that, steady might be a safer bet for you.

RobynLB83

I've wanted to try calorie cycling. However, I think it's easier for me to just stick to the same goal every day. I think I'll be tempted go over and call it my high day... a bit more often than is called for.

Snikkee

yeah...... unsure of the benefits of calorie cycling.. what about carb cycling?

SideSteel

yeah...... unsure of the benefits of calorie cycling.. what about carb cycling?

They're basically the same. Typically when you cycle calories you do so by bringing carbs up and down.

Once again though, I don't think the benefits (if any) will show themselves until you're already quite lean.

SkinTightDenims

An interesting question.

My daily calories tend to zig-zag, but then again so does my daily activity. One day I'll spend the workday at my desk, and go home and catch up on my shows from my DVR. That day I'll have a no-calorie drink and a boiled egg for breakfast (78 calories), and an no-calorie drink and my own recipe vegetable soup for lunch (87 calories), and then eat pasta with lean meat and salad for dinner. That day my calorie intake is very low, but so is my calorie output.

Another day, I'll pack up and go hiking all day. That day I'll have a sausage egg biscuit for breakfast and a sub sandwich for lunch, then maybe a grilled steak and salad for dinner. High calorie intake for high calorie output.

Even so, my net calories don't generally tend to go over 1,200, and sometimes not over 600. Yes I realize I'm in danger of the dreaded 'starvation mode' metabolism trap. That's another time I've found zig-zagging calories helpful. High net calories one day and low the next helps 'trick' my body. Whenever I've hit a plateau, zig-zagging seems to get me off the edge and back in the right direction.

Maybe slow and steady calorie intake and output will work well for you. I would say it totally depends on your lifestyle, your weight loss goals and time frame, and your own metabolism.

jacksonpt

I would base this decision on personal preference and gym performance.

Agreed.

I tend to think steady is better for most, but ultimately it doesn't matter. Hit your macros, hit your cals, and kick *kitten* during your workouts.

chatnel

Would be interested to know if anyone has had sucess doing this. As I have been going way over on the weekends and under Monday to Thursday.

jessiefied

I tend to go in a 3 day cycle; day one I eat over my calories limit, day two I eat just under and day three I eat about 2/3 of my calories. That's just what my body seems to do its nothing I've planned. Anyway I'm loosing weight so it seems to be fine and after a full week I'm still under over all. Somedays your just hungrier than others!

SuperCrsa

Bump

QuietBloom

Personal preference. I don't think either way has been shown to be superior.

katorihanzo

I've begun doing this recently and it's great. I stuck to a steady calorie goal everyday and lost 35 lbs but hit a plateau. I have only a little left to lose and according to what I've read, my body has entered a "famine" mode (which sounds pretty dramatic). Basically our bodies have evolved to get the hint after a while that we're not eating as much as we need. This can lead to two things: catabolism and homeostasis. Homeostasis is when your body slows your metabolism because of that whole "famine" thing. The two kind of overlap, since in homeostasis your body will hold onto fat and burn muscle tissue which is what catabolism is. Which is especially unfortunate since muscle burns more energy and you obviously want to have it, especially when trying to lose weight.

I eat a total of 10,010 calories a week to lose 1lb per week (always eating back exercise cals). I cycle everyday, sometimes eating as many as 1750 a day, sometimes as few as 1210. I pair the calorie intake with the amount of exercise I'll be doing.

It doesn't make much sense that this would work better for everyone. The only real difference is that I'm tracking weekly and not daily. As I understand it, it stops my body from entering homeostasis so if your body wasn't in that mode, it shouldn't work any better. There hasn't been much research on cycling, only anecdotes. I stumbled upon it by accident - hit a plateau and then ate unevenly for a week, lost 2 lbs and did some research.

Anyway. If you're down to the last 10 or so lbs, your average intake is generally low (because otherwise your body probably wouldn't enter homeostasis anyway) and you've hit a plateau, it's worth trying. It's not like it's some dumb fad diet - just a different way to track.