Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Does eating extra calories "boost" your metabolism?
Geocitiesuser
Posts: 1,429 Member
I say no, but it sure does seem to be a common belief, both in the forums, and various articles.
Some say one cheat meal a week. Some say a day. Some say eating at maintenance or above for a whole WEEK helps metabolism.
But as far as my understanding goes, your metabolism is largely just how much you move/expend during a day, and that any difference in a basal metabolic rate is going to be negligible, 100 calories per day in the most extreme and rare cases.
Anytime I go off my "diet" I like to pretend I'm just refeeding. But in reality, it's all BS, no?
Some say one cheat meal a week. Some say a day. Some say eating at maintenance or above for a whole WEEK helps metabolism.
But as far as my understanding goes, your metabolism is largely just how much you move/expend during a day, and that any difference in a basal metabolic rate is going to be negligible, 100 calories per day in the most extreme and rare cases.
Anytime I go off my "diet" I like to pretend I'm just refeeding. But in reality, it's all BS, no?
1
Replies
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el0JH3hEY78&t=180s
It is actually good to have cheat meals/days once a week because they reverse your weight loss hormones side effects, just don't go berserk, and be +500 calories above your maintenance on that day.2 -
Geocitiesuser wrote: »I say no, but it sure does seem to be a common belief, both in the forums, and various articles.
Some say one cheat meal a week. Some say a day. Some say eating at maintenance or above for a whole WEEK helps metabolism.
But as far as my understanding goes, your metabolism is largely just how much you move/expend during a day, and that any difference in a basal metabolic rate is going to be negligible, 100 calories per day in the most extreme and rare cases.
Anytime I go off my "diet" I like to pretend I'm just refeeding. But in reality, it's all BS, no?
In all honesty, I've seen new people come on here and talk about cheat days boosting metabolism, but I've always seen the already successful veterans say that metabolism doesn't work like that. Diet breaks can be psychologically beneficial, if someone has been dieting for a long time that break can make it easier for them to stay on track. But I've never seen anyone I had any reason to listen to claim that a cheat day helps your metabolism.12 -
mohamedahmed07 wrote: »It is actually good to have cheat meals/days once a week because they reverse your weight loss hormones side effects, just don't go berserk, and be +500 calories above your maintenance on that day.
I watched the video, and while I understand the point he was trying to make, he never says specifically what hormones or bodily functions get "reset" by eating a day at maintenance or higher. Really the only thing he said was refilling glycogen stores which isn't an issue for people who aren't doing low carb diets anyway. He certainly never touched on the ideas of calorie adaptation etc.
He also talks about a state of catabolism like a bad thing, but all bodies are constantly either catabolic or anabolic at any time. There is no real "equilibrium". You can't lose fat without being catabolic.6 -
AFAIK the only thing that boosts metabolism is movement.
If eating more boosted metabolism, I'd be eating 4000 calories a day and losing weight.10 -
Geocitiesuser wrote: »mohamedahmed07 wrote: »It is actually good to have cheat meals/days once a week because they reverse your weight loss hormones side effects, just don't go berserk, and be +500 calories above your maintenance on that day.
I watched the video, and while I understand the point he was trying to make, he never says specifically what hormones or bodily functions get "reset" by eating a day at maintenance or higher. Really the only thing he said was refilling glycogen stores which isn't an issue for people who aren't doing low carb diets anyway. He certainly never touched on the ideas of calorie adaptation etc.
He also talks about a state of catabolism like a bad thing, but all bodies are constantly either catabolic or anabolic at any time. There is no real "equilibrium". You can't lose fat without being catabolic.
A refeed will boost leptin levels and when leptin levels are boosted it promotes a better hormonal profile in general...when dieting, testosterone levels dip...refeeds help boost testosterone as well as growth hormone and lower cortisol levels.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3943438/n the world of physique sports, periodic “refeeding” has become common in periods of extended dieting. A refeed consists of a brief overfeeding period in which caloric intake is raised slightly above maintenance levels, and the increase in caloric intake is predominantly achieved by increasing carbohydrate consumption. While studies have utilized refeeding protocols that last three days [71,72], physique athletes such as bodybuilders and figure competitors often incorporate 24-hour refeeds, once or twice per week. The proposed goal of periodic refeeding is to temporarily increase circulating leptin and stimulate the metabolic rate. There is evidence indicating that leptin is acutely responsive to short-term overfeeding [72], is highly correlated with carbohydrate intake [71,73], and that pharmacological administration of leptin reverses many unfavorable adaptations to energy restriction [33]. While interventions have shown acute increases in leptin from short-term carbohydrate overfeeding, the reported effect on metabolic rate has been modest [71]. Dirlewanger et al. reported a 7% increase in TDEE; this increase amounts to approximately 138 kilocalories of additional energy expenditure, of which 36 kilocalories can be attributed to the thermic effect of carbohydrate intake [71]. More research is needed to determine if acute bouts of refeeding are an efficacious strategy for improving weight loss success during prolonged hypocaloric states. A theoretical model of metabolic adaptation and potential strategies to attenuate adaptations is presented in Figure 210 -
Geocitiesuser wrote: »But in reality, it's all BS, no?
You've heard the phrase "a broken clock is right twice a day." It comes from a bygone era when clocks had moving arms, not displays that just go blank.
I think what's going on is that some things can be useful, but for reasons other than you'd think.
I've never seen any evidence of metabolism being "boosted" like we're talking about, or weight loss hormones, or other nebulous things that could potentially be true but you can't actually know for sure. On the other hand, dieting is hard, it requires sacrifice. I know a lot of people disagree with that, you can diet well, but people got fat by eating too much, because they were eating as they saw fit, and when they lose weight, they're eating less than that, by definition a sacrifice. Cheat meals or days or whatever can help some people cope with that, it gives them a light at the end of the tunnel to focus on.
So I think BS is perhaps a bit strong a term, but I basically agree. Metabolism isn't an independent thing like a garbage man who comes and hauls your calories away, that might judge you according to your diet and hunger level. But it can still help some people for a different reason: long term adherence.6 -
It's not said to eat more to boost metabolism. Diet breaks are for hormones to level out again and sort out any adaptive thermogenesis that has taken place. Which is upregulation not boost.
Cheat meals or refeeds, to the general dieter, are not really necessary or effective, they're more of a way for people to remain compliant or justify eating something they have either been depriving themselves of or think is "bad".
Neither of these two things boost metabolism and i have never seen this said by veterans, as stated above.3 -
This article has been linked to before
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-full-diet-break.html/
But I'm not sure that is what you are referring to. I know I've gotten a bit tired and felt run down so I've taken a couple of breaks. But I may have been fighting a bug as well, as most of my staff were off sick close enough to the same time that that might have been my issue. I just know that after a week or so I was able to get back to my deficit and continue on with little impact to my weight loss.1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »
A refeed will boost leptin levels and when leptin levels are boosted it promotes a better hormonal profile in general...when dieting, testosterone levels dip...refeeds help boost testosterone as well as growth hormone and lower cortisol levels.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3943438/
I made the mistake of googling about leptin, holy bro science, looks like there was a period in 2012ish that swore leptin as the miracle hormone. My understanding of leptin is that it primarily regulate hunger and wouldn't have an over all effect on a basal metabolic rate. If refeeding really refuels leptin, its greatest benefit would be controlling hunger, but don't most of us experience the greatest hunger control through fasting? I know I do.
The testosterone issue is different. I'm not so sure small refeeds could really boost testosterone, especially not as much as eating a diet plenty in saturated fat/cholesterol (the building blocks of testosterone), is there literature that shows a weekly refeed can actually keep testosterone elevated enough that it is significant? I'm assuming again, but I would think if it was true every man on the planet would refeed twice a week and it would be standard advice since test is seen as the holy grail of maintaining muscle mass.
Please don't misconstrue me as combative, just healthy debate.3 -
Geocitiesuser wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »
A refeed will boost leptin levels and when leptin levels are boosted it promotes a better hormonal profile in general...when dieting, testosterone levels dip...refeeds help boost testosterone as well as growth hormone and lower cortisol levels.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3943438/
I made the mistake of googling about leptin, holy bro science, looks like there was a period in 2012ish that swore leptin as the miracle hormone. My understanding of leptin is that it primarily regulate hunger and wouldn't have an over all effect on a basal metabolic rate. If refeeding really refuels leptin, its greatest benefit would be controlling hunger, but don't most of us experience the greatest hunger control through fasting? I know I do.
The testosterone issue is different. I'm not so sure small refeeds could really boost testosterone, especially not as much as eating a diet plenty in saturated fat/cholesterol (the building blocks of testosterone), is there literature that shows a weekly refeed can actually keep testosterone elevated enough that it is significant? I'm assuming again, but I would think if it was true every man on the planet would refeed twice a week and it would be standard advice since test is seen as the holy grail of maintaining muscle mass.
Please don't misconstrue me as combative, just healthy debate.
According to the link, increase in leptin adds about 7% increase to metabolism which is modest, but it is what it is.
In regards to testosterone, when you increase leptin, you increase liver glycogen which in turn will drive up testosterone...I don't know how much, but I would imagine significance and effectiveness would also be determined by how steep one's calorie deficit is and for how long...and yes, getting in plenty of dietary fat is going to make a big difference...something a lot of people cut way back on when dieting unfortunately.0 -
It pretty much depends on how long one's been dieting and at how steep a deficit.Geocitiesuser wrote: »mohamedahmed07 wrote: »It is actually good to have cheat meals/days once a week because they reverse your weight loss hormones side effects, just don't go berserk, and be +500 calories above your maintenance on that day.
I watched the video, and while I understand the point he was trying to make, he never says specifically what hormones or bodily functions get "reset" by eating a day at maintenance or higher. Really the only thing he said was refilling glycogen stores which isn't an issue for people who aren't doing low carb diets anyway. He certainly never touched on the ideas of calorie adaptation etc.
He also talks about a state of catabolism like a bad thing, but all bodies are constantly either catabolic or anabolic at any time. There is no real "equilibrium". You can't lose fat without being catabolic.
This isn't true. Glycogen stores can be depleted in dieters who are not on low carb diets and exercise. It depends on how much exercise, what type, how many carbs are eaten in relation to the exercise, etc.
In my case, I take a diet break when I get to feeling run down for a week or so. Basal metabolism aside, it doesn't take much of an increase in calories for me to feel much better which means I move more and therefore burn more.5 -
In my personal experience, higher calorie days make me want to move more. Staying in a deficit for a long time (close to goal weight) puts me in a foul mood and all I want to do is lay around. So I am burning more when I consume more. In a literal sense, my metabolism (sum of all anabolic and catabolic reactions) is 'boosted', even if my net calories are exactly the same.1
-
It's THIS. If one has been on a diet for awhile and is not seeing any progress, then adaptive thermogenesis has likely set in.VintageFeline wrote: »It's not said to eat more to boost metabolism. Diet breaks are for hormones to level out again and sort out any adaptive thermogenesis that has taken place. Which is upregulation not boost.
Cheat meals or refeeds, to the general dieter, are not really necessary or effective, they're more of a way for people to remain compliant or justify eating something they have either been depriving themselves of or think is "bad".
Neither of these two things boost metabolism and i have never seen this said by veterans, as stated above.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
3 -
I'm starting weight loss again and have a re-feed day. It's not to "boost metabolism" and honestly 1 day isn't enough to increase leptin levels, even two days isn't. I do think it's good for mind and body though. With heavy training, I like having one higher carb day that falls on a high volume lower body day. I get a better workout in, I have less stress on Saturday when it comes to socializing, a little extra energy. All good.2
-
It's THIS. If one has been on a diet for awhile and is not seeing any progress, then adaptive thermogenesis has likely set in.VintageFeline wrote: »It's not said to eat more to boost metabolism. Diet breaks are for hormones to level out again and sort out any adaptive thermogenesis that has taken place. Which is upregulation not boost.
Cheat meals or refeeds, to the general dieter, are not really necessary or effective, they're more of a way for people to remain compliant or justify eating something they have either been depriving themselves of or think is "bad".
Neither of these two things boost metabolism and i have never seen this said by veterans, as stated above.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Adaptive thermogenesis is starvation mode. That's the part I find highly suspect. I can see if you're at an extreme calorie defecit your body would find a way to shave a hundred cals off of your TDEE, but it would still be simple CICO and any slow down, even in extreme cases, would be mostly negligible. Especially if someone is still overweight.
Same disclaimer as earlier, not trying to be combative. Just healthy debate.0 -
Geocitiesuser wrote: »
Adaptive thermogenesis is starvation mode. That's the part I find highly suspect. I can see if you're at an extreme calorie defecit your body would find a way to shave a hundred cals off of your TDEE, but it would still be simple CICO and any slow down, even in extreme cases, would be mostly negligible. Especially if someone is still overweight.
Same disclaimer as earlier, not trying to be combative. Just healthy debate.
To split hairs
: Usually "starvation mode" is used to mean your body is holding onto fat even though you're in a deficit because it's afraid you are never going to eat again. Which yes is total bunk.
Adaptive thermogenesis means that over a long period of time when eating at a deficit your body slowly becomes more efficient to adapt to your new calorie level, which at least to me makes more sense. We're talking about years at a measurable deficit. All the reports that came out I think last summer freaking out about The Biggest Loser contestants whose BMRs were lower than should have been expected were basically about that. And I think it makes sense that if you put your body through the ringer for a year, eating at a big deficit and exercising a lot, it would try to become more efficient in that circumstance, just like it builds up specific muscles so you can do the same movement easier when you start a new exercise. At least that's my unscientific way of looking at it!
I agree, I wouldn't think it would be a ton of difference, but if I remember correctly the Biggest Loser study was a noticeable difference. And for a petite female like me, 100 calories can be the difference between happy and hangry
1 -
Do you remember what the change in BMR for the biggest loser contestants was?
Oh, and I totally agree about 100 calories being the difference between hangry or not sometimes. But in the grand scheme of things, for the average person it means a maintenance level of 1900 cals vs 2000, or cutting cals of 1650 instead of 1750. So, not a huge deal, just in my opinion. Petites and others obviously being the exception.0 -
Geocitiesuser wrote: »Do you remember what the change in BMR for the biggest loser contestants was?
Oh, and I totally agree about 100 calories being the difference between hangry or not sometimes. But in the grand scheme of things, for the average person it means a maintenance level of 1900 cals vs 2000, or cutting cals of 1650 instead of 1750. So, not a huge deal, just in my opinion. Petites and others obviously being the exception.
I don't remember, but if you search Biggest Loser in the forum I know there were a bunch of threads about it. Maybe even in the debate section I think?0 -
Holy Kittens (and puppies, and whatever other expletive animal)
That is significant if true... 800 calories lower BMR than a man of similar size.
I am very curious who the common dieter would be effected, and how long it takes for this number to recover if at all. That's a very large number... I can't seem to find out "how" they measured it, part of me wants to call junk science but I don't have enough info.
Got that from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html?_r=0
On topic for this conversation they actually blame a lot of the weight gain on leptin levels. Which brings a lot of questions if leptin levels can be fixed over time through good eating habits and exercise.
---
Of course all this interesting stuff doesn't address my core debate topic That a cheat day or cheat meal does very little towards boosting metabolism. Even a whole week it seems wouldn't boost metabolism, or the biggest losers wouldn't still have such low BMRs after putting weight back on. 1 -
May be worth a read for you: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
[ETA:] One more, which addresses the original topic in more detail: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/calorie-partitioning-part-2.html/
[ETA again:] And a follow-up to the first link above: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/permanent-metabolic-damage-followup-qa.html/1 -
No such thing. The bodies first and foremost concern is survival. If one is supplying calories to keep the body catabolic, the body will respond first and foremost by adapting metabolic rate. That's why when one goes on a consistent deficit for a period of time, it automatically starts to lower metabolic rate. And vice versa. People who surplus and gain weight will see an increase in metabolic rate.Geocitiesuser wrote: »
It's THIS. If one has been on a diet for awhile and is not seeing any progress, then adaptive thermogenesis has likely set in.VintageFeline wrote: »It's not said to eat more to boost metabolism. Diet breaks are for hormones to level out again and sort out any adaptive thermogenesis that has taken place. Which is upregulation not boost.
Cheat meals or refeeds, to the general dieter, are not really necessary or effective, they're more of a way for people to remain compliant or justify eating something they have either been depriving themselves of or think is "bad".
Neither of these two things boost metabolism and i have never seen this said by veterans, as stated above.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Adaptive thermogenesis is starvation mode. That's the part I find highly suspect. I can see if you're at an extreme calorie defecit your body would find a way to shave a hundred cals off of your TDEE, but it would still be simple CICO and any slow down, even in extreme cases, would be mostly negligible. Especially if someone is still overweight.
Same disclaimer as earlier, not trying to be combative. Just healthy debate.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
For me, it's as simple as "I jack up calories, especially in the form of carbohydrate, and I can't stop *kitten* moving". This is easily verified by a simple glance at my steptracker history over the last few months, as well as my training volume.
Within four days of starting my RFL cutting, I can see my steps drop from 25,000+ per day, to around 15,000. Once I come back to maintence and hit a two day refeed, I'm back over 20k, and I can watch it steadily increase, nearly in lockstep with my caloric intake. It makes bulking a pain in the *kitten*, but c'est la vie. At my high point this previous winter, I was hitting well over 40k per day, plus weight training, so even at 175 lbs., I was having to shove 4200 kcals into myself every day, just to keep 0.6-1.0 lbs./week gained rolling.0 -
@Geocitiesuser:
If you go to the original study (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/full)
They have this nice table. The participants TEE (total energy expenditure) was 3,000 calories at the end of the study, and 3,429 calories 6 years later. At the end of the competition they weighed on average 199.3 pounds. At the end of 6 years they weighed on average 289. They gained almost 90 pounds in 6 years despite the fact they have TEE's of 3,000. That means they were eating over 3,000 calories each day to the point were they gained 90 pounds.
What Mr. Cahill is complaining about is the fact the predicted RMR (resting metaoblic rate) is 2,403 calories, yet the measured RMR was 1,903. The study did not compare Mr. Cahill's RMR to someone of his weight who had never lost weight, they simply compared it to the predictive. The National Weight Control Registery, on the other hand, did compare metabolisms of those who had lost weight and those who had never lost weight and this is what they found:
RESULTS:
A stepwise multiple regression found lean mass, fat mass, age, and sex to be the best predictors of RMR in both groups. After adjusting RMR for these variables, we found no significant difference in RMR (5926 +/- 106 and 6015 +/- 104 kJ/d) between the 2 groups (P = 0.35). When we adjusted fasting RQ for percentage body fat and age, the reduced-obese group had a slightly higher (0.807 +/- 0.006) RQ than the control group (0.791 +/- 0.005, P = 0.05). This may have been due to the consumption of a diet lower in fat or to a reduced capacity for fat oxidation in the reduced-obese group.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10357738?dopt=Abstract
In summery, their metabolisms are not damaged. They went on the Biggest Loser after years, if not decades of bad habits, were put in an intensive weight loss camp that was not reflective of their lifestyle off the show and did not learn any effective coping mechanisms. When they went back home, they went back to old habits and the weight came back. The fact Mr. Cahill says this in the article: “All my friends were drinking beer and not gaining massive amounts of weight,” Mr. Cahill said. “The moment I started drinking beer, there goes another 20 pounds. I said, ‘This is not right. Something is wrong with my body.’”
He wants to eat whatever he wants, whenever he wants, as much as he wants, and not have to deal with the consequences. I am not surprised he gained so much weight back. He hasn't addressed the root cause which is that he eating too much.
Contrast what he says with Erinn Egbert, one of the few were able to keep the weight off: “What people don’t understand is that a treat is like a drug,” said Ms. Egbert, who went from 263 pounds to just under 176 on the show, and now weighs between 152 and 157. “Two treats can turn into a binge over a three-day period. That is what I struggle with.”
She gets it, and that is why she has maintained weight loss and continued to lose after the show.
7 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »For me, it's as simple as "I jack up calories, especially in the form of carbohydrate, and I can't stop *kitten* moving". This is easily verified by a simple glance at my steptracker history over the last few months, as well as my training volume.
Within four days of starting my RFL cutting, I can see my steps drop from 25,000+ per day, to around 15,000. Once I come back to maintence and hit a two day refeed, I'm back over 20k, and I can watch it steadily increase, nearly in lockstep with my caloric intake. It makes bulking a pain in the *kitten*, but c'est la vie. At my high point this previous winter, I was hitting well over 40k per day, plus weight training, so even at 175 lbs., I was having to shove 4200 kcals into myself every day, just to keep 0.6-1.0 lbs./week gained rolling.
How in the world did you manage almost 25km every single day? This is what I want to know.
I think they mean 20,000 steps not 20 kilometers when they say 20k.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »For me, it's as simple as "I jack up calories, especially in the form of carbohydrate, and I can't stop *kitten* moving". This is easily verified by a simple glance at my steptracker history over the last few months, as well as my training volume.
Within four days of starting my RFL cutting, I can see my steps drop from 25,000+ per day, to around 15,000. Once I come back to maintence and hit a two day refeed, I'm back over 20k, and I can watch it steadily increase, nearly in lockstep with my caloric intake. It makes bulking a pain in the *kitten*, but c'est la vie. At my high point this previous winter, I was hitting well over 40k per day, plus weight training, so even at 175 lbs., I was having to shove 4200 kcals into myself every day, just to keep 0.6-1.0 lbs./week gained rolling.
How in the world did you manage almost 25km every single day? This is what I want to know.
I have a 2.4' stride length, so my 41,000 step days would be close to 30 km/day. I did it by basically never stopping moving. I wasn't joking when I said that I couldn't sit still on 4200 calories per day. If I wasn't eating, sleeping, showering or otherwise utilizing the bathroom, I was in motion; even during weight training, there were no real rest periods.
I don't work in the winter, so I was free to conduct my days however I desired.0 -
AFAIK the only thing that boosts metabolism is movement.
If eating more boosted metabolism, I'd be eating 4000 calories a day and losing weight.
Gaining muscle mass will also work. It takes more to keep muscle alive than it does to keep fat alive. Which actually may be a reason someone's BMR is lowered after losing and regaining weight, because the regain might be more fat than muscle, particularly if it happens very fast.1 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »AFAIK the only thing that boosts metabolism is movement.
If eating more boosted metabolism, I'd be eating 4000 calories a day and losing weight.
Gaining muscle mass will also work. It takes more to keep muscle alive than it does to keep fat alive. Which actually may be a reason someone's BMR is lowered after losing and regaining weight, because the regain might be more fat than muscle, particularly if it happens very fast.
Gaining muscle doesn't add much unless you gain a lot of muscle. Roughly 4-6 calories per day for every lb of muscle you gain.
Also, while really long, the below vid is really informative when it comes to reverse dieting. Many of the concepts apply to this discussion. Essentially, there are a lot of variables; leanness, length of a deficit, metabolic efficiencies (how your body responds to calorie cuts (talked about several times in the video)), genetics, etc...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swrul81qco8 1 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »AFAIK the only thing that boosts metabolism is movement.
If eating more boosted metabolism, I'd be eating 4000 calories a day and losing weight.
Gaining muscle mass will also work. It takes more to keep muscle alive than it does to keep fat alive. Which actually may be a reason someone's BMR is lowered after losing and regaining weight, because the regain might be more fat than muscle, particularly if it happens very fast.
Gaining muscle doesn't add much unless you gain a lot of muscle. Roughly 4-6 calories per day for every lb of muscle you gain.
Also, while really long, the below vid is really informative when it comes to reverse dieting. Many of the concepts apply to this discussion. Essentially, there are a lot of variables; leanness, length of a deficit, metabolic efficiencies (how your body responds to calorie cuts (talked about several times in the video)), genetics, etc...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swrul81qco8
If everything else about two people is the same (like identical twins) and one of them is 175lb at 10% body fat and the other is 175lb at 30% body fat, the leaner one will have a higher RMR. Yes, there are other variables, but "leanness" (body composition) as you stated is one of them.
It doesn't sound like a lot, 4-6 calories per pound. It's 40-60 calories for 10 pounds. If you've got that extra 10 pounds in muscle and are eating a little bit more due to not accurately tracking portions, you might maintain your weight. If the extra 10 pounds is fat, and you're not tracking your potions accurately, you might see the scale going up 5 pounds a year and wondering why that is.
The difference between the person with more muscle mass than fat mass is half an ounce of cheese a day. Something it's easy to have creep into the intake.1 -
NO2
-
heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »AFAIK the only thing that boosts metabolism is movement.
If eating more boosted metabolism, I'd be eating 4000 calories a day and losing weight.
Gaining muscle mass will also work. It takes more to keep muscle alive than it does to keep fat alive. Which actually may be a reason someone's BMR is lowered after losing and regaining weight, because the regain might be more fat than muscle, particularly if it happens very fast.
Gaining muscle doesn't add much unless you gain a lot of muscle. Roughly 4-6 calories per day for every lb of muscle you gain.
Also, while really long, the below vid is really informative when it comes to reverse dieting. Many of the concepts apply to this discussion. Essentially, there are a lot of variables; leanness, length of a deficit, metabolic efficiencies (how your body responds to calorie cuts (talked about several times in the video)), genetics, etc...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swrul81qco8
If everything else about two people is the same (like identical twins) and one of them is 175lb at 10% body fat and the other is 175lb at 30% body fat, the leaner one will have a higher RMR. Yes, there are other variables, but "leanness" (body composition) as you stated is one of them.
It doesn't sound like a lot, 4-6 calories per pound. It's 40-60 calories for 10 pounds. If you've got that extra 10 pounds in muscle and are eating a little bit more due to not accurately tracking portions, you might maintain your weight. If the extra 10 pounds is fat, and you're not tracking your potions accurately, you might see the scale going up 5 pounds a year and wondering why that is.
The difference between the person with more muscle mass than fat mass is half an ounce of cheese a day. Something it's easy to have creep into the intake.
I thought I responded to this but anyways.
If you are comparing body composition, you are doing it against your own baseline; yes, i recognize that if you have two people with very differ compositions, the one with more muscle will generally have a higher expenditure and metabolic rate (thence why males have higher metabolisms than women). But when someone is talking about adding muscle to increase metabolism, your baseline is what is your current composition. This is why gaining some muscle will not have that much of an impact and why it only accounts for a measly 4-6 calories additional per day. It really does take a substantial amount gained to have a large impact on EE. In fact, I have only met one person who had a large impact (~ 300 calories) and he gained 30 lbs over several years.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions