Intermittent vs. Continuous Weight Loss
CynthiasChoice
Posts: 1,047 Member
An Australian study indicates that switching between calorie restriction (2 weeks) and eating at maintenance (2 weeks) improves weigh loss results in men. Any science geeks in the community want to offer an opinion on the good, bad and ugly of this study?
The MATADOR (Minimising Adaptive Thermogenesis And Deactivating Obesity Rebound)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28925405
Layman friendly article: http://calorielab.com/news/2017/09/28/intermittent-dieting-for-continuous-weight-loss/
Does anyone have any personal experience with the intermittent dieting approach?
The MATADOR (Minimising Adaptive Thermogenesis And Deactivating Obesity Rebound)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28925405
Layman friendly article: http://calorielab.com/news/2017/09/28/intermittent-dieting-for-continuous-weight-loss/
Does anyone have any personal experience with the intermittent dieting approach?
0
Replies
-
Not in 2 week segments but I take a 2 week break about every 10 to 12 weeks when in calorie restriction. It helps reset adaptive thermogenesis that slows down loss and normalizes thyroid and leptin and gets the fat loss back on track. I have read the study you show above. It confirms this. My only nitpicks with the study is that calorie restriction was 33%, higher than usual. And the 2 week diet cycle is too short to be practical. Would have like to seen data on different cycles and the calorie restriction phase being longer.8
-
My thoughts are pretty much what @mmapags said (we may have discussed this together already
). It would be really interesting to see a similar study done with a more realistic calorie restriction (say, 20%), and different length restriction cycles, to see if there is an optimal length to push the diet phase for before taking a break. Hopefully this study will spur further work in that area.
It does, however, confirm that adaptive thermogenesis is a thing, and that diet breaks (eating at maintenance) alleviates that.8 -
Says the person who made me aware of the study!! LOLNony_Mouse wrote: »My thoughts are pretty much what @mmapags said (we may have discussed this together already). It would be really interesting to see a similar study done with a more realistic calorie restriction (say, 20%), and different length restriction cycles, to see if there is an optimal length to push the diet phase for before taking a break. Hopefully this study will spur further work in that area.
It does, however, confirm that adaptive thermogenesis is a thing, and that diet breaks (eating at maintenance) alleviates that.
Some more info on how diet breaks can aid in fat loss by Lyle McDonald written a few years ago.
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-full-diet-break.html/
Both Nony_Mouse and I had both completed 2 week diet breaks in the last few days.
4 -
Seems to be in line with new science. I'd be interested to understand how they came up with the 2 week intervals however.1
-
The 2015 Mueller et al paper referenced in the other one is also an interesting read (though be warned, it will make your brain hurt!). It shows AT kicks in hard and fast, though was based on a 50% calorie deficit, so again hard to know whether the effect would be the same for anyone at a sensible deficit (I suspect it's less, and slower, but by how much is the question). But, the sad fact is, we do often see people here with utterly absurd deficits, esp once exercise burns are taken into account. Take me for example - Fitbit currently has me sitting around 2000 TDEE, if I was netting 1000 cals a day (yeah, no thanks), that's a 50% deficit.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/102/4/807.full.pdf+html2 -
Would be curious to follow up with participants after a while to see who was better able to keep it up. Also why must all these studies exclude women?! We deserve better research.5
-
Would be curious to follow up with participants after a while to see who was better able to keep it up. Also why must all these studies exclude women?! We deserve better research.
They did a six month follow up. Those on the intermittent schedule kept more weight off.
But yeah, I hear you on the studies for women! I'd also like to see more done with normal or near normal weight people. I know that Lyle McDonald advocates more frequent diet breaks the leaner you are, and also more frequently for women.3 -
Link to full text for the MATADOR study: http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ijo2017206a.html?foxtrotcallback=true1
-
-
Thanks everyone for the great responses!
I wonder why the intermittent dieters were so much more successful at keeping weight off after 6 months. Is it just that their metabolisms survived better than those on the continuous diet?
Or also, maybe the 2 week maintenance periods gave them more practice at developing healthy habits for eating at maintenance. Or maybe just the length of time they spent on a planned diet, regardless of calorie content, helped them adjust to a different way of eating.
After 9+ months of calorie restriction and steady weight loss, I'm considering a maintenance period. Hopefully I haven't waited too long in order to see some benefits from a 2 week break. To be honest, I've never done maintenance. I've fallen off diets and gained, always thinking I'd get my act together and get back on the diet. But that's the past and I have confidence that this time can be different for me.
If anyone has maintenance pointers, please share!
0 -
CynthiasChoice wrote: »Thanks everyone for the great responses!
I wonder why the intermittent dieters were so much more successful at keeping weight off after 6 months. Is it just that their metabolisms survived better than those on the continuous diet?
Or also, maybe the 2 week maintenance periods gave them more practice at developing healthy habits for eating at maintenance. Or maybe just the length of time they spent on a planned diet, regardless of calorie content, helped them adjust to a different way of eating.
After 9+ months of calorie restriction and steady weight loss, I'm considering a maintenance period. Hopefully I haven't waited too long in order to see some benefits from a 2 week break. To be honest, I've never done maintenance. I've fallen off diets and gained, always thinking I'd get my act together and get back on the diet. But that's the past and I have confidence that this time can be different for me.
If anyone has maintenance pointers, please share!
You should still get the benefits, or at least some of them. If you read that Lyle McDonald article Mmapags linked, you'll see he says it takes about a week for hormone levels to come back up, but a further week for them to really solidify.
Maintenance tips - continue logging!!!! That is absolutely paramount. You also need to make sure your carb intake is 100-150g minimum to get thyroid hormones back up. In terms of food, you can either continue to eat what you are now, just a bit more at each meal, or you can add in some snacks, or both. Be prepared. I got caught out a couple of times having more active than anticipated days and ended up having to have double sized choc peanut butter protein shakes in the evenings to meet my calorie goal (was terrible, I tell you, terrible). 2 -
Thanks so much Nony_Mouse!!
I'm anticipating that I will see a slight gain during the two weeks due to more carbs and water weight. MFP recommends 1690 calories for maintenance for me, but I think that's high, especially if my metabolism is compromised. I'm sedentary due to a shoulder and knee injury, so there will be no fluctuation due to activity.
I guess my question is, how do I know if I'm gaining too much weight (fat, not water) during maintenance? Over 2 pounds? Over 3 or 4 pounds?
Is it best to just eat the 1690 cals per day (and never step on the scale!) to make sure I'm getting the benefit of the diet break? Worst case scenario, I'd be eating 250 calories a day over - 3500 over for two weeks - one pound of fat. Not the end of the world if it helps restore my metabolism.
I just can't seem to shake the fear that I will gain 10 pounds in that two weeks!0 -
CynthiasChoice wrote: »Thanks so much Nony_Mouse!!
I'm anticipating that I will see a slight gain during the two weeks due to more carbs and water weight. MFP recommends 1690 calories for maintenance for me, but I think that's high, especially if my metabolism is compromised. I'm sedentary due to a shoulder and knee injury, so there will be no fluctuation due to activity.
I guess my question is, how do I know if I'm gaining too much weight (fat, not water) during maintenance? Over 2 pounds? Over 3 or 4 pounds?
Is it best to just eat the 1690 cals per day (and never step on the scale!) to make sure I'm getting the benefit of the diet break? Worst case scenario, I'd be eating 250 calories a day over - 3500 over for two weeks - one pound of fat. Not the end of the world if it helps restore my metabolism.
I just can't seem to shake the fear that I will gain 10 pounds in that two weeks!
If you're only doing it for 2 weeks, the number above is a good ballpark number. It's very unlikely you will gain several pounds in only two weeks from not being on point with maintenance. Do you have an accurate extended record of your calories eaten, activity, and weight? If so you can use those to calculate your current maintenance, otherwise just see how your weight behaves over several diet breaks and how it long it takes you to re-lose any extra you gained during breaks and adjust accordingly.1 -
Says the person who made me aware of the study!! LOLNony_Mouse wrote: »My thoughts are pretty much what @mmapags said (we may have discussed this together already). It would be really interesting to see a similar study done with a more realistic calorie restriction (say, 20%), and different length restriction cycles, to see if there is an optimal length to push the diet phase for before taking a break. Hopefully this study will spur further work in that area.
It does, however, confirm that adaptive thermogenesis is a thing, and that diet breaks (eating at maintenance) alleviates that.
Some more info on how diet breaks can aid in fat loss by Lyle McDonald written a few years ago.
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-full-diet-break.html/
Both Nony_Mouse and I had both completed 2 week diet breaks in the last few days.
Thanks for the Lyle McDonald article! Looks like I should try a 10% reduction in MFP's maintenance calorie recommendation. 1521 calories doesn't sound as scary to me. Lol - I'm beginning to sound like I have an ED!0 -
Do the 10% below TDEE if you're more comfortable, though perhaps review after the fist week and add the extra cals if your weight is stable. Any glycogen/water weight is going to happen in the first few days. As to how much that will be, its anyone's guess, sorry! My weight went up, then dropped back a bit and levelled out, and then shot up, but I also have water weight from hormones and a raging eczema flare complicating the picture (the shoot up I think is completely unconnected to the diet break). If we assume the initial gain/levelling out wasn't hormone-related (perimenopausal, it's anyone's guess!!), it was 1/2 a kg, and about right for the carb increase (my carb intake is lowish, but not deliberately, just a byproduct of ensuring I get plenty of protein and my propensity to eat a lot of avocado and halloumi).
Up to you whether you weigh or not. I did, because it's good data to have, but if you think it will freak you out and make you abandon the break, then don't. Though I think it would be useful for you to be able to see if your weight stabilises in the first week and you can therefore increase to full estimated TDEE. Remember to keep in mind where you are in your cycle so you can take that into account too.
Excellent advice from @amusedmonkey too 0 -
I personally think it's best to overshoot than undershoot. A 150 calories surplus will not result in any meaningful fat gain over 2 weeks, but being 150 under may or may not result in the same effects observed in the study. After all, people are notorious for not following the rules and it's guaranteed there was a piece of this and a bite of that in addition to whatever food was provided. Not enough to show gain, but they may have been in a very slight surplus during maintenance. Would being in a slight deficit produce the same results? Who knows, it hasn't been studied. If I were to do it, I would personally just go for the MFP number and roll with it unless over time the gain proves to be too much for my liking (say, over a pound of real fat gain).3
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »I personally think it's best to overshoot than undershoot. A 150 calories surplus will not result in any meaningful fat gain over 2 weeks, but being 150 under may or may not result in the same effects observed in the study. After all, people are notorious for not following the rules and it's guaranteed there was a piece of this and a bite of that in addition to whatever food was provided. Not enough to show gain, but they may have been in a very slight surplus during maintenance. Would being in a slight deficit produce the same results? Who knows, it hasn't been studied. If I were to do it, I would personally just go for the MFP number and roll with it unless over time the gain proves to be too much for my liking (say, over a pound of real fat gain).
Yeah, I went for the 'trust my Fitbit' approach, but then I'd only been in a deficit for 6 weeks (dealing to some winter creep), so I knew AT wasn't going to be a massive issue for me. And I wanted to do it properly to reap the full benefits (though only did the shorter end at 10 days). I was ridiculously anal about making sure I met my calorie goal, had it down to an art, and about making sure I hit that carb minimum.2 -
I just finished a diet break. It really benefited me mentally by reinvigorating my motivation and physically I feel so much better. My energy shot up. The scale did go up 3 pounds but one day back at a deficit and those 3 pounds were gone, so it was a superficial gain. This study is encouraging and I may have to make breaks part of my routine. I definitely still logged and ate similar things, just more. Nice knowing there may be benefits beyond mental.2
-
I just finished a diet break. It really benefited me mentally by reinvigorating my motivation and physically I feel so much better. My energy shot up. The scale did go up 3 pounds but one day back at a deficit and those 3 pounds were gone, so it was a superficial gain. This study is encouraging and I may have to make breaks part of my routine. I definitely still logged and ate similar things, just more. Nice knowing there may be benefits beyond mental.
Definitely more benefits than just mental! When you're at a prolonged deficit, a number of hormones get out of whack, principally leptin, thyroid, and cortisol. Two weeks at maintenance restores those to where they should be.
It's also bloody good practice for maintenance (which I usually just wing, doing it 'properly' was actually a bit of a challenge!).2 -
For those of you who completed diet breaks, did your weight loss speed up for you in the months afterwards?0
-
Comments made above about desire to see different deficit amounts - and different overweight categories.
While this study is not exactly along the lines of diet breaks frequently - it does show the effects of a reasonable deficit for overweight BMI category folks, but the time span is months.
But it also shows the effects of eating at maintenance for awhile too.
I must say it's so good to see more appreciating the negatives of AT while at the same time so many others are saying Starvation Mode doesn't exist when they actually mean the myths associated with it don't.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251
OP - this might help you figure out how bad the 9 months might have been.
I want to emphasize too the results - they ate at their suppressed TDEE maintenance level and still had improvements to their TDEE.
Might have been quicker with using comment I saw above about eating 100 more increases on regular basis, encouraging it on up faster.1 -
CynthiasChoice wrote: »For those of you who completed diet breaks, did your weight loss speed up for you in the months afterwards?
I'm probably not going to be a good example, since I did my break only 6 weeks after going back to a deficit.Comments made above about desire to see different deficit amounts - and different overweight categories.
While this study is not exactly along the lines of diet breaks frequently - it does show the effects of a reasonable deficit for overweight BMI category folks, but the time span is months.
But it also shows the effects of eating at maintenance for awhile too.
I must say it's so good to see more appreciating the negatives of AT while at the same time so many others are saying Starvation Mode doesn't exist when they actually mean the myths associated with it don't.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251
OP - this might help you figure out how bad the 9 months might have been.
I want to emphasize too the results - they ate at their suppressed TDEE maintenance level and still had improvements to their TDEE.
Might have been quicker with using comment I saw above about eating 100 more increases on regular basis, encouraging it on up faster.
People generally do clarify that it's the myth form of starvation mode that doesn't exist. I think most people countering it understand that AT is a thing. I also think that the massive affect that raised cortisol can have on masking fat loss via fluid retention is something that a lot of people may not realise.2 -
I can't think of 1 time besides me where I've seen on the topics started about "is starvation mode real" any comments besides no it's not.
Obviously I don't see all such topics, and I don't see all internal discussions in other topics that turned to that.
But I see many response about starvation mode with no classifiers about the myths even being mentioned, either by the OP asking, or those commenting. It must be assumed both directions as to what the side effects are that are never mentioned that aren't true.
Never is comment made I've seen about what could be the case, even if that term doesn't want to be used.
And I've been doing that for years here, trying to keep things realistic. That's why this topic with so many comments (even if just a few people) recognizing it is I think rarely brought up enough.
And caught my eye and was thrilled to see it.1 -
I can't think of 1 time besides me where I've seen on the topics started about "is starvation mode real" any comments besides no it's not.
Obviously I don't see all such topics, and I don't see all internal discussions in other topics that turned to that.
But I see many response about starvation mode with no classifiers about the myths even being mentioned, either by the OP asking, or those commenting. It must be assumed both directions as to what the side effects are that are never mentioned that aren't true.
Never is comment made I've seen about what could be the case, even if that term doesn't want to be used.
And I've been doing that for years here, trying to keep things realistic. That's why this topic with so many comments (even if just a few people) recognizing it is I think rarely brought up enough.
And caught my eye and was thrilled to see it.
I have seen it, though probably not as often as should happen. There's a link that sometimes gets posted, that explains both the myth and AT, but again could probably do with more frequent posting - http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1
Sadly, a lot of people don't bother to read links to information that everyone trying to lose weight really should know. In another diet break thread a couple of days a go there were a few people who clearly hadn't read the link to the Lyle McDonald article questioning what a diet break even was, assuming that it meant going completely off piste and just eating whatever you wanted, and telling the OP she should just keep plodding on with her deficit, even though she was clearly seeing the effects of AT.
Actually, I'm going to give that thread a bump since I have it open in another tab 3 -
Oh hey, look, really interesting thread with actual weight loss science has already slipped way down...
Anyway, just wanted to report in that my pesky ovulation bloat seems to have left the building, and as of this morning I'm back where I was when I started my diet break. So there you go, Cynthia, you're not going to gain 10 lbs 4 -
I'm planning on 12 weeks on and then 10-14 day break (maintenance cals)- I've been reading about this as well-2
-
Comments made above about desire to see different deficit amounts - and different overweight categories.
While this study is not exactly along the lines of diet breaks frequently - it does show the effects of a reasonable deficit for overweight BMI category folks, but the time span is months.
But it also shows the effects of eating at maintenance for awhile too.
I must say it's so good to see more appreciating the negatives of AT while at the same time so many others are saying Starvation Mode doesn't exist when they actually mean the myths associated with it don't.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251
OP - this might help you figure out how bad the 9 months might have been.
I want to emphasize too the results - they ate at their suppressed TDEE maintenance level and still had improvements to their TDEE.
Might have been quicker with using comment I saw above about eating 100 more increases on regular basis, encouraging it on up faster.
Thanks for your blog link! I'm having a hard time sorting through this, but what I think I gleaned so far is that after 9 months calorie restriction my TDEE is probably about 496 calories below MFP's best guess of 1690. If I stay at this "new" maintenance (1690 - 496 = 1194 calories per day) for three months, I'm likely to improve my TDEE so that I can then eat 1690 - 275 = 1415 calories per day to maintain. My TDEE could possibly rebound quicker if I increase calories gradually over 3 months. However, it might take up to 6 years to recover my ability to maintain at 1690.
I know 1194 is not maintenance for me. Did I read the study right? lol! - making fun of me, not the study!0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Oh hey, look, really interesting thread with actual weight loss science has already slipped way down...
Anyway, just wanted to report in that my pesky ovulation bloat seems to have left the building, and as of this morning I'm back where I was when I started my diet break. So there you go, Cynthia, you're not going to gain 10 lbs
Thanks for the encouragement! And congratulations!0 -
CynthiasChoice wrote: »Comments made above about desire to see different deficit amounts - and different overweight categories.
While this study is not exactly along the lines of diet breaks frequently - it does show the effects of a reasonable deficit for overweight BMI category folks, but the time span is months.
But it also shows the effects of eating at maintenance for awhile too.
I must say it's so good to see more appreciating the negatives of AT while at the same time so many others are saying Starvation Mode doesn't exist when they actually mean the myths associated with it don't.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251
OP - this might help you figure out how bad the 9 months might have been.
I want to emphasize too the results - they ate at their suppressed TDEE maintenance level and still had improvements to their TDEE.
Might have been quicker with using comment I saw above about eating 100 more increases on regular basis, encouraging it on up faster.
Thanks for your blog link! I'm having a hard time sorting through this, but what I think I gleaned so far is that after 9 months calorie restriction my TDEE is probably about 496 calories below MFP's best guess of 1690. If I stay at this "new" maintenance (1690 - 496 = 1194 calories per day) for three months, I'm likely to improve my TDEE so that I can then eat 1690 - 275 = 1415 calories per day to maintain. My TDEE could possibly rebound quicker if I increase calories gradually over 3 months. However, it might take up to 6 years to recover my ability to maintain at 1690.
I know 1194 is not maintenance for me. Did I read the study right? lol! - making fun of me, not the study!
What does your weight loss data say, Cynthia? Look at your average weight loss over the past 4-6 weeks (evens out hormonal fluctuations etc), compare that to your calorie intake. That should give you a reasonable approximation of what your TDEE is as of now.
Personally, for the sake of the diet break, I would still recommend eating at what MFP gives you for maintenance.2 -
I can't think of 1 time besides me where I've seen on the topics started about "is starvation mode real" any comments besides no it's not.
Obviously I don't see all such topics, and I don't see all internal discussions in other topics that turned to that.
But I see many response about starvation mode with no classifiers about the myths even being mentioned, either by the OP asking, or those commenting. It must be assumed both directions as to what the side effects are that are never mentioned that aren't true.
Never is comment made I've seen about what could be the case, even if that term doesn't want to be used.
And I've been doing that for years here, trying to keep things realistic. That's why this topic with so many comments (even if just a few people) recognizing it is I think rarely brought up enough.
And caught my eye and was thrilled to see it.
When I searched the MFP posts for MATADOR Study I was amazed that there were no results. I thought it would be a hot topic for sure!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions