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.
Metabolic adaptation and refeeds
Options
nettiklive
Posts: 206 Member
Carrying this over from reading the 'of refeeds and diet breaks' thread, didn't want to hijack the thread with a debate.
But I don't know if I'm being stupid or am I missing something.
It's been argued over and over in CICO and 'starvation mode' debates on here that metabolic adaptation does not affect weight loss to the point that people think it does, and that any adaptation is minor and easily overcome with a moderate deficit.
However, that thread is full of people saying diet breaks help them restore a slowed metabolic rate and start losing weight faster, and one of the last posters showed a graph with her TDEE going up by a whopping 500 calories after a diet break.
500 calories is NOT a minor change, by any means. It is a HUGE difference in someone's daily intake, particularly a smaller person.
My questions is, HOW?? If CICO is a straightforward process and metabolic adaptation is insignificant, why would a diet break do anything but simply add calories to your intake and slow down your progress?
As someone who has been eating and maintaining at a fairly low RMR for my size, I've been torn between wanting to try eating more to 'rev up' my metabolism, and being terrified that it would only cause me to gain weight that will then be hard to lose (because I've always found it very easy to maintain yet incredibly hard to lose, at any weight).
Can someone shed light and explain to me the physiological rationale behind this??
But I don't know if I'm being stupid or am I missing something.
It's been argued over and over in CICO and 'starvation mode' debates on here that metabolic adaptation does not affect weight loss to the point that people think it does, and that any adaptation is minor and easily overcome with a moderate deficit.
However, that thread is full of people saying diet breaks help them restore a slowed metabolic rate and start losing weight faster, and one of the last posters showed a graph with her TDEE going up by a whopping 500 calories after a diet break.
500 calories is NOT a minor change, by any means. It is a HUGE difference in someone's daily intake, particularly a smaller person.
My questions is, HOW?? If CICO is a straightforward process and metabolic adaptation is insignificant, why would a diet break do anything but simply add calories to your intake and slow down your progress?
As someone who has been eating and maintaining at a fairly low RMR for my size, I've been torn between wanting to try eating more to 'rev up' my metabolism, and being terrified that it would only cause me to gain weight that will then be hard to lose (because I've always found it very easy to maintain yet incredibly hard to lose, at any weight).
Can someone shed light and explain to me the physiological rationale behind this??
6
Replies
-
Did you read any of the numerous links in that thread, or listen to any of the numerous podcasts? If those, along with the many summaries of the topic scattered throughout that thread haven't managed to explain the physiological rationale behind it to you, then I doubt anyone replying here will be able to either.
And absolutely nowhere in that thread is it suggested that eating above maintenance will 'rev up' your metabolism. If that's what you got out of it, I'd suggest reading again.14 -
Did you listen to the podcast and read the numerous links in the thread?
Do you understand the difference between TDEE and RMR?7 -
I'm just trying to make it through some of the insanity of info there. But I'm just really confused. Basically it's like the whole thread is in opposition to everything stated on the rest of the forum over and over. All the things that were brought up in debate discussions here and dismissed as woo are actually recognized there - role of hormones, leptin, cortisol, homeostasis, macros. I got a bunch of woo reactions by mentioning homeostasis in one of the threads here, yet there are several posts in that thread stating just that (and not a single woo, hah).
Basically the rest of the forum is screaming 'its so simple, hormones/carbs/etc don't affect anything, just eat at a deficit and lose and don't make it complicated."
Then you get into, 'well this is actually complicated as kitten, you need to think about balancing hormones and counting carbs etc etc., Otherwise you're shooting yourself in the foot'
VERY confusing and conflicting messages5 -
nettiklive wrote: »I'm just trying to make it through some of the insanity of info there. But I'm just really confused. Basically it's like the whole thread is in opposition to everything stated on the rest of the forum over and over. All the things that were brought up in debate discussions here and dismissed as woo are actually recognized there - role of hormones, leptin, cortisol, homeostasis, macros. I got a bunch of woo reactions by mentioning homeostasis in one of the threads here, yet there are several posts in that thread stating just that (and not a single woo, hah).
Basically the rest of the forum is screaming 'its so simple, hormones/carbs/etc don't affect anything, just eat at a deficit and lose and don't make it complicated."
Then you get into, 'well this is actually complicated as kitten, you need to think about balancing hormones and counting carbs etc etc., Otherwise you're shooting yourself in the foot'
VERY confusing and conflicting messages
Eat at a deficit to lose weight. Take an occasional break and eat at maintenance.
Don't sweat the details. It's not that complicated, unless you are writing a thesis. That thread goes into really deep stuff that most people don't need to know every nuance.
Step on the body weight scale and keep good records.
Really. I lost all my weight (70+ pounds) and have kept it off for nearly eleven years. I don't know or need to know all the stuff in that thread. I instinctively ate more when I was really struggling, and then got back on the weight loss when I felt back in control. Refeed!
When I stalled in weight loss, I gave myself a little mental and physical break and ate at maintenance. Refeed!
I had never read that thread, because that thread didn't exist. Trust yourself and trust your own process.10 -
nettiklive wrote: »Carrying this over from reading the 'of refeeds and diet breaks' thread, didn't want to hijack the thread with a debate.
But I don't know if I'm being stupid or am I missing something.
It's been argued over and over in CICO and 'starvation mode' debates on here that metabolic adaptation does not affect weight loss to the point that people think it does, and that any adaptation is minor and easily overcome with a moderate deficit.
However, that thread is full of people saying diet breaks help them restore a slowed metabolic rate and start losing weight faster, and one of the last posters showed a graph with her TDEE going up by a whopping 500 calories after a diet break.
500 calories is NOT a minor change, by any means. It is a HUGE difference in someone's daily intake, particularly a smaller person.
My questions is, HOW?? If CICO is a straightforward process and metabolic adaptation is insignificant, why would a diet break do anything but simply add calories to your intake and slow down your progress?
As someone who has been eating and maintaining at a fairly low RMR for my size, I've been torn between wanting to try eating more to 'rev up' my metabolism, and being terrified that it would only cause me to gain weight that will then be hard to lose (because I've always found it very easy to maintain yet incredibly hard to lose, at any weight).
Can someone shed light and explain to me the physiological rationale behind this??
There is a potential for doing things very unreasonable and getting a worse effect faster than most realize.
Some will claim never a problem, or it'll take months and months and very minor - without ever a question of where is a person in their weight loss and what have they done. Rather short-sighted in my opinion.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251
And that's certainly not the only study, but it included several angles I appreciated.
Also notice it wasn't Obese level by BMI charts, merely Overweight, so potential for problems is higher.
Which is exactly what the Refeed thread gets into regarding when that becomes more important.
Also notice that it didn't say weight loss stops.
You can always keep eating less and less until the loss starts again - but if body is already stressed out enough it's adapting and gaining water weight and the methods that study mentions - is it in that great a state for continued success?
Plus - wouldn't it be great to lose the same rate or faster eating more if possible, rather than bare minimum?7 -
nettiklive wrote: »I'm just trying to make it through some of the insanity of info there. But I'm just really confused. Basically it's like the whole thread is in opposition to everything stated on the rest of the forum over and over. All the things that were brought up in debate discussions here and dismissed as woo are actually recognized there - role of hormones, leptin, cortisol, homeostasis, macros. I got a bunch of woo reactions by mentioning homeostasis in one of the threads here, yet there are several posts in that thread stating just that (and not a single woo, hah).
Basically the rest of the forum is screaming 'its so simple, hormones/carbs/etc don't affect anything, just eat at a deficit and lose and don't make it complicated."
Then you get into, 'well this is actually complicated as kitten, you need to think about balancing hormones and counting carbs etc etc., Otherwise you're shooting yourself in the foot'
VERY confusing and conflicting messages
it is as simple as a calorie deficit. I have a genetic metabolic disorder and for me it should be hard to lose weight. I ate in a deficit and lost, the only difference is my BMR is lower than it should be for my height,age,weight and activity level.carbs dont effect my weight as I eat a good amount of carbs.
most people say oh you have a metabolic disorder so do keto. the difference for me is I cannot do keto as my body does not process fats and cholesterol like others do,so therefore excess fats and cholesterol get stored not only in my arteries and I have an adundance of it in my blood stream but I also get fat pads(fat and cholesterol deposits under the skin called xanthelasmas and xanthomas).
for me carbs dont cause me any ill effects. yes my weight loss is slower than I think it should be,but even with lower amounts of carbs there is no difference for me(less than 1lb a month in most cases even when I was eating 1300 calories). for me I lose weight but for me I have to work harder at losing than most people may have to.I never did lose 2 lbs a week even when I was obese. even at a large deficit the weight loss is very slow.3 -
@nettiklive read heybales post a few times, especially the part regarding weight loss never stopping.
You seem to have information overload and are interpreting things incorrectly. Hormones never stop fat loss, and that is what you see woo'ed in other threads on the board. It's also not something that anything on the refeeds thread supports the idea of.
Some hormones can mask fat loss by causing fluid retention (cortisol). Some hormones can make fat loss harder by signalling someone to eat and not signalling when they're full (leptin and ghrelin). In very lean people, aggressive dieting often leads to those hormones causing binge behavior or even just sneaky nibble syndrome which wipes out any deficit which might be in place.
The other piece of the puzzle you seem to be missing is the effect of prolonged dieting on TDEE. Probably the largest component of energy expenditure outside of REE is the daily activity you do that's not exercise. The fidgeting, the walking around the grocery store, the putting things away around the house, playing with the kids, etc. When you've been dieting a long time, NEAT usually plummets because you generally become less energetic overall. Even if you're still moving around, your movements burn less calories because they don't have as much energy put into them. Even the exercise that you do is less energetic.
The purpose of refeeds and diet breaks, besides "resetting hormones" is to restore energy levels so that you continue to burn calories at optimum efficiency.16 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »@nettiklive read heybales post a few times, especially the part regarding weight loss never stopping.
You seem to have information overload and are interpreting things incorrectly. Hormones never stop fat loss, and that is what you see woo'ed in other threads on the board. It's also not something that anything on the refeeds thread supports the idea of.
Some hormones can mask fat loss by causing fluid retention (cortisol). Some hormones can make fat loss harder by signalling someone to eat and not signalling when they're full (leptin and ghrelin). In very lean people, aggressive dieting often leads to those hormones causing binge behavior or even just sneaky nibble syndrome which wipes out any deficit which might be in place.
The other piece of the puzzle you seem to be missing is the effect of prolonged dieting on TDEE. Probably the largest component of energy expenditure outside of REE is the daily activity you do that's not exercise. The fidgeting, the walking around the grocery store, the putting things away around the house, playing with the kids, etc. When you've been dieting a long time, NEAT usually plummets because you generally become less energetic overall. Even if you're still moving around, your movements burn less calories because they don't have as much energy put into them. Even the exercise that you do is less energetic.
The purpose of refeeds and diet breaks, besides "resetting hormones" is to restore energy levels so that you continue to burn calories at optimum efficiency.
I don't know how many times now I've posted the link to Lyle's article about metabolic damage and the Minnesota Starvation Study, which addresses hormonal adaptations and metabolic downregulation in detail. OP either hasn't read it or refuses to acknowledge it.
But just for the heck of it, I'll provide it one more time: https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/7 -
nettiklive wrote: »I'm just trying to make it through some of the insanity of info there. But I'm just really confused. Basically it's like the whole thread is in opposition to everything stated on the rest of the forum over and over. All the things that were brought up in debate discussions here and dismissed as woo are actually recognized there - role of hormones, leptin, cortisol, homeostasis, macros. I got a bunch of woo reactions by mentioning homeostasis in one of the threads here, yet there are several posts in that thread stating just that (and not a single woo, hah).
Basically the rest of the forum is screaming 'its so simple, hormones/carbs/etc don't affect anything, just eat at a deficit and lose and don't make it complicated."
Then you get into, 'well this is actually complicated as kitten, you need to think about balancing hormones and counting carbs etc etc., Otherwise you're shooting yourself in the foot'
VERY confusing and conflicting messages
This is such a gross misrepresentation of both what is said in the Refeeds thread and what is said in other threads. Nowhere in over 4000 posts is homeostasis in fat loss suggested, it does discuss how cortisol-induced water retention can mask fat loss and thus produce the appearance of homeostasis, because scale weight may remain the same. Fat loss is still occurring, it just isn't reflected on the scale.
So in answer to the second line of your first post, I would say 'Yes'.3 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »I'm just trying to make it through some of the insanity of info there. But I'm just really confused. Basically it's like the whole thread is in opposition to everything stated on the rest of the forum over and over. All the things that were brought up in debate discussions here and dismissed as woo are actually recognized there - role of hormones, leptin, cortisol, homeostasis, macros. I got a bunch of woo reactions by mentioning homeostasis in one of the threads here, yet there are several posts in that thread stating just that (and not a single woo, hah).
Basically the rest of the forum is screaming 'its so simple, hormones/carbs/etc don't affect anything, just eat at a deficit and lose and don't make it complicated."
Then you get into, 'well this is actually complicated as kitten, you need to think about balancing hormones and counting carbs etc etc., Otherwise you're shooting yourself in the foot'
VERY confusing and conflicting messages
This is such a gross misrepresentation of both what is said in the Refeeds thread and what is said in other threads. Nowhere in over 4000 posts is homeostasis in fat loss suggested, it does discuss how cortisol-induced water retention can mask fat loss and thus produce the appearance of homeostasis, because scale weight may remain the same. Fat loss is still occurring, it just isn't reflected on the scale.
So in answer to the second line of your first post, I would say 'Yes'.
Oh really?
Let me copy over some relevant quotes from the thread for you:It's also worth noting, as a few of us have alluded to and is talked about in the video/podcast, is that these adaptations are much more pronounced in women. The need for the body to maintain homeostasis is powerful when the survival of the species lies with us primarily. The benefits of refeeds/diet breaks cannot be overstated for women in particular.And those improvements are not only for those down near goal weight, even those with plenty of fat to lose have those changes if deficit is great enough - several studies seem to show the body just doesn't like to lose the fat level it's at, whether it's got plenty or little to spare, hormones are changing even if no feelings of uncontrollable hunger. Leptin is dropping.Preventing the issues is a whole lot easier than trying to get out of them too.
Thinking about the research study where they followed the Biggest Loser folks for a year afterwards - and they had plenty to lose at the start - they still had the lower than expected TDEE and had to eat so little just to maintain the weight loss they had accomplished. Let alone getting down to a healthy weight they really wanted to be at on their own.the more overweight you were at your starting point, the easier it is to rebound AKA you gain fat faster than your naturally leaner counterparts - it sucks but it's true,
These are just what I've read in the first ten pages or so, I'm sure there's more.
11 -
You are looking for confirmation bias on why you can't seem to shift 5 pounds. Get some perspective, and read these posts in the context in which they were meant, for goodness sake.
I think it's time you stepped away from all of this if you can't even objectively read information and process it in context.14 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »You are looking for confirmation bias on why you can't seem to shift 5 pounds. Get some perspective, and read these posts in the context in which they were meant, for goodness sake.
I think it's time you stepped away from all of this if you can't even objectively read information and process it in context.
QFT.6 -
Op - It's very important to understand context in which words are being used. Otherwise misunderstandings can happen. I suggest that you go back and re-read the original thread and click on the links provided and listen to the podcasts and then go back and make sure you really understand what is being said. It's seems very likely that you are not grasping the information and it's causing a misunderstanding. Because of this disconnect , I'd go back and try to learn as much as possible before you over think this and turn it into something that it isn't.
It's very easy to get confused and overwhelmed when presented with new information. Remember that calorie deficit is what counts for weight loss and there's no two ways about it. You can cherry pick bits and pieces of conversations all you want but none of that negates the fact that creating a calorie deficit is needed for weight loss.
7 -
nettiklive wrote: »I'm just trying to make it through some of the insanity of info there. But I'm just really confused. Basically it's like the whole thread is in opposition to everything stated on the rest of the forum over and over. All the things that were brought up in debate discussions here and dismissed as woo are actually recognized there - role of hormones, leptin, cortisol, homeostasis, macros. I got a bunch of woo reactions by mentioning homeostasis in one of the threads here, yet there are several posts in that thread stating just that (and not a single woo, hah).
Basically the rest of the forum is screaming 'its so simple, hormones/carbs/etc don't affect anything, just eat at a deficit and lose and don't make it complicated."
Then you get into, 'well this is actually complicated as kitten, you need to think about balancing hormones and counting carbs etc etc., Otherwise you're shooting yourself in the foot'
VERY confusing and conflicting messages
At the risk of oversimplifying things, here's a takeaway that might help: weight loss may sometimes involve MORE than eating less calories than you burn, but never LESS than that. It's not actually an overcomplicated or conflicting message.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions