Metabolic adaption?
dave_in_ni
Posts: 533 Member
After some advice here folks. Most will know my story but a brief recap, I was 106kg eating roughly 2500-3000 cals daily. I decided I needed to diet and in one fell swoop decided to eating 1500 cals daily.
The good times came and weight fell of me for 6 months then it slowed and stopped. I got to 78kg and said enoughs enough, still had a bit a of a belly but I thought I could work this off.
I maintained this for 18 months eating 1800-2000 but after trying this and that I couldn’t shift the belly and it became clear I was gonna have to diet again.
So May 2018 I go again, 1700 cals. First week 2-3 lbs down since that damn all and I actually gained .8kg this morning.
It seems metabolic adaption has occurred, my body has got used to having so little calories and my bmr has dropped. Now I could eat 1500 cals again and I might drop a lb or 2 but I give it a week or two and that will stall and I can’t go any lower.
So how do I increase BMR? Refeed? Say an extra 150 cals per week and build up gradually or just bang 2500 cals take the weight gain for a few weeks then diet?
What’s the best plan?
The good times came and weight fell of me for 6 months then it slowed and stopped. I got to 78kg and said enoughs enough, still had a bit a of a belly but I thought I could work this off.
I maintained this for 18 months eating 1800-2000 but after trying this and that I couldn’t shift the belly and it became clear I was gonna have to diet again.
So May 2018 I go again, 1700 cals. First week 2-3 lbs down since that damn all and I actually gained .8kg this morning.
It seems metabolic adaption has occurred, my body has got used to having so little calories and my bmr has dropped. Now I could eat 1500 cals again and I might drop a lb or 2 but I give it a week or two and that will stall and I can’t go any lower.
So how do I increase BMR? Refeed? Say an extra 150 cals per week and build up gradually or just bang 2500 cals take the weight gain for a few weeks then diet?
What’s the best plan?
12
Replies
-
What were you doing to "shift the belly"?
Plus, 2-3 pounds down in the first week is totally normal and may not be all fat (likely not). Further, a 0.8kg gain in a day is totally normal. I would think after losing 28kg, you might be familiar with fluctuations.... (not trying to be snarky). If you never had days where gained a few pounds during your initial weight loss, then you were not the normal case.
So, how tall are you? Age? How active?6 -
I'm not sure if I necessarily believe in metabolic adaptation, but have you looked in to Calorie Cycling? It's where you focus more on the total number of calories per week and then vary the amount that you eat each day.
For example: My goal is 1400 calories per day, so in a week that would be 9800 calories for the week. So I might do the following:
Sunday 1400
Monday 1200
Tuesday 1000
Wednesday 1800
Thursday 1200
Friday 1200
Saturday 2000
It "keeps the body guessing" so to speak.18 -
Silentpadna wrote: »What were you doing to "shift the belly"?
Plus, 2-3 pounds down in the first week is totally normal and may not be all fat (likely not). Further, a 0.8kg gain in a day is totally normal. I would think after losing 28kg, you might be familiar with fluctuations.... (not trying to be snarky). If you never had days where gained a few pounds during your initial weight loss, then you were not the normal case.
So, how tall are you? Age? How active?
5’11, 37, 16000 steps average on Fitbit and lift weights 5 days per week, I don’t really want to drop much lower in case I lose the muscle I’ve built over the past 2.5 years.0 -
michelle172415 wrote: »I'm not sure if I necessarily believe in metabolic adaptation, but have you looked in to Calorie Cycling? It's where you focus more on the total number of calories per week and then vary the amount that you eat each day.
For example: My goal is 1400 calories per day, so in a week that would be 9800 calories for the week. So I might do the following:
Sunday 1400
Monday 1200
Tuesday 1000
Wednesday 1800
Thursday 1200
Friday 1200
Saturday 2000
It "keeps the body guessing" so to speak.
Good idea. Never thought about that
5 -
Are you doing cardio at all? Weight loss mostly happens in the kitchen. 80% of weight loss is diet, another 15% thanks to strength training, and the last 5% (give or take) is from cardio. But that 5% can make a big difference, especially if you are close to goal. I know for myself, that extra 200 or calories burned through cardio can make a lot of difference.8
-
Are you using a weight trending app or any sort?
You don't see metabolic adaptation in 6 weeks. Sorry, but that's not what's happening here. My guess - faulty estimates.10 -
-
- Logging here doesn't ensure accurate estimates.
- What has your trend weight done since May... since you started dieting again? What has your trend weight done over the last 2-3 weeks?
6 -
Read this. https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1 - It's from the sticky posts in the General health and fitness subforum.
"Metabolic Adaptation/StarvationMode" isn't what you think it is. It's called Adaptive Thermogenensis - and it isn't an ongoing permanent thing and doesn't keep down-regulating and getting worse. It adjusts very quickly after you go to maintenance calories. Like in days or at most a couple weeks.
You eat less because you have less mass. That is just what happens, but you didn't ruin your BMR or metabolism.
9 -
So essentially then it’s ok to eat sub 1500 cals?3
-
I'd still want to know what your weight has done over the last 3ish weeks.
If 1500 cals worked for you before, then it should work again/now (assuming nothing else has changed). But if you've been dieting for 6ish weeks and aren't seeing any results, then I'd double check your logging/estimating to make sure that's where it should be - both your intake and your exercise. I'd bet that will fix things for you.5 -
I'd still want to know what your weight has done over the last 3ish weeks.
If 1500 cals worked for you before, then it should work again/now (assuming nothing else has changed). But if you've only been dieting for 6ish weeks and aren't seeing any results, then I'd double check your logging/estimating to make sure that's where it should be, and if so, then yes... further restrict calories.
Does it not show on my profile2 -
dave_in_ni wrote: »I'd still want to know what your weight has done over the last 3ish weeks.
If 1500 cals worked for you before, then it should work again/now (assuming nothing else has changed). But if you've only been dieting for 6ish weeks and aren't seeing any results, then I'd double check your logging/estimating to make sure that's where it should be, and if so, then yes... further restrict calories.
Does it not show on my profile
No, it's just says total weight lost. I'm more interested in what happy scale says from May-now and from June 1-now.
I suspect that what you think is happening isn't what's actually happening.6 -
dave_in_ni wrote: »So essentially then it’s ok to eat sub 1500 cals?
It is not something that you, as a man, should do on a regular basis, but if it is in the vein of calorie cycling and you only do it once, maybe twice per week, you should be okay, I just wouldn't make a habit out of it. Eating too few calories can be detrimental to your weight loss efforts as well.2 -
The woo is strong with this one.6
-
dave_in_ni wrote: »So essentially then it’s ok to eat sub 1500 cals?
Not on a regular basis, the reason for the minimum calorie recommendation is to ensure you are sufficiently fueling your body in order for it to function properly and getting adequate nutrition.6 -
There is no such thing. Your metabolism works in the same way a fire does - add more fuel hotter flame, but shorter sustainability. Your BMR is just a snapshot in time - the algorithms show the mean for your height/weight which is extremely accurate.
You don't increase or decrease BMR. BMR is an output of your body mass. You can increase or decrease caloric output and intake.4 -
dave_in_ni wrote: »So essentially then it’s ok to eat sub 1500 cals?
Umm, probably not. Especially since you reference above that you are averaging 16K steps. At 5'11", 78kg, at your age, 1500 calories would likely be too low even if you are sedentary - which you obviously are not.
1500 calories would probably help you lose plenty of muscle....leaving you with not a lot of change in body fat percentage.
I would really look at tightening up logging. You should be losing at a moderate (by moderate I mean good - not fast) rate at even 2000 calories - given your activity level.6 -
Silentpadna wrote: »dave_in_ni wrote: »So essentially then it’s ok to eat sub 1500 cals?
Umm, probably not. Especially since you reference above that you are averaging 16K steps. At 5'11", 78kg, at your age, 1500 calories would likely be too low even if you are sedentary - which you obviously are not.
1500 calories would probably help you lose plenty of muscle....leaving you with not a lot of change in body fat percentage.
I would really look at tightening up logging. You should be losing at a moderate (by moderate I mean good - not fast) rate at even 2000 calories - given your activity level.
No where near 2000, if I eat over 2000 I will gain, I know as I’ve done it. My logging is pretty accurate, I even allow 100 cal grace just to be sure.
3 -
dave_in_ni wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »dave_in_ni wrote: »So essentially then it’s ok to eat sub 1500 cals?
Umm, probably not. Especially since you reference above that you are averaging 16K steps. At 5'11", 78kg, at your age, 1500 calories would likely be too low even if you are sedentary - which you obviously are not.
1500 calories would probably help you lose plenty of muscle....leaving you with not a lot of change in body fat percentage.
I would really look at tightening up logging. You should be losing at a moderate (by moderate I mean good - not fast) rate at even 2000 calories - given your activity level.
No where near 2000, if I eat over 2000 I will gain, I know as I’ve done it. My logging is pretty accurate, I even allow 100 cal grace just to be sure.
Have you eaten *consistently* over 2000 calories? What's happened during that time, and what has your weight done? Have you tracked it for more than a month at that calorie level, or did you do it for a few days, panic, and stop?
It's common to gain 3-4 pounds when exiting a deficit state, because your glycogen stores are getting refueled. This doesn't mean that eating more than 2000 calories causes you to gain.
Case in point: I'm female, seven inches shorter than you, 20 kg lighter, and a history of eating restriction that far surpasses yours. I maintain at 2100-2300.8 -
dave_in_ni wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »dave_in_ni wrote: »So essentially then it’s ok to eat sub 1500 cals?
Umm, probably not. Especially since you reference above that you are averaging 16K steps. At 5'11", 78kg, at your age, 1500 calories would likely be too low even if you are sedentary - which you obviously are not.
1500 calories would probably help you lose plenty of muscle....leaving you with not a lot of change in body fat percentage.
I would really look at tightening up logging. You should be losing at a moderate (by moderate I mean good - not fast) rate at even 2000 calories - given your activity level.
No where near 2000, if I eat over 2000 I will gain, I know as I’ve done it. My logging is pretty accurate, I even allow 100 cal grace just to be sure.
If you are 100% sure your logging is accurate then you may have a slower metabolism. I've run your numbers through several TDEE calculators and they all show a maintenance caloric intake around 2150 per day if you were sedentary, which would equate to about 3000 steps per day and no exercise.
There have been a few studies of how much variation there is among the population for TDEE (and BMR etc.). 96% of the population should fall within 15% of the mean. 68% would fall within about 5-8%. Let's assume the mean for your stats is 2150. You may have a TDEE as low as 1850....again if you are sedentary. Your activity level won't get you anywhere near as low as that.
So that means: either your activity level is grossly overstated - which I don't believe is true based on what you've posted...
-OR-
Your caloric intake estimates are off.
I have no horse in this race - meaning I don't have a stake in which might be correct, but given what I've read, if it were me I would focus first on looking hard for logging errors.
If that doesn't work, assume you have a built-in logging error and make tweaks based on your results (over at least a 6-8 week moving average). Note - this what we all have to do in the long run anyway because we are basing everything we do on estimates.10 -
Silentpadna wrote: »dave_in_ni wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »dave_in_ni wrote: »So essentially then it’s ok to eat sub 1500 cals?
Umm, probably not. Especially since you reference above that you are averaging 16K steps. At 5'11", 78kg, at your age, 1500 calories would likely be too low even if you are sedentary - which you obviously are not.
1500 calories would probably help you lose plenty of muscle....leaving you with not a lot of change in body fat percentage.
I would really look at tightening up logging. You should be losing at a moderate (by moderate I mean good - not fast) rate at even 2000 calories - given your activity level.
No where near 2000, if I eat over 2000 I will gain, I know as I’ve done it. My logging is pretty accurate, I even allow 100 cal grace just to be sure.
If you are 100% sure your logging is accurate then you may have a slower metabolism. I've run your numbers through several TDEE calculators and they all show a maintenance caloric intake around 2150 per day if you were sedentary, which would equate to about 3000 steps per day and no exercise.
There have been a few studies of how much variation there is among the population for TDEE (and BMR etc.). 96% of the population should fall within 15% of the mean. 68% would fall within about 5-8%. Let's assume the mean for your stats is 2150. You may have a TDEE as low as 1850....again if you are sedentary. Your activity level won't get you anywhere near as low as that.
So that means: either your activity level is grossly overstated - which I don't believe is true based on what you've posted...
-OR-
Your caloric intake estimates are off.
I have no horse in this race - meaning I don't have a stake in which might be correct, but given what I've read, if it were me I would focus first on looking hard for logging errors.
If that doesn't work, assume you have a built-in logging error and make tweaks based on your results (over at least a 6-8 week moving average). Note - this what we all have to do in the long run anyway because we are basing everything we do on estimates.
Yes I have also tried several calculators myself. My BMR alone is nearly 1800. I have been logging constantly for 2.5 years now, my TDEE with my activity is over 2400, In reality, I know its nowhere near it. We're not perfect obviously there will be some errors which is why I set 100 cal grace but its never gonna be anything major like forgetting to log a cheeseburger or something.
3 -
michelle172415 wrote: »Are you doing cardio at all? Weight loss mostly happens in the kitchen. 80% of weight loss is diet, another 15% thanks to strength training, and the last 5% (give or take) is from cardio. But that 5% can make a big difference, especially if you are close to goal. I know for myself, that extra 200 or calories burned through cardio can make a lot of difference.
No cardio at all, I figured I do enough with the amount of steps I do in a day, I am a tradesmen so on my feet 9+ hours per day0 -
The elephant in the room here also is that you have hardly any weight to lose in reality. I don't think adding cardio will make any significant difference here. 16K is plenty of activity.
What kind of strength training do you do? Anaerobic exercise is generally better for raising RMR than other forms of exercise. https://examine.com/nutrition/is-my-slow-metabolism-stalling-my-weight-loss/. You'll also find in that link things that decrease RMR (like dieting long term without breaks).
If you've lost a lot of muscle during your original weight loss phase, it may be better to try build muscle before trying to lean out even more. (Only you can decide if it's something you want to consider).8 -
Silentpadna wrote: »The elephant in the room here also is that you have hardly any weight to lose in reality. I don't think adding cardio will make any significant difference here. 16K is plenty of activity.
What kind of strength training do you do? Anaerobic exercise is generally better for raising RMR than other forms of exercise. https://examine.com/nutrition/is-my-slow-metabolism-stalling-my-weight-loss/. You'll also find in that link things that decrease RMR (like dieting long term without breaks).
If you've lost a lot of muscle during your original weight loss phase, it may be better to try build muscle before trying to lean out even more. (Only you can decide if it's something you want to consider).
Yeah hardly any to lose, if only I could spot reduced fat loss as its the stomach that's the last remaining area to go, I put photos up on Saturday in a post. It's not strength based really in a sense of being low rep high weight, its hypertrophy, lower weight higher rep push,pull,legs,push,pull
Yes in my post Saturday some said cut, some said to maintain, some said bulk which really clarified things.0 -
dave_in_ni wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »The elephant in the room here also is that you have hardly any weight to lose in reality. I don't think adding cardio will make any significant difference here. 16K is plenty of activity.
What kind of strength training do you do? Anaerobic exercise is generally better for raising RMR than other forms of exercise. https://examine.com/nutrition/is-my-slow-metabolism-stalling-my-weight-loss/. You'll also find in that link things that decrease RMR (like dieting long term without breaks).
If you've lost a lot of muscle during your original weight loss phase, it may be better to try build muscle before trying to lean out even more. (Only you can decide if it's something you want to consider).
Yeah hardly any to lose, if only I could spot reduced fat loss as its the stomach that's the last remaining area to go, I put photos up on Saturday in a post. It's not strength based really in a sense of being low rep high weight, its hypertrophy, lower weight higher rep push,pull,legs,push,pull
Yes in my post Saturday some said cut, some said to maintain, some said bulk which really clarified things.
so of those opinions, which have you considered/decided to do - and if none of them, why?0 -
deannalfisher wrote: »dave_in_ni wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »The elephant in the room here also is that you have hardly any weight to lose in reality. I don't think adding cardio will make any significant difference here. 16K is plenty of activity.
What kind of strength training do you do? Anaerobic exercise is generally better for raising RMR than other forms of exercise. https://examine.com/nutrition/is-my-slow-metabolism-stalling-my-weight-loss/. You'll also find in that link things that decrease RMR (like dieting long term without breaks).
If you've lost a lot of muscle during your original weight loss phase, it may be better to try build muscle before trying to lean out even more. (Only you can decide if it's something you want to consider).
Yeah hardly any to lose, if only I could spot reduced fat loss as its the stomach that's the last remaining area to go, I put photos up on Saturday in a post. It's not strength based really in a sense of being low rep high weight, its hypertrophy, lower weight higher rep push,pull,legs,push,pull
Yes in my post Saturday some said cut, some said to maintain, some said bulk which really clarified things.
so of those opinions, which have you considered/decided to do - and if none of them, why?
I was gonna go maintenance again but then said sod it as I already was at maintenance I haven't much weight left to lose just get it over and done with once and for all but then the scale went the other way this morning for no reason at all which brought me to here.1 -
I still think there's something bigger picture, more fundamental going on here. Let's take a step back...
You said you lost 28kg in 6 months (24 weeks). That's more than 1kg per week. That's not normal and most people can't sustain that. For most, it's not healthy, either... especially if body composition is a goal. Don't expect that type of loss now.
Based on those numbers, 1500 cals per day and 1kg lost per week for 6 months... that puts your TDEE around 2500 cals, which is very normal/reasonable.
Fast forward to the last 6ish weeks...
You're eating 1700 calories per day, right? You saw an initial weight loss of ~1kg. But what has happened since? Have you been staying at that 1700 cals each and every day? Has there been no change in your weight in that last 5 weeks?
You say you are lifting 5 days per week but not doing any cardio exercise. How does that exercise routine compare to what you were doing when you lost the 28kg previously?5 -
dave_in_ni wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »dave_in_ni wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »The elephant in the room here also is that you have hardly any weight to lose in reality. I don't think adding cardio will make any significant difference here. 16K is plenty of activity.
What kind of strength training do you do? Anaerobic exercise is generally better for raising RMR than other forms of exercise. https://examine.com/nutrition/is-my-slow-metabolism-stalling-my-weight-loss/. You'll also find in that link things that decrease RMR (like dieting long term without breaks).
If you've lost a lot of muscle during your original weight loss phase, it may be better to try build muscle before trying to lean out even more. (Only you can decide if it's something you want to consider).
Yeah hardly any to lose, if only I could spot reduced fat loss as its the stomach that's the last remaining area to go, I put photos up on Saturday in a post. It's not strength based really in a sense of being low rep high weight, its hypertrophy, lower weight higher rep push,pull,legs,push,pull
Yes in my post Saturday some said cut, some said to maintain, some said bulk which really clarified things.
so of those opinions, which have you considered/decided to do - and if none of them, why?
I was gonna go maintenance again but then said sod it as I already was at maintenance I haven't much weight left to lose just get it over and done with once and for all but then the scale went the other way this morning for no reason at all which brought me to here.
the problem - based on what i have read is that you don't have a lot of fat to lose and by continuing to restrict your food intake, you make lose muscle mass as well as fat - eating at maintenance/recomp (slow) or a bulk/cut cycle would preserve that muscle mass long-term0 -
dave_in_ni wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »The elephant in the room here also is that you have hardly any weight to lose in reality. I don't think adding cardio will make any significant difference here. 16K is plenty of activity.
What kind of strength training do you do? Anaerobic exercise is generally better for raising RMR than other forms of exercise. https://examine.com/nutrition/is-my-slow-metabolism-stalling-my-weight-loss/. You'll also find in that link things that decrease RMR (like dieting long term without breaks).
If you've lost a lot of muscle during your original weight loss phase, it may be better to try build muscle before trying to lean out even more. (Only you can decide if it's something you want to consider).
Yeah hardly any to lose, if only I could spot reduced fat loss as its the stomach that's the last remaining area to go, I put photos up on Saturday in a post. It's not strength based really in a sense of being low rep high weight, its hypertrophy, lower weight higher rep push,pull,legs,push,pull
Yes in my post Saturday some said cut, some said to maintain, some said bulk which really clarified things.
I think any of those could work. It depends on your tolerance and your goal (and how much time you are willing to do this).
1. Cut (and then maybe bulk). Advantages: you won't gain weight. Disadvantages: you may/will lose some muscle. Will take longer to build after getting lean. You can't build new tissue in a deficit (unless you are complete beginner).
2. Maintain. Advantages: you won't gain weight. You won't lose muscle. Disadvantages: it takes the longest of the 3 in terms of time to get to a body fat percentage target.
3. Bulk (and then cut). Advantages: you will build muscle quicker. The overall Bulk/Cut cycle will get you to your goal marginally faster. Cutting fat with more muscle to start with will result in a lower body fat % at the end of the cycle than a simple cut (as in #1) and increased muscle tissue raises RMR. Disadvantages: in a surplus, you can't be 100% efficient (meaning that there will be a component of fat added). You may have a harder time dealing with the scale number and having faith that your subsequent cut will be successful.
So...it's up to you and it depends what you want to accomplish.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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
- 421 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions