What *ACTUALLY* boosts metabolism
UmaMageswarymfp
Posts: 280 Member
Hii , I’m 112kg 5’10 female. I lost 20kg so far this year. Now the losing weight process is getting harder and I’m wondering what actually boosts your metabolism? Does adding muscles helps you increase your resting calories? Or walking more? Idk advice me please
4
Replies
-
Exercise in general.
More muscle mass will burn more calories at rest which is one of the reasons men have faster metabolisms...but if you compare men and women of roughly equal stats, the difference isn't that much.20 -
Idk about boosting your metabolism exactly, but you can increase your daily calorie burn by working out. Cardio burns the most calories, but lifting helps you build or at least maintain more of your muscle mass as you lose weight. Maintaining muscle mass will give you a better bf% after losing weight.4
-
The real answer is illegal drugs (illegal because of their side effects mostly) and overeating.
Yes, overeating actually increases and speeds up your metabolic process if by that we mean base temperature and cellular activity.
But you may be looking for ways to increase your TDEE and feel better.
Activity, strength training, and other exercise all tend to do that!9 -
What you eat and when you eat will do nothing to boost metabolism, regardless of what pseudoscience you read. As others have said, exercise and building overall muscle mass are what will make an impact.11
-
If by "metabolism" you mean the calories you burn doing nothing but hanging out being alive (RMR/BMR), then there isn't much way to increase it significantly, at least not legally/safely. A pound of muscle only burns a couple of calories (literally) per day more than a pound of fat. There are some other tiny things that could be positive/negative (like undereating so much that your body slows down hair growth and whatnot - it won't stop a person losing weight if they're still eating fewer calories than they burn, but it can lead to negative health outcomes).
If you simply want to increase the number of calories your body burns, there are two productive routes: Exercise and daily life activity, not necessarily in that order (varies). One tricky thing is that it's possible to increase exercise so much that you're fatigued, and reduce daily life activity (chores, work, non-exercise hobbies, etc.) so much that you wipe out a good chunk of the exercise calorie benefit. Conversely, you can amp up daily life activity so much that workout intensity (or willingness/compliance) could be affected. So, there's a balance, and I'd bet the balance point depends on your starting conditions (fitness, daily habits, etc., at the start).
You probably know how to increase exercise calorie expenditure: Pick a type of exercise that burns more calories per minute, or do what you normally do more intensely, more often, or for a longer duration. Watch out for over-fatigue.
There's a thread here about ideas for increasing daily life activity:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss
For some, that produces meaningful results.
There are some other very, very minor things. For example, thermic efficiency of food, TEF, is one: There's a bare chance that eating more protein or more whole foods might burn a truly tiny number of extra calories in the digestive/metabolization processes, but it's iffy and minor. Better to focus on nutrition, satiation, and general enjoyment in that realm, I think, vs. chasing burning a tiny number more calories, on a speculative and non-measurable basis.
Probably the biggest helps in your kind of scenario are consistency, patience, persistence, and precision (of logging), realistically. Not what you'd wanted to hear, I suspect. :drinker:14 -
The real answer is illegal drugs (illegal because of their side effects mostly) and overeating.
Yes, overeating actually increases and speeds up your metabolic process if by that we mean base temperature and cellular activity.
But you may be looking for ways to increase your TDEE and feel better.
Activity, strength training, and other exercise all tend to do that!
Oh wow thank you3 -
If by "metabolism" you mean the calories you burn doing nothing but hanging out being alive (RMR/BMR), then there isn't much way to increase it significantly, at least not legally/safely. A pound of muscle only burns a couple of calories (literally) per day more than a pound of fat. There are some other tiny things that could be positive/negative (like undereating so much that your body slows down hair growth and whatnot - it won't stop a person losing weight if they're still eating fewer calories than they burn, but it can lead to negative health outcomes).
If you simply want to increase the number of calories your body burns, there are two productive routes: Exercise and daily life activity, not necessarily in that order (varies). One tricky thing is that it's possible to increase exercise so much that you're fatigued, and reduce daily life activity (chores, work, non-exercise hobbies, etc.) so much that you wipe out a good chunk of the exercise calorie benefit. Conversely, you can amp up daily life activity so much that workout intensity (or willingness/compliance) could be affected. So, there's a balance, and I'd bet the balance point depends on your starting conditions (fitness, daily habits, etc., at the start).
You probably know how to increase exercise calorie expenditure: Pick a type of exercise that burns more calories per minute, or do what you normally do more intensely, more often, or for a longer duration. Watch out for over-fatigue.
There's a thread here about ideas for increasing daily life activity:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss
For some, that produces meaningful results.
There are some other very, very minor things. For example, thermic efficiency of food, TEF, is one: There's a bare chance that eating more protein or more whole foods might burn a truly tiny number of extra calories in the digestive/metabolization processes, but it's iffy and minor. Better to focus on nutrition, satiation, and general enjoyment in that realm, I think, vs. chasing burning a tiny number more calories, on a speculative and non-measurable basis.
Probably the biggest helps in your kind of scenario are consistency, patience, persistence, and precision (of logging), realistically. Not what you'd wanted to hear, I suspect. :drinker:
Thank you so much 😊 Imma check out the link3 -
During your 20 kg loss over the past year have you taken any planned diet breaks? A couple weeks of eating at maintenance can really help. I find myself more focused after a diet break when returning to the deficit and my logging accuracy improves.4
-
You're down over 40 pounds! Good job!
I had a WW leader that pointed out that young-male-lactating-330 pound-football players would get the most points.
Short of that, acceptance of your "new normal" is the way to go. It's a good problem to have.
As your body changes size, you will need to feed it differently. My daily calorie allowance on MFP goes down 6 or 7 calories for each pound lost. Makes sense as it is basically a physics problem. Changing your ideas about food choices, though hard, is easier than changing the bodily processes needed to maintain life.
Think "lighter food for a lighter woman." You are worth it!4 -
Cinnamon, chiles (cayenne and others), ginger and tumeric, are all a "boost" to your metabolism. Now, I can't pinpoint exactly what boost: 0.05-15%, that's for you to judge.5
-
If by "metabolism" you mean the calories you burn doing nothing but hanging out being alive (RMR/BMR), then there isn't much way to increase it significantly, at least not legally/safely. A pound of muscle only burns a couple of calories (literally) per day more than a pound of fat. There are some other tiny things that could be positive/negative (like undereating so much that your body slows down hair growth and whatnot - it won't stop a person losing weight if they're still eating fewer calories than they burn, but it can lead to negative health outcomes).
If you simply want to increase the number of calories your body burns, there are two productive routes: Exercise and daily life activity, not necessarily in that order (varies). One tricky thing is that it's possible to increase exercise so much that you're fatigued, and reduce daily life activity (chores, work, non-exercise hobbies, etc.) so much that you wipe out a good chunk of the exercise calorie benefit. Conversely, you can amp up daily life activity so much that workout intensity (or willingness/compliance) could be affected. So, there's a balance, and I'd bet the balance point depends on your starting conditions (fitness, daily habits, etc., at the start).
You probably know how to increase exercise calorie expenditure: Pick a type of exercise that burns more calories per minute, or do what you normally do more intensely, more often, or for a longer duration. Watch out for over-fatigue.
There's a thread here about ideas for increasing daily life activity:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss
For some, that produces meaningful results.
There are some other very, very minor things. For example, thermic efficiency of food, TEF, is one: There's a bare chance that eating more protein or more whole foods might burn a truly tiny number of extra calories in the digestive/metabolization processes, but it's iffy and minor. Better to focus on nutrition, satiation, and general enjoyment in that realm, I think, vs. chasing burning a tiny number more calories, on a speculative and non-measurable basis.
Probably the biggest helps in your kind of scenario are consistency, patience, persistence, and precision (of logging), realistically. Not what you'd wanted to hear, I suspect. :drinker:
Exercise... yes.... cardio is great for just burning calories. Resistance training IMHO is just overlooked to much. You burn some energy during lifting. Slight bump in rmr over 48hr period most likely from increased protein turn over. Small amount of rmr bump dt increased/ sustaining muscle mass. It also might help decrease skeletal muscle efficiency that seems to happen after weight loss. Protein levels of 1.6/kg seem to also blunt the slight decrease in rmr as well...1 -
psychod787 wrote: »If by "metabolism" you mean the calories you burn doing nothing but hanging out being alive (RMR/BMR), then there isn't much way to increase it significantly, at least not legally/safely. A pound of muscle only burns a couple of calories (literally) per day more than a pound of fat. There are some other tiny things that could be positive/negative (like undereating so much that your body slows down hair growth and whatnot - it won't stop a person losing weight if they're still eating fewer calories than they burn, but it can lead to negative health outcomes).
If you simply want to increase the number of calories your body burns, there are two productive routes: Exercise and daily life activity, not necessarily in that order (varies). One tricky thing is that it's possible to increase exercise so much that you're fatigued, and reduce daily life activity (chores, work, non-exercise hobbies, etc.) so much that you wipe out a good chunk of the exercise calorie benefit. Conversely, you can amp up daily life activity so much that workout intensity (or willingness/compliance) could be affected. So, there's a balance, and I'd bet the balance point depends on your starting conditions (fitness, daily habits, etc., at the start).
You probably know how to increase exercise calorie expenditure: Pick a type of exercise that burns more calories per minute, or do what you normally do more intensely, more often, or for a longer duration. Watch out for over-fatigue.
There's a thread here about ideas for increasing daily life activity:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss
For some, that produces meaningful results.
There are some other very, very minor things. For example, thermic efficiency of food, TEF, is one: There's a bare chance that eating more protein or more whole foods might burn a truly tiny number of extra calories in the digestive/metabolization processes, but it's iffy and minor. Better to focus on nutrition, satiation, and general enjoyment in that realm, I think, vs. chasing burning a tiny number more calories, on a speculative and non-measurable basis.
Probably the biggest helps in your kind of scenario are consistency, patience, persistence, and precision (of logging), realistically. Not what you'd wanted to hear, I suspect. :drinker:
Exercise... yes.... cardio is great for just burning calories. Resistance training IMHO is just overlooked to much. You burn some energy during lifting. Slight bump in rmr over 48hr period most likely from increased protein turn over. Small amount of rmr bump dt increased/ sustaining muscle mass. It also might help decrease skeletal muscle efficiency that seems to happen after weight loss. Protein levels of 1.6/kg seem to also blunt the slight decrease in rmr as well...
Lol I understood nothing from this hahah , enlighten me please
6 -
UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »If by "metabolism" you mean the calories you burn doing nothing but hanging out being alive (RMR/BMR), then there isn't much way to increase it significantly, at least not legally/safely. A pound of muscle only burns a couple of calories (literally) per day more than a pound of fat. There are some other tiny things that could be positive/negative (like undereating so much that your body slows down hair growth and whatnot - it won't stop a person losing weight if they're still eating fewer calories than they burn, but it can lead to negative health outcomes).
If you simply want to increase the number of calories your body burns, there are two productive routes: Exercise and daily life activity, not necessarily in that order (varies). One tricky thing is that it's possible to increase exercise so much that you're fatigued, and reduce daily life activity (chores, work, non-exercise hobbies, etc.) so much that you wipe out a good chunk of the exercise calorie benefit. Conversely, you can amp up daily life activity so much that workout intensity (or willingness/compliance) could be affected. So, there's a balance, and I'd bet the balance point depends on your starting conditions (fitness, daily habits, etc., at the start).
You probably know how to increase exercise calorie expenditure: Pick a type of exercise that burns more calories per minute, or do what you normally do more intensely, more often, or for a longer duration. Watch out for over-fatigue.
There's a thread here about ideas for increasing daily life activity:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss
For some, that produces meaningful results.
There are some other very, very minor things. For example, thermic efficiency of food, TEF, is one: There's a bare chance that eating more protein or more whole foods might burn a truly tiny number of extra calories in the digestive/metabolization processes, but it's iffy and minor. Better to focus on nutrition, satiation, and general enjoyment in that realm, I think, vs. chasing burning a tiny number more calories, on a speculative and non-measurable basis.
Probably the biggest helps in your kind of scenario are consistency, patience, persistence, and precision (of logging), realistically. Not what you'd wanted to hear, I suspect. :drinker:
Exercise... yes.... cardio is great for just burning calories. Resistance training IMHO is just overlooked to much. You burn some energy during lifting. Slight bump in rmr over 48hr period most likely from increased protein turn over. Small amount of rmr bump dt increased/ sustaining muscle mass. It also might help decrease skeletal muscle efficiency that seems to happen after weight loss. Protein levels of 1.6/kg seem to also blunt the slight decrease in rmr as well...
Lol I understood nothing from this hahah , enlighten me please
Here are some research reviews that might help.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/30260099/
https://academic.oup.com/jn/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jn/nxz281/56376811 -
psychod787 wrote: »UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »If by "metabolism" you mean the calories you burn doing nothing but hanging out being alive (RMR/BMR), then there isn't much way to increase it significantly, at least not legally/safely. A pound of muscle only burns a couple of calories (literally) per day more than a pound of fat. There are some other tiny things that could be positive/negative (like undereating so much that your body slows down hair growth and whatnot - it won't stop a person losing weight if they're still eating fewer calories than they burn, but it can lead to negative health outcomes).
If you simply want to increase the number of calories your body burns, there are two productive routes: Exercise and daily life activity, not necessarily in that order (varies). One tricky thing is that it's possible to increase exercise so much that you're fatigued, and reduce daily life activity (chores, work, non-exercise hobbies, etc.) so much that you wipe out a good chunk of the exercise calorie benefit. Conversely, you can amp up daily life activity so much that workout intensity (or willingness/compliance) could be affected. So, there's a balance, and I'd bet the balance point depends on your starting conditions (fitness, daily habits, etc., at the start).
You probably know how to increase exercise calorie expenditure: Pick a type of exercise that burns more calories per minute, or do what you normally do more intensely, more often, or for a longer duration. Watch out for over-fatigue.
There's a thread here about ideas for increasing daily life activity:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss
For some, that produces meaningful results.
There are some other very, very minor things. For example, thermic efficiency of food, TEF, is one: There's a bare chance that eating more protein or more whole foods might burn a truly tiny number of extra calories in the digestive/metabolization processes, but it's iffy and minor. Better to focus on nutrition, satiation, and general enjoyment in that realm, I think, vs. chasing burning a tiny number more calories, on a speculative and non-measurable basis.
Probably the biggest helps in your kind of scenario are consistency, patience, persistence, and precision (of logging), realistically. Not what you'd wanted to hear, I suspect. :drinker:
Exercise... yes.... cardio is great for just burning calories. Resistance training IMHO is just overlooked to much. You burn some energy during lifting. Slight bump in rmr over 48hr period most likely from increased protein turn over. Small amount of rmr bump dt increased/ sustaining muscle mass. It also might help decrease skeletal muscle efficiency that seems to happen after weight loss. Protein levels of 1.6/kg seem to also blunt the slight decrease in rmr as well...
Lol I understood nothing from this hahah , enlighten me please
Here are some research reviews that might help.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/30260099/
https://academic.oup.com/jn/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jn/nxz281/5637681
Or, with apologies to Mr. Psychod787 :flowerforyou: , if you were looking for a less academic restatement, I think he was wanting to say that:
* Too many people ignore how useful strength training is (maybe especially during weight loss)
* You do burn some calories during lifting, even if not quite as many calories per minute as during most cardio
* Strength training also causes a very small extra calorie burn after the workout ("bump in RMR", or resting metabolic rate), probably from rebuilding the muscles that you worked out
* Sometimes people who lose weight, also lose strength and muscle (a bad thing) along with fat; and strength training while losing weight can help avoid that bad effect
* Getting enough protein from one's diet seems to help avoid losing muscle while losing weight, too; and 1.6g of protein daily seems to be a good minimum to hit (let's call that 0.75g protein per pound, more or less, if you use pounds vs. kg). I suspect he might mean per kg/pound of healthy goal weight, or maybe even per kg/pound of lean body mass, but I'm not sure - he didn't say.
I may've missed a point or two in there about resting metabolic rate and protein, or muscular efficiency, not sure, but I think that's the gist.14 -
psychod787 wrote: »UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »If by "metabolism" you mean the calories you burn doing nothing but hanging out being alive (RMR/BMR), then there isn't much way to increase it significantly, at least not legally/safely. A pound of muscle only burns a couple of calories (literally) per day more than a pound of fat. There are some other tiny things that could be positive/negative (like undereating so much that your body slows down hair growth and whatnot - it won't stop a person losing weight if they're still eating fewer calories than they burn, but it can lead to negative health outcomes).
If you simply want to increase the number of calories your body burns, there are two productive routes: Exercise and daily life activity, not necessarily in that order (varies). One tricky thing is that it's possible to increase exercise so much that you're fatigued, and reduce daily life activity (chores, work, non-exercise hobbies, etc.) so much that you wipe out a good chunk of the exercise calorie benefit. Conversely, you can amp up daily life activity so much that workout intensity (or willingness/compliance) could be affected. So, there's a balance, and I'd bet the balance point depends on your starting conditions (fitness, daily habits, etc., at the start).
You probably know how to increase exercise calorie expenditure: Pick a type of exercise that burns more calories per minute, or do what you normally do more intensely, more often, or for a longer duration. Watch out for over-fatigue.
There's a thread here about ideas for increasing daily life activity:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss
For some, that produces meaningful results.
There are some other very, very minor things. For example, thermic efficiency of food, TEF, is one: There's a bare chance that eating more protein or more whole foods might burn a truly tiny number of extra calories in the digestive/metabolization processes, but it's iffy and minor. Better to focus on nutrition, satiation, and general enjoyment in that realm, I think, vs. chasing burning a tiny number more calories, on a speculative and non-measurable basis.
Probably the biggest helps in your kind of scenario are consistency, patience, persistence, and precision (of logging), realistically. Not what you'd wanted to hear, I suspect. :drinker:
Exercise... yes.... cardio is great for just burning calories. Resistance training IMHO is just overlooked to much. You burn some energy during lifting. Slight bump in rmr over 48hr period most likely from increased protein turn over. Small amount of rmr bump dt increased/ sustaining muscle mass. It also might help decrease skeletal muscle efficiency that seems to happen after weight loss. Protein levels of 1.6/kg seem to also blunt the slight decrease in rmr as well...
Lol I understood nothing from this hahah , enlighten me please
Here are some research reviews that might help.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/30260099/
https://academic.oup.com/jn/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jn/nxz281/5637681
Or, with apologies to Mr. Psychod787 :flowerforyou: , if you were looking for a less academic restatement, I think he was wanting to say that:
* Too many people ignore how useful strength training is (maybe especially during weight loss)
* You do burn some calories during lifting, even if not quite as many calories per minute as during most cardio
* Strength training also causes a very small extra calorie burn after the workout ("bump in RMR", or resting metabolic rate), probably from rebuilding the muscles that you worked out
* Sometimes people who lose weight, also lose strength and muscle (a bad thing) along with fat; and strength training while losing weight can help avoid that bad effect
* Getting enough protein from one's diet seems to help avoid losing muscle while losing weight, too; and 1.6g of protein daily seems to be a good minimum to hit (let's call that 0.75g protein per pound, more or less, if you use pounds vs. kg). I suspect he might mean per kg/pound of healthy goal weight, or maybe even per kg/pound of lean body mass, but I'm not sure - he didn't say.
I may've missed a point or two in there about resting metabolic rate and protein, or muscular efficiency, not sure, but I think that's the gist.
No apology needed my Granny of the Buffness. Pretty close. Hard to think I actually got called "academic".. lol good video here by Stuart Phillips. Preface... he was sponsored by the dairy council. He does say that in the lecture.
https://youtu.be/15jtzjv8uOM 4 -
candylilacs wrote: »Cinnamon, chiles (cayenne and others), ginger and tumeric, are all a "boost" to your metabolism. Now, I can't pinpoint exactly what boost: 0.05-15%, that's for you to judge.
Suprised this got quite as many "disagrees" as it did. There's at least some evidence that that's true, IMU, for some of those things.
But pay attention to the percentages: Once again, it's arithmetic FTW!
Let's say I eat a material amount of chiles (we're not talking "just a sprinkle" here). My "metabolism" (BMR/RMR) is estimated by most calculators to be around 1200 calories/day.
A 0.05% boost would be 0.6 calories. Whee!
A 15% boost would be 180 calories (which would be nice, but I've personally never seen research that had anything like nearly that big an effect, but I haven't seen all the world's research - that number you'd have to ask @candylilacs about).
. . . if the effect lasted all day. Which, IIRC, from most of what I've read, there's not much evidence.
Tiny. Tiny. Tiny. Lost in the noise of estimating error. Not worth considering. And who wants to eat chiles (or ginger, etc.) by the shovelful?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20826626
Note that that study only sees results after a month of using a supplement (concentrated) form of capsinoid (chile derivative) routinely, that only reaches significance when they pool numbers (and do some other really questionable stuff, statistically speaking), relies on measurements at points in time relatively close to fasted consumption of the supplement. And then the effect is so small as to be within the range of normal daily RMR variation. Whoopee.
Don't waste your time chasing "metabolism boosting" individual foods. You'd burn more calories clicking keys looking for the research that discounts it.
14 -
candylilacs wrote: »Cinnamon, chiles (cayenne and others), ginger and tumeric, are all a "boost" to your metabolism. Now, I can't pinpoint exactly what boost: 0.05-15%, that's for you to judge.
Suprised this got quite as many "disagrees" as it did. There's at least some evidence that that's true, IMU, for some of those things.
But pay attention to the percentages: Once again, it's arithmetic FTW!
Let's say I eat a material amount of chiles (we're not talking "just a sprinkle" here). My "metabolism" (BMR/RMR) is estimated by most calculators to be around 1200 calories/day.
A 0.05% boost would be 0.6 calories. Whee!
A 15% boost would be 180 calories (which would be nice, but I've personally never seen research that had anything that had nearly that big an effect, but I haven't seen all the world's research - that number you'd have to ask @candylilacs about).
. . . if the effect lasted all day. Which, IIRC, from most of what I've read, there's not much evidence.
Tiny. Tiny. Tiny. Lost in the noise of estimating error. Not worth considering. And who wants to eat chiles (or ginger, etc.) by the shovelful?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20826626
Note that that study only sees results after a month of using a supplement (concentrated) form of capsinoid (chile derivative) routinely, that only reaches significance when they pool numbers (and do some other really questionable stuff, statistically speaking), relies on measurements at points in time relatively close to fasted consumption of the supplement. And then the effect is so small as to be within the range of normal daily RMR variation. Whoopee.
Don't waste your time chasing "metabolism boosting" individual foods. You'd burn more calories clicking keys looking for the research that discounts it.
Mic drop 🎤6 -
psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »If by "metabolism" you mean the calories you burn doing nothing but hanging out being alive (RMR/BMR), then there isn't much way to increase it significantly, at least not legally/safely. A pound of muscle only burns a couple of calories (literally) per day more than a pound of fat. There are some other tiny things that could be positive/negative (like undereating so much that your body slows down hair growth and whatnot - it won't stop a person losing weight if they're still eating fewer calories than they burn, but it can lead to negative health outcomes).
If you simply want to increase the number of calories your body burns, there are two productive routes: Exercise and daily life activity, not necessarily in that order (varies). One tricky thing is that it's possible to increase exercise so much that you're fatigued, and reduce daily life activity (chores, work, non-exercise hobbies, etc.) so much that you wipe out a good chunk of the exercise calorie benefit. Conversely, you can amp up daily life activity so much that workout intensity (or willingness/compliance) could be affected. So, there's a balance, and I'd bet the balance point depends on your starting conditions (fitness, daily habits, etc., at the start).
You probably know how to increase exercise calorie expenditure: Pick a type of exercise that burns more calories per minute, or do what you normally do more intensely, more often, or for a longer duration. Watch out for over-fatigue.
There's a thread here about ideas for increasing daily life activity:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss
For some, that produces meaningful results.
There are some other very, very minor things. For example, thermic efficiency of food, TEF, is one: There's a bare chance that eating more protein or more whole foods might burn a truly tiny number of extra calories in the digestive/metabolization processes, but it's iffy and minor. Better to focus on nutrition, satiation, and general enjoyment in that realm, I think, vs. chasing burning a tiny number more calories, on a speculative and non-measurable basis.
Probably the biggest helps in your kind of scenario are consistency, patience, persistence, and precision (of logging), realistically. Not what you'd wanted to hear, I suspect. :drinker:
Exercise... yes.... cardio is great for just burning calories. Resistance training IMHO is just overlooked to much. You burn some energy during lifting. Slight bump in rmr over 48hr period most likely from increased protein turn over. Small amount of rmr bump dt increased/ sustaining muscle mass. It also might help decrease skeletal muscle efficiency that seems to happen after weight loss. Protein levels of 1.6/kg seem to also blunt the slight decrease in rmr as well...
Lol I understood nothing from this hahah , enlighten me please
Here are some research reviews that might help.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/30260099/
https://academic.oup.com/jn/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jn/nxz281/5637681
Or, with apologies to Mr. Psychod787 :flowerforyou: , if you were looking for a less academic restatement, I think he was wanting to say that:
* Too many people ignore how useful strength training is (maybe especially during weight loss)
* You do burn some calories during lifting, even if not quite as many calories per minute as during most cardio
* Strength training also causes a very small extra calorie burn after the workout ("bump in RMR", or resting metabolic rate), probably from rebuilding the muscles that you worked out
* Sometimes people who lose weight, also lose strength and muscle (a bad thing) along with fat; and strength training while losing weight can help avoid that bad effect
* Getting enough protein from one's diet seems to help avoid losing muscle while losing weight, too; and 1.6g of protein daily seems to be a good minimum to hit (let's call that 0.75g protein per pound, more or less, if you use pounds vs. kg). I suspect he might mean per kg/pound of healthy goal weight, or maybe even per kg/pound of lean body mass, but I'm not sure - he didn't say.
I may've missed a point or two in there about resting metabolic rate and protein, or muscular efficiency, not sure, but I think that's the gist.
No apology needed my Granny of the Buffness. Pretty close. Hard to think I actually got called "academic".. lol good video here by Stuart Phillips. Preface... he was sponsored by the dairy council. He does say that in the lecture.
<Snip video, for reply length.>
Call granny "buff" enough times, and she will call you "academic".
I feel a little amused that my "translation" which you say is "pretty close" earned a "disagree" from someone, when (so far, right now), your post that I was translating, didn't. (I'm assuming the "disagree" wasn't you, because I think you're secretly (?) kind of a sweet young man. ).
Either I'm unloved by the kind of sad personality that spends their free time going around "disagree"-ing because they don't like a person, or they didn't understand what you were saying. Heh.
Interesting links and vids you posted in support . . . also no "disagree" on those.
11 -
Metabolism is pretty much fixed - the output is just a biochemical pathway within a cell and multiplied by a number of cells - body mass.
There is a very slight difference in tissue (muscle vs fat), but this is barely above device detection levels, so in large irrelevant.
Activity is the key, especially as our lives become more and more automated and motor assisted.10 -
psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »If by "metabolism" you mean the calories you burn doing nothing but hanging out being alive (RMR/BMR), then there isn't much way to increase it significantly, at least not legally/safely. A pound of muscle only burns a couple of calories (literally) per day more than a pound of fat. There are some other tiny things that could be positive/negative (like undereating so much that your body slows down hair growth and whatnot - it won't stop a person losing weight if they're still eating fewer calories than they burn, but it can lead to negative health outcomes).
If you simply want to increase the number of calories your body burns, there are two productive routes: Exercise and daily life activity, not necessarily in that order (varies). One tricky thing is that it's possible to increase exercise so much that you're fatigued, and reduce daily life activity (chores, work, non-exercise hobbies, etc.) so much that you wipe out a good chunk of the exercise calorie benefit. Conversely, you can amp up daily life activity so much that workout intensity (or willingness/compliance) could be affected. So, there's a balance, and I'd bet the balance point depends on your starting conditions (fitness, daily habits, etc., at the start).
You probably know how to increase exercise calorie expenditure: Pick a type of exercise that burns more calories per minute, or do what you normally do more intensely, more often, or for a longer duration. Watch out for over-fatigue.
There's a thread here about ideas for increasing daily life activity:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss
For some, that produces meaningful results.
There are some other very, very minor things. For example, thermic efficiency of food, TEF, is one: There's a bare chance that eating more protein or more whole foods might burn a truly tiny number of extra calories in the digestive/metabolization processes, but it's iffy and minor. Better to focus on nutrition, satiation, and general enjoyment in that realm, I think, vs. chasing burning a tiny number more calories, on a speculative and non-measurable basis.
Probably the biggest helps in your kind of scenario are consistency, patience, persistence, and precision (of logging), realistically. Not what you'd wanted to hear, I suspect. :drinker:
Exercise... yes.... cardio is great for just burning calories. Resistance training IMHO is just overlooked to much. You burn some energy during lifting. Slight bump in rmr over 48hr period most likely from increased protein turn over. Small amount of rmr bump dt increased/ sustaining muscle mass. It also might help decrease skeletal muscle efficiency that seems to happen after weight loss. Protein levels of 1.6/kg seem to also blunt the slight decrease in rmr as well...
Lol I understood nothing from this hahah , enlighten me please
Here are some research reviews that might help.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/30260099/
https://academic.oup.com/jn/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jn/nxz281/5637681
Or, with apologies to Mr. Psychod787 :flowerforyou: , if you were looking for a less academic restatement, I think he was wanting to say that:
* Too many people ignore how useful strength training is (maybe especially during weight loss)
* You do burn some calories during lifting, even if not quite as many calories per minute as during most cardio
* Strength training also causes a very small extra calorie burn after the workout ("bump in RMR", or resting metabolic rate), probably from rebuilding the muscles that you worked out
* Sometimes people who lose weight, also lose strength and muscle (a bad thing) along with fat; and strength training while losing weight can help avoid that bad effect
* Getting enough protein from one's diet seems to help avoid losing muscle while losing weight, too; and 1.6g of protein daily seems to be a good minimum to hit (let's call that 0.75g protein per pound, more or less, if you use pounds vs. kg). I suspect he might mean per kg/pound of healthy goal weight, or maybe even per kg/pound of lean body mass, but I'm not sure - he didn't say.
I may've missed a point or two in there about resting metabolic rate and protein, or muscular efficiency, not sure, but I think that's the gist.
No apology needed my Granny of the Buffness. Pretty close. Hard to think I actually got called "academic".. lol good video here by Stuart Phillips. Preface... he was sponsored by the dairy council. He does say that in the lecture.
<Snip video, for reply length.>
Call granny "buff" enough times, and she will call you "academic".
I feel a little amused that my "translation" which you say is "pretty close" earned a "disagree" from someone, when (so far, right now), your post that I was translating, didn't. (I'm assuming the "disagree" wasn't you, because I think you're secretly (?) kind of a sweet young man. ).
Either I'm unloved by the kind of sad personality that spends their free time going around "disagree"-ing because they don't like a person, or they didn't understand what you were saying. Heh.
Interesting links and vids you posted in support . . . also no "disagree" on those.
Well ma'am.. you are buff... so... secretly nice?🤐lol. I just dont want this young lady to fall "victim" to many of the things I did. Though to be honest, most of my "learning" has been what increases CI vs CO, I can't help but come by research on CO. I want this young lady to learn what it took me years to. Start to prepare for maintenance now. People like to call weight loss a "journey", I dont think it is. It's a grand adventure. It never stops. I would tell this person to check out the Ideal Weight Program on Humanos.me. it breaks down on 4hrs what it took me years to learn. No I dont get paid for this plug. I dont work for them. It is just something I believe in. Lol3 -
One thing that can influence metabolism is thyroid problems. Particularly if you are a woman of a certain age, when thyroid issues often appear for the first time, get your thyroid checked and if there is a problem, get on the right medication. The difference isn’t huge compared to the effect of diet, but for me, having my thyroid within range made everything - not just weight loss but also exercise and daily living - much easier.3
-
candylilacs wrote: »Cinnamon, chiles (cayenne and others), ginger and tumeric, are all a "boost" to your metabolism. Now, I can't pinpoint exactly what boost: 0.05-15%, that's for you to judge.
Suprised this got quite as many "disagrees" as it did. There's at least some evidence that that's true, IMU, for some of those things.
But pay attention to the percentages: Once again, it's arithmetic FTW!
Let's say I eat a material amount of chiles (we're not talking "just a sprinkle" here). My "metabolism" (BMR/RMR) is estimated by most calculators to be around 1200 calories/day.
A 0.05% boost would be 0.6 calories. Whee!
A 15% boost would be 180 calories (which would be nice, but I've personally never seen research that had anything like nearly that big an effect, but I haven't seen all the world's research - that number you'd have to ask @candylilacs about).
. . . if the effect lasted all day. Which, IIRC, from most of what I've read, there's not much evidence.
Tiny. Tiny. Tiny. Lost in the noise of estimating error. Not worth considering. And who wants to eat chiles (or ginger, etc.) by the shovelful?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20826626
Note that that study only sees results after a month of using a supplement (concentrated) form of capsinoid (chile derivative) routinely, that only reaches significance when they pool numbers (and do some other really questionable stuff, statistically speaking), relies on measurements at points in time relatively close to fasted consumption of the supplement. And then the effect is so small as to be within the range of normal daily RMR variation. Whoopee.
Don't waste your time chasing "metabolism boosting" individual foods. You'd burn more calories clicking keys looking for the research that discounts it.
I think your post is indicative as to why the other one got so many disagrees. the differences are so small as to get get lost in the wash of logging errors and N.E.A.T. variations and normal RMR. When people focus on this kind of minutia I really think they are searching for a "hack" that's going to make a difference and, as a variation of what you state above, one burns more calories looking for the hack than the hack itself does.
Bottom line is there are no hacks that do anything of significance. The basics, reasonable calorie deficit, exercise and patience, are what work.11 -
candylilacs wrote: »Cinnamon, chiles (cayenne and others), ginger and tumeric, are all a "boost" to your metabolism. Now, I can't pinpoint exactly what boost: 0.05-15%, that's for you to judge.
Suprised this got quite as many "disagrees" as it did. There's at least some evidence that that's true, IMU, for some of those things.
But pay attention to the percentages: Once again, it's arithmetic FTW!
Let's say I eat a material amount of chiles (we're not talking "just a sprinkle" here). My "metabolism" (BMR/RMR) is estimated by most calculators to be around 1200 calories/day.
A 0.05% boost would be 0.6 calories. Whee!
A 15% boost would be 180 calories (which would be nice, but I've personally never seen research that had anything like nearly that big an effect, but I haven't seen all the world's research - that number you'd have to ask @candylilacs about).
. . . if the effect lasted all day. Which, IIRC, from most of what I've read, there's not much evidence.
Tiny. Tiny. Tiny. Lost in the noise of estimating error. Not worth considering. And who wants to eat chiles (or ginger, etc.) by the shovelful?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20826626
Note that that study only sees results after a month of using a supplement (concentrated) form of capsinoid (chile derivative) routinely, that only reaches significance when they pool numbers (and do some other really questionable stuff, statistically speaking), relies on measurements at points in time relatively close to fasted consumption of the supplement. And then the effect is so small as to be within the range of normal daily RMR variation. Whoopee.
Don't waste your time chasing "metabolism boosting" individual foods. You'd burn more calories clicking keys looking for the research that discounts it.
I think your post is indicative as to why the other one got so many disagrees. the differences are so small as to get get lost in the wash of logging errors and N.E.A.T. variations and normal RMR. When people focus on this kind of minutia I really think they are searching for a "hack" that's going to make a difference and, as a variation of what you state above, one burns more calories looking for the hack than the hack itself does.
Bottom line is there are no hacks that do anything of significance. The basics, reasonable calorie deficit, exercise and patience, are what work.
To me, "potentially real, but ridiculously small" is a more informative answer than "disagree", based on some of the (admittedly questionable) research results. Often, the simple one-click "answers" are slightly wrong, and (IMO) do no credit to those who advance them (anonymously ).
I acknowledge that I do like nuance and hair-splitting, by nature, though.7 -
candylilacs wrote: »Cinnamon, chiles (cayenne and others), ginger and tumeric, are all a "boost" to your metabolism. Now, I can't pinpoint exactly what boost: 0.05-15%, that's for you to judge.
Suprised this got quite as many "disagrees" as it did. There's at least some evidence that that's true, IMU, for some of those things.
But pay attention to the percentages: Once again, it's arithmetic FTW!
Let's say I eat a material amount of chiles (we're not talking "just a sprinkle" here). My "metabolism" (BMR/RMR) is estimated by most calculators to be around 1200 calories/day.
A 0.05% boost would be 0.6 calories. Whee!
A 15% boost would be 180 calories (which would be nice, but I've personally never seen research that had anything like nearly that big an effect, but I haven't seen all the world's research - that number you'd have to ask @candylilacs about).
. . . if the effect lasted all day. Which, IIRC, from most of what I've read, there's not much evidence.
Tiny. Tiny. Tiny. Lost in the noise of estimating error. Not worth considering. And who wants to eat chiles (or ginger, etc.) by the shovelful?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20826626
Note that that study only sees results after a month of using a supplement (concentrated) form of capsinoid (chile derivative) routinely, that only reaches significance when they pool numbers (and do some other really questionable stuff, statistically speaking), relies on measurements at points in time relatively close to fasted consumption of the supplement. And then the effect is so small as to be within the range of normal daily RMR variation. Whoopee.
Don't waste your time chasing "metabolism boosting" individual foods. You'd burn more calories clicking keys looking for the research that discounts it.
I think your post is indicative as to why the other one got so many disagrees. the differences are so small as to get get lost in the wash of logging errors and N.E.A.T. variations and normal RMR. When people focus on this kind of minutia I really think they are searching for a "hack" that's going to make a difference and, as a variation of what you state above, one burns more calories looking for the hack than the hack itself does.
Bottom line is there are no hacks that do anything of significance. The basics, reasonable calorie deficit, exercise and patience, are what work.
To me, "potentially real, but ridiculously small" is a more informative answer than "disagree", based on some of the (admittedly questionable) research results. Often, the simple one-click "answers" are slightly wrong, and (IMO) do no credit to those who advance them (anonymously ).
I acknowledge that I do like nuance and hair-splitting, by nature, though.
Same here with the hair splitting. Its ok ma'am. I have my own woo crew. They're just jealous because I am prettier than they are! 🤟9 -
I happen to know things. They can disagree all they want. I dislike ginger.
4 -
candylilacs wrote: »Cinnamon, chiles (cayenne and others), ginger and tumeric, are all a "boost" to your metabolism. Now, I can't pinpoint exactly what boost: 0.05-15%, that's for you to judge.
Suprised this got quite as many "disagrees" as it did. There's at least some evidence that that's true, IMU, for some of those things.
But pay attention to the percentages: Once again, it's arithmetic FTW!
Let's say I eat a material amount of chiles (we're not talking "just a sprinkle" here). My "metabolism" (BMR/RMR) is estimated by most calculators to be around 1200 calories/day.
A 0.05% boost would be 0.6 calories. Whee!
A 15% boost would be 180 calories (which would be nice, but I've personally never seen research that had anything like nearly that big an effect, but I haven't seen all the world's research - that number you'd have to ask @candylilacs about).
. . . if the effect lasted all day. Which, IIRC, from most of what I've read, there's not much evidence.
Tiny. Tiny. Tiny. Lost in the noise of estimating error. Not worth considering. And who wants to eat chiles (or ginger, etc.) by the shovelful?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20826626
Note that that study only sees results after a month of using a supplement (concentrated) form of capsinoid (chile derivative) routinely, that only reaches significance when they pool numbers (and do some other really questionable stuff, statistically speaking), relies on measurements at points in time relatively close to fasted consumption of the supplement. And then the effect is so small as to be within the range of normal daily RMR variation. Whoopee.
Don't waste your time chasing "metabolism boosting" individual foods. You'd burn more calories clicking keys looking for the research that discounts it.
I think your post is indicative as to why the other one got so many disagrees. the differences are so small as to get get lost in the wash of logging errors and N.E.A.T. variations and normal RMR. When people focus on this kind of minutia I really think they are searching for a "hack" that's going to make a difference and, as a variation of what you state above, one burns more calories looking for the hack than the hack itself does.
Bottom line is there are no hacks that do anything of significance. The basics, reasonable calorie deficit, exercise and patience, are what work.
To me, "potentially real, but ridiculously small" is a more informative answer than "disagree", based on some of the (admittedly questionable) research results. Often, the simple one-click "answers" are slightly wrong, and (IMO) do no credit to those who advance them (anonymously ).
I acknowledge that I do like nuance and hair-splitting, by nature, though.
I get you Ann and I think you know I have a high degree of respect for your perspective.
For me, it's a bottom line kind of issue. In my mind, if these nuances won't make a significantly contribution difference to achieving one's goals, then, functionally, they are just noise. And distracting noise at that.
So many people get so hung up on gaming the system as opposed to focusing on the fundamentals and, IMHO, that is so very counterproductive.
PS: one of those disagrees was mine for the reasons stated above.9 -
candylilacs wrote: »Cinnamon, chiles (cayenne and others), ginger and tumeric, are all a "boost" to your metabolism. Now, I can't pinpoint exactly what boost: 0.05-15%, that's for you to judge.
Suprised this got quite as many "disagrees" as it did. There's at least some evidence that that's true, IMU, for some of those things.
But pay attention to the percentages: Once again, it's arithmetic FTW!
Let's say I eat a material amount of chiles (we're not talking "just a sprinkle" here). My "metabolism" (BMR/RMR) is estimated by most calculators to be around 1200 calories/day.
A 0.05% boost would be 0.6 calories. Whee!
A 15% boost would be 180 calories (which would be nice, but I've personally never seen research that had anything like nearly that big an effect, but I haven't seen all the world's research - that number you'd have to ask @candylilacs about).
. . . if the effect lasted all day. Which, IIRC, from most of what I've read, there's not much evidence.
Tiny. Tiny. Tiny. Lost in the noise of estimating error. Not worth considering. And who wants to eat chiles (or ginger, etc.) by the shovelful?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20826626
Note that that study only sees results after a month of using a supplement (concentrated) form of capsinoid (chile derivative) routinely, that only reaches significance when they pool numbers (and do some other really questionable stuff, statistically speaking), relies on measurements at points in time relatively close to fasted consumption of the supplement. And then the effect is so small as to be within the range of normal daily RMR variation. Whoopee.
Don't waste your time chasing "metabolism boosting" individual foods. You'd burn more calories clicking keys looking for the research that discounts it.
I think your post is indicative as to why the other one got so many disagrees. the differences are so small as to get get lost in the wash of logging errors and N.E.A.T. variations and normal RMR. When people focus on this kind of minutia I really think they are searching for a "hack" that's going to make a difference and, as a variation of what you state above, one burns more calories looking for the hack than the hack itself does.
Bottom line is there are no hacks that do anything of significance. The basics, reasonable calorie deficit, exercise and patience, are what work.
To me, "potentially real, but ridiculously small" is a more informative answer than "disagree", based on some of the (admittedly questionable) research results. Often, the simple one-click "answers" are slightly wrong, and (IMO) do no credit to those who advance them (anonymously ).
I acknowledge that I do like nuance and hair-splitting, by nature, though.
I get you Ann and I think you know I have a high degree of respect for your perspective.
For me, it's a bottom line kind of issue. In my mind, if these nuances won't make a significantly contribution difference to achieving one's goals, then, functionally, they are just noise. And distracting noise at that.
So many people get so hung up on gaming the system as opposed to focusing on the fundamentals and, IMHO, that is so very counterproductive.
PS: one of those disagrees was mine for the reasons stated above.
We agree that it's noise, 100%.
Seemingly, a few people want to chase effortless results; readily achievable results that require effort or sacrifice are just not as appealing as effortless ones.
I get it, I do. But it's a waste of time. Which is why I replied to the post with more specifics. That's how I like to waste my time. 7 -
candylilacs wrote: »I happen to know things. They can disagree all they want. I dislike ginger.
If you want to continue to eat cinnamon, chillies, ginger and turmeric for a couple of extra pieces of lettuce a day then go for it. Personally I'd only eat those things if I enjoyed them as their impact on metabolism is insignificant in the scheme of things.14 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »candylilacs wrote: »I happen to know things. They can disagree all they want. I dislike ginger.
If you want to continue to eat cinnamon, chillies, ginger and turmeric for a couple of extra pieces of lettuce a day then go for it. Personally I'd only eat those things if I enjoyed them as their impact on metabolism is insignificant in the scheme of things.
I think there are some compelling reasons for eating all of those items. The anti inflammatory effects of curcumin and chiles. The digestive benefits of ginger. The positive impact of cinnamon on blood glucose, plus many of these things are just plain delicious!
But for increased calorie burn? Nah. It's meaningless.16 -
The OP poster said:
And I quoted her necessary "boosts" in metabolism. I couldn't give it an actual number, scientists don't know for sure, but I know for sure it helps. Spicy food generally helps.Now the losing weight process is getting harder and I’m wondering what actually boosts your metabolism?
I dislike ginger (if you read above) and I'm so-so on tumeric. I love chai tea latte (with whole milk) and I have been known to drink cinnamon tea. Variety is the spice of life!Nah. It's meaningless.
No, it's not. It's meaningful for the OP and it's all those posing questions about giving a boost to her/his metabolism.4
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