Myfitnesspal

Message Boards General Health, Fitness and Diet
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Starvation Mode - Adaptive Thermogenesis and Weight Loss

1246724

Replies

  • VastaesolitudinesVastaesolitudines Member Posts: 12 Member Posts: 12
    Bump for later
  • bassmanlarrybassmanlarry Member Posts: 119 Member Member Posts: 119 Member
    Very informative.
  • TheBitSlingerTheBitSlinger Member Posts: 621 Member Member Posts: 621 Member
    How to avoid protein synthesis... eat more protein.
  • SideSteelSideSteel Member Posts: 11,077 Member Member Posts: 11,077 Member
    Tagging, thanks for sharing this.
  • rowanwoodrowanwood Member Posts: 513 Member Member Posts: 513 Member
    Thank you...this explains quite a bit, and how eating more intermittently seems to be helping my weight loss. Nice to know I'm not just weird.
  • CyberEd312CyberEd312 Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter Posts: 3,551 MFP Moderator Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter Posts: 3,551 MFP Moderator
    Tagging to read later...
  • AchryaAchrya Member Posts: 16,963 Member Member Posts: 16,963 Member
    Awesome read...I must admit, I zonked out for a second when things got really confusing, but got right back into it. I think your reply to that post really summed it up for me as i'm on a1,000 c/day diet. I can feel my body needing less calories after a week. But, that means I need to work harder to keep it off. Thanks!

    ...You know what? Nevermind.

    Great post, very informative. I love when things that make me think pop up.
  • EvgeniZyntxEvgeniZyntx Member Posts: 24,424 Member Member Posts: 24,424 Member
    ETA: By the way the study reports adaptation at "Maintenance of a 10% or greater reduction in body weight in lean or obese individuals is accompanied by an approximate 20%-25% decline in 24-hour energy expenditure" And we are only using a 15% decline...
    Maybe I am confused by all the info you provided, but I thought that 10% to 15% was distilled out as actual impact on metabolic rate (actual versus expected).

    BTW, there is still my other question:
    In any of these studies you looked at, was there ever a point at which lowering consumption did not increase the deficit?
    I don't believe such a point exists.

    There is also the matter of likelihood - I don't think most people should expect the worst case scenario.

    You are correct - the 25% is total, 10%-15% is the actual additional change not based on LBM. Let's keep the 15% as per my example. sorry.

    I'm not sure about what you are asking - lowering consumption always results in a deficit - there are people that do very low calorie diets but, in general, what is outlined is that this is not necessarily the best way to go because it
    - significantly impacts LBM retention
    - nutritional balance
    - likely has long-term impact of hormonal equilibrium, etc...

    As to the a plateau, you can do the calculations but here is simple model of someone starting at 110 lbs and 10% weight loss the resulting gap (I've assumed a non-LBM constant decrease to 15% over time).

    f8YzXWi.png

    As you can see, the person might believe that they still have a 308 calorie deficit but instead are eating at 59 calorie excess -- an experienced plateau. Is it a real plateau?
    No, because you can always continue to reduce. But I suggest that this isn't a good idea.
    Not only is maintaining LBM important, but avoiding that 10-15% additional metabolic pain and all the issues it can bring is a win in my book.

    Edit: typos. typos everywhere.
  • AllonsYtotheTardisAllonsYtotheTardis Member Posts: 17,210 Member Member Posts: 17,210 Member
    IN for science.
  • 55in1355in13 Member Posts: 1,091 Member Member Posts: 1,091 Member
    My concern with the repeated question is that all your wonderful research will inevitably get used by someone claiming it supports the metabolic meltdown. A number of people on this forum claim that they cannot lose any weight at 1200 but lose a lot at 1600. I do not believe this is possible. I think it is entirely possible that the deficit is more efficient - dropping 350 from maintenance might result in losing a pound in 10 days while dropping 700 might take 6 days because metabolic rate drops a little. I do not think that the rate of loss will ever drop when you reduce calories further.
  • nikki2001nikki2001 Member Posts: 98 Member Member Posts: 98 Member
    bump to read later
  • professorRATprofessorRAT Member Posts: 711 Member Member Posts: 711 Member
    In for smartypants-ness.
  • EvgeniZyntxEvgeniZyntx Member Posts: 24,424 Member Member Posts: 24,424 Member
    ETA - BTW, I am one of those annoying people who did the drastic cut, lost nearly 2 pounds a week consistently for about 4 months, upped to lose slower a little while and then adjusted to maintenance after a 55 pound loss. I think I need some toning, but I do not "look like poo". I don't seem to have altered my metabolic rate significantly; calculators are pretty close on what I need to maintain.

    Addressing your ETA.

    Glad your loss worked - and congrats on your successful results. Did you evaluate your metabolic function (actual not just claculated) prior to your loss or did you just cut - because without that prior analysis you can't really tell how you have or not modified your metabolism.

    As to the "poo" comment - it wasn't intended as a disparaging comment on all those that lose quickly - it was my brother's comment on his own weight loss. He's been more successful in total pounds lost - he is now struggling to deal with bf% (and so am I but from a different starting point.)

    So, let's assume for discussion sake, that you have not had any negative metabolic effect (even if you didn't actually do a study at the start...), do you think:

    - perhaps it did happen but I don't know my start point.
    - certain it didn't happen and perhaps the reason is the re-feed taper.
    - certain it didn't happen and perhaps the reason is xxx.
    - certain it didn't happen and I have no idea why.

    I'm a curious person...
  • kimmiet801kimmiet801 Member Posts: 9 Member Member Posts: 9 Member
  • EvgeniZyntxEvgeniZyntx Member Posts: 24,424 Member Member Posts: 24,424 Member
    My concern with the repeated question is that all your wonderful research will inevitably get used by someone claiming it supports the metabolic meltdown. A number of people on this forum claim that they cannot lose any weight at 1200 but lose a lot at 1600. I do not believe this is possible. I think it is entirely possible that the deficit is more efficient - dropping 350 from maintenance might result in losing a pound in 10 days while dropping 700 might take 6 days because metabolic rate drops a little. I do not think that the rate of loss will ever drop when you reduce calories further.

    Ah, I see. well consider that 15% drop in my graph. The person with 15% decrease in function would not see a loss where as the person with no loss still sees a drop.

    I think that what is actually going on aside from the non-LBM depression in metabolic rate is that increases in calories also allow for some LBM regain (albeit not that easy, right?) - i can see how 3-4 lbs of LBM (that 70 to 200 cals increase in TDEE for someone very active) plusrecovering the 15% could tip the scales.

    I don't know that "eat more to lose" does or does not work but there are a lot of people that have been successful that way. >shrugs<

    food for thought.
  • 55in1355in13 Member Posts: 1,091 Member Member Posts: 1,091 Member
    ETA - BTW, I am one of those annoying people who did the drastic cut, lost nearly 2 pounds a week consistently for about 4 months, upped to lose slower a little while and then adjusted to maintenance after a 55 pound loss. I think I need some toning, but I do not "look like poo". I don't seem to have altered my metabolic rate significantly; calculators are pretty close on what I need to maintain.

    Addressing your ETA.

    Glad your loss worked - and congrats on your successful results. Did you evaluate your metabolic function (actual not just claculated) prior to your loss or did you just cut - because without that prior analysis you can't really tell how you have or not modified your metabolism.

    As to the "poo" comment - it wasn't intended as a disparaging comment on all those that lose quickly - it was my brother's comment on his own weight loss. He's been more successful in total pounds lost - he is now struggling to deal with bf% (and so am I but from a different starting point.)

    So, let's assume for discussion sake, that you have not had any negative metabolic effect (even if you didn't actually do a study at the start...), do you think:

    - perhaps it did happen but I don't know my start point.
    - certain it didn't happen and perhaps the reason is the re-feed taper.
    - certain it didn't happen and perhaps the reason is xxx.
    - certain it didn't happen and I have no idea why.

    I'm a curious person...
    I don't know my start point, so I can't honestly get past the first point. The point of the taper was more about still eating with discipline and a goal (mental/emotional reasons) rather than thinking I was adjusting my metabolism. I was also concerned that I was getting close to the tipping point where the fat stores could not metabolize fast enough to provide the energy at a big deficit, using the 31.4 calories per pound of fat per day calculation. I wanted to limit LBM loss.
  • EvgeniZyntxEvgeniZyntx Member Posts: 24,424 Member Member Posts: 24,424 Member
    ETA - BTW, I am one of those annoying people who did the drastic cut, lost nearly 2 pounds a week consistently for about 4 months, upped to lose slower a little while and then adjusted to maintenance after a 55 pound loss. I think I need some toning, but I do not "look like poo". I don't seem to have altered my metabolic rate significantly; calculators are pretty close on what I need to maintain.

    Addressing your ETA.

    Glad your loss worked - and congrats on your successful results. Did you evaluate your metabolic function (actual not just claculated) prior to your loss or did you just cut - because without that prior analysis you can't really tell how you have or not modified your metabolism.

    As to the "poo" comment - it wasn't intended as a disparaging comment on all those that lose quickly - it was my brother's comment on his own weight loss. He's been more successful in total pounds lost - he is now struggling to deal with bf% (and so am I but from a different starting point.)

    So, let's assume for discussion sake, that you have not had any negative metabolic effect (even if you didn't actually do a study at the start...), do you think:

    - perhaps it did happen but I don't know my start point.
    - certain it didn't happen and perhaps the reason is the re-feed taper.
    - certain it didn't happen and perhaps the reason is xxx.
    - certain it didn't happen and I have no idea why.

    I'm a curious person...
    I don't know my start point, so I can't honestly get past the first point. The point of the taper was more about still eating with discipline and a goal (mental/emotional reasons) rather than thinking I was adjusting my metabolism. I was also concerned that I was getting close to the tipping point where the fat stores could not metabolize fast enough to provide the energy at a big deficit, using the 31.4 calories per pound of fat per day calculation. I wanted to limit LBM loss.

    The psychological part is essential - I think that is also part of what this "science" misses out.
    Thanks for the discussion, really gets me thinking.
  • ZoeLiftsZoeLifts Member Posts: 10,523 Member Member Posts: 10,523 Member
    Bump to follow this excellent topic!
  • BeccaBollonsBeccaBollons Member Posts: 652 Member Member Posts: 652 Member
    Bumping to encourage all my friends to read- thanks for posting this :)
  • ElliInJapanElliInJapan Member Posts: 284 Member Member Posts: 284 Member
    A couple more questions:

    1. Is it known if this unpredicted reduction of EE depends on parameters like duration of diet, deficit, years at initial (pre-diet) weight, initial weight & BF, age etc? And if yes, how?

    2. If the recovery of the TDEE takes years to take place, how do diet breaks help? It looks like these are very different time scales.

    Related to this:
    We previously reported persistent reductions in EE—corrected for metabolic mass and age—in subjects maintaining a reduced body weight for periods of >3 mo after cessation of weight loss (3– 6, 37). These reductions in EE could reflect transient carryover of the metabolic consequences of negative energy balance or could be a reflection of physiologic responses to reduced body fat per se (or both). The distinction between these 2 possibilities is critical to an understanding of weight homeostasis in human subjects.

    ^Does that mean that in the latter case the reduction is permanent in the long term, assuming that you stay at the same BF?
Sign In or Register to comment.