Calorie zigzag

allycs85

Does anyone try this? It's meant to be a way of keeping you metabolism in check and keep the losses from stalling when on low calories. I'm on 1200 I tend to hover between 1100 and 1400. I'm a short *kitten* and I'm still a furlough worker (thanks lockdown) so moving a lot less 1200 has come from various sources not just mfp. So the idea behind it is that for most of the week I stick to the lower end but 1-3 times per weeks I eat way above that maybe hitting maintenance level or just under. I'm not gonna lie I don't really understand the science behind it but interested to hear if others do this. Yesterday I ate close to 2000 cal and today I'll be back on 1200 I'll be on 1200 for a few days then have another 2000 day. If the way I've read up on it is correct this should boost my metabolism a wee bit.
If anyone does this and it works let me know. If anyone does this and I'm doing it wrong also let me know!

allycs85

Love how someone disagreed without actually telling me why or how I'm doing it wrong!

janejellyroll

I don't understand what "keeping you metabolism in check." It sounds like you're under the impression that you won't lose weight in a deficit if your calories are really low unless you somehow manipulate your daily intake to have higher and lower days. I am not aware of any good evidence this is true.

If your overall zig-zagging consistently creates a calorie deficit, I would expect you to lose weight. If it doesn't, then I would expect you to not lose weight. But I don't know what the variable days will do for you that regularly hitting a similar number of calories will do.

quiksylver296

Carb cycling is beneficial to elite athletes (which causes de facto calorie cycling). What you are describing sounds like one of those things that elite athletes do for a 0.1% increase in performance that is then adopted by the general public as a magic miracle answer to weight loss.

But if it helps you stick to your overall calorie goal by cycling those calories, it can't hurt. You have 8400 calories (plus exercise calories) per week, eat them however you want within reason.

annliz23

My weight has been static for ages I loseca pound then gain it then 3 weeks ago I came upon zigzag and have been trying different combinations to find what works best I have 9,466 calories to eat s week I tried 2 high and 5 low it sort of worked but now trying different calories each day (sun 1200, mon, 1302, Tues 1404, wed 1506, thur 1455, fri 1353, sat 1251)
I have never been a big eater usually 1200 so this seems to be better for me but I will know how it goes in another 2 weeks. I think its trial and error to see what works for you.

bdelaney33

Sounds like a reasonable plan. The higher days can be kind of used as a reward/treat; may help keep me on the right track week over week... good luck!

cmriverside

It's a lot like the 5:2 Intermittent Fasting deal.

Eat really low for two days and then at Maintenance for five.

Some people also use the, "banking calories," or, "cheat day." It's all the same thing, create a calorie deficit. What you choose to call it or how you implement it is highly personal.

If it works for you to create a deficit that is comfortable, then use it. Like everyone has already said, it's about creating a calorie deficit consistently over Time - however you want to do that.

nanastaci2020

If it feels useful to you, then go for it. Having a couple of 'high' days can help you feel not so deprived, as there may be foods you enjoy that do not fit very well in 1200. I don't officially do it, but I tend to have higher or lower days often depending on my activity level. If I'm super active one day, I tend to be hungrier the next day.

My total daily expenditure is about 1550-1650. So intake is 1300-1400 for a small deficit to average .5 pounds lost per week. I like an Arby's beef & cheddar sandwich and mozzarella sticks. Its about 850ish for that meal. So not something I do on a normal basis. But with a little planning I can make it work. Such as aim for 1250 Mon & Wed and use about 100 calories from each of those days on Tuesday.

sijomial

allycs85 wrote: »

If the way I've read up on it is correct this should boost my metabolism a wee bit.

Beware!
The diet industry likes to use weasel words, as do many salesmen in other fields (this car will do up to 99 miles per gallon, but only when coasting down a big hill unfortunately....)

Lets assume it does boost your metabolism "a bit" (I'm dubious....) - now need to quantify "a bit".
A significant number or an insignificant number?
Is there any reputable evidence offered in what you have read? Could you share it perhaps?

Personally I would simply look at eating patterns as adherence tools - if having high/low days help you stick to a sensible weekly calorie goal then great. A same every day calorie goal would seem like purgatory to me but others like the simplicity and routine. A big advantage to me was in fitting my diet into my social life rather than vice versa.

As regards exercise performance then exercising fully fuelled or close to fully fuelled can make a big difference to some people. Maybe, just maybe, where the supposed metabolic advantage might come from?

If your weekly calorie goal is appropriate for you then I'm not seeing a downside to experimenting if it appeals to you.

rosegreen12

I have done that every few months (a very high calorie day) for metabolism sake and, although it may well be coincidence or my particular physiology, I didn't plateau near as often as I often read through here and other personal experiences. It was fairly unplanned and I couldn't do it very often.

yirara

sijomial wrote: »

allycs85 wrote: »

If the way I've read up on it is correct this should boost my metabolism a wee bit.

Beware!
The diet industry likes to use weasel words, as do many salesmen in other fields (this car will do up to 99 miles per gallon, but only when coasting down a big hill unfortunately....)

Lets assume it does boost your metabolism "a bit" (I'm dubious....) - now need to quantify "a bit".
A significant number or an insignificant number?
Is there any reputable evidence offered in what you have read? Could you share it perhaps?

Personally I would simply look at eating patterns as adherence tools - if having high/low days help you stick to a sensible weekly calorie goal then great. A same every day calorie goal would seem like purgatory to me but others like the simplicity and routine. A big advantage to me was in fitting my diet into my social life rather than vice versa.

As regards exercise performance then exercising fully fuelled or close to fully fuelled can make a big difference to some people. Maybe, just maybe, where the supposed metabolic advantage might come from?

If your weekly calorie goal is appropriate for you then I'm not seeing a downside to experimenting if it appeals to you.

I'm actually wondering... metabolism is how the cells use the energy absorbed from food during digestion. Would a boosted metabolism actually result in a lower energy expenditure? My argument is that the body has no reason to waste energy for nothing. It sounds better for survival to be able to do the most with the least energy expenditure instead of doing a little with a lot of energy. Thus a great metabolism would preserve energy, not blow it.

AnnPT77

Sometimes strategies like that help people with sustainability, basically making it easier to stick with an overall healthy routine. If it helps you, great.

There are definitely things that cause so-called "metabolic boosts" - i.e., burn extra calories. Tiny, tiny numbers of calories. Various things work - a tiny bit - in different ways, some of which wouldn't normally be called "metabolism". Many of the various alleged "metabolic boosts" only work at all if taken to an extreme.

Thinking about what's sustainable for you, personally - what makes it easier and pleasanter to eat the right number of calories and get good overall nutritition while keeping energy levels good - that's Good Stuff, a pretty big deal (but different for everyone).

Seeking out "metabolic boosts" per se, as a strategy, is majoring in the minors. (Up in that "meal timing" layer someplace.) It's IMO pretty much a blind alley. There's bigger potential benefit, for most, on focusing elsewhere.



My calories vary based on exercise level and preference (hunger, celebration, whatever). It seems to work fine, without some kind of arbitrary, imposed schedule.

hipari

I don’t calorie zigzag to get a ”boost” for weight loss. It happens naturally to me because I eat a varied diet, have lots of meals in restaurants and I’m generally more concerned about sustainably improving my eating habits than hitting my calorie goal exactly every day. My calorie goal is just under 2000 per day, I try to make sure I average that every week but my normal ”range” is about 1700-2300.

Mhjm78

I cycle my daily calories as well. My maintenance is around 2350 kcal, and my average is 1850 kcal per day aiming for 0.5 kg per week weight loss. I cycle because I find it easier to have stricter days of 1600 kcal followed by a 2100 kcal day even having 1 day a week at maintenance 2350 kcal. On average I lose 0.7 kg a week with this method, so it works great for me and I do not feel deprived. I divide my calories in 3 meals and 2 snacks depending on the kcal that day.