Reduced metabolism by deficit from nutrition vs. exercise

bunnylion

When one eats less calories than one burns, the body adapts by lowering it's caloric needs. This effect becomes more drastic when the deficit is lager.

My question is: Is there any evidence that it makes a difference whether this deficit was created by exercise or nutrition?
My question is not about weight loss but only about the adaption of the metabolism.

Will the metabolism be reduced the same way whether
- I eat only 1000 calories
- or I eat 2000 calories and exercise to burn 1000 calories

Same deficit but different ways of getting there = same reduction of metabolic rate??

bunnylion

Nobody?

Neritel

This is exactly what I am wondering about too. So, bump!

elisa123gal

so many of us on here are "experts" haha. From reading here for a few years i have learned this. That the body needs fuel. The only way to have energy is to eat calories. So, in my humble opinion…to eat 2000 calories and fuel your body so it is healthy and you feel great and energized to exercise and improve your heart health and prevent diabetes.. That is definitely the way to go.


If you were to only eat 1000 calories you'd start losing the muscle you have as you lose weight… that would slow your metabolism even more … resulting in having to eat low calories forever to maintain weight loss. And many people can't keep it up ..so they binge and bounce back fatter than ever.


That's my two cents.

yarwell

When the deficit is lager ? LOL

here's some data from a clinical trial where there are two versions of a 25% deficit - 12.5 exercise and 12.5 less food (CR+EX), or 25 less food (CR) there's also a VLCD on it :-

yarwell

From reading here for a few years i have learned this. That the body needs fuel. The only way to have energy is to eat calories.

That's the problem with spending too long in one place :-)

A 180 lb woman with 110 lb of FFM has at least 40 lbs or 140,000 calories of excess fat on board. Is this not fuel ? Do you have to eat these calories ?

anapestic

here's some data from a clinical trial where there are two versions of a 25% deficit - 12.5 exercise and 12.5 less food (CR+EX), or 25 less food (CR) there's also a VLCD on it :-

Is the full paper available online somewhere? I don't understand what all the table headings mean, so it's difficult to evaluate. It looks like it's saying that if you eat less you burn fewer calories. Did they control for the possibility of people exercising less because they were eating less?

yarwell

the doi: link is visible.

It does indeed show that at month 3 the VLCD and 25% less calories eaten groups had lower TDEE values whereas the group that had a 12.5% calorie restriction and 12.5% added exercise maintained the same TDEE.

TDEE in the chart is by doubly labelled water.

It's a CALERIE paper which might help find it. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004377 and others.

bunnylion

When the deficit is lager ? LOL

here's some data from a clinical trial where there are two versions of a 25% deficit - 12.5 exercise and 12.5 less food (CR+EX), or 25 less food (CR) there's also a VLCD on it :-

Well, +r in the lager. You knew what I meant anyway ;-)

Thank you so much! This is exactly what I was hoping for. I was hoping that the reduction of BMR was not as simple as some people put it...

In the chart I interpret BL to be Base Line and M3/6 are month 3/6?

So this does not only mean that the exercising group did not have reduced TDEE but instead they even had increased TDEE after 6 months as indicated by the middle column. Awesome news. I'm off to exercise some! Haha.

I still have to check out the entire article the chart was taking from. Going to do so after workout. Thanks again!

WalkingAlong

It's an interesting topic.

Tangential to it but also interesting are studies that find that when you stop the deficit your burns go back to normal.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11063433?dopt=Abstract
CONCLUSIONS:
"Energy restriction produces a transient hypothyroid-hypometabolic state that normalizes on return to energy-balanced conditions. Failure to establish energy balance after weight loss gives the misleading impression that weight-reduced persons are energy conservative and predisposed to weight regain. Our findings do not provide evidence in support of adaptive metabolic changes as an explanation for the tendency of weight-reduced persons to regain weight."

j4nash

When the deficit is lager ? LOL

here's some data from a clinical trial where there are two versions of a 25% deficit - 12.5 exercise and 12.5 less food (CR+EX), or 25 less food (CR) there's also a VLCD on it :-

what does the cr/lcd mean?

cr = caloric restriction, ex = exercise, lcd = low calorie diet?

j4nash

nevermind

bunnylion

It's an interesting topic.

Tangential to it but also interesting are studies that find that when you stop the deficit your burns go back to normal.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11063433?dopt=Abstract
CONCLUSIONS:
"Energy restriction produces a transient hypothyroid-hypometabolic state that normalizes on return to energy-balanced conditions. Failure to establish energy balance after weight loss gives the misleading impression that weight-reduced persons are energy conservative and predisposed to weight regain. Our findings do not provide evidence in support of adaptive metabolic changes as an explanation for the tendency of weight-reduced persons to regain weight."

Thanks for that as well! This is actually part of what I am trying to figure out.

In a documentary it was explained that a person who weighs the same and has the same body composition as another person and one has been that weight their entire adult life and the other one dieted down to that weight, the dieter would need 20% less than the other one.
I find this to be absolutely frustrating, unfair and cruel. :mad:

MFP says once I reach my goal weight I'm going to need 1700 calories to maintain. If the theory is true, than I would actually only need to eat 1360 calories to maintain (which is less than I eat now to lose weight). I'd basically need to stay on a diet for my entire life! .

So now I started to research whether this (set point) theory has a lot of scientific proof or whether there are studies proving otherwise. And if the way of losing weight has any influence... I find losing weight easy but the art is to keep it off, right? So I want to lose in a way that is going to make maintenance as easy as possible.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Azdak

It's an interesting topic.

Tangential to it but also interesting are studies that find that when you stop the deficit your burns go back to normal.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11063433?dopt=Abstract
CONCLUSIONS:
"Energy restriction produces a transient hypothyroid-hypometabolic state that normalizes on return to energy-balanced conditions. Failure to establish energy balance after weight loss gives the misleading impression that weight-reduced persons are energy conservative and predisposed to weight regain. Our findings do not provide evidence in support of adaptive metabolic changes as an explanation for the tendency of weight-reduced persons to regain weight."

Thanks for that as well! This is actually part of what I am trying to figure out.

In a documentary it was explained that a person who weighs the same and has the same body composition as another person and one has been that weight their entire adult life and the other one dieted down to that weight, the dieter would need 20% less than the other one.
I find this to be absolutely frustrating, unfair and cruel. :mad:

MFP says once I reach my goal weight I'm going to need 1700 calories to maintain. If the theory is true, than I would actually only need to eat 1360 calories to maintain (which is less than I eat now to lose weight). I'd basically need to stay on a diet for my entire life! .

So now I started to research whether this (set point) theory has a lot of scientific proof or whether there are studies proving otherwise. And if the way of losing weight has any influence... I find losing weight easy but the art is to keep it off, right? So I want to lose in a way that is going to make maintenance as easy as possible.

You might be referring to this:

Long-term persistence of adaptive thermogenesis in subjects who
have maintained a reduced body weight
Am J Clin Nutr 2008;88:906 –12.

ABSTRACT
Background: After weight loss, total energy expenditure—in particular,
energy expenditure at low levels of physical activity—is
lower than predicted by actual changes in body weight and composition.
An important clinical issue is whether this reduction, which
predisposes to weight regain, persists over time.
Objective: We aimed to determine whether this disproportionate
reduction in energy expenditure persists in persons who have maintained
a body-weight reduction of 10% for 1 y.
Design: Seven trios of sex- and weight-matched subjects were studied
in an in-patient setting while receiving a weight-maintaining
liquid formula diet of identical composition. Each trio consisted of a
subject at usual weight (Wtinitial), a subject maintaining a weight
reduction of10% after recent (5–8 wk) completion of weight loss
(Wtloss-recent), and a subject who had maintained a documented reduction
in body weight of10% for1 y (Wtloss-sustained). Twenty four-
hour total energy expenditure (TEE) was assessed by precise
titration of fed calories of a liquid formula diet necessary to maintain
body weight. Resting energy expenditure (REE) and the thermic
effect of feeding (TEF) were measured by indirect calorimetry. Nonresting
energy expenditure (NREE) was calculated as NREETEE
– (REE TEF).
Results: TEE,NREE,and (to a lesser extent)REEwere significantly
lower in the Wtloss-sustained and Wtloss-recent groups than in the Wtinitial
group. Differences from the Wtinitial group in energy expenditure were
qualitatively and quantitatively similar after recent and sustained weight
loss.
Conclusion: Declines in energy expenditure favoring the regain
of lost weight persist well beyond the period of dynamic weight
loss.

As with all studies, this is not ultimately conclusive, but it is sobering.

One might conclude that this is an important reason with one should maintain a vigorous exercise routine following weight loss.

yarwell

what does the cr/lcd mean?

It's combining CR and LCD groups to try and achieve statistical significance, when it failed to turn up as expected in individual groups. A bit dodgy IMHO.

bunnylion

Several studies seem to have gotten to similar results:
I was referring to this article proposing some set point theory: jn.nutrition.org/content/127/9/1875S.full

In the conclusion it reads: "Thus, even when weight loss does occur, the resulting adjustments in energy expenditure favor its recovery. Under such circumstances, the goal of normalizing the body weight of an obese individual through dieting may be unrealistic."

And: "If the goal is substantial and sustainable weight loss in the obese, it is proposed that a more promising approach would be one based upon a strategy of directly altering the set-point of the energy-regulating system."

So they specifically say weight loss through diet. No mention of exercise. Unfortunately they don't offer anything on how to influence the set point (apart from 'experimental procedures' ).

lemurcat12

It's a really interesting study, but it seems to me not to address the key questions many of us (well, me) would like to know.

The study looks at a deficit of 25% and compares achieving it half through exercise and half through calorie cutting (in other words, only a 12.5% deficit through calorie cutting) vs. the same deficit with just calorie cutting. It also looks at a VLCD.

Based on this (and similar studies) you get told that it's better for your metabolism to exercise while losing and that a VLCD has the most extreme and lasting effect. The 25% just by calorie cutting isn't great, but does rebound and seems like it will continue to. So great, I know I could maintain a 25% deficit really safely, so long as I exercise for half of it. But what does this mean in practice?

Well, IF SEDENTARY (i.e., before exercise) my TDEE if sedentary is only about 1800. If that's the number we are talking about, a 25% deficit would be about 450, or just under a lb/week. So I could eat 1575 and exercise for 225/day and protect my metabolism. Great, but I'm doing much more exercise or activity than that in reality. So I'm really curious what the effect is on a higher deficit made up of exercise plus calorie cutting.

Also, I am completely confused about how to distinguish between a deficit made up of calorie cutting and that made up of exercise. Like I said, if we ignore any exercise and activity, my TDEE is only 1800. But according to MFP, I can raise my NEAT to about 2050 just by being "active." Is that additional 250 part of my deficit? It would seem that it should be for the purposes of the study, even though I can usually get there through walking a lot and riding my bike some on commutes (what I'd consider daily activity).

But setting that question aside, let's say I have a TDEE of about 2150 with daily activity factored in. From that, I try to get a deficit of 750 (1.5 lb/week) or a bit more, made up in part by additional exercise and in part by calorie cutting. Let's say it averages at 50% of each. The total deficit is about 35%. According to what I've read a 1.5 lb goal for me should be quite reasonable, but if a deficit of 35% is affecting my metabolism in a way that 25% would not, I'd like to know. The study doesn't address that.

And if my deficit is really even higher than this because my daily activity should be included as exercise, I'd also like to know.

Anyway, what I do is monitor my TDEE and so far it doesn't seem to be declining beyond that due to weighing less, but if there were studies that showed a greater risk than I'm currently aware of I'd obviously be interested.

bunnylion

It's a really interesting study, but it seems to me not to address the key questions many of us (well, me) would like to know.

The study looks at a deficit of 25% and compares achieving it half through exercise and half through calorie cutting (in other words, only a 12.5% deficit through calorie cutting) vs. the same deficit with just calorie cutting. It also looks at a VLCD.

Based on this (and similar studies) you get told that it's better for your metabolism to exercise while losing and that a VLCD has the most extreme and lasting effect. The 25% just by calorie cutting isn't great, but does rebound and seems like it will continue to. So great, I know I could maintain a 25% deficit really safely, so long as I exercise for half of it. But what does this mean in practice?

Well, IF SEDENTARY (i.e., before exercise) my TDEE if sedentary is only about 1800. If that's the number we are talking about, a 25% deficit would be about 450, or just under a lb/week. So I could eat 1575 and exercise for 225/day and protect my metabolism. Great, but I'm doing much more exercise or activity than that in reality. So I'm really curious what the effect is on a higher deficit made up of exercise plus calorie cutting.

Also, I am completely confused about how to distinguish between a deficit made up of calorie cutting and that made up of exercise. Like I said, if we ignore any exercise and activity, my TDEE is only 1800. But according to MFP, I can raise my NEAT to about 2050 just by being "active." Is that additional 250 part of my deficit? It would seem that it should be for the purposes of the study, even though I can usually get there through walking a lot and riding my bike some on commutes (what I'd consider daily activity).

But setting that question aside, let's say I have a TDEE of about 2150 with daily activity factored in. From that, I try to get a deficit of 750 (1.5 lb/week) or a bit more, made up in part by additional exercise and in part by calorie cutting. Let's say it averages at 50% of each. The total deficit is about 35%. According to what I've read a 1.5 lb goal for me should be quite reasonable, but if a deficit of 35% is affecting my metabolism in a way that 25% would not, I'd like to know. The study doesn't address that.

And if my deficit is really even higher than this because my daily activity should be included as exercise, I'd also like to know.

Anyway, what I do is monitor my TDEE and so far it doesn't seem to be declining beyond that due to weighing less, but if there were studies that showed a greater risk than I'm currently aware of I'd obviously be interested.

How do you monitor your TDEE?

matthawthorneisamyth

It doesn't matter where your caloric intake comes from, but body composition is most aesthetically pleasing when you are allowed to lose fat slowly and gradually. Adipose tissue isn't the body's first source of caloric replenishment. In fact, when it comes to starvation approaches to dieting, the body's first source of replenishment isn't even glucose; it's free fatty acids and ketones. (i.e) the stuff muscle tissue is made of. The human body is actually designed to hold on to its fat stores once liver glycogen is depleted. So, you can just do exercise if you like, but without adequate food intake, you'll start to lose muscle.

Furthermore, using a starvation or very low calorie diet has actually been proven to increase insulin resistance and cause non-insulin dependent diabetes in obese practitioners.

This doesn't even take into account the adherence rate of those who decide to reduce calories via overexertion. While exercise is good in moderation, it takes HOURS to burn 1K calories. Not many people have that kind of time or can make that a lifestyle commitment. If you can, great, but I'm willing to bet that if you're obese, you will have a hard time making a 180 degree shift to being a gym rat, especially if you're not eating much.

Overall, the easiest and least taxing way to reduce body fat and/or change the body's composition is through a healthy, non-extreme, sustainable diet and exercise program with measurable goals and metrics that support those goals.

References: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199706193362507
http://www.jdcjournal.com/article/1056-8727(94)00077-8/abstract?cc=y?cc=y

bunnylion

It doesn't matter where your caloric intake comes from, but body composition is most aesthetically pleasing when you are allowed to lose fat slowly and gradually. Adipose tissue isn't the body's first source of caloric replenishment. In fact, when it comes to starvation approaches to dieting, the body's first source of replenishment isn't even glucose; it's free fatty acids and ketones. (i.e) the stuff muscle tissue is made of. The human body is actually designed to hold on to its fat stores once liver glycogen is depleted. So, you can just do exercise if you like, but without adequate food intake, you'll start to lose muscle.

Furthermore, using a starvation or very low calorie diet has actually been proven to increase insulin resistance and cause non-insulin dependent diabetes in obese practitioners.

This doesn't even take into account the adherence rate of those who decide to reduce calories via overexertion. While exercise is good in moderation, it takes HOURS to burn 1K calories. Not many people have that kind of time or can make that a lifestyle commitment. If you can, great, but I'm willing to bet that if you're obese, you will have a hard time making a 180 degree shift to being a gym rat, especially if you're not eating much.

Overall, the easiest and least taxing way to reduce body fat and/or change the body's composition is through a healthy, non-extreme, sustainable diet and exercise program with measurable goals and metrics that support those goals.

References: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199706193362507
http://www.jdcjournal.com/article/1056-8727(94)00077-8/abstract?cc=y?cc=y

Please explain why it doesn't matter where my caloric intake comes from?

The rest of your comment states that it is not a good idea to starve yourself. That is not relevant to the question

Your conclusion uses words like healthy and sustainable. Unfortunately there is no consensus on the meaning of these words...

bunnylion

Funny that you mention that, as I have discovered intermittent fasting to work quite well for me.

My original question was aimed at understanding how to lose weight in a way that reduces metabolism the least and therefore makes maintenance easier. Do you know anything about the effects of regular short term fasts on the metabolism.
Studies have shown that a short term fast can even increase the metabolism. But so far I have not heard about any study about long term regular short time fasts....

yarwell

Furthermore, using a starvation or very low calorie diet has actually been proven to increase insulin resistance and cause non-insulin dependent diabetes in obese practitioners.

Odd that a VLCD approach is also used to reverse Type 2 diabetes. Newcastle Diet study.

yarwell

Several studies seem to have gotten to similar results:
I was referring to this article proposing some set point theory: jn.nutrition.org/content/127/9/1875S.full

The set point hypothesis never really got any traction, let alone any experimental confirmation.

yarwell

According to what I've read a 1.5 lb goal for me should be quite reasonable, but if a deficit of 35% is affecting my metabolism in a way that 25% would not, I'd like to know. The study doesn't address that.

It does in a sideways sort of way - the VLCD arm is eating at a huge deficit - 70% initially, 60% at Month 3. The VLCD group get to their weight loss goal quickest and lose the most, the exercise + food restriction group are the slowest. The latter may keep more lean mass and a higher RMR, and this may help them in the long run, depends on how much self control and how you balance the pleasure and cost of eating I guess. Anyway, the results were :-

itsbasschick

i can only tell you for sure how it works for me. i started doing a lot of walking earlier this year without changing my eating at all. i started losing weight at a good clip, felt good and all was well till i injured myself from overdoing it. after a month and physical therapy, i realized i wasn't going to be able to get back to my larger amounts of walking soon, and on may 1 i started logging my food and cutting calories. after the first couple weeks i cut to 1200 net calories, and lost about a pound a week - less than i lost walking, but with my injuries i was limited in how i could exercise.

while a lot of people say that working out isn't the best way to lose weight, i did great on 45 minutes of fairly brisk walking - lost more than i do at 1200 net calories per day. had i not torn my quad in 2 small spots and hurt my hip, i'd be one lean mean walking machine by now, but eating at a deficit has also worked well for me. i have never gone over on my calories since may 1, but it's hard to keep calories down to 1200 while keeping protein up high enough and still having food to enjoy.

when i only eat at a deficit with no exercise, i lose less than a pound a week at this point - exercise makes a big difference. either way, my metabolism seems to be doing what i'd expect - it adapts.

bunnylion

Several studies seem to have gotten to similar results:
I was referring to this article proposing some set point theory: jn.nutrition.org/content/127/9/1875S.full

The set point hypothesis never really got any traction, let alone any experimental confirmation.

Then don't call it set point but adaptive thermogenesis My impression is that adaptive thermogenesis is accepted as a fact by many scientists.

WalkingAlong

It's an interesting topic.

Tangential to it but also interesting are studies that find that when you stop the deficit your burns go back to normal.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11063433?dopt=Abstract
CONCLUSIONS:
"Energy restriction produces a transient hypothyroid-hypometabolic state that normalizes on return to energy-balanced conditions. Failure to establish energy balance after weight loss gives the misleading impression that weight-reduced persons are energy conservative and predisposed to weight regain. Our findings do not provide evidence in support of adaptive metabolic changes as an explanation for the tendency of weight-reduced persons to regain weight."

Thanks for that as well! This is actually part of what I am trying to figure out.

In a documentary it was explained that a person who weighs the same and has the same body composition as another person and one has been that weight their entire adult life and the other one dieted down to that weight, the dieter would need 20% less than the other one.
I find this to be absolutely frustrating, unfair and cruel. :mad:

MFP says once I reach my goal weight I'm going to need 1700 calories to maintain. If the theory is true, than I would actually only need to eat 1360 calories to maintain (which is less than I eat now to lose weight). I'd basically need to stay on a diet for my entire life! .

So now I started to research whether this (set point) theory has a lot of scientific proof or whether there are studies proving otherwise. And if the way of losing weight has any influence... I find losing weight easy but the art is to keep it off, right? So I want to lose in a way that is going to make maintenance as easy as possible.

You might be referring to this:

Long-term persistence of adaptive thermogenesis in subjects who
have maintained a reduced body weight
Am J Clin Nutr 2008;88:906 –12.

ABSTRACT
Background: After weight loss, total energy expenditure—in particular,
energy expenditure at low levels of physical activity—is
lower than predicted by actual changes in body weight and composition.
An important clinical issue is whether this reduction, which
predisposes to weight regain, persists over time.
Objective: We aimed to determine whether this disproportionate
reduction in energy expenditure persists in persons who have maintained
a body-weight reduction of 10% for 1 y.
Design: Seven trios of sex- and weight-matched subjects were studied
in an in-patient setting while receiving a weight-maintaining
liquid formula diet of identical composition. Each trio consisted of a
subject at usual weight (Wtinitial), a subject maintaining a weight
reduction of10% after recent (5–8 wk) completion of weight loss
(Wtloss-recent), and a subject who had maintained a documented reduction
in body weight of10% for1 y (Wtloss-sustained). Twenty four-
hour total energy expenditure (TEE) was assessed by precise
titration of fed calories of a liquid formula diet necessary to maintain
body weight. Resting energy expenditure (REE) and the thermic
effect of feeding (TEF) were measured by indirect calorimetry. Nonresting
energy expenditure (NREE) was calculated as NREETEE
– (REE TEF).
Results: TEE,NREE,and (to a lesser extent)REEwere significantly
lower in the Wtloss-sustained and Wtloss-recent groups than in the Wtinitial
group. Differences from the Wtinitial group in energy expenditure were
qualitatively and quantitatively similar after recent and sustained weight
loss.
Conclusion: Declines in energy expenditure favoring the regain
of lost weight persist well beyond the period of dynamic weight
loss.

As with all studies, this is not ultimately conclusive, but it is sobering.

One might conclude that this is an important reason with one should maintain a vigorous exercise routine following weight loss.

The good news in that study is it says most of the reduction is from less activity, not lower BMR. That part is 100% under our control. And with activity monitors, it's even fairly easy to watch that level over time and adjust it ourselves.

lemurcat12

How do you monitor your TDEE?

I know how much I eat from logging and how much I've lost, so calculate it that way.

(Total calories eaten + pounds lost*3500)/number of days in the time period

chezzac17

Hi ,I joined about a month ago Im on 1200 cals,exercise 4-5 times a week swimming,sometimes I eat cals back sometimes not...and Im very very honest with food cals...and sometimes I go over 1200 cals...dinner ,alchol etc.....I have only lost 1kg and a bit,I want to loose 6 kgs..
can anyone help please Im doing something wrong.....