Diet breaks and loosening the reigns

stroutman81

Good conversation between myself and a few dieters on another forum:

I'll put their words in quotes:

So like clockwork, I'm getting bored with being on a "diet" and everything that goes with it... the constant focus on "weight loss" and even the "I just want to be healthy" mantra isn't really resonating with me much these days...

Now I know I'm not the only one here who has had this happen.... and believe me I'm trying the "just suck it up, and deal with it" approach.... but I think hearing how people deal with it might help...

So how do you handle it? Stick it out? Change it up?

Or...

Maybe even take a break?

I run a fitness consulting business. Which is only meaningful here to provide context. I am fortunate enough to deal with a lot of people. I don't care who I'm working with, pretty much everyone gets a diet break. When that break occurs and how it's structured depends on the person - their psychology and status on the spectrum of fat <----> lean.

In general though, every 6-12 weeks they're getting 7-10 days of non-dieting. This provides a huge psychological buffer. It also has the potential to offset some of the metabolic adaptations that can occur in response to dieting for extended periods of time.

If we zoom into the weekly level, all of my clients also get free meals and/or refeeds. The former is simply intelligent leisure eating where you're not stressing over energy/nutrient composition of the diet. The latter is very deliberate and punctuated periods of high carb feeding. Who gets what again depends on where they fall on that spectrum.

The fatter someone is, at least on a physiological level, the less they have to worry about offsetting those adaptations I mentioned above.

All I know is that I tried the "take a break" approach & have gained 7-8 lb. Now I'm having definite difficulty getting THAT back off & continuing toward my goal.

Which brings up a good point. Maybe two.

1) Breaks can't be pure compensation for all the hard work invested in weight loss over the previous months or whatever. I call it the teenager syndrome. But in many cases, people who diet with a lot of rigidity tend to rebel when they give themselves a break. Rather than a intelligently eating loose, they binge. I'm not suggesting this is what you've done, but it's worth mentioning that a break is not a free pass to gorge. It's simply a period to bring calories up around maintenance and to be a bit more liberal with food selection.

2) Don't sweat the scale too terribly much during a break. A lot of water storage can take place when you bring calories/carbs back up during a break. Often times I've seen where clients get softer during their breaks (mostly due to water) and then when they jump back into 'the program' they're noticeably leaner than ever before within a few days.

Steve: This was something that I've been curious about. I am no expert on diet and fitness, but I was always under the impression. that the starvation response to diet and its effect on metabolism can be altered by diet breaks.

But recently I was looking up what causes plateaus in diets and how to get past them, and I did not see any discussion of this. Maybe I wasn't finding the right articles, but everything I read said that one must either decrease their caloric intake or increase the amount of calories they burn --- or both. The articles I found said that often people at higher weights lose weight at fairly good pace because they burn more calories by virtue of having to carry around so much weight. It went on to say that when that weight is lowered, the body doesn't have to work as hard, so less calories are burned.

Can you point out any sources of information on what I quoted above?

I discuss starvation mode here:

http://body-improvements.com/resourc...starvationmode

And plateaus here:

http://body-improvements.com/resources/eat/#plateaus

They can be one and the same. Often times they're not. Give this a read and then, if you still have questions, I'll be happy to discuss them here.

Long story short though, even with diet breaks, you're not likely going to offset the adaptations many people term 'starvation mode.' Unless, that is, you go and regain all the weight you lost. There's something the research calls adaptive thermogenesis. It impacts everyone differently. But many people who lose considerable weight will register a lower than predicted energy expenditure due to adaptive thermogenesis. Part of this reduction will be from a depressed BMR. Another part of it will be from a reduction in what's referred to as NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis).

The links above will go into much better detail.

The last thing I would do (personally) is take a break. That would be VERY dangerous for me. First, I wouldn't want to undo all of the hard work I put in to lose the weight I have taken off. While its a long, slow and laborious effort to take off weight, it is so easy to very quickly put back on a lot of weight. It would really discourage me if I let myself do that. Also, taking a break would make it that much harder for me to get back on track because I'd be used to eating all sort of foods that I would, once again, be forced to give up once the break was over.

Someone mentioned above about undoing all of their hard earned progress by taking a break. That assuming that a break has to be deleterious to their results. Which isn't the case at all. People tend to have this false dichotomy that either they're gaining fat or they're losing fat. There's no middle road. Which is unfortunate, since in many cases inserting that middle road strategically along the way tends to do really good things psychologically and physiologically for a lot of folks.

Let's not forget that there are 3500 calories in 1 lb of fat. A typical diet break might be 7 days. In order to gain 2 lbs of fat, you'd have to eat 1,000 calories each of those days ABOVE AND BEYOND your maintenance.

That's easy to do I suppose if you go from dieting to binging. But that's not at all recommended. What we're talking about is going from a deficit to maintenance. Not huge, daily surpluses.

That was me. I agree with what you say and thank you for your advice. I guess part of my own concern over taking a break in my diet is not fully trusting myself to limit the break.

Well that's something entirely different and it's a very valid concern. The 'dieter's mindset' is a quirky thing. For many people, if they're not "on" they're "off." Again, no middle road.

Which is why breaks are a learned strategy. They have to be all about finding ways to sensibly loosen the reigns a bit without diving head first into the deep end of the calorie pool.

It reminds me of a good friend of mine who has fought in Iraq and Afghanistan since the beginning. (dieting) He recently came home (maintenance) and couldn't adapt. He wanted to run people off the road with his car like they do in the humvees over in the desert. Or shoot anyone who happened to make him angry.

As a culture, we're brainwashed to diet endlessly. Rigidity abounds, and we're not very good at loosening it. When we do, again, we tend to overcompensate.

But there strategies. And my suggestion would be to at first treat these breaks with as much rigidity as you do your energy deficit periods. If you track calories and nutrients while dieting, do it while entering maintenance too. This way you can hold yourself accountable.

That's a start anyhow.

And yeah... I'm not a fan of tweaking something that's working perfectly fine now. If you're happy and things are heading in the right direction, who am I to tell you to change anything? Nobody. Keep it up. There are many roads that lead to Rome when it comes to successful fat loss.

My strategy is something I've fleshed out over many years of working with a lot of different people. It's certainly not the only way. And I certainly don't rigidly apply it to every single person I work with. There's flexibility for sure.

At the end of the day though, my primary objective is to not only teach someone how to lose fat. It's also to teach them live a lifestyle the promotes the maintenance of said fat loss. As a society, we're excellent at losing fat. We just downright suck and maintaining it. People lose the same 20, 40, 80 lbs over and over and over again. And that typically doesn't happen with my approach to things, which is why I stick with it.

I am starting to trust myself more and more now that I have been at the diet for a couple of months now. At first I was treating myself as an addict (which I believe I really am when it comes to food).

I'm not opposed to that idea. I mean, neurochemically certain foods can elicit responses similar to those of drug use. And this doesn't even factor in the psychology side of things. Our bodies are very efficient machines, mentally and physically, at seeking tasty food and eating lots of it.

It's in the very evolutionarily derived fiber that kept our cave dwelling forefathers (mothers) alive during times where food was scarce. The concept of excess food and insane energy density is very novel in the grand scheme of things.

When I first started I avoided situations which would tempt me to deviate from my diet. For instance, when my co-workers would go to lunch, I would only go if they went to a place which would be easy for me to stay on my diet. I would avoid, for example, Italian restaurants because I would be tempted to eat the pizza, pasta, garlic rolls, etc. But now there is no place I avoid when we go out to eat. The other day we went to Mexican restaurant. It was hard to find something on the menu I could have, but I did it. (I did have to peel a layer of melted cheese that was curiously placed on top of my salad, but when I got past that, it was lettuce, tomatoes, garbanzo beans, grilled chicken and veggies. I did not eat the fried flour tortilla bowl). So I definitively have more confidence in myself now than I did when I first started. My concern is being able to maintain my discipline - because my track record has not been so good in this regard.

Good for you. And be patient. You'll get better. Grooves are formed by grooving them. And grooving them requires a lot of consistent work. Work that sometimes goes against the grain for a while. The good news is that the direction of the grain tends to shift with enough effort. And if you can stick with it long enough, things will become more natural and automatic.

At that point, you'll learn how to deviate without feeling guilty and without loosing control. There's light at the end of the tunnel and it sounds like you're figuring that out.

dawnemjh

Do you think that adaptive thermogenesis is reversible?? Like many people who say that if you do a metabolism "reset" and then eat more, eventually after gaining a few pounds, you will lose again at a higher intake???

reneelee

Do you think that adaptive thermogenesis is reversible?? Like many people who say that if you do a metabolism "reset" and then eat more, eventually after gaining a few pounds, you will lose again at a higher intake???

^^ This is what I would like to know as well.

stroutman81

Do you think that adaptive thermogenesis is reversible?? Like many people who say that if you do a metabolism "reset" and then eat more, eventually after gaining a few pounds, you will lose again at a higher intake???

No, not really. I think the only way to truly reverse it is to gain the fat back. The longer term research shows us that people, even after a year of eating maintenance, are still running slower than would be predicted. But again, it affects everyone differently. And there's certainly some short term fluctuations that can be taken advantage of with things like refeeds. But that's sort of going off topic.

marcenepea

Thank you for sharing. I am slowly learning alot of what was discussed on your post. So to read that other people struggle with it have gotten thru it this way helps me. I haven't read the links yet but I will be. Thanks again.

SideSteel

Thanks Steve.


I think that, regardless of the potential physiological effects of diet breaks (and I say potential because this area of study strikes me as somewhat grey yet, specifically as it pertains to hormonal upregulation -- correct me if I'm wrong) the psychological effects alone are well worth it from an adherence standpoint.

Additionally:

No, not really. I think the only way to truly reverse it is to gain the fat back. The longer term research shows us that people, even after a year of eating maintenance, are still running slower than would be predicted. But again, it affects everyone differently. And there's certainly some short term fluctuations that can be taken advantage of with things like refeeds. But that's sort of going off topic.

Assuming that up/downregulation of NEAT is one component of adaptive thermogenesis, do you believe the individual can help to offset this simply through effort/awareness? The reason I specifically ask, is that I believe NEAT is an under-utilized component of sorts...it seems that people don't fully appreciate/understand how significant of an impact they can make on expenditure by simply getting their *kitten* up more often.

Great post as usual sir.

rileysowner

Do you think that adaptive thermogenesis is reversible?? Like many people who say that if you do a metabolism "reset" and then eat more, eventually after gaining a few pounds, you will lose again at a higher intake???

No, not really. I think the only way to truly reverse it is to gain the fat back. The longer term research shows us that people, even after a year of eating maintenance, are still running slower than would be predicted. But again, it affects everyone differently. And there's certainly some short term fluctuations that can be taken advantage of with things like refeeds. But that's sort of going off topic.

Are you speaking of the study that had people lose using a vlcd (500 calories if I remember correctly)?

rachmaree

A great read as always steve

stroutman81

Thanks Steve.


I think that, regardless of the potential physiological effects of diet breaks (and I say potential because this area of study strikes me as somewhat grey yet, specifically as it pertains to hormonal upregulation -- correct me if I'm wrong) the psychological effects alone are well worth it from an adherence standpoint.

On purely the point of metabolic rate (and upregulation of things like Leptin), I'd say there's definitely a positive impact. But to what degree and for how long? Those are the questions that need better answering. And frankly, based on what's been published so far, paired with a lot of experience, I think we can make a strong case that the degree and length of time isn't all that meaningful.

Now, there are other physiological things at play such as partitioning and such that might benefit from some sort of cyclic approach. But often times, in the case of partitioning, we're looking at shorter time frames (like across a week).

But yes, in my experience, from a psychological buffering standpoint, I've found regular breaks in dieting to be the best route. And it's very hard to separate psychology from physiology as one always impacts the other.

Assuming that up/downregulation of NEAT is one component of adaptive thermogenesis, do you believe the individual can help to offset this simply through effort/awareness? The reason I specifically ask, is that I believe NEAT is an under-utilized component of sorts...seem that people don't fully appreciate/understand how significant of an impact they can make on expenditure by simply getting their *kitten* up more often.

You're a smart guy.

I don't really consider NEAT to be a component of adaptive thermogenesis. To me, AT is based around changes that impact BMR. These likely start way upstream in the brain/nervous system and transcend downstream to various hormones that impact basal rate.

However, NEAT is monstrous in terms of its impact on long term weight control in my opinion. Especially when you factor in decent research that shows a reduction in NEAT surpassing the reduction in bmr (AT). Not only do our bodies 'internally' slowdown.... for some folks, they can realize a reduction in activity energy expenditure in the tune of 400ish calories.

So yeah, I'd agree that NEAT is an underutilized factor in weight loss. Silly articles get published in reputable sources each year claiming "exercise doesn't work for weight loss." The claim comes from the fact that it's so easy to consume more calories than you expend via exercise. I mean relative to the ease of eating lots of energy, exercise isn't all that efficient. However, it's role in offsetting the reduction in NEAT is enormous.

Great post as usual sir.
[/quote]

stroutman81

Do you think that adaptive thermogenesis is reversible?? Like many people who say that if you do a metabolism "reset" and then eat more, eventually after gaining a few pounds, you will lose again at a higher intake???

No, not really. I think the only way to truly reverse it is to gain the fat back. The longer term research shows us that people, even after a year of eating maintenance, are still running slower than would be predicted. But again, it affects everyone differently. And there's certainly some short term fluctuations that can be taken advantage of with things like refeeds. But that's sort of going off topic.

Are you speaking of the study that had people lose using a vlcd (500 calories if I remember correctly)?

There are a number of studies that show reduced metabolic rates (meaning below what would be predicted) stemming from fat loss. It's really not going to matter whether the calorie deficit is big or small. The bigger the deficit, the faster you'll 'get there.' But in reality, it's going to be more a matter of how lean someone gets. If they use a small deficit and take longer to get lean, the adaptations are merely going to occur at a slower rate.

BamaBreezeNSaltAire

Super read, thanks!

lcn1220

Tagged for later reading. Thanks for posting this.

SuperSexyDork

Great post and perfect timing! I've been considering taking another break.

Looking back at my weight loss thus far it seems as though regular intervals of just eating normally have really helped me. I took 10 days when I went to Florida after losing 20 pounds. I took almost 2 weeks when my grandmother was dying and I took a few days when I went to Maine.

I'm thinking that I may just need to take a week and give myself a rest again...

Sarauk2sf

Great stuff here - tagging to read properly later.

SideSteel

On purely the point of metabolic rate (and upregulation of things like Leptin), I'd say there's definitely a positive impact. But to what degree and for how long? Those are the questions that need better answering. And frankly, based on what's been published so far, paired with a lot of experience, I think we can make a strong case that the degree and length of time isn't all that meaningful.

This was my (rather limited) understanding on it as well, specifically the bolded portion.

Now, there are other physiological things at play such as partitioning and such that might benefit from some sort of cyclic approach. But often times, in the case of partitioning, we're looking at shorter time frames (like across a week).

Regarding the above: I don't mean to sidetrack since my question veers away from your point about diet breaks (and it's a great post, I just have more questions), so if you'd rather PM me at some point so that I don't derail your post, that's cool----

Anyways, do you have a general set of circumstances that would cause you to put someone on an intra-week cyclical approach vs something that's more of a steady intake? I would imagine there's context that would heavily apply, but since I don't actually train people I would really be interested in hearing about factors that would play into that, outside of personal preference.

And it's very hard to separate psychology from physiology as one always impacts the other.

That is a damn good quote.

I don't really consider NEAT to be a component of adaptive thermogenesis.

Interesting. It appears I may be misunderstanding AT.

Thanks!

CallMeCupcakeDammit

Thanks Steve! I just came off a 2-week break, so I'm hoping I'll see a change on Sunday.

Charlie003

My last diet break lasted one year. Ouch!

LoraF83

Bump for more info.

Thank you for sharing!!

AllTehBeers

Regarding the above: I don't mean to sidetrack since my question veers away from your point about diet breaks (and it's a great post, I just have more questions), so if you'd rather PM me at some point so that I don't derail your post, that's cool----

Just my two cents, I would love to read your questions and responses.

stroutman81

This was my (rather limited) understanding on it as well, specifically the bolded portion.

It'd be damn cool if we could offset these adaptations by simply ramping up carbs a couple of times per week. The system is more complicated than that I fear. It's hard to trick it. Granted, mileage will definitely vary person by person.

Regarding the above: I don't mean to sidetrack since my question veers away from your point about diet breaks (and it's a great post, I just have more questions), so if you'd rather PM me at some point so that I don't derail your post, that's cool----

Anyways, do you have a general set of circumstances that would cause you to put someone on an intra-week cyclical approach vs something that's more of a steady intake? I would imagine there's context that would heavily apply, but since I don't actually train people I would really be interested in hearing about factors that would play into that, outside of personal preference.

Sure...

To put it simply, when the simplistic stops working... that's when I'll graduate to something a little more complex. Now I'll say this. For lean women trying to get leaner, I've found targeted ketogenic approaches to work best. And frankly, I think the leaner we get, the more influence cyclic approaches likely have on partitioning.

I'm friends with a number of physique competitor coaches and it's impressive how lean these guys get their clients. Without fail, all of them use some form of cycling with regards to carbs. Makes a lot of sense given my experience with some of my leaner female clients.

Now we have Kiefer and his big push with carb backloading. I don't think there's a lot of new with his approach... just some different packaging. But there's definitely a lot of attention with these cyclical approaches right now. I fear they'll cause people to make their approaches needlessly complex.

Interesting. It appears I may be misunderstanding AT.

No, you're on point. It's just a matter of categorization. Some researchers lump the drop in NEAT in with AT. Others don't. The categorization isn't important though. What's important is the fact that there's a multi-pronged defense mechanism your body uses to fend itself against a deficiency in energy. Part of it is BMR based, which is extremely complex. The other part of it is activity based.

Thanks!
[/quote]

Sublog

Another awesome post by steve!

boelyn

Brilliant.....thanks

SideSteel

Sure...

To put it simply, when the simplistic stops working... that's when I'll graduate to something a little more complex. Now I'll say this. For lean women trying to get leaner, I've found targeted ketogenic approaches to work best. And frankly, I think the leaner we get, the more influence cyclic approaches likely have on partitioning.

I'm friends with a number of physique competitor coaches and it's impressive how lean these guys get their clients. Without fail, all of them use some form of cycling with regards to carbs. Makes a lot of sense given my experience with some of my leaner female clients.

Do you think it's fair to say that this is one of those aspects of training/diet where the rules that apply to someone trying to get contest-lean or close to it, aren't necessarily applicable for those who would just like to look good with their shirt off? (By applicable, I really mean: "Won't really make a damn difference, don't bother yet").

Lastly, does any aspect of the cyclical approach have to do with the fact that you're probably dealing with people who have (presumably) low TDEE's due to being lean females, so you've got much less wiggle room so to speak, as far as carb intake goes? I might be off in left-field with that comment, wouldn't be the first time.....(in fact I could have sworn I heard you mention this before -- if I have already asked this then lolsorry).



Thanks for your time Steve, you're a huge benefit to this site and I appreciate you educating me

stroutman81

Do you think it's fair to say that this is one of those aspects of training/diet where the rules that apply to someone trying to get contest-lean or close to it, aren't necessarily applicable for those who would just like to look good with their shirt off?

It depends. I hate that answer, but it really does. I've had to resort to a cyclic approach in order to get some people 'beach ready.' I'd say that's the exception rather than the norm.

Most people can stick with a sensible nutrient distribution and a straight deficit and reach a decent physique. Hell, some people can ride that to stage readiness.

What I wrestle with is does a cyclical approach lead to appreciably better results due to its impact or partitioning. More and more I'm leaning towards yes, and that's mostly from my own experimentation with myself and a handful of my clients. Ordinarily I'm in the camp that says, 'just shut up, hit your calories, hit your macros, rinse and repeat.' My views have become a lot less rigid though over the last year or so.

Lastly, does any aspect of the cyclical approach have to do with the fact that you're probably dealing with people who have (presumably) low TDEE's due to being lean females, so you've got much less wiggle room so to speak, as far as carb intake goes? I might be off in left-field with that comment, wouldn't be the first time.....

In some of these cases, you're dead right. Their calorie allotments can be so low that once you cover the essentials, there's very little room for carbohydrates.

I mean, let's suppose someone has a maintenance of 1500. They want to get a little leaner.

We might shoot for 150 grams of protein, which equates to 600 calories.

We might shoot for 50 grams of fat, which equates to 450 calories.

Throw in a few servings of fibrous veggies and you might knock another 75 calories out.

We only have 375 calories to work with yet and we haven't even talked about a deficit.

So in these cases I'd rather keep carbs centered around training. I'll run essentially a keto diet on off days and I'll punctuate their carb intake around their strength training sessions.

Obviously not for everyone, but it is an example of when a cyclical approach comes into play.

SideSteel

Thanks!

stroutman81

SideSteal,

I was just chatting it up with Alan Aragon and asked him what his approach was for most folks who are lean trying to get leaner in the context we're discussing here in this thread. He said, in more words or less, that he likes to figure out how much the client prefers simplicity/linear carb intakes vs an undulating intake.

Undulation would allow more carbs per meal. If they have a preference for full-sized starch portions, & doesn't mind a bit more complexity, start with that. If they don't like complexity & don't care about larger carb portions, then go straight linear.

In a nutshell, he tries to tease out of them exactly what their preference is on the matter.

Why?

In his own words:

In my observations, non-linear works better for pushing the limits of leanness. However, I can't say that it's an objective/properly controlled result that was objectively compared with a linear intake with matched variables.

Which is what I've been finding as well.

SideSteel

SideSteal,

I was just chatting it up with Alan Aragon and asked him what his approach was for most folks who are lean trying to get leaner in the context we're discussing here in this thread. He said, in more words or less, that he likes to figure out how much the client prefers simplicity/linear carb intakes vs an undulating intake.

Undulation would allow more carbs per meal. If they have a preference for full-sized starch portions, & doesn't mind a bit more complexity, start with that. If they don't like complexity & don't care about larger carb portions, then go straight linear.

In a nutshell, he tries to tease out of them exactly what their preference is on the matter.

Why?

In his own words:

In my observations, non-linear works better for pushing the limits of leanness. However, I can't say that it's an objective/properly controlled result that was objectively compared with a linear intake with matched variables.

Which is what I've been finding as well.

Thanks so much for the follow up. I actually typed up a similar question to Alan (per this discussion) but I declined to send it because I probably bug him enough as it is

stroutman81

I just threatened him with cancelling my subscription to AARR, haha.

I was curious though simply because I haven't seen him talk on the subject much. A lot of other 'coaches' have discussed it in depth and I've always had the impression that Alan's more concerned with hitting your totals for the day with his clients.

Apparently my impression was wrong.

amonkey794

I really need to sit down and take time to read this

stroutman81

I really need to sit down and take time to read this

Reading does the body good. Sometimes.

SideSteel

I just threatened him with cancelling my subscription to AARR, haha.

LOL

I was curious though simply because I haven't seen him talk on the subject much. A lot of other 'coaches' have discussed it in depth and I've always had the impression that Alan's more concerned with hitting your totals for the day with his clients.

Apparently my impression was wrong.

Well, I would still say that he's got to be "more concerned" with hitting totals, but nonetheless I'm surprised that I've not heard him talk more about the protocol if he's a fan of it. Maybe we should both threaten AARR cancellations and collectively we can get him to write about it.

I'm curious at what point (bodyfat wise) both of you would lean towards that approach and additionally whether or not the partitioning improvements show up for someone who's still in the teens.

Honestly I've been under the impression that, at least for people who aren't already lean, the differences aren't significant. But, I can't back that up even with anecdote.

Great discussion. God I'm a nerd.