Diet breaks and loosening the reigns
Replies
-
Well, I would still say that he's got to be "more concerned" with hitting totals...
No doubt. Hitting your totals is always going to be top priority irrespective of timing/placement over the course of the day.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.
Well as I said before, at least as of right now, I'm letting the rate of progress dictate when I make any sort of changes with regards to carb distribution. But so far, if I'm attaching numbers to is, I'd say for guys as they near 12 and women as they near 20.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.
I'd agree, though I honestly haven't really experimented with an undulating approach with any of my clients who are carrying an abundance of fat. In those cases, it's more a matter of finding ways to promote consistency of the tried and true basics. Throwing complexity into the mix would tend to trip them up more than help I think.
So yeah, I'm only really toying with this with individuals who are falling toward the leaner end of the spectrum.0 -
Thanks again and the above post is helpful for context. That seems quite reasonable. I especially agree with your point about complexity and that's one of the main reasons why I usually lean on the side of simplicity when I form opinions about dietary strategies for the general population of non-lean people.
The idea being: simple--->adherence--->progress. So to speak.
Great discussion. You're going to inevitably cause me to research more about this, and that's good.0 -
Thanks again and the above post is helpful for context. That seems quite reasonable. I especially agree with your point about complexity and that's one of the main reasons why I usually lean on the side of simplicity when I form opinions about dietary strategies for the general population of non-lean people.
The idea being: simple--->adherence--->progress. So to speak.
Great discussion. You're going to inevitably cause me to research more about this, and that's good.
Hey man, I'm learning too. A few years ago when I dug into the topic in the research databases, there wasn't a lot of stuff that really jolted me to adopt a cyclical approach with leaner folks. I mean, Martin Berkhan has always pointed out some interesting data on IF, but none of it really stood out to me as all that 'potent.'
And lately, I've been moving away from NEEDING a research paper to back up every little decision I make in the guidance of my clients. That level of reductionism was sort of holding me back as a professional. So in addition to the ordinary research I've always done, I've been being a little more liberal with my recommendations for in-person clients (with their permission of course). That's when I really started getting more serious with the cyclical stuff. Heck, I even started throwing in much more volume pump and tone stuff into my programs. A few of my clients are even doing blood flow restriction training. I'm just learning to train with my gut a lot more while keeping the science in perspective.
It has definitely yielded some positive outcomes. At the end of the day, that's what it's all about.
I've also been reaching out to other coaches A LOT more asking about their experience. Figure why stop at my own client base.0 -
Awesome thread Steve! I always appreciate it when you post here. We are also relative neighbors as I live right off the Royersford exit of 422. All the best and thanks for the stuff you share here!0
-
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.
Can you talk about this a little more? I under ate and over exercised for years. Gained 40 pounds and now I'm finding it impossible to get off. I'm eating at maintenance for 8 weeks to try to get my metabolism to kick in again. What more would you suggest?0 -
Very interesting read. I love the intellectual and extremely COMPLEX questions being discussed here...I wanted to follow up with my 2 cents and see what you guys think.
Assuming a BMR of 1200 calories...for someone small like me. Also assuming that the individual was much less active before weight loss. Isn't it conceivable that despite the reduction in one's BMR as a result of adaptive thermogenesis the individual would maintain on a comparable caloric intake?
Take the most drastic findings of ~40% decline in BMR would mean that the individual is expending 480 calories less than predicted. If that same person is now burning an addition 400 calories just from increasing their energy expenditure then there wouldn't really be any changes in their TDEE. The addition of LBM would also increase the metabolic rate to some degree--which would further offset the AT.
I was reading a bit about this concept in a study and found it rather interesting...here's an excerpt:
"A decline in energy expended in low-level physical activity accounts for most of the decrease in TEE in weight-stable subjects after weight loss (3-6). In weight-reduced humans and rodents, weight loss of 5% to 20% is generally associated with an increase in time spent in physical activity; however, with greater degrees of weight loss, this pattern may be reversed (43). An increase in spontaneous physical activity in weight-reduced subjects also would tend to mask any declines in EE (44)."
So, overall an individual can have the best of both worlds except instead of maintaining on 1200 + exercise calories + TEF (etc, etc) they are maintaining on 1200- (some % of metabolic decline from AT) + exercise calories (which are GREATER than before) + TEF.
My point is that I'd hope individuals don't view their efforts as futile simply because AT has resulted in a reduction in their BMR. We can compensate for that reduction by increasing the expenditure that is within our control (NEAT and exercise).0 -
Bumping for later!0
-
Bump0
-
Very interesting read, saving to re-read
0 -
Want to read this when I'm not on my phone...0
-
What a great discussion. I still can't believe how much I've learned from you guys and the great discussions you've had here.0
-
This is why loose reins and diet breaks work for me...
There's been times in my life when I've not had the firmest grasp on my sanity. My depression and anxiety is currently at bay, but when it was at it's worst, I really didn't know it was depression and anxiety. I thought life just sucked. I've had some obsessive episodes, too, and once again, didn't realize it at the time. I've never been diagnosed with an ED but there were times when I had no appetite whatsoever and got frighteningly skinny. I've known enough other people with emotional problems to know that it's REALLY rare for anyone to see emotional problems in themselves.
I don't want to go too far. I don't want to become too obsessed. And I don't want to run on a broken ankle again.
Taking a break runs a risk of gaining a few pounds. But I'll recognize when I gain a few pounds because my pants won't zip. I might not recognize if my eating or exercise habits are becoming disordered, until they're already disordered. It's a lot safer to gain pounds than to lose my mind. And it's easier to lose a few pounds than it is to regain my mind.0 -
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.
Can you talk about this a little more? I under ate and over exercised for years. Gained 40 pounds and now I'm finding it impossible to get off. I'm eating at maintenance for 8 weeks to try to get my metabolism to kick in again. What more would you suggest?
This was my problem also. I lost alot of weight, 100+ pounds and have kept it off, but still not at goal so when I came here and wasnt having any loss, I was informed by alot of people here to try eating more to reset metabolism etc.. I did that off and on along with "exercise breaks" and gained 15 pounds over 6 mos, so now I am back to what has worked for me in the past, which is calorie restriction.0 -
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.
What I was talking about was the study of long term hormonal effects of calorie restricted diets that used a vlcd diet and found that even a year later hormone levels had not returned to normal for many of the participants.0 -
This a really interesting read. I want to see where else it leads. Personally, I've lost all faith in weight loss, after having gained 10 kgs over 2 years from developing an underactive thyroid. Perhaps I may find an approach which can actually see me getting somewhere.0
-
Awesome thread Steve! I always appreciate it when you post here. We are also relative neighbors as I live right off the Royersford exit of 422. All the best and thanks for the stuff you share here!
Wow, you are VERY close. Do you workout at a gym or home?0 -
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.
Can you talk about this a little more? I under ate and over exercised for years. Gained 40 pounds and now I'm finding it impossible to get off. I'm eating at maintenance for 8 weeks to try to get my metabolism to kick in again. What more would you suggest?
The gist is simple. When you gain a lot of weight and then diet it off, things tend to get wonky on the energy expenditure front. It's not that things 'break.' It's just that your body resists weight loss more than it ordinarily would via all the mechanisms discussed above.
Now someone who abused their body with severe calorie deprivation and too much exercise (read: the jackhammer approach) is slightly different. In those cases, taking a break from dieting and exercise is what's in order.
In the other case, with the adaptive thermogenesis, starvation mode, or whatever you want to call it... there's really nothing to be done except accept the fact that your body is naturally going to expend less energy than would be predicted given your stats. Which is one of the reasons why these calculators can be way off for certain individuals.0 -
Very interesting read. I love the intellectual and extremely COMPLEX questions being discussed here...I wanted to follow up with my 2 cents and see what you guys think.
Assuming a BMR of 1200 calories...for someone small like me. Also assuming that the individual was much less active before weight loss. Isn't it conceivable that despite the reduction in one's BMR as a result of adaptive thermogenesis the individual would maintain on a comparable caloric intake?
Take the most drastic findings of ~40% decline in BMR would mean that the individual is expending 480 calories less than predicted. If that same person is now burning an addition 400 calories just from increasing their energy expenditure then there wouldn't really be any changes in their TDEE. The addition of LBM would also increase the metabolic rate to some degree--which would further offset the AT.
I was reading a bit about this concept in a study and found it rather interesting...here's an excerpt:
"A decline in energy expended in low-level physical activity accounts for most of the decrease in TEE in weight-stable subjects after weight loss (3-6). In weight-reduced humans and rodents, weight loss of 5% to 20% is generally associated with an increase in time spent in physical activity; however, with greater degrees of weight loss, this pattern may be reversed (43). An increase in spontaneous physical activity in weight-reduced subjects also would tend to mask any declines in EE (44)."
So, overall an individual can have the best of both worlds except instead of maintaining on 1200 + exercise calories + TEF (etc, etc) they are maintaining on 1200- (some % of metabolic decline from AT) + exercise calories (which are GREATER than before) + TEF.
My point is that I'd hope individuals don't view their efforts as futile simply because AT has resulted in a reduction in their BMR. We can compensate for that reduction by increasing the expenditure that is within our control (NEAT and exercise).
Ayup. That's a point I tried (but likely failed) to make earlier in this thread. Our biological hardwiring is setup to resist weight loss. This resistance involves adaptations that work to reduce energy expenditure. That's out of our control. However, there are things that are certainly in our control, as you mentioned, that can and will offset these adaptations.
Moral of the story. You're not doomed.
It's just that if you're 130 lbs down from 230 lbs, your bmr and spa are likely lower than would be expected for someone who's always been 130 lbs. Call it the 'price you pay' or whatever. It's real, can't big ignored, and simply adds to the challenge of weight loss and/or maintenance.0 -
What a great discussion. I still can't believe how much I've learned from you guys and the great discussions you've had here.
Glad to hear. I'll try to start more threads like this in the future.0 -
I don't want to go too far. I don't want to become too obsessed. And I don't want to run on a broken ankle again.
Taking a break runs a risk of gaining a few pounds. But I'll recognize when I gain a few pounds because my pants won't zip. I might not recognize if my eating or exercise habits are becoming disordered, until they're already disordered. It's a lot safer to gain pounds than to lose my mind. And it's easier to lose a few pounds than it is to regain my mind.
^ I think this is an excellent point.. Even when not taking an actual diet break, I'll randomly decide to not track for a day or two strictly to "be a normal person" for lack of a better way to put it. Couldn't agree more with your post above.0 -
This is why loose reins and diet breaks work for me...
There's been times in my life when I've not had the firmest grasp on my sanity. My depression and anxiety is currently at bay, but when it was at it's worst, I really didn't know it was depression and anxiety. I thought life just sucked. I've had some obsessive episodes, too, and once again, didn't realize it at the time. I've never been diagnosed with an ED but there were times when I had no appetite whatsoever and got frighteningly skinny. I've known enough other people with emotional problems to know that it's REALLY rare for anyone to see emotional problems in themselves.
I don't want to go too far. I don't want to become too obsessed. And I don't want to run on a broken ankle again.
Taking a break runs a risk of gaining a few pounds. But I'll recognize when I gain a few pounds because my pants won't zip. I might not recognize if my eating or exercise habits are becoming disordered, until they're already disordered. It's a lot safer to gain pounds than to lose my mind. And it's easier to lose a few pounds than it is to regain my mind.
Sadly that's a common byproduct of our society nowadays. It's pretty crazy when you think about it. It wasn't long ago where the standard ideal of beauty today would have been considered disgusting and unhealthy. Women were expected to carry an appreciable amount of 'feminine fat.' It's what was desired by men.
Then modeling blew up. Blame it on Twiggy or whatever, but our culture took a turn for the negative in my mind which caused an over emphasis on fat mass and an extreme push for perpetual dieting. I'm by no means promoting obesity. Far from it. But it also gets tiring seeing women fight their genetics to points where they're sacrificing mental and physical health.
Glad to hear you're finding balance in your life.0 -
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.
What I was talking about was the study of long term hormonal effects of calorie restricted diets that used a vlcd diet and found that even a year later hormone levels had not returned to normal for many of the participants.
Yup, I'm familiar with the study. My point was there are a number of studies showing the same outcome. I'm guessing you're talking about this:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004377
or maybe this one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7632212
I can pull a number of them. I can't find the one I had in mind. But my reply to your first post remains.0 -
This a really interesting read. I want to see where else it leads. Personally, I've lost all faith in weight loss, after having gained 10 kgs over 2 years from developing an underactive thyroid. Perhaps I may find an approach which can actually see me getting somewhere.
Sorry to hear that. Are you medicated?0 -
I'm going to post one of my favorite studies on CR and autoregulation of body composition during weight recovery...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8696417Autoregulation of body composition during weight recovery in human: the Minnesota Experiment revisited.
Dulloo AG, Jacquet J, Girardier L.
Source
Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:
To gain insights into the control systems underlying human variability in the regulation of body composition during weight recovery, as well as the disproportionate recovery of fat relative to lean tissue, the classical Minnesota Experiment conducted on 32 men subjected to long-term semi-starvation and refeeding was revisited with the following objectives: (1) to determine whether the control of energy-partitioning between lean and fat tissues during weight loss and weight recovery is an individual characteristic, and if a predictor can be statistically identified, (2) to determine whether the reduction in thermogenesis during weight loss persists during weight recovery, and underlies the disproportionate recovery of fat tissue and (3) to integrate the control of energy-partitioning and that of thermogenesis in order to explain the pattern of lean and fat tissue mobilisation and deposition during weight loss and weight recovery.
METHODS:
Individual data on body weight, body fat, fat-free-mass (FFM), and basal metabolic rate (BMR), assessed during the control baseline period (i.e. prior to weight loss), at the end of 24 weeks of semi-starvation, and at the end of a 12 week period of restricted refeeding, were used to calculate the following parameters: (i) a quantitative index of energy-partitioning, the P-ratio, defined as the proportion of body energy mobilised as protein during weight loss, or as the proportion of body energy deposited as protein during weight recovery, (ii) a quantitative index of changes in thermogenesis, defined as the change in BMR adjusted for FFM (or for both FFM and fat mass) and (iii) the degree of replenishment of fat and FFM compartments, defined as the recovery of body fat and FFM (during refeeding) as a percentage of that lost during semi-starvation.
RESULTS:
This re-analysis indicates the following: (i) a large inter-individual variability in P-ratio during both weight loss and weight recovery, but for a given individual, the P-ratio during refeeding is strongly correlated with the P-ratio during semi-starvation, (ii) body composition during the control period is the most important predictor of variability in P-ratio, such that the higher the initial % body fat, the lower the proportion of energy mobilised as protein, and hence the greater the propensity to mobilise fat during semi-starvation and to subsequently deposit fat during refeeding and (iii) at week 12 of refeeding, the change in adjusted BMR is found to be reduced by a magnitude which is inversely proportional to the degree of fat recovery, but is unrelated to the degree of FFM recovery. A quantitative relationship is derived between the P-ratio during refeeding, the % fat recovery, and the P-ratio during semi-starvation.
CONCLUSIONS:
Evidence is presented here suggesting that (i) human variability in the pattern of lean and fat tissue deposition during weight recovery is to a large extent determined by individual variations in the control of energy-partitioning, for which the initial % body fat is the most important predictor and (ii) the disproportionate gain in fat relative to lean tissue during weight recovery is contributed by a reduction in thermogenesis (i.e. increased efficiency of food utilization) for accelerating specifically the replenishment of the fat stores. These control systems, operating via energy-partitioning and thermogenesis, have been integrated into a compartmental model for the regulation of body composition during underfeeding/refeeding, and can be used to explain the individual pattern of lean and fat tissue deposition during weight recovery in situations ranging from the rehabilitation after malnutrition to the relapse of obesity.0 -
This a really interesting read. I want to see where else it leads. Personally, I've lost all faith in weight loss, after having gained 10 kgs over 2 years from developing an underactive thyroid. Perhaps I may find an approach which can actually see me getting somewhere.
Sorry to hear that. Are you medicated?
Yes I am, but I don't think the levels can be right if it still seems impossible to lose weight, no matter what I do. The meds are also making me short of breath so my running is suffering majorly. I now can only do about 1 min/km slower because my lungs just can't keep up. And to make matters worse, I'm starting out as a personal trainer now. But I've lost all faith in traditional weight loss methods. It's like saying to people 'here try this, it didn't work on me but it is supposed to work'. Makes you feel like a bit of a failure or a fraud.0 -
Thanks again for this post Steve!!!
I am one of those that lost 100+ lbs 15 years ago and for the past 15 years have dieted and exercised to keep it off, and after being here and being advised to "eat more to lose" after gaining 15 pounds I know that wont work for me. My body is one of the unfortunate ones that has adapted to lower intake.
This is why I know that I cant eat the same way as other people that are built the same way as me and same activity level. ALso why the bodymedia device did NOTHING for me!!!0 -
Awesome thread Steve! I always appreciate it when you post here. We are also relative neighbors as I live right off the Royersford exit of 422. All the best and thanks for the stuff you share here!
Wow, you are VERY close. Do you workout at a gym or home?
I workout at Anytime Fitness in Trappe. And when I say right off the exit in Royersford I mean like if you are going down the westbound exit ramp and look to your right you'll see our barn and old white farmhouse! One of these days when I over your way I'll stop and say hi!0 -
In the other case, with the adaptive thermogenesis, starvation mode, or whatever you want to call it... there's really nothing to be done except accept the fact that your body is naturally going to expend less energy than would be predicted given your stats. Which is one of the reasons why these calculators can be way off for certain individuals.
Can I assume this is why, after losing 54 lbs in a matter of months with VLC *NETS* and losing just a ton of hair, panicking and doing a ”metabolism reset” eating my TDEE based on a light to moderate activity level I packed on fat like none other? And why it turns out that I actually maintain at what is considered 'sedentary' even when exercising 5-6 days/week? I had my suspicions.
Also if I focus more on heavy lifting and gain muscle weight, will my ridiculously low BMR & TDEE rise accordingly or am I just going to be making myself increasingly hungry (I'm always starving the day after lifting) while still needing to consume the same caloric intake?0 -
Thanks for an interesting post.
I am currently on a break after a 3 month plateau with 10lbs to my goal, which is quite low (BMI would be 19).
I started with eating at what I believe to be my maintenance calorie level for one month (from experience I have found that BMR and TDEE overestimate what I need). I then had 10 days on holiday where I didn't limit myself but also didn't binge - I wasn't counting calories, but at a guess I would have been around maintenance food-wise most days, and was going over quite a lot due to alcohol. I've just done another week at maintenance. I plan to do one more week then go back down to the amount of calories that was working for the first 6 months. I know my loss will be slower as I am now 30lbs lighter and close to my goal.
I stayed the same weight while eating at maintenance for a month, gained about 6lbs on holiday and after a week back at maintenance I've lost 4lbs.
I have found it really helpful in terms of motivation, as I was getting quite demoralised that I was eating at a deficit for so long and nothing was happening. I now feel mentally ready to get a bit stricter again to get the last few pounds off. I also feel more confident about maintaining progress in the longer-term.0 -
@mexie--what is maintenance for you and how did you come up with the goal of a bmi of 19?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions