Starting calorie zig-zagging, to boost my metabolism.

2»

Replies

  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Zig-Zagging is fine if that's your preference, but it's not going to boost your metabolism any more than a traditional deficit with the same average intake in calories and macronutrients.
  • judychicken
    judychicken Posts: 937 Member
    Bump
  • midnight333
    midnight333 Posts: 149
    I'm super curious.
  • karmahunger
    karmahunger Posts: 373 Member
    I'll let everyone know!
  • stephaniecarmichael83
    stephaniecarmichael83 Posts: 2 Member
    bump
  • beachygirlk
    beachygirlk Posts: 28
    bump
  • Mokey41
    Mokey41 Posts: 5,769 Member
    Where do people get the idea you can change your metabolism? Except under very drastic circumstances your metabolism is what it is. You can't change it by fasting, cleansing, eating this or that and it doesn't get wrecked by eating too few calories for a period of time.

    Your weight comes down to calories in/calories out. You eat to much, you gain weight. You eat to little you get very thin and usually sick. Your body doesn't operate on a 24 hour clock so that it knows that today is our fast day and tomorrow we get more. Watching calories day by day only helps because it's much easier than keeping track of your calorie intake by the month. It would suck to get to the 25th and find out you'd used up all your calories.

    I have no idea why it's such a hard concept to grasp. I guess it comes down to our society being bombarded with the quick answer to every problem.
  • 6mimi
    6mimi Posts: 1,432 Member
    I have not tried it yet personally. However, I know someone going through a certified personal training course and that course recommends the zig zag approach to eating.
  • karmahunger
    karmahunger Posts: 373 Member
    Where do people get the idea you can change your metabolism? Except under very drastic circumstances your metabolism is what it is. You can't change it by fasting, cleansing, eating this or that and it doesn't get wrecked by eating too few calories for a period of time.

    Your weight comes down to calories in/calories out. You eat to much, you gain weight. You eat to little you get very thin and usually sick. Your body doesn't operate on a 24 hour clock so that it knows that today is our fast day and tomorrow we get more. Watching calories day by day only helps because it's much easier than keeping track of your calorie intake by the month. It would suck to get to the 25th and find out you'd used up all your calories.

    I have no idea why it's such a hard concept to grasp. I guess it comes down to our society being bombarded with the quick answer to every problem.

    It is literally possible to change your metabolism with what you eat/exercise.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Where do people get the idea you can change your metabolism? Except under very drastic circumstances your metabolism is what it is. You can't change it by fasting, cleansing, eating this or that and it doesn't get wrecked by eating too few calories for a period of time.

    Your weight comes down to calories in/calories out. You eat to much, you gain weight. You eat to little you get very thin and usually sick. Your body doesn't operate on a 24 hour clock so that it knows that today is our fast day and tomorrow we get more. Watching calories day by day only helps because it's much easier than keeping track of your calorie intake by the month. It would suck to get to the 25th and find out you'd used up all your calories.

    I have no idea why it's such a hard concept to grasp. I guess it comes down to our society being bombarded with the quick answer to every problem.

    Actually you can.
    You can slow it down.
    You can speed it up.

    Christian Weyer, Roy L Walford, Inge T Harper, Mike Milner, Taber MacCallum, P Antonio Tataranni and Eric Ravussin, "Energy metabolism after 2 y of energy restriction: the Biosphere 2 experiment", American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 72, No. 4, 946-953, October 2000.

    Martin CK, Heilbronn LK, de Jonge L, Delany JP, Volaufova J, Anton SD, Redman LM, Smith SR, Ravussin E. "Effect of calorie restriction on resting metabolic rate and spontaneous physical activity", Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007 Dec

    Rosenbaum M, Hirsch J, Gallagher DA, Leibel RL., Long-term persistence of adaptive thermogenesis in subjects who have maintained a reduced body weight. Am J Clin Nutr., 2008 Oct

    Welle SL, Seaton TB, Campbell RG. "Some metabolic effects of overeating in man", Am J Clin Nutr. 1986 Dec.


    Last one there is about speeding it back up again.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/81/1/69/T2.expansion.html

    Alternate day fasting shows metabolic rate same on fast (Day 22) and feed (Day 21) days but significant changes from baseline to fast day in other parameters :-

    Baseline Day 21 Day 22
    RMR (kJ/d) 6675 ± 283 6292 ± 268 6329 ± 260
    RQ 0.85 ± 0.01 0.86 ± 0.02 0.79 ± 0.012 (2)
    Fat oxidation (g/24 h)3 64 ± 8 54 ± 10 101 ± 9 (2)
    Carbohydrate oxidation (g/24 h)3 175 ± 17 184 ± 24 81 ± 16 (2)

    Although the RMR in calories looks to fall from 1597 +/- 68 at baseline to 1507 +/- 62 after 3 weeks the change isn't big enough to be statistically significant ie the ranges overlap so difference could be chance. Certainly the feed and fast days have the same RMR but the shift to fat burning is clear on the fast days.

    (2) = Significantly different from baseline, P < 0.001 (one-factor repeated-measures ANOVA).
  • chrisdavey
    chrisdavey Posts: 9,834 Member
    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/81/1/69/T2.expansion.html

    Alternate day fasting shows metabolic rate same on fast (Day 22) and feed (Day 21) days but significant changes from baseline to fast day in other parameters :-

    Baseline Day 21 Day 22
    RMR (kJ/d) 6675 ± 283 6292 ± 268 6329 ± 260
    RQ 0.85 ± 0.01 0.86 ± 0.02 0.79 ± 0.012 (2)
    Fat oxidation (g/24 h)3 64 ± 8 54 ± 10 101 ± 9 (2)
    Carbohydrate oxidation (g/24 h)3 175 ± 17 184 ± 24 81 ± 16 (2)

    Although the RMR in calories looks to fall from 1597 +/- 68 at baseline to 1507 +/- 62 after 3 weeks the change isn't big enough to be statistically significant ie the ranges overlap so difference could be chance. Certainly the feed and fast days have the same RMR but the shift to fat burning is clear on the fast days.

    (2) = Significantly different from baseline, P < 0.001 (one-factor repeated-measures ANOVA).

    How does this study relate to this thread?
  • larbot3000
    larbot3000 Posts: 12
    I fast 24 hrs twice a week but I don't think it will boost weight loss it just fits my lifestyle better
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    How does this study relate to this thread?

    It shows the effect of changing calorie intake on metabolic rate, or lack of. Alternate day fasting is about as extreme as zig-zagging could get, if that has no effect then draw your own conclusions.
  • chrisdavey
    chrisdavey Posts: 9,834 Member
    How does this study relate to this thread?

    It shows the effect of changing calorie intake on metabolic rate, or lack of. Alternate day fasting is about as extreme as zig-zagging could get, if that has no effect then draw your own conclusions.

    My conclusion would be that they ate enough on their feeding days to negate the metabolic slowdown.
  • shelbyfrootcake
    shelbyfrootcake Posts: 965 Member
    I calorie cycle combined with 5:2 fasts and starting losing weight immediately after struggling with a 3 month plateau.
  • AliceNov2011
    AliceNov2011 Posts: 471 Member
    not exactly. I've lost 63lbs doing the same thing every day and plateaued 3ish times. and I lowered my calories one day. upped them the next and the third day i went to my usual routein, the fourth day I lost again and continued my weight loss for another 20-30ish lbs. I eat exactly what I need to inc 82g protein every day (way over the 56g MFP suggests) and have kept it off for 2 years. I'm not saying that zig-zagging every day would work but to each his own. fail and try again until you find what works for you. As long as you succeed in the end and maintain is all that matters

    p.s. I lost all 63lbs the first 6 months losing. then stopped to try to maintain for 1yr 6months. now trying and succeeding at losing again. :D

    ^^^Similar story. Lost my first 50 pounds in 9 months zig-zagging (a/k/a calorie cycling), and still do it.

    Zig-zagging alone is not enough, though. The average calories at the end of the week is what determines weight loss. I dropped mine by 200/day two weeks ago and am down nearly 4 pounds after a 2-month plateau.

    That said, I love this method because it keeps my food life interesting and flexible and gives me a built-in way to recover from "accidents."

    And yes, protein is the magic bullet. (just kidding, sort of...;c)

    P.S. Check out our new group for women: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/9239-the-ladies-who-lunch
  • ummtigerwoods
    ummtigerwoods Posts: 1
    I'm always surprised that MFP doesn't recalculate for you. Seeing as I update my weight all the time, I feel like the calories should automatically adjust. After losing ten pounds I went into the settings and adjusted it myself. It lowered my recommended calories by 40, which isn't huge, but you have to keep on top of these things.
  • Hendrix7
    Hendrix7 Posts: 1,903 Member
    Where do people get the idea you can change your metabolism? Except under very drastic circumstances your metabolism is what it is. You can't change it by fasting, cleansing, eating this or that and it doesn't get wrecked by eating too few calories for a period of time.

    Your weight comes down to calories in/calories out. You eat to much, you gain weight. You eat to little you get very thin and usually sick. Your body doesn't operate on a 24 hour clock so that it knows that today is our fast day and tomorrow we get more. Watching calories day by day only helps because it's much easier than keeping track of your calorie intake by the month. It would suck to get to the 25th and find out you'd used up all your calories.

    I have no idea why it's such a hard concept to grasp. I guess it comes down to our society being bombarded with the quick answer to every problem.

    Actually you can.
    You can slow it down.
    You can speed it up.

    Christian Weyer, Roy L Walford, Inge T Harper, Mike Milner, Taber MacCallum, P Antonio Tataranni and Eric Ravussin, "Energy metabolism after 2 y of energy restriction: the Biosphere 2 experiment", American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 72, No. 4, 946-953, October 2000.

    Martin CK, Heilbronn LK, de Jonge L, Delany JP, Volaufova J, Anton SD, Redman LM, Smith SR, Ravussin E. "Effect of calorie restriction on resting metabolic rate and spontaneous physical activity", Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007 Dec

    Rosenbaum M, Hirsch J, Gallagher DA, Leibel RL., Long-term persistence of adaptive thermogenesis in subjects who have maintained a reduced body weight. Am J Clin Nutr., 2008 Oct

    Welle SL, Seaton TB, Campbell RG. "Some metabolic effects of overeating in man", Am J Clin Nutr. 1986 Dec.


    Last one there is about speeding it back up again.

    I think his post was more to do with the perception of being able to significantly alter metabolism on a day to day basis depending on what you ate that day or some other diet trick like juicing or whatever "surprising your body" by eating different foods - which is not the case.

    All the studies you quoted reference long term metabolic slow down from sustained periods of under eating. This is known fact I don't think anyone is really disputing that. Metabolic rate will be far greater influenced by overall bodyweight/muscle mass than it will be by your eating schedule..
    Zig-Zagging is fine if that's your preference, but it's not going to boost your metabolism any more than a traditional deficit with the same average intake in calories and macronutrients.

    If you are going to take away anything from this thread, let it be this.
  • DebbieLyn63
    DebbieLyn63 Posts: 2,654 Member
    I don't have any 'scientific studies' to quote, but in my experience, if I get stuck for a week or so, I can either go up 200 or down 200 for a few days and my weightloss picks back up again. I'm sure the total at the end of the month is probably averaging out, but haven't checked to be sure. May be completely coincidental as well, but it keeps me motivated to continue on my plan, and that's what matters to me in the long run. Whatever works, do it, if it stops working, try something different.
  • glenner
    glenner Posts: 160 Member
    I used to have a diet book that was based on that- you ate a certain amount of calories for three days, then lowered it a bit for three days then changed it again for one day. I hated counting calories and it was back in the days we didn't use computers all the time. Maybe I should try it again!
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/81/1/69/T2.expansion.html

    Alternate day fasting shows metabolic rate same on fast (Day 22) and feed (Day 21) days but significant changes from baseline to fast day in other parameters :-

    Baseline Day 21 Day 22
    RMR (kJ/d) 6675 ± 283 6292 ± 268 6329 ± 260
    RQ 0.85 ± 0.01 0.86 ± 0.02 0.79 ± 0.012 (2)
    Fat oxidation (g/24 h)3 64 ± 8 54 ± 10 101 ± 9 (2)
    Carbohydrate oxidation (g/24 h)3 175 ± 17 184 ± 24 81 ± 16 (2)

    Although the RMR in calories looks to fall from 1597 +/- 68 at baseline to 1507 +/- 62 after 3 weeks the change isn't big enough to be statistically significant ie the ranges overlap so difference could be chance. Certainly the feed and fast days have the same RMR but the shift to fat burning is clear on the fast days.

    (2) = Significantly different from baseline, P < 0.001 (one-factor repeated-measures ANOVA).

    Thanks for sharing that, The fat oxidation line shows a big difference, it would suggest a 50% increase or more in fat oxidation on fasting days and only a 15% decrease on feed days versus steady state baseline.
    It is certainly worth following up on.

    What this suggests is that even at constant RMR - the energy sources being used during fasting are more fat focused (which makes sense if glycogen stores are low) what is interesting is that it suggests that (35g/24hr fasting more, versus 10g/24hr less on feed day versus base line) more fat is burned during this type of cycling. The difference for 6-7 days would be 75g of fat which does not seem like a lot, well, until you compare it to the real world and see that it is the fat in 10 x 100g of chocolate bars.

    Worth looking up.

    Someone want to check my math?

    fast day: 35g/24hr
    non-fast -10g/24hr

    2 day equivalent increase in fat burn 25g
    6 days / 2 day = 3 * 25 = 75g more fat burned
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    I'm always surprised that MFP doesn't recalculate for you. Seeing as I update my weight all the time, I feel like the calories should automatically adjust. After losing ten pounds I went into the settings and adjusted it myself. It lowered my recommended calories by 40, which isn't huge, but you have to keep on top of these things.

    For there to be much of a change to even worry about, it waits until 10 lb change, then asks to change the goal.

    But I think if you setup anything manual, you are in control now, no auto.

Categories