Metabolic reset
KBurns123456
Posts: 2 Member
So I am starting a metabolic reset and have read some different things about it. I am unsure of how to go about doing it calorie intake wise. I have calculated my TDEE, so I am wondering if I jump up to eating at my maintenance daily or do I gradually increase by like 100 a week? For a while I was eating a little over 1000 a day and then I would try to keep it around 1500. My maintenance is 2,398, so I am pretty hesitant to automatically jump up to that. Any help would be appreciated 
0
Replies
-
I would recommend a slow increase to minimize weight regain and keep you from giving up and reverting to low cals. Increase increments is up to you but can take just as long to raise calories to a normal level as it took to decrease them.0
-
A post on another thread related to this idea:The article that explains it best is here http://greatist.com/health/cheat-days-explained
One of the things this article states is
What's up with that? They say some studies support it but provide no link but provide two links to studies that refute it. Then it goes on into the explanation about how it gets that small, but in the context of eating more to get it - meaningless short term rise in metabolic rate. Biased journalism at its finest.Some studies do support this claim, but others suggest overfeeding (the scientific phrase for eating too much, or "cheating") only ups metabolism between three and 10 percent for no more than 24 hours, making the little boost not worth the hundreds or thousands of extra calories [1] [2].
So anyway, it appears you can get it to increase by 3% to 10% for less than 24 hours by eating more than it will erase. I would recommend against that course of action...0 -
Just jump to it.
The sooner you get through it the better. No sense in withholding calories that you have needed.
But if you are already at 1500, why the reset? If you use MFP's numbers, you'll probably be at what, 1500 anyway?
Then with exercise, you'll be eating close to that anyway.
If you used some off-site calculation, they don't ask you to eat additional on exercise days, like this site does.
Apples and Oranges for calculation, but they come out the same in practice.0 -
I gradually increased by 100 - 200 more daily per week. Took me about 6 weeks to get to actual maintenance. I stayed there for the last couple of months as I had achieved my initial goal of 19% BF...now on another cut and dropping the weigh again. The little break definitely helped as I had pretty much stalled out...which was ok because I was at my initial goal, but sucky at the same time because I wanted to cut some more. Just be careful, maintenance is addictive...and fun.0
-
When I was eating 1500, I would be exercising 6 days a week doing cardio and weight training and burning at least 500 calories (probably more), and not eating any of the calories back from exercising. So I was essentially eating about 1000 a day, maybe less. This has caused me to hit a plateau and I think I just have to bit the bullet and do a reset.0
-
Just jump to it.
The sooner you get through it the better. No sense in withholding calories that you have needed.
But if you are already at 1500, why the reset? If you use MFP's numbers, you'll probably be at what, 1500 anyway?
Then with exercise, you'll be eating close to that anyway.
If you used some off-site calculation, they don't ask you to eat additional on exercise days, like this site does.
Apples and Oranges for calculation, but they come out the same in practice.
^This is a recipe for rapid fat gain. Reverse diet back up to your maintenance calories to allow your metabolism time to adjust and prevent unneeded fat gain. Add 100 calories to your daily intake every week until you're back at maintenance0 -
Metabolic reset ranks right up there with starvation mode as total bunk. There may be some vague scientific data behind it but most of it is just broscience.0
-
Yep and you often even find them interlinked. A really odd thing is that article I linked to earlier seems to support it, yet if you actually read it they gloss over studies that pretty much refute it. Or to be more correct, studies that show the effect is so small and short lived that it doesn't even offset the extra calories required to cause it. they just latch on to the part where there was a measurable difference and run with that. Sometimes staying the course is hard, but if you are eating at a deficit, you will lose weight and if you have a fair amount of BF, you will lose primarily BF.Metabolic reset ranks right up there with starvation mode as total bunk. There may be some vague scientific data behind it but most of it is just broscience.0 -
Not sure why you guys think it is a myth. Maybe it is a confusion over the terms being used. There seems to be plenty of evidence that humans can adapt to low calorie diets. These adaptations lead to weight regain when a person attempts to return to a normal calorie intake.
Biology's response to dieting:
http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/301/3/R581.full.pdf+html
Metabolic responses to prolonged weight reduction:
http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/290/6/R1577.full.pdf+html
Adipose gene expression in response to caloric restriction & weight regain: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/94/...
Calorie restruction increases mitochondrial efficiency:
http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/290/6/R1577.full.pdf+html
The defense of body weight:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/231264260 -
Those are all broken links. The article that was linked to earlier supports the idea and links to studies that say it happens, but that the reset doesn't help. Yes, I have seen lots of evidence that metabolism drops when you diet, usually between 4% and 10%. But it does so gradually so that there is no point at which reducing consumption does not increase deficit. Going the other way, increasing consumption will increase metabolism, but there is no point at which increasing consumption will increase the deficit. You can eat more and the metabolism will pretty quickly respond by increasing; you can eat less and it will also pretty quickly respond. In both directions it is pretty slight (unless you get into crazy low BF% like in the MN study; very limited relevance to people with over 10% BF) and is not retained long if you change consumption again. So the fact that metabolism can be slightly influenced by consumption is not a myth. What is a myth is that people with a reasonable amount of BF can gain much if any advantage from manipulating it.Not sure why you guys think it is a myth. Maybe it is a confusion over the terms being used. There seems to be plenty of evidence that humans can adapt to low calorie diets. These adaptations lead to weight regain when a person attempts to return to a normal calorie intake.
Biology's response to dieting: http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content...
Metabolic responses to prolonged weight reduction: http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content...
Adipose gene expression in response to caloric restriction & weight regain: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/94/...
Calorie restruction increases mitochondrial efficiency: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic...
The defense of body weight: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23...0 -
Metabolic reset ranks right up there with starvation mode as total bunk. There may be some vague scientific data behind it but most of it is just broscience.
Interesting because I've done it...and it worked. I was maintaining at 2100-2200 calories per day, took a break...upped my calories slowly...actually started losing again until 500 calorie later at 2700 I was maintaining for three months...now I'm losing again at 2350 calories per day. So not really sure where you come up with total bunk if you've never tried it. Also, LOL at the idea then that my new maintenance level of calories being 2200 per day...my metabolism just became too efficient with 9 months of dieting.
Also, there's **** tons of evidence in support of the metabolism being highly adaptable and always making efforts to maintain, whether you're under eating or over eating.0 -
Sorry I fixed the links.
The article you posted is about cheat days and manipulating leptin not restoring a persons metabolic capacity to a normal level after prolonged deficit.
A controlled refeed can slow the rate of adaptation so it is related but not the topic of this thread.0 -
I figured your links were legit. Yes, the article was about leptin but you need to read my comments about it. I find it highly ironic that they mention the studies, and provide links, that found the end result of trying to manipulate metabolism was that it didn't help in the grand scheme of things - the overall deficit was lowered by the additional eating. That is one of the few references to studies I have seen that did not just give one side of the story (the lowering or the raising). It's true that restricting calories lowers it and true that eating more raises it. But no one has been able to demonstrate manipulation that works to create a bigger deficit with the same consumption in a study. I see plenty of personal anecdotes, but they are almost always from people who believed in it before trying it so there is the possibility of bias or of stricter adherence to diet and exercise due to the belief.Sorry I fixed the links.
The article you posted is about cheat days and manipulating leptin not restoring a persons metabolic capacity to a normal level after prolonged deficit.0 -
Just jump to it.
The sooner you get through it the better. No sense in withholding calories that you have needed.
But if you are already at 1500, why the reset? If you use MFP's numbers, you'll probably be at what, 1500 anyway?
Then with exercise, you'll be eating close to that anyway.
If you used some off-site calculation, they don't ask you to eat additional on exercise days, like this site does.
Apples and Oranges for calculation, but they come out the same in practice.
^This is a recipe for rapid fat gain. Reverse diet back up to your maintenance calories to allow your metabolism time to adjust and prevent unneeded fat gain. Add 100 calories to your daily intake every week until you're back at maintenance
Oh, please. Alarmist, much. OP isn't suddenly going into surplus, just maintenance. If OP had been eating exercise calories from the start he/she wouldn't be at this place. Granted he doesn't HAVE to go to maintenance, but it isn't going to cause "rapid fat gain" -
OP, whichever way you choose will work fine. I'm sure you weren't planning on doing it for six months, just a couple weeks, right? Then go to eating your exercise calories plus your 1500 and all will be right with the world. You won't gain more than a couple or three pounds, and it will drop off when you go back on plan.
Relax, people :laugh:0 -
I figured your links were legit. Yes, the article was about leptin but you need to read my comments about it. I find it highly ironic that they mention the studies, and provide links, that found the end result of trying to manipulate metabolism was that it didn't help in the grand scheme of things - the overall deficit was lowered by the additional eating. That is one of the few references to studies I have seen that did not just give one side of the story (the lowering or the raising). It's true that restricting calories lowers it and true that eating more raises it. But no one has been able to demonstrate manipulation that works to create a bigger deficit with the same consumption in a study. I see plenty of personal anecdotes, but they are almost always from people who believed in it before trying it so there is the possibility of bias or of stricter adherence to diet and exercise due to the belief.Sorry I fixed the links.
The article you posted is about cheat days and manipulating leptin not restoring a persons metabolic capacity to a normal level after prolonged deficit.
Eating less lowers metabolism (The studies above explain how this happens). So the person eats even less to maintain a certain rate of loss. The body then adapts to new lower intake and rate of loss slows again. After the person reaches goal or they become uncomfortable with the low calorie intake they then try to increase calories to what should be maintenance for a normal metabolism without taking into account the adapted metabolism, leading to massive weight regain. Not only has their body adapted by lowering metabolism is has also become primed for energy storage.
"Resetting" metabolic capacity is simple. As you stated: you eat more and metabolism goes up. But you would not just want to jump straight to a normal calorie intake. To this person this would now be a large surplus. To keep weight regain to a minimum you would want to slowly increase calories.0 -
Normalizing metabolism again for maintenance is legit. The myth is that you can do that and then drop back to lower consumption again and get a net gain in deficit through the entire episode. That is unproven. In fact the studies in that article indicate the opposite; there was a net loss in overall deficit. You have to take this with a grain of salt; every time I have hit what might be perceived as a plateau I know why; it is either because I slacked off exercise or cut myself too much slack on eating. While adhering to my plan, I have never had a plateau. I believe the vast majority of people who post that they don't know why the scale isn't moving know exactly why it isn't. These myths offer them a convenient way to explain it away and try a little harder and in the process they "prove" the myth. But under controlled conditions where intake is strictly recorded, it doesn't happen. Hmmm...
I figured your links were legit. Yes, the article was about leptin but you need to read my comments about it. I find it highly ironic that they mention the studies, and provide links, that found the end result of trying to manipulate metabolism was that it didn't help in the grand scheme of things - the overall deficit was lowered by the additional eating. That is one of the few references to studies I have seen that did not just give one side of the story (the lowering or the raising). It's true that restricting calories lowers it and true that eating more raises it. But no one has been able to demonstrate manipulation that works to create a bigger deficit with the same consumption in a study. I see plenty of personal anecdotes, but they are almost always from people who believed in it before trying it so there is the possibility of bias or of stricter adherence to diet and exercise due to the belief.Sorry I fixed the links.
The article you posted is about cheat days and manipulating leptin not restoring a persons metabolic capacity to a normal level after prolonged deficit.
Eating less lowers metabolism (The studies above explain how this happens). So the person eats even less to maintain a certain rate of loss. The body then adapts to new lower intake and rate of loss slows again. After the person reaches goal or they become uncomfortable with the low calorie intake they then try to increase calories to what should be maintenance for a normal metabolism without taking into account the adapted metabolism, leading to massive weight regain.
"Resetting" metabolic capacity is simple. As you stated: you eat more and metabolism goes up. But you would not just want to jump straight to a normal calorie intake. To keep weight regain to a minimum you would want to slowly increase calories.0 -
Normalizing metabolism again for maintenance is legit. The myth is that you can do that and then drop back to lower consumption again and get a net gain in deficit through the entire episode. That is unproven. In fact the studies in that article indicate the opposite; there was a net loss in overall deficit. You have to take this with a grain of salt; every time I have hit what might be perceived as a plateau I know why; it is either because I slacked off exercise or cut myself too much slack on eating. While adhering to my plan, I have never had a plateau. I believe the vast majority of people who post that they don't know why the scale isn't moving know exactly why it isn't. These myths offer them a convenient way to explain it away and try a little harder and in the process they "prove" the myth. But under controlled conditions where intake is strictly recorded, it doesn't happen. Hmmm...
I figured your links were legit. Yes, the article was about leptin but you need to read my comments about it. I find it highly ironic that they mention the studies, and provide links, that found the end result of trying to manipulate metabolism was that it didn't help in the grand scheme of things - the overall deficit was lowered by the additional eating. That is one of the few references to studies I have seen that did not just give one side of the story (the lowering or the raising). It's true that restricting calories lowers it and true that eating more raises it. But no one has been able to demonstrate manipulation that works to create a bigger deficit with the same consumption in a study. I see plenty of personal anecdotes, but they are almost always from people who believed in it before trying it so there is the possibility of bias or of stricter adherence to diet and exercise due to the belief.Sorry I fixed the links.
The article you posted is about cheat days and manipulating leptin not restoring a persons metabolic capacity to a normal level after prolonged deficit.
Eating less lowers metabolism (The studies above explain how this happens). So the person eats even less to maintain a certain rate of loss. The body then adapts to new lower intake and rate of loss slows again. After the person reaches goal or they become uncomfortable with the low calorie intake they then try to increase calories to what should be maintenance for a normal metabolism without taking into account the adapted metabolism, leading to massive weight regain.
"Resetting" metabolic capacity is simple. As you stated: you eat more and metabolism goes up. But you would not just want to jump straight to a normal calorie intake. To keep weight regain to a minimum you would want to slowly increase calories.
I think that depend on the level of deficit and is not really the point of this thread. I think you are correct as long as the deficit is reasonably small. That is not what the OP described. Low calories combined with excessive workout. This site and many others are filled with the same story over and over.
Always someone willing to tell them they are just lying about cal intake or not being strict/consistant enough because THEY never hit a plateau.0 -
I said the vast majority know why the scale isn't moving. There are a very few that have some medical condition to cause it and there are some who are truly unaware of the inaccuracies in their recorded consumption and burn. There is no way to know which group people fall into, so I do not run around accusing them of lying; I just lay out some information that will hopefully lead them to re-evaluate the numbers they are using. Why do you think that no one has been able to do a metabolic reset that resulted in an overall deficit compared to staying the course under study conditions?0
-
I said the vast majority know why the scale isn't moving. There are a very few that have some medical condition to cause it and there are some who are truly unaware of the inaccuracies in their recorded consumption and burn. There is no way to know which group people fall into, so I do not run around accusing them of lying; I just lay out some information that will hopefully lead them to re-evaluate the numbers they are using. Why do you think that no one has been able to do a metabolic reset that resulted in an overall deficit compared to staying the course under study conditions?
Not sure what you mean. Are you saying no one has ever had a retarded metabolism from VLCD dieting and returned it to a normal level by increasing caloric intake?0 -
No. The metabolic reset talked about here so much on MFP is a process by which someone increases their calories to increase their metabolism, then after some period of time cuts them back a little and loses some weight. VLCD is usually not involved; it is 1200 or more to start with, which is not VLCD. In studies, this has never been demonstrated to be more effective than just maintaining the original deficit at the reduced metabolism (which the studies find to be 4% to 10% lower). The problem is that once you start reducing again, the metabolism starts dropping again.I said the vast majority know why the scale isn't moving. There are a very few that have some medical condition to cause it and there are some who are truly unaware of the inaccuracies in their recorded consumption and burn. There is no way to know which group people fall into, so I do not run around accusing them of lying; I just lay out some information that will hopefully lead them to re-evaluate the numbers they are using. Why do you think that no one has been able to do a metabolic reset that resulted in an overall deficit compared to staying the course under study conditions?
Not sure what you mean. Are you saying no one has ever had a retarded metabolism from VLCD dieting and returned it to a normal level by increasing caloric intake?
Something else to consider about this whole discussion. Using BMR to rank people with the same lean body mass, the top 5% metabolize about 30% more than the bottom 5% (source: Speakman, John R.; Król, Elzbieta; Johnson, Maria S. (2004). "The Functional Significance of Individual Variation in Basal Metabolic Rate". Physiological and Biochemical Zoolog 77 (6): 900–915.) The most likely scenario is that you are moving from about average to below average (or the other way when adding food), hence the 4% to 10% drop found in most studies. The problem is that to get that 10% drop in metabolism you have to restrict your consumption a lot more than 10%. So adding the food back into your diet to bring it up will always result in a net gain of calories consumed.0 -
No. The metabolic reset talked about here so much on MFP is a process by which someone increases their calories to increase their metabolism, then after some period of time cuts them back a little and loses some weight. VLCD is usually not involved; it is 1200 or more to start with, which is not VLCD. In studies, this has never been demonstrated to be more effective than just maintaining the original deficit at the reduced metabolism (which the studies find to be 4% to 10% lower). The problem is that once you start reducing again, the metabolism starts dropping again.I said the vast majority know why the scale isn't moving. There are a very few that have some medical condition to cause it and there are some who are truly unaware of the inaccuracies in their recorded consumption and burn. There is no way to know which group people fall into, so I do not run around accusing them of lying; I just lay out some information that will hopefully lead them to re-evaluate the numbers they are using. Why do you think that no one has been able to do a metabolic reset that resulted in an overall deficit compared to staying the course under study conditions?
Not sure what you mean. Are you saying no one has ever had a retarded metabolism from VLCD dieting and returned it to a normal level by increasing caloric intake?
Something else to consider about this whole discussion. Using BMR to rank people with the same lean body mass, the top 5% metabolize about 30% more than the bottom 5% (source: Speakman, John R.; Król, Elzbieta; Johnson, Maria S. (2004). "The Functional Significance of Individual Variation in Basal Metabolic Rate". Physiological and Biochemical Zoolog 77 (6): 900–915.) The most likely scenario is that you are moving from about average to below average (or the other way when adding food), hence the 4% to 10% drop found in most studies. The problem is that to get that 10% drop in metabolism you have to restrict your consumption a lot more than 10%. So adding the food back into your diet to bring it up will always result in a net gain of calories consumed.
Ah I see you are talking about something different than what the OP asked.0 -
No, the OP made a second post explaining this is about a reset to get past a plateau:Ah I see you are talking about something different than what the OP asked.
From looking at studies, my experience and that of people I know in real life (and can see what is actually going on when they hit a "plateau") I stand by my statement that the vast majority are not getting a metabolism jump to get through it. They are taking a little break and then getting strict again.When I was eating 1500, I would be exercising 6 days a week doing cardio and weight training and burning at least 500 calories (probably more), and not eating any of the calories back from exercising. So I was essentially eating about 1000 a day, maybe less. This has caused me to hit a plateau and I think I just have to bit the bullet and do a reset.0 -
So I was essentially eating about 1000 a day, maybe less.
This is the part that gets me. You weren't essentially eating 1000 a day, you were eating 1500. Your body gets first dibs on whatever you eat. It takes the nutrition that you need from that food. If you have weight to lose your body will take from it's fat stores to provide the extra energy.
Metabolism adapts to VLCD's over an extended period of time and VLCD isn't 1500 a day. It's more in the range of 500 calories of actually eaten food over a period of 5 months or more.
I find on MFP that the whole metabolism reset usually comes up when the poster is either tired of eating less or has slipped out of the idea of monitoring food and wants a change. The idea of more food to help lose is very attractive. Even with a VLCD for months you're looking at a drop of about 10% in metabolic rate and most MFP'ers aren't anywhere close to having done that kind of damage to their bodies. If you lived on a 500 calorie a day diet for that period of time weight loss wouldn't be an issue.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 398.4K Introduce Yourself
- 44.7K Getting Started
- 261K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.4K Food and Nutrition
- 47.7K Recipes
- 233K Fitness and Exercise
- 462 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.5K Motivation and Support
- 8.4K Challenges
- 1.4K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 17 News and Announcements
- 21 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.5K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions