Starvation Mode - Adaptive Thermogenesis and Weight Loss
Replies
-
Bump for later0
-
Very informative.0
-
How to avoid protein synthesis... eat more protein.0
-
Tagging, thanks for sharing this.0
-
Thank you...this explains quite a bit, and how eating more intermittently seems to be helping my weight loss. Nice to know I'm not just weird.0
-
Tagging to read later...0
-
Awesome read...I must admit, I zonked out for a second when things got really confusing, but got right back into it. I think your reply to that post really summed it up for me as i'm on a1,000 c/day diet. I can feel my body needing less calories after a week. But, that means I need to work harder to keep it off. Thanks!
...You know what? Nevermind.
Great post, very informative. I love when things that make me think pop up.0 -
Maybe I am confused by all the info you provided, but I thought that 10% to 15% was distilled out as actual impact on metabolic rate (actual versus expected).ETA: By the way the study reports adaptation at "Maintenance of a 10% or greater reduction in body weight in lean or obese individuals is accompanied by an approximate 20%-25% decline in 24-hour energy expenditure" And we are only using a 15% decline...
BTW, there is still my other question:
I don't believe such a point exists.In any of these studies you looked at, was there ever a point at which lowering consumption did not increase the deficit?
There is also the matter of likelihood - I don't think most people should expect the worst case scenario.
You are correct - the 25% is total, 10%-15% is the actual additional change not based on LBM. Let's keep the 15% as per my example. sorry.
I'm not sure about what you are asking - lowering consumption always results in a deficit - there are people that do very low calorie diets but, in general, what is outlined is that this is not necessarily the best way to go because it
- significantly impacts LBM retention
- nutritional balance
- likely has long-term impact of hormonal equilibrium, etc...
As to the a plateau, you can do the calculations but here is simple model of someone starting at 110 lbs and 10% weight loss the resulting gap (I've assumed a non-LBM constant decrease to 15% over time).
As you can see, the person might believe that they still have a 308 calorie deficit but instead are eating at 59 calorie excess -- an experienced plateau. Is it a real plateau?
No, because you can always continue to reduce. But I suggest that this isn't a good idea.
Not only is maintaining LBM important, but avoiding that 10-15% additional metabolic pain and all the issues it can bring is a win in my book.
Edit: typos. typos everywhere.0 -
IN for science.0
-
My concern with the repeated question is that all your wonderful research will inevitably get used by someone claiming it supports the metabolic meltdown. A number of people on this forum claim that they cannot lose any weight at 1200 but lose a lot at 1600. I do not believe this is possible. I think it is entirely possible that the deficit is more efficient - dropping 350 from maintenance might result in losing a pound in 10 days while dropping 700 might take 6 days because metabolic rate drops a little. I do not think that the rate of loss will ever drop when you reduce calories further.0
-
bump to read later0
-
In for smartypants-ness.0
-
ETA - BTW, I am one of those annoying people who did the drastic cut, lost nearly 2 pounds a week consistently for about 4 months, upped to lose slower a little while and then adjusted to maintenance after a 55 pound loss. I think I need some toning, but I do not "look like poo". I don't seem to have altered my metabolic rate significantly; calculators are pretty close on what I need to maintain.
Addressing your ETA.
Glad your loss worked - and congrats on your successful results. Did you evaluate your metabolic function (actual not just claculated) prior to your loss or did you just cut - because without that prior analysis you can't really tell how you have or not modified your metabolism.
As to the "poo" comment - it wasn't intended as a disparaging comment on all those that lose quickly - it was my brother's comment on his own weight loss. He's been more successful in total pounds lost - he is now struggling to deal with bf% (and so am I but from a different starting point.)
So, let's assume for discussion sake, that you have not had any negative metabolic effect (even if you didn't actually do a study at the start...), do you think:
- perhaps it did happen but I don't know my start point.
- certain it didn't happen and perhaps the reason is the re-feed taper.
- certain it didn't happen and perhaps the reason is xxx.
- certain it didn't happen and I have no idea why.
I'm a curious person...0 -
Bump0
-
My concern with the repeated question is that all your wonderful research will inevitably get used by someone claiming it supports the metabolic meltdown. A number of people on this forum claim that they cannot lose any weight at 1200 but lose a lot at 1600. I do not believe this is possible. I think it is entirely possible that the deficit is more efficient - dropping 350 from maintenance might result in losing a pound in 10 days while dropping 700 might take 6 days because metabolic rate drops a little. I do not think that the rate of loss will ever drop when you reduce calories further.
Ah, I see. well consider that 15% drop in my graph. The person with 15% decrease in function would not see a loss where as the person with no loss still sees a drop.
I think that what is actually going on aside from the non-LBM depression in metabolic rate is that increases in calories also allow for some LBM regain (albeit not that easy, right?) - i can see how 3-4 lbs of LBM (that 70 to 200 cals increase in TDEE for someone very active) plusrecovering the 15% could tip the scales.
I don't know that "eat more to lose" does or does not work but there are a lot of people that have been successful that way. >shrugs<
food for thought.1 -
I don't know my start point, so I can't honestly get past the first point. The point of the taper was more about still eating with discipline and a goal (mental/emotional reasons) rather than thinking I was adjusting my metabolism. I was also concerned that I was getting close to the tipping point where the fat stores could not metabolize fast enough to provide the energy at a big deficit, using the 31.4 calories per pound of fat per day calculation. I wanted to limit LBM loss.ETA - BTW, I am one of those annoying people who did the drastic cut, lost nearly 2 pounds a week consistently for about 4 months, upped to lose slower a little while and then adjusted to maintenance after a 55 pound loss. I think I need some toning, but I do not "look like poo". I don't seem to have altered my metabolic rate significantly; calculators are pretty close on what I need to maintain.
Addressing your ETA.
Glad your loss worked - and congrats on your successful results. Did you evaluate your metabolic function (actual not just claculated) prior to your loss or did you just cut - because without that prior analysis you can't really tell how you have or not modified your metabolism.
As to the "poo" comment - it wasn't intended as a disparaging comment on all those that lose quickly - it was my brother's comment on his own weight loss. He's been more successful in total pounds lost - he is now struggling to deal with bf% (and so am I but from a different starting point.)
So, let's assume for discussion sake, that you have not had any negative metabolic effect (even if you didn't actually do a study at the start...), do you think:
- perhaps it did happen but I don't know my start point.
- certain it didn't happen and perhaps the reason is the re-feed taper.
- certain it didn't happen and perhaps the reason is xxx.
- certain it didn't happen and I have no idea why.
I'm a curious person...0 -
I don't know my start point, so I can't honestly get past the first point. The point of the taper was more about still eating with discipline and a goal (mental/emotional reasons) rather than thinking I was adjusting my metabolism. I was also concerned that I was getting close to the tipping point where the fat stores could not metabolize fast enough to provide the energy at a big deficit, using the 31.4 calories per pound of fat per day calculation. I wanted to limit LBM loss.ETA - BTW, I am one of those annoying people who did the drastic cut, lost nearly 2 pounds a week consistently for about 4 months, upped to lose slower a little while and then adjusted to maintenance after a 55 pound loss. I think I need some toning, but I do not "look like poo". I don't seem to have altered my metabolic rate significantly; calculators are pretty close on what I need to maintain.
Addressing your ETA.
Glad your loss worked - and congrats on your successful results. Did you evaluate your metabolic function (actual not just claculated) prior to your loss or did you just cut - because without that prior analysis you can't really tell how you have or not modified your metabolism.
As to the "poo" comment - it wasn't intended as a disparaging comment on all those that lose quickly - it was my brother's comment on his own weight loss. He's been more successful in total pounds lost - he is now struggling to deal with bf% (and so am I but from a different starting point.)
So, let's assume for discussion sake, that you have not had any negative metabolic effect (even if you didn't actually do a study at the start...), do you think:
- perhaps it did happen but I don't know my start point.
- certain it didn't happen and perhaps the reason is the re-feed taper.
- certain it didn't happen and perhaps the reason is xxx.
- certain it didn't happen and I have no idea why.
I'm a curious person...
The psychological part is essential - I think that is also part of what this "science" misses out.
Thanks for the discussion, really gets me thinking.0 -
Bump to follow this excellent topic!0
-
Bumping to encourage all my friends to read- thanks for posting this
0 -
A couple more questions:
1. Is it known if this unpredicted reduction of EE depends on parameters like duration of diet, deficit, years at initial (pre-diet) weight, initial weight & BF, age etc? And if yes, how?
2. If the recovery of the TDEE takes years to take place, how do diet breaks help? It looks like these are very different time scales.
Related to this:We previously reported persistent reductions in EE—corrected for metabolic mass and age—in subjects maintaining a reduced body weight for periods of >3 mo after cessation of weight loss (3– 6, 37). These reductions in EE could reflect transient carryover of the metabolic consequences of negative energy balance or could be a reflection of physiologic responses to reduced body fat per se (or both). The distinction between these 2 possibilities is critical to an understanding of weight homeostasis in human subjects.
^Does that mean that in the latter case the reduction is permanent in the long term, assuming that you stay at the same BF?0 -
Great post! So after reading, am I right in distilling it down to the following key points?
1. When you reach your goal weight, you will require fewer calories to maintain than someone who's 'naturally' that weight and hasn't dieted to get there.
2. You can mitigate the above problem by either building muscle whilst dieting or taking breaks from dieting to eat at maintenance for a bit.1 -
Thanks for a very interesting read, OP! - not too long; read it all
I'm not sure I understand it all, though ... So, the Adaptive Thermogenesis happens to everybody, independent of how large a deficit they have and there's no avoiding it, is that right? And is it a gradual process that starts once I go beyond a loss of 10% bodyweight, or does it start earlier? Once I go beyond 10%, does my TDEE just plummet, or does it go down slowly? If I hit a plateau and reduce my calories, will that damage my metabolism even further, or is it maxed out at that 20/25%? Basically I'm wondering if a diet break just before reaching a 10% reduction in weight would be useful?
Also, if it takes a minimum of 6 month for the metabolism to adjust upwards after Adaptive Thermogenesis, the eat more to lose movement should be non-existent. So, is there something other than Adaptive Thermogenesis happening when people talk about starvation mode on here, or are we looking at a lot of coincidental evidence, and those people were just temporarily stuck and would've started losing again anyway?0 -
Not to throw a monkey wrench into all of this but, what I have found with the eating more to lose weight is that when I eat more I have more energy when I have more energy I move more. So I don't think it's just people eating more that are losing more. I suspect they are moving more and that they might not even be aware of it, they might be fidgeting more (250-500 cals a day worth), they might be exercising slightly longer (5 more mins on the morning run/walk, spending more time cleaning, doing more errands in one shot, etc..), or they just stopped logging exercise(guilty here) and are pretty much unaware of how many calories they are burning in a day except at some vague awareness of what their TDEE is and what their daily calorie goal is.
This is good info for later when I get closer to goal so I know to reduce my expectations of TDEE calories for maintenance.0 -
I may take some heat for this, but I believe a lot of people who report no loss at low calorie levels are not truly consuming what they say. Many use "net" calories which means they are "eating back" exercise calories which are often over estimated, and the effect of the metabolic rate slowing a bit makes that even worse. Many are just flat out lying. That's the elephant in the room with a lot of discussions on this forum.Also, if it takes a minimum of 6 month for the metabolism to adjust upwards after Adaptive Thermogenesis, the eat more to lose movement should be non-existent. So, is there something other than Adaptive Thermogenesis happening when people talk about starvation mode on here, or are we looking at a lot of coincidental evidence, and those people were just temporarily stuck and would've started losing again anyway?0 -
I may take some heat for this, but I believe a lot of people who report no loss at low calorie levels are not truly consuming what they say. Many use "net" calories which means they are "eating back" exercise calories which are often over estimated, and the effect of the metabolic rate slowing a bit makes that even worse. Many are just flat out lying. That's the elephant in the room with a lot of discussions on this forum.Also, if it takes a minimum of 6 month for the metabolism to adjust upwards after Adaptive Thermogenesis, the eat more to lose movement should be non-existent. So, is there something other than Adaptive Thermogenesis happening when people talk about starvation mode on here, or are we looking at a lot of coincidental evidence, and those people were just temporarily stuck and would've started losing again anyway?
Inaccurate logging is an issue also especially those that 'eyeball' their portions.0 -
Oddly enough, you hit on something that I am guilty of but more often in the other direction. For family dinners at home, I often do eyeball and find listed portions that sound about right but if I think I may have had more I will adjust the servings to 1.5 or 2. I probably record more than I eat more often than under reporting because I am very aware of that possibility.
I may take some heat for this, but I believe a lot of people who report no loss at low calorie levels are not truly consuming what they say. Many use "net" calories which means they are "eating back" exercise calories which are often over estimated, and the effect of the metabolic rate slowing a bit makes that even worse. Many are just flat out lying. That's the elephant in the room with a lot of discussions on this forum.Also, if it takes a minimum of 6 month for the metabolism to adjust upwards after Adaptive Thermogenesis, the eat more to lose movement should be non-existent. So, is there something other than Adaptive Thermogenesis happening when people talk about starvation mode on here, or are we looking at a lot of coincidental evidence, and those people were just temporarily stuck and would've started losing again anyway?
Inaccurate logging is an issue also especially those that 'eyeball' their portions.0 -
A very good read!0
-
Great post! Just from my experience alone I can tell that my body becomes more efficient in its energy expenditure, meaning the more I exercise the less calories I spend for the same effort. Heart rate is a good approximation for calorie expenditure, and since my heart rate is getting lower and lower for the same speed & duration of run, it means my body spends less calories doing so.
I think if you are doing a small deficit (like 200 calories), it's very easy to eclipse that with inaccurate tracking. I don't think calorie counting is that accurate to begin with, even when you eat nothing but barcoded or restaurant food with official calories listed.
The way I see it there's at least a 10% margin of error in the count, so if MFP says you ate 2000 calories it's entirely possible that you actually ate 2200. MFP is also notorious for overstating exercise calories, it could be higher by 30%. Let's say your goal is 1800, when MFP says you ate 2000 calories and worked out 300 (1700 total, 100 deficit) you could actually ate 2200 and exercised 200 (2000 total, 200 surplus).0 -
bump. love articles well researched0
-
In for later reading.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 96.3K 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