Starvation Mode - Adaptive Thermogenesis and Weight Loss

There were also no significant changes in resting metabolic rate (measured in absolute terms or relative to body mass) within groups over time or between groups over time.

The findings regarding no loss of fat-free mass in the diet-only group are surprising, as some degree of obligatory loss of fat-free mass is expected with significant weight loss.

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?

It's uncertain that it happens to everyone or all the time, there are sudies that do not report it - however it is highly likely that it does happen with large deficits and long diets - it is consistently reported in those conditions.

Most biological functions are rate limited and are rarely just a switch that goes on - especially when the function is complex and has many feedback mechanisms. So this *likely* occurs over time and is a slow process of weight restriction. Also recovery seems to vary from reported 3 months to 7 years (for strict diets of several years) --- so it isn't unlikely that recovery could be shorter just not statistically significant to be observed. Remember - these studies were looking out for AT not for clear time periods of recovery, unfortunately.

I'm not going to go beyond conjecture about eat more to lose movement because I really don't know. Does eating more allow for different substrate use, LBM build up, metabolism changes/rebalance, energy to increase activity which then leads to weight loss? I don't know - what I can say is that maximizing calories at which weight loss occurs does have the benefit of reducing LBM loss and assuring micronutrient diversity - you need to weigh (no pun) if that makes sense in your own loss strategy.

Personally I'm for slow and steady. My brother and many others aren't. But starting points and results vary.

This is sooo true. I workout and burn far less than my always thin counterparts. I am more efficient than my thin counterparts. This is awesome from an evolutionary perspective- it is exactly what evolution wants. If I were a car burning so little fuel to do the same work I would be the best car ever (heck the government might even give me a tax credit!). But I am a person trying to get thinner and it is a LONG and seemingly endless process. SO I may never make it to a normal body weight - but I will be healthy regardless of how long it takes me to get there!