Starvation Mode - Adaptive Thermogenesis and Weight Loss

EvgeniZyntx, I think you're right. Basically I knew all about newbie gains and growing initally on a deficit and growing muscle back if you were to that previous point before. My point was not everyone can do that. To many slim women pick up "my muscles are getting huge on this calorie deficit" and I wanted to try and clear that up. Since usually those threads lead to 0 before and after pics, or people admitting that they were wrong and didn't take a few variables into account (for example it was after a few days and they didn't consider glycogen/repairs etc). With weight loss, usually comes fat and muscle loss, even if you're eating ideally and lifting heavy.

And I don't think I was confused, but I still doubt those gains after 5 weeks are accurately measurable as muscle gains. Not a closed system, to much room for error to state it as fact, though I understand how you're feeling. With that said, keep as accurate tabs on your diet and measurements joshdann. I'd be interested in the results down the road, even if I'm not there to know how accurate the results are. Even though you are an ideal candidate (have weight to lose, previous strength training experience), I still doubt there's measurable growth in 5 weeks? More so because of the way I suspected you are measuring (which was accurate). I go up and down in size like crazy when exercising. But basically my logic being if you lost fat...and gained muscle...will that is a huge amount of muscle gained if something increased in size given the fat and weight loss. My best explanation:


Say someone lost 1lb of weight (or 5lbs, since that's what the pic shows, pick a number but keep the proportions in volume of that pic). If that someone lost 1lb of fat (left) from their bicep (heh heh yeah I'm realistic) you would have to put on a considerable amount of weight in muscle to show a size difference on the plus side on your bicep...significantly more then 1lb. And to still have a deficit in weight you would have to lose more then 1lb in fat to make up for the muscle size growth/weight which would be over a lb and the weight lost...it just seems unplausible in your case for 5 weeks to see a measurable gain in a particular part and assume it's muscle. Even if you are the ideal candidate, from what I understand, muscle isn't the easiest thing to put on.

Either way, gluck with it!

I started a new thread here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1086773-muscle-gains-while-losing-fat-cont-from-at-thread?page=1 for the continuation of this topic. I want to discuss learn, not argue. I like the way this has leaned more towards the former.

Agreed and I would love to hear some people who are educated on this type of subject (muscle gains/deficits) or at least have a reasonable somewhat educated hypothesis. Research would be ideal, likelihood unlikely.

thanks for making that post, unfortunately I didn't read EvgeniZyntx's comment until after I made that big long post lol.

hmmm... I lost 100lbs slowly, had my metabolism tetsed at the beginning, then after loss v02 was 1890 both times, activity and strenghth training can help keep the metabolism burnong.

That's more of an indication that your physical fitness stayed the same (good for you), not that your metabolism stayed the same (it didn't, if we're talking in terms of TDEE). People say metabolism and mean to many different things. This is more in terms of EE (energy expenditure) it seems? Correct me if I'm wrong. Your body composition and EE can change dramatically and your V02 can remain the same (as seen by results above).

BUMP

At last - a post with some sense that ties in with my own experiences. Thank you for posting this!

Excellent!

OK. I guess that is another decision I sort of made by default, but still justify in hindsight. My wife says my hindsight is 20/20. When she said that, I should have said... :bigsmile: Anyway, back on track, I am more of a runner than a gym rat. Not because I think cardio is better, just because I like running outside more than going to the gym and it is easier to fit in my schedule, so I actually do it. A lot of it. I have run over 300 miles since Memorial Day weekend. I have also been to the gym maybe 6 times during that same period. So cardio is a better fat burner for me because I like to run and I don't like going to the gym. Different strokes...

I am guilty as charged of taking the word of a lot of gym rats that you can't gain muscle while eating at a deficit. It does seem to be the consensus, but I really don't have a dog in that fight and have not done any real research. Because whether it is true or not, I still won't like the gym very much.

I think you may have hit on another effect for you then, endurance cardio and great fitness level.

If you research VO2max test results of athletes and people willing to share, and find the ones that had a Bodpod or hydrostatic weighing done to determine LBM well, you'll find their tested resting RMR is lower than expected for the LBM.

And these are usually folks not on a diet.

My own test results came out 200 lower than LBM would indicate. Considering I was eating reasonable at level based on Katch BMR, I wasn't in a diet for a while. I was training, so I was cool with that because it led to great performance. Should have known that though.

Anyway, with all your running, I'll bet you have great fitness level and VO2max, and likely you are burning more than you believe. But combined with lower RMR, it's evening out.

You ever do a treadmill test against a formula to see what you burn? Your app may be right on. Notice how close in calories the running part was.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is

Got to Bump this, there is so much to read and learn!

what's going on is something besides simply eating more calories, most of the time. Sometimes people get more energy and end up working out harder. Sometimes people drop water weight because of the added food, and that small reduction in weight makes them think they have magically broken through the plateau and.. end up working out harder. And in some cases there is a real metabolic readjustment stemming from the influx of food, and that results in a more efficient burning of calories. For most people that will take more than a few days of eating more, and will usually result in gaining a bit before any more fat is lost. Of course the water weight dropped through this process can mask that effect.

This is all based on literature I've read recently from some very well respected fitness experts, and their info is based on scientific research. remember that correlation does not equal causation. In other words "I did this thing, then this thing happened" does not always mean that thing one caused thing 2. People tend to ignore this scientific fact because it feels better to have uncovered some secret, and it definitely feels good to think that eating more food will cause you to lose weight. We wouldn't be here if we didn't enjoy eating lots of food, now would we?

There are, of course, some real benefits from maintaining a smaller deficit. These benefits are longer term, and for most people (like me) not worth the extra time it takes to lose the fat when eating at a small deficit. Those long-term benefits are likely what spawned the concept of eating more to break through plateaus... and before I did some real research I also used that technique with some success. Now I understand the actual physiology and psychology of what was going on, and I don't plan to do it again. It likely won't hurt you if you want to try it to, and if it helps you in some way (and you are okay with losing a bit of ground to get yourself back on track) then I say go for it. This process is as much (possibly more) mental as it is physical, so... whatever it takes, IMO.

bump