Starvation Mode - Adaptive Thermogenesis and Weight Loss

Too much to read, but disheartened by some of what I read.

Can someone summarize if there has been any discussion for workaround to Adaptive Thermogenesis? My thinking is that surely if you maintain a reasonable calorie intake and continue strengths training then your muscles will continue to grow and thus extra calories will go towards growing and maintaining muscle rather than fat gains? Surely the way out is just to keep getting leaner, fitter and more toned to create such a large gap between fit you and unfit old you that you will never really go back, at worst you will just gain a few which you can burn off again with more hard work?!

Yes, there is a lot of discussion on avoiding AT by going slow or ignoring it and pressing on because it only slows loss a little, does not cause stalls, and then hoping it will resolve itself over time (in the studies,it usually does). Both ways have their adherents and stories of success and failure. You just have to figure out which way you believe in enough to stick to it and commit.

Thank you.

It seems to me it is also about how strong willed and patient you can be. Because to go slow means you have to have a chill personality that doesn't panic if you go up the scales a little but can bring it back down over time.

For those of us that get too anxious when something like that happens though, I would say the latter works for us, almost at an intuitive level. You continue to eat less and press yourself, you continue to work harder in the gym and the results continue to pour in (not just weight loss, but BF% and leanness etc), so you keep creating new goals and moving forward.

Eventually, and hopefully this is where more and more clinical trials are needed, hopefully someone can prove if AT can resolve itself over time. If it doesn't, I still don't think it is a big deal, so long as you continue to be lean and fit to the best of your efforts, after all we are dealing with muscles...

The study that most of this discussion centered around did see resolution of AT, but it was over months to years. There was a single case study mentioned somewhere in the last couple of pages where someone resolved a really bad case in only 6 weeks. But worst case, if you have to just deal with it, I don't think it is that much of a hardship. The calculators tell me I should be able to eat over 2000 with no exercise but it seems more like I need to be under 1900. Again, take my numbers with a grain of salt because I am not strictly logging what I eat or using a HRM when running.

Too much to read, but disheartened by some of what I read.

Can someone summarize if there has been any discussion for workaround to Adaptive Thermogenesis? My thinking is that surely if you maintain a reasonable calorie intake and continue strengths training then your muscles will continue to grow and thus extra calories will go towards growing and maintaining muscle rather than fat gains? Surely the way out is just to keep getting leaner, fitter and more toned to create such a large gap between fit you and unfit old you that you will never really go back, at worst you will just gain a few which you can burn off again with more hard work?!

Yes, there is a lot of discussion on avoiding AT by going slow or ignoring it and pressing on because it only slows loss a little, does not cause stalls, and then hoping it will resolve itself over time (in the studies,it usually does). Both ways have their adherents and stories of success and failure. You just have to figure out which way you believe in enough to stick to it and commit.

Thank you.

It seems to me it is also about how strong willed and patient you can be. Because to go slow means you have to have a chill personality that doesn't panic if you go up the scales a little but can bring it back down over time.

For those of us that get too anxious when something like that happens though, I would say the latter works for us, almost at an intuitive level. You continue to eat less and press yourself, you continue to work harder in the gym and the results continue to pour in (not just weight loss, but BF% and leanness etc), so you keep creating new goals and moving forward.

Eventually, and hopefully this is where more and more clinical trials are needed, hopefully someone can prove if AT can resolve itself over time. If it doesn't, I still don't think it is a big deal, so long as you continue to be lean and fit to the best of your efforts, after all we are dealing with muscles...

The study that most of this discussion centered around did see resolution of AT, but it was over months to years. There was a single case study mentioned somewhere in the last couple of pages where someone resolved a really bad case in only 6 weeks. But worst case, if you have to just deal with it, I don't think it is that much of a hardship. The calculators tell me I should be able to eat over 2000 with no exercise but it seems more like I need to be under 1900. Again, take my numbers with a grain of salt because I am not strictly logging what I eat or using a HRM when running.

For some of us it can be quite a big deal. The calculators say that I can maintain around 1900. For the past six weeks I have been averaging about 1500. I was up 2.5 pounds. Yes some of that is water. I expect that at best I will be right at even when the water goes away. So to lose, I would have to drop even lower. That IS a big deal. I feel really hungry lower than 1500. I have a hard time getting proper nutrition at much under that . So I truly am stuck. So for small women, it is a big deal if we are supressed since we dont get a big number to begin with. I exercise regularly (6 days a week) and even strength train a bit (working on doing that more) and the weight wont budge. And no I am not already underweight. Just about 8 lbs up from what I believe is ideal (and some calculators even predict that I should have a lower goal even than the one I have.)

And again, with respect to the study we are primarily discussing, the numbers are in the 10% - 15% range as far as the effect of AT on metabolic rate. If you see more than that, I think something else is going on. There is only so much efficiency to be had. Hauling the body around, digesting food, pumping blood, breathing and typing in internet posts are all activities that have quantifiable amounts of work involved. The body can't do these things without expending energy. It can only go so far in conserving energy and still getting these tasks done. If you function normally and are able to exercise, it just isn't possible that you aren't expending energy somewhat close to the normal range (I am considering the 15% drop off to be "somewhat close").

ETA - I do believe in AT, but I think some people are latching on to AT as an explanation for more than the 15% drop the study found as a max. I just don't see that in the data presented and it doesn't make logical sense to me. You can only save energy up to a point.

remember that hose calculators are completely ignorant of your background, genetics, past obesity (or other weight issues), muscle conditioning/efficiency, etc. At beast they are a very rough estimate... especially when you use one that tries to factor in an arbitrary "level of activity". 1900 calories per day for a small woman is a lot of food. I don't know how small you actually are (height, weight, etc), but even 1500 sounds like it's too much. It may well be that you have been affected by AT to a certain extent, but it may also be that the calculators just don't work for someone your size. Go get your BMR tested, do morning temperature measurements, etc. There are ways to know what shape your metabolism is really in. Depending on your level of activity though, you sound about normal. Assuming your definition of "small" is the same as mine.

This.

Sedentary TDEE - 500 is a good place to start. Adjust as necessary.

As far as AT goes, there's really nothing revolutionary about this study. It confirmed what is already accepted knowledge -- a slow approach to weight loss augmented with an exercise program will lead to maximizing fat loss and minimizing lean body mass loss. Beyond that, your body is going to react the way it reacts to weight loss based on genetic differences and there's not a whole lot you can do about AT beyond raising exercise intensity/duration or lowering caloric intake to compensate for it if it happens.

My sedentary TDEE is about 1450. So i dont plan on eating 950! And I'm not sedentary. I teach music (read I wave my hands in the air a lot and move around a good bit of moderate weight equipment daily. I run more days than I don't. I strength train. (Not as much as I should!) some days I even teach some very basic dance and I often am drumming with my ensembles. None of my non exercise activity is vigorous but I accumulate about 2 hours of moderate activity a day through the work week. And on my run days I get 30-45 minutes of vigorous activity. All of this is according to my body media fit. In fact it says I burn about 2000 on non exercise days and 2300+ on exercise days.

This study that the OP posted is the first true evidence I've seen that explains my body. So it is important to me because I want to get to eat as much as possible wothout gaining and really id like to lose some of my re gain! Us little gals get hungry too. I once had a male mfp poster respond to some thing I posted with, "well you are small so you don't get as hungry as bigger people." So untrue and so unsympathetic!

Joshdann, I have wondered if the tables are off for smaller people too. After all they probably are based on the average height.

My sedentary TDEE is about 1450. So i dont plan on eating 950! And I'm not sedentary. I teach music (read I wave my hands in the air a lot and move around a good bit of moderate weight equipment daily. I run more days than I don't. I strength train. (Not as much as I should!) some days I even teach some very basic dance and I often am drumming with my ensembles. None of my non exercise activity is vigorous but I accumulate about 2 hours of moderate activity a day through the work week. And on my run days I get 30-45 minutes of vigorous activity. All of this is according to my body media fit. In fact it says I burn about 2000 on non exercise days and 2300+ on exercise days.

So what are you trying to accomplish?

1. Lose the approximately 8 lbs that I regained as I tried to go to maintenance. (I would like to fit comfortably in the clothes I bought after my initial 43 lb loss--some are tight now). Or lose the equivalent fat percentage that would allow the clothes to fit.

2. Maintain at somewhere close to where the calculators and body media put me (1800-2300 gross cals). Right now I seem to maintain on about 1550. I would like to not feel like I am on a diet just to maintain a healthy weight. Btw right now mi BMI is 22 which is right in the middle of healthy.

Consider also that fat free mass loss was 2x greater in the lower diet. Close to 50% of the weight was from FFM.

Article: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/51/2/167.short

The full text says that " There were also no significant differences between the groups in changes in body fat or FFM from baseline to the end of treatment " ie the two treatments had the same outcome by the end.

It also says "VLCD patients lost 2. 1 kg FFM as compared with 2.4 kg
in BDD patients. These data suggest that a VLCD providing
protein ofhigh biological quality does not unduly compromise FFM. We (32) showed previously that 32% ofthe excess weight
in obese persons (averaging 105 kg) consists of FFM and that
the average excess FFM is 1 5 kg. Thus, a 2. 1-kg loss seems quite
acceptable. "

I am unclear where you observed the 2x greater loss of fat free mass.

It's time for you to let this go. Really. It's not healthy. I suggest you leave the VLCD thing behind and find a more positive focus for your energy... something that will lead you to achievements and fulfilment on a personal level... perhaps something involving an outside activity?

Good luck! :flowerforyou:

Thanks!