At what point does your metabolism slow down?

It's common to think that less will equal more when it comes to calorie deficit, but actually the opposite is true when exercise is factored into the equation. If the calorie count is low and the exercise is high, what happens is that your body believes it's starving and it will hold on to every calorie you give it. The answer is to increase your intake to sufficiently fuel your body to allow it to work out as well as give it what it needs to function throughout the day. I'd recommend going back to the Goals tab and reevaluating what you've entered there. Be sure you've marked the right amount of activity. If you have, then perhaps switching down to half a lb a week might be worth a try. The extra food may end up producing more than a half pound loss and you'll probably feel better. Also, be sure you're getting enough protein and carbs. Good luck to you.

Make sure you eat back your exercise calories, especially since you're eating 1200 a day. Being stuck at one weight for days (or even a couple weeks) isn't uncommon due to water weight and other factors. You'll still be at a net caloric deficit if you make sure to track your exercise calories correctly and eat those calories back. Also, like the person above me said, try switching your goals to lose a half pound a week.

It's always harder to lose those last 10 or so pounds, but it's definitely possible. I've got about the same amount as you to lose, and it's sloooow going. Calories in vs. calories out. Just keep eating at a net deficit and physics will do the rest.

Change your goal to one pound a week. Lift heavy.

Well 1200 calories at your weight is probably the 'unhealthy way'. You're supposed to eat back exercise calories, or you're burning as much lean mass as fat, which is the opposite of what you want if you're 'skinny fat'.

Sued0nim wrote: »

heybales wrote: »

Define marginal.

And how good are the benefits of exercise and required recovery if you must keep eating less and less and less to compensate for "marginal".

And how successful is adherence eating as little as possible to lose an amount of fat that probably could be accomplished eating as much as possible?

True - the myths associated with AT aren't true - but that doesn't negate the effect.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251

(that last study showing ability to come out of it, implies there was something to go into in the first place)

Just as the extreme of believing all the myths that go with it are true - so also the extreme of believing there is no such thing.

OK now that blog and has shifted my paradigm somewhat and I'd like to thank you for it @heybales particularly when responding to just LCD ...interesting ..must read the full research as I only have time for the abstract at present

Just looking at charts ...did the control group increased fat free mass over the 6 months? That's interesting

Yes they did.
That ties in with another study I saw that eating more protein at maintenance and no exercise increased FFM and decreased FM. With a resulting minor blip up to BMR/TDEE.

I'm betting the control group ate a better diet than prior, more protein.
And/or felt inspired to get a little more exercise in, they said no more than 2 x weekly prior, perhaps they allowed them to continue that 2x if already doing it.

Also interesting is putting numbers to that LCD group rather than %. While sub-1000 eating level sounds bad (and would be outside a Dr's care and tests out the whazoo) - if this was 200 lb female, then it was until she lost 30 lbs - then maintenance.
That should have easily been 2 lbs weekly, more at start, though I'm sure it slowed near the end of their 12 weeks for slowdown they got.
But that eating level to starting TDEE level - tad over 50% deficit.

Now take your MFP person that dropped calories to 1200, doesn't meet their goal because they think it's better - and massively increased their exercise to have a starting TDEE around 2500, very easy to see.
They just hit 50% plus deficit at the start.
And true, if they lost potential 500 cal of TDEE purely from adaptation - TDEE now around 2000.
They've lost some weight and muscle mass - say TDEE now around 1800.
Their workouts suck now for intensity besides moving around less weight - say TDEE now at 1700 avg.
Ok, still should have a 500 cal deficit and be losing weight for last 5-10 lbs - true.
But the stress to the body from all the above - where is cortisol levels and retained water?
And are they actually adhering well to their under 1200 diet now, or exercising more?
Or binging too frequently, eating well above their suppressed TDEE for couple days a week - with fat gain on those days?

It's easy to see why claims to the myths are attached to the effect.

Oh my gosh we are almost the same! Im also 26 (well in a few days im 26 haha) 5'1 currently 121ish Im looking to get somewhere below 109 (I think I set my goal to 107) I was typically about 105 most of my adult life from age 15 to 22ish . Gained a little weight after starting college and getting married haha. Add me to friends if you want!!!

Anyways, I think you seem like you are doing fine. Metabolism will slow naturally as you get older and what Ive read its not going to be enough to really notice a difference, especially at our age. Ive been doing alot of reading on MFP in the threads lately with other people asking similar things and the problem seems to rely more on the fact that as you get older you arent as active as you were as a teen/kid so its easier to gain weight (with the whole calories in and calories out thing) while it may seem its because of metabolism, it usually isnt just because as an adult we arent as active as we were before.

I would just continue to do what you are doing but I wouldnt eat less than 1200 a day as thats not very healthy. It just takes time especially on short bodies with very little to lose! TBH I dont think you should lose anymore but ofc its a personal choice. I also agree with another user that you might want to try weight training instead of focusing on losing more lbs!

For me my metabolism only slowed when I hit 35 years old. It also became harder to maintain muscle so I have to work a little harder now and eat a little less. Before that age it was consistent and didn't change, my weight changed due to diet and activity level but not actual metabolism when I was younger.

MissusMoon wrote: »

SCoil123 wrote: »

For me my metabolism only slowed when I hit 35 years old. It also became harder to maintain muscle so I have to work a little harder now and eat a little less. Before that age it was consistent and didn't change, my weight changed due to diet and activity level but not actual metabolism when I was younger.

Have you actually had metabolic testing done?

I have labs run every 6-12 months and underwent metabolic type testing once. I also have a thyroid condition and endometreosis so I see doctors and specialist more often than most. At 35 I also entered perimenopause, which is fairly common to go through so young with my specific conditions.

So yes. I get all of my info in regards to my personal health, diet, and activities from medical professionals.

Thank you @haybales!!

I do a form of re-feeding once a week however my overall weekly calorie intake is still low. Your research is really an interesting read!