Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Does eating extra calories "boost" your metabolism?
Replies
-
MissusMoon wrote: »NO
If only it was that cut and dry.0 -
its kind of interesting but since I started working with my RD, they have increased my calories and every few weeks after I get a bump (normal carbs/fat) - I go through an OMG I'm sooo hungry stage which would seem counter to the fact that I'm increasing not decreasing my macros
I wonder if its because I am working out more etc, that is causing it0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Geocitiesuser wrote: »I say no, but it sure does seem to be a common belief, both in the forums, and various articles.
Some say one cheat meal a week. Some say a day. Some say eating at maintenance or above for a whole WEEK helps metabolism.
But as far as my understanding goes, your metabolism is largely just how much you move/expend during a day, and that any difference in a basal metabolic rate is going to be negligible, 100 calories per day in the most extreme and rare cases.
Anytime I go off my "diet" I like to pretend I'm just refeeding. But in reality, it's all BS, no?
I have no clue, when I was cutting, my goal was to hit 155 lbs...I was at 157 lbs, it took me 3 long weeks to lose that 2 lbs despite eating at 1800 calories and doing 4 days of cardio. Once I hit my goal of 155 lbs, I ditched the cardio and increased my calories by 200 and suddenly I was losing weight with ease....I then increased my calories by 200 and I was still losing weight...I have no idea why it did that or how to explain it, but somehow my body had some sort of reset or something.
Lyle explains some of the physiological (i.e. hormonal) and psychological reasoning behind it here: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-full-diet-break.html/4 -
It definitely does, but not in a way that is helpful. If your goal is weight loss, one "cheat day" won't have enough of an impact to offset the calorie increase (there may be exceptions for refeeds at/near single digit body fat, but that doesn't apply to most people here).
For n=1, I maintain at about 2600 calories. Gaining a pound a week for an extended period requires 3600-3800 calories (the metabolic increase takes about a month to reach that point and levels off there), and to lose a pound a week it's 1600-1800 (in this case it tends to take more like 6-8 weeks for my metabolism to slow down that much). In both cases, the net change to TDEE is roughly 20%, so substantial but not earthshattering. I suspect most healthy people would see similar results, as I am very average genetically when it comes to weight/muscle.1 -
So interesting acronym I came across the other day is NEAT
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/286/5/E675
some people claim that NEAT speeds up or slows down depending on how long you've been on a cut, or if you eat a big meal, etc. For example feeling hot and sweating after eating a large meal, they claim, is your NEAT being raised and the heat of burning more calories at rest.0 -
Adaptive Thermogenesis is a fascinating subject. Check any of the 10,000 calorie challenges on YouTube and you'll find these results. BMR nearly doubles in the first 24 hours as the body struggles with processing the incoming calories. People report elevated temperatures and weakness. Many of these included before/after DEXA scans and show ~1 lb of bodyfat in the after scan as the body is naturally adding the excess calories to reserve stores.1
-
Adaptive Thermogenesis is a fascinating subject. Check any of the 10,000 calorie challenges on YouTube and you'll find these results. BMR nearly doubles in the first 24 hours as the body struggles with processing the incoming calories. People report elevated temperatures and weakness. Many of these included before/after DEXA scans and show ~1 lb of bodyfat in the after scan as the body is naturally adding the excess calories to reserve stores.
I also find it very fascinating. Menno was talking about it in the link I posted. Apparently, he has to do a huge cut in calories just to lose 1 lb per week.. something like eat 1800 calories even though his average maintenance is 3k.2 -
MissusMoon wrote: »NO
I think it's a bit more complicated than that...0 -
A severe calorie deficit for a prolonged time does cause your NEAT to decline as your body responds to the imposed famine condition.
At some interval, depending on the severity of the daily calorie deficit, a deliberate period of time eating at maintenance can signal your body that the famine has ended and the adaptations to it will end.
Clearly, some dieters want to have cheat weekends and lose weight. I don't endorse that and I don't try that and I don't really believe you will be successful at losing weight that way.
However, anyone who stays in a calorie deficit for several weeks should consider just how they will perform the work of maintaining their well-being by means of a temporary, controlled, pause in their deficit eating plan.0 -
Adaptive Thermogenesis is a fascinating subject. Check any of the 10,000 calorie challenges on YouTube and you'll find these results. BMR nearly doubles in the first 24 hours as the body struggles with processing the incoming calories. People report elevated temperatures and weakness. Many of these included before/after DEXA scans and show ~1 lb of bodyfat in the after scan as the body is naturally adding the excess calories to reserve stores.
I also find it very fascinating. Menno was talking about it in the link I posted. Apparently, he has to do a huge cut in calories just to lose 1 lb per week.. something like eat 1800 calories even though his average maintenance is 3k.
This entire concept is fascinating, although I don't think it's ever going to result in the isolation of a weight loss drug. The adverse event profile has to be off the charts.
I have access to a full metabolics lab and already planning experiments on myself when I hit my goal weight. I conducted a study which is currently under review where I went off levothyroxine to measure the impact on BMR/REE - only finding a ~5% reduction.2 -
Geocitiesuser wrote: »
Adaptive thermogenesis is starvation mode. That's the part I find highly suspect. I can see if you're at an extreme calorie defecit your body would find a way to shave a hundred cals off of your TDEE, but it would still be simple CICO and any slow down, even in extreme cases, would be mostly negligible. Especially if someone is still overweight.
Same disclaimer as earlier, not trying to be combative. Just healthy debate.
To split hairs
: Usually "starvation mode" is used to mean your body is holding onto fat even though you're in a deficit because it's afraid you are never going to eat again. Which yes is total bunk.
Adaptive thermogenesis means that over a long period of time when eating at a deficit your body slowly becomes more efficient to adapt to your new calorie level, which at least to me makes more sense. We're talking about years at a measurable deficit. All the reports that came out I think last summer freaking out about The Biggest Loser contestants whose BMRs were lower than should have been expected were basically about that. And I think it makes sense that if you put your body through the ringer for a year, eating at a big deficit and exercising a lot, it would try to become more efficient in that circumstance, just like it builds up specific muscles so you can do the same movement easier when you start a new exercise. At least that's my unscientific way of looking at it!
I agree, I wouldn't think it would be a ton of difference, but if I remember correctly the Biggest Loser study was a noticeable difference. And for a petite female like me, 100 calories can be the difference between happy and hangry
It would be great if people would stop thinking that anything about the Biggest Loser study is applicable to 99.99% of the population.
The "study" only looked at a non-random, ridiculously small sampling of extreme outliers who had engaged in pointlessly extreme behaviors. It's the opposite of science.
Also, there are studies out there (ones that are actually reproducible!) that show that even rapid weight loss only affects metabolism temporarily.4 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »
Adaptive thermogenesis is starvation mode. That's the part I find highly suspect. I can see if you're at an extreme calorie defecit your body would find a way to shave a hundred cals off of your TDEE, but it would still be simple CICO and any slow down, even in extreme cases, would be mostly negligible. Especially if someone is still overweight.
Same disclaimer as earlier, not trying to be combative. Just healthy debate.
To split hairs: Usually "starvation mode" is used to mean your body is holding onto fat even though you're in a deficit because it's afraid you are never going to eat again. Which yes is total bunk.
Adaptive thermogenesis means that over a long period of time when eating at a deficit your body slowly becomes more efficient to adapt to your new calorie level, which at least to me makes more sense. We're talking about years at a measurable deficit. All the reports that came out I think last summer freaking out about The Biggest Loser contestants whose BMRs were lower than should have been expected were basically about that. And I think it makes sense that if you put your body through the ringer for a year, eating at a big deficit and exercising a lot, it would try to become more efficient in that circumstance, just like it builds up specific muscles so you can do the same movement easier when you start a new exercise. At least that's my unscientific way of looking at it!
I agree, I wouldn't think it would be a ton of difference, but if I remember correctly the Biggest Loser study was a noticeable difference. And for a petite female like me, 100 calories can be the difference between happy and hangry
It would be great if people would stop thinking that anything about the Biggest Loser study is applicable to 99.99% of the population.
The "study" only looked at a non-random, ridiculously small sampling of extreme outliers who had engaged in pointlessly extreme behaviors. It's the opposite of science.
Also, there are studies out there (ones that are actually reproducible!) that show that even rapid weight loss only affects metabolism temporarily.
This.
My cuts are extremely aggressive, and I've suffered none of they boogeymen often associated with them. Amusingly, as I go through each 12-16 week bulk, 2 week cut, 2 week maintenance seeking cycle, I find that every time, my maintenance kcals increase.
This can easily be attributed to increasing training volumes over time, and the absolutely massive increases in NEAT that I have encountered. "Metabolic damage" my *kitten*. Last summer I gained 2.5 lbs./week on 2850 average kcals. Now? I just recently accidentally slipped into a minor deficit while averaging 3170.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »
Adaptive thermogenesis is starvation mode. That's the part I find highly suspect. I can see if you're at an extreme calorie defecit your body would find a way to shave a hundred cals off of your TDEE, but it would still be simple CICO and any slow down, even in extreme cases, would be mostly negligible. Especially if someone is still overweight.
Same disclaimer as earlier, not trying to be combative. Just healthy debate.
To split hairs: Usually "starvation mode" is used to mean your body is holding onto fat even though you're in a deficit because it's afraid you are never going to eat again. Which yes is total bunk.
Adaptive thermogenesis means that over a long period of time when eating at a deficit your body slowly becomes more efficient to adapt to your new calorie level, which at least to me makes more sense. We're talking about years at a measurable deficit. All the reports that came out I think last summer freaking out about The Biggest Loser contestants whose BMRs were lower than should have been expected were basically about that. And I think it makes sense that if you put your body through the ringer for a year, eating at a big deficit and exercising a lot, it would try to become more efficient in that circumstance, just like it builds up specific muscles so you can do the same movement easier when you start a new exercise. At least that's my unscientific way of looking at it!
I agree, I wouldn't think it would be a ton of difference, but if I remember correctly the Biggest Loser study was a noticeable difference. And for a petite female like me, 100 calories can be the difference between happy and hangry
It would be great if people would stop thinking that anything about the Biggest Loser study is applicable to 99.99% of the population.
The "study" only looked at a non-random, ridiculously small sampling of extreme outliers who had engaged in pointlessly extreme behaviors. It's the opposite of science.
Also, there are studies out there (ones that are actually reproducible!) that show that even rapid weight loss only affects metabolism temporarily.
This.
My cuts are extremely aggressive, and I've suffered none of they boogeymen often associated with them. Amusingly, as I go through each 12-16 week bulk, 2 week cut, 2 week maintenance seeking cycle, I find that every time, my maintenance kcals increase.
This can easily be attributed to increasing training volumes over time, and the absolutely massive increases in NEAT that I have encountered. "Metabolic damage" my *kitten*. Last summer I gained 2.5 lbs./week on 2850 average kcals. Now? I just recently accidentally slipped into a minor deficit while averaging 3170.
But let's be honest, you follow a cutting strategy that was designed by Lyle McDonald. Which is another league compared to most of the crap out there.3 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »
Adaptive thermogenesis is starvation mode. That's the part I find highly suspect. I can see if you're at an extreme calorie defecit your body would find a way to shave a hundred cals off of your TDEE, but it would still be simple CICO and any slow down, even in extreme cases, would be mostly negligible. Especially if someone is still overweight.
Same disclaimer as earlier, not trying to be combative. Just healthy debate.
To split hairs: Usually "starvation mode" is used to mean your body is holding onto fat even though you're in a deficit because it's afraid you are never going to eat again. Which yes is total bunk.
Adaptive thermogenesis means that over a long period of time when eating at a deficit your body slowly becomes more efficient to adapt to your new calorie level, which at least to me makes more sense. We're talking about years at a measurable deficit. All the reports that came out I think last summer freaking out about The Biggest Loser contestants whose BMRs were lower than should have been expected were basically about that. And I think it makes sense that if you put your body through the ringer for a year, eating at a big deficit and exercising a lot, it would try to become more efficient in that circumstance, just like it builds up specific muscles so you can do the same movement easier when you start a new exercise. At least that's my unscientific way of looking at it!
I agree, I wouldn't think it would be a ton of difference, but if I remember correctly the Biggest Loser study was a noticeable difference. And for a petite female like me, 100 calories can be the difference between happy and hangry
It would be great if people would stop thinking that anything about the Biggest Loser study is applicable to 99.99% of the population.
The "study" only looked at a non-random, ridiculously small sampling of extreme outliers who had engaged in pointlessly extreme behaviors. It's the opposite of science.
Also, there are studies out there (ones that are actually reproducible!) that show that even rapid weight loss only affects metabolism temporarily.
This.
My cuts are extremely aggressive, and I've suffered none of they boogeymen often associated with them. Amusingly, as I go through each 12-16 week bulk, 2 week cut, 2 week maintenance seeking cycle, I find that every time, my maintenance kcals increase.
This can easily be attributed to increasing training volumes over time, and the absolutely massive increases in NEAT that I have encountered. "Metabolic damage" my *kitten*. Last summer I gained 2.5 lbs./week on 2850 average kcals. Now? I just recently accidentally slipped into a minor deficit while averaging 3170.
But let's be honest, you follow a cutting strategy that was designed by Lyle McDonald. Which is another league compared to most of the crap out there.
Oh, absolutely. It never ceases to amaze me, some of the absolutely stupid VLCDs that some people follow, and wonder why they end up looking and feeling like a refugee from a third-world prison camp.
That said, given the huge role that NEAT plays in all of the "metabolic damage" nonsense, we can't ignore the fact that it can consciously be controlled. Feel like crap because you're eating 600 calories per day in grapefruit and crackers? Too bad; get up and move anyway, and watch your "stalled damaged metabolism" start to peel off bodyfat again.5 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »
Adaptive thermogenesis is starvation mode. That's the part I find highly suspect. I can see if you're at an extreme calorie defecit your body would find a way to shave a hundred cals off of your TDEE, but it would still be simple CICO and any slow down, even in extreme cases, would be mostly negligible. Especially if someone is still overweight.
Same disclaimer as earlier, not trying to be combative. Just healthy debate.
To split hairs: Usually "starvation mode" is used to mean your body is holding onto fat even though you're in a deficit because it's afraid you are never going to eat again. Which yes is total bunk.
Adaptive thermogenesis means that over a long period of time when eating at a deficit your body slowly becomes more efficient to adapt to your new calorie level, which at least to me makes more sense. We're talking about years at a measurable deficit. All the reports that came out I think last summer freaking out about The Biggest Loser contestants whose BMRs were lower than should have been expected were basically about that. And I think it makes sense that if you put your body through the ringer for a year, eating at a big deficit and exercising a lot, it would try to become more efficient in that circumstance, just like it builds up specific muscles so you can do the same movement easier when you start a new exercise. At least that's my unscientific way of looking at it!
I agree, I wouldn't think it would be a ton of difference, but if I remember correctly the Biggest Loser study was a noticeable difference. And for a petite female like me, 100 calories can be the difference between happy and hangry
It would be great if people would stop thinking that anything about the Biggest Loser study is applicable to 99.99% of the population.
The "study" only looked at a non-random, ridiculously small sampling of extreme outliers who had engaged in pointlessly extreme behaviors. It's the opposite of science.
Also, there are studies out there (ones that are actually reproducible!) that show that even rapid weight loss only affects metabolism temporarily.
This.
My cuts are extremely aggressive, and I've suffered none of they boogeymen often associated with them. Amusingly, as I go through each 12-16 week bulk, 2 week cut, 2 week maintenance seeking cycle, I find that every time, my maintenance kcals increase.
This can easily be attributed to increasing training volumes over time, and the absolutely massive increases in NEAT that I have encountered. "Metabolic damage" my *kitten*. Last summer I gained 2.5 lbs./week on 2850 average kcals. Now? I just recently accidentally slipped into a minor deficit while averaging 3170.
But let's be honest, you follow a cutting strategy that was designed by Lyle McDonald. Which is another league compared to most of the crap out there.
Oh, absolutely. It never ceases to amaze me, some of the absolutely stupid VLCDs that some people follow, and wonder why they end up looking and feeling like a refugee from a third-world prison camp.
That said, given the huge role that NEAT plays in all of the "metabolic damage" nonsense, we can't ignore the fact that it can consciously be controlled. Feel like crap because you're eating 600 calories per day in grapefruit and crackers? Too bad; get up and move anyway, and watch your "stalled damaged metabolism" start to peel off bodyfat again.
Controlling NEAT, if you're aware that it's a "thing" that you might need to do, is a simple as setting a kitchen timer, or, if you're a gadget person, getting an activity tracker with move reminders. It's something I've done and it's worked quite well to keep my TDEE elevated.
This is useful not just to counter adaptive thermogenesis, but the after effects of vigorous morning exercise which tend to render most people rather slug-like for the remainder of the day. I know there was a study done that found this happened, but can't seem to find it.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »
Adaptive thermogenesis is starvation mode. That's the part I find highly suspect. I can see if you're at an extreme calorie defecit your body would find a way to shave a hundred cals off of your TDEE, but it would still be simple CICO and any slow down, even in extreme cases, would be mostly negligible. Especially if someone is still overweight.
Same disclaimer as earlier, not trying to be combative. Just healthy debate.
To split hairs: Usually "starvation mode" is used to mean your body is holding onto fat even though you're in a deficit because it's afraid you are never going to eat again. Which yes is total bunk.
Adaptive thermogenesis means that over a long period of time when eating at a deficit your body slowly becomes more efficient to adapt to your new calorie level, which at least to me makes more sense. We're talking about years at a measurable deficit. All the reports that came out I think last summer freaking out about The Biggest Loser contestants whose BMRs were lower than should have been expected were basically about that. And I think it makes sense that if you put your body through the ringer for a year, eating at a big deficit and exercising a lot, it would try to become more efficient in that circumstance, just like it builds up specific muscles so you can do the same movement easier when you start a new exercise. At least that's my unscientific way of looking at it!
I agree, I wouldn't think it would be a ton of difference, but if I remember correctly the Biggest Loser study was a noticeable difference. And for a petite female like me, 100 calories can be the difference between happy and hangry
It would be great if people would stop thinking that anything about the Biggest Loser study is applicable to 99.99% of the population.
The "study" only looked at a non-random, ridiculously small sampling of extreme outliers who had engaged in pointlessly extreme behaviors. It's the opposite of science.
Also, there are studies out there (ones that are actually reproducible!) that show that even rapid weight loss only affects metabolism temporarily.
This.
My cuts are extremely aggressive, and I've suffered none of they boogeymen often associated with them. Amusingly, as I go through each 12-16 week bulk, 2 week cut, 2 week maintenance seeking cycle, I find that every time, my maintenance kcals increase.
This can easily be attributed to increasing training volumes over time, and the absolutely massive increases in NEAT that I have encountered. "Metabolic damage" my *kitten*. Last summer I gained 2.5 lbs./week on 2850 average kcals. Now? I just recently accidentally slipped into a minor deficit while averaging 3170.
But let's be honest, you follow a cutting strategy that was designed by Lyle McDonald. Which is another league compared to most of the crap out there.
Oh, absolutely. It never ceases to amaze me, some of the absolutely stupid VLCDs that some people follow, and wonder why they end up looking and feeling like a refugee from a third-world prison camp.
That said, given the huge role that NEAT plays in all of the "metabolic damage" nonsense, we can't ignore the fact that it can consciously be controlled. Feel like crap because you're eating 600 calories per day in grapefruit and crackers? Too bad; get up and move anyway, and watch your "stalled damaged metabolism" start to peel off bodyfat again.
Controlling NEAT, if you're aware that it's a "thing" that you might need to do, is a simple as setting a kitchen timer, or, if you're a gadget person, getting an activity tracker with move reminders. It's something I've done and it's worked quite well to keep my TDEE elevated.
This is useful not just to counter adaptive thermogenesis, but the after effects of vigorous morning exercise which tend to render most people rather slug-like for the remainder of the day. I know there was a study done that found this happened, but can't seem to find it.
Exactly. When I am on my cut, I still maintain 15-20k steps per day on ~1200 kcals (90+% protein). It requires conscious effort, but it's not exactly difficult.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions