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?

13»

Replies

  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,257 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    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.
  • xmichaelyx
    xmichaelyx Posts: 883 Member
    kimny72 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 :wink:

    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.
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    xmichaelyx wrote: »
    kimny72 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 :wink:

    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.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,084 MFP Moderator
    xmichaelyx wrote: »
    kimny72 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 :wink:

    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.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    edited May 2017
    psuLemon wrote: »
    xmichaelyx wrote: »
    kimny72 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 :wink:

    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.
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    xmichaelyx wrote: »
    kimny72 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 :wink:

    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.