Intermittent vs. Continuous Weight Loss
Replies
-
Comments made above about desire to see different deficit amounts - and different overweight categories.
While this study is not exactly along the lines of diet breaks frequently - it does show the effects of a reasonable deficit for overweight BMI category folks, but the time span is months.
But it also shows the effects of eating at maintenance for awhile too.
I must say it's so good to see more appreciating the negatives of AT while at the same time so many others are saying Starvation Mode doesn't exist when they actually mean the myths associated with it don't.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251
OP - this might help you figure out how bad the 9 months might have been.
I want to emphasize too the results - they ate at their suppressed TDEE maintenance level and still had improvements to their TDEE.
Might have been quicker with using comment I saw above about eating 100 more increases on regular basis, encouraging it on up faster.1 -
CynthiasChoice wrote: »For those of you who completed diet breaks, did your weight loss speed up for you in the months afterwards?
I'm probably not going to be a good example, since I did my break only 6 weeks after going back to a deficit.Comments made above about desire to see different deficit amounts - and different overweight categories.
While this study is not exactly along the lines of diet breaks frequently - it does show the effects of a reasonable deficit for overweight BMI category folks, but the time span is months.
But it also shows the effects of eating at maintenance for awhile too.
I must say it's so good to see more appreciating the negatives of AT while at the same time so many others are saying Starvation Mode doesn't exist when they actually mean the myths associated with it don't.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251
OP - this might help you figure out how bad the 9 months might have been.
I want to emphasize too the results - they ate at their suppressed TDEE maintenance level and still had improvements to their TDEE.
Might have been quicker with using comment I saw above about eating 100 more increases on regular basis, encouraging it on up faster.
People generally do clarify that it's the myth form of starvation mode that doesn't exist. I think most people countering it understand that AT is a thing. I also think that the massive affect that raised cortisol can have on masking fat loss via fluid retention is something that a lot of people may not realise.2 -
I can't think of 1 time besides me where I've seen on the topics started about "is starvation mode real" any comments besides no it's not.
Obviously I don't see all such topics, and I don't see all internal discussions in other topics that turned to that.
But I see many response about starvation mode with no classifiers about the myths even being mentioned, either by the OP asking, or those commenting. It must be assumed both directions as to what the side effects are that are never mentioned that aren't true.
Never is comment made I've seen about what could be the case, even if that term doesn't want to be used.
And I've been doing that for years here, trying to keep things realistic. That's why this topic with so many comments (even if just a few people) recognizing it is I think rarely brought up enough.
And caught my eye and was thrilled to see it.1 -
I can't think of 1 time besides me where I've seen on the topics started about "is starvation mode real" any comments besides no it's not.
Obviously I don't see all such topics, and I don't see all internal discussions in other topics that turned to that.
But I see many response about starvation mode with no classifiers about the myths even being mentioned, either by the OP asking, or those commenting. It must be assumed both directions as to what the side effects are that are never mentioned that aren't true.
Never is comment made I've seen about what could be the case, even if that term doesn't want to be used.
And I've been doing that for years here, trying to keep things realistic. That's why this topic with so many comments (even if just a few people) recognizing it is I think rarely brought up enough.
And caught my eye and was thrilled to see it.
I have seen it, though probably not as often as should happen. There's a link that sometimes gets posted, that explains both the myth and AT, but again could probably do with more frequent posting - http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1
Sadly, a lot of people don't bother to read links to information that everyone trying to lose weight really should know. In another diet break thread a couple of days a go there were a few people who clearly hadn't read the link to the Lyle McDonald article questioning what a diet break even was, assuming that it meant going completely off piste and just eating whatever you wanted, and telling the OP she should just keep plodding on with her deficit, even though she was clearly seeing the effects of AT.
Actually, I'm going to give that thread a bump since I have it open in another tab
3 -
Oh hey, look, really interesting thread with actual weight loss science has already slipped way down...
Anyway, just wanted to report in that my pesky ovulation bloat seems to have left the building, and as of this morning I'm back where I was when I started my diet break. So there you go, Cynthia, you're not going to gain 10 lbs 4 -
I'm planning on 12 weeks on and then 10-14 day break (maintenance cals)- I've been reading about this as well-2
-
Comments made above about desire to see different deficit amounts - and different overweight categories.
While this study is not exactly along the lines of diet breaks frequently - it does show the effects of a reasonable deficit for overweight BMI category folks, but the time span is months.
But it also shows the effects of eating at maintenance for awhile too.
I must say it's so good to see more appreciating the negatives of AT while at the same time so many others are saying Starvation Mode doesn't exist when they actually mean the myths associated with it don't.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251
OP - this might help you figure out how bad the 9 months might have been.
I want to emphasize too the results - they ate at their suppressed TDEE maintenance level and still had improvements to their TDEE.
Might have been quicker with using comment I saw above about eating 100 more increases on regular basis, encouraging it on up faster.
Thanks for your blog link! I'm having a hard time sorting through this, but what I think I gleaned so far is that after 9 months calorie restriction my TDEE is probably about 496 calories below MFP's best guess of 1690. If I stay at this "new" maintenance (1690 - 496 = 1194 calories per day) for three months, I'm likely to improve my TDEE so that I can then eat 1690 - 275 = 1415 calories per day to maintain. My TDEE could possibly rebound quicker if I increase calories gradually over 3 months. However, it might take up to 6 years to recover my ability to maintain at 1690.
I know 1194 is not maintenance for me. Did I read the study right? lol! - making fun of me, not the study!0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Oh hey, look, really interesting thread with actual weight loss science has already slipped way down...
Anyway, just wanted to report in that my pesky ovulation bloat seems to have left the building, and as of this morning I'm back where I was when I started my diet break. So there you go, Cynthia, you're not going to gain 10 lbs
Thanks for the encouragement! And congratulations!0 -
CynthiasChoice wrote: »Comments made above about desire to see different deficit amounts - and different overweight categories.
While this study is not exactly along the lines of diet breaks frequently - it does show the effects of a reasonable deficit for overweight BMI category folks, but the time span is months.
But it also shows the effects of eating at maintenance for awhile too.
I must say it's so good to see more appreciating the negatives of AT while at the same time so many others are saying Starvation Mode doesn't exist when they actually mean the myths associated with it don't.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251
OP - this might help you figure out how bad the 9 months might have been.
I want to emphasize too the results - they ate at their suppressed TDEE maintenance level and still had improvements to their TDEE.
Might have been quicker with using comment I saw above about eating 100 more increases on regular basis, encouraging it on up faster.
Thanks for your blog link! I'm having a hard time sorting through this, but what I think I gleaned so far is that after 9 months calorie restriction my TDEE is probably about 496 calories below MFP's best guess of 1690. If I stay at this "new" maintenance (1690 - 496 = 1194 calories per day) for three months, I'm likely to improve my TDEE so that I can then eat 1690 - 275 = 1415 calories per day to maintain. My TDEE could possibly rebound quicker if I increase calories gradually over 3 months. However, it might take up to 6 years to recover my ability to maintain at 1690.
I know 1194 is not maintenance for me. Did I read the study right? lol! - making fun of me, not the study!
What does your weight loss data say, Cynthia? Look at your average weight loss over the past 4-6 weeks (evens out hormonal fluctuations etc), compare that to your calorie intake. That should give you a reasonable approximation of what your TDEE is as of now.
Personally, for the sake of the diet break, I would still recommend eating at what MFP gives you for maintenance.2 -
I can't think of 1 time besides me where I've seen on the topics started about "is starvation mode real" any comments besides no it's not.
Obviously I don't see all such topics, and I don't see all internal discussions in other topics that turned to that.
But I see many response about starvation mode with no classifiers about the myths even being mentioned, either by the OP asking, or those commenting. It must be assumed both directions as to what the side effects are that are never mentioned that aren't true.
Never is comment made I've seen about what could be the case, even if that term doesn't want to be used.
And I've been doing that for years here, trying to keep things realistic. That's why this topic with so many comments (even if just a few people) recognizing it is I think rarely brought up enough.
And caught my eye and was thrilled to see it.
When I searched the MFP posts for MATADOR Study I was amazed that there were no results. I thought it would be a hot topic for sure!0 -
CynthiasChoice wrote: »I can't think of 1 time besides me where I've seen on the topics started about "is starvation mode real" any comments besides no it's not.
Obviously I don't see all such topics, and I don't see all internal discussions in other topics that turned to that.
But I see many response about starvation mode with no classifiers about the myths even being mentioned, either by the OP asking, or those commenting. It must be assumed both directions as to what the side effects are that are never mentioned that aren't true.
Never is comment made I've seen about what could be the case, even if that term doesn't want to be used.
And I've been doing that for years here, trying to keep things realistic. That's why this topic with so many comments (even if just a few people) recognizing it is I think rarely brought up enough.
And caught my eye and was thrilled to see it.
When I searched the MFP posts for MATADOR Study I was amazed that there were no results. I thought it would be a hot topic for sure!
Yeah, I was surprised when I found it, given it has been out for a month or so and there has been news coverage. I was actually planning to post about it, tying it in with my diet break, but you stole my thunder
1 -
Nony_Mouse - Thanks for this link: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1
I can wrap my mind around it better now.
As for using my own data...thanks for the prodding. I resist math.
I wish MFP had a button to "Calculate my daily calorie average for the week/month. I guess I'll buckle down and get to it! 1 -
CynthiasChoice wrote: »Nony_Mouse - Thanks for this link: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1
I can wrap my mind around it better now.
As for using my own data...thanks for the prodding. I resist math. I wish MFP had a button to "Calculate my daily calorie average for the week/month. I guess I'll buckle down and get to it!
That's why I like my Fitbit, it tells me those things
Also, you can look at your weekly total and net cal average on the MFP mobile app, under Nutrition.0 -
The deficit was pretty steep, 50%, maybe that somehow influenced the schedule ... researchers thought a shorter time frame would be easier to manage with a 50% deficit. Longer, folks may have veered from the course. (?)0
-
The deficit was pretty steep, 50%, maybe that somehow influenced the schedule ... researchers thought a shorter time frame would be easier to manage with a 50% deficit. Longer, folks may have veered from the course. (?)
Correct this post based on post below:
Agreed, that much deficit for longer would likely have required being holed up in the hospital to actually control their food and test for no negative effects - an expensive addition to the study.
Which also shows that mentally for many, it may be easier to do a harder diet when you know this is for just a short bit, and back to eating normal (tad less for less weight) for a good bit too.
And seeing big results at first.
Why the 5:2 method has good effects - about 22% average deficit.
Matador 2 wk on/2 wk off was 33% on 2 weeks, 16.5% avg.
That Mueller method was 50%.
0 -
The MATADOR study was a 33% deficit for both groups (so technically, averaged out, the intermittent group's deficit was smaller, but over a longer time period). It was the Mueller study on AT that was 50% deficit.0
-
CynthiasChoice wrote: »Comments made above about desire to see different deficit amounts - and different overweight categories.
While this study is not exactly along the lines of diet breaks frequently - it does show the effects of a reasonable deficit for overweight BMI category folks, but the time span is months.
But it also shows the effects of eating at maintenance for awhile too.
I must say it's so good to see more appreciating the negatives of AT while at the same time so many others are saying Starvation Mode doesn't exist when they actually mean the myths associated with it don't.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251
OP - this might help you figure out how bad the 9 months might have been.
I want to emphasize too the results - they ate at their suppressed TDEE maintenance level and still had improvements to their TDEE.
Might have been quicker with using comment I saw above about eating 100 more increases on regular basis, encouraging it on up faster.
Thanks for your blog link! I'm having a hard time sorting through this, but what I think I gleaned so far is that after 9 months calorie restriction my TDEE is probably about 496 calories below MFP's best guess of 1690. If I stay at this "new" maintenance (1690 - 496 = 1194 calories per day) for three months, I'm likely to improve my TDEE so that I can then eat 1690 - 275 = 1415 calories per day to maintain. My TDEE could possibly rebound quicker if I increase calories gradually over 3 months. However, it might take up to 6 years to recover my ability to maintain at 1690.
I know 1194 is not maintenance for me. Did I read the study right? lol! - making fun of me, not the study!
Well - they started with pretty high measured TDEE's - which was not sedentary as MFP would be giving you (perhaps Lightly Active if you indeed are).
So they had room for their TDEE's (and parts making it up) to drop the amount you saw, and an expected amount because of lighter weight and lost LBM that I didn't include in that list.
I only included the extra above and beyond because for a long time on here no one could fathom the severity of that potential movement, nor how fast it could occur, and wanted to always blame it on lost weight and muscle mass - where as research for years as shown that may be the case for some loss of TDEE, but there is more.
The other benefit you have - you did not keep chasing down a dropping TDEE, crashing it into the ground even more like they did in the study. Since they had the benefit of testing, they could keep lowering the eating to match new levels as time went on to keep the deficit amount.
Keep eating low enough, you can always overpower the effects of AT - with some not great consequences for future long term, possibly even short term, success.
You likely did not - so I doubt your effect is that bad.
So failure to adjust was a blessing in disguise for you.
If really no change in weight for good 6-8 weeks - whatever accurate account of eating level you have with the level of activity you had - that's your TDEE.
If it was an inaccurately logged average eating level of 1690, and perhaps you really ate around 1800, that's your TDEE right now. Suppressed TDEE - not potential TDEE, as I saw it referenced once.
If estimated by calculation shows it could be higher by a decent amount, then indeed eating 100 extra daily for a week or two at a time is good test.
Water weight of a little is likely result.
But even if, IF, that 100 extra was really honestly surplus to a potential TDEE - it would take 35 days of doing that to slowly increase 1 lb of fat.
And if lifting - not even all if any fat.2 -
Thanks for the links, I finally got around to reading this study. IMO, it is a really well-done study, and has a few interesting results.
First, ignoring the post-ER protocol and focusing on only the ER periods, these are rather niche results. Total ER block for the CON group was 16 weeks, and total ER block for the INT group was 30 weeks. From fig. 1a, the body weight loss rate for the CON group was pretty linear around 0.5 kg/wk. The INT group lost 5 kg more than the CON group over the total ER block, so in order for the CON group to reach the same total loss would take around another 10 weeks. This would mean the total time taken to reach equal weight loss would be 30 weeks for the INT group versus 26 weeks for the CON group.
The INT group emerged out of the ER block with significantly less AT than the CON group (fig. 3b), however, by the authors' conclusions this discrepancy could be resolved within 2 weeks of energy balance for the CON group. Tacking 2 weeks of energy balance onto the end of the total time for the CON group, we have both groups emerging with approximately the same REE return to baseline at 28 weeks (CON) versus 30 weeks (INT). Even better, add a 2-week diet break in the middle for the CON group, and we have nearly identical results between the two groups over 30 weeks. So, shrug emoji goes here. FFM loss difference was not significant between the groups. INT group lost a little more FFM, but that is expected given they lost significantly more total mass. From an adherence perspective, I think the INT method would be easier for most people, but the CON method has the potential to result in faster equivalent loss. Also for those that can handle the steeper deficit, the Mueller paper suggests that AT will level off during more aggressive deficit (fig. 1b), indicating a further time advantage for the CON group under such circumstances.
Now considering the post-ER results, we see a clear advantage for the INT group. The 8-week post ER phase was at strictly controlled energy balance, and regain of FFM during this period was very similar for both groups (fig. 4b). However, the CON group added about 1 kg of FM during this period while the INT group lost about 1 kg of FM during this period. This is consistent with other results I have seen showing rapid fat regain after prolonged ER, although this could be mitigated with a proper reverse dieting protocol instead of going straight to maintenance as this study did. A reverse diet period before energy balance period would erase some of the time advantage the CON group might have though. The ad libitum follow-up period regain is pretty similar between the groups, with slightly less regain of FM for the INT group, though this is not particularly interesting to me since this was an uncontrolled free-living period.
I do find the authors conclusion that the technique used in this study showed an advantage while IF methods and other intermittent ER ratios do not, as noted in the discussion. Although, as they also note, a direct comparison is not possible to the other studies referenced and the ad libitum breaks used in the other studies are a confounder. Could be evidence that you should be pretty careful about intake during a diet break.
Overall this would be an interesting approach to try for people that struggle with deficit adherence or so-called metabolic hyper-responders (outliers who experience higher degrees of AT than normal).2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions