LOWER TDEE THAN PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN OVERWEIGHT
kristinstephenson86
Posts: 27 Member
I have read several studies about how the body makes it more and more difficult for you to lose weight by lowering your daily TDEE so that you have to take in a lower amount of calories than someone who has never once been overweight. Please research the topic first there are several scientific studies. I would like to see opinions about those informed of the issue. If you are just weighing in, but know you don't have all answers that is fine! But its nice to have opinions from those who are familiar with what I am talking about.
21
Replies
-
It would help if you posted links.12
-
I've seen contradictory research on how much it is and how much you can control it (for example, the reports on the Biggest Loser participants is among the least convincing and the quotes in the news coverage, at least, don't to correct for the lower TDEE associated with being lighter). In that some studies show a difference based on how aggressive the deficit was and how much it was due to calorie cutting alone, it seems like a good reason not to be overly aggressive in how fast you lose and to try to keep up muscle mass and use exercise. It also seems like a counterproductive thing to focus on beyond that when there is so much you can do through activity to control TDEE. I've also seen some suggestion that it may have to do with fat loss causing leptin resistance, and exercise is one thing that makes you more leptin sensitive, so for the activity and leptin reasons I think exercise is very important (and health!).
I don't think TDEE is what makes maintenance hard, I think slipping back into bad habits or no longer being as focused is. It's hard to maintain the dedication without a good plan in place, especially when life gets difficult.
For what it's worth, I lost 90 lbs, and my TDEE doesn't seem out of the ordinary for someone of my size and activity. If it's low I don't notice it.20 -
I think you're referring to the idea that people who have dieted will theoretically have a lower Resting Energy Expenditure (or Resting Metabolic Rate) than people who have never dieted.
The problem with a lot of the studies done on these dieters is that they have all dieted by drastic means. You either have Biggest Loser scenarios, or there are other sets of studies where people are put on DRASTIC calorie restriction.
Yoni Freedhoff is noted for saying that the patients in his practice who have lost large amounts of weight using sensible methods of weight loss don't show any significant differences in REE after dieting from what is expected for people of their weight and height.
After hanging around MFP for quite a few years, I find that it's pretty true that most people seem to come in where expected for maintenance if not higher. I personally have lost almost 45% of my starting body weight and my maintenance calories (including exercise) are right what my Fitbit predicts, which is based on averages for people who have never lost weight.
I understand why you're asking about this. I heard about this when I first started losing weight and looked into it a lot and really found that it didn't seem to hold true for most people.
I will say this, though. There are hormonal effects on the body from dieting, and they can make everything tricky. Doing refeeds during dieting and taking diet breaks helps to mitigate those hormonal effects. Here's a very long thread on the whole issue, but all of the pertinent information you need is in the first post:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1
23 -
TDEE is going to be based on up or body weight your muscle content and your activity level. Other factors if any are minor in comparison and are a matter of case studies or rare exceptions based on circumstances that are neither common or sustainable.
If what you actually mean is BMR not TDEE then practically speaking if you want to raise your BMR without putting on significant fat the way to do it is to increase your activity, increase your caloric intake and put on some weight in the form of building some muscle.2 -
This isn't what you mean but a study showed that people in an energy deficit (aka losing weight) tend to fidget less and walk less, unconsciously. Moving less lowers your TDEE. Of course if you're aware of that, or just trying to be active while you lose weight, then you can choose to raise your TDEE.3
-
I kind of feel like @GottaBurnEmAll about these TDEE issues. People on here who've lost a lot of weight (enough to have a trend) will usually say they lot in line with what was predicted. At the same time a lot of people who lost weight using MFP had dieted and lost weight before.
When you set up MFP it doesn't ask whether it's your first time or your n-th time trying to lose weight and yet people seem to lose in line with what's expected (after adjusting for logging accuracy…)
In addition to what some have said about speed of loss, I am also wondering if those studies looked only at (very) short term effects? OP do you remember from any of those studies how far out after the diet they evaluated people for their TDEE?12 -
Thanks everyone! And yes I mean BMR. And I ask because it's unmotivating thinking your body is going to make you miserable the whole way. Makes you want to give up.3
-
I lost 75 pounds and have maintained it for nearly a year - my body didn't "make me miserable" at all. I ate at a reasonable deficit and got a reasonable amount of exercise to lose the weight at a reasonable rate. I'm no more hungry than I was before and a lot less miserable having gotten rid of the obesity and all the comorbidities associated with it.kristinstephenson86 wrote: »Thanks everyone! And yes I mean BMR. And I ask because it's unmotivating thinking your body is going to make you miserable the whole way. Makes you want to give up.
Most often, the people who are "miserable" during weight loss are the ones which employ huge deficits/crash dieting, radical (and unsustainable) changes in their diet, and/or frantic exercise regimens. They're also usually the ones who fail/give up and/or regain because what they were doing wasn't sustainable in the first place.21 -
Most of the studies I've seen that asserted that losing weight lowers your BMR (including the Biggest Loser study) looked at people who lost a lot of weight super aggressively (so they were at a very high deficit for a substantial amount of time), and only looked at them within a few years of weight loss. My understanding is that if you lose weight at a reasonable pace, and get enough protein and exercise to protect your muscle mass, you can minimize any adaptive thermogenesis.
And in my own personal experience, most people who insist they have to undereat to lose weight are not logging accurately and have a warped view of how much food is normal.
This is why many of us are proponents of slow weight loss and diet breaks. In addition to hopefully protecting your muscle mass and messing less with your hormones, it gives you time to slowly but surely learn how to eat in a sustainable way to maintain a healthy weight for life.19 -
kristinstephenson86 wrote: »Thanks everyone! And yes I mean BMR. And I ask because it's unmotivating thinking your body is going to make you miserable the whole way. Makes you want to give up.
I've lost about 70 pounds and kept it off for years. It's definitely better to have lost weight than to need to. It's easier to do things like hike up hill, or really anything. Less being sore in general. Other people treat you slightly better. And I've adapted to eating less food, losing weight kind of taught me about portion sizes and it's just not that hard to stick with.
You won't be miserable.12 -
Yeah, what they all said ^^
I also lost 70+ pounds. It's pretty easy in the beginning - the weight pretty much melted off at first once I got into a routine. I wasn't miserable, but I did have to make a lot of changes to my life. No more half a pie for dessert. Lots more vegetables and focus on protein. Fewer meals out. More general movement/exercise. I don't see that as a miserable thing, it's the right thing.
I had a bunch of health problems that have vanished since weight loss. I'm not unhappy and I'm certainly not miserable. I eat at a level that is one full [activity] level above what Myfitnesspal suggests - so I eat a full 300 calories above my suggested weight maintenance calorie goal every day. I'm healthier, happier, look better, my mental health is better. Everything is better.10 -
Beware of self-fulfilling prophecies. There's no reason to think before even starting that a. Your BMR is any lower or higher than anyone else of similar size and composition, and b. You're going to be miserable. If losing weight makes you miserable, it's likely you're doing it wrong.15
-
kristinstephenson86 wrote: »Thanks everyone! And yes I mean BMR. And I ask because it's unmotivating thinking your body is going to make you miserable the whole way. Makes you want to give up.
Why on earth would getting healthier make your body miserable? It's the complete opposite. As others have stated much better than I, losing weight is not a miserable process unless you make it that way. And that is all in your MIND, not the natural reaction of your body. Your body will thank you and react positively.14 -
Whether it does or doesn’t is kind of irrelevant. I can’t really do anything about it. It’s a little like being worried that someone younger, taller, more male, etc will burn more than I do-i can’t really change those either. I can be as active and healthy as I can be and my maintenance will be what it is. It really doesn’t matter if it’s 50 or 100 calories less than it would be if I’d never been fat. If I want to maintain, I have to eat whatever my actual maintenance calories are-no matter the reason they are what they are.
15 -
kristinstephenson86 wrote: »Thanks everyone! And yes I mean BMR. And I ask because it's unmotivating thinking your body is going to make you miserable the whole way. Makes you want to give up.
Not at all. My body is considerably happier now that it doesn’t get tired and need a break walking up the stairs or through the grocery store. It’s considerably happier now that it can be active and strong and enjoy life. That’s exactly what keeps me going.5 -
If you drop your overall body weight then your BMR will almost certainly be lower. You don't need a bunch of scientific studies to tell you that really, it just makes sense. That isn't a bad thing though, that is just a reality and it shouldn't make you miserable.
Your BMR is going to be from three major sources: your brain activity (not going to change), the need to heat your body to 37 degrees C (less total mass means less energy required so lower BMR) and the amount of energy needed to lug your body around during standard sedentary levels of activity (less total mass means less energy required so lower BMR).6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »If you drop your overall body weight then your BMR will almost certainly be lower. You don't need a bunch of scientific studies to tell you that really, it just makes sense. That isn't a bad thing though, that is just a reality and it shouldn't make you miserable.
Your BMR is going to be from three major sources: your brain activity (not going to change), the need to heat your body to 37 degrees C (less total mass means less energy required so lower BMR) and the amount of energy needed to lug your body around during standard sedentary levels of activity (less total mass means less energy required so lower BMR).
Yes, this, but I think the OP is referencing studies that have shown people who have dieted down to say, 150 pounds, have a lower BMR than people who just naturally settle at 150 pounds (given the same age and height).
Some of us have made the point that the people in those studies have all used very steep deficits to achieve weight loss, and that the follow-up BMR testing was done after only a short time.
We've also pointed out that it seems most people who diet sensibly down to a certain weight seem to maintain on the calories predicted for that certain weight given their other stats. In other words, the experience of most dieters doesn't bear out what those studies show.
As kimny said, obviously, the solution is to diet sensibly with a reasonable deficit, take diet breaks to keep hormones happy, eat adequate protein, and exercise to protect muscle mass.
8 -
Short term Changes:
Adaptation to Diet and Fat Loss
When someone reduces food intake or in response to dieting, there is a fairly stereotyped response in the above systems. Due to less total food being eaten, less of the fullness hormones such as CCK, PYY, etc. are released. Ghrelin levels are also increased overall and don't decrease as much after a meal. Leptin, released primarily from fat cells, decreases which means that the brain responds even less to those hormone signals. The increase in leptin and decrease in ghrelin, along with the other hormonal changes, has a potent overall effect which is to increase appetite and hunger along with decreasing how full people get after a meal (at the extremes, dieters may be hungry shortly after finishing the previous meal). Those same hormonal changes also impact on the hedonic system with DA levels dropping (leptin plays a major role here) along with other changes. This makes tasty foods taste even better (think of how much better a cookie or piece of cake tastes when you're hungry) and dieters even notice and pay attention to palatable foods that much more easily. These changes can make dietary adherence more difficult.
In addition to any short term changes in hunger, there are also longer term changes as fat is lost. In overweight individuals, for example, hunger increases by 5% and fullness decreases by 3% for every 2.2 lbs (1kg) of fat lost (13). The more fat is lost, the greater the effect. Although not well studied at the extremes of low BF%, hunger and appetite may be relentlessly high. In the Minnesota study the men became absolutely obsessed with food, talking about little else, near the end of the diet. This can be seen online in the behavior of lean athletes who are dieting who talk about looking at or posting pictures of tasty foods (which they call food porn) on social media.
Lyle McDonald. The Women's Book (Kindle Locations 3064-3066). Lyle McDonald.
3 -
The Adaptive Decrease in TDEE Although I will look at the individual components below, I want to start by looking at the size of the adaptive decrease in TDEE first. As with the changes in hunger, much of this is determined by initial and ending BF% along with the total amount of weight and fat that is lost. In the case of the Category 3 dieter losing a moderate amount of weight, the total adaptive reduction in TDEE might be no more than 15% below the predicted level which might amount to 150-250 calories per day. This can range from zero to 500 calories per person with people showing the larger adaptive drop both losing fat more slowly and being more likely to regain it after the diet is over. At the extremes of fat loss, much larger drops have been measured. In the Minnesota study, the men showed a total drop in TDEE of 50-55% or 1800 calories per day (and large variance between the men) as they lost 25% of their total weight (and an enormous amount of LBM). This means that 25-30% of the total drop, or 450-600 calories, was due to the adaptive component while the other 1200-1350 calorie drop was due to the weight loss.
Lyle McDonald. The Women's Book (Kindle Locations 3112-3113). Lyle McDonald.
2 -
Long section on RMR:
Looking at the magnitude of the drop, a primary factor is still BF%. In the Category 3 individual losing a moderate amount of weight, the total adaptive drop may be no more than 150-250 calories. Of this decrease, perhaps 10-15% is due to the changes in RMR and this amounts to roughly 15-40 calories per day, an insignificantly small number. Even the dieter who experiences a 500 calorie total decrease will still only see the RMR drop making up 50-70 calories per day.
Lyle McDonald. The Women's Book (Kindle Locations 3139-3142). Lyle McDonald.3 -
Won't keep spamming, but if you're interested in the subject, his book is well worth the read. (well, most chapters. I think he does need a better editor for some of the long-winded ones.)
Chapter 9 is really a great and informative read though.
TLDR: After a year of maintenance, most people see no large change in RMR (resting metabolic rate). Any changes were usually attributed to NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis). ie. parking farther from your destination, taking the stairs, tapping your foot, etc.
During and right after dieting, hormone levels were out of whack causing lots of hunger and lethargy. Refeeds, etc minimized this...7 -
Right. And adaptive decreases to TDEE can be mitigated by not using an aggressive deficit (thus decreasing energy levels) and by taking diet breaks and using refeeds, correct?5
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Right. And adaptive decreases to TDEE can be mitigated by not using an aggressive deficit (thus decreasing energy levels) and by taking diet breaks and using refeeds, correct?
yep...4 -
Good discussion (along the lines of annaskiski's posts)
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p17 -
I am just now reading ALL THESE!! Thanks for the response. And yes, I am referring to studies that show that people who have never lost weight have a higher BMR than someone who has lost weight at the same size. Meaning those that have lost weight are hungrier, but must eat less than if they were naturally that size. I have read this over and over in scientific studies. Don't go by just opinion, I would suggest reading the studies to educate yourself at least on what some doctors believe about weight loss.1
-
kristinstephenson86 wrote: »I am just now reading ALL THESE!! Thanks for the response. And yes, I am referring to studies that show that people who have never lost weight have a higher BMR than someone who has lost weight at the same size. Meaning those that have lost weight are hungrier, but must eat less than if they were naturally that size. I have read this over and over in scientific studies. Don't go by just opinion, I would suggest reading the studies to educate yourself at least on what some doctors believe about weight loss.
But again, you're assuming that it will always be so.
What we are saying is that, yes, if there is rapid weight loss there is a bit of [artificially] lowered BMR/RMR - temporarily, but it is reversible and it's not destined to happen if weight loss is done in a reasonable manner nor is it a major stumbling block. We're also saying that if you lose weight at a reasonable rate and employing refeeds (and not in steep deficit) that you will ease into maintenance at a normal BMR.
Read that link in my post just above and also that refeeds link in the third reply on page one.6 -
annaskiski wrote: »Short term Changes:
Adaptation to Diet and Fat Loss
When someone reduces food intake or in response to dieting, there is a fairly stereotyped response in the above systems. Due to less total food being eaten, less of the fullness hormones such as CCK, PYY, etc. are released. Ghrelin levels are also increased overall and don't decrease as much after a meal. Leptin, released primarily from fat cells, decreases which means that the brain responds even less to those hormone signals. The increase in leptin and decrease in ghrelin, along with the other hormonal changes, has a potent overall effect which is to increase appetite and hunger along with decreasing how full people get after a meal (at the extremes, dieters may be hungry shortly after finishing the previous meal). Those same hormonal changes also impact on the hedonic system with DA levels dropping (leptin plays a major role here) along with other changes. This makes tasty foods taste even better (think of how much better a cookie or piece of cake tastes when you're hungry) and dieters even notice and pay attention to palatable foods that much more easily. These changes can make dietary adherence more difficult.
In addition to any short term changes in hunger, there are also longer term changes as fat is lost. In overweight individuals, for example, hunger increases by 5% and fullness decreases by 3% for every 2.2 lbs (1kg) of fat lost (13). The more fat is lost, the greater the effect. Although not well studied at the extremes of low BF%, hunger and appetite may be relentlessly high. In the Minnesota study the men became absolutely obsessed with food, talking about little else, near the end of the diet. This can be seen online in the behavior of lean athletes who are dieting who talk about looking at or posting pictures of tasty foods (which they call food porn) on social media.
Lyle McDonald. The Women's Book (Kindle Locations 3064-3066). Lyle McDonald.
While I am a big fan of Lyle McDonald, I think the Minnesota Starvation Experiment's main use in this conversation is to say "Don't lose weight the way they did." After all, this was literally a starvation experiment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment
0 -
kristinstephenson86 wrote: »I am just now reading ALL THESE!! Thanks for the response. And yes, I am referring to studies that show that people who have never lost weight have a higher BMR than someone who has lost weight at the same size. Meaning those that have lost weight are hungrier, but must eat less than if they were naturally that size. I have read this over and over in scientific studies. Don't go by just opinion, I would suggest reading the studies to educate yourself at least on what some doctors believe about weight loss.
many people are citing specific studies and research that has been done that counters what you are posting - to include lyle mcdonald who is well known in the scientific field
and what they are saying is someone who say lost 50lbs at a rate of 3lbs a week would have a lower RMR when all is said and done vs. someone who lost 50lbs at a rate of 1lb a week - a slower more steady rate of loss vs. a more agressive one2 -
kshama2001 wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »Short term Changes:
Adaptation to Diet and Fat Loss
When someone reduces food intake or in response to dieting, there is a fairly stereotyped response in the above systems. Due to less total food being eaten, less of the fullness hormones such as CCK, PYY, etc. are released. Ghrelin levels are also increased overall and don't decrease as much after a meal. Leptin, released primarily from fat cells, decreases which means that the brain responds even less to those hormone signals. The increase in leptin and decrease in ghrelin, along with the other hormonal changes, has a potent overall effect which is to increase appetite and hunger along with decreasing how full people get after a meal (at the extremes, dieters may be hungry shortly after finishing the previous meal). Those same hormonal changes also impact on the hedonic system with DA levels dropping (leptin plays a major role here) along with other changes. This makes tasty foods taste even better (think of how much better a cookie or piece of cake tastes when you're hungry) and dieters even notice and pay attention to palatable foods that much more easily. These changes can make dietary adherence more difficult.
In addition to any short term changes in hunger, there are also longer term changes as fat is lost. In overweight individuals, for example, hunger increases by 5% and fullness decreases by 3% for every 2.2 lbs (1kg) of fat lost (13). The more fat is lost, the greater the effect. Although not well studied at the extremes of low BF%, hunger and appetite may be relentlessly high. In the Minnesota study the men became absolutely obsessed with food, talking about little else, near the end of the diet. This can be seen online in the behavior of lean athletes who are dieting who talk about looking at or posting pictures of tasty foods (which they call food porn) on social media.
Lyle McDonald. The Women's Book (Kindle Locations 3064-3066). Lyle McDonald.
While I am a big fan of Lyle McDonald, I think the Minnesota Starvation Experiment's main use in this conversation is to say "Don't lose weight the way they did." After all, this was literally a starvation experiment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment
the irony of the Minnestoa starvation experiment is that the calories they were restricted too are still higher than many of the caloric consumptions we see mentioned on the board
the control period (12 weeks) was 3200 cal a day
the semi-starvation period (24 weeks) was 1560 cal a day5 -
Metabolism is nothing more than a culmination of biochemical pathways. There is no such thing as fast or slow metabolism. There is simply a range of output potential.
The phenomenon of a perceived "lowering" of BMR in individuals who have lost significant weight isn't as significant as certain institutions would like you to believe. There are several issues in this "study" requiring more investigation.
1 - the participants did not have their intake monitored.
2 - degree of variation in BMR does not exceed the degree of error in instruments.
3 - no repeat testing was conducted over time.
Research into adaptive thermogenesis shows that BMR varies slightly based on food availability. Will increase in respond to more food and decrease to a much lesser degree in absence of food. This phenomenon turned into the poor strategy to "eat more to lose weight". The problem being that the amount of food required to cause an increase in BMR still results in a caloric surplus - ending in weight gain.6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions