Metabolism Discrepancies in Dieted Weights

[JValjean724]

I recently read something by Lyle McDonald (I think it was him, might be wrong) about how people who diet down to a certain weight have slower metabolisms than what would be predicted in someone who was naturally at the same weight/height and bodyfat percentage.

Does this same phenomena hold true for someone who builds muscle up to a certain weight in the reverse manner? (i.e. does someone who goes from 150 lbs to 190 lbs 10% bodyfat have a faster metabolism than someone who naturally had the same stats?) Or would the reverse be true and that person actually require less calories than predicted?

Anyone have any thoughts or studies they have come across on this subject?

[andrewmc]

The reason somebody has a slower metabolism after they've dieted for a while is due to calorie restriction. If you have someone who cuts for an extended time, and by the end they're taking in 1300 calories, that puts their maintenance around 1800, which is way lower than it was when they started the cut. The body adapts to lower calorie intake.

The same is true for bulking. That's why you sometimes have to increase your calories when your gains plateau, because your body has gotten used to the increased calorie intake.

[JValjean724]

The reason somebody has a slower metabolism after they've dieted for a while is due to calorie restriction. If you have someone who cuts for an extended time, and by the end they're taking in 1300 calories, that puts their maintenance around 1800, which is way lower than it was when they started the cut. The body adapts to lower calorie intake.

The same is true for bulking. That's why you sometimes have to increase your calories when your gains plateau, because your body has gotten used to the increased calorie intake.

I didn't mean having a slower metabolism compared to their previous weight, that is a given. I meant people who have to diet down to a certain weight have slower metabolisms at that weight than others at the same weight. All other factors being equal

[determined4000]

My take would be...
2 individuals, both 180lbs, one at 5'9" (naturally 165lbs?) after a bulk/surplus the other at 6'2" at Maintenance.


5'9" has more muscle mass on his frame to get up to that weight (less, bone, tissue etc)-->higher calorie need
5'9" needed more calories to get up to the natural weight of the 6'2" individual-->more calories=higher TEF-->higher calorie need
My guess would be if the 5'9" individual than tried to just maintain weight, that his metabolic advantage would gradually decrease and approach the 6'2" individual's

Could be all wrong though :cool:

[Vietgoboi]

I recently read something by Lyle McDonald (I think it was him, might be wrong) about how people who diet down to a certain weight have slower metabolisms than what would be predicted in someone who was naturally at the same weight/height and bodyfat percentage.

Does this same phenomena hold true for someone who builds muscle up to a certain weight in the reverse manner? (i.e. does someone who goes from 150 lbs to 190 lbs 10% bodyfat have a faster metabolism than someone who naturally had the same stats?) Or would the reverse be true and that person actually require less calories than predicted?

Anyone have any thoughts or studies they have come across on this subject?

Its from LYle alright. Visit and ask him.

Person A dieted down to 150 lbs. Person B who is naturally and been 150 lbs for long time, has higher calorie need due to adaption. That what I drawn from as an conclusion.

[JValjean724]

My take would be...
2 individuals, both 180lbs, one at 5'9" (naturally 165lbs?) after a bulk/surplus the other at 6'2" at Maintenance.


5'9" has more muscle mass on his frame to get up to that weight (less, bone, tissue etc)-->higher calorie need
5'9" needed more calories to get up to the natural weight of the 6'2" individual-->more calories=higher TEF-->higher calorie need
My guess would be if the 5'9" individual than tried to just maintain weight, that his metabolic advantage would gradually decrease and approach the 6'2" individual's

Could be all wrong though :cool:


Its from LYle alright. Visit and ask him.

Person A dieted down to 150 lbs. Person B who is naturally and been 150 lbs for long time, has higher calorie need due to adaption. That what I drawn from as an conclusion.

Thanks guys. Repped

So from what you both seem to say is that a prolonged periods of maintence is the great equalizer in terms of metabolic efficiency. Interesting

I will head over to bodyrecomposition and see what I find

[Yank11]

Determined is right from my knowledge. I would assume that the person who trains up to 190 lbs would have a "faster metabolism". They would presumably have more muscle mass, which would give them a higher basal metabolic rate (BMR).

Higher BMR means you expend more energy while at rest, so if you expend more energy at rest, you're caloric needs would in turn be higher.

[joelash302]

I recently read something by Lyle McDonald (I think it was him, might be wrong) about how people who diet down to a certain weight have slower metabolisms than what would be predicted in someone who was naturally at the same weight/height and bodyfat percentage.

Does this same phenomena hold true for someone who builds muscle up to a certain weight in the reverse manner? (i.e. does someone who goes from 150 lbs to 190 lbs 10% bodyfat have a faster metabolism than someone who naturally had the same stats?) Or would the reverse be true and that person actually require less calories than predicted?

Anyone have any thoughts or studies they have come across on this subject?

All praise for looking up a thread instead of posting a new one....

This issue just came up recently and I was curious as hell about it. I have a buddy that weighs a solid 25 pounds more than i do and is making higher gains on less calories (3200 vs. 3500). I was curious if there was some sort of digestion efficiency issue, aka maybe my system just isn't processing food like it should be, but this would explain it as he started out much larger.

The human body, such a btch.

[liammccarthy]

I'm also curious about this.. Assuming all things are equal (Height, weight, bf% and activity) what would the disparity of lowest and highest BMR be?

I would guess somewhere in the vicinity of ~30% which blows the mind when trying to rationalise and normalise calories in vs. calories out via thermodynamics...

[Reloadguy]

I'm also curious about this.. Assuming all things are equal (Height, weight, bf% and activity) what would the disparity of lowest and highest BMR be?

I would guess somewhere in the vicinity of ~30% which blows the mind when trying to rationalise and normalise calories in vs. calories out via thermodynamics...

About 15% according to Lyle.

"If you include other variables such as fat mass, gender, and age, you can predict about 85% of the variance in RMR. That is, knowing LBM, fat mass, gender and age, you can predict RMR with about 85% accuracy. That still leaves 15% unaccounted for; that 15% is basically the genetic lottery. But let’s put that 15% in perspective.

Say you have two people with an estimated RMR of 2000 cal/day (ignore for now how we’ve estimated it) based on the above factors. That value could actually vary by 15% (300 cal/day) or so. That’s 300 cal total variance or 150 cal/day either way.

Once again, look at our two folks from above, with a predicted metabolic rate of 2000 cal but a variance of 300 cal/day either way. If we put both folks on a 1500 cal/day diet, we would expect vastly different results. The person with a metabolic rate of 2150 cal/day is creating an 650 cal/day deficit, just over a pound a week fat loss. The person with a metabolic rate of 1850 cal/day is only generating a 350 cal/day deficit, barely 0.5 lbs/week weight/fat loss. To achieve the same rate of loss, the second person would either have to cut calories by 500 (to a piddly 1000 cal/day), increase activity significantly (an hour plus of aerobics or so), or some combination of the two."

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html

[joelash302]

About 15% according to Lyle.

"If you include other variables such as fat mass, gender, and age, you can predict about 85% of the variance in RMR. That is, knowing LBM, fat mass, gender and age, you can predict RMR with about 85% accuracy. That still leaves 15% unaccounted for; that 15% is basically the genetic lottery. But let’s put that 15% in perspective.

Say you have two people with an estimated RMR of 2000 cal/day (ignore for now how we’ve estimated it) based on the above factors. That value could actually vary by 15% (300 cal/day) or so. That’s 300 cal total variance or 150 cal/day either way.

Once again, look at our two folks from above, with a predicted metabolic rate of 2000 cal but a variance of 300 cal/day either way. If we put both folks on a 1500 cal/day diet, we would expect vastly different results. The person with a metabolic rate of 2150 cal/day is creating an 650 cal/day deficit, just over a pound a week fat loss. The person with a metabolic rate of 1850 cal/day is only generating a 350 cal/day deficit, barely 0.5 lbs/week weight/fat loss. To achieve the same rate of loss, the second person would either have to cut calories by 500 (to a piddly 1000 cal/day), increase activity significantly (an hour plus of aerobics or so), or some combination of the two."

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html

Sounds right. So absolute limits on each direction, I could potentially need to be at 3,800 compared to 3,200 for him. Well suuuuumbitch. Will rep on recharge for finding that (if I remember haha).

As a side note, I love the advanced nutrition section of this board. So much better answers and science!

[ChrisSierra]

just base it on:

activity levels
TEF thermic affect of food
endo/meso/ecto type??


theres more to it just do a bit of research :)

[determined4000]

Sounds right. So absolute limits on each direction, I could potentially need to be at 3,800 compared to 3,200 for him. Well suuuuumbitch. Will rep on recharge for finding that (if I remember haha).

As a side note, I love the advanced nutrition section of this board. So much better answers and science!

if you are saying you think your maintenance should be 3500 and the variance is 15%
That would be
4025 down to 2975 (not 3200-3800)
You have to change the variance because 15% of 3500 is not = 15% of 2000 :)
300 cal variance stated above was for 15% of 2000

[joelash302]

if you are saying you think your maintenance should be 3500 and the variance is 15%
That would be
4025 down to 2975 (not 3200-3800)
You have to change the variance because 15% of 3500 is not = 15% of 2000 :)
300 cal variance stated above was for 15% of 2000

I did my maintenance as 3,800 and his as 85% of mine (3,200). So basically assuming that my 15% variance was at full swing and his was at absolute 0.

I see what you are saying, you took a middle level and went both up and down 15%. If you look at lyle's notes, he went up and down 7.5% from 2,000 in his discussion for a total swing of 15%. Unless my Vicodin is really bogging down my brain right now... (post surgery meds for the win by the way)

Fortunately either way it still answers the question of why someone with more mass and less daily calories is making more progress so I'm happy (well, not happy, I'd rather be making gains on less food haha).

[iDrive]

I'm also curious about this.. Assuming all things are equal (Height, weight, bf% and activity) what would the disparity of lowest and highest BMR be?

I would guess somewhere in the vicinity of ~30% which blows the mind when trying to rationalise and normalise calories in vs. calories out via thermodynamics...

Yeah, it always raises an eyebrow with me when it comes up but it kinda makes sense since the body is so incredibly efficient but in the grand scheme a variance of 15% is nothing more of an inconvenience IMO... what a slice of bread? lol


if you are saying you think your maintenance should be 3500 and the variance is 15%
That would be
4025 down to 2975 (not 3200-3800)
You have to change the variance because 15% of 3500 is not = 15% of 2000 :)
300 cal variance stated above was for 15% of 2000

Variance is + or - so 15% of 3500 is 525 cals

It could deviate 525/2 = 262.5 up or down
Upper 3762.5
Mean 3500
Lower 3237.5



I see what you are saying, you took a middle level and went both up and down 15%. If you look at lyle's notes, he went up and down 7.5% from 2,000 in his discussion for a total swing of 15%.

He just did the variance. :)