Been cutting for a few months now. I've seen some great fat loss results but I'm nowhere near where I want to be. Currently 5'8'', and vary from 155 to 160 lb. Recently however, within the last month or so, I haven't seen much progress, or at least much visible progress (ive learned to ignore the numbers on the scale). Is it really worth eating at maintenance for a week to "restart" my metabolism or leptin levels, or is it a bunch of bullchit and all itll do is slow my fat loss progress?
I just watched this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=rhObSu7y2_A which is a video about leptin levels and how they "slow metabolism" if caloric intake is restricted for prolonged periods of time, therefore slowing fat loss.
and: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHhG...layer_embedded which is also a video about leptin.
and I read this: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...iet-break.html a Lyle article about a "full diet break" which is basically the same concept, eating at maintenance for 7 to 10 days in order to reset hormone levels and aid fat loss future after the break.
So it all looks pretty convincing, but I haven't looked at the actual scientific studies these people seem to base their knowledge off of.
Does anyone have experience with a maintenance break? Did it help or slow your progress?
Thanks.
|
-
05-29-2012, 04:04 PM #1
Does eating at maintenance for a week really work?
-
05-29-2012, 04:27 PM #2
-
05-29-2012, 04:33 PM #3
It depends what you're hoping to accomplish. If you've stopped losing weight I'd argue that you're already eating AT maintenance right now - the "fix" in this case would be to lower your calories. If you've been on a cut for a long time, been seeing steady results, but are getting burnt out, taking a week or 2 off to eat at maintenance and regroup isn't a bad idea.
-
05-29-2012, 04:38 PM #4
It depends on how deep you are into your cut and the deficit of calories - if your pretty high BF or is keeping carbs high then I would avoid it .
When your on a low carb or extreme deficit your body is primed to adsorb a **** ton of glycogen , providing your working out of course .
Dieting also consistently at a constant calories deficit will cause your weight loss to cease but that does not take into account any exercise your doing and the fact that the thermogenic effect of food plays a big role also . A person eating alot of protein will have a bigger effect compared to someone eating more carbs .Ka0s :In my experience, doing heavy barbell squats, bench presses, deadlifts, military presses, rows, etc. builds no significant muscle mass.
What you need to really get big is a solid routine which focuses on light weights and cable movements to really force blood into those muscles and get that deep burn & powerful contraction
-
-
05-29-2012, 04:41 PM #5
-
05-29-2012, 04:52 PM #6
I don't have the studies on hand but ive seen some evidence to suggest a lowered calories intake reduces the RMR , and so weight loss will cease eventually ?
Im open to find out but Id always thought an inactive individual who diets on a 500 calories deficit , weight loss will eventually slow down and cease providing hes doing no exercise ... ?Ka0s :In my experience, doing heavy barbell squats, bench presses, deadlifts, military presses, rows, etc. builds no significant muscle mass.
What you need to really get big is a solid routine which focuses on light weights and cable movements to really force blood into those muscles and get that deep burn & powerful contraction
-
05-29-2012, 04:54 PM #7
I've been cutting since February, but I haven't kept a strict diet, I've been in many situations that have resulted in cheating, but I never have any huge cheats, like a few thousand calorie surplus. I never thought that perhaps my recent slowing of weight loss is due to leptin levels, but after reading/watching this stuff, the possibility has entered my mind.
I'd say I've gone from ~15% bf to maybe 13%, not a huge loss given the time frame, actually now that I think about it, i've made pretty horrible progress. But progress nonetheless.
I think for now I'll just keep dieting, and incorporate cardio, which is something I haven't done yet.
-
05-29-2012, 05:01 PM #8
Im not sure if it effects it directly but it does indirectly effect weight loss as it increases appetite , which means people dumb a **** ton of calories into themselves and gain all the weight back on until leptin is suppressed by negative feedback ( you dont feel hungry any more )
Look into flexible dieting or IIFYM - it should solve all your problems .Ka0s :In my experience, doing heavy barbell squats, bench presses, deadlifts, military presses, rows, etc. builds no significant muscle mass.
What you need to really get big is a solid routine which focuses on light weights and cable movements to really force blood into those muscles and get that deep burn & powerful contraction
-
-
05-29-2012, 05:46 PM #9
- Join Date: Feb 2012
- Location: Halifax, NS, Canada
- Age: 50
- Posts: 11,523
- Rep Power: 21891
There are two effects at work here though, you have to separate them.
First, decreased caloric intake does slow down metabolism as your body responds by shutting down some nonessential systems. But it's a matter of relative proportions. The metabolic slowdown of the BMR is never enough to offset the deficit it is caused by in the first place. So a further 500 cal deficit may cause perhaps a further 3% reduction in BMR. So BMR goes from say 1700 to 1649. That would move TDEE from say 2635 to 2555 (assume 1.55 average activity factor). So metabolic slowdown results in a burn reduction of 80 cals, but you are taking in 500 less cals. The result is that deficit increases by 420 cals and fat loss speeds up by something slightly less than the theoretical pound a week. If you increase the deficit another 500 cals, the same adjustment happens, and the person eventually dies of starvation, losing fat the whole time. The metabolic slowdown can never outpace the deficit. If it could, death by starvation could never happen.
The other effect is when a person starts out with say a modest 500 cal deficit and never adjusts it. His BMR is going to continue to decrease, but not because of metabolic slowdown, it's coming down because the work associated with hauling his lard around every day is lessening. After a long while, this will result in his TDEE closing the gap so that his new TDEE equals his intake, and he no longer has a deficit at all, then weight loss stops. All you have to do to avoid this is adjust your BMR and TDEE numbers every month or so. But this has nothing to do with a metabolic slowdown.Last edited by dmacdonal9; 05-29-2012 at 05:56 PM.
-
05-29-2012, 06:14 PM #10
So basically the metabolic slowdown is insignificant. But since BMR decreases as weight descreases, it is feasible that one could lose weigh to the point where there once deficit is now maintenance. Gotcha. But how does leptin play into all of this? That's basically the point of this thread. Is leptin significant enough to warrant a weeks worth of eating at maintenance? The sources above seem to indicate so, but I'm looking for some personal experiences.
-
05-29-2012, 06:18 PM #11
Im not sure if it effects it directly but it does indirectly effect weight loss as it increases appetite , which means people dumb a **** ton of calories into themselves and gain all the weight back on until leptin is suppressed by negative feedback ( you dont feel hungry any more )
Look into flexible dieting or IIFYM - it should solve all your problems .
@ dmacdonald - thanks for the clear up .Ka0s :In my experience, doing heavy barbell squats, bench presses, deadlifts, military presses, rows, etc. builds no significant muscle mass.
What you need to really get big is a solid routine which focuses on light weights and cable movements to really force blood into those muscles and get that deep burn & powerful contraction
-
05-29-2012, 06:22 PM #12
- Join Date: Feb 2012
- Location: Halifax, NS, Canada
- Age: 50
- Posts: 11,523
- Rep Power: 21891
As I understand it (from Lyle's books), for very lean people, it can be worth it, but for people with a fair bit of fat left, no. Relative proportions come into effect here too, because the net benefit you get from a change in leptin for that week will not offset the lost week of fat loss, in the long run. If you have a fair amount of fat to lose, you could have lost more just staying the course; screw leptin.
But when you're very lean, you can't sustain a big deficit, so your rate of loss is much slower to begin with. You're basically playing around with your leptin setpoint in the hope that the net increase in fat loss from the setpoint adjustment will offset the reduced time spent losing fat. It's all a question of whether or not the math works out in your favor.
I think some of these lean people respond very quickly and powerfully to changes in leptin (big hunger shifts and whatnot, like Ian describes) and for them, maybe the math works at the end of the period. For others, maybe it doesn't. But hey, even if it's net-zero, you had a week eating comfortably.
-
-
05-29-2012, 06:39 PM #13
- Join Date: May 2010
- Location: Garland, Texas, United States
- Age: 44
- Posts: 754
- Rep Power: 2926
I think you are confusing the subject. If you are at a 500 calories deficit, that means you burned 500 calories more than you consumed. Weight loss HAS to occur. If it didn't, you didn't burn 500 calories more than you consumed - you THOUGHT you were in a 500 cal deficit, but were not. That would be like saying after a certain number of months of direct paying your cable bill of $50, you eventually will start paying it and nothing will come out of your bank account, but the cable company will still magically receive payments of $50.
The confusion comes from the fact that your maintenance is constantly changing from a variety of factors, mainly how much muscle and fat you carry. If you eat too few calories each day you are likely to lose a larger percentage of lean-body-mass (read: muscle) in addition to fat, thus slowing down your metabolism. Even if you manage to keep all your muscle, your overall lighter weight will mean you are burning fewer calories.
Best solution, add more cardio or lower your calories a bit (or better, a combination of both).
-
06-02-2014, 08:19 AM #14
i find a good CARB NITE works well, high calories, high carbs as a cheat night, usually helps me lose a few pounds and boost the metabolism again. After a long time of dieting though, a week off wouldn't hurt and could replenish a lot of missing nutrients thats needed to aid the bodies metabolic processes?....
Owner at Oxfordshire Personal Training.com
http://www.oxfordshirepersonaltraining.com
Oxford
United Kingdom
-
06-02-2014, 08:51 AM #15
Nothing wrong with taking a week off - just eat normally and enjoy yourself and get right back to work. It will do wonders mentally and as you said help reset some hormone levels.
ON MY WAY!!!!!
12/01/14 -> 236.7lbs
03/02/15 -> 221.1lbs
03/13/15 -> 217.3lbs
06/05/15 -> 208.2lbs
How becoming a father changed my view on fitness, wellness and life
http://thedaddysutras.com
https://********.com/thedaddysutras
https://instagram.com/thedaddysutras
-
06-02-2014, 08:52 AM #16
-
-
06-02-2014, 09:08 AM #17
-
06-02-2014, 09:57 AM #18
If you're in a deficit your body has to have fuel, and you're not giving it enough, so it burns your stored fuel - fat. Weight loss will continue in a deficit - keywords here being "in a deficit." *Weight* loss may not move for a bit, but *fat* loss will continue. The bathroom scales are great at measuring weight loss - not so good at measuring fat loss.
"Franco is pretty smart, but Franco's a child, and when it comes to the day of the contest, I am his father. He comes to me for advices. So it's not that hard for me to give him the wrong advices." - Arnold Schwarzenegger in Pumping Iron
Get muscles in the gym. Get lean in the kitchen.
-
10-17-2014, 07:26 AM #19
Im 5'11 200 lbs exactly. Cutting since April. Lost 37 pounds. In mid August, weight loss absolutely stopped on 2100 calories a day. At that calorie level, fat should be falling off my frame if you follow calculators or conventional logic. So what do I do.... cut calories under 2000 to get the weight to start coming off again at the sacrifice of muscle? When I hit the next plateau do I cut calories further to around 1500? That's crazy for someone my size that wishes to retain muscle. When would it stop. So, I followed Lyles advice and instituted a structured diet break at maintenance for a two week span to reset the fat burning hormones and thyroid. The science makes sense and then when the reset occurs reinstitute the cut from maintenance. Its very individual but Ill tell you during the first week I leaned out more and got more vascular.
-
10-17-2014, 07:46 AM #20
-
-
10-17-2014, 08:18 AM #21
Ya, it could be brotha. But the point I was trying to make is that when "natural", sometimes you can only cut cals so much before you sacrifice the muscle we all strive for. Not to mention feeling like total crap. Lyles method is an effective way to reset the "burners" so you can continue the cut without restricting calories to ridiculous lows which in my opinion is counterproductive in the long term. You will lose the weight but at what cost. In my opinion, the metabolic slowdown "factor" is one of the most overlooked portions of long term dieting.
-
10-17-2014, 08:41 AM #22
I know this metabolic "slowdown/stop" doesnt effect everyone. Some people can cut forever without experiencing plateaus. In my opinion, I think it affects people more that have lost alot of weight initially and want to continue to do so to a "goal weight/bf%". The body is always looking for homeostasis. Furthermore, I disagree with those that call metabolic slowdown a myth. It is a very real phenomenon. When it occurs, its affects and extent vary from person to person.
-
03-05-2015, 04:45 PM #23
See... I understand the concept of metabolic slowdown... But is it applicable to 100% of case where the calorie count is really low?
I've been burning a total of 3000-3500 per day due to activity and only eating around 1500 calories per day. I'm 6'0 and 182 with a 25%, so by eating so few calories, ideally, I should be seeing some sort of terrible slowdown in my metabolism after 21 days of this stuff, right?
But I'm not. At least I don't think I am. I get hungry at all hours of the day, I eat large quantities of low calorie/high protein food (celery, broccoli, beans, etc) for snacking purposes, and don't think that I'm seeing any negative side effects so far. It is possible to eat extremely low calories and still get my daily protein intake and stay full, isn't it?
Similar Threads
-
Epiphanies, DOMs and Cottage Cheese....
By CharliC in forum JournalingReplies: 4551Last Post: 04-29-2013, 08:43 PM -
CCCAAAKKKAAAWWW **The Manlet Sea Is Here** Part VI!
By insomniac23 in forum Misc.Replies: 9057Last Post: 08-12-2012, 06:45 AM -
Teenager pushes for a sixpack and teardrop!
By ViktorM in forum Losing Fat LogsReplies: 398Last Post: 05-15-2012, 01:55 PM -
Is this the place for me?
By helper1105 in forum Female BodybuildingReplies: 53Last Post: 12-18-2009, 08:33 PM -
Would eating at maintenance calories work for Rippetoes?
By clash101 in forum NutritionReplies: 2Last Post: 08-30-2009, 12:37 PM
Bookmarks