Found a nice article here on adaptive thermogenesis (one aspect of metabolic slowdown) that explores the idea of homeostasis in terms of the body trying to stay at it's accustomed fat set point.
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=415
One key point was quite interesting, where a study looked at the differences in actual energy expenditure between people of similar weights, but some of whom had lost weight to get there versus others that had been at that weight for at least a year:
So folks that had recently lost fat were burning approx 500 fewer calories per day than people of the same weight that had been at that weight for at least 1 year.These differences in resting metabolic rate and activity energy expenditure led to a difference in total daily energy expenditure of 428 – 514 calories per day.
It's also interesting that of this drop in calorie burn, some of it comes from true metabolic slowdown (about 150 per day), but most of it came from NEAT, which is calories burned through normal, non-exercise activity. In other words, it's simply because the fat loss folks were unconsciously moving around less, conserving energy through less fidgeting, more sitting around, more efficient movements, etc.
It's a pretty strong argument against an aggressive deficit and quick fat loss to my mind; the faster you lose it, the more your body is going to pull you back towards your fat set point by adapting and burning less energy. Whereas if you give yourself time to adapt, this becomes less of an effect.
|
Thread: Metabolic slowdown numbers
-
08-20-2012, 10:16 AM #1
- Join Date: Feb 2012
- Location: Halifax, NS, Canada
- Age: 50
- Posts: 11,523
- Rep Power: 21892
Metabolic slowdown numbers
-
08-20-2012, 10:41 AM #2
-
08-20-2012, 10:54 AM #3
-
08-20-2012, 10:55 AM #4
-
-
08-20-2012, 12:16 PM #5
-
08-20-2012, 12:28 PM #6
-
08-20-2012, 12:38 PM #7
- Join Date: Jan 2011
- Location: San Jose, California, United States
- Age: 41
- Posts: 475
- Rep Power: 277
My take on that article is that for the average, overweight person trying to lose weight and keep it off shouldn't really be that hard if you have some self discipline and are truly ready to make a lifestyle change.
But I think these hormonal and metabolic adaptations really become an issue as you try and get lean (~12%) and super lean (single digits) as many are on bb.com, especially if you were overweight to begin with.
The title of this thread is a little misleading. The true RMR difference between someone who is naturally 180 lbs and someone who dieted down to 180 lbs is about 5%. As mentioned, the difference in TDEE between those 2 people is largely due to the difference in their NEAT.
Lyle actually has an article that mentions that weightology study:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...owdown-qa.html
More excellent reads on this topic:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...on-part-1.html
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...on-part-2.html
Even more info on this:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...damage-qa.html
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...llowup-qa.html
More on leptin (part 1 of 6):
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...in-part-1.htmlLast edited by SLO; 08-20-2012 at 12:57 PM.
3 year transformation: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=147790393
Are you fat because you're lazy or are you lazy because you're fat?
If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.
-
09-14-2012, 08:14 PM #8
-
-
08-05-2013, 04:47 PM #9
-
11-27-2013, 05:01 PM #10
-
03-05-2015, 04:47 PM #11
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?
-
03-05-2015, 04:53 PM #12
Similar Threads
-
Does eating at maintenance for a week really work?
By MrLL in forum Losing FatReplies: 22Last Post: 03-05-2015, 04:45 PM -
Strength in numbers..Kim's journal
By bosgirlin09 in forum JournalingReplies: 3034Last Post: 07-12-2013, 03:02 PM -
how big of a metabolic slowdown do you get when dieting?
By ggaun in forum NutritionReplies: 5Last Post: 07-22-2012, 08:51 AM -
Are these numbers correct?
By DatMaz in forum NutritionReplies: 12Last Post: 04-21-2011, 03:56 AM
Bookmarks