Metabolic slowdown numbers

[dmacdonal9]

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:

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.

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.

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.

[lee__d]

James Krieger is a boss. Nice link OP.

[krete77]

Thanks OP. Seems interesting. Going to check out now.

[kevi204]

HBO's The Weight of the Nation 4 part Documentary touched on that subject, I remember them stating that people who have lossed weight have to work twice as hard to maintain as someone who's always been that weight. Something to that effect.

[LightsOut06]

It's stuff like this that makes going from fat to fit a nightmare.

[dmacdonal9]

It's stuff like this that makes going from fat to fit a nightmare.

Yeah, I been paranoid all afternoon after reading that, thinking about how still I was sitting. Guess I'm going for a run tonight.

[SLO]

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.html

[Allegralol]

nice

[unleashthelion]

Bump on a classic thread.

[DAaaMan64]

Bump on a classic thread.

Why? are you implying it isn't true?

[PDecay]

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.

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?

[dmacdonal9]

It is possible to eat extremely low calories and still get my daily protein intake and stay full, isn't it?

Sure, satiety is highly subjective. That doesn't mean an aggressive deficit doesn't come with other ill effects.