The Metabolic Slowdown Thread

[Jacob130]

How would you suggest reducing cardio specifically ....I'm at 200-280 mins VERY LISS (leisure cycling)

^ I would lift weights on a written routine if that's possible (and you wouldn't mind doing so).

Other than that, check out: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=159938141 so you make sure you're being accurate with your tracking.

If you're otherwise healthy, I don;t see why you'd need any other tests.

Stick with 2800 for a few weeks while monitoring your body weight and make adjustments from what the scale shows

[lee__d]

How would you suggest reducing cardio specifically ....I'm at 200-280 mins VERY LISS (leisure cycling)

I remember your avi, but I don't remember the specific advice I gave you. Was it in another thread?

[Jacob130]

Fiber. But do you have any suggestions for this question sir? Haha

I remember your avi, but I don't remember the specific advice I gave you. Was it in another thread?

[lee__d]

You just want to reduce cardio? If it's not needed (i.e. cycling to for transportation), you can just stop doing it. Half it at first if you want to keep some activity in.

[Jacob130]

Sorry I wasn't specific enough. Since September 21 I've dropped my calories from 2000-1600-1800. I dropped lifting weights as well (depressed, tired) and started out doing cardio for 180-200-220-all the way up to 280 mins a day, however, this cardio was VERY low intensity steady state (leisure to very moderate-no sweating-cycling on a stationary bike) I have lost 12 lbs doing this almost two months from today (the 20th) my goal is to reduce the cardio and REintroduce calories, but I want to transition so I can avoid the fat gain since I believe I may have damaged my metabolism preety badly . Thank you so so much this advice is really going to be taken seriously

You just want to reduce cardio? If it's not needed (i.e. cycling to for transportation), you can just stop doing it. Half it at first if you want to keep some activity in.

[lee__d]

If you're 98lb, you might want to consider doing this under some doctor supervision. I wouldn't suggest a slow reverse, you should get up to around maintenance as soon as possible imo. Have you seen a doctor, because you're of an unhealthily low weight.

[RyouBakua]

hey Lee

at which calorie reduction point do you feel metabolism really drops off?

as -500 cal is usually the standard for most weight loss plans

[Jacob130]

Do you have a kik by any chance? And yes I have seen a doctor, I am hypothyroid and hypogonad, I've known this since January and I have been on inj3ct@bl3 T and t3 medications in the past but they didn't help and made worse so I'm not on them. I would just like to know how to reverse out of this (pretend I'm someone coming out of a severe 2 month diet with just VERY LISS cardio and a calorie deficit loosing 12 lbs, how to go about reintroducing calories and reducing cardio specifically) your the best!!!

If you're 98lb, you might want to consider doing this under some doctor supervision. I wouldn't suggest a slow reverse, you should get up to around maintenance as soon as possible imo. Have you seen a doctor, because you're of an unhealthily low weight.

[lee__d]

hey Lee

at which calorie reduction point do you feel metabolism really drops off?

as -500 cal is usually the standard for most weight loss plans

I think it has more to do with one's natural body fat set point. For example the body (and mind) seem to start fighting back, stalling, and people have real trouble (and their adherence falters- which usually causes most of the stall anyway)with a diet (for most men anywhere from 8-12% bf I'd guess). The more extreme you push it the more difficult


I really can't say a specific deficit where people will start to have trouble, because overweight folks can lose 1lb per week for a loooong time. And we see people running extreme diets, like Lyle's RFL for months on end without stalling.

If one isn't obese, I'd start with the standard 500 calorie deficit and hack off increments of 100 calories after weight loss stops.

[grasscity]

Im cutting for 2-3 months now,very slowly decreasing calories,losing 1kg a week,but now weight losing stopped.started at 83kg,now im 75kg,training 3x a week,did only 10-20minute low intensity cardio right after training.
Now im about 1 week on intermittent fasting. Its seems working for me,not feeling so houngry anymore and i will keep doing it. but still looking for more body fat % to lose.
When i go under 1900calories i dont feel so good and imidiatly do refeed.Because i lower only carbs and fats. looks like i will stay 200/200/44 but add some more cardio(like on off days)
the question is: can i decrease my protein lower than 200? if yes then i can stand lower my calories more..
Sry for my bad eng and its be nice to hear some tips..
pics added

[lee__d]

Im cutting for 2-3 months now,very slowly decreasing calories,losing 1kg a week,but now weight losing stopped.started at 83kg,now im 75kg,training 3x a week,did only 10-20minute low intensity cardio right after training.
Now im about 1 week on intermittent fasting. Its seems working for me,not feeling so houngry anymore and i will keep doing it. but still looking for more body fat % to lose.
When i go under 1900calories i dont feel so good and imidiatly do refeed.Because i lower only carbs and fats. looks like i will stay 200/200/44 but add some more cardio(like on off days)
the question is: can i decrease my protein lower than 200? if yes then i can stand lower my calories more..
Sry for my bad eng and its be nice to hear some tips..
pics added

1lb/g is more than enough, so you can lower to 165g of protein and still be safe. In fact, I'd go for 200/165/65 (or adjust it a tad to stay at your current calorie level) to up fats a tad. Maybe that will help you from feeling bad when you have to lower again.

[Jacob130]

Do you have a kik by any chance? And yes I have seen a doctor, I am hypothyroid and hypogonad, I've known this since January and I have been on inj3ct@bl3 T and t3 medications in the past but they didn't help and made worse so I'm not on them. I would just like to know how to reverse out of this (pretend I'm someone coming out of a severe 2 month diet with just VERY LISS cardio and a calorie deficit loosing 12 lbs, how to go about reintroducing calories and reducing cardio specifically) your the best!!!

1lb/g is more than enough, so you can lower to 165g of protein and still be safe. In fact, I'd go for 200/165/65 (or adjust it a tad to stay at your current calorie level) to up fats a tad. Maybe that will help you from feeling bad when you have to lower again.

[lee__d]

Do you have a kik by any chance? And yes I have seen a doctor, I am hypothyroid and hypogonad, I've known this since January and I have been on inj3ct@bl3 T and t3 medications in the past but they didn't help and made worse so I'm not on them. I would just like to know how to reverse out of this (pretend I'm someone coming out of a severe 2 month diet with just VERY LISS cardio and a calorie deficit loosing 12 lbs, how to go about reintroducing calories and reducing cardio specifically) your the best!!!

I do not have kik.

I don't feel 100% confident in giving advice to someone who's clinically underweight with other medical issues as well, it's probably not even safe. But you need to start gaining weight. I don't think it would hurt you (besides psychologically) if you put on 1lb per week for a little while here. As far as the cardio, there's no need to cycle it down, just do how much you want.

[Jacob130]

I do not have kik.

I don't feel 100% confident in giving advice to someone who's clinically underweight with other medical issues as well, it's probably not even safe. But you need to start gaining weight. I don't think it would hurt you (besides psychologically) if you put on 1lb per week for a little while here. As far as the cardio, there's no need to cycle it down, just do how much you want.

I understand and I appreciate it, I just thought the recommendation would be to slowly drop cardio and increase calories, but I wanted I guess a more "specific" recommendation, anyway if you still could provide that kind of suggestion I would surely appreciate it and I thank you for your time.

[lee__d]

I understand and I appreciate it, I just thought the recommendation would be to slowly drop cardio and increase calories, but I wanted I guess a more "specific" recommendation, anyway if you still could provide that kind of suggestion I would surely appreciate it and I thank you for your time.

For the cardio, I don't think you need to reduce it slowly tbh. And with the calories, you need to up it to a new estimated maintenance. I wouldn't waste time doing it slowly in your case.

[Chuchiiee]

Oi... I think this describes me perfectly... I think bulimia fits well in metabolic damage.

I have been bulimic for 5 months and it spawned from a VERY low calorie diet that I undertook for 7 months.
Just background... About a little more than a year ago I went on a diet cold turkey. I became vegetarian. It was a great way to cut calories without counting them. Then after 6 months, I transitioned to raw veganism. I mean I was living on raw soups, kale chips, and green shakes. Still not counting calories but I wouldn't touch any food that was cooked. On top of this, I exercised 6 days a week doing 6-7 mile jogs. Then I did circuit training 2-3 days a week in addition to the cardio. I lost A LOT of weight and for the last 2-3 months, even as I increased intensity of my workouts, I would only lose 1 pound a month if that.

Then I had enough. I wasn't even allowing myself cheat meals, I was that dedicated but I was tired ALL the time. One day I cracked and had a bowl of cereal... and that lead to my binge. I ate the whole box. Baha. And afterward hello bulimia. So I've been like this for 5 months. Recently I stopped and have steadily been recovering. However, my fat percentage increased by 4% during this time and lost a few pounds (probably dehydration/and some malnutrition). Since then I've gained those pounds back and toggle between 129-130 pounds now. I've had a personal trainer for a month and a half now and he's put me on 1700 calories a day where I eat about 4-5 times a day (however I feel bloated ALL day long now). Yes, I'm improving in strength but even my trainer has told me that lifting newbies are supposed to have explosive gains all of which I don't have comparatively. I didn't tell him my previous background (weight loss/bulimia) but I think it has attributed to my abnormally slow progress.

Oh and for the record, I needed to lose weight back then. I had gall stones (and I was only 22) and weighed 195 pounds at 5'5. Unfortunately, my body has been starving for quite a long time I think.

[lee__d]

Have you seen a professional about the Bulemia?

[jonasdk]

interesting, thnx for this thread

[grasscity]

1lb/g is more than enough, so you can lower to 165g of protein and still be safe. In fact, I'd go for 200/165/65 (or adjust it a tad to stay at your current calorie level) to up fats a tad. Maybe that will help you from feeling bad when you have to lower again.

im doing 160/150/30-40 all the time fasted,3x workout,and mby 15-30min cardio on training days,i want to try low carb diet now.
how to get off that last fat? i tryed 160/100/60 today , carbs only from veggies and oats,i guess im gonna do this 1 week,then cut oats off,and 50g carbs from veggis only..

what macros u suggest on 1500-1600cals... still 73kg and what macros should be on training and non training days
should i up protein and fats or just fats? to get that last % off. thanks

[lee__d]

im doing 160/150/30-40 all the time fasted,3x workout,and mby 15-30min cardio on training days,i want to try low carb diet now.
how to get off that last fat? i tryed 160/100/60 today , carbs only from veggies and oats,i guess im gonna do this 1 week,then cut oats off,and 50g carbs from veggis only..

what macros u suggest on 1500-1600cals... still 73kg and what macros should be on training and non training days
should i up protein and fats or just fats? to get that last % off. thanks

You didn;t have success with:

I'd go for 200/165/65 (or adjust it a tad to stay at your current calorie level) to up fats a tad. Maybe that will help you from feeling bad when you have to lower again.

Or did you and then you stalled? I would only adjust downward by 100 calories max when making adjustments. 160/100/60 is less than 1400 calories and 160/150/40 is 1600....Did you go from 200/165/65 to one of those sets of macros?

I just keep macros relatively constant all days. If you have a tough workout coming up you can always increase carbs a little.

[grasscity]

You didn;t have success with:

Or did you and then you stalled? I would only adjust downward by 100 calories max when making adjustments. 160/100/60 is less than 1400 calories and 160/150/40 is 1600....Did you go from 200/165/65 to one of those sets of macros?

I just keep macros relatively constant all days. If you have a tough workout coming up you can always increase carbs a little.

w8 didnt come off when i was doing that,so i dropped calories,ok i dont go lower than 1500-1600 and add cardio,but whats the best macros for it?
myfitness pal shows me that 161/99/61 is 1589,because of veggies.. what u suggest?

[lee__d]

w8 didnt come off when i was doing that,so i dropped calories,ok i dont go lower than 1500-1600 and add cardio,but whats the best macros for it?
myfitness pal shows me that 161/99/61 is 1589,because of veggies.. what u suggest?

There's no 'best' macro split. Being in a deficit with adequate protein is 95% of the battle. You're getting enough protein (you could even afford to lower 10-15g if you really wanted), and fats aren't too low. Sucks that your carbs are around 100 (well I would personally not enjoy that), but it is what is.

[Lionaround]

Not sure if this has been posted but this might help some people who are losing weight rapidly to begin with.

Studies show that mammals, so that's us as well, retain more fat as we get older, which I think is the threads area of address. This is entirely natural.

So if you are 20kg overweight, you will shed probably about 15kg or so of it quickly given enough dietary adjustments and exercise. That could happen in a short time space say 6months to a year.
BUT those last 5kg will be the most difficult to shift, and I think this goes for just about anyone who is overweight, even if only by a few kilos, because the body wants to retain fat and will do everything in its power to save some stores in case you run out of food (evolutionary adaptation).
Clearly this is nearly impossible in Westernised places even if you have little money - and in fact poorer people are more likely to become obese partially due to poor nutritional intake, but also because their bodies are running on unpredictable caloric schedules, so fat storage is more likely to happen.
I digress a bit...

Some key things to staying motivated in a fat loss program:

- Initial losses will slow down dramatically after the first year or so; expect it to happen! but don't get discouraged. This applies more to heavily overweight individuals.
- Some studies show that regular weighings - twice daily - can help, as you can track results. Remember that fluctuations are inevitable from water retention, bowel movements etc. That is why an average weight should be used from any given week.
- The older you are i.e. 30+ the more the body wants to conserve fuel unless you have been living very fit, so age is not a barrier to looking good it just makes it a little tougher. I am aware that's no earth shattering science right there.
- BMI! - watch out for BMI readings they can be terribly misleading, and are not even accurate nor were they intended to be used as a universal scale. They don't take into account many key aspects of individuals genetics, such as bone density, muscle mass, brain size (I kid) and a host of variance within any one human being from the next. An example, if you are stacked, your BMI reading will classify you as 'obese' if not overweight.

Hopefully that made sense.

[EjnarKolinkar]

Was "the biggest loser" metabolic slowdown study discussed somewhere in this thread? I tried a few searches but did not come up with anything. I bookmarked it from some AA interview I read a while back and was just now reading it.

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/1...1444?papetoc=&

[lee__d]

Was "the biggest loser" metabolic slowdown study discussed somewhere in this thread? I tried a few searches but did not come up with anything. I bookmarked it from some AA interview I read a while back and was just now reading it.

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/1...1444?papetoc=&

I can't remember it being discussed. I'll have to read through it when I get a moment. Thanks, bro.

[lee__d]

Was "the biggest loser" metabolic slowdown study discussed somewhere in this thread? I tried a few searches but did not come up with anything. I bookmarked it from some AA interview I read a while back and was just now reading it.

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/1...1444?papetoc=&

Okay, i'm trying to get through this:

Despite the relative preservation of FFM, RMR dropped from baseline by 356 ± 399 kcal/d and 789 ± 483 kcal/d at wk 6 and 30, respectively (Table 1, P < 0.05). To account for the altered body weight and composition, the predicted RMR at wk 6 and 30 was calculated according to the following equation developed using baseline data: RMR (kilocalories per day) = 1241 kcal/d + 19.2 (FFM) + 1.8 (FM) − 9.8 (age) + 404 (for males) (R2 = 0.85). Using this equation, RMR was predicted to be 2502 ± 548 kcal/d at wk 6, whereas the measured RMR was 2258 ± 441 kcal/d, i.e. metabolic rate decreased by 244 ± 231 kcal/d more than expected based on the changes in FFM and FM (Table 1). At wk 30, the RMR was predicted to be 2393 ± 466 kcal/d, a reduction of 504 ± 171 kcal/d more than expected on the basis of the new weight and body composition (Table 1). Although simple division of the RMR by FFM is commonly used to correct for metabolic mass, this procedure is known to artificially increase the normalized RMR as the FFM decreases (30). Thus, the RMR per kilogram of FFM is expected to increase with weight loss in the absence of metabolic adaptation. However, RMR per kilogram of FFM fell to 29 ± 2 kcal/kg·d after weight loss at wk 30 from a baseline of 36 ± 4 kcal/kg·d (P < 0.0001), thereby demonstrating the presence of a substantial metabolic adaptation, regardless of the normalization procedure. The RQ (CO2 production/O2 consumption) was low at baseline (0.76 ± 0.05), suggesting increased fat oxidation at rest, and did not change from baseline to either time point (wk 6, RQ = 0.76 ± 0.04; wk 30, RQ = 0.75 ± 0.03, all P > 0.5).

That r2 value doesn't seem high for this equation. Maybe someone with a better understanding of statistics will chime in. But the accuracy of this equation is key. They're deriving the conclusion that RMR decreased more than expected, based on this formula. If it's off, that calls the whole conclusion into question. I mean unless I'm interpreting this wrong.

However, despite the relative preservation of FFM, the RMR decreased by 789 ± 483 kcal/d at the end of the study, which was 504 ± 171 kcal/d greater than accounted for by the change of body weight and composition. This metabolic adaptation to the weight loss intervention was also significant at wk 6 but doubled by the end of the competition. Therefore, we showed that a drop in resting metabolism during active weight loss of this magnitude probably cannot be avoided by the addition of an exercise program.

These people did lose 100+lb, and that's a large range.

Good find. Hopefully people smarter than me will be able to add more.

[Znik]

Interesting study kinda, but a TDEE/RMR drop during a deficit (the greater the deficit the greater the potential drop). And with the biggest loser type of weight loss I would expect it to be dramatic since we're talking a crazy amount of exercise, more circuit type training than actual resistance training, and steep deficits. DEXA-Scans can have inaccuracies and when people are like 400lbs 2-8% off is a lot of fat/lean mass mistaken.

Same with the indirect calorimetry , as there is no control group there can be potential inaccurate readings there to.

But the major flaw is, no measurements after maintaining weight.

For instance, not the best study as it's rapid weight loss with very low energy diet but it shows part of the idea:

Subjects were 20 men and 31 women [mean (±SD) age: 42 ± 8 y; BMI (in kg/m(2)): 31.4 ± 2.8]. Weight loss was achieved by an 8-wk very-low-energy diet period, followed by 44 wk of weight maintenance.
Body mass decreased significantly during the diet period (10.5 ± 3.8%, P < 0.001), and this reduction was sustained after 52 wk (6.0 ± 5.1%, P < 0.001). PALSMR and PALRMR decreased from 1.81 ± 0.23 and 1.70 ± 0.22, respectively, before the diet to 1.69 ± 0.20 and 1.55 ± 0.19 after the diet (P < 0.001) and increased again after weight maintenance to 1.85 ± 0.27 and 1.71 ± 0.23, respectively, compared with 8-wk measurements

CONCLUSION:

A weight loss-induced reduction in physical activity returns to baseline values when weight loss is maintained.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23985804

While it's more about reduction in physical activity, its the RMR change I found interesting since it's actually marginally higher after the weight loss than before.

Just glanced over the study , will do a proper read sometime and check their equation.
But the problem is still going to be the lack of proper studies, both in terms of diet, resistance training, general activity etc. along with proper 4 point measuring of bodyfat , composition etc. to get a proper accurate read on changes along with doubly laden water etc. and proper RMR measuring in breathing chambers, which is basically going to cost a fortune and never happen

And you can find studies showing both reductions in RMR and TDEE after weight loss even after maintaining it for a time, while others shown a nice return to baseline if not higher.

Going with personal experience I've had a crazy increase in RMR/TDEE after losing 100lbs rather than a decrease. Back in 2012 I was cutting at like 1700-1800kcal with a crazy amount of cardio daily not losing that much per week , around 1-1.5lb. My last cut was at a average of 2500'ish kcal with 0-3 days of cardio and lose 2-2.5lbs/week.
And have to bulk at 4500-5000kcal or I stall.

While I have put on a substantial amount of lean mass it doesn't even come close to account for the increase in TDEE, nor is my activity levels much different, if anything it's probably less.
The only change is the addition of weight lifting (at the cost of way way less cardio, none while bulking) and better diet or rather ensuring adequate nutrition (macros/micros).

By some studies I should have a big reduction , not a massive increase as I've had. So unless I am some weird genetic freak (which doesn't make sense since I spent most my life as obese) something is off.
For the most part I would say it's the lack of proper nutrition and resistance training and measurements after a recovery time.

[EjnarKolinkar]

Okay, i'm trying to get through this:

That r2 value doesn't seem high for this equation. Maybe someone with a better understanding of statistics will chime in. But the accuracy of this equation is key. They're deriving the conclusion that RMR decreased more than expected, based on this formula. If it's off, that calls the whole conclusion into question. I mean unless I'm interpreting this wrong.

I know there are a lot of equations for calculating RMR and that they vary in how well they work with different groups, at least I have seen that in studies. I'm not smart enough to comment on whether that formula was a published formula that fits the group well or not. I think of a R2 at 85% as high, but am not qualified to comment on it's appropriateness for this application.

These people did lose 100+lb

Yes, I found it more interesting for that, but I can see it might be less interesting to much of the moderate body fat working to get lean dieters.

I wonder though how much of it is the severity of the overall cut to include activity and size of deficit or what extent duration plays a role.

But the major flaw is, no measurements after maintaining weight.

Yes but the study draws no conclusions about that. I agree and would not try to draw the conclusion that the reduction in RMR would be lasting with this study. There is nothing there to work with. I think it potentially points to the diminishing return of dieting aggressively and losing a huge amount of weight in short order in terms of RMR, that is it.

Interestingly they all continued to lose weight past the calculated reduction. Assuming it isn't lasting, which is my assumption, if you get 300-500 cals chopped off your RMR it still sucks while it's happening. Which is what caught my eye in the AA interview where he mentioned this study. IDK Znik, I wish there was more/better out there on this for the obese to go off. I see over and over again people cutting cals to keep the weight loss coming endurance dieting because they want to get the job done, metabolic damage was surely the last thing on my mind. And yet they take this study and turn it into headlines that these peoples "metabolisms were destroyed". Which scares people obv and with no post diet information.

I'd love to see a follow up study on this group. Would be really cool.

[MuzzieChik786]

Going with personal experience I've had a crazy increase in RMR/TDEE after losing 100lbs rather than a decrease. Back in 2012 I was cutting at like 1700-1800kcal with a crazy amount of cardio daily not losing that much per week , around 1-1.5lb. My last cut was at a average of 2500'ish kcal with 0-3 days of cardio and lose 2-2.5lbs/week. And have to bulk at 4500-5000kcal or I stall.

While I have put on a substantial amount of lean mass it doesn't even come close to account for the increase in TDEE, nor is my activity levels much different, if anything it's probably less.
The only change is the addition of weight lifting (at the cost of way way less cardio, none while bulking) and better diet or rather ensuring adequate nutrition (macros/micros).

By some studies I should have a big reduction , not a massive increase as I've had. So unless I am some weird genetic freak (which doesn't make sense since I spent most my life as obese) something is off.
For the most part I would say it's the lack of proper nutrition and resistance training and measurements after a recovery time.

I really think there's some merit to the metabolic slowdown theories. My own personal story, I did everything right, lost weight super slowly (took 3 years), experimented with successes and failures. Now, I can't lose weight unless I'm eating less than 1k calories. I've tried everything. My metabolism HAS adapted.

It's interesting that you, as another previously obese person, had the opposite effect. Maybe gender plays a small role in it, and muscle mass.

The only way I can eat a decent amount of food and still lose is if I'm in the gym 3+ hours a day, which I don't have the time for.

I see over and over again people cutting cals to keep the weight loss coming endurance dieting because they want to get the job done, metabolic damage was surely the last thing on my mind. And yet they take this study and turn it into headlines that these peoples "metabolisms were destroyed". Which scares people obv and with no post diet information.

I don't think it's scary. I think it's adjustment just like you would with any other body transformation method.

The smaller you get, the more you have to work out and the less you get to eat. It's pretty straightforward. I won't tell you that it's not sad knowing that I can't realistically EVER eat 2k calories a day for extended periods of time knowing I will gain wait. But it's the sacrifice you make to stay one step ahead of what your body is doing.

Also, here's what Lyle says:

Of course, metabolically, large deficit dieting can have the biggest impact on metabolic parameters. But that’s the price to pay for faster rates of fat loss. As I’m fond of saying, life she is full of these little compromises. If you want to have a minimal impact on metabolic rate and such, use a smaller deficit; the price is simply slower fat loss and a longer diet.

My take is - metabolic adaptation will change dramatically depending on the severity of your deficit.

[Znik]

I really think there's some merit to the metabolic slowdown theories. My own personal story, I did everything right, lost weight super slowly (took 3 years), experimented with successes and failures. Now, I can't lose weight unless I'm eating less than 1k calories. I've tried everything. My metabolism HAS adapted.

It's interesting that you, as another previously obese person, had the opposite effect. Maybe gender plays a small role in it, and muscle mass.

The only way I can eat a decent amount of food and still lose is if I'm in the gym 3+ hours a day, which I don't have the time for.

I really have no idea as to why I am such a extreme opposite of it, by all accounts I should be loaded with fat genes,environment and whatnot as I've always struggled with my weight and had a hard time losing it. Dropping the weight and doing resistance training must have flipped some switch or something where everything just went into overdrive. The only thing that did not go into overdrive was my appetite, that took a big drop after my cut and for the most part I have to consciously overeat to the point of where I feel sick in order to gain weight.

Have you done any bulking yet Muzzie ? Would be interesting to know how you respond to a surplus.
Just wondering because there are those few (very very few) people who responds extremely poorly to a deficit with a massive NEAT reduction way beyond what's normal, those usually have the same reaction to a surplus with a NEAT drop as well. And you potentially get the hormonal/RMR reductions on top of that.

The metabolic slowdown topic is a tricky one, especially because of the lack of proper studies and cherry picking.
It does seem fairly clear that TDEE and RMR drops for most during a deficit. Personally I probably drop around 500kcal , might even be higher due to added activity to compensate.
But it does pop back to normal pretty fast during maintenance/surplus. Which it also seems to do for most (assuming proper diet,training etc.)

But not everyone recovers quickly, some seem to never do (again hard to tell with 100% accuracy as studies are lacking on the matter) one thing that seems for sure is that lack of resistance training, daily activity and/or proper diet makes metabolism recover incredibly slowly possibly never. Even more so for the TDEE.

In terms of metabolic slowdown from what I've read BMR/RMR does seem to recover for most, TDEE takes a hit if there is a lack of PA/RT.
What I have found surprising is that even if there is a reduction , appetite for quite a lot gets reduced as well but others do not (or it could just be going back to old habits,poor food choices etc.). Hypothyroidism is a good example of that, BMR/TDEE gets reduced but so does appetite for most and the weight gained by it is for most water weight not actual fat gain. But then you have the few obese/super obese who blames it on hypo , some doctors agree and media blows it out of proportion.

Thus Hypo gets blamed for weight gain, but it's more likely just people overeating (even when full) or bad choices, a metabolic slowdown could maybe be similar.


Hopefully we get some better studies on the matter at some point, these days everyone just seems to be looking for something to blame for obesity/unable to maintain weight etc. rather than actually finding out what really goes on and how it adjusts over time.


And yeah Ejnar, it would be awesome with a followup , especially on stuff like The Biggest Loser as those are usually taken to the extreme and beyond in terms of rapid weight loss. Would be really interesting to know what RMR/TDEE/general bloodwork was like after 8 weeks of maintenance 24 and 58 weeks etc.