Do I have to worry about Metabolic Slowdown?

[statusfresh]

I was looking at The Metabolic Slowdown Thread and am wondering would someone with 18% bodyfat have to worry about it? I do like 300 calories under maintenance and that's not including the calories burned during lifting. Is there a certain time period when I should stop doing calorie deficit and do maintenance for a while?

[JayRong]

you dont need to worry about it atm, just dont go balls to the walls right off the start of the diet when there is no need to.

you want to the least work to get the maximum results, so dont try and overdo things

[Former300lber]

Hit your protein and fat macro's, and create whatever deficit you want while you lift weights.

It is a lot harder to lose muscle then people on this website make it seem. Not to mention there is no factual evidence behind the whole metabolic slowdown, or metabolic adaption, the fact of the matter is, the more weight you lose the less calorie's your body needs to maintain because you have less overall mass, that's the only reason your metabolism will slow down.

[Electricheadd]

Hit your protein and fat macro's, and create whatever deficit you want while you lift weights.

It is a lot harder to lose muscle then people on this website make it seem. Not to mention there is no factual evidence behind the whole metabolic slowdown, or metabolic adaption, the fact of the matter is, the more weight you lose the less calorie's your body needs to maintain because you have less overall mass, that's the only reason your metabolism will slow down.

http://www.biolayne.com/wp-content/u...-Free-Mass.pdf

"Conclusions: Despite relative preservation of FFM, exercise did not prevent dramatic slowing of
resting metabolism out of proportion to weight loss. This metabolic adaptation may persist during
weight maintenance and predispose to weight regain unless high levels of physical activity or
caloric restriction are maintained. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 97: 0000 – 0000, 2012)"

[Electricheadd]

I was looking at The Metabolic Slowdown Thread and am wondering would someone with 18% bodyfat have to worry about it? I do like 300 calories under maintenance and that's not including the calories burned during lifting. Is there a certain time period when I should stop doing calorie deficit and do maintenance for a while?

Unless you have been cutting a long time, are extremely lean or used a very large calorie deficit I wouldn't worry about it.

[Former300lber]

http://www.biolayne.com/wp-content/u...-Free-Mass.pdf

"Conclusions: Despite relative preservation of FFM, exercise did not prevent dramatic slowing of
resting metabolism out of proportion to weight loss. This metabolic adaptation may persist during
weight maintenance and predispose to weight regain unless high levels of physical activity or
caloric restriction are maintained. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 97: 0000 – 0000, 2012)"

Like I said, if you lose weight, your body need's less calorie's to maintain.

[Electricheadd]

Like I said, if you lose weight, your body need's less calorie's to maintain, that doesn't mean adaption.

Read the bold again....... "Out of proportion to weight lost". If you read the study it shows a 300-700 calorie change in metabolism not explained by weight lost.


"Furthermore, a suppression of
RMR out of proportion to the loss in body weight and
FFM may occur through a phenomenon known as adaptive thermogenesis or metabolic adaptation (10 –17).
Together the loss of FFM along with metabolic adaptation may profoundly decrease resting energy expenditure, slow the rate of weight loss, and may predispose
to weight regain"

[Former300lber]

Read the bold again....... "Out of proportion to weight lost". If you read the study it shows a 300-700 calorie change in metabolism not explained by weight lost.


"Furthermore, a suppression of
RMR out of proportion to the loss in body weight and
FFM may occur through a phenomenon known as adaptive thermogenesis or metabolic adaptation (10 –17).
Together the loss of FFM along with metabolic adaptation may profoundly decrease resting energy expenditure, slow the rate of weight loss, and may predispose
to weight regain"

This could also be the cause of less energy overall, which in terms lead the participants to be less active throughout the rest of there day, There are far to many variables for 1 study to prove anything.

[Electricheadd]

This could also be the cause of less energy overall, which in terms lead the participants to be less active throughout the rest of there day, There are far to many variables for 1 study to prove anything.

You will never find a study that controls activity level 24/7 its not ethical. The fact is, until recently its never really been studied outside of a few old experiments. (Minnesota Starvation Study) To this point in history we have never really had the need to lose body fat. I think it would show a poor understanding of biology to say that your hormones have no effect on fat gain or loss since the entire process is based on hormones. So are you making the argument that your diet can't impact your hormones?

Keep in mind, I am not saying the first law of thermodynamics does not apply, I am saying the second law also applies.

[statusfresh]

But 300 calories under maintenance not including calories burned during lifting is fine right? How long of a period would I have to go from this before there's actually even a moderate amount of metabolic slowdown?

[StevenRogers]

It's really not THAT much of an issue. Ppl on here make it seem like it's a really common but it's not. Sure, there are people who compete 2-3 times a year and never bring their calories back up and experience metabolic slowdown but for your average lifter, nahhhh.

[Electricheadd]

It's really not THAT much of an issue. Ppl on here make it seem like it's a really common but it's not. Sure, there are people who compete 2-3 times a year and never bring their calories back up and experience metabolic slowdown but for your average lifter, nahhhh.

^^Completely agree

I would add really heavy dudes who cut for a very long time to the list as well.

[unleashthelion]

Unless I am an exception to the rule, I'd remove really heavy dudes from that list. My hormones have down regulated like crazy (most 80 year old men have much higher test levels), but I have had no appreciable reduction in my RMR/TDEE.

I'm sorry; metabolic adaptation is so rare, and so insignificant in those anomalous cases, that it is a non-issue.

[Electricheadd]

Unless I am an exception to the rule, I'd remove really heavy dudes from that list. My hormones have down regulated like crazy (most 80 year old men have much higher test levels), but I have had no appreciable reduction in my RMR/TDEE.

I'm sorry; metabolic adaptation is so rare, and so insignificant in those anomalous cases, that it is a non-issue.

Your signature suggests you are cutting below your BMR are you sure?

[statusfresh]

Ok thanks, also, whenever I add to rep for anyone, it doesn't seem to apply, maybe it's because I'm new to the forums?

[unleashthelion]

Your signature suggests you are cutting below your BMR are you sure?

Up until my recent week-long stall, I had lost 20lbs in the preceding 45 days. During that period, I'd say I averaged 3 miles of walking a day and I lifted weights 8 times for a total of 15 hours. I don't work a physical job and I am not someone who is always on the go.

Do you think I was cutting below my BMR?

[Electricheadd]

Up until my recent week-long stall, I had lost 20lbs in the preceding 45 days. During that period, I'd say I averaged 3 miles of walking a day and I lifted weights 8 times for a total of 15 hours. I don't work a physical job and I am not someone who is always on the go.

Do you think I was cutting below my BMR?

The BMR (Basil Metabolic Rate) for a man your size and age is 2042 calories, so yes you are eating below your BMR. The fact that your averaging 3 lbs a week prior to this should tell you just how far under it your TDEE that you are eating. The study I linked above was done in formerly obese people and 16 out of 16 people showed thermogenic adaptations that could not be explained by weight loss. So yes you are either unique in that you lost weight at exactly the same rate the entire time or you had a freakishly high TDEE to start with.

Since we are using anecdotal evidence I would suggest that I should be gaining weight right now. I was plateaued at 1800 calories, if that was my maintence as your position suggests, then the 2500 I'm currently averaging should be adding 1.2 lbs a week. Yet I'm actually a lb lighter than I started?


http://ajpregu.physiology.org/conten.../R581.full.pdf

This is a review of over 200 studies showing the biological response to under feeding.

[unleashthelion]

How long did your weight stay the same at 1800 calories?
Has your activity level changed since increasing your calories?

As for your anecdote, you could have gained 2lbs of fat and lost 3lbs of water for a net loss of 1lb, for all we know.

[DyingAtheist]

The BMR (Basil Metabolic Rate) for a man your size and age is 2042 calories, so yes you are eating below your BMR. The fact that your averaging 3 lbs a week prior to this should tell you just how far under it your TDEE that you are eating. The study I linked above was done in formerly obese people and 16 out of 16 people showed thermogenic adaptations that could not be explained by weight loss. So yes you are either unique in that you lost weight at exactly the same rate the entire time or you had a freakishly high TDEE to start with.

Since we are using anecdotal evidence I would suggest that I should be gaining weight right now. I was plateaued at 1800 calories, if that was my maintence as your position suggests, then the 2500 I'm currently averaging should be adding 1.2 lbs a week. Yet I'm actually a lb lighter than I started?


http://ajpregu.physiology.org/conten.../R581.full.pdf

This is a review of over 200 studies showing the biological response to under feeding.

I've had a look through the study you've linked, and while it certainly suggests a hormonal response to losing weight, it does seem to imply this is more an issue when trying to prevent weight-gain as opposed to actually losing weight. Assumedly this'd depend on how long it's taking you to lose weight. Great read though. I couldn't seem to find anything about how long it'd take for this kind of hormonal change begin to take place... I'm expecting to be at my target weight within a few months, I'm working under the assumption that my metabolism will survive this process without too much damage.

[Revolutionize]

Very interesting discussion. I have no doubt that metabolic adaptation occurs in most dieters (i.e., long-term dieters). It's just that the adaptive component usually doesn't amount to much, except in rare cases. Even in the semi-starvation study, I think the adaptive component accounted for something like a 15% reduction. So, yes, if you diet for long enough (or if you have an extreme deficit) your MR will be reduced more than can be explained simply by weight loss. However, it would be very difficult to get to the 15% reduction as seen in the semi-starvation study. Even then, you can reverse that to some extent.

[lee__d]

The real issue is why are you cutting at 5'7" 150lb?

[Electricheadd]

How long did your weight stay the same at 1800 calories?
Has your activity level changed since increasing your calories?

As for your anecdote, you could have gained 2lbs of fat and lost 3lbs of water for a net loss of 1lb, for all we know.

I was plateaued for several weeks at 1800 it was pretty frustrating. If I had to guess I would say I lost .5lbs in the last 6 weeks. My energy levels are certainly higher, and my body temperature is now back to normal where prior to this I was running an average of 1.5 degrees cold. (96-97 on average) This would suggest at rest thermogenisis has changed. My activity levels are almost identical, I work the same job and do the same work outs but I will say my intensity is higher. (I can lift more)

As for the water weight argument you are correct its too short to tell, I am not outside of average variance levels to make a solid argument. You should really read the two studies I linked though, the second one shows an amazing number of physiological systems effected by under and over feeding.

[Electricheadd]

I've had a look through the study you've linked, and while it certainly suggests a hormonal response to losing weight, it does seem to imply this is more an issue when trying to prevent weight-gain as opposed to actually losing weight. Assumedly this'd depend on how long it's taking you to lose weight. Great read though. I couldn't seem to find anything about how long it'd take for this kind of hormonal change begin to take place... I'm expecting to be at my target weight within a few months, I'm working under the assumption that my metabolism will survive this process without too much damage.

In my personal opinion the mechanisms that facilitate weight regain also slow weight loss. This does not mean don't diet, and don't decrease calories, these are the only true ways to lose fat. What it means is that we need to recognize that your body is striving for homeostasis. (See second law of thermodynamics) If you know this you can form a plan to get around it and address the long term implications. For me the idea of eating 1800 calories and working out 5-6 times a week is not sustainable. However, if I understand this I can implement some diet breaks, reverse dieting to avoid the fat regain and remain lean while transitioning to maintenance/bulk.


Take a look at the first study I linked, it is much more telling when it comes to obese people who are dieting down.

http://www.biolayne.com/wp-content/u...-Free-Mass.pdf

[dbp]

The minnesota starvation subjects only had like 10-15% of the RMR drop explained by adaptation. The rest was simply due to losing bodyweight.

People love to quote the effects of that study, both physiologically and mentally. They forget that those guys were dieted to extreme low levels of bodyfat, like 5% near the end. They also did a fair amount of physical activity.

A much different ballgame than going from like 20% to 15%, or 15% to 10% like many people here are doing.

[Electricheadd]

The minnesota starvation subjects only had like 10-15% of the RMR drop explained by adaptation. The rest was simply due to losing bodyweight.

People love to quote the effects of that study, both physiologically and mentally. They forget that those guys were dieted to extreme low levels of bodyfat, like 5% near the end. They also did a fair amount of physical activity.

A much different ballgame than going from like 20% to 15%, or 15% to 10% like many people here are doing.

I agree the average guy looking to lose 5% body fat has nothing to worry about he will not be in a deficit long enough to worry. However, a fat guy going from 45% body fat to 15% or a competition body builder going from 20% to 5% is the subset of people we are targeting this discussion at. The 15% adaption your referring to is Lyle McDonalds interpretation of the data. They actually showed 40% decrease but Lyle then applied several factors to come to the 15% number. Keep in mind though 15% of a 3000 calorie diet is 450 calories up in smoke. This also sets you up for weight regain after your cut is over.

[Revolutionize]

The real issue is why are you cutting at 5'7" 150lb?

Ditto that.