PDA

View Full Version : What SLOWS METABOLISM MORE?



nutritionfreak1
11-01-2008, 04:19 PM
what affects metabolism more... the amount of a cal deficit, OR the length of time of the cal deficit?

Take two situations

1. Guy goes into a 1500 cal deficit for one day of the week, and then goes to his maintenance cal amount for the rest of the week

2. Guy goes does a steady cal deficit everyday for a week, and by the end of the week, his cal deficits add up to 1500

Whos got the higher metabolsim?

Tommy W.
11-01-2008, 05:20 PM
Neither will affect metabolism

Dr Clay
11-01-2008, 05:25 PM
what affects metabolism more... the amount of a cal deficit, OR the length of time of the cal deficit?

Take two situations

1. Guy goes into a 1500 cal deficit for one day of the week, and then goes to his maintenance cal amount for the rest of the week

2. Guy goes does a steady cal deficit everyday for a week, and by the end of the week, his cal deficits add up to 1500

Whos got the higher metabolsim?

That's a very good question. I don't know that any studies have looked at this topic.

Because we don't know which is superior, I utilize both concepts in nutrition plans that I design.

Best,

nutritionfreak1
11-04-2008, 08:56 AM
i would say that the time spent at reduced cals plays a bigger role in the amount of cal deficit. The less time the less your body has time to adjust..

US_Ranger
11-04-2008, 11:03 AM
what affects metabolism more... the amount of a cal deficit, OR the length of time of the cal deficit?

Take two situations

1. Guy goes into a 1500 cal deficit for one day of the week, and then goes to his maintenance cal amount for the rest of the week

2. Guy goes does a steady cal deficit everyday for a week, and by the end of the week, his cal deficits add up to 1500

Whos got the higher metabolsim?


That's a very good question. I don't know that any studies have looked at this topic.

Because we don't know which is superior, I utilize both concepts in nutrition plans that I design.

Best,

I was just thinking about this today and was wondering what studies have been published on it.

I was also thinking about it slightly differently.

Person A on a cut: (7 days for sake of argument)

Day 1: -500
Day 2: -500
Day 3: -500
Day 4: -500
Day 5: -500
Day 6: -500
Day 7: +1000

That's -2000 for the week.

Person B

Day 1: -300
Day 2: -300
Day 3: -300
Day 4: -300
Day 5: -300
Day 6: -300
Day 7: -300

That's -2100 for the week.

So both are around the same calorie deficit for the week. I would imagine Person B will have some sort of lowered leptin levels due to the calorie deficit BUT it's only a 300 calorie deficit. Person A is in more of a deficit for most of the week and then goes over big on 1 day.

Which is best for fat loss?
Which is best for overall metabolism?
Which is best for general health?
Which is best for performance?
etc etc etc

It makes me wonder if day to day calorie in vs calorie out is more important than week to week calorie in vs calorie out.

Jules Verne
11-04-2008, 11:31 AM
While I personally think that an individual's response may well be different between the two in the longer-term, I also would suspect it would be highly variable between individuals. Depending on training and psychological effects.

With the reasonable deficits quoted, I seem to do better with scenario A. I should say I don't think it is to do with somehow a calorie not being the same in each case which is why I suspect the end result would be individualistic.

For whatever reasons, I test to stall out a lot more easily with the second scenario.

If I reduce calories too much (which is really hard for me anyway) I just lose too much energy and workouts suffer.

I would guess that in a study, where everything is controlled, including workout regimen and amount of cardio etc.. the results averaged over a decent number of individuals would be very similar.

Of course I'm just 'shooting from the hip' here with my thoughts based on my experiences.

Also, why does the cycle have to be 7 days? What if it is 4 days or (to be extreme) 21 days? I would think there would be a difference there.

BlueFenix13S
11-04-2008, 11:33 AM
Whos got the higher metabolsim?

The one who keeps training intensely.

I'd rather increase energy expenditure than cut nutrient intake.

Jules Verne
11-04-2008, 11:40 AM
The one who keeps training intensely.

I'd rather increase energy expenditure than cut nutrient intake.

x2. So the 'trick' is eating enough and at the right times to maintain both energy and a good calorie deficit - well IMO anyway. This is where I think what and when you eat starts to become important as opposed to just saying 'it doesn't matter' what/when you eat.

But that makes it more complicated, because we all have different schedules, metabolisms etc.., so we need to take some science and try to make it work in the best way we can for our individual situation.

US_Ranger
11-04-2008, 12:35 PM
While I personally think that an individual's response may well be different between the two in the longer-term, I also would suspect it would be highly variable between individuals. Depending on training and psychological effects.

With the reasonable deficits quoted, I seem to do better with scenario A. I should say I don't think it is to do with somehow a calorie not being the same in each case which is why I suspect the end result would be individualistic.

For whatever reasons, I test to stall out a lot more easily with the second scenario.

If I reduce calories too much (which is really hard for me anyway) I just lose too much energy and workouts suffer.

I would guess that in a study, where everything is controlled, including workout regimen and amount of cardio etc.. the results averaged over a decent number of individuals would be very similar.

Of course I'm just 'shooting from the hip' here with my thoughts based on my experiences.

Also, why does the cycle have to be 7 days? What if it is 4 days or (to be extreme) 21 days? I would think there would be a difference there.

I agree with you as I would do better on scenario A as well. (I'm currently running something similar to it, although I'm not quite sure what my macro's/energy expenditure are/is)

As for the 7 days, I just picked it for argument's sake and because it's a rounded week. A lot of people tend to have a big day once a week (possible bro science but also affects metabolism) so I figured it might fit in more with the "cheat meal" or "refeed" regulars here.


The one who keeps training intensely.

I'd rather increase energy expenditure than cut nutrient intake.

I also agree with this. When I'm home, this is how I do it. I don't count **** and I don't gain weight except for 2-3 pounds gained/lost here and there. Constant activity and staying busy lets me eat whatever I want (only clean food though). However, at my current point in time, I can't just be more active whenever I want so it's back to the ol' calorie counting. (haven't done this in about 3 years)

Jules Verne
11-04-2008, 02:16 PM
As for the 7 days, I just picked it for argument's sake and because it's a rounded week. A lot of people tend to have a big day once a week (possible bro science but also affects metabolism) so I figured it might fit in more with the "cheat meal" or "refeed" regulars here.



Sure, I realize why you picked 7 days for you example. My question wasn't really directed specifically at what you wrote, but more of a general statement or question on time frame.

I guess it was directed more at those who would say that the total calories over a day, or a week is all that matters. But why 1 day as opposed to 2 or 4 or 7 or 20 days? Obviously there is no sudden 'jump' and it's a question that is difficult to answer, but must have some impact. Sort of like asking what is the shortest time for bulking/cutting cycles.

My answer would be 'whatever seems to work for you'. Keeping the cycles (as you outlined) to 4-7 days or so seems reasonable, fits in with most peoples schedules and does seem about the right length, but I wonder if there is anything more scientific out there. I suppose you could try to base it on how long it takes you to deplete glycogen or something, but I've always decided based on how I feel - maintaining that energy vs. calorie deficit balance.

When I was training really hard, what worked for me was 3-5 days at -400-500kcal, then 1-2 days at +200-300kcal (as a carb-up), repeat.

US_Ranger
11-04-2008, 11:08 PM
bump in case anyone has studies to post

determined4000
11-04-2008, 11:29 PM
bump in case anyone has studies to post

the longer the deficit is. Poven from anorexia studies and I think the Nazis did something with it as well.

C-results
11-05-2008, 12:00 AM
Your body's metabolism would slow down over the week long period of low calorie deficit. You body would actually begin to store what it takes in because it thinks that it's starving. Therefore it will slow down metabolism and fat loss. I'm not sure about just a week, but over an extended period of time it will.

Dr. Horse
11-05-2008, 12:12 AM
http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID07E/uid07e00.htm#Contents

http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID07E/uid07e11.htm

http://fulltext.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2002/acsms/Papers/Chapman2.asp

Ricky_k
11-08-2008, 06:06 AM
The one who keeps training intensely.

I'd rather increase energy expenditure than cut nutrient intake.
i found increasing cardio over dreasing cals makes me feel alot better