Does your BMR lower when you cut?

[CastorTroy]

If you start eating a very low-calorie diet, will your BMR lower?

[sawastea]

Your BMR will be affected when you lose (or gain) weight as well as LBM and age. So, to answer your question, yes...

Here is a quick example:

25 Age
180 Weight in pounds
72 Height in inches
0.5 Activity factor: .3 sedentary, .5 moderate, .75 heavy

1931.309091 Basal Metabolic rate

965.6545455 Caloric Expenditure during activity (Activity factor)
193.1309091 thermic effect of food

2703.832727 Final BMR

3203.832727 Eat this many cals/day to gain one pound per week
2203.832727 Eat this many cals/day to lose one pound per week




Now, it's a year later and I lost 10 lbs...

26 Age
170 Weight in pounds
72 Height in inches
0.5 Activity factor: .3 sedentary, .5 moderate, .75 heavy

1862.236364 Basal Metabolic rate
931.1181818 Caloric Expenditure during activity (Activity factor)
186.2236364 thermic effect of food

2607.130909 Final BMR

3107.130909 Eat this many cals/day to gain one pound per week
2107.130909 Eat this many cals/day to lose one pound per week

[mj4spc]

I've wondered the same thing.

When i first started to cut, I wasn't getting any noticable results until I got down to 1800 calories, but even if I was as low as 1500, I was not seeing any negative change in LBM.

I've lost nearly 30 pounds, but actually dropped 40 in fat and gained ten in muscle. I would have thought that the extra muscle would ahve helped to speed my metabolism, but I just can't seem to get and consistent drops in anymore. I'll go two weeks without a change and then drop 4 pounds over four days. I can't correlate it to anything else either.

[CastorTroy]

Originally posted by sawastea
Your BMR will be affected when you lose (or gain) weight as well as LBM and age. So, to answer your question, yes...

Here is a quick example:

25 Age
180 Weight in pounds
72 Height in inches
0.5 Activity factor: .3 sedentary, .5 moderate, .75 heavy

1931.309091 Basal Metabolic rate

965.6545455 Caloric Expenditure during activity (Activity factor)
193.1309091 thermic effect of food

2703.832727 Final BMR

3203.832727 Eat this many cals/day to gain one pound per week
2203.832727 Eat this many cals/day to lose one pound per week




Now, it's a year later and I lost 10 lbs...

26 Age
170 Weight in pounds
72 Height in inches
0.5 Activity factor: .3 sedentary, .5 moderate, .75 heavy

1862.236364 Basal Metabolic rate
931.1181818 Caloric Expenditure during activity (Activity factor)
186.2236364 thermic effect of food

2607.130909 Final BMR

3107.130909 Eat this many cals/day to gain one pound per week
2107.130909 Eat this many cals/day to lose one pound per week

how did you get all of that exact info on your bmr and the thermic effect of food?

[sawastea]

Originally posted by CastorTroy
how did you get all of that exact info on your bmr and the thermic effect of food?

I have an excel program that inputs numbers and ratios...

[stabmaster]

of those ten figures, only about 1 or 2 of them are even remotely "significant."

calories are nearly a constitutive place holder between dietary energy and pounds lost on the scale. those equations (being constitutive) are only as good as the results will adhere to.

your bmr not only drops due to the decrease in bodyweight (fat and muscle), but also due to your biochemical responses (leptin, ghrelin, thyroid hormone)... etcetcetc.

Long story short is that your BMR decreases like a ton of bricks (the "plateau"). The "plateau" is an annoying coin phrase which totally disregards the dynamics of your metabolism. If you stop losing weight, than your BMR has dropped significantly. You can calculate to some degree of inaccuracy where it is.

For example, my bmr is my "maintenence calories" minus "work performed." My BMR is around 2000 calories, but when on a serious plateau (a really serious one), I wasn't losing any weight when i was taking in 1600 calories per day (it was an experiment, not a really good idea or anyting). So my BMR was well under 1000 calories per day.

So the answer is yes, your BMR can cut in half or even more during a really bad plateau due to your biochemical responses (in order to keep your dumb ass alive).

[BuggerOff]

NO. I'm gonna be sailing against the wind on this one, as usual. I don't think your BMR alters significantly, no. I certainly don't believe it alters in large amounts.

Think about it.

1. Loosing fat isn't going to alter it much, as fat takes almost no energy to maintain to begin with (that's why it's ludicrous for obese people to be calculating their calories/day intake by multiplying their bodyweight, as is so often recommended. This is explained in the bottom of my post). Some people think fat does take energy to maintain, well, they're wrong. It does take a little bit, but not much. Fat is your energy store for times of need. It makes no sense that it would take energy to store the energy, or its not a very useful storage at all, is it?

2. Most people already would have read my debunking of the "starvation theory" nonsense. Agree or disagree, that's my opinion: it's nonsense. If you went on a very low energy diet and your body reacted by dropping your energy needs (i.e. dropping your BMR significantly), then it would stand to reason that your body either i) was working inefficently to begin with, and burning way more energy than it really needed to or ii) your body is now not doing something that it was doing before, in order to conserve - what would need to be - a huge amount of energy. Either line of reasoning is flawed. The basic logic is the same for both reasons (it's a fundamental law of physics that you can't get something out of nothing and you can't turn something into nothing).

Confused? Here's an example: if your body did in fact react by dropping your energy requirements, then it needs to have stopped doing something. It can't just conserve energy by magic! The question is, "what has it stopped doing"? Breathing and heartbeat are the two basic bodily functions that consume the most energy, and they remain unaltered. In order to significantly effect your BMR, your body would have to be doing something monumentaly different. And the fact is, it's just not. The same argument works in reverse. If your body was working ineffeciently to begin with and burning more energy than it needed to, then what was the "something" that it was doing in order to burn that energy? It can't burn energy by magic either.

There is a grand total of zero scientific studies that prove "starvation mode" is real.

Keep in mind, in order to significantly effect your BMR, we're talking about very large amounts of energy, thus very large changes in bodily functions.

Now, just to make something clear. If you are overweight, it would take more effort (and thus more energy) to move around, run, walk etc. Just because you're shifting more weight. But this is not BMR and should not be confused with BMR.



Sidepoint:

Instead of calculating your daily caloric needs by multiplying your bodyweight by a certain number, a much more logical way to do it is to multiply your lean bodyweight by a certain number. I would suggest 12. The logic behind this is simple: If you multiply your (unlean) bodyweight to get your calorie intake, then it suggests that a 250lbl fat office worker requires exactly the same amount of energy as a 250lbl, 8% bodyfat bodybuilder. Obviously, this is a ridiculous statement, as the bodybuilder would have a MUCH higher BMR due to all his muscle.

Note, that the bodybuilder's end figure would almost be exaclty the same as if he multiplied his lean bodyweight, while the office worker's figures would vary considerably. This is an example of "everyday Joes" take a rule-of-thumb designed for top athletes and apply it to themselves. For a slim athlete, using your (unlean) bodyweight is fine. Not so if you're obese, for the reasons explained above.

[CastorTroy]

wow bugger, that really does make a lot of sense. thanks for your detailed response i really appreciate it!

it really put things into perspective and made me realize how the starvation theory is most likely erroneous. good post!

[stabmaster]

Originally posted by BuggerOff
NO. 2. Most people already would have read my debunking of the "starvation theory" nonsense. Agree or disagree, that's my opinion: it's nonsense. If you went on a very low energy diet and your body reacted by dropping your energy needs (i.e. dropping your BMR significantly), then it would stand to reason that your body either i) was working inefficently to begin with, and burning way more energy than it really needed to or ii) your body is now not doing something that it was doing before, in order to conserve - what would need to be - a huge amount of energy. Either line of reasoning is flawed. The basic logic is the same for both reasons (it's a fundamental law of physics that you can't get something out of nothing and you can't turn something into nothing).

You're wrong.

Your body i) was working efficiently rebuilding tissues and replicating cells which is optimal for maintaining health in times of adequate caloric intake.

ii) your body does turn off functions that are not necessary for immediate survival; those functions include reproductive functions. Stay in a significant calorie deficit for an extended period of time and you will not be able to use your manhood whether you want to or not.

your body also slows down rate of tissue repair and cellular metabolism. these functions are necessary for survival, and optimal rates are dictated when caloric surplus is available, but will slow down when necessary.

Arre you truely suggesting that over 3.8 billion years we have not adapted any metabolic recourse for times of famine? I'm not going to go into your rant of ill logic, because you're probably a mechanical engineer or something and you not only think you know everything already, but also lack critical thinking skills.

Read some books. i'm not going to do your homework for you.

[user34566548717114]

Originally posted by stabmaster
You're wrong.

Your body i) was working efficiently rebuilding tissues and replicating cells which is optimal for maintaining health in times of adequate caloric intake.

ii) your body does turn off functions that are not necessary for immediate survival; those functions include reproductive functions. Stay in a significant calorie deficit for an extended period of time and you will not be able to use your manhood whether you want to or not.

your body also slows down rate of tissue repair and cellular metabolism. these functions are necessary for survival, and optimal rates are dictated when caloric surplus is available, but will slow down when necessary.

Arre you truely suggesting that over 3.8 billion years we have not adapted any metabolic recourse for times of famine? I'm not going to go into your rant of ill logic, because you're probably a mechanical engineer or something and you not only think you know everything already, but also lack critical thinking skills.

Read some books. i'm not going to do your homework for you.

correct.....your body has a design for what it whats to be before you were born.....if your lucky you may have genetics that allow for a static 6-7% body fat however, getting below that requires extreme measures and there is a reason why, same thing goes for peoples who bf's are around 10-15% and it is difficult to get much lower....

[BuggerOff]

First, off let me make it clear that I'm talking about "starvation mode" theory here. Not a truly starving human being like someone in a POW detention camp. The two are very different.

The things you say may be true of someone who is starving to death on zero calories per day, but not someone who is simply dieting hard.

Your body i) was working efficiently rebuilding tissues and replicating cells which is optimal for maintaining health in times of adequate caloric intake.

Are you suggesting that it stops rebuilding tissues and replicating cells? That's utter nonsense. Even if you're only claiming that the body simply ceases to do this as efficiently as it was before, the energy it would conserve by doing this is minimal. Certainly not enough to elicit "starvation mode" theory.

ii) your body does turn off functions that are not necessary for immediate survival; those functions include reproductive functions. Stay in a significant calorie deficit for an extended period of time and you will not be able to use your manhood whether you want to or not.

I've been told time and time again that my calorie intake is too low and I'm in starvation mode. I can assure you that my manhood works just fine.

I'm not going to go into your rant of ill logic...

Is that so? Let us consider your logic for a minute.

Arre you truely suggesting that over 3.8 billion years we have not adapted any metabolic recourse for times of famine?

Are you truly suggesting that over 3.8 billion years of adaptation, we have evolved so inefficiently that we store energy in the form of fat, specificly for use in times of famine, yet when that time comes around, the body will actually not use the stored up fat, and instead start "switching off" vital bodily functions!? Well, you must be, as there's no other option.

Now let's look at the numbers and see how they would have to work for your logic to hold true...

It has been shown through trial and error that the "maintanence level" for a relatively trim individual at 200 pounds is roughly 3000 calories per day.

Now lets assume a 200 pound man is attempting to lose weight, and diets by eating 1000 calories per day. Most will tell you this is far too low, and that person is sure to go into "starvation mode" where his body will "hoarde fat". Sound familiar?

Consider that the maintanence level is 3000 calories a day. This man is eating 1000. This means that he is 2000 calories per day off maintanence. For reference, consider that 45 minutes at a brisk pace on an exercise bike will burn roughly 150-200 calories.

Are you trying to tell me that this man's body is conserving a whopping 2000 calories a day - the equivilant of 8 hours of solid exercise - by "inefficiently rebuilding tissues and replicating cells" and by failing to get erections!!?? (which I'm sure would still be possible anway, but just for argument's sake).

I think it's plain to see who is using the "ill logic".

Read some books. i'm not going to do your homework for you.

Thank god for that. Anyway, I don't need to read books on how to lose fat quickly. Why? Because I did it myself. I know how to do it. My photos are posted for everyone to see. The proof is in the pudding.

[stabmaster]

oh my god. please check your ego at the door and forget what you thought you know.

if your dick still works, you're not at 1/2 BMR. that much we can agree on. the rest i'll leave to the imagination.

[BuggerOff]

So that's the best you can do?

You're the one that started by informing me I should do my homework and "read some books" and stating I was ranting with ill logic. The point I was trying to make that you mistook for ego was that if your "starvation mode" theories are true, then I should have hoarded fat and not lost any weight. But that's just not the case. I wasn't trying to big-note, I was just using a convenient example.

But you could also look at John Stone's website (not that I even pretend to compare my results to his!). Look at the calories he was eating when he started. He didn't hoarde fat or go into starvation mode either.

I found your comments to be rude and slightly offensive. In the future, maybe you should think about what you're saying and make sure you can back yourself up, eh?

And I haven't got an ego at all. I stated right from the start that I wouldn't give anyone advice until I've done it myself, and that's the point I was making. I only give advice from personal experience that I know to be true. Not something that I read in some psuedo-scientific gym-junkie guide to "getting ripped up fast".

[stabmaster]

not that i give a ****, but here's an exerpt from "handbook in treatment of eating disorders" which states specifically that starvation symptoms can be studied by caloric deficits rather than completely eliminating dietary energy intake.

why I feel the f*cking need to justify myself to you is completely beguiling to me.

http://river-centre.org/StarvSympt.html

[BuggerOff]

what does that prove? I haven't looked at it yet, but unless it says that "hoarding fat" is a symptom of starvation, your point is mute.

You also have to ask the question, how much energy is being consumed? Are we talking about 50 calories a day, 100, 1500, what?

[stabmaster]

Originally posted by BuggerOff
what does that prove? I haven't looked at it yet...

and that's exactly why i'm done playing with you.

[BuggerOff]

So it does say that a symptom of starvation is "hoarding fat"? No, it doesn't. In fact, it says that the men lost a whopping 25% of their former weight. I guess the apparant loss of the use of their manhood and their supposed inefficiency in rebuilding tissues and replicating cells doesn't quite conserve as much energy as you thought?

Playing with me? All you've done is take a quote completely out of context in a transparent attempt to save some inkling of superiority. Come back when you've got an argument.

Or better yet, just admit that maybe I have a point instead of stubbornly persisting in the spreading of useless gym-junkie misinformation.

[sawastea]

I liked reading both sides of the argument, try to keep it civilized and limit any flaming.

Can't We All Just Get along?"

[user34566548717114]

ok if your metabolic rate didn't shift while dieting and losing weight there would be alot more shredded people walking around

BOTTOM LINE: The lower in body fat you get losing more is gonna be more difficult, its alot easier to go from 20%-18% then going from 5% to 3%

[stabmaster]

don't try to use logic here, buddy... that stuff just doesn't fly!

[Emma-Leigh]

Just thought I'd throw in some articles/ideas:

The starvation study that the other link is to is done by a guy called Keys (in the 1950's). He did a lot of research on starvation adaptation (if you can find his papers they are a good read - esp this one Changes of basal metabolic rate in man in semi-starvation and refeeding You can find it in the Journal of Applied Physiology 1958 (12) pages 230–8 (it is not on the web).

There was a good lot of research done on some people that lived in calorie restriction for ages - now called the Biosphere experiment... try this:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/72/4/946?

You might also want to read these:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/6/1413

http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/111/9/1409

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/52/3/415?

And this:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/336/25/1802?

And some general stuff with a little to do with leptin:
http://physrev.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/79/2/451

[CastorTroy]

So, would it be beneficial to have one day every month or so when you eat like 2x calories you normally would. Would this help keep your BMR in check?

[Emma-Leigh]

Originally posted by CastorTroy
So, would it be beneficial to have one day every month or so when you eat like 2x calories you normally would. Would this help keep your BMR in check?

My personal belief - Yes. Especially if your calorie deficiency is greatly below your TEE (RMR and EE).

Your body quickly adapts to lower energy intake - less than 24 hours of lower calorie consumption is needed to decrease your RMR and decrease your EE - This is because all of the cellular processes in your body slow down (due to a decrease in sympathetic tone, a decrease in T3 and a decrease in GH) and your behaviour alters (usually subconciously) so your energy expenditure is decreased.

A re-feed helps to boost your body back up into positive energy balance and gets everything going again. Also, it is good to note that 1 day of over-feeding will not result in a substantial gain (especially if it is from carbohydrates - which require massive over-feeding to be converted to appreciable levels of fat)... [Just incase you are interested -

From http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/1/3#B9 :

"With respect to body energy requirements, serum leptin falls dramatically with short-term fasting (12 h) in the absence of appreciable weight loss... In contrast, 1 day of massive overfeeding (120 cal/kg over 12 h) was sufficient to raise serum leptin 40% in the absence of a weight gain..." ]


But - I feel the length and frequency of the re-feeds are different for each person. The leaner you are and the more severe your calorie restriction, the more frequently you would need to re-feed to keep your body ticking over at a good metabolic rate.

Play around, see what works for you.

[CastorTroy]

thanks emma! you are always extremely helpful to everyone!

[Emma-Leigh]

Originally posted by CastorTroy
thanks emma! you are always extremely helpful to everyone!

You are welcome

And thank you!!

[stabmaster]

Originally posted by Emma-Leigh
...But - I feel the length and frequency of the re-feeds are different for each person...

you said a mouthfull there... like... seriously.

[BuggerOff]

Emma,

Thanks for posting those articles. But they DID NOT even remotely prove starvation theory, as it is discussed and as it applies to these forums.

i) The study aimed to replicate post WW2 famine conditions where the people were truly starving. It did not apply to a healthy individual dieting on a heavily restricted but controlled calorie level.

ii) Even then, the "slow down in metabloc rate" could easily be accounted for by the severe muscle loss and severe restriction in physical activity that the subjects underwent. Nothing new has been discovered here, we knew that muscle raised your BMR already.

iii) MOST IMPORTANTLY, Not one of the subjects failed to lose weight or "hoarded bodyfat". In fact, they all underwent severe loss of weight in an extremely short time frame.

don't try to use logic here, buddy... that stuff just doesn't fly!

Erm...yeah, whatever. You do what you want, I'll do what I want. Good luck to ya.




dvv,

What you say, is of course true. This is because the human body is designed to have around 10-12% bodyfat. Going below that is extremely hard because we are supposed ot have that fat protecting our organs, for padding and insulation. It's harder to lose that fat, and you body will try and hang on to it (I guess you may start burning some muscle instead if you weren't doing things properly and already had a low BF%).

<hr>
Bottom line is: I can guarantee anyone going on a reduced calorie diet WILL NOT hoard body fat!!! I'll bet my life and everything I own on it. It's total and utter bull****. IMHO, eating 12X your lean bodyweight in calories per day is perfectly healthy and you will lose fat very fast with zero loss of muscle (providing you're eaitng a decent serve of protein and doing weights, and you're not a hugely steroid-pumped muscle head...and probably even then.
<hr>

[Zachary]

Originally posted by BuggerOff
<hr>
Bottom line is: I can guarantee anyone going on a reduced calorie diet WILL NOT hoard body fat!!! I'll bet my life and everything I own on it. It's total and utter bull****. IMHO, eating 12X your lean bodyweight in calories per day is perfectly healthy and you will lose fat very fast with zero loss of muscle (providing you're eaitng a decent serve of protein and doing weights, and you're not a hugely steroid-pumped muscle head...and probably even then.
<hr>

I don't make a habit of posting much anymore, but I thought I'd poke my head in here and mention something.

BuggerOff is right that your body is not about to 'hoard fat' without the presence of some kind of abnormal condition. BMR obviously slows in response to diet, as T4-->T3 conversion decreases, leptin decreases, and so on, but if one continues to eat under BMR (and BMR can only drop so low -- some body processes can't really slow), one with continue to lose weight, at least some of which is going to be fat -- unless you're at ~3% (when losing fat = death).

That said, making any kind of 'rule' about how low you can go in calories is inherently absurd. It's very much dependent on individual metabolism (which can vary greatly), length of diet, etc. Most cutting diets I employ involve days where calories are dropped to the 800-1200 range. Is that unhealthy? No, because it's not for an extended period of time. Look at the UD2, for example. 1200 calories/day for four days -- but then you refeed. Even for an extended duration (though a diet for more than ~8 weeks should probably be interrupted by a week of maintenance), any 'lower limit' is going to vary from person to person, sometimes greatly.

But finally, BuggerOff is thinking rather wishfully in terms of muscle loss. Short of heavy drug usage (Thyroid, PHs/AAS, Fibrates, DNP, there's a lot of fun stuff out there...) or nearly flawless genetics, any 'diet' or period of hypocaloric eating is going to result in muscle loss. Careful planning can make that muscle loss very small in relation to the fat loss, but to expect zero muscle loss for a natural dieter with normal or subnormal genetics is simply wishful thinking.

[BuggerOff]

Well I'll accept that, Zach. Maybe I was a little over enthusiastic with my claims of zero muscle loss. I also agree with you on the metabolism thing. Makes sense that the body may slow it as much as it can, but that amount would bound to be minimal before it would be forced to shut of vital bodily functions, which is a ridiculous notion.

I'm just forming my opinions using common sense, and they are adaptable. I can meet you on that one. It's this "you will hoard bodyfat in 'starvation mode' if you dare to go below 10X your bodyweight" sort of mentality that gives me the knee-jerk reaction.

It's just absurd misinformation and actually hinders people instead of helps them.

[user34566548717114]

if you eat in a calorie defect your body will not store bodyfat, but what if you eat in a calorie defect for a long period of time then go back to normal eating habbits????