Adaptive Thermogenesis - is it real and how to reverse?

[Daves_Not_Here]

In her post "Help from community re: stagnant weight loss", @Alysan describes how she has stalled at 140 pounds and inquired about Adaptive Thermogenesis.  In searching for it, I came upon Adaptive thermogenesis in humans at NCBI as well as a number of other articles and videos.  It describes how "a formerly obese individual will require ~300–400 fewer calories per day to maintain the same body weight and physical activity level as a never-obese individual of the same body weight and composition."  Meaning, if you've lost weight, your RMR is lower due to your lower body weight, and then lowered further by 300 to 400 more calories.  Yikes, this means I have to eat 800 calories less than before.

To add insult to injury, your appetite is increased over what it otherwise would be for that energy requirement.  Most discouraging is that the maladaption (lower BMR, higher appetite) lasts for years.

The article is great because it describes the various mechanisms by which these conditions are visited upon the person hoping to sustain a weight loss, and substantiates the anecdotes of the Biggest Loser contestants regaining their weight.

I think of all the posts here complaining of a weight loss stall that I have tended to dismiss as loss of focus; however, I'm starting to think there may be something there.  In my case, I seem to be stalled, but I had previously assumed it was because I've not been sufficiently diligent following my holiday gluttony.  So, the obvious questions are:

• Is Adaptive Thermogenesis real?  This could be rhetorical as there seems to be so much supporting anecdotal evidence.
• Are there effective ways for someone in this state to raise their BMR?
• Conversely, are there effective ways to further lower appetite to match the already lowered BMR?  (This would be my preference given that lower BMR may be associated with longevity.)
• Can the whole problem avoided altogether by losing weight in smaller phases and employing periodization as  @Dominique recommends?

[WavyDavey]

---

In long-term studies of weight-reduced children and adults, 80%-90% return to their previous weight percentiles 8, while studies of those successful at sustained weight loss indicate that the maintenance of a reduced degree of body fatness will probably require a lifetime of meticulous attention to energy intake and expenditure.

---

Sounds like the hard truth.

[Daves_Not_Here]

---

@WavyDaveywrote:

---

In long-term studies of weight-reduced children and adults, 80%-90% return to their previous weight percentiles 8, while studies of those successful at sustained weight loss indicate that the maintenance of a reduced degree of body fatness will probably require a lifetime of meticulous attention to energy intake and expenditure.

---

Sounds like the hard truth.

---

@WavyDavey - You're right, it is a hard truth, and initially pretty discouraging and intimidating to contemplate.  On the other hand, with knowledge comes power, and this article demystifies the stalling/regaining phenomenon that is so frustrating for those who have worked so hard to successfully lose a significant amount of weight.

My beef with the Biggest Loser regain discussions was that nobody is offering any kind of a mechanism or tactics on how to avoid.  At least if we understand the mechanisms, we should be more effective in responding.

One of the subtle points that is very easy to gloss over in the article is that the mechanisms that resist weight-loss maintenance are different from those that resist the initial weight loss.  I am coming to believe that it is much easier to initially lose weight that to sustain the weight loss long-term (the reasons for which go beyond Adaptive Thermogenesis and are probably worth a dedicated post). 

[WavyDavey]

I don't know if it is in play, but there is a dynamic that I find interesting.  Not sure what it is called actually, but I refer to it as elasticity. In terms of weight loss, I think the body's systems and coping mechanisms are fairly elastic. They can be stretched, but only so much at one time.

Just look at our bodies. If we gain or lose weight too quickly, what happens? Stretch marks (literal lack of elasticity). I really believe if we took things longer and slower with weight loss, the metabolism might adapt in a more natural, elastic way. Kind of the opposite of the Biggest Loser?

My gut tells me that our need for quick fixes is introducing hard limits onto us later in the process. Or maybe those limits exist regardless?

I haven't found any studies that show what very gradual weight loss over a 5 to 10 year period looks like (and if it sustains), but I think it would be interesting to see how a slow burn approach might work.

[Dominique]

Great paper! I do believe it’s real. I don’t think there’s much you can do about the lower BMR, other than wait until it settles at a higher level. However, it’s only a part of your total energy expenditure: NEAT (not mentioned specifically in the paper) is something you can have an impact on. Your Fitbit is a great tool to make sure NEAT is high enough. 

[Daves_Not_Here]

@Dominique -- NEAT being Non Exercise Activity Thermogenesis?  Was not aware of it until I read your post.

So, is the idea that our 24 hour energy consumption is comprised of three buckets?  Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR), NEAT, and exercise?  Or is NEAT the difference between RMR and BMR?

And, is the idea behind Fitbit's alarms to get up and move every hour to increase NEAT?

[Daves_Not_Here]

---

@WavyDaveywrote:

I don't know if it is in play, but there is a dynamic that I find interesting.  Not sure what it is called actually, but I refer to it as elasticity. In terms of weight loss, I think the body's systems and coping mechanisms are fairly elastic. They can be stretched, but only so much at one time.

Just look at our bodies. If we gain or lose weight too quickly, what happens? Stretch marks (literal lack of elasticity). I really believe if we took things longer and slower with weight loss, the metabolism might adapt in a more natural, elastic way. Kind of the opposite of the Biggest Loser?

My gut tells me that our need for quick fixes is introducing hard limits onto us later in the process. Or maybe those limits exist regardless?

I haven't found any studies that show what very gradual weight loss over a 5 to 10 year period looks like (and if it sustains), but I think it would be interesting to see how a slow burn approach might work.

---

@WavyDavey - you are speaking to the very questions I've been asking myself.  At this point, I've already lost the bulk of my weight and I wouldn't want to regain it back just to try losing it slowly (not saying that's what you are suggesting).  That would be a difficult 2 to 3 years, and probably more difficult than my trying to just get adapted at my current or lower weight over the next 3 years. 

And, as you mentioned, I don't know that if I lost it slowly, I would be facing any less of an issue with this Adaptive Thermogenesis.  But, now that I think of it -- if I'm unfortunate to regain the weight in the next year, maybe I'll try losing it slower next time.  I hope I don't have to run that experiment!

[Alysan]

I will be trying to fool my body in about a month. If I haven't lost any weight eating just 1600 cals per day and burning anywhere between 2100-2500 (2300 I is my daily average), then I will change it up. Thinking of going up to 2000 cals per day, or even maybe a bit higher, and maintain my weight for 5 or 6 weeks, then drop back down to 1600 per day. 

I'll leave my exercise consistent throughout. 

I'll come back and update my progress with you guys. 

Cheers!

(editing to add) FWIW I lost my first 15-ish lbs pretty slowly. By no means did it start melting off when I started working out April 2017. I cut down wine, kept my normal healthy diet. I want to say it took about 7 or 8 months to go from 154 to 137. I maintained there for a few months, then went up to 140 where I've been hanging steady for a couple months. I only started counting calories about 5 weeks ago, and even then I wasn't eating a drastically smaller amount of food. So it seems, at least for me, that initial slow weight loss didn't have any effect on whether or not I plateaued? 

[Akaka]

I'd be very interested to hear how this works for you - please do keep us posted 🙂

[Daves_Not_Here]

@Alysan - thanks for the detailed clarification -- I'm interested in whether losing the initial weight slowly or quickly affects this "stalling" phenomenon.  I lost my initial weight quickly, but it sounds like you lost slowly, but we're both temporarily stuck a moderate amount over our targets.

[Alysan]

@Akaka

I definitely will. I think about 3rd week of April I’ll start cycling my diet, if I haven’t lost any by then. 

[HisDudeness]

Interesting article. It would be interesting to know what the effects are for people who loose weight slowly rather than in a very short time frame. I'm doing a phase diet and only trying to loose 1-2 pounds per week and so far I am within that average 7 weeks in.

[WavyDavey]

I'm continually boggled by how quickly we want weight to come off.

I got and stayed overweight for over 20 years. 20 years of my body adapting to being heavier, to a slower metabolism.

Then, in one year, I decide to lose all the weight. So my body has to go through the reverse adaptations, except that now it's forced to do it within a year. And guess what?  It doesn't complete all the adaptations, the metabolism isn't recovered. Maybe it can't fully recover after 20 years of metabolic damage, but in my case I believe it to not be true.

I don't have any science to back up what I posted, it's just intuition thaat whenever our time in a process (weight gain/loss) is at a ratio of 20:1 (years), that just doesn't seem completely balanced?

[Alysan]

@HisDudeness

I gained slowly, over the course of just over a year, and then I lost slowly, over the course of about 8-12 months. Then the weight loss just stopped, despite me not changing anything about my eating habits, activity levels or workout routines. I remained stalled at 137 for a few months, and then gained a few and stayed at140 for a few months. 

Getting the Fitbit helped emotionally motivate me to lose the last 10, albeit the calorie allowance it have me was too high. The calorie counting module really helped. Once I set a 1600 cal/day limit, (along with upping intensity of my cardio routine), things seem to have jump started. I’ve lost 3lbs. 

For me I had to just work harder and eat less. We shall see if I can get below 137 for the first time in a couple years 🙂 

[Dominique]

@HisDudeness: "only" 1-2 lbs per week is 50-100 pounds per year. If this is what you end up losing in a year, I definitely wouldn’t describe that as losing "slowly". The key IMO is not losing slowly vs. fast, it’s alternating phases of weight loss (during which you can lose relatively fast) with phases of maintenance. The justification is given in Losing All Your Weight At Once.

[HisDudeness]

@DominiqueOh I should have mentioned, that I was doing a phase diet, this round (first one) I am doing -1,000 calorie a day deficit for 12 weeks, then take 4 weeks off in maintenance (and so on).

I started at 260 and I'm 7 weeks in at 250, so a little over a pound a week and that includes a week of vacation when I had no change. That would make it pretty close to 2 pounds a week so far.

For exercise I go to the gym 3 times a week do about 1/2 hour of strength training and 5 days of the week I go for a 1 mile walk. I would do 7 days a week, but I'm in Minnesota so weather can be a bit of a factor. I would like to ramp that up to 2 miles a day once Spring arrives.

I've been reading a lot online about muscle vs. fat loss, and I'm trying to avoid muscle loss as much as possible. I was planning on my next cutting phase to only do a -750 calorie deficit (should be at about 242) and then as I get closer to 200 drop down to -500 and then to -250 as I get closer to my long term goal of 165.

I think that is fairly slow.

[Daves_Not_Here]

---

@WavyDaveywrote:

I'm continually boggled by how quickly we want weight to come off.

... 

I don't have any science to back up what I posted, it's just intuiion thaat whenever our time in a process (weight gain/loss) is at a ratio of 20:1 (years), that just doesn't seem completely balanced?

---

@WavyDavey -- I agree that such a lopsided ratio lacks balance.  However, I'd argue that having an impatient, unbalanced attitude towards the crucial improvements we need to make in our lives is more effective than half-hearted approaches, particularly if we can leverage that aggressiveness to build and sustain new habits.

The reason why I want the weight to come off so quickly is the realization that (1) I turned into a fat slob who will die before I meet my grandchildren if I don't pull my head out and do something like now, and (2) it is 100% my fault and within my control to fix.  I'm getting up in years and have no more time to screw around.

My opinion is that people who need to lose weight are frequently given well-meaning but counterproductive advice:  weight loss is hard, you'll probably regain it all, slow down, keep your fat clothes, it's really difficult, you're likely to fail, it takes a lot of work, your metabolism is broken, be careful, etc.  All these admonitions tend to enable rationalization and inaction.  The message I think we need to give people is - ignore the naysayers who would keep you fat - take action now -  you can totally do this!

[WavyDavey]

---

@Daves_Not_Herewrote:

My opinion is that people who need to lose weight are frequently given well-meaning but counterproductive advice:  weight loss is hard, you'll probably regain it all, slow down, keep your fat clothes, it's really difficult, you're likely to fail, it takes a lot of work, your metabolism is broken, be careful, etc.  All these admonitions tend to enable rationalization and inaction.  The message I think we need to give people is - ignore the naysayers who would keep you fat - take action now -  you can totally do this!

---

I understand your point, but you went to some extremes above.

Weight loss IS hard. All the people seeking help here prove that out.

Some people are going to regain weight. Weight loss is not a completely linear, except at the beginning.

If you feel good throwing out larger clothes, great. But that's not a recipe for success, it's just commitment. If some of the weight comes back, you'll get to buy newer larger clothes, again.

It absolutely takes a lot of work. To imply otherwise is kind of an insult to anyone struggling to lose weight.

Metabolism is a key component to weight loss.

None of these things enable excuses, they're all critical factors in weight loss that people need to be aware of.

I feel it's far worse to set people up for failure by saying it's not hard and your attitude will win out in the end. It takes dedicated, sustained, intelligent effort, as far as I see.

[Daves_Not_Here]

@WavyDavey -- you and I agree on far more than we disagree.   You have a kinder and gentler style of communication, and I admit to being provocative.  The question is who is more persuasive.  Probably depends on the individual.

My opinion is that many things are both difficult and possible - losing weight, quitting smoking, breaking any bad habit.  I think people who focus on the difficulty tend to fail.  Those who focus on the possibility tend to succeed.  I believe that, while it's politically unacceptable to say so these days, there is a place for growing a spine and assuming personal responsibility for your outcomes.

In spite of the obesity epidemic growing unabated, here is the message that overweight people almost NEVER hear: what you weigh is 100% within your control (yes, I know there is a tiny fraction of medical exceptions).  It's not an insult to tell people, "you can totally do this".  I believe it's time for better messages than, "it's impossibly difficult".

I know that's not your message -- I'm using my response to you to make the point (and thanks for the opportunity to rant!).

[HokieHoo]

I have been enjoying reading this thread- so thanks for all the great posts. 

In terms of messaging that @WavyDavey and @Daves_Not_Here brought up, I think we have to remember that the level of effort required is different for all of us, and so, what is "hard" for one person may be "easy" for another. Diversity in messaging is good, because we don't all respond to, or get motivated by, the same messaging.

I also wonder how much does our own experience bias us? I would say that weight loss is ‘easy-ish’ for me and I think my perspective is biased because I have always been successful at weight loss when I tried. When I read about people who are not successful, I generally chalk it up to not trying hard enough or tracking inaccurately- and again I think that is because I am biased by my own experience.

The hardest part for me is that it takes constant effort in calorie counting, food journaling, and that I have to plan my food and exercise every single day. When I am doing those things, weight loss is easy. The daunting part for me is that I think I will have to do this forever. I used to think that I would get to a point where I would be on auto-pilot and not have to count and plan everything. Do you feel like the healthy habits are getting ingrained and that you can spend less time thinking about and planning it every day? Do you count/track less than you used to and still find success? Am I the only one who is surprised by how much effort the tracking and planning part takes?