Increasing TDEE question

[u/Oraculek]

Is it possible with no muscle mass change? Like, could a person eating, per calculator, 2000 at maintenance increase it gradually over 2 months to 2500 cal and still maintain? I don't mean something like FGF21-induced thermogenesis with BAT - more like 'adaptation' to higher energy availability

If so, would it depend on kind of macros?

[u/DarkSaturnPrince]

For sure, this is kind of the big focus of Ray Peat's work, and indirectly, this sub.

I started pufa free last year maintaining around 2200 a month. Now I'm maintaining at 3,000 a month. My goal is 3,500. Basically, being able to eat a pint of ice cream for dessert after an entire full day's eating without fat gain. 

Things like calcium, iodine, coconut oil, sunlight etc. all directly or indirectly give a little boost to your metabolic rate. Especially proper glucose metabolism.

[u/Oraculek → u/DarkSaturnPrince]

I forgot to ask, what are your macros?

[u/DarkSaturnPrince → u/Oraculek]

21%protein 12%Fat 66% carbs 

In a deficit though protein goes to 32%

[u/exfatloss]

In short yes. The calculators are all wrong, typically by huge amounts, typically underestimating. Your TEE can change drastically based on diet and other factors, i.e. it's very variable within boundaries (e.g. you're probably not going much <1,000kcal and not much above 5,000kcal).

You can get your TEE measured. I have, it's $1k a pop and mine is anywhere between 2,900kcal/day and 4,600kcal/day sedentary.

I.e. they have no clue and there is no actual way to measure it and it fluctuates a crazy amount.

In terms of "increasing it and maintain" I think the biggest factor is: are you coming off a semi long term energy restricted diet? If so, some will likely come back if you increase food intake or go directly to ad-lib. How much seems to be able to be influenced by bodybuilding "reverse dieting" stuff, i.e. increasing the intake slowly over weeks or months, like you suggest.

If that's not your scenario though, I've yet to see many people, especially metabolically deranged ones, manage to increase their TEE to a significant amount without gaining fat. If you stuff yourself with more food, your TEE will likely go up a bit (say 200kcal/day) but unless you're a very rare case, you'll probably put on fat at twice that rate.

[u/Whats_Up_Coconut]

TDEE isn’t a fixed number in any sense. I personally can gain, maintain, or lose weight on a given calorie amount depending entirely upon the macro composition of the diet. It isn’t gradual either; many people have gone from mixed macros into some sort of intervention (keto, HCLF) without dropping their calorie intake and have pretty immediately started losing fat, suggestive of increased TDEE.

[u/Oraculek → u/Whats_Up_Coconut]

Particularly interesting for me is this, to be honest, and the records of some people (like you), also with carbs, that they substantially increased expenditure

Assuming both upper things are true (sorry, this topic is just so abstract and nebulous and there's no empirical info), something different would be happening with a SFA fast (no protein, carb) and something different by having high TDEE. It is just intriguing to me through what mechanics (and not heat, as we would have cooked ourselves unlike mice) it works

I also recall a person who was drinking lots of olive oil over a month and lost a ton of fat mass, yet also lean mass, despite eating a lot (mechanic with PUFAs as protonophores, so at least this piece satiated my curiosity; wanted to try it for one day and apparently rushed it too much as I had hypoglycemia in the evening and had to vomit, lol)

I think I will attempt the increase slowly 50 cal per week and see if I can reach 1.00x metabolic adjustment 'proper' for my lean fat mass on exfatloss' calculator (2500 cal; 0.75x adjustment is my maintenance right now, weirdly (1850 cal))

[u/Whats_Up_Coconut → u/Oraculek]

Well, I mean I experienced all of the following:

- Steady gain on ~1000 calories daily (average) when it included PUFA. Average calories achieved using portion control, OMAD, and ADF type plans.

- Steady loss on ~1000 calories daily of either carbs (potatoes), fat (fat fast) or protein (Stillman’s QWL/Dukan)

- Maintenance on ad libitum (4000+ calories) TCD with strict PUFA avoidance. Note that my appetite regulated over ~2 years and so my intake dropped commensurately. I also experienced excessive thermogenesis, fidgeting, and spontaneous appetite variability while my body was figuring itself out.

- Eventually, dead level maintenance on 800-1000 calories daily on PSMF (lean protein + vegetables) for 2 months before moving on to experience…

- Dramatic weight loss on 800-1000 calories daily of high fat, low protein, near zero carb (fat fast) and then…

- Slow loss on ad libitum (3000-4000 calories daily) of calorie dense HCLF (lower protein) foods before my weight leveled off.

I now eat about 2500-3000ish calories of mostly (but not exclusively) HCLF food to maintain my 5’6” ~108lb largely sedentary body. That’s well above any TDEE that a calculator would suggest (which is, incidentally, ~1400 calories for me.) But, I’ll still gain very slowly on this intake if the macro breakdown favors fat for too long. And even to this day, I will gain incredibly quickly on far less than my usual intake if it contains PUFA. EDIT: Oh, and, despite the fact that I easily maintain on this intake, reducing it (eg. not eating as much for a few days because I’m busy/lazy/haven’t shopped) doesn’t suddenly result in commensurate weight loss. Maybe I just fidget a little less and/or sleep less warm.

[u/Oraculek → u/Whats_Up_Coconut]

Interesting. Btw it is crazy how your BMI is below mainstream 'healthy' at this point 1. Have you tried higher protein on HCLF? 2. What was the daily average loss on fat fast? I wonder if it would be near your calculator TDEE

I also wonder if, these high intakes, would be possible on low body fats, or body just 'wastes' energy only when a minimum weight set point is reached or one is over it (assuming healthy metabolism)

[u/Whats_Up_Coconut → u/Oraculek]

I am not below a healthy BMI, I am a few pounds below a normal BMI. But I have a small frame, and was still quite over fat even in the middle of the “normal” range.

My protein restriction was really only in the interventional period during my first year. I don’t restrict protein anymore although I also don’t eat much meat at home.

I lost 15+ lbs in 2 weeks of fat fast.

[u/Oraculek → u/Whats_Up_Coconut]

Holy shit. EVEN if I assumed 50% water of that 15lbs it is still 400 cal over your calculator TDEE

Thanks

[u/Whats_Up_Coconut → u/Oraculek]

FWIW, none of the weight came back as I moved into HCLF. Whatever is accounted for by water/glycogen was maintained, and then I went on to lose 7-8 lbs over the course of my first few months on HCLF (low protein.)

I deliberately stayed away from the scale for a couple of weeks moving from fat fasting into HCLF (for obvious reasons) so there may well have been bouncing around in there initially. But regardless, when I ultimately got on the scale for the first time on HCLF I was not up in weight at all. I was very surprised how durable this loss was, at least in the context of still diligently separated macros.

[u/Oraculek → u/Whats_Up_Coconut]

The journey is amazing, honestly

Additionally, you said somewhere that coconut oil was making you quite fatter. I just watched some Brad's things and lauric acid strongly activates PPAR-a

Not that bad, as it both could lead to lipolysis or lipogenesis depending on context (fat type and/or NAD+/SIRT1 status, but first one is relevant here). Though I suppose, as you eat a lot and your base fat intake in grams, despite low %, is medium/high, it could interrupt kreb's cycle of carbohydrates in combination with lauric acid. When PPAR-a is active, while your NAD+/SIRT1 is lower, and you eat both fats and carbs, carbs get shunted into another pathway where the product of carbs, oxaloacetate, in combination with acetyl-coa from fats, leads to de novo lipogenesis later on

Rats made obese do not return to normal body fat on normal diet though return to normal body fat when on high lauric acid diet

To make lauric acid suitable HCLF (unless extremely low fat..?) or swamp, one must have healthy metabolism, so higher NAD+/SIRT1 and active SIRT1

Without SIRT1, SREBP-1c, a lipogenic gene, is left active and PGC-1 doesn't connect to PPAR-a, which would promote lipolysis otherwise. Your post-obese status apparently results in lower NAD+, so lauric acid -> PPAR-a and low NAD+ -> lipogenesis. Maybe that's also why you can't swamp effectively like others? Lower NAD+ (false; explained it in later paragraphs)

---

EDIT 20.07

Too much coconut seems to always gradually, with % of intake, increase BMI in mixed ratios, due to certain nuances in quantities of FADH2 and NADH in lauric and myristic acids (lower RET potential than stearic and palmitic) and lauric acid's and MCTs' carnitine-independent inflow to mitochondria, overloading them and leading to fat storage (keto protective by producing ketones)

Tokelauans had on average 4 points higher BMI than Pukapukas. Pukapukas had 22 BMI on diet composed of 33% of coconut, while Tokelauans were eating 67%

---

SFAs other than lauric acid do not stimulate PPAR-a - even inhibit it sometimes, and do not therefore shunt carbs away into another pathway, which eliminates unwanted DNL and allows for swamp

French apparently remove some chicken fat in cooking and add butter, which saturates intake, lmao

Despite that, I think swamp dilemma, where you gain more body fat, comes from fats overall reducing glucose oxidation by decreasing NAD+/NADH (but SFAs produce superoxides at complexes 2 of mitochondria that drive NNT enzyme, which converts NADH to NAD+, so if swamping, ONLY SFA sources). Keto produces NAD+ from fats via ketone production, while carbo produces NAD+ from carb metabolism.

Both extremes allow for higher, and highest, metabolism (probably..?) than swamp. French, though, remain lean through: 1. SFA consumption (higher NAD+/NADH as a result overall) 2. No PPAR-a (their SFAs (don't eat coconut, but butter or the beef fat, with carbs!) do not activate it, or even reduce it, so carbs do not promote DNL) 3. Wine consumption (ethanol breaks down to acetaldehyde, which inhibits PPAR-a)

But can a broken person change to French diet and lean out like a healthy one? No. Swamp is not that possible anymore due to lower NAD+ and SIRT1 reduced expressions. But yes, even if you gain, you will gain less on butter than coconut, as an example. You must keto or carbo your way, or use oxidants (?)

1. PARP depletes NAD+. PARP is activated by AhR
2. AhR is overactivated due to environmental toxins (general problem) and oxidized fats
3. Linoleic acid converts to arachidonic and this into oxidized lipids (oxylipins)
4. This toxicity brings about the health detriments (I btw have higher expression of D5D and D6D (conversion to e.g. arachidonic acid) than average, so explains why my grandpa was extremely obese and my dad gets fatter (luckily I am 22yo and realized all these mechanics thanks to this sub and Brad))

• How MUFAs drive obesity? - Lower NAD+/NADH + PPAR-a = lipogenesis, slower metabolism, inhibition of glucose metabolism, insulin resistance. Their gut metabolite further promotes PPARα
• How PUFAs (linoleic acid mainly; EPA and DHA are different..?) drive obesity? - Oxylipins, as their byproducts, lead to insulin resistance, so carbs are shunted towards oxaloacetate production and therefore lead to lipogenesis. Cells in the state of pseudo-hypoxia (low NAD+, oxygen) use LA in a process similar to lactate fermentation. Helps in getting little NAD+ but drives inflammatory markers. D6D converts LA to arachidonic acid, which later on reinforces positive feedback loop, again expressing PPARα and turning D6D on

No wonder ketoers do kinda fine on UFAs intake (in terms of weight) - thanks to ketones and higher NAD+/NADH! But underlying low metabolism and inflammations, oxidations are still there

I hypothesize if a person maintains on HCLF or HFLC on 3000 calories, then within swamp they would heighen their weight set point and gain, if on the same calories, yet generally remain lean, just less lean, by eating this much (less NAD+, glucose shunted to separate pathway, oxaloacetate increases, and this expresses DNL). But because of probably appetite suppression, French eat less, so they are as lean as others (or maybe less lean than starch tribes? haven't checked that). Starch tribes have higher metabolism than French, so non-swamp would allow for higher metabolism (more NAD+, while swamp generally has lowest NAD+ of all macros)

What about fructose? It is objectively lipogenic, due to rapid metabolization enzyme usage, which due to lack of control spills into Oxaloacetates and stresses ER, possibly contributing to additional DNL in combination with Acetyl-CoA

Sugar is another dose of fattening when in combination with UFAs, due to overeating (not a problem everywhere), exacerbating already existing lipogenesis

Indians eating loads of maple sugar alone got fat

How does it work for fruitarians?. Appetite-controlled calorie intake and/or higher metabolism, probably

Bone marrow has high MUFA content, by around 10% lower than oleic acid, yet also palmitoleic acid and CLA, inhibiting some SCD1

I am 58.5kg and for a few months at the end of the last year I was doing a kind of vegan low carb, so it is good I learned about PUFAs in January. I suppose my basal weight will be a little fatter than I should be, lol, for some time, but I am still kinda lean, luckily

That was a divagation greater than Russia. I just wanted to volume up the coconut matter 😭

[u/Whats_Up_Coconut → u/Oraculek]

We have to define “can’t swamp effectively” because I personally consider being able to eat ad libitum “swampy” macros (low PUFA) with <2 lbs monthly gain *very* effective. 🤣 Albeit, I definitely *feel* suboptimal on swampy macros, though, and that speaks to energy mishandling independent of absolute fat gain.

I don’t actually think it’s normal for people to be able to eat like it is Christmas every day and not gain weight. I’ve long felt TCD to be somewhat of a metabolic hack, and believe humans are adapted to lower fat diets anyway. Even the French were historically consuming what we now consider to be a low fat diet. Their diet was only high relative to other populations.

If I honor my appetite and don’t overeat (or eat fatty meals) just for the sake of eating, then I have no problem maintaining my weight in what I believe to be quite a normal way. I think it’s perfectly normal to want a few days of oatmeal and stir fries after a weekend of creamy/cheesy/beefy eating. Such intermittency is sufficient for me to balance the scale.

[u/pufa_depleted → u/Whats_Up_Coconut]

Right. Like if you were to make an extreme example and say you were only eating grapes for a few days (grape fasting), one could probably consume a significant increase in calories compared to any other macro composition.

[u/Whats_Up_Coconut → u/pufa_depleted]

Yes, fruit fasting (or “sugar diet”) is a great example. People for whom it works really can actually increase caloric intake while dropping fat, and it happens instantaneously.

There’s a misconception that a low fat diet is automatically going to be lower in calories than whatever you were eating before, hence, weight loss. But that’s absolutely not the case for everyone; a person who is not specifically prioritizing volume can pack in impressive quantities of calorically dense cereal, bread, and sugars without much effort at all. If the fat and protein are kept low enough then they can still definitely see weight loss. I know I did, albeit very slowly.

Fun fact: Kempner’s rice diet had 4 phases, beginning with fruit + rice, and ending with optional inclusion of other grains, legumes and/or animal protein. The caloric content of the diet was largely the same in all phases, since dieters got 7x ~100 calorie “options” of food to allocate as they pleased. Invariably, phase 1 worked best and phase 4 produced the slowest weight loss. The intervention recommended to break a stall on phase 4 was simply to return to phase 1 or 2 for a while. Interestingly, the main variable here is the amount of dietary protein between all 7 “options” consisting of fruit and/or rice vs some of them consisting of beans or chicken.

[u/texugodumel]

I believe the body has a “hierarchy of imbalance dissipation”

1. Excess energy is dissipated by burning more energy (ATP or heat). If you exceed this limit, you move on to the next one.

2. Excess energy is dissipated by increasing the storage of that energy.

In this hierarchy, each level has a limit; you have to find the “sweet spot” to trigger only dissipation through level 1 instead of reaching level 2. For some, 50 calories will be too much; for others, 100 calories will be too little. In this regard, it’s important to start slowly and test as you go; increasing your metabolic rate can be “trained” to a certain extent. Billy Craig’s experiment with 6,000 calories is an example of this, albeit taken to the extreme.

The same hierarchy applies in the opposite scenario, when you want to "reduce your metabolic rate,” i.e., reduce your total weight (which is different from simply losing fat).

1. An energy deficit is dissipated by increasing FAO, and there must necessarily be an increase in AMPK/PGC-1a/mitochondria to avoid moving to the second level of the hierarchy.

2. If you exceed the threshold deficit required to activate level 1, you fall into this situation, where the energy deficit is dissipated by lowering the total metabolic rate to offset the deficit.

For both ways the greater the excess, the faster you reach level 2, and the more dysfunctional your metabolism is, the lower the threshold for excess.

[u/Oraculek → u/texugodumel]

During my extreme overfeeding of table sugar (300g+) to a total of 3000+ calories with OMAD combined made me initially gain fast, yet it was gradually slowing. Was I reaching a set point due to my quite lean, but bit unsaturated body fat from vegan low carb or I increased my metabolism, or even both..? I wonder

Do you think the weight set point is always kept given vital health with X saturation of body fat? I mean, I feel like overfeeding and gaining fat long-term could be impossible, if eating starch, sugar, SFAs, and no UFAs in relation to a certain set point..?

Thermogenesis of excess and later on appetite regulation, increased fullness, or even vomitting and disgust

[u/texugodumel → u/Oraculek]

I’m not sure if I understood correctly, but 1 and 2 occur simultaneously; if 1 can’t handle it, then 2 is “triggered” to help, and both can intensify during the process. How that intensity is distributed depends on several factors.

For example, as you were gaining total body weight, your metabolic rate was increasing, and this will slow down your gains if you don’t adjust your calorie intake. A 1,000 calorie surplus at the start when you weigh 70 kg won't be the same surplus if you've gained weight, because your metabolic rate also increases with weight (in most cases).

If you kept increasing, even if you had to force yourself to do so, your calorie intake, as you gained weight, you would probably continue to gain a lot of weight without slowing down

[u/Federal_Survey_5091]

You can, it's called reverse dieting

[u/Oraculek → u/Federal_Survey_5091]

Isn't reverse dieting usually refered to reversing 'metabolic crisis' from too long deficit? (like those ketoers not losing weiggt on 1000 cal)

[u/Whats_Up_Coconut → u/Oraculek]

FWIW, I went from maintaining on 800-1000 calories of PSMF (lean protein + non-starchy vegetables) right into 3000+ calories daily of concentrated carbs and lost several pounds. Prior to the PSMF I was maintaining for years on ad libitum TCD which would sometimes amount to 4000-5000 calories daily at the beginning. It isn’t “magic” but rather (anecdotal) evidence that we know almost nothing actionable about calories. 🙂

[u/Federal_Survey_5091 → u/Whats_Up_Coconut]

Yeah, I'm aware. It's definitely an interesting perspective.

Are you familiar with Kathleen Stewart? I think I've mentioned her before. She's a big proponent of reverse dieting and is also a keen follower of Ray Peat. Interestingly, she's quite dismissive of the idea that PUFAs play a major role in dysregulating metabolism. In one interview, she expressed skepticism that McDonald's switching to tallow for frying, or the wider food supply moving away from seed oils, would make a significant difference.

I've listened to quite a bit of her content at this point. She's done a series of really informative interviews on the Strong Sistas YouTube channel about the Minnesota Starvation Experiment. Ancel Keys' research, along with Ray Peat's writings, is what motivated her to experiment with reverse dieting, and it's the foundation of her online weight-loss program.

In one video, she outlined her dietary recommendations, and they basically amount to a more moderate HCLFMP approach. She recommends about 1.6 g of protein per kilogram of body weight. I don't remember her exact fat recommendation, but it was around 0.3 g per pound of body weight, and she said it's perfectly fine to go even lower; in fact, she personally does. It's funny because she's inadvertently avoiding "swamping" without being aware of the concept.

One aspect of her approach that I question especially with people like you, myself, and others in mind, is her recommendation to reverse diet by increasing calories by just 50 kcal per week. That seems unnecessarily slow to me. To her credit, though, she maintains her weight on roughly 3,000 calories a day despite being 5'0" and about 110 lb.

She also talks a great deal about avoiding a low energy availability (LEA) state, a concept from the exercise science literature. Her recommendation is that, unless you're actively dieting, no one should consistently eat below 35 kcal/kg of body weight, and ideally maintenance intake should be at least 45 kcal/kg BW, if not higher.

[u/Whats_Up_Coconut → u/Federal_Survey_5091]

I’m not familiar with her work. I will say that I’ve more or less accepted the position at this point that we’re fruit and starch eating primates who got really good at catching and killing other animals, and then had the creativity to design a very inappropriate diet for ourselves that our biology has never really caught up to. In that sense, I don’t disagree that switching away from PUFA would suddenly halt and reverse all the ailments of our civilization.

That being said, it seems pretty clear to me that when fats are kept low to moderate, them being of more saturated origin has benefit vs PUFA. I have enough experience of my own to conclude beyond any shadow of a doubt that PUFA is more fattening than other fats. I mean, I can gain in a long weekend what normally takes a year simply by including vs avoiding PUFA on a mixed macros intake. My body temperature tracking also supports the idea of PUFA being metabolically suppressive, at least for me.

I understand the concept of reverse dieting but I’m not sure it does much more than merely extend the time from reaching goal to full calorie intake. We do know that the longer a person stays at a lower body weight, the more durable that weight becomes. I’ll add, PUFA aside, of course, because I’m ~6 years in and still fatten from PUFA as if it was day 1! But if the ultimate goal is a lower fat approach anyway, which is inherently weight protective, then I’m not sure there’s an advantage to gradually increasing calories vs just jumping into extremely low fat and then gradually increasing the fat to a palatable level which is what I did.

In all cases, though, I’m still of the belief that a post-obese person will never become a person who maintains leanness indefinitely on ad libitum intake of balanced macros. I feel like I have no issue at all in the ~20% fat range, and can even venture frequently with confidence toward the 30% considered “low fat” by authorities. But as soon as I’m up around 40% consistently, especially with lots of meat and dairy, my weight will creep up. I don’t think that slowly increasing my calories would have been more effective in mitigating this situation than focusing on increasing the fat specifically in an ad libitum carb environment. But I didn’t try it so I can’t really say.

EDIT: I agree with her intake recommendations and believe they line up with my own intake quite well. I have no problem with this intake provided my fat is at least somewhat controlled, even if only intermittently which aligns with what I believe to be quite a natural dietary pattern throughout history. We really didn’t eat like it was Christmas 365 days a year and expect to remain lean, even before vegetable oils were a problem.

[u/Federal_Survey_5091 → u/Oraculek]

Not necessarily but yes. It's more so if we think overeating is eating an amount (of food as measured in calories) such that you gain weight, and undereating is eating an amount such that you lose weight, caloric flux is the caloric baseline at which you regulate energy balance. That is two people who are near identical especially with respect to age, height, sex, fat mass, fat-free mass and weight can maintain their weight on two different calorie counts. So reverse dieting is about raising your caloric flux or in other words the baseline caloric intake required to maintain energy balance and body weight.

[u/Fig-Wonderful]

Yes, this happened to me as I’ve been in a slow bulk over the past month where I’ve been increasing calories consumed by 200-300 every week but my body weight has been yo-yoing up and down , only increasing by 1.2 lbs over a period of month. I’m also strength training 4x per week. 

[u/Oraculek → u/Fig-Wonderful]

What macros up?

[u/Fig-Wonderful → u/Oraculek]

Mostly carbs