[Azure]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Sorry, but this is nonsense:

BMR can change slightly in response to diet changes, but for the most part it's fairly stable. Changes to lean body mass and aging affect it over the long term, but the notion that it quickly jumps up and down by 30-40% is crazy.

Is it?

Ancel Keys estimated that these subjects were eating roughly 3,200 calories per day. They were put onto a ‘semi-starvation’ diet of 1,560 calories per day with foods similar to those available in war-torn Europe at the time — potatoes, turnips, bread, and macaroni. They were then monitored for 20 weeks after the semi-starvation period.

...

Resting metabolic rate dropped by 40%. Interestingly, this is not that far off from a previous study from 1917 that showed Total Energy Expenditure (TEE) decreased by 30%. In other words, the body was shutting down. Let’s think about this again from the body’s point of view. The body is accustomed to getting 3,200 calories per day and now it gets 1,560. In order to preserve itself, it implements across-the-board reductions in energy.

....

Consider the alternative. The body is used to 3,200 calories per day and now gets 1,560. The body still burns 3,200 calories. Things feel normal. Three months later, you are dead. It is absolutely inconceivable that the body does not react to caloric reduction by reducing caloric expenditure.

Consider many statements to the effect that if you reduce 500 calories per day, you will lose one pound in one week. Does that mean that in 200 weeks you will weigh zero pounds? It is clear that at some point, the body must, must, must reduce caloric expenditure. It turns out that the adaptation happens almost immediately and persists in the long-term. More about this later.

https://medium.com/better-humans/why...s-9dc18fe9cf23

Not sure why anyone would think that your BMR would stay the say if you cut calories long-term or short term. Pretty clear what your body will do.