It it true that if I eat at a deficit, my metabolism adjusts

>>39964888

yes and if you eat at a surplus your metabolism adjusts over time and becomes your tdee so you stop gaining weight meaning you have to constantly increase your surplus to 15,000+

No you lose weight and then your maintenance level of calories becomes lower.

your tdee is based on your weight

you eat at a deficit, you eventually lose weight, your tdee changes.

it may take ~2500 calories a day to maintain a 80kg body but only only ~2000 to maintain a 65kg body

if you were to want to lost more weight you'd have to eat less than that

File: 1413097815012.gif (997KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

997KB, 160x160px

>>39964888

there are two parts to this answer
first, if you lose mass as a result of a decific, then you require less calories simply because you're now smaller, as anons are saying already

you might be talking about metabolic adaptation though, which happens to a small degree - it varies person to person and more significantly in women - which is where your body can adapt to a lower level of calorie intake as maintenance by expending less on other processes. But it's not something that would have a significant effect on weight loss, only marginal.

>>39964940

deficit* I have no idea what the fuck I'm typing, ugh

and I want to qualify mass as absolute mass, incl fat, not LBM

>>39964888
For the newbie yes. But not exactly, Metabolism is just the rate the body expends the calories taken in. If you have a very high muscle mass you would have an increased metabolic rate and would need a huge amount of calories in relation to someone of the same weight but has much higher fat to muscle ratio.

So that means if you gain muscle weight atvthe same rate you are losing fat you cam theoretically keep your body weight the same but increase your tdee.

>>39964957
>For the newbie yes. But not exactly, Metabolism is just the rate the body expends the calories taken in. If you have a very high muscle mass you would have an increased metabolic rate and would need a huge amount of calories in relation to someone of the same weight but has much higher fat to muscle ratio.

No, no you would not.
That is fucking wrong.

You would need more calories if you had high NEAT and had larger body mass, not just because that body mass is made of more muscle.

>>39964957

all other things equal, eating at a deficit will over time reduce your mass and thus your calorie intake.

>gain muscle weight at the same rate you are losing fat

doesn't happen past absolute novice stage though (unless the rate is so low as to be negligible), so no point talking about it really