Is Reverse Dieting Effective for Weight Loss?

One of the strengths of dieting is that there is no one right way to get from point A to point B. There are a myriad of different approaches, tweaks, and setups that can work well for weight loss. Naturally, some of these approaches are going to be more complex than others, and target a much smaller demographic. Of these approaches, reverse dieting is one that has persisted for over a decade, if not longer. So, let’s talk a bit about this method, how it works, and what it brings to the table.

Is Reverse Dieting Effective for Weight Loss?

What is Reverse Dieting?

Reverse dieting has been seen in the literature as far back as 2014, although many of its concepts have likely been bounced around for much longer than that. The fundamental train of thought goes something like this:

• Dieting induces negative effects on one’s metabolism and fat loss progression, through such factors as altered hormone levels and lower TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure).

• Calories are slowly and gradually increased over time, moving from a calorie deficit back to maintenance, or even continuing into a surplus.

• Slowly and gradually re-introducing calories over an extended period of time allows for healing of one’s metabolic and hormonal damage.

• This adjustment back upwards also induces several different positive effects, such as boosting one’s inherent metabolic rate. This allows people to eat at a higher caloric maintenance as before, or diet on more calories. It also allows for minimal fat regain during the transition to maintenance.

A typical setup would be something along the lines of adding 50-100 calories each week, until maintenance levels are met. So, someone dieting on 1400 calories with a maintenance level of 2200 would expect to come out of their deficit approximately 8-16 weeks after they stopped dieting.

Disadvantages

Alas, there are a number of problems associated with this approach. The very first one is a bit obvious: feasibility. Taking 2-4 months to get back to maintenance is an extremely long period of time. Given most folks are rather sick of being in a deficit at the tail end of a diet, stretching out the misery for such an extended period of time tends to be problematic, especially from a psychological perspective. 

But the struggle is worth it if you get your metabolic damage repaired, right? Well, not quite.

The inherent problem with this approach lies with the nature of those metabolic and hormonal adaptations. In particular, many of the altered hormone levels are directly caused by the presence of a calorie deficit. For example, take leptin, a hormone that signals changes in bodyfat levels and net energy intake. Research suggests leptin is extremely sensitive to changes to caloric intake. In other words, at maintenance calories or higher, leptin levels are normalized. In a deficit, it drops quickly. Therefore, leptin, and many other metabolic related hormones, only return to baseline when energy maintenance is achieved.

Now, if we think back to the idea of reverse dieting, it keeps a person in a deficit for an extended period of time. Therefore, its delaying caloric maintenance, and thus a return to pre-diet hormone levels. This is counterproductive to recovery after an extended period of dieting, and actually prolongs the negative effects of the diet. 

As for the concept of “metabolic damage,” that also generally doesn’t hold up. In fact, there are two fundamental elements that control metabolic adaptation: energy balance and bodyfat loss. Thus, moving out of a calorie deficit is only part of the issue. If you lose significant amounts of bodyfat, that will continue to negatively affect metabolic rate, even at maintenance calories. The only way to fix that is to regain the lost fat. This effectively discounts the idea of boosting one’s metabolic rate with reverse dieting. If anything, leaning out has a negative net effect on metabolic rate. The harder you had to work to get to a target bodyfat percentage, the harder it tends to be to maintain it.

Advantages

So, based on the above section, you may interpret things as reverse dieting to be of limited use, if any at all. That’s not entirely true. There is at least one circumstance where a gradual approach like this is preferred. However, it’s attributed to a psychological reason, not a physiological one.

It’s not uncommon for dieters to be apprehensive about moving out of a deficit. After all, risking undoing all that hard work is indeed a daunting thought. For a smaller subset of these people, seeing any rapid jump on the scale messes with their heads badly. In this case, it may be useful to take a more gradual approach to moving to maintenance, as the added stress potentially outweighs the benefits of a quicker return. Even then, it is likely a good idea to keep the return journey limited to no more than a couple of weeks.

Is Reverse Dieting Effective for Weight Loss?

After all is said and done, yes, reverse dieting is a potentially effective path toward weight loss, and in specific scenarios, it may actually be optimal. However, the magic of this approach lies with the calorie deficit, not any sort of metabolic rewiring. As such, it tends to be at best a needlessly complicated approach to weight loss. At worst, it’s potentially detrimental to overall results.

Wrap Up

Overall, it’s important to remember the key fundamentals for evaluating whether a dietary approach will work well for you:

• Does the diet create a calorie deficit, i.e., more net calories expended than taken in? (Note that this doesn’t necessarily mean calorie counting)

• Is the diet a sustainable approach for you? One you can stick to? It can be the best hypothetical diet in the world, but work poorly for you if you can’t adhere to it.

• Does the method teach you how to maintain after the diet ends? Without this aspect, regaining the lost weight is much more likely.

If you can satisfy those three requirements, the approach in question seems potentially sound. If it’s missing one of the above factors, though, that should be a potential red flag as to it’s long term efficacy. 

Until next time!