Lowered metabolism - why is this a problem?


There seems to be a universally held conventional wisdom that having a higher metabolism is preferable to a lower one. I’m questioning why. As I research it, I find that lower metabolism is associated with longevity. My metabolism is lower - I now eat about half of what I used to, so this is less food that I have to buy, store and prepare. I fidget less and move more deliberately, but Keto increases my mental energy and I exercise 7 days a week with no difficulty recovering.

I feel like I have a car that started getting better gas mileage – I’m not bummed that I don’t buy as much gas any more. So, assuming appetite is in line with metabolism to avoid weight regain, why is a slow metabolism a problem?

(Ron) #2

You ask this on a forum that is comprised of individuals looking to correct health issues and seek weight loss??? What was your reason for joining this site? Obviously for weight loss it is important.
I think the general consensus is those that are metabolically healthy would benefit the best by letting the body decide the balance needed? :bearded_person:

(Raj Seth) #3

As we age, our metabolism may slow down - no issue with that efficiency model. Metabolic slowdown resulting from calorie restriction is different. This results in many bodily tasks, requiring energy, being put on the back burner. The body then falls behind. That’s why raising the metabolism is good. When the body has lots of energy available, and can use it, it will run all those other tasks it’s been waiting to run, the tasks that were lower on the critical task list - but useful nonetheless.

(Troy Anthony) #4

It’s also difficult to really navigate research on whether a fast or slow metabolism is better for longevity. I’ve always had a pretty fast metabolism, but based off my research and why I chose to do keto is that a fast metabolism burning sugar creates more harmful bi products. So the more energy you are burning, the more cellular damage you could be doing. It would be interesting to see the studies on fat burners and metabolism, but I’m not sure we have any. When 99% of the population uses sugar as there primary fuel source the majority of studies are done in that vain. I think the way you are rockin life sounds awesome though, so keep rockin it.

(Troy Anthony) #5

I agree with your last point but although most people here are seeking weight loss, it’s far from the only reason to do keto. I personally found keto through very healthy individuals who are just extremely high achievers and looking to do whatever they can to improve the body machine. I found the steady energy to be the biggest reason I’m sticking with it. It’s great for fixing metabolism, weight lose, anxiety, energy dips, and seems like a great preventative measure. Some people here are trying to change their life completely and some are looking for an extra 10%. We are all trying to live better and be better people.


I would agree with your line of thought. The only advantage I can see to having a high metabolic rate is that it would allow someone to eat more (for pleasure). A lower metabolic rate would seem to be a strong positive trait. One that evolution would favor.

So, looking at food simply as a fuel, the lower the better.

(Ron) #7

OK. Please explain how your above statement does not fall into this category (“looking to correct health issues”) from my OP? :thinking:

(Troy Anthony) #8

Your original post just made it sound like he has no place to bring up his point because “everyone” here has metabolic issues and is trying to lose weight. So only the last few benefits I mentioned don’t fit that. It just seemed a bit close minded to me, that’s all. I realize most people here are here for that reason, and that’s something I didn’t understand or expect when I started participating. So mental benefits, prevention, and consistent energy are different reasons is my point. Even athletes looking for longevity in their sport are doing keto.


Hmm, seems like I might have offended you? I guess I’ll answer your questions as asked.

Yes, I did post this question on this forum that is populated by people as you so describe. You apparently have a problem with that, as evidenced by your use of three (3) question marks to communicate your sense of outrage. Have you been promoted from hall monitor to forum nanny?

My reason for participating here? Uh, because I’m interested in my health issues, continuing to lose weight, and enthusiastic about being in ketosis for the last 8 months. Is that OK with you? Do I need your permission to post questions here?

“Obviously” for weight loss, a high metabolism is important? Really? I’m losing about 1.5 pounds per week in spite of having a lower metabolism following a 55 pound loss.

“I think the general consensus is those that are metabolically healthy would benefit the best by letting the body decide the balance needed?” First, if you would have read the question, you can see that I’m questioning the general consensus, not asking what it is. I’m not into groupthink, thank you. As to “those that are metabolically healthy would benefit the best by letting the body decide the balance needed”, I don’t stipulate that I’m metabolically healthy. And my body has decided to have a lower metabolism, so am I “benefiting the best”? Your last point was completely incoherent, but I wanted to make sure to address it so as to not further piss you off.


Thanks @Rajseth - I’m interested in the idea that a slower metabolism may not provide energy for essential processes, particularly healing and recovery.

(Troy Anthony) #11

Our bodies when functioning properly seem to be able to adapt pretty quickly. So our ancestors would have a metabolism that speeds up for energy utilization and to repair the body when food is plentiful and slow down when in fasted states or in daily calorie restriction. I think having the ability and putting ourselves in circumstances to use both might be most beneficial as it would be most natural to our biology


I would say this describes my motivations (but I won’t represent I’m a high achiever!). For me, Keto has been the catalyst that enabled a “virtuous cycle” of improvements in several areas.

Very interested in this concept – I’d rather be idling at 800 RPM than 8,000 RPM to take a mechanical metaphor. It just seems to me that requiring less energy to function is a good thing.


This is exactly how I’ve been thinking about it. I kind of feel like a lower metabolism is a positive adaptation.

But the reason I posted the question is that I have that sneaking suspicion that there is something obvious that I’m missing.

(Ron) #14

Who seems offended?

The “problem” (as you call it) was questioning the message being presented to struggling new viewers looking for beginning direction in their keto journey,

Absolutely OK with me. It was just a question. Maybe I thought it might remind you of your beginnings and how this could have influenced you.

And was this achieved with a lower metabolism from the start?
Sorry you felt so violated. I guess that expressing an opinion about a post that questions objective makes me a forum nanny.:unamused:
If you think it is productive and helpful for the majority then have at it. I won’t stop you.

(Kaiden) #15

The short answer is that fat people need to shed pounds as quickly as possible, so they need to waste as much energy as possible, and wasting energy is a “metabolic advantage.”

The correct answer is that, yes, a lowered metabolism is better for longevity purposes, and caloric restriction is actually a very good thing to do.

The concept is anathema in the ketogenic world, but Dr. Bert Herring goes into how one can be low carb, calorically restricted, metabolically efficient, and lose weight through an appetite correcting eating schedule.

I had a period of very rapid weight loss from the time I started a ketogenic diet + Fast-5, up until the time I listened to a thought leader’s warning that if I didn’t “feast” that I would ruin my metabolism with one meal a day. From that point onward, I’ve been plateaued. It might have happened anyway, but I followed the advice of “feasting,” trying to fast, feeling awful, and then eating because if you feel awful when fasting, that’s what you’re supposed to do.

I avoid this forum for a long time because that thought leader is held in such high esteem, although trying to follow her advice really messed me up.

The problem with time-restricted eating is that once you go away from it, it’s so hard to go back to it with the same zeal. I’ve managed to push my weight down to 209.5, but it’s back of 225 and I’ve been stalled at that point for a while.

Anyway, the hypothesis is that if you follow an OMAD type approach (although my five-hour window allows more than a single meal, if I’m still hungry later, which I rarely am), your body will eventually realize it has extra fat to burn and your appetite will self-correct, plus you will enjoy the longevity benefits of not “boosting your metabolism” first thing in the morning.

I hope this helps.

(Troy Anthony) #16

I agree, and this is where individual goals come in. This is why I don’t subscribe to any dogma as “better” It’s all completely contingent on the goal of the person. Many people want to run at 8000 rpm, so their goals are different then someone who is just looking at longevity, and which metabolism is better depends on the goal. My instinct would be that a drop in metabolism and energy output is natural to our biology. I’m sure it could be “bio hacked” but high energy output into old age is not conducive to longevity. I mean high energy as in going at 8000 rpm like you said, not as in energy to play with grand children and staying active, that is conducive to longevity and absolutely doesn’t require a super charged fast metabolism.


@Kaiden - totally helps, and a lot to unpack. You touch on a related topic that I had considered for it’s own thread, which is this: people often report here that they become stalled at some point above their target weight. What is the most effective thing for them to do to restart their progress? And I don’t see much helpful advice.

My view is that if you are eating a given macro-nutrient ratio to satiety at a given level of exercise, you will eventually reach homeostasis and stop losing or gaining weight. The problem is that this weight may not be your desired target. So, what to do? If you Keep Calm and Keto On, making no changes, you may be at the plateau indefinitely. I’d love to hear stories how people who have been fat-adapted break their stalls and get to their final weight.

In my case, I’ve recently started OMAD and will be interested to see how it pans out.

(Troy Anthony) #18

I’m curious why you think you have a slow metabolism? My understanding is that IF increases metabolism, but I imagine that is multi factoral like most ideas. I don’t know how to measure BMR, but I found I was dropping a bit of fat and adding muscle, feeling more energized with IF. I do eat high calorie meals so I’m still not typically below maintenance calories, although some days I’m way below. I just assume I have a fast metabolism based off of these factors, how did you decide yours is slow and hasn’t sped up based on your results?


Very good question – actually, I believe it has started to increase, possibly due to OMAD. But I sensed that it had slowed because I went 5 months at the same weight, and the amount of food I was eating to maintain was the same as when I was losing 2+ pounds per week. Now that I’m eating OMAD, I’ve started losing again, but not as fast. I realize that some feel OMAD is not for weight loss, but I needed to change something.

(Ron) #20

This is an interesting post given your previous ones.:thinking:

And didn’t this just answer the question of the topic?

Personal observation. :unamused:
Carry On.