Reverse Dieting: Is It Necessary After a Cut, or Is It Just Bro Science?

You finish a cut. You are lean, you are hungry, you are eating 1,800 calories and terrified of what happens the moment you stop. Somebody tells you that if you go back to normal eating you will balloon, because your metabolism is "damaged" and your maintenance is now hundreds of calories lower than it should be. The solution, they say, is to reverse diet: add 50 calories a week, for months, slowly coaxing your metabolism back up until you can eat 3,000 calories at the same body weight you held at 1,800.

It is a compelling story. It has an internal logic, it comes with a spreadsheet, and it gives you something to do during the most psychologically fragile part of the whole process. It has also never been shown to work.

This article covers what the research actually says: how big metabolic adaptation is when it is measured properly, how quickly it reverses, what happened when somebody finally ran a randomized trial on reverse dieting in 2025, and why the approach feels so effective to the people doing it. Then we will cover what to do after a cut instead, because "reverse dieting does not do what it claims" is not the same as "eat whatever you want the day after your last weigh-in."

What Reverse Dieting Claims to Do

Reverse dieting means increasing calories in small, deliberate increments after a fat-loss phase rather than jumping straight back to maintenance. Typical protocols add somewhere between 25 and 150 calories per week, usually from carbohydrate, and run anywhere from 8 to 20 weeks.

The practice comes out of physique competition culture, where the post-show rebound is a well-known problem. Competitors spend months in a deep deficit, hit the stage at an unsustainably low body fat, and then regain quickly. Coaches noticed that some athletes who added calories slowly seemed to hold their condition better than those who did not, and the practice spread.

The term entered the peer-reviewed literature through Trexler, Smith-Ryan, and Norton's 2014 review in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, "Metabolic adaptation to weight loss: implications for the athlete." That paper described reverse dieting as a strategy used in practice and explicitly concluded that research was needed to evaluate whether it works. That was more than a decade ago, and the research base has barely moved since.

The claim comes in two strengths. The weak version says a gradual return to maintenance limits fat regain and eases the psychological transition. The strong version says reverse dieting raises your metabolism, letting you eat substantially more food at the same body weight than you could before. The strong version is what sells coaching packages. It is also the version with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

How Big Is Metabolic Adaptation, Really?

Metabolic adaptation, or adaptive thermogenesis, refers to the drop in energy expenditure beyond what the loss of body mass alone predicts. If you lose 12 kg and your resting metabolic rate falls by exactly the amount predicted for a body that is 12 kg smaller, there is no adaptation. Adaptation is the extra gap on top of that.

The number people quote is enormous. The number the controlled research produces is not.

Martins and colleagues (2020, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition) followed 171 women with overweight through an 800 calorie per day diet down to a BMI below 25. Average loss was 12.2 kg, or 15.7 percent of body weight, over about 153 days. Measured after four weeks of weight stability, metabolic adaptation was 54 calories per day. That is roughly 3 to 4 percent of resting metabolic rate. Their measured resting rate was 1,291 calories per day against a predicted 1,345.

A companion paper from the same group, bluntly titled "Metabolic adaptation is an illusion, only present when participants are in negative energy balance," ran 71 adults with obesity through eight weeks at a 1,000 calorie deficit. Average loss was 14.1 kg. Adaptation measured at the end of the diet was 92 calories per day.

Müller and colleagues (2016, Current Obesity Reports), reviewing the field as a neutral third party, put the range at 100 to 500 calories per day across all study designs, and noted that in the classic Leibel and Rosenbaum protocols with a proper two-week weight stabilization period, adaptation was "about 50 to 140 kcal/day." They also flagged a statistical wrinkle worth knowing: applying a pre-diet regression of metabolic rate against body composition to a post-diet body introduces an error of roughly 70 calories per day all by itself. Use a body-fat-specific regression instead and the calculated adaptation in one dataset dropped from about 275 to 120 calories per day.

That last row is the one everybody cites, and it is the least representative entry in the table. The Biggest Loser participants lost 58 kg in 30 weeks under conditions no normal person will ever replicate, including many hours of daily supervised exercise and a severe deficit maintained to the final weigh-in. Their measured adaptation at six years was 499 calories per day, with resting metabolic rate 704 calories below baseline. Those are real numbers from real people, and they are the far tail of the distribution rather than the middle of it.

The Biggest Loser data also contains a finding that almost nobody quotes. Metabolic adaptation measured at the end of the competition did not predict who regained weight over the following six years. And adaptation measured at the six-year mark correlated positively with successful weight maintenance. The people whose metabolisms looked most "damaged" were the ones who had kept the most weight off. Adaptation tracks how much weight you are currently holding below your previous high, which is a consequence of success rather than a barrier to it.

Martins found the same thing in a normal population. In 171 women, adaptation did not correlate with regain at one year or two years. It correlated with how much fat had been lost (r = 0.218, p = 0.006), which is exactly what you would expect if adaptation is a readout of dieting effort rather than a metabolic curse.

The Two Components of Adaptation

To understand why reverse dieting cannot deliver what it promises, you have to split adaptation into its two parts.

The deficit-driven component exists because you are currently in an energy deficit. Your body downregulates thyroid output, leptin, sympathetic nervous system tone, and spontaneous movement in response to an ongoing shortfall of energy. This part is large, and it disappears when the deficit ends. It does not care whether you end the deficit gradually or all at once.

The body-composition component exists because you are carrying less tissue and less body fat than before. Leptin, which is produced by fat cells in proportion to fat mass, is a major signal here. This part only reverses if you regain fat.

Now look at what a reverse diet is designed to do. It is designed to increase calories while preventing fat regain. So it deliberately opposes the only thing that would reverse the second component, and it addresses the first component no better than simply eating at maintenance would, because the first component is a response to energy balance rather than to the rate at which you arrived there.

The part of adaptation that reverses does so as soon as you leave the deficit. The part that does not reverse is tied to your lower body fat, and a reverse diet is specifically trying to stop you from regaining that. The protocol is structurally unable to do the thing it is sold to do.

The evidence for the leptin link is direct. Longstrom and colleagues (2020, Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology) tracked seven natural physique athletes from one to two weeks before competition through eight to ten weeks after. Body weight, fat mass, body fat percentage, resting metabolic rate, T3, T4, and leptin all rose together. The change in body fat percentage correlated with the change in leptin (tau = 0.68, p = 0.02), and the change in leptin correlated with the change in resting metabolic rate (tau = 0.59, p = 0.03). Their conclusion was direct: minor increases in body weight, under 5 percent, were inadequate to produce meaningful physiological recovery. The athletes who added the least weight recovered the least.

How Fast Does It Come Back?

This is where the reverse-diet case falls apart on timing alone. If it took six months of careful ramping for a suppressed metabolism to recover, a long protocol would make sense. It does not take six months.

In the Martins "illusion" study, adaptation measured 92 calories per day at the end of the eight-week diet. After four weeks of eating at maintenance with essentially no weight change (90.1 kg to 90.0 kg), adaptation had fallen to 38 calories per day. Resting metabolic rate went from 1,654 to 1,715 calories per day, a gain of 61 calories per day, without any change in body weight. In the subgroup who happened to gain a little weight during those four weeks, there was no statistically detectable adaptation left at all. At one year, adaptation in the followed subgroup was 7 calories per day and not significantly different from zero.

Peos and colleagues (2021, PLoS ONE) tested a shorter window in a more relevant population: 26 resistance-trained athletes, 42 percent female. After a single week of eating at predicted maintenance, resting energy expenditure rose from about 7,000 to 7,200 kJ per day (p = 0.026), or roughly 48 calories per day in seven days. Body weight rose 0.6 kg, of which 0.7 kg was fat-free mass. Hunger and irritability fell, fullness, satisfaction, and alertness rose, and strength was unchanged.

Trexler and colleagues (2017, International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism) tracked 15 natural physique athletes through competition. Resting metabolic rate one week before the show was 1,612 calories per day, or 92 percent of predicted. Within one week after the show it was 1,881, or 105 percent of predicted. At four to six weeks it settled at 1,778, or 99.6 percent of predicted. The recovery took days, not months, and the size of the metabolic recovery tracked the change in body fat percentage (r = 0.59).

A reasonable summary: the deficit-driven portion of metabolic adaptation largely resolves inside four weeks of eating at maintenance, and a meaningful chunk of it resolves inside the first week. Nothing about that process requires 50 calorie weekly increments.

The Only Randomized Trial

Reverse dieting existed as a coaching practice for well over a decade before anyone randomized people to it. In 2025, Da Silva and colleagues from Bill Campbell's lab at the University of South Florida presented the results at the International Society of Sports Nutrition conference, published in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition (volume 22, supplement 2).

The design was straightforward. Resistance-trained men and women aged 18 to 50 completed a diet phase at a 30 percent deficit until they had lost 5 percent of their starting body weight. They were then randomized to one of three post-diet strategies for 15 weeks:

• REV: a reverse diet, increasing calories by 8.5 percent per week for men and 11.7 percent per week for women.
• NIH: an immediate jump to estimated maintenance calories using the NIH Body Weight Planner equations.
• CON: ad libitum eating with no prescription at all.

Here is what happened, in the 49 participants included in the weight-regain analysis:

The reverse diet group regained the most weight, not the least. The difference did not reach statistical significance, so the honest reading is that the three strategies performed similarly on weight regain. What is not ambiguous is that reverse dieting showed no advantage on the outcome it is specifically marketed to improve. The authors wrote that a gradual increase "may not be more effective at minimizing weight regain."

The adherence data is arguably more damning. Nearly half the reverse-diet group withdrew from the study, against about a quarter of the ad libitum group. The authors noted that prescribed strategies were expected to improve adherence, and that "the present data challenges this assumption." The subjective survey told the same story: across 12 weekly questions, the reverse group rated adherence significantly harder than the ad libitum group from weeks 10 through 15, and harder than the immediate-maintenance group in weeks 14 and 15.

One quirk worth pointing out: the reverse group in this trial ramped calories much faster than typical online protocols, ending 244 calories per day higher than the maintenance group. The reverse-diet participants reported lower hunger and higher fullness in the back half of the study, which follows directly from eating more food rather than from any metabolic effect.

Why Reverse Dieting Feels Like It Works

Thousands of people have reverse dieted and reported that their maintenance calories went up dramatically. Those reports are sincere. Four things explain them without requiring a metabolic mechanism.

1. Tracking accuracy drifts

Self-reported intake is notoriously unreliable, and it gets worse as the tracking period drags on. Registered dietitians underestimate their own intake by more than 20 percent (Champagne et al., 2013). In the classic Lichtman study, subjects underreported intake by an average of 47 percent and over-reported physical activity by 51 percent. A person who logs 1,800 calories at the start of a reverse diet and 2,800 four months later may well have eaten closer to 2,100 and 2,900. Some of the "unlocked" calories were always there.

2. Maintenance is a range, not a number

A kilogram of body fat holds roughly 9,441 calories of stored energy. That means a 100 calorie per day error takes more than three months to move the scale by a single kilogram, which is well within normal weight fluctuation from water, glycogen, and gut contents. Your practical maintenance range can be 300 or 400 calories wide before the scale reliably tells you which side of it you are on. A reverse diet that "adds 400 calories with no weight gain" may have moved you from the bottom of your maintenance range to the top of it.

3. The cumulative math is the real trick

This is the most interesting one. Intake happens instantaneously; weight change happens cumulatively. Imagine your true maintenance is 2,600 calories and you finish a cut eating 2,225. You reverse diet at 50 calories per week for 16 weeks, ending at 2,975. Every week below 2,600 banked a deficit, and every week above it banked a surplus. Run the arithmetic across the whole ramp and your cumulative energy balance is exactly zero. You end at 2,975 calories at the same weight you started, and it genuinely feels like you unlocked 375 calories per day. You did not. You averaged 2,600 the whole time.

4. Cause and effect get inverted

Reverse dieters attribute rising expenditure to their small calorie increases. The arrow more likely runs the other way. As you exit the deficit, thyroid output normalizes, spontaneous movement picks back up, you regain a little tissue, and your expenditure climbs on its own. That climb is what allows you to keep adding calories without gaining weight. The calorie increases are following the metabolic recovery rather than causing it.

The thrifty phenotype problem

There is one more wrinkle that deserves attention. Research on "thrifty" versus "spendthrift" metabolic phenotypes (Hollstein et al., 2021) shows that people whose expenditure drops sharply in a deficit are also the people whose expenditure rises least during overfeeding. Spendthrift individuals showed significantly larger 24-hour energy expenditure increases with overfeeding on both low-protein (p = 0.002) and high-protein (p = 0.03) diets. If gradual calorie increases could raise expenditure, the effect would be smallest in exactly the population that wants it most.

What Actually Improves When You Eat More

None of this means the post-diet period is unimportant. The benefits people experience when they come out of a deficit are real. They are just attributable to leaving the deficit rather than to the pace of the ramp.

The Peos 2021 data after one week at maintenance is a clean illustration: resting energy expenditure up, fat-free mass up 0.7 kg, hunger down (p = 0.017), irritability down (p = 0.041), fullness up (p = 0.002), satisfaction up (p = 0.002), alertness up (p = 0.003), strength maintained. One week.

Longer restoration matters for the hormonal picture. Pardue and colleagues (2017) documented a single drug-free male bodybuilder across 13 months. During prep, intake fell from 3,860 to 1,724 calories per day, resting metabolic rate fell from 107 percent to 81 percent of predicted, testosterone fell from 623 to 173 ng/dL, T3 fell from 123 to 40 ng/dL, ghrelin rose from 383 to 822 pg/mL, and peak anaerobic power fell from 753 to 537 watts. By month 13, after five months of recovery and a return to 13.8 percent body fat, the changes were "largely, but not entirely, reversed."

Rossow and colleagues (2013) tracked another natural bodybuilder through six months of prep and six months of recovery. Body fat went 14.8 percent to 4.5 percent to 14.6 percent. Testosterone went 9.22 to 2.27 to 9.91 ng/mL. Resting heart rate dropped to 27 bpm at the end of prep and normalized within a month of eating more. Total mood disturbance went from 6 units to 43 to 4. Strength, notably, had still not fully recovered at six months.

The common thread across all of these is that recovery tracked returning to a normal body fat level and a normal energy intake. In the Longstrom study, the athletes who stayed lean and added little weight were the ones whose hormones and metabolic rate stayed suppressed. If you are coming off a very lean cut and want your physiology back, the intervention is regaining some fat, not the schedule you use to add calories.

Who Should Actually Reverse Diet

There is exactly one situation where a gradual ramp is the better choice: when you have no reliable estimate of your true maintenance.

If you finished a cut without consistent tracking, or your weight has been moving fast enough that your calculated maintenance is guesswork, jumping to a number you invented risks overshooting by several hundred calories per day for weeks before you notice. Stepping up gradually and watching the scale is a sensible way to find the number empirically. That is a measurement strategy, and it has nothing to do with metabolism.

Some people also benefit psychologically. If the idea of adding 500 calories overnight after four months of restriction sends you into a spiral, a staged increase over two or three weeks is a reasonable accommodation. The 2025 trial data suggests this cuts both ways, though, since the reverse group found adherence hardest and quit most often. A long, precise protocol also reinforces rigid dietary control at the exact moment most people need to practice loosening it.

The Post-Cut Protocol That Works

Here is a practical sequence that respects what the evidence actually shows.

Step 1: Calculate your new maintenance from your own data

Take your average daily intake over the last four weeks of the cut and your average weekly weight change over that same period. Every pound of weight change per week corresponds to roughly 500 calories per day. If you were eating 2,000 calories and losing 1 pound per week, your maintenance at your current weight is about 2,500. This number is derived from your actual body rather than from a calculator, which makes it far more accurate than any equation.

Step 2: Go there

Add the calories in one step, or across two steps a week apart if that feels less alarming. Put most of the increase into carbohydrate, since carbohydrate is what restores glycogen and training performance fastest, and keep protein where it was.

Step 3: Expect the scale to jump, and ignore it

You will gain weight in the first week. Most of it is glycogen and the water bound to it, at roughly three to four grams of water per gram of glycogen, plus the increased volume of food in your digestive tract. Martins estimated 1.6 to 2.5 kg of rebound from this alone. Peos measured a 0.6 kg gain in one week that was almost entirely fat-free mass. Do not interpret week-one weight as fat gain and do not react to it by cutting calories back.

Step 4: Hold maintenance for three to four weeks

This is the actual recovery window from the Martins data. Keep training hard, keep protein at 1.6 to 2.2 g/kg, and let hunger, sleep, mood, and training performance normalize. Track your weekly weight average and adjust by 100 to 150 calories if the trend is clearly moving after the first two weeks.

Step 5: Decide what comes next

After three or four weeks you have a stable, real maintenance number and a recovered lifter. From there you either stay at maintenance, move into a lean bulk with a 200 to 400 calorie surplus, or, if you still have fat to lose, start another deficit from a better physiological starting point.

Seven Common Mistakes

1. Treating a small adaptation like a large one. If your metabolism is genuinely 50 to 100 calories per day below prediction, that is one banana. Build your plan around that magnitude rather than the 500 calorie figure from a reality TV show.

2. Dragging the reverse out for months. Most of the recoverable adaptation is gone in four weeks. A 20-week ramp spends 16 extra weeks in a protocol that is no longer doing anything, and those are 16 weeks you could have spent building muscle or losing more fat.

3. Panicking at week-one water weight. This is the single most common reason people abandon a post-diet plan and drop straight back into a deficit. Glycogen and water regain looks like failure on the scale and is not.

4. Staying stage-lean indefinitely. If you cut to a body fat level that suppressed your hormones, the fix requires regaining fat. A reverse diet designed to avoid regaining fat will not restore that physiology. Longstrom's athletes proved this.

5. Trusting your food log more than the scale. Tracking error compounds over months. If your log says you are eating 3,100 calories at maintenance and every equation says you should be around 2,600, the log is probably wrong.

6. Confusing precision with control. A protocol requiring you to hit 2,275 calories exactly, then 2,325, then 2,375, demands a level of measurement accuracy that human food tracking cannot deliver, and it reinforces the rigid restraint that predicts worse long-term outcomes.

7. Skipping the maintenance phase entirely. The opposite error is also common. Going from a deep cut straight into a large surplus wastes the leanest, most insulin-sensitive state you will have all year. Two to four weeks at maintenance costs you almost nothing and sets up everything that follows.

The Honest Verdict

Reverse dieting is a solution to a problem that has been badly overstated. Metabolic adaptation exists and is worth understanding, but at 40 to 100 calories per day in controlled conditions it is a rounding error next to the behavioral variables that actually determine whether you keep the weight off. The portion of it that can reverse does so within about four weeks of eating at maintenance, regardless of how you get there. The one randomized trial ever run found the gradual approach regained slightly more weight, was rated hardest to follow, and lost nearly half its participants.

What people call a successful reverse diet is usually a successful maintenance phase with extra steps and a spreadsheet. The maintenance phase is the part doing the work. Take three or four weeks, eat at maintenance, let your body sort itself out, and then get on with whatever you are actually training for.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does reverse dieting actually work?

The only randomized trial to test it found no benefit. Da Silva and colleagues (2025) randomized 49 resistance-trained adults who had lost 5 percent of their body weight into a gradual reverse diet, an immediate return to maintenance, or an ad libitum control for 15 weeks. The reverse group regained the most weight (3.68 percent versus 2.73 and 1.30 percent), though the difference was not statistically significant. Reverse dieting did not prevent regain better than eating at maintenance.

How much does your metabolism actually slow down when you diet?

Less than most people think. Measured after body weight has stabilized, adaptation in controlled studies runs about 40 to 100 calories per day beyond what the loss of body mass predicts. Martins et al. (2020) measured 54 calories per day in 171 women who lost about 12 kg, and 92 calories per day in a separate group of 71 adults with obesity. The dramatic figures come from extreme cases and from measurements taken while subjects were still in a deficit.

How long does it take for your metabolism to recover after a diet?

Most of it returns within about four weeks at maintenance. Martins et al. (2020) found adaptation dropped from 92 to 38 calories per day after four weeks of weight-stable eating, with resting rate rising 61 calories per day despite no weight change. Peos et al. (2021) measured roughly a 48 calorie per day rise in trained athletes after one week. The remainder is tied to your lower body fat and only reverses if you regain fat.

Can you raise your metabolism by eating more?

You can restore a suppressed metabolism by ending the deficit, but you cannot push it above your natural level with gradual increases. No study has shown that slow calorie ramps raise total daily energy expenditure beyond what returning to energy balance and regaining mass would do anyway. The apparent effect largely reflects reversed causation: expenditure rises as you exit the deficit, which is what lets you keep adding calories.

How many calories should I add per week after a cut?

If you know your maintenance reasonably well, go straight there. If you do not, add 100 to 200 calories per week and stop as soon as your weekly weight average stabilizes. For reference, the 2025 trial used 8.5 percent per week for men and 11.7 percent for women, a far faster ramp than the 50 calorie per week protocols sold online, and it still showed no advantage.

Will I gain fat when I stop dieting?

Some weight comes back within days, and most of it is not fat. Restoring carbohydrate refills muscle glycogen, which binds roughly three to four grams of water per gram, and digestive contents increase with larger meals. Martins et al. (2020) estimated 1.6 to 2.5 kg of rebound from glycogen and water alone, and Peos et al. (2021) measured a 0.6 kg one-week gain of which 0.7 kg was fat-free mass. Expect the jump, then judge fat gain from the trend over the next three to four weeks.

References

• Trexler ET, Smith-Ryan AE, Norton LE. Metabolic adaptation to weight loss: implications for the athlete. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2014;11(1):7.
• Da Silva VR, Muniz M, Shelton G, et al. The effects of reverse dieting on mitigating weight regain after a caloric deficit: a preliminary analysis. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2025;22(Suppl 2):2550185.
• Da Silva VR, Holtje J, Bratton A, et al. Adherence and compliance rates across post-dieting strategies: a preliminary analysis. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2025;22(Suppl 2):2550186.
• Monahan S, Da Silva VR, Atehortua S, et al. Qualitative insights into post-dieting strategies. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2025;22(Suppl 2):2550189.
• Martins C, Gower BA, Hill JO, Hunter GR. Metabolic adaptation is not a major barrier to weight-loss maintenance. Am J Clin Nutr. 2020;112(3):558-565.
• Martins C, Roekenes J, Salamati S, Gower BA, Hunter GR. Metabolic adaptation is an illusion, only present when participants are in negative energy balance. Am J Clin Nutr. 2020;112(5):1212-1218.
• Müller MJ, Enderle J, Bosy-Westphal A. Changes in energy expenditure with weight gain and weight loss in humans. Curr Obes Rep. 2016;5(4):413-423.
• Fothergill E, Guo J, Howard L, et al. Persistent metabolic adaptation 6 years after "The Biggest Loser" competition. Obesity. 2016;24(8):1612-1619.
• Peos JJ, Helms ER, Fournier PA, Krieger J, Sainsbury A. A 1-week diet break improves muscle endurance during an intermittent dieting regimen in adult athletes. PLoS One. 2021;16(2):e0247292.
• Trexler ET, Hirsch KR, Campbell BI, Smith-Ryan AE. Physiological changes following competition in male and female physique athletes. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2017;27(5):458-466.
• Longstrom JM, Colenso-Semple LM, Waddell BJ, et al. Physiological, psychological and performance-related changes following physique competition. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2020;5(2):27.
• Pardue A, Trexler ET, Sprod LK. Case study: unfavorable but transient physiological changes during contest preparation in a drug-free male bodybuilder. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2017;27(6):550-559.
• Rossow LM, Fukuda DH, Fahs CA, Loenneke JP, Stout JR. Natural bodybuilding competition preparation and recovery: a 12-month case study. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2013;8(5):582-592.
• Rosenbaum M, Leibel RL. Adaptive thermogenesis in humans. Int J Obes. 2010;34(Suppl 1):S47-55.
• Leibel RL, Rosenbaum M, Hirsch J. Changes in energy expenditure resulting from altered body weight. N Engl J Med. 1995;332(10):621-628.
• Hollstein T, Basolo A, Ando T, et al. Recharacterizing the metabolic state of energy balance in thrifty and spendthrift phenotypes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2021;106(5):1375-1392.
• Niemeier HM, Phelan S, Fava JL, Wing RR. Internal disinhibition predicts weight regain following weight loss and weight loss maintenance. Obesity. 2007;15(10):2485-2494.
• Lillis J, Thomas JG, Niemeier H, Wing RR. Internal disinhibition predicts 5-year weight regain in the National Weight Control Registry. Obes Sci Pract. 2016;2(1):83-87.
• Champagne CM, Bray GA, Kurtz AA, et al. Energy intake and energy expenditure: a controlled study comparing dietitians and non-dietitians. J Am Diet Assoc. 2002;102(10):1428-1432.
• Lichtman SW, Pestone M, Dowling H, et al. Discrepancy between self-reported and actual caloric intake and exercise in obese subjects. N Engl J Med. 1992;327(27):1893-1898.