No, the evidence does not establish a sudden, universal resting-metabolism crash at menopause. But it also does not prove that ovarian hormones have no effect on energy expenditure. 2 5

The specific 103 kcal/day claim comes from a retracted paper. Later studies offer a more useful, and less absolute, explanation. 1

Where the 103 kcal figure came from

In 1995, Poehlman, Toth and Gardner reported a six-year study of 35 women in the Annals of Internal Medicine. 1

The paper claimed resting metabolic rate fell by 103 ± 55 kcal/day in women who reached menopause, compared with 8 ± 17 kcal/day in those who remained premenopausal. 1

The paper was subsequently retracted. Those figures can identify the historical claim, but they cannot serve as reliable evidence or justify a standard menopause calorie cut. 1

Retraction invalidates that evidence. It does not, by itself, settle the wider biological question. For that, we need independent studies with different designs and measurements.

Four later studies and what they can tell us

The five-year MONET study

Duval and colleagues followed 102 initially premenopausal women for five years, measuring body composition, activity and energy expenditure annually. 2

Average resting expenditure remained stable in women who became postmenopausal. It increased in those still in the transition at year five. 2

Total expenditure nevertheless declined in the postmenopausal group, mainly through lower activity expenditure. Moderate activity decreased and sedentary time increased during the transition. 2

Resting expenditure and total daily expenditure are therefore not interchangeable. Daily energy use can fall without a corresponding fall at rest. 2

This was observational research, not a test proving that movement explains every woman's change. Its selected sample also limits how broadly we can generalise. 2

A four-compartment comparison

Gould and colleagues compared 72 women aged 35 to 60 using a four-compartment body-composition model and indirect calorimetry. Resting expenditure was similar across menopausal groups, with P = 0.999. 3

Fat oxidation during moderate cycling was higher before than after menopause. That describes fuel use during that exercise test, not a measured decline in resting calorie expenditure. 3

Because different women were compared at one time, this study cannot show how an individual's metabolism changes through menopause. A high P value is not proof that the groups are biologically identical. 3

Resting and post-meal metabolism in 2026

Marcantei and colleagues studied 64 women across premenopause, perimenopause and postmenopause, using DXA, accelerometry and indirect calorimetry at rest and for three hours after a meal. 4

They found no significant group differences in the main resting and post-meal energy measurements when body composition and movement behaviours were similar. 4

One exception matters: the thermic effect of food, the rise in expenditure after eating, was significantly higher in perimenopausal than premenopausal women. Not every result was identical. 4

This small cross-sectional comparison supports caution about a crash narrative, not certainty that menopausal stage has no metabolic effects. 4

An ovarian-suppression experiment

Gavin's 24-week trial randomised 47 women; 34 completed treatment as prescribed. The analysed groups received ovarian suppression alone, suppression plus endurance exercise, or placebo. 5

Within the suppression-only group, total fat increased by 1.7 kg, trunk fat by 0.9 kg and leg fat by 0.6 kg. Leg fat-free mass fell by 0.4 kg. 5

Crucially, changes in body composition and energy expenditure did not differ significantly between groups. The within-group changes do not establish a treatment effect. 5

No significant expenditure change was detected, but that does not mean expenditure was unchanged. Small groups and an imperfect model of natural menopause make this informative, not decisive. 5

What actually changes at the transition

SWAN followed 1,246 women with repeated DXA measurements. Models anchored to the final menstrual period helped distinguish transition-related patterns from chronological ageing. 6

Before the transition, average fat mass rose by 1.0% yearly and lean mass by 0.2%. During it, fat gain reached 1.7% yearly and lean mass declined by 0.2%. These are relative changes, not body-fat percentage points. 6

The composition-change window ran from roughly two years before to 1.5 years after the final period. Average weight gain did not accelerate; weight, fat and lean-mass trajectories later flattened. 6

These are modelled averages, not a timetable every woman follows. They explain why weight alone can miss a changing balance of tissues. 6

Lean mass is not skeletal muscle. DXA lean tissue includes other tissues and water, so a modest measured decline cannot establish the amount of muscle lost or changes in strength. 7

A 2026 narrative review found that menopause and sarcopenia may coincide, but high-quality evidence establishing their causal relationship remains limited. That uncertainty is not evidence that muscle health is unimportant. 7

The evidence is not perfectly uniform

Ambikairajah's meta-analysis included 201 cross-sectional studies involving more than one million women, plus 11 longitudinal studies involving 2,472 women. 8

It attributed total fat differences predominantly to ageing, while finding evidence consistent with redistribution towards central fat after menopause. Its largely cross-sectional design limits causal interpretation. 8

Lovejoy's study provides a different expenditure signal. In a room-calorimetry subset of 34 women, 24-hour and sleeping expenditure declined with age. 9

Sleeping expenditure fell by 7.9% in women who became postmenopausal, compared with 5.3% in those who did not. This concerns sleeping expenditure, not the same resting measurement used in other studies. 9

The small subset limits certainty, but the finding should not be dismissed. Different methods and populations produce a mixed picture, rather than proving either a universal crash or no hormonal contribution. 2 9

A better way to read the scale and respond

The useful response is not to subtract 103 calories automatically. Build a plan around what you can sustain, what is changing and what needs support.

  • Use weight as an optional trend, not the sole verdict on progress.
  • Keep a simple record of activity, strength and symptoms if it helps decisions.
  • If repeating scans, ask about measurement error and use the same method and protocol. 7

A body-composition estimate is not a measurement of resting calorie use. Gould's researchers assessed these separately, using a composition model and indirect calorimetry. 3

For measurement choices, see BIA versus DXA. For regional changes, read perimenopause, visceral fat and waist measurement.

Health New Zealand recommends being active most days, including at least two muscle-strengthening sessions weekly, alongside a high-quality diet rich in whole foods. Adapt the starting point to your ability. 10

For example, choose a manageable walking routine and two planned strength sessions rather than trying to compensate for a presumed metabolic failure. This is a practical starting point, not a guaranteed body-composition outcome.

If you want help organising these habits, nutrition coaching can complement, rather than replace, care from your own doctor.

When to seek help

Sleep disruption, fatigue, mood changes and other menopause symptoms deserve attention when they interfere with daily life. Discuss troublesome symptoms with your GP or another qualified healthcare professional. 10

Seek medical advice about heavy or unusual bleeding, including bleeding after 12 months without a period. Do not explain these symptoms away as a metabolism problem. 10

You do not need to prove a metabolic crash, or purchase a scan, before asking for support.