Message Boards » General Diet and Weight Loss Help

TOPIC: Eat more calories and lose weight- What is really happening

 
Ic_disabled_photos
Topic has been inactive for 30 days or more and images have been disabled.
Display All Images
May 15, 2013 1:39 PM
QUOTE:

Thanks Tony. The eat more crowd here was started by some people who wanted to promote their website by informing those that ate at 1200 cals, that they could eat more and still lose, but it obviously got out of hand. I agree, if your not losing weight, you simply are eating too much. I like the point you bring in about binge eating because you could eat 600 cals on Monday but eat it all back on Friday!


oh you are wrong

you are very very very wrong

i don't normally binge, and when it does happen, it's always within my calorie allowance. i ate 1200 or less consistently for 6 months while exercising religiously 5 times a week, doing strength and cardio, plus walking A LOT. there was DEFINITELY a huge deficit going.

even if i had been miscalculating my portions (which is unlikely because i always pick the highest calorie counts on items here and i don't accurately weigh food but i've got an estimate because i buy my food by weight. so even if i don't know how much a potato is, i know that i got 500 grams of potatos and have potatoes, so they can't be more than 100-150 each) i would still have been creating a deficit. i was eating the minimum a person should + exercising intensely more than 2 hours a day.

i still didn't lose A POUND, or an inch. absolutely nothing changed, except i went a little bit insane.

i got checked to see if there was something wrong with my metabolism. guess what? there wasn't.

i wasn't losing because i wasn't eating enough. if you don't eat enough your body will hold on to the fat. the examples OP gave of people eating low cal are extreme cases and not ideals or role models.

if you eat too much, you gain weight. if you eat too little, you mantain. you need to find a balance and create a proper healthy, mantainable deficit. that's it.
  23426749
May 15, 2013 1:44 PM
I agree with you so so much. I've been thinking this for a while and I'm glad someone finally said it!!
  16024462
May 15, 2013 1:48 PM
Do you have a link to that? Very interesting and this is SO ME!!!!!!
  994999
May 15, 2013 1:55 PM
Increasing calories in (eating more) can result in increasing calories out (generally moving more - NEPA, less efficiency of movement and higher energy cost of processing food - TEF)

This, along with more stringent focus on calories, less unconscious and not logged eating due to decreased feeling of deprivation therefore can result in a greater deficit than if calories in were lower.

TDEE is not static.

Find your calorie sweet spot: low enough that it creates fat loss but not so low it causes fat loss to slow unnecessarily.
Edited by myofibril On May 15, 2013 1:55 PM
May 15, 2013 2:02 PM
Incidentally, this is one of the best reviews of what is really going on with metabolic slowdown from dieting (in reality falling activity levels are the biggest danger it seems...)

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=415
May 15, 2013 2:42 PM
someone asked about "refeed" did I miss a response? I am thinking that it means upping your calories for some days??? thanks
  37642908
May 15, 2013 2:46 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

Thanks for re-posting information already on the forums.


It's not like there aren't people coming to this site asking for help and guidance daily or anything. Some people aren't as good as you at sorting things out.
Well, his last line of arrogance makes me think he believes he a sentient guru about all things nutrition like he knows things that haven't been previously discussed.


So glad the OP is not my trainer - if all the arrogant crap he posted is what he sells to paying clients it's almost criminal.....
  14203297
May 15, 2013 2:50 PM
Please explain refeed
May 15, 2013 2:53 PM
I just wonder amid all the science and you would know an awful lot more than me.If you eat clean home prepared food cooked from scratch nothing from packets and tins ect,and just ate enough to satisfy hunger would you really need all the science?I think eat well and move more sounds very simplistic I know but it does work!smile
  43120707
May 15, 2013 2:56 PM
QUOTE:

I just wonder amid all the science and you would know an awful lot more than me.If you eat clean home prepared food cooked from scratch nothing from packets and tins ect,and just ate enough to satisfy hunger would you really need all the science?I think eat well and move more sounds very simplistic I know but it does work!smile


If you don't eat enough you can easily stall out. What about burning fat compared to muscle???
  11390926
May 15, 2013 2:59 PM
bump
May 15, 2013 3:02 PM
QUOTE:

Hey, y'all. I just wanted to make this post to shed some light from my experience as a private practice RD specializing in weight loss on a concept I see posted so often in these forums:

"Starvation Mode"

How is it that people who can't lose weight on say... 1500 calories, drop to 1200 calories and still don't lose weight? Or even yet, someone who is eating 1000 calories increases their intake up to 1400 and they start losing weight. How does this happen?

First, let's talk about some inconsistencies in the whole calorie counting process:
1. Values for foods in MFP- caloric variance in foods with the same name
2. Portion size estimations from user of MFP- there can even be variance when using measuring cups. Food scales are the most accurate.
3. Variance in reported caloric value from restaurants
4. Variance in the BMR TDEE and calories burned from exercise- these are all equations and estimations anyways

So right there, you have a lot of variance. We can safely assume that foods entered in MFP may have some inaccuracies.

Now let's look at the average MFP user
1. Probably not weighing out all foods. Estimates intake quite a bit.
2. May dine out at a restaurant or casserole dishes that are hard to estimate
3. May skip days or meals and have gaps in data from logging
4. May not be aware of extra calories in food, or simply forget to add certain ingredients
5. May not be accurately recording exercise (Choosing wrong intensity or including warm up and cool down time in workout)

Consider some special populations and individuals who are eating VERY low calorie diets, and are losing weight
- prisoners of war
- people with GI or absorption issues (crohn's disease, etc)
- bariatric surgery patients
- medically supervised protein sparing modified fasts
... all these individuals are on severely restricted calories and still lose weight

The ONLY way to sustain a fat loss is to sustain a caloric deficit: big or small

So here's my 2 cents on what really happens in "starvation mode"

Scenario A: Individual cuts calories and doesn't lose any weight
Possible reasons:
1. general inconsistencies in tracking (examples above) means the original or new calorie values were inaccurate to begin with.
2. this individual becomes less physically active after cutting calories
3. individual binges more severely or often from feeling overly restricted
4. individual is unaware of "sneaking" foods or bigger portion sizes

Scenario B: Individual eats more and loses weight
1. Greater accuracy is achieved as person consumes more, he or she pays more attention to accurate portion sizes
2. Individual begins exercising more
3. Eats more simple, single ingredient foods, which are usually easier to track and measure

The take home point is that to achieve a weight loss, you have to sustain a deficit. There's no other way to do it. So to the 200 pound person only eating 1,000 calories and not losing weight, I would say, your 1,000 calories is probably a misestimation OR you are indeed eating 1,000 calories until you binge and eat back your deficit. (Or you need to get your thyroid checked, but this post is in regards to individuals with normally functioning thyroids).

Bring on the flame posts and naysayers! My body is ready!


laugh

Forgot Scenario C, or which I am a part of...

Person eats more and loses weight:

--Has always meticulously weighed everything and tracked everything both before and after eating more calories.
--Still exercises the same after eating more to include 4 weight training and 2 cardio sessions per week while getting in at least 10,000 steps daily
--Hasn't changed what they ate because dammit, pizza and cheesecake taste good.

Your scenarios you a lot of "may" in the statements. And they DO NOT represent all MFP users, and this one is insulted by your insinuations.

I was on a plateau eating at 1500 calories, and then starting losing again once I increased to 1800 calories. I am now smaller, leaner, and tighter. You can go on and on about what you think I may have done wrong before, but by your OP, you'd be completely wrong.

Have a nice day. drinker
May 15, 2013 3:03 PM
QUOTE:

4. Variance in the BMR TDEE and calories burned from exercise- these are all equations and estimations anyways


Agree, ref to a recent post of over estimation of calorie burnt. Too many work out 100% for 60mins which is pretty impossible if you are overweight and unfit. Warm up, cool down, breaks, slowing could mean that actual workout would be more 20 - 30 mins. Hence calorie burnt could be more 180 not 800!!!
  23564781
May 15, 2013 3:03 PM
this posting is much too logical... thank you Tony for a moment of sanity... so sick of reading the whole starvation mode crap.flowerforyou flowerforyou
  37051467
May 15, 2013 3:06 PM
thank you for being smart. there is so much misinformation in these forums.
May 15, 2013 3:11 PM
You are likely describing a fairly high number of people on this site. I would imagine a lot of people are not tracking food and exercise calories accurately. However, there are a lot of people who are doing all of the right things, and are hungry, tired, have mood swings, aren't losing fat (or any weight at all), and are ready to give up.

You fail completely at understanding the type of person so desperate to lose weight and so scared of food that they would eat <1200 calories a day. And you therefore completely don't understand the most important reasons for "eating more to lose more" - sanity, sustainability, and teaching women to take up space, eat like a normal human beings, and stop obessesive dieting behaviors.

You do not fix someone's mind and behaviors by telling them to get a food scale and heart rate monitor and start tracking every single day for the next year.
Edited by sweetzoejane On May 15, 2013 3:39 PM
May 15, 2013 3:23 PM
Ok - so I have been at this for about a month...calorie goal is 1424 per day. I exercise 3-5 days per week. I have lost 3 pounds. Now after reading the TDEE stuff on this thread, it looks as if I must get 1728 calories per day. So this is an increase of 300 calories a day. Since I have been under that mark for the last month, shouldn't I have lost more since my input/output is far different? I truly am scared to death to eat more calories as my brain has been trained from an early age to eat less. I don't feel hungry and through the day try to get a snack in but still find I have about 1/3 of my calories left to eat after 4:00 pm. Please advise. Thank you
  9524107
May 15, 2013 3:36 PM
exactly! AND that by telling them to eat more simply means to them that they will gain more weight which means more impossible to lose. I am one of those SCARED people! Thank you! Please help!
  9524107
May 15, 2013 3:37 PM
QUOTE:

Increasing calories in (eating more) can result in increasing calories out (generally moving more - NEPA, less efficiency of movement and higher energy cost of processing food - TEF)

This, along with more stringent focus on calories, less unconscious and not logged eating due to decreased feeling of deprivation therefore can result in a greater deficit than if calories in were lower.

TDEE is not static.

Find your calorie sweet spot: low enough that it creates fat loss but not so low it causes fat loss to slow unnecessarily.


^^this

ETA: and not so low as to risk deficiencies.
Edited by Sarauk2sf On May 15, 2013 3:39 PM
  18358448
May 15, 2013 3:44 PM
QUOTE:

I just wonder amid all the science and you would know an awful lot more than me.If you eat clean home prepared food cooked from scratch nothing from packets and tins ect,and just ate enough to satisfy hunger would you really need all the science?I think eat well and move more sounds very simplistic I know but it does work!smile


free your mind of all of this "clean" nonsense. when it comes to weight loss, it's all about the energy equation.

1 "clean" calorie = 1 "dirty" calorie

it's simply a measure of the energy in food.

you can get extremely fat eating nothing but "clean" food to excess. you can get extremely skinny eating nothing but "dirty" food on a calorie deficit.

food is simply fuel. when it comes to weight loss, where that fuel comes from is irrelevant. nutrition is a different matter, but nutrition is not weight loss.
May 15, 2013 3:50 PM
You're completely correct.

However

I lost 1 lb a week (accurately) eating 1200 calories and I also lost 1 lb a week (accurately) eating 1650 calories.


Black magic? Maybe.

It's not a one-sized fits all answer for ever single individual. Do I want to believe that the mathematical logistics apply to everyone equally? Well, yeah. But who knows why it doesn't.

If I can lose 1 lb a week eating more or less, I choose more. If someone offered me a salary of 100,000 dollars a year, that'd be like me saying "nah, I'm good with 50,000".

The problem I have the large deficits isn't the fact of whether it works or not. Of course it works. When those people gain it all back and have ended up with a huge loss of LBM, THAT'S when they'll look for another way.
  9294531
May 15, 2013 4:05 PM
Bump this thread for later!
  4373304
May 15, 2013 4:32 PM
QUOTE:

You're completely correct.

However

I lost 1 lb a week (accurately) eating 1200 calories and I also lost 1 lb a week (accurately) eating 1650 calories.


Black magic? Maybe.

It's not a one-sized fits all answer for ever single individual. Do I want to believe that the mathematical logistics apply to everyone equally? Well, yeah. But who knows why it doesn't.

If I can lose 1 lb a week eating more or less, I choose more. If someone offered me a salary of 100,000 dollars a year, that'd be like me saying "nah, I'm good with 50,000".

The problem I have the large deficits isn't the fact of whether it works or not. Of course it works. When those people gain it all back and have ended up with a huge loss of LBM, THAT'S when they'll look for another way.


Large deficits don't work if they cause you to stall out.
  11390926
May 15, 2013 4:51 PM
Call me slow, but I still have trouble understanding this.

For me, personally, I am trying to lose two pounds a week. So, that means a 7000 calorie weekly deficit, or 1000 calories a day.

My TDEE is a little above 2500. So that means I should be eating 1500 calories daily to achieve a 1000 calorie deficit.

I eat around 1300-1400, only because I'm leaving room for error when either counting calories burned exercising or slight estimating on food. Everyone is telling me I am eating too little. But if I eat more, I won't lose as much weight?

My question is: How do I still lose two pounds a week if I do not have a 7000 calorie deficit?

Image not displayed
Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter
May 15, 2013 4:59 PM
Fascinating.
Why is it so crazy to imagine that the human body would adapt to conditions?
I think we'd all readily agree that the body gets more efficient at certain cardio exercises, so you burn less. We're not afraid to believe that theory, because it means "you need to burn more/eat less".
But why would we NOT believe that the body adapts to consistently deep deficits? We're afraid to believe that, because it might indicate that a shallower deficit (ie, eating more, burning less) is a good idea.
This is a case of outcome bias.
And yes, I think that the adaptation may be very aligned with NEAT in the shorter term. In other words, you'd slow down because you're hungry. Heck, I'm COLD when I run a deep deficit. I can FEEL it. But it's also common sense that, if you lose fast (say 3 pounds a week when you're not obese), some of that will be muscle. And if you lose muscle, ultimately your metabolism will drop. So it would logically affect you in the longer term too.
  122266

Message Boards » General Diet and Weight Loss Help

Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy.