Did upping your calorie allowance help you lose weight faster?

2»

Replies

  • arditarose
    arditarose Posts: 15,573 Member
    Francl27 wrote: »
    arditarose wrote: »
    Um. No. But it helped me clear my mind, lift more weight, and be less hangry. Naturally, adding calories made me lose weight more slowly. Science.

    Perhaps "faster" was the wrong word to use. "More effectively" would have been better.

    It really depends. If you keep going out and going over once or twice a week, you're better off keeping a bigger deficit, honestly. It's all about averages. My guess is that your average is closer to 1400 than 1200 already... so if you increase your calories but still keep having higher calorie days, it's not going to help you at all.

    This. I increased my calories but had high days, and lost soooo slowly. Now I dropped down to 1400 for a few days a week to even out my weekly deficit. I'm trying to get into maintenance now and I eat so many calories on Saturday I still have to do this.
  • uvi5
    uvi5 Posts: 710 Member
    uvi5 wrote: »
    Maybe not faster, but definately more sustainable. I'm losing size still, the scale moves slow (which is fine with me), i also add exercise and now recently added 4x/wk lifting 1.5 hours/sessions. It's still calories in/calories out, for me that is.

    that.

    im losing at the same rate eating between 1500 and 1800 (sometimes eating back exercise calories, sometimes not, just depending on how i FEEL), then i was at 1200 and eating back ALL my exercise calories (cause i was a hungry raving *kitten*) LOL

    :smiley:
  • Jgasmic
    Jgasmic Posts: 219 Member
    I do better when I up my calories because I'm a hangry witch on 1,200 calories and much more likely to have a 3,000 calorie weekend day when I'm restricting that much, thus knocking out all of the work I did while miserable all week. I ate half a pizza today and a giant piece of lasagna and I'm just a little over my calories. Having the freedom to do that makes this process more sustainable to me.
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 25,593 Member
    edited April 2015
    My calorie allowance had dropped from 1250 to 1200 because of the amount of weight I lost. I was losing really quickly ... much faster than expected (I set my goal at 0.5 kg/week but was losing 1.3 kg/week). But I was having a bit of trouble keeping the calories under 1200. So, I manually upped it back to 1250. I'm losing weight a little bit slower now, but those extra 50 cal are a little more manageable for me.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,234 Member
    Then I get annoyed and think if it's not gonna work then I'll just eat what I want and stop bothering.

    There is a nice term called "compliance". A slower weight loss increases the likelihood of compliance.

    If you get off track often you might be better off to stay on track at a smaller deficit.

  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    A slower weight loss increases the likelihood of compliance.

    All the evidence we have says otherwise.

  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,234 Member
    edited April 2015
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    A slower weight loss increases the likelihood of compliance.

    All the evidence we have says otherwise.

    you have evidence that if a person is not complying with a relatively aggressive goal you will ensure better compliance by making the goal more aggressive?

    Or are you referring to the people who succeed in an aggressive goal being more likely to persevere (which I would agree with you on).
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited April 2015
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    A slower weight loss increases the likelihood of compliance.

    All the evidence we have says otherwise.

    you have evidence that if a person is not complying with a relatively aggressive goal you will ensure better compliance by making the goal more aggressive?

    Or are you referring to the people who succeed in an aggressive goal being more likely to persevere (which I would agree with you on).

    Nobody is more likely to persevere - not the tortoises, not the hares, not the eliminators, not the moderationists. Study after study has shown that people fail at weight loss (and weight maintenance) at the same rate, regardless of approach.

    About the only consistency is that people who are physically active (90 minutes brisk daily walking, or equiv.) tend to have lower body fat %age.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,234 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    A slower weight loss increases the likelihood of compliance.

    All the evidence we have says otherwise.

    you have evidence that if a person is not complying with a relatively aggressive goal you will ensure better compliance by making the goal more aggressive?

    Or are you referring to the people who succeed in an aggressive goal being more likely to persevere (which I would agree with you on).

    Nobody is more likely to persevere - not the tortoises, not the hares, not the eliminators, not the moderationists. Study after study has shown that people fail at weight loss (and weight maintenance) at the same rate, regardless of approach.

    About the only consistency is that people who are physically active tend to have lower body fat %age.

    All righty then! Great news. OP. You're destined to fail. Woohoo!

    (So really since we know that, what is it 90? More than that? Will fail to achieve and maintain weight loss long term.... why are we bothering? or posting?)

    And let us all now all wonder for the purpose of another pointless discussion: do they have less body fat % because they are active or are they active because they have a lower body fat %?

    Oh the joy of forums.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited April 2015
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    A slower weight loss increases the likelihood of compliance.

    All the evidence we have says otherwise.

    you have evidence that if a person is not complying with a relatively aggressive goal you will ensure better compliance by making the goal more aggressive?

    Or are you referring to the people who succeed in an aggressive goal being more likely to persevere (which I would agree with you on).

    Nobody is more likely to persevere - not the tortoises, not the hares, not the eliminators, not the moderationists. Study after study has shown that people fail at weight loss (and weight maintenance) at the same rate, regardless of approach.

    About the only consistency is that people who are physically active tend to have lower body fat %age.

    All righty then! Great news. OP. You're destined to fail. Woohoo!

    (So really since we know that, what is it 90? More than that? Will fail to achieve and maintain weight loss long term.... why are we bothering? or posting?)

    "We" already know this, yet you claimed the opposite just two posts ago.

    Joy of forums, indeed....

    And let us all now all wonder for the purpose of another pointless discussion: do they have less body fat % because they are active or are they active because they have a lower body fat %?

    The former - because they are active.

  • Psychgrrl
    Psychgrrl Posts: 3,177 Member
    For me, it does in the sense that if I'm full I don't binge on junk and blow my calorie limit for the day.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    edited April 2015
    arditarose wrote: »
    Um. No. But it helped me clear my mind, lift more weight, and be less hangry. Naturally, adding calories made me lose weight more slowly. Science.

    Perhaps "faster" was the wrong word to use. "More effectively" would have been better.

    Hey, I like the phrase more effectively. :D My whole weight loss journey I subscribed to eating more and losing at a slower rate, and I'm so glad I did. It made maintenance so much easier for me because my leap from losing to maintaining was not that big.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    arditarose wrote: »
    Um. No. But it helped me clear my mind, lift more weight, and be less hangry. Naturally, adding calories made me lose weight more slowly. Science.

    Perhaps "faster" was the wrong word to use. "More effectively" would have been better.
    It was more effective for me to keep a bigger deficit and be done with it, rather than drag it out.

    Not every hare takes a nap and lets the tortoise win.

    LOL. I like that too.
  • jessmillross
    jessmillross Posts: 11 Member
    Thanks for all the replies guys. I think I will up my limit a little because I don't think I'm being as good as I think I am. If I can be more consistent with a 150 extra calories then it is worth it.
  • cheezels83
    cheezels83 Posts: 62 Member
    One thing came to mind as soon as I read your post. 0.5lbs might not sound a lot. Look at this from another perspective. Just 0.5lbs from someone who is maybe already in the 100's somewhere is a lot more % than someone like me in the low 300's.
    If you are fitting in some exercise I don't see why you couldn't at least try for 2-3 weeks upping your calorie intake just a little with nutritious food and seeing what happens :-) BUT make sure that you log every single little thing so you know that you really are within that calorie range.