The Eat More To Lose Weight Theory
Options
Replies
-
Everyone raves about this theory, but I cannot get it to work. I understand that if you eat too little your metabolism stalls, but I've never had the weight loss occur from eating more. When I eat too little I don't lose any weight, but I stay the same (15 -20 pounds overweight). So I try eating more (adding a hard boiled egg, a few more slices of turkey) and the scale immediately goes up 4-5 pounds. Obviously I haven't hit on the magic balance.
This is why:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/993576-why-you-gain-weight-if-you-eat-more-than-your-cut
The answer is do it for longer. Keep going eating "more" until the gain stops (after 5-7 pounds at the most) and it will start going the other way. This is, of course, if your plateau was from eating too little.
Sorry that I'm still confused. So when I'm back to 170 and none of my clothes fit, THEN it should start working? That doesn't make sense to me. I read the link, and it's all about people who are at their goal weight already. (And I get the whole "weight range" thing, don't get me wrong. I'm not looking for a magic number. I'm looking to be able to zip my damn jeans.) I just keep going up and down the same 10 pounds for the last 3 years.0 -
I'm a noob at this, but from what I've read, it's also important to consider the difference between losing "weight" (i.e., muscle + fat) and losing fat. Muscle weighs a lot more than fat, and if you're eating at a really high deficit, you WILL be losing muscle along with fat, hence a higher loss on the scale. But is that really a desirable loss? When you up your cals and feed your body, you lose much less muscle and much more fat, hence a smaller loss on the scale and a higher loss in inches. Much better, IMO.
Ok, muscle doesn't weigh more than fat....one pound of muscle weighs the same as one pound of fat...the difference is the volume or space that each takes up at the same weight. Muscle is dense and takes up much less space than fat. That's why when you strength train while trying to lose you can actually gain some muscle, lose fat, look so much smaller, BUT not necessarily lose a bunch of weight on that silly little scale.0 -
I'm a noob at this, but from what I've read, it's also important to consider the difference between losing "weight" (i.e., muscle + fat) and losing fat. Muscle weighs a lot more than fat, and if you're eating at a really high deficit, you WILL be losing muscle along with fat, hence a higher loss on the scale. But is that really a desirable loss? When you up your cals and feed your body, you lose much less muscle and much more fat, hence a smaller loss on the scale and a higher loss in inches. Much better, IMO.
Ok, muscle doesn't weigh more than fat....one pound of muscle weighs the same as one pound of fat...the difference is the volume or space that each takes up at the same weight. Muscle is dense and takes up much less space than fat. That's why when you strength train while trying to lose you can actually gain some muscle, lose fat, look so much smaller, BUT not necessarily lose a bunch of weight on that silly little scale.
Right, that's totally what I meant to say but I flubbed it. I had it all right in my head. Haha. Thanks for clearing that up.
ETA: Density is the thing that matters here. So, when we lose weight we want to be losing fat and not muscle along with it. Right? I saw this the other day and it crystallized it for me:
0 -
I just went to the site and plugged in my height, weight, etc. into the calculator, and it said my TDEE is 2193 just to maintain. Yet MFP with the same information tells me to net 1500 calories. That's quite a difference!!! No wonder I'm confused.
TDEE includes exercise. MFP doesn't; MFP only includes regular daily activity. And MFP's 1500 is to lose, right? Surely it's not giving you that to maintain unless you're tiny.
Yes, I'm trying to get back to 145 from the 162-165 where I've been stuck ever since hitting perimenopause and getting put on pills for the migraines and related issues. So yes, I'm trying to lose weight. MFP asks for your activity level. I have a desk job but I do 30 minutes of weight training or cardio on alternate days every night, plus walk for 15-30 minutes on top of that every day. So I'm not sure what to plug in on MFP as my activity level to give me a decent calorie number to shoot for. (And I'm 45, female, 5 foot six inches tall, average build, if that matters.) I weighed 140 for 20 years before hitting this ridiculous stage of my life. And the hand held body fat indicator has me at 31%.
ETA I'm sorry to sound so incredibly stupid - I really do want to find the right balance so that I can possibly fit into my size 8s again rather than surrendering to hormonal imbalance and having to buy an entire new wardrobe.
0 -
Everyone raves about this theory, but I cannot get it to work. I understand that if you eat too little your metabolism stalls, but I've never had the weight loss occur from eating more. When I eat too little I don't lose any weight, but I stay the same (15 -20 pounds overweight). So I try eating more (adding a hard boiled egg, a few more slices of turkey) and the scale immediately goes up 4-5 pounds. Obviously I haven't hit on the magic balance.
This is why:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/993576-why-you-gain-weight-if-you-eat-more-than-your-cut
The answer is do it for longer. Keep going eating "more" until the gain stops (after 5-7 pounds at the most) and it will start going the other way. This is, of course, if your plateau was from eating too little.
Sorry that I'm still confused. So when I'm back to 170 and none of my clothes fit, THEN it should start working? That doesn't make sense to me. I read the link, and it's all about people who are at their goal weight already. (And I get the whole "weight range" thing, don't get me wrong. I'm not looking for a magic number. I'm looking to be able to zip my damn jeans.) I just keep going up and down the same 10 pounds for the last 3 years.
It's not for people who are at their goal weight. It's for people at every weight who cut calories. As soon as you cut calories your weight drops dramatically in the first few days. This is because of glycogen depletion. You will remain depleted as long as you maintain your calorie cut. As soon as you increase calories, those stores begin to replenish (you gain). When you cut again, they deplete. None of this is fat loss. This is usually the first 5 lbs lost.0 -
Sorry that I'm still confused. So when I'm back to 170 and none of my clothes fit, THEN it should start working? That doesn't make sense to me. I read the link, and it's all about people who are at their goal weight already. (And I get the whole "weight range" thing, don't get me wrong. I'm not looking for a magic number. I'm looking to be able to zip my damn jeans.) I just keep going up and down the same 10 pounds for the last 3 years.
[/quote]
It's not for people who are at their goal weight. It's for people at every weight who cut calories. As soon as you cut calories your weight drops dramatically in the first few days. This is because of glycogen depletion. You will remain depleted as long as you maintain your calorie cut. As soon as you increase calories, those stores begin to replenish (you gain). When you cut again, they deplete. None of this is fat loss. This is usually the first 5 lbs lost.
[/quote]
This sounds like you would just yo-yo back and forth then indefinitely. What am I not getting??? Maybe I'm the only one who hasn't had luck with this approach, but clearly I'm doing something wrong.0 -
Hopefully after a small water gain of a few lbs, you find a healthy calorie level that allows you to fuel your body and keep losing. You don't have to keep increasing calories, you just keep going at that level until you're at goal weight (or you have to reduce calories a bit if you have a lot to lose, which you don't seem to). If you put up your stats - height, weight, age, and exercise habits - someone (I) can help you figure out a good cut value for you.0
-
Hopefully after a small water gain of a few lbs, you find a healthy calorie level that allows you to fuel your body and keep losing. You don't have to keep increasing calories, you just keep going at that level until you're at goal weight (or you have to reduce calories a bit if you have a lot to lose, which you don't seem to). If you put up your stats - height, weight, age, and exercise habits - someone (I) can help you figure out a good cut value for you.
Female, 45, 5'6" Currently 165 pounds. (Was happy at 140 for decades until perimenopause.)
MWF I do 30 minutes on our elliptical-ish exercise bike, which says I burn about 220 calories per session.
T-T-S I do 30 minutes (roughly, sometimes more) of weight lifting, using free weights. 15 to 140 pounds depending on the exercise, naturally. I've been doing a warm-up set and then 4 sets of 8 reps, or as many as I can. When I can do 4 sets of 8 with proper form, I bump the weight up a little. I alternate which body parts I exercise so I don't do the same ones twice in a row.
I walk 10-20 minutes M-F at a fast clip before I eat lunch. Weather permitting, I also walk outside 3-4 x a week for 2 miles in 30 minutes, plus the usual house and yard work. I consider myself moderately active, though certainly not an "athlete" by any means.
I have been told by my OB/gyn, a regular doctor, and a fitness trainer that this SHOULD be making me lose weight, but it's not. My thyroid test came back normal. I am on Yaz for perimenopause symptoms and have been for about 5 1/2 years now.
Probably more than you needed to know, but there you are.
0 -
Ok, muscle doesn't weigh more than fat....one pound of muscle weighs the same as one pound of fat...the difference is the volume or space that each takes up at the same weight. Muscle is dense and takes up much less space than fat. That's why when you strength train while trying to lose you can actually gain some muscle, lose fat, look so much smaller, BUT not necessarily lose a bunch of weight on that silly little scale.
I wish people would stop nitpicking this.
Actually, you are wrong.
If you take 1 LITER of fat and 1 LITER of muscle, the liter of muscle would weigh more, so therefore, muscle weighs more than fat.
It's just a matter of what variable you are comparing, two samples of the same volume or two samples of the same mass. But we ALL know what someone means when they say that 'muscle weighs more than fat' they are thinking in terms of two samples of the same volume, and people that harp on "a pound of muscles weighs the same as a pound of fat" are just being a nitpicky jerk. Sorry, I just get so annoyed with that.0 -
Ok, muscle doesn't weigh more than fat....one pound of muscle weighs the same as one pound of fat...the difference is the volume or space that each takes up at the same weight. Muscle is dense and takes up much less space than fat. That's why when you strength train while trying to lose you can actually gain some muscle, lose fat, look so much smaller, BUT not necessarily lose a bunch of weight on that silly little scale.
I wish people would stop nitpicking this.
Actually, you are wrong.
If you take 1 LITER of fat and 1 LITER of muscle, the liter of muscle would weigh more, so therefore, muscle weighs more than fat.
It's just a matter of what variable you are comparing, two samples of the same volume or two samples of the same mass. But we ALL know what someone means when they say that 'muscle weighs more than fat' they are thinking in terms of two samples of the same volume, and people that harp on "a pound of muscles weighs the same as a pound of fat" are just being a nitpicky jerk. Sorry, I just get so annoyed with that. 0 -
Hopefully after a small water gain of a few lbs, you find a healthy calorie level that allows you to fuel your body and keep losing. You don't have to keep increasing calories, you just keep going at that level until you're at goal weight (or you have to reduce calories a bit if you have a lot to lose, which you don't seem to). If you put up your stats - height, weight, age, and exercise habits - someone (I) can help you figure out a good cut value for you.
Female, 45, 5'6" Currently 165 pounds. (Was happy at 140 for decades until perimenopause.)
MWF I do 30 minutes on our elliptical-ish exercise bike, which says I burn about 220 calories per session.
T-T-S I do 30 minutes (roughly, sometimes more) of weight lifting, using free weights. 15 to 140 pounds depending on the exercise, naturally. I've been doing a warm-up set and then 4 sets of 8 reps, or as many as I can. When I can do 4 sets of 8 with proper form, I bump the weight up a little. I alternate which body parts I exercise so I don't do the same ones twice in a row.
I walk 10-20 minutes M-F at a fast clip before I eat lunch. Weather permitting, I also walk outside 3-4 x a week for 2 miles in 30 minutes, plus the usual house and yard work. I consider myself moderately active, though certainly not an "athlete" by any means.
I have been told by my OB/gyn, a regular doctor, and a fitness trainer that this SHOULD be making me lose weight, but it's not. My thyroid test came back normal. I am on Yaz for perimenopause symptoms and have been for about 5 1/2 years now.
Probably more than you needed to know, but there you are.
You have outlined roughly 5 hours of moderate activity in a week. With your stats, your numbers are roughly this:
BMR: 1414 - the number of calories your body should be burning if you're comatose, just to stay alive
TDEE: 2192 - the average daily number of calories you burn, averaged out over 7 days of the week
Given those numbers, you should be eating somewhere around 1863 calories daily to lose about 2.6 lbs per month. If you want to try and speed it up, you could go as low as 1750 calories daily (every day of the week; don't add exercise calories) and you may lose up to 3.5 lbs per month, but you run the risk of burning through more lean mass if you do. You do not have a lot of weight to lose, relatively speaking.
I would say split the difference and aim for 1800 calories daily, every day of the week. You may gain at first; that's the water gain I mentioned in my previous post. But you really should be able to lose on that amount if you keep consistent for months. A couple of weeks isn't going to provide noticeable losses unless you're depleting glycogen or burning through lean mass.
Slow and steady is the way to go... with little to no deprivation from too-high deficits.0 -
Ok, muscle doesn't weigh more than fat....one pound of muscle weighs the same as one pound of fat...the difference is the volume or space that each takes up at the same weight. Muscle is dense and takes up much less space than fat. That's why when you strength train while trying to lose you can actually gain some muscle, lose fat, look so much smaller, BUT not necessarily lose a bunch of weight on that silly little scale.
I wish people would stop nitpicking this.
Actually, you are wrong.
If you take 1 LITER of fat and 1 LITER of muscle, the liter of muscle would weigh more, so therefore, muscle weighs more than fat.
It's just a matter of what variable you are comparing, two samples of the same volume or two samples of the same mass. But we ALL know what someone means when they say that 'muscle weighs more than fat' they are thinking in terms of two samples of the same volume, and people that harp on "a pound of muscles weighs the same as a pound of fat" are just being a nitpicky jerk. Sorry, I just get so annoyed with that.
I beg to differ. I've never been rude or called anyone an offensive name either. As many, such as yourself do. And I'm not wrong... One pound of muscle weighs the same as one pound of fat.
My point is that people get hung up on the scale. A pound of muscle takes up less space than a pound of fat. Therefore the scale is not always the best predictor of what's going on with the composition of one's body.0 -
The thing with eating more to lose weight is that it only works if you are undercutting your calories in the first place. It also is really important to not fill those extra calories with something unhealthy, have an extra piece of chicken or veggies to help get you there. People seem to really take weight loss as a crazy thing, but honestly I am not even counting my calories, I know where I am at and I know where I need to be. I eat until I am satisfied and eat as clean as possible. Any diet that I find out there is too complicated, so I just do my best to eat as healthy as possible. Sometimes I think we get so up in our head about what to do to lose weight that we do a half baked job at 10 different things instead of 1 really good job at 1 thing. So start moving, skip that donut, and you will be healthier, pretty much guaranteed.0
-
Ok, muscle doesn't weigh more than fat....one pound of muscle weighs the same as one pound of fat...the difference is the volume or space that each takes up at the same weight. Muscle is dense and takes up much less space than fat. That's why when you strength train while trying to lose you can actually gain some muscle, lose fat, look so much smaller, BUT not necessarily lose a bunch of weight on that silly little scale.
I wish people would stop nitpicking this.
Actually, you are wrong.
If you take 1 LITER of fat and 1 LITER of muscle, the liter of muscle would weigh more, so therefore, muscle weighs more than fat.
It's just a matter of what variable you are comparing, two samples of the same volume or two samples of the same mass. But we ALL know what someone means when they say that 'muscle weighs more than fat' they are thinking in terms of two samples of the same volume, and people that harp on "a pound of muscles weighs the same as a pound of fat" are just being a nitpicky jerk. Sorry, I just get so annoyed with that.
I beg to differ. I've never been rude or called anyone an offensive name either. As many, such as yourself do. And I'm not wrong... One pound of muscle weighs the same as one pound of fat.
My point is that people get hung up on the scale. A pound of muscle takes up less space than a pound of fat. Therefore the scale is not always the best predictor of what's going on with the composition of one's body.
Absolutely, and that was the *exact* point that I was making.0 -
Metabolic confusion...you eat a low calorie diet for a long time your body gets used to it and as our body is a smart thing is uses it the best it can...especially if you are exercising a lot...
Eat more calories....bam body says whoa these are new let me use them....so goes into overdrive...uses them you loose weight then when you go back down to "normal consumption" body is still in over drive...
This is not something that is for maintenance tho for sure ....it is wrote about indept in the 17 day eating plan that is why on level you up the calories every other day...
It works for anyone i know who uses this theory...mind you it can be hard to wrap your head around sometimes...but again if you are exercising you need food to fuel the body so the more exercise you do the more food you need..ask any bodybuilder adding mass...0 -
totally with you on this!! You can't starve yourself to thin. Want to lose then eat and keep that metabolism going!!0
-
Hopefully after a small water gain of a few lbs, you find a healthy calorie level that allows you to fuel your body and keep losing. You don't have to keep increasing calories, you just keep going at that level until you're at goal weight (or you have to reduce calories a bit if you have a lot to lose, which you don't seem to). If you put up your stats - height, weight, age, and exercise habits - someone (I) can help you figure out a good cut value for you.
Female, 45, 5'6" Currently 165 pounds. (Was happy at 140 for decades until perimenopause.)
MWF I do 30 minutes on our elliptical-ish exercise bike, which says I burn about 220 calories per session.
T-T-S I do 30 minutes (roughly, sometimes more) of weight lifting, using free weights. 15 to 140 pounds depending on the exercise, naturally. I've been doing a warm-up set and then 4 sets of 8 reps, or as many as I can. When I can do 4 sets of 8 with proper form, I bump the weight up a little. I alternate which body parts I exercise so I don't do the same ones twice in a row.
I walk 10-20 minutes M-F at a fast clip before I eat lunch. Weather permitting, I also walk outside 3-4 x a week for 2 miles in 30 minutes, plus the usual house and yard work. I consider myself moderately active, though certainly not an "athlete" by any means.
I have been told by my OB/gyn, a regular doctor, and a fitness trainer that this SHOULD be making me lose weight, but it's not. My thyroid test came back normal. I am on Yaz for perimenopause symptoms and have been for about 5 1/2 years now.
Probably more than you needed to know, but there you are.
You have outlined roughly 5 hours of moderate activity in a week. With your stats, your numbers are roughly this:
BMR: 1414 - the number of calories your body should be burning if you're comatose, just to stay alive
TDEE: 2192 - the average daily number of calories you burn, averaged out over 7 days of the week
Given those numbers, you should be eating somewhere around 1863 calories daily to lose about 2.6 lbs per month. If you want to try and speed it up, you could go as low as 1750 calories daily (every day of the week; don't add exercise calories) and you may lose up to 3.5 lbs per month, but you run the risk of burning through more lean mass if you do. You do not have a lot of weight to lose, relatively speaking.
I would say split the difference and aim for 1800 calories daily, every day of the week. You may gain at first; that's the water gain I mentioned in my previous post. But you really should be able to lose on that amount if you keep consistent for months. A couple of weeks isn't going to provide noticeable losses unless you're depleting glycogen or burning through lean mass.
Slow and steady is the way to go... with little to no deprivation from too-high deficits.
Thank you for the suggestion. I certainly haven't been trying to deprive or deplete myself - I've just been trying to exercise, eat healthy, and follow MFP's guidelines, which as I mentioned have not been working, so I appreciate some practical advice. I will try this (and freak out my family by eating so much more, lol!)) and see how it goes.0 -
Sooo . . . I am having such a hard time with this!! I cannot seem to get enough protein in during the day before i've already gone way over on carbs and fiber. Also feeling so stuffed and bloated since I am clearly NOT used to eating 1900 calories a day.
Scale has gone up from 162 to 165.5 in just over a week, clothes still not fitting. Trying not to stress out but am feeling really discouraged. I thought it wouldn't be too hard to add more calories in, but the change in the macros to 40/30/30 from whatever MFP had me at before is proving a challenge!!!0 -
yeah, only if you lacking a macro or micro.0
-
Doesn't work so hot for people who are simply underestimating their intake.
Or spending infinite time on the treadmill.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions