eat more to lose... a theory
jacksonpt
Posts: 10,413 Member
First, let me frame this post by saying that I'm a firm believer in calorie deficit = weight loss. I think about things far to logically to understand why an increase in cals = more weight loss for the average dieter. Are there people eating too little? Sure. Are there people who need to eat more? Yep. Do I think that's the case for everyone who has plateaued for an hour? No.
So with that said...
I've had conversations about this with other folks and it makes a lot of sense. I've even experienced it personally.
We restrict our diet. Maybe it's portion sizes, maybe it's specific foods. But it's all some form restriction. The more we restrict, the harder it is to stick to the plan. The harder it is, the more likely we are to cheat. The more we cheat, the more we eat, and the more we eat, the more likely we are to go over our daily calorie goal.
My theory is that highly restrictive diets lead to more cheating. Most people don't log their cheating, so when they look back on the past week or month, they see good numbers across the board, but forget just how much/often they actually cheated.
Less restrictive diets tend to lead to less cheating. So now when you look back over the past week or month, the numbers you see are much more in line with what you actually ate.
Am I getting too wordy? Have I lost people? A couple of examples using very round numbers to keep things simple...
Person A
TDEE: 2000 cals
Calorie goal: 1200 cals (highly restrictive)
Eats 1200 cals per day for the first few weeks, starts to burn out or get cravings or whatever, starts cheating. A couple of hershey kisses here and there turns into a whole package of oreos. Or maybe they don't "sneak their cheats"... maybe they have a cheat day once a week. Well, that cheat day ends up being 4000 calories.
Person B
TDEE: 2000 cals
Calorie goal: 1700 cals (less restrictive)
Eats 1700 cals per day for the first few weeks, starts to burn out or get cravings or whatever, finds a way to work in 3 or 4 homemade chocolate chip cookies into his/her generous 1700 calorie allotment.
It's not a perfect example, I get it... but I'm betting this type of thing happens more often than people admit.
So who ends up eating more? Person A does. Yet Person A is going to be the one crying about doing everything right but not seeing any results, while person B continues to have success.
So the issue isn't that Person A is eating too little. It's that Person A's goal is too restrictive and they can't sustain it for any real length of time. Loosen things up a bit, find something more reasonable, be happier, stop cheating, and good things happen. Further more, eating more doesn't lead to weight loss, because by increasing their calorie goal, they cheat less and ultimately end up eating LESS than they were when they were at 1200 and cheating.
Thoughts?
Apparently I need to add this clarification:
I don't think this is the case for everyone in ever situation all of the time. But I think it does apply to a lot (again, not all) of the people who are on restrictive diets yet aren't seeing results.
.
So with that said...
I've had conversations about this with other folks and it makes a lot of sense. I've even experienced it personally.
We restrict our diet. Maybe it's portion sizes, maybe it's specific foods. But it's all some form restriction. The more we restrict, the harder it is to stick to the plan. The harder it is, the more likely we are to cheat. The more we cheat, the more we eat, and the more we eat, the more likely we are to go over our daily calorie goal.
My theory is that highly restrictive diets lead to more cheating. Most people don't log their cheating, so when they look back on the past week or month, they see good numbers across the board, but forget just how much/often they actually cheated.
Less restrictive diets tend to lead to less cheating. So now when you look back over the past week or month, the numbers you see are much more in line with what you actually ate.
Am I getting too wordy? Have I lost people? A couple of examples using very round numbers to keep things simple...
Person A
TDEE: 2000 cals
Calorie goal: 1200 cals (highly restrictive)
Eats 1200 cals per day for the first few weeks, starts to burn out or get cravings or whatever, starts cheating. A couple of hershey kisses here and there turns into a whole package of oreos. Or maybe they don't "sneak their cheats"... maybe they have a cheat day once a week. Well, that cheat day ends up being 4000 calories.
Person B
TDEE: 2000 cals
Calorie goal: 1700 cals (less restrictive)
Eats 1700 cals per day for the first few weeks, starts to burn out or get cravings or whatever, finds a way to work in 3 or 4 homemade chocolate chip cookies into his/her generous 1700 calorie allotment.
It's not a perfect example, I get it... but I'm betting this type of thing happens more often than people admit.
So who ends up eating more? Person A does. Yet Person A is going to be the one crying about doing everything right but not seeing any results, while person B continues to have success.
So the issue isn't that Person A is eating too little. It's that Person A's goal is too restrictive and they can't sustain it for any real length of time. Loosen things up a bit, find something more reasonable, be happier, stop cheating, and good things happen. Further more, eating more doesn't lead to weight loss, because by increasing their calorie goal, they cheat less and ultimately end up eating LESS than they were when they were at 1200 and cheating.
Thoughts?
Apparently I need to add this clarification:
I don't think this is the case for everyone in ever situation all of the time. But I think it does apply to a lot (again, not all) of the people who are on restrictive diets yet aren't seeing results.
.
0
Replies
-
I think that's one reason.
I also think that some people tend to massively decrease NEAT when on lower calories. Specific example: A graduate student friend went on a lower-calorie diet (I don't remember which one) and basically cut out all physical activity. She'd take the bus to get a quarter mile down the road, she took the elevator to go up one flight of stairs, she'd wait until someone else was getting coffee and ask them to get her a cup, she started sitting and using powerpoint to deliver lectures instead of writing on the board, she'd go to bed as soon as she got home, etc. She did lose weight, but nowhere near as much as her calorie level should have had her losing.0 -
Most likely the case.. those that restrict long enough though may stick with the diet and everything and still see the plateau..but that is 7 months down the road(give or take a few months ). People that don't restrict as much and eat with a reasonable deficit are probably not the ones having extreme cheat days/meals either.0
-
One theory does not fit all.0
-
First, let me frame this post by saying that I'm a firm believer in calorie deficit = weight loss. I think about things far to logically to understand why an increase in cals = more weight loss for the average dieter. Are there people eating too little? Sure. Are there people who need to eat more? Yep. Do I think that's the case for everyone who has plateaued for an hour? No.
So with that said...
I've had conversations about this with other folks and it makes a lot of sense. I've even experienced it personally.
We restrict our diet. Maybe it's portion sizes, maybe it's specific foods. But it's all some form restriction. The more we restrict, the harder it is to stick to the plan. The harder it is, the more likely we are to cheat. The more we cheat, the more we eat, and the more we eat, the more likely we are to go over our daily calorie goal.
My theory is that highly restrictive diets lead to more cheating. Most people don't log their cheating, so when they look back on the past week or month, they see good numbers across the board, but forget just how much/often they actually cheated.
Less restrictive diets tend to lead to less cheating. So now when you look back over the past week or month, the numbers you see are much more in line with what you actually ate.
Am I getting too wordy? Have I lost people? A couple of examples using very round numbers to keep things simple...
Person A
TDEE: 2000 cals
Calorie goal: 1200 cals (highly restrictive)
Eats 1200 cals per day for the first few weeks, starts to burn out or get cravings or whatever, starts cheating. A couple of hershey kisses here and there turns into a whole package of oreos.
Person B
TDEE: 2000 cals
Calorie goal: 1700 cals (less restrictive)
Eats 1700 cals per day for the first few weeks, starts to burn out or get cravings or whatever, finds a way to work in 3 or 4 homemade chocolate chip cookies into his/her generous 1700 calorie allotment.
It's not a perfect example, I get it... but I'm betting this type of thing happens more often than people admit.
So who ends up eating more? Person A does. Yet Person A is going to be the one crying about doing everything right but not seeing any results, while person B continues to have success.
So the issue isn't that Person A is eating too little. It's that Person A's goal is too restrictive and they can't sustain it for any real length of time. Loosen things up a bit, find something more reasonable, be happier, stop cheating, and good things happen.
Thoughts?
Well my thought is I've been eating approx. 1200 calories for the past 5 months. I have not one moment of one day found it "too restrictive". And honestly I've not once in these past 150 days felt "burned out" or "cravings" or "cheated" (though I do not have any foods off limits). I eat cake, pizza, drink wine, etc, if/when I want to. When I'm hungry, I eat. I eat delicious and satisfying meals every day.
I also every.day log all my food honestly and as accurate as possible. The days I've eaten over 1200 (this past weekend as example, when I went to a party), I logged every thing. And it didn't stress me. And today I logged another lb loss anyway.
So seems to me it's all individual and personal. Your theory doesn't ring true *for me*. I DID find something more reasonable ~ my new eating lifestyle
. I sure AM happier, I have no need to 'stop cheating', and good things are happening (for one example, my 26 lb weight loss!). 0 -
I think you're right on the money because I have been Person A and Person B. In fact, I'm Person B right now. I won't say I never have the desire to eat things I "can't" eat, but I never have an uncontrollable desire for those things. And I truly believe it's because I eat what I want every day. I find a way to fit it into my calorie and macro goals, and still, it's sometimes hard for me to wrap my mind around the fact that I'm losing weight while eating upwards of 600 calories a day in sweets. But it's happening.
And It wasn't that easy for me when I was so anal about eating "clean" and sticking to a low calorie intake. It never failed that at some point, I would grow really tired of tracking the measly calories I was allowed and having to fight off the desire for cake or pizza, and I would just go nuts for a few days (or more), not log it, and pretend that it didn't happen. I love logging my food now. It's like a game, seeing how much I can fit into my intake and still meet my macros, but I'm kind of a nerd.
I have figured out that adherence trumps dogma. The way I'm eating now, I could do it forever, and I think that's the key.0 -
Well my thought is I've been eating approx. 1200 calories for the past 5 months. I have not one moment of one day found it "too restrictive". And honestly I've not once in these past 150 days felt "burned out" or "cravings" or "cheated" (though I do not have any foods off limits). I eat cake, pizza, drink wine, etc, if/when I want to. When I'm hungry, I eat. I eat delicious and satisfying meals every day.
I also every.day log all my food honestly and as accurate as possible. The days I've eaten over 1200 (this past weekend as example, when I went to a party), I logged every thing. And it didn't stress me. And today I logged another lb loss anyway.
So seems to me it's all individual and personal. Your theory doesn't ring true *for me*. I DID find something more reasonable ~ my new eating lifestyle. I sure AM happier, I have no need to 'stop cheating', and good things are happening (for one example, my 26 lb weight loss!).
But you describe yourself as eating the things you want to eat. You just happen to be doing it on 1200 calories. I think he's talking about people who feel like they can't have cake or pizza or wine because they assume they can't fit those things into 1200 calories, and then they end up binging and not losing weight, even though they "only eat 1200 calories per day."0 -
The difference is that Person A puts her/his body under stress by starving , thus increasing cortisol release, a hormone that prevents fat loss to a certain degree. Person A's body is now running on emergency thus more efficient at burning whatever it gets in its hands. That also means breaking down muscle. Person A becomes tired and depressed, mood swings are inevitable and the fact that you are constantly surrounded by food doesn't help
Person B's metabolism has no reason to run amok, he/she gets enough nutrients (implying a healthy diet of course) and the storage (fat) will be used for any more expense. Like a mill using up it's stock continuosly without all the **** that comes with starving
Please note that intermittent fasting is a whole other story0 -
The difference is that Person A puts her/his body under stress by starving , thus increasing cortisol release, a hormone that prevents fat loss to a certain degree. Person A's body is now running on emergency thus more efficient at burning whatever it gets in its hands. That also means breaking down muscle. Person A becomes tired and depressed, mood swings are inevitable and the fact that you are constantly surrounded by food doesn't help
Person B's metabolism has no reason to run amok, he/she gets enough nutrients (implying a healthy diet of course) and the storage (fat) will be used for any more expense. Like a mill using up it's stock continuosly without all the **** that comes with starving
Please note that intermittent fasting is a whole other story
Yea, I'm not sure I buy that. I'm not saying stress/cortisol doesn't have an impact, I just don't think it's big enough to outweigh a significant calorie deficit.
Would love to hear other's thoughts though.
.0 -
You're recent posts have made me totally understand this to be true. I was the 700-1000 calorie a day girl because "society" told me to restrict calories to create a deficit. I did this for a year and to stay sane I told myself I didn't have to log my calories if my cheat was a "half of a half" for exampe break the cookie in half and then break it in half again. I also didn't have to log my alcohol calories because i'm 24 and especially on the weekends if I did log those I basically couldn't eat...
But since then I've been increasing my calories and logging everything. For example last night my dinner portion looked exceptionally large and I thought to myself... If I'm going to eat all this to get to my calorie goal I should make sure that I really CAN eat this... so I logged my slice of french country sourdough bread and my quarter of an apple filled donut and what do you know... I actually could only eat half of my dinner... so i split it in half and saved the rest for tonights dinner but it just made me see... if you really account for everything and have a true understanding of fueling your body with calories more is better!
Still not sure about alcohol calories though... I'm a softball spectator... those are all day events and an after party in the evenings pretty much everyweekend... I can easily drink 1000 alcohol calories in a day let alone the night time... I'm going to log my alcohol calories for a while so i have an understanding of how they are effecting my daily and weekly totals but I don't think i'm going to sweat about them for now...0 -
Exercise is the key! It's easy to only eat 1200 calories if you're doing cardio daily. If you're exercising even more, it can be hard to reach that point. I don't exercise that much and sometimes have to eat extra just to make sure I'm finishing out the day at 1200 calories intake. That being said, I keep my goal at 1700 for now to prevent myself from messing up. Once you mess up, it's easy to keep going. If you keep a reasonable goal (and 1 lb per week is reasonable and HEALTHY) and find ways to work within it, you're going to lose weight but exercise makes it so much easier.0
-
Yeah, I believe that is most often the case too.0
-
The difference is that Person A puts her/his body under stress by starving , thus increasing cortisol release, a hormone that prevents fat loss to a certain degree. Person A's body is now running on emergency thus more efficient at burning whatever it gets in its hands. That also means breaking down muscle. Person A becomes tired and depressed, mood swings are inevitable and the fact that you are constantly surrounded by food doesn't help
Person B's metabolism has no reason to run amok, he/she gets enough nutrients (implying a healthy diet of course) and the storage (fat) will be used for any more expense. Like a mill using up it's stock continuosly without all the **** that comes with starving
Please note that intermittent fasting is a whole other story
Yea, I'm not sure I buy that. I'm not saying stress/cortisol doesn't have an impact, I just don't think it's big enough to outweigh a significant calorie deficit.
Would love to hear other's thoughts though.
.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2895000/
"Prior research has demonstrated that dieting, or the restriction of caloric intake, does not lead to long-term weight loss. This study tested the hypothesis that dieting is ineffective because it increases chronic psychological stress and cortisol production – two factors that are known to cause weight gain."
At least it reders it useless0 -
I do think that's part of it; I think susannamarie got another big part of it. It is all calories in:calories out; the problem people have is calculating the "in" and "out" parts of the equation.
In: there are a million reasons why a given food doesn't have the same number of calories as the bomb calorimeter says. Almonds are a good example, since they've actually studied those recently. But you've also got manufacturing differences, farm practices, the growing conditions of the food - all kind of crazy stuff. The best you can do is eat a lot of different things and hope it all averages out in the end.
Out: there are a million reasons why an activity can burn more or less (mostly less) calories than you think it should. We've spent a hundred thousand years learning how to survive famine, it's what bodies *do*, without any conscious control. The example of reducing non-exercise activity is a good one there - people do that automatically, even if you don't believe in metabolic slowdown. It even happens in your sleep - people on a calorie deficit move less overnight than people who aren't. So who has the bigger deficit: the person eating 1500 calories who's burning what their TDEE equation says, or the person eating 1200 who's burning 500 less than they think they are because they're twitching less in their sleep and they've started taking the elevator?
So yeah. Until the complete-metabolism-monitor is invented, it's just educated guessing.0 -
If you find your calories are adding up to much from drinking, try using a diet pop as a mix instead of regular soda. Try to stay away from coolers, those things eat up the calories ( bad pun ) Good luck0
-
I appreciate the lack of science provided with the statements0
-
The difference is that Person A puts her/his body under stress by starving , thus increasing cortisol release, a hormone that prevents fat loss to a certain degree. Person A's body is now running on emergency thus more efficient at burning whatever it gets in its hands. That also means breaking down muscle. Person A becomes tired and depressed, mood swings are inevitable and the fact that you are constantly surrounded by food doesn't help
Person B's metabolism has no reason to run amok, he/she gets enough nutrients (implying a healthy diet of course) and the storage (fat) will be used for any more expense. Like a mill using up it's stock continuosly without all the **** that comes with starving
Please note that intermittent fasting is a whole other story
Yea, I'm not sure I buy that. I'm not saying stress/cortisol doesn't have an impact, I just don't think it's big enough to outweigh a significant calorie deficit.
Would love to hear other's thoughts though.
.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2895000/
"Prior research has demonstrated that dieting, or the restriction of caloric intake, does not lead to long-term weight loss. This study tested the hypothesis that dieting is ineffective because it increases chronic psychological stress and cortisol production – two factors that are known to cause weight gain."
At least it reders it useless
ok, there's 1 study... but I'll have to dig into it when I have more time. At first glance I'm not impressed. Only women, only 3 weeks time, etc etc.0 -
Well my thought is I've been eating approx. 1200 calories for the past 5 months. I have not one moment of one day found it "too restrictive". And honestly I've not once in these past 150 days felt "burned out" or "cravings" or "cheated" (though I do not have any foods off limits). I eat cake, pizza, drink wine, etc, if/when I want to. When I'm hungry, I eat. I eat delicious and satisfying meals every day.
I also every.day log all my food honestly and as accurate as possible. The days I've eaten over 1200 (this past weekend as example, when I went to a party), I logged every thing. And it didn't stress me. And today I logged another lb loss anyway.
So seems to me it's all individual and personal. Your theory doesn't ring true *for me*. I DID find something more reasonable ~ my new eating lifestyle. I sure AM happier, I have no need to 'stop cheating', and good things are happening (for one example, my 26 lb weight loss!).
But you describe yourself as eating the things you want to eat. You just happen to be doing it on 1200 calories. I think he's talking about people who feel like they can't have cake or pizza or wine because they assume they can't fit those things into 1200 calories, and then they end up binging and not losing weight, even though they "only eat 1200 calories per day."
Okay, fair enough. Though seems to me one could feel restricted at higher calories too. I mean, couldn't someone at 2000 calories a day feel restricted if they wanted to eat a big meal that went over?
My point was to give voice to counter the assertion that 1200 calories/day are restrictive and will lead to burning out, cravings, cheating.0 -
Yup Person B in the hizouse. 1200 calories is awful. I was miserable on 1500, but 1200 I doubt I'd be able to do for even a week. my calories are set for 1750 but often I eat less and other days I eat more. I don't aim for that specific number so if I'm less hungry one day and I don't eat all my calories and I happen to be hungrier the next I don't freak out about eating more. I used to force myself to eat my allotted calories even if I wasn't hungry. Now I realize it doesn't matter, and stressing less is awesome.0
-
I think that's one reason.
I also think that some people tend to massively decrease NEAT when on lower calories. Specific example: A graduate student friend went on a lower-calorie diet (I don't remember which one) and basically cut out all physical activity. She'd take the bus to get a quarter mile down the road, she took the elevator to go up one flight of stairs, she'd wait until someone else was getting coffee and ask them to get her a cup, she started sitting and using powerpoint to deliver lectures instead of writing on the board, she'd go to bed as soon as she got home, etc. She did lose weight, but nowhere near as much as her calorie level should have had her losing.
I would agree with this as well.
There are a lot of variables so you really do have to look at things under a microscope to find if what people SAY they are doing is what they are ACTUALLY doing. Because really it does all come down to creating a deficit.
I would also point out one other thing. The people on the restrictive 1200 calories that MFP gives them based on "losing 2 lbs a week" who are "eating back" exercise calories -- if they are using MFP to calculate that for them, then it is probably highly overestimated and so are ruining their deficit because they are "eating back" more calories than they actually burn.
TDEE is basically what MFP wants to be after "adding back" exercise calories. But really I think that's where the breakdown occurs, which is why I like TDEE so much better. There's a good bit less estimation (and if you adjust your -% correctly, should really be NO estimation).
I was doing 1200-1400 calories before and I absolutely hated it. And I personally always felt "guilty" when I tried to "eat back" exercise calories, or I didn't eat them at all trying to keep the deficit down. And it sucks. I plateaued for over a year. Now I eat my TDEE (maintenance right now) and I feel so much better. So much more energy. And I have lost inches eating maintenance, and I'm sure the lbs will be soon to follow.
So just do what makes you feel best. And if you don't see results, figure out why and change it. (duh :laugh: )0 -
The difference is that Person A puts her/his body under stress by starving , thus increasing cortisol release, a hormone that prevents fat loss to a certain degree. Person A's body is now running on emergency thus more efficient at burning whatever it gets in its hands. That also means breaking down muscle. Person A becomes tired and depressed, mood swings are inevitable and the fact that you are constantly surrounded by food doesn't help
Person B's metabolism has no reason to run amok, he/she gets enough nutrients (implying a healthy diet of course) and the storage (fat) will be used for any more expense. Like a mill using up it's stock continuosly without all the **** that comes with starving
Please note that intermittent fasting is a whole other story
Yea, I'm not sure I buy that. I'm not saying stress/cortisol doesn't have an impact, I just don't think it's big enough to outweigh a significant calorie deficit.
Would love to hear other's thoughts though.
.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2895000/
"Prior research has demonstrated that dieting, or the restriction of caloric intake, does not lead to long-term weight loss. This study tested the hypothesis that dieting is ineffective because it increases chronic psychological stress and cortisol production – two factors that are known to cause weight gain."
At least it reders it useless
Okey dokey......by my understanding, the only way you can lose weight is to be at a caloric deficit i.e restricting caloric intake therefore on this hypothesis we would all have to stay overweight as restricting won't work....and not restricting....also won't work!!!0 -
The difference is that Person A puts her/his body under stress by starving , thus increasing cortisol release, a hormone that prevents fat loss to a certain degree. Person A's body is now running on emergency thus more efficient at burning whatever it gets in its hands. That also means breaking down muscle. Person A becomes tired and depressed, mood swings are inevitable and the fact that you are constantly surrounded by food doesn't help
Person B's metabolism has no reason to run amok, he/she gets enough nutrients (implying a healthy diet of course) and the storage (fat) will be used for any more expense. Like a mill using up it's stock continuosly without all the **** that comes with starving
Please note that intermittent fasting is a whole other story
Yea, I'm not sure I buy that. I'm not saying stress/cortisol doesn't have an impact, I just don't think it's big enough to outweigh a significant calorie deficit.
Would love to hear other's thoughts though.
.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2895000/
"Prior research has demonstrated that dieting, or the restriction of caloric intake, does not lead to long-term weight loss. This study tested the hypothesis that dieting is ineffective because it increases chronic psychological stress and cortisol production – two factors that are known to cause weight gain."
At least it reders it useless
ok, there's 1 study... but I'll have to dig into it when I have more time. At first glance I'm not impressed. Only women, only 3 weeks time, etc etc.
yeah I don't care what you think
keep ignoring facts as much as you please, the body is not a simple "cals in, cals out" machine, more like an elaborate wristwatch
I have not the patience to baby you to basic science of nutricion and bichemistry, I am not your teacher
And that study was one on many, I just took this one because it doesn't dug too deep into the subject, thus making it more comprehensible for general folk.
not impressed my *kitten*....0 -
The difference is that Person A puts her/his body under stress by starving , thus increasing cortisol release, a hormone that prevents fat loss to a certain degree. Person A's body is now running on emergency thus more efficient at burning whatever it gets in its hands. That also means breaking down muscle. Person A becomes tired and depressed, mood swings are inevitable and the fact that you are constantly surrounded by food doesn't help
Person B's metabolism has no reason to run amok, he/she gets enough nutrients (implying a healthy diet of course) and the storage (fat) will be used for any more expense. Like a mill using up it's stock continuosly without all the **** that comes with starving
Please note that intermittent fasting is a whole other story
Yea, I'm not sure I buy that. I'm not saying stress/cortisol doesn't have an impact, I just don't think it's big enough to outweigh a significant calorie deficit.
Would love to hear other's thoughts though.
.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2895000/
"Prior research has demonstrated that dieting, or the restriction of caloric intake, does not lead to long-term weight loss. This study tested the hypothesis that dieting is ineffective because it increases chronic psychological stress and cortisol production – two factors that are known to cause weight gain."
At least it reders it useless
Okey dokey......by my understanding, the only way you can lose weight is to be at a caloric deficit i.e restricting caloric intake therefore on this hypothesis we would all have to stay overweight as restricting won't work....and not restricting....also won't work!!!
read the damn publication0 -
also excuse my spelling, I was skyping at the same timeThe difference is that Person A puts her/his body under stress by starving , thus increasing cortisol release, a hormone that prevents fat loss to a certain degree. Person A's body is now running on emergency thus more efficient at burning whatever it gets in its hands. That also means breaking down muscle. Person A becomes tired and depressed, mood swings are inevitable and the fact that you are constantly surrounded by food doesn't help
Person B's metabolism has no reason to run amok, he/she gets enough nutrients (implying a healthy diet of course) and the storage (fat) will be used for any more expense. Like a mill using up it's stock continuosly without all the **** that comes with starving
Please note that intermittent fasting is a whole other story
Yea, I'm not sure I buy that. I'm not saying stress/cortisol doesn't have an impact, I just don't think it's big enough to outweigh a significant calorie deficit.
Would love to hear other's thoughts though.
.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2895000/
"Prior research has demonstrated that dieting, or the restriction of caloric intake, does not lead to long-term weight loss. This study tested the hypothesis that dieting is ineffective because it increases chronic psychological stress and cortisol production – two factors that are known to cause weight gain."
At least it reders it useless
ok, there's 1 study... but I'll have to dig into it when I have more time. At first glance I'm not impressed. Only women, only 3 weeks time, etc etc.
yeah I don't care what you think
keep ignoring facts as much as you please, the body is not a simple "cals in, cals out" machine, more like an elaborate wristwatch
I have not the patience to baby you to basic science of nutricion and bichemistry, I am not your teacher
And that study was one on many, I just took this one because it doesn't dug too deep into the subject, thus making it more comprehensible for general folk.
not impressed my *kitten*....0 -
I think the confusion comes in on what eating more to weigh less means. It doesn't mean you can eat a lot and lose weight. It's aimed at those eating VLCD's and not getting why they can't maintain it or they feel like crap. It doesn't mean eating over your TDEE and weight will fall off like some take it to mean.
I eat between 1200 and 1500 calories a day, have for years and do just fine maintaining 115 lbs on that. I don't feel restricted, don't go on crazy binges or feel the need to eat more. My BMR is about 1100 so that is eating more for me.0 -
The difference is that Person A puts her/his body under stress by starving , thus increasing cortisol release, a hormone that prevents fat loss to a certain degree. Person A's body is now running on emergency thus more efficient at burning whatever it gets in its hands. That also means breaking down muscle. Person A becomes tired and depressed, mood swings are inevitable and the fact that you are constantly surrounded by food doesn't help
Person B's metabolism has no reason to run amok, he/she gets enough nutrients (implying a healthy diet of course) and the storage (fat) will be used for any more expense. Like a mill using up it's stock continuosly without all the **** that comes with starving
Please note that intermittent fasting is a whole other story
Yea, I'm not sure I buy that. I'm not saying stress/cortisol doesn't have an impact, I just don't think it's big enough to outweigh a significant calorie deficit.
Would love to hear other's thoughts though.
.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2895000/
"Prior research has demonstrated that dieting, or the restriction of caloric intake, does not lead to long-term weight loss. This study tested the hypothesis that dieting is ineffective because it increases chronic psychological stress and cortisol production – two factors that are known to cause weight gain."
At least it reders it useless
ok, there's 1 study... but I'll have to dig into it when I have more time. At first glance I'm not impressed. Only women, only 3 weeks time, etc etc.
yeah I don't care what you think
keep ignoring facts as much as you please, the body is not a simple "cals in, cals out" machine, more like an elaborate wristwatch
I have not the patience to baby you to basic science of nutricion and bichemistry, I am not your teacher
And that study was one on many, I just took this one because it doesn't dug too deep into the subject, thus making it more comprehensible for general folk.
not impressed my *kitten*....
I never said it was. If that's what you took from my post, then that's on you.
.0 -
I think the confusion comes in on what eating more to weigh less means. It doesn't mean you can eat a lot and lose weight. It's aimed at those eating VLCD's and not getting why they can't maintain it or they feel like crap. It doesn't mean eating over your TDEE and weight will fall off like some take it to mean.
I eat between 1200 and 1500 calories a day, have for years and do just fine maintaining 115 lbs on that. I don't feel restricted, don't go on crazy binges or feel the need to eat more. My BMR is about 1100 so that is eating more for me.
All very true.
My post was addressing 2 issues:
1) the folks that say they are doing everything right but not seeing progress. My theory is that some/many of them aren't in fact doing everything right.
2) that eating more leads to weight loss, which for most people I don't think it does. It may lead to better adherence, which can lead to weight loss, but more cals does not = more weight loss (for most dieters).0 -
Well my thought is I've been eating approx. 1200 calories for the past 5 months. I have not one moment of one day found it "too restrictive". And honestly I've not once in these past 150 days felt "burned out" or "cravings" or "cheated" (though I do not have any foods off limits). I eat cake, pizza, drink wine, etc, if/when I want to. When I'm hungry, I eat. I eat delicious and satisfying meals every day.
I also every.day log all my food honestly and as accurate as possible. The days I've eaten over 1200 (this past weekend as example, when I went to a party), I logged every thing. And it didn't stress me. And today I logged another lb loss anyway.
So seems to me it's all individual and personal. Your theory doesn't ring true *for me*. I DID find something more reasonable ~ my new eating lifestyle. I sure AM happier, I have no need to 'stop cheating', and good things are happening (for one example, my 26 lb weight loss!).
But you describe yourself as eating the things you want to eat. You just happen to be doing it on 1200 calories. I think he's talking about people who feel like they can't have cake or pizza or wine because they assume they can't fit those things into 1200 calories, and then they end up binging and not losing weight, even though they "only eat 1200 calories per day."
This, plus, at your age and activity level, 1200 is probably perfect for you. If someone's younger, more active and/or exercises a lot more strenuously, they're going to need more fuel.
I don't drive my car much, so I only need to fill up about once a month. Someone who drives a lot more, or has a bigger vehicle, isn't going to get by on 15 gallons a month.
That all said, I think "eat more to weigh less" is a catchy name, but "eat right" is what it's about. Eating at the appropriate deficit for the amount you have to lose and your activity level. I lost weight eating under 1000 calories a day. I also felt like a zombie all the time. I lost at the same rate, maybe faster, eating 1800-2000 a day, and had loads of energy. I was able to eat more because I was more active, and was able to be more active because I ate more.0 -
My post was addressing 2 issues:
1) the folks that say they are doing everything right but not seeing progress. My theory is that some/many of them aren't in fact doing everything right.
2) that eating more leads to weight loss, which for most people I don't think it does. It may lead to better adherence, which can lead to weight loss, but more cals does not = more weight loss (for most dieters).
I agree for the most part, but your first issue leads to putting the blame on others which might not always be the case. They might be doing it "right" but have certain health conditions that make it harder to lose.
Or genetic inheritance.
0 -
Oh! Like this! " the body is not a simple "cals in, cals out" machine, more like an elaborate wristwatch."0
-
This! So I guess there is no way possible to lose weight!The difference is that Person A puts her/his body under stress by starving , thus increasing cortisol release, a hormone that prevents fat loss to a certain degree. Person A's body is now running on emergency thus more efficient at burning whatever it gets in its hands. That also means breaking down muscle. Person A becomes tired and depressed, mood swings are inevitable and the fact that you are constantly surrounded by food doesn't help
Person B's metabolism has no reason to run amok, he/she gets enough nutrients (implying a healthy diet of course) and the storage (fat) will be used for any more expense. Like a mill using up it's stock continuosly without all the **** that comes with starving
Please note that intermittent fasting is a whole other story
Yea, I'm not sure I buy that. I'm not saying stress/cortisol doesn't have an impact, I just don't think it's big enough to outweigh a significant calorie deficit.
Would love to hear other's thoughts though.
.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2895000/
"Prior research has demonstrated that dieting, or the restriction of caloric intake, does not lead to long-term weight loss. This study tested the hypothesis that dieting is ineffective because it increases chronic psychological stress and cortisol production – two factors that are known to cause weight gain."
At least it reders it useless
Okey dokey......by my understanding, the only way you can lose weight is to be at a caloric deficit i.e restricting caloric intake therefore on this hypothesis we would all have to stay overweight as restricting won't work....and not restricting....also won't work!!!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions