eat more to lose... a theory

jacksonpt

show previous quotes

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!!!

This! So I guess there is no way possible to lose weight!

lol... that was my first thought too... if calorie restriction doesn't lead to weight loss, how DO people lose weight?

Bobbie8786

There is a show in the UK called Secret Eaters (check it out on YouTube) and if the people on that show are any indication, people grossly underestimate the amount of food they are eating. Also, when I was on Weight Watchers they had us do an exercise where we would put "little bites" into a baggie (you know when you are cooking and just have a little taste or a bite of someone else's food or you just grab that little piece of broken cracker or cookie). This little exercise showed just how much mindless and non-logged eating a person can do in a day and those little bites add up over time. If you aren't weighing, measuring and logging everything, you are most likely under counting calories.

I think your argument is completely logical.

cwolfman13

show previous quotes

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).

On point with both...absolutely I'd say for 9 out of 10 individuals, this is spot on.

husseycd

I don't understand why people are so adament about defending 1200 calories. I mean, someone is saying, "it really is okay to eat more" and they freak out, get defensive, etc. I just don't understand. Food is awesome.

I do believe 1200 is very hard to maintain for most people and sets them up to fail. I'm sure most of us want to succeed. If you truly believe you can only eat 1200 calories to lose weight, get some things tested. Like your thyroid, RMR, etc. Your doctor can test your thyroid. A dietician (at the gym or I just had mine tested at a grocercy store) can test your RMR. It takes 10-15 minutes. Then you know for sure what your body burns at rest. The remaining calories can be estimated.

My RMR, btw (37, woman, 5'5", 131 lb, 19.5%BF) is 1580. 1580. At rest! Having real numbers is a powerful tool. My weight (fat) loss journey would have really sucked had I stuck to MFP's 1200 calorie estimate...

But hey, if people really want to eat so little, go for it. I like my "diet" of 2000 calories/day. I think I'm going to go eat something.

rachseby

show previous quotes

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!!!

This! So I guess there is no way possible to lose weight!

lol... that was my first thought too... if calorie restriction doesn't lead to weight loss, how DO people lose weight?

I tried to read the study but can't concentrate on my 1200 calories Obviously monitoring/restricting can cause stress, but is that going to make you as fat as having no idea how much you are eating/eating whatever you please? And being fat really stresses me....so let's measure those cortisol levels when I look in the mirror!
I agree with your theories. I think that it's good to approximate how many calories you can have, and not to stress if you go slightly over or under. And if you are hungry, eat! Just make sure that you are actually hungry (not bored, depressed, and don't go crazy.

YogaNikki

Have I told you how much I heart you lately??

susannamarie

Oh, don't forget that some people also underestimate their food sufficiently so that the 1200 that they think they're eating is actually more like 2000. For these people, they may lose when they think they're eating 1200, without feeling deprived, because it's still a cut from 3000+ that they were eating before dieting. For these people, upping perceived calories may indeed lead to weight gain simply because they are now eating over maintenance.

cherilyn666

Losing fat/losing weight is not the same thing.


Take this example from someone who lost over 80 lbs.

I began by eating 600 calories a day. I did no exercise. I lost a lot of weight (fat and muscle). Usual loss was around 4-6 lbs a week.

Now I am eating 2700 calories a day. I exercise every day for 2-3 hours. I lose a little bit of weight (pound a week), I lose a ton of fat and I gain a ton of muscle.

In both cases I lose weight. In both cases I lose fat.

In the first case I lose muscle and cannot eat anything at all.

In the second case I gain muscle and can eat quite a bit.


Whatever suits the person, though.

rachseby

Oh, don't forget that some people also underestimate their food sufficiently so that the 1200 that they think they're eating is actually more like 2000. For these people, they may lose when they think they're eating 1200, without feeling deprived, because it's still a cut from 3000+ that they were eating before dieting. For these people, upping perceived calories may indeed lead to weight gain simply because they are now eating over maintenance.

Agree. For I long time I think that I fooled myself into thinking that I was around 2000 per day, when a lot of days I was probably a lot higher. I have never counted calories before, and now that I am losing, so....

YogaNikki

show previous quotes

Oh, don't forget that some people also underestimate their food sufficiently so that the 1200 that they think they're eating is actually more like 2000. For these people, they may lose when they think they're eating 1200, without feeling deprived, because it's still a cut from 3000+ that they were eating before dieting. For these people, upping perceived calories may indeed lead to weight gain simply because they are now eating over maintenance.

Agree. For I long time I think that I fooled myself into thinking that I was around 2000 per day, when a lot of days I was probably a lot higher. I have never counted calories before, and now that I am losing, so....

I too, was in the same boat. It wasn't until I started weighing/measuring my food (not guesstimating) that I realized I was eating WAY more calories than I had anticipated. I qualified eating around 2000 on my good days and WAY over on my cheat days.

etoiles_argentees

"why are thin people not fat?" docu and research. How did Martin add muscle while overeating junk food and not exercising?

Why do I weigh 100 pounds when sedentary and eating 2000 calories daily? RMR tested many times, averaged 1170. Completely sedentary, broken collar bone, shoulder and cracked head, no NEAT.
Why did I only gain 1 pound per month eating over 2500 daily and not exercising? Injured? But those few extra pounds went away as soon as I was able to get out of bed. I didn't gain muscle but I did not gain weight. No food scale and I already know I underestimate calories. ???

kiykiy79

Tag! This is a good thread and the very conversation I'm having via text with my best friend...

jacksonpt

Oh, don't forget that some people also underestimate their food sufficiently so that the 1200 that they think they're eating is actually more like 2000. For these people, they may lose when they think they're eating 1200, without feeling deprived, because it's still a cut from 3000+ that they were eating before dieting. For these people, upping perceived calories may indeed lead to weight gain simply because they are now eating over maintenance.

this is an excellent point too. Perceived intake does not always equal actual intake.

norcal_yogi

bump

18guyhornet

I don't understand why people are so adament about defending 1200 calories. I mean, someone is saying, "it really is okay to eat more" and they freak out, get defensive, etc. I just don't understand. Food is awesome.

I do believe 1200 is very hard to maintain for most people and sets them up to fail. I'm sure most of us want to succeed. If you truly believe you can only eat 1200 calories to lose weight, get some things tested. Like your thyroid, RMR, etc. Your doctor can test your thyroid. A dietician (at the gym or I just had mine tested at a grocercy store) can test your RMR. It takes 10-15 minutes. Then you know for sure what your body burns at rest. The remaining calories can be estimated.

My RMR, btw (37, woman, 5'5", 131 lb, 19.5%BF) is 1580. 1580. At rest! Having real numbers is a powerful tool. My weight (fat) loss journey would have really sucked had I stuck to MFP's 1200 calorie estimate...

But hey, if people really want to eat so little, go for it. I like my "diet" of 2000 calories/day. I think I'm going to go eat something.

^^^ Thank you!!! I had my BMR/RMR tested and I was at 1960 cals. 1960 at rest! I wasn't even eating 1750 a day on what MFP had me at. Hell yeah I lost weight - but muscle too. That's not what I want. I want to loose the fat and keep the muscle! NOW I'M going to go eat something!

rosemaryhon

show previous quotes

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 totally agree ~ it's all individual.

rosemaryhon

I don't understand why people are so adament about defending 1200 calories. I mean, someone is saying, "it really is okay to eat more" and they freak out, get defensive, etc. I just don't understand. Food is awesome.

I do believe 1200 is very hard to maintain for most people and sets them up to fail. I'm sure most of us want to succeed. If you truly believe you can only eat 1200 calories to lose weight, get some things tested. Like your thyroid, RMR, etc. Your doctor can test your thyroid. A dietician (at the gym or I just had mine tested at a grocercy store) can test your RMR. It takes 10-15 minutes. Then you know for sure what your body burns at rest. The remaining calories can be estimated.

My RMR, btw (37, woman, 5'5", 131 lb, 19.5%BF) is 1580. 1580. At rest! Having real numbers is a powerful tool. My weight (fat) loss journey would have really sucked had I stuck to MFP's 1200 calorie estimate...

But hey, if people really want to eat so little, go for it. I like my "diet" of 2000 calories/day. I think I'm going to go eat something.

Just to be perfectly clear, I have no desire to "defend 1200 calories".

My point though is I really do not "eat so little" ~ check out my open diary, I eat plenty and I'm ready & willing to eat more if/when I'm hungry.

rosemaryhon

show previous quotes

Oh, don't forget that some people also underestimate their food sufficiently so that the 1200 that they think they're eating is actually more like 2000. For these people, they may lose when they think they're eating 1200, without feeling deprived, because it's still a cut from 3000+ that they were eating before dieting. For these people, upping perceived calories may indeed lead to weight gain simply because they are now eating over maintenance.

this is an excellent point too. Perceived intake does not always equal actual intake.

Maybe true for some, but I am confident my totals are as accurate as can be.

jacksonpt

show previous quotes

Oh, don't forget that some people also underestimate their food sufficiently so that the 1200 that they think they're eating is actually more like 2000. For these people, they may lose when they think they're eating 1200, without feeling deprived, because it's still a cut from 3000+ that they were eating before dieting. For these people, upping perceived calories may indeed lead to weight gain simply because they are now eating over maintenance.

this is an excellent point too. Perceived intake does not always equal actual intake.

Maybe true for some, but I am confident my totals are as accurate as can be.

you do realize this thread isn't specifically about you, right?

rosemaryhon

LOL

llkilgore

I think that's one reason.

I also think that some people tend to massively decrease NEAT when on lower calories.

True for me, though it wasn't so much that I massively decreased my pre-diet NEAT. I felt great on a 1 pound per week deficit, or thought I did. But in retrospect I realized that I'd "felt great" relative to how I'd felt as an overweight 57 year old couch potato. I'd forgotten how much more energetic I'd been when I ate right and didn't have to haul around an extra 60 pounds. When I lowered my goal to a half pound per week I suddenly had more energy to burn than I'd had in probably 20 years, which resulted in a more optimal NEAT, which allowed me to continue to lose weight at about the same rate as before.

edited for typo.