If calories in vs. calories out is what matters, why no weight loss?

sammy_c_read

1200 calories is far too low. lets put it this way, when you put your body into starvation mode per say you slow your metabolism down so much.

when you only feed your body so little your body thinks to itself "I am only going to be getting this much food/energy (calories) a day so I better stop burning as much as I usually do in order to keep fueling myself" so ultimately you're killing your metabolism and what makes you lose weight because you've been fed false theories that eating the lowest amount of calories possible is the best route.

the reason people are having success with higher calories (not like 3000 calories..but like on average 1700) is because their body knows that it is going to get fed allowing itself to burn more calories throughout the day.

I am not sure if that makes sense but I am currently finishing up my junior year as a nutrition student (pre PA) and that is how I've always been told everything works.

CoffeeNCardio

scjamieson644 wrote: »

1200 calories is far too low. lets put it this way, when you put your body into starvation mode per say you slow your metabolism down so much.

when you only feed your body so little your body thinks to itself "I am only going to be getting this much food/energy (calories) a day so I better stop burning as much as I usually do in order to keep fueling myself" so ultimately you're killing your metabolism and what makes you lose weight because you've been fed false theories that eating the lowest amount of calories possible is the best route.

the reason people are having success with higher calories (not like 3000 calories..but like on average 1700) is because their body knows that it is going to get fed allowing itself to burn more calories throughout the day.

I am not sure if that makes sense but I am currently finishing up my junior year as a nutrition student (pre PA) and that is how I've always been told everything works.

Then I'm afraid you need to go back to whoever told you that and demand an answer for why they told you such a myth. Starvation mode, as you have described it, has been REPEATEDLY debunked. The body does not "hold onto" fat/weight/whatever. If it did, no one would be able to starve to death.

The human body requires as many calories as it requires to conduct activities like running your organs, digesting food, and pumping your heart. The body cannot decide it suddenly requires less energy to keep existing anymore than your car can suddenly decide it can go another 100 miles without you adding additional gasoline. What you are referring to is Adaptive Thermogenesis, but that is only seen in LONG LONG LONG term VLCD's. Google Minnesota Starvation Study.

You have the right idea going by way of the body "better stop burning as much as I usually do", because the body can and does incent you to stop exercising in order to maintain it's current weight, sometimes even subconsciously. However, your BMR remains the same and you can actively resist moving less, as nearly the entire MFP population does on a daily basis by monitoring their caloric output with devices like fitbit, logging their exercise, or by calculating and re-calculating their TDEE as they lose the weight.

The reason people have success with higher calorie allotments has nothing to do with the starvation mode myth. Different sized people require different amounts of caloric intake. Taller people require more than shorter people for example. And back to the initial statement, many shorter sedentary people are FINE on 1200 calories per day. A 5'7" active adult female requires more calories than a 5'0" sedentary adult female. The latter female is likely to remain healthy and stay satisfied on 1200/day provided she's nutritionally diverse in her food choices and accounts additional calories for additional activity should she engage in it. Further, people on higher calorie allotments also tend to be more accurate with their logging. When your margin of error is slim, you're more motivated to get the numbers right.

Finally, you cannot "kill your metabolism". The argument there is one of Adaptive Thermogenesis, which it would be near impossible to apply to any MFP average user because it only happens over extremely lowered calories for long time periods. The highest change in metabolic rate recorded in a medical-condition free adult human was 40% change. That's that Minnesota starvation study again (even if you hate this reply, go read, it's fascinating). The men in the study were literally starved, with extremely low calories (doctor supervision only low calories) and were forced to do hard labor throughout the experiment (I believe it was a year long study) to ensure their caloric burn remained the same. That 40% number is heavily disputed however, because like you said, those men's bodies went out of their way to ensure they put in the least amount of effort possible, thus lowering their caloric output, and on top of that, they did not account for how many fewer calories a very thin person burns doing work compared to a very heavy person. And the important takeaway from that blather is that as soon as the men in the experiment returned to a normal diet, their metabolisms went right back to normal. It takes severe conditions to alter one's metabolism significantly enough to bother worrying about.

joncooper1980

^^^^^Great post

lillypade

R u lifting weight also? Bc muscle weighs more than fat. U really should do cardio and weights. I say don't weigh urself. If u look and feel good that's all that matters. Number in the scale doesn't mean a thing.

psuLemon

lillypade wrote: »

R u lifting weight also? Bc muscle weighs more than fat. U really should do cardio and weights. I say don't weigh urself. If u look and feel good that's all that matters. Number in the scale doesn't mean a thing.

You don't just get muscle by weight lifting. You need a progressive resistance program + adequate nutrition to get there. And even while in a surplus, women max out around 1/4 lb of muscle per week and men are at 1/2 lb per week. Eating very low calories, like the OP, is not going to provide enough nutrition for muscle growth... And potentially, not enough to sustain their current muscle mass.

Colorscheme

mamadon wrote: »

show previous quotes

aqsylvester wrote: »

synacious wrote: »

gataman3000 wrote: »

Simple question, are all of you saying that if 2 people who start at the same weight want to lose 30 pounds at 1800 calories a day, one has a balanced diet of protein, carbs and fats but the others has twinkies and snickers that at the end they will look exactly the same?

That's like asking if someone who burns the same amount of calories in a day doing weightlifting will look like someone who burns the same amount of calories in a day doing yoga. Body composition and weight loss are two separate things. Nobody has ever said that macros do not affect body composition. In fact, it is said time and time again on these boards to eat enough protein to be able to preserve muscle mass when losing weight.

However, when it comes to weight loss, if one ate their calorie allowance in Twinkies and the other in chicken breasts and brown rice where the only goal was to lose 20 pounds, both subjects should lose 20 pounds over the same duration of time. For such an experiment though, you'd have to clone someone and make sure each entity has the same TDEE and run an experiment in a completely controlled environment, where no other natural factors of the human body would be able to take place.

Wow, people really believe this? Do you seriously believe your body can do the same thing with Twinkies that it can with chicken? You do realize that food supplies more than just energy. At the bare minimum, there are essential proteins and essential fatty acids used for building tissues, making enzymes, creating neurotransmitters. There is the thermogenic effect of different foods, the insulin and blood glucose response, the satiety effect--and all of these would have an effect on subsequent activity levels. There are the effects of nutrient deficiencies on metabolism and the function of organs... since when did food turn into nothing but calories? This is way too simplistic and unscientific.

But he wasn't talking about the nutrition of the foods, he is simply talking about their caloric amount. A calorie is a unit of measurement, that's all, it is not about the nutritional qualities of a food. So, yes, if you eat the same amount of calories whether it be twinkies or vegetables, and you are eating at a deficit, you will lose weight. Conversely if you eat too much of any food, no matter how "healthy" it is, you will gain.

Yup.. Calorie wise, they'll lose the same weight. Nutrition wise, Twinkies are not the same as fresh fruits and veggies.