Why does eating more calories = losing more weight?
Options
Replies
-
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
Inevitably over an extended period of time I think you mean?
Remember not all weight is fat so your "Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" is actually wrong.
Speaking in absolute terms does tend to mean you are absolutely wrong some of the time...
I don't want anyone getting the idea that they should up their calories if they stall. Quibble about the semantics all you want. CICO works, if it isn't working for you, you're doing it wrong.
It's worked perfectly for me thank you, I lost my weight and have been happily maintaining for years.
But I've also had short term periods where I lost weight when increasing calories.
And I wasn't suggesting that people react to a stall by increasing calories - argue with what I say if you chose but don't try to put words in my mouth.
Calorie balance is the primary cause of stalls but not the only cause.
Again weight =/= fat. There's a clue for you.
You have a problem with my semantics. "Absolutely wrong when using absolutes" remember? I'm addressing that by stating that it doesn't matter what language it comes in, the point of the matter is that there is no situation in which Eating more calories than you burn results in weight loss. Eating more calories than you burn results in weight gain. Stop taking this so personally. I don't know why you imagine I've singled you out here. I set out to make a point to anyone who looked at that title and thought "Gee, maybe I should up my calorie intake" If that's not you, super. Aside from trying to assert yourself over me or something, I cannot fathom why you replied in the first place. We clearly agree on CICO, so what is your problem? Aside from the language I used to make my point?
My point is what you are saying is wrong! That's why I replied.
"Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" - just one single example makes that wrong. That's the way it is with absolutes. That's why semantics actually matter, for accuracy.
Your absolute statement is wrong because it is possible to eat more in the short term and have a weight drop.
Example:
Eight week period of very intense training in a 1lb/week deficit produced a steady weight loss as expected for first five weeks and then stalled out.
Stress/cortisol plus classic signs of overtraining syndrome.
Increased calories and lost weight. Water weight. The water retention was masking the fat loss.
That's why I pointed out that weight =/= fat.
Weight and weight fluctuations/stalls are more complex than you seem to believe.
0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
Inevitably over an extended period of time I think you mean?
Remember not all weight is fat so your "Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" is actually wrong.
Speaking in absolute terms does tend to mean you are absolutely wrong some of the time...
I don't want anyone getting the idea that they should up their calories if they stall. Quibble about the semantics all you want. CICO works, if it isn't working for you, you're doing it wrong.
It's worked perfectly for me thank you, I lost my weight and have been happily maintaining for years.
But I've also had short term periods where I lost weight when increasing calories.
And I wasn't suggesting that people react to a stall by increasing calories - argue with what I say if you chose but don't try to put words in my mouth.
Calorie balance is the primary cause of stalls but not the only cause.
Again weight =/= fat. There's a clue for you.
You have a problem with my semantics. "Absolutely wrong when using absolutes" remember? I'm addressing that by stating that it doesn't matter what language it comes in, the point of the matter is that there is no situation in which Eating more calories than you burn results in weight loss. Eating more calories than you burn results in weight gain. Stop taking this so personally. I don't know why you imagine I've singled you out here. I set out to make a point to anyone who looked at that title and thought "Gee, maybe I should up my calorie intake" If that's not you, super. Aside from trying to assert yourself over me or something, I cannot fathom why you replied in the first place. We clearly agree on CICO, so what is your problem? Aside from the language I used to make my point?
My point is what you are saying is wrong! That's why I replied.
"Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" - just one single example makes that wrong. That's the way it is with absolutes. That's why semantics actually matter, for accuracy.
Your absolute statement is wrong because it is possible to eat more in the short term and have a weight drop.
Example:
Eight week period of very intense training in a 1lb/week deficit produced a steady weight loss as expected for first five weeks and then stalled out.
Stress/cortisol plus classic signs of overtraining syndrome.
Increased calories and lost weight. Water weight. The water retention was masking the fat loss.
That's why I pointed out that weight =/= fat.
Weight and weight fluctuations/stalls are more complex than you seem to believe.
See though, I feel like we STILL agree. Nothing you said here is an opinion I myself don't hold. I will accede to the semantics argument, however unjust I find it in this situation considering how unbelievably out of context you have taken this single statement. I have requested deletion of my former post. Afraid you'll have to wait for the mods.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
Inevitably over an extended period of time I think you mean?
Remember not all weight is fat so your "Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" is actually wrong.
Speaking in absolute terms does tend to mean you are absolutely wrong some of the time...
I don't want anyone getting the idea that they should up their calories if they stall. Quibble about the semantics all you want. CICO works, if it isn't working for you, you're doing it wrong.
It's worked perfectly for me thank you, I lost my weight and have been happily maintaining for years.
But I've also had short term periods where I lost weight when increasing calories.
And I wasn't suggesting that people react to a stall by increasing calories - argue with what I say if you chose but don't try to put words in my mouth.
Calorie balance is the primary cause of stalls but not the only cause.
Again weight =/= fat. There's a clue for you.
You have a problem with my semantics. "Absolutely wrong when using absolutes" remember? I'm addressing that by stating that it doesn't matter what language it comes in, the point of the matter is that there is no situation in which Eating more calories than you burn results in weight loss. Eating more calories than you burn results in weight gain. Stop taking this so personally. I don't know why you imagine I've singled you out here. I set out to make a point to anyone who looked at that title and thought "Gee, maybe I should up my calorie intake" If that's not you, super. Aside from trying to assert yourself over me or something, I cannot fathom why you replied in the first place. We clearly agree on CICO, so what is your problem? Aside from the language I used to make my point?
My point is what you are saying is wrong! That's why I replied.
"Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" - just one single example makes that wrong. That's the way it is with absolutes. That's why semantics actually matter, for accuracy.
Your absolute statement is wrong because it is possible to eat more in the short term and have a weight drop.
Example:
Eight week period of very intense training in a 1lb/week deficit produced a steady weight loss as expected for first five weeks and then stalled out.
Stress/cortisol plus classic signs of overtraining syndrome.
Increased calories and lost weight. Water weight. The water retention was masking the fat loss.
That's why I pointed out that weight =/= fat.
Weight and weight fluctuations/stalls are more complex than you seem to believe.
See though, I feel like we STILL agree. Nothing you said here is an opinion I myself don't hold. I will accede to the semantics argument, however unjust I find it in this situation considering how unbelievably out of context you have taken this single statement. I have requested deletion of my former post. Afraid you'll have to wait for the mods.
I think we agree that a true calorie deficit over time will inevitably result in weight loss.
Maybe because I'm English I put a high regard on the language we (sort of...) share.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
Inevitably over an extended period of time I think you mean?
Remember not all weight is fat so your "Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" is actually wrong.
Speaking in absolute terms does tend to mean you are absolutely wrong some of the time...
I don't want anyone getting the idea that they should up their calories if they stall. Quibble about the semantics all you want. CICO works, if it isn't working for you, you're doing it wrong.
It's worked perfectly for me thank you, I lost my weight and have been happily maintaining for years.
But I've also had short term periods where I lost weight when increasing calories.
And I wasn't suggesting that people react to a stall by increasing calories - argue with what I say if you chose but don't try to put words in my mouth.
Calorie balance is the primary cause of stalls but not the only cause.
Again weight =/= fat. There's a clue for you.
You have a problem with my semantics. "Absolutely wrong when using absolutes" remember? I'm addressing that by stating that it doesn't matter what language it comes in, the point of the matter is that there is no situation in which Eating more calories than you burn results in weight loss. Eating more calories than you burn results in weight gain. Stop taking this so personally. I don't know why you imagine I've singled you out here. I set out to make a point to anyone who looked at that title and thought "Gee, maybe I should up my calorie intake" If that's not you, super. Aside from trying to assert yourself over me or something, I cannot fathom why you replied in the first place. We clearly agree on CICO, so what is your problem? Aside from the language I used to make my point?
My point is what you are saying is wrong! That's why I replied.
"Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" - just one single example makes that wrong. That's the way it is with absolutes. That's why semantics actually matter, for accuracy.
Your absolute statement is wrong because it is possible to eat more in the short term and have a weight drop.
Example:
Eight week period of very intense training in a 1lb/week deficit produced a steady weight loss as expected for first five weeks and then stalled out.
Stress/cortisol plus classic signs of overtraining syndrome.
Increased calories and lost weight. Water weight. The water retention was masking the fat loss.
That's why I pointed out that weight =/= fat.
Weight and weight fluctuations/stalls are more complex than you seem to believe.
See though, I feel like we STILL agree. Nothing you said here is an opinion I myself don't hold. I will accede to the semantics argument, however unjust I find it in this situation considering how unbelievably out of context you have taken this single statement. I have requested deletion of my former post. Afraid you'll have to wait for the mods.
I think we agree that a true calorie deficit over time will inevitably result in weight loss.
Maybe because I'm English I put a high regard on the language we (sort of...) share.
I think it's probably more of a generational difference. No millennial would think of "never" as extreme. We exist in a universe of extremes so we have a tendency to speak in them at all times, cause saying "I'm dying" is a joke rather than a situation requiring instantaneous action.
ETA: That universe being the internet god help us.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
Inevitably over an extended period of time I think you mean?
Remember not all weight is fat so your "Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" is actually wrong.
Speaking in absolute terms does tend to mean you are absolutely wrong some of the time...
I don't want anyone getting the idea that they should up their calories if they stall. Quibble about the semantics all you want. CICO works, if it isn't working for you, you're doing it wrong.
It's worked perfectly for me thank you, I lost my weight and have been happily maintaining for years.
But I've also had short term periods where I lost weight when increasing calories.
And I wasn't suggesting that people react to a stall by increasing calories - argue with what I say if you chose but don't try to put words in my mouth.
Calorie balance is the primary cause of stalls but not the only cause.
Again weight =/= fat. There's a clue for you.
You have a problem with my semantics. "Absolutely wrong when using absolutes" remember? I'm addressing that by stating that it doesn't matter what language it comes in, the point of the matter is that there is no situation in which Eating more calories than you burn results in weight loss. Eating more calories than you burn results in weight gain. Stop taking this so personally. I don't know why you imagine I've singled you out here. I set out to make a point to anyone who looked at that title and thought "Gee, maybe I should up my calorie intake" If that's not you, super. Aside from trying to assert yourself over me or something, I cannot fathom why you replied in the first place. We clearly agree on CICO, so what is your problem? Aside from the language I used to make my point?
My point is what you are saying is wrong! That's why I replied.
"Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" - just one single example makes that wrong. That's the way it is with absolutes. That's why semantics actually matter, for accuracy.
Your absolute statement is wrong because it is possible to eat more in the short term and have a weight drop.
Example:
Eight week period of very intense training in a 1lb/week deficit produced a steady weight loss as expected for first five weeks and then stalled out.
Stress/cortisol plus classic signs of overtraining syndrome.
Increased calories and lost weight. Water weight. The water retention was masking the fat loss.
That's why I pointed out that weight =/= fat.
Weight and weight fluctuations/stalls are more complex than you seem to believe.
See though, I feel like we STILL agree. Nothing you said here is an opinion I myself don't hold. I will accede to the semantics argument, however unjust I find it in this situation considering how unbelievably out of context you have taken this single statement. I have requested deletion of my former post. Afraid you'll have to wait for the mods.
I think we agree that a true calorie deficit over time will inevitably result in weight loss.
Maybe because I'm English I put a high regard on the language we (sort of...) share.
I think it's probably more of a generational difference. No millennial would think of "never" as extreme. We exist in a universe of extremes so we have a tendency to speak in them at all times, cause saying "I'm dying" is a joke rather than a situation requiring instantaneous action.
ETA: That universe being the internet god help us.
Daughter's friend - "I was so embarrassed I literally died."
Me - "So who resuscitated you?"
Daughter's friend = Bewildered.1 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
Inevitably over an extended period of time I think you mean?
Remember not all weight is fat so your "Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" is actually wrong.
Speaking in absolute terms does tend to mean you are absolutely wrong some of the time...
I don't want anyone getting the idea that they should up their calories if they stall. Quibble about the semantics all you want. CICO works, if it isn't working for you, you're doing it wrong.
It's worked perfectly for me thank you, I lost my weight and have been happily maintaining for years.
But I've also had short term periods where I lost weight when increasing calories.
And I wasn't suggesting that people react to a stall by increasing calories - argue with what I say if you chose but don't try to put words in my mouth.
Calorie balance is the primary cause of stalls but not the only cause.
Again weight =/= fat. There's a clue for you.
You have a problem with my semantics. "Absolutely wrong when using absolutes" remember? I'm addressing that by stating that it doesn't matter what language it comes in, the point of the matter is that there is no situation in which Eating more calories than you burn results in weight loss. Eating more calories than you burn results in weight gain. Stop taking this so personally. I don't know why you imagine I've singled you out here. I set out to make a point to anyone who looked at that title and thought "Gee, maybe I should up my calorie intake" If that's not you, super. Aside from trying to assert yourself over me or something, I cannot fathom why you replied in the first place. We clearly agree on CICO, so what is your problem? Aside from the language I used to make my point?
My point is what you are saying is wrong! That's why I replied.
"Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" - just one single example makes that wrong. That's the way it is with absolutes. That's why semantics actually matter, for accuracy.
Your absolute statement is wrong because it is possible to eat more in the short term and have a weight drop.
Example:
Eight week period of very intense training in a 1lb/week deficit produced a steady weight loss as expected for first five weeks and then stalled out.
Stress/cortisol plus classic signs of overtraining syndrome.
Increased calories and lost weight. Water weight. The water retention was masking the fat loss.
That's why I pointed out that weight =/= fat.
Weight and weight fluctuations/stalls are more complex than you seem to believe.
See though, I feel like we STILL agree. Nothing you said here is an opinion I myself don't hold. I will accede to the semantics argument, however unjust I find it in this situation considering how unbelievably out of context you have taken this single statement. I have requested deletion of my former post. Afraid you'll have to wait for the mods.
I think we agree that a true calorie deficit over time will inevitably result in weight loss.
Maybe because I'm English I put a high regard on the language we (sort of...) share.
I think it's probably more of a generational difference. No millennial would think of "never" as extreme. We exist in a universe of extremes so we have a tendency to speak in them at all times, cause saying "I'm dying" is a joke rather than a situation requiring instantaneous action.
ETA: That universe being the internet god help us.
Daughter's friend - "I was so embarrassed I literally died."
Me - "So who resuscitated you?"
Daughter's friend = Bewildered.
HA HA! That's it! A+ Dad humor, you should make a meme:)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions