Eating more to lose more?
DaniettaF
Posts: 212 Member
I keep hearing that you need to eat more calories to lose weight, and that eating only 1300 is 'insane'.
I'm a sedentary individual due to my office based job during the day and studying in the evening but I workout twice a week moderate/high intensity for 90 minutes at my kickboxing classes. These include cardio, strength training and boxing technique conditioning. I've (under) estimated that I burn about 500 calories. I also have 30 minute walks when I can.
If I follow the guidelines that MFP set, I seem fine, I'm losing slowly because I don't always hit my calorie goal, which I'm fine with, but would I be losing more if I ate more? To me that sounds silly and 'calories in calories out' is the truth.
When people say that they need to eat more to lose, do they counteract it with more exercise?
Does anyone here have experience with it?
It's more of a curiosity thing than anything else.
I'm a sedentary individual due to my office based job during the day and studying in the evening but I workout twice a week moderate/high intensity for 90 minutes at my kickboxing classes. These include cardio, strength training and boxing technique conditioning. I've (under) estimated that I burn about 500 calories. I also have 30 minute walks when I can.
If I follow the guidelines that MFP set, I seem fine, I'm losing slowly because I don't always hit my calorie goal, which I'm fine with, but would I be losing more if I ate more? To me that sounds silly and 'calories in calories out' is the truth.
When people say that they need to eat more to lose, do they counteract it with more exercise?
Does anyone here have experience with it?
It's more of a curiosity thing than anything else.
0
Replies
-
You are right! Eating more to lose is silly. CICO Calories In / Calories Out
You are losing weight, so what you are doing is working.14 -
No. Eating more does not cause you to lose more. The only way adding calories will help you lose is if a more modest defecit helps you stick with your plan.9
-
The idea behind eat more to lose is that so many of us women were told that we needed to eat a 1200 calorie diet to lose weight no matter what our activity levels were. I did just that even though I was running several miles a week, going to 2-3 kickboxing classes a week on top of lifting a couple of days a week. I lost a lot of weight quickly and quickly gained it all back.
Every person is different and each person needs to figure out their own goals and what you are comfortable doing. Ideally, you will eat based on your current weight, your goals and lose at a moderate pace so that you keep your metabolism working as best as it can.8 -
You get too extreme with deficit from what body burns - and it will adapt (adaptive thermogenesis) and burn less through several methods.
Now your deficit isn't as great.
You could keep eating less and less of course - body can only adapt so much (several studies have shown upwards of 20% loss of daily burn related purely to that effect, more if you include loss of muscle mass and that metabolism) - and you'll keep losing as much as before.
But body under that kind of stress doesn't exactly react the same way to benefiting from exercise.
It also losses more muscle mass, which is a real bummer for maintaining later.
It can also make people binge and not adhere well, either during loss or maintenance time.
And it raises cortisol stress levels, causing water weight gain, which can mask fat weight loss, even if inches are going down.
So what many find is that they can have the same rate of loss, adhere to diet better, get much better results from exercise - by eating at a reasonable deficit from the start.
Obviously amount eaten slowly lowers as weight drops and daily burn drops.
Compared to eating a whole lot less, workout suck and have not nearly the effect, daily energy levels are terrible, eating level adherence is terrible with binges, same rate of loss eventually, and maintenance is a nightmare and weight is gained back if not more.
So you are eating more than bare minimum, to lose more than slowest rate. is better way to think of it.0 -
Eating more doesn't make you loose more, it prevents you from bingeing and needing cheat days. Use your current weight and height to calculate your calorie intake limit.
When I was 148 MFP suggested 1290 cal a day. When I dropped to 130lbs the suggestion changed to 1200 cal a day.0 -
I was doing bikini bootcamp training at my gym. The trainer gave us a tailored meal plan. I'm 5'2", 154lbs at the start of the 6 weeks. My plan for the first 4 weeks was to have a 1600cal a day diet, but to focus on hitting the macros instead of calories. I usually came close to the 1600 each day (not typical in my usual eating habits - I was eating way less). Protein was to be 138g, Fat 45g, carbs 161g. Then after 4 weeks the carbs and fat were cut back and we were given a detailed plan.
In the end of 6 weeks, I lost only 4lbs, but several inches everywhere! 2" from shoulders, 2" from bust, .75 arm, 2.24" waist, 2.5" midsection, 1.75" thights, and so on. I can't believe the difference! Now yes, I was eating more, but it was primarily protein that was increased. Eating more doesn't mean to have a cookie to meet that 1600cal goal! I think it's more important to focus on your macros than it is the calories.
During this time, I was also doing 3 heavy lifting classes per week (legs one day, upper body another and full body on the 3rd) as well as 1-2 HIIT classes. So very high activity during this training.2 -
Eating more doesn't make you loose more, it prevents you from bingeing and needing cheat days. Use your current weight and height to calculate your calorie intake limit.
When I was 148 MFP suggested 1290 cal a day. When I dropped to 130lbs the suggestion changed to 1200 cal a day.
Hope you realize those suggestions are with NO exercise included in estimate, and you are exactly the activity level you told MFP.
Most aren't sedentary, and many exercise.
In which case most days you'd never truly eat that low amount.0 -
To lose weight you need to be in a calorie deficit. Your CI<CO, so no, eating more calories doesn't mean you will lose more weight.
That said, the reason people say things like, "eat more to weigh less" is because many people set too aggressive of a calorie deficit goal, and find it unsustainable. They may binge after restricting so heavily for an extended period of time, or they may just find it too difficult and give up. Additionally, losing at a more conservative rate may help preserve lean muscle and fuel workouts thus perpetuating the healthy cycle of eating at a modest deficit, working out, losing weight...
Your goal is set to 1300 currently, and you are losing? What goal rate of loss did you select, 1 lb/week? How much weight do you have to lose? Are you losing at that rate? Are you eating back a portion of those exercise calories, because if you are following the MFP method you should not be eating only 1300 cals on the days that you exercise.0 -
There's an mfp group here about this topic, i haven't read it so don't know the science behind it.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/3817-eat-more-2-weigh-less0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »To lose weight you need to be in a calorie deficit. Your CI<CO, so no, eating more calories doesn't mean you will lose more weight.
That said, the reason people say things like, "eat more to weigh less" is because many people set too aggressive of a calorie deficit goal, and find it unsustainable. They may binge after restricting so heavily for an extended period of time, or they may just find it too difficult and give up. Additionally, losing at a more conservative rate may help preserve lean muscle and fuel workouts thus perpetuating the healthy cycle of eating at a modest deficit, working out, losing weight...
Your goal is set to 1300 currently, and you are losing? What goal rate of loss did you select, 1 lb/week? How much weight do you have to lose? Are you losing at that rate? Are you eating back a portion of those exercise calories, because if you are following the MFP method you should not be eating only 1300 cals on the days that you exercise.
Yeah, I am, slowly, but like I said i go over now and then so it probably equates to about 1400 a day. It is 1lb a week. I'm not racing to lose. I eat the exercise back if I'm hungry on the day but I usually save them for the weekend.
The question about eating more to lose more is more a general question, not that specific to me. I heard this mantra on forums and youtube bloggers. I know they probably aren't formally dieticians. They say things like eating less that 2000 is mental. Lol. It makes me feel there's something wrong with me.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »There's an mfp group here about this topic, i haven't read it so don't know the science behind it.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/3817-eat-more-2-weigh-less
Thank you, I'll have a read.0 -
sarah_willy wrote: »I was doing bikini bootcamp training at my gym. The trainer gave us a tailored meal plan. I'm 5'2", 154lbs at the start of the 6 weeks. My plan for the first 4 weeks was to have a 1600cal a day diet, but to focus on hitting the macros instead of calories. I usually came close to the 1600 each day (not typical in my usual eating habits - I was eating way less). Protein was to be 138g, Fat 45g, carbs 161g. Then after 4 weeks the carbs and fat were cut back and we were given a detailed plan.
In the end of 6 weeks, I lost only 4lbs, but several inches everywhere! 2" from shoulders, 2" from bust, .75 arm, 2.24" waist, 2.5" midsection, 1.75" thights, and so on. I can't believe the difference! Now yes, I was eating more, but it was primarily protein that was increased. Eating more doesn't mean to have a cookie to meet that 1600cal goal! I think it's more important to focus on your macros than it is the calories.
During this time, I was also doing 3 heavy lifting classes per week (legs one day, upper body another and full body on the 3rd) as well as 1-2 HIIT classes. So very high activity during this training.
That's an interesting way at looking at it. I guess that's what people are talking about.
This is one of the things that is going in my 'should I start buying protein?' list. I've been avoiding it for ages. Being vege all of my protein makes me pass wind!
tmi! 1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »To lose weight you need to be in a calorie deficit. Your CI<CO, so no, eating more calories doesn't mean you will lose more weight.
That said, the reason people say things like, "eat more to weigh less" is because many people set too aggressive of a calorie deficit goal, and find it unsustainable. They may binge after restricting so heavily for an extended period of time, or they may just find it too difficult and give up. Additionally, losing at a more conservative rate may help preserve lean muscle and fuel workouts thus perpetuating the healthy cycle of eating at a modest deficit, working out, losing weight...
Your goal is set to 1300 currently, and you are losing? What goal rate of loss did you select, 1 lb/week? How much weight do you have to lose? Are you losing at that rate? Are you eating back a portion of those exercise calories, because if you are following the MFP method you should not be eating only 1300 cals on the days that you exercise.
Yeah, I am, slowly, but like I said i go over now and then so it probably equates to about 1400 a day. It is 1lb a week. I'm not racing to lose. I eat the exercise back if I'm hungry on the day but I usually save them for the weekend.
The question about eating more to lose more is more a general question, not that specific to me. I heard this mantra on forums and youtube bloggers. I know they probably aren't formally dieticians. They say things like eating less that 2000 is mental. Lol. It makes me feel there's something wrong with me.
I know! People will say that they eat 2500 cslories, etc and stay slim. But if you go into their food diaries they burn off tons and end up with a net calorie total of 1700 or something. I think people should talk about net daily calories because it is very discouraging to hear people brag about all the calories they can eat and not gain weight if they don't include the qualifiers and variables.3 -
Waaallll, I ate more and lost the weight. It does work, but there are reasons.
While overweight, I was hooked on Pepsi, and I dropped it. Of course, other things I had dropped were other sweets and juice. At the same time, I added fruit to my diet and took baggies of all kinds of fresh raw vegies and fruit to work, eating all day. I rarely got hungry, and I dropped 123 pounds. I could put the photo up here as proof of the weight loss, but I've already put it on MF a couple times.
1 -
RainaProske wrote: »Waaallll, I ate more and lost the weight. It does work, but there are reasons.
While overweight, I was hooked on Pepsi, and I dropped it. Of course, other things I had dropped were other sweets and juice. At the same time, I added fruit to my diet and took baggies of all kinds of fresh raw vegies and fruit to work, eating all day. I rarely got hungry, and I dropped 123 pounds. I could put the photo up here as proof of the weight loss, but I've already put it on MF a couple times.
Wow! Congratulations! But I'm sure you weren't eating more than you were before you started, right? You probably were eating too little and then upped your calories to an appropriate number. People over 100 pounds overweight NEED more calories than a lighter person.1 -
I personally don't like how people try to get under 1200. I feel like 1600 calories should be the limit. I would say "eat more lose more" is about eating enough calories to also exercise enough to burn more OVER TIME. Eating more doesn't mean go over your calorie count.
For example me eating 2,000-2,500calories and running 10miles in a day is better than me doing nothing and aiming for 1200.5 -
dillonmonds wrote: »I personally don't like how people try to get under 1200. I feel like 1600 calories should be the limit. I would say "eat more lose more" is about eating enough calories to also exercise enough to burn more OVER TIME. Eating more doesn't mean go over your calorie count.
For example me eating 2,000-2,500calories and running 10miles in a day is better than me doing nothing and aiming for 1200.
I definitely am one who doesn't do well on 1200 calories. I am hungry all the time and suffer at that number.. There are people who are petite or sedentary who need to go that low. But I agree that the under 1200 idea isn't great for everyone.0 -
RainaProske wrote: »Waaallll, I ate more and lost the weight. It does work, but there are reasons.
While overweight, I was hooked on Pepsi, and I dropped it. Of course, other things I had dropped were other sweets and juice. At the same time, I added fruit to my diet and took baggies of all kinds of fresh raw vegies and fruit to work, eating all day. I rarely got hungry, and I dropped 123 pounds. I could put the photo up here as proof of the weight loss, but I've already put it on MF a couple times.
Wow! Congratulations! But I'm sure you weren't eating more than you were before you started, right? You probably were eating too little and then upped your calories to an appropriate number. People over 100 pounds overweight NEED more calories than a lighter person.
But I did eat more. I added fruit, when I hadn't been eating any. I had been eating three meals a day, but to lose weight, I ate all day -- just different foods from what I'd eaten before. Without the pop and sweets I'd eaten before, I ate more lower-caloried bulk foods. I had a deficit in calories while having an addition of healthy foods. I ate noticeably more and noted that when it was going on. My initial thoughts were, "I eat so much, how will the loss happen, but it did.
Admittedly, too, I wasn't worried about losing fast, and every pound lost felt like a gift, because I did not feel the pain of losing that I had on other diets. I only lost 50 pounds yearly for two years, and I was all right with that. The rest of the weight just fell off over the next couple years.1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »To lose weight you need to be in a calorie deficit. Your CI<CO, so no, eating more calories doesn't mean you will lose more weight.
That said, the reason people say things like, "eat more to weigh less" is because many people set too aggressive of a calorie deficit goal, and find it unsustainable. They may binge after restricting so heavily for an extended period of time, or they may just find it too difficult and give up. Additionally, losing at a more conservative rate may help preserve lean muscle and fuel workouts thus perpetuating the healthy cycle of eating at a modest deficit, working out, losing weight...
Your goal is set to 1300 currently, and you are losing? What goal rate of loss did you select, 1 lb/week? How much weight do you have to lose? Are you losing at that rate? Are you eating back a portion of those exercise calories, because if you are following the MFP method you should not be eating only 1300 cals on the days that you exercise.
Yeah, I am, slowly, but like I said i go over now and then so it probably equates to about 1400 a day. It is 1lb a week. I'm not racing to lose. I eat the exercise back if I'm hungry on the day but I usually save them for the weekend.
The question about eating more to lose more is more a general question, not that specific to me. I heard this mantra on forums and youtube bloggers. I know they probably aren't formally dieticians. They say things like eating less that 2000 is mental. Lol. It makes me feel there's something wrong with me.
I know! People will say that they eat 2500 cslories, etc and stay slim. But if you go into their food diaries they burn off tons and end up with a net calorie total of 1700 or something. I think people should talk about net daily calories because it is very discouraging to hear people brag about all the calories they can eat and not gain weight if they don't include the qualifiers and variables.
Many people don't understand net calories at all, if they did, we wouldn't have so many people eating 1200 calories and not eating back exercise calories.
I'm a petite person (5'2) that lost 30 lbs and is currently maintaining that loss. My TDEE is 2200 cals because I am very active. When I post about this in the forums, it is not bragging about how much I get to eat. It is to let people like this OP know that it is possible to eat a higher amount of calories and still lose/maintain. OP is having a hard time believing, even though she exercises strenuously that she can eat more than she is.4 -
If you're significantly undereating your calorie allotment, then your loss slows due to the fact that the body is adapting to the calories it's being given. It usually does this by lowering your metabolic rate more than usual. And that means less body fat burning at rest.I keep hearing that you need to eat more calories to lose weight, and that eating only 1300 is 'insane'.
I'm a sedentary individual due to my office based job during the day and studying in the evening but I workout twice a week moderate/high intensity for 90 minutes at my kickboxing classes. These include cardio, strength training and boxing technique conditioning. I've (under) estimated that I burn about 500 calories. I also have 30 minute walks when I can.
If I follow the guidelines that MFP set, I seem fine, I'm losing slowly because I don't always hit my calorie goal, which I'm fine with, but would I be losing more if I ate more? To me that sounds silly and 'calories in calories out' is the truth.
When people say that they need to eat more to lose, do they counteract it with more exercise?
Does anyone here have experience with it?
It's more of a curiosity thing than anything else.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
dillonmonds wrote: »I personally don't like how people try to get under 1200. I feel like 1600 calories should be the limit. I would say "eat more lose more" is about eating enough calories to also exercise enough to burn more OVER TIME. Eating more doesn't mean go over your calorie count.
For example me eating 2,000-2,500calories and running 10miles in a day is better than me doing nothing and aiming for 1200.
I prefer that too, but not everyone is in shape to do that. I eat about 2200 to maintain now (don't count exercise calories, so don't know what that is net, but my truly sedentary TDEE is probably about 1600). I lost weight when I started out at 1250, and that worked fine for me until I got some of the weight off and got more active.0 -
What do you mean by eat more? Calories or volume? For example I can eat an entire bag of plain steamed veggies for 120 calories. Or I can have 9 tortilla chips for 140 calories.
When you eat fruits and veggies you can eat more, volume wise, for less calories.1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »To lose weight you need to be in a calorie deficit. Your CI<CO, so no, eating more calories doesn't mean you will lose more weight.
That said, the reason people say things like, "eat more to weigh less" is because many people set too aggressive of a calorie deficit goal, and find it unsustainable. They may binge after restricting so heavily for an extended period of time, or they may just find it too difficult and give up. Additionally, losing at a more conservative rate may help preserve lean muscle and fuel workouts thus perpetuating the healthy cycle of eating at a modest deficit, working out, losing weight...
Your goal is set to 1300 currently, and you are losing? What goal rate of loss did you select, 1 lb/week? How much weight do you have to lose? Are you losing at that rate? Are you eating back a portion of those exercise calories, because if you are following the MFP method you should not be eating only 1300 cals on the days that you exercise.
Yeah, I am, slowly, but like I said i go over now and then so it probably equates to about 1400 a day. It is 1lb a week. I'm not racing to lose. I eat the exercise back if I'm hungry on the day but I usually save them for the weekend.
The question about eating more to lose more is more a general question, not that specific to me. I heard this mantra on forums and youtube bloggers. I know they probably aren't formally dieticians. They say things like eating less that 2000 is mental. Lol. It makes me feel there's something wrong with me.
I know! People will say that they eat 2500 cslories, etc and stay slim. But if you go into their food diaries they burn off tons and end up with a net calorie total of 1700 or something. I think people should talk about net daily calories because it is very discouraging to hear people brag about all the calories they can eat and not gain weight if they don't include the qualifiers and variables.
See, and I'm more interested in how much people eat, period, than in their net calories To each his/her own, of course. 0 -
I definitely eat more when I'm watching my calories (previously points on WW), and I loose weight. I gain weight when I eat less food. The difference being the type of food. Sure, I can say I ate less food and gained, and it would be true, but the amount of calories in that food was astronomical.
IMO, the saying is true, but it's talking strictly about food, NOT about calories. CI<CO still applies.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »dillonmonds wrote: »I personally don't like how people try to get under 1200. I feel like 1600 calories should be the limit. I would say "eat more lose more" is about eating enough calories to also exercise enough to burn more OVER TIME. Eating more doesn't mean go over your calorie count.
For example me eating 2,000-2,500calories and running 10miles in a day is better than me doing nothing and aiming for 1200.
I prefer that too, but not everyone is in shape to do that. I eat about 2200 to maintain now (don't count exercise calories, so don't know what that is net, but my truly sedentary TDEE is probably about 1600). I lost weight when I started out at 1250, and that worked fine for me until I got some of the weight off and got more active.
Nice! 2200 for maintenance gives you LOTS of choices. 1200 is difficult to pare down to IMO. I suffered hunger pangs trying to do that.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »To lose weight you need to be in a calorie deficit. Your CI<CO, so no, eating more calories doesn't mean you will lose more weight.
That said, the reason people say things like, "eat more to weigh less" is because many people set too aggressive of a calorie deficit goal, and find it unsustainable. They may binge after restricting so heavily for an extended period of time, or they may just find it too difficult and give up. Additionally, losing at a more conservative rate may help preserve lean muscle and fuel workouts thus perpetuating the healthy cycle of eating at a modest deficit, working out, losing weight...
Your goal is set to 1300 currently, and you are losing? What goal rate of loss did you select, 1 lb/week? How much weight do you have to lose? Are you losing at that rate? Are you eating back a portion of those exercise calories, because if you are following the MFP method you should not be eating only 1300 cals on the days that you exercise.
Yeah, I am, slowly, but like I said i go over now and then so it probably equates to about 1400 a day. It is 1lb a week. I'm not racing to lose. I eat the exercise back if I'm hungry on the day but I usually save them for the weekend.
The question about eating more to lose more is more a general question, not that specific to me. I heard this mantra on forums and youtube bloggers. I know they probably aren't formally dieticians. They say things like eating less that 2000 is mental. Lol. It makes me feel there's something wrong with me.
I know! People will say that they eat 2500 cslories, etc and stay slim. But if you go into their food diaries they burn off tons and end up with a net calorie total of 1700 or something. I think people should talk about net daily calories because it is very discouraging to hear people brag about all the calories they can eat and not gain weight if they don't include the qualifiers and variables.
See, and I'm more interested in how much people eat, period, than in their net calories To each his/her own, of course.
That is perfectly fine. It would be nice if they included total and net or some people do feel like their metabolisms aren't healthy compared to others. But if the person says, "I burn off 900 calories extra in exercise", then newbies to MFP will understand that the 2400 calories eaten in a day is really 1500 after exercise is subtracted. Then their 1500 calorie allotment doesn't look so woesome.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »To lose weight you need to be in a calorie deficit. Your CI<CO, so no, eating more calories doesn't mean you will lose more weight.
That said, the reason people say things like, "eat more to weigh less" is because many people set too aggressive of a calorie deficit goal, and find it unsustainable. They may binge after restricting so heavily for an extended period of time, or they may just find it too difficult and give up. Additionally, losing at a more conservative rate may help preserve lean muscle and fuel workouts thus perpetuating the healthy cycle of eating at a modest deficit, working out, losing weight...
Your goal is set to 1300 currently, and you are losing? What goal rate of loss did you select, 1 lb/week? How much weight do you have to lose? Are you losing at that rate? Are you eating back a portion of those exercise calories, because if you are following the MFP method you should not be eating only 1300 cals on the days that you exercise.
Yeah, I am, slowly, but like I said i go over now and then so it probably equates to about 1400 a day. It is 1lb a week. I'm not racing to lose. I eat the exercise back if I'm hungry on the day but I usually save them for the weekend.
The question about eating more to lose more is more a general question, not that specific to me. I heard this mantra on forums and youtube bloggers. I know they probably aren't formally dieticians. They say things like eating less that 2000 is mental. Lol. It makes me feel there's something wrong with me.
I know! People will say that they eat 2500 cslories, etc and stay slim. But if you go into their food diaries they burn off tons and end up with a net calorie total of 1700 or something. I think people should talk about net daily calories because it is very discouraging to hear people brag about all the calories they can eat and not gain weight if they don't include the qualifiers and variables.
See, and I'm more interested in how much people eat, period, than in their net calories To each his/her own, of course.
That is perfectly fine. It would be nice if they included total and net or some people do feel like their metabolisms aren't healthy compared to others. But if the person says, "I burn off 900 calories extra in exercise", then newbies to MFP will understand that the 2400 calories eaten in a day is really 1500 after exercise is subtracted. Then their 1500 calorie allotment doesn't look so woesome.
What you'll find is that many of us don't calculate exercise calories at all. By that I mean that I have an average calorie goal that I eat to each day but I don't know how many of those calories are burned by exercise vs. not exercise. I mean, maybe it's 200-300 but I don't log that. I just manually entered in my calorie goal.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »To lose weight you need to be in a calorie deficit. Your CI<CO, so no, eating more calories doesn't mean you will lose more weight.
That said, the reason people say things like, "eat more to weigh less" is because many people set too aggressive of a calorie deficit goal, and find it unsustainable. They may binge after restricting so heavily for an extended period of time, or they may just find it too difficult and give up. Additionally, losing at a more conservative rate may help preserve lean muscle and fuel workouts thus perpetuating the healthy cycle of eating at a modest deficit, working out, losing weight...
Your goal is set to 1300 currently, and you are losing? What goal rate of loss did you select, 1 lb/week? How much weight do you have to lose? Are you losing at that rate? Are you eating back a portion of those exercise calories, because if you are following the MFP method you should not be eating only 1300 cals on the days that you exercise.
Yeah, I am, slowly, but like I said i go over now and then so it probably equates to about 1400 a day. It is 1lb a week. I'm not racing to lose. I eat the exercise back if I'm hungry on the day but I usually save them for the weekend.
The question about eating more to lose more is more a general question, not that specific to me. I heard this mantra on forums and youtube bloggers. I know they probably aren't formally dieticians. They say things like eating less that 2000 is mental. Lol. It makes me feel there's something wrong with me.
I know! People will say that they eat 2500 cslories, etc and stay slim. But if you go into their food diaries they burn off tons and end up with a net calorie total of 1700 or something. I think people should talk about net daily calories because it is very discouraging to hear people brag about all the calories they can eat and not gain weight if they don't include the qualifiers and variables.
I completely agree! It's almost like shaming people for eating so few calories.
Edit: I'm not saying everyone who posts that they 2500 calories is, especially not on MFP. I mean on youtube etc.1 -
What do you mean by eat more? Calories or volume? For example I can eat an entire bag of plain steamed veggies for 120 calories. Or I can have 9 tortilla chips for 140 calories.
When you eat fruits and veggies you can eat more, volume wise, for less calories.
I know what you mean, but I do mean calories for the sake of this argument.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions