Eating more to lose more?
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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.
This makes me feel much better. I'm sure if I treated my diary in a similar way I'd have similar stats to yourself. For example if I add my exercise to my calorie allowance it's about 1600 instead of 1300. But that is if I do all my exercise I plan to do, and I can't promise that so I do it my way.
I guess it all comes down to preference.
It'd all be easier if I didn't have a sedentary job
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.
That seems to relate to what @sarah_willy and @ugofatcat was talking about. Macros and volume are things that need to be paid attention to, but I know people who have said it and meant calories.
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.
Yeah, and also people activity levels throughout the day and metabolism makes a big difference. I'd be happy on 1300-1400, I don't need extra food, but I know some people need more just because the way their bodies are.0 -
I think the original mentality behind this concept is that if you eat more, you'll have more energy to work out and end up burning even more than you ate. The problem with it is that we've boiled it down to a catchphrase without explanation.0
-
So the gist is eat more volume, but less calories.0
-
Eat more than bare minimum calories for many reasons, and to lose weight obviously less than you burn in total.
No one who says this is believing you eat more than maintenance to lose weight.
But compared to the way most people approach diets going extreme on diet and exercise, just saying eat more than that in calories.
Volume may or may not have anything to do with it. Some need to eat more fat to get more calories, good fat.
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »So the gist is eat more volume, but less calories.
That's not the gist at all of what I and others are saying. Some people may be saying that, but my point, in case it isn't clear:
Set a modest deficit such that you can lose weight in a slow, sustainable fashion, fueling your exercise, preserving lean body mass, and making the process as painless as possible.
AKA - "The Winner is the person who eats the most and still loses the weight".0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »So the gist is eat more volume, but less calories.
That's not the gist at all of what I and others are saying. Some people may be saying that, but my point, in case it isn't clear:
Set a modest deficit such that you can lose weight in a slow, sustainable fashion, fueling your exercise, preserving lean body mass, and making the process as painless as possible.
AKA - "The Winner is the person who eats the most and still loses the weight".
Yeah i get what you're saying, but then others say they replaced cokes, candy and cakes etc etc with veggies and fruit and lean protein etc. They are eating much more food, but less calories than when their diet was predominantly high calorie junk food.1 -
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.
There's a couple of things at play here. First off, when these people say this, they're still talking about being in a deficit...just a smaller one. For many, this has the benefit of greater dietary adherence...for most people, adhering to a modest 500 or 250 calorie deficit is going to be much easier than adhering to an aggressive 1,000 calorie deficit. So basically this leads to greater consistency...less "falling off the wagon" or binging or having cheat meals or cheat days, etc...and because they're more consistent they ultimately lose weight and a more consistent rate and thus over time often lose more.
Additionally, a more modest deficit is going to obviously provide for more energy...more energy means that people will be more inclined to move more and I often see people with, for example, a 500 calorie deficit in their diet lose more than they anticipated simply because they're moving more than they were with a more aggressive deficit...couple that with dietary adherence and over the long haul people "lose more."
I can tell you from experience, I have a buddy who started this whole thing with me about 4 years ago...I've lost all of my weight and have been in maintenance for over three years now and just rocking my fitness...he's basically still in the same place he was when we started because he reaches for the most aggressive goal possible and just can't stick to it consistently...he'll do ok and then he'll binge or have a whole cheat weekend or something and after a matter of weeks or a couple months he throws in the towel only to start up again a month or two later...and so on and so forth for the past four years.
Beyond that, aggressive energy deficits are just a huge stress on the body...particularly when you couple that with a whole bunch of exercise that doesn't get fueled. This increased stress raises cortisol levels and messes with a bunch of other hormones that can impede weight loss...it isn't "starvation mode" but hormones do play a role in losing weight and when you jack with them you're going to have some frustrating times.
I think if you're a sedentary person, you're probably just fine with where you are at.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »So the gist is eat more volume, but less calories.
That's not the gist at all of what I and others are saying. Some people may be saying that, but my point, in case it isn't clear:
Set a modest deficit such that you can lose weight in a slow, sustainable fashion, fueling your exercise, preserving lean body mass, and making the process as painless as possible.
AKA - "The Winner is the person who eats the most and still loses the weight".
Yeah i get what you're saying, but then others say they replaced cokes, candy and cakes etc etc with veggies and fruit and lean protein etc. They are eating much more food, but less calories than when their diet was predominantly high calorie junk food.
I think one or two people in this thread said that, but I would consider those isolated examples of how the statement is usually intended.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions