Ladies on a 1800 cutting diet?
Replies
-
beckygammon wrote: »Everyone's body is different and we shouldn't be arguing about how many calories work for weight loss because like I said every single person is different. CICO is obviously fact and works. However, some people who have been dieting for a long time on low calorie diets may actually find that they lose weight when they up their calories due to a balancing of hormones which promote weight loss. So potentially OP did actually find that she loses more weight on the higher amount of calories than on the lower due to the calories boosting her metabolism. - just another example of how her body may be working differently to yours. We need to support and advise each other not criticise. Lets bring each other up not pull each other down.
No ....bodies are the same
People aren't different, no matter what medical conditions or history
Neither Thermodynamic adaptation nor physics include any concept whereby one can lose more weight the higher your calorie intake
Restoring leptin through refeed is a valid concept but doesn't mean this
There is no scientific rationale for this concept ...I'm sorry but it's simply not true
Please divorce the concept of critique of posts with critique of self ...you can't post nonsense and expect it to not be addressed l
Let's educate each other not develop a place where woo reigns, there are enough sites and proponents of health and fitness derp on the Internet
A caloric deficit's effect on NEAT varies greatly from person to person and the changes are not necessarily consciously made. Starting at the 1 hour point in the podcast I linked above, this is discussed in detail. (I'll link it again here.) Yes, clearly CICO rules the day as far as fat loss goes but people absolutely are different as far as how they adapt, NEAT-wise.
Yes that's fascinating, talking about how activity levels can reduce which of course that will have an effect on TDEE on a daily basis and adjust the CICO balance.
In that conceptual world I would fully accept that if you move more at a higher calorie amount your defecit would increase at a higher calorie amount and you would lose more
If people are implying putting forward the concept that it you eat more to lose more because you also move more either through purposeful exercise or base activity then I would wholeheartedly accept that concept as scientifically sound. It's the talking in isolation and putting it all down to a metabolic adaptation regardless of any change in activity level that I take issue with.
If I cut to 1750 but don't move at all I would put on weight
If I cut to 1750 and walk 3-5000 steps a day I would maintain weight
If I cut to 1750 and maintain my current activity levels I would lose
I think that (the bold) is what is being discussed here. Not a decrease in BMR, a decrease in NEAT (obvs affecting TDEE.) Too many people get hung up on BMR and exercise and then completely ignore NEAT.
Well if that was what was being mooted then I apologise and take my comments back.
I put your comments back on because even then the math doesn't really check out.
Let's say someone is eating at 1500 and not losing, but eating at 1800 makes them lose a pound per week. Things we've seen claimed a lot of times on here as you know. That would need a difference in NEAT of 800 calories! Maintenance at 1500 vs. a 500 deficit at 1800 -> maintenance at 2300.0 -
ashjongfit wrote: »I am on 1900 and losing 1.5-1 lb a week, I'm 5'4.
I DO lose more on 1900 than on 1200 because being on 1200 will cause me to binge and wipe all that away. The goal should be to eat AS much as you can while meeting your goals!
This hits the nail on the head! When I'm satisfied with my calorie goal to lose a half pound a week (with exercise, between 1710 and 2000), then I am tight with my logging and pay attention because there is little margin for error.
When I started at 1200 calories plus exercise calories (1500), I was starving and not paying much attention because I was so darned hungry all the time. My intake accuracy suffered and I didn't lose, until I decided to raise my calorie goals and get my logging under control.beckygammon wrote: »Everyone's body is different and we shouldn't be arguing about how many calories work for weight loss because like I said every single person is different. CICO is obviously fact and works. However, some people who have been dieting for a long time on low calorie diets may actually find that they lose weight when they up their calories due to a balancing of hormones which promote weight loss. So potentially OP did actually find that she loses more weight on the higher amount of calories than on the lower due to the calories boosting her metabolism. - just another example of how her body may be working differently to yours. We need to support and advise each other not criticise. Lets bring each other up not pull each other down.
First of all, there is no putting down in the replies regarding CICO, just honesty and the offering scientific information.
Secondly, not everyone's body is different when it comes to CICO. There are no special snowflakes in this game of weight loss. Medical conditions can have an effect on weight, but if so a doctor's visit is in order. Eat less than you burn and you will lose weight, eat more than you burn and you will gain weight and eat at maintenance and you will....maintain.
Finally, calories don't boost your metabolism. The only magic in those calories is that what your weight does is determined by how any calories you are eating.
You always want to fuel your body like a car by not allowing your tank to empty out. Intake is determined by activity level and exercise. All of us probably feel a whole lot better on a full tank rather than a half tank, or an empty tank. I am all for losing at the highest amount of calories possible, but if you are not already losing weight it's pointless to raise your calorie goals thinking that will help you lose weight unless you are committed to intake accuracy to ensure a deficit while eating at higher calories.
OP, to you: it's wonderful you have found a calorie goal that works and for staying accurate enough in your calorie goals to lose that pound a week. My guess is you were unable to lose at a lower weight because you were pretty hungry and unintentionally miscalculating your calories. This kind of thing has happened to most of us at one time or another.
0 -
beckygammon wrote: »Everyone's body is different and we shouldn't be arguing about how many calories work for weight loss because like I said every single person is different. CICO is obviously fact and works. However, some people who have been dieting for a long time on low calorie diets may actually find that they lose weight when they up their calories due to a balancing of hormones which promote weight loss. So potentially OP did actually find that she loses more weight on the higher amount of calories than on the lower due to the calories boosting her metabolism. - just another example of how her body may be working differently to yours. We need to support and advise each other not criticise. Lets bring each other up not pull each other down.
No ....bodies are the same
People aren't different, no matter what medical conditions or history
Neither Thermodynamic adaptation nor physics include any concept whereby one can lose more weight the higher your calorie intake
Restoring leptin through refeed is a valid concept but doesn't mean this
There is no scientific rationale for this concept ...I'm sorry but it's simply not true
Please divorce the concept of critique of posts with critique of self ...you can't post nonsense and expect it to not be addressed l
Let's educate each other not develop a place where woo reigns, there are enough sites and proponents of health and fitness derp on the Internet
A caloric deficit's effect on NEAT varies greatly from person to person and the changes are not necessarily consciously made. Starting at the 1 hour point in the podcast I linked above, this is discussed in detail. (I'll link it again here.) Yes, clearly CICO rules the day as far as fat loss goes but people absolutely are different as far as how they adapt, NEAT-wise.
This makes sense as well.0 -
Thank you all, I've enjoyed reading this thread.
Lots of informative posts.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »beckygammon wrote: »Everyone's body is different and we shouldn't be arguing about how many calories work for weight loss because like I said every single person is different. CICO is obviously fact and works. However, some people who have been dieting for a long time on low calorie diets may actually find that they lose weight when they up their calories due to a balancing of hormones which promote weight loss. So potentially OP did actually find that she loses more weight on the higher amount of calories than on the lower due to the calories boosting her metabolism. - just another example of how her body may be working differently to yours. We need to support and advise each other not criticise. Lets bring each other up not pull each other down.
No ....bodies are the same
People aren't different, no matter what medical conditions or history
Neither Thermodynamic adaptation nor physics include any concept whereby one can lose more weight the higher your calorie intake
Restoring leptin through refeed is a valid concept but doesn't mean this
There is no scientific rationale for this concept ...I'm sorry but it's simply not true
Please divorce the concept of critique of posts with critique of self ...you can't post nonsense and expect it to not be addressed l
Let's educate each other not develop a place where woo reigns, there are enough sites and proponents of health and fitness derp on the Internet
A caloric deficit's effect on NEAT varies greatly from person to person and the changes are not necessarily consciously made. Starting at the 1 hour point in the podcast I linked above, this is discussed in detail. (I'll link it again here.) Yes, clearly CICO rules the day as far as fat loss goes but people absolutely are different as far as how they adapt, NEAT-wise.
Yes that's fascinating, talking about how activity levels can reduce which of course that will have an effect on TDEE on a daily basis and adjust the CICO balance.
In that conceptual world I would fully accept that if you move more at a higher calorie amount your defecit would increase at a higher calorie amount and you would lose more
If people are implying putting forward the concept that it you eat more to lose more because you also move more either through purposeful exercise or base activity then I would wholeheartedly accept that concept as scientifically sound. It's the talking in isolation and putting it all down to a metabolic adaptation regardless of any change in activity level that I take issue with.
If I cut to 1750 but don't move at all I would put on weight
If I cut to 1750 and walk 3-5000 steps a day I would maintain weight
If I cut to 1750 and maintain my current activity levels I would lose
I think that (the bold) is what is being discussed here. Not a decrease in BMR, a decrease in NEAT (obvs affecting TDEE.) Too many people get hung up on BMR and exercise and then completely ignore NEAT.
Well if that was what was being mooted then I apologise and take my comments back.
I put your comments back on because even then the math doesn't really check out.
Let's say someone is eating at 1500 and not losing, but eating at 1800 makes them lose a pound per week. Things we've seen claimed a lot of times on here as you know. That would need a difference in NEAT of 800 calories! Maintenance at 1500 vs. a 500 deficit at 1800 -> maintenance at 2300.
An increase in calories eaten may result in an increase in both NEAT and an increase in exercise calories expended.
Changes to calories in and out do not happen in a vacuum. They are interrelated, affecting each other.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »beckygammon wrote: »Everyone's body is different and we shouldn't be arguing about how many calories work for weight loss because like I said every single person is different. CICO is obviously fact and works. However, some people who have been dieting for a long time on low calorie diets may actually find that they lose weight when they up their calories due to a balancing of hormones which promote weight loss. So potentially OP did actually find that she loses more weight on the higher amount of calories than on the lower due to the calories boosting her metabolism. - just another example of how her body may be working differently to yours. We need to support and advise each other not criticise. Lets bring each other up not pull each other down.
No ....bodies are the same
People aren't different, no matter what medical conditions or history
Neither Thermodynamic adaptation nor physics include any concept whereby one can lose more weight the higher your calorie intake
Restoring leptin through refeed is a valid concept but doesn't mean this
There is no scientific rationale for this concept ...I'm sorry but it's simply not true
Please divorce the concept of critique of posts with critique of self ...you can't post nonsense and expect it to not be addressed l
Let's educate each other not develop a place where woo reigns, there are enough sites and proponents of health and fitness derp on the Internet
A caloric deficit's effect on NEAT varies greatly from person to person and the changes are not necessarily consciously made. Starting at the 1 hour point in the podcast I linked above, this is discussed in detail. (I'll link it again here.) Yes, clearly CICO rules the day as far as fat loss goes but people absolutely are different as far as how they adapt, NEAT-wise.
Yes that's fascinating, talking about how activity levels can reduce which of course that will have an effect on TDEE on a daily basis and adjust the CICO balance.
In that conceptual world I would fully accept that if you move more at a higher calorie amount your defecit would increase at a higher calorie amount and you would lose more
If people are implying putting forward the concept that it you eat more to lose more because you also move more either through purposeful exercise or base activity then I would wholeheartedly accept that concept as scientifically sound. It's the talking in isolation and putting it all down to a metabolic adaptation regardless of any change in activity level that I take issue with.
If I cut to 1750 but don't move at all I would put on weight
If I cut to 1750 and walk 3-5000 steps a day I would maintain weight
If I cut to 1750 and maintain my current activity levels I would lose
I think that (the bold) is what is being discussed here. Not a decrease in BMR, a decrease in NEAT (obvs affecting TDEE.) Too many people get hung up on BMR and exercise and then completely ignore NEAT.
Well if that was what was being mooted then I apologise and take my comments back.
I put your comments back on because even then the math doesn't really check out.
Let's say someone is eating at 1500 and not losing, but eating at 1800 makes them lose a pound per week. Things we've seen claimed a lot of times on here as you know. That would need a difference in NEAT of 800 calories! Maintenance at 1500 vs. a 500 deficit at 1800 -> maintenance at 2300.
An increase in calories eaten may result in an increase in both NEAT and an increase in exercise calories expended.
Changes to calories in and out do not happen in a vacuum. They are interrelated, affecting each other.
Yes but I think his point is that 800 calories of NEAT is such a significant number as to be difficult to attain consciously let alone subconsciously ...that's probably the equivalent of 8-10 extra miles of walking around
0 -
beckygammon wrote: »Everyone's body is different and we shouldn't be arguing about how many calories work for weight loss because like I said every single person is different. CICO is obviously fact and works. However, some people who have been dieting for a long time on low calorie diets may actually find that they lose weight when they up their calories due to a balancing of hormones which promote weight loss. So potentially OP did actually find that she loses more weight on the higher amount of calories than on the lower due to the calories boosting her metabolism. - just another example of how her body may be working differently to yours. We need to support and advise each other not criticise. Lets bring each other up not pull each other down.
Excellent post.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »beckygammon wrote: »Everyone's body is different and we shouldn't be arguing about how many calories work for weight loss because like I said every single person is different. CICO is obviously fact and works. However, some people who have been dieting for a long time on low calorie diets may actually find that they lose weight when they up their calories due to a balancing of hormones which promote weight loss. So potentially OP did actually find that she loses more weight on the higher amount of calories than on the lower due to the calories boosting her metabolism. - just another example of how her body may be working differently to yours. We need to support and advise each other not criticise. Lets bring each other up not pull each other down.
No ....bodies are the same
People aren't different, no matter what medical conditions or history
Neither Thermodynamic adaptation nor physics include any concept whereby one can lose more weight the higher your calorie intake
Restoring leptin through refeed is a valid concept but doesn't mean this
There is no scientific rationale for this concept ...I'm sorry but it's simply not true
Please divorce the concept of critique of posts with critique of self ...you can't post nonsense and expect it to not be addressed l
Let's educate each other not develop a place where woo reigns, there are enough sites and proponents of health and fitness derp on the Internet
A caloric deficit's effect on NEAT varies greatly from person to person and the changes are not necessarily consciously made. Starting at the 1 hour point in the podcast I linked above, this is discussed in detail. (I'll link it again here.) Yes, clearly CICO rules the day as far as fat loss goes but people absolutely are different as far as how they adapt, NEAT-wise.
Yes that's fascinating, talking about how activity levels can reduce which of course that will have an effect on TDEE on a daily basis and adjust the CICO balance.
In that conceptual world I would fully accept that if you move more at a higher calorie amount your defecit would increase at a higher calorie amount and you would lose more
If people are implying putting forward the concept that it you eat more to lose more because you also move more either through purposeful exercise or base activity then I would wholeheartedly accept that concept as scientifically sound. It's the talking in isolation and putting it all down to a metabolic adaptation regardless of any change in activity level that I take issue with.
If I cut to 1750 but don't move at all I would put on weight
If I cut to 1750 and walk 3-5000 steps a day I would maintain weight
If I cut to 1750 and maintain my current activity levels I would lose
I think that (the bold) is what is being discussed here. Not a decrease in BMR, a decrease in NEAT (obvs affecting TDEE.) Too many people get hung up on BMR and exercise and then completely ignore NEAT.
Well if that was what was being mooted then I apologise and take my comments back.
I put your comments back on because even then the math doesn't really check out.
Let's say someone is eating at 1500 and not losing, but eating at 1800 makes them lose a pound per week. Things we've seen claimed a lot of times on here as you know. That would need a difference in NEAT of 800 calories! Maintenance at 1500 vs. a 500 deficit at 1800 -> maintenance at 2300.
An increase in calories eaten may result in an increase in both NEAT and an increase in exercise calories expended.
Changes to calories in and out do not happen in a vacuum. They are interrelated, affecting each other.
Yes but I think his point is that 800 calories of NEAT is such a significant number as to be difficult to attain consciously let alone subconsciously ...that's probably the equivalent of 8-10 extra miles of walking around
I agree an 800 calorie difference is on the high side. Steve's computation makes sense.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »beckygammon wrote: »Everyone's body is different and we shouldn't be arguing about how many calories work for weight loss because like I said every single person is different. CICO is obviously fact and works. However, some people who have been dieting for a long time on low calorie diets may actually find that they lose weight when they up their calories due to a balancing of hormones which promote weight loss. So potentially OP did actually find that she loses more weight on the higher amount of calories than on the lower due to the calories boosting her metabolism. - just another example of how her body may be working differently to yours. We need to support and advise each other not criticise. Lets bring each other up not pull each other down.
No ....bodies are the same
People aren't different, no matter what medical conditions or history
Neither Thermodynamic adaptation nor physics include any concept whereby one can lose more weight the higher your calorie intake
Restoring leptin through refeed is a valid concept but doesn't mean this
There is no scientific rationale for this concept ...I'm sorry but it's simply not true
Please divorce the concept of critique of posts with critique of self ...you can't post nonsense and expect it to not be addressed l
Let's educate each other not develop a place where woo reigns, there are enough sites and proponents of health and fitness derp on the Internet
A caloric deficit's effect on NEAT varies greatly from person to person and the changes are not necessarily consciously made. Starting at the 1 hour point in the podcast I linked above, this is discussed in detail. (I'll link it again here.) Yes, clearly CICO rules the day as far as fat loss goes but people absolutely are different as far as how they adapt, NEAT-wise.
Yes that's fascinating, talking about how activity levels can reduce which of course that will have an effect on TDEE on a daily basis and adjust the CICO balance.
In that conceptual world I would fully accept that if you move more at a higher calorie amount your defecit would increase at a higher calorie amount and you would lose more
If people are implying putting forward the concept that it you eat more to lose more because you also move more either through purposeful exercise or base activity then I would wholeheartedly accept that concept as scientifically sound. It's the talking in isolation and putting it all down to a metabolic adaptation regardless of any change in activity level that I take issue with.
If I cut to 1750 but don't move at all I would put on weight
If I cut to 1750 and walk 3-5000 steps a day I would maintain weight
If I cut to 1750 and maintain my current activity levels I would lose
I think that (the bold) is what is being discussed here. Not a decrease in BMR, a decrease in NEAT (obvs affecting TDEE.) Too many people get hung up on BMR and exercise and then completely ignore NEAT.
Well if that was what was being mooted then I apologise and take my comments back.
I put your comments back on because even then the math doesn't really check out.
Let's say someone is eating at 1500 and not losing, but eating at 1800 makes them lose a pound per week. Things we've seen claimed a lot of times on here as you know. That would need a difference in NEAT of 800 calories! Maintenance at 1500 vs. a 500 deficit at 1800 -> maintenance at 2300.
An increase in calories eaten may result in an increase in both NEAT and an increase in exercise calories expended.
Changes to calories in and out do not happen in a vacuum. They are interrelated, affecting each other.
Yes but I think his point is that 800 calories of NEAT is such a significant number as to be difficult to attain consciously let alone subconsciously ...that's probably the equivalent of 8-10 extra miles of walking around
Why assume that the 800 calories is all NEAT? It is reasonable to consider that dropping calories below a certain threshhold is a deterrent to exercise, or at least an incentive to reduce exercise. The difference can easily be 80 calories of TEF and 220 calories of purposeful exercise and then 500 calories are NEAT. That's why I said that changes don't happen in a vacuum. They are interrelated and dynamic and yes, reactions to calorie deficit vary greatly from person to person.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »beckygammon wrote: »Everyone's body is different and we shouldn't be arguing about how many calories work for weight loss because like I said every single person is different. CICO is obviously fact and works. However, some people who have been dieting for a long time on low calorie diets may actually find that they lose weight when they up their calories due to a balancing of hormones which promote weight loss. So potentially OP did actually find that she loses more weight on the higher amount of calories than on the lower due to the calories boosting her metabolism. - just another example of how her body may be working differently to yours. We need to support and advise each other not criticise. Lets bring each other up not pull each other down.
No ....bodies are the same
People aren't different, no matter what medical conditions or history
Neither Thermodynamic adaptation nor physics include any concept whereby one can lose more weight the higher your calorie intake
Restoring leptin through refeed is a valid concept but doesn't mean this
There is no scientific rationale for this concept ...I'm sorry but it's simply not true
Please divorce the concept of critique of posts with critique of self ...you can't post nonsense and expect it to not be addressed l
Let's educate each other not develop a place where woo reigns, there are enough sites and proponents of health and fitness derp on the Internet
A caloric deficit's effect on NEAT varies greatly from person to person and the changes are not necessarily consciously made. Starting at the 1 hour point in the podcast I linked above, this is discussed in detail. (I'll link it again here.) Yes, clearly CICO rules the day as far as fat loss goes but people absolutely are different as far as how they adapt, NEAT-wise.
Yes that's fascinating, talking about how activity levels can reduce which of course that will have an effect on TDEE on a daily basis and adjust the CICO balance.
In that conceptual world I would fully accept that if you move more at a higher calorie amount your defecit would increase at a higher calorie amount and you would lose more
If people are implying putting forward the concept that it you eat more to lose more because you also move more either through purposeful exercise or base activity then I would wholeheartedly accept that concept as scientifically sound. It's the talking in isolation and putting it all down to a metabolic adaptation regardless of any change in activity level that I take issue with.
If I cut to 1750 but don't move at all I would put on weight
If I cut to 1750 and walk 3-5000 steps a day I would maintain weight
If I cut to 1750 and maintain my current activity levels I would lose
I think that (the bold) is what is being discussed here. Not a decrease in BMR, a decrease in NEAT (obvs affecting TDEE.) Too many people get hung up on BMR and exercise and then completely ignore NEAT.
Well if that was what was being mooted then I apologise and take my comments back.
I put your comments back on because even then the math doesn't really check out.
Let's say someone is eating at 1500 and not losing, but eating at 1800 makes them lose a pound per week. Things we've seen claimed a lot of times on here as you know. That would need a difference in NEAT of 800 calories! Maintenance at 1500 vs. a 500 deficit at 1800 -> maintenance at 2300.
An increase in calories eaten may result in an increase in both NEAT and an increase in exercise calories expended.
Changes to calories in and out do not happen in a vacuum. They are interrelated, affecting each other.
Yes but I think his point is that 800 calories of NEAT is such a significant number as to be difficult to attain consciously let alone subconsciously ...that's probably the equivalent of 8-10 extra miles of walking around
Why assume that the 800 calories is all NEAT? It is reasonable to consider that dropping calories below a certain threshhold is a deterrent to exercise, or at least an incentive to reduce exercise. The difference can easily be 80 calories of TEF and 220 calories of purposeful exercise and then 500 calories are NEAT. That's why I said that changes don't happen in a vacuum. They are interrelated and dynamic and yes, reactions to calorie deficit vary greatly from person to person.
But if someone is losing at 1800 but not 1200 and it's due to exercise, I'm lost to the point? The additional weight loss would be attributed to adding exercise to their regimen, not how much food they are or are not eating?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »beckygammon wrote: »Everyone's body is different and we shouldn't be arguing about how many calories work for weight loss because like I said every single person is different. CICO is obviously fact and works. However, some people who have been dieting for a long time on low calorie diets may actually find that they lose weight when they up their calories due to a balancing of hormones which promote weight loss. So potentially OP did actually find that she loses more weight on the higher amount of calories than on the lower due to the calories boosting her metabolism. - just another example of how her body may be working differently to yours. We need to support and advise each other not criticise. Lets bring each other up not pull each other down.
No ....bodies are the same
People aren't different, no matter what medical conditions or history
Neither Thermodynamic adaptation nor physics include any concept whereby one can lose more weight the higher your calorie intake
Restoring leptin through refeed is a valid concept but doesn't mean this
There is no scientific rationale for this concept ...I'm sorry but it's simply not true
Please divorce the concept of critique of posts with critique of self ...you can't post nonsense and expect it to not be addressed l
Let's educate each other not develop a place where woo reigns, there are enough sites and proponents of health and fitness derp on the Internet
A caloric deficit's effect on NEAT varies greatly from person to person and the changes are not necessarily consciously made. Starting at the 1 hour point in the podcast I linked above, this is discussed in detail. (I'll link it again here.) Yes, clearly CICO rules the day as far as fat loss goes but people absolutely are different as far as how they adapt, NEAT-wise.
Yes that's fascinating, talking about how activity levels can reduce which of course that will have an effect on TDEE on a daily basis and adjust the CICO balance.
In that conceptual world I would fully accept that if you move more at a higher calorie amount your defecit would increase at a higher calorie amount and you would lose more
If people are implying putting forward the concept that it you eat more to lose more because you also move more either through purposeful exercise or base activity then I would wholeheartedly accept that concept as scientifically sound. It's the talking in isolation and putting it all down to a metabolic adaptation regardless of any change in activity level that I take issue with.
If I cut to 1750 but don't move at all I would put on weight
If I cut to 1750 and walk 3-5000 steps a day I would maintain weight
If I cut to 1750 and maintain my current activity levels I would lose
I think that (the bold) is what is being discussed here. Not a decrease in BMR, a decrease in NEAT (obvs affecting TDEE.) Too many people get hung up on BMR and exercise and then completely ignore NEAT.
Well if that was what was being mooted then I apologise and take my comments back.
I put your comments back on because even then the math doesn't really check out.
Let's say someone is eating at 1500 and not losing, but eating at 1800 makes them lose a pound per week. Things we've seen claimed a lot of times on here as you know. That would need a difference in NEAT of 800 calories! Maintenance at 1500 vs. a 500 deficit at 1800 -> maintenance at 2300.
An increase in calories eaten may result in an increase in both NEAT and an increase in exercise calories expended.
Changes to calories in and out do not happen in a vacuum. They are interrelated, affecting each other.
Yes but I think his point is that 800 calories of NEAT is such a significant number as to be difficult to attain consciously let alone subconsciously ...that's probably the equivalent of 8-10 extra miles of walking around
Why assume that the 800 calories is all NEAT? It is reasonable to consider that dropping calories below a certain threshold is a deterrent to exercise, or at least an incentive to reduce exercise. The difference can easily be 80 calories of TEF and 220 calories of purposeful exercise and then 500 calories are NEAT. That's why I said that changes don't happen in a vacuum. They are interrelated and dynamic and yes, reactions to calorie deficit vary greatly from person to person.
But if someone is losing at 1800 but not 1200 and it's due to exercise, I'm lost to the point? The additional weight loss would be attributed to adding exercise to their regimen, not how much food they are or are not eating?
If a person has no energy and stops/reduces exercise as well as reduces non-exercise activity when calories are cut below a certain threshold, would you say that the reduction in calories out is due to the reduction in activity or due to the reduction in activity that came as a result of the reduction in energy available? I would say it is the latter.0 -
I am seriously considering upping mine to 1,800 total, as well. I am currently on 1,600 total with 10 lbs to lose and exercise 4-6 times per week. I know it might slow down loss but the lag in my energy levels at a lower amount impacts negatively on my outputs (e.g. exercise). It's hard because I want to see scale progress, but I want to prioritise feeling physically good and my ability to exercise hard! Thanks for the interesting post x
This is me to a T. I'm eating 1700-2000 with a Fitbit TDEE of approx 2200. I've tried going down to 1600 to lose faster, but my workouts, sleep and mood suffer.
Sometimes I get impatient with only losing literally 1-2 lbs PER MONTH, but with less that 10 lbs to go, and wanting to preserve as much muscle as I can, I think it's the smart thing.
And it's sustainable long term.
1 -
stevencloser wrote: »beckygammon wrote: »Everyone's body is different and we shouldn't be arguing about how many calories work for weight loss because like I said every single person is different. CICO is obviously fact and works. However, some people who have been dieting for a long time on low calorie diets may actually find that they lose weight when they up their calories due to a balancing of hormones which promote weight loss. So potentially OP did actually find that she loses more weight on the higher amount of calories than on the lower due to the calories boosting her metabolism. - just another example of how her body may be working differently to yours. We need to support and advise each other not criticise. Lets bring each other up not pull each other down.
No ....bodies are the same
People aren't different, no matter what medical conditions or history
Neither Thermodynamic adaptation nor physics include any concept whereby one can lose more weight the higher your calorie intake
Restoring leptin through refeed is a valid concept but doesn't mean this
There is no scientific rationale for this concept ...I'm sorry but it's simply not true
Please divorce the concept of critique of posts with critique of self ...you can't post nonsense and expect it to not be addressed l
Let's educate each other not develop a place where woo reigns, there are enough sites and proponents of health and fitness derp on the Internet
A caloric deficit's effect on NEAT varies greatly from person to person and the changes are not necessarily consciously made. Starting at the 1 hour point in the podcast I linked above, this is discussed in detail. (I'll link it again here.) Yes, clearly CICO rules the day as far as fat loss goes but people absolutely are different as far as how they adapt, NEAT-wise.
Yes that's fascinating, talking about how activity levels can reduce which of course that will have an effect on TDEE on a daily basis and adjust the CICO balance.
In that conceptual world I would fully accept that if you move more at a higher calorie amount your defecit would increase at a higher calorie amount and you would lose more
If people are implying putting forward the concept that it you eat more to lose more because you also move more either through purposeful exercise or base activity then I would wholeheartedly accept that concept as scientifically sound. It's the talking in isolation and putting it all down to a metabolic adaptation regardless of any change in activity level that I take issue with.
If I cut to 1750 but don't move at all I would put on weight
If I cut to 1750 and walk 3-5000 steps a day I would maintain weight
If I cut to 1750 and maintain my current activity levels I would lose
I think that (the bold) is what is being discussed here. Not a decrease in BMR, a decrease in NEAT (obvs affecting TDEE.) Too many people get hung up on BMR and exercise and then completely ignore NEAT.
Well if that was what was being mooted then I apologise and take my comments back.
I put your comments back on because even then the math doesn't really check out.
Let's say someone is eating at 1500 and not losing, but eating at 1800 makes them lose a pound per week. Things we've seen claimed a lot of times on here as you know. That would need a difference in NEAT of 800 calories! Maintenance at 1500 vs. a 500 deficit at 1800 -> maintenance at 2300.
An increase in calories eaten may result in an increase in both NEAT and an increase in exercise calories expended.
Changes to calories in and out do not happen in a vacuum. They are interrelated, affecting each other.
Yes but I think his point is that 800 calories of NEAT is such a significant number as to be difficult to attain consciously let alone subconsciously ...that's probably the equivalent of 8-10 extra miles of walking around
Why assume that the 800 calories is all NEAT? It is reasonable to consider that dropping calories below a certain threshold is a deterrent to exercise, or at least an incentive to reduce exercise. The difference can easily be 80 calories of TEF and 220 calories of purposeful exercise and then 500 calories are NEAT. That's why I said that changes don't happen in a vacuum. They are interrelated and dynamic and yes, reactions to calorie deficit vary greatly from person to person.
But if someone is losing at 1800 but not 1200 and it's due to exercise, I'm lost to the point? The additional weight loss would be attributed to adding exercise to their regimen, not how much food they are or are not eating?
If a person has no energy and stops/reduces exercise as well as reduces non-exercise activity when calories are cut below a certain threshold, would you say that the reduction in calories out is due to the reduction in activity or due to the reduction in activity that came as a result of the reduction in energy available? I would say it is the latter.
Ok, that makes more sense. I wasn't following the jump in logic.0 -
It can happen. Everyones bidy is different and sometimes eatin less calories isnt good if your bidy thinks its starving it can take longer for you to lose weight because its holding on. If you eat more then your body will get rid of what it doesnt need. This happened to me when i went from a 1250 cal intake to a 1450 cal intake. At 1250 i plateaued for months once i started 1450 i started losing again.0
-
ericatoday wrote: »It can happen. Everyones bidy is different and sometimes eatin less calories isnt good if your bidy thinks its starving it can take longer for you to lose weight because its holding on. If you eat more then your body will get rid of what it doesnt need. This happened to me when i went from a 1250 cal intake to a 1450 cal intake. At 1250 i plateaued for months once i started 1450 i started losing again.
Nope, starvation mode is a myth plus 1250 calories isn't starvation anyways2 -
Everyone's bodies react differently to diets and required calories. I personally have a hypothyroid problem and couldn't lose weight to save my life. Now that my doctor has fixed that problem with medication I find that I am losing weight really fast on a 1200 calorie plan. I personally do not exercise, but I do have a physically demanding job. When looking to lose weight you need to do what is best for you and your body..I like to use what is recommended as a guidance but adjust it for my needs.0
-
KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »Ignore the people who will criticize you for saying you can't lose less at "1,300"
If this is meant for me... I didn't say she can't be losing at 1800 - I know many that do...and even more than than. However what I did say is that she can't be losing more at 1800 than with smaller intake.
Whats your calorie intake, how tall are you and whats your activity level?
I'm 5'2, 125 lbs...at my goal weight and was doing maintenance for a while and now considering losing a couple vanity lbs. My maintenance is about 1700-2000 depending on the day so 'cutting' would be 250 less. Don't see how that is relevant.
It's relevant to the thread as I am calling out for people on high cal diets and you are coming in here trying to ruin my thread with your lectures.
I am really sorry if you think I'm ruining you thread. I just don't think that someone coming to this thread and reading 'hey 1800 kcal works better than 1500 kcal (magic!)' and increase their calories since they might be not losing at 1500. That is not how it works. At all. 1800 is not the magic number. Each person has different calories they can lose with. We are all different. However losing more while eating more (unless it powers awesome work out sessions) does not work. Fact. I do agree people should eat as much as they can while still losing weight (if that is indeed their goal). I've been eating 1800 kcal lately too and I've been maintaining. Since that is my TDEE and maintenance was my plan. There is no magic number. It is not 1200 and it is not 1800. It's all simple math.
If OP has more energy eating 1800 calories than 1600, it's possible that although she isn't exercising, her day to day activity has increased. For example, she's taking the stairs more. She's walking more. She may even be sleeping less, because she has the energy to get up half an hour earlier in the morning. These things add up. I get what you're saying about physics, just don't forget about the 'calories out' part of the equation. you can totally lose more eating 1800 calories per day than 1500, if you're also increasing your activity.0 -
. after reading the whole thread decided to just remove this it had already been covered.0
-
Hi Selina! Years ago I was on a Jenny Craig eating plan to lose weight. They put me on an 1800 calorie diet. It was honestly too much for me to eat.. Sometimes I couldn't even get all of the calories in, but I tried to get as close to the goal as I could. I thought they were completely crazy for putting me on an 1800 calorie plan, but I lost 27lbs in my first month. The second month, I lost 11lbs. I stopped my membership with them because of the cost, but I do think the high calorie diet worked for me. I'm terrified to try it today. I've been on a 1200 calorie plan for months now and have been losing weight really well. A high calorie plan for weight loss IS possible, just probably not recommended for most. I say stick with what works for you, and don't let anyone bash you for it. Keep up the good work!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.3K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 445 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions