Who increased calories to lose weight?

Adventure9

Please tell the details (calories change) etc. of your story. Thanks.

kshama2001

Do you mean like when your calorie deficit is so low that you end up binging and wiping out your deficit? So you increase daily calories and so can maintain a more moderate deficit and thus weight loss?

That's the only way "increasing" calories will help you lose weight. I used the quotes because you haven't truly increased overall calories.

Too aggressive a calorie deficit can also be stressful, causing you to retain water, which will mask fat loss.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/dietary-restraint-and-cortisol-levels-research-review.html/

...a group of women who scored higher on dietary restraint scores showed elevated baseline cortisol levels. By itself this might not be problematic, but as often as not, these types of dieters are drawn to extreme approaches to dieting.

They throw in a lot of intense exercise, try to cut calories very hard (and this often backfires if disinhibition is high; when these folks break they break) and cortisol levels go through the roof. That often causes cortisol mediated water retention (there are other mechanisms for this, mind you, leptin actually inhibits cortisol release and as it drops on a diet, cortisol levels go up further). Weight and fat loss appear to have stopped or at least slowed significantly. This is compounded even further in female dieters due to the vagaries of their menstrual cycle where water balance is changing enormously week to week anyhow.

And invariably, this type of psychology responds to the stall by going even harder. They attempt to cut calories harder, they start doing more activity. The cycle continues and gets worse. Harder dieting means more cortisol means more water retention means more dieting. Which backfires (other problems come in the long-term with this approach but you’ll have to wait for the book to read about that).

When what they should do is take a day or two off (even one day off from training, at least in men, let’s cortisol drop significantly). Raise calories, especially from carbohydrates. This helps cortisol to drop. More than that they need to find a way to freaking chill out. Meditation, yoga, get a massage... Get in the bath, candles, a little Enya, a glass of wine, have some you-time but please just chill.

snickerscharlie

Q. Who increased calories to lose weight?

A. No one. That's not how it works.

LivingtheLeanDream

Noone ever increases calories to lose weight.

CarvedTones

Body mass loss (fat and LBM) is caused by a calorie deficit; the bigger the deficit, the higher the rate of loss is. There is no point at which decreasing the deficit increases the deficit. There is a point where you start losing a lot more LBM (as a percentage) and you want to avoid going that low.

ahoy_m8

Weight vs fat. I recently changed around my calories to consume more during the week when I’m lifting & recovering, less on weekends when I loaf around and drink margaritas. Overall, I added an average of 100 cal/day, but it worked out to 300 cal more on week days (less on weekends obviously) vs previously banking weekend calories. Also became a little more disciplined about taking my rest day (I slide into a habit of walking 4 miles on my rest day to earn 2 more glasses wine ). Not sure if that made any difference at all. Anyway, I lost 2 pounds water weight in a couple weeks. Given the math, I do not expect there was any change in lean or fat mass.

ETA: my 7-day rolling average weight dropped 2 pounds, but I still had daily weight variations of about 2 lb.

raviiin

I sort of did? but more like what the first person said. I've struggled with an eating disorder for years. At my very worst I was eating only a couple hundred calories a day. But even after that, when I thought I was "cured" of my ED and would never torture myself like that again, I still set my calorie goals to only 800-1000 cals a day during my phases of trying to lose weight. This never worked for very long and would always lead to long periods of binging. Now I've increased my daily calories to 1,200 on rest days and 1400 on my running and cross training days. (I'm a 5ft2 ~124lb woman, before anyone freaks out.) I still have a lot of fear about going anywhere over 1,400 even on heavy exercise days. But for now, baby steps. My current plan is working a lot better for me and for the first time I don't feel miserable every day. I'm taking it slower and going easier on myself, and my new goal is to look fit and toned, not be as thin as possible. Its hard to ever really be "cured" from an ED, its more like you just manage it and try your best to ignore the constant temptation to go back to that dark place.

beccapax

I've often heard of this "starvation mode" thing, but I'm not sure of the science behind it. Anytime I've been told I'm eating too little and that's why I'm not losing weight, I've increased my calories and GAINED weight. Then, I go back to the original caloric intake and step up my workout, and end up losing again.

I think this is largely an American/First World idea. Many of our "starving" people are obese here. The reality is, they are eating too much. Truly starving people (anorexics or people in countries with famine or food deficit) are skeletal, sometimes with bloated abdomens from fluid retention d/t lack of protein.

snickerscharlie

beccapax wrote: »

I've often heard of this "starvation mode" thing, but I'm not sure of the science behind it. Anytime I've been told I'm eating too little and that's why I'm not losing weight, I've increased my calories and GAINED weight. Then, I go back to the original caloric intake and step up my workout, and end up losing again.

I think this is largely an American/First World idea. Many of our "starving" people are obese here. The reality is, they are eating too much. Truly starving people (anorexics or people in countries with famine or food deficit) are skeletal, sometimes with bloated abdomens from fluid retention d/t lack of protein.

There is no science behind "Starvation mode," because it does not exist. If a person consumes less than their body burns every day, they will lose weight. And continue to do so even if it eventually kills them.

CarvedTones

beccapax wrote: »

I've often heard of this "starvation mode" thing, but I'm not sure of the science behind it. Anytime I've been told I'm eating too little and that's why I'm not losing weight, I've increased my calories and GAINED weight. Then, I go back to the original caloric intake and step up my workout, and end up losing again.

I think this is largely an American/First World idea. Many of our "starving" people are obese here. The reality is, they are eating too much. Truly starving people (anorexics or people in countries with famine or food deficit) are skeletal, sometimes with bloated abdomens from fluid retention d/t lack of protein.

The impoverished can definitely end up obese in the US, as counterintuitive as that sounds. Some of the cheapest protein sources are hot dogs, high fat hamburger and skin on chicken leg quarters. The dollar store has big packages of off brand cookies, chips and other snacks. You can also find some canned vegetables that are reasonably priced, but if you are eating on a really limited budget, some of the cheapest things to eat are pretty high calorie.

cmriverside

I started off at 5'8" and 220. I set my Goal on here to "Lose 2 pounds per week," like we all do at first.

1200 calories it gave me.

That worked for a minute. Then I was really hungry and added exercise, so I got to eat 300 more calories if I exercised for 45-60 minutes. That worked for a few months until I hit about 175 pounds. I was miserable, hungry and having trouble with energy. (Still hitting that 1200-1500 a day.) So I did some research and decided I would eat more. In my case I went up 400 calories on my base. (So 1600 on non-exercise days, 1900 on exercise days.) I stuck with that all the way through the rest of my weight loss to 140.

Ya gotta eat enough but not too much. It's an experiment. Pay attention if/when you become tired, fatigued, irritable, unable to exercise. That's a cue.

Adventure9

My weight loss stalled on the calorie restriction plan I was on and I had a lot of hunger. So I increased my calories by 200 - 300 or so per day and was more satiated. The weight started slowly dropping again over the next few days.

AnnPT77

There's the "undereat then binge" version, in which eating more makes a smaller calorie deficit more sustainable than a larger one. There's the cortisol scenario.

I think there may also be a scenario where someone cuts calories too far, gets lethargic, reduces daily activity in dozens of tiny ways that add up, also starts limping through exercise sessions, thus reduces their TDEE. That is, they reduce their effective calorie deficit to the point where weight loss slows to a crawl (doesn't stop), and tiny fat losses hides behind water weight fluctuations (cortisol or other sources). After too short a time to see the slower loss continuing, they decide they're not losing weight and bail out.

Purely based on speculation and anecdote, I think some people's activity level is more drastically influenced by calorie-level changes than other people's. There are quite a few people I've seen who say that tapering their calorie deficit gradually to maintenance ("reverse dieting") resulted in a maintenance TDEE a small number of hundreds of calories higher than their weight loss data would've predicted. I'm speculating that the reverse could also be true, that some people's activity/energy drops off more in a calorie deficit (slowing the loss rate) more than they'd be able to predict from starting maintenance calories. This would never stop weight loss (if it did, people wouldn't starve). It would just make it happen slower than expected.

I have no proof. I'm speculating.

beccapax

CarvedTones wrote: »

The impoverished can definitely end up obese in the US, as counterintuitive as that sounds. Some of the cheapest protein sources are hot dogs, high fat hamburger and skin on chicken leg quarters. The dollar store has big packages of off brand cookies, chips and other snacks. You can also find some canned vegetables that are reasonably priced, but if you are eating on a really limited budget, some of the cheapest things to eat are pretty high calorie.

I agree with this, but I did say that the reality is, they are eating too much. If they are obese, likely they are eating more than a standard 1800-2000 kcal/day.

Maxxitt

My own data shows correlation between increased calories and increased daily activity. This has happened the past three years or so. As long as I don't out-eat my activity, I'm good to go.

kdbulger

I used to think that this was the case for me - and sometimes I do drop sudden weight after a short re-feed period if I've been strict with my deficit and really, really active for a period. It's likely as someone wrote above - stress can trigger water retention and during a re-feed, the body feels less stressed so I drop the water weight. I'm not sure why but I sure do appreciate it.

As a rule though, when I eat fewer calories, I feel restricted and will quickly binge away my deficit and progress. Taking a slow and steady approach to weight loss with more allowance (always TRACKED) toward things I enjoy eating has been a critical key in my success.

mph323

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Purely based on speculation and anecdote, I think some people's activity level is more drastically influenced by calorie-level changes than other people's.

Just as an n=1 experience, I agree with this. While I was in weight loss mode my goal was 1200 net calories to lose ounces a week, and with gradually upping activity I was eating 1400 - 1500. I was basically sedentary outside of purposful exercise, with a desk job and a long commute.

When I retired I continued the same pattern. Now that I'm in maintenance, my predicted net calorie goal under the same conditions is 1250, but I had to up that to 1500 to just maintain, and I'm eating 1800 - 2000 most days to hit that target, because I'm like the energiser bunny in terms of neat.

I started maintenance in Feb. and I figured this would gradually level out as I got used to the extra energy, but so far it hasn't changed. YMMV of course.

nutmegoreo

Adventure9 wrote: »

My weight loss stalled on the calorie restriction plan I was on and I had a lot of hunger. So I increased my calories by 200 - 300 or so per day and was more satiated. The weight started slowly dropping again over the next few days.

There can be many confounding variables here. How long were you stalled for? Were you hungry enough that you reduced your activity levels (not just working out, but taking stairs, the long way around to the washroom, etc.). Changes in activity masking losses? TOM (not sure if you are female) masking losses? Were you tracking less accurately because you were more hungry (I've done this)? Were you having cheat days/meals to reward yourself for sticking to a stricter calorie budget?

jefamer2017

I am on a diet break right now and lost 2lbs. Although, I'm assuming the 2lbs was from the deficit that I have had from before the break. So technically I did lose weight after I increased my calorie intake.

Noreenmarie1234

AnnPT77 wrote: »

There's the "undereat then binge" version, in which eating more makes a smaller calorie deficit more sustainable than a larger one. There's the cortisol scenario.

I think there may also be a scenario where someone cuts calories too far, gets lethargic, reduces daily activity in dozens of tiny ways that add up, also starts limping through exercise sessions, thus reduces their TDEE. That is, they reduce their effective calorie deficit to the point where weight loss slows to a crawl (doesn't stop), and tiny fat losses hides behind water weight fluctuations (cortisol or other sources). After too short a time to see the slower loss continuing, they decide they're not losing weight and bail out.

Purely based on speculation and anecdote, I think some people's activity level is more drastically influenced by calorie-level changes than other people's. There are quite a few people I've seen who say that tapering their calorie deficit gradually to maintenance ("reverse dieting") resulted in a maintenance TDEE a small number of hundreds of calories higher than their weight loss data would've predicted. I'm speculating that the reverse could also be true, that some people's activity/energy drops off more in a calorie deficit (slowing the loss rate) more than they'd be able to predict from starting maintenance calories. This would never stop weight loss (if it did, people wouldn't starve). It would just make it happen slower than expected.

I have no proof. I'm speculating.

This. A little off topic, but I did my own experiment years back by increasing my calories. I wasn't losing though, I was in maintenance. But I found I could maintain on 2100 vs the 1600 I was maintaining on. It wasn't "magic" of increasing calories. It was because of the fact the extra energy really made me feel 100x better and gave me the perk I needed to do extra things like take the stairs, walk more, clean the house, take the extra trip to bring out the trash, take the stairs instead of the elevator, dance when I hear a song on the radio instead of just slumping in my chair, etc. Instead of taking the easy way during my workouts like not engaging my core and having slumped posture, using the handles, I had the energy to go all out and engage all my muscles thus burning more for the "same" workouts.

So overall, I did "up my calories and continue to maintain", but it was because upping my calories in turn made me more energetic and thus burn more calories throughout the day.

Adventure9

Thanks for your thoughts, everyone.

mkculs

This time around, I'm eating a lot more than any time I lost weight before. Previously, I was in too big of a hurry and tried to eat only 1200, plus exercise, so my deficits would be at least 1000/day. It worked, but I couldn't stick with it either time. This time around, I'm aiming for 1 lb/week and eating more than I thought possible. It feels like something I can keep doing. I know it will get harder as my maintenance level drops with weight loss, but I love to exercise and will happily do so in order to eat more. That's a problem I'm not worrying about yet, though; I have a long way to go and am just happy to be seeing success a bit at a time.