Anyone eat more to lose more?
Options
Replies
-
CarvedTones wrote: »Sadly anyone who doesn't think one can increase calories and lose greater amounts of weight is highly misinformed and don't understand the impact of additional calories in energy output. They certainly don't understand how refeeds work or how regulation of hormomes work. If you really want to see the science look at the refeed threads. Not only am i an example of what you are describing but there are tons of people who meticulously tracked calories and increases them by as much as 1000 calories and saw equivalent weight loss as when they were eating less.
Please identify the point at which increasing the number of calories consumed increased the deficit. If it crosses over, there has to be a point - a specific deficit amount or a specific number of calories - at which it does.
Energy expediture is a non linear number. Often increases in CI allow for people to increase EE. If you look at the refeed studies you might understand the impacts. There is also adaptive thermogenesis as you get more lean.
In other words you can't identify a point at which decreasing the deficit increases the deficit. Without that happening, it's not possible.
I understand AT and non linear deficits. At some point, if you eat 100 calories less, your deficit may only increase by 70 or 80 pounds. But if you eat more, the deficit will decrease.
If you exercise more, then you need to compare it to what would occur if you exercised more at the greater deficit. I cook the books sometimes by logging less calories than I burn which can create the illusion of increasing loss by increasing net calories.1 -
CarvedTones wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »Sadly anyone who doesn't think one can increase calories and lose greater amounts of weight is highly misinformed and don't understand the impact of additional calories in energy output. They certainly don't understand how refeeds work or how regulation of hormomes work. If you really want to see the science look at the refeed threads. Not only am i an example of what you are describing but there are tons of people who meticulously tracked calories and increases them by as much as 1000 calories and saw equivalent weight loss as when they were eating less.
Please identify the point at which increasing the number of calories consumed increased the deficit. If it crosses over, there has to be a point - a specific deficit amount or a specific number of calories - at which it does.
Energy expediture is a non linear number. Often increases in CI allow for people to increase EE. If you look at the refeed studies you might understand the impacts. There is also adaptive thermogenesis as you get more lean.
In other words you can't identify a point at which decreasing the deficit increases the deficit. Without that happening, it's not possible.
I understand AT and non linear deficits. At some point, if you eat 100 calories less, your deficit may only increase by 70 or 80 pounds. But if you eat more, the deficit will decrease.
If you exercise more, then you need to compare it to what would occur if you exercised more at the greater deficit. I cook the books sometimes by logging less calories than I burn which can create the illusion of increasing loss by increasing net calories.
There are a myrid of factors that come into play as it relates to energy expediture. Thinking in raw terms that a deficit of 500 vs 400 or whatever number is not how the body works. I increased my calories by almost 500 per day and saw more consistent weight loss. So i achieved a consistent 500 calorie deficit at 2300, while at 1800 calories i didnt. My TDEE increased due to the greater output of energy. When you cut calories, you can decrease EE, whether its from a TEF, TEA or NEAT.
And if you read through the refeed thread, and even this thread, you will see the phenomenon of people increasing calories and still seeing consistent and often greater weight loss with increases in calories.
The key ia finding a balance between calories in. Starving yourself is not the best option for anyone.10 -
CarvedTones wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »Sadly anyone who doesn't think one can increase calories and lose greater amounts of weight is highly misinformed and don't understand the impact of additional calories in energy output. They certainly don't understand how refeeds work or how regulation of hormomes work. If you really want to see the science look at the refeed threads. Not only am i an example of what you are describing but there are tons of people who meticulously tracked calories and increases them by as much as 1000 calories and saw equivalent weight loss as when they were eating less.
Please identify the point at which increasing the number of calories consumed increased the deficit. If it crosses over, there has to be a point - a specific deficit amount or a specific number of calories - at which it does.
Energy expediture is a non linear number. Often increases in CI allow for people to increase EE. If you look at the refeed studies you might understand the impacts. There is also adaptive thermogenesis as you get more lean.
In other words you can't identify a point at which decreasing the deficit increases the deficit. Without that happening, it's not possible.
I understand AT and non linear deficits. At some point, if you eat 100 calories less, your deficit may only increase by 70 or 80 pounds. But if you eat more, the deficit will decrease.
If you exercise more, then you need to compare it to what would occur if you exercised more at the greater deficit. I cook the books sometimes by logging less calories than I burn which can create the illusion of increasing loss by increasing net calories.
There are a myrid of factors that come into play as it relates to energy expediture. Thinking in raw terms that a deficit of 500 vs 400 or whatever number is not how the body works. I increased my calories by almost 500 per day and saw more consistent weight loss. So i achieved a consistent 500 calorie deficit at 2300, while at 1800 calories i didnt. My TDEE increased due to the greater output of energy. When you cut calories, you can decrease EE, whether its from a TEF, TEA or NEAT.
And if you read through the refeed thread, and even this thread, you will see the phenomenon of people increasing calories and still seeing consistent and often greater weight loss with increases in calories.
The key ia finding a balance between calories in. Starving yourself is not the best option for anyone.
Your experience sounds more like an outlier. That would be a difference in TDEE of 1000 calories just from you eating a bit more. That's quite a bit of more activity to say the least.3 -
I didn’t read this whole thing, but if you’re gonna eat more - I’d make it more fruits and veggies rather than calorie dense snack bars that aren’t very filling.5
-
stevencloser wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »Sadly anyone who doesn't think one can increase calories and lose greater amounts of weight is highly misinformed and don't understand the impact of additional calories in energy output. They certainly don't understand how refeeds work or how regulation of hormomes work. If you really want to see the science look at the refeed threads. Not only am i an example of what you are describing but there are tons of people who meticulously tracked calories and increases them by as much as 1000 calories and saw equivalent weight loss as when they were eating less.
Please identify the point at which increasing the number of calories consumed increased the deficit. If it crosses over, there has to be a point - a specific deficit amount or a specific number of calories - at which it does.
Energy expediture is a non linear number. Often increases in CI allow for people to increase EE. If you look at the refeed studies you might understand the impacts. There is also adaptive thermogenesis as you get more lean.
In other words you can't identify a point at which decreasing the deficit increases the deficit. Without that happening, it's not possible.
I understand AT and non linear deficits. At some point, if you eat 100 calories less, your deficit may only increase by 70 or 80 pounds. But if you eat more, the deficit will decrease.
If you exercise more, then you need to compare it to what would occur if you exercised more at the greater deficit. I cook the books sometimes by logging less calories than I burn which can create the illusion of increasing loss by increasing net calories.
There are a myrid of factors that come into play as it relates to energy expediture. Thinking in raw terms that a deficit of 500 vs 400 or whatever number is not how the body works. I increased my calories by almost 500 per day and saw more consistent weight loss. So i achieved a consistent 500 calorie deficit at 2300, while at 1800 calories i didnt. My TDEE increased due to the greater output of energy. When you cut calories, you can decrease EE, whether its from a TEF, TEA or NEAT.
And if you read through the refeed thread, and even this thread, you will see the phenomenon of people increasing calories and still seeing consistent and often greater weight loss with increases in calories.
The key ia finding a balance between calories in. Starving yourself is not the best option for anyone.
Your experience sounds more like an outlier. That would be a difference in TDEE of 1000 calories just from you eating a bit more. That's quite a bit of more activity to say the least.
I am certainly not the only one, either in this thread or board. If you want more examples, look at the refeed threads.
And yes, its simple not just eating more.. but providing your body with adequate energy allows you to increase EE through transient increases in NEAT, TEF and TEA.2 -
I eat when hungry stop when I full. I don’t snack or eat much fruit ... my body then regulates itself .. usually two meals a day occasionally three ... lost 55lbs doing this on average 1500 calories but now I eat around 1600 to 2000 but have days I don’t come close to those totals1
-
CarvedTones wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »Sadly anyone who doesn't think one can increase calories and lose greater amounts of weight is highly misinformed and don't understand the impact of additional calories in energy output. They certainly don't understand how refeeds work or how regulation of hormomes work. If you really want to see the science look at the refeed threads. Not only am i an example of what you are describing but there are tons of people who meticulously tracked calories and increases them by as much as 1000 calories and saw equivalent weight loss as when they were eating less.
Please identify the point at which increasing the number of calories consumed increased the deficit. If it crosses over, there has to be a point - a specific deficit amount or a specific number of calories - at which it does.
Energy expediture is a non linear number. Often increases in CI allow for people to increase EE. If you look at the refeed studies you might understand the impacts. There is also adaptive thermogenesis as you get more lean.
In other words you can't identify a point at which decreasing the deficit increases the deficit. Without that happening, it's not possible.
I understand AT and non linear deficits. At some point, if you eat 100 calories less, your deficit may only increase by 70 or 80 pounds. But if you eat more, the deficit will decrease.
If you exercise more, then you need to compare it to what would occur if you exercised more at the greater deficit. I cook the books sometimes by logging less calories than I burn which can create the illusion of increasing loss by increasing net calories.
Human bodies are dynamic systems. It wouldn't be "a point", it'd be more like a curve relating CI and CO at attempted constant intentional exercise, possibly with observable changes in slope at certain point(s), i.e. a "knee in the curve" or point where you get the best total deficit (within some reasonable range of potential calorie consumption that's compatible with a happy and reasonably productive daily life). These are not the right technical mathematical/statistical terms, I'm sure - I'm not a mathematician/statistician.
Anecdotally, reading people's stories around here, some people seem to be more sensitive, i.e., have a greater energy output penalty for reduced CI, or a greater output benefit for increased CI, or both. In other words, another reason no one can name a point is that people differ: Some of us wilt faster in deprivation, or bloom more readily with better feeding.
If no one's CO increased with increased CI (i.e., if you could only decrease deficit by eating more), we wouldn't see as many stories in the maintenance forum as we do about people maintaining on more calories than predicted from their weight loss data (though that effect seems not to be universal).
That's my observation/opinion, anyway.
6 -
CarvedTones wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »Sadly anyone who doesn't think one can increase calories and lose greater amounts of weight is highly misinformed and don't understand the impact of additional calories in energy output. They certainly don't understand how refeeds work or how regulation of hormomes work. If you really want to see the science look at the refeed threads. Not only am i an example of what you are describing but there are tons of people who meticulously tracked calories and increases them by as much as 1000 calories and saw equivalent weight loss as when they were eating less.
Please identify the point at which increasing the number of calories consumed increased the deficit. If it crosses over, there has to be a point - a specific deficit amount or a specific number of calories - at which it does.
Energy expediture is a non linear number. Often increases in CI allow for people to increase EE. If you look at the refeed studies you might understand the impacts. There is also adaptive thermogenesis as you get more lean.
In other words you can't identify a point at which decreasing the deficit increases the deficit. Without that happening, it's not possible.
I understand AT and non linear deficits. At some point, if you eat 100 calories less, your deficit may only increase by 70 or 80 pounds. But if you eat more, the deficit will decrease.
If you exercise more, then you need to compare it to what would occur if you exercised more at the greater deficit. I cook the books sometimes by logging less calories than I burn which can create the illusion of increasing loss by increasing net calories.
Human bodies are dynamic systems. It wouldn't be "a point", it'd be more like a curve relating CI and CO at attempted constant intentional exercise, possibly with observable changes in slope at certain point(s), i.e. a "knee in the curve" or point where you get the best total deficit (within some reasonable range of potential calorie consumption that's compatible with a happy and reasonably productive daily life). These are not the right technical mathematical/statistical terms, I'm sure - I'm not a mathematician/statistician.
Anecdotally, reading people's stories around here, some people seem to be more sensitive, i.e., have a greater energy output penalty for reduced CI, or a greater output benefit for increased CI, or both. In other words, another reason no one can name a point is that people differ: Some of us wilt faster in deprivation, or bloom more readily with better feeding.
If no one's CO increased with increased CI (i.e., if you could only decrease deficit by eating more), we wouldn't see as many stories in the maintenance forum as we do about people maintaining on more calories than predicted from their weight loss data (though that effect seems not to be universal).
That's my observation/opinion, anyway.
What's interesting is that Menno Henselmans talks about this phenomenon in one of the series on adaptive thermogenesis. Menno maintains his weight at 3000 calories. But in order for him to lose 1 lb per week, he needs to cut to 1800 calories. Mathematically, it doesn't make any sense or seem logical.
So I definitely agree with your additions. There are several people who add significantly more calories than predicted when it comes to maintenance or even when it comes to calculating deficits. With the clients I have worked with, I tend to see people lose more steadily at 1600 to 1800 vs 1200 to 1400. Maybe it's total energy levels driving NEAT/TEA changes... maybe it's compliance... or maybe it's a myriad of factors. But our bodies aren't closed systems, so there are many variables that effect CO.
Hell, there is a reason why there is an Eat More 2 Lose More group; in fact, it's one of the more populated groups. Because it can be liberating when people (especially women) find out that they don't always have to cut to 1200 calories to lose weight.4 -
Another reason people lose more weight when they eat more is that 1200 calories is undereating for them, which is unsustainable, and they end up overeating to compensate, and wiping out their deficit.
https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/1200-calorie-diet/
Scroll down to 1. It’s Not Sustainable In the Short-Term0 -
CarvedTones wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »Sadly anyone who doesn't think one can increase calories and lose greater amounts of weight is highly misinformed and don't understand the impact of additional calories in energy output. They certainly don't understand how refeeds work or how regulation of hormomes work. If you really want to see the science look at the refeed threads. Not only am i an example of what you are describing but there are tons of people who meticulously tracked calories and increases them by as much as 1000 calories and saw equivalent weight loss as when they were eating less.
Please identify the point at which increasing the number of calories consumed increased the deficit. If it crosses over, there has to be a point - a specific deficit amount or a specific number of calories - at which it does.
Energy expediture is a non linear number. Often increases in CI allow for people to increase EE. If you look at the refeed studies you might understand the impacts. There is also adaptive thermogenesis as you get more lean.
In other words you can't identify a point at which decreasing the deficit increases the deficit. Without that happening, it's not possible.
I understand AT and non linear deficits. At some point, if you eat 100 calories less, your deficit may only increase by 70 or 80 pounds. But if you eat more, the deficit will decrease.
If you exercise more, then you need to compare it to what would occur if you exercised more at the greater deficit. I cook the books sometimes by logging less calories than I burn which can create the illusion of increasing loss by increasing net calories.
Human bodies are dynamic systems. It wouldn't be "a point", it'd be more like a curve relating CI and CO at attempted constant intentional exercise, possibly with observable changes in slope at certain point(s), i.e. a "knee in the curve" or point where you get the best total deficit (within some reasonable range of potential calorie consumption that's compatible with a happy and reasonably productive daily life). These are not the right technical mathematical/statistical terms, I'm sure - I'm not a mathematician/statistician.
Anecdotally, reading people's stories around here, some people seem to be more sensitive, i.e., have a greater energy output penalty for reduced CI, or a greater output benefit for increased CI, or both. In other words, another reason no one can name a point is that people differ: Some of us wilt faster in deprivation, or bloom more readily with better feeding.
If no one's CO increased with increased CI (i.e., if you could only decrease deficit by eating more), we wouldn't see as many stories in the maintenance forum as we do about people maintaining on more calories than predicted from their weight loss data (though that effect seems not to be universal).
That's my observation/opinion, anyway.
What's interesting is that Menno Henselmans talks about this phenomenon in one of the series on adaptive thermogenesis. Menno maintains his weight at 3000 calories. But in order for him to lose 1 lb per week, he needs to cut to 1800 calories. Mathematically, it doesn't make any sense or seem logical.
So I definitely agree with your additions. There are several people who add significantly more calories than predicted when it comes to maintenance or even when it comes to calculating deficits. With the clients I have worked with, I tend to see people lose more steadily at 1600 to 1800 vs 1200 to 1400. Maybe it's total energy levels driving NEAT/TEA changes... maybe it's compliance... or maybe it's a myriad of factors. But our bodies aren't closed systems, so there are many variables that effect CO.
Hell, there is a reason why there is an Eat More 2 Lose More group; in fact, it's one of the more populated groups. Because it can be liberating when people (especially women) find out that they don't always have to cut to 1200 calories to lose weight.
you can take a look at Eat to Perform for example - this is basically their premise - eat more to lose more - by eating more your NEAT occurs, stress on the body decreased, sleep better (all variables that contribute to weight loss)0 -
For me:
Eat more, move more which equals a greater deficit.
If i were to eat more, but do less or no exercise/movement then I'd stay the same weight or gain.
On the days i don't eat enough, I'm sloth like and incredibly hungry the next day. So i need to find that in between balance.1 -
What I find is that if I eat more, I have more energy to put toward exercise. And although I do need to eat in order to fuel that exercise, eating back 50-60% of my exercise calories keeps me feeling satiated.
There have been some very few days when I couldn't exercise. I had bladder surgery. It was a minor procedure, but following that, I had a catheter bag for five days and didn't want to go walking—my preferred cardio—and couldn't lift for several weeks. I decided it was a good time for a maintenance break. And I was constantly hungry, even with those extra calories. I can come up with reasons:- Post-surgery, even maintenance calories might not have been enough while I healed. However, while the doctor warned me against taking in too much caffeine, drinking alcohol, or eating spicy, at no point was I told "eat more." Drink more fluids, yes. Other stuff, no. (Should note that it was a relatively non-invasive procedure, over in two hours and I was sent home the same day.)
- I'm a boredom eater. Two hour walks? 30-60 minutes of strength training? Gives me stuff to do during the day, which distracts me from food. Normally. It's possible my hunger cues were getting mixed up with my boredom cues. If I was always clear on the difference, I'd probably not have gotten to Class III Obesity before doing something about it.
- I'm also a stress-eater. And just because the surgery was over didn't mean my head had recovered from the pre-surgery stress.
But bottom line, I do better when I can be more active, even if it means I need more calories to be more active.3
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