Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Eat more to reduce body fat? debate
Options
Replies
-
I'm guessing they are young men - late teens, early 20's - doing a structured lifting program for the first time, so they have a good chance of getting some fairly impressive 'newbie' gains when starting out. I am willing to bet that the gains taper off as they keep with the program.
They are both early 20s yes.0 -
Insufficient info to determine. Guessing/speculating:
No calorie counting mentioned, just eating frequency, no bread, and the typical boring/filling diet ("mostly rice/chicken/fish/eggs veg", no sauces).
If they were eating SAD before, I wouldn't be surprised if their physical volume of food is higher but total calories lower (food more nutrition dense, not as calorie dense, higher fiber, more satiating).
And if they went from little/no or lackadaisical exercise to a regular training program (of whatever type, but presumably including some lifting since their goal is muscle), that's increased calorie burn, and a bit of apparent muscle filling/firmness from water retention for repair, maybe small newbie gains. So, weight maybe close enough over a few weeks to call "the same" (minus a few fat pounds, plus a few water pounds, even a tiny muscle tissue add in 5-6 weeks if young, male, eating ample protein & close to maintenance while lifting decently).
So, eat more (physical volume) but really less (counted in calories), move more (added exercise) = fat loss to better reveal what muscle they already had, plus a little muscle filling/firmness, water weight in muscle keeping scale weight close enough, and voila.
Just speculating, like I said.10 -
@AnnPT77 your theory sounds plausible for sure. I realise there's not enough information to go on, the conversation just got me thinking.
Plus it doesn't help I am trying to help my hubby lose weight (his choice I might add) and am monitoring his calories so he's eating at deficit, he's lost 6lbs to date (been about 9 weeks since he started) but for 3 weeks he has stalled entirely, which us long termers know happens but it annoys the heck out of him - any wonder when he hears my son talking about 'you can eat too little' he thinks he should be eating more!
Thanks
1 -
The more precise medical term for metabolism going to sleep is called being dead. Metabolisms do not sleep.NavaGunJara wrote: »The thing behind eating 5/6 meals aday that’s not big each , is that you don’t want your metabolism to stay asleep and act as anti starvation survival saving food mode which happens when you eat 3 big meals aday with 4/6 hours between ,
So they eat every 2/3 hours a meal which contains a decent amount of protein and slightly low carbs makes thier bodies’s metabolism rate higher
And as they train whether it’s cardio or weightlifting the protein they get helps to build lean muscles and burn those extra fats
But after all it depends on the bodytype and its metabolism,a hardgainer doesn’t have to worry about the carbs intake that much unlike easygainers. So you can expect from some ppl to eat 7 meals a day and still lose weight.
If your body has a secret food saving economy mode, why would it ever run in a less efficient manner? What evolution advantage could ever be parlayed by burning calories without a purpose that ultimately results in increased reproduction?
Technically eating protein will result in a higher TEF (thermic effect of food) than other meals, but when it comes to losing weight, the TEF differences in meals is liable to count for all of 3/5ths of a rat's behind worth of results.
I also don't see how lean protein + cardio is going to make an appreciable change in muscle. Outside of someone in an underweight state, just upping protein isn't really going to encourage muscle growth. Hypertrophy tends to come from resistance training volume. Nor will increased muscle burn that much fat - about 4 to 6 calories a day to maintain a pound of muscle.7 -
Here's some peer reviewed literature, but you'll find it difficult if not impossible to get a definitive answer from an actual scientific study, from what I've seen.:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4683169/
I personally think the answer is different for different people. Try six meals a day for a month and see what results you get, then try three for a month and compare the results -- and whether you feel good, enjoy it and can sustain it. Then do the same with different caloric levels. You'll eventually find the combination that works best for you -- and even that may change over time. But you will likely lose weight along the way.
Apps and wearables are only going to be able to give you rough estimates of what you need for your age, weight etc -- they can't adjust for your specific genetics, gut bacteria and other variables. I use them as guidelines and adjust as I learn more about what works best for me.0 -
LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »@AnnPT77 your theory sounds plausible for sure. I realise there's not enough information to go on, the conversation just got me thinking.
Plus it doesn't help I am trying to help my hubby lose weight (his choice I might add) and am monitoring his calories so he's eating at deficit, he's lost 6lbs to date (been about 9 weeks since he started) but for 3 weeks he has stalled entirely, which us long termers know happens but it annoys the heck out of him - any wonder when he hears my son talking about 'you can eat too little' he thinks he should be eating more!
Thanks
Well, there is the possible path:
Undereat => fatigue => reduced activity => lower NEAT/TDEE => slowed loss
I suspect that for some cases, that can mean somewhat faster loss at somewhat higher calories, if the person can find a sweeter spot in the energy level vs. intake tradeoff. But I doubt that applies at all in the originally stated case, and probably not in your husband's case, either, sadly.5 -
I'm certainly not a spring chicken anymore, but I can verify the concept of more food leading to better results.
I have to eat at least at maintenance (for me) to get the energy for training hard enough to push my body into fat loss. Keeping in mind, that fat loss results in lower bodyfat percentage overall, but not necessarily in weigth loss. Well, right now it does..so it's a win-win for me currently..
2 -
If you're losing weight, you're not eating maintenance calories.I'm certainly not a spring chicken anymore, but I can verify the concept of more food leading to better results.
I have to eat at least at maintenance (for me) to get the energy for training hard enough to push my body into fat loss. Keeping in mind, that fat loss results in lower bodyfat percentage overall, but not necessarily in weigth loss. Well, right now it does..so it's a win-win for me currently..4 -
I feel like it is almost impossible to debate this topic without actually seeing before and after photos, or seeing the scale weight for proof. Your son says that they are both visibly leaner, but that could simply be his perception. Also, you say they are the exact same weight, but that seems peculiar as well. As someone else pointed out, eliminating carbs would cause an initial drop in water weight and that in itself could make a person look leaner in ways. I would also expect the number on the scale to drop from the water weight loss. A couple weeks is definitely not enough time to show dramatic results from a recomp. The trainers theory on calories alone is enough for me to discredit almost anything else they have to say.3
-
1. If they are weight lifting now and weren't before, they will gain some muscle (even in a deficit, especially if newbies).
2. If not accurately tracking calories, they may or may not actually be eating more than before. The stuff they cut out is usually very calorie dense (sauces) or under-estimated from mindlessly eating it on the side in addition to other stuff (bread).
3. Calorie deficit can increase with more food. Not due to some 'starvation mode' thing, but because we tend to get lethargic and not move much if we under-eat so TDEE goes down (from NEAT and exercise drops rather then BMR difference).
4. Their activity level has probably gone up and hence calories burned if they weren't doing any physical activity before (at the very least they have added weight training, which probably accounts for at least a few hundred extra calories burned per week, assuming it isn't replacing something else).
5. Short term time span = much of the difference is probably a difference merely in water weight/bloating. (dropping the carbs and probably-salty sauces depending on what they ate before would create a large drop in water weight).
ETA: on the last one: ..or rather the water weight/bloating effectively 'moved' to the muscles (water retention from salty/carby food in those usual areas decreased, while water weight in the now repairing muscles increased).2 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're losing weight, you're not eating maintenance calories.I'm certainly not a spring chicken anymore, but I can verify the concept of more food leading to better results.
I have to eat at least at maintenance (for me) to get the energy for training hard enough to push my body into fat loss. Keeping in mind, that fat loss results in lower bodyfat percentage overall, but not necessarily in weigth loss. Well, right now it does..so it's a win-win for me currently..
I am indeed eating the number of calories, that are calculated as 'maintenance'. I didn't say that I was eating back any exercise burn. My BMR is around 1300, but I'm eating just over 2000, which leaves me with enough wiggle room to shed fat, but I'm never 'hangry'. Getting rid of some winter padding is just a bonus right now.3 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're losing weight, you're not eating maintenance calories.I'm certainly not a spring chicken anymore, but I can verify the concept of more food leading to better results.
I have to eat at least at maintenance (for me) to get the energy for training hard enough to push my body into fat loss. Keeping in mind, that fat loss results in lower bodyfat percentage overall, but not necessarily in weigth loss. Well, right now it does..so it's a win-win for me currently..
I am indeed eating the number of calories, that are calculated as 'maintenance'. I didn't say that I was eating back any exercise burn. My BMR is around 1300, but I'm eating just over 2000, which leaves me with enough wiggle room to shed fat, but I'm never 'hangry'. Getting rid of some winter padding is just a bonus right now.
Estimated maintenance is not necessarily actual maintenance.
If I ate my estimated maintenance calories (plus all exercise calories) I'd be losing weight steadily, not maintaining. (I'm maintaining well above the maintenance estimate, for 3 years now.) Maintenance estimates are essentially the mean of a statistical distribution. Most real people fall close to that mean, but some are further away than others.3 -
Your maintenance calories are not a calculation, they're the calories that keep you at the same weight. The confusion seems to be that you're using something like MFP's terminology rather than how the term would be used in most nutrition and exercise literature. I don't think there's a conceptional disagreement about the facts.magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're losing weight, you're not eating maintenance calories.I'm certainly not a spring chicken anymore, but I can verify the concept of more food leading to better results.
I have to eat at least at maintenance (for me) to get the energy for training hard enough to push my body into fat loss. Keeping in mind, that fat loss results in lower bodyfat percentage overall, but not necessarily in weigth loss. Well, right now it does..so it's a win-win for me currently..
I am indeed eating the number of calories, that are calculated as 'maintenance'. I didn't say that I was eating back any exercise burn. My BMR is around 1300, but I'm eating just over 2000, which leaves me with enough wiggle room to shed fat, but I'm never 'hangry'. Getting rid of some winter padding is just a bonus right now.
I would have phrased it that in order to have the energy to engage in vigorous exercise, you need to be eating calories at least consistent with your NEAT +BMR level. Or that your largest sustainable deficits are ones created from exercise.4 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Your maintenance calories are not a calculation, they're the calories that keep you at the same weight. The confusion seems to be that you're using something like MFP's terminology rather than how the term would be used in most nutrition and exercise literature. I don't think there's a conceptional disagreement about the facts.magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're losing weight, you're not eating maintenance calories.I'm certainly not a spring chicken anymore, but I can verify the concept of more food leading to better results.
I have to eat at least at maintenance (for me) to get the energy for training hard enough to push my body into fat loss. Keeping in mind, that fat loss results in lower bodyfat percentage overall, but not necessarily in weigth loss. Well, right now it does..so it's a win-win for me currently..
I am indeed eating the number of calories, that are calculated as 'maintenance'. I didn't say that I was eating back any exercise burn. My BMR is around 1300, but I'm eating just over 2000, which leaves me with enough wiggle room to shed fat, but I'm never 'hangry'. Getting rid of some winter padding is just a bonus right now.
I would have phrased it that in order to have the energy to engage in vigorous exercise, you need to be eating calories at least consistent with your NEAT +BMR level. Or that your largest sustainable deficits are ones created from exercise.
I'm not the least bit confused about what my calories are. I've been training for a few years now, and...see profile pic...I'm fairly sure that what I'm doing works well for me personally, as far as my calorie requirements are concerned. Also, the little weightloss bonus will disappear in the very near future, as I'm getting fitter (in the middle of a fresh lifting program...). For now, I'm enjoying an early start on my bikini shape. Wooo...0 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Your maintenance calories are not a calculation, they're the calories that keep you at the same weight. The confusion seems to be that you're using something like MFP's terminology rather than how the term would be used in most nutrition and exercise literature. I don't think there's a conceptional disagreement about the facts.magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're losing weight, you're not eating maintenance calories.I'm certainly not a spring chicken anymore, but I can verify the concept of more food leading to better results.
I have to eat at least at maintenance (for me) to get the energy for training hard enough to push my body into fat loss. Keeping in mind, that fat loss results in lower bodyfat percentage overall, but not necessarily in weigth loss. Well, right now it does..so it's a win-win for me currently..
I am indeed eating the number of calories, that are calculated as 'maintenance'. I didn't say that I was eating back any exercise burn. My BMR is around 1300, but I'm eating just over 2000, which leaves me with enough wiggle room to shed fat, but I'm never 'hangry'. Getting rid of some winter padding is just a bonus right now.
I would have phrased it that in order to have the energy to engage in vigorous exercise, you need to be eating calories at least consistent with your NEAT +BMR level. Or that your largest sustainable deficits are ones created from exercise.
I'm not the least bit confused about what my calories are. I've been training for a few years now, and...see profile pic...I'm fairly sure that what I'm doing works well for me personally, as far as my calorie requirements are concerned. Also, the little weightloss bonus will disappear in the very near future, as I'm getting fitter (in the middle of a fresh lifting program...). For now, I'm enjoying an early start on my bikini shape. Wooo...
Maintenance calories would mean you're maintaining weight...there is no other definition of maintenance. Maintenance isn't losing weight. You're eating some calculated estimate that has you in a small deficit.7 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Your maintenance calories are not a calculation, they're the calories that keep you at the same weight. The confusion seems to be that you're using something like MFP's terminology rather than how the term would be used in most nutrition and exercise literature. I don't think there's a conceptional disagreement about the facts.magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're losing weight, you're not eating maintenance calories.I'm certainly not a spring chicken anymore, but I can verify the concept of more food leading to better results.
I have to eat at least at maintenance (for me) to get the energy for training hard enough to push my body into fat loss. Keeping in mind, that fat loss results in lower bodyfat percentage overall, but not necessarily in weigth loss. Well, right now it does..so it's a win-win for me currently..
I am indeed eating the number of calories, that are calculated as 'maintenance'. I didn't say that I was eating back any exercise burn. My BMR is around 1300, but I'm eating just over 2000, which leaves me with enough wiggle room to shed fat, but I'm never 'hangry'. Getting rid of some winter padding is just a bonus right now.
I would have phrased it that in order to have the energy to engage in vigorous exercise, you need to be eating calories at least consistent with your NEAT +BMR level. Or that your largest sustainable deficits are ones created from exercise.
I'm not the least bit confused about what my calories are. I've been training for a few years now, and...see profile pic...I'm fairly sure that what I'm doing works well for me personally, as far as my calorie requirements are concerned. Also, the little weightloss bonus will disappear in the very near future, as I'm getting fitter (in the middle of a fresh lifting program...). For now, I'm enjoying an early start on my bikini shape. Wooo...
You might not be confused about how many calories you are eating, but you do seem to be confused as to what maintenance is.5 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Your maintenance calories are not a calculation, they're the calories that keep you at the same weight. The confusion seems to be that you're using something like MFP's terminology rather than how the term would be used in most nutrition and exercise literature. I don't think there's a conceptional disagreement about the facts.magnusthenerd wrote: »
If you're losing weight, you're not eating maintenance calories.I'm certainly not a spring chicken anymore, but I can verify the concept of more food leading to better results.
I have to eat at least at maintenance (for me) to get the energy for training hard enough to push my body into fat loss. Keeping in mind, that fat loss results in lower bodyfat percentage overall, but not necessarily in weigth loss. Well, right now it does..so it's a win-win for me currently..
I am indeed eating the number of calories, that are calculated as 'maintenance'. I didn't say that I was eating back any exercise burn. My BMR is around 1300, but I'm eating just over 2000, which leaves me with enough wiggle room to shed fat, but I'm never 'hangry'. Getting rid of some winter padding is just a bonus right now.
I would have phrased it that in order to have the energy to engage in vigorous exercise, you need to be eating calories at least consistent with your NEAT +BMR level. Or that your largest sustainable deficits are ones created from exercise.
I'm not the least bit confused about what my calories are. I've been training for a few years now, and...see profile pic...I'm fairly sure that what I'm doing works well for me personally, as far as my calorie requirements are concerned. Also, the little weightloss bonus will disappear in the very near future, as I'm getting fitter (in the middle of a fresh lifting program...). For now, I'm enjoying an early start on my bikini shape. Wooo...
I didn't say you were confused, I said the confusion. The way you are using the term maintenance comes off idiosyncratic to me. If we both use a word to mean something different, obviously we will both be confused about each other's meanings, right?2 -
To and try to get thread back to the OP..... Some random thoughts in no particular order:
Yes two young guys starting out on a new routine can make remarkable muscle gains in a short time (that rate won't continue for too long though).
They can also get a significant "muscle pump" in that time which changes appearance, size and definition.
Changing the number of meals doesn't mean more food or more calories.
Bodyfat measurement in a gym may well be a guesstimate with a poor method or device under completely the wrong conditions. A change in carb levels and hence hydration levels can mess with measurements too.
Why people go to PTs for nutrition advice bemuses me. A bit like going to a dietician to get advice on your squat form.
Oh how I miss those far of days of youth when a few weeks of training meant I was pulling in a few notches on my belt and putting away my Levi's as they wouldn't go past my quads...….
Comparing the results young males can get with some gym time is a great example of "comparison is the thief of joy".
5 -
LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »I'm a long term maintainer, a big believer in CICO, its definately how I maintain my weight but I had a long conversation with my eldest son the other night about lowering bf%.
He was mentioning how two of his co workers had in recent weeks started going to the gym and both have a personal trainer who advises them on food intake.
Both guys were wanting to maintain their weight but build muscle.
They were told firstly they weren't eating enough.
They were told eating too little leads to weight gain! yes really! (I just can't get my head around that, nor do I even believe it! I've been browsing these forums for years and can't see that it is possible!)
They increased their meals x 5 a day, mostly rice/chicken/fish/eggs veg and no bread no sauces (sounds boring to me personally!)
Anyway, both guys have remained the same weight but their body fat percentage has dropped radically in a matter of 5 or 6 weeks and both are visibly trimmer. I mean they have lost enough body fat for their clothes to be hanging off them.
So what gives?
I'd love to hear your thoughts because here I am with 7 years experience of counting calories in and out, I eat all the foods but I stay within the calories my body burns and maintain my weight fairly effortlessly (but always am looking to lower my bf% a little more.)
How can these guys be losing so much fat yet staying same weight?
They workout at gym heavy lifting 4 times a week. Is it really that simple? lift more = reduce bf%?
Your thoughts please?
Thanks in advance
Ruth
Starvation mode Most people get this mixed up with starvation But its not the same!!! It's hard to think eat more food to lose weight! it goes against what we be told for years. when you told as a kid [Look at that fat man he eat to much] it's a mindset.21 -
jasonpoihegatama wrote: »LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »I'm a long term maintainer, a big believer in CICO, its definately how I maintain my weight but I had a long conversation with my eldest son the other night about lowering bf%.
He was mentioning how two of his co workers had in recent weeks started going to the gym and both have a personal trainer who advises them on food intake.
Both guys were wanting to maintain their weight but build muscle.
They were told firstly they weren't eating enough.
They were told eating too little leads to weight gain! yes really! (I just can't get my head around that, nor do I even believe it! I've been browsing these forums for years and can't see that it is possible!)
They increased their meals x 5 a day, mostly rice/chicken/fish/eggs veg and no bread no sauces (sounds boring to me personally!)
Anyway, both guys have remained the same weight but their body fat percentage has dropped radically in a matter of 5 or 6 weeks and both are visibly trimmer. I mean they have lost enough body fat for their clothes to be hanging off them.
So what gives?
I'd love to hear your thoughts because here I am with 7 years experience of counting calories in and out, I eat all the foods but I stay within the calories my body burns and maintain my weight fairly effortlessly (but always am looking to lower my bf% a little more.)
How can these guys be losing so much fat yet staying same weight?
They workout at gym heavy lifting 4 times a week. Is it really that simple? lift more = reduce bf%?
Your thoughts please?
Thanks in advance
Ruth
Starvation mode Most people get this mixed up with starvation But its not the same!!! It's hard to think eat more food to lose weight! it goes against what we be told for years. when you told as a kid [Look at that fat man he eat to much] it's a mindset.
It is a mindset based on what actually happens - there is no starvation mode.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions