Careful--"Eat More" is a relative term

tigerblue

Just wanted to put my two-cents` worth in. Mine is not a post based on science. I am not a nutritionist, physical therapist, doctor, or even a personal trainer. But I am pretty decent at math, and I have been tracking my calories and exercise on MFP for almost 4 years. And for the past 2 years I have been paying very close attention (perhaps obsessing) to TDEE, BMR, RMR, etc. I became concerned when I started a regain of my initial 40+ pound loss.

Yes, we can EAT MORE TO LOSE but that does not mean the same thing for everyone. For me, eating more to lose means eating around 1300 cals a day, rather than 1000. But I cannot eat like someone 20 years younger, 6 inches taller, and 20 lbs. heavier.

And maintenance for me is around 1700 cals a day (yes, actually very close to heybales spreadsheet on "In Place of a Roadmap" group).

I have been shamed for eating too low. And I have read so many posts shaming others for this. In fact, because so many are very passionate about this, I tried eating a little more, eating a lot more, reset, etc. Lastly, I reset for 3 months over the summer (vacations, etc. It was a good time to eat more!) The final result of all this was gaining 10 lbs.

But the numbers don`t lie. After tracking and recording very carefully for the past 8 months or so, the story is very clear: Lose on 1200-1400. Maintain at 1650. Gain above 1700. That is reality backed up with results over time.

So my point is this--it is very easy for people on here to point a finger at someone and tell them to eat more, they are starving themselves, etc. But proceed with caution, because not everyone can eat 2400 cals and still lose. And please dont shame those who cannot. Sure, a person who is eating very low calories for their current size should be cautioned about undereating, but blanket statements do more harm than good, whether they are telling individuals to eat more or eat less. You could be wrong either way!

I am thankful that this group and others like it caused me to search, research, and study what has been going on with my body. And I am happy to be once again losing! But remember--more is a relative term.

CanGirl40

Thanks for this post. I am so envious of those who can eat over 2,000 calories and LOSE. Tried that. Gained. Tried a reset. Of course gained. Then a small cut. Didn't work for me. What *does* work for me is about 1500/day to lose; 1700-1900 to maintain. I am 41, 5'7 and 132 pounds. I have come to accept that I just won't be able to eat quite as much as others due to my metabolism/age/frame...

tigerblue

Thanks for this post. I am so envious of those who can eat over 2,000 calories and LOSE. Tried that. Gained. Tried a reset. Of course gained. Then a small cut. Didn't work for me. What *does* work for me is about 1500/day to lose; 1700-1900 to maintain. I am 41, 5'7 and 132 pounds. I have come to accept that I just won't be able to eat quite as much as others due to my metabolism/age/frame...

Yep, we might as well accept reality. I try not to whine about it too often!

Right now I am reminding myself that this is SO VERY DO-ABLE if you make healthy food choices and dont eat processed junk! (and dont go out too often, although sometimes that is unavoidable!) I have spent the past week or two concentrating on lean proteins, veggies, and good whole grain ccarbs, and it is so much easier. If I eat junk i stay hungry!

linski24

You are right. My maintenance level is only 1900-2100 anymore than that I gain ... I am also envious of people who can eat loads and not gain ... Spose I could exercise more than I already do so I could eat more but I'm busy .! I do formal exercise 4 times a week ..!!
I'm 44 5' and in a British size 12 x

allergictodiets

But the numbers don`t lie. After tracking and recording very carefully for the past 8 months or so, the story is very clear: Lose on 1200-1400. Maintain at 1650. Gain above 1700. That is reality backed up with results over time.

Are those net calories?

iluvhorses1983

I'm also with you on this! I tried eating everywhere from 1800-2100. My supposed TDEE is 2100, but I do not lose unless I eat 1500-1700. I seem to maintain at 1800-1900. This is still quite a bit of food, but was told to eat more to lose. I either gained or maintained. This has been for almost 2 years. I had a baby 7 months ago and was only able to lose 10lbs of 44 gained!!! really??? Last week, dropped to net 1700, lost 1.5lbs already. Wish I had stopped listening earlier. =(

tigerblue

But the numbers don`t lie. After tracking and recording very carefully for the past 8 months or so, the story is very clear: Lose on 1200-1400. Maintain at 1650. Gain above 1700. That is reality backed up with results over time.

Are those net calories?

No. Gross calories. I work out 5-6 days a week, and try to divide my exercise between cardio and strength. But I found that I was overestimating my calories burned a bit, and that was negating my defici when I ate them back. So I have gone with a set number of calories. My deficit is pretty small. At 1400 I figure my deficit is about 250-300. Because I am losing about 0.3 lbs per week on 1400 gross calories.

BTW: 5`2.5", 123 lbs and 46 years old.

juliebeannn

agreed. everything's relative and specific to the individual.

heybales

At least everyone sounds like the honestly tested the high end of the estimate, just to confirm, and moved down from there.

About impossible to test the other direction first. Actually, many were probably already sitting in the opposite direction with little movement already, so I guess you could say test complete.

Not like the general forum comments sometimes of test eating more for 3 days and gained 2 lbs and dropped back down.

I think there's many more that would rather lose the weight than make improvements on the bar, so in essence eating at maintenance is slowly losing fat while making body improvements, and eventually will only lose fat - it's going to be slow.

50 extra undesired hurting lbs on the knees is the same whether the total weight is 35% fat or 30% fat. Obviously more muscle in legs will help carry it better, but only to a degree, and better when closer to goal weight.

tigerblue

I'm also with you on this! I tried eating everywhere from 1800-2100. My supposed TDEE is 2100, but I do not lose unless I eat 1500-1700. I seem to maintain at 1800-1900. This is still quite a bit of food, but was told to eat more to lose. I either gained or maintained. This has been for almost 2 years. I had a baby 7 months ago and was only able to lose 10lbs of 44 gained!!! really??? Last week, dropped to net 1700, lost 1.5lbs already. Wish I had stopped listening earlier. =(

I wish I had stopped listening earlier too!

But at least you have found what works. Good luck to you from here on out!

jbnl1991

"Eat more" IS a relative term, but "eat 15% less than your TDEE" is not.

I am eating 1800 per day instead of 1200 per day. (That is 50% more than my previous diet roller coasters.) I am lifting weights so I am not losing as much muscle as when I just did cardio. I am losing weight so it must be fat. I took the time to figure my TDEE with the help of Heybales' spreadsheet and my Fitbit. It wasn't as high as some people, but I am 46 years old, weigh 173 pounds and sleep a solid nine hours per night. I truly am sedentary unless I exercise intentionally as proven by my Sunday calorie burns when I watch football and rest.

I did a reset. I did not over-estimate my activity level. I started weighing my food. (My half cup of oatmeal was actually more than 40 grams.) I was eating more than I thought. I was honest with myself about my activity and food. I started my cut and it is working.

Learn about the process. Understand the process. Trust the process.

tigerblue

"Eat more" IS a relative term, but "eat 15% less than your TDEE" is not.

I am eating 1800 per day instead of 1200 per day. (That is 50% more than my previous diet roller coasters.) I am lifting weights so I am not losing as much muscle as when I just did cardio. I am losing weight so it must be fat. I took the time to figure my TDEE with the help of Heybales' spreadsheet and my Fitbit. It wasn't as high as some people, but I am 46 years old, weigh 173 pounds and sleep a solid nine hours per night. I truly am sedentary unless I exercise intentionally as proven by my Sunday calorie burns when I watch football and rest.

I did a reset. I did not over-estimate my activity level. I started weighing my food. (My half cup of oatmeal was actually more than 40 grams.) I was eating more than I thought. I was honest with myself about my activity and food. I started my cut and it is working.

Learn about the process. Understand the process. Trust the process.

You are exactly right. The problem comes when advice is given based on an assumed too high TDEE. Most larger, taller people cannot fathom just how low the BMR and TDEE of small, short older women is. And automatically point fingers at others saying "starvaion, starvation" ! All I am saying is do the research and trust the numbers. Dont listen to people who dont know your numbers. That is where I went wrong. There were so many folks saying :Too low, too low without knowing the facts. My BMR is about 1150 per Fat to Fit, and my TDEE according to heybales spreadsheet is 1700-1800. So a 15% cut off of 1700 is about 1400. So eating between 1300 and 1400 makes sense for me for losing. I figure that gets within a reasonable margin of error for my reporting. Which is always an estimate, even when I measure. Which I do most of the time.

I am just trying to caution people against giving and/or listening to blanket statements. It could save them some grief either way.

mommamuscles

I agree that eating more is a relative term, and I am all for listening to your body and doing what is sustainable for you. However, a few things.
1. If you are figuring your TDEE correctly, you should be taking into account your height, weight, age, etc. as well as activity level. Thia should give you a more accurate number. Do your research. Don't just listen to so and so on the internet. Everyone's numbers are different. There are a number of calculators out there. Some are very generous, in my opinion. If you know your body fat percentage, plug that in there because that is going to give you a much more accurate idea of how many calories you can safely consume.
2. If you are not measuring food using a good food scale, it is highly unlikely that your calorie counting is accurate and that coule be the culprit right there.
3. The scale does not tell the whole story. Paying attention to progress pictures, body fat, measurements, and performance in the gym are superior means of quanifying and measuring progress. Its not that the scale is useless, but it is definitely overrated.
4. If you are coming from a history of consuming less than 1500 calories (as a woman), you are most likely not giving your body enough calories for a completely sedentary lifestyle, let alone an active lifestyle. If this is kept up, the body will make metabolic adaptations when it realizes you have no intention of giving it what is required for health and wellness. This means you will burn fewer calories than you had pre-dieting. If you continue to drop calories in order to lose weight, you will continue to slowly decrease the amount of calories burned. So...if you then increase your calories to several hundred to a thousand, you should expect to see some initial weight gain sheerly from the increase of food volume. Particularly if you are not being mindful of food choices and macronutrients. The weight gain is not fat. Many people, through vlcd diets, may experience the loss of muscle, hair, tissues, even bone mass. The weight gain may be from the body normalizing these functions, but in most cases it is just water retention. It does take some time for the body to adjust to a higher calorie level. If you stick it out, the body will adjust. But jumping ship after only a few weeks or even months is not enough time to really make a quality assessment.
5. My anecdotal evidence: I lost quite a bit of weight on a vlcd but also lost hair, energy, and quality of life. When i started properly fueling my body, I did gain weight for a season but eventually my body adjusted and I began to lose again. I took advantage of the extra fuel and focused on gaining strength instead of bemoaning the scale. The gain was frustrating, but losing my life and myself inorder to acheive a weight loss goal was far more miserable. Today I have maintained a loss of 100 lbs and my fitness journey has been far more enjoyable and sustainable. I could definitely be leaner, but there are more important things in my life and I refuse to obsess. I am fit, healthy. I eat a whole foods diet most of the time. I am continually improving my level of fitness and health. I dont need a scale to tell me that.
6. There seems to be a lot of negativity aimed at this post at em2wl. I can promise you that those who have been succesful at eating more are not some special breed. Rather they were sick of the dieting rollercoaster and came to the conclusion diets don't work. They stuck with it and trusted the process instead of flip flopping their approach.

heybales

I think one of the inherent problems with EM2WL and IPOARM is the initial setup.

Rarely do I see encouragement to use Katch BMR based on decent bodyfat %.

The fat2fit site despite helping you get good estimates (except the 1 measurement method of BF%), and letting you enter it, still gives TDEE levels based on Harris BMR.
Scooby has option for Katch, but gotta find it and bring a stat.

And the fact that Harris and to lesser extent Mifflin BMR's are based on healthy weight people with healthy ratio of fat to LBM, can lead to a really bad foundation to the math if you have a lot to lose (60+), and/or yo-yo dieted away a decent amount of muscle mass.
If you are closer to goal weight (20-30/40) depending on LBM, you might be in good situation to start the math off right.

Multiply by that possibly bad foundation (I've easily seen better Katch BMR be 200-400 below Harris BMR) a bad TDEE level estimate, and you can be resetting at 400-600 over a better estimated TDEE.
A lot of people think or advice given that 45 min daily of walking is Active because 6 days a week. That raises the TDEE up higher too. Those TDEE levels that merely describe days a week are terrible for estimating, hrs is a tad better, but not much.

And then the reset is great to be lifting during, but even weight lifting women purposely eating in bulk and doing a great routine with experience, will only get about 6 lb muscle mass gain in a year. Maybe 12 if a newbie doing it all very right.
Now other LBM besides muscle can still increase during a reset, which is good and still some increase to metabolism.

But obviously eating to an inflated TDEE will have it become real TDEE by 2 reasons - you finally gained enough muscle mass, or you gained enough weight in general.

But some of the new research indicating a suppressed metabolism for many that really abused it just isn't going to recover in nothing as short as 9-12 months, means a 3 month reset won't get it there anyway, means unneeded weight is put on. And you can lose on a suppressed metabolism, it's just slower and harder, and absolutely no need to cause it or live with it if no reason to. And sadly that can only be confirmed by starting on the high side. But I don't think higher than best estimates would give.

The state of mind reached through a reset of even over-estimated TDEE is great though, accepting what is more important, learning to hopefully eat better while eating more (obviously more was eaten to gain weight in the first place, but likely lots of unhealthy stuff), and hopefully lifting during the time of excess calories, whether because suppressed metabolism is coming up or just plain over-estimated TDEE.

But then putting a minor deficit in to an inflated TDEE will mean very slow progress of trading fat for LBM. That best potential of 6 - 12 lbs in a year being a mighty slow trade for women.

So it's great to estimate on the high side, and even if food logging is off, if you are consistently off when eating more and when eating less, you'll still lose weight and fat.

So I agree shouldn't jump on the bandwagon of it doesn't work, until you've confirmed some things.

Tigerblue's done a great job of trying to confirm those things before realizing less calories is needed. Not giving up, but adjusting based on results.

I think that's part of the problem for many - they do want a number, lower, higher, unknown, doesn't matter, a number, that gives results. Some don't even want to understand the principals involved, and they'll be back attempting something in the future.
Asking to start high and watch for a month, and adjust as needed seems too long - until you factor in all the wasted time with stalls that might already have happened or will happen, then a month is nothing.

tigerblue

I agree that eating more is a relative term, and I am all for listening to your body and doing what is sustainable for you. However, a few things.
1. If you are figuring your TDEE correctly, you should be taking into account your height, weight, age, etc. as well as activity level. Thia should give you a more accurate number. Do your research. Don't just listen to so and so on the internet. Everyone's numbers are different. There are a number of calculators out there. Some are very generous, in my opinion. If you know your body fat percentage, plug that in there because that is going to give you a much more accurate idea of how many calories you can safely consume.
2. If you are not measuring food using a good food scale, it is highly unlikely that your calorie counting is accurate and that coule be the culprit right there.
3. The scale does not tell the whole story. Paying attention to progress pictures, body fat, measurements, and performance in the gym are superior means of quanifying and measuring progress. Its not that the scale is useless, but it is definitely overrated.
4. If you are coming from a history of consuming less than 1500 calories (as a woman), you are most likely not giving your body enough calories for a completely sedentary lifestyle, let alone an active lifestyle. If this is kept up, the body will make metabolic adaptations when it realizes you have no intention of giving it what is required for health and wellness. This means you will burn fewer calories than you had pre-dieting. If you continue to drop calories in order to lose weight, you will continue to slowly decrease the amount of calories burned. So...if you then increase your calories to several hundred to a thousand, you should expect to see some initial weight gain sheerly from the increase of food volume. Particularly if you are not being mindful of food choices and macronutrients. The weight gain is not fat. Many people, through vlcd diets, may experience the loss of muscle, hair, tissues, even bone mass. The weight gain may be from the body normalizing these functions, but in most cases it is just water retention. It does take some time for the body to adjust to a higher calorie level. If you stick it out, the body will adjust. But jumping ship after only a few weeks or even months is not enough time to really make a quality assessment.
5. My anecdotal evidence: I lost quite a bit of weight on a vlcd but also lost hair, energy, and quality of life. When i started properly fueling my body, I did gain weight for a season but eventually my body adjusted and I began to lose again. I took advantage of the extra fuel and focused on gaining strength instead of bemoaning the scale. The gain was frustrating, but losing my life and myself inorder to acheive a weight loss goal was far more miserable. Today I have maintained a loss of 100 lbs and my fitness journey has been far more enjoyable and sustainable. I could definitely be leaner, but there are more important things in my life and I refuse to obsess. I am fit, healthy. I eat a whole foods diet most of the time. I am continually improving my level of fitness and health. I dont need a scale to tell me that.
6. There seems to be a lot of negativity aimed at this post at em2wl. I can promise you that those who have been succesful at eating more are not some special breed. Rather they were sick of the dieting rollercoaster and came to the conclusion diets don't work. They stuck with it and trusted the process instead of flip flopping their approach.

Yes by all means do the research. As I said, that is what I have done. The best estimate I got for TDEE is from heybales spreadsheet. That also was very close to the recommendations from some of the Jillian Michaels materials. The math also comes out pretty close when I look at Fat2Fit and Scoobys Workshop. The trick for me was estimating body fat more closely. It seems mine is higher than I like, even though I am slim (size 4 and can sometimes even wear childrens sizes). Part of this I am working on with strength training. Part of it is a family heritage of extremely petite, small framed women on one side of my family. Our bones are TINY. I can see it when I look at my close female relatives. Another reason I am doing strength training! So I got my TDEE by using my height, weight, body frame size, and activity (customized by spreadsheet).

I am using a food scale, at least when I eat at home. After four years of logging, I also have a pretty good eye for serving size. I even count my chips and nuts. I am not perfect, though. No one is on that. it is not an exact science, as even the difference in fat content of two pieces of meat the same size will change the values, etc.

The scale does not tell the whole story, but going up a clothing size and adding 1.5 to 2 inches all over does.

For the most part during my 4 year journey, I have felt great. The only exceptions are a few times of great stress, and a few times of being sick. (like right now. my family has been sharing germs like crazy!) I have tons more energy than I did before I lost weight. I am definitely stronger. I can run for long distances. I enjoy working out. I no longer collapse on the couch after work every day. My performance is not inhibited by what I am eating. (or not eating)

I guess my negativity comes from reading over and over that I am starving myself. But the research I have done is reasonable. And my results are now backing that up.

My whole purpose in posting was that I see over and over people saying, "You cant eat 1300 calories, etc. etc." But the truth is that a percentage of the population is on the edges of the bell curve. That means that they will not fall within the norms.

Telling a very small middle aged person to eat 2000 calories a day is going to set them up for failure just as much as undereating will set up many larger folks for failure. That is why I titled my post --eat more is relative. It is related to size, age, and all those other factors you quoted.

Reading posts from this group and a few others certainly helped me when I first started regaining. Probably if I had not read this, I would truly have gone for the VLCD and ended up in worse shape. I am looking forward to eating at maintenance (1700) again soon, now that I have started losing again. (9 lbs to go)

So lets make this customizable for all sizes of folks. The Eat More message is good, but some of the details need clarification because it is not one size fits all.

harlanJEN

Absolutely. It is a relative term. Relative to YOU. Relative to ME. everyone is different. THAT has always been at the core of the EM2WL principles.

With that said ... No real need to defend it or to " bash" the principles behind it. And yes, this thread seems to be doing that.

I've been part of the EM2WL group since it's early days. I can say with a high level of confidence that every effort has been extended to educate individuals and to explain that EATING MORE TO WEIGH LESS does not mean eating with abandon nor does it mean it is the same for everyone. It means eating more than BMR, but less than TDEE. period. Everyone has a different TDEE based on various factors. If your TDEE is 1700 and you know that is your number then YES ... Your deficit # is going to be less than 1700. never has it been a blanket statement that eating over 2000 is the norm or the standard.

If anyone is arbitrarily telling anyone to EAT MORE without drilling down to the data ..then yes, that is not accurate information. it is vitally important to educate yourself and to know your body. That takes time. once you do ..then proceed accordingly. We are all responsible for us.

By the same token, I personally despise blanket statements in regard to shorter, older women. Every woman isn't the same. I will also challenge that with consistency, persistence, desire, effort and patience ....TDEE can be increased. I'm 50. 5'4. I have a replaced knee and another knee that is challenging me. My average TDEE is 2200. My TDEE ranges from 1900-2600 depending on activity. I don't think I'm an excessively active individual. I am, however, consistent and persistent. I've built UP my TDEE, over time, by strength training and eating well. I've gone from a size 18 to an 8 by consistently not eating under 1700 and by strength training for 45 minutes 3 x week. Walking or some biking on other days. My goal is to maintain that 2200 TDEE for as long as I possibly can. THAT is what works for me. I spent time getting there.

In summary: yes. It's a relative term. If you KNOW your data and are following the course of action in terms of eating and moving that you feel is appropriate for YOU ...then YES! own it.

EM2WL has NEVER ever been " one size fits all". After all, we are all different. In actuality, EM2WL is about educating individuals that " one size fits all" DOES NOT fit all. That philosophy is very commonly seen in the eat less, move more and the less you eat the better it will be mainstream diet industry and THAT is what EM2WL is striving to combat.

You know your body ...so girlfriend ! ROCK IT OUT

conniedj

^^^What she said^^^^ !!!!

tigerblue

HarlnJEN--

Probably much of my frustration comes from the uninformed jumping in and telling others what to do(and that does happen!). Not so much the original ideas of this group and the people putting them in place. No online group can control members` comments. So I am sorry if I sounded defensive towards the group`s original principles.

As I said, this group`s ideas have been helpful to me in many ways. It is also encouraging to hear that you have improved your TDEE, harlanJen. Hopefully mine will improve with improved muscle mass, although it sounds like the gains are small for most of us.

My guess is that part of the reason that your TDEE is higher is because of a greater overall weight (because again of more muscle mass). Again, a great goal for me.

Another question--originally, wasn`t Eat More To Lose also a plan to increase the amount of food eaten without necessarily increasing calories? By making healthy food choices. Because we all know that you can eat a pile of healthy food and stay under a calorie goal, but if you eat junk, you use up your calories fast! It seems like I remember reading about this in my pre-MFP days. (which would have been before 2010).

tigerblue

I would also point out that there do seem to be at least a few others who are struggling with this, as indicated by some of the early responses. Some support for them for eating at 1500 a day instead of 1000, or 800 (you get my point) is a good thing.

Most of us come to the group hoping we are really going to get to eat a WHOLE LOT. It is disappointing to find out that "more" for you means under 2000. And then we are so confused when we read posts saying "i eat 2400 a day and lose, etc"" and others saying "you will starve yourself on ????? a day". So this is not an easy subject.

My thinking got totally fogged up by this. I had it in my mind that I should be able to eat 2200-2400. But according to Fat2Fit, (I use that as a reference for this post because it is easily accessible on my phone, not because I think it is best), if I ate 2177 cals a day, I would be maintaining my STARTING WEIGHT from when I began MFP (and that is over 30 lbs heavier than I am now). But when you keep reading people saying the contrary, it makes you doubt your own facts!

perky12415

HarlnJEN--

Probably much of my frustration comes from the uninformed jumping in and telling others what to do(and that does happen!). Not so much the original ideas of this group and the people putting them in place. No online group can control members` comments. So I am sorry if I sounded defensive towards the group`s original principles.

As I said, this group`s ideas have been helpful to me in many ways. It is also encouraging to hear that you have improved your TDEE, harlanJen. Hopefully mine will improve with improved muscle mass, although it sounds like the gains are small for most of us.

My guess is that part of the reason that your TDEE is higher is because of a greater overall weight (because again of more muscle mass). Again, a great goal for me.

Another question--originally, wasn`t Eat More To Lose also a plan to increase the amount of food eaten without necessarily increasing calories? By making healthy food choices. Because we all know that you can eat a pile of healthy food and stay under a calorie goal, but if you eat junk, you use up your calories fast! It seems like I remember reading about this in my pre-MFP days. (which would have been before 2010).

Eat to Live has that philosophy. It started with a book by Dr. Fuhrman.

jaeone

Eating more to weigh less is eating at a small caloric deficit to lose weight.

"Upon starting this process, some dive in w/little to no knowledge, and some take it slow. What I've found over time, is that those who take the time to properly educate themselves and prepare for the mental aspect, have much greater success. Often those that dive in, thinking that they'll up their cals and fit into that bikini by next Friday have a rude awakening. We see the success stories of those that up their cals, but we don't see the mental transition that had to take place before/during the process."

This is a quote from the the link below which are stickies placed at the beginning of the post section. If read, it's really pretty plain.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/521728-upping-cals-what-to-expect-why-you-need-patience

tigerblue

Eating more to weigh less is eating at a small caloric deficit to lose weight.

"Upon starting this process, some dive in w/little to no knowledge, and some take it slow. What I've found over time, is that those who take the time to properly educate themselves and prepare for the mental aspect, have much greater success. Often those that dive in, thinking that they'll up their cals and fit into that bikini by next Friday have a rude awakening. We see the success stories of those that up their cals, but we don't see the mental transition that had to take place before/during the process."

This is a quote from the the link below which are stickies placed at the beginning of the post section. If read, it's really pretty plain.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/521728-upping-cals-what-to-expect-why-you-need-patience

Continuing to quote:

"You have to become completely convinced that super low cals, excessive cal burns through exercise , and eating under your BMR are no longer an option."

Here is where this breaks down. By eating 1400 cals, which is approximately a 300 calorie deficit, I am not eating excessively low numbers (I believe that is considered to be under 1200 or even lower), exercising excessively ( I burn 150-300 cals about 5 or 6 days a week), and I am not eating under my BMR ( using my estimated bodyfat percentage mine calculates at about 1155-1240). But so many times the automatic response to someone saying they eat 1300 or 1400 cals is, "there is no way you should be eating that low". But again, most people are not accustomed to dealing with smaller bodies. We just can't eat as much! And numbers that sound low for others are normal for us.

Maybe the problem is that people assume that on a weight loss forum, everyone posting must be very overweight. This is not true. Even after losing my weight, I still strive to improve my fitness using this site. I am within a healthy weight range and just trying to get rid of the belly fat/ muffin top.

But again, my point is, let's make sure we encourage smaller women who need smaller numbers and not set them up for failure in either direction. I see a need for this. I read too many posts from women who are frustrated. Maybe they are stalled because they are undereating. But maybe they are stalled because of eating too much!

conniedj

It really comes down to mindset. You have to know what you are doing, and understanding the why behind the TDEE minus whatever % defecit. You have to be willing to commit to a change in thinking that incorporates what is correct for you and tweak the formula when you change up your workout/daily life routines. It is absolutely based on individual stats--and this has been stated.

And it is a process that--depending on the individual--can take months to years for a single body to level out on a metabolic scale to be able to then lose numbers on the number scale.

If you came in with the thinking that you could just eat an arbitrary set number, then that would have been your first mistake. It would be the same as assuming 1200 calories a day is what will work. Same to the other women who posted. There is no magic number--you have to do the work both on the spreadsheet AND at the gym. There are those of us who have a TDEE well above 2400. That is based on all of the stats in Heybales spreadsheet. You can't apply my stats to your body! I have about 125 lbs of LBM....which is more than you currently weigh. That is going to require more food.

Of course "eat more" is a relative term.....it's not a diet! And not a quick fix.

tigerblue

It really comes down to mindset. You have to know what you are doing, and understanding the why behind the TDEE minus whatever % defecit. You have to be willing to commit to a change in thinking that incorporates what is correct for you and tweak the formula when you change up your workout/daily life routines. It is absolutely based on individual stats--and this has been stated.

And it is a process that--depending on the individual--can take months to years for a single body to level out on a metabolic scale to be able to then lose numbers on the number scale.

If you came in with the thinking that you could just eat an arbitrary set number, then that would have been your first mistake. It would be the same as assuming 1200 calories a day is what will work. Same to the other women who posted. There is no magic number--you have to do the work both on the spreadsheet AND at the gym. There are those of us who have a TDEE well above 2400. That is based on all of the stats in Heybales spreadsheet. You can't apply my stats to your body! I have about 125 lbs of LBM....which is more than you currently weigh. That is going to require more food.

Of course "eat more" is a relative term.....it's not a diet! And not a quick fix.

Yes I agree totally.

Clarification--I am not looking for reinforcement of my choices or numbers. I have done the research, and put in the time (1 year of weight loss, 1 year of maintenance, and 2 years of searching for the right numbers after dipping a bit too low, and then going too high). I feel very confident in what I have learned and discovered, and it is working for me.

I just want to get the word out that Eat More is for Everyone, but it is relative! I just think the support needs to be there for the small gals too. That is what I am trying to advocate for. There is a real need for this. Look in the groups for short women. So many are struggling to find their numbers. And the ""pat"" answer given when people see any number under 1500 as a goal is "you must eat more".

Instead, why not encourage those petite gals when they are trying to eat at 1300-1400 cals, which is probably reasonable for them instead of telling them to eat more, which wont necessarily work. The temptation for them (us) is to end up eating below 1000. ( I headed down that road for a few months). So in essence when petite middle aged women are eating 1300-1400 to lose, they ARE eating more. I am just pleading for some reinforcement for small gals here.

geekyjock76

It is important to note that TDEE calculations are meant to reflect maintenance intake in persons who naturally maintain a certain weight in the absence of a diet history. Although TDEE can still be off in persons who have never restricted, prior restriction with weight loss will cause a decline in energy expenditure resulting in them having a lower TDEE than someone who naturally maintained that identical weight throughout life.

I think a lot of confusion and anxiety could be removed if dieters, prior to making adjustments to dietary and exercise habits, accurately weighed and accounted for all food intake when they were maintaining their heaviest weight. The majority of people are completely unaware of their actual TDEE prior to their first time losing weight. Even if they estimate, they tend to greatly underestimate food intake and TDEE in self-reported vs measurable doubly labeled water tests. And no offense to women, but the same studies reveal that they are more off in their estimates.

conniedj

I am 5'5, 46. I am only 2.5 inches taller. Yet my TDEE is over 2600. The numbers if not applied correctly are arbitrary. Size doesn't matter. Eating above BMR does. That, my friend, is relative!

Your original post was a bit negative. And you've taken some heat for that....You've also done an admirable job explaining your stance. We get you. Feel the love.

This forum is here because Lucia and KiKi have worked their butts off to bring it (combined with Heybales spreadsheet). We are here to support each other....the only thing you must do to get that support is ask for it!

CanGirl40

This is an interesting conversation and I think, for the most part, quite civil. I am by no means advocating a VLCD...in my old "dieting" days I would aim for no more than 1200 cals a day during the week and then, of course, I would completely binge on the weekends. EM2WL saved me from that mentality - I now shoot for about 1700 on weekdays, and I definitely eat more on weekends but I very rarely "binge" anymore. I am always so envious of more "muscular" women because my frame is still quite "skinny" despite finally this past year working on gaining some muscle...I swear I will *never* have calves...LOL We are all built so differently, aren't we?

tigerblue

This is an interesting conversation and I think, for the most part, quite civil. I am by no means advocating a VLCD...in my old "dieting" days I would aim for no more than 1200 cals a day during the week and then, of course, I would completely binge on the weekends. EM2WL saved me from that mentality - I now shoot for about 1700 on weekdays, and I definitely eat more on weekends but I very rarely "binge" anymore. I am always so envious of more "muscular" women because my frame is still quite "skinny" despite finally this past year working on gaining some muscle...I swear I will *never* have calves...LOL We are all built so differently, aren't we?

I have the same calf problem! There have got to be some calf enlarging workouts out there!

But I take your point. Being muscular would definitely raise TDEE! I too am envious. And I am sorry I neglected fitness when it was easy for me. Basically as a young adult all I had to do was be sensible to maintain 15 lbs less than I am now. So I neglected exercise. Why bother, right. Paying for it now. And it is so much harder to make improvements now. Not giving up though.

tigerblue

I am 5'5, 46. I am only 2.5 inches taller. Yet my TDEE is over 2600. The numbers if not applied correctly are arbitrary. Size doesn't matter. Eating above BMR does. That, my friend, is relative!

Your original post was a bit negative. And you've taken some heat for that....You've also done an admirable job explaining your stance. We get you. Feel the love.

This forum is here because Lucia and KiKi have worked their butts off to bring it (combined with Heybales spreadsheet). We are here to support each other....the only thing you must do to get that support is ask for it!

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I do appreciate it, but really my point is still that we all should support smaller women in eating lower, unless there is evidence of needing to eat more.

And I would argue that SIZE may not matter, and height matters some, but WEIGHT matters a lot in figuring BMR and TDEE. At 123 lbs, every step I take each day burns fewer calories than steps of a person weighing, say 143lbs.

As you said earlier. You have more lean body mass than I have total body mass, so comparing us is almost like apples and oranges!

Maybe my message would have been better suited to the general forums. Perhaps that is where more of judgemental attitudes are coming from--people who really don't know what they are talking about immediately assuming a number is too low just because it is under 1500, without considering the stats of the person. Perhaps, also, I am smaller (lighter) in relation to the averages than I realize, and people just don't have as much experience dealing with people my size. After looking at the stats of many people who criticize low numbers, (I have been trying to pay attention to that), I really don't see many as short or light. I forget that just as I have to weigh less to be the same size as a taller girl, taller girls also have to weigh more to be my size. (I know that seems silly, but seriously when I think of healthy weight I tend to put it close to my own weight. But a tall girl would be just plain skinny at my weight. ).

Again thanks to all in this group who challenged me to search and question. I hope this thread will help others to do the same, as well as alleviating some of the frustration of small gals who can't eat as much.

tigerblue

I am 5'5, 46. I am only 2.5 inches taller. Yet my TDEE is over 2600. The numbers if not applied correctly are arbitrary. Size doesn't matter. Eating above BMR does. That, my friend, is relative!

Your original post was a bit negative. And you've taken some heat for that....You've also done an admirable job explaining your stance. We get you. Feel the love.

This forum is here because Lucia and KiKi have worked their butts off to bring it (combined with Heybales spreadsheet). We are here to support each other....the only thing you must do to get that support is ask for it!

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I do appreciate it, but really my point is still that we all should support smaller women in eating lower if eating higher is not working for them, instead of telling them they are not eating enough.

And I would argue that SIZE may not matter, and height matters some, but WEIGHT matters a lot in figuring BMR and TDEE. At 123 lbs, every step I take each day burns fewer calories than steps of a person weighing, say 143lbs.

As you said earlier. You have more lean body mass than I have total body mass, so comparing us is almost like apples and oranges!

Maybe my message would have been better suited to the general forums. Perhaps that is where more of judgemental attitudes are coming from--people who really don't know what they are talking about immediately assuming a number is too low just because it is under 1500, without considering the stats of the person. Perhaps, also, I am smaller (lighter) in relation to the averages than I realize, and people just don't have as much experience dealing with people my size. After looking at the stats of many people who criticize low numbers, (I have been trying to pay attention to that), I really don't see many as short or light. I forget that just as I have to weigh less to be the same size as a taller girl, taller girls also have to weigh more to be my size. (I know that seems silly, but seriously when I think of healthy weight I tend to put it close to my own weight. But a tall girl would be just plain skinny at my weight. ).

Again thanks to all in this group who challenged me to search and question. I hope this thread will help others to do the same, as well as alleviating some of the frustration of small gals who can't eat as much.

conniedj

I will happily forgo the portion of my calves that refuses to be zipped into a boot to you girls! I have some extra thigh girth as well....any takers???:happy:

And @ tigerblue--the main forums are chock-full-o-peeps that will give blind advice not applicable to you, or most of us. And bad advice to boot! What we should support is women of all sizes doing the homework to figure out what they should be eating according to their daily activity--and throwing assumptions of 1200 & 2400 out of the window. And in this group--this is exactly what we do.

Taking inspiration from people that work hard, and beyond limitations? I will take that any day!