Extra cals not working despite patience= hmmmm!

Siansonea

Ah so many people who don't actually understand the concept of "eat more to lose weight" :noway:

So, the OP needs to eat even MORE calories, is that is? Gee, you'd think every morbidly obese person would be a skinny as a rail, with all the calories they eat.

Just because someone is morbidly obese doesn't mean they have to eat a severely restrictive caloric intake to lose weight....

Well, people don't become morbidly obese by eating 1200 calories a day either. You can't break the laws of thermodynamics. :smokin:

Good lord, is it really that hard.

Read this

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080242-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants

Eat more doesn't mean eating over your maintenance calories - it's about finding a middle ground between stupidly restricting to 1200 when you don't have to.

I'm 5'2 and lose on 1600 a day. I started on 1200 but hated it - so I'm eating more to lose weight.

It's not rocket science - yes of course I can lose on 1200 - but I'll lose muscle and be bloody miserable. Eat more to lose weight is about finding a healthy balance for losing weight that is sustainable for the long term and doesn't screw up your metabolism and cause you to yo-yo diet.

If you don't understand it - then I can't help you.

EDIT - you'll note I told the op to buy and use scales. Tracking correctly first - then work out what works.

I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.

Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.

stumblinthrulife

OH

Plus the op was eating 800 cals a day - so yeah - I think they should eat more

No. OP thinks she was eating this much. But she's not logging.

I think the chances of anyone not losing weight at 800 calories a day are slim to ridiculous.

Siansonea

OH

Plus the op was eating 800 cals a day - so yeah - I think they should eat more

800 calories a day, and not losing weight?

Maybe if she was a toddler.

Yeah, OP wasn't eating 800 calories a day. You need to stop taking declarations like this at face value. :huh:

Boogage

You really need to start measuring properly so that you know what your intake is.

If you were eating at a large deficit for an extended period of time then eating more should help. I was netting 800 for a good few months and have gradually upped my calories to 1350/1400 a day so far and dropped another 5 or so lbs effortlessly. My body now has enough fuel to work better and metabolize the fat.

I would recommend that you invest in some food scales, know that you're netting a good amount of calories and reassess in a few weeks time. Don't go back to netting low as its really not good for your body (I'm still getting told I look anorexic) and you will have lots of energy for workouts if your body isn't stressed by lack of food.

Siansonea

OH

Plus the op was eating 800 cals a day - so yeah - I think they should eat more

No. OP thinks she was eating this much. But she's not logging.

I think the chances of anyone not losing weight at 800 calories a day are slim to ridiculous.

I know, right? No one ever thinks that people are reporting their calorie intake inaccurately, they just go straight to shoving more food at you. I think they just want people to fail. :huh:

aakaakaak

Meaning behind Iron_Feline's definition of "Eat more to weigh less" (EMWL) without all the vitriol:

If you eat more than a highly restrictive diet, I.E. under 1200 calories or more, you will be less likely to lose your adherence. You eat more, while still maintaining a caloric deficit, to weigh less, because its a plan you'll be more capable of sticking to. You're also more likely to get the nutrients your body needs to build muscle properly.

Iron_Feline,
This is not the most common definition for EMWL for many people on this site. Most people see a pre-1200 calorie diet and start screaming ZOMGSTARVASHUNMODEZ! (Really, there are two camps on this, one freaks group freaks out, while the other group tells them to shut their mouths because starvation mode, while not a myth, is an extreme rarity that doesn't fit the definition set by an automatic switch) When someone mentions EMWL people assume the poster is speaking about that definition. Please, there's no reason to get upset that people don't understand your meaning.

stumblinthrulife

Ed, Iron_feline,

I think we're all saying the same thing here, yet somehow still managing to argue.

I agree that it's unhealthy to eat at a ridiculously high deficit. You'll never hear me arguing against that.

But if OP isn't logging, we don't know that that is the case. And if she was previously losing weight, but then stopped losing weight when she ate more, what's the most logical explanation?

Simplest explanation:

Although she was logging 800 calories, she was actually eating somewhere between 800 calories and maintenance - still little enough to lose some weight. She was told to eat more by well meaning friends who took her at her word that she was eating 800 calories, and thought (correctly) it was too little. That extra food then took her beyond her maintenance, and so she stopped losing.

Iron_Feline

OH

Plus the op was eating 800 cals a day - so yeah - I think they should eat more

No. OP thinks she was eating this much. But she's not logging.

I think the chances of anyone not losing weight at 800 calories a day are slim to ridiculous.

I know, right? No one ever thinks that people are reporting their calorie intake inaccurately, they just go straight to shoving more food at you. I think they just want people to fail. :huh:

Which is why we said - BUY A SCALE AND LOG.

you are being deliberately obtuse - so I'm out.

I gave the op good advice,

You said "eat less" despite the op not knowing what she is logging - ironic much :noway:

Inshape13

If your not measuring and weighing and logging everything correctly then I would start there.... If you don't have a handle there then nothing else you do is going to make a difference because you will be just guessing at that point....

I was thinking the same exact thing as mentioned above. It is like guessing at how many calories you burn and overestimating or using a HRM and being exact.

stumblinthrulife

Meaning behind Iron_Feline's definition of "Eat more to weigh less" (EMWL) without all the annoyance:

If you eat more than a highly restrictive diet, I.E. under 1200 calories or more, you will be less likely to lose your adherence. You eat more, while still maintaining a caloric deficit, to weigh less, because its a plan you'll be more capable of sticking to. You're also more likely to get the nutrients your body needs to build muscle properly.

Iron_Feline,
This is not the most common definition for EMWL for many people on this site. Most people see a pre-1200 calorie diet and start screaming ZOMGSTARVASHUNMODEZ! (Really, there are two camps on this, one freaks group freaks out, while the other group tells them to shut their mouths because starvation mode, while not a myth, is an extreme rarity that doesn't fit the definition set by an automatic switch) When someone mentions EMWL people assume the poster is speaking about that definition. Please, there's no reason to get upset that people don't understand your meaning.

Thank you.

I myself subscribe to the school of thought that it's better to be happy on a 500 calorie deficit and lose a pound a week, than be miserable on a 1000 calorie deficit and lose two pounds a week.

But when many people talk about EMWL they talk about 'starvation mode', and claim that somehow you can magically not lose weight on a VLCD. Which is, of course, rot.

In short, we're all in agreement, and I'm not arguing against what you think I am.

Siansonea

OH

Plus the op was eating 800 cals a day - so yeah - I think they should eat more

No. OP thinks she was eating this much. But she's not logging.

I think the chances of anyone not losing weight at 800 calories a day are slim to ridiculous.

I know, right? No one ever thinks that people are reporting their calorie intake inaccurately, they just go straight to shoving more food at you. I think they just want people to fail. :huh:

Which is why we said - BUY A SCALE AND LOG.

you are being deliberately obtuse - so I'm out.

I gave the op good advice,

You said "eat less" despite the op not knowing what she is logging - ironic much :noway:

I don't have to know how much she's eating. If she's not losing weight, she's eating too many calories.

tannabarker

I think the OP is just trying to rile you all up with her blabber.

CyberEd312

OH

Plus the op was eating 800 cals a day - so yeah - I think they should eat more

No. OP thinks she was eating this much. But she's not logging.

I think the chances of anyone not losing weight at 800 calories a day are slim to ridiculous.

I know, right? No one ever thinks that people are reporting their calorie intake inaccurately, they just go straight to shoving more food at you. I think they just want people to fail. :huh:

Which is why we said - BUY A SCALE AND LOG.

you are being deliberately obtuse - so I'm out.

I gave the op good advice,

You said "eat less" despite the op not knowing what she is logging - ironic much :noway:

I don't have to know how much she's eating. If she's not losing weight, she's eating too many calories.

So let me ask this, you don't believe that eating a severe calorie deficit over time, will damage your metabolic function cause weight loss stalls or even sometimes gains? Just curious?

CyberEd312

Meaning behind Iron_Feline's definition of "Eat more to weigh less" (EMWL) without all the annoyance:

If you eat more than a highly restrictive diet, I.E. under 1200 calories or more, you will be less likely to lose your adherence. You eat more, while still maintaining a caloric deficit, to weigh less, because its a plan you'll be more capable of sticking to. You're also more likely to get the nutrients your body needs to build muscle properly.

Iron_Feline,
This is not the most common definition for EMWL for many people on this site. Most people see a pre-1200 calorie diet and start screaming ZOMGSTARVASHUNMODEZ! (Really, there are two camps on this, one freaks group freaks out, while the other group tells them to shut their mouths because starvation mode, while not a myth, is an extreme rarity that doesn't fit the definition set by an automatic switch) When someone mentions EMWL people assume the poster is speaking about that definition. Please, there's no reason to get upset that people don't understand your meaning.

Thank you.

I myself subscribe to the school of thought that it's better to be happy on a 500 calorie deficit and lose a pound a week, than be miserable on a 1000 calorie deficit and lose two pounds a week.

But when many people talk about EMWL they talk about 'starvation mode', and claim that somehow you can magically not lose weight on a VLCD. Which is, of course, rot.

In short, we're all in agreement, and I'm not arguing against what you think I am.

Isn't that the same thing as eat more food to reducing the size of the deficit to make weight loss both successful and sustainable compared to eating a severely restrictive diet... Because that sounds an awful lot like what we are saying in regards to eating more to lose weight....

angelamangus1

My current calorie intake goal is 1800, sometimes (GASP) I eat 2000+ and this past month I have lost 9lbs. I plan my meals, weigh my food, and I track it. I eat more than the 1200, because I am physically active and I need fuel for my body to function at its maximum performance. I strength train 3 days and do cardio 5 days a week. In order to fuel my body for my workouts and my everyday life movements I need to eat. Currently I am 179. Since I weigh more it takes more calories to do everyday things (i.e., walking, sitting, typing, talking, cooking, cleaning, reading...etc).

I think some useful tools for you to look at is to find these 2 things

BMR (Basic Metabolic Rate) - Calories needed to keep your body functioning if you were in bed all day
TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) - Calories you burn while eating, working out, sleeping, talking...etc

Read through this thread I think this will help in understanding the "eat more to lose weight" I have included some articles on this topic as well.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/931670-bmr-and-tdee-explained-for-those-needing-a-guide

http://www.active.com/nutrition/articles/eat-more-to-lose-weight-875082

http://www.menshealth.com/mhlists/lose_fat/

Here are calculators to help you

BMR http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/
TDEE http://iifym.com/tdee-calculator/


YES, you need a deficit to lose weight, this is what I believe everyone agrees on. However, you do not have to restrict yourself to the point of starving (to me this is always being hungry and cranky). If you restrict your diet intake too long your body will make adjustments to the stress you are giving it and will slow down. The goal to eating more is to rev up your metabolism and sustain your body. Eating more will also help in maintaining current muscle mass and loss of fat. DO NOT eat over your maintenance everyday, there needs to be a deficit. (as we all agree on)

If someone is 200+ pounds it is not recommended for them to restrict their diet to 1200 or less calories.

A woman at 200 lbs at a height of 5'6 at 30 years of age has a BMR of 1694. If you are eating below your BMI you are not getting the necessary fuel for your bodies most basic functions. Add in exercise and you are at an extreme deficit.

My BMR is 1581 and my TDEE 2247. I am 36 and 5' 7.5 ( have to add the half since I am shrinking, LOL)

I personally am looking to change my lifestyle, thus I am looking to eat healthier and become more physically fit. Therefore, for me personally heavily restricting my diet would hinder my overall goal, healthier and stronger. I eat to fuel my body. I exercise to strengthen it.

I have done the heavy restrictions before and look at where I am again...

Everyones goals are different, but please do not knock the people who eat more. I do not knock the people who eat less. Please educate yourself before jumping to conclusions!

As for the OP, I would be happy to help you, you can add me as a friend; take a look at my logs and email me if you have questions. You can eat more to lose weight, you just need diligence, accuracy, and honesty.

Cheers! :drinker:

geekyjock76

I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.

Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.

It has more to do with the fact that nearly 90% of women who start their journey on MFP are given a 1200 calorie net intake regardless of their actual starting weight and goals. Statistically speaking, this implies that there is a good portion of the population pursuing deficits larger than needed. When 9/10 women are given a 1200 net intake, it doesn't exactly support the mantra, "Everyone is different."

astartig

'Eat more to lose more' is mostly bunk.

It's based on people trusting you when you say "I'm coming in under my calorie goal" and assuming you must be in "starvation mode".

Think about it. When you see famine images on TV, do those affected look like they aren't losing weight due to being in 'starvation mode'? That's right - starvation mode is bunk.

If you aren't losing weight, you aren't in a calorie deficit, period.

People that talk sense are so rare here.. *thumbs up!*

jofjltncb6

In...

...to watch people argue about the best advice for someone who is guessing her net calorie consumption has been 800.

ETA: Oh, and I love it when people argue against their own understanding of a concept...especially when that understanding is so remarkably misinformed.

ETAM: And I *really* like lectures about how this works from people who are still far from goal...or who are on their Nth round of weight loss and "this time it's for real". I pray that if I ever find myself struggling with something over and over again, that I put aside what I *think* I know and entertain some other viewpoints...and that I don't preach about the righteousness of my early success with certainty that it is sustainable until I have some history to back it up.

Siansonea

OH

Plus the op was eating 800 cals a day - so yeah - I think they should eat more

No. OP thinks she was eating this much. But she's not logging.

I think the chances of anyone not losing weight at 800 calories a day are slim to ridiculous.

I know, right? No one ever thinks that people are reporting their calorie intake inaccurately, they just go straight to shoving more food at you. I think they just want people to fail. :huh:

Which is why we said - BUY A SCALE AND LOG.

you are being deliberately obtuse - so I'm out.

I gave the op good advice,

You said "eat less" despite the op not knowing what she is logging - ironic much :noway:

I don't have to know how much she's eating. If she's not losing weight, she's eating too many calories.

So let me ask this, you don't believe that eating a severe calorie deficit over time, will damage your metabolic function cause weight loss stalls or even sometimes gains? Just curious?

If you can gain weight while eating at a calorie deficit, you're a miracle of modern science. And this "starvation mode" you're talking about is something that happens to people who are LITERALLY STARVING, not slightly overzealous dieters. :huh:

aakaakaak

Meaning behind Iron_Feline's definition of "Eat more to weigh less" (EMWL) without all the annoyance:

If you eat more than a highly restrictive diet, I.E. under 1200 calories or more, you will be less likely to lose your adherence. You eat more, while still maintaining a caloric deficit, to weigh less, because its a plan you'll be more capable of sticking to. You're also more likely to get the nutrients your body needs to build muscle properly.

Iron_Feline,
This is not the most common definition for EMWL for many people on this site. Most people see a pre-1200 calorie diet and start screaming ZOMGSTARVASHUNMODEZ! (Really, there are two camps on this, one freaks group freaks out, while the other group tells them to shut their mouths because starvation mode, while not a myth, is an extreme rarity that doesn't fit the definition set by an automatic switch) When someone mentions EMWL people assume the poster is speaking about that definition. Please, there's no reason to get upset that people don't understand your meaning.

Thank you.

I myself subscribe to the school of thought that it's better to be happy on a 500 calorie deficit and lose a pound a week, than be miserable on a 1000 calorie deficit and lose two pounds a week.

But when many people talk about EMWL they talk about 'starvation mode', and claim that somehow you can magically not lose weight on a VLCD. Which is, of course, rot.

In short, we're all in agreement, and I'm not arguing against what you think I am.

Isn't that the same thing as eat more food to reducing the size of the deficit to make weight loss both successful and sustainable compared to eating a severely restrictive diet... Because that sounds an awful lot like what we are saying in regards to eating more to lose weight....

It's exactly the same thing. That's what I'm saying. You're all arguing over the same answer.