Calories are Confusing

Bmccutcheon85

Hi guys!

Its ok to agree to disagree. All I know is that I upped my calories by 200 and within days I was dropping weight. I can't explain it but the headaches went away my tiredness went away. That was the only thing I changed. Workouts remained the same. Logging food, weighing food. I don't know but its not the first time I have heard that people lose weight by eating more.

SteveyBrule

Hi guys!

Its ok to agree to disagree. All I know is that I upped my calories by 200 and within days I was dropping weight. I can't explain it but the headaches went away my tiredness went away. That was the only thing I changed. Workouts remained the same. Logging food, weighing food. I don't know but its not the first time I have heard that people lose weight by eating more.

I hear you and I'm glad you started seeing progress. If you get a few minutes, check out the Minnesota Starvation Experiments, it's a good look into human biology and metabolism. Keep up the good work!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment

elleloch

I'm sorry but there was something else at play there. If you have a caloric deficit you will lose weight, there's no such thing as "starvation mode" and keeping weight on from not eating enough.

Well, it wasn't working for her. So she ate more, and that worked better. And she's gotten great advice in this thread.

Our bodies are like cars. You can't go 300 miles if you only have enough gas to go 150. Fill up your tank with good food and you'll get to where you need to go.

^^this is thumbs up material

*high five*

I get what you're saying, but that's simply not correct. You can eat 3000 calories of broccoli a day and gain weight, but you'll have plenty of vitamin D. It's thermodynamics, burn more calories than you eat. If you aren't losing weight, eat less calories or work out more.

It's easy to say "hey, it didn't work for me because of some mystical starvation mode where my body didn't want to lose weight", but that is just brushing off accountability.

If your BMR is 3000 calories, you can eat 3000 calories, workout, and lose weight. You're welcome.

SteveyBrule

I'm sorry but there was something else at play there. If you have a caloric deficit you will lose weight, there's no such thing as "starvation mode" and keeping weight on from not eating enough.

Well, it wasn't working for her. So she ate more, and that worked better. And she's gotten great advice in this thread.

Our bodies are like cars. You can't go 300 miles if you only have enough gas to go 150. Fill up your tank with good food and you'll get to where you need to go.

^^this is thumbs up material

*high five*

I get what you're saying, but that's simply not correct. You can eat 3000 calories of broccoli a day and gain weight, but you'll have plenty of vitamin D. It's thermodynamics, burn more calories than you eat. If you aren't losing weight, eat less calories or work out more.

It's easy to say "hey, it didn't work for me because of some mystical starvation mode where my body didn't want to lose weight", but that is just brushing off accountability.

If your BMR is 3000 calories, you can eat 3000 calories, workout, and lose weight. You're welcome.

I'm welcome? I don't think you understand what you're arguing. Feel free to message me if you want to continue discussing, this thread isn't the place for it.

elleloch

I'm sorry but there was something else at play there. If you have a caloric deficit you will lose weight, there's no such thing as "starvation mode" and keeping weight on from not eating enough.

Well, it wasn't working for her. So she ate more, and that worked better. And she's gotten great advice in this thread.

Our bodies are like cars. You can't go 300 miles if you only have enough gas to go 150. Fill up your tank with good food and you'll get to where you need to go.

^^this is thumbs up material

*high five*

I get what you're saying, but that's simply not correct. You can eat 3000 calories of broccoli a day and gain weight, but you'll have plenty of vitamin D. It's thermodynamics, burn more calories than you eat. If you aren't losing weight, eat less calories or work out more.

It's easy to say "hey, it didn't work for me because of some mystical starvation mode where my body didn't want to lose weight", but that is just brushing off accountability.

If your BMR is 3000 calories, you can eat 3000 calories, workout, and lose weight. You're welcome.

I'm welcome? I don't think you understand what you're arguing. Feel free to message me if you want to continue discussing, this thread isn't the place for it.

No thanks, I don't really have time/interest to go around with people in PMs today about calories. Anyone who says a net of 700-800 calories is perfectly fine isn't thinking straight IMO, so I'm glad this girl is getting on track with her food and workouts and finding more success.

maizerage66

Phawry, your point of calories in vs calories out is true and I'm not saying it's not. But there is such thing as starvation mode in a sense. Our bodies are designed to store fat if it senses that it is not getting enough calories. It is true that calories burned must be greater than calories consumed to lose weight. There's no way around it. But if the calorie deficit is too great either by eating too little or exercising too much, then our bodies don't get the fuel it needs and it stores fat and that's why people don't lose weight and feel sick. I respect your argument and I do stress that point as well, because normally someone is not underfed and the reason they aren't losing weight is because they either don't have a caloric deficit or it isn't great enough to make a difference. But to say that eating less and exercising more is always the answer isn't right. Because there may be the rare case of someone being in too great of a caloric deficit to begin with. That's all I'm saying. Cheers

elleloch

Phawry, your point of calories in vs calories out is true and I'm not saying it's not. But there is such thing as starvation mode in a sense. Our bodies are designed to store fat if it senses that it is not getting enough calories. It is true that calories burned must be greater than calories consumed to lose weight. There's no way around it. But if the calorie deficit is too great either by eating too little or exercising too much, then our bodies don't get the fuel it needs and it stores fat and that's why people don't lose weight and feel sick. I respect your argument and I do stress that point as well, because normally someone is not underfed and the reason they aren't losing weight is because they either don't have a caloric deficit or it isn't great enough to make a difference. But to say that eating less and exercising more is always the answer isn't right. Because there may be the rare case of someone being in too great of a caloric deficit to begin with. That's all I'm saying. Cheers

Basically, YES.

sloth3toes

I think I saw the OP slowly backing out of her own thread..... wondering WTF she had started? :huh:



MFP - Eat all the donuts that fit in your macros
MFP - I am a sugar addict, and donuts make me fat

perseverance14

Hi guys!

Its ok to agree to disagree. All I know is that I upped my calories by 200 and within days I was dropping weight. I can't explain it but the headaches went away my tiredness went away. That was the only thing I changed. Workouts remained the same. Logging food, weighing food. I don't know but its not the first time I have heard that people lose weight by eating more.

Google TDEE and you will find calculators, put in your info. including the correct amount of activity you do, take that number and subtract 10-20% to get to a deficit (20% would be more like 2 lbs. per week loss). Eat that number of calories, don't worry about net or gross, just keep doing what you are doing, and eat that number of calories.

SteveyBrule

Phawry, your point of calories in vs calories out is true and I'm not saying it's not. But there is such thing as starvation mode in a sense. Our bodies are designed to store fat if it senses that it is not getting enough calories. It is true that calories burned must be greater than calories consumed to lose weight. There's no way around it. But if the calorie deficit is too great either by eating too little or exercising too much, then our bodies don't get the fuel it needs and it stores fat and that's why people don't lose weight and feel sick. I respect your argument and I do stress that point as well, because normally someone is not underfed and the reason they aren't losing weight is because they either don't have a caloric deficit or it isn't great enough to make a difference. But to say that eating less and exercising more is always the answer isn't right. Because there may be the rare case of someone being in too great of a caloric deficit to begin with. That's all I'm saying. Cheers

I got ya, friend. I appreciate the response. You're absolutely correct in that a caloric deficit too great is a detriment, it's outright unhealthy - the goal is to mitigate what your body uses for fuel (i.e. fat vs muscle). My thing is that people often rely on this starvation mode idea to compensate for sloppy calculations. Based on past studies it's shown that metabolism doesn't show a substantial decrease until further weight loss will literally kill people. Very interesting stuff if you get a chance to read the Minnesota Starvation Experiments.

Either way, best of luck to OP - determination is the key

cwolfman13

I was eating 1200 calories total and working out so netting about 700-800 a day and for 3 months lost maybe 2 pounds. I started netting 1200 just 2 weeks ago and have lost 2 pounds but now, looking at the calculators and all these posts, I'm really not sure what I should be eating a day.

You were netting 1200 for two weeks and lost two pounds...why not just keep doing that? That's a couple Lbs per week and that's groovy...

lemurcat12

Google TDEE and you will find calculators, put in your info. including the correct amount of activity you do, take that number and subtract 10-20% to get to a deficit (20% would be more like 2 lbs. per week loss). Eat that number of calories, don't worry about net or gross, just keep doing what you are doing, and eat that number of calories.

Her TDEE is going to be under 2500, which means that a 20% deficit is going to be less than a lb a week.

I think that's a great way to do this for those who choose to, but she should understand the differences.

deksgrl

The calculators are different because MFP does NOT include exercise in its calculation for what you need. When you DO exercise, you eat more for that (hence the "net" calories). This is so you would lose weight if you didn't do any exercise.

Other calculators do include exercise. And they differ because they use different formulas for calculating your calorie needs.

Abells

I"m not here to comment on what anyone else has said.

I'm just going to give you my stats since we are similar in height and age. I feel you think you are eating too much but don't fret you are not and if you keep losing then def not

I'm 5'3" and 29 years old

I weigh 140 now - I'm eating about 1700-2200 cals on average (and exercising)

Friend me if you'd like

Howdoyoufeeltoday

I'm sorry but there was something else at play there. If you have a caloric deficit you will lose weight, there's no such thing as "starvation mode" and keeping weight on from not eating enough.

Well, it wasn't working for her. So she ate more, and that worked better. And she's gotten great advice in this thread.

Our bodies are like cars. You can't go 300 miles if you only have enough gas to go 150. Fill up your tank with good food and you'll get to where you need to go.

^^this is thumbs up material

*high five*

I get what you're saying, but that's simply not correct. You can eat 3000 calories of broccoli a day and gain weight, but you'll have plenty of vitamin D. It's thermodynamics, burn more calories than you eat. If you aren't losing weight, eat less calories or work out more.

It's easy to say "hey, it didn't work for me because of some mystical starvation mode where my body didn't want to lose weight", but that is just brushing off accountability.

If your BMR is 3000 calories, you can eat 3000 calories, workout, and lose weight. You're welcome.

I'm welcome? I don't think you understand what you're arguing. Feel free to message me if you want to continue discussing, this thread isn't the place for it.

No thanks, I don't really have time/interest to go around with people in PMs today about calories. Anyone who says a net of 700-800 calories is perfectly fine isn't thinking straight IMO, so I'm glad this girl is getting on track with her food and workouts and finding more success.

That isn't what he said at all. He's saying that a person can't simply be eating less then their tdee but not losing weight. If you're not losing weight then you're eating at maintenance and just don't realize it. It's how calories work.

sloth3toes

The calculators are different because MFP does NOT include exercise in its calculation for what you need. When you DO exercise, you eat more for that (hence the "net" calories). This is so you would lose weight if you didn't do any exercise.

Other calculators do include exercise. And they differ because they use different formulas for calculating your calorie needs.

from the link below

There are two basic ways to do this: by using the targets provided by MFP after inputting your information or by calculating your TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) and taking a cut off your TDEE, assuming weight loss is the goal.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets