So, if it's calories in vs. calories out...

princessperfness

(which it is)

Then how is it that after some people plateau, they add calories and lose weight? Sounds like a basic question but I see and hear about people doing it all the time but the physics of it are never discussed. Thanks!

dieselbyte

Calories in vs calories out is about energy balance. The general understanding is eat less than you burn to induce weight loss, but this is often an over-generalization. While voluntary physical activity and caloric consumption is one method to control weight, the body also auto-regulates metabolism through different methods (basically, our bodies are smarter than we think).

What usually happens is an individual isn't consuming enough calories to maintain weight loss. When in a caloric deficit, especially an agressive one for a long period of time, our bodies will fight to conserve energy through numerous metabolic changes. Our bodies can slow down thyroid function in order to decrease metabolism, thereby decreasing energy output. Changes in the energy regulation hormones leptin and ghrelin are also methods the body uses to maintain energy balance. These hormones also effect neurotransmitters. You will "feel" more tired, and won't want to move as much, thereby conserving energy as well. In a prolonged caloric deficit, testosterone production can also be decreased. Muscle requires more energy, so the inability to build, or even maintain muscle mass will lead to lower energy output by the body.

By eating more and increasing calories, hormone and testosterone levels are positively affected. Energy levels increase, thereby allowing for more movement (walking more, training longer and more intensely etc). At this point, an individual is consuming enough calories to continue weight loss or break a plateau. That's why it is recommended to incorporate refeed days during a cutting phase in order to combat the natural tendency of the body.

Weight loss isn't a sprint. Cutting calories to aggressively, while it may help in the short run, can have adverse effects in the long run. Slow and steady usually wins the race...

rose313

I was wondering the same thing! I read the above, I'm trying to understand it.

Okay, so if you eat 1200 cals for a long time, and then you up it a few hundred, some people break their plateau instantly, like that very same week. Is this true also for light exercisers and mostly sedentary people? Or do these people exercise a lot anyway and just burn more during that process because they have more energy? Wouldn't that also be creating the same deficit since they are burning more?

I am not very quick to understand some things so I have a lot of questions and I am sorry if I sound a little uneducated lol!

dieselbyte

Apologies, but I'm not really sure what you are asking, so hopefully I answer your question.

I conform to the belief that everyone is unique but not special - the law of thermodynamics trumps all. With that being said, people respond to stimulus in different ways. If increasing calories allows an active person to train longer, more intensely and be more active, this can create the energy (caloric) deficit required to continue to lose weight.

A sedentary person won't magically train for 2 hours just by increasing calories. However, if the increase in calories allows for hormonal changes, causing a slight increase in BMR coupled with the motivation to move more, the required deficit to break a plateau is possible.

Again, even though the body may seek to maintain energy balance, at the end of the day it still is about calories in vs out - just not as simplistic as some make it seem. AND not as complicated as I may have regretfully made it seem :laugh:

thavoice

Sometimes it comes down to a person not adjusting their intake calories to their weight loss. I am already about 300 calories diff than when I started so if I hadnt been changing that along the way the weight loss would stall

SezxyStef

Calories in vs calories out is about energy balance. The general understanding is eat less than you burn to induce weight loss, but this is often an over-generalization. While voluntary physical activity and caloric consumption is one method to control weight, the body also auto-regulates metabolism through different methods (basically, our bodies are smarter than we think).

What usually happens is an individual isn't consuming enough calories to maintain weight loss. When in a caloric deficit, especially an agressive one for a long period of time, our bodies will fight to conserve energy through numerous metabolic changes. Our bodies can slow down thyroid function in order to decrease metabolism, thereby decreasing energy output. Changes in the energy regulation hormones leptin and ghrelin are also methods the body uses to maintain energy balance. These hormones also effect neurotransmitters. You will "feel" more tired, and won't want to move as much, thereby conserving energy as well. In a prolonged caloric deficit, testosterone production can also be decreased. Muscle requires more energy, so the inability to build, or even maintain muscle mass will lead to lower energy output by the body.

By eating more and increasing calories, hormone and testosterone levels are positively affected. Energy levels increase, thereby allowing for more movement (walking more, training longer and more intensely etc). At this point, an individual is consuming enough calories to continue weight loss or break a plateau. That's why it is recommended to incorporate refeed days during a cutting phase in order to combat the natural tendency of the body.

Weight loss isn't a sprint. Cutting calories to aggressively, while it may help in the short run, can have adverse effects in the long run. Slow and steady usually wins the race...

I agree with this...in some of the cases...

I often see these posts I am only eating 1000-1200 calories and have plateaued...recommendations is eat more to lose weight...

OP does that...bam gains weights...why because they aren't weighing their food and eating more than they think...

I have always thought tho that those who up calories and don't weigh at some point unintentially of course are more careful with their portions as they are 'afraid" they will gain...thereby actually eating in goal due to being more careful with their estimates...now mind you that doesn't last.

As well stressing over very low calories reeks havoc with your cortisol levels...bam water retention..you up your calories you are less stressed over food choices...weight goes down even tho it's all water..

Or those who are stressing their bodies with lots of exercise and not enough fuel...again cortisol and water retention.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html#more-9313

brower47

An alternate theory. If you're eating at too low of a deficit, you're tired and less likely to move. Maybe you sit down and watch more TV instead of cleaning up. Maybe you choose to take the elevator instead of the stairs because you're too tired. Maybe you just move less because you're body is out of energy and you feel run down. Maybe eating a few hundred more calories gives you not only very real energy to move more but it has also given you the mental energy to put more effort into your workouts. And because of that, you actually go into more of a deficit. Sometimes the mental aspect of eating a little more actually spurs you to move a lot more.

Maybe...

(not based on any kind of science, just a hypothesis off the top of my head and, even if it has a possibility of being true, is likely only applicable to a rare few)

jstout365

In addition to the link that Stef provided above:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html

Fiercely_Me

Apologies, but I'm not really sure what you are asking, so hopefully I answer your question.

I conform to the belief that everyone is unique but not special - the law of thermodynamics trumps all. With that being said, people respond to stimulus in different ways. If increasing calories allows an active person to train longer, more intensely and be more active, this can create the energy (caloric) deficit required to continue to lose weight.

A sedentary person won't magically train for 2 hours just by increasing calories. However, if the increase in calories allows for hormonal changes, causing a slight increase in BMR coupled with the motivation to move more, the required deficit to break a plateau is possible.

Again, even though the body may seek to maintain energy balance, at the end of the day it still is about calories in vs out - just not as simplistic as some make it seem. AND not as complicated as I may have regretfully made it seem :laugh:

I think you did an excellent job explaining it.

thavoice

An alternate theory. If you're eating at too low of a deficit, you're tired and less likely to move. Maybe you sit down and watch more TV instead of cleaning up. Maybe you choose to take the elevator instead of the stairs because you're too tired. Maybe you just move less because you're body is out of energy and you feel run down. Maybe eating a few hundred more calories gives you not only very real energy to move more but it has also given you the mental energy to put more effort into your workouts. And because of that, you actually go into more of a deficit. Sometimes the mental aspect of eating a little more actually spurs you to move a lot more.

Maybe...

(not based on any kind of science, just a hypothesis off the top of my head and, even if it has a possibility of being true, is likely only applicable to a rare few)

Def a real possibility and I have experienced that first hand.

dieselbyte

Calories in vs calories out is about energy balance. The general understanding is eat less than you burn to induce weight loss, but this is often an over-generalization. While voluntary physical activity and caloric consumption is one method to control weight, the body also auto-regulates metabolism through different methods (basically, our bodies are smarter than we think).

What usually happens is an individual isn't consuming enough calories to maintain weight loss. When in a caloric deficit, especially an agressive one for a long period of time, our bodies will fight to conserve energy through numerous metabolic changes. Our bodies can slow down thyroid function in order to decrease metabolism, thereby decreasing energy output. Changes in the energy regulation hormones leptin and ghrelin are also methods the body uses to maintain energy balance. These hormones also effect neurotransmitters. You will "feel" more tired, and won't want to move as much, thereby conserving energy as well. In a prolonged caloric deficit, testosterone production can also be decreased. Muscle requires more energy, so the inability to build, or even maintain muscle mass will lead to lower energy output by the body.

By eating more and increasing calories, hormone and testosterone levels are positively affected. Energy levels increase, thereby allowing for more movement (walking more, training longer and more intensely etc). At this point, an individual is consuming enough calories to continue weight loss or break a plateau. That's why it is recommended to incorporate refeed days during a cutting phase in order to combat the natural tendency of the body.

Weight loss isn't a sprint. Cutting calories to aggressively, while it may help in the short run, can have adverse effects in the long run. Slow and steady usually wins the race...

I agree with this...in some of the cases...

I often see these posts I am only eating 1000-1200 calories and have plateaued...recommendations is eat more to lose weight...

OP does that...bam gains weights...why because they aren't weighing their food and eating more than they think...

I have always thought tho that those who up calories and don't weigh at some point unintentially of course are more careful with their portions as they are 'afraid" they will gain...thereby actually eating in goal due to being more careful with their estimates...now mind you that doesn't last.

As well stressing over very low calories reeks havoc with your cortisol levels...bam water retention..you up your calories you are less stressed over food choices...weight goes down even tho it's all water..

Or those who are stressing their bodies with lots of exercise and not enough fuel...again cortisol and water retention.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html#more-9313

I see the argument for this as well, and definitely do not claim to be an expert. However, I do question Lyle McDonald's stance on the matter. To me, it seems he is trying to do everything to attack Layne Norton's view of metabolic damage (especially since it is known that he isn't fond of Layne. I think he hates him actually lol). Is he reaching just a tad too much? I don't know...

I do agree that not accurately logging food and cheating doesn't help the matter any. I also agree that stress plays an important role. And as Lyle pointed out, decrease in weight will lead to a decrease in metabolic rate. More importantly, an agressive cut in calories vs a slow cut has a much greater potential to lead to stalls and metabolic/hormonal issues. I just feel water retention masking fat loss isn't the only answer, especially in trained female athletes prepping for a contest as Lyle seems to firmly believe.

dieselbyte

An alternate theory. If you're eating at too low of a deficit, you're tired and less likely to move. Maybe you sit down and watch more TV instead of cleaning up. Maybe you choose to take the elevator instead of the stairs because you're too tired. Maybe you just move less because you're body is out of energy and you feel run down. Maybe eating a few hundred more calories gives you not only very real energy to move more but it has also given you the mental energy to put more effort into your workouts. And because of that, you actually go into more of a deficit. Sometimes the mental aspect of eating a little more actually spurs you to move a lot more.

Maybe...

(not based on any kind of science, just a hypothesis off the top of my head and, even if it has a possibility of being true, is likely only applicable to a rare few)

Not an alternate theory at all. I believe its all part of the same hypothesis. If you just don't have the energy - whether its due to hormones and other biological factors that causing lack of energy and mental motivation (does the watch tell time vs how is the watch made in order to tell time), or your body is fighting back, its all about energy in vs out. The biggest outright controllable factor in metabolism is movement and activity. I know first hand that when I increased my calories, my training sessions became more intense, my cardio sessions lasted longer, and I shed more weight. Before that, I just didn't have the energy or motivation to go as hard.

J72FIT

Then how is it that after some people plateau, they add calories and lose weight?

IMO, as you progress your needs change. Maybe you put on some muscle, maybe you dropped some weight or maybe your activity level has increased to the point where the calories you were eating before are just not enough. It still is all about energy balance. It's just that the in and the out are never static numbers...

stealthq

An alternate theory. If you're eating at too low of a deficit, you're tired and less likely to move. Maybe you sit down and watch more TV instead of cleaning up. Maybe you choose to take the elevator instead of the stairs because you're too tired. Maybe you just move less because you're body is out of energy and you feel run down. Maybe eating a few hundred more calories gives you not only very real energy to move more but it has also given you the mental energy to put more effort into your workouts. And because of that, you actually go into more of a deficit. Sometimes the mental aspect of eating a little more actually spurs you to move a lot more.

Maybe...

(not based on any kind of science, just a hypothesis off the top of my head and, even if it has a possibility of being true, is likely only applicable to a rare few)

Not an alternate theory at all. I believe its all part of the same hypothesis. If you just don't have the energy - whether its due to hormones and other biological factors that causing lack of energy and mental motivation (does the watch tell time vs how is the watch made in order to tell time), or your body is fighting back, its all about energy in vs out. The biggest outright controllable factor in metabolism is movement and activity. I know first hand that when I increased my calories, my training sessions became more intense, my cardio sessions lasted longer, and I shed more weight. Before that, I just didn't have the energy or motivation to go as hard.

And it isn't just 'formal' exercise. It's fidgeting while your sitting at your desk, pacing or shifting weight rather than standing still. It's the extra 'bounce' in your step, all of that plays into it.

I've noticed a big change since I've started to try to bulk. I'm bopping around all over the place, it's like the only time I'm tired is right after lifting, LOL.

JoRocka

An alternate theory. If you're eating at too low of a deficit, you're tired and less likely to move. Maybe you sit down and watch more TV instead of cleaning up. Maybe you choose to take the elevator instead of the stairs because you're too tired. Maybe you just move less because you're body is out of energy and you feel run down. Maybe eating a few hundred more calories gives you not only very real energy to move more but it has also given you the mental energy to put more effort into your workouts. And because of that, you actually go into more of a deficit. Sometimes the mental aspect of eating a little more actually spurs you to move a lot more.

Maybe...

(not based on any kind of science, just a hypothesis off the top of my head and, even if it has a possibility of being true, is likely only applicable to a rare few)

Not an alternate theory at all. I believe its all part of the same hypothesis. If you just don't have the energy - whether its due to hormones and other biological factors that causing lack of energy and mental motivation (does the watch tell time vs how is the watch made in order to tell time), or your body is fighting back, its all about energy in vs out. The biggest outright controllable factor in metabolism is movement and activity. I know first hand that when I increased my calories, my training sessions became more intense, my cardio sessions lasted longer, and I shed more weight. Before that, I just didn't have the energy or motivation to go as hard.

And it isn't just 'formal' exercise. It's fidgeting while your sitting at your desk, pacing or shifting weight rather than standing still. It's the extra 'bounce' in your step, all of that plays into it.

I've noticed a big change since I've started to try to bulk. I'm bopping around all over the place, it's like the only time I'm tired is right after lifting, LOL.

Look up NEAT effect- it plays a big roll in why people aren't as successful as they would like when they first start bulking.

Showcase_Brodown

Then how is it that after some people plateau, they add calories and lose weight? Sounds like a basic question but I see and hear about people doing it all the time but the physics of it are never discussed. Thanks!

It's always calories in vs calories out that determine how much energy is contained in your body, but there are a few things to keep in mind:

1. Your total body weight includes water, which is independent of your energy balance. Water weight fluctuates around, seemingly without any rhyme or reason.

2. The calories out part of the equation is highly variable. You'll burn a somewhat constant amount 24/7 based on your weight or lean mass (think BMR or RMR). The rest depends on how much activity you have whether that's exercise or even just constant fidgeting. In some cases your body can down-regulate or up-regulate metabolic rate (like during a severe and prolonged deficit), but that is insignificant compared to what is due to just losing weight (less body to maintain).

3. Calories in is easier to estimate than calories out, but there is still a margin of error.

My guess is that, in many of these cases where someone broke their plateau by eating more, it was due to manipulation in water weight. hard to say. There are a lot of confounding variables.

brower47

An alternate theory. If you're eating at too low of a deficit, you're tired and less likely to move. Maybe you sit down and watch more TV instead of cleaning up. Maybe you choose to take the elevator instead of the stairs because you're too tired. Maybe you just move less because you're body is out of energy and you feel run down. Maybe eating a few hundred more calories gives you not only very real energy to move more but it has also given you the mental energy to put more effort into your workouts. And because of that, you actually go into more of a deficit. Sometimes the mental aspect of eating a little more actually spurs you to move a lot more.

Maybe...

(not based on any kind of science, just a hypothesis off the top of my head and, even if it has a possibility of being true, is likely only applicable to a rare few)

Not an alternate theory at all. I believe its all part of the same hypothesis. If you just don't have the energy - whether its due to hormones and other biological factors that causing lack of energy and mental motivation (does the watch tell time vs how is the watch made in order to tell time), or your body is fighting back, its all about energy in vs out. The biggest outright controllable factor in metabolism is movement and activity. I know first hand that when I increased my calories, my training sessions became more intense, my cardio sessions lasted longer, and I shed more weight. Before that, I just didn't have the energy or motivation to go as hard.

And it isn't just 'formal' exercise. It's fidgeting while your sitting at your desk, pacing or shifting weight rather than standing still. It's the extra 'bounce' in your step, all of that plays into it.

I've noticed a big change since I've started to try to bulk. I'm bopping around all over the place, it's like the only time I'm tired is right after lifting, LOL.

Look up NEAT effect- it plays a big roll in why people aren't as successful as they would like when they first start bulking.

Thanks for pointing this out. What a fascinating theory. :drinker:

dieselbyte

Then how is it that after some people plateau, they add calories and lose weight? Sounds like a basic question but I see and hear about people doing it all the time but the physics of it are never discussed. Thanks!

It's always calories in vs calories out that determine how much energy is contained in your body, but there are a few things to keep in mind:

1. Your total body weight includes water, which is independent of your energy balance. Water weight fluctuates around, seemingly without any rhyme or reason.

2. The calories out part of the equation is highly variable. You'll burn a somewhat constant amount 24/7 based on your weight or lean mass (think BMR or RMR). The rest depends on how much activity you have whether that's exercise or even just constant fidgeting. In some cases your body can down-regulate or up-regulate metabolic rate (like during a severe and prolonged deficit), but that is insignificant compared to what is due to just losing weight (less body to maintain).

3. Calories in is easier to estimate than calories out, but there is still a margin of error.

My guess is that, in many of these cases where someone broke their plateau by eating more, it was due to manipulation in water weight. hard to say. There are a lot of confounding variables.

I agree that water weight is a variable, but I don't believe that it really is the main variable in the majority of cases. Reason being, it doesn't work the other way around. Think about a hard gainer. They swear they are eating "tons" of food, but can't gain weight. While some definitely aren't tracking and are eating less than they think, the main culprit is increase in NEAT (and exercise expenditure, to a degree). A hard gainer basically needs to "eat more", because they are burning off any appreciable surplus.

And again, a difference needs to be made between an individual on a slow deficit vs ones who cut aggressively right away.

rose313

Apologies, but I'm not really sure what you are asking, so hopefully I answer your question.

I conform to the belief that everyone is unique but not special - the law of thermodynamics trumps all. With that being said, people respond to stimulus in different ways. If increasing calories allows an active person to train longer, more intensely and be more active, this can create the energy (caloric) deficit required to continue to lose weight.

A sedentary person won't magically train for 2 hours just by increasing calories. However, if the increase in calories allows for hormonal changes, causing a slight increase in BMR coupled with the motivation to move more, the required deficit to break a plateau is possible.

Again, even though the body may seek to maintain energy balance, at the end of the day it still is about calories in vs out - just not as simplistic as some make it seem. AND not as complicated as I may have regretfully made it seem :laugh:

I see! Does this happen immediately, does your body start producing more energy as soon as you start eating more? I have heard a lot of people say they were eating 1200 calories, and they were scared to increase, but the very same week that they increased, they started losing weight again.

Say they had, a 700 calorie deficit while eating only 1200. Then, they upped their intake to 1400, creating only a 500 calorie deficit. Does the extra energy they have from eating more food burn calories, making their deficit the same as before, but now the body is losing the weight it should be and is no longer in a plateau?