I thought the "eat more food" people were crazy

gotolam

THis is an extreme case. I do agree that many of us can't really get an accurate logging and overeat but seriously, 3000 vs 1200? isn't this a bit an insult to other's intelligence? If it's the same database we all are using, and similar method, I don't see how some are feeling "more superior" than others when it comes to logging. I am tired of seeing posters judging others “lying to themsevles” as if they themselves were perfect loggers.

ps, I didn't mean to attach you although I directly quoted wha you posted. I just made a general observation. :drinker:

Have you ever seen someone come on here and ask a question like, "How do you guys measure a cup/oz/gram of spaghetti?" "How do you guys measure food that's been fried?" "How do you guys measure if I cook for five people?"

Then sit back and read the responses and tell me that we're all logging the same way. I don't understand the overzealous crowd that screams you should weigh a spoonful of peanut butter instead of marking it as a TBSP of peanut butter...the difference in calories won't make a real overall difference.

But there are plenty of people who'll get a three piece meal at KFC and log it as 1 chicken breast, one thigh, and one drumstick.... and they'd be off by roughly 500 calories.

AnswerzPwease

Stepped on the scale this morning and i'm down another pound.

I cant figure it out but i'll take it.

RHachicho

Dude same kinda thing happened to me. At the very beginning of my diet I was hovering between 1500 - 1800 a day and really struggling to get the lbs to come off. Now I've been on 2000 - 2200 a day and the weight is flying. I'm also improving in strength and fitness at a very reasonable pace. And frankly any attempt to reduce my calories below that mark has usually lead to instant misery. I am glad you have found your "reasonable deficit" level. It can take some fanangling

SLLRunner

I want to be clear before the snark monsters show up.

I am NOT saying that eating more led to the weight loss.

I'm saying that when I started eating more, I started losing more. It could be coincidence. I'm simply saying that I'm adding it back to my list of possibilities.

Well, it seems to me proper body fueling leads to body efficiency, which probably means more pep in your workouts and everyday movement.

My UP24 and weightlifting log disagree with you.

Please tell me more.

DeguelloTex

I want to be clear before the snark monsters show up.

I am NOT saying that eating more led to the weight loss.

I'm saying that when I started eating more, I started losing more. It could be coincidence. I'm simply saying that I'm adding it back to my list of possibilities.

Well, it seems to me proper body fueling leads to body efficiency, which probably means more pep in your workouts and everyday movement.

My UP24 and weightlifting log disagree with you.

Please tell me more.

I am moving more now than when I first got the UP24, which was more than I was moving before I got it. My walks in the morning have gotten longer while my pace has gotten faster. I have increased the weight on every exercise in my workout, every time (granted, I've only recently started lifting). I'm losing about 3.5 pounds a week so far. All on what you would likely call improper body fueling -- 1700-1800 gross calories at 6'9" 297. Net calories would depend on the true burn of my walking 4.25 miles at a 14:00 to 14:20 per mile pace.

lillylight08

Bump for later. Thank you!!

SLLRunner

I want to be clear before the snark monsters show up.

I am NOT saying that eating more led to the weight loss.

I'm saying that when I started eating more, I started losing more. It could be coincidence. I'm simply saying that I'm adding it back to my list of possibilities.

Well, it seems to me proper body fueling leads to body efficiency, which probably means more pep in your workouts and everyday movement.

My UP24 and weightlifting log disagree with you.

Please tell me more.

I am moving more now than when I first got the UP24, which was more than I was moving before I got it. My walks in the morning have gotten longer while my pace has gotten faster. I have increased the weight on every exercise in my workout, every time (granted, I've only recently started lifting). I'm losing about 3.5 pounds a week so far. All on what you would likely call improper body fueling -- 1700-1800 gross calories at 6'9" 297. Net calories would depend on the true burn of my walking 4.25 miles at a 14:00 to 14:20 per mile pace.

I don't know what a UP24 is.

I don't know if you are doing this, but if you are doing all that exercise at eating a VLCD, your body will rebel at some point.

dempseymom4

I raised mine too...I was having a deficit of almost 2000 calories a day....working out three times a day and eating btwn 1200 and 1400 calories a day. A trainer had me cut out one of my work-outs and increase my calories to 1800 a day and I have started losing again.

DeguelloTex

I want to be clear before the snark monsters show up.

I am NOT saying that eating more led to the weight loss.

I'm saying that when I started eating more, I started losing more. It could be coincidence. I'm simply saying that I'm adding it back to my list of possibilities.

Well, it seems to me proper body fueling leads to body efficiency, which probably means more pep in your workouts and everyday movement.

My UP24 and weightlifting log disagree with you.

Please tell me more.

I am moving more now than when I first got the UP24, which was more than I was moving before I got it. My walks in the morning have gotten longer while my pace has gotten faster. I have increased the weight on every exercise in my workout, every time (granted, I've only recently started lifting). I'm losing about 3.5 pounds a week so far. All on what you would likely call improper body fueling -- 1700-1800 gross calories at 6'9" 297. Net calories would depend on the true burn of my walking 4.25 miles at a 14:00 to 14:20 per mile pace.

I don't know what a UP24 is.

I don't know if you are doing this, but if you are doing all that exercise at eating a VLCD, your body will rebel at some point.

It's like the fitbit and fuel band bracelets. Measures steps, sleep, calories, etc.

I don't know what you consider a VLCD or a rebellious body. I don't think I'll have any trouble at this calorie level. The deficit will probably give a little as my weight comes down. We'll see. As it is, things are going pretty well.

WalkingAlong

I don't know what a UP24 is.

I don't know if you are doing this, but if you are doing all that exercise at eating a VLCD, your body will rebel at some point.

Up24 is the latest Jawbone Up activity monitor. A Fitbit competitor.

I think his deficit is on the extreme end but I wouldn't call 1600-1800 a VLCD.

RHachicho

I want to be clear before the snark monsters show up.

I am NOT saying that eating more led to the weight loss.

I'm saying that when I started eating more, I started losing more. It could be coincidence. I'm simply saying that I'm adding it back to my list of possibilities.

Well, it seems to me proper body fueling leads to body efficiency, which probably means more pep in your workouts and everyday movement.

My UP24 and weightlifting log disagree with you.

Please tell me more.

I am moving more now than when I first got the UP24, which was more than I was moving before I got it. My walks in the morning have gotten longer while my pace has gotten faster. I have increased the weight on every exercise in my workout, every time (granted, I've only recently started lifting). I'm losing about 3.5 pounds a week so far. All on what you would likely call improper body fueling -- 1700-1800 gross calories at 6'9" 297. Net calories would depend on the true burn of my walking 4.25 miles at a 14:00 to 14:20 per mile pace.

I don't know what a UP24 is.

I don't know if you are doing this, but if you are doing all that exercise at eating a VLCD, your body will rebel at some point.

It's like the fitbit and fuel band bracelets. Measures steps, sleep, calories, etc.

I don't know what you consider a VLCD or a rebellious body. I don't think I'll have any trouble at this calorie level. The deficit will probably give a little as my weight comes down. We'll see. As it is, things are going pretty well.

Listen to the man trust me you will start throwing tantrums at perfectly reasonable people and invent reasons to eat more food. At the moment you are probably running through your bodies reserve energy tank. When that hits 0 ... and it will ....

Or you could be like 4 foot tall in which case go right ahead.

DeguelloTex

I want to be clear before the snark monsters show up.

I am NOT saying that eating more led to the weight loss.

I'm saying that when I started eating more, I started losing more. It could be coincidence. I'm simply saying that I'm adding it back to my list of possibilities.

Well, it seems to me proper body fueling leads to body efficiency, which probably means more pep in your workouts and everyday movement.

My UP24 and weightlifting log disagree with you.

Please tell me more.

I am moving more now than when I first got the UP24, which was more than I was moving before I got it. My walks in the morning have gotten longer while my pace has gotten faster. I have increased the weight on every exercise in my workout, every time (granted, I've only recently started lifting). I'm losing about 3.5 pounds a week so far. All on what you would likely call improper body fueling -- 1700-1800 gross calories at 6'9" 297. Net calories would depend on the true burn of my walking 4.25 miles at a 14:00 to 14:20 per mile pace.

I don't know what a UP24 is.

I don't know if you are doing this, but if you are doing all that exercise at eating a VLCD, your body will rebel at some point.

It's like the fitbit and fuel band bracelets. Measures steps, sleep, calories, etc.

I don't know what you consider a VLCD or a rebellious body. I don't think I'll have any trouble at this calorie level. The deficit will probably give a little as my weight comes down. We'll see. As it is, things are going pretty well.

Listen to the man trust me you will start throwing tantrums at perfectly reasonable people and invent reasons to eat more food. At the moment you are probably running through your bodies reserve energy tank. When that hits 0 ... and it will ....

Or you could be like 4 foot tall in which case go right ahead.

Neither one of those are my personality. Yeah, it could happen. If it does, things will be different. Until then, I can bring a substantial amount of focus to an issue; I don't see myself making up reasons to eat more.

I thought fat was my body's reserve energy tank and the whole idea was to run through it.

RHachicho

I want to be clear before the snark monsters show up.

I am NOT saying that eating more led to the weight loss.

I'm saying that when I started eating more, I started losing more. It could be coincidence. I'm simply saying that I'm adding it back to my list of possibilities.

Well, it seems to me proper body fueling leads to body efficiency, which probably means more pep in your workouts and everyday movement.

My UP24 and weightlifting log disagree with you.

Please tell me more.

I am moving more now than when I first got the UP24, which was more than I was moving before I got it. My walks in the morning have gotten longer while my pace has gotten faster. I have increased the weight on every exercise in my workout, every time (granted, I've only recently started lifting). I'm losing about 3.5 pounds a week so far. All on what you would likely call improper body fueling -- 1700-1800 gross calories at 6'9" 297. Net calories would depend on the true burn of my walking 4.25 miles at a 14:00 to 14:20 per mile pace.

I don't know what a UP24 is.

I don't know if you are doing this, but if you are doing all that exercise at eating a VLCD, your body will rebel at some point.

It's like the fitbit and fuel band bracelets. Measures steps, sleep, calories, etc.

I don't know what you consider a VLCD or a rebellious body. I don't think I'll have any trouble at this calorie level. The deficit will probably give a little as my weight comes down. We'll see. As it is, things are going pretty well.

Listen to the man trust me you will start throwing tantrums at perfectly reasonable people and invent reasons to eat more food. At the moment you are probably running through your bodies reserve energy tank. When that hits 0 ... and it will ....

Or you could be like 4 foot tall in which case go right ahead.

Neither one of those are my personality. Yeah, it could happen. If it does, things will be different. Until then, I can bring a substantial amount of focus to an issue; I don't see myself making up reasons to eat more.

I thought fat was my body's reserve energy tank and the whole idea was to run through it.

It's a bit more complicated than that. Your body is a very advanced machine and has multiple layers of redundancy when it comes to fuel stores. Trust me you have easy fuel and hard fuel. At the begging of ones weight loss journey your body is still primarily running on easy fuel. Or at the very least it CAN under an aggressive deficit. Under a long term sustained deficit however the only easy fuel your body will have access to is what is contained in your diet and there is a limit to how much hard fuel can be mobilized at once. So you can run into the situation where you can't mobilize enough fuel. And then you lose your energy crash and burn and end up getting hangry. (hungry + angry).

That being said 1800 may be ok for you it's hardly a total vlcd. But it's a little on the low side for a 6ft odd male. You probably won't actually crash as such but you may notice a performance drop after a while. Depending on how hard you push things in the gym there may be other effects.

DeguelloTex

It's a bit more complicated than that. Your body is a very advanced machine and has multiple layers of redundancy when it comes to fuel stores. Trust me you have easy fuel and hard fuel. At the begging of ones weight loss journey your body is still primarily running on easy fuel. Or at the very least it CAN under an aggressive deficit. Under a long term sustained deficit however the only easy fuel your body will have access to is what is contained in your diet and there is a limit to how much hard fuel can be mobilized at once. So you can run into the situation where you can't mobilize enough fuel. And then you lose your energy crash and burn and end up getting hangry. (hungry + angry).

That being said 1800 may be ok for you it's hardly a total vlcd. But it's a little on the low side for a 6ft odd male. You probably won't actually crash as such but you may notice a performance drop after a while. Depending on how hard you push things in the gym there may be other effects.

Who are you calling odd?

I expect the cardio to give way at some point... maybe only do it on off days or something at first. I also expect my deficit to shrink as my weight does. I'm doubtful I'll want to eat much less, so it pretty much has to.

It seems to be that there's a tension between deficit size and "diet" length. Yeah, there are potential downsides to outsized deficits, but there are also potential downsides to dragging something out. I'm not without motivation and willpower, but eating at a deficit for two years isn't something that appeals to me all that much. If I can shorten that time, I think I've increased my chances of success.

GuineaPiglet

A couple of things I've personally noticed. If I skip workouts for two or three days after the scale is stalled a while, I'll be down 2-3 lbs next time I check. I had a friend skip for 2 weeks and she dropped nearly 10 lbs with no changes to her diet. (Not recommending this, just to demonstrate the mysteries of the human body) Likewise, if I have a couple of big eating days after eating light for a while I'll have a drop in weight. I'm convinced it's water weight because there's no way anyone loses a couple of pounds overnight from eating half a pizza. It's just my body doing strange things adjusting to changes. Less exercise + more eating certainly hasn't worked out too well for me in the past, as evidenced by my borderline obese BMI. For the past month I've been basing progress on how well my clothes fit instead of obsessing over the scale, and I'm much happier for it.

luvahgilahsa

I am one of those skeptics and I never believe it when people told me to eat more. In my head a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, so it didn't make any sense to me. But thanks for sharing your experience! I'm glad it worked out for you!

WalkingAlong

It seems to be that there's a tension between deficit size and "diet" length. Yeah, there are potential downsides to outsized deficits, but there are also potential downsides to dragging something out. I'm not without motivation and willpower, but eating at a deficit for two years isn't something that appeals to me all that much. If I can shorten that time, I think I've increased my chances of success.

I agree but I also have to weigh in compliance. If it's taking all my determination to stick to my diet/exercise plan, I'm going to be pi$$ed when the scale doesn't respond, and it eventually won't, and I'll say '$crew it' and quit. Or I'll feel so deprived from restricting I'll get binge-y and quit. I have to find a delicate balance of fast-ish results but without feeling heavily deprived or like a long plateau means I'll quit out of frustration.

AnswerzPwease

I am one of those skeptics and I never believe it when people told me to eat more. In my head a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, so it didn't make any sense to me. But thanks for sharing your experience! I'm glad it worked out for you!

Me too.

I honestly dont understand it.

I've changed nothing else.

segovm

Sadly this is one of the failings of the human desire to associate cause and effect even if the two are not at all related.

I ride my bike between 2-8 hours a day. All the time. Everywhere I go.

If I were to stop riding my bike for several days I would drop 3-5 lbs in no time.

According to this "eat more" logic, by not exercising I will lose more weight.

I think most people can appreciate the failing of this notion when the context is shifted just slightly.

Changing your diet can cause a person to lose weight. Simple and small changes to sodium alone can cause weight to fluctuate several pounds. I could eat an all fruit diet at 500 more calories a day then I eat now and immediately drop weight just because of the sodium reduction.

Still, eating more calories is not going to cause me to lose more fat. I'm here to drop fat. If my performance was suffering I would absolutely eat more food but if my weight was stalled and I felt great I would be hard pressed to add more calories to lose more weight.

Clearly it's all just opinion. I don't think anyone should be on a diet that they don't enjoy. I just have never seen anything anywhere that comes close to convincing me that more food is needed to lose weight and I will reference any famine stricken nation as my source.

DeguelloTex

It seems to be that there's a tension between deficit size and "diet" length. Yeah, there are potential downsides to outsized deficits, but there are also potential downsides to dragging something out. I'm not without motivation and willpower, but eating at a deficit for two years isn't something that appeals to me all that much. If I can shorten that time, I think I've increased my chances of success.

I agree but I also have to weigh in compliance. If it's taking all my determination to stick to my diet/exercise plan, I'm going to be pi$$ed when the scale doesn't respond, and it eventually won't, and I'll say '$crew it' and quit. Or I'll feel so deprived from restricting I'll get binge-y and quit. I have to find a delicate balance of fast-ish results but without feeling heavily deprived or like a long plateau means I'll quit out of frustration.

Oh, definitely. It just always seems to be implicit in many assumptions here that people will stay on a deficit for very long times while sort of hand waving away the possibility of "I'm tired of living my life like this" coming home to roost and crashing everything. All the more so when smaller deficits can accidentally or purposefully be swamped by bad days or water or whatever and turn into "This is as far as I can go." In that way, compliance is both a short- and long-term issue and one of scale. Acute "pain" for a shorter time or chronic "pain" for a longer time.

Everyone needs to balance things in their own way. "Eat the most you can while still losing weight" isn't necessarily a bad default, but there are trade offs there, as there are with most things.

DeguelloTex

Sadly this is one of the failings of the human desire to associate cause and effect even if the two are not at all related.

I ride my bike between 2-8 hours a day. All the time. Everywhere I go.

If I were to stop riding my bike for several days I would drop 3-5 lbs in no time.

According to this "eat more" logic, by not exercising I will lose more weight.

I think most people can appreciate the failing of this notion when the context is shifted just slightly.

Changing your diet can cause a person to lose weight. Simple and small changes to sodium alone can cause weight to fluctuate several pounds. I could eat an all fruit diet at 500 more calories a day then I eat now and immediately drop weight just because of the sodium reduction.

Still, eating more calories is not going to cause me to lose more fat. I'm here to drop fat. If my performance was suffering I would absolutely eat more food but if my weight was stalled and I felt great I would be hard pressed to add more calories to lose more weight.

Clearly it's all just opinion. I don't think anyone should be on a diet that they don't enjoy. I just have never seen anything anywhere that comes close to convincing me that more food is needed to lose weight and I will reference any famine stricken nation as my source.

Also, this.

RHachicho

It's a bit more complicated than that. Your body is a very advanced machine and has multiple layers of redundancy when it comes to fuel stores. Trust me you have easy fuel and hard fuel. At the begging of ones weight loss journey your body is still primarily running on easy fuel. Or at the very least it CAN under an aggressive deficit. Under a long term sustained deficit however the only easy fuel your body will have access to is what is contained in your diet and there is a limit to how much hard fuel can be mobilized at once. So you can run into the situation where you can't mobilize enough fuel. And then you lose your energy crash and burn and end up getting hangry. (hungry + angry).

That being said 1800 may be ok for you it's hardly a total vlcd. But it's a little on the low side for a 6ft odd male. You probably won't actually crash as such but you may notice a performance drop after a while. Depending on how hard you push things in the gym there may be other effects.

Who are you calling odd?

I expect the cardio to give way at some point... maybe only do it on off days or something at first. I also expect my deficit to shrink as my weight does. I'm doubtful I'll want to eat much less, so it pretty much has to.

It seems to be that there's a tension between deficit size and "diet" length. Yeah, there are potential downsides to outsized deficits, but there are also potential downsides to dragging something out. I'm not without motivation and willpower, but eating at a deficit for two years isn't something that appeals to me all that much. If I can shorten that time, I think I've increased my chances of success.

Yeah I don't wanna get all know it all on you. It sounds like you're feeling things out. But I think you calling out SSL runner was a bit harsh. Since many people can get into a situation where increasing calories can benefit them rather than adversely effect them. If your deficit is so aggressive that your body processes begin to become stalled then weight loss can become problematic. However exactly where this point is varies from person to person according to Age, Body fat %, Nutrition and length/aggression of deficit physical fitness and exercise habits. It's the kind of thing each individual has to feel out a bit. It's not that everyone is different. But everyone's situation can be.

DeguelloTex

It's a bit more complicated than that. Your body is a very advanced machine and has multiple layers of redundancy when it comes to fuel stores. Trust me you have easy fuel and hard fuel. At the begging of ones weight loss journey your body is still primarily running on easy fuel. Or at the very least it CAN under an aggressive deficit. Under a long term sustained deficit however the only easy fuel your body will have access to is what is contained in your diet and there is a limit to how much hard fuel can be mobilized at once. So you can run into the situation where you can't mobilize enough fuel. And then you lose your energy crash and burn and end up getting hangry. (hungry + angry).

That being said 1800 may be ok for you it's hardly a total vlcd. But it's a little on the low side for a 6ft odd male. You probably won't actually crash as such but you may notice a performance drop after a while. Depending on how hard you push things in the gym there may be other effects.

Who are you calling odd?

I expect the cardio to give way at some point... maybe only do it on off days or something at first. I also expect my deficit to shrink as my weight does. I'm doubtful I'll want to eat much less, so it pretty much has to.

It seems to be that there's a tension between deficit size and "diet" length. Yeah, there are potential downsides to outsized deficits, but there are also potential downsides to dragging something out. I'm not without motivation and willpower, but eating at a deficit for two years isn't something that appeals to me all that much. If I can shorten that time, I think I've increased my chances of success.

Yeah I don't wanna get all know it all on you. It sounds like you're feeling things out. But I think you calling out SSL runner was a bit harsh. Since many people can get into a situation where increasing calories can benefit them rather than adversely effect them. If your deficit is so aggressive that your body processes begin to become stalled then weight loss can become problematic. However exactly where this point is varies from person to person according to Age, Body fat %, Nutrition and length/aggression of deficit physical fitness and exercise habits. It's the kind of thing each individual has to feel out a bit. It's not that everyone is different. But everyone's situation can be.

I don't think I called her out, I gave facts that that weren't consistent with her statement. As you say, everyone's situation can be different, so there's no reason to think that bumping calories is going to benefit everyone in the ways she mentioned. If the deficit is affecting performance then, yeah, it would make sense. If not, then not.

Emeryeon

man i just dont know wat to do

segovm

And I'm with you DeguelloTex. I've been at negative net calories for most every day the last few months. I try to eat a healthy 1700-1900 calories a day but burn far more than that doing lots of bike riding. Folks seem to imply that we are going to fall over from not having enough food but I just keep getting better faster stronger... yesterday I went out on a 100 mile bike ride and still had a few thousand negative net calories to spare.

Anyway, just wanted to let you know you're not alone.

SLLRunner

I want to be clear before the snark monsters show up.

I am NOT saying that eating more led to the weight loss.

I'm saying that when I started eating more, I started losing more. It could be coincidence. I'm simply saying that I'm adding it back to my list of possibilities.

Well, it seems to me proper body fueling leads to body efficiency, which probably means more pep in your workouts and everyday movement.

My UP24 and weightlifting log disagree with you.

Please tell me more.

I am moving more now than when I first got the UP24, which was more than I was moving before I got it. My walks in the morning have gotten longer while my pace has gotten faster. I have increased the weight on every exercise in my workout, every time (granted, I've only recently started lifting). I'm losing about 3.5 pounds a week so far. All on what you would likely call improper body fueling -- 1700-1800 gross calories at 6'9" 297. Net calories would depend on the true burn of my walking 4.25 miles at a 14:00 to 14:20 per mile pace.

I don't know what a UP24 is.

I don't know if you are doing this, but if you are doing all that exercise at eating a VLCD, your body will rebel at some point.

It's like the fitbit and fuel band bracelets. Measures steps, sleep, calories, etc.

I don't know what you consider a VLCD or a rebellious body. I don't think I'll have any trouble at this calorie level. The deficit will probably give a little as my weight comes down. We'll see. As it is, things are going pretty well.

Up24 is the latest Jawbone Up activity monitor. A Fitbit competitor.

I think his deficit is on the extreme end but I wouldn't call 1600-1800 a VLCD.

Thanks for the clarification you guys. Glad you are not doing a VLCD.

SLLRunner

I want to be clear before the snark monsters show up.

I am NOT saying that eating more led to the weight loss.

I'm saying that when I started eating more, I started losing more. It could be coincidence. I'm simply saying that I'm adding it back to my list of possibilities.

Well, it seems to me proper body fueling leads to body efficiency, which probably means more pep in your workouts and everyday movement.

My UP24 and weightlifting log disagree with you.

Please tell me more.

I am moving more now than when I first got the UP24, which was more than I was moving before I got it. My walks in the morning have gotten longer while my pace has gotten faster. I have increased the weight on every exercise in my workout, every time (granted, I've only recently started lifting). I'm losing about 3.5 pounds a week so far. All on what you would likely call improper body fueling -- 1700-1800 gross calories at 6'9" 297. Net calories would depend on the true burn of my walking 4.25 miles at a 14:00 to 14:20 per mile pace.

I don't know what a UP24 is.

I don't know if you are doing this, but if you are doing all that exercise at eating a VLCD, your body will rebel at some point.

It's like the fitbit and fuel band bracelets. Measures steps, sleep, calories, etc.

I don't know what you consider a VLCD or a rebellious body. I don't think I'll have any trouble at this calorie level. The deficit will probably give a little as my weight comes down. We'll see. As it is, things are going pretty well.

Listen to the man trust me you will start throwing tantrums at perfectly reasonable people and invent reasons to eat more food. At the moment you are probably running through your bodies reserve energy tank. When that hits 0 ... and it will ....

Or you could be like 4 foot tall in which case go right ahead.

Am I the one you are referring to as a man? I'm a girl. :bigsmile:

SLLRunner

It's a bit more complicated than that. Your body is a very advanced machine and has multiple layers of redundancy when it comes to fuel stores. Trust me you have easy fuel and hard fuel. At the begging of ones weight loss journey your body is still primarily running on easy fuel. Or at the very least it CAN under an aggressive deficit. Under a long term sustained deficit however the only easy fuel your body will have access to is what is contained in your diet and there is a limit to how much hard fuel can be mobilized at once. So you can run into the situation where you can't mobilize enough fuel. And then you lose your energy crash and burn and end up getting hangry. (hungry + angry).

That being said 1800 may be ok for you it's hardly a total vlcd. But it's a little on the low side for a 6ft odd male. You probably won't actually crash as such but you may notice a performance drop after a while. Depending on how hard you push things in the gym there may be other effects.

Who are you calling odd?

I expect the cardio to give way at some point... maybe only do it on off days or something at first. I also expect my deficit to shrink as my weight does. I'm doubtful I'll want to eat much less, so it pretty much has to.

It seems to be that there's a tension between deficit size and "diet" length. Yeah, there are potential downsides to outsized deficits, but there are also potential downsides to dragging something out. I'm not without motivation and willpower, but eating at a deficit for two years isn't something that appeals to me all that much. If I can shorten that time, I think I've increased my chances of success.

Yeah I don't wanna get all know it all on you. It sounds like you're feeling things out. But I think you calling out SSL runner was a bit harsh. Since many people can get into a situation where increasing calories can benefit them rather than adversely effect them. If your deficit is so aggressive that your body processes begin to become stalled then weight loss can become problematic. However exactly where this point is varies from person to person according to Age, Body fat %, Nutrition and length/aggression of deficit physical fitness and exercise habits. It's the kind of thing each individual has to feel out a bit. It's not that everyone is different. But everyone's situation can be.

I don't think I called her out, I gave facts that that weren't consistent with her statement. As you say, everyone's situation can be different, so there's no reason to think that bumping calories is going to benefit everyone in the ways she mentioned. If the deficit is affecting performance then, yeah, it would make sense. If not, then not.

I am confused by this calling out comment. All you did was reply with your experience, and we communicated from there. Difference in opinion is fine. All is well.

However, you may be fueling your body better than you think you are.