Eating more to lose weight...fact or myth??

CheesyPoofs

Would someone who burns 4000 calories a day and eats 3500 calories lose more fat then someone who burns 2000 calories and eats 1500?

In other words, is the 500 calorie deficit all that matters, or do you burn more by eating more?

In my situation, my sedentary BMR is 1800 calories. I walk 30 minutes a few times a week, and also lift weights 3 times per week for about 45 minutes, 10 sets, 5-8 repetitions..

Should someone like me eat more to lose weight? How many calories should I be eating?

Is this a fact or myth that you should eat more calories to lose weight?

determined99

good question..........

BoresEasily

You burn the same. Which will be 1lb of fat per week.

TrainingWithTonya

Honestly, it's not really as simple as 500 calories per day deficit being a pound of fat lost a week. That is just the simplest way to help people who aren't interested in learning the science behind nutrition and exercise. How much fat you burn has a lot to do with the intensity level and duration of exercise. If you are doing more exercise, you are going to burn more fat then someone who isn't exercising. Yes, you can lose "weight" on only a diet with no exercise, but the majority of what is lost will be muscle mass and water weight. Adding in exercise tells the body to burn more fat and maintain that muscle mass. So, even with the same calorie deficit the person who is exercising will be burning more fat then the person who isn't exercising. While the person who is exercising may not see the results in scale weight as fast, they will look better in their clothes and be healthier.

MzBug

You also need to take into consideration WHAT you are eatting. A good portion of the "eat more to lose weight" is hype from quite a few "weight loss plans" currently on the market. It is based on the assumption that currently the overweight person is eatting a bunch of high calorie, low nutritional value foods that contain a lot of sugars and processed junk. If you put 1200 cals of a "value meal" in front of a hungry person, and 1200 cals of non processed whole foods, and told the person they could only have one or the other to eat over a full day, which one would they pick? You can "eat more" and still be low on the calorie scale depending on what you are consuming.

There is fact to the other side of the coin too. I can't tell you exactly how it works or why it works, but I do know from personal experience that *I* needed to eat more good foods to lose weight. Not that I was eatting bad foods before, but I wasn't losing weight taking in somewhere between 300-900 cals a day. I had to gradually build up to my current 1400 per day and am losing weight at an average of 2+ pounds a week. Works for me!

CheesyPoofs

Yes, clearly its better to exercise and eat healthy food choices...I guess I should phrase the question a bit differently... I think my first post missed the point..

Lets say my BMR is 2000 calories, and I burn 1000 in the gym, for a total of 3000 calories..

Is it better to burn 3000 calories a day and eat 1500 calories..

Or is it better to burn 3000 calories, and eat 2500 calories, for a smaller deficit..

In other words, will eating more with a smaller calorie deficit be better for metabolism and fat burning then eating less with a larger deficit?

MisdemeanorM

Yes, clearly its better to exercise and eat healthy food choices...I guess I should phrase the question a bit differently... I think my first post missed the point..

Lets say my BMR is 2000 calories, and I burn 1000 in the gym, for a total of 3000 calories..

Is it better to burn 3000 calories a day and eat 1500 calories..

Or is it better to burn 3000 calories, and eat 2500 calories, for a smaller deficit..

In other words, will eating more with a smaller calorie deficit be better for metabolism and fat burning then eating less with a larger deficit?

It really depends on your body. My maintenance is just under 2000. I felt fine eating 1500 and change. Some days I would not eat my exercise cals, but most days I would. I found that for me, any time my net cals were under about 1500 for three or four days I would start to get fatigued and need to eat more to keep at a smaller deficit. I am in a healthy weight range, and only have 10-20 lbs to lose, and all still w/in a healthy weight range. If I had 70 lbs to lose, my body might react differently to a different or larger deficit.

Not taking exercise cals into account at all - if I put in lose 1.5 or 2 lbs per week it gives me a level of 1200 calories. I was not functioning well on that but function great on settings for .5 to 1 lb a week loss. The less you have to lose the smaller deficit your body can afford.

Mrbackslap

I'd burn the 3000 calories and eat the 2500.
Regardless its a 500 calorie deficit, but burning 3000 calories is hard as hell.
Shoot if running 1 mile burns about 100calories you would have to run 30 miles to burn 3000 calories.
I dont thinks is gonna help anything with my metabolism.
But if you can work on a smaller deficit I'd try it aslong as your eating the proper foods.
Personally I would be really hungry and it would make it easy to fall off so a gradual deficit is always my better choice.

TrainingWithTonya

Yes, clearly its better to exercise and eat healthy food choices...I guess I should phrase the question a bit differently... I think my first post missed the point..

Lets say my BMR is 2000 calories, and I burn 1000 in the gym, for a total of 3000 calories..

Is it better to burn 3000 calories a day and eat 1500 calories..

Or is it better to burn 3000 calories, and eat 2500 calories, for a smaller deficit..

In other words, will eating more with a smaller calorie deficit be better for metabolism and fat burning then eating less with a larger deficit?

If you go with too large of a deficit, then you won't lose body fat. There are a couple of things going on there that effect it. First of all, you have to provide enough fuel for that activity, and if you don't then the body will pull what it has. In order to burn body fat, you have to burn carbs first to get the byproduct of carbohydrate metabolism that starts the process of fat metabolism. If you don't have enough carbs on board then the body will pull from protein. If you are eating too low a calorie amount, then the body will have to pull from what it has stored. That means that the body will then break down muscle to use the protein to make carbs to burn for fuel. So, instead of losing fat, you're losing muscle. Second, the body has a built in response to the feeling of deprivation that it tries to conserve as much energy as possible. By going too low in calorie intake, then that response kicks in. The easiest way to store energy is as body fat, so that is what the body wants to store when you go too low in calories. From my nutrition certifications and minor in college, I've been taught not to go below 80% of the calories used. So, if you have a 3000 calorie expenditure, you don't want to go less then 2400 calories for intake, regardless of exercise. That's still a 600 calorie deficit that will result in an estimated fat loss of 1.2 pounds per week. This is just an estimate, though, because you can't really pick what you are losing weight. You can try to force it to be more body fat by eating a balanced diet of carbs, protein, and fat and exercising specifically to promote muscle growth and repair, but you will still burn a mix of both.

CuteMommy88

well typically people who eat more calories weigh more than people who eat fewer calories so yeah heavier people burn more calories doing the same exercise and smaller people.

CheesyPoofs

Thanks! I learned lot..

Gonna start another thread about my specific goals..