research behind eating more to lose more?

bett_boop

Upon joining this site I have noticed a lot of talk about how eating more can actually lead to losing more in the long run... I'm very confused, surely the less you eat the more you lose, it is as simple as that? but I have heard people claiming things like eating 1500cals instead of 1000cals leads to losing more! I know people talk about 'starvation mode' but does it really have that much impact, surely with every 500 cals less you eat you will lose an extra pound a week?

_GlaDOS_

Ah, not sure I have the answer you're looking for, but I do like this thread on it:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/395948-caloric-intake-results?page=1%23posts-5451195


And Lyle McDonald of course has a good one on large deficits and a lot of activity:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html


It also seems like a good time to make a plug for my favorite MFP group:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/17-women-eating-2-000-calories-per-day :flowerforyou:

Luandanielle1979

I have trouble with this aswell I have been successfully losing weight eating 1200 cals on average and I dont eat my exercise calories back unless I use a few for the odd drink. I have consistantly lost weight and lost 4lbs this week in 7 days which I think is a really good amount I do exercise more than I used to but. Still unsure if i should eat them cals back. If my body was on starvation mode I surley wouldnt be losing 2-4lbs of fat a week I have been eating like this for 8 weeks now??? Anyone who can give me advice too would be much appreciated.
Good luck on your journey hun.

tameko2

I have trouble with this aswell I have been successfully losing weight eating 1200 cals on average and I dont eat my exercise calories back unless I use a few for the odd drink. I have consistantly lost weight and lost 4lbs this week in 7 days which I think is a really good amount I do exercise more than I used to but. Still unsure if i should eat them cals back. If my body was on starvation mode I surley wouldnt be losing 2-4lbs of fat a week I have been eating like this for 8 weeks now??? Anyone who can give me advice too would be much appreciated.
Good luck on your journey hun.

The thing is - you aren't losing 2-4 lbs of fat a week. Only the very very obese (VERY obese) will burn fat at that rate. What you are losing is muscle. The more muscle you lose, the more total weight you will have to lose to get the body composition you want (aka look good naked).

30% body fat looks flabby and chubby whether you weigh 110 lbs or 170 lbs.

rileamoyer

I belong to the eat most of the exercise calories back camp, It will be interesting to see the responses you get.

outtanms

bump...........

Ephena

I have trouble with this as well I have been successfully losing weight eating 1200 cals on average and I don't eat my exercise calories back unless I use a few for the odd drink. I have consistently lost weight and lost 4lbs this week in 7 days which I think is a really good amount I do exercise more than I used to but. Still unsure if i should eat them cals back. If my body was on starvation mode I surely wouldn't be losing 2-4lbs of fat a week I have been eating like this for 8 weeks now??? Anyone who can give me advice too would be much appreciated.
Good luck on your journey hun.

I was this way for several months, losing a ton of weight really fast while eating 1200 calories and not eating back my exercise calories. Then it caught up to me and my weight loss stalled out big time. I had to do a re-feed and shoot my protein thru the roof all while cutting my exercise down by over 50%. Now I'm losing again but not like I was before and I'm okay with that. I want to be healthy not starvation skinny.

rileamoyer

I have trouble with this aswell I have been successfully losing weight eating 1200 cals on average and I dont eat my exercise calories back unless I use a few for the odd drink. I have consistantly lost weight and lost 4lbs this week in 7 days which I think is a really good amount I do exercise more than I used to but. Still unsure if i should eat them cals back. If my body was on starvation mode I surley wouldnt be losing 2-4lbs of fat a week I have been eating like this for 8 weeks now??? Anyone who can give me advice too would be much appreciated.
Good luck on your journey hun.

The thing is - you aren't losing 2-4 lbs of fat a week. Only the very very obese (VERY obese) will burn fat at that rate. What you are losing is muscle. The more muscle you lose, the more total weight you will have to lose to get the body composition you want (aka look good naked).

30% body fat looks flabby and chubby whether you weigh 110 lbs or 170 lbs.

What she says is right!!!!

Teeli

My dietician and weight loss practioner both say Calories IN and Calories OUT...in other words, eat less to lose more.
Having said that, I am finding that if I eat , say, 1400 calories one day and 1000-1200 the next day, I seem to lose better.:ohwell:

infamousmk

I have trouble with this aswell I have been successfully losing weight eating 1200 cals on average and I dont eat my exercise calories back unless I use a few for the odd drink. I have consistantly lost weight and lost 4lbs this week in 7 days which I think is a really good amount I do exercise more than I used to but. Still unsure if i should eat them cals back. If my body was on starvation mode I surley wouldnt be losing 2-4lbs of fat a week I have been eating like this for 8 weeks now??? Anyone who can give me advice too would be much appreciated.
Good luck on your journey hun.

If you're only eating 1200 calories a day, and not eating your exercise calories back, you're probably netting in a Very Low Calorie Diet range, which could be harmful to your health. I'm no expert, but I did stay at the Holiday Inn Express last night ... you should check out the "Un"Official MFP FAQ for more information:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/390234-does-starvation-mode-exist-and-what-is-it

Luandanielle1979

Iam pretty Obese, I am weight training and doing loads of cardio at the gym I have lost 8'' from my waist and look more toned than I have in years. Im happy with that. I dont really have room to eat them cals back I am already eating 3 meals and snacks a day. I try to eat nuts and will introduce a protien bar maybe. I would appreciate any advice like I said thanks x

psuLemon

I have trouble with this aswell I have been successfully losing weight eating 1200 cals on average and I dont eat my exercise calories back unless I use a few for the odd drink. I have consistantly lost weight and lost 4lbs this week in 7 days which I think is a really good amount I do exercise more than I used to but. Still unsure if i should eat them cals back. If my body was on starvation mode I surley wouldnt be losing 2-4lbs of fat a week I have been eating like this for 8 weeks now??? Anyone who can give me advice too would be much appreciated.
Good luck on your journey hun.

When you do low calorie diets you one more than fat. You lose muscle which is the driver of your metabolism. This is why maintaining or increasing muscle mass will increase fat loss. Also your body adapts to weight loss which is why stalls happen. And when you eat less, you have even leass room to adjust your diet. And its simple food is fuel. If you dont fuel the body properly it wont function properly. Look up in goolge about basal metabolic rate and total daily energy expended to learn more.

I am the one tnat did the first study and its awesome to prove more calories mean more burning fat which means being skinnier and healthier.

UsedToBeHusky

I have trouble with this aswell I have been successfully losing weight eating 1200 cals on average and I dont eat my exercise calories back unless I use a few for the odd drink. I have consistantly lost weight and lost 4lbs this week in 7 days which I think is a really good amount I do exercise more than I used to but. Still unsure if i should eat them cals back. If my body was on starvation mode I surley wouldnt be losing 2-4lbs of fat a week I have been eating like this for 8 weeks now??? Anyone who can give me advice too would be much appreciated.
Good luck on your journey hun.

If you notice your weight loss begin to slow down, then that means that your metabolism is adjusting to function with the minimal calories you are giving it. Basically, you are heading for an inevitable plateau. To avoid this, try an occassional net increase. This method has been working great for me as I have never had a plateau.

Also, I do have to agree with the previous poster. The closer you are to your ideal weight, the more of your food calories your body is going to need. *Disclaimer* I would not recommend this method for the long haul.

TallyNick

I agree I think you need the calories to maintain and/or build muscle. At least a major %.

And don't call me Shirley...

Luandanielle1979

I think I will try to eat back my exercise cals for 1 week and see how I get on I am not starving myself but prob could make better choices to bump my cals up. If its better for me I am prepared to do it and see how my body responds. the trouble for me is I work 12 hour shifts and only get one break. I struggle to eat more on these days.

infamousmk

Iam pretty Obese,

I'm still 60 pounds overweight .. I totally get it. I say try eating a little more (like you mentioned) and see how it goes.


Last week I only worked out two or three times, and my average net cals for the day had to be around 1700-1800 ... I rallied for the weekend, worked out and got back on track the last couple days, and lost a pound without even batting an eye. So, upping your calories for a few days won't kill ya.

heybales

http://www.exrx.net/Questions/StarvationEffect.html

A similar case study was published by Jampolis (2004). A 51 year old patient complained of a 15 lb weight gain over the last year despite beginning a strenuous triathlon and marathon training program (2 hours per day, 5-6 days per week). A 3 day diet analysis estimated a daily intake of only 1000-1200 Calories. An indirect calorimetry revealed a resting metabolic rate of 950 Calories (28% below predicted for age, height, weight, and gender).

After 6 weeks the patient's resting metabolism increased 35% to 1282 Calories per day (only 2% below predicted). The patient also decreases percent fat from 37% to 34%, a loss of 5 lbs of body fat.

jeffrodgers1

Everybody has a metabolism. And it requires a certain amount of calories to perform. Give it too few calories and it slows down. Burn too many calories and it speeds up (until you've burnt all your fuel) And here is where the problem lies... nobody can say for sure what your metabolic rate is. We are all different and burn calories slightly differently. We speak in terms of AVERAGES.

Am I eating too much? Am I eating too little? How does my lifestyle play into this? Am I active? Sedentary? These are very subjective. Often people are wrong about these things (subjectivity... i.e. I run 25 miles a week, I don't consider myself athletic) When people are wrong, their metabolism can stall and limit weight loss results. Eating more may actually help get their metabolism back on track after it has stalled and restart that engine.

If you think about your metabolism in analogy as a car... you want to go on a road trip of 500 miles. What happens if you don't put enough gas in the car? You stall out at the side of the road. What if you take too much? Now you are hauling way to much fuel (fat) and will become less efficient. Give it enough gas and you'll arrive safely and efficiently at your destination.

What I suspect people are really saying when "they say eat more to lose more" is "are you sure you have enough fuel for the trip?"

My two cents.... FWIW I'm not a doctor, but I have lost over 100 lbs.

Hope it helps.

AngelikaLumiere

I have trouble with this aswell I have been successfully losing weight eating 1200 cals on average and I dont eat my exercise calories back unless I use a few for the odd drink. I have consistantly lost weight and lost 4lbs this week in 7 days which I think is a really good amount I do exercise more than I used to but. Still unsure if i should eat them cals back. If my body was on starvation mode I surley wouldnt be losing 2-4lbs of fat a week I have been eating like this for 8 weeks now??? Anyone who can give me advice too would be much appreciated.
Good luck on your journey hun.

The thing is - you aren't losing 2-4 lbs of fat a week. Only the very very obese (VERY obese) will burn fat at that rate. What you are losing is muscle. The more muscle you lose, the more total weight you will have to lose to get the body composition you want (aka look good naked).

30% body fat looks flabby and chubby whether you weigh 110 lbs or 170 lbs.

THIS REPLY IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE! You are NOT loosing muscle mass! Unlike the unsubstantiated anecdotal support for eating more to loose more, there is scientifically sound research done by the military that proved that the human body does not go into true "starvation mode" until you are down to 5-6% body fat, which is SEVERELY underweight. Read: http://www.healthscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=512:are-you-in-the-starvation-mode-or-starving-for-truth&catid=102:jeff-novicks-blog&Itemid=267 It is not how much you eat but what and when you eat that causes your metabolism to drop. If you eat complex carbohydrates and proteins in four or five small meals per day and exercise 10-20 mins 2-3 times a day your metabolism will stay up and you will continue to loose. I know because I have been loosing consistently 2.5 pounds a week since May eating 1000 calories per day and not eating back exercise calories.

angieskia

Sorry. I haven't read all the posts but I can tell you from Personal Experience The starvation mode seems to be correct. When I was around 16 I Hardly ate anything and ALWAYS worked out (Martial Arts) For over 6 months I was stuck between 150 & 160. I think my hormones must kicked in cuz I was HUNGRY alot. I started drinking a TON of milk, eating Breakfast, & Finishing ALL meals. I ACTUALLY got down to 138 & STAYED there for about 2 - 3 Months. The hormones must've gone back to sleep cuz I didn't really feel like eating anymore & BAM I was back up in the mid 150's

heybales

From several studies, you don't actually have to loose much fat. If the difference is really great, the body for protection will hold on to those fat stores longer, making them harder to use. Because from it's point of view, it appears it may be starving and it thinks it will need it.

So now slower metabolism, and using less fat, breaking down muscle now. Which is the best fat burning thing you got!

http://www.ajcn.org/content/68/3/599.short

We assessed the importance of lean and fat tissue depletion as determinants of the adaptive reduction in basal metabolic rate (BMR) in response to food deprivation by reanalyzing the data on BMR and body composition for the 32 men participating in the classic Minnesota experiment of semi-starvation and refeeding.

Taken together, these results in normal-weight men responding to severe food deprivation reveal anthropometric predictors for human interindividual variability in the capacity for energy conservation and suggest that the adaptive reduction in BMR is partly determined by an autoregulatory feedback control system linking the state of depletion of fat stores to compensatory mechanisms that suppress thermogenesis.

AngelikaLumiere

From several studies, you don't actually have to loose much fat. If the difference is really great, the body for protection will hold on to those fat stores longer, making them harder to use. Because from it's point of view, it appears it may be starving and it thinks it will need it.

So now slower metabolism, and using less fat, breaking down muscle now. Which is the best fat burning thing you got!

http://www.ajcn.org/content/68/3/599.short

We assessed the importance of lean and fat tissue depletion as determinants of the adaptive reduction in basal metabolic rate (BMR) in response to food deprivation by reanalyzing the data on BMR and body composition for the 32 men participating in the classic Minnesota experiment of semi-starvation and refeeding.

Taken together, these results in normal-weight men responding to severe food deprivation reveal anthropometric predictors for human interindividual variability in the capacity for energy conservation and suggest that the adaptive reduction in BMR is partly determined by an autoregulatory feedback control system linking the state of depletion of fat stores to compensatory mechanisms that suppress thermogenesis.

ONCE AGAIN, NOT TRUE, even the article quoted here does not mention loosing muscle mass.

marycmeadows

It does have an impact. I was eating 1500-1600/day with exercise - and I plateaued. I upped my intake to 1800-2000 calories a day,and started dropping weight again...... I'm very convinced of starvation mode and eating to lose weight - this has happened to me twice and both times I upped my calories, I started dropping weight again. It makes sense. It's like trying to drive your car with no gas it. The key is nto just eating anything to get the calories, it is properly feeding your body.

PS - I've lost over 90 pounds since January 1, 2011.

Escape_Artist

[/quote]

THIS REPLY IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE! You are NOT loosing muscle mass! Unlike the unsubstantiated anecdotal support for eating more to loose more, there is scientifically sound research done by the military that proved that the human body does not go into true "starvation mode" until you are down to 5-6% body fat, which is SEVERELY underweight. Read: http://www.healthscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=512:are-you-in-the-starvation-mode-or-starving-for-truth&catid=102:jeff-novicks-blog&Itemid=267 It is not how much you eat but what and when you eat that causes your metabolism to drop. If you eat complex carbohydrates and proteins in four or five small meals per day and exercise 10-20 mins 2-3 times a day your metabolism will stay up and you will continue to loose. I know because I have been loosing consistently 2.5 pounds a week since May eating 1000 calories per day and not eating back exercise calories.
[/quote]

When you eat too little calories, your body will make a choice: lose body fat or lose muscle. An inadequately fueled body will choose to drop calorie-burning muscle rather than fat. Excessive loss of lean muscle mass leads to weight loss without improvement of body composition or health. It's as simple as that.

Eating too low will do two things to your body, you will lose muscle, and you will slow down your metabolism.
Anyone really looking into losing weight/body fat in a healthy way should go see a certified trainer and have a body composition analyzer test done. That way, you will know your BMR (which will help you set the amount of calories you need a day, to lose or gain).

[/quote]

Escape_Artist

From several studies, you don't actually have to loose much fat. If the difference is really great, the body for protection will hold on to those fat stores longer, making them harder to use. Because from it's point of view, it appears it may be starving and it thinks it will need it.

So now slower metabolism, and using less fat, breaking down muscle now. Which is the best fat burning thing you got!

http://www.ajcn.org/content/68/3/599.short

We assessed the importance of lean and fat tissue depletion as determinants of the adaptive reduction in basal metabolic rate (BMR) in response to food deprivation by reanalyzing the data on BMR and body composition for the 32 men participating in the classic Minnesota experiment of semi-starvation and refeeding.

Taken together, these results in normal-weight men responding to severe food deprivation reveal anthropometric predictors for human interindividual variability in the capacity for energy conservation and suggest that the adaptive reduction in BMR is partly determined by an autoregulatory feedback control system linking the state of depletion of fat stores to compensatory mechanisms that suppress thermogenesis.

ONCE AGAIN, NOT TRUE, even the article quoted here does not mention loosing muscle mass.

I also found this, first link I saw but there are many many many more explaining why too low calorie intake will make you lose muscle

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

AngelikaLumiere

From several studies, you don't actually have to loose much fat. If the difference is really great, the body for protection will hold on to those fat stores longer, making them harder to use. Because from it's point of view, it appears it may be starving and it thinks it will need it.

So now slower metabolism, and using less fat, breaking down muscle now. Which is the best fat burning thing you got!

http://www.ajcn.org/content/68/3/599.short

We assessed the importance of lean and fat tissue depletion as determinants of the adaptive reduction in basal metabolic rate (BMR) in response to food deprivation by reanalyzing the data on BMR and body composition for the 32 men participating in the classic Minnesota experiment of semi-starvation and refeeding.

Taken together, these results in normal-weight men responding to severe food deprivation reveal anthropometric predictors for human interindividual variability in the capacity for energy conservation and suggest that the adaptive reduction in BMR is partly determined by an autoregulatory feedback control system linking the state of depletion of fat stores to compensatory mechanisms that suppress thermogenesis.

ONCE AGAIN, NOT TRUE, even the article quoted here does not mention loosing muscle mass.

I also found this, first link I saw but there are many many many more explaining why too low calorie intake will make you lose muscle

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

I read this quoted article as well and the foot notes that it is based on states "Overall, low-calorie diets are a safe strategy for weight loss. A sample 5040-kJ diet plan based on Canada's Food Guide to Healthy Eating is outlined in the online appendix (available at www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/174/1/56/DC1). " again, no mention of muscle loss.

manjingirl

Not much time to respond now (have to work) but find this a really interesting discussion. There seems to be confusion between "starvation mode" and changes to metabolic rate as a result of weight/body composition changes. I have some references which I'll dig out later.

AngelikaLumiere

There is a confusion about "starvation mode." As MFP uses it, it means metabolic slow down. Medically it is the point at which human being begin to consume lean body mass (muscles). I don't argue that it is possible to experience metabolic slow down if all you are doing is counting calories. What I am arguing against is the possibility that it will cause you to loose muscle mass if you are over weight, that has been scientifically disproven. I wish MFP did not call metabolic slow down "starvation mode" because it leads to this kind of misinformation.

llkilgore

I read this quoted article as well and the foot notes that it is based on states "Overall, low-calorie diets are a safe strategy for weight loss. A sample 5040-kJ diet plan based on Canada's Food Guide to Healthy Eating is outlined in the online appendix (available at www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/174/1/56/DC1). " again, no mention of muscle loss.

The full quote:
"Overall, low-calorie diets are a safe strategy for weight loss. A sample 5040-kJ diet plan based on Canada's Food Guide to Healthy Eating is outlined in the online appendix (available at www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/174/1/56/DC1). A sedentary woman 45 years of age with a body mass index of 31 kg/m2 (height 167.6 cm [5'6"], weight 87.5 kg [192.5 pounds]) and an energy requirement of 7988 kJ per day (calculated using the Harris–Benedict equation) can achieve a body mass index of about 26 kg/m2 after 6 months on a 5040-kJ/d low-calorie diet." http://www.cmaj.ca/content/174/1/56.full

Well lets see... 5040 kilojoules = 1205 calories and 7988 kilojoules = 1909 calories. So their sample subject is a sedentary 192.5 pound woman who requires1909 calories a day to maintain her weight. She was put on 1205 calories for a 704 calorie deficit, which should work out to something less than 1.5 pounds lost per week. This is different from MFP's program, HOW? No mention is made of exercise, but you can bet that the daily energy requirement used in the calculations is as close to the real world conditions as the researches could make it.

heybales

I guess it would be good to clarify, I'm not talking about the sedentary woman example. I'm talking about what seems to be the common folks on this forum, they are exercising. And seem to be doing a great job at it too! And talking about eating so few calories for the level of activity they are at. And wondering about stalls and plateaus that occur, solved by eating more calories.

Sadly it was the post concentration camp victims that showed the body is willing to burn muscle to hold on to fat. And it took awhile to break their bodies out of fat-storage slow metabolism mode, realizing the food is coming on a regular basis.

That's not the situation I'm talking about. That is not the situation for the folks working out here.

But are some reaching the same kind of calorie deficits, and slow metabolism, because of it? Causing the body to enter such a state? Sounds like it.

So while a 800 calorie difference between normal BMR and current diet level might seem extreme (say BMR is really 1200, and you eat 400 calorie day), some of the exercise quantity and BMR and the diet level could still be 700, 800, or 900 deficit, and the body reacts the same way. Spare the fat and glucose for survival, tear down muscle.

So now your metabolism slows. But you still exercise, and it can only slow down so much because of the exercise, so it slows fat burn and stores as much as fat actually, and since energy is still needed and glucose has limited supply, here comes the protein breakdown to use the amino acids for energy.

I think if starvation mode was term used for the sedentary woman eating 1200 calories while estimates put energy needs at 1900, that indeed would be metabolic slow down, not starvation mode.

Now have the woman exercising 700 calories worth a day (energy needs 2600), lower eating to 1000 calories, and you have some effects that will occur most likely, with avg person, the same as starvation mode. Especially if kept up for weeks on end.
Body will stop burning fat nearly as much, and calories in general with lower BMR.
Body will start burning some muscle, but not nearly as much as true starvation mode.
Weight loss slows considerably or stops from what it was before. Performance if measured probably slows too, or heart rate goes up for the same effort.
Now you start eating more, but it takes a bit before weight loss starts again.
Muscle has to be built up again while fat is being burned again - no weight change.
Finally fat is being lost again, and weight.

llkilgore

I think if starvation mode was term used for the sedentary woman eating 1200 calories while estimates put energy needs at 1900, that indeed would be metabolic slow down, not starvation mode.

I agree. "Starvation mode" isn't applicable to the sedentary woman in the example even in the careless way the term is used in this forum. Her calorie deficit, though a little excessive for her size, I think, was within the MFP guidelines. And any exercise program she may have engaged in would have been reflected in the stated daily energy requirement, at least if the researchers knew about it. They would have been very annoyed if she'd skewed their data with hour long zumba classes 3 or 4 times a week. So her case provides no support whatsoever for the view that you don't need to worry about muscle loss if you chronically eat fewer calories than MFP recommends, or use exercise to jack up your calorie deficit.