Eat MORE calories to lose weight? I don't get it...
dotti1121
Posts: 751 Member
Will someone please explain this? I've heard so many people say this, but I totally do not understand the logic behind it...
0
Replies
-
It gives the body fuel to burn cals and keeps your metabolism strong..0
-
Go to the group on here known as Eat More To Weigh Less. There is so much helpful info on there.0
-
If I at a steep calorie deficit, I get tired. When I get tired, I don't burn as many calories since I don't drag my *kitten* around any more than I have to and a slow shamble burns fewer calories than a brisk walk. Add up these lower energy levels for a whole day and I'm probably burning a couple hundred fewer calories or more. Plus, my workouts suck and I have no motivation to do them, I can't get my heartrate up as high, and I feel like crap after doing them.
So nothing in my daily life is burning as many calories, and I feel like crap. I lose weight quickly at first, which makes the discomfort worthwhile. But the difference between "calories eaten" and "calories burned" starts diminishing as my "calories burned" drops while my metabolism goes down. You can chase that deficit down pretty low (I used to do 3-day fasts once a week to keep my weight loss moving, probably eating an average of 7000 calories a week or about 1000 calories a day). It's nasty, ugly, and no fun. And the weight loss eventually stops.
If I eat too many calories, I'm happy and energetic, but I also gain weight unless I work REALLY hard to burn them all.
If I eat at a reasonable deficit, I am still fairly energetic, I can support good solid workouts, I'm burning calories at a fairly reasonable pace while taking in few enough of them to lose weight. It's something I can sustain for a long time, and my workouts are enjoyable, sweaty, energetic, and limited only by my heart rate - followed by a nice endorphin high and just the right amount of ache to tell me I pushed myself.
A 1,000 daily calorie deficit between calories eaten and calories burned WILL lose 2 pounds a week. The trouble is, if you don't fuel the machine properly, the "calories burned" equation changes. So a 2,000 calorie deficit a day WILL lose you 4 pounds a week, until your metabolism reduces that deficit. Then you'll be losing the same 2 pounds a week someone with a 1,000 calorie deficit and good exercise is, only you'll be more miserable, more prone to cheating, and as soon as you start eating anything more you'll pack on the pounds like nobody's business because your metabolism takes time to come back up.0 -
Good luck !Will someone please explain this? I've heard so many people say this, but I totally do not understand the logic behind it...
There's probably a bit missing - like eat more *and exercise more* - as for the maths to work there has to be more to it than meets the eye. It always appears to be used by people exercising a lot, not eating much, and not losing weight. Some of the proponents were malnourished on the lower calories.
I did get the bodyweight simulator to show a (slightly) higher rate of weight loss from a 1000 calorie deficit by adding extra exercise when compared to creating the same deficit by just eating less, but both scenarios did lose weight as does every controlled trial with people on a calorie deficit.
The essence of the hypothesis is that eating a low calorie intake reduces metabolic rate (probably true) and when combined with a lot of exercise the resulting large calorie deficit stops weight loss. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html . In which case "Exercise less to lose weight" is equally valid.
Things you hear like "you have to fuel your body" seems to ignore the 450,000 calories some folks are carrying round as fat reserves - as if they were in some way unavailable as energy supply (bit of a design / evolution flaw there). 20 lbs of spare fat will yield up 600 cals a day of energy at least.0 -
It's eating more than someone on a low or very low calorie diet, but less than your body requires to maintain your current weight.
As long as you're eating less than your maintenance calories, you will lose weight. Many people - myself included - have found that the simple formula of "the less you eat, the faster you lose" doesn't work that way in real life applications. For me, eating too little left me tired, weak and losing a disproportionate amount of muscle mass. Eating the right amount, with adequate protein and regular exercise, weight loss felt effortless... I was energetic and most importantly... SATISFIED.0 -
Your body is a machine and needs fuel to function.0
-
If I eat at a reasonable deficit, I am still fairly energetic, I can support good solid workouts, I'm burning calories at a fairly reasonable pace while taking in few enough of them to lose weight.
That's a good description, where is this sweet spot in terms of calorie deficit or weight loss rate ?0 -
I think that you have to eat more calories of the right foods. I upped my calories and dropped my carbs and my body turned into a fat burning machine. I'm not saying that it works that way for everyone, but it dose me. I upped my calories slowly and I feel better and get more out of my work outs. Don't knock it untill you've tried it. It works well for some.0
-
That's because it's just a dumb sound bite and the logic behind it is misguided.
I'm living proof that it's not.0 -
That's because it's just a dumb sound bite and the logic behind it is misguided.
I'm living proof that it's not.
Exhibit A.0 -
That's because it's just a dumb sound bite and the logic behind it is misguided.
Really? Know any athletes eating 1200 calories a day? hahahahaha0 -
Do you know any athletes that eat 50k calories? What a fun game.0
-
It's eating more than someone on a low or very low calorie diet, but less than your body requires to maintain your current weight.
As long as you're eating less than your maintenance calories, you will lose weight. Many people - myself included - have found that the simple formula of "the less you eat, the faster you lose" doesn't work that way in real life applications. For me, eating too little left me tired, weak and losing a disproportionate amount of muscle mass. Eating the right amount, with adequate protein and regular exercise, weight loss felt effortless... I was energetic and most importantly... SATISFIED.
This was me.
at 1200 I was feeling tired, lightheaded and cranky.
I now eat 1600, and still lose.
Why eat such a low amount and deprive yourself when you don't have to?0 -
Do you know any athletes that eat 50k calories? What a fun game.
I'll play . . . you know, cuz you seem like an athlete. . . and an expert.0 -
That's because it's just a dumb sound bite and the logic behind it is misguided.
The logic behind it makes perfect sense.
Nobody is saying Eat more than maintenance, that would be stupid. For most people, a moderate defict of 15-20% from TDEE would be sufficient, there is no need to go crazy and eat at huge deficts.
If you eat too little you will feel deprived, could make yourself ill, are more likely to give up etc.
You can eat a little more, feel more satisfied, be able to stay the course, and still have a defict to enable you to lose weight safely and steadily.0 -
There's a troll in the dungeon...0
-
Do you know any athletes that eat 50k calories? What a fun game.
I'll play . . . you know, cuz you seem like an athlete. . . and an expert.
What a wonderful rebuttal. Keep up the good work!That's because it's just a dumb sound bite and the logic behind it is misguided.
Nobody is saying Eat more than maintenance, that would be stupid. For most people, a moderate defict of 15-20% from TDEE would be sufficient, there is no need to go crazy and eat at huge deficts.
If you eat too little you will feel deprived, could make yourself ill, are more likely to give up etc.
You can eat a little more, feel more satisfied, be able to stay the course, and still have a defict to enable you to lose weight safely and steadily.
I agree completely, and that just proves my point. Folks need to be explained that it does NOT mean eating over maintenance to lose weight, just as it is important in most cases not to create too steep of a deficit. The former will not allow you to lose weight and the latter will cause more problems than it solves in the long run. How does a silly sound bite explain all this? It doesn't. It's a misguided notion. You can't lose weight without a caloric deficit, and yet, in most cases, you don't want to have the deficit be too large - because more does not always equal better. And that's not even getting into the importance of protein intake and other factors.
Does the sound bite explain all of the above? No, because it's just a dumb sound bite, it's neither wrong nor right, just vague and can be potentially misconstrued for better or worse.0 -
I used to go out of my way to eat back my exercise calories. At times even when I wasn't hungry. One day, I stopped doing that. I would eat back some of it, but not all of it. Usually about 1/3 to 1/4. You know what? I lost weight! Faster than I was before.
The notion that your body will go into starvation mode is nonsense! I saw Dr. Oz talk about this. He said that if you go under by 500 calories or more a day for several days or weeks, then you can go into starvation mode. But by under eating by 300-500 a couple times a week when you exercise you're not harming yourself.
Just remember to drink lots of water and take in some protein after a work out. You'll be fine and you'll lose more faster than by eating back everything you work off.
Remember, use more calories than you take in and you will lose weight. 3500 calories is 1 pound. Eat 3500 less and you lose, eat 3500 more and you gain! Pretty simple (for most bodies).
- Mike0 -
I know a professional cyclist who competes in Tour de France. He said he eats around 8000-9000 calories a day when training, but burns that much too0
-
it's neither wrong nor right, just vague and can be potentially misconstrued for better or worse.
I agree. Context matters.
And in regards to thisI used to go out of my way to eat back my exercise calories. At times even when I wasn't hungry. One day, I stopped doing that. I would eat back some of it, but not all of it. Usually about 1/3 to 1/4. You know what? I lost weight! Faster than I was before.
The notion that your body will go into starvation mode is nonsense! I saw Dr. Oz talk about this. He said that if you go under by 500 calories or more a day for several days or weeks, then you can go into starvation mode. But by under eating by 300-500 a couple times a week when you exercise you're not harming yourself.
Just remember to drink lots of water and take in some protein after a work out. You'll be fine and you'll lose more faster than by eating back everything you work off.
Remember, use more calories than you take in and you will lose weight. 3500 calories is 1 pound. Eat 3500 less and you lose, eat 3500 more and you gain! Pretty simple (for most bodies).
I think this is a good article that relates to your post and to this thread:
http://body-improvements.com/resources/eat/#starvationmode0 -
If I eat at a reasonable deficit, I am still fairly energetic, I can support good solid workouts, I'm burning calories at a fairly reasonable pace while taking in few enough of them to lose weight.
That's a good description, where is this sweet spot in terms of calorie deficit or weight loss rate ?
You have to figure it out for yourself by experimenting with different caloric intakes.0 -
If I eat at a reasonable deficit, I am still fairly energetic, I can support good solid workouts, I'm burning calories at a fairly reasonable pace while taking in few enough of them to lose weight.
That's a good description, where is this sweet spot in terms of calorie deficit or weight loss rate ?
That is the spot that people have to play around with to see what works best. I am still adjusting.0 -
What a wonderful rebuttal. Keep up the good work!
I'm quite certain I'd never be able to benchpress your snide little *kitten* if it weren't for my 2000 calories a day.
So since you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and can't be bothered to argue civilly, you resort to petty insults? Why even bother posting at all if you have nothing to contribute? Please grow up.0 -
You can also do a search among the forum topics and find numerous responses on this one. It has been discussed ad nauseum. My advice is do you.0
-
I used to go out of my way to eat back my exercise calories. At times even when I wasn't hungry. One day, I stopped doing that. I would eat back some of it, but not all of it. Usually about 1/3 to 1/4. You know what? I lost weight! Faster than I was before.
The notion that your body will go into starvation mode is nonsense! I saw Dr. Oz talk about this. He said that if you go under by 500 calories or more a day for several days or weeks, then you can go into starvation mode. But by under eating by 300-500 a couple times a week when you exercise you're not harming yourself.
Just remember to drink lots of water and take in some protein after a work out. You'll be fine and you'll lose more faster than by eating back everything you work off.
Remember, use more calories than you take in and you will lose weight. 3500 calories is 1 pound. Eat 3500 less and you lose, eat 3500 more and you gain! Pretty simple (for most bodies).
- Mike
There are people whose bodies will stop burning fat if the deficit is too high. I'm one of them. I cannot eat fewer than 1500net calories a day and still burn fat. Before I started here I spent months eating 400-700 net calories a day and didn't lose a single pound. I started losing as soon as I was eating 1500 net calories.0 -
Do you know any athletes that eat 50k calories? What a fun game.
I'll play . . . you know, cuz you seem like an athlete. . . and an expert.
What a wonderful rebuttal. Keep up the good work!That's because it's just a dumb sound bite and the logic behind it is misguided.
Nobody is saying Eat more than maintenance, that would be stupid. For most people, a moderate defict of 15-20% from TDEE would be sufficient, there is no need to go crazy and eat at huge deficts.
If you eat too little you will feel deprived, could make yourself ill, are more likely to give up etc.
You can eat a little more, feel more satisfied, be able to stay the course, and still have a defict to enable you to lose weight safely and steadily.
I agree completely, and that just proves my point. Folks need to be explained that it does NOT mean eating over maintenance to lose weight, just as it is important in most cases not to create too steep of a deficit. The former will not allow you to lose weight and the latter will cause more problems than it solves in the long run. How does a silly sound bite explain all this? It doesn't. It's a misguided notion. You can't lose weight without a caloric deficit, and yet, in most cases, you don't want to have the deficit be too large - because more does not always equal better. And that's not even getting into the importance of protein intake and other factors.
Does the sound bite explain all of the above? No, because it's just a dumb sound bite, it's neither wrong nor right, just vague and can be potentially misconstrued for better or worse.
I don't think your other posts were helpful nor called for, but I do completely agree with what you're saying in this particular post. It is a bit vague sounding and people who are new to this may not understand the concept, that it's not saying to eat past maintainance just don't deprive yourself and eat too little when you could be eating a substantial amount and still lose weight.0 -
You are eating more than you might think you can, but are still eating at a deficit. So its not more as in, all you can eat, its more as in giving your body the correct amount of fuel to work efficiently.0
-
If you're exercising 3-6 times a week (this includes lifting weights), then TDEE-300 cals. See the link below:
http://www.oxygenmag.com/Community/Expert-Q-A/How-does-starvation-versus-eating-fewer-calories-affect-fat-loss.aspx0 -
So since you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and can't be bothered to argue civilly, you resort to petty insults? Why even bo
Oh ya, that's right. hmm.0 -
Do you know any athletes that eat 50k calories? What a fun game.
I'll play . . . you know, cuz you seem like an athlete. . . and an expert.
What a wonderful rebuttal. Keep up the good work!That's because it's just a dumb sound bite and the logic behind it is misguided.
Nobody is saying Eat more than maintenance, that would be stupid. For most people, a moderate defict of 15-20% from TDEE would be sufficient, there is no need to go crazy and eat at huge deficts.
If you eat too little you will feel deprived, could make yourself ill, are more likely to give up etc.
You can eat a little more, feel more satisfied, be able to stay the course, and still have a defict to enable you to lose weight safely and steadily.
I agree completely, and that just proves my point. Folks need to be explained that it does NOT mean eating over maintenance to lose weight, just as it is important in most cases not to create too steep of a deficit. The former will not allow you to lose weight and the latter will cause more problems than it solves in the long run. How does a silly sound bite explain all this? It doesn't. It's a misguided notion. You can't lose weight without a caloric deficit, and yet, in most cases, you don't want to have the deficit be too large - because more does not always equal better. And that's not even getting into the importance of protein intake and other factors.
Does the sound bite explain all of the above? No, because it's just a dumb sound bite, it's neither wrong nor right, just vague and can be potentially misconstrued for better or worse.
I don't think your other posts were helpful nor called for, but I do completely agree with what you're saying in this particular post. It is a bit vague sounding and people who are new to this may not understand the concept, that it's not saying to eat past maintainance just don't deprive yourself and eat too little when you could be eating a substantial amount and still lose weight.
Exactly. That's the thing with sound bites, they're just that. Absolutist statements are never correct (usually
) 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions