Does eating more to weight less work for everyone?

heybales

I eat 2,000+ cals a day before exercise and I have lost three lbs in the last month. Unintentionally. Works for me. I'm not everyone though.

Okay, would you mind sharing your stats? I would love to know that I could increase calories and maintain my weight but that doesn't seem to work for me. I'm trying to figure out if I'm making a mistake in calculations, or if this is just my body!

I'm 5'3", 44 yrs., 115 lbs., and female. I seem to have a body fat percentage somewhere between 23% and 26%.

I'm 19, 5'3.5, 115, and about 20%BF. I lift weights 4-6 days a week and do cardio 3-4 times a week for 30 minutes.

The metabolism for a 44 year old and 19 year old is totally different, the age factor is extremely important when it comes to how much you can eat. There is no pint comparing yourself to other people, because there are so many factors that come into play when it comes to how much we can eat.

1141 to 1266 - not that much difference at estimated healthy BMR, based on avg fat/LBM ratio at same height/weight.

And if you are talking LBM, it takes the same amount of calories to keep that running within 5%, regardless of age.
So there, the 20% compared to 26% is only 1274 to 1204 BMR - again, not much of a difference.

Nope, not until you get older does metabolism based on age/weight/height change greatly.

Obviously your activity levels on top of that base metabolism can vary greatly. Sometimes with the 44 yr old much more active.

littlepinkhearts

I think it is going to be different for each individual. There will be some trial and error involved.

For me, I can't eat as many calories as reccommended for maintenance without gaining. Or maybe I'm being inaccurate in figuring calories eaten, and calories burned. I'm making an effort to be very careful with my logging, and watch the weight (and how my clothes are fitting) carefully.

Do an internet search and check several sites with calculators to see what is reccommended, also.

That was the long answer.

For me the short answer is, no, that doesn't work for me.

Same for me. I've upped my caloric intake to 1400 from 1200 and I've gained, not lost. I'm sticking to 1400 because I feel better on it, but I'm just not sure maintenance figures have been accurate for me.

I gained 4 lbs altogether and have just lost 2 of it....patience is definately needed.

heybales

Yeah I dont understand it either...I have been eatting MORE for years and it got me nothing but fat! lol

More than what you burned through daily activity, or more than current eating level?

That could be a range of 2000 calorie difference actually.

When you at more before starting this diet, do you know how many calories that was?

yarwell

Doesn't work for *anybody* that does it under controlled conditions that I've seen yet, see for example pinterest.com/pin/48413764714673585/ - the folks on lowest calories lost more faster and kept it off.

We've seen links posted lately to videos of "stalled" people taken into a lab and having their metabolism measured and it's totally normal. When investigated or secretly filmed they were eating 50-100% calories more than claimed.

So you have to look for a rational explanation like :-

1. Eating x more and exercising more than x extra gives an increased deficit
2. Eating to a higher target allows honesty in reporting and the food may actually go down
3. People that can't sustain the lower target binge and overeat, blowing the deficit. A higher target allows them to comply and maintain a deficit.
4. The calorie balance is not the determining factor - it's hormones, insulin etc
5. Something else

dsjohndrow

It didn't work for me. I am 53. I lost a lot weight at 1400 calories per day + exercise calories. Then I plateaued and upped them to 1800-2000 per day and gained 10 pounds in 3 months. I went back to 1600 and lost 10 pounds in 1 month, but I workout more now - not a lot more, but more.

nikkiprickett

I recommend getting new rules of lifting for women it gives answers to every question I ever had.....it pretty much says slashing calories seriously harms your body and gives a formula for what you need and suggests ONLY cutting up to 300 from that number...and cutting back a ton on calories doesn't work long term. On the other hand, I was eating 1300 calories a day and my formula says to eat like 2100 and i subracted the 300 so I started by eating 1600, now I'm at 1800....ALSO I haven't been working out for the past like 2 weeks because of finals and stuff coming up and I haven't gained anything...

the hard part that people don't get is EATING CLEAN! Obviously if all you eat is junk when you up your calories you're going to gain weight. If you eat clean you won't. Simple as that.

Oh and don't listen to MFP!! that's the worst thing...it was telling me I needed to o down to 1200 and that's absolutely terrible for your body...and don't listen to the "you'll be XXX in 5 weeks" thing...it's wrong as well.


Here's the formula:


http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/538943-how-to-calculate-calorie-goals-according-to-nrolfw

MaryPhillips90

Eating more absolutely does not work for everyone and I'm one.
I lost about 16lbs before hitting a plateau. I started eating my exercise calories to get more in and never lost anything. Now that I'm back to 1,200 and NOT eating exercise calories, I'm losing again. Everyone is different.

lilojoke

It works but I think the idea is over blown to a large degree. I tried this and tried it for six months almost and it got me an extra 20 pounds on me and it kept on going up despite my controlled increases to TDEE or just below with exercise. I am now eating to my BMR and having great success even with a whole lot of walking and lifting.

I ate 1500-1700 while I was 260 lbs and lost 100 pounds like this. I maintained on 1700-1800 afterwards without any problems. Really is about the whole picture and not just calories but how you sleep, anabolic state, catabolic state, amino acids and your stress etc.

There is a great article on this in the below link.

http://tinyurl.com/3hdaywv

mfpcopine

It has never worked for me or anyone I've ever known. I'm recovering from an injury and have to be acutely aware of my caloric intake. I overdid it the last couple of days, and guess what, I gained back a pound.

Even when able to exercise without restraint, I have never been able to eat more and continue to lose weight unless I also significantly upped my exercise frequency and intensity. I also don't kid myself about the intensity: I wear a heart rate monitor.

This is not a method for the ordinary exerciser. If you are an elite athlete, which means you are at a truly superior level of fitness and physiological self-knowledge through records and tests, things might be different, I don't know.

And for the last time, it is not easy to put oneself into "starvation mode."

yarwell

QUESTION: You are all talking BMR and TDEE .... what is TDEE? Thank you.

Total Daily Energy Expenditure - calories burned through 24 hours. The largest part is BMR (usually).

alicat0112

wow

malins2

I eat 2,000+ cals a day before exercise and I have lost three lbs in the last month. Unintentionally. Works for me. I'm not everyone though.

Okay, would you mind sharing your stats? I would love to know that I could increase calories and maintain my weight but that doesn't seem to work for me. I'm trying to figure out if I'm making a mistake in calculations, or if this is just my body!

I'm 5'3", 44 yrs., 115 lbs., and female. I seem to have a body fat percentage somewhere between 23% and 26%.

I'm 19, 5'3.5, 115, and about 20%BF. I lift weights 4-6 days a week and do cardio 3-4 times a week for 30 minutes.

The metabolism for a 44 year old and 19 year old is totally different, the age factor is extremely important when it comes to how much you can eat. There is no pint comparing yourself to other people, because there are so many factors that come into play when it comes to how much we can eat.

1141 to 1266 - not that much difference at estimated healthy BMR, based on avg fat/LBM ratio at same height/weight.

And if you are talking LBM, it takes the same amount of calories to keep that running within 5%, regardless of age.
So there, the 20% compared to 26% is only 1274 to 1204 BMR - again, not much of a difference.

Nope, not until you get older does metabolism based on age/weight/height change greatly.

Obviously your activity levels on top of that base metabolism can vary greatly. Sometimes with the 44 yr old much more active.

Well it doesn't seem like much, when you calculate it like that. But it is a difference and if at 25 you weighed 130 pounds and ran 3 miles five times a week, at age 45, you'd need to run about 4.5 miles five times to maintain that weight and not diet.
And I guess it is very individual, but I have seen a huge difference for myself. And even if I have a lot MORE muscle now than I did 20 years ago, I still have to eat less than I did then to maintain my weight.

alicat0112

you have lost a lot what have you been doing?

mfpcopine

Doesn't work for *anybody* that does it under controlled conditions that I've seen yet, see for example pinterest.com/pin/48413764714673585/ - the folks on lowest calories lost more faster and kept it off.

We've seen links posted lately to videos of "stalled" people taken into a lab and having their metabolism measured and it's totally normal. When investigated or secretly filmed they were eating 50-100% calories more than claimed.

So you have to look for a rational explanation like :-

1. Eating x more and exercising more than x extra gives an increased deficit
2. Eating to a higher target allows honesty in reporting and the food may actually go down
3. People that can't sustain the lower target binge and overeat, blowing the deficit. A higher target allows them to comply and maintain a deficit.
4. The calorie balance is not the determining factor - it's hormones, insulin etc
5. Something else

All good hypotheses.

grimm1974

It is kind of a trick question. Short answer is, yes it will work for everyone. I mean, it is just eating 15-20% of your TDEE. As long as your TDEE is what you think it is, then you will lose weight because you are on a deficit. It is a slower approach because you are also eating above your BMR. This is suppose to help you avoid plateaus which many people encounter when eating below their BMR. If it doesn't work for someone, it is most likely because their BMR/TDEE is not what they calculate it to be. I'm not going to even begin to guess why those numbers are not what they should be. I'm no expert in the field. However it is just a matter of cutting your calories by about 15-20% below that TDEE number while keeping it above BMR.

CyberEd312

People drop calories too fast at the start when there is no need, that's the problem!
Eventually it is Inevitable you "will" have to lower calories at some point as you get closer to your goal, especially if your aiming for a low body fat percentage. The key is to lower calories slowly, to give your body a chance to adjust, if you shock it its just going fight you.

Not entirely true, especially if you are in the eating back your exercise calories camp... Which I am a firm believer in......When I started out at 560 lbs. I worked with a nutritionist as we established me on a 2400 calories a day meal plan and I sustained a avg weightloss of 1 to 2 lbs. a week. Back then I could barely walk from room to room so exercise was next to impossible. I ended up in the pool at the wellness center doing weight displacement walking until I had lost enough weight to get fitted with braces and was able start exercising on dry land... Fast forward 3 years now and down 306 lbs. and my 2nd set of braces per knee... I am now at 254 lbs. and workout 6 days a week doing everything from Pool therapy , weight training, cardio equipment. And I am currently still eating in a deficit to lose 1/2 lb. a week but my total daily caloric intake is now 3200 calories a day. My carbs have increased from 240 grams 3 years ago to 320 grams a day now... So in my case as I am getting closer to my goal weight and my bodyfat continues to go down I am eating more and more and still losing......

mfpcopine

And I guess it is very individual, but I have seen a huge difference for myself. And even if I have a lot MORE muscle now than I did 20 years ago, I still have to eat less than I did then to maintain my weight.

Absolutely. In addition, muscle, while good for overall health, does not burn as many additional calories as people think.

FitnSassy

wow

That is the cutest baby on your marker!

tuffytuffy1

It worked for me initially; after stalling out for months and months, I increased my calories by 200 (from 1250 to 1450) and I quickly lost about 3 pounds in 4 weeks. Now I am stalled out again and I am going to increase my calories by another 100 or so.

phresh21

I personally think it is individual for everyone. I started to eat more and lost more and faster than before and I was eating 1650 roughly so I wasn't starving myself by any means. Calories is one of those things that people need to experiment with and find their perfect calorie intake match