someone, explain how eating more = weightloss? please

Prahasaurus

Let's not confuse "starvation mode," which almost nobody posting at myfitnesspal has ever experienced, with the legitimate question of whether it can be beneficial at times to increase your calories while trying to lose weight.

Words have meaning. Please don't throw out "starvation mode" - a specific medical condition - when you have no idea what you are talking about. Here's a good primer:

http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=35501

http://fitnessblackbook.com/main/starvation-mode-why-you-probably-never-need-to-worry-about-it/

http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.cz/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html

Someone who is overweight whose weight loss stalls is NOT in starvation mode!

On the other hand, for some people, eating more calories can be beneficial. Just giving one example, it can give them more energy to exercise. And that exercise will burn more calories than they consumed in additional food. So the laws of physics remain in tact... Also, eating more can allow for a slower pace of weight loss, so long as a calorie deficit is maintained. This appears to be more conducive to keeping weight off long term.

I'm starting to think this entire "starvation mode" con is a way for people to eat more food without feeling guilty. Even though, as I mentioned, some people should eat more, depending on their specific circumstances.

--P

suziecue66

the human body is amazing in its ability to survive. Those little children have gone for so long without a decent amount of food they have used up all their reserves. Once the body feels the need to survive it will hold onto the fat first and start burning lean muscle. Eventually it will start on the fat. 1 day would not really make that huge a difference but I guess if it is habitual it would. The human body can manage around 3-4 days without water.

It would go after the fat first not muscle.

yarwell

Heres a good study for you to read about how slight deficits are better than heavy ones.
http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v9/n11s/full/oby2001133a.html

"Conclusions.

Low-calorie diets can be effective treatment for long-term weight reduction, but the optimum way of delivering such diets remains unclear. Several approaches seem to offer greater efficacy: fat restriction, fixed energy deficits, or meal replacements. However, the future of dietary management should be seen as complimentary but subsidiary to lifestyle and behavior change. The challenge will be to identify those individuals who may be most responsive to specific dietary and/or behavioral changes."

It's a review paper, whose conclusions don't appear clear to me at all. One of the successes it references is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10968732 which compares 1200-1500 calorie "conventional" diets with Slim Fast meal replacements "The initial weight loss was greater in those receiving meal replacements compared with the isocaloric conventional diet (7.8% vs. 1.5%), but the use of a meal replacement was successful at maintaining weight loss in the 75% of patients evaluable after 4 years."

Anyone find us a robust clinical trial that shows benefit of a small deficit to a larger one while delivering a weight loss rate of 1 lb/week ?

Grimlock69

Why do you keep reposting this? You don't have your answer yet?

yarwell

ACG's study was a Scotsman, that's Scotland not Scandinavia.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf

"From
Day 93 to Day 162 only, he was given potassium
supplements (two effervescent potassium tablets
BPC supplying 13 mEq daily) and from Day 345 to
Day 355 only he was given sodium supplements (2 5 g
sodium chloride daily). No other drug treatment was
given. Initially, the patient was treated in hospital
but for the greater part of the time he was allowed
home, attending regularly as an out-patient for
check-up. "

Went in for a checkup every two weeks.

"Results
Body weight loss
During the 382 days of the fast, the patient's
weight decreased from 456 to 180 lb. Five years after
undertaking the fast, Mr A.B.'s weight remains
around 196 lb"

LOL.

suziecue66

ACG's study was a Scotsman, that's Scotland not Scandinavia.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf

"From
Day 93 to Day 162 only, he was given potassium
supplements (two effervescent potassium tablets
BPC supplying 13 mEq daily) and from Day 345 to
Day 355 only he was given sodium supplements (2 5 g
sodium chloride daily). No other drug treatment was
given. Initially, the patient was treated in hospital
but for the greater part of the time he was allowed
home, attending regularly as an out-patient for
check-up. "

Went in for a checkup every two weeks.

"Results
Body weight loss
During the 382 days of the fast, the patient's
weight decreased from 456 to 180 lb. Five years after
undertaking the fast, Mr A.B.'s weight remains
around 196 lb"

LOL.

That's good weight stable.

ChrisRN75495

then why are all the kids in Africa... the ones you see on "feed the children" ads... all are bone? their bodies have gone for how long with out food?

I know the body can survive at least 40 days without food, water much less... I doubt one day is going to make that big of a difference.

One day doesn't make a difference.

The children in Africa have NEVER had enough food. Often they've had no food. Their bodies canabalize their muscles and bones, trying to stay alive long enough to find food. It's a survival thing. Their bellies are big because of worms and because of liver problems--not enough protein, livers cannot function.

Not rocket science. Maybe it's just me but referencing desperate starving people who live worse than most others in the world... just seems so out of place (for lack of a better phrase that won't have me virtually beated to death).

ChrisRN75495

Why do you keep reposting this? You don't have your answer yet?

Who are you responding to?

This is the general nature of an online conversation on a thread in any group.

If you don't like it, don't read it!

Good luck to you on your weight loss--which of course is why we are all here..... Maybe try to be a little less critical of others? That would be lovely.

Thanks.

hopshire

If you eat to many calories you will gain weight . If you do not eat enough calories your body wants to store fat and your metabolism slows down considerably and goes into starvation mode then you gain, do not loose or just maintain.

Helloitsdan

Dan- I wanted to see what your rec for me would be so I read your 'in place of a road map' post and I'm confused.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/538381-in-place-of-a-road-map

It sounds like you're saying I should use the fat2fit calculator TDEE amount and eat that? That puts me around 1850. I know from my Fitbit I burn around 1950. Are you saying I can only lose a pound every 35 days? And get to my goal of losing 20 lbs. in early 2015? And log food for 700 days? To lose 20 lbs.? Or do I re-calc that as I lose to slow things down?

No.
I'm saying to get TDEE, a confusing thing for most new ppl here, you simply need to put current body weight in F2F calc as goal.
I'n my IPOARM you should be taking 20% from TDEE.
I've been meaning to rewrite that for a long time.

So what you are saying is at 1900 TDEE via fit bit you should be taking in about 1600ish daily.
Thats easy!

ACG's study was a Scotsman, that's Scotland not Scandinavia.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf

****! It was 3am my last post.
Sry.

I read that last year when Martin Berkhan tweeted it.

ladyraven68

Dan- I wanted to see what your rec for me would be so I read your 'in place of a road map' post and I'm confused.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/538381-in-place-of-a-road-map

It sounds like you're saying I should use the fat2fit calculator TDEE amount and eat that? That puts me around 1850. I know from my Fitbit I burn around 1950. Are you saying I can only lose a pound every 35 days? And get to my goal of losing 20 lbs. in early 2015? And log food for 700 days? To lose 20 lbs.? Or do I re-calc that as I lose to slow things down?

ooh, I'm glad you've posted this.

I've been looking into the fitbt things, and was hoping for some advice.

Your fitbit says 1950 (I assume that's a weekly average?), and the TDEE of your goal weight is 1850 accordng to F2F.
What did F2F say should be your TDEE at your current weight and activity levels? do they match?

As for the difference in the 1950 and 1850 being so small, it does say on the blurb that as you get closer to goal, you should deduct 200-300 cals.

So on that 1850, you would change to 1550. Which weirdly is your 1950 less 20%.

I am not suggesting you to change to this, as I know you have your own method of defict, but just explaining how F2F does it.

mcarter99

The 1850 from fat2fit was based on my current weight, not goal. So I'd use my goal weight TDEE or my current one minus 20%? That makes more sense. If I do what Dan says and put in my current weight as my goal weight it gives me 1968. Eating at 80% of that would be around 1575. That's about 200 more than I'm eating. Math would say I'd lose less than half as fast as I am now. Are you predicting I'd lose faster than the 1.8lbs/week I'm averaging now? I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be the case.

ladyraven- The 1950 is a 30-day average from Fitbit. If I compare that to the TDEE of my goal weight it would fall right between lightly and moderately active (1850-2083). I get 10,000 steps/day and sit for work.

I like the Fitbit a lot. It's been accurate for me. When I lost 30ish lbs. with it, the deficits roughly matched my weight loss. I haven't had to but I think that, like a HRM, if you didn't like its BMR estimate for you (though it just uses the standard calculators) you could fudge your age and/or weight to tweak things. I was one of the first people to get a Fitbit and mine's still working. I had a BodyMedia Fit in early 2009 and heard about the Fitbit development and got on the waiting list for one then.

mrsslimkatie

bump to read later