someone, explain how eating more = weightloss? please
Replies
-
I have just been tracking my calories and workouts here for a short while. I am 5'10", 169, 60 years old, bf 17%. I want to get down to 160, maybe 155. Want to get my bf% down.
I am just about done with the P90X2 exercise program which is fairly intense about 4 days of the week. On the other days, I sometimes do Yoga, elliptical, bike riding. So I am fairly active.
When I log in my calories and exercise it usually says something like. If every day was like today, you would weigh 155 in 5 weeks.
One week has gone by with similar messages and I have gone from 170 to 169. Obviously, something is not right.
Am I eating too little? The graphic tells me my goal is 1390 calories before adding in exercise. This goal was calculated to give me a daily calorie deficit of 750. I usually have an additional 300-500 calorie deficit per day.
BMR 1755
TDEE 2414
Perfect weight 153lbs
Should be netting daily to lose wight 1900-2100 daily.
Can eat up to 2900 on workout days up to 3 days a week and still remain in a deficit for the week.
Eating 2k a day will result in a 1lb loss per week in fat as long as you maintain 3 days on P90X.
1300?
These numbers if eaten daily you wont be adding in calories burned.
I appreciate the time you have taken to input my numbers and come up with a plan.
When I plug my 60 years, 5"10", 169 into the BMR calculator here, it comes up with 1583 and not 1755. You must be using a different calculator.
MFP has me at 2140 calories burned from "normal daily activity" and then came up with a deficit of 750 per day based on goal of 1.5 lbs a week to come up with a target of 1390 calories a day without taking into consideration exercise. I have been eating 300-500 less on average per day than MFP says to do. My net calories probably averaged about 1000 when taking off for exercise. My gross calories averaged probably 1600-1700 even on days when I burned up close to 1000 calories on exercise.
Sounds like either way I look at it, I need to up the calories a bit and get away from a "More is Better" mentality. Right?0 -
I have just been tracking my calories and workouts here for a short while. I am 5'10", 169, 60 years old, bf 17%. I want to get down to 160, maybe 155. Want to get my bf% down.
I am just about done with the P90X2 exercise program which is fairly intense about 4 days of the week. On the other days, I sometimes do Yoga, elliptical, bike riding. So I am fairly active.
When I log in my calories and exercise it usually says something like. If every day was like today, you would weigh 155 in 5 weeks.
One week has gone by with similar messages and I have gone from 170 to 169. Obviously, something is not right.
Am I eating too little? The graphic tells me my goal is 1390 calories before adding in exercise. This goal was calculated to give me a daily calorie deficit of 750. I usually have an additional 300-500 calorie deficit per day.
BMR 1755
TDEE 2414
Perfect weight 153lbs
Should be netting daily to lose wight 1900-2100 daily.
Can eat up to 2900 on workout days up to 3 days a week and still remain in a deficit for the week.
Eating 2k a day will result in a 1lb loss per week in fat as long as you maintain 3 days on P90X.
1300?
These numbers if eaten daily you wont be adding in calories burned.
I appreciate the time you have taken to input my numbers and come up with a plan.
When I plug my 60 years, 5"10", 169 into the BMR calculator here, it comes up with 1583 and not 1755. You must be using a different calculator.
MFP has me at 2140 calories burned from "normal daily activity" and then came up with a deficit of 750 per day based on goal of 1.5 lbs a week to come up with a target of 1390 calories a day without taking into consideration exercise. I have been eating 300-500 less on average per day than MFP says to do. My net calories probably averaged about 1000 when taking off for exercise. My gross calories averaged probably 1600-1700 even on days when I burned up close to 1000 calories on exercise.
Sounds like either way I look at it, I need to up the calories a bit and get away from a "More is Better" mentality. Right?
This is correct.
Also 1.5 may be a bit out of range for you at your age.
Keep in mind that you arent the young buck you used to be and now have a host of other issues that could come along with weight loss.
You are stressing your body when you diet.
You stress it even more when you work out.
Muscle loss.
Bone density issues.
Testosterone issues.
Look at weight loss like this:
Weight loss is 70% nutrition. You can get to goal just by eating right.
Weight loss is 20% training. You can add training but some training would actually set you back. Like excessive cardio.
Weight loss is 10% rest. If you dont have rest you wont recover for the next training.
For most guys who have a gym membership, lifting is your absolute best bet.
You start up on a 5x5 routine and you eat right on lifting days, testosterone goes up, cortisol goes down, less stress on the system, muscle gains, fat loss, flexy flexy on the beach.
www.stronglifts.com
www.bodyrecomposition.com
PM me if you need help.0 -
I didn't read all umpteen million replies, so pardon me if someone already said this -- in addition to your body hoarding calories in starvation mode, it also wreaks havoc on your blood sugar. I discovered this when I was diagnosed with gestational diabetes (for those that don't know, temporary pregnancy-induced diabetes that goes away after birth). No one warned me to watch calories, and since getting enough calories has NEVER been a problem for me, it didn't occur to me to make sure I was getting enough...but I was so focused on carbs to keep my blood sugar down, that I didn't get enough calories and my blood sugar numbers stayed high. My doc explained that's one more survival instinct -- when the body senses deprivation, it increases the amount of sugar released into the blood stream. As soon as I increased calories, my blood sugar drooped to safe levels.0
-
How about a Visual - 300 Calories.
70 Cups of lettuce or 1 creme filled doughnut0 -
This statement is usually directed to people who don't supply enough calories to compensate for their body's daily needs.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
This statement is usually directed to people who don't supply enough calories to compensate for their body's daily needs.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
But isn't that pretty much the definition of weight loss?0 -
Exactly!!How about a Visual - 300 Calories.
70 Cups of lettuce or 1 creme filled doughnut
What people forget is that it isn't just the number of calories, but the quality of the food that those calories are coming from.
In terms of volume of food, I am eating far more than I used to, but in terms of calories I am eating about 50% less.
I manage 3 - 4 good size meals a day, with a lot of fruit, veg and salad and a lot less bread and flour. This means that I can consume a net 1700 calories a day (with allowances for calories burnt in exercise) and I don't feel hungry and the weight is coming off at a realistic weight.
I have tried other methods, but I think the calorie intake method is by far the best. Using MFP, I have been able to diet and succeed, without feeling hungry at all, so far.0 -
tl;dr
No one's body goes into "starvation mode" if they drop below 1200 calories. Starvation mode is something that very, very, very few people in 1st world countries will ever experience. It happens from an extremely long time of caloric and nutritional deprivation. Think. Use your brains. If your body went into starvation mode within a week or a month or even several months of consuming low amounts of calories there would be no such thing as an anorexic or someone starving to death.0 -
The most basic form of weight loss is to eat less and move more. If you have one or the other, you won't get the results you want. You need both of them to lose fat, not muscle. The whole concept of eating more is relative to what you are eating when you are in hard core diet mode, and most people think that it changes their metabolic rate. Your metabolism is not that flexible, and the only way to change your weight long term is to change what you eat and how you eat. Gorging yourself on foods that aren't good for you will have the same result regardless of what your metabolism is.0
-
The minimum amount you'll burn in a day is BMR. The actual amount you burn in a day is called TDEE around here (Total Daily Energy Expenditure), which includes exercise AND a whole bunch of other activities like showering, eating, driving, moving around an office, changing diapers, sex, and whatever else you do in a day.
If you eat more than BMR but less than TDEE you will lose weight.
So some of us want to eat closer to our actual TDEE to lose weight (I like a ~400 cal/day deficit, personally) to lose weight slowly and without much effort while preserving lean muscle mass. Others choose to eat closer to BMR... or less.
Many people decide they want to lose weight and are bombarded with messages about eating 1200 calories/day, eating 500 calories plus HCG injections, eating 300 calories plus B vitamin injections or whatever... the truth is, as long as what you eat is somewhat less than what you burn, you'll lose weight.
It doesn't have to be super restrictive. Just tracked accurately.
This above is how I see it.
It's not about eating tons of food. Obviously you'd gain weight. It's about eating more food rather than being super restrictive and still losing weight. When I first started, I did the 1200 calorie thing and soon stopped losing. Increasing my calories has helped me.
^^^ This. I think some people mistakenly get the idea that EM2WL means to over eat. That's not the philosophy, at least not from my understanding. It simply means you don't have to feel hungry all the time. You don't have to delete whole categories of food from your diet ("diet" meaning the type of food you choose to eat).
When we are overweight it's because we've eaten way more than our bodies need and more than our bodies can use. Constant or long term drastic calorie reductions make our bodies less efficient in burning calories. If we get back on a regular feeding schedule (whatever that is--for me it's 3 meals plus snacks when I need them) and consume enough calories to cover our daily activities, we will not continue to gain. It doesn't take a giant deficit to lose weight and keep it off, but some people are in a hurry and want to drop weight faster, so they eat less. Yes, they lose weight initially, but unless they are willing to always and forever eat less, they will always and forever fight the battle of being up and down on the scale. At least that's how I understand it, and it's working for me so far.0 -
good question, I don't get it either. I think one thing people fail to realize is that there is no "ONE DIET FITS ALL". What works for one doesn't work for every "BODY". Many people get too wrap up in the USDA "recommendations and guidelines". Thats just it, its ONLY recommendations and guidelines but in reality you have to do what works best "your body". You have to adjust as you see fit, if you need high calorie diet to lose weight good on you, and if you need a low calorie diet to lose weight good on you too. just remember there is no one diet that works for everyone.0
-
bump will read later0
-
Bump0
-
i don't feel like my metabolism has slowed... (except for being colder than I was when fat) but I have NEVER had this much energy and vitality. I cut hedges today for pete's sake in the 90 degree heat because reading while tanning was booorriinng... I used to tan competitively so this is new for me...no gi distress,,, skin color ... well.. sweet....hair- what's left of it silky....I don't know if i should consider reset or not.. cos james brown said it.. I feel good..if 10lbs too heavy..0
-
Bump.0
-
This statement is usually directed to people who don't supply enough calories to compensate for their body's daily needs.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
But isn't that pretty much the definition of weight loss?
Nope. Your body needs a certain punt of calories to carry out it's basic functions, such as grow hair, nails, pump blood, breathe, repair muscle etc. Which you would do even if you were at rest all day.
Then on top of that you get up, walk about, brush your teeth, go to work, go to the gym etc,
Add the two together and that's your daily calorie expenditure.
The eat more philosophy as that there is a sweet spot between the two for fat loss.0 -
Basically, you need to eat at least 1200 calories a day because anything less than that kicks your body into survival mode. Your body will think there is some kind of famine and hold on to every shred of fat it can and slow your metabolism way down to try and keep you alive because it thinks you are in danger of dying. That's why you need to eat more.
Actually our metabolisms are pretty much normal even when eating below 1200. There is no magical strategy to increase your metabolism... Its given to you at birth. Now you can help your body out by increasing muscle and thus burning a little more calories per day but not by that much.0 -
I know that's your expenditure. How you lose weight is eating less.
That Venuto newletter you posted yesterday cited research that found that the reduction in metabolism from dieting from obese down to healthy was found to be 3-5% (controlling for the expected reduction, I assume). If that's true there is no sweet spot. Eating less always means losing more. 3-5% change will not overcome any increase in intake.
I agree that you should eat more IF you're feeling so deprived you're prone to binge or to give up entirely, though. But if you're more motivated by scale results than by eating more, you will probably do best eating at 500-1000 calories/day under your expenditure, in my opinion. Both are valid plans.0 -
I know that's your expenditure. How you lose weight is eating less.
That Venuto newletter you posted yesterday cited research that found that the reduction in metabolism from dieting from obese down to healthy was found to be 3-5% (controlling for the expected reduction, I assume). If that's true there is no sweet spot. Eating less always means losing more. 3-5% change will not overcome any increase in intake.
I agree that you should eat more IF you're feeling so deprived you're prone to binge or to give up entirely, though. But if you're more motivated by scale results than by eating more, you will probably do best eating at 500-1000 calories/day under your expenditure, in my opinion. Both are valid plans.
If it were just a case of eating less, then people could just eat 100 calories a day , no problem.
But that isn't the case, as our body has basic nutritional needs. Satisfying those needs is important, and it's about nutrients, protein etc, not just calories.0 -
I know but 1200 cover most women's needs.0
-
Well sure, keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, but anyone dieting on an extremely low calorific intake is just setting themselves up to fail.tl;dr
No one's body goes into "starvation mode" if they drop below 1200 calories. Starvation mode is something that very, very, very few people in 1st world countries will ever experience. It happens from an extremely long time of caloric and nutritional deprivation. Think. Use your brains. If your body went into starvation mode within a week or a month or even several months of consuming low amounts of calories there would be no such thing as an anorexic or someone starving to death.
It's widely known that crash dieting, in the majority of cases, is not going to fail.
Bottom line; diet without exercise or excercise without a proper diet is NOT going to produce decent results.
But, that being said, not going to argue with anyone over it, at the end of the day I am finding a good mix of healthy movement, combined with a reasonable calorific reduction and diet shift, is doing wonders for me and that's all I am really concerned with.0 -
'Crash dieting' and 'very low calories' are usually considered to be under 800 for long periods. 1200 is never considered crash dieting, and going below it for short periods isn't, either.0
-
Wow - a nutritionist recommending to eat above BMR - who'd have thunk it?
http://www.womenandweight.com/reviews/diets/1200-calorie-diet-getting-started/0 -
Mrsbigmack sums it up perfectly!
The minimum amount you'll burn in a day is BMR. The actual amount you burn in a day is called TDEE around here (Total Daily Energy Expenditure), which includes exercise AND a whole bunch of other activities like showering, eating, driving, moving around an office, changing diapers, sex, and whatever else you do in a day.
If you eat more than BMR but less than TDEE you will lose weight.
So some of us want to eat closer to our actual TDEE to lose weight (I like a ~400 cal/day deficit, personally) to lose weight slowly and without much effort while preserving lean muscle mass. Others choose to eat closer to BMR... or less.
Many people decide they want to lose weight and are bombarded with messages about eating 1200 calories/day, eating 500 calories plus HCG injections, eating 300 calories plus B vitamin injections or whatever... the truth is, as long as what you eat is somewhat less than what you burn, you'll lose weight.
It doesn't have to be super restrictive. Just tracked accurately.
[/quote]0 -
Because those children are malnourished & it is a chronic condition. The body will hold on to fat & muscle as long as it can, but if the conditions remain sparse, the body basically eats itself... besides most of us that aren't "sticks" have a much different diet, even in "starvation mode" than those children...0
-
Urrrrgh some terrible posts in this thread.
The 'starving kids in africa' thing is a totaly absurd comparison and had nothing to do with this conversation.'Crash dieting' and 'very low calories' are usually considered to be under 800 for long periods. 1200 is never considered crash dieting, and going below it for short periods isn't, either.I know but 1200 cover most women's needs.
Wrong.
The '1200' cal minimum has to be the most abused and mis-used approach on this entire site.
People here are not 'most women' in the same way I am not 'most men', everyone is individual and their calorie intakes should calculated on an individual basis. Simply applying the '1200' rule, regardless of peoples current weight, bf% and activity levels is most likely why so many people on here are struggling.
if someone is BMR is 1500and their TDEE is 2100, 1200 calories is not enough for sustained and regular weight loss. Unfortunately many of this site think less is always better, which it isn't.
I would urge everyone here to do a little more research, work out your BMR and your calorie and macro needs FOR YOURSELF, do not blindly trust the numbers MFP gives you. Understand the role of different macro nutrients and what they do for you.Put yourself in control.0 -
Wow - a nutritionist recommending to eat above BMR - who'd have thunk it?
http://www.womenandweight.com/reviews/diets/1200-calorie-diet-getting-started/
I can't read it because my browser says it has malware content. But one nutritionist recommending you eat above it won't convince me that it's dangerous to eat below it when no authoritative body uses BMR as the rec for what level to eat above.0 -
You know I think when someone starts this journey they want to succeed so much and just want to do things right. At the beginning of this process you eat less and you lose. As you continue, you start to have emotional responses to hunger or food. ie you are hungry and at first you think...yeah baby I am losing weight...after a considerable amount of time that hunger gets to be frustrating and defeating.
For me, I reached my goal and was doing great. I am maintaining and living an incredibly active lifestyle. I train for marathons. I was still in the mindset of restricting etc and had to relearn how to eat more to keep my body moving in ways that made me happy. I can not run 12 miles one day and not change my diet to take that activity into consideration if I want to be able to run 12 miles again etc. I started getting tired of pushing through the tired feelings and head rushes that were a result of too few calories etc. I needed to investigate how to fuel my activity and not gain weight. I ate back exercise and very slowly increased calorie goals. I feel more satisfied, less restricted and more "normal" eating more and I look the best I have ever looked and now place in my age division in races.
Once you are on taking on this process for an extended period of time (I have been on MFP for 650 days) you will likely go through all different kinds of approaches to losing and then maintaining a lifestyle in a way that you can live with.0 -
This statement is usually directed to people who don't supply enough calories to compensate for their body's daily needs.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
But isn't that pretty much the definition of weight loss?
Nope.
Just limiting calories wont necessarily have you losing weight.
Even after 1 week your leptin levels drop up to 50%.
At high obesity you can go VLCD for a few weeks but you must come up to TDEE to regulate the hormonal imbalance.
How long have you been dieting Mcarter?
Curiosity thats all.
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.html0 -
Key wording is "enough". You need a calorie deficit to lose weight, but it the deficit is extreme, the body will respond hormonally and change the way it regulates itself. One of the first things it will do is lower metabolic rate.This statement is usually directed to people who don't supply enough calories to compensate for their body's daily needs.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
But isn't that pretty much the definition of weight loss?
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions