someone, explain how eating more = weightloss? please

Acg67

Wonder how this person lost any weight at all

382 day fast, lost 276lbs

Features of a successful therapeutic fast of 382 days' duration. Postgrad Med J. 1973 March; 49(569): 203–209.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf

JuneBPrice

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.

It all totally confuses me. Maybe that is why I am not doing as well as I want. LOL.

Can you give me your height, weight and age? If you have it, your BF%. I'll find some real numbers for better illustration.

Can you do that for me, too? I'm 5'1, 120 pounds, and 18 =/

DaughterOfTheMostHighKing

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.

mcarter99

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.html

I never said heavy deficits are better. I'm saying people can not lose more at a lower deficit than a higher, overall, while they're maintaining adequate nutrition. For a lot of us, 1200 calories IS adequate nutrition.

How long I've been dieting means nothing but I'll share. I've been reading diet and nutrition and fitness books and sites for about 12 years. I lost 50 lbs. with Weight Watchers (who by the way thinks around 1000-1200 calories/day is sufficient nutrition for someone my size). I lost about 30 lbs. with calorie counting and Fitbit. I maintained with exercise for years. I've been logging here to lose some for the past 5 weeks. I've lost 9 lbs. in that time. My deficit on paper is around 600/day. I eat about 100 under BMR. I don't 'add back'. I focus mostly on NEAT with some kettlebells thrown in. I'm eating around TDEE minus 30%. I'm not in 'starvation mode', headachey, tired, weak or hungry. I hit all my macros and am satisfied. I eat foods like steel cut oats, flax meal, eggs, spinach, quinoa, romaine, chicken breast, lentils, garbanzos, fruit and a lot of vegetables and whole grains and healthy fats. I listen to my hunger signals and eat less some days, more others, but the above is what I average. I won't get into my academic or work background because it's not health related but it's research and quantitative analysis related, and part has to do with information literacy so the misinformation bugs me more than most.

People seem to think I'm advocating eating 1200/day. I'm not advocating anything except that people learn the facts and make their own decisions. I haven't ever read anything published that says people will lose more weight eating closer to TDEE than further from it. At least nothing besides personal anecdotes and theories here. That's all I'm saying. I will readily admit it might be healthier, more comfortable, less stressful, be more long-lasting and invoke less of a metabolic response. But if you could lose MORE weight eating more calories than less, this wouldn't be the only place with that knowledge.

JMeka

The idea as far as I can tell is this: Your caloric intake should be on par with your activity level. The overall health benefits associated with maintaining a high enough activity level to justify (and necessitate) a higher calorie food intake are far greater than the health benefits of losing weight through simple low-calorie or low-carb dieting with a low activity level.

Basically the goal behind the people pushing you to eat more to weigh less is remind you that if you're exercising, you need to increase your calorie intake accordingly in order to keep you fueled for your activity level and preserve lean muscle mass, which leads to more fat loss in a shorter period of time and greater overall health benefits.

As far as I can tell, anyway. And it's 100% true, if that's what they're trying to push on you.

Example: Three people who both each a BMR of 1700 calories a day, leading to a 1200 calorie per day goal for weight loss (deficit of 500 calories below maintenance which is ideal). Person A sits on their butt all day and eats their 1200 calories. The other two, Persons B and C, follow a fairly rigorous workout regimen that burns ~1000 calories a day. Person B continues to eat the 1200 calories per day despite the higher activity level. Person C increases their calorie intake by 1000 to adjust for the 1000 everyday they are burning through exercise. They will all lose weight. HOWEVER...

Person A gains no lean muscle mass and gains no real health benefits aside from those that comes with lowering your BMI.

Person B loses a lot in the beginning, unfortunately a lot of it is lean muscle mass as well as fat. Also, Person B is unable to maintain their activity level for very long and eventually falls off the exercise wagon due to lack of fuel for the machine that is their body. They then become Person A, or something close to it with their activity level.

Person C keeps losing, keeps working out rigorously building lean mass, improving overall health, and losing fat (but not necessarily weight due to the lean mass gain) at a greater speed than Persons A and B.

Ding Ding Ding.....this, can't be explained any better in my opinion...:happy:

moopa

bump

Jkmumma

Side comment on breast feeding: Breast feeding burns about 500 calories a day. ON AVERAGE

Helloitsdan

Props to ACG for that study but 99% of the women on here aren't under 24/7 doctor supervision.
The Swedish are pretty crazy with those studies though. Sure it can happen but why do it if you won't have to?

Mcarter, awesome.
Thank you for summing up for us.
I'm just trying to make this less painful for most.
If you like restricting up to 30% TDEE and working out on top of that...
I wouldn't want to take that chance.
Protein sparing fat loss is better for me.
I don't want to have to repeat my diet.
Once is enough for me.

Care to try my numbers some day then let me know.
Watboy used to fly the same flag as you but is now losing twice the fat than he was at 800-1400 daily.
Anywho...

islandesskeemo

For argument sake... Hugh Jackman Height: 6'1" Weight: 215 lbs Age 45ish...

LOL okay we'll do Hugh (no pun intended)...

If he's completely sedentary here are his estimated numbers:

BMR: 1886 (the number of calories he'd burn if he were comatose)
TDEE: 2263 (the estimated number of calories he actually burns in 24 hours once daily activities are factored in)
15% cut: 1924 (the number of calories he should eat every day to safely lose weight - about 3 lbs/month)

Now, if he does 3-5 hours of moderate exercise weekly, the numbers change:

BMR: 1886 (this doesn't change)
TDEE: 2924 (his average daily calorie burn taking into account daily activity AND exercise)
15% cut: 2485 (the number of calories he should eat every day to safely lose weight - about 3.5 lbs/month)

AND, if he does 5-6 hours a week of strenuous exercise, the numbers change again:

BMR: 1886 (again, this doesn't change)
TDEE: 3254 (his average daily calorie burn taking into account daily activity AND exercise)
15% cut: 2766 (the number of calories he should eat every day to safely lose weight - about 4 lbs/month)

With these calculations, you DO NOT eat back exercise calories. You set your calorie target and eat that every day. Your exercise calories burned are estimated and spread out across all the days of the week to get a daily amount to eat.

If Hugh were to sign up to MFP and fill out the form and tell it he wants to lose 2 lbs/week, it would probably give him a daily calorie target of 1263 (1000 less than his est TDEE when sedentary - see the first set of numbers). But if he's not actually sedentary - he actually works out hard 5-6 days a week for over an hour, he actually burns 3254 calories per day. BUT, he's only eating 1263... that's actually a daily caloric deficit of 1991.

So the body is learning how to do 3254 calories worth of stuff on 1263 calories. And our bodies are very efficient... it will learn. And Hugh's body will dump muscle mass since it is so costly to run it. And then it will start to break down other processes since they are using too many calories... and eventually Hugh's BMR will drop to maybe 800 calories.

So Hugh loses all the weight he wants nice and quickly.... or he stalls out. Wherever he ends up, his body is doing everything it needs to on the 1263 he gives it. Now, when he goes and eats 2000 calories, his body doesn't need the other 737 so it stores it as fat... every day... until Hugh has gained the weight back.

Or he has to keep eating 1263 calories/day for life and keep up that workout schedule.

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!!!! After reading all the post before yours I was beginning to think that I needed to go in and change my sedentary lifestyle to a more active one on MFP. I feel like it is not enough calories with they way I work out even when i go over what MFP says i try not to gover ove much but didnt know that I could actually eat my calories back from exercise. You explained this very well.

mcarter99

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?

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