someone, explain how eating more = weightloss? please

auroranflash

Writes fantastic post, deletes it before posting.

boys4girls1

What that means is when you eat enough, you aren't putting your body in starvation mode.

If you drop your calorie intake by a considerable amount (like 600 calories a day in an attempt to lose weight) and start starving yourself, your body will start to hold on to every calorie you eat and store it as fat because it thinks you are starving and there is no food. However, if you eat small meals frequently and do not starve yourself, then your body has no reason to hold on to calories, thus increasing your metabolism which promotes weight loss. Of course, exercise promotes health and increases metabolism too.

Well said.....

wild_wild_life

To those who have been civil, thank you. There's no reason to argue about this because the views are not mutually exclusive.

Do you accept that you will lose more on a 1000 calorie daily deficit than a 500 calorie daily deficit? Then you accept that you will lose more on a larger deficit.

Can decreasing your deficit help with stalls and be a sustainable and effective way to lose weight? I don't think anyone is arguing with that.

Both of these points have a place on this forum.

Let's not create an artificial argument and pretend like the other approach is invalid. That's what the vegetarian threads are for.

soulynyc

interesting

RushBabe214

*bumping* for later reading

HMVOL7409

Ok - so I guess that I don't really understand these numbers. My BMR is 2200; my TDEE is 2650 - and to lose weight I should eat between those numbers daily....... then why is my daily target set by myfitnesspal at 1550?

MFP sets your deficit based on diet alone, no exercise!! Hence why they suggest you eat your exercise calories back, to fuel yourself. TDEE has your activity level included to represent your average calories burned if you are consistent with working out so you only eat at that level to maintain or cut 15-20% from that number to lose.

kelsully

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.

Could you help me figure mine? I'm female, age 38, 5'9 and I weigh 250. I want to weigh 170, after an 80 lb loss. Thanks!

WHat is your weekly exercise like?

I am pretty active. I clean houses 5 days a week for 4-5 hours each day for work, and I have been taking moderate paced morning walks 3-5 days a week for 60 minutes each time.

Wow thats a hefty amount of exercise.

Calculating based on Strenuous activity:

BMR - 1882

TDEE - 3247

TDEE - 20% cut target - 2597

You would be shooting for 2600 calories (not eating back exercise calories.

This equates to a deficit that allows for roughly 1.3lbs per week lost.


*however I would suggest something like a BodyMedia FIT that you wear 24 hours day to monitor closer how many calories you burn in a day.

Cleaning house can very in exertion level

Thank you for this! Couple questions: Can I see a break-down of how you got the numbers? Also does the TDEE include the walks, or just house cleaning?

Also, given the fact that I have a LOT of weight to lose (80 pounds!!) is it safe to eat that much... meaning will I still lose weight? That's a LOT of calories! Last week I ate about 1800 cals per day and I lost 2.5 lbs. I would like to lose 2lbs a week.

lbs. I run a lot and have a very active lifr
I use a TDEE calculation to determine my calorie target. I am 5' tall and about lbs. I run a lot and have a very active life. I eat 2000 cals a day.

FYI - I used this TDEE approach to improve my emotional relationship with food and exercise...when I had my MFP goal and then got to eat back my exercise. My calorie goal thus changed each day based on exercise. I felt like I had to earn my right to eat. I am trying TDEE now as each day is the same target and I do not specifically eat back my exercise calories....The point I want to note...regardless of which approach I am using I happen to eat about the same net calroies daily with energy to run, take care of 4 kids, teach, etc etc and have somewhat defined lean muscles. Either approach....MFP target + eating back exercise cals ....or TDEE and not specifically eating back exercise...I am netting about the same and I am maintaining as I want to.....If this all seems too complicated be honest in you MFP settings and eat back exercise and you will feel full, happy and still see results. Over restricting is not good for you...think of your body as a car...you can run around on E for a while and even on fumes for a short distance but eventually the car will stall without fuel. If you keep the car filled up with the correct amount of fuel the car will continue to work fine...if you try to put too much fuel in the car you will either spill the gas on the ground or you have to carry the extra around in red cans...put the right amount of fuel in your car.

Billie09

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.

gatrs1568

It's about eating the RIGHT foods and not the wrong ones. You can eat all you want in fruits and veggies.

dmgwalsh

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.

deniselynn13

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.

This, by far, has been the most intelligent and easy to understand answer of any i have seen on all threads regarding this topic!!!! I hope people read and undersatand how truly simply this is!!!!

Helloitsdan

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.

mcarter99

I agree with most of the 'person A, B & C' example except for a few things.

There is no reason person B will run out of fuel. His body uses stored calories, like all machines with gas tanks.

Also, all three people will lose some fat and some LBM. Person A does not lose all LBM and person C all fat.

Also, person C will likely lose the least scale weight (which is fine). But many people just want to lose weight and get that feedback from the scale that what they're doing is working. If they don't see that scale go down, they often give up. Is it rational? No, but they don't want to build muscle right now or exercise off and eat 7000 calories per week. They just want to lose some weight for now. The plan is often being presented as though person C will lose the most WEIGHT. He might gain the most health over a year but he won't lose the most weight. And if he mis-estimates anything, he might spin his wheels for a while. Some dieters will quit if that happens to them. Just like they will quit if they make their deficits too extreme.

To those who have been civil, thank you. There's no reason to argue about this because the views are not mutually exclusive.

Do you accept that you will lose more on a 1000 calorie daily deficit than a 500 calorie daily deficit? Then you accept that you will lose more on a larger deficit.

Can decreasing your deficit help with stalls and be a sustainable and effective way to lose weight? I don't think anyone is arguing with that.

Both of these points have a place on this forum.

Let's not create an artificial argument and pretend like the other approach is invalid. That's what the vegetarian threads are for.

LOL about vegetarian threads! And thank you.

larose76

bump to read more later. thanks everyone

nlhill79

Jeez, so I'm eating 1820 a day, breastfeeding, and I'm losing slowly. But because I am not eating MORE, the weight that I am losing is all muscle. Great! So maybe I should just go back to my old routine of eating a LOT of healthy food and maintaining mostly and gaining occasionally. I would rather be fat and have muscles on my body, than to be fat and have no muscles on my body. What a way to motivate someone to lose weight. Tell them that when they put their bodies in calorie deficit they burn their muscles and leave the fat, and will gain it all back without the benefit of the muscles they had prior to dieting. Great. I just want to give up.

ladyraven68

Jeez, so I'm eating 1820 a day, breastfeeding, and I'm losing slowly. But because I am not eating MORE, the weight that I am losing is all muscle. Great! So maybe I should just go back to my old routine of eating a LOT of healthy food and maintaining mostly and gaining occasionally. I would rather be fat and have muscles on my body, than to be fat and have no muscles on my body. What a way to motivate someone to lose weight. Tell them that when they put their bodies in calorie deficit they burn their muscles and leave the fat, and will gain it all back without the benefit of the muscles they had prior to dieting. Great. I just want to give up.

Oh honey, I think you have mis-read the thread.

A moderate defict is perfect for burning fat, and aggressive defict has been shown to burn more lean muscle.

I doubt you are eating at a high defict on 1820.

Don't panic, you seem to be doing it right.

:flowerforyou:

nlhill79

Jeez, so I'm eating 1820 a day, breastfeeding, and I'm losing slowly. But because I am not eating MORE, the weight that I am losing is all muscle. Great! So maybe I should just go back to my old routine of eating a LOT of healthy food and maintaining mostly and gaining occasionally. I would rather be fat and have muscles on my body, than to be fat and have no muscles on my body. What a way to motivate someone to lose weight. Tell them that when they put their bodies in calorie deficit they burn their muscles and leave the fat, and will gain it all back without the benefit of the muscles they had prior to dieting. Great. I just want to give up.

Oh honey, I think you have mis-read the thread.

A moderate defict is perfect for burning fat, and aggressive defict has been shown to burn more lean muscle.

I doubt you are eating at a high defict on 1820.

Don't panic, you seem to be doing it right.

:flowerforyou:

I'm going to go set my lifestyle meter to the one above sedentary. I' m not actually sedentary because I do a lot of moving. It's just not formal exercise. That way it will be less of a calorie deficit. <Deep breath> I'm not hungry so I guess that's a good sign.

mcarter99

Jeez, so I'm eating 1820 a day, breastfeeding, and I'm losing slowly. But because I am not eating MORE, the weight that I am losing is all muscle. Great! So maybe I should just go back to my old routine of eating a LOT of healthy food and maintaining mostly and gaining occasionally. I would rather be fat and have muscles on my body, than to be fat and have no muscles on my body. What a way to motivate someone to lose weight. Tell them that when they put their bodies in calorie deficit they burn their muscles and leave the fat, and will gain it all back without the benefit of the muscles they had prior to dieting. Great. I just want to give up.

This is exactly my point. You are not losing ALL MUSCLE when you eat at a healthy deficit. Don't give up.

Listen to what authorities say: Eat at a deficit of up to 1000 calories per day but above 1200, do resistance exercise to protect muscle. End of story. (Of course, modify this as suggested for the breastfeeding.)

ladyraven68

Jeez, so I'm eating 1820 a day, breastfeeding, and I'm losing slowly. But because I am not eating MORE, the weight that I am losing is all muscle. Great! So maybe I should just go back to my old routine of eating a LOT of healthy food and maintaining mostly and gaining occasionally. I would rather be fat and have muscles on my body, than to be fat and have no muscles on my body. What a way to motivate someone to lose weight. Tell them that when they put their bodies in calorie deficit they burn their muscles and leave the fat, and will gain it all back without the benefit of the muscles they had prior to dieting. Great. I just want to give up.

Oh honey, I think you have mis-read the thread.

A moderate defict is perfect for burning fat, and aggressive defict has been shown to burn more lean muscle.

I doubt you are eating at a high defict on 1820.

Don't panic, you seem to be doing it right.

:flowerforyou:

I'm going to go set my lifestyle meter to the one above sedentary. I' m not actually sedentary because I do a lot of moving. It's just not formal exercise. That way it will be less of a calorie deficit. <Deep breath> I'm not hungry so I guess that's a good sign.

You're still breastfeeding so don't worry about it too much at the moment, that burns extra calories too, and you don't want to go too low as it could affect your milk supply, just keep doing what you are doing and re-assess when you have stopped feeding.

You are probably right that you aren't sedentary looking after a new baby.
That is really only for people who sit at a desk all day, and on their couch all night.

Sarauk2sf

Jeez, so I'm eating 1820 a day, breastfeeding, and I'm losing slowly. But because I am not eating MORE, the weight that I am losing is all muscle. Great! So maybe I should just go back to my old routine of eating a LOT of healthy food and maintaining mostly and gaining occasionally. I would rather be fat and have muscles on my body, than to be fat and have no muscles on my body. What a way to motivate someone to lose weight. Tell them that when they put their bodies in calorie deficit they burn their muscles and leave the fat, and will gain it all back without the benefit of the muscles they had prior to dieting. Great. I just want to give up.

Oh honey, I think you have mis-read the thread.

A moderate defict is perfect for burning fat, and aggressive defict has been shown to burn more lean muscle.

I doubt you are eating at a high defict on 1820.

Don't panic, you seem to be doing it right.

:flowerforyou:

I'm going to go set my lifestyle meter to the one above sedentary. I' m not actually sedentary because I do a lot of moving. It's just not formal exercise. That way it will be less of a calorie deficit. <Deep breath> I'm not hungry so I guess that's a good sign.

You're still breastfeeding so don't worry about it too much at the moment, that burns extra calories too, and you don't want to go too low as it could affect your milk supply, just keep doing what you are doing and re-assess when you have stopped feeding.

You are probably right that you aren't sedentary looking after a new baby.
That is really only for people who sit at a desk all day, and on their couch all night.

Just to add to Lady's good advice. Breastfeeding is 'allocated' 500 calories a day for the amount of extra calories used in producing breast milk.

And you definately would not be sedentary in my opinion.