Eat more to weigh less....

onikonor

Are you sure 1800 is your maintenance level at your current weight?
http://calorieline.com/tools/tdee

Enter your details in above calculator.

This is interesting and looks a lot more accurate. What a great website.

Based on this I would fall between 1693 and 1787 without additional exercise when I get home. So maybe 1700 is a better starting point.

I work out about 4-5 hours, plus brisk walk about twice a week for an hour. So I think this makes sense.
Work: Sedentary
Exercise: vigorous workout (e.g. running 6 mph, vigourous gym workout) one hour, 3 times weekly, plus brisk walk for one hour 3 times each week >>>>2131

I think I will try for 1750-1800 then modest cut.

onikonor

http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/early/2012/04/24/jc.2012-1444.abstract?papetoc

Abstract

Context: An important goal during weight loss is to maximize fat loss while preserving metabolically active fat-free mass (FFM). Massive weight loss typically results in substantial loss of FFM potentially slowing metabolic rate.

Objective: Our objective was to determine whether a weight loss program consisting of diet restriction and vigorous exercise helped to preserve FFM and maintain resting metabolic rate (RMR).

Participants and Intervention: We measured body composition by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, RMR by indirect calorimetry, and total energy expenditure by doubly labeled water at baseline (n = 16), wk 6 (n = 11), and wk 30 (n = 16).

Results: At baseline, participants were severely obese (×± sd; body mass index 49.4 ± 9.4 kg/m2) with 49 ± 5% body fat. At wk 30, more than one third of initial body weight was lost (−38 ± 9%) and consisted of 17 ± 8% from FFM and 83 ± 8% from fat. RMR declined out of proportion to the decrease in body mass, demonstrating a substantial metabolic adaptation (−244 ± 231 and −504 ± 171 kcal/d at wk 6 and 30, respectively, P < 0.01). Energy expenditure attributed to physical activity increased by 10.2 ± 5.1 kcal/kg·d at wk 6 and 6.0 ± 4.1 kcal/kg·d at wk 30 (P < 0.001 vs. zero).

Conclusions: Despite relative preservation of FFM, exercise did not prevent dramatic slowing of resting metabolism out of proportion to weight loss. This metabolic adaptation may persist during weight maintenance and predispose to weight regain unless high levels of physical activity or caloric restriction are maintained.

And in easier to read language:
http://www.weightymatters.ca/2012/04/biggest-loser-destroys-participants.html

Nice an actual study.

mcarter99

That study looked at Biggest Loser style weight loss-- massive losses achieved through extreme deficits. I don't think it applies to people eating 1200-1500 calorie diets and losing up to 2 lbs/week, which is what the issue here is.

onikonor

That study looked at Biggest Loser style weight loss-- massive losses achieved through extreme deficits. I don't think it applies to people eating 1200-1500 calorie diets and losing up to 2 lbs/week, which is what the issue here is.

I think a lot of people on MFP are eating only 1200 gross and exercising, maybe not to the extent that of the TV show.

mcarter99

I think that comparing eating 1200 and exercising (without eating back) to BL is still apples and carburetors. There is not a published diet plan in the world (that I know of) that would call 1200 and exercising (without eating back) extreme. That's generally considered a healthy way to do it.

beansprouts

Conclusions: Despite relative preservation of FFM, exercise did not prevent dramatic slowing of resting metabolism out of proportion to weight loss. This metabolic adaptation may persist during weight maintenance and predispose to weight regain unless high levels of physical activity or caloric restriction are maintained.

(Direct quote from the study)...ie....EITHER DO MORE EXERCISE OR LOWER YOUR CALORIES!...

.so where did all of this "eat more to weigh less" business come from?

LoraF83

bump

onikonor

Conclusions: Despite relative preservation of FFM, exercise did not prevent dramatic slowing of resting metabolism out of proportion to weight loss. This metabolic adaptation may persist during weight maintenance and predispose to weight regain unless high levels of physical activity or caloric restriction are maintained.

(Direct quote from the study)...ie....EITHER DO MORE EXERCISE OR LOWER YOUR CALORIES!...

.so where did all of this "eat more to weigh less" business come from?

Some really good discussions on this topic.

I thought the study showed that even though there was no significant impact on people's BMR their total energy expenditure slowed down due to extremely low diet and extreme workouts. They compared two studies, one of gastric bypass patients and one from biggest loser and with similar losses biggest loser contestants suffered greater metabolism reductions (total energy expenditure) than gastric patients both of whom lost massive amounts of weight.

So basically the article suggests that Biggest Loser contestants would have to continue with extreme exercise or continue with a huge reduction due to depleted metabolism in order to maintain weight.

Does this have anything to do with people eating back (or eating more) calories while exercising as not to create such a huge deficit or am I misinterpreting this?

mcarter99

I don't think you can say that study says anything about 'eating back'. I tried to read the whole study but my academic library doesn't have it.

Here's what I've heard and read. Losing large amounts of weight AT ANY SPEED can result in a 'slower metabolism' (more than the change in BMR predicts alone), but it's probably a small reduction-- 3-5%ish. We think that by incorporating strength training to protect lean mass and by not going into extreme deficit territory (losing more than 2 lbs/week), we're doing all we can to minimize the problem. If you want to lose it very slowly just in case, that's ok, too. But losing up to 2 lbs/week is not considered risky, either.

autumnk921

This is why I joined EM2WL:

I was eating less than 1000 calories per day and exercising on top of that and I got FAT!!!...Then I joined MFP just to see what I should change and exercised even more than before and I only lost 5lbs in 4mths going this route and was starving and miserable...But this is what I have done all my life when I needed to lose weight....

Then I saw this quote on someones profile (I had heard it before) but it never clicked until I read it that day and it was me to a T b/c this is what I had been doing for 20+ years - So I figured I needed to doing something different this time around.....

"The Definition Of Insanity Is Repeating The Same Behaviors, But Expecting A Different Result!"

This group is a very NON-JUDGMENTAL and SUPPORTIVE group....For me, I loved the fact that there was NO NEGATIVITY like on the main forums and I could post a topic with my concerns and questions and not get bashed for ANYTHING like here...This is the MAIN reason why I promote EM2WL b/c of the members and how supportive and motivating everyone is!!!

So, regardless of what anyone thinks of the way we do things in EM2WL. we are all trying to lose weight a more healthy way than we were before b/c we were starving, hair falling out, brittle nails, constipation, barely lifting 2lb dumbbells, fatigued, angry and miserable, whatever the case may be we are all their b/c of the support that we give and receive in there....So, if you don't like it and don't want to be a part of it then just let us carry on with what we are doing for US....

You do whatever it is that is working so well for you and maybe you will share your success and how it works someday as well...So, best of luck to you who does it differently...I wish you the best of success...

For now, everyone just Stay Calm and Carry On.....(an MFP friend says that and I think it fits here)

morkiemama

Conclusions: Despite relative preservation of FFM, exercise did not prevent dramatic slowing of resting metabolism out of proportion to weight loss. This metabolic adaptation may persist during weight maintenance and predispose to weight regain unless high levels of physical activity or caloric restriction are maintained.

(Direct quote from the study)...ie....EITHER DO MORE EXERCISE OR LOWER YOUR CALORIES!...

.so where did all of this "eat more to weigh less" business come from?

::sigh:: You obviously didn't do the reading regarding the group and no one can do that for you.

Eating at TDEE -15% (or -20%, etc.) is pretty standard and it works. In fact, that is why MFP confuses so many people when they first join because they are used to a system where you eat a flat rate (aka TDEE minus some percentage) and do not eat your exercise calories back. That is pretty much the core idea of the group, TDEE less some percentage. Thus, it IS lowering your calories FROM TDEE.

TDEE is your maintenance level factoring in your average activity level. Therefore, when you cut some percentage you are lowering your calories and will lose weight if you keep to your routine. You do not eat back any exercise calories as you would using the classic MFP approach.

"EM2WL" is just a nifty catch phrase. Most groups have them. It isn't like you eat like a horse and don't do anything and expect to lose weight. You just might be eating more than the ridiculously low number you were before (hence the "eat more"). You start to "weigh less" because you can lose weight on a flat TDEE -% program.

TDEE factors in your average exercise for the week. It isn't like you are sitting on your bum just stuffing your face. In fact, people encourage activity and recommend heavy lifting, but it is not required. These people work just as hard as anyone else, they don't sit around pigging out as you love to imply.

Why don't you actually READ what the group advocates before getting on some crazy rant?

Can other weight loss approaches work too? Sure. It is just a numbers game when it comes down to it, but the "EM2WL" philosophy works for some people. Everyone needs to play around and find what works for them.

If someone doesn't like it, or it doesn't work for them and their goals, they don't have to do it. However, it does help people. Check out the success stories for the people it did work for.

onikonor

I don't think you can say that study says anything about 'eating back'. I tried to read the whole study but my academic library doesn't have it.

Here's what I've heard and read. Losing large amounts of weight AT ANY SPEED can result in a 'slower metabolism' (more than the change in BMR predicts alone), but it's probably a small reduction-- 3-5%ish. We think that by incorporating strength training to protect lean mass and by not going into extreme deficit territory (losing more than 2 lbs/week), we're doing all we can to minimize the problem. If you want to lose it very slowly just in case, that's ok, too. But losing up to 2 lbs/week is not considered risky, either.

This is true, the study did look at 10/week fast losses. The reason I wanted to eat more is I found that I started getting more hungry after exercise and couldn't keep up with exercise unless I ate more as I simply did not have the energy. I am ok with a slower weight loss of 1/2 per week since I'm in this for a long term lifestyle change.

The reason I wanted to eat at maintenance was I was worried my metabolism is messed up after eating below 1200 for a month and a half but I think the time frame is too short to cause any real harm. The second reason I contemplated eating at maintenance was so I can build muscle which would help me lose once I cut calories again.

Thanks everyone for your input on this topic, many different views here.

Conclusion I reached is I will eat if I am hungry up to a certain amount and not force food down my throat if I have left over calories. I will continue logging what I eat so I don't fall back into overeating. I think I will try upping calories from 1600 to 1800 on workout days so I have enough energy to finish exercises.

Thanks everyone.

Helloitsdan

Yay for Drama and suspense!!!!!

KarinFit4Life

As has been posted already, you are better off asking this in the Em2wl section.

Most of the threads here just get bashed by people with no idea what they are talking about.....as you can see already.

If this theory is getting "bashed"when discussed out in the open...there is a damn good chance that a lot of folks are recognizing SNAKE OIL and not SCIENCE! DON'T FLATTER YOURSELF...A lot of people know a lot more than YOU think that they do....To me this sounds a lot like A SORRY ripoff of the old weight watchers points system....i.e. The heavier you are when you start....The higher the points/calories you need to lose weight...but even with weight watchers...once you started losing weight your points/calories dropped. Just telling obese people that they should eat more to weigh less is like selling crack as a cure for drug addiction.

Oh my word you are so uninformed, LOL!!!

onikonor

Yay for Drama and suspense!!!!!

BWAHAHAHA

JNick77

Have you been here since May and lost 19 lbs? I would just keep doing what you were doing and not mess with those stupid 'metabolism reset' ideas. Our bodies aren't alarm clocks. 1600 calories a day isn't starvation level. Your metabolism is fine.

Maybe you are right but I have been on a special program for about a month and a half where I was eating between 800-1000 calories daily and lost all of the 19 lb this way. I don't think I would have messed up my metabolism in a month.

I decided to opt for more exercise instead and have upped my calories to 1300-1600 and started exercising and did not see my weight shift at all (for a month). In the last couple of days I upped my calories again to 1600-1800 or so because I was getting more hungry from all the exercise.

Maybe I will just stick to 1800 as someone suggested for 3 weeks and see how that shakes out.

Was that the HCG diet thing? 2,200 calories... that seems like a lot hun. I'm on a cut now and I'm eating right at 2100 calories and I'm 6'0 with weight varying between 203 and 200 right now. I'd reconsider the 1600 to 1800 but try and make better food choices. Also, try and split your meals over 5 to 6 meals a day, see if that helps you manage your hunger at all.

DarthH8

I've lost weight both ways. No, sorry, I've lost ALOT of weight both ways.

If you give your body a low set rate of fuel, it is going to adapt to that and change the way it performs based on that available energy. The result of this, your body will only burn so much energy. Now, it can only adjust so much. So, where the remainder of this energy comes from is the factor that gives the eating low to lose a lot it's edge.

However, if you adjust your fuel based on the energy you are expending. Your body will perform more efficiently. Thus causing it to expend more energy. It's called the ****ing awesome cycle. You get it by being really awesome and eating plenty of food to energize your body.

Both ways work. And they both work really well.

P.S. You guys get way to competitive in your arguments. How about a, good point sir, here and there.

onikonor

Have you been here since May and lost 19 lbs? I would just keep doing what you were doing and not mess with those stupid 'metabolism reset' ideas. Our bodies aren't alarm clocks. 1600 calories a day isn't starvation level. Your metabolism is fine.

Maybe you are right but I have been on a special program for about a month and a half where I was eating between 800-1000 calories daily and lost all of the 19 lb this way. I don't think I would have messed up my metabolism in a month.

I decided to opt for more exercise instead and have upped my calories to 1300-1600 and started exercising and did not see my weight shift at all (for a month). In the last couple of days I upped my calories again to 1600-1800 or so because I was getting more hungry from all the exercise.

Maybe I will just stick to 1800 as someone suggested for 3 weeks and see how that shakes out.

Was that the HCG diet thing? 2,200 calories... that seems like a lot hun. I'm on a cut now and I'm eating right at 2100 calories and I'm 6'0 with weight varying between 203 and 200 right now. I'd reconsider the 1600 to 1800 but try and make better food choices. Also, try and split your meals over 5 to 6 meals a day, see if that helps you manage your hunger at all.

I'm not sure what HCG is, but no it was not. It was Ideal Protein Program. 2,200 is supposed to be maintenance level not a cut and it does seem like too much food though. I exercise a lot so that's why the number is fairly high. At sedentary lifestyle my maintenance would be about 1700-1800.

ZoeLifts

Is there any actual medical documentation on this whole "Eat more to weigh less" theory? The members should either post their information/documentation publicly or get banned from this site for promoting weight loss rubbish.

THANK YOU!
It doesn't make sense. Ever see an anorexic? Ever see a morbidly obese person? Do you think the anorexic eats a lot and the morbidly obese eats little? I'm not trying to be judgmental, don't take it the wrong way. I'm neither trying to put down the obese or promote the anorexics.

EM2WL promotes a sort of middle-ground when it comes to dieting, nothing super extreme. It promotes eating less than your TDEE but more than your BMR, and slow, healthy weight loss over extreme low-calorie dieting. That's it. It's not some crazy "eat only celery all day!" group, or "stuff your face with as many cheeseburgers as possible!" either. Eat less than you expend, but not too much. That's it. I don't see what's so rubbish about it since that's all it is.

If your goal is not to be judgmental, it might be good if you got your information straight before... well, judging.

^^ This!! Your profile pic is quite apropos as you are my hero!!

ladyraven68

These threads are pretty good too

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/395881-people-who-lost-weight-eating-more?

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/531086-before-and-after-pics-no-starvation?

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/518533-major-sucess-with-higher-calories