Help me understand something

LadyIvysMom

Help me understand something that confuses me because I fail at science…

Let’s just use random numbers. Say Sally eats 1200 calories a day for 6 months, mostly healthy low calorie foods. She loses the weight she wanted to lose and then she slowly ups her intake to 1600 a day (or whatever # maintenance is for her new weight) and stays there with the hopes of maintaining her new weight.

(these are made up numbers & I don’t actually know anyone named Sally)

People always says that if Sally does this, she is going to gain back all the weight and then some because she lost the weight by eating a low calorie amount.

Someone explain to me why that would happen?

jesz124

Who are these 'people' and why would Sally want to eat so little anyway?

neverstray

I don't understand what you are asking.

At 1200, she is eating at a deficit to lose.

At 1600, she is eating at a pace to maintain, I guess, according to you.

What are you actually asking? She wouldnt gain weight if 1600 is her maintenance calorie amount. She would stay right there forever.

SoViLicious

Is Sally nice, because if she is a bully then we don't care if she gains her weight back.

Crochetluvr

Is Sally nice, because if she is a bully then we don't care if she gains her weight back.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

SideSteel

People always says that if Sally does this, she is going to gain back all the weight and then some because she lost the weight by eating a low calorie amount.

Assuming your made up numbers are correct given your example, then "People" are wrong.

AmyMalley77

Is Sally nice, because if she is a bully then we don't care if she gains her weight back.

Haha! Love it!

jamacattack

I don't understand what you are asking.

At 1200, she is eating at a deficit to lose.

At 1600, she is eating at a pace to maintain, I guess, according to you.

What are you actually asking? She wouldnt gain weight if 1600 is her maintenance calorie amount. She would stay right there forever.

This.

jesz124

Is Sally nice, because if she is a bully then we don't care if she gains her weight back.

Thats so random that I like it haha :laugh:

Tilran

Is Sally nice, because if she is a bully then we don't care if she gains her weight back.

We are assuming Sally is nice like sugar and spice

liltwynkl1

That's a good question. Especially because they say when you weigh less you don't need to eat as many calories. So maybe Sally's body would get to a point were 1200 calories (example number) would keep her at the same weight. Like if I ate 1200 calories a day for the rest of my life I would eventually not lose anymore weight. That's why the last 10 pounds are the hardest to get off.

c_manda1

Is Sally nice, because if she is a bully then we don't care if she gains her weight back.

Lmao luv ya for it!!!"

climbamnt

I wouldn't say that "Sally" would gain that weight back. I have sort of been in a similar situation; I lost 30 pounds dropping down to 1600 calories along with a moderatly active lifestyle. The higher the weight the more calories your body burns, even if you do nothing but lay in bed all day. What I found that even though I am still eatting 1600 calories I was no longer losing weight, just maintaining because as I lost weight the base amount of calories my body burned also lowered. So, at my current weight I can either maintain at 1600 or if I want to lose I aim for 1200 to 1400. Focus on what your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is and you can find under Tools. Does this help with your question?

majikmiker

Is Sally nice, because if she is a bully then we don't care if she gains her weight back.

Insensitive and uncalled for! Bully!! :sad: :sad: :drinker: :bigsmile:

RobinvdM

That logic makes no sense. My understanding of maintenance is this:
You need 2000 (made up number!) calories per day just to exist and live a sedentary/lightly active life
You were losing weight by cutting that number to 1600 in order to have a 400cal deficit until you reached your goal cause a deficit causes the weight to drop. (speaking in very general terms.)
Now you can go back to the 2000 cals cause you are maintaining.

If you are living a sedentary lifestyle, no exercise, nada and 2000 is what youre maintenance cal budget is then its expected that be a non weight gain, non weight loss balance. Over it for too long will equal gain, under it for too long (maybe?) potential muscle loss as presumably your body has run out of fat stores. Again, "too long" being the key term there.

I am by no means an expert but from my limited experience and lengthy chats with my dietitian that is my best understanding. Wouldn't hate being wrong, but I don't think I am too far off the mark.

DebbieLyn63

Is Sally nice, because if she is a bully then we don't care if she gains her weight back.

Oh thank you! I really needed a good laugh right now!

Sarauk2sf

This post appears to be in response to another starvation mode debate and based on your responses in that (and other) threads, you know full well that this will not happen.

usmcmp

They are talking about the effects of very low calorie diets on resting energy expenditure. A 400 calorie difference you suggested wouldn't be a VLCD though.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2407096

LadyIvysMom

Who are these 'people' and why would Sally want to eat so little anyway?

These are just random numbers.

In theory, Sally could be eating 2000 calories and then up it to 2500 to maintain if that's what she wanted.

I'm asking because I have heard a lot of people say that people who do low calorie diets always end up putting the weight back on and then some when they reach their goal and start eating for maintainence instead of weight loss and that doesn't make sense to me.

Here, we can use me as an example. I'll run my actual numbers:

According to this: http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm

I require 1255 calories right now for fat loss (MFP recommended 1200 so same general ballpark).

However, according to this same calculator, if I reach my goal weight, I will need 1471 to maintain that goal weight.

So if I ate to lose for a few months and then reached my goal and slowly upped my calories to maintain, why would people tell me I'd just gain all the weight back?

bagge72

Hmm, I've heard of people saying that if you go back to eating crap all of the time you will gain it all back, but I've never heard anyone say if you eat at maintenance you will gain it back? I think that is the point of this site, to help you lose weight, and then help you figure out how much to eat when you get there.

sarahharmintx

Is Sally nice, because if she is a bully then we don't care if she gains her weight back.

Im soo sending you an internet stranger hug.

krawl78

Is Sally nice, because if she is a bully then we don't care if she gains her weight back.

OMGF! Bahahaha!

In regards to OP, if Sally burns that extra 400 calories she would be fine!

angelajo01

:laugh:

majikmiker

Who are these 'people' and why would Sally want to eat so little anyway?

These are just random numbers.

In theory, Sally could be eating 2000 calories and then up it to 2500 to maintain if that's what she wanted.

I'm asking because I have heard a lot of people say that people who do low calorie diets always end up putting the weight back on and then some when they reach their goal and start eating for maintainence instead of weight loss and that doesn't make sense to me.

Here, we can use me as an example. I'll run my actual numbers:

According to this: http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm

I require 1255 calories right now for fat loss (MFP recommended 1200 so same general ballpark).

However, according to this same calculator, if I reach my goal weight, I will need 1471 to maintain that goal weight.

So if I ate to lose for a few months and then reached my goal and slowly upped my calories to maintain, why would people tell me I'd just gain all the weight back?

Because they are stupid. >end thread<

sarahharmintx

Who are these 'people' and why would Sally want to eat so little anyway?

These are just random numbers.

In theory, Sally could be eating 2000 calories and then up it to 2500 to maintain if that's what she wanted.

I'm asking because I have heard a lot of people say that people who do low calorie diets always end up putting the weight back on and then some when they reach their goal and start eating for maintainence instead of weight loss and that doesn't make sense to me.

Here, we can use me as an example. I'll run my actual numbers:

According to this: http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm

I require 1255 calories right now for fat loss (MFP recommended 1200 so same general ballpark).

However, according to this same calculator, if I reach my goal weight, I will need 1471 to maintain that goal weight.

So if I ate to lose for a few months and then reached my goal and slowly upped my calories to maintain, why would people tell me I'd just gain all the weight back?

I believe that once a person loses all the weight that they want to, they quit logging and tracking and go back to their prior behaviors. This is what causes weight gain.

deksgrl

I don't know why anyone would say that. If 1600 is her maintenance for her new weight, then she won't gain any back.

If Sally ate at 1200 plus her exercise calories, she was probably actually eating 1500 or more anyway as she lost weight.

If however Sally's BMR is 1600 and she eats at 1200 for 6 months, then she begins eating at 1600, then she will likely gain weight.

Does that answer your question?

I think Sally is nice but she may be a bit confused.

Coalforchristmas

I think what people are saying is that Sally, because of her previous low amount of calories, isn't likely to stick to the plan. Such as she would be hungry and lethargic and thus more likely to binge. Not that she would magically gain all her weight back eating at maintenance. At least I HOPE that's not what they're saying.

LadyIvysMom

I wouldn't say that "Sally" would gain that weight back. I have sort of been in a similar situation; I lost 30 pounds dropping down to 1600 calories along with a moderatly active lifestyle. The higher the weight the more calories your body burns, even if you do nothing but lay in bed all day. What I found that even though I am still eatting 1600 calories I was no longer losing weight, just maintaining because as I lost weight the base amount of calories my body burned also lowered. So, at my current weight I can either maintain at 1600 or if I want to lose I aim for 1200 to 1400. Focus on what your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is and you can find under Tools. Does this help with your question?

Yes! Thank you.

abnerner

Sally has to eat lower cals to lose weight but once she's lost the weight so can go back to eating what is normal for Sally's body. If Sally loses the weight and than stays at the maintenance calories, Sally will also stay at the same weight.

bagge72

Who are these 'people' and why would Sally want to eat so little anyway?

These are just random numbers.

In theory, Sally could be eating 2000 calories and then up it to 2500 to maintain if that's what she wanted.

I'm asking because I have heard a lot of people say that people who do low calorie diets always end up putting the weight back on and then some when they reach their goal and start eating for maintainence instead of weight loss and that doesn't make sense to me.

Here, we can use me as an example. I'll run my actual numbers:

According to this: http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm

I require 1255 calories right now for fat loss (MFP recommended 1200 so same general ballpark).

However, according to this same calculator, if I reach my goal weight, I will need 1471 to maintain that goal weight.

So if I ate to lose for a few months and then reached my goal and slowly upped my calories to maintain, why would people tell me I'd just gain all the weight back?

Who are these people that are telling you that? I don't know anybody that knows that much about calories that would say that? Are you talking about people in general saying people on diets are just going to get fat when the eat normal again? That is a different story.

SideSteel

I'm asking because I have heard a lot of people say that people who do low calorie diets always end up putting the weight back on and then some when they reach their goal and start eating for maintainence instead of weight loss and that doesn't make sense to me.

There's a few considerations:

1) People who go on aggressive diets usually gain it back due to lack of dietary adherence. Poor adherence is caused by a number of factors and I would pin extreme deficits as one culprit.

2) Depending on the overall change in physique and activity, I think it's fair to say that "most" people who diet down and lose weight, end up with a lower maintenance than they had when they started.

So if I ate to lose for a few months and then reached my goal and slowly upped my calories to maintain, why would people tell me I'd just gain all the weight back?

In theory, assuming you stuck to this plan, you shouldn't start magically gaining weight given correct numbers.