Help me understand something

LorinaLynn

It's nice to be taller isn't it? I'm short and will never be able to eat 2000 calories a day because my RMR is only 1380. It's much harder for the shorter girls.. go easy on them please.

Harris-Benedict calculates my BMR at 1348 and Katch-McArdle at 1411. :indifferent:

cmcollins001

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

:flowerforyou:

psuLemon

I don't know Sally, but I know Lorina.

Lorina lost weight in the past eating less than 1200, but wasn't happy with her body when she reached her goal weight, and decided, "F this!" because it just wasn't worth it. Since she was no longer watching what she ate, the weight came back on. No surprise there.

But this time around, Lorina lost weight eating 1350-1600 plus exercise calories, so often a total of 1800-2000 calories, and felt great while losing. She enjoyed exercise, not only because it allowed her to eat normally, but because it made her feel energized and happier, and her body looked pretty damn good. Since she never trained her body to survive on minimal calories, and didn't lose a ton of lean muscle while losing weight, maintaining her weight is a snap. She's able to eat well over 2000 calories a day.

It's nice to be taller isn't it? I'm short and will never be able to eat 2000 calories a day because my RMR is only 1380. It's much harder for the shorter girls.. go easy on them please.

Every single person i work with eats 1500+.. many of them 1800-2300.. and many are 5' or close. Its all based on lean body mass and activity level... not height. My friend is 7" taller than mean and we eat the same calories to lose. I have more lbm than he does.

gingerjen7

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?

It wouldn't happen because according to you, Sally is eating at the right amount for maintenance. If the question is why do people say that, then the answer is probably because people want to scare Sally into eating more because they see 1200 and freak out about it. They tell her if she eats at 1200, she'll lose weight, but she'll gain it all back as soon as she eats more than 1200 so that she'll get scared and eat more.

serena569

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

I'm Sally and you are a bully for saying that.

nads1012

I think what you are trying to explain is the yoyo effect. The more drastic the calorie reduction, the quicker the weight comes back. When your body gets used to eating less calories that becomes normal and when you then go back to normal your body thinks you are overeating.

Personally I think the best way to lose weight is to do it steadily, don't deny yourself anything, cos you'll go mad. Everything in moderation.
Find an exercise you really enjoy, there's something for everyone.

Jeneba

I just checked how much I would be able to eat to MAINTAIN my current weight - it is 1,240 calories!!!! This is just HORRIBLE!

LoggingForLife

I suspect Sally started eating a bag of oreos when no one is looking and isn't logging them.

christinairun

Your body in an engine and burns the fuel you feed it. If you cut calories for so long it gets used to that set number and uses its fuel for that amount of energy. Because a reduction in calories is significant over time the metabolism slows down to burn less fuel. Therefore when an increase of calories enters the body goes "what the heck I have extra fuel, I'll just store this in case tomorrow there is less fuel"....its like that

geekyjock76

It's nice to be taller isn't it? I'm short and will never be able to eat 2000 calories a day because my RMR is only 1380. It's much harder for the shorter girls.. go easy on them please.

Read these two studies on height vs mass specific energy expenditure:

Body size and human energy requirements: reduced mass-specific resting energy expenditure in tall adults.
Heymsfield SB, Childers D, Beetsch J, Allison DB, Pietrobelli A.
Source
Merck and Company, Rahway, New Jersey, USA. steven_heymsfield@merck.com
Abstract
Two observations favor the presence of a lower mass-specific resting energy expenditure (REE/weight) in taller adult humans: an earlier report of height (H)-related differences in relative body composition; and a combined model based on Quetelet and Kleiber's classic equations suggesting that REE/weight proportional, variantH(-0.5). This study tested the hypothesis stating that mass-specific REE scales negatively to height with a secondary aim exploration of related associations between height, weight (W), surface area (SA), and REE. Two independent data sets (n = 344 and 884) were evaluated, both with REE measured by indirect calorimetry and the smaller of the two including fat estimates by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Results support Quetelet's equation (W proportional, variantH(2)), but Kleiber's equation approached the interspecific mammal form (REE proportional, variantW(0.75)) only after adding adiposity measures to weight and age as REE predictors. REE/weight scaled as H( approximately (-0.5)) in support of the hypothesis with P values ranging from 0.17 to <0.001. REE and SA both scaled as H( approximately 1.5), and REE/SA was nonsignificantly correlated with height in all groups. These observations suggest that adiposity needs to be considered when evaluating the intraspecific scaling of REE to weight; that relative to their weight, taller subjects require a lower energy intake for replacing resting heat losses than shorter subjects; that fasting endurance, approximated as fat mass/REE, increases as H(0.5); and that thermal balance is maintained independent of stature by evident stable associations between resting heat production and capacity of external heat release. These observations have implications for the modeling of adult human energy requirements and associate with anthropological concepts founded on body size.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17690196

Body size and human energy requirements: Reduced mass-specific total energy expenditure in tall adults.
Heymsfield SB, Pietrobelli A.
Source
Global Center for Scientific Affairs, Merck & Co, Rahway, New Jersey, SUA. Steven_Heymsfield@Merck.Com
Abstract
Mammalian resting energy expenditure (REE) increases as approximately weight(0.75) while mass-specific REE scales as approximately weight(-0.25). Energy needs for replacing resting losses are thus less relative to weight (W) in large compared with small mammals, a classic observation with biological implications. Human weight scales as approximately height(2) and tall adults thus have a greater weight than their short counterparts. However, it remains unknown if mass-specific energy requirements are less in tall adults; allometric models linking total energy expenditure (TEE) and weight with height (H) are lacking. We tested the hypothesis that mass-specific energy requirements scale inversely to height in adults by evaluating TEE (doubly labeled water) data collected by the National Academy of Sciences. Activity energy expenditure (AEE) was calculated from TEE, REE (indirect calorimetry), and estimated diet-induced energy expenditure. Main analyses focused on nonmorbidly obese subjects < or =50 yrs of age with non-negative AEE values (n = 404), although results were directionally similar for all samples. Allometric models, including age as a covariate, revealed significantly (P < 0.05) greater REE, AEE, and TEE as a function of height (range H(1.5-1.7)) in both men and women. TEE/W scaled negatively to height ( approximately H(-0.7), P < 0.01) with predicted mass-specific TEE (kcal/kg/d) at +/-2 SD for US height lower in tall compared with short men (40.3 vs. 46.5) and women (37.7 vs. 42.7). REE/W also scaled negatively to height in men (P < 0.001) and women (P < 0.01). Results were generally robust across several different analytic strategies. These observations reveal previously unforeseen associations between human stature and energy requirements that have implications for modeling efforts and provide new links to mammalian biology as a whole.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19856424

psuLemon

I just checked how much I would be able to eat to MAINTAIN my current weight - it is 1,240 calories!!!! This is just HORRIBLE!

I can bet thats wrong unless you have a metabolic disorder and are completely sedentary. In fact i would bet that your bmr at the min. Its tdee that is your maintenance calories.

thedreamhazer

I just checked how much I would be able to eat to MAINTAIN my current weight - it is 1,240 calories!!!! This is just HORRIBLE!

I think you're look at you BMR and not your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure). BMR (basal metabolic rate -- example: heart pumping, liver function) is not your maintenance calories. If you eat only your BMR, you will still lose weight because you will not be taking into consideration calories burned through additional sources such as Exercise Actvity Thermogenesis (EAT -- example: running on treadmill), Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (NEAT -- example: fidgetting), and the Thermic Effect of Feeding (TEF -- example: digestion).

w292737

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?

they are probably thinking you'll go back to how you are eating, which is the higher level of calories that you ate to gain the weight. not that you'll go back to eating what you should be eating for the weight you are at.

Jeneba

Thanks for everyone who read my post! Hope you are right! I will look into it further. The 1,240 came from Dear Old My Fitness Pal, which came up with that beastly little number when I switched my goal to maintenance. I will go back & try to figure out what MFP is trying to tell me...:flowerforyou:

renehallen

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

Now THAT made me laugh!!!! :laugh: :laugh: ]

thedreamhazer

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?

they are probably thinking you'll go back to how you are eating, which is the higher level of calories that you ate to gain the weight. not that you'll go back to eating what you should be eating for the weight you are at.

I believe you may be referencing that when you eat at a large caloric deficit, your maintenance calories may be lower than anticipated, causing weight gain. This can happen. The cause is usually either the catabolization of lean body mass or the downregulation of NEAT. Since muscle is more calorically expensive for your body to have than fat, if you lose a significant amount of muscle during weight loss then your body will burn fewer calories at rest. The downregulation of NEAT is actually one of the body's more ingenius and irritating responses to a caloric deficit. It will actually find ways to move less without you even realizing it .. less fidgeting, lower energy levels so you don't walk around as much, lowered sex drive, etc.

Studies have shown that when a person loses a large amount of weight, that person typically has a lower TDEE than another person of the same size who has never been overweight. This difference can be exasperated by the rapidity of the weight loss. This is what people are talking about.

-- EDITED TO ADD REFERENCES--
'Metabolic and behavioral compensations in response to caloric restriction: implications for the maintenance of weight loss.'
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19198647
"CONCLUSIONS: For the first time we show that in free-living conditions, CR results in a metabolic adaptation and a behavioral adaptation with decreased physical activity levels. These data also suggest potential mechanisms by which CR causes large inter-individual variability in the rates of weight loss and how exercise may influence weight loss and weight loss maintenance."

'Caloric restriction induces changes in insulin and body weight measurements that are inversely associated with subsequent weight regain.'
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22905179&quot;
"CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: LCD-induced changes in BMI, fasting insulin, and HOMA-IR are inversely associated with weight regain in the 6-month period following weight loss."

'Metabolic slowing with massive weight loss despite preservation of fat-free mass.'
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22535969
"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."

Most of these studies only apply to those who are initially obese.

renehallen

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

LorinaLynn

Thanks for everyone who read my post! Hope you are right! I will look into it further. The 1,240 came from Dear Old My Fitness Pal, which came up with that beastly little number when I switched my goal to maintenance. I will go back & try to figure out what MFP is trying to tell me...:flowerforyou:

In that case, that number is your net calories, not your true TDEE. That's where the exercise calories come in. And even then, the numbers might be wrong because MFP's BMR readings could be way off.

Based on "lightly active" MFP gives me about 1700 for maintenance (before exercise), but trial and error has shown my TDEE is closer to 2300. I'd have to switch my settings to "very active" and eat most of my exercise calories to get the right amount, and I'm really not that active. I'm a work at home web publisher and artist (read: mostly a housewife) who exercises less than an hour a day and isn't a very good housekeeper. :ohwell:

mmapags

It just means after a long period of LCD and you return to maintenance, you can only add a few calories as opposed to a larger amount. This is why LCD's are so ineffective long term because it creates a situation where you maintenance calories is severely suppressed due to your suppressing your metabolism and killing your lean body mass. I have seen some VLCD that end up causing your body to lose 50% of it's weight from lbm. This is why many of us suggest a moderate deficit (20% less than tdee to include exercise [hopefully that exercise includes heavy weight training]) in order to reduce muscle loss and maintain your metabolic rate.


At 1200 calories yourself, if you are any kind of active, you are not in a situation for just fat loss, but rather probably high in muscle loss too. If you don't believe me, I would suggest tracking your body fat and read the below links.

The info is above is key and if Sally is netting between 600 and 1000 calories per day as the OP was last time I saw her dairy last week before it was no longer make public. This would be a real concern. This is one of the huge drawbacks of a VLCD!

pleytem

Hahahaha thanks for the laugh.... hilarious hahahaha