Eating more to weigh less or eating less to weigh less? .

12357

Replies

  • DebbieLyn63
    DebbieLyn63 Posts: 2,650 Member
    In before a certain person thread jacks the thread with links to her own threads

    A short, 51 year old, someone...with 12% bodyfat maybe?

    I totally knew who you guys are talking about. I'm glad I'm not the only person who noticed that happening a LOT.

    THAT person, has helped a lot of older women that were completely frustrated and confused by everyone telling them to eat more, resulting in them gaining weight. I would much rather listen to someone in my own situation that has succeeded, than to listen to a bunch of 20 somethings who think they know everything because they read it in a muscle magazine.

    Find out what a person's situation is before telling them to eat more.
  • findfan4ever
    findfan4ever Posts: 153 Member
    Because although seen as unhealthy by most, I feel like theres no doubt that if you eat less, you'll weigh less. You might feel ****ty & lose a bit of muscle along with it, but you'll still weigh less.

    this is what I'm saying... LOL..

    saying "eating less will make you gain (or not lose)" makes no sense to me.

    Because your body wont let go of fat because you are not eating enough for it to let go. What's so hard to understand about that? It will hold on forever to that fat and never let it go. this is why every single day people are writing in about their 6 month plateaus and can't figure it out.

    This is because most people do not understand the physiological processing involved. That is why there are so many posts regarding this topic.

    If you are not eating enough, the body will go into "starvation mode" and store what ever it can energy wise to sustain itself. This energy is stored in fat and is burned when needed. This applies to all people no matter what the fitness level is. As one exercises, the BMR increases. So those who are experienced in fitness will hit "starvation mode" if the calorie intake over time isn't what the body "feels" it needs to sustain itself. This is a physiological response and is normal.

    As people eat enough calories, they will be able to burn more (especially if they are exercising.)
  • tidmutt
    tidmutt Posts: 317
    Here's my current opinion.

    First of all, I'm generally against VLCD's in individuals that don't understand implementation or are using it out of either ignorance or as a short-cut out of impatience. I think for "most" people, a reasonable ~20% reduction from TDEE with macro sufficiency will result in favorable body composition whereas a crash diet will not.

    But that being said, adaptive thermogensis is a big culprit in the reduction in both BMR and NEAT/EAT. But you can't directly say that it's tied to acute caloric intake as much as it's tied to fat mass.

    Eating at a massive deficit may cause AT to happen faster but it also causes more rapid weight loss.
    Eating at a reasonable deficit may cause AT to happen gradually but it also causes slower weight loss.

    I believe the latter is favorable (I want to be clear on that) for body composition purposes but just generally speaking, I don't buy into the idea that the reason one is not losing weight is that they are "eating too little and their body is hanging onto fat because of it".

    The only way I see this is possible would be if an increase in food increases expenditure by a greater amount than the caloric increase in food.

    +1

    Sidesteal for the win... Everything I've read suggests the above to be true. Those in doubt should do some reading of Lyle McDonald's blog, Body Recomposition.

    Saying that, I understand the desire to decrease calories and lose weight faster. Lets face it, it takes a bloody long time. :)
  • AntWrig
    AntWrig Posts: 2,273 Member
    Here's my current opinion.

    First of all, I'm generally against VLCD's in individuals that don't understand implementation or are using it out of either ignorance or as a short-cut out of impatience. I think for "most" people, a reasonable ~20% reduction from TDEE with macro sufficiency will result in favorable body composition whereas a crash diet will not.

    But that being said, adaptive thermogensis is a big culprit in the reduction in both BMR and NEAT/EAT. But you can't directly say that it's tied to acute caloric intake as much as it's tied to fat mass.

    Eating at a massive deficit may cause AT to happen faster but it also causes more rapid weight loss.
    Eating at a reasonable deficit may cause AT to happen gradually but it also causes slower weight loss.

    I believe the latter is favorable (I want to be clear on that) for body composition purposes but just generally speaking, I don't buy into the idea that the reason one is not losing weight is that they are "eating too little and their body is hanging onto fat because of it".

    The only way I see this is possible would be if an increase in food increases expenditure by a greater amount than the caloric increase in food.

    +1

    Sidesteal for the win... Everything I've read suggests the above to be true. Those in doubt should do some reading of Lyle McDonald's blog, Body Recomposition.

    Saying that, I understand the desire to decrease calories and lose weight faster. Lets face it, it takes a bloody long time. :)
    Sidesteal is very knowledgeable. But lettuce be cereal here. Most people don't know what in the hell is talking about. When I first started I knew NOTHING about TDEE, NEAT/EAT, etc, etc. I knew I had to:

    1. Lift weights.
    2. Eat to fuel my body
    3. Do cardio

    The result? Lost over 100lbs.

    It wasn't until much later, I started reading about the above mentioned.

    As I stated before, people need to step back, take a deep breath and just MOVE!
  • djsupreme6
    djsupreme6 Posts: 1,210 Member
    by the looks of things there is never just the one answer. What works for one may not work for the other. The best advice i've gotten is from those who've done it. Check into those who've lost lots of weight and pick their brains for ideas. Metabolism varies from one to the other and plays a big role in how it all works.

    Unless you really understand TDEE, BMR or whatever else it gets really confusing to some, then in turn may just end up tuning out and going for a much simpler answer. Yes, your body does need fuel but that varies. A competitive weight lifter will not have the same diet as a competitive basketball player but both are still in great shape. I always found spreading out several meals works and hitting those numbers in the calorie range and the macros is the best way to be. You can very well eat more to weigh less or eat less to weigh less, but the real key is the workout or workouts that are performed for body shaping. Choosing foods wisely and most importantly...patience and dedication will make anybody achieve results
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    In before a certain person thread jacks the thread with links to her own threads

    A short, 51 year old, someone...with 12% bodyfat maybe?

    I totally knew who you guys are talking about. I'm glad I'm not the only person who noticed that happening a LOT.

    THAT person, has helped a lot of older women that were completely frustrated and confused by everyone telling them to eat more, resulting in them gaining weight. I would much rather listen to someone in my own situation that has succeeded, than to listen to a bunch of 20 somethings who think they know everything because they read it in a muscle magazine.

    Find out what a person's situation is before telling them to eat more.

    Get 'em! :laugh:
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    by the looks of things there is never just the one answer. What works for one may not work for the other.

    ^^^ This is the truth! While the science is the same for everyone, slight differences in diet and exercise routines can make a world of difference to a given individual.
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member

    +1

    Sidesteal for the win...

    Sidesteal *always* gets the win! :laugh:
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Here's my current opinion.

    First of all, I'm generally against VLCD's in individuals that don't understand implementation or are using it out of either ignorance or as a short-cut out of impatience. I think for "most" people, a reasonable ~20% reduction from TDEE with macro sufficiency will result in favorable body composition whereas a crash diet will not.

    But that being said, adaptive thermogensis is a big culprit in the reduction in both BMR and NEAT/EAT. But you can't directly say that it's tied to acute caloric intake as much as it's tied to fat mass.

    Eating at a massive deficit may cause AT to happen faster but it also causes more rapid weight loss.
    Eating at a reasonable deficit may cause AT to happen gradually but it also causes slower weight loss.

    I believe the latter is favorable (I want to be clear on that) for body composition purposes but just generally speaking, I don't buy into the idea that the reason one is not losing weight is that they are "eating too little and their body is hanging onto fat because of it".

    The only way I see this is possible would be if an increase in food increases expenditure by a greater amount than the caloric increase in food.

    +1

    Sidesteal for the win... Everything I've read suggests the above to be true. Those in doubt should do some reading of Lyle McDonald's blog, Body Recomposition.

    Saying that, I understand the desire to decrease calories and lose weight faster. Lets face it, it takes a bloody long time. :)
    Sidesteal is very knowledgeable. But lettuce be cereal here. Most people don't know what in the hell is talking about. When I first started I knew NOTHING about TDEE, NEAT/EAT, etc, etc. I knew I had to:

    1. Lift weights.
    2. Eat to fuel my body
    3. Do cardio

    The result? Lost over 100lbs.

    It wasn't until much later, I started reading about the above mentioned.

    As I stated before, people need to step back, take a deep breath and just MOVE!

    I totally agree that the nerdy pargraph I wrote above isn't something any beginner needs to really worry about (but it's my opinion on the previous discussion, so even if it's not anything important the nerd in me still has to speak up).

    The majority of people will do just fine if they spend less time on the couch and more time in the gym. Can't argue that.

    I do think though, that since we're in an environment where we're tracking intake, it would be in people's best interest to learn how to set up proper intake/macros and then just watch progress and adjust. Very simple template that doesn't require constant calculators or graphs or nitpicking.
  • I'm eating between 1930 and 2275 calories a day, the only cardio I get is from my job (I am on my feet and running around for 8+ hours a day) and going swimming once a week. I also do 2-3 sessions a week of strength training - and I'm still losing weight. I am currently in recovery from an ED and have discovered that eating what you want as long as it fits your macros is so much better for you than depriving yourself. I've tried losing weight at both ends of the spectrum but personally, if you want to lose weight and keep it off without feeling deprived - eat more to weigh less.
  • I maintained 108 lbs for most of my life until I hit 43 and I didn't change anything. When I hit 123 lbs this year I went to a weight loss place and got medicine and shots and ate 600 calories a day for 2 weeks and didn't lose anything. So there might just be something to the not eating enough. I am trying the 1200 calories a day with little exercise and see if I lose weight. I have nothing but weight to lose.
  • aamberrr
    aamberrr Posts: 115 Member
    Results of someone who ate 500 calories a day for two weeks. He still lost weight but it was because he was exercising... Exercise keeps your metabolism up no matter how low you go on the calorie intake.
    http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=121060001&highlight=psmf+day+results.

    all the arguements of 'when you eat less, you body holds the fat and won't let go of it'-- if that were true, there would be no skeleton skinny anorexic people. but there are...

    The "skeleton skinny anorexic people" don't consume enough for the body to gain a substantial amount of fat/weight from it. Even if their body WANTS to hold on to what they put into it, they barely put anything in. And then they lose tons and tons of muscle mass, which, yes, will = "weight" loss. Just not the kind of weight loss anybody should aim for.

    I'm not sure what my opinion is on the "starvation mode" thing, whether it's a myth or not; I really haven't read much about it because I have no desire to cut my calories to below 1,200 when I can lose eating 1,600-1,800. But I'm assuming that the people who talk about starvation mode, who say that your body will hold onto your fat, are talking about people who dip below 1,200 on a regular basis, but still eat SOME calories. Their body would hold onto what it could and not want to let go of fat, but with anorexic people, it's like they eat so little that the body has no choice but to burn off all the muscle and fat for food. Make sense?
  • davidjohnb17
    davidjohnb17 Posts: 36 Member
    I regularly eat below 1200 calories a day (maybe 4 or 5 days of the week) and I have and continue to lose weight. That being said I always get a daily work out and have a moderately demanding job in terms of physical activity. I know it's been said a 1000 times so i'll be 1001st person to say it but it's what works for you that counts not what everyone else tells you to do. From personal experience and from seeing family members who have lost weight i'd say the starvation mode thing is either a myth or is a very rare occurance. I actually think sometimes people use this whole starvation mode thing as a reason to just be greedy whilst giving the illusion both to themselves and to others of actually doing something healthy!

    Less calories + More exercise = weight loss. Should be one of the easiest formulas to understand so it amazes me that some will swear the opposite.
  • deksgrl
    deksgrl Posts: 7,237 Member
    I regularly eat below 1200 calories a day (maybe 4 or 5 days of the week) and I have and continue to lose weight. That being said I always get a daily work out and have a moderately demanding job in terms of physical activity. I know it's been said a 1000 times so i'll be 1001st person to say it but it's what works for you that counts not what everyone else tells you to do. From personal experience and from seeing family members who have lost weight i'd say the starvation mode thing is either a myth or is a very rare occurance. I actually think sometimes people use this whole starvation mode thing as a reason to just be greedy whilst giving the illusion both to themselves and to others of actually doing something healthy!

    Less calories + More exercise = weight loss. Should be one of the easiest formulas to understand so it amazes me that some will swear the opposite.

    It is working for you because you still have quite a bit to lose. You may find when you get closer to your goal, the weight loss will stall. Then what do you do, cut another 200 or 300 cals a day to lost the rest? Try to work out harder to burn more every day with not enough fuel and then result in losing muscle mass? No thanks.
  • I regularly eat below 1200 calories a day (maybe 4 or 5 days of the week) and I have and continue to lose weight. That being said I always get a daily work out and have a moderately demanding job in terms of physical activity. I know it's been said a 1000 times so i'll be 1001st person to say it but it's what works for you that counts not what everyone else tells you to do. From personal experience and from seeing family members who have lost weight i'd say the starvation mode thing is either a myth or is a very rare occurance. I actually think sometimes people use this whole starvation mode thing as a reason to just be greedy whilst giving the illusion both to themselves and to others of actually doing something healthy!

    Less calories + More exercise = weight loss. Should be one of the easiest formulas to understand so it amazes me that some will swear the opposite.
    You're a 20 year old MALE--you're likely killing your testosterone production and causing more harm than you can understand at the moment. I don't see why you're racing to the finish line--everything should be working in your favor at your age.
  • RetiredAndLovingIt
    RetiredAndLovingIt Posts: 1,394 Member
    bump
  • tidmutt
    tidmutt Posts: 317
    Honestly, eating around 1800 calories a day results in very slow progress for me and my TDEE using one of those calculators is 2800 with moderate activity levels and 3000 at my current activity levels. I really wonder if I actually directly measured my energy expenditure if it would be much lower. It's easy to say, just be patient, but when you're someone who has 100 lbs to lose (like I did) losing 0.5 lbs a week just won't cut it. You can say well just "move more" but 45 minutes on the elliptical machine might only burn 300 calories if the person is 260 lbs and out of shape. Even 5 days a week that's barely a drop in the ocean.

    I'm not saying starve yourself, that's counter productive in most cases because it's very difficult to control the desire to eat. Biological imperative and all that. However, eating less will result in losing more in the long term, ignoring short term fluctuations which are likely caused by fluid retention.

    I'm a fan of a few different approaches. Intermittent Fasting can be a good way to cut calories without feeling too deprived, alternatively keeping calories low most days and then having a cheat day/meal can also be a good approach for some. A few will argue that this has some benefits relating to leptin signalling as well, but that's neither here nor there. I think individuals can find an approach that works for them, so you can still be in a large deficit but successful.
  • Honestly, eating around 1800 calories a day results in very slow progress for me and my TDEE using one of those calculators is 2800 with moderate activity levels and 3000 at my current activity levels. I really wonder if I actually directly measured my energy expenditure if it would be much lower. It's easy to say, just be patient, but when you're someone who has 100 lbs to lose (like I did) losing 0.5 lbs a week just won't cut it. You can say well just "move more" but 45 minutes on the elliptical machine might only burn 300 calories if the person is 260 lbs and out of shape. Even 5 days a week that's barely a drop in the ocean.

    I'm not saying starve yourself, that's counter productive in most cases because it's very difficult to control the desire to eat. Biological imperative and all that. However, eating less will result in losing more in the long term, ignoring short term fluctuations which are likely caused by fluid retention.

    I'm a fan of a few different approaches. Intermittent Fasting can be a good way to cut calories without feeling too deprived, alternatively keeping calories low most days and then having a cheat day/meal can also be a good approach for some. A few will argue that this has some benefits relating to leptin signalling as well, but that's neither here nor there. I think individuals can find an approach that works for them, so you can still be in a large deficit but successful.

    a 260 pound person would burn far more than 300 calories in 45 minutes on the elliptical--far more.
  • LCgymnast
    LCgymnast Posts: 258
    I think it depends I think on metabolism in certain people.
  • Aviva92
    Aviva92 Posts: 2,333 Member
    Netting fewer than 1200 calories a day is harmful to your body. Search "Starvation Mode" and you will find countless articles and references, the basic idea is simple to understand: If you starve your body by netting less than 1200 calories a day then your body responds by slowing down, this includes metabolism, and by producing more fat cells to store anything and everything it possibly can. So, initially when you are starving your body you could, and probably will, gain weight, then eventually that weight will go away if you continue to starve yourself, you will become thinner and add a host of medical problems to your file as a result.

    Of course, I am not a Nutritionalist or a Doctor, I just have read a lot on the topic.

    I think this can't possibly be right. You're saying that 1200 is the magic number for everyone? from a 5'4" 124 pound woman like me to a 200 pound 6'2" man? I often eat under 1200 calories and feel just fine. I think that changing my diet to eat healthier resulted in my just being less hungry because I'm probably getting what I need from food. When I eat crap, I find that I'm hungrier. Crap doesn't fill me up.