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

12346

Replies

  • Girl_Bomb
    Girl_Bomb Posts: 195
    I had a hard time figuring out "eat less to weigh less" as i follow the eat more to weigh less but i am thinking Its eat less to weigh less meaning eat less then you burn meaning if my TDEE is for example 2500 and I'm eating 2000 calories then voila eating less, still a 500 cal deficit which would be 1lb per week. I don't think it means eat 1000cal everyday. In the end is it not the same thing?
    It doesn't work like that in the real world.

    What doesn't work like that in the real world?
    The numbers are not so clear cut like many want them to believe. They are so hung up on the numbers they don't do anything about their situation. There is no need to worry about TDEE, etc, etc. Just get of your *kitten* and lift, eat, take notes, and make adjustments.

    People make an already difficult situation harder.

    I just through out those numbers considering a lot of people on here don't seem to understand that you need to eat. I don't complicate my own ****, I eat and lift weights, bam, done, I lost weight.
  • YoYo1951
    YoYo1951 Posts: 370
    bump
  • stephyy4632
    stephyy4632 Posts: 947 Member
    bump so I can read latter
  • jaymek92
    jaymek92 Posts: 309 Member
    I very much want to see replies to this to!

    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.
    right. so the real question is do you want to look like a skeleton at your goal weight? or a sexy, sexy beast?
    because eating fewer calories will cause you to lose muscle along with fat, especially if you're not lifting weights.
    eating more calories will make you lose less muscle with your fat. so you'll be happier with your body, barring any serious mental issues.
  • 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.

    a 260 pound person would burn far more than 300 calories in 45 minutes on the elliptical--far more.

    Not necessarily. I used to be a 260 lb person, in fact, I used to be a 280 lb person and I can burn more calories in the same period of time than I could when I was heavier and less fit. And when I was 280 lb I was probably fitter than most 280 lb dudes. The reality is, and again, Lyle's blog for some info on this, most overweight and out of shape people will burn less than a fit individual simply because they don't have the conditioning. Lyle discusses this and mentions how an athlete can burn 1000 calories in an hour, but an obese subject would really struggle.
  • It's funny, one of the main reasons I stopped coming here was the fact that so many posters who claimed to be 'experts' on a subject spouted off wild conjecture and opinion as if it were medical, scientific fact. Starvation mode simply does not work in the way that so many people here claim it does until you reach about 10% body fat. A 250lbs man will not go into 'starvation mode' after a week on a VLCD or even total and complete water fasting. His body will not "hold onto the fat" because it "thinks it's starving". If that were true, no one would die of starvation. In the long run, VLCDs and fasting take an extraordinary amount of discipline from start to finish and close monitoring of caloric intake thereafter but they can and DO work.

    It is only until someone gets into a very low BMI/BF% will they begin to see a slowed metabolism and you also don't start losing muscle until at or around there either.

    A lot of you have said you experienced plateaus (or even GAINS!) in your weight loss but my guess is you were over calculating your expenditure, exercise and/or underestimating you net caloric intake, or worse, overeating because you (incorrectly) assumed you had burned more calories that day than you actually did.

    I haven't bothered to read all the posts in this thread so I'm not sure, but some of you need to take a look at the data collected from the Minnesota Starvation Experiment.
  • 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.
    ^^This guy gets it!!
  • ruperthumphrey
    ruperthumphrey Posts: 195 Member
    bump
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 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.

    What's so hard to understand? Nothing. I absolutely get what you (and everyone else in the bajillion threads about this) are saying. My issue is the people who DIE of STARVATION or waste away because of eating disorders. They are skinny. Too skinny. Their bodies didn't hold on to fat.

    And this is coming from someone who eats roughly 1600cals/day. I'm not starving myself. I just think the starvation mode thing is silly.

    People who die of starvation have actually died because of organ failure. When you don't get enough nutrition for your activity level, your internal organs are the first to suffer. It begins with an increase in cortisol from the stress you are putting on your body. Cortisol prevents fat oxidation, so the weight lost comes from your bones, your organs, and your muscle.
  • megalin9
    megalin9 Posts: 771 Member
    People will argue this all day long, but in the end...why would you want to eat less if you can eat more and lose weight and be HEALTHY? I'd much rather be able to eat until I am full and have energy to fuel my workouts than feel like I'm always hungry and feeling like I'm missing out on so much.

    This is really what it comes down to for me.
  • you cannot lose weight be eating more than 1500 calories per day its been proven.
  • wahmx3
    wahmx3 Posts: 646 Member
    Huh??? Proven where, plenty of people lose weight and eat more than 1500 calories per day.
    you cannot lose weight be eating more than 1500 calories per day its been proven.
  • you cannot lose weight be eating more than 1500 calories per day its been proven.

    You're joking right?
  • Eat more food, but less calories. Eat things that aren't very calorie dense.
  • kazzsjourney
    kazzsjourney Posts: 674 Member
    you cannot lose weight be eating more than 1500 calories per day its been proven.

    lol.....I lost most of my weight (over 180 pounds) eating 1800 cals a day so you can definitely lose weight eating over 1500 cals ;)
  • Dagreth
    Dagreth Posts: 11 Member
    I ate a very low calorie diet (500 calories) and I have lost quite a bit, I should mention I was very heavy. One thing I noticed when I got off the diet and tried to maintain, weight would come back fast if I had a bad day. It also became less effective after going on it third time and harder to stay on, felt hungry all the time.

    I now eat around 2000 calories, what mfp recommends, and weight loss is slower, but like others have said, I can live with it and not be starving. Everyone is going to have their own way of doing things, and if it works and you are happy, then I say do it.
  • 10manda86
    10manda86 Posts: 229 Member
    I completely agree with you... although it is a slow process and losing less than a kg a week can be frustrating I see my change as a lifestyle change rather then a diet. I dont believe I could sustain 1200 cals a day for the rest of my life... so I basically eat what I like, try to keep it healthy, monitor my cals and if I see I am going over or I know I am going out for dinner I will squeeze in a walk with my kid and dog in the afternoon or do an extra workout to counter-balance what I have eaten or predict I will eat. I am trying now to live how I want to live for the rest of my life, I dont want this to be a short-term solution to my lifelong problem... I dont ever want to be this way again and in order to do so I must never go back to my old eating plan....
    its only been 3 weeks since I got serious (i've been 'trying' for years and years) but I had my 26th birthday and decided by my 27th I didn't want to be the fat me, I wanted to be slim and healthy and wedding dress shopping! I have lost 2.9 kgs since I started which is a healthy pace... when/if I plateau I will spend a few weeks upping my cals with healthy choices for food, maybe I will gain a little but then I will cut back to what I am eating now which MFP says is 1200 a day, but I choose to eat back most of my exercise calorie coz like I said above 1200 isn't sustainable for me! I have read on several occasions that upping cals and cutting back every few weeks is a great way to kick start your metabolism and perhaps by doing so you can skip plateaus all together????
    everyone is different, listen to your body... if you are hungry make healthy choices in snacks, even better go for a walk and have a snack when you come back if you are still hungry, i tend to find that when I return from a walk its time to start cooking dinner so I've skipped that craving moment!!! My final trick is a vitamin supplement that is designed for appetite suppression... I take it in the afternoons to curb those horrible cravings, they work, I was taking them twice a day as directed but I learned to control my morning cravings, I am trying to learn to control my evening ones and that way I wont need herbal help any more.
    My most important weapon in my battle is my partner... He notices every millimetre that a lose and every gram. He constantly complements me on my eating choices and how I look. It is sometimes difficult to take, especially on days like yesterday when he thinks I look great and I feel like I look like a beached whale! but when he tells me how awesome I look and how proud of me he is it is so much easier to walk past the chocolate bars in the supermarket! I want to make him happy as much as I want to do this for myself and his support is a priceless tool and I believe way more important than how many cals I am or am not eating.

    (p.s. I have lost 2.9kgs... my little bar thing says 1kg... Apparently it resets itself if you fiddle with the settings lol)
  • norcal_yogi
    norcal_yogi Posts: 675 Member
    bumping....
  • KarenJanine
    KarenJanine Posts: 3,497 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.

    What's so hard to understand? Nothing. I absolutely get what you (and everyone else in the bajillion threads about this) are saying. My issue is the people who DIE of STARVATION or waste away because of eating disorders. They are skinny. Too skinny. Their bodies didn't hold on to fat.

    And this is coming from someone who eats roughly 1600cals/day. I'm not starving myself. I just think the starvation mode thing is silly.

    People who die from starvation / anorexia usually die of a heart attack owing to eletrolyte imbalance from not eating rather than by being too skinny.
  • KarenJanine
    KarenJanine Posts: 3,497 Member
    Obviously if someone eats 500 cals per day they will lose weight. But chances are they will end up with anorexia, or if they don't they will have lost a lot of muscle mass and will regain the weight with a higher body fat percentage than before they started when they start to eat 'normally' again.

    I've done it that way (several times) before learning that I don't have to starve myself to lose weight. I've spent the last year actually gaining weight to repair my metabolism and rebuild some of the LBM I've lost over the past decade from doing unhealthy diets. I'm only now ready to start losing some of the fat which I aim to do at a slow and steady rate while eating around 2000 cals per day.

    I now know that lifting and eating are going to give me the body I always used to think I could achieve by starving myself. I also will not have to worry about regaining the weight once I reach my goal because I now know what my maintenance numbers are.