Not getting the whole "Eat more to lose more" mentality

Chief_Rocka

What you have to realize in that your metabolic rate decreases in response to a caloric deficit.

So, let's say you're eating 1500 calories and losing one pound a week at a 500 cal/day deficit. After a while, through several mechanisms, you don't have a 500 cal/day deficit anymore. So, to reestablish a deficit, you have to lower calories a bit more and/or increase your calorie expenditure. You can stave off this lowering of your metabolic rate for a longer time by taking frequent diet breaks.

The problem with jumping right into something like 1,100 calories a day is that yes, initially you will lose weight, but, just as before, your body will catch up, and you'll stall. So what do you do then? Lower calories? Not likely. Increase activity? You're luck if you have the energy. The only solution at that point is to increase your caloric intake for an extended period of time, where weight loss will eventually stall, and you may even gain some, and give your hormones a chance to return to baseline. Most people on MFP aren't going to do that. So, the most intelligent course of action is to use the smallest deficit possible that allows you to lose weight, so you have more wiggle room to adjust things later.

As for people that "eat more and start losing," I suspect that an increase in calories relieves some of those stress hormones which cause you to hold on to some water, causing people to see relatively rapid weight loss after raising calories. I also suspect that eating enough food gives people enough energy to train with intensity, which actually leads to a higher net deficit.

Ploogy

This was incredibly insightful. I hadn't thought about it this way. Thanks so much for this.

What you have to realize in that your metabolic rate decreases in response to a caloric deficit.

So, let's say you're eating 1500 calories and losing one pound a week at a 500 cal/day deficit. After a while, through several mechanisms, you don't have a 500 cal/day deficit anymore. So, to reestablish a deficit, you have to lower calories a bit more and/or increase your calorie expenditure. You can stave off this lowering of your metabolic rate for a longer time by taking frequent diet breaks.

The problem with jumping right into something like 1,100 calories a day is that yes, initially you will lose weight, but, just as before, your body will catch up, and you'll stall. So what do you do then? Lower calories? Not likely. Increase activity? You're luck if you have the energy. The only solution at that point is to increase your caloric intake for an extended period of time, where weight loss will eventually stall, and you may even gain some, and give your hormones a chance to return to baseline. Most people on MFP aren't going to do that. So, the most intelligent course of action is to use the smallest deficit possible that allows you to lose weight, so you have more wiggle room to adjust things later.

As for people that "eat more and start losing," I suspect that an increase in calories relieves some of those stress hormones which cause you to hold on to some water, causing people to see relatively rapid weight loss after raising calories. I also suspect that eating enough food gives people enough energy to train with intensity, which actually leads to a higher net deficit.

Flowers4Julia

Just took a fast peek at your diary/profile. Being a high school teacher and eating at 1320 cals just seems to low. I'd guess that is why you are stalled. It does seem odd to eat more to lose, but when you think about that the human body can learn to survive and maintain in a famine situation (biologically) for quite a while, why wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that by eating too few calories the same thing would result?

Just something to consider!

laccy40

I've recently calculated my bmr, tdee etc and have a target of 1650. I'm 5'7" and used lightly active. I've lost some weight and most importantly toned up. It's really important to make sure you do the amount of exercise you said you would when you calculated your tdee. If you've checked everything, you might just need more time. After I lost weight on a low calorie diet it really messed me up and put on all the weight and more even though I was eating less than I am now. I had to reset my metabolism before I could start over, but having done that I feel better than ever.

lmkaks

For what it's worth, I understand your confusion and frustration. Part of the initial allure of MFP was that it would "take the guesswork" out of everything, and the reality is that it doesn't fully. It provides discipline through monitoring, but you still have to learn the skills to choose food wisely and stay involved. At first (that is, a few days ago!), it was a frustrating realization, but I'm beginning to accept it.

I've been furiously studying everything here, and wading through the often conflicting information in these forums, but you are fortunate that this_time_nex has steered you in the direction that it appears most knowledgeable folks here agree on. That you need to look at this holistically. Think of it like steering a ship - even if you are going towards the general direction you are headed in, you can't take your hands off the wheel because there is no autopilot. There will be some stormy weather.

But I know what you are saying: can someone just give me some guidance on how to set basic parameters?! So, here is what I've gathered: MFP recommendations, if you choose to use them, are best used with the 1 Pound a Week recommendation. For a lot of people, if you choose to lose at a rate any higher, the caloric recommendation it suggests ends up actually being lower than your Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR), which is the minimum calories that your body needs to "function" without trying to seek energy through significant catabolism. This is why you are getting hit back and forth between being told that you aren't eating enough - if you try and eat at the "2 pound a week level" (which is below BMR), the prevailing wisdom is that - while you'll lose weight, you'll also take significant muscle with it, and risk stalling in weightloss as the body starts to downregulate because it perceives a "starvation".

So, the goal it seems is to eat at a deficit from your total daily energy expenditure (TDEE), but never less than your BMR. You have to steer the ship through these two goalposts, and that seems to be the key. The added confusion I - and you, and I think alot of people - have, is that MFP's allows you the option to undereat too much, without enough of a warning or explanation.

Does this make sense?

YES! This does. Thank you. I *think* I am starting to get it.

lmkaks

I practice this and it's been steady, but slow, which is great because anytime it's been fast I haven't kept it off. It does take a lot of research, and a some tweaking, but it's worth it if you take the time to wrap your head around it.

And one pound in three weeks? That's awesome!!! Your body is being stubborn, but you can be more so. It will adapt and you'll end up losing. Just wait for it!!!

Thank you!

laccy40

What you have to realize in that your metabolic rate decreases in response to a caloric deficit.

So, let's say you're eating 1500 calories and losing one pound a week at a 500 cal/day deficit. After a while, through several mechanisms, you don't have a 500 cal/day deficit anymore. So, to reestablish a deficit, you have to lower calories a bit more and/or increase your calorie expenditure. You can stave off this lowering of your metabolic rate for a longer time by taking frequent diet breaks.

The problem with jumping right into something like 1,100 calories a day is that yes, initially you will lose weight, but, just as before, your body will catch up, and you'll stall. So what do you do then? Lower calories? Not likely. Increase activity? You're luck if you have the energy. The only solution at that point is to increase your caloric intake for an extended period of time, where weight loss will eventually stall, and you may even gain some, and give your hormones a chance to return to baseline. Most people on MFP aren't going to do that. So, the most intelligent course of action is to use the smallest deficit possible that allows you to lose weight, so you have more wiggle room to adjust things later.

As for people that "eat more and start losing," I suspect that an increase in calories relieves some of those stress hormones which cause you to hold on to some water, causing people to see relatively rapid weight loss after raising calories. I also suspect that eating enough food gives people enough energy to train with intensity, which actually leads to a higher net deficit.

This is what I am talking about. I had to eat more for a while then calculate a small, sustainable deficit. Result, I'm eating more, have more energy and packing more into my workouts.

lmkaks

also, based on your stats, your BMR is 1726, but a sedentary TDEE is 2072. Small difference, but you would take your percentage from 2072.

Where did you find this? I used the fit2befit link that was posted in message boards a while ago, and it said my BMR was 1733 (and my TDEE 2383 - I don't know, that was the number associated with "light activity" that I was told to use). So the TDEE - 20% was 1906.

I don't know if I am using the right link/calculator...

lmkaks

It looks like you just joined in December so it hasn't been that long. I would say pick one version (MFP or TDEE or whatever you decide) and stick with it for a minimum of 4-6 weeks before trying to switch to something else. You have to give whichever way you decide time to work before saying if it works for your body or not.

This right here!

Each time you make adjustments to your calorie intake, etc... you should give your body at least 4-6 weeks to adjust. Do NOT weigh yourself during this period.

Focus on drinking more water, eating healthy, getting enough veggies, physical activity level, etc... and many times the scale is lying POS, so instead of weighing yourself, take your measurements and gauge how your clothes fit.

Good luck!

LOL! Thank you. I know I have to up my water and veggies for sure.

WendyTerry420

What you have to realize in that your metabolic rate decreases in response to a caloric deficit.

So, let's say you're eating 1500 calories and losing one pound a week at a 500 cal/day deficit. After a while, through several mechanisms, you don't have a 500 cal/day deficit anymore. So, to reestablish a deficit, you have to lower calories a bit more and/or increase your calorie expenditure. You can stave off this lowering of your metabolic rate for a longer time by taking frequent diet breaks.

The problem with jumping right into something like 1,100 calories a day is that yes, initially you will lose weight, but, just as before, your body will catch up, and you'll stall. So what do you do then? Lower calories? Not likely. Increase activity? You're luck if you have the energy. The only solution at that point is to increase your caloric intake for an extended period of time, where weight loss will eventually stall, and you may even gain some, and give your hormones a chance to return to baseline. Most people on MFP aren't going to do that. So, the most intelligent course of action is to use the smallest deficit possible that allows you to lose weight, so you have more wiggle room to adjust things later.

As for people that "eat more and start losing," I suspect that an increase in calories relieves some of those stress hormones which cause you to hold on to some water, causing people to see relatively rapid weight loss after raising calories. I also suspect that eating enough food gives people enough energy to train with intensity, which actually leads to a higher net deficit.

^^ This

I'm 5'4" and weigh 208, down from 263 just since July. I average about 1900 calories a day, but sometimes I go up to 2100 or even to my TDEE of 2500. In addition to what Fire_Rock has correctly stated, it is also psychologically beneficial to eat more food. For the most part, I don't even have to stop and think anymore about what I eat and still come in around 1900ish. The only thing I ever have to think about is whether or not to have a "real" dessert or if I only have room for a low-calorie dessert.

lmkaks

Hi there! my highest weight was 240. I'm down 80 lbs. I'm not a nutritionist or anything, but I thought I'd comment because I think I've been in a similar place. So I'm trying to be a LITTLE critical, but know that it comes from a place where I feel like I know what you're going thru, ok?

I think you might be the kind of person where the old addage "a calorie is a calorie" doesn't apply. As in, if you are really going to try to eat at the "low" end of your calorie range, you have to make sure that every calorie is as healthy as possible. Frozen pre-packaged lunches, pudding cups, and chocolate covered pretzles might fit into your CALORIE goals for the day, but they might not fit into the goals you're trying to reach ultimately. I'm not saying never have snacks or processed food. But if ANYONE out there is only eating 1200-1500 calories every day, then every calorie has to be filled with as much nutrition as possible. Eating more whole, nutritious foods thruout the day will leave you feeling better and more full.

I don't know if all of the things you're logging as "snacks" are eaten at the end of the day, but if you find yourself making poor choices after dinner, you could try eating more calories earlier in the day. That way you're not as hungry late in the day and less likely to grab something unhealthy, like a tub of ice cream.

I'm not suggesting you eat more calories. I'm suggesting that you try making the calories you DO eat, more nutritious. It might help you start losing again when you're giving your body the fuel it needs to succeed.

Nope, need the honesty! Thank you for it and for letting me know about your own experience.

(I do know the tub of ice cream was not a smart choice...that won't happen again)

I do find myself trying to make up calories at the end of the day. I am a teacher and have to be at school by 7 AM, so my breakfast has to be quick and I don't have time to eat during the day outside of lunch. I may be able to get a quick snack in, but not many.

Also, I am trying to choose "healthy" foods (green pepper slices, cheese sticks, nuts, yogurt). So I feel like after those, with my breakfast, and my lunch, I always have something like 900 calories for the rest of the day! That is when I just eat what we have around to make up for the calories - especially on days when I am working out and I need to eat MORE.

As for the chocolate covered pretzels and sugar free pudding - I crave something sweet after I eat meals. I don't know why. I usually satisfy that craving with a pudding or two chocolate covered pretzels. Becuase they are "under my calorie limit" I thought they would be okay. I guess not. Any suggestions on how to satisfy that craving without eating something terrible?

BamaBreezeNSaltAire

There's so much more to this. More than I have time to explain at the moment but I'll search for the info I used and I'll message it to you. Your diary looks great, you just need more information to work with.

You mean except for the pint of Ben and Jerry's frozen yogurt I had last night...pretend you didn't see that.

HA!!! Even that's okay every now and then, you'll find chocolate in my diary daily! I've lost 29 pounds and working on the last 15! :-)

neandermagnon

it's not about whether 1500 cals/day will put you in starvation mode or not. It's simply about why deprive yourself when you don't have to...?

Based on what the calculators said for your height/weight/activity levels:

You can lose weight on 1500 cals/day, you'll lose it more quickly, but unless you have a lot of fat to lose you'll risk losing lean body mass with it and making your metabolism slower, and also feeling grumpy and hungry a lot, and having to deprive yourself of stuff you'd rather eat, and you'll have a greater risk of putting the weight back on again and a greater risk of plateaus

OR

You can lose weight on 1900 cals/day. You'll lose it more slowly, but you'll have less risk of losing lean body mass, you won't feel hungry, you'll be able to enjoy your favourite treats more and enjoy a wider variety of meals and bigger serving sizes, you'll have more energy, your metabolism is more likely to stay fast and you'll find it easier to maintain your goal weight once you get there.

Which would you choose?

deksgrl

The reason why people who eat less may not lose weight is because when you cut calories too much you are putting a stress on your body. Your body responds by releasing cortisol which is a stress hormone. This tells your body that it needs to hold on to every ounce of fat, because there is too much stress on it. Adding exercise also puts stress on your body. If you are not eating enough to fuel the exercise, it is only adding stress hormones. Not eating enough also affects the hormones called leptin and ghrelin. These are the hormones that tell your body when you are hungry, and when you are full so that you stop eating.

doggiesnot

There's an important piece missing.

Eat more to lose more, and workout more (strength and cardio).

WBB55

without eating something terrible?

Well, don't see it as "terrible." Food isn't really "negative" or "bad." There's just probably better choices in any given situation, but it's hard for me to make suggestions without knowing you. My cravings now are different than the ones I had at the start. My sweet snacks early on when I'd exhausted my daily calorie limit were sugar-free jello, diet soda, ANYTHING with no calories. But as I ate more whole foods, I stopped craving processed sugars so much. My sweet snacks now are oranges and apples or a banana smoothie. Quick snacks for me are nuts or trail mix (satisfying, but high in calories, so portion control for these are necessary) or chocolate milk. But honestly, I only have a sweet tooth in the mornings.

I'm tempted to tell you this: if you have time to make homemade dinner each night, then I'm suggesting to make yourself 3 servings of a balanced dinner each night. Then eat the second serving when you get hungry later in the evening. Then eat the 3rd serving for lunch the next day. Or, to add more variety. Make 3 servings each time, but save two of them for lunches & 2nd dinners later in the week.

Really, each calorie has to be as packed as possible with nutrients. If you're going to continue eating at the low end of your allowable calorie range, then every calorie should give you as much bang for your (calorie) buck. For instance, you might want to try eating less sodium and more fiber.

Maggie_Pie1

I recently got a bodymedia armband and it has me burning between 2300 and 2700 calories a day with usually only 200-400 coming from formal exercise. Using the best calculators I could find on the internet they all had my TDEE at less than 1200 so no wonder I was having trouble. At 1200 where MFP had me start I really was starving. I lost great for about 4 days and then I got so sick. I am a little person 132 and 5'2" but I am very active in little ways all day long taking care of 4 little kids. I had been eating 1400 calories and not losing. After getting the armband I started eating 1650 and I started losing again. Now I am still eating that and have stopped losing with the same workout regiment, I am actually going to up it again to 1800 and see how that goes since that will be at least 500 per day deficit for me. The long and the short is that if you eat too little your metabolism slows down to make the food stretch to fill you bodies needs.

I bought one at the beginning of the year, started wearing it january 1st, and like a super geek I've been tracking my calorie deficits daily on an excel spreadsheet. By tracking my calorie deficits, I can figure out my total deficit for the month, divide by 3500, and that should give me how many lbs I lost for the month, and I weighed myself this morning, and it's only off by 0.07% over the course of the whole month (yes, I'm THAT much of a geek). Losing weight is now a science project for me. Anyway - I highly recommend getting one of these and wearing it religiously to figure out exactly how many calories you are burning. It's easy to account for, pretty accurately, how many calories you eat, but it's harder, IMO, to accurately track how many you burn. But the armband seems to work pretty well from my 'data'...

emills1970

bump...

auddii

it's not about whether 1500 cals/day will put you in starvation mode or not. It's simply about why deprive yourself when you don't have to...?

Based on what the calculators said for your height/weight/activity levels:

You can lose weight on 1500 cals/day, you'll lose it more quickly, but unless you have a lot of fat to lose you'll risk losing lean body mass with it and making your metabolism slower, and also feeling grumpy and hungry a lot, and having to deprive yourself of stuff you'd rather eat, and you'll have a greater risk of putting the weight back on again and a greater risk of plateaus

OR

You can lose weight on 1900 cals/day. You'll lose it more slowly, but you'll have less risk of losing lean body mass, you won't feel hungry, you'll be able to enjoy your favourite treats more and enjoy a wider variety of meals and bigger serving sizes, you'll have more energy, your metabolism is more likely to stay fast and you'll find it easier to maintain your goal weight once you get there.

Which would you choose?

And you can keep your tub of ice cream...

lmkaks

it's not about whether 1500 cals/day will put you in starvation mode or not. It's simply about why deprive yourself when you don't have to...?

Based on what the calculators said for your height/weight/activity levels:

You can lose weight on 1500 cals/day, you'll lose it more quickly, but unless you have a lot of fat to lose you'll risk losing lean body mass with it and making your metabolism slower, and also feeling grumpy and hungry a lot, and having to deprive yourself of stuff you'd rather eat, and you'll have a greater risk of putting the weight back on again and a greater risk of plateaus

OR

You can lose weight on 1900 cals/day. You'll lose it more slowly, but you'll have less risk of losing lean body mass, you won't feel hungry, you'll be able to enjoy your favourite treats more and enjoy a wider variety of meals and bigger serving sizes, you'll have more energy, your metabolism is more likely to stay fast and you'll find it easier to maintain your goal weight once you get there.

Which would you choose?

And you can keep your tub of ice cream...

Hahaha! No, I felt so crappy in bed last night that I vowed to never see Ben nor Jerry ever again....