why does eating more = weight loss?

jacksonpt

Seems like every thread I see asking about why someone isn't seeing results, the answer is always to eat more. The second someone says they are netting, or *GASP* grossing 1200 cals, the knee-jerk reaction is to tell them to eat more.

I get the more general health issues (nutrition, body composition, etc)... I'm not asking about those.

But if someone is eating 1200 cals and not seeing weight come off, why should they be eating more? Help me understand what's going on in the body... the science part of all this. Assuming their estimates are reasonably close (cals eaten, cals burned, tdee, etc etc), how does eating more = more weight loss?

professorRAT

I wonder the same. I really don't see how it can be the case.

I do suspect, however, that when people increase their calories and have more success losing weight it is because they are able to be more consistent with the intake of calories when they are consuming a more "reasonable" amount. Anecdotal, but this is what happened with me. I wasn't really eating super low, but my calorie intake variation was very high. Once I bumped it up a bit, I was able to be more consistent and had better success that way. So, bottom line, my calorie deficit was actually bigger on average when I increased my calorie target.

I do know there are hormonal responses to consistent under-eating. So, it may also be the case that calorie burn estimates are more off when this happens. Again, this does not mean eating more increases the calorie deficit. That makes no sense to me either. I think it just makes it harder to estimate burns so the calorie deficit people think they have is wrong. Increasing calories may just make the estimates better due to better functioning of metabolism? Just a thought.

Still, I really don't see how someone actually consistently eating 1200 calories a day and not losing can increase their calories to, say, 1600 a day and start losing weight (with same calorie burns, of course). That would require pretty large estimate errors due to metabolic changes and I highly doubt that is the case.

Gunsentry

The more weight you loose the faster your metabolism runs which burns more fat.

You should adjust your calorie intake after some weight loss see where your numbers sit.

If you do not eat enough calories the body will go into starvation mode and hold on to fat no weight loss.

Eat more the body will begin metabolizing again at rate for your current weight and will burn off the fat stores once again as it is no longer in starvation mode..

Very simplistic explanation but get the point over.

professorRAT

The more weight you loose the faster your metabolism runs which burns more fat.

You should adjust your calorie intake after some weight loss see where your numbers sit.

If you do not eat enough calories the body will go into starvation mode and hold on to fat no weight loss.

Eat more the body will begin metabolizing again at rate for your current weight and will burn off the fat stores once again as it is no longer in starvation mode..

Very simplistic explanation but get the point over.

I think there are people all over the world that would disagree with this. They eat very little calories and their bodies do not hold on to fat. Starving people do not have lots of body fat.

jacksonpt

The more weight you loose the faster your metabolism runs which burns more fat.

Really?

If you do not eat enough calories the body will go into starvation mode and hold on to fat no weight loss.

Perhaps... but you are still burning cals all day, so you are still in a deficit, so shouldn't you still be losing weight?

Eat more the body will begin metabolizing again at rate for your current weight and will burn off the fat stores once again as it is no longer in starvation mode..

Again, you are still burning cals, and as such still in a deficit. Perhaps you're burning more muscle than fat at really low cal levels, but you're still burning which should translate to weight loss, no?

2credneck208

Just did all the calculations for me and I should be eating 2000 cals a day!! I have been @ 1200 for almost 2 months and lost alot in the beginning but have stalled I guess I will try this and see what happens, if I gain a bunch I am gonna go postal!!

Gunsentry

The more weight you loose the faster your metabolism runs which burns more fat.

You should adjust your calorie intake after some weight loss see where your numbers sit.

If you do not eat enough calories the body will go into starvation mode and hold on to fat no weight loss.

Eat more the body will begin metabolizing again at rate for your current weight and will burn off the fat stores once again as it is no longer in starvation mode..

Very simplistic explanation but get the point over.

I think there are people all over the world that would disagree with this. They eat very little calories and their bodies do not hold on to fat. Starving people do not have high fat percentages.

Starvation is the bodies retraction to limited nutrients. Starving peoples bodies will eat up fat and muscle then begin on any other tissue mass available. Starvation also included dehydration due to lack of fluids which causes body spaces to fill with air, hence large pushed out stomachs in starving people.

This is completely different from people dieting and hitting walls with weight loss as they are sufficiently providing the body with nutrition all be it a low calories but regular meals.

EmmaKarney

Read this

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12

Explains all

professorRAT

The more weight you loose the faster your metabolism runs which burns more fat.

You should adjust your calorie intake after some weight loss see where your numbers sit.

If you do not eat enough calories the body will go into starvation mode and hold on to fat no weight loss.

Eat more the body will begin metabolizing again at rate for your current weight and will burn off the fat stores once again as it is no longer in starvation mode..

Very simplistic explanation but get the point over.

I think there are people all over the world that would disagree with this. They eat very little calories and their bodies do not hold on to fat. Starving people do not have high fat percentages.

Starvation is the bodies retraction to limited nutrients. Starving peoples bodies will eat up fat and muscle then begin on any other tissue mass available. Starvation also included dehydration due to lack of fluids which causes body spaces to fill with air, hence large pushed out stomachs in starving people.

This is completely different from people dieting and hitting walls with weight loss as they are sufficiently providing the body with nutrition all be it a low calories but regular meals.

Yes, I agree, starving peoples bodies will eat up fat and muscle; they lose weight because of this as they are starving.

I still don't see how eating more creates a bigger calorie deficit (or a deficit when there was none on lower calories). This really does not explain that. Weight loss can include both muscle and fat loss. A consistent calorie deficit should always yield weight loss, shouldn't it?

Bonny619

It doesn't for me, it never has. But I'm not a gym rat.

WBB55

I'm no expert, but to me based on anecdotal evidence of myself and people I've interacted with online, as well as what I learned in the biology, anatomy, physiology, microbiology and nutrition classes I've taken, if you are only, say, 20% over a normal weight, it is counterproductive to have greater than a 1000 calorie deficit per day. If you truly burn 2200 calories on an average day, but regularly only feed it less than 1200 calories, then your body will begin to produce hormones/signals that tell the cells to slow down their consumption of energy and hold onto any lipid cells. I don't think any of my textbooks called this "starvation mode." Just a normal, temporary metabolic/energy decrease in response to less available food, the kind of thing that happens to hunter/gatherer humans during Winter months. You have less energy, sleep more, fidget less... basically you go into a light hibernation mode where you stop needing the 2200 calories per day for the same "activity" level (even though your "activity" has, in fact, changed imperceptively. You simply don't realize you fidget less and sleep more).

love4fitnesslove4food_wechange

It's really quite complex...but I'll attempt to explain. When you reduce your calories drastically you increase the hunger hormone (ghrelin) and decrease the satiety hormone (leptin) to an extent much greater than the loss in weight--your appetite increases, your metabolic rate slows, and your cortisol levels go up. cortisol = fight/flight hormone and increases water retention. So, you MASK weight loss with sky high deficits but you should still be losing nonetheless.

Furthermore, a higher deficit generally results in a greater portion of muscle loss than a modest deficit would produce--that leads to a reduction in metabolic rate as well.

So, as your hormones become wonky and your metabolism is reduced your deficit is smaller and smaller than predicted--> your weight loss slows. By increasing your calories you restore proper hormone levels and weight loss can proceed.

It's much more complicated than this but I hope it provides SOME insight into what's happening.

lutzsher

Our bodies are a very interesting science project . . . I just know for myself personally that if I am pretty active and get in my workout if I do not comsume at least 1350 calories the scale DOES NOT move at all.

I am terrible for not eating enough, I often find that I am at only 900 calories as I eat very clean and have a dairy allergy so don't even get some of the additional calories from that source. I have to force myself often to get up to that magical number because I don't lose an ounce unless I do.

I have been sick with a chest cold for a few weeks so have dropped my intake to 1200 per day since Im not getting in my usual activity, but as soon as I burn some of those calories I must increase it again.

Anything less and all of my calories automatically just move into storage on my *kitten* since my body is unsure of when it will get fed again.

da_bears10089

The more weight you loose the faster your metabolism runs which burns more fat.

You should adjust your calorie intake after some weight loss see where your numbers sit.

If you do not eat enough calories the body will go into starvation mode and hold on to fat no weight loss.

Eat more the body will begin metabolizing again at rate for your current weight and will burn off the fat stores once again as it is no longer in starvation mode..

Very simplistic explanation but get the point over.

I think there are people all over the world that would disagree with this. They eat very little calories and their bodies do not hold on to fat. Starving people do not have lots of body fat.

people that are genuinely starving, don't have food to eat PERIOD. A few years back, i had a borderline eating disorder, where i was taking in very few calories daily and working out like a maniac. Then i started eating average sized meals and my body was like "holy *kitten*! FOOD! i'm going to hang onto this just in case this b*tch tries to stop feeding me again"

ArroganceInStep

Listen to the prof, not gunsentry.

The way I look at it, for the most part, is that most people really have no f'ing clue EXACTLY how many calories they're taking in. You weight your chicken? Well not all parts of the chicken, and not all chickens, have the same calorie density. Nutrition labels on boxes are only considered erroneous if they're over 20% off. Even scientists and nerds who do this sort of thing for a living have a damn hard time keeping calorie intake constant. I myself shoot for a finger in the wind number of 2500. I don't log so often anymore as I've been losing steadily, but occassionally I'll check up on myself and the variance is pretty darn big. The first thing you need to do is ensure that your calorie intake estimates are as accurate as possible before worrying about anything else.

Second thing is that, as the prof said, more reasonable calorie targets are easier to keep consistently, and the lack of variance over the goal may make up for the higher total target.

Finally, metabolic adaptation is a real thing. It's not as crazy as some people make it out to be, but when you're eating at a healthier intake level your body operates better and you're more able to do things that'll up your TDEE. Again it's not going to make up for the increase in calories I don't think, but it is there.

Generally speaking, I can't worry too much about folks who don't exercise. If they can't for health reasons then medical professionals should be giving advice over me, and if they can't for lifestyle reasons well then they need to get their diet in order and that's not an area I'm as good at (if I was I wouldn't be overweight right now). If you do exercise, I think the easiest is going by Lyle's little checklist. (No this isn't the one he used but I don't want to look it up)

Are you losing weight? -> Yes -> Is your performance impacted? -> No -> Keep doing what you're doing
Are you losing weight? -> Yes -> Is your performance impacted? -> Yes -> Eat a little bit more
Are you losing weight? -> No -> Is your performance impacted? -> No -> Eat a little bit less
Are you losing weight? -> No -> Is your performance impacted? -> Yes -> Sucks to be you

professorRAT

Read this

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12

Explains all

Not really. It says this

"The body switches gears hormonally and tries to maintain fat, a non active tissue that stores energy, by burning lean mass, an active tissue that uses calories. So in essence fat mass starts to stay the same while lean mass drops. "

So, essentially you might be burning lean mass instead of fat mass, but you would still lose weight. It may not be the body composition changes you desire, but it would still result in loss of pounds as long as there was a consistent calorie deficit, wouldn't it? To me, to suggest otherwise would be implying that we are defying the laws of physics somehow.

Flowers4Julia

Part of the science has to do with how the body adapts. You can eat low calories and lose but eventually the body will learn to maintain on it, because it "thinks" you are in a famine period. Then metabolism slows, etc.

Eating more teaches your body that food is plentiful, and can burn the fat stores rather than hang on to them.

Obviously there are limits, you can starve yourself to death, but probably not on 1200. You just won't be feeding the machine correctly

LokiOfAsgard

I'm not really sure how to explain it anymore than another poster here already has.
But it does work.
When I got started, I didn't change anything, I only logged and I was not eating enough! Most days not even 1,200. So you would think I should not be so overweight, right?
Wrong.
I was actually gaining
At an average of 1,000 calories a day.

I ate more and the first week, 4 lbs came off (mostly water weight) And then every week after that for a good 3 or four months I lost about 2lbs per week.
At 1,800 (almost 1,900) calories.
Compared to gaining at 1,000

Now eating more may /not/ always be the answer, but it's better to eat a little more and find out that's the wrong path than to eat too little and wonder why you're not losing.

love4fitnesslove4food_wechange

The more weight you loose the faster your metabolism runs which burns more fat.

You should adjust your calorie intake after some weight loss see where your numbers sit.

If you do not eat enough calories the body will go into starvation mode and hold on to fat no weight loss.

Eat more the body will begin metabolizing again at rate for your current weight and will burn off the fat stores once again as it is no longer in starvation mode..

Very simplistic explanation but get the point over.

I think there are people all over the world that would disagree with this. They eat very little calories and their bodies do not hold on to fat. Starving people do not have lots of body fat.

people that are genuinely starving, don't have food to eat PERIOD. A few years back, i had a borderline eating disorder, where i was taking in very few calories daily and working out like a maniac. Then i started eating average sized meals and my body was like "holy *kitten*! FOOD! i'm going to hang onto this just in case this b*tch tries to stop feeding me again"

Ditto. I gained from 68ish pounds to 90 pounds on ~1200-1600 calories while working out. I gained the rest on 1700-2000.

MrsSWW

I only suggest that people eat more if I think they actually need to eat more. Simplez

professorRAT

Part of the science has to do with how the body adapts. You can eat low calories and lose but eventually the body will learn to maintain on it, because it "thinks" you are in a famine period. Then metabolism slows, etc.

Eating more teaches your body that food is plentiful, and can burn the fat stores rather than hang on to them.

Obviously there are limits, you can starve yourself to death, but probably not on 1200. You just won't be feeding the machine correctly

Right, metabolism slows down but if you knew what it was and you still maintained a deficit you would still lose weight. I am arguing that because of the slowdown in metabolism people don't estimate burns correctly and then they are no long actually in a consistent calorie deficit. Still, I would think this effect would be fairly small and most cases of people eating more to start losing again are due to improved consistency.

Also, burning fat vs muscle is not the OP's question, it is total weight loss he is asking about. A true calorie deficit will always yield weight loss. Increasing calories substantially is likely to decrease calorie deficit even if it slightly raises metabolism. Does anyone have any scientific evidence on the magnitude of metabolic slowdown that can occur? I would be interested in seeing those estimates. Maybe they are larger than I expect.

myofibril

eat more = more fat loss as opposed to weight loss (although it could trigger a whoosh and cause water to be released as well...)

Find the calorie sweet spot and you keep your metabolic rate sufficiently elevated to ensure no unconscious decrease in NEAT more than anything else, unaccounted binging etc

SnicciFit

Your metabolism will adjust to the lower calorie intake in a matter of weeks. Check this out:

http://fueledfitness.ca/fat-loss-the-right-way/

ldrosophila

My theory and I have nothing to base this on just my own little thought bubbles...

When people cut back below 1200 they usually cut out most essential nutritients especially essential fatty acids and fat soluble vitamins. When they add back calories they put more nutrients into their diet and those are usually nutrient dense foods which is needed to aid in metabolism ie more efficient ability to catabolise maconutrients and micronutrients.

Man cannot live by protein shake, protein bar, salad with nothing but a squeeze of lemon, chicken breast, and broccoli alone. To quote someone I guess.

But thats my moment of zen. Ouch my brain hurts.

ericahassinistermotives

Edit: My bad, not relevant.

The best answer I have is that people metabolize at different BMRs and need different amounts.
I've seen women who eat 1200 and lose their desired amount of weight and maintain, and I've seen them eat 1800-2100 and lose and maintain.

Greenrun99

Perhaps... but you are still burning cals all day, so you are still in a deficit, so shouldn't you still be losing weight?
..

Again, you are still burning cals, and as such still in a deficit. Perhaps you're burning more muscle than fat at really low cal levels, but you're still burning which should translate to weight loss, no?

If your just looking for scale weight loss, eat with a huge deficit until the scale stops moving or until your where you want to be.. When the scale stops, more than likely your body has adapted to your deficit. Of course during that time period your BF has went up due to loss of muscle.. but hey the scale went down right? (Not to mention when you start eating more, your going to gain weight)

If your at the gym 6 days a week busting your butt.. If you can eat 2000 calories and still lose 1.5lbs a week, would you rather do that.. or would you rather eat 1200 calories to lose 1.5lbs a week.. which do you think is better for your body?

love4fitnesslove4food_wechange

eat more = more fat loss as opposed to weight loss (although it could trigger a whoosh and cause water to be released as well...)

Find the calorie sweet spot and you keep your metabolic rate sufficiently elevated to ensure no unconscious decrease in NEAT more than anything else, unaccounted binging etc

You mean an unconscious increase in NEAT? I think maintaining your pre-deficit NEAT is more likely than increasing it in any case.

love4fitnesslove4food_wechange

Because it's not always how much you eat, it's what you eat.

Say you're kind of a nibbler, and you don't eat big portions.
But you eat McDonald's everyday. You get a McDouble and fries.
That's 750 calories per meal. That's 2100 calories a day if you mow down on it 3x a day.

Now say you switched to eating salads and a yogurt. That's about 400 calories per meal if you add meat to your salad. That's 1200 calories a day, and I can guarantee you, the salad is more filling than the burger.

:

ericahassinistermotives

Because it's not always how much you eat, it's what you eat.

Say you're kind of a nibbler, and you don't eat big portions.
But you eat McDonald's everyday. You get a McDouble and fries.
That's 750 calories per meal. That's 2100 calories a day if you mow down on it 3x a day.

Now say you switched to eating salads and a yogurt. That's about 400 calories per meal if you add meat to your salad. That's 1200 calories a day, and I can guarantee you, the salad is more filling than the burger.

:

Yeah, that's what I get for skimming! I missed the context by like...1000 miles! xD

SassyCalyGirl

it doesn't (for EVERYONE).

ldrosophila

I'm no expert, but to me based on anecdotal evidence of myself and people I've interacted with online, as well as what I learned in the biology, anatomy, physiology, microbiology and nutrition classes I've taken, if you are only, say, 20% over a normal weight, it is counterproductive to have greater than a 1000 calorie deficit per day. If you truly burn 2200 calories on an average day, but regularly only feed it less than 1200 calories, then your body will begin to produce hormones/signals that tell the cells to slow down their consumption of energy and hold onto any lipid cells. I don't think any of my textbooks called this "starvation mode." Just a normal, temporary metabolic/energy decrease in response to less available food, the kind of thing that happens to hunter/gatherer humans during Winter months. You have less energy, sleep more, fidget less... basically you go into a light hibernation mode where you stop needing the 2200 calories per day for the same "activity" level (even though your "activity" has, in fact, changed imperceptively. You simply don't realize you fidget less and sleep more).

Youre kitty picture is cute been meaning to tell you that. I wish I could hibernate for the winter. Fatten up during the summer and come out lean and mean in the spring. Sigh I hate bears and chipmunks they got it made.