why does eating more = weight loss?

tdlutyhe

ok, so this is what I am struggling with....I am worried that the exercise I am logging is over estimating how many calories I am burning (if I go by what my elliptical says MFP is over estimating by half). So when I am trying to get to my 1200 net I worried that I am actually eating too much....does all that rambling make sense? Thanks in advance to anyone willing to comment!

LiftAllThePizzas

You're right.

But the point of this thread was to question the rampant advise on this site that if you aren't seeing weight loss despite eating what many consider a low cal diet that you need to increase cals.

Rarely do people question how the person is estimating cals consumed/burned, how they got to 1200 cals per day, etc etc. The immediate response is always, "omfg, you need to eat more!" as of they will be dead in a week.

If people arent seeing the result they expect,maybe they should log more carefully, stop lying to themselves about that 1 piece of candy or that little bit of butter or the last couple bites of their kids' pizza, how many cals they are really burning during their etymological session, how hard they are really pushing in the gym, etc.

Are there times when people need to eat more? Definitely. But 9 times out of 10 I'm betting the problem isn't the 1200 calorie goal but rather in their estimating and/or logging.


But my beliefs aside, no one has shown that an increase in cals leads directly to more weight loss for the average dieter.

Agreed. The things you mentioned are going to be true in some cases. I dunno what proportion of them, whether it's 9 out of 10 or 1 in 10, or whatever. I'm sure there are more confounding factors too. Food isn't just calories. 1800 calories worth of food contains 150% as much vitamins and minerals as 1200 calories worth of food. When you mess with those you start getting into having problems regulating cellular, organ level, or systemic functions, or the ability to produce enough neurotransmitters or deal with them, etc.

I have not read a whole lot of those threads but in the few I have seen, the person is often set to 1200 but is only eating 900 and thinking this is even more of a good thing than 1200. I think the best response to any thread is going to be different depending on the individual circumstances of that thread.

But my beliefs aside, no one has shown that an increase in cals leads directly to more weight loss for the average dieter.

I would be curious to see science applied to that hypothesis as well. I don't see it happening any time soon though, since there's no supplement or product to be sold or piles of money to be made, regardless of whether it turns out to be true or false. (Or more likely, true under certain circumstances but false under other circumstances.)

LiftAllThePizzas

OK on my fitnes pal it says I should eat 1200 calories and then it adds whatever I burn in excersize so that often puts it up too 1600 calories. Now my question is, do I eat the 1200 calories or 1600 to lose weight?

There are actually two things to consider there.

1- is it telling you to eat 1200 based on a goal of losing 1 pound a week, or a goal of losing 2 pounds a week? The reason this always should be asked is because almost everyone is ambitious and overrides the recommended setting of 1 lb a week. (I did it too! But then I felt like absolute crap so I changed it.) Also, whether or not it is a good idea to try to lose 2 pounds a week depends a lot on how much excess body fat you have.

2- MFP does not give you credit for exercising unless you specifically log it. If you tell it, "I will gladly exercise Tuesday for a hamburger today," it still doesn't count that toward your goal. Once you have burned off the calories and logged them, yes you should eat them back. If MFP is overestimating your burn, which apparently happens to a lot of people, then you can try eating back half of what it says. (I think a lot of this may come from the fact that it just lists things like "light effort, moderate effort, vigorous effort" and people have very different ideas of what is "vigorous.")

lesspaul

It seems to be unpopular with many here to state the obvious; those things which align with the laws of physics.

It is all calories in vs calories out.

If you are not weighing and/or measuring your food, or if you are eating at restaurants or cafeterias where you have to estimate calories, you don't _really_ know calories in.

As for calories out -- this can get complicated, but if you slow down and do less when you are hungry, then you are undoing the good of your caloric restriction.

Here is the part that people just don't want to admit: Losing weight means letting those fat cells starve to death. They are begging to be fed. There is no weight loss without a little bit (or a lot) of hungry.

And while I'm at it -- starvation mode is a myth for those of us with normal, or above normal body fat levels. Look it up. Look at the research where the phenomenon was discovered. It happened ONLY when body fat percentages went below 5%.

Now, that doesn't mean you should be eating ultra-low calories a day -- we do need adequate macro and micro nutrients, but 1200 calories is _not_ a magic number.

Last but not least, research has shown that for those new, or relatively new to an exercise regimen, fat loss can occur at the same time we are building muscle. Once you get relatively fit, or no longer classified as "overweight" or "obese" this ability diminishes as we get stronger and thinner.

Helloitsdan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHHzie6XRGk&sns=em

This is a 20+ min video from Lane Norton about metabolic damage.
He does talk about contest prep but it applies to everyone.
Listen to what he is saying because some people who are living with a suppressed metabolism from under eating can slowly come out of that hole and have a better metabolic rate just by slowly increasing what they are eating.

Bumbeen

If it were true that your body could magically adjust to ever-higher amounts of calories, no one would be fat.

There are people that do that, they are called hardgainers

TrailNurse

They say that cause they don't know what they are talking about basically. Very few folks on here are already very lean individuals and as such should not be worrying about muscle loss from eating too few calories. Presuming you are lifting and consuming adequate protein, you can easily lose more than 2lbs/week and keep your muscle tissue. The bigger you are the faster you can drop the fat. Fact is your metabolism doesn't slow very much, maybe 20% at most, it isn't like your body just shuts down. The only time you need to start being paranoid about muscle loss is when you are already lean.

Thank you! You can't go into "starvation mode" if you have extra fat stores. The body will ALWAYS use fat as energy.

CrazyTrackLady

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?

Think of our bodies as a fire pit. Load it with kindling, light it, and it burns for just a little bit, then goes out. Add firewood, and the fire grows. The more wood, the higher and hotter the fire, the more energy is consumed by the fire's flames. Before long, it's a raging fire producing a lot of heat and eating itself faster.

Now, add crappy food, and it just smothers the fire.

meaningful99

I'm no expert, but I've been dong this for 30+ days now, and I've observed that if I eat a little more, I lose a little more. As an experiment, for one week I didn't eat back my exercise calories (and went to bed really hungry every night), and I only lost half a pound. The next week I ate back all my exercise calories and even went over my calorie limit on three days and I dropped more than three pounds. I have no idea why; just reporting my experience.

LiftAllThePizzas

There is no weight loss without a little bit (or a lot) of hungry.

I agree with everything else you said, but not this. It seems to vary between individuals, and I know personally I can experience several types of hunger, some good, some types are unpleasant. But I haven't had any more hunger on a 500 calorie deficit than I had when I was just eating whatever/whenever.

JudyAngelman

bump need to come back to finish reading later.

SideSteel

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.

^ I agree with this assessment.

Admiral_Derp

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.

^ I agree with this assessment.

Seconded.

JanaCanada

Read this

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

Explains all

This!

and this...http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/865024-1200-and-why-it-won-t-work

elisa123gal

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.

I think the term "starvation mode" is wrong and that is where the confusion begins. For sure..starving people are no way holding onto fat. The correct description would be the body goes into defense mode and slows the metabolism down when it senses a severe change of any kind that would impact fat loss which is there to protect keep the body safe from famine.

In my opinion; extreme calorie reduction or extreme exercise puts the body in a defense mode that holds onto fat. You hear it all the time ..that when someone starts exercising like mad..they gain weight or don't lose. Then everyone says it is muscle ..but that doesn't happen in a week. The body is in defense mode..

SanteMulberry

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).

^^^^THIS^^^ When I was 50 pounds heavier, (and ate much less than I do now) I could barely get off the couch. That's how weak and tired I was. I could barely even FIND my muscles--they were so encased in fat. I got that way because of arthritis---over the years I just moved less and less and I didn't even know how to eat. I hated vegetables, and ate little protein because I thought fat didn't agree with me. I ate mostly carbohydrates (in the form of wheat bread) and sugar (to "give me more energy"---or so I thought). And the pounds kept piling on even though, when I looked at my daily calories, on most days, I wasn't eating enough calories to maintain my weight. And sometimes I would go to a buffet or out to a restaurant and eat everything they put in front of me---and then feel sick for a day or so. When I look back on it...

Then one day I got mad about feeling so crummy and decided I was going to do something about it. The first thing I got rid of was sugar and wheat. And I immediately felt better. My blood pressure started to come down faster than my weight but both came down (I was able to taper off the two B.P. meds I was taking in a few months). Once I had lost about 30 pounds, my arthritis felt much better and I decided to start exercising and lifting light weights (I started with 2 pounders and I'm up to 10 at this point). Eventually, I hope to lift even more but we'll see. Then I started pool exercise and I saw a dramatic improvement in my joints. And I started moving more all the time. I started eating vegetables and protein and cut back on carbs to about 100 grams per day (and now I love vegetables). Then I lost even more fat. As I lost fat and gained muscle, I found that I could eat more calories than I had for a long time, and still lose weight. It's basically reversing what got me into the bad state of health that I was in.

Gettinyoung

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.

I think the term "starvation mode" is wrong and that is where the confusion begins. For sure..starving people are no way holding onto fat. The correct description would be the body goes into defense mode and slows the metabolism down when it senses a severe change of any kind that would impact fat loss which is there to protect keep the body safe from famine.

In my opinion; extreme calorie reduction or extreme exercise puts the body in a defense mode that holds onto fat. You hear it all the time ..that when someone starts exercising like mad..they gain weight or don't lose. Then everyone says it is muscle ..but that doesn't happen in a week. The body is in defense mode..

Could it be that the extreme calorie reduction or extreme exercise puts undo stress on the body, releasing cortisol - which will help maintain fat stores?

SanteMulberry

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.

I think the term "starvation mode" is wrong and that is where the confusion begins. For sure..starving people are no way holding onto fat. The correct description would be the body goes into defense mode and slows the metabolism down when it senses a severe change of any kind that would impact fat loss which is there to protect keep the body safe from famine.

In my opinion; extreme calorie reduction or extreme exercise puts the body in a defense mode that holds onto fat. You hear it all the time ..that when someone starts exercising like mad..they gain weight or don't lose. Then everyone says it is muscle ..but that doesn't happen in a week. The body is in defense mode..

Could it be that the extreme calorie reduction or extreme exercise puts undo stress on the body, releasing cortisol - which will help maintain fat stores?

Yep. Both raise cortisol levels which is NOT a dieter's friend. Also, a high carb diet, because it raises insulin levels (and leads to insulin resistance) is part of the problem. Protein and vegetables are the dieter's friends (and part of the solution) because such a diet lowers insulin levels. Lifting weights helps the muscles to be more insulin sensitive and offsets the march toward Type II diabetes that a large number of obese people are on.

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.

I think the term "starvation mode" is wrong and that is where the confusion begins. For sure..starving people are no way holding onto fat. The correct description would be the body goes into defense mode and slows the metabolism down when it senses a severe change of any kind that would impact fat loss which is there to protect keep the body safe from famine.

In my opinion; extreme calorie reduction or extreme exercise puts the body in a defense mode that holds onto fat. You hear it all the time ..that when someone starts exercising like mad..they gain weight or don't lose. Then everyone says it is muscle ..but that doesn't happen in a week. The body is in defense mode..

Could it be that the extreme calorie reduction or extreme exercise puts undo stress on the body, releasing cortisol - which will help maintain fat stores?

Yep. Both raise cortisol levels which is NOT a dieter's friend. Also, a high carb diet, because it raises insulin levels (and leads to insulin resistance) is part of the problem. Protein and vegetables are the dieter's friends (and part of the solution) because such a diet lowers insulin levels. Lifting weights helps the muscles to be more insulin sensitive and offsets the march toward Type II diabetes that a large number of obese people are on.

But wouldn't that (increased cortisol) also cause muscle wasting? So, the net effect could still be weight loss. Not desirable weight loss, but weight loss nonetheless.

So, what happens to someone in "defense mode" if they lower their calorie intake? We are asking about total weight loss, not just fat (i.e. not body composition effects).

again, just a 'knowledge for knowledge's sake' question, not advocating this clearly bad approach to weight loss.

Helloitsdan

People have been known to simply "shrink" Body fat stays the same while weight drops.
Skinny-fat
No thanx!