why does eating more = weight loss?
Replies
-
Another reason why the scale may not be changing is because you may be losing weight and gaining muscle at the same time depending on what type of exercising you're doing. Muscle weighs more than fat. Your body should have more muscle than fat (muslce also helps your body to burn fat faster) so again that's a good thing. Something that will help you to see the difference between your body fat percentage and your body muscle percentage would be to do a BOD POD test. It measures your body composition and tells you your true body mass (pounds), fat free mass (muscle) and your total percent of your body that is fat.
Muscle does not weigh more than fat, any more than a pound of lead weighs more than a pound of feathers. A pound is a pound is a pound. Muscle is much more dense than fat, so, by volume, it seems to weigh more. A pound of muscle occupies less space than a pound of fat. This is why someone could stay the same weight as far as the scale goes but physically they get smaller as they burn body fat and build lean body mass through weight training.0 -
0
-
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?
I think some people misunderstand what that means. And by misunderstand, I mean, don't take the time to understand it.
It's (in my opinion) not eating more OVERALL. It's eating more fruits, veggies, lean meats, healthy fats, etc than you did previously. When I was just charting my food to see how I ate, I learned that I usually only ate around 1600 calories but those 1600 calories weren't particularly healthy. That's what it means. Someone eating 1200 calories can still gain if their meals are still high in fat, sodium, and other things the body doesn't need in excess. That same person could eat way more food if they switched those out for the healthier foods I mentioned above. Even if they didn't eat more calories, they would still be eating more food to reach the 1200 than they did before.
Also, exercise plays a huge part in that. If you go hard in the paint during your workouts, you do need more food. But that doesn't mean you can eat whatever you want. It just means you'll need more LEAN protein and fiber to replenish your body so it can function properly.
I think 1200 IS okay for some people....mainly shorter people. We need less than someone who is taller. For instance, when I calculated my BMR from a formula on my favorite fitness blog, I think mine was around 1500 (assuming no exercise). Using the same formula, the person who ran the site was around 2000. I'm 5'1", she's 6'0". So for some, going down to 1200 calories is perfectly fine. For others, it's a huge no-no. I started at 1200 but gradually increased my calories as I figured out what my body needed. Now I'm up to 1500. I've lost 35 pounds since last May BTW.
P.S. I think a lot of people throw around "starvation mode" and "metabolic damage". Yes those are real things but I rarely see people explaining the "eat more, weigh less" in plain english. Hopefully I did!
1. your body does not recognize a carb from a sweet potato is different than that from a bag skittles. Yes one digests slower than the other, but one will NOT affect weight gain or loss differently. Same calories, different foods = same results. You need not calories from specific foods to lose weight.
What's important:
macronutrients: carbs, fat, protein
and FIBER, that's where "healthy" foods come into play
2. Height has next to NOTHING to do with calorie or macronutrient needs.
I'm just throwing this out there about the "short" people thing. For me, 1200 was not a good choice and I'm 5'1. Especially because I was so scared of going over 1200 that I ended up eating 1000 or less. Sure, I lost weight on it, but my body couldn't handle it. Aside from the binges I'd go on no and again..I ended up becoming deficient in nutrients. Especially protein. I ended up with a lot of the nasty side effects. I was 245lbs and I was eating a higher calorie amount and losing but I wanted to lose faster. At around 210, I got into the 1200 mind frame. I did it for a little over a year and got down to 153lbs but I was really flabby because I didn't have a lot of energy for workouts.
As I said, I ended up just hurting myself and almost working myself into an ED. Gained 20lbs+ back but am a lot healthier and am doing it right this time.
Eating at a higher calorie goal is not only more healthy for me, but I have a lot more energy to where I'm able to work out more and am losing inches. I figure by the time I get back to 150-160..I'm going to be 50x more fit and "smaller" (in regards to inches) than before.0 -
I had a metabolic assessment done this week, because I was tired of all the guessing on formulas and calculations. It was determined my resting metabolic rate is only 907!!! I have a very slow metabolism as I suspected. I do work out, so I have to eat those exercise calories to be able to eat more each day!
If you are doing cardio, avoid long steady state sessions and opt for short high intensity intervals instead. Steady state cardio like a 5 mile jog can actually hurt your metabolism rather than help0 -
I think several people explained it fairly well in here. It has alot to do with the hunter/gatherer thing from when humans first walked this earth. Unfortunately, there ARE some people who somehow have managed to evolve, so to speak. If you are not TRYING to starve yourself, but still eating too few calories, your body will cling to anything it is given to it, thus not allotting you in the proper weight loss. You must feed your body the appropriate amount in order for it to function properly, while also doing activity to encourage metabolism and blood flow = your body attempting to get to an appropriate mass/weight.
You must also understand, that a pound of muscle is much smaller than a pound of fat, and therefore you MIGHT not see the scale numbers decrease in some cases, while seeing your body mass decrease. This is why it is sometimes better to keep an eye on your actual measurements versus the scale reading. BMI is not always accurate either, since it goes by height/weight. A 250 pound 6'2" man who is full of muscle, and physically fit may have the same BMI as a 250 pound man who is 6'2" and very little muscle, appearing larger 'fat-wise'.0 -
"Someone eating 1200 calories can still gain if their meals are still high in fat, sodium, and other things the body doesn't need in excess."
I do not think this is even remotely true, and I don't think that people mean eat better when they say eat more calories. That is just not the case.0 -
I am curious as to the science behind it as well. I know the outcome but I cant remember the process. I know we learned about this when I was studying to be a dietician but that was many years ago and I didnt finish the degree.0
-
http://www.3dmusclejourney.com/featured-athletes.php
A few athletes who believe in a little thing called flexible dieting.
I.E. if it fits into your macronutrients you can eat it, including poptarts, pizza, ice cream etc. They are also given though fiber recommendations, as I previously mentioned that IS important and will require some "clean/healthy" eating. In addition MICRONUTRIENTS are essential to good health, but when talking about weight loss gain, the emphasis is to be put on MACRONUTRIENTS.
For more information on what I am talking about watch this youtube series IIFYM vs Clean Eating
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6H2edyPLU8 0 -
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"
^This.
I was 87lbs. I hardly ate anything at all.. maybe 100 calories a day, and I worked out like crazy. My body was in total starvation mode. When I started eating 1000calories a day, my body hung on to every ounce of food and turned it into fat. I gained at least 40lbs right away. When you don't eat enough, your metabolism slows to a crawl. You don't need a lot to function, but your body makes up for the calorie deficit by eating your muscle. Then, when you add a normal amount of calories to your diet, your metabolism doesn't just kick back in right away.. it holds on to all those calories because it thinks you are going to starve it again.0 -
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?
I think some people misunderstand what that means. And by misunderstand, I mean, don't take the time to understand it.
It's (in my opinion) not eating more OVERALL. It's eating more fruits, veggies, lean meats, healthy fats, etc than you did previously. When I was just charting my food to see how I ate, I learned that I usually only ate around 1600 calories but those 1600 calories weren't particularly healthy. That's what it means. Someone eating 1200 calories can still gain if their meals are still high in fat, sodium, and other things the body doesn't need in excess. That same person could eat way more food if they switched those out for the healthier foods I mentioned above. Even if they didn't eat more calories, they would still be eating more food to reach the 1200 than they did before.
Also, exercise plays a huge part in that. If you go hard in the paint during your workouts, you do need more food. But that doesn't mean you can eat whatever you want. It just means you'll need more LEAN protein and fiber to replenish your body so it can function properly.
I think 1200 IS okay for some people....mainly shorter people. We need less than someone who is taller. For instance, when I calculated my BMR from a formula on my favorite fitness blog, I think mine was around 1500 (assuming no exercise). Using the same formula, the person who ran the site was around 2000. I'm 5'1", she's 6'0". So for some, going down to 1200 calories is perfectly fine. For others, it's a huge no-no. I started at 1200 but gradually increased my calories as I figured out what my body needed. Now I'm up to 1500. I've lost 35 pounds since last May BTW.
P.S. I think a lot of people throw around "starvation mode" and "metabolic damage". Yes those are real things but I rarely see people explaining the "eat more, weigh less" in plain english. Hopefully I did!
Sodium nor fat cause weight gain. Sodium --> water retention. Fat without a calorie surplus does not cause weight gain either.0 -
I had a metabolic assessment done this week, because I was tired of all the guessing on formulas and calculations. It was determined my resting metabolic rate is only 907!!! I have a very slow metabolism as I suspected. I do work out, so I have to eat those exercise calories to be able to eat more each day!
Thank you to trhops for commenting with this. Here's an MFP'er who doesn't have too much weight to lose but exercises regularly and her resting metabolic is 907. So although there might be a calculator out there that some of you guys vigorously endorse and that calculator could tell her to eat such and such calories a day, in the end, it's still (somewhat) of a guessing game. Like many have said, we really ARE all different and if we want a true picture of how many calories we should be ingesting, the analysis required is a bit more vigorous than inputting some numbers into a website and then telling people to eat more when they aren't losing.0 -
Your body does not cling onto fat, that's a load of bull. Your body does not defy the laws of physics, as in energy can not be created or destroyed. The amount of weight you lose depends on eating less and being more active. If all you did was eat more and laid in bed all day, you'd gain weight so there can be a huge misconception to the whole "eat more notion". Eating more works because some people need the extra energy to do more things in the day that they don't realize when eating so little calories. Symptoms of not eating enough can be associated with fatigue and tiredness which leads to sitting down more often which means to less calories burned.
.0 -
We are all special, but no one is an exception to the first law of thermodynamics. There are no exceptions; that's what makes it a law.
Forgetting to log cooking oils, or not accurately weighing foods, cheat days where you don't log, or overestimating calories burned from activity, or working with a TDEE estimation that doesn't apply to you can mean you are not in a calorie deficit.0 -
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?
Hi Jack,
You ask a valid question and I've been thinking about the same thing recently. I am the furthest thing from an expert on the science of it, but the more I learn the more it seems to make logical sense to me. I began to think about it from the body's point of view.
It's not about "eating more" per se, it's about eating the amount that allows your body to safely release fat. Which is often more than what people try to limit themselves to when they diet. So, about the science:
Let's take for example a 5'6" 35-year-old 145 lbs woman who is lightly active (light workout 1-3 times per week) and who wants to lose 15 pounds to be 130 lbs. According to the Miffline St. Jeor equation (regarded by nutritionists as the most accurate BMR equation and the one used by MFP), she has a BMR (basal metabolic rate) of 1372. If she were in a coma, this is what the hospital would give her in an IV to keep her brain/heart/organs functioning. But since she is not in a coma, her TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) is 1887. That is how many calories she needs to maintain her weight.
But let's say that she is like most people: "I need to DIET! I'm so FAT! I must eat WAY less that I am currently so I can lose weight FAST!" So she starts eating 1100 calories a day. Here's what the means to her body. The body is receiving less calories than it needs to maintain itself. It can't know that this is temporary. The body's top priority is to keep you safe from danger and alive. Next, it likes to be in balance. Well, with only 1,100 calories, it goes into full RED ALERT because this is a dangerous situation. Your body sees 1,100 calories as the intake needs of a 12-year-old girl slowing dying of starvation. The body knows it will not survive long-term on that. So, the body hit this woman with massive hunger and cravings to try to get the calories it needs, but it also has no choice but to find ways to reduce its energy consuption. So it starts dialing back the metabolism and shutting down unnecessary functions. Then it's hit with extra workouts too, which increase it's energy need even more. The body declares a Defcon 5 state of emergency and struggles to keep the mother ship alive. In addition to dialing back the energy of the body, it hangs on to every fat cell desperately, since it has no way of knowing how long this famine is going to last. All of the hormones in the body changes to inhibit the metabolism and cling to fat. This is called being in a Catabolic state (versus what you want: an Anabolic state).
The woman trying to lose weigh with 1,100 calories/day is frustrated that she has more cravings and hunger and less energy to work out and feels depressed that losing weight is so hard and takes so much self discipline.
However, let's say that instead of RADICALLY reducing her calories, this woman instead realizes that she wants to reduce her total body weight by 10% (145 lbs x .90 = 130 lbs) so logically it would make sense to reduce her calorie intake by 10% below what it takes to maintain 145 lbs. To maintain 145 lbs takes 1887 calories per day (on average... less on days she is sedantary and more on days she works out), so 10% less than that is 1698 or almost 1700 calories.
Now, think about it from her body's perspective if she starts eating 1,700 calories a day. First of all, the body does not panic and no alarm bells go off. Since 1,700 calories is above the 1372 it needs to survive in a coma, the body feels confident that it is getting enough fuel to survive and to even expend energy on things like workouts. If the woman eats those 1,700 calories in 3 meals, she will have okay results. If she eats them in 5-6 small meals and snacks a day, she will enable even better hormones in the body that enable her to have more energy for workouts and release more weight faster. And now that the body is not worried about danger or starvation, it turns to its second priority: being in balance. If it is receiving the calories consistently every day of a 130 lbs woman, it starts to release fat to become that 130 lbs woman and balance itself with the intake. Now, releasing fat is a chemical process in the body. It takes certain amino acids and water molecules and other things for the body to break down the fat cells and eliminate the toxins from the body. At 1,700 calories, it should have what it needs, especially if the calories consist of lots of fruits and veggies and lean proteins, rather than junk food.
Now, the experience of the woman is very different. She is eating the calories of the 130 lbs woman she wants to be, she is eating often, she is eating healthy, so she feels alert and energetic and she is never plagued by ravenous hunger. She feels motivated to work out and she has the energy to do so. And she sees the weight dropping off slowly but surely every week. It won't be fast... maybe a half pound a week... but it will be healthy and sustainable.
And here is the best part. SHE IS NOT DIETING. She is living the normal healthy lifestyle of a healthy active 130 lbs woman. So when she loses the final bit and reaches her goal weight, she is already set up to succeed with maintaining it since she has had months of practice for how to live as a healthy active 130 lbs woman. Even if she maintains that 10% deficit by dialing back her calories a bit as she loses weight, shifting from a 10% calorie deficit to no deficit for maintenance is not a huge change to her eating habits.
So, I know that I have over-simplified things a bit. Everyone has different factors. Being very overweight and having certain health problems can affect the above scenario. But the principles are still the same: if you eat too little you change the hormones in your body and put yourself into a catabolic state. How much is "too little" can vary, but I've heard that barring other factors, its best to not eat less than 20% of your TDEE. But once again, I am NOT an expert and I apologize in advance if I got some of the science wrong. I am still very much learning. But Jack, I wanted to reply to you because I had been asking myself the same question this month and I feel like I've finally made some sense of it in my head.
And btw, I wear a Fitbit because I find that it helps me have an accurate understanding of how my TDEE varies from day-to-day with my activity level so then I can adjust my calorie intake slightly to maintain the same calorie deficit each day. I also eat 5-6 times a day every day without fail, and my weight loss has been consistently between 1.5-2 lbs a week for the last 6 months. 0 -
Really?The more weight you loose the faster your metabolism runs which burns more fat.
Perhaps... but you are still burning cals all day, so you are still in a deficit, so shouldn't you still be losing weight?If you do not eat enough calories the body will go into starvation mode and hold on to fat no weight loss.
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?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..
Ever heard of metabolic damage? Eventually even extreme deficits caused by both diet and exercise will not work
Yes, metabolic damage is a big issue. The stress your body is under from coping with too few calories and too much exercise will take it's toll in time, and in all sorts of ways you might not consider. Here's a video explaining:
http://youtu.be/uhTOXw1YYuo
If you start at 1200 calories, which is supposedly the bare minimum, how do your reduce from there when you plateau or stall eventually, as happens with everyone at some point if they are trying to lose fat over an extended period of time. So yeah, I might lose at 1200, but if I can also lose at 1800-2000, why wouldn't I eat at that level? It makes no sense to do eat less when you don't need to and it is only causing stress for your body.
I personally would like to hang on to the little bit of muscle I've got! At 1800-2000 calories, I don't see big changes on my scale every week, however I DO see big changes in my measurements and body composition, which is what I actually care most about. Not merely seeing "weight loss". The scale does change, obviously, but it is a slower process.
I also want to keep my brain happy and my hormones as balanced as I can. My BMR (basal metabolic rate) is just about 1600 calories...1588, or something like that. So I don't want to eat less than that, even on those days when I sit on my *kitten* and don't exercise. That is the bare minimum my body needs to keep everything chugging along and maintain my lean body mass.0 -
We are all special, but no one is an exception to the first law of thermodynamics. There are no exceptions; that's what makes it a law.
Forgetting to log cooking oils, or not accurately weighing foods, cheat days where you don't log, or overestimating calories burned from activity, or working with a TDEE estimation that doesn't apply to you can mean you are not in a calorie deficit.
I agree with your Law of Thermodynamics statement.0 -
Just throwing this out there . . . Calories are not the most important thing to consider when talking about nutrition, what you should be worried about MACRONUTRIENTS.
ex. Your body will not react the same way to
1200 calories broken down to:
600 calories from fat
500 calories from carb
100 calories from protein
vs
1200 calories broken down to:
400 calories from fat
400 calories from carbs
400 calories from protein0 -
We are all special, but no one is an exception to the first law of thermodynamics. There are no exceptions; that's what makes it a law.
Forgetting to log cooking oils, or not accurately weighing foods, cheat days where you don't log, or overestimating calories burned from activity, or working with a TDEE estimation that doesn't apply to you can mean you are not in a calorie deficit.
I agree with your Law of Thermodynamics statement.
Of course. I think what is being suggested, however, is that the calorie burns slow down so much when under-eating that the deficit is eliminated, hence the stall. I don't know if this is scientifically backed, but that seems to be the claim. Most of the metabolic damage links I saw were discussing body composition (fat vs muscle) loss, but the question I have is one of simple weight loss. If metabolism DOES actually slow to match TDEE, then the law is not violated.
eta: again this is purely in the interest of the pursuit of scientific knowledge and it is not a question about nutrition, health or body composition. I do not advocate low calorie diets.0 -
We are all special, but no one is an exception to the first law of thermodynamics. There are no exceptions; that's what makes it a law.
Forgetting to log cooking oils, or not accurately weighing foods, cheat days where you don't log, or overestimating calories burned from activity, or working with a TDEE estimation that doesn't apply to you can mean you are not in a calorie deficit.
I agree with your Law of Thermodynamics statement.
Of course. I think what is being suggested, however, is that the calorie burns slow down so much when under-eating that the deficit is eliminated, hence the stall. I don't know if this is scientifically backed, but that seems to be the claim. Most of the metabolic damage links I saw were discussing body composition (fat vs muscle) loss, but the question I have is one of simple weight loss. If metabolism DOES actually slow to match TDEE, then the law is not violated.
eta: again this is purely in the interest of the pursuit of scientific knowledge and it is not a question about nutrition, health or body composition. I do not advocate low calorie diets.
I gave a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why eating more works for some people. I'll post it again below.Your body does not cling onto fat, that's a load of bull. Your body does not defy the laws of physics, as in energy can not be created or destroyed. The amount of weight you lose depends on eating less and being more active. If all you did was eat more and laid in bed all day, you'd gain weight so there can be a huge misconception to the whole "eat more notion". Eating more works because some people need the extra energy to do more things in the day that they don't realize when eating so little calories. Symptoms of not eating enough can be associated with fatigue and tiredness which leads to sitting down more often which means to less calories burned.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
We are all special, but no one is an exception to the first law of thermodynamics. There are no exceptions; that's what makes it a law.
Forgetting to log cooking oils, or not accurately weighing foods, cheat days where you don't log, or overestimating calories burned from activity, or working with a TDEE estimation that doesn't apply to you can mean you are not in a calorie deficit.
I agree with your Law of Thermodynamics statement.
Of course. I think what is being suggested, however, is that the calorie burns slow down so much when under-eating that the deficit is eliminated, hence the stall. I don't know if this is scientifically backed, but that seems to be the claim. Most of the metabolic damage links I saw were discussing body composition (fat vs muscle) loss, but the question I have is one of simple weight loss. If metabolism DOES actually slow to match TDEE, then the law is not violated.
eta: again this is purely in the interest of the pursuit of scientific knowledge and it is not a question about nutrition, health or body composition. I do not advocate low calorie diets.
I gave a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why eating more works for some people. I'll post it again below.Your body does not cling onto fat, that's a load of bull. Your body does not defy the laws of physics, as in energy can not be created or destroyed. The amount of weight you lose depends on eating less and being more active. If all you did was eat more and laid in bed all day, you'd gain weight so there can be a huge misconception to the whole "eat more notion". Eating more works because some people need the extra energy to do more things in the day that they don't realize when eating so little calories. Symptoms of not eating enough can be associated with fatigue and tiredness which leads to sitting down more often which means to less calories burned.
Yes, that is plausible.0 -
In medicine there's a saying, "all bleeding stops eventually." It may take a minute to find the (morbid) perspective from which that is always true.Wow. Very confusing to read all the different views on caloric intake and metabolism! Basically, on january 11th, I weighed 274. I started juicing, using every vegetable under the sun, and after 2 solid weeks of juicing, started introducing raw foods and now am juicing/raw foods/vegan. I ride a recumbent bike every day for 10 miles, 45 minutes whichever comes first, and when I weighed in on Feb. 14th had lost 21 pounds. I am not lacking ANY nutrients that I can think of, but I only consume about 500-900 calories a day. My question is, Is my weight loss ultimately going to stop?
ultimately, yes. when? that's harder to determine. I don't think what you're doing is sustainable or advisable but I'm not your physician and don't know what your health risks are.
Why would it stop? 500 calories a day will turn anyone male or female into an emaciated bean pole if they do it long enough. You aren't saying people are immune to energy balance I'm sure so I don't know why you'd think it would stop.
The same is true of weight loss.0 -
Yes, that is plausible.
Work, Energy, and Calories are all defined in physics. I took the course a while ago.
.0 -
I do find that its not the calories that drives weight gain or loss but actually the type of food your eating. (this is within reasonable confines). If i eat 1500 calories of crap i will put on weight (1500 is typical minimum for a man) - if i eat 5 servings of fruits and veg and eat low sugar and only high quailty carbs I will lose weight. just an observation of me personally. I hated WW at times constantly going on about 5 serving a day but in the long run i realize that it is one thing they truly have right - when they started peddling food and 100 calorie bars etc i think the program went down hill. they use to have a program where you never tracked what you ate as long as you ate off the "list" - it of course was all fruits, veggies and proteins - no junk - no Big Macs
. As well it is well recognized that if you eat more calories (within confines) over 6 smaller meals that it does tend to boost metabolism. just my 2 cents worth - i'm not God so cant tell you exactly what will work for everyone.
No, it doesn't. It just helps a lot of people control satiety if the eat something every few hours.
I'm glad the expert logged in - if a calorie is a calorie then why did Atkins work with people eating sausage and chicken wings all day long?
You should consider writing a book - you know what works for everyone. People are asking for advice not lectures and if you have all the answers why are you on this website in the first place?0 -
Yes, that is plausible.
Work, Energy, and Calories are all defined in physics. I took physics a while ago.
Yes, but lower energy burn from metabolic damage (with constant activity) is also plausible and won't defy the laws of physics. I am just wondering what the scientific evidence shows on the metabolic slowdown side.0 -
Yes, that is plausible.
Work, Energy, and Calories are all defined in physics. I took physics a while ago.
Yes, but lower energy burn from metabolic damage (with constant activity) is also plausible and won't defy the laws of physics. I am just wondering what the scientific evidence shows on the metabolic slowdown side.
I don't understand what you mean by "metabolic damage". Is there a disease you are referring to that I don't know about? The only real disease that I know that impacts your metabolism is called diabetes, as in your body literally loses it's ability to use sugar as energy. Is there a disease associated with the destruction of one's metabolism when not eating enough that I do not know about? What happens to your metabolism when you don't eat enough? As far as I am aware, everything in your body still operates as it should when eating too few calories and any symptom of eating too few calories can always be solved by eating more because your metabolism is not "damaged" as you would say.
.0 -
ok... so all this talk about metabolic damage. Assuming your metabolism does "adapt" to VLCD (which certainly seems to be the case), if you get to the point where you aren't seeing weight loss, doesn't a modest calorie reduction put you back in a deficit, and thus will/should result in weight loss?
Scenario:
Someone has a healthy TDEE of 3000.
They eat 1000 cals/day for long enough to "damage" their metabolism
At someone point their TDEE drops to 1000 and weight loss stops.
They cut to 900 cals, which puts them back in a deficit and they start losing weight again.
Again, I'm not advocating this. I'm also intentionally ignoring the general nutritional/health issues associated with this. I'm talking simply about the number on the scale.0 -
ok... so all this talk about metabolic damage. Assuming your metabolism does "adapt" to VLCD (which certainly seems to be the case), if you get to the point where you aren't seeing weight loss, doesn't a modest calorie reduction put you back in a deficit, and thus will/should result in weight loss?
Scenario:
Someone has a healthy TDEE of 3000.
They eat 1000 cals/day for long enough to "damage" their metabolism
At someone point their TDEE drops to 1000 and weight loss stops.
They cut to 900 cals, which puts them back in a deficit and they start losing weight again.
Again, I'm not advocating this. I'm also intentionally ignoring the general nutritional/health issues associated with this. I'm talking simply about the number on the scale.
End result, of course, is death, but they'd keep losing weight.0 -
Has it ever actually been established that the same person eating 1200 calories for extended periods of time actually 'absorbs' all 1200 calories, and the same person who eats 3000 calories for extended periods actually 'absorbs' all 3000 calories?
Everyone is always focused on the 'calories out' side of the equation and (apparently) just assumes calories in is always exactly equal to the number of calories that travel down your esophagus.0 -
ok... so all this talk about metabolic damage. Assuming your metabolism does "adapt" to VLCD (which certainly seems to be the case), if you get to the point where you aren't seeing weight loss, doesn't a modest calorie reduction put you back in a deficit, and thus will/should result in weight loss?
I disagree with the notion that your body adapts or is destroyed by a VLC-Diet. It is the person that adapts, not your body. For proof of this, I will point towards pro athletes who cut 20 points in two weeks to make their weight class and pictures below of results of a 500 calorie 2 week PSMF diet.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=1210600010
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions