why does eating more = weight loss?

xxnellie146xx

Bump to read later

Bumbeen

OK, so here is what I'm taking away from all this, at least so far...

Deficit = mass loss. At some point too great of a deficit over too long a period of time (even if we can't quantify either of those at this point) will likely result in hormone issues and additional water retention, which could "mask" the mass loss, resulting in no scale weight loss.

I got the impression that hormone issues would actually slow metabolism so much that mass loss would not continue. In other words, no more deficit because calorie burn (slowed due to hormone issues) would eventually match calorie intake.

It is possible for people with thyroid/hormone issues to stall out on fat loss and lose muscle alone even when they have a high BF%. They will literally die before their bodies will burn fat. This is an extreme example though and this does not happen to normal people(AKA the people on MFP).

ArroganceInStep

If you are really interested in the academic explanation, find a copy of Ancel Keys, et al, The Biology of Human Starvation, 2 vols. Used copies are hard to find and pricey, and the only libraries likely to have it will be in a university. But it will have all the information you want, and more.

The MN starvation experiment had volunteers on a very strict diet, but it was well above 1200 calories per day, and subjects still lost like 25% of their body weight. How does that support your claim that "If you do not eat enough calories the body will go into starvation mode and hold on to fat no weight loss."

Did you read the book?

djness20

Hello,

I was confused at first by all of this when I first began following a macro program that was put in place by my trainer/nutritionist.

When you are a heavier weight your body is not used to exercise and proper nutrition so when you can lose weight quickly but once you lose weight and settle in at a lighter weight, your metabolism slows and tries to hold onto the weight so your body doesn't have that sensation that it's going to starve.

Simply put:

Heavier person=ability to lose weight faster (will eventually stall)
Lighter person= more difficult to lose weight (your body tries to hold onto the rest of the weight to prevent loss)

I follow a macro nutrient based eating style in which I am trying to eat a certain number of fats/carbohydrates/protein throughout the day distributed between 5 meals. (Anyone can follow this kind of eating style and lose fat and gain muscle, it works!)

People have to understand that the body requires 1500 calories a day just to function properly and that is not including the calories you burn through exercise. Your organs, brain, and nervous system all require calories in order to process waste through your kidneys, for your heart to pump blood and for your brain to function.

Did you know that 60% of your brain is made up of fat?! Your brain actually requires healthy fats such as omega 3 and 6 to function properly, so when you see a low fat diet RUN! The only fats you should pay particular attention to are your saturated and trans fats because these are unhealthy and can cause heart disease, high blood pressure, etc.

Carbohydrates are also necessary for your body to function because they provide energy in order to get you through the day. This includes activities such as writing a blog online, walking, running, doing the dishes etc. You should watch out and monitor your refined carbs such as sugar, white flour/white bread, candy, etc.

Protein of course is essential for muscle growth and maintenance. Your body requires protein to help maintain the muscle you have as well as gain more (if that is something you desire). Protein fills you up and should be consumed at every meal.

I don't know if I answered your question completely but I hope the information that I have provided gives you an insight to the scientific aspect of why calorie deficits stop working and the reason is: metabolism.

Feel free to reach me personally if you have any questions. I love sharing this type of information with others.

MASSRUNNER_FRANK

You understand correctly. Eating more does NOT equal more weight loss.
Starvation mode is a myth.

jacksonpt

OK, so here is what I'm taking away from all this, at least so far...

Deficit = mass loss. At some point too great of a deficit over too long a period of time (even if we can't quantify either of those at this point) will likely result in hormone issues and additional water retention, which could "mask" the mass loss, resulting in no scale weight loss.

I got the impression that hormone issues would actually slow metabolism so much that mass loss would not continue. In other words, no more deficit because calorie burn (slowed due to hormone issues) would eventually match calorie intake.

Yes, I get that feeling too... but it doesn't seem to be significant enough to have any meaningful impact on VLCD = weight loss in relatively short time spans.

My sense is that VLCD do 2 things...
1) they cause weight loss due to the caloric deficit. Lower overall body weight generally means lower TDEE (assuming everything else remains constant).

2) in time they do cause hormonal/metabolic changes which also reduce TDEE.

So yes, at some point, given a long enough time span, TDEE will equal (or at least be close enough for this conversation) the intake of a VLCD, at which point the losses will stop.

briannadunn

If this was true then I would have lost 2 pounds a week at 1700 calories a day and maintain my muscles. As it is I lose 1 pound a week at 1400 to 1600 calories a day. I was losing 0.5 pounds a week at 1600 to 1900 calories. Which according to all of the calculations I should be losing 2 pounds a week at 1700 calories. This is not the case for me. I have the same problem as my Aunt. My Aunt successfully lost to 130 pounds working out 1 hour a day and eating 900 calories a day. She maintains 180 pounds eating 1400 calories a day working out an hour a day. Everyone is different. I am focusing on eating 1300 to 1450 where Weight Watchers has me set at 220 pounds and I am losing roughly 1.5 pounds a week. Do what is right for you, if you successfully lose weight at 1900 calories, why change it??? Why starve to lose weight.

professorRAT

OK, so here is what I'm taking away from all this, at least so far...

Deficit = mass loss. At some point too great of a deficit over too long a period of time (even if we can't quantify either of those at this point) will likely result in hormone issues and additional water retention, which could "mask" the mass loss, resulting in no scale weight loss.

I got the impression that hormone issues would actually slow metabolism so much that mass loss would not continue. In other words, no more deficit because calorie burn (slowed due to hormone issues) would eventually match calorie intake.

Yes, I get that feeling too... but it doesn't seem to be significant enough to have any meaningful impact on VLCD = weight loss in relatively short time spans.

My sense is that VLCD do 2 things...
1) they cause weight loss due to the caloric deficit. Lower overall body weight generally means lower TDEE (assuming everything else remains constant).

2) in time they do cause hormonal/metabolic changes which also reduce TDEE.

So yes, at some point, given a long enough time span, TDEE will equal (or at least be close enough for this conversation) the intake of a VLCD, at which point the losses will stop.

Yes, I think that is correct.

jacksonpt

If this was true then I would have lost 2 pounds a week at 1700 calories a day and maintain my muscles. As it is I lose 1 pound a week at 1400 to 1600 calories a day. I was losing 0.5 pounds a week at 1600 to 1900 calories. Which according to all of the calculations I should be losing 2 pounds a week at 1700 calories. This is not the case for me. I have the same problem as my Aunt. My Aunt successfully lost to 130 pounds working out 1 hour a day and eating 900 calories a day. She maintains 180 pounds eating 1400 calories a day working out an hour a day. Everyone is different. I am focusing on eating 1300 to 1450 where Weight Watchers has me set at 220 pounds and I am losing roughly 1.5 pounds a week. Do what is right for you, if you successfully lose weight at 1900 calories, why change it??? Why starve to lose weight.

At the risk of derailing a thread that is already threatening to become a multi-headed beast...

Is everyone different, or does everyone suck at estimating cals eaten, cals burned, tdee, bmr, etc etc.?

minkakross

Eating more = how I got fat in the first place!

I'm thrilled for all the young people who exercise enough that they can eat tons of calories now and still lose weight. That is not me nor do I care. I have yet to see any mythical starvation mode at my 1200 calorie diet which I've been on for over a year, if I stall out I will increase my activity or eat less, not more. (my 2 cents)

tidesong

bump

concordancia

If this was true then I would have lost 2 pounds a week at 1700 calories a day and maintain my muscles. As it is I lose 1 pound a week at 1400 to 1600 calories a day. I was losing 0.5 pounds a week at 1600 to 1900 calories. Which according to all of the calculations I should be losing 2 pounds a week at 1700 calories. This is not the case for me. I have the same problem as my Aunt. My Aunt successfully lost to 130 pounds working out 1 hour a day and eating 900 calories a day. She maintains 180 pounds eating 1400 calories a day working out an hour a day. Everyone is different. I am focusing on eating 1300 to 1450 where Weight Watchers has me set at 220 pounds and I am losing roughly 1.5 pounds a week. Do what is right for you, if you successfully lose weight at 1900 calories, why change it??? Why starve to lose weight.

At the risk of derailing a thread that is already threatening to become a multi-headed beast...

Is everyone different, or does everyone suck at estimating cals eaten, cals burned, tdee, bmr, etc etc.?

A little of both.

I have a pretty low body temp (usually under 97), which has a high correlation with lower RMR (I have never had it tested, though). No calculator I have used has ever taken that into consideration. All the numbers are averages, which individuals have to play with. Brianna (a couple of posts up) is one of few who have played with it logically, instead of jumping back and forth between 1000 and 1800 frantically.

On the other hand, look at all the threads asking about net calories. Math is hard.

Ramberta

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?

This is my basic understanding behind that theory: If someone hits a plateau in their weight loss, it is because their TDEE has increased (they start a harder exercise regimen, or get a more active job, or get a dog or have a child that requires them to become more active on a daily basis, etc), and they may be accidentally eating too close to their BMR rather than only a 20% calorie deficit. When you underfeed your body, you won't lose weight. The right 'calorie window' for people can be very small sometimes, which is why it's important to recalculate your numbers often. The "eat more" suggestion is more of a blanket statement, but it's just because a lot of people impose too strict of calorie restrictions on themselves at first, thinking it'll help them lose weight faster, when in reality it's only hindering them further!

leodru

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.

Jazzyashes84

Apparently it jump starts the metabolism to work faster. I upped my calories by 200/day and I am now seeing slow weight loss when I was at a plateau for 2 weeks.

akaMrsmojo

The thing is you you do not want to lose muscle mass. Muscle burns more calories. I did 1280 when I started and hated it. I now eat my BMR if I am not active. But I like to eat, so I exercise more.

Food is not the enemy. Understanding your body and how it functions will lead to better choices. I would not be successful on anything where I felt hungry or deprived myself.

Have you ever had a skinny friend who ate like crazy and did not gain a pound? It is because their metabolism worked properly.

SStrauss79

Someone in a thread once said that our bodies are like a car...If we full the tank without enough gas to get us say 500 miles we will get there just fine. However, if we drive more than that we will need more gas. Same with weight loss...if we work out we need to eat more...if we do anything other than just sit there, we need to eat more. Our bodies need fuel to burn.

concordancia

Eating more = how I got fat in the first place!

I'm thrilled for all the young people who exercise enough that they can eat tons of calories now and still lose weight. That is not me nor do I care. I have yet to see any mythical starvation mode at my 1200 calorie diet which I've been on for over a year, if I stall out I will increase my activity or eat less, not more. (my 2 cents)

I am your age. I do, however, get a lot of exercise.

What you are doing is obviously working, and you look fantastic. But if you do stall out, do some research before you create a bigger deficit. The best way through a plateau is to increase calories a little, even if it is just for a week or two.

mgsimon

Two things. First, I do think everyone sucks at estimating exercise, calories burned, calories consumed etc. My strategy is to ALWAYS overestimate the calories in and ALWAYS underestimate the calories burned (through exercise). When you can, get the constants and stick with them. Get your RMR/BMR measured so you know YOUR number, not the number some on-line calculator gives you. Take a VO2 Max test to see how your body burns calories and at what heart rate. If you can burn 600 calories an hour at 135 BPM heart rate and 700 at 150, why stress your body for that extra 100 calorie loss. Exercise at a more moderate pace and burn the majority of calories that leave you feeling energized and fresh for the rest of the day or the next workout. Working out until you kill yourself and then collapse at home doesn't do you good in the long run. Armed with a heart rate monitor and the information above, I have MY numbers. I'm still underestimating the calories burned on exercise and overestimating what food I put in my mouth, but the spreadsheet I have doesn't lie. I log everything and then I log the difference between what my deficit tells me I should lose/gain per week and what I actually lost/gained...taking into account fluctuations in water weight, bathroom timing etc. Over time, I'm dropping while increasing my calorie intake from 1250 to 1500/day.

Second, whoever said your metabolism goes up as you lose weight is not correct. As your body loses mass, it takes less energy to move it around, sit up, walk, eat, poop, breath, etc. Adding muscle with weight training increases metabolism, but not by as much as losing fat slows it. There is certainly a period of equilibrium, but when you are big to start (I weighed 255) your metabolism will be higher than when you are 30 lbs less. Most important, you must maintain a deficit, but I prefer to have that deficit come half from my eating less than what I burn from a RMR/BMR standpoint and the other half to come from exercise. My two cents...which I'm sure is what is worth. Keep up the good work.

concordancia

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.