why does eating more = weight loss?
Options
Replies
-
I don't know. I was only pointing out that in your hypotheticals the increase was an essential link in the causal chain that eventually produced weight loss.
Even if increasing cals wasn't the proximal cause it was still a vital part of the causal chain in your hypothetical examples.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.
Right. Obviously we are talking extremes, but I think the point has been made.
For all the posts we see on this site about how someone is doing everything right and still not losing weight, the answer is NEVER that increasing cals = greater weight loss.
There may be other health issues that trump weight loss and that require increasing cals, but then it's not about weight loss but rather overall health.
Increasing cals may give more energy which could lead to more intense workouts would could lead to weight loss, but then it's not the increase in cals that leads to weight loss, it's the increased intensity of the workouts.
Increasing cals may make your dietary goals more consistent which may lead to less binging which may mean your dietary goals are now more attainable/sustainable which may lead to weight loss, but then it's the steady and consistent hitting of your calorie goals that leads to weight loss, not the increase in cals.
etc etc
Causation or correlation? I increase cals slightly, but don't change my workouts/intensity. Will I still lose?
Like here: "Increasing cals may give more energy which could lead to more intense workouts would could lead to weight loss, but then it's not the increase in cals that leads to weight loss, it's the increased intensity of the workouts."
Increased cals -> more energy -> intense workouts -> increased TDEE -> weight loss
Increased TDEE is the proximal cause, but if you remove "Increased cals" at the beginning, none of the other things happen and weight loss doesn't occur. So it's still causing weight loss.0 -
I don't know. I was only pointing out that in your hypotheticals the increase was an essential link in the causal chain that eventually produced weight loss.
Even if increasing cals wasn't the proximal cause it was still a vital part of the causal chain in your hypothetical examples.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.
Right. Obviously we are talking extremes, but I think the point has been made.
For all the posts we see on this site about how someone is doing everything right and still not losing weight, the answer is NEVER that increasing cals = greater weight loss.
There may be other health issues that trump weight loss and that require increasing cals, but then it's not about weight loss but rather overall health.
Increasing cals may give more energy which could lead to more intense workouts would could lead to weight loss, but then it's not the increase in cals that leads to weight loss, it's the increased intensity of the workouts.
Increasing cals may make your dietary goals more consistent which may lead to less binging which may mean your dietary goals are now more attainable/sustainable which may lead to weight loss, but then it's the steady and consistent hitting of your calorie goals that leads to weight loss, not the increase in cals.
etc etc
Causation or correlation? I increase cals slightly, but don't change my workouts/intensity. Will I still lose?
Like here: "Increasing cals may give more energy which could lead to more intense workouts would could lead to weight loss, but then it's not the increase in cals that leads to weight loss, it's the increased intensity of the workouts."
Increased cals -> more energy -> intense workouts -> increased TDEE -> weight loss
Increased TDEE is the proximal cause, but if you remove "Increased cals" at the beginning, none of the other things happen and weight loss doesn't occur. So it's still causing weight loss.
No, the increased intensity is. If you increase cals but don't increase workout intensity, you won't suddenly start losing weight, will you? You could in theory get the same energy boost from a caffeine pill rather than an increase in cals. Then you still see the weight loss despite keeping cals steady. The intensity is causing the weight loss, the question is what's causing the increased intensity. Could be any number of things.0 -
Even if increasing cals wasn't the proximal cause it was still a vital part of the causal chain in your hypothetical examples.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.
Right. Obviously we are talking extremes, but I think the point has been made.
For all the posts we see on this site about how someone is doing everything right and still not losing weight, the answer is NEVER that increasing cals = greater weight loss.
There may be other health issues that trump weight loss and that require increasing cals, but then it's not about weight loss but rather overall health.
Increasing cals may give more energy which could lead to more intense workouts would could lead to weight loss, but then it's not the increase in cals that leads to weight loss, it's the increased intensity of the workouts.
Increasing cals may make your dietary goals more consistent which may lead to less binging which may mean your dietary goals are now more attainable/sustainable which may lead to weight loss, but then it's the steady and consistent hitting of your calorie goals that leads to weight loss, not the increase in cals.
etc etc
Causation or correlation? I increase cals slightly, but don't change my workouts/intensity. Will I still lose?
Correlation. Increased calories reduces cortisol which leads to water loss and all your efforts of starving finally showing up.
Does that assume that the body/metabolism is stressed? If it's "adapted" to the low cal intake as everyone says it does, then doesn't the stress from being underfed eventually go away?
good question--I'd say no because the body is still under-nourished despite homeostasis being reached which would still be a stressor. Now I'm theorizing here because I've never researched that exact question but now I'm curious to find the answer.0 -
Usually people stop at 'eat more'. The more complete strategy is 'eat more and workout more.'
Why? The gains diminish at an increasing pace as you lose more and more weight. The body can try and hold onto the fat its got for a while because it wants to sustain your life in case you are stranded in the Death Valley. Your body is smart like that.
To further lose weight, you have to tell your body that food is abundant. At the same time you have to workout so your body expends energy, burns the stored fat and builds muscle. If your body feels that there is enough food in the backpack and your legs are muscular enough to cross the Death Valley in a day or so, then it allows burning of the fat.0 -
Speak to people who have a BodyMedia Fit or another all day burn counting device. You'll then understand how far off "estimates" can be.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.
For example i am moderately active, every calculator estimates my TDEE at 2600 - 2900 cal. With my BMF I average 3500 and pass 4000 regularly.0 -
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.
^ This.0 -
I haven't ran across anything that would make me believe that someone's body would adapt to a VLCD. Maybe someone else here has?
Yes, it's called adaptive thermogenesis (a reduction in RMR which exceeds that expected by loss of body weight.)
See here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2012.01041.x/abstract
Now, if you are a true deficit then fat loss does not stop, VLCD or no VLCD. What does happen is it becomes much more inefficient and the rate of loss slows to the extent that it is masked on the scale due to a number of issues (mostly water balance.)
Eat less to lose less fat over the long term doesn't sound like a great proposition though.
Now, you could use a VLCD or LCD to great effect in the short term even if you are fairly lean and suffer no long term issues if you know what you are doing. Most of the general population simply do not...0 -
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.
^ This.
But from what I've heard, this isn't the way it works. Let's assume that your hormones are out of wack and metabolism has slowed such that TDEE is now 1000 cals (for sake of round numbers and easy conversation). By increasing cals slowly over the course of several weeks you being to "correct" your hormones, right? Know what else happens? you being to "repair" your metabolism. You go from a TDEE of 1000 to a TDEE of 1200. Then to 1500, and so on. So basically all you're doing is increasing your maintenance. You still won't (or at least shouldn't be) losing weight. And that's right from Layne Norton who is as expert on all this as anyone.0 -
jacksonpt--do you have a link to this discussion? I'd love to read it!0
-
jacksonpt--do you have a link to this discussion? I'd love to read it!
One of Layne Norton's video blogs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHHzie6XRGk 0 -
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.
^ This.
But from what I've heard, this isn't the way it works. Let's assume that your hormones are out of wack and metabolism has slowed such that TDEE is now 1000 cals (for sake of round numbers and easy conversation). By increasing cals slowly over the course of several weeks you being to "correct" your hormones, right? Know what else happens? you being to "repair" your metabolism. You go from a TDEE of 1000 to a TDEE of 1200. Then to 1500, and so on. So basically all you're doing is increasing your maintenance. You still won't (or at least shouldn't be) losing weight. And that's right from Layne Norton who is as expert on all this as anyone.
But if you increase your cals from 900 to 1200 and your TDEE becomes 1500, you are then eating at a 300 calorie a day deficit which would result in weight loss.0 -
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.
^ This.
But from what I've heard, this isn't the way it works. Let's assume that your hormones are out of wack and metabolism has slowed such that TDEE is now 1000 cals (for sake of round numbers and easy conversation). By increasing cals slowly over the course of several weeks you being to "correct" your hormones, right? Know what else happens? you being to "repair" your metabolism. You go from a TDEE of 1000 to a TDEE of 1200. Then to 1500, and so on. So basically all you're doing is increasing your maintenance. You still won't (or at least shouldn't be) losing weight. And that's right from Layne Norton who is as expert on all this as anyone.
Increasing calories slowly doesn't help. Nor does increasing protein, vitamins, or anything else. One thing the Minnesota study concluded was that the best thing to restore normal metabolism was a large increase in calories --assuming you were getting enough protein and vitamins at very low calorie levels. When in rehabilitation mode, the only thing that really mattered was getting more calories, and it didn't matter where they came from.
Note this is for people on long term very low calorie diets, not for people who have been dieting for a month or two.0 -
Usually people stop at 'eat more'. The more complete strategy is 'eat more and workout more.'
Why? The gains diminish at an increasing pace as you lose more and more weight. The body can try and hold onto the fat its got for a while because it wants to sustain your life in case you are stranded in the Death Valley. Your body is smart like that.
To further lose weight, you have to tell your body that food is abundant. At the same time you have to workout so your body expends energy, burns the stored fat and builds muscle. If your body feels that there is enough food in the backpack and your legs are muscular enough to cross the Death Valley in a day or so, then it allows burning of the fat.
Yes, you always need enough in the backpack.0 -
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..
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.
Starving people don't tend to have the the body fat in the first place. They haven't already screwed up their metabolism. I take your point, and I agree that if those dieters who are in starvation mode stayed there for many months/years, of course they'd lose weight.
But, we're talking about maybe 4 weeks of starving the body, for an overweight person whose metabolism isn't used to it. For these people during this time, they'll enter the starvation mode and they won't lose weight (or will find it difficult to, based on their bodies being used to having more).
I know it sounds messed up, but excluding genuine 3rd-world starvation, a lot of dieters find it easier to lose weight by eating slightly more to keep their bodies out of ketosis (starvation mode). It's a softer shift for their metabolism to have to make, thus making the process easier & more beneficial.
Disclaimer: OBVIOUSLY if they continued in ketosis (which isn't advised) for any great length of time (many months/years, without a single 'slip') they would eventually lose weight, but the body takes a long time to undo the damage that being overweight does to its metabolism.0 -
One more point I want to make is momentum, especially those starting out and not seeing any weight loss. Its very different from a plateau that your body reaches after a few weeks/months of weight loss. You have to workout and eat well for several days or even weeks before your body gets into a momentum and starts shedding the pounds. Many of us give up just when the body is about to get in that momentum. Once your body is losing weight, it speeds up.0
-
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.
^ This.
But from what I've heard, this isn't the way it works. Let's assume that your hormones are out of wack and metabolism has slowed such that TDEE is now 1000 cals (for sake of round numbers and easy conversation). By increasing cals slowly over the course of several weeks you being to "correct" your hormones, right? Know what else happens? you being to "repair" your metabolism. You go from a TDEE of 1000 to a TDEE of 1200. Then to 1500, and so on. So basically all you're doing is increasing your maintenance. You still won't (or at least shouldn't be) losing weight. And that's right from Layne Norton who is as expert on all this as anyone.
But if you increase your cals from 900 to 1200 and your TDEE becomes 1500, you are then eating at a 300 calorie a day deficit which would result in weight loss.
That's not how I understand it to work. The body is constantly searching for balance, for homeostasis. Eventually it adapts to 1000 cals daily and your TDEE becomes 1000. If you increase cals to 1200, your TDEE doesn't leapfrog it to 1500, it's adjusts to that 1200. When you increase to 1500, it adjusts to 1500.
The goal is to slowly increase back to healthy levels such that you can reduce cals and be back to a healthy deficit where you can lose weight. At 1000 cals, any weight loss you experience will be unhealthy.0 -
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?
I don't really remember anyone saying you will create a larger calorie deficit by eating more. You will lose weight because your body chemistry will start to release faf if you are feeding you body enough healthy nutrition. Also do not forget the thermogenics of food. It costs calories to do digest and ingest more calories. that is why you should eat small mealsl throughout the day to keep that thermogenics at an elevated level.
When the body is constantly dealing with lower calorie intake it will decrease its cellular activity. things like cellular respiration, and reproduction is considerably slowed. The heart rate slows to conserve caloric energy. Eventually your body will begin to run solely on those meager calories you allow it to have and will platau or begin to work even more slowly so that it can store some of the calories that you are giving it.
Here is an extrapilation from wiki regarding the Minisota starvation project "Among the conclusions from the study was the confirmation that prolonged semi-starvation produces ... marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject’s basal metabolic rate (the energy required by the body in a state of rest), reflected in reduced body temperature, respiration and heart rate. Some of the subjects exhibited edema in their extremities, presumably due to decreased levels of plasma proteins given that the body's ability to construct key proteins like albumin is based on available energy sources."
Hope that helps.
0 -
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.
^ This.
But from what I've heard, this isn't the way it works. Let's assume that your hormones are out of wack and metabolism has slowed such that TDEE is now 1000 cals (for sake of round numbers and easy conversation). By increasing cals slowly over the course of several weeks you being to "correct" your hormones, right? Know what else happens? you being to "repair" your metabolism. You go from a TDEE of 1000 to a TDEE of 1200. Then to 1500, and so on. So basically all you're doing is increasing your maintenance. You still won't (or at least shouldn't be) losing weight. And that's right from Layne Norton who is as expert on all this as anyone.
But if you increase your cals from 900 to 1200 and your TDEE becomes 1500, you are then eating at a 300 calorie a day deficit which would result in weight loss.
That's not how I understand it to work. The body is constantly searching for balance, for homeostasis. Eventually it adapts to 1000 cals daily and your TDEE becomes 1000. If you increase cals to 1200, your TDEE doesn't leapfrog it to 1500, it's adjusts to that 1200. When you increase to 1500, it adjusts to 1500.
The goal is to slowly increase back to healthy levels such that you can reduce cals and be back to a healthy deficit where you can lose weight. At 1000 cals, any weight loss you experience will be unhealthy.
That is why it is recommended that you eat at a healthy level to reset your metabolism for a time before taking a reasonable cut again to lose weight.0 -
I haven't ran across anything that would make me believe that someone's body would adapt to a VLCD. Maybe someone else here has?
Yes, it's called adaptive thermogenesis (a reduction in RMR which exceeds that expected by loss of body weight.)
See here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2012.01041.x/abstract
Now, if you are a true deficit then fat loss does not stop, VLCD or no VLCD. What does happen is it becomes much more inefficient and the rate of loss slows to the extent that it is masked on the scale due to a number of issues (mostly water balance.)
Eat less to lose less fat over the long term doesn't sound like a great proposition though.
Now, you could use a VLCD or LCD to great effect in the short term even if you are fairly lean and suffer no long term issues if you know what you are doing. Most of the general population simply do not...
Maybe I'm reading the paper wrong but can you point to me where it says something along the lines of a slower metabolism? From reading the intro and summary of the paper, adaptive thermogenesis is about how the body wants to maintain a specific weight, specifically a weight that one has maintained for a long time. Say, if someone was 300 pounds their whole life and decided to lose weight, adaptive thermogenesis kicks in and and makes them eat more to maintain a weight they've been a majority of their life. If there is something about a slowed metabolism, could you point me to it because i dont see it?0 -
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!!
This is me, I was on a good 2lb loss per week clip, then 3lbs lost in the last month. I have been trying to eat at least 1500 calories, but funny enough I'm just not hungry, if I'm lucky I'll get in between 1300 - 1400. I'm afraid of going back to my bad eating habits of eating for the sake of eating and I don't want to eat junk. Whooda thunk eating more would be this hard?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions