Eat More to Weigh Less - really?

Yogi_Carl

Sounds too good to be true doesn't it? Isn't that what got us here in the first place - eating more than our TDEE?

I don't get this re-set thing either. Our bodies don't work like that. there isn't a re-set button that kick starts some kind of burning calories quicker machine that has somehow gone on standy-by. Or am I wrong?

Surely all we need to do is balance our Protein and Fat needs for our ideal weight, calculate our TDEE and eat a moderate deficit to see a steady decrease in fat weight; doing some form of strength training to maintain muscle demand.

- and why is it when I look at the EM2WL group, the information there invites me out to an external website where I am invited to donate money to access any of the further information?


I am ..... suspicious.

JenMc14

I could be wrong, but I think the "eat more to weigh less" thing isn't advocating you eat as much as you want or over your TDEE, but that you can actually eat a decent amount of calories and not sit at 1000-1200 as has been the traditional "diet" pushed by women's magazines or whoever in the past.

Yogi_Carl

OK thanks Jen - that makes more sense.

jacksonpt

I posted a similar thread a while back that got a ton of "discussion". The cliff notes are this...

1) The "reset" people talk about does exist, but the 2 points most people neglect to mention is that it's a very slow reset, and it's only beneficial after extended and prolonged VLCD.
2) Eating more while still being under TDEE can often be easier to sustain, which causes less cheating/binging which leads to better adherence. So it's not that more food = more weight loss, it's that maintaining a deficit = weight loss (something many people can't do on highly restrictive diets).
3) I don't know what I'm talking about.

mdcoug

I could be wrong, but I think the "eat more to weigh less" thing isn't advocating you eat as muchas you want or over your TDEE, but that you can actually eat a decent amount of calories and not sit at 1000-1200 as has been the traditional "diet" pushed by women's magazines or whoever in the past.

I'm going to cautiously agree. I've been at this consistently since the second week of January. As of Thursday I'd lost a whopping total of 4.5 pounds on a 1300 to 1400 cal. diet. Some weeks my weight was way up, others were down, a little. Last week, I was over my total calorie goal for the week by a couple hundred, which was unusual for me. Usually I'm pretty close.

On Saturday I started a new heavy lifting program. As part of that program, I've upped my calories, with a lot of trepedation, to 1500 on non-workout days and 1700 on workout days. Some would say heavy lifting = sore muscles = water weight gain, right? Well, as of this morning, I'm unofficially (I don't track my weight more than once a week) down 1.5 pounds.

Who knows what my official weight will be on Thursday and whether I can keep up the pace going forward, but it has made me wonder if my over-calorie week last week, combined with the increase in my calorie goal this week didn't "reset" my body in some way.

jacksonpt

I could be wrong, but I think the "eat more to weigh less" thing isn't advocating you eat as much as you want or over your TDEE, but that you can actually eat a decent amount of calories and not sit at 1000-1200 as has been the traditional "diet" pushed by women's magazines or whoever in the past.

I also agree with this. The people who know what they are talking about are basically saying to eat as much as you can such that you still see progress, rather than starving yourself to see progress. It's 250 cals below TDEE is better than 1250 cals below TDEE... but to still be below TDEE.

neanderthin

Never worked for me. If I ate more I would slow or stall....I must be a special snowflake.

Yogi_Carl

I could be wrong, but I think the "eat more to weigh less" thing isn't advocating you eat as much as you want or over your TDEE, but that you can actually eat a decent amount of calories and not sit at 1000-1200 as has been the traditional "diet" pushed by women's magazines or whoever in the past.

I also agree with this. The people who know what they are talking about are basically saying to eat as much as you can such that you still see progress, rather than starving yourself to see progress. It's 250 cals below TDEE is better than 1250 cals below TDEE... but to still be below TDEE.

This is what I was thinking.

Of course, this revelation is freely available on MFP. It's just remembering with losing fat weight, losing more than the optimum minimum is not better.

I've done this myself and ended up back where I started by over-starving myself and then over-eating to redress and then over-compensate. Slow and steady wins the race.

KarenJanine

I could be wrong, but I think the "eat more to weigh less" thing isn't advocating you eat as much as you want or over your TDEE, but that you can actually eat a decent amount of calories and not sit at 1000-1200 as has been the traditional "diet" pushed by women's magazines or whoever in the past.

This. EM2WL does use TDEE to calculate calorie intake - indeed there's a link in the information for newbies to Scooby's calculator in order to determine this. It suggests only taking a 15% cut from TDEE, which is obviously lower than the more commonly recommended 20% in the general MFP forums but of course it is basically the same formula.

The main philosphy of EM2WL is:
Eat at a small deficit
Lift weights

It is primarily aimed at people who have spent a long time eating at VLCD or have yo-yo dieted and followed extreme diets in the past. The reset is actually a very helpful psychological tool helping many people to rebuild a healthy relationship with food and help get their metabolism working as it should be (having been suppressed by eating at VLCD for a long time).

EmmaKarney

It isn't just "eat more" - it is:

"eat more than a sparrow's portion - up to your individual sweet spot so that you lose fat in the most efficient manner and are left with a toned and healthy body at the end"

HotrodsGirl0107

Sounds too good to be true doesn't it? Isn't that what got us here in the first place - eating more than our TDEE?

I don't get this re-set thing either. Our bodies don't work like that. there isn't a re-set button that kick starts some kind of burning calories quicker machine that has somehow gone on standy-by. Or am I wrong?



1. The first statement is completely wrong. EMTWL people DON'T eat above TDEE. That isn't the point. The point is using the TDEE number as a starting point to create a caloric deficit. That's where TDEE-20% comes in. It still creates a deficit, eat more people usually find that they are able to be more successful on a smaller deficit.

2. A medibolic re set is usually done when people chronically underfeed their bodies to the point their metabolisms slow. I had to do this myself. I ate below 1200 for a long time (years). The result was slowed metabolism and a whole host of other health problems (some permanent). It took a long time and basically a complete regain before I could eat a healthy amount of food but still be below my TDEE. It took over a year to get to the point I could lose again without starving myself. I have my #s from my bmr test then and now and there was a big increase. I don't know the exact numbers as they are still packed up ( recently moved).

jacksonpt

It isn't just "eat more" - it is:

"eat more than a sparrow's portion - up to your individual sweet spot so that you lose fat in the most efficient manner and are left with a toned and healthy body at the end"

and

Sounds too good to be true doesn't it? Isn't that what got us here in the first place - eating more than our TDEE?

I don't get this re-set thing either. Our bodies don't work like that. there isn't a re-set button that kick starts some kind of burning calories quicker machine that has somehow gone on standy-by. Or am I wrong?

1. The first statement is completely wrong. EMTWL people DON'T eat above TDEE. That isn't the point. The point is using the TDEE number as a starting point to create a caloric deficit. That's where TDEE-20% comes in. It still creates a deficit, eat more people usually find that they are able to be more successful on a smaller deficit.

2. A medibolic re set is usually done when people chronically underfeed their bodies to the point their metabolisms slow. I had to do this myself. I ate below 1200 for a long time (years). The result was slowed metabolism and a whole host of other health problems (some permanent). It took a long time and basically a complete regain before I could eat a healthy amount of food but still be below my TDEE. It took over a year to get to the point I could lose again without starving myself. I have my #s from my bmr test then and now and there was a big increase. I don't know the exact numbers as they are still packed up ( recently moved).

Right.

The problem is that none of that context is ever given. The answer to every "why aren't I losing" post is simply that they need to eat more, not that they need to eat closer to their TDEE.

To those of us who have a good handle on things, that inference is pretty obvious. But to a lot of people who are just starting out, or who are overwhelmed by the amount of information out there, the advice is incomplete. Simply eating more isn't the answer, especially for someone with lousy eating habits to begin with.

Yogi_Carl

Exactly this and if you visit the site there are literally reams of information which really only boild down to the two simple statements above, which are already freely available on MFP.

myofibril

Eat more to weigh less does work - well sometimes that is...You don't need to pay for an explanation though as I will give you it for free.

Most people view the energy balance equation as a static thing. In other words: if I need 2,500 calories to maintain my current weight then if I reduce the amount I eat to a sum less than this then I will lose weight. The more I reduce the more weight I will lose. Sounds like a simple maths equation right?

There is a problem here though. This presumes that the calorie out side does not change despite the reduction in the amount of energy you are providing your body through food (calories in) and stays the same as it did on the 2,500 calories per day diet. This however, is not quite right. It is variable and affected by much energy you take in.

The body reacts in a number of ways to this reduced intake. It may drive up hunger and appetite. It may make the movements you take more efficient to preserve energy. Critically, it may reduce NEPA (non exercise physical activity - standing, blinking, fidgeting, general movement etc) in many ways, usually unconsciously, and more severely depending on how sharply you slash calories. NEPA usually accounts for far more energy expenditure than planned exercise (such as weights or cardio) unless you are an athletic or highly motivated individual.

Therefore, if you overly restrict calories then the deficit you perceive you are creating through diet does not correlate to what you believe it to be given the sharper fall in the energy / calorie out side of equation.

This is why eating more sometimes works better. Although you may eat say an additional 200 calories, the rise in the energy out side of the equation elevates much more (due mainly to a rise in NEPA) which offset this to a greater amount than simply having a lower food intake to begin with.

This begs the question - what if the lower calorie dieter made every conscious effort to keep NEPA as high as possible? Would they then lose more weight then the EM2LW dieter? My speculation is yes, they would.

This is also why the structure of your diet (ie what you eat) can also be vitally important. If you find what you are eating (such as refined / processed carbs for example) on a diet makes you sluggish and lethargic then the implication is the deficit you are creating could, in fact, be smaller than the same amount of calories of food which makes you feel vibrant or full of energy (and therefore higher NEPA levels). The composition and calorie level of such a diet is quite a personal thing though

tomg33

If only people would calculate their TDEE, start with 80% of that, then monitor their weight loss and adjust as necessary, we'd all be a lot happier.

HotrodsGirl0107

It isn't just "eat more" - it is:

"eat more than a sparrow's portion - up to your individual sweet spot so that you lose fat in the most efficient manner and are left with a toned and healthy body at the end"

and

Sounds too good to be true doesn't it? Isn't that what got us here in the first place - eating more than our TDEE?

I don't get this re-set thing either. Our bodies don't work like that. there isn't a re-set button that kick starts some kind of burning calories quicker machine that has somehow gone on standy-by. Or am I wrong?

1. The first statement is completely wrong. EMTWL people DON'T eat above TDEE. That isn't the point. The point is using the TDEE number as a starting point to create a caloric deficit. That's where TDEE-20% comes in. It still creates a deficit, eat more people usually find that they are able to be more successful on a smaller deficit.

2. A medibolic re set is usually done when people chronically underfeed their bodies to the point their metabolisms slow. I had to do this myself. I ate below 1200 for a long time (years). The result was slowed metabolism and a whole host of other health problems (some permanent). It took a long time and basically a complete regain before I could eat a healthy amount of food but still be below my TDEE. It took over a year to get to the point I could lose again without starving myself. I have my #s from my bmr test then and now and there was a big increase. I don't know the exact numbers as they are still packed up ( recently moved).

Right.

The problem is that none of that context is ever given. The answer to every "why aren't I losing" post is simply that they need to eat more, not that they need to eat closer to their TDEE.

To those of us who have a good handle on things, that inference is pretty obvious. But to a lot of people who are just starting out, or who are overwhelmed by the amount of information out there, the advice is incomplete. Simply eating more isn't the answer, especially for someone with lousy eating habits to begin with.

You're right!!! If it isn't explained clearly and fully people are not goingt to get a complete picture. So I understand the confusion. If I am telling someone they might need to eat more I try to explain why.

Yogi_Carl

^^^ sorry - information overload ^^^

BamaBreezeNSaltAire

.

HeidiMightyRawr

I could be wrong, but I think the "eat more to weigh less" thing isn't advocating you eat as much as you want or over your TDEE, but that you can actually eat a decent amount of calories and not sit at 1000-1200 as has been the traditional "diet" pushed by women's magazines or whoever in the past.

Yep.

You still have to eat less than your TDEE to lose weight, but it's basically saying that less food is not always better. It can be easier to lose weight on a smaller deficit, than when you're basically undereating!

Ex: I was finding it hard to lose on 1500 net before. Upped to 1750 net and lost weight easier/faster. I am currently losing on 2500 total (using TDEE method)

myofibril

^^^ sorry - information overload ^^^

Lol - sorry, I tried to keep it simple but failed miserably it seems.

Generally, if you eat more you do more meaning your deficit is greater than someone who eats less but unconsciously does less as well.

Sweet_Gurl_Next_Door

I just started eat more to weigh less my first day. before this I was eating 700 calories under. I realize I haven't got to lunch, dinner or my other snacks but I am not having to pig out every 5 minuets either. my energy is improving. I could even get up to do 30 day shred level one for the full time and this is just my first day on eat more to weigh less. before I began I was netting 900-1,100 calories. always hungry. eat more to weigh less I am thinking you feel that you can pig out eat 3500 calories all day long and lose weight. that is not the case. you put in your current weight, age, height, activity level, % of bf you want to reduce buy it gives you your calories. for me I am eating 1,697 calories. incidently it will take a lot more calories than that to gain a lot of weight.

don't knock it till you try it. ideally I will probably gain a little only because i was in starving mode before and my body will be adjusting but once that is done I will drop weight at a healthy pace.