Eat More to Weigh Less - really?

MrsTorresisBACK

Believe or not..everytime you eat it turns on the lightswitch to your metabolism....NOW what you eat is a whole different story...if you eat things that will turn into energy and not fat then you are on the right track...Eat smart, lean and clean if and when possible. It's all common sense.....a slice of cake every 3 hours of course it's not ideal...but you get the idea.

It's always easier said than done...i too myself have my challenges...but MFP really has given me the forum to be accountable for what i eat at ALL times...and oh how it's made a difference!

Best of luck!

KeepGoingRhonda

It is not to eat however much you want but rather eat what your body needs, and not starve yourself to lose weight only to gain it back when you eat more again. It takes patience to do it and repair a metabolism that is damaged from eat very low calorie diets. You can get the info from their website for free, but if you want what they have compiled all in one place that you can download and print out there is a small fee for their efforts. How many people spend tons of money on diet books and magazines?

EmmaKarney

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.

This and the fact that people just refuse to get their head around the fact that you can lose weight on a normal (controlled/balanced) diet and not necessarily have to be starving all day.

Yogi_Carl

^^^ 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.

Thank you - and thanks for the lively debate!

navydentalchic

bump

squatsandlipgloss

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.

If I had done this years ago instead of only just starting this, I would be a lot thinner than I am now going 2+ years on 1,200-1,500 kcal diets. Sh...

jacksonpt

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.

This and the fact that people just refuse to get their head around the fact that you can lose weight on a normal (controlled/balanced) diet and not necessarily have to be starving all day.

Very true.

wareagle8706

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, Fat and Carbohydrate 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.

Fixed it for ya.

dewsmom78

It didn't exactly work for me. I was eating my TDEE - 20% but then I was eating my exercise calories. So I was messed up and because of it, didn't lose any weight. Your TDEE includes exercise. So figure out your TDEE and cut 20%. Don't eat back any exercise calories and you should lose weight.

Here's a good website to figure TDEE:


http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/

Nikki_XC

Just gonna leave this here...

Calculating Calorie & Macronutrient Needs
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=121703981

(Edit was adding the title of the thread). This method of calculation works for me since I was eating less and was retaining weight. Now, I adjusted my macros based on the information in that forum and I'm doing much better and building muscle. I feel great too, less deprived and I have energy. It really boils down to WHAT you're eating to get the full benefit of eating more. Good luck to you!

Trilby16

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.

Yeah, you and a few other people. But we will be shouted down. Watch!

fbmandy55

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.

That is because two members of MFP have expanded the EM2WL movement from here to facebook and beyond. They offer a ton of resources and now than what was originally started on MFP. At least that is how I understand it.

Yogi_Carl

It didn't exactly work for me. I was eating my TDEE - 20% but then I was eating my exercise calories. So I was messed up and because of it, didn't lose any weight. Your TDEE includes exercise. So figure out your TDEE and cut 20%. Don't eat back any exercise calories and you should lose weight.

Here's a good website to figure TDEE:


http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/

Hang on - but your TDEE does not include exercise in MFP if you are adding exercise in as extra activities every day in Cardiovascular, so you should eat those back (or at least some of them) and expect to lose weight still.

If you have added exercise into your base TDEE then yes, I agree you shouldn't eat them back as they are already factored in.

BamaBreezeNSaltAire

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, Fat and Carbohydrate 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.

Fixed it for ya.

Well done my friend!

Trilby16

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.

I peeked and see that you don't have much weight to lose. That will make it slower for you and certainly eating more won't help you lose those last few pounds, which are always difficult. I don't see how that will happen on 1600 cals per day, which seems like a good maintenance level, but what do I know.

jacksonpt

It didn't exactly work for me. I was eating my TDEE - 20% but then I was eating my exercise calories. So I was messed up and because of it, didn't lose any weight. Your TDEE includes exercise. So figure out your TDEE and cut 20%. Don't eat back any exercise calories and you should lose weight.

Here's a good website to figure TDEE:


http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/

Hang on - but your TDEE does not include exercise in MFP if you are adding exercise in as extra activities every day in Cardiovascular, so you should eat those back (or at least some of them) and expect to lose weight still.

If you have added exercise into your base TDEE then yes, I agree you shouldn't eat them back as they are already factored in.

It's partially a terminology thing and partially a usage thing.

Terminology:
TDEE, by it's definition, does include exercise. So if you aren't factoring in exercise when you calculate, you aren't calculating a TDEE.

Useage:
You're right, most people don't factor in exercise to the activity level when setting up their MFP profile. But there is no reason they can't do that. I haven't played around with it that much as I'm using custom goals, but as long as the calculations/activity level multipliers go high enough, there's no reason someone couldn't be highly active to include workouts 6-7 days a week, thus getting a true TDEE from MFP.

mamasmaltz3

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.

I agree with all the responses you have gotten about this as far as they encourage eating at a smaller deficit. However, I am confused about your statement:

" 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 have been on the website and all of the information is available free to anyone. You don't have to donate anything. There is a statement on the bottom of the web page that says something about the "info being free but hosting a website is not free so if you would like to make a donation, you can." I have not made a donation, and I have been on their forums and blogs and asked questions and I have never been prompted or pressured to give money.

HotrodsGirl0107

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.

I peeked and see that you don't have much weight to lose. That will make it slower for you and certainly eating more won't help you lose those last few pounds, which are always difficult. I don't see how that will happen on 1600 cals per day, which seems like a good maintenance level, but what do I know.

It happens because a lot of people don't have to eat at a large deficit to lose. I maintain at 2400 calories and lost my last ten taking in 1900 to 2000 cals a day. I would rather maintain at 2500 seeing as though I lost most of my weight eating 1500 to 1600 cals a day.

Vailara

I think it does get confusing because there are different groups (EM2WL, IPOARM, etc.), but I think what they are all saying is pretty simple - work out how many calories you burn in a day (TDEE) and then eat 80% - 90% of those calories.

It gets more complicated, because working out exactly how many calories you burn isn't straightforward. And then it gets even more complicated because MFP is set up to work a certain way - it gives an estimate of how many calories you burn WITHOUT exercise, then gives you a blanket deficit of 250 - 1000 calories (depending on how much you set it to make you lose). Then you eat back exercise calories in full to maintain the same daily deficit, regardless of exercise.

In the end, I think the major difference between the two is that MFP is a blanket deficit, whereas TDEE - 20% is tailored to your personal stats, and is a percentage, so a bigger, more active person will have a larger deficit than a smaller, less active one, so should lose weight more quickly.

In practice, you could have much the same deficit on MFP as you do with TDEE - 20%, by setting MFP to 1/2 lb or 1 lb a week.

I imagine that MFP is probably a little less accurate (lots of room for mistakes either in the initial calculation of your non-exercise burn, or in the estimates of exercise calories).

obnesium

Our bodies are amazing. When it senses you're eating too little to maintain weight it slows your metabolism to stay alive. For me, personally, I've always found that when I'm stuck at a weight, it's a good time.to moderately indulge whatever food craving I'd been having. I don't go too crazy, but eat more calories than I have been for one day (or one meal) only. My body seems reassured that It doesn't need to maintain "starvation" mode metabolism and I almost always lose weight immediately after that. I have a very efficient body...always preparing for famine and deprivation by squirreleling away every little calorie and acorn it finds in a fat cell somewhere. So the occasional overeating puts it at ease. Works for me.