Eat more calories and lose weight- What is really happening

FoodandFitness

Hey, y'all. I just wanted to make this post to shed some light from my experience as a private practice RD specializing in weight loss on a concept I see posted so often in these forums:

"Starvation Mode"

How is it that people who can't lose weight on say... 1500 calories, drop to 1200 calories and still don't lose weight? Or even yet, someone who is eating 1000 calories increases their intake up to 1400 and they start losing weight. How does this happen?

First, let's talk about some inconsistencies in the whole calorie counting process:
1. Values for foods in MFP- caloric variance in foods with the same name
2. Portion size estimations from user of MFP- there can even be variance when using measuring cups. Food scales are the most accurate.
3. Variance in reported caloric value from restaurants
4. Variance in the BMR TDEE and calories burned from exercise- these are all equations and estimations anyways

So right there, you have a lot of variance. We can safely assume that foods entered in MFP may have some inaccuracies.

Now let's look at the average MFP user
1. Probably not weighing out all foods. Estimates intake quite a bit.
2. May dine out at a restaurant or casserole dishes that are hard to estimate
3. May skip days or meals and have gaps in data from logging
4. May not be aware of extra calories in food, or simply forget to add certain ingredients
5. May not be accurately recording exercise (Choosing wrong intensity or including warm up and cool down time in workout)

Consider some special populations and individuals who are eating VERY low calorie diets, and are losing weight
- prisoners of war
- people with GI or absorption issues (crohn's disease, etc)
- bariatric surgery patients
- medically supervised protein sparing modified fasts
... all these individuals are on severely restricted calories and still lose weight

The ONLY way to sustain a fat loss is to sustain a caloric deficit: big or small

So here's my 2 cents on what really happens in "starvation mode"

Scenario A: Individual cuts calories and doesn't lose any weight
Possible reasons:
1. general inconsistencies in tracking (examples above) means the original or new calorie values were inaccurate to begin with.
2. this individual becomes less physically active after cutting calories
3. individual binges more severely or often from feeling overly restricted
4. individual is unaware of "sneaking" foods or bigger portion sizes

Scenario B: Individual eats more and loses weight
1. Greater accuracy is achieved as person consumes more, he or she pays more attention to accurate portion sizes
2. Individual begins exercising more
3. Eats more simple, single ingredient foods, which are usually easier to track and measure

The take home point is that to achieve a weight loss, you have to sustain a deficit. There's no other way to do it. So to the 200 pound person only eating 1,000 calories and not losing weight, I would say, your 1,000 calories is probably a misestimation OR you are indeed eating 1,000 calories until you binge and eat back your deficit. (Or you need to get your thyroid checked, but this post is in regards to individuals with normally functioning thyroids).

Bring on the flame posts and naysayers! My body is ready!

lithezebra

Logic is cool!

highervibes

A 200lb person would still lose weight eating 1800 calories/day... I highly doubt that they are missing 800 calories due to nutritional inconsistency on MFP. Try again.

Warchortle

Thanks for re-posting information already on the forums.

mhotch

Bump, I am so tired right now I can barely keep my eyes open. I do want to finish reading in the morning.

westerly34

For those who have been in a defecit for a long time and the weight loss stalls, quite possibly the metabolism has slowed so a refeed is the way to go...happened to me ive been in a defecit for 14 weeks now and stalled at 178 lbs...did a refeed 4 days later found out the weight went down to 176!

Mock_Turtle

so how big of a deficit is "too big"? Everyone throws out 'starvation mode' and 'eat more' but there's no line in the sand ever drawn.

I mean if wu take TDEE -20% as the limit, then for most people you're advocating like a 500-750 cal/day deficit. That seems conservative to me.

I dunno, I've been on an average 1000cal/day deficit for 22 weeks and the weight loss has been consistent, back calculates to the weight I expected to lose based on assumptions used to calculate TDEE.

I'm sure the diminishing returns are going to appear and eventually there will be a stall ..... well either that or I get all the way to my goal weight first.

The thing I have a problem with is the hundreds of threads that get opened by people with 60 or more pounds to lose claiming they've stalled within anywhere from 2-8 weeks of starting their diet and the drones all posting "eat moar".

2 lb/week seems an acceptable target on bb.com and most books but on MFP it gets a lot of hate.

I guess the question is where is the line --- 500, 750, 1000 cal/day deficit or even higher - 1250, 1500, 2000?

mhorn2142

For those who have been in a defecit for a long time and the weight loss stalls, quite possibly the metabolism has slowed so a refeed is the way to go...happened to me ive been in a defecit for 14 weeks now and stalled at 178 lbs...did a refeed 4 days later found out the weight went down to 176!

What is a reefed???

volume77

For those who have been in a defecit for a long time and the weight loss stalls, quite possibly the metabolism has slowed so a refeed is the way to go...happened to me ive been in a defecit for 14 weeks now and stalled at 178 lbs...did a refeed 4 days later found out the weight went down to 176!
[/quote



This

Textmessage

.

NaBroski

Scenario A: Individual cuts calories and doesn't lose any weight
Possible reasons:
1. general inconsistencies in tracking (examples above) means the original or new calorie values were inaccurate to begin with.
2. this individual becomes less physically active after cutting calories
3. individual binges more severely or often from feeling overly restricted
4. individual is unaware of "sneaking" foods or bigger portion sizes


Scenario B: Individual eats more and loses weight
1. Greater accuracy is achieved as person consumes more, he or she pays more attention to accurate portion sizes
2. Individual begins exercising more
3. Eats more simple, single ingredient foods, which are usually easier to track and measure

Addendum to the bolded, NEAT plays a huge role. Apart from professional athletes, it contributes far more to the daily caloric expenditure than conscious exercise.

Calories go too low, NEAT is downregulated. Bring calories up and you upregulate NEAT.

The take home point is that to achieve a weight loss, you have to sustain a deficit. There's no other way to do it. So to the 200 pound person only eating 1,000 calories and not losing weight, I would say, your 1,000 calories is probably a misestimation OR you are indeed eating 1,000 calories until you binge and eat back your deficit. (Or you need to get your thyroid checked, but this post is in regards to individuals with normally functioning thyroids).

Truth

Textmessage

Thanks for re-posting information already on the forums.

It's not like there aren't people coming to this site asking for help and guidance daily or anything. Some people aren't as good as you at sorting things out.

AbsoluteNG

Thanks Tony. The eat more crowd here was started by some people who wanted to promote their website by informing those that ate at 1200 cals, that they could eat more and still lose, but it obviously got out of hand. I agree, if your not losing weight, you simply are eating too much. I like the point you bring in about binge eating because you could eat 600 cals on Monday but eat it all back on Friday!

Warchortle

For those who have been in a defecit for a long time and the weight loss stalls, quite possibly the metabolism has slowed so a refeed is the way to go...happened to me ive been in a defecit for 14 weeks now and stalled at 178 lbs...did a refeed 4 days later found out the weight went down to 176!

What is a reefed???

If you read my first post, you will see that there is a minimal effect on metabolism. Now to answer what a refeed is. Is when you eat at maintenance calories for a week or 2.

If the person doesn't know what a refeed is then they probably don't need it and they'll probably just use cheat meals instead of carb cycling.

Warchortle

Thanks for re-posting information already on the forums.

It's not like there aren't people coming to this site asking for help and guidance daily or anything. Some people aren't as good as you at sorting things out.

Well, his last line of arrogance makes me think he believes he a sentient guru about all things nutrition like he knows things that haven't been previously discussed.

stealthq

Are you saying that starvation does not lead to decreased metabolism in humans, or that the decrease is not sufficient to cause a stall in weight loss? With the understanding that we're taking about months of starvation, not a couple of days, and actual starvation levels, which are generally at < 800 Cals per day but are somewhat dependent on the individual. Because, if it is the former, there are plenty of studies out there to dispute that. If it's the latter, that could be argued if the rate slowed to match the amount of Cals consumed.

AbsoluteNG

Thanks for re-posting information already on the forums.

It's not like there aren't people coming to this site asking for help and guidance daily or anything. Some people aren't as good as you at sorting things out.

Well, his last line of arrogance makes me think he believes he a sentient guru about all things nutrition like he knows things that haven't been previously discussed.

He is licensed by the state of texas as a RD so he gets some leeway.

FoodandFitness

Are you saying that starvation does not lead to decreased metabolism in humans, or that the decrease is not sufficient to cause a stall in weight loss? With the understanding that we're taking about months of starvation, not a couple of days, and actual starvation levels, which are generally at < 800 Cals per day but are somewhat dependent on the individual. Because, if it is the former, there are plenty of studies out there to dispute that. If it's the latter, that could be argued if the rate slowed to match the amount of Cals consumed.

I'm saying that starvation does not lead to a physiological decrease that cannot be overcome by keeping activity levels up and staying on top of nutrition.

I also consider that many people have VERY sedentary jobs and home lives, so the calories of daily activity not from exercise wouldn't fluctuate as much in those individuals.

MrsSassyPants

Bump.....can't wait to read a little later. Thanks.

bluebear_74

I also consider that many people have VERY sedentary jobs and home lives, so the calories of daily activity not from exercise wouldn't fluctuate as much in those individuals.

This. I have a fitbit, on average without exercise I probably walk 3000-4000 steps. The weekend is terrible, and will often be under 1000 unless I go out. On average fitbit tells me I burn around 1800 calories with exercise (200-300 calories).

Everyone keeps saying to eat more, so I have recently, no surprise I haven't lost.

Joehenny

Refeeds work well but most people don't need to refeed, just weigh their *kitten*!!!