Eating more to weigh less or eating less to weigh less? .

lots of people are having success with the eat more to lose more plan. Look, if you have to eat 3500 calories over your TDEE to gain 1 lb, the eat more to lose more theroy works and makes sense. it's just a very slow process and most people get really impatient. it feels wrong because it is against everything we have been taught (eat less and lose).

for some people, they can simply eat less and lose and never plateau.

i read so much about people pleateuing that i think there is something to the homeostasis of the bodies metabolism and it's ability to "save" itself. eating too less puts it in a weird mode where it doesn't want to let go. eating more allows the body to free up the fat. the trick is to eat right. so, now that you have 1000 more calories a day, or whatever, doesn't mean it's ok to eat twinkies. that might be where some people fail. i don't know.

i do not believe that everyone is different. in fact, i think that's bunk. were all the same. but, the variable are diet, effort in exercise, and commitment. so, given a set of variables within your own life, you have to find that balance. i like the eating more group. i am in maintenance and i am eating way more and i feel better than i did eating less. my workouts are better and i have more overall energy. so, jus try different things and see how it works for you.

I agree with you on the whole homeostasis thing. The human body evolved at a time when the next meal (or even the one after) was not guaranteed. The body works very hard to stay in balance and to counteract lean times, when food might not be plentiful. Unfortunately, this might get in the way of our plans for weight loss.

I very much want to see replies to this to!

Because although seen as unhealthy by most, I feel like theres no doubt that if you eat less, you'll weigh less. You might feel ****ty & lose a bit of muscle along with it, but you'll still weigh less.

Then how does that explain all the people who come on here claiming to be severely restricting their calories but still not losing weight? Apparently having your weight loss stall because you're not feeding your body enough DOES happen.

I had a hard time figuring out "eat less to weigh less" as i follow the eat more to weigh less but i am thinking Its eat less to weigh less meaning eat less then you burn meaning if my TDEE is for example 2500 and I'm eating 2000 calories then voila eating less, still a 500 cal deficit which would be 1lb per week. I don't think it means eat 1000cal everyday. In the end is it not the same thing?

It doesn't work like that in the real world.

What doesn't work like that in the real world?

The numbers are not so clear cut like many want them to believe. They are so hung up on the numbers they don't do anything about their situation. There is no need to worry about TDEE, etc, etc. Just get of your *kitten* and lift, eat, take notes, and make adjustments.

People make an already difficult situation harder.

this is what I'm saying... LOL..

saying "eating less will make you gain (or not lose)" makes no sense to me.

Muscle burns calories. If you "eat less" beyond a certain point, and especially if that "less" is protein, your body is burning off calorie-burning lean muscle mass in order to meet its caloric need.

As you lose that muscle, your BMI (the energy you burn at rest on a given day) drops. Your ability to perform physical tasks also drops. So you are actually burning fewer calories in a given day due to that loss in muscle. As a result, your body needs less food, and to maintain a weight loss deficit you need to further reduce your calorie intake.

Short term, eating less will make you weigh less. That's very true. But it's the changes it makes to your body composition and therefore metabolism (ability to burn calories) that make the math not work any more.

It's not that the math is bad, it's that you have to take into account that another variable is changing.

(CALORIES EATEN - CALORIES BURNED) * 3,500 = 1 pound. Eat 3,500 more calories than you burn, gain one pound. Burn 3,500 more calories than you eat, lose one pound.

But what you EAT can also affect what you BURN.

If you eat nothing, you lose rapidly. Your body eats the fat that you have as energy stores. When you eat only a little and less than your recommended caloric intake, your body will store it as fat because it is in starvation mode. Fat is emergency fuel. Basically, it knows you're not eating so instead of spending the energy now, it stock piles it to burn off later.

First, congratulations on overcoming anorexia. It's a tough path, but you're tougher. Nice job!

Second, you burn a lot more than fat when you eat nothing. The body can turn carbohydrates into fat and vice versa, it can turn protein into fat or carbohydrates, but it simply cannot synthesize protein from anything else. If you eat nothing, your body ends up with a deficit of the one thing it cannot make - protein.

There are two sources of protein in the body. Muscles and organs. Your body is pretty smart about cannibalizing what is not used in order to support what is used. The heart and brain are priority #1 and #1 (no, no typo, both are equally important) for your body - both are required on order to ensure immediate survival.

The brain runs on sugar. No sugar coming in? Fine - the body will synthesize it out of protein and fat.

The heart runs on protein. No protein coming in? Fine - the body will cannibalize less critical muscle. Arms, legs, abdominal, whatever.

If you are losing weight slowly, eating healthy, and working out a lot, the loss will be heavily biased toward burning fat. It's already got what it needs for nutrition and the muscle is being used, so fat is the optimal energy source.

Try to lose much faster and your body will be short on things it cannot get from fat reserves.

I had a hard time figuring out "eat less to weigh less" as i follow the eat more to weigh less but i am thinking Its eat less to weigh less meaning eat less then you burn meaning if my TDEE is for example 2500 and I'm eating 2000 calories then voila eating less, still a 500 cal deficit which would be 1lb per week. I don't think it means eat 1000cal everyday. In the end is it not the same thing?

It doesn't work like that in the real world.

What doesn't work like that in the real world?

The numbers are not so clear cut like many want them to believe. They are so hung up on the numbers they don't do anything about their situation. There is no need to worry about TDEE, etc, etc. Just get of your *kitten* and lift, eat, take notes, and make adjustments.

People make an already difficult situation harder.

LOL@ worrying about TDEE

I'm glad that I learned about TDEE when I first started or I might have gotten off on the wrong foot!

In before a certain person thread jacks the thread with links to her own threads

lol

inorite

love this!

In before a certain person thread jacks the thread with links to her own threads

A short, 51 year old, someone...with 12% bodyfat maybe?

I totally knew who you guys are talking about. I'm glad I'm not the only person who noticed that happening a LOT.

In before a certain person thread jacks the thread with links to her own threads

A short, 51 year old, someone...with 12% bodyfat maybe?

I totally knew who you guys are talking about. I'm glad I'm not the only person who noticed that happening a LOT.

THAT person, has helped a lot of older women that were completely frustrated and confused by everyone telling them to eat more, resulting in them gaining weight. I would much rather listen to someone in my own situation that has succeeded, than to listen to a bunch of 20 somethings who think they know everything because they read it in a muscle magazine.

Find out what a person's situation is before telling them to eat more.

Here's my current opinion.

First of all, I'm generally against VLCD's in individuals that don't understand implementation or are using it out of either ignorance or as a short-cut out of impatience. I think for "most" people, a reasonable ~20% reduction from TDEE with macro sufficiency will result in favorable body composition whereas a crash diet will not.

But that being said, adaptive thermogensis is a big culprit in the reduction in both BMR and NEAT/EAT. But you can't directly say that it's tied to acute caloric intake as much as it's tied to fat mass.

Eating at a massive deficit may cause AT to happen faster but it also causes more rapid weight loss.
Eating at a reasonable deficit may cause AT to happen gradually but it also causes slower weight loss.

I believe the latter is favorable (I want to be clear on that) for body composition purposes but just generally speaking, I don't buy into the idea that the reason one is not losing weight is that they are "eating too little and their body is hanging onto fat because of it".

The only way I see this is possible would be if an increase in food increases expenditure by a greater amount than the caloric increase in food.

+1

Sidesteal for the win... Everything I've read suggests the above to be true. Those in doubt should do some reading of Lyle McDonald's blog, Body Recomposition.

Saying that, I understand the desire to decrease calories and lose weight faster. Lets face it, it takes a bloody long time.

by the looks of things there is never just the one answer. What works for one may not work for the other. The best advice i've gotten is from those who've done it. Check into those who've lost lots of weight and pick their brains for ideas. Metabolism varies from one to the other and plays a big role in how it all works.

Unless you really understand TDEE, BMR or whatever else it gets really confusing to some, then in turn may just end up tuning out and going for a much simpler answer. Yes, your body does need fuel but that varies. A competitive weight lifter will not have the same diet as a competitive basketball player but both are still in great shape. I always found spreading out several meals works and hitting those numbers in the calorie range and the macros is the best way to be. You can very well eat more to weigh less or eat less to weigh less, but the real key is the workout or workouts that are performed for body shaping. Choosing foods wisely and most importantly...patience and dedication will make anybody achieve results

by the looks of things there is never just the one answer. What works for one may not work for the other.

^^^ This is the truth! While the science is the same for everyone, slight differences in diet and exercise routines can make a world of difference to a given individual.

Here's my current opinion.

First of all, I'm generally against VLCD's in individuals that don't understand implementation or are using it out of either ignorance or as a short-cut out of impatience. I think for "most" people, a reasonable ~20% reduction from TDEE with macro sufficiency will result in favorable body composition whereas a crash diet will not.

But that being said, adaptive thermogensis is a big culprit in the reduction in both BMR and NEAT/EAT. But you can't directly say that it's tied to acute caloric intake as much as it's tied to fat mass.

Eating at a massive deficit may cause AT to happen faster but it also causes more rapid weight loss.
Eating at a reasonable deficit may cause AT to happen gradually but it also causes slower weight loss.

I believe the latter is favorable (I want to be clear on that) for body composition purposes but just generally speaking, I don't buy into the idea that the reason one is not losing weight is that they are "eating too little and their body is hanging onto fat because of it".

The only way I see this is possible would be if an increase in food increases expenditure by a greater amount than the caloric increase in food.

+1

Sidesteal for the win... Everything I've read suggests the above to be true. Those in doubt should do some reading of Lyle McDonald's blog, Body Recomposition.

Saying that, I understand the desire to decrease calories and lose weight faster. Lets face it, it takes a bloody long time.

Sidesteal is very knowledgeable. But lettuce be cereal here. Most people don't know what in the hell is talking about. When I first started I knew NOTHING about TDEE, NEAT/EAT, etc, etc. I knew I had to:

1. Lift weights.
2. Eat to fuel my body
3. Do cardio

The result? Lost over 100lbs.

It wasn't until much later, I started reading about the above mentioned.

As I stated before, people need to step back, take a deep breath and just MOVE!

I totally agree that the nerdy pargraph I wrote above isn't something any beginner needs to really worry about (but it's my opinion on the previous discussion, so even if it's not anything important the nerd in me still has to speak up).

The majority of people will do just fine if they spend less time on the couch and more time in the gym. Can't argue that.

I do think though, that since we're in an environment where we're tracking intake, it would be in people's best interest to learn how to set up proper intake/macros and then just watch progress and adjust. Very simple template that doesn't require constant calculators or graphs or nitpicking.