why does eating more = weight loss?
Options
Replies
-
The more weight you loose the faster your metabolism runs which burns more fat.
You should adjust your calorie intake after some weight loss see where your numbers sit.
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..
Very simplistic explanation but get the point over.
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 have no fat to hold on to -- you cannot compare a person who has never had enough to a person who has been over-indulging and then suddenly cuts themselves off. It's particularly harmful to under-eat most of the time, and then occasionally binge as then the body will convert as much as it can from the binge into fat to be stored for the next long stretch of under-consumption.
I was making a point that under-eating is not going to cause people to gain weight, which is what the question is about. People throw around the term starvation mode and are using the term to explain how increasing calories by, say, 300 or more per day will raise daily calorie deficit. The OP specifically stated this was not a body composition question, but one of simple weight loss (muscle and fat). If starvation mode means your body hangs on to fat and starts eating muscle, then it could still result in weight loss. It is an academic question, I think, regarding the basic laws of physics. Calorie deficit = weight loss (even if it isn't the best body composition change; muscle vs. fat).
For me the question boils down to this: How much can metabolism slow from consistent under-eating? If it is only by 30-40 calories per day, for example, then increasing calories by 300-500 per day would not increase the calorie deficit and would not result in increased weight loss. If there is evidence that it can slow by hundreds per day, then I would like to see that. I am not saying it isn't the case, I genuinely don't know! I am just scientifically curious about it and would like to see the evidence.
eta: I (and I am certain the OP as well) understand that this is not healthy and understand the hormonal changes that can be damaging. I am simply interested in the physics/science behind it, not advocating under-eating.0 -
Wow. Very confusing to read all the different views on caloric intake and metabolism! Basically, on january 11th, I weighed 274. I started juicing, using every vegetable under the sun, and after 2 solid weeks of juicing, started introducing raw foods and now am juicing/raw foods/vegan. I ride a recumbent bike every day for 10 miles, 45 minutes whichever comes first, and when I weighed in on Feb. 14th had lost 21 pounds. I am not lacking ANY nutrients that I can think of, but I only consume about 500-900 calories a day. My question is, Is my weight loss ultimately going to stop?
It will not, but at 500-900 calories a day, 90% of that intake should be protein. The other your essential fats. I hope you're doing some resistance training to maintain your muscle mass. I presume most of your calories are not protein since you said vegan, this means you will lose a lot of muscle in the process of losing the fat.
Whether or not it stops any time soon, at such a low intake and such limited variety of exercise, you will be losing muscle as you go. If you keep it up all the way to goal, you will be downright weak when you get there.
This can have other health consequences, as well. Are you receiving regular medical supervision?
A lot of people watch that juicing documentary, and by the end of it they only see the results. They forget how sick those men were to start with (enough to outweigh the dangers) and the fact that their fasts were medically supervised. If an issue had come up, it would have been caught immediately.0 -
Funny timing - I just read the following article that talks about this topic:
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/core_march_8.htm#.USTqIJR931M.facebook
I think it should be "eat enough calories of healthy non-processed foods for your body to function at it's highest level". I think "Eat More Weigh Less" is a simplified description that provides a little shock value to the public. That being said, I do agree with this approach as it has worked very well for me. I happily consume 2100 calories to maintain my weight and body fat % - but I make sure 90% of those calories are from fruits, vegetables, lean proteins, nuts and whole grains.0 -
eat more = more fat loss as opposed to weight loss (although it could trigger a whoosh and cause water to be released as well...)
Find the calorie sweet spot and you keep your metabolic rate sufficiently elevated to ensure no unconscious decrease in NEAT more than anything else, unaccounted binging etc
You mean an unconscious increase in NEAT? I think maintaining your pre-deficit NEAT is more likely than increasing it in any case.
No I meant decrease (at least I think I do...)
Lowering calories tends to make people less active overall from non planned exercise therefore NEAT decreases and therefore the energy out side of the energy balance equation is lower than antcipated.0 -
Heck, I don't know why it works. I do know your body adjusts to calorie intake and tries to hang on to fat (survival thing). I do know that varying your calories up SLIGHTLY when you hit a plateau works for me. I do know that it DOES matter what you eat as well as how much. Variation seems to keep the body guessing and affects how you lose weight. Yes, the math doesn't lie. In the long run, its calories in < calories out.0
-
Wow. Very confusing to read all the different views on caloric intake and metabolism! Basically, on january 11th, I weighed 274. I started juicing, using every vegetable under the sun, and after 2 solid weeks of juicing, started introducing raw foods and now am juicing/raw foods/vegan. I ride a recumbent bike every day for 10 miles, 45 minutes whichever comes first, and when I weighed in on Feb. 14th had lost 21 pounds. I am not lacking ANY nutrients that I can think of, but I only consume about 500-900 calories a day. My question is, Is my weight loss ultimately going to stop?
ultimately, yes. when? that's harder to determine. I don't think what you're doing is sustainable or advisable but I'm not your physician and don't know what your health risks are.
Why would it stop? 500 calories a day will turn anyone male or female into an emaciated bean pole if they do it long enough. You aren't saying people are immune to energy balance I'm sure so I don't know why you'd think it would stop.
It would stop when tdee matched 500 cals a day. That's all energy balance is. Granted that point would potentially have organ failure and hair/tissue loss, and all kinds of other fun stuff if it didn't outright mean death, but it would eventually stop.
So there is scientific evidence that metabolism will slow to eventually MATCH tdee with current intake? That is what I was looking for! Do you know of any studies that show this? Again, I am asking because I am a nerd and genuinely interested in learning these things. I eat way more than 1200 calories a day
0 -
Starvation is the bodies retraction to limited nutrients. Starving peoples bodies will eat up fat and muscle then begin on any other tissue mass available. Starvation also included dehydration due to lack of fluids which causes body spaces to fill with air, hence large pushed out stomachs in starving people.
This is completely different from people dieting and hitting walls with weight loss as they are sufficiently providing the body with nutrition all be it a low calories but regular meals.
This is the biggest load of crap I think I have ever read. People's bodies fill up with air, seriously? And they become dehydrated?
Wow.
A large calorie deficit leads to edema, which varies greatly from individual to individual. The body will retain excess water. Keys' Minnesota study devoted an entire chapter to edema, and was his greatest surprise. The subjects drank twice as much fluid during starvation than they had before starvation began. The body will continue to lose fat and a small amount of muscle during extended periods of very low calories, but retain water. That is what "stalls" weight loss. When calories are increased the body will shed excess fluid, which is why many believe in increasing calories, and "starvation mode." It is mostly increased water. Metabolism does slow during extended starvation, but not nearly as much as people believe. The Minnesota study noted a range of ten to twenty percent, depending on the individual.
There is a sweet spot, if you will, a certain amount of calories for your activity level, where you will not lower your metabolism or retain water, and weight loss willbe most consistent.0 -
Wow. Very confusing to read all the different views on caloric intake and metabolism! Basically, on january 11th, I weighed 274. I started juicing, using every vegetable under the sun, and after 2 solid weeks of juicing, started introducing raw foods and now am juicing/raw foods/vegan. I ride a recumbent bike every day for 10 miles, 45 minutes whichever comes first, and when I weighed in on Feb. 14th had lost 21 pounds. I am not lacking ANY nutrients that I can think of, but I only consume about 500-900 calories a day. My question is, Is my weight loss ultimately going to stop?
ultimately, yes. when? that's harder to determine. I don't think what you're doing is sustainable or advisable but I'm not your physician and don't know what your health risks are.
Why would it stop? 500 calories a day will turn anyone male or female into an emaciated bean pole if they do it long enough. You aren't saying people are immune to energy balance I'm sure so I don't know why you'd think it would stop.
Well, she said 500-900..not 500...and yes, some freaky things do happen when you starve yourself..not everyone winds up emaciated. I've met women doing copious amounts of cardio and eating ~1000 calories and weren't horribly thin and weren't losing weight, what happened? By the numbers you'd assume they were in weight loss mode but NOPE! That's just not what happens. The metabolic impact of such diets are different for different people so reaching homeostasis on 900 calories wouldn't be unheard of--yes, she'd be close to goal by then (most likely) but she'd lose heaps of muscle.0 -
I'll come at this from a different angle than starvation mode. How about progression?
The trick to keeping most things moving along is being able to fiddle with the controls. When it comes to lifting, I base my workouts around 3 sets of 8 reps and then adjust from there. Today's workout included 5 rep squats and 20 rep curls (don't judge me
). What I am saying is that my base of 3 sets with 8 reps lets me change, up or down, the number of sets and reps based on need, fatigue/injury, and variety.
1200 cal eating plans are the diet equivalent of me basing my workouts around 1 set of 1 rep maxes. Once it stops working, where you gonna go? When I was 275lbs, I started eating 2100 cals to lose weight. As I lost weight, I decreased it to 2000, then 1900, then 1700. When I wanted to start lifting heavier I increased it back to 2200 and when I wanted to really get stronger I increased it to 2800. Then back to 2000-2200 for cutting.
Where is the flexibility in a 1200 cal plan? When they stall out, where they gonna go? If they haven't lost weight for 3-6 months by eating 1200, is your suggestion going to be that they eat 1000? Then 800? Then where? They need to adjust, and there's only where way to go from the bottom.0 -
eat more = more fat loss as opposed to weight loss (although it could trigger a whoosh and cause water to be released as well...)
Find the calorie sweet spot and you keep your metabolic rate sufficiently elevated to ensure no unconscious decrease in NEAT more than anything else, unaccounted binging etc
You mean an unconscious increase in NEAT? I think maintaining your pre-deficit NEAT is more likely than increasing it in any case.
No I meant decrease (at least I think I do...)
Lowering calories tends to make people less active overall from non planned exercise therefore NEAT decreases and therefore the energy out side of the energy balance equation is lower than antcipated.
oh i see..you said to ensure no decrease...I didn't see the "no."0 -
So there is scientific evidence that metabolism will slow to eventually MATCH tdee with current intake? That is what I was looking for! Do you know of any studies that show this? Again, I am asking because I am a nerd and genuinely interested in learning these things. I eat way more than 1200 calories a day
I've seen studies about metabolic adaptation in the past, but I'd have to dig them up. I will try to remember to do so after work.
Basically though, someone who weighs more burns more calories than someone who weighs less since supporting that tissue requires energy. Since you lose weight at a deficit your energy needs gradually decrease. Side-effects of extreme calorie deprivation include organ failure, hair and tissue loss, etc etc etc. All of those things are the bodies way of dumping excess calorie burns to try to keep the vitals alive. Eventually you'll either match the super low calorie intake (though it'll likely greatly shorten life expectancy, as you can see in cases of anorexia and such) or die (in which case your weight loss will have stopped as well). The equation HAS to balance out eventually, but it doesn't have to be pretty when it does.0 -
Wow. Very confusing to read all the different views on caloric intake and metabolism! Basically, on january 11th, I weighed 274. I started juicing, using every vegetable under the sun, and after 2 solid weeks of juicing, started introducing raw foods and now am juicing/raw foods/vegan. I ride a recumbent bike every day for 10 miles, 45 minutes whichever comes first, and when I weighed in on Feb. 14th had lost 21 pounds. I am not lacking ANY nutrients that I can think of, but I only consume about 500-900 calories a day. My question is, Is my weight loss ultimately going to stop?
ultimately, yes. when? that's harder to determine. I don't think what you're doing is sustainable or advisable but I'm not your physician and don't know what your health risks are.
Why would it stop? 500 calories a day will turn anyone male or female into an emaciated bean pole if they do it long enough. You aren't saying people are immune to energy balance I'm sure so I don't know why you'd think it would stop.
It would stop when tdee matched 500 cals a day. That's all energy balance is. Granted that point would potentially have organ failure and hair/tissue loss, and all kinds of other fun stuff if it didn't outright mean death, but it would eventually stop.
So there is scientific evidence that metabolism will slow to eventually MATCH tdee with current intake? That is what I was looking for! Do you know of any studies that show this? Again, I am asking because I am a nerd and genuinely interested in learning these things. I eat way more than 1200 calories a day
It will for as long as it can. This is why some people can see a slight weight gain at around 1000 - the body tries to compensate for the deficit and sometimes overshoots its mark. Some people can maintain on 1000 indefinitely, but you better hope it isn't your brain surgeon. Adult humans seem to shut down completely at around 600 - wasting is inevitable at this point. Concentration camps have shown that some can withstand the process longer than others.0 -
Aside from all the levels that this thread has gone to, WHY would a person want to eat less than what their body requires for vital organs to function properly? My BMR is roughly 1470, so if i were in a coma, that's what the doctors would give me so my body still worked. So how can you even consider it to be safe to eat LESS than that?0
-
Aside from all the levels that this thread has gone to, WHY would a person want to eat less than what their body requires for vital organs to function properly? My BMR is roughly 1470, so if i were in a coma, that's what the doctors would give me so my body still worked. So how can you even consider it to be safe to eat LESS than that?
It really was an academic question; OP was not advocating it.0 -
Can everyone stop responding to these two people (the original poster and the person who posted after) they are looking for flaws in whatever you post in order to prove themselves right... if they want to eat under what their body needs let them. It doesn't matter what info you give them, they are dead set on proving their point and eating less.
This is like having a conversation with a chair, nothing will come of it. Spend your time answering questions of those here who are eager to learn, and want support.0 -
Can everyone stop responding to these two people (the original poster and the person who posted after) they are looking for flaws in whatever you post in order to prove themselves right... if they want to eat under what their body needs let them. It doesn't matter what info you give them, they are dead set on proving their point and eating less.
This is like having a conversation with a chair, nothing will come of it. Spend your time answering questions of those here who are eager to learn, and want support.
Do you know what "academic question" means? Me and the OP both eat way more than 1200 calories a day (I have seen his diary) and we are simply interested in the science of metabolism, we are not trying to justify low calorie diets. Jeez.
eta: DO NOT EAT LESS THAN YOUR BMR! It is bad for your health. I do not advocate under-eating. Yesterday I had 2200 calories and I am not fat! (is that better?)0 -
All I know is I didn't want to eat 1200 calories for the rest of my life so yeah I tried it but I took baby steps by only increasing by 100 more a day and stayed that way for two weeks and every time I increased I lost. I think it makes your metabolism kick or something not sure but it worked for me. So I suggest taking baby steps to climb up to higher calories intake unless your satisfied with 1200 for the rest of your life.0
-
ok... I'm back, looks like I have a lot of catching up to do in this thread.0
-
ok... I'm back, looks like I have a lot of catching up to do in this thread.
LMAO. enjoy.0 -
I find it very hard to accept this "fact" too-- the fact is, eating "more" is what got me here.
Yesterday I thought "I should really try this" because I've been here a solid month, logging food, eating well, exercising every day, and the scale has moved NONE. But my low-cal menu is good, FOR ME. Yesterday, in order to get more calories, I ate a Kit Kat, and later had some wine and whole wheat toast with marmalade and a spoonful of Nutella. This is going to help me lose weight? It never has in the past. Is there some magic that if I eat more under the auspices of MFP, it will make me lose weight instead of gain????0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 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