why does eating more = weight loss?
Replies
-
700 calories a day and not losing
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing0 -
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.
Understanding how something works can go a long ways towards perfecting the usage of 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.
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?)
If you are really interested in the academic explanation, find a copy of Ancel Keys, et al, The Biology of Human Starvation, 2 vols. Used copies are hard to find and pricey, and the only libraries likely to have it will be in a university. But it will have all the information you want, and more.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????
Try adding healthy foods - nuts, PB with that toast...0 -
i eat 1800 cals a day and loose weight steadily.
0 -
What about people who've had gastric bypass? I have not but my ex-husband had it. He was eating very tiny portions (at first). And losing mega-pounds. How do you explain that loss and the fact that he's still alive?
There are some people here who are really emotionally attached to their way of thinking, it seems.
Do I really want to eat 1200 cals for the rest of my life? yeah, I have no problem with it. Is that ok???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????
There is a difference in eating more than you are, and eating more than your TDEE.
many peope could eat more than the 1200 that they are eating, and still lose weight.0 -
Exactly. When you eat less your body starves and starts to store fat because it doesn't know when the next meal will come. Lots of times your body will burn muscle before fat when you're not eating the right calorie intake as well. When you eat more (and the key is not to just eat more but to eat more of the RIGHT stuff like your daily 2 cups of fruit, 3 cups of vegetables, protein intake etc) your body starts to metabolize and burn fat. Also, the more muscle you have on your body, the higher the metabolism and the more fat you burn so its also important to do strength exercises to build muslce (you don't have to bulk up but you do need to have some muscular strength).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.0 -
i eat 1800 cals a day and loose weight steadily.
You are only 21. You are losing 50 pounds. As you get closer to your goal, 1800 might not work as well, but it may-- because you are 21. I looked at your diary. I would never lose weight eating those foods, but good for you that you can, now. Things change.
You guys know that metabolism slows as you age, right? I am 61.0 -
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.
Actually, in most cases the more weight you lose the slower your metabolism runs. Which is why it's important to try and maintain muscle, since more muscle = faster metabolism. You body simply doesn't have to work as hard to carry 130 lbs as it does to carry 230 lbs.
ANY calorie deficit = weight loss. Starvation mode refers to the body slowing the metabolism in reaction to someone eating very low calories. But weight loss will only stop if there is no longer a calorie deficit.
If someone is maintaining on 1200 calories, that means their TDEE is 1200. Eating more would put them at a calorie surplus.0 -
I completely agree with you people who doesn't achieve their weight goal the reason behind it is not controlling on what they eat.
First step is always controlling your diet you can get what you need physically,That is the main reason of not losing weight,Eat healthy and clean food.0 -
:drinker: bump for later0
-
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.
What happened is self-reported calorie intake is worthless data. Put her in a controlled environment where we KNOW how many calories she is consuming and watch what happens.0 -
OK, so here is what I'm taking away from all this, at least so far...
Deficit = mass loss. At some point too great of a deficit over too long a period of time (even if we can't quantify either of those at this point) will likely result in hormone issues and additional water retention, which could "mask" the mass loss, resulting in no scale weight loss.0 -
I lost 45lbs only eating 1200 but for the last two months have stalled so last week after some advice I upped my intake to 1400 and I couldn't believe in when I lost 4lbs in the first week. I was skeptic at first but the evidence for me proved different.0
-
The problem is, it is rather difficult to maintain a consumption of 1200 cals per day. So, what happens is people who do not exercise and go on these crash diets will tend to lose weight quickly. When they come off, because they deprive their body of food, they tend to over eat more than their initial consumption and tend to put on more weight than they actually had on initially. Think about it, if you love chocolate cake and do not eat it for 3 months... after that, you'll indulge. Same thing if you starve for an entire day, you tend to over compensate by eating too much in the night. This isnt the case for everybody, but it is the norm. I tell people who go on 500 cal diets, okay go ahead and let's see how long it'll last... lol0
-
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.
I basically decided I was going to stop responding to posts re: calories at all because I posted a dozen studies in one that showed that this is true even for people on a VLCD or BDD (balanced dietary deficit) and still got blasted because I said that 1200 wasn't too low for everyone. But this has soo much truth. The Minnesota Starvation study showed that the changes in metabolism (even at the point of starvation and when people only had "essential" body fat) was (as stated above) pretty minimal 10-20%. Reasons people don't see weight loss are more likely related to water retention or underestimation of caloric intake.
I read an article by a doctor one time who said that he has people who come and tell him that they are eating 1200 (or even 800) calories a day and not losing weight. He said that, without exception, when he put those people in the hospital and actually fed them a measured 1200 cal/ day diet they lost weight. Every time.
I think it's an interesting thing to study. If you go to scholar.google.com you can find an absurd number of studies on metabolism and changes related to calories, etc... Most of the time RMR or BMR won't change with diet. There have been a few studies (especially those on "lean" individuals) that find (just like the Minnesota Starvation study) that calorie restriction leads to a 10-20% decrease in RMR/BMR most show that after the calorie restriction is removed, RMR/BMR returns to normal within a period of time (different studies show some different times).
I am posting this for purely academic thinking and not saying that people should eat less than 1200 calories (unless under the supervision of a doctor or as dictated by medical conditions).
Edit to add: There are also many studies that show that, especially with strength training, muscle mass will be preserved over the course of calorie restricted diets until starvation actually begins (essential body fat %).
I think that looking it up on google scholar is the best place to find these awesome studies without bias.0 -
.0
-
Lady Raven,
I posted earlier that you have to eat more of the right stuff. If you're eating a lot of sugars just to meet your calorie intake you won't see the results you seek. So again, its not necessarily eating more but eating more of the right stuff. Just because the scale isn't moving, doesn't mean that you're not losing weight. Women lose weight in different areas of our bodies. If your clothes are starting to fit looser or you're noticing that your face is slimming or even the area around your hips your program is working. A lot of times we don't necessarily notice the differences because we're staring at ourselves regularly. Others will definitely notice the small changes and you have to take that as small victories.
Another reason why the scale may not be changing is because you may be losing weight and gaining muscle at the same time depending on what type of exercising you're doing. Muscle weighs more than fat. Your body should have more muscle than fat (muslce also helps your body to burn fat faster) so again that's a good thing. Something that will help you to see the difference between your body fat percentage and your body muscle percentage would be to do a BOD POD test. It measures your body composition and tells you your true body mass (pounds), fat free mass (muscle) and your total percent of your body that is fat.0 -
OK, so here is what I'm taking away from all this, at least so far...
Deficit = mass loss. At some point too great of a deficit over too long a period of time (even if we can't quantify either of those at this point) will likely result in hormone issues and additional water retention, which could "mask" the mass loss, resulting in no scale weight loss.
I got the impression that hormone issues would actually slow metabolism so much that mass loss would not continue. In other words, no more deficit because calorie burn (slowed due to hormone issues) would eventually match calorie intake. Although, I am not sure this is true it is what I thought was implied by some of these posts.0 -
Bump to read later0
-
OK, so here is what I'm taking away from all this, at least so far...
Deficit = mass loss. At some point too great of a deficit over too long a period of time (even if we can't quantify either of those at this point) will likely result in hormone issues and additional water retention, which could "mask" the mass loss, resulting in no scale weight loss.
I got the impression that hormone issues would actually slow metabolism so much that mass loss would not continue. In other words, no more deficit because calorie burn (slowed due to hormone issues) would eventually match calorie intake.
It is possible for people with thyroid/hormone issues to stall out on fat loss and lose muscle alone even when they have a high BF%. They will literally die before their bodies will burn fat. This is an extreme example though and this does not happen to normal people(AKA the people on MFP).0 -
If you are really interested in the academic explanation, find a copy of Ancel Keys, et al, The Biology of Human Starvation, 2 vols. Used copies are hard to find and pricey, and the only libraries likely to have it will be in a university. But it will have all the information you want, and more.
The MN starvation experiment had volunteers on a very strict diet, but it was well above 1200 calories per day, and subjects still lost like 25% of their body weight. How does that support your claim that "If you do not eat enough calories the body will go into starvation mode and hold on to fat no weight loss."
Did you read the book?0 -
Hello,
I was confused at first by all of this when I first began following a macro program that was put in place by my trainer/nutritionist.
When you are a heavier weight your body is not used to exercise and proper nutrition so when you can lose weight quickly but once you lose weight and settle in at a lighter weight, your metabolism slows and tries to hold onto the weight so your body doesn't have that sensation that it's going to starve.
Simply put:
Heavier person=ability to lose weight faster (will eventually stall)
Lighter person= more difficult to lose weight (your body tries to hold onto the rest of the weight to prevent loss)
I follow a macro nutrient based eating style in which I am trying to eat a certain number of fats/carbohydrates/protein throughout the day distributed between 5 meals. (Anyone can follow this kind of eating style and lose fat and gain muscle, it works!)
People have to understand that the body requires 1500 calories a day just to function properly and that is not including the calories you burn through exercise. Your organs, brain, and nervous system all require calories in order to process waste through your kidneys, for your heart to pump blood and for your brain to function.
Did you know that 60% of your brain is made up of fat?! Your brain actually requires healthy fats such as omega 3 and 6 to function properly, so when you see a low fat diet RUN! The only fats you should pay particular attention to are your saturated and trans fats because these are unhealthy and can cause heart disease, high blood pressure, etc.
Carbohydrates are also necessary for your body to function because they provide energy in order to get you through the day. This includes activities such as writing a blog online, walking, running, doing the dishes etc. You should watch out and monitor your refined carbs such as sugar, white flour/white bread, candy, etc.
Protein of course is essential for muscle growth and maintenance. Your body requires protein to help maintain the muscle you have as well as gain more (if that is something you desire). Protein fills you up and should be consumed at every meal.
I don't know if I answered your question completely but I hope the information that I have provided gives you an insight to the scientific aspect of why calorie deficits stop working and the reason is: metabolism.
Feel free to reach me personally if you have any questions. I love sharing this type of information with others.0 -
You understand correctly. Eating more does NOT equal more weight loss.
Starvation mode is a myth.0 -
OK, so here is what I'm taking away from all this, at least so far...
Deficit = mass loss. At some point too great of a deficit over too long a period of time (even if we can't quantify either of those at this point) will likely result in hormone issues and additional water retention, which could "mask" the mass loss, resulting in no scale weight loss.
I got the impression that hormone issues would actually slow metabolism so much that mass loss would not continue. In other words, no more deficit because calorie burn (slowed due to hormone issues) would eventually match calorie intake.
Yes, I get that feeling too... but it doesn't seem to be significant enough to have any meaningful impact on VLCD = weight loss in relatively short time spans.
My sense is that VLCD do 2 things...
1) they cause weight loss due to the caloric deficit. Lower overall body weight generally means lower TDEE (assuming everything else remains constant).
2) in time they do cause hormonal/metabolic changes which also reduce TDEE.
So yes, at some point, given a long enough time span, TDEE will equal (or at least be close enough for this conversation) the intake of a VLCD, at which point the losses will stop.0 -
If this was true then I would have lost 2 pounds a week at 1700 calories a day and maintain my muscles. As it is I lose 1 pound a week at 1400 to 1600 calories a day. I was losing 0.5 pounds a week at 1600 to 1900 calories. Which according to all of the calculations I should be losing 2 pounds a week at 1700 calories. This is not the case for me. I have the same problem as my Aunt. My Aunt successfully lost to 130 pounds working out 1 hour a day and eating 900 calories a day. She maintains 180 pounds eating 1400 calories a day working out an hour a day. Everyone is different. I am focusing on eating 1300 to 1450 where Weight Watchers has me set at 220 pounds and I am losing roughly 1.5 pounds a week. Do what is right for you, if you successfully lose weight at 1900 calories, why change it??? Why starve to lose weight.0
-
OK, so here is what I'm taking away from all this, at least so far...
Deficit = mass loss. At some point too great of a deficit over too long a period of time (even if we can't quantify either of those at this point) will likely result in hormone issues and additional water retention, which could "mask" the mass loss, resulting in no scale weight loss.
I got the impression that hormone issues would actually slow metabolism so much that mass loss would not continue. In other words, no more deficit because calorie burn (slowed due to hormone issues) would eventually match calorie intake.
Yes, I get that feeling too... but it doesn't seem to be significant enough to have any meaningful impact on VLCD = weight loss in relatively short time spans.
My sense is that VLCD do 2 things...
1) they cause weight loss due to the caloric deficit. Lower overall body weight generally means lower TDEE (assuming everything else remains constant).
2) in time they do cause hormonal/metabolic changes which also reduce TDEE.
So yes, at some point, given a long enough time span, TDEE will equal (or at least be close enough for this conversation) the intake of a VLCD, at which point the losses will stop.
Yes, I think that is correct.0 -
If this was true then I would have lost 2 pounds a week at 1700 calories a day and maintain my muscles. As it is I lose 1 pound a week at 1400 to 1600 calories a day. I was losing 0.5 pounds a week at 1600 to 1900 calories. Which according to all of the calculations I should be losing 2 pounds a week at 1700 calories. This is not the case for me. I have the same problem as my Aunt. My Aunt successfully lost to 130 pounds working out 1 hour a day and eating 900 calories a day. She maintains 180 pounds eating 1400 calories a day working out an hour a day. Everyone is different. I am focusing on eating 1300 to 1450 where Weight Watchers has me set at 220 pounds and I am losing roughly 1.5 pounds a week. Do what is right for you, if you successfully lose weight at 1900 calories, why change it??? Why starve to lose weight.
At the risk of derailing a thread that is already threatening to become a multi-headed beast...
Is everyone different, or does everyone suck at estimating cals eaten, cals burned, tdee, bmr, etc etc.?0 -
Eating more = how I got fat in the first place!
I'm thrilled for all the young people who exercise enough that they can eat tons of calories now and still lose weight. That is not me nor do I care. I have yet to see any mythical starvation mode at my 1200 calorie diet which I've been on for over a year, if I stall out I will increase my activity or eat less, not more. (my 2 cents)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions