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.
^^ they also have next to no muscle. I would bet that in fact they have very poor body composition (high bf%), they just generally have low body mass, so they won't have a lot of fat, or anything else on their bodies. Starving people=Poor example.0 -
Don't question it unless you just like seeing flame wars. ;-)Seems like every thread I see asking about why someone isn't seeing results, the answer is always to eat more. The second someone says they are netting, or *GASP* grossing 1200 cals, the knee-jerk reaction is to tell them to eat more.0 -
I'm really glad someone asked this (in a nice, not-accusatory way to boot!) because its been bugging me so much!
Here's my additional question- what if a 1200 diets WITH eating back exercise calories (so consuming closer to 1500 calories of food) was entirely filling for me? My numbers would suggest that my BMR is about 1500 so eating only that would be considered "too low" by many MFPers but I am honestly totally full at that amount. Is this because of this hormonal metabolic slow down? Presently my weight loss is really stalled so I'm upping to 1700 (eaten, will not factor my workouts into it will just make sure I eat 1700) just to give it a try, but I feel like I'm forcing myself to eat more.
Also, whenever I ask for advice about this, people tell me in one breath I MUST eat more and in the next that I should log my weekends/alcohol/portions/whatever more carefully because I'm obviously going over. IF BOTH THESE THINGS WERE TRUE, THEN SHOULDN'T I BE EATING ENOUGH?!? I mean, if two days a week are over, and 5 days you think I'm under....in terms of a weekly deficit wouldn't I get to the same place? Totally confused. Honestly the same people will give me both pieces of advice and they just seem to conflict to me!0 -
Really?The more weight you loose the faster your metabolism runs which burns more fat.
Perhaps... but you are still burning cals all day, so you are still in a deficit, so shouldn't you still be losing weight?If you do not eat enough calories the body will go into starvation mode and hold on to fat no weight loss.
Again, you are still burning cals, and as such still in a deficit. Perhaps you're burning more muscle than fat at really low cal levels, but you're still burning which should translate to weight loss, no?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..
Ever heard of metabolic damage? Eventually even extreme deficits caused by both diet and exercise will not work0 -
Yes...It always works that way for me....A bit more the better...bad results on 1200 cal and I feel awful...:-)0
-
Really?The more weight you loose the faster your metabolism runs which burns more fat.
Perhaps... but you are still burning cals all day, so you are still in a deficit, so shouldn't you still be losing weight?If you do not eat enough calories the body will go into starvation mode and hold on to fat no weight loss.
Again, you are still burning cals, and as such still in a deficit. Perhaps you're burning more muscle than fat at really low cal levels, but you're still burning which should translate to weight loss, no?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..
Ever heard of metabolic damage? Eventually even extreme deficits caused by both diet and exercise will not work
How can that be if the deficit remains?0 -
Do what is working for you. Not everyone needs more food. Though at some point you will want to slowly increase your calories over time. If you do this you can push your maintenance higher and higher (aka eat more without gaining), which is the result of creating a faster metabolism. You must have more food for a higher metabolism, but not necessarily weight loss.
RESPONSE FOR CASSIDYML sorry didn't quote your post0 -
Really?The more weight you loose the faster your metabolism runs which burns more fat.
Perhaps... but you are still burning cals all day, so you are still in a deficit, so shouldn't you still be losing weight?If you do not eat enough calories the body will go into starvation mode and hold on to fat no weight loss.
Again, you are still burning cals, and as such still in a deficit. Perhaps you're burning more muscle than fat at really low cal levels, but you're still burning which should translate to weight loss, no?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..
Ever heard of metabolic damage? Eventually even extreme deficits caused by both diet and exercise will not work
How can that be if the deficit remains?
Look up metabolic damage0 -
Really?The more weight you loose the faster your metabolism runs which burns more fat.
Perhaps... but you are still burning cals all day, so you are still in a deficit, so shouldn't you still be losing weight?If you do not eat enough calories the body will go into starvation mode and hold on to fat no weight loss.
Again, you are still burning cals, and as such still in a deficit. Perhaps you're burning more muscle than fat at really low cal levels, but you're still burning which should translate to weight loss, no?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..
Ever heard of metabolic damage? Eventually even extreme deficits caused by both diet and exercise will not work
How can that be if the deficit remains?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHHzie6XRGk&list=UUqMBA83S0TnfTlTeE5j1mgQ&index=8
^^ about metabolic damage, not just something competitors experience. Would also HIGHLY recommend all of his videos. SCIENCE behind nutrition and training, not fads, trends, broscience.
Not just a bodybuilder btw he has a PhD too0 -
bump0
-
bump0
-
Seems like every thread I see asking about why someone isn't seeing results, the answer is always to eat more. The second someone says they are netting, or *GASP* grossing 1200 cals, the knee-jerk reaction is to tell them to eat more.
I get the more general health issues (nutrition, body composition, etc)... I'm not asking about those.
But if someone is eating 1200 cals and not seeing weight come off, why should they be eating more? Help me understand what's going on in the body... the science part of all this. Assuming their estimates are reasonably close (cals eaten, cals burned, tdee, etc etc), how does eating more = more weight loss?
I think some people misunderstand what that means. And by misunderstand, I mean, don't take the time to understand it.
It's (in my opinion) not eating more OVERALL. It's eating more fruits, veggies, lean meats, healthy fats, etc than you did previously. When I was just charting my food to see how I ate, I learned that I usually only ate around 1600 calories but those 1600 calories weren't particularly healthy. That's what it means. Someone eating 1200 calories can still gain if their meals are still high in fat, sodium, and other things the body doesn't need in excess. That same person could eat way more food if they switched those out for the healthier foods I mentioned above. Even if they didn't eat more calories, they would still be eating more food to reach the 1200 than they did before.
Also, exercise plays a huge part in that. If you go hard in the paint during your workouts, you do need more food. But that doesn't mean you can eat whatever you want. It just means you'll need more LEAN protein and fiber to replenish your body so it can function properly.
I think 1200 IS okay for some people....mainly shorter people. We need less than someone who is taller. For instance, when I calculated my BMR from a formula on my favorite fitness blog, I think mine was around 1500 (assuming no exercise). Using the same formula, the person who ran the site was around 2000. I'm 5'1", she's 6'0". So for some, going down to 1200 calories is perfectly fine. For others, it's a huge no-no. I started at 1200 but gradually increased my calories as I figured out what my body needed. Now I'm up to 1500. I've lost 35 pounds since last May BTW.
P.S. I think a lot of people throw around "starvation mode" and "metabolic damage". Yes those are real things but I rarely see people explaining the "eat more, weigh less" in plain english. Hopefully I did!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?
I did read it. Both volumes. Some subjects ate more than 1200 calories, but some had less -- including the two largest and most athletic subjects. The scientists devised a weight loss curve, an inverted parabola, meant to reach a 25 percent weight loss after 26 weeks. If the subjects had not reached their target weight loss by the end of each week, their calories were reduced for the following week. Every individual had their own amount of calories to consume, it was not the same for everyone, and it could change each week. Everyone, except for a couple of cheaters, matched the curve for quite a while, but eventually edema skewed the results.
Their was one large meal midway through the study, for morale purposes. All the men were up all night urinating, as the excess calories triggered a whoosh, as some now like to call it. And when the starvation phase ended and they entered rehabilitation, or additional calories, most continued to lose weight through water loss, depending on how many additional calories they received. Not all got the same number of additional calories, either.
There were no women in the study. Only one man was considered overweight before starvation begain, and none obese. Average body fat percentage at the start was 15 percent, at the end, five percent.0 -
I had a metabolic assessment done this week, because I was tired of all the guessing on formulas and calculations. It was determined my resting metabolic rate is only 907!!! I have a very slow metabolism as I suspected. I do work out, so I have to eat those exercise calories to be able to eat more each day!0
-
I just wanted to comment on this thread. As someone who has studied sports nutrition through my graduate years and who has trained for 12 years in mixed-martial-arts and other combat training, I would strongly agree with the idea that less food = less weight loss. Obviously there are extremes. If you don't eat ANYTHING such as a starving child in Africa, there won't be anything for the body to retain and over time all that will remain is skin and bones. If on the other hand, you eat everything in sight, you most likely will not maintain a healthy weight.
That said, if you calculated that your body needed 1700 calories per day to maintain or lose weight and your intake dropped to 1000. Your body would go into starvation mode and retain as much fat and nutrients as possible. This is not similar to the case of a starving child (as some people mentioned) because you are still eating 1000 calories, enough to support basic life and probably 1000 calories more than a starving child sees in a month.
It's been scientifically proven time and time again that eating small meals throughout the day helps burn more fat versus eating three big meals. The reasoning is simple. If you are ingesting food every 3 hours, your body has to digest at that same rate. Your metabolism stays high, and your body naturally burns more calories and more fat. If on the other hand, you ate three big meals 6-hours apart (breakfast, lunch, dinner), your metabolism would stay high initially after consuming a meal but would have slowed to a crawls pace by the time of your next meal. In other words, during the final hours leading up to your next meal, you would not be burning as many calories as you would be had you been eating on a more regular basis.
On a final note, it's important to consider that losing "weight" and losing "fat" are not the same thing and do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. For example, take someone undertaking intense weight training. This person, (under a healthy diet) would gain muscle, thus burning more calories/fat. However, the added muscle would put on actual weight, so while the person's body composition may change and the fat may fall off, the scale will actually tick up when they stand on it.
Just my two cents.0 -
Seems like every thread I see asking about why someone isn't seeing results, the answer is always to eat more. The second someone says they are netting, or *GASP* grossing 1200 cals, the knee-jerk reaction is to tell them to eat more.
I get the more general health issues (nutrition, body composition, etc)... I'm not asking about those.
But if someone is eating 1200 cals and not seeing weight come off, why should they be eating more? Help me understand what's going on in the body... the science part of all this. Assuming their estimates are reasonably close (cals eaten, cals burned, tdee, etc etc), how does eating more = more weight loss?
I think some people misunderstand what that means. And by misunderstand, I mean, don't take the time to understand it.
It's (in my opinion) not eating more OVERALL. It's eating more fruits, veggies, lean meats, healthy fats, etc than you did previously. When I was just charting my food to see how I ate, I learned that I usually only ate around 1600 calories but those 1600 calories weren't particularly healthy. That's what it means. Someone eating 1200 calories can still gain if their meals are still high in fat, sodium, and other things the body doesn't need in excess. That same person could eat way more food if they switched those out for the healthier foods I mentioned above. Even if they didn't eat more calories, they would still be eating more food to reach the 1200 than they did before.
Also, exercise plays a huge part in that. If you go hard in the paint during your workouts, you do need more food. But that doesn't mean you can eat whatever you want. It just means you'll need more LEAN protein and fiber to replenish your body so it can function properly.
I think 1200 IS okay for some people....mainly shorter people. We need less than someone who is taller. For instance, when I calculated my BMR from a formula on my favorite fitness blog, I think mine was around 1500 (assuming no exercise). Using the same formula, the person who ran the site was around 2000. I'm 5'1", she's 6'0". So for some, going down to 1200 calories is perfectly fine. For others, it's a huge no-no. I started at 1200 but gradually increased my calories as I figured out what my body needed. Now I'm up to 1500. I've lost 35 pounds since last May BTW.
P.S. I think a lot of people throw around "starvation mode" and "metabolic damage". Yes those are real things but I rarely see people explaining the "eat more, weigh less" in plain english. Hopefully I did!
1. your body does not recognize a carb from a sweet potato is different than that from a bag skittles. Yes one digests slower than the other, but one will NOT affect weight gain or loss differently. Same calories, different foods = same results. You need not calories from specific foods to lose weight.
What's important:
macronutrients: carbs, fat, protein
and FIBER, that's where "healthy" foods come into play
2. Height has next to NOTHING to do with calorie or macronutrient needs.0 -
They say that cause they don't know what they are talking about basically. Very few folks on here are already very lean individuals and as such should not be worrying about muscle loss from eating too few calories. Presuming you are lifting and consuming adequate protein, you can easily lose more than 2lbs/week and keep your muscle tissue. The bigger you are the faster you can drop the fat. Fact is your metabolism doesn't slow very much, maybe 20% at most, it isn't like your body just shuts down. The only time you need to start being paranoid about muscle loss is when you are already lean.
I like this answer0 -
2. Height has next to NOTHING to do with calorie or macronutrient needs.
Perhaps not directly, but I would like to see you find two people a foot apart who have the same weight and body composition!0 -
I just wanted to comment on this thread. As someone who has studied sports nutrition through my graduate years and who has trained for 12 years in mixed-martial-arts and other combat training, I would strongly agree with the idea that less food = less weight loss. Obviously there are extremes. If you don't eat ANYTHING such as a starving child in Africa, there won't be anything for the body to retain and over time all that will remain is skin and bones. If on the other hand, you eat everything in sight, you most likely will not maintain a healthy weight.
That said, if you calculated that your body needed 1700 calories per day to maintain or lose weight and your intake dropped to 1000. Your body would go into starvation mode and retain as much fat and nutrients as possible. This is not similar to the case of a starving child (as some people mentioned) because you are still eating 1000 calories, enough to support basic life and probably 1000 calories more than a starving child sees in a month.
It's been scientifically proven time and time again that eating small meals throughout the day helps burn more fat versus eating three big meals. The reasoning is simple. If you are ingesting food every 3 hours, your body has to digest at that same rate. Your metabolism stays high, and your body naturally burns more calories and more fat. If on the other hand, you ate three big meals 6-hours apart (breakfast, lunch, dinner), your metabolism would stay high initially after consuming a meal but would have slowed to a crawls pace by the time of your next meal. In other words, during the final hours leading up to your next meal, you would not be burning as many calories as you would be had you been eating on a more regular basis.
On a final note, it's important to consider that losing "weight" and losing "fat" are not the same thing and do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. For example, take someone undertaking intense weight training. This person, (under a healthy diet) would gain muscle, thus burning more calories/fat. However, the added muscle would put on actual weight, so while the person's body composition may change and the fat may fall off, the scale will actually tick up when they stand on it.
Just my two cents.
Agree with last paragraph, however I do not agree that meal timing is particular important (aside from post workout nutriton)
Because of my schedule I eat only 2 big meals a day, with 2-3 snacks. I do not get to eat every 2-3 hours and it has not negatively affected my metabolism what so ever.
--how do I know my metabolism has not been negatively affected?
Because I have been steadily increasing my calories over several months, without gaining much weight and staying lean.
Current macros for those who are curious as to what I am eating:
Training Days:
fat 90g
carbs 345g
protein 150g
Rest days (2 a week currently)
fat 90g
carbs 285g
protein 150g
feed your body, your metabolism will thank you0 -
2. Height has next to NOTHING to do with calorie or macronutrient needs.
Perhaps not directly, but I would like to see you find two people a foot apart who have the same weight and body composition!
What would be the point in that?
Height and Weight often have something to do with one another, but weight nor height determine your nutritional needs0
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
- 232.4K 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
- 982 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions