should I eat more?
nikilis
Posts: 2,305 Member
why is eat more the default answer now on MFP for people who are doing "everything" right but gaining?
how does that make sense? either they are eating too much, or they have a health problem.
how the frick can people gain weight on a caloric deficit if they are otherwise healthy?
convince me. go on.
note: points for the answer for the least and most amount of bro science.
most epic bro science will receive a dunce cap and a bro science PHD.
how does that make sense? either they are eating too much, or they have a health problem.
how the frick can people gain weight on a caloric deficit if they are otherwise healthy?
convince me. go on.
note: points for the answer for the least and most amount of bro science.
most epic bro science will receive a dunce cap and a bro science PHD.
0
Replies
-
3....2....10
-
3....2....1
Still waiting.... Might wanna check the fuse0 -
1.why is eat more the default answer now on MFP for people who are doing "everything" right but gaining?
2. how does that make sense? either they are eating too much, or they have a health problem.
3. how the frick can people gain weight on a caloric deficit if they are otherwise healthy?
convince me. go on.
note: points for the answer for the least and most amount of bro science.
most epic bro science will receive a dunce cap and a bro science PHD.
1. Because the "I want it now mentality" says that cutting calories is good so cutting more is better. (I haven't seen anyone doing "everything right and gaining" except with a few guys looking to bulk up.
2. improper logging, whether conscious or not depends on the person... underestimating food and overestimating exercise or "forgetting" to log all the snacking.
3. you can't long term... but in the short term, jack up the sodium for a day and watch the scale. I can flux 5-6 lbs in a day if my sodium intake is high. Most people freak if they gain anything so a knee jerk post caused by a little water is common to see.
Just my $0.02
We typically fail in execution, not the understanding of what needs to be done. It really isn't rocket science!0 -
eating more causes me to stay the same weight or possibly gain. if I want to lose the pounds I have to eat less. I'm going to continue to do what works for my body.0
-
It's the default answer because people love to give blanket statement advice without first taking the time to gather context and then apply it.0
-
It's the default answer because people love to give blanket statement advice without first taking the time to gather context and then apply it.
Stone cold truth.
5 points to side steel.0 -
I like monkeys...who doesn't?0 -
Metabolic damage is relative.
/endthread0 -
Agreed! This is how I feel about blanket statements...It's the default answer because people love to give blanket statement advice without first taking the time to gather context and then apply it.
0 -
bump0
-
More and less are relative terms. In this case, eating more typically means more than the standard crash diet, but less than you need to maintain your current weight. The idea is that it's best to have a moderate deficit. I've never seen anyone claim that eating more than your TDEE will result in weight loss.0
-
why is eat more the default answer now on MFP for people who are doing "everything" right but gaining?
how does that make sense? either they are eating too much, or they have a health problem.
how the frick can people gain weight on a caloric deficit if they are otherwise healthy?
convince me. go on.
note: points for the answer for the least and most amount of bro science.
most epic bro science will receive a dunce cap and a bro science PHD.
Some people are in denial, "eat more" under the proviso that it will shift their weight is usually a good excuse to start piling up their plates - again.0 -
for the hundreds of you who first post "you need to eat more" constantly, on everything, where are you to explain your bro science?
............?0 -
I posted this yesterday which sheds light on the phenomenon:It does if you consider that the cals out side of the energy balance equation is affected by the cals in side.
To maintain your weight your food intake should equal your calories out (TDEE.) So, if I utilise 3000 calories worth of energy per day then I should eat 3000 calories. Therefore, if I eat 1,500 calories per day for 7 days I should lose weight at a quick rate (or on a strictly mathematical basis 1.5lbs per week.)
This would work if i wasn't for the fact that TDEE is rarely static and interdependent on calories in. Your body craves homeostasis and will therefore reduce the elements which make up cals out (BMR/TEF/TEA/NEAT) in a myriad of ways meaning the deficit you believe you are creating is actually much less than you realise. The sharper and more sudden the drop in cals in greater the knock on effect on cals out. From my understanding it isn't the slowing of RMR that is the real issue rather than a fall in daily activity and greater efficiency of movement which is the problem.
It's not so much about eating "more" as it is about finding a sweet spot: cals low enough that noticeable fat loss occurs bit not so low it creates an inefficient fat loss environment.
Unfortunately the eat more to lose more mantra is very poorly explained or misapplied, usually by the very people who purport to understand it leading to some eyebrowing raising conclusions (such as you can see a net gain in fat on a deficit - you can't - but weight can increase mainly due to water retention which is especially problematic in low calorie dieting.)
Really the people who need to worry about it the most are the relatively lean. As a general piece of advice it can work (as it also leads to less feelings of deprivation which helps eliminate "unconscious eating" and better adherence) but again it depends on that pesky thing called context as Sidesteel mentioned earlier.0 -
I posted this yesterday which sheds light on the phenomenon:It does if you consider that the cals out side of the energy balance equation is affected by the cals in side.
To maintain your weight your food intake should equal your calories out (TDEE.) So, if I utilise 3000 calories worth of energy per day then I should eat 3000 calories. Therefore, if I eat 1,500 calories per day for 7 days I should lose weight at a quick rate (or on a strictly mathematical basis 1.5lbs per week.)
This would work if i wasn't for the fact that TDEE is rarely static and interdependent on calories in. Your body craves homeostasis and will therefore reduce the elements which make up cals out (BMR/TEF/TEA/NEAT) in a myriad of ways meaning the deficit you believe you are creating is actually much less than you realise. The sharper and more sudden the drop in cals in greater the knock on effect on cals out. From my understanding it isn't the slowing of RMR that is the real issue rather than a fall in daily activity and greater efficiency of movement which is the problem.
It's not so much about eating "more" as it is about finding a sweet spot: cals low enough that noticeable fat loss occurs bit not so low it creates an inefficient fat loss environment.
Unfortunately the eat more to lose more mantra is very poorly explained or misapplied, usually by the very people who purport to understand it leading to some eyebrowing raising conclusions (such as you can see a net gain in fat on a deficit - you can't - but weight can increase mainly due to water retention which is especially problematic in low calorie dieting.)
Really the people who need to worry about it the most are the relatively lean. As a general piece of advice it can work (as it also leads to less feelings of deprivation which helps eliminate "unconscious eating" and better adherence) but again it depends on that pesky thing called context as Sidesteel mentioned earlier.
this sounds like it does have some science in there.
10 points
essentially it seems to state "find the deficit that works for you"
but if someone was gaining, say 5-10 pounds, their clothes weren't fitting as well as they did and this was consistant, it would not be possible to be eating at a deficit without a health problem, or can you have consistant water retention of up to 5-10 pounds for 2-4 weeks?
anyone?0 -
for the hundreds of you who first post "you need to eat more" constantly, on everything, where are you to explain your bro science?
............?
No, you got me wrong, I am saying that those that tell people to "eat more" are usually in denial in that to lose weight they should actually reduce the food they take in. They don't want to do that however, so they come up with the marvellous plan, "eat more (It will make me feel better)" etc etc
I am against the eat more to lose more thinking, it was eating more that made me put on weight in the first place!0 -
Best thread ever.....
I cannot begin to explain how much the whole "eat more" theory gets under my skin!!
I was reading a thread yesterday (just to amuse myself). And there were people on it saying "oh I've gained six pounds this week, but I'm going to persevere" and everyone else was like "right on, keep going!!"
And others were mentioning how hard it was for them to eat so much.
Why on earth would you eat more than you were comfortable with? The only outcome I can see with doing that is gaining weight, and then stretching your stomach so as you continue to eat more, you will get used to it, and then need more to feel full, and then end up right where you started.
Oh wait, but you are eating your TDEE -20% and gaining?? Well you should go to the doctor because you must have a medical problem....UGH really??
I could go on...and on..and on....0 -
Because I read it on the internet! Everyone knows they can't put it on the internet if it's not true.
P.S. Bonjour! (I'm a French model)0 -
I don't really get the outrage tbh. So if you're "eating more" and it takes you over your TDEE, you'll gain. Does anyone really argue with that?!
When people say "eat more" to me, it still means stay under your TDEE, but just not as low as you've maybe been doing i.e. 1200/1400 cals.
All I really know from my experience is that I plateaued after eating 1200 cals for 8 weeks, and when I went up to 1600 cals, I started losing again. So to me "eat more" does sometimes apply. But not as a blanket statement.0 -
I don't really get the outrage tbh. So if you're "eating more" and it takes you over your TDEE, you'll gain. Does anyone really argue with that?!
When people say "eat more" to me, it still means stay under your TDEE, but just not as low as you've maybe been doing i.e. 1200/1400 cals.
All I really know from my experience is that I plateaued after eating 1200 cals for 8 weeks, and when I went up to 1600 cals, I started losing again. So to me "eat more" does sometimes apply. But not as a blanket statement.
Thank you.
I had a similar experience, netting 1200. It can work for some people - a slow metabolism in the long term can work for some people. I have had thyroid issues so it was VERY comfortable for my body. I saw some loss for sure *edit - this plateaued*, but energy levels etc weren't as great. I slowly increased to 1600 net and love it there. I usually have eaten over (been trying to gain muscle) and now I'm dropping back to a strict 1500net to lose fat again.
It is nothing to do with eating more than your TDEE - I have never seen anyone recommend that. When you hear someone is consistently eating below BMR for a long time, then they plateau, what do you think it means? I have not heard of many healthy 1200BMRs for people who are trying to lose weight (yes there are some very slim people who have a 1200 BMR but that is what they want in the end due to health arguments, google it). The BMR isn't static, and their body has simply adjusted to be more efficient, sluggish etc so that it doesn't eat itself away to nothing with such a small food intake!
And at that, I'm off to the gym
0 -
but if someone was gaining, say 5-10 pounds, their clothes weren't fitting as well as they did and this was consistant, it would not be possible to be eating at a deficit without a health problem, or can you have consistant water retention of up to 5-10 pounds for 2-4 weeks?
anyone?
Again this depends on context but yes, it is entirely possible for a loss of fat to be masked by water retention of 5 - 10 pounds (but this will depend on the leaness of the individual - obese people retain massive amounts of water. in comparison )
This is why dieting can be such a frustrating process or why a person may plateau hard and then see a "whoosh" of many pounds. We know that 3,500 calories (or 3,600 calories to be more exact) equates to a 1 lb of fat not weight. So while the scale may not be going down you may well be losing fat as you are in deficit but not seeing it. Your measurements could be going up temporarily as well. This is because water is literally everywhere in our bodies - especially around many people's abdomens and under their skin (subcutaneous water). Many people say a loss of water isn't a victory but a disagree. A permanent loss of unnecessary water will make you look better and lighter.
People need to look at many factors before deciding whether their programme is working or not. Clearly if someone is consistently gaining their first port of call must be too ask "am I actually in deficit" and check their methods - are they logging food intake consistently and accurately, are they under reporting their intake or over estimating their calorie burn? If they are confident that they are in deficit then sometime they have to grit their teeth and just trust in the process. Sucks but patience really can move mountains.
Short answer: if upping your calories gets you results after being applied consistently then keep it. If not try something else...0 -
double post, sorry0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions