The Eat More To Lose Weight Theory
zachherda
Posts: 47
WORKS! I am pretty good with nutrition and know what my body usually needs but even I found it really hard to start eating more to lose weight. It is not that it is hard to eat more lol that is why I am overweight, but the thought of it was hard to break. I started Insanity about a month ago at 242 lbs and dropped the first 12 fairly easy. I then could not shake the 230 plateu. This week I finally upped my calories because I knew I needed to and month 2 is coming and it is suppose to be hell. Dropped from 230 to 225. Yesterday I ate the worst I have since the start of the program and still lost a lb. long story short, get over that fear and feed your body!
0
Replies
-
Good for you, Zach!!! I totally agree with you and it's true.
If you are workin' out like crazy but not fueling your body with enough, then it freaks out and holds onto the weight!!! I tried 1200 when starting out and hated it (and almost always went over!) Didn't lose any weight until a month and a half later, when I bumped up to 1400! Then I lost my first two pounds.
Flash forward four months. The end of this week marks my 4 months with MFP and progress has been slow but steady. I'm ALMOST to my 20 pound mark! I'd like to get there before the end of the week!0 -
I agree, I loving eating more to lose weight!0
-
I just started the Eat More 2 weigh less thing. It just makes so much sense to me. eating 1200 or even 1400 calories is just not sustainable when you are working out and living life.0
-
I want to believe this but even when I up my calories, I end up feeling bloated. I'm having a hard time figuring out macro-nutrients since slowly moving away from a "low-carb" diet. I still try to watch my carbs and not eat more than 150-170, but I know I need to make sure to eat them since starting Insanity 3 weeks ago. I gained after my first weigh-in and have not weighed since. I see more definition in my mid-section, but I still can't seem to find the right amt of calories and macronutrient ratios that seem to work for me. Perhaps I've done low-carb so long that my body just wants to bloat whenever I even look at a carb...
I'm glad upping your cals worked for you! Plateaus are frustrating. Keep up the good work!0 -
Unfortunately, whenever you restrict carbs severely, it takes time for your body to adjust to consuming it again. So you'll need to up it slowly and understand that your body will replenish glycogen stores, which means some gain, and the bloating will subside as you adjust.
That's truly why we say, whatever you do for weightloss, you have to think about whether you'll want to do that forever. I personally believe unless for medical reasons...eat whole foods and enjoy your treats...all within moderation and your macros.
So we promote...eat at a small deficit which should reduce the closer you get to goal, so you are almost at maintenance calories at the end.
Start with the Scooby calculator to determine your TDEE and BMR...matter of fact please take a moment and stop by our site www.eatmore2weighless.com and you will find links to Scooby and to the forum that talks about upping after low carbing..."What to expect when upping cals".
Hope this helps!0 -
HAH! LOVE IT!0
-
Doesn't work so hot for people who are simply underestimating their intake.0
-
Glad it's working for you! In my lulls at work today I have been reading about that. It's REALLY hard for me to think that it's ok for me to eat more when that has what has caused my predicament in the first place. Not to give myself too much credit - but I'm a pretty smart person - and I am still somewhat confused after reading the "in place of a roadmap" thread.0
-
I'm so glad you posted this, because I find that whenever I hit a plateau, I up my calorie intake (all the while still keeping track without going too crazy), but I would eat more calories by 300-500 calories extra, and within the following week or two I'd lose weight.
I have to keep reminding myself that you have to eat more to lose, because it's so ingrained in my head that the smaller I eat the more I'll lose. And there are times where I'd go a whole month without dropping a single lb because I didn't eat enough.
One of the comments replying to your post said that eating more doesn't work for everyone because people underestimate, but that's the thing.. .just because you're eating more doesn't mean you don't still keep track and make good choices! Eat more but still keep track along with exercise and lots of water and you're sure to lose!0 -
Everyone raves about this theory, but I cannot get it to work. I understand that if you eat too little your metabolism stalls, but I've never had the weight loss occur from eating more. When I eat too little I don't lose any weight, but I stay the same (15 -20 pounds overweight). So I try eating more (adding a hard boiled egg, a few more slices of turkey) and the scale immediately goes up 4-5 pounds. Obviously I haven't hit on the magic balance.0
-
<
53 pounds lost in a little over a year. Hell yeah it works.0 -
I just went to the site and plugged in my height, weight, etc. into the calculator, and it said my TDEE is 2193 just to maintain. Yet MFP with the same information tells me to net 1500 calories. That's quite a difference!!! No wonder I'm confused.0
-
Everyone raves about this theory, but I cannot get it to work. I understand that if you eat too little your metabolism stalls, but I've never had the weight loss occur from eating more. When I eat too little I don't lose any weight, but I stay the same (15 -20 pounds overweight). So I try eating more (adding a hard boiled egg, a few more slices of turkey) and the scale immediately goes up 4-5 pounds. Obviously I haven't hit on the magic balance.
This is why:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/993576-why-you-gain-weight-if-you-eat-more-than-your-cut
The answer is do it for longer. Keep going eating "more" until the gain stops (after 5-7 pounds at the most) and it will start going the other way. This is, of course, if your plateau was from eating too little.0 -
I just went to the site and plugged in my height, weight, etc. into the calculator, and it said my TDEE is 2193 just to maintain. Yet MFP with the same information tells me to net 1500 calories. That's quite a difference!!! No wonder I'm confused.
TDEE includes exercise. MFP doesn't; MFP only includes regular daily activity. And MFP's 1500 is to lose, right? Surely it's not giving you that to maintain unless you're tiny.0 -
Yeah, I've got the same issue. MFP says I should be eating 1200 calories, which immediately seemed very low., so I've allowed myself to go over by up to about 150 calories.
Then I ran a calculation through Scooby's and it said nearer to 1600, and on another kind of calculation 1700, which is a big difference. It's very confusing as to what is 'right'!0 -
It's working for me too!0
-
I've heard about the theory but haven't actually looked into it? Can someone tell me what it is? Sounds good to me…
0 -
I'm a noob at this, but from what I've read, it's also important to consider the difference between losing "weight" (i.e., muscle + fat) and losing fat. Muscle weighs a lot more than fat, and if you're eating at a really high deficit, you WILL be losing muscle along with fat, hence a higher loss on the scale. But is that really a desirable loss? When you up your cals and feed your body, you lose much less muscle and much more fat, hence a smaller loss on the scale and a higher loss in inches. Much better, IMO.0
-
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/974889-in-place-of-a-road-map-short-n-sweet
Eat between BMR and TDEE to lose weight. Closer to TDEE than to BMR. Read ^^.0 -
Unfornately, when you eat low calories for an extended period of time, your metabolism resets itself to the lower intake level. The moment you eat above that, your body takes in those calories and stores it as fat, for energy to be used later when you go back to starving it again. God made us to survive and eating below BMR or at significant deficits for an extended period forces it to go into survival mode.
In this case we suggest doing a metabolism reset...yes it is a mental challenge because you have to eat above what you are used to and you MAY gain some weight..>BUT after a while your body will start to trust you and start burning calories as it should because it is no longer in conservation mode because you are fueling it properly, and the weight gain stops at some point....Then, you can take a small cut and start to see loss again. Never again needing to slash calories in half but taking off 5-15% tops for a 4-8 wk period and then go back to TDEE for a week or two so your body doesn't adapt to the reduced calories. You continue that cycle and reduce that cut the closer you get to goal...shoot never again do you have to eat like a bird...0 -
Everyone raves about this theory, but I cannot get it to work. I understand that if you eat too little your metabolism stalls, but I've never had the weight loss occur from eating more. When I eat too little I don't lose any weight, but I stay the same (15 -20 pounds overweight). So I try eating more (adding a hard boiled egg, a few more slices of turkey) and the scale immediately goes up 4-5 pounds. Obviously I haven't hit on the magic balance.
This is why:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/993576-why-you-gain-weight-if-you-eat-more-than-your-cut
The answer is do it for longer. Keep going eating "more" until the gain stops (after 5-7 pounds at the most) and it will start going the other way. This is, of course, if your plateau was from eating too little.
Sorry that I'm still confused. So when I'm back to 170 and none of my clothes fit, THEN it should start working? That doesn't make sense to me. I read the link, and it's all about people who are at their goal weight already. (And I get the whole "weight range" thing, don't get me wrong. I'm not looking for a magic number. I'm looking to be able to zip my damn jeans.) I just keep going up and down the same 10 pounds for the last 3 years.0 -
I'm a noob at this, but from what I've read, it's also important to consider the difference between losing "weight" (i.e., muscle + fat) and losing fat. Muscle weighs a lot more than fat, and if you're eating at a really high deficit, you WILL be losing muscle along with fat, hence a higher loss on the scale. But is that really a desirable loss? When you up your cals and feed your body, you lose much less muscle and much more fat, hence a smaller loss on the scale and a higher loss in inches. Much better, IMO.
Ok, muscle doesn't weigh more than fat....one pound of muscle weighs the same as one pound of fat...the difference is the volume or space that each takes up at the same weight. Muscle is dense and takes up much less space than fat. That's why when you strength train while trying to lose you can actually gain some muscle, lose fat, look so much smaller, BUT not necessarily lose a bunch of weight on that silly little scale.0 -
I'm a noob at this, but from what I've read, it's also important to consider the difference between losing "weight" (i.e., muscle + fat) and losing fat. Muscle weighs a lot more than fat, and if you're eating at a really high deficit, you WILL be losing muscle along with fat, hence a higher loss on the scale. But is that really a desirable loss? When you up your cals and feed your body, you lose much less muscle and much more fat, hence a smaller loss on the scale and a higher loss in inches. Much better, IMO.
Ok, muscle doesn't weigh more than fat....one pound of muscle weighs the same as one pound of fat...the difference is the volume or space that each takes up at the same weight. Muscle is dense and takes up much less space than fat. That's why when you strength train while trying to lose you can actually gain some muscle, lose fat, look so much smaller, BUT not necessarily lose a bunch of weight on that silly little scale.
Right, that's totally what I meant to say but I flubbed it. I had it all right in my head. Haha. Thanks for clearing that up.
ETA: Density is the thing that matters here. So, when we lose weight we want to be losing fat and not muscle along with it. Right? I saw this the other day and it crystallized it for me:
0 -
I just went to the site and plugged in my height, weight, etc. into the calculator, and it said my TDEE is 2193 just to maintain. Yet MFP with the same information tells me to net 1500 calories. That's quite a difference!!! No wonder I'm confused.
TDEE includes exercise. MFP doesn't; MFP only includes regular daily activity. And MFP's 1500 is to lose, right? Surely it's not giving you that to maintain unless you're tiny.
Yes, I'm trying to get back to 145 from the 162-165 where I've been stuck ever since hitting perimenopause and getting put on pills for the migraines and related issues. So yes, I'm trying to lose weight. MFP asks for your activity level. I have a desk job but I do 30 minutes of weight training or cardio on alternate days every night, plus walk for 15-30 minutes on top of that every day. So I'm not sure what to plug in on MFP as my activity level to give me a decent calorie number to shoot for. (And I'm 45, female, 5 foot six inches tall, average build, if that matters.) I weighed 140 for 20 years before hitting this ridiculous stage of my life. And the hand held body fat indicator has me at 31%.
ETA I'm sorry to sound so incredibly stupid - I really do want to find the right balance so that I can possibly fit into my size 8s again rather than surrendering to hormonal imbalance and having to buy an entire new wardrobe.
0 -
Everyone raves about this theory, but I cannot get it to work. I understand that if you eat too little your metabolism stalls, but I've never had the weight loss occur from eating more. When I eat too little I don't lose any weight, but I stay the same (15 -20 pounds overweight). So I try eating more (adding a hard boiled egg, a few more slices of turkey) and the scale immediately goes up 4-5 pounds. Obviously I haven't hit on the magic balance.
This is why:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/993576-why-you-gain-weight-if-you-eat-more-than-your-cut
The answer is do it for longer. Keep going eating "more" until the gain stops (after 5-7 pounds at the most) and it will start going the other way. This is, of course, if your plateau was from eating too little.
Sorry that I'm still confused. So when I'm back to 170 and none of my clothes fit, THEN it should start working? That doesn't make sense to me. I read the link, and it's all about people who are at their goal weight already. (And I get the whole "weight range" thing, don't get me wrong. I'm not looking for a magic number. I'm looking to be able to zip my damn jeans.) I just keep going up and down the same 10 pounds for the last 3 years.
It's not for people who are at their goal weight. It's for people at every weight who cut calories. As soon as you cut calories your weight drops dramatically in the first few days. This is because of glycogen depletion. You will remain depleted as long as you maintain your calorie cut. As soon as you increase calories, those stores begin to replenish (you gain). When you cut again, they deplete. None of this is fat loss. This is usually the first 5 lbs lost.0 -
Sorry that I'm still confused. So when I'm back to 170 and none of my clothes fit, THEN it should start working? That doesn't make sense to me. I read the link, and it's all about people who are at their goal weight already. (And I get the whole "weight range" thing, don't get me wrong. I'm not looking for a magic number. I'm looking to be able to zip my damn jeans.) I just keep going up and down the same 10 pounds for the last 3 years.
[/quote]
It's not for people who are at their goal weight. It's for people at every weight who cut calories. As soon as you cut calories your weight drops dramatically in the first few days. This is because of glycogen depletion. You will remain depleted as long as you maintain your calorie cut. As soon as you increase calories, those stores begin to replenish (you gain). When you cut again, they deplete. None of this is fat loss. This is usually the first 5 lbs lost.
[/quote]
This sounds like you would just yo-yo back and forth then indefinitely. What am I not getting??? Maybe I'm the only one who hasn't had luck with this approach, but clearly I'm doing something wrong.0 -
Hopefully after a small water gain of a few lbs, you find a healthy calorie level that allows you to fuel your body and keep losing. You don't have to keep increasing calories, you just keep going at that level until you're at goal weight (or you have to reduce calories a bit if you have a lot to lose, which you don't seem to). If you put up your stats - height, weight, age, and exercise habits - someone (I) can help you figure out a good cut value for you.0
-
Hopefully after a small water gain of a few lbs, you find a healthy calorie level that allows you to fuel your body and keep losing. You don't have to keep increasing calories, you just keep going at that level until you're at goal weight (or you have to reduce calories a bit if you have a lot to lose, which you don't seem to). If you put up your stats - height, weight, age, and exercise habits - someone (I) can help you figure out a good cut value for you.
Female, 45, 5'6" Currently 165 pounds. (Was happy at 140 for decades until perimenopause.)
MWF I do 30 minutes on our elliptical-ish exercise bike, which says I burn about 220 calories per session.
T-T-S I do 30 minutes (roughly, sometimes more) of weight lifting, using free weights. 15 to 140 pounds depending on the exercise, naturally. I've been doing a warm-up set and then 4 sets of 8 reps, or as many as I can. When I can do 4 sets of 8 with proper form, I bump the weight up a little. I alternate which body parts I exercise so I don't do the same ones twice in a row.
I walk 10-20 minutes M-F at a fast clip before I eat lunch. Weather permitting, I also walk outside 3-4 x a week for 2 miles in 30 minutes, plus the usual house and yard work. I consider myself moderately active, though certainly not an "athlete" by any means.
I have been told by my OB/gyn, a regular doctor, and a fitness trainer that this SHOULD be making me lose weight, but it's not. My thyroid test came back normal. I am on Yaz for perimenopause symptoms and have been for about 5 1/2 years now.
Probably more than you needed to know, but there you are.
0 -
Ok, muscle doesn't weigh more than fat....one pound of muscle weighs the same as one pound of fat...the difference is the volume or space that each takes up at the same weight. Muscle is dense and takes up much less space than fat. That's why when you strength train while trying to lose you can actually gain some muscle, lose fat, look so much smaller, BUT not necessarily lose a bunch of weight on that silly little scale.
I wish people would stop nitpicking this.
Actually, you are wrong.
If you take 1 LITER of fat and 1 LITER of muscle, the liter of muscle would weigh more, so therefore, muscle weighs more than fat.
It's just a matter of what variable you are comparing, two samples of the same volume or two samples of the same mass. But we ALL know what someone means when they say that 'muscle weighs more than fat' they are thinking in terms of two samples of the same volume, and people that harp on "a pound of muscles weighs the same as a pound of fat" are just being a nitpicky jerk. Sorry, I just get so annoyed with that.0 -
Ok, muscle doesn't weigh more than fat....one pound of muscle weighs the same as one pound of fat...the difference is the volume or space that each takes up at the same weight. Muscle is dense and takes up much less space than fat. That's why when you strength train while trying to lose you can actually gain some muscle, lose fat, look so much smaller, BUT not necessarily lose a bunch of weight on that silly little scale.
I wish people would stop nitpicking this.
Actually, you are wrong.
If you take 1 LITER of fat and 1 LITER of muscle, the liter of muscle would weigh more, so therefore, muscle weighs more than fat.
It's just a matter of what variable you are comparing, two samples of the same volume or two samples of the same mass. But we ALL know what someone means when they say that 'muscle weighs more than fat' they are thinking in terms of two samples of the same volume, and people that harp on "a pound of muscles weighs the same as a pound of fat" are just being a nitpicky jerk. Sorry, I just get so annoyed with that. 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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