eat more to lose... a theory

Options
2

Replies

  • GettinSwoler
    GettinSwoler Posts: 27
    Options
    The difference is that Person A puts her/his body under stress by starving , thus increasing cortisol release, a hormone that prevents fat loss to a certain degree. Person A's body is now running on emergency thus more efficient at burning whatever it gets in its hands. That also means breaking down muscle. Person A becomes tired and depressed, mood swings are inevitable and the fact that you are constantly surrounded by food doesn't help

    Person B's metabolism has no reason to run amok, he/she gets enough nutrients (implying a healthy diet of course) and the storage (fat) will be used for any more expense. Like a mill using up it's stock continuosly without all the **** that comes with starving

    Please note that intermittent fasting is a whole other story

    Yea, I'm not sure I buy that. I'm not saying stress/cortisol doesn't have an impact, I just don't think it's big enough to outweigh a significant calorie deficit.

    Would love to hear other's thoughts though.

    .

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2895000/

    "Prior research has demonstrated that dieting, or the restriction of caloric intake, does not lead to long-term weight loss. This study tested the hypothesis that dieting is ineffective because it increases chronic psychological stress and cortisol production – two factors that are known to cause weight gain."

    At least it reders it useless

    ok, there's 1 study... but I'll have to dig into it when I have more time. At first glance I'm not impressed. Only women, only 3 weeks time, etc etc.

    yeah I don't care what you think

    keep ignoring facts as much as you please, the body is not a simple "cals in, cals out" machine, more like an elaborate wristwatch
    I have not the patience to baby you to basic science of nutricion and bichemistry, I am not your teacher

    And that study was one on many, I just took this one because it doesn't dug too deep into the subject, thus making it more comprehensible for general folk.

    not impressed my *kitten*....
  • GettinSwoler
    GettinSwoler Posts: 27
    Options
    The difference is that Person A puts her/his body under stress by starving , thus increasing cortisol release, a hormone that prevents fat loss to a certain degree. Person A's body is now running on emergency thus more efficient at burning whatever it gets in its hands. That also means breaking down muscle. Person A becomes tired and depressed, mood swings are inevitable and the fact that you are constantly surrounded by food doesn't help

    Person B's metabolism has no reason to run amok, he/she gets enough nutrients (implying a healthy diet of course) and the storage (fat) will be used for any more expense. Like a mill using up it's stock continuosly without all the **** that comes with starving

    Please note that intermittent fasting is a whole other story

    Yea, I'm not sure I buy that. I'm not saying stress/cortisol doesn't have an impact, I just don't think it's big enough to outweigh a significant calorie deficit.

    Would love to hear other's thoughts though.

    .

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2895000/

    "Prior research has demonstrated that dieting, or the restriction of caloric intake, does not lead to long-term weight loss. This study tested the hypothesis that dieting is ineffective because it increases chronic psychological stress and cortisol production – two factors that are known to cause weight gain."

    At least it reders it useless


    Okey dokey......by my understanding, the only way you can lose weight is to be at a caloric deficit i.e restricting caloric intake therefore on this hypothesis we would all have to stay overweight as restricting won't work....and not restricting....also won't work!!!


    read the damn publication
  • GettinSwoler
    GettinSwoler Posts: 27
    Options
    The difference is that Person A puts her/his body under stress by starving , thus increasing cortisol release, a hormone that prevents fat loss to a certain degree. Person A's body is now running on emergency thus more efficient at burning whatever it gets in its hands. That also means breaking down muscle. Person A becomes tired and depressed, mood swings are inevitable and the fact that you are constantly surrounded by food doesn't help

    Person B's metabolism has no reason to run amok, he/she gets enough nutrients (implying a healthy diet of course) and the storage (fat) will be used for any more expense. Like a mill using up it's stock continuosly without all the **** that comes with starving

    Please note that intermittent fasting is a whole other story

    Yea, I'm not sure I buy that. I'm not saying stress/cortisol doesn't have an impact, I just don't think it's big enough to outweigh a significant calorie deficit.

    Would love to hear other's thoughts though.

    .

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2895000/

    "Prior research has demonstrated that dieting, or the restriction of caloric intake, does not lead to long-term weight loss. This study tested the hypothesis that dieting is ineffective because it increases chronic psychological stress and cortisol production – two factors that are known to cause weight gain."

    At least it reders it useless

    ok, there's 1 study... but I'll have to dig into it when I have more time. At first glance I'm not impressed. Only women, only 3 weeks time, etc etc.

    yeah I don't care what you think

    keep ignoring facts as much as you please, the body is not a simple "cals in, cals out" machine, more like an elaborate wristwatch
    I have not the patience to baby you to basic science of nutricion and bichemistry, I am not your teacher

    And that study was one on many, I just took this one because it doesn't dug too deep into the subject, thus making it more comprehensible for general folk.

    not impressed my *kitten*....
    also excuse my spelling, I was skyping at the same time
  • Mokey41
    Mokey41 Posts: 5,769 Member
    Options
    I think the confusion comes in on what eating more to weigh less means. It doesn't mean you can eat a lot and lose weight. It's aimed at those eating VLCD's and not getting why they can't maintain it or they feel like crap. It doesn't mean eating over your TDEE and weight will fall off like some take it to mean.

    I eat between 1200 and 1500 calories a day, have for years and do just fine maintaining 115 lbs on that. I don't feel restricted, don't go on crazy binges or feel the need to eat more. My BMR is about 1100 so that is eating more for me.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    The difference is that Person A puts her/his body under stress by starving , thus increasing cortisol release, a hormone that prevents fat loss to a certain degree. Person A's body is now running on emergency thus more efficient at burning whatever it gets in its hands. That also means breaking down muscle. Person A becomes tired and depressed, mood swings are inevitable and the fact that you are constantly surrounded by food doesn't help

    Person B's metabolism has no reason to run amok, he/she gets enough nutrients (implying a healthy diet of course) and the storage (fat) will be used for any more expense. Like a mill using up it's stock continuosly without all the **** that comes with starving

    Please note that intermittent fasting is a whole other story

    Yea, I'm not sure I buy that. I'm not saying stress/cortisol doesn't have an impact, I just don't think it's big enough to outweigh a significant calorie deficit.

    Would love to hear other's thoughts though.

    .

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2895000/

    "Prior research has demonstrated that dieting, or the restriction of caloric intake, does not lead to long-term weight loss. This study tested the hypothesis that dieting is ineffective because it increases chronic psychological stress and cortisol production – two factors that are known to cause weight gain."

    At least it reders it useless

    ok, there's 1 study... but I'll have to dig into it when I have more time. At first glance I'm not impressed. Only women, only 3 weeks time, etc etc.

    yeah I don't care what you think

    keep ignoring facts as much as you please, the body is not a simple "cals in, cals out" machine, more like an elaborate wristwatch
    I have not the patience to baby you to basic science of nutricion and bichemistry, I am not your teacher

    And that study was one on many, I just took this one because it doesn't dug too deep into the subject, thus making it more comprehensible for general folk.

    not impressed my *kitten*....

    I never said it was. If that's what you took from my post, then that's on you.

    .
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    I think the confusion comes in on what eating more to weigh less means. It doesn't mean you can eat a lot and lose weight. It's aimed at those eating VLCD's and not getting why they can't maintain it or they feel like crap. It doesn't mean eating over your TDEE and weight will fall off like some take it to mean.

    I eat between 1200 and 1500 calories a day, have for years and do just fine maintaining 115 lbs on that. I don't feel restricted, don't go on crazy binges or feel the need to eat more. My BMR is about 1100 so that is eating more for me.

    All very true.

    My post was addressing 2 issues:

    1) the folks that say they are doing everything right but not seeing progress. My theory is that some/many of them aren't in fact doing everything right.

    2) that eating more leads to weight loss, which for most people I don't think it does. It may lead to better adherence, which can lead to weight loss, but more cals does not = more weight loss (for most dieters).
  • LorinaLynn
    LorinaLynn Posts: 13,247 Member
    Options
    Well my thought is I've been eating approx. 1200 calories for the past 5 months. I have not one moment of one day found it "too restrictive". And honestly I've not once in these past 150 days felt "burned out" or "cravings" or "cheated" (though I do not have any foods off limits). I eat cake, pizza, drink wine, etc, if/when I want to. When I'm hungry, I eat. I eat delicious and satisfying meals every day.

    I also every.day log all my food honestly and as accurate as possible. The days I've eaten over 1200 (this past weekend as example, when I went to a party), I logged every thing. And it didn't stress me. And today I logged another lb loss anyway.

    So seems to me it's all individual and personal. Your theory doesn't ring true *for me*. I DID find something more reasonable ~ my new eating lifestyle :). I sure AM happier, I have no need to 'stop cheating', and good things are happening (for one example, my 26 lb weight loss!).

    But you describe yourself as eating the things you want to eat. You just happen to be doing it on 1200 calories. I think he's talking about people who feel like they can't have cake or pizza or wine because they assume they can't fit those things into 1200 calories, and then they end up binging and not losing weight, even though they "only eat 1200 calories per day."

    This, plus, at your age and activity level, 1200 is probably perfect for you. If someone's younger, more active and/or exercises a lot more strenuously, they're going to need more fuel.

    I don't drive my car much, so I only need to fill up about once a month. Someone who drives a lot more, or has a bigger vehicle, isn't going to get by on 15 gallons a month.

    That all said, I think "eat more to weigh less" is a catchy name, but "eat right" is what it's about. Eating at the appropriate deficit for the amount you have to lose and your activity level. I lost weight eating under 1000 calories a day. I also felt like a zombie all the time. I lost at the same rate, maybe faster, eating 1800-2000 a day, and had loads of energy. I was able to eat more because I was more active, and was able to be more active because I ate more.
  • etoiles_argentees
    etoiles_argentees Posts: 2,827 Member
    Options
    My post was addressing 2 issues:

    1) the folks that say they are doing everything right but not seeing progress. My theory is that some/many of them aren't in fact doing everything right.

    2) that eating more leads to weight loss, which for most people I don't think it does. It may lead to better adherence, which can lead to weight loss, but more cals does not = more weight loss (for most dieters).

    I agree for the most part, but your first issue leads to putting the blame on others which might not always be the case. They might be doing it "right" but have certain health conditions that make it harder to lose.

    Or genetic inheritance. ;)
  • etoiles_argentees
    etoiles_argentees Posts: 2,827 Member
    Options
    Oh! Like this! " the body is not a simple "cals in, cals out" machine, more like an elaborate wristwatch."
  • rachseby
    rachseby Posts: 285 Member
    Options
    The difference is that Person A puts her/his body under stress by starving , thus increasing cortisol release, a hormone that prevents fat loss to a certain degree. Person A's body is now running on emergency thus more efficient at burning whatever it gets in its hands. That also means breaking down muscle. Person A becomes tired and depressed, mood swings are inevitable and the fact that you are constantly surrounded by food doesn't help

    Person B's metabolism has no reason to run amok, he/she gets enough nutrients (implying a healthy diet of course) and the storage (fat) will be used for any more expense. Like a mill using up it's stock continuosly without all the **** that comes with starving

    Please note that intermittent fasting is a whole other story

    Yea, I'm not sure I buy that. I'm not saying stress/cortisol doesn't have an impact, I just don't think it's big enough to outweigh a significant calorie deficit.

    Would love to hear other's thoughts though.

    .

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2895000/

    "Prior research has demonstrated that dieting, or the restriction of caloric intake, does not lead to long-term weight loss. This study tested the hypothesis that dieting is ineffective because it increases chronic psychological stress and cortisol production – two factors that are known to cause weight gain."

    At least it reders it useless


    Okey dokey......by my understanding, the only way you can lose weight is to be at a caloric deficit i.e restricting caloric intake therefore on this hypothesis we would all have to stay overweight as restricting won't work....and not restricting....also won't work!!!
    This! So I guess there is no way possible to lose weight!
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    The difference is that Person A puts her/his body under stress by starving , thus increasing cortisol release, a hormone that prevents fat loss to a certain degree. Person A's body is now running on emergency thus more efficient at burning whatever it gets in its hands. That also means breaking down muscle. Person A becomes tired and depressed, mood swings are inevitable and the fact that you are constantly surrounded by food doesn't help

    Person B's metabolism has no reason to run amok, he/she gets enough nutrients (implying a healthy diet of course) and the storage (fat) will be used for any more expense. Like a mill using up it's stock continuosly without all the **** that comes with starving

    Please note that intermittent fasting is a whole other story

    Yea, I'm not sure I buy that. I'm not saying stress/cortisol doesn't have an impact, I just don't think it's big enough to outweigh a significant calorie deficit.

    Would love to hear other's thoughts though.

    .

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2895000/

    "Prior research has demonstrated that dieting, or the restriction of caloric intake, does not lead to long-term weight loss. This study tested the hypothesis that dieting is ineffective because it increases chronic psychological stress and cortisol production – two factors that are known to cause weight gain."

    At least it reders it useless


    Okey dokey......by my understanding, the only way you can lose weight is to be at a caloric deficit i.e restricting caloric intake therefore on this hypothesis we would all have to stay overweight as restricting won't work....and not restricting....also won't work!!!
    This! So I guess there is no way possible to lose weight!

    lol... that was my first thought too... if calorie restriction doesn't lead to weight loss, how DO people lose weight?
  • Bobbie8786
    Bobbie8786 Posts: 202 Member
    Options
    There is a show in the UK called Secret Eaters (check it out on YouTube) and if the people on that show are any indication, people grossly underestimate the amount of food they are eating. Also, when I was on Weight Watchers they had us do an exercise where we would put "little bites" into a baggie (you know when you are cooking and just have a little taste or a bite of someone else's food or you just grab that little piece of broken cracker or cookie). This little exercise showed just how much mindless and non-logged eating a person can do in a day and those little bites add up over time. If you aren't weighing, measuring and logging everything, you are most likely under counting calories.

    I think your argument is completely logical.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,867 Member
    Options
    I think the confusion comes in on what eating more to weigh less means. It doesn't mean you can eat a lot and lose weight. It's aimed at those eating VLCD's and not getting why they can't maintain it or they feel like crap. It doesn't mean eating over your TDEE and weight will fall off like some take it to mean.

    I eat between 1200 and 1500 calories a day, have for years and do just fine maintaining 115 lbs on that. I don't feel restricted, don't go on crazy binges or feel the need to eat more. My BMR is about 1100 so that is eating more for me.

    All very true.

    My post was addressing 2 issues:

    1) the folks that say they are doing everything right but not seeing progress. My theory is that some/many of them aren't in fact doing everything right.

    2) that eating more leads to weight loss, which for most people I don't think it does. It may lead to better adherence, which can lead to weight loss, but more cals does not = more weight loss (for most dieters).

    On point with both...absolutely I'd say for 9 out of 10 individuals, this is spot on.
  • husseycd
    husseycd Posts: 814 Member
    Options
    I don't understand why people are so adament about defending 1200 calories. I mean, someone is saying, "it really is okay to eat more" and they freak out, get defensive, etc. I just don't understand. Food is awesome.

    I do believe 1200 is very hard to maintain for most people and sets them up to fail. I'm sure most of us want to succeed. If you truly believe you can only eat 1200 calories to lose weight, get some things tested. Like your thyroid, RMR, etc. Your doctor can test your thyroid. A dietician (at the gym or I just had mine tested at a grocercy store) can test your RMR. It takes 10-15 minutes. Then you know for sure what your body burns at rest. The remaining calories can be estimated.

    My RMR, btw (37, woman, 5'5", 131 lb, 19.5%BF) is 1580. 1580. At rest! Having real numbers is a powerful tool. My weight (fat) loss journey would have really sucked had I stuck to MFP's 1200 calorie estimate...

    But hey, if people really want to eat so little, go for it. I like my "diet" of 2000 calories/day. I think I'm going to go eat something.
  • rachseby
    rachseby Posts: 285 Member
    Options
    The difference is that Person A puts her/his body under stress by starving , thus increasing cortisol release, a hormone that prevents fat loss to a certain degree. Person A's body is now running on emergency thus more efficient at burning whatever it gets in its hands. That also means breaking down muscle. Person A becomes tired and depressed, mood swings are inevitable and the fact that you are constantly surrounded by food doesn't help

    Person B's metabolism has no reason to run amok, he/she gets enough nutrients (implying a healthy diet of course) and the storage (fat) will be used for any more expense. Like a mill using up it's stock continuosly without all the **** that comes with starving

    Please note that intermittent fasting is a whole other story

    Yea, I'm not sure I buy that. I'm not saying stress/cortisol doesn't have an impact, I just don't think it's big enough to outweigh a significant calorie deficit.

    Would love to hear other's thoughts though.

    .

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2895000/

    "Prior research has demonstrated that dieting, or the restriction of caloric intake, does not lead to long-term weight loss. This study tested the hypothesis that dieting is ineffective because it increases chronic psychological stress and cortisol production – two factors that are known to cause weight gain."

    At least it reders it useless


    Okey dokey......by my understanding, the only way you can lose weight is to be at a caloric deficit i.e restricting caloric intake therefore on this hypothesis we would all have to stay overweight as restricting won't work....and not restricting....also won't work!!!
    This! So I guess there is no way possible to lose weight!

    lol... that was my first thought too... if calorie restriction doesn't lead to weight loss, how DO people lose weight?
    I tried to read the study but can't concentrate on my 1200 calories :) Obviously monitoring/restricting can cause stress, but is that going to make you as fat as having no idea how much you are eating/eating whatever you please? And being fat really stresses me....so let's measure those cortisol levels when I look in the mirror!
    I agree with your theories. I think that it's good to approximate how many calories you can have, and not to stress if you go slightly over or under. And if you are hungry, eat! Just make sure that you are actually hungry (not bored, depressed, and don't go crazy.
  • YogaNikki
    YogaNikki Posts: 284 Member
    Options
    orson_wells_Slow-Clap.gif

    Have I told you how much I heart you lately??
  • susannamarie
    susannamarie Posts: 2,148 Member
    Options
    Oh, don't forget that some people also underestimate their food sufficiently so that the 1200 that they think they're eating is actually more like 2000. For these people, they may lose when they think they're eating 1200, without feeling deprived, because it's still a cut from 3000+ that they were eating before dieting. For these people, upping perceived calories may indeed lead to weight gain simply because they are now eating over maintenance.
  • cherilyn666
    cherilyn666 Posts: 50 Member
    Options
    Losing fat/losing weight is not the same thing.


    Take this example from someone who lost over 80 lbs.

    I began by eating 600 calories a day. I did no exercise. I lost a lot of weight (fat and muscle). Usual loss was around 4-6 lbs a week.

    Now I am eating 2700 calories a day. I exercise every day for 2-3 hours. I lose a little bit of weight (pound a week), I lose a ton of fat and I gain a ton of muscle.

    In both cases I lose weight. In both cases I lose fat.

    In the first case I lose muscle and cannot eat anything at all.

    In the second case I gain muscle and can eat quite a bit.


    Whatever suits the person, though.
  • rachseby
    rachseby Posts: 285 Member
    Options
    Oh, don't forget that some people also underestimate their food sufficiently so that the 1200 that they think they're eating is actually more like 2000. For these people, they may lose when they think they're eating 1200, without feeling deprived, because it's still a cut from 3000+ that they were eating before dieting. For these people, upping perceived calories may indeed lead to weight gain simply because they are now eating over maintenance.
    Agree. For I long time I think that I fooled myself into thinking that I was around 2000 per day, when a lot of days I was probably a lot higher. I have never counted calories before, and now that I am losing, so....
  • YogaNikki
    YogaNikki Posts: 284 Member
    Options
    Oh, don't forget that some people also underestimate their food sufficiently so that the 1200 that they think they're eating is actually more like 2000. For these people, they may lose when they think they're eating 1200, without feeling deprived, because it's still a cut from 3000+ that they were eating before dieting. For these people, upping perceived calories may indeed lead to weight gain simply because they are now eating over maintenance.
    Agree. For I long time I think that I fooled myself into thinking that I was around 2000 per day, when a lot of days I was probably a lot higher. I have never counted calories before, and now that I am losing, so....

    I too, was in the same boat. It wasn't until I started weighing/measuring my food (not guesstimating) that I realized I was eating WAY more calories than I had anticipated. I qualified eating around 2000 on my good days and WAY over on my cheat days.

Categories