Extra cals not working despite patience= hmmmm!

Ah so many people who don't actually understand the concept of "eat more to lose weight" :noway:

So, the OP needs to eat even MORE calories, is that is? Gee, you'd think every morbidly obese person would be a skinny as a rail, with all the calories they eat.

Ah so many people who don't actually understand the concept of "eat more to lose weight" :noway:

So, the OP needs to eat even MORE calories, is that is? Gee, you'd think every morbidly obese person would be a skinny as a rail, with all the calories they eat.

Just because someone is morbidly obese doesn't mean they have to eat a severely restrictive caloric intake to lose weight....

Ah so many people who don't actually understand the concept of "eat more to lose weight" :noway:

So, the OP needs to eat even MORE calories, is that is? Gee, you'd think every morbidly obese person would be a skinny as a rail, with all the calories they eat.

Just because someone is morbidly obese doesn't mean they have to eat a severely restrictive caloric intake to lose weight....

Well, people don't become morbidly obese by eating 1200 calories a day either. You can't break the laws of thermodynamics. :smokin:

Ah so many people who don't actually understand the concept of "eat more to lose weight" :noway:

So, the OP needs to eat even MORE calories, is that is? Gee, you'd think every morbidly obese person would be a skinny as a rail, with all the calories they eat.

Just because someone is morbidly obese doesn't mean they have to eat a severely restrictive caloric intake to lose weight....

I'm not sure anyone was suggesting that.

What's been said in this thread is that the OP is not tracking. She is also not losing.

What's more likely? That she's eating too little and has some form of metabolic shutdown, or that she's eating too much and just doesn't realize it?

First thought when you hear hoof beats should be horses, not zebras.

The 'eat more' mantra is in my opinion only valid when you have an accurate history of tracking and you can see chronic, severe and harmful caloric deficit.

I believe that is what I stated early in this thread

"If your not measuring and weighing and logging everything correctly then I would start there.... If you don't have a handle there then nothing else you do is going to make a difference because you will be just guessing at that point.... "

OH

Plus the op was eating 800 cals a day - so yeah - I think they should eat more

If you eat more than a highly restrictive diet, I.E. under 1200 calories or more, you will be less likely to lose your adherence. You eat more, while still maintaining a caloric deficit, to weigh less, because its a plan you'll be more capable of sticking to. You're also more likely to get the nutrients your body needs to build muscle properly.

OH

Plus the op was eating 800 cals a day - so yeah - I think they should eat more

No. OP thinks she was eating this much. But she's not logging.

I think the chances of anyone not losing weight at 800 calories a day are slim to ridiculous.

I know, right? No one ever thinks that people are reporting their calorie intake inaccurately, they just go straight to shoving more food at you. I think they just want people to fail. :huh:

Meaning behind Iron_Feline's definition of "Eat more to weigh less" (EMWL) without all the annoyance:

If you eat more than a highly restrictive diet, I.E. under 1200 calories or more, you will be less likely to lose your adherence. You eat more, while still maintaining a caloric deficit, to weigh less, because its a plan you'll be more capable of sticking to. You're also more likely to get the nutrients your body needs to build muscle properly.

Iron_Feline,
This is not the most common definition for EMWL for many people on this site. Most people see a pre-1200 calorie diet and start screaming ZOMGSTARVASHUNMODEZ! (Really, there are two camps on this, one freaks group freaks out, while the other group tells them to shut their mouths because starvation mode, while not a myth, is an extreme rarity that doesn't fit the definition set by an automatic switch) When someone mentions EMWL people assume the poster is speaking about that definition. Please, there's no reason to get upset that people don't understand your meaning.

Meaning behind Iron_Feline's definition of "Eat more to weigh less" (EMWL) without all the annoyance:

If you eat more than a highly restrictive diet, I.E. under 1200 calories or more, you will be less likely to lose your adherence. You eat more, while still maintaining a caloric deficit, to weigh less, because its a plan you'll be more capable of sticking to. You're also more likely to get the nutrients your body needs to build muscle properly.

Iron_Feline,
This is not the most common definition for EMWL for many people on this site. Most people see a pre-1200 calorie diet and start screaming ZOMGSTARVASHUNMODEZ! (Really, there are two camps on this, one freaks group freaks out, while the other group tells them to shut their mouths because starvation mode, while not a myth, is an extreme rarity that doesn't fit the definition set by an automatic switch) When someone mentions EMWL people assume the poster is speaking about that definition. Please, there's no reason to get upset that people don't understand your meaning.

Thank you.

I myself subscribe to the school of thought that it's better to be happy on a 500 calorie deficit and lose a pound a week, than be miserable on a 1000 calorie deficit and lose two pounds a week.

But when many people talk about EMWL they talk about 'starvation mode', and claim that somehow you can magically not lose weight on a VLCD. Which is, of course, rot.

In short, we're all in agreement, and I'm not arguing against what you think I am.

I'm 44, and 5'8", and for me 1600 calories is MAINTENANCE TDEE at my goal weight. And if I miscalculate by even 50 calories, I'm at calorie surplus. Not doing it.

Honestly, why do people act like 1200 calories is starvation? I'm not starving.

Meaning behind Iron_Feline's definition of "Eat more to weigh less" (EMWL) without all the annoyance:

If you eat more than a highly restrictive diet, I.E. under 1200 calories or more, you will be less likely to lose your adherence. You eat more, while still maintaining a caloric deficit, to weigh less, because its a plan you'll be more capable of sticking to. You're also more likely to get the nutrients your body needs to build muscle properly.

Iron_Feline,
This is not the most common definition for EMWL for many people on this site. Most people see a pre-1200 calorie diet and start screaming ZOMGSTARVASHUNMODEZ! (Really, there are two camps on this, one freaks group freaks out, while the other group tells them to shut their mouths because starvation mode, while not a myth, is an extreme rarity that doesn't fit the definition set by an automatic switch) When someone mentions EMWL people assume the poster is speaking about that definition. Please, there's no reason to get upset that people don't understand your meaning.

Thank you.

I myself subscribe to the school of thought that it's better to be happy on a 500 calorie deficit and lose a pound a week, than be miserable on a 1000 calorie deficit and lose two pounds a week.

But when many people talk about EMWL they talk about 'starvation mode', and claim that somehow you can magically not lose weight on a VLCD. Which is, of course, rot.

In short, we're all in agreement, and I'm not arguing against what you think I am.

Isn't that the same thing as eat more food to reducing the size of the deficit to make weight loss both successful and sustainable compared to eating a severely restrictive diet... Because that sounds an awful lot like what we are saying in regards to eating more to lose weight....