Explain how this works

Because if you are only netting 1000 cals a day after exercise it's not enough.

As long as you eat less calories eg: 2000 a day and exercise off 500 a day then it all sorts itself out.

Tdee and BMR are a good start.

"You're not eating enough" has a few possible explanations:

1) They're genuinely concerned that the person isn't getting enough micronutrients at their current caloric intake and needs to increase it. That's one valid reason to increase your intake.

2) They're worried that the person is eating so little they're going to break and binge on huge amounts of food every once in awhile which would completely eliminate their deficit. Telling them to eat more is based on the assumption that it's easier to maintain and won't lead them to binging.

3) The person is eating so little that they've become sluggish and aren't doing as much exercise as they used to. The mental aspect of their low food intake is causing a mental hurdle which is lowering their exercise calories burned by a larger amount than the food they're no longer eating.

4) They're eating at such a huge deficit that lots of lean muscle is being lost along with the fat. The ultimate goal of most people is to get in better shape so losing muscle mass is going in the opposite direction that they should be.

5) They think the person is not counting correctly and cheating. Hopefully with a more reasonable calorie goal they'll become more accurate in logging and remember to record every bite of food they ate and sip of liquid they drank.

6) They saw it work for themselves anecdotally over a short time frame and didn't account for water weight fluctuations and are now hardcore believers in the bro-science that is "eat more to lose more!".

There are a couple valid reasons to eat more, both mental and physical, and there are some invalid reasons to eat more, which is bro-science.

On MFP, I see people saying it's all "calories in, calories out" all the time. And I've bought into that. But if that's true, then how does it work to say "you're not eating enough" when people are having trouble. Seems like both statements are completely opposite each other.

??

People who say "You are not eating enough" are concerned more about the persons health than their weight loss. If you eat 500 calories a day you will lose weight, but you will also damage your health. People see that and scream "eat more!" not because they think the person will fail to lose weight but rather because they fear for the persons health and general well being.

Obviously if you starve yourself you will lose weight, but you will lose muscle in addition to fat and cause yourself complications that can, long term, cause serious harm to your body.

Many people on here, including myself, value health over speed of weight loss.

The people who claim that if you don't eat enough you won't lose weight because of "starvation mode" just don't know what they are talking about.

"You're not eating enough" has a few possible explanations:

1) They're genuinely concerned that the person isn't getting enough micronutrients at their current caloric intake and needs to increase it. That's one valid reason to increase your intake.

2) They're worried that the person is eating so little they're going to break and binge on huge amounts of food every once in awhile which would completely eliminate their deficit. Telling them to eat more is based on the assumption that it's easier to maintain and won't lead them to binging.

3) The person is eating so little that they've become sluggish and aren't doing as much exercise as they used to. The mental aspect of their low food intake is causing a mental hurdle which is lowering their exercise calories burned by a larger amount than the food they're no longer eating.

4) They're eating at such a huge deficit that lots of lean muscle is being lost along with the fat. The ultimate goal of most people is to get in better shape so losing muscle mass is going in the opposite direction that they should be.

5) They think the person is not counting correctly and cheating. Hopefully with a more reasonable calorie goal they'll become more accurate in logging and remember to record every bite of food they ate and sip of liquid they drank.

6) They saw it work for themselves anecdotally over a short time frame and didn't account for water weight fluctuations and are now hardcore believers in the bro-science that is "eat more to lose more!".

There are a couple valid reasons to eat more, both mental and physical, and there are some invalid reasons to eat more, which is bro-science.

Don't forget 7) they think 'starvation mode' is a thing that happens when you eat less than 1200 calories and makes your metabolism instantly slow down and 'hold onto fat', making you stop losing weight or gain :laugh:

But yeah, my main reasons to tell people to eat more would be because of not getting enough nutrition, losing muscle and basically setting yourself up for failure by trying to do an unsustainable quick fix.

Actually 'starvation mode' IS a real thing. It's just a lot of people don't understand how it works (for example, it doesn't stop weight loss, but it does it slows it). It's actually called adaptive thermogenesis, and it's very interesting.

However, it's not the first concern I come up with. Screw weight loss, people need to be healthy first and formost. If you're starving yourself (and this is probably what 'starvation mode' should refer to honestly) you're not getting all the nutrients and minerals you need to be healthy, and you're not providing your body with the energy to do what it needs to do (those calories have a biological purpose afterall, and it's to keep your heart pumping and your brain functioning and basically keeping you alive).

"You're not eating enough" has a few possible explanations:

1) They're genuinely concerned that the person isn't getting enough micronutrients at their current caloric intake and needs to increase it. That's one valid reason to increase your intake.

2) They're worried that the person is eating so little they're going to break and binge on huge amounts of food every once in awhile which would completely eliminate their deficit. Telling them to eat more is based on the assumption that it's easier to maintain and won't lead them to binging.

3) The person is eating so little that they've become sluggish and aren't doing as much exercise as they used to. The mental aspect of their low food intake is causing a mental hurdle which is lowering their exercise calories burned by a larger amount than the food they're no longer eating.

4) They're eating at such a huge deficit that lots of lean muscle is being lost along with the fat. The ultimate goal of most people is to get in better shape so losing muscle mass is going in the opposite direction that they should be.

5) They think the person is not counting correctly and cheating. Hopefully with a more reasonable calorie goal they'll become more accurate in logging and remember to record every bite of food they ate and sip of liquid they drank.

6) They saw it work for themselves anecdotally over a short time frame and didn't account for water weight fluctuations and are now hardcore believers in the bro-science that is "eat more to lose more!".

There are a couple valid reasons to eat more, both mental and physical, and there are some invalid reasons to eat more, which is bro-science.

Don't forget 7) they think 'starvation mode' is a thing that happens when you eat less than 1200 calories and makes your metabolism instantly slow down and 'hold onto fat', making you stop losing weight or gain :laugh:

But yeah, my main reasons to tell people to eat more would be because of not getting enough nutrition, losing muscle and basically setting yourself up for failure by trying to do an unsustainable quick fix.

Actually 'starvation mode' IS a real thing. It's just a lot of people don't understand how it works (for example, it doesn't stop weight loss, but it does it slows it). It's actually called adaptive thermogenesis, and it's very interesting.

However, it's not the first concern I come up with. Screw weight loss, people need to be healthy first and formost. If you're starving yourself (and this is probably what 'starvation mode' should refer to honestly) you're not getting all the nutrients and minerals you need to be healthy, and you're not providing your body with the energy to do what it needs to do (those calories have a biological purpose afterall, and it's to keep your heart pumping and your brain functioning and basically keeping you alive).

Yep, aware of what starvation mode is. My comment was about the reaction of many people who see a post of someone claiming to be eating 1200 calories a day and gaining weight immediately being 'you're in starvation mode so your body is holding onto fat and making you gain'. My understanding of starvation mode (correct me if I'm wrong!) is that researchers found that after a prolonged period of semi-starvation (with a carefully controlled caloric intake), metabolism was slowed by 40% however a good part of this was due to the decrease in body mass and therefore having a lower TDEE. None of the subjects stopped losing weight or started gaining. Point is, to the people who are 'eating 1200 calories and gaining weight', there is likely another explanation ie eating more than you think.