Too few calories, exercise=trouble?

The 10 x your weight in calories figure assumes you will exercise but not "eat back" calories burned from exercise. It is actually a decent starting point for many people. If you have a great deal of weight to lose, 8-9 calories per lb can be feasible. MFP sets calories assuming your will exercise and eat back those calories burned.

People who say that eating more makes you lose more are just not very bright people. No, eating more does not make you lose more. The less you eat, the more you lose. Of course, if you eat more and burn it off, then you can eat more and lose more...but it wasn't the eating that caused the loss.

I don't like this "starvation mode" business because it's a little insulting to people who actually starve and would possibly kill for a meal. Luckily, they aren't hanging out online and don't know people make light of their plight with this, "I am afraid to eat less because I'll go into starvation mode and gain weight!" stuff. I know people who say that aren't trying to be mean, callous or shallow and I don't think they're bad people at all. Not in any way. I just don't like that this myth exists when people really do starve.

Eating more is not going to work. There are many paths to weight loss! But that's not one of them.

This all comes down to 5th grade math...really...it's that simple.

You require XXXX calories to maintain your weight...lets say WITHOUT exercise, that number is 2300 for example. To lose about 1 Lb per week just deduct 500 calories from that (this is what MFP already does for you...being a calculator and all, it calculates stuff like this)...so your goal would be 1800 calories in this case.

Now lets say you exercise and you burn 300 calories...now you've performed an activity that isn't included in your activity level on MFP...so to account for that, MFP gives you those 300 calories to "eat back." So now you're goal is 1800 + 300 = 2,100 calories...but you still have the same 500 calorie deficit because now your NON EXERCISE maintenance number of 2300 now includes 300 additional calories in exercise...making your maintenance number 2,600 calories and 2,600 - 2,100 = 500 calorie deficit still.

Alternatively, most other calculators include that exercise estimate up front in the equation.

In RE to eat more to lose, this is largely about dietary adherence...basically the tortoise and the hare. When one establishes a nice easy goal of cutting back maybe 500 calories (basically a snack or two) it's pretty easy to maintain without feeling like you're missing out on life and ****...weight loss tends to be slow, but it also tends to be steady and people don't feel so much need to "cheat" or binge or whatever...dietary adherence is often much better.

Conversely, people who establish very aggressive calorie goals often have a great deal of trouble with dietary adherence, not to mention energy levels, etc. Binges and cheat meals and falling off the wagon, etc seem to be pretty common when one is trying to sprint to the dietary finish line vs taking it easy with a nice slow jog.

Then I guess all the people who ate 1200 calories a day for fat loss and have repeated this cycle 3-4x times now have it right.

eat at a healthy deficit for your specific body/weight/activity levels, which for almost everyone is not 1200 calories. Better to eat say, 2000 calories to lose 2-4lbs a month and keep it off for the rest of your life than to eat 1300 calories to lose close to 10lbs a month and wind up gaining it back after a while.

I would bet money over 90% of people who THINK they are eating 1200 calories a day simply suck at counting calories and also do a lot of cheat/free meals they don't count at all. So really an accurately counted 2000 calories a day might actually be LESS food then what a poorly counted 1200 calories works out too when you account for cheating.

Thermodynamics will always win. Eating less means losing faster, if you can be compliant with your calories (which most low calorie dieters cannot).

Actually, it's more like 12 times your bodyweight, and even that is just a generic number. 10 x my body weight is 1750 calories for fat loss.. which is WAY more than a 20% deficit (and thus more than 1lb a week lost) for me. I couldn't even do 1900 while exercising and remain happy.

That would put me at 3324 calories. That seems insanely high for trying to lose weight. I'm eating a bit over half of that, averaged out over the week.

Then I guess all the people .... etc.etc.etc.

I would bet money over 90% of people who THINK they are eating 1200 calories a day simply suck at counting calories and also do a lot of cheat/free meals they don't count at all. So really an accurately counted 2000 calories a day might actually be LESS food then what a poorly counted 1200 calories works out too when you account for cheating.

Thermodynamics will always win. Eating less means losing faster, if you can be compliant with your calories (which most low calorie dieters cannot).

+1 This is right on (@vismal post)

Until I:

1. Bought a food scale and really figured out what I was eating (instead of guestimating it)
2. Quit "starting over" after a weekend of cheat-o-rama meals and really included everything I ate (so that I could learn my habits and triggers)
3. I got smart about not taking inflated calorie burns and really understanding when to use an HRM

I went round and round in circles!

I've read the articles saying if you eat too little and exercise, then you won't lose weight.

If you're taking in fewer calories than your body is using, you will lose weight.
You can't gain weight if you're under-eating.

I've also read you should start out eating 10X your weight in calories to lose 1% a week.

My doctor & dietician (2 different people) told me I should be eating 10x my healthy goal weight (based on BMI) in calories.
That's 1650.
(And do not eat back exercise calories. First, people & machines overestimate calroies burned. Second, people underestimate calories in. Think of exercise as a bonus.)

Another way to decide on calories is to take 10x your current weight & subtract 500 to lose a lb per week, 1000 for 2 lb if you're starting off very heavy.
In my case, the 2 lb a week number was 1750 when I started, and is now 1260.
I'm still eating 1650 and losing a bit under 2 lb per week thanks to exercise.

I'm not following that at all. Seems like you'd gain weight.

Harvard Medical School says that you need 15 cal per lb to maintain weight if you're active about 30 min per day.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/HB_web/calorie-counting-made-easy.htm

If we eat the amount MFP says we should do to lose basically 1% a week and exercise, wouldn't the weight come off or are we setting up for failure?

Yes, if you've told it the right numbers to start with, it will give you a calorie goal to help you lose weight.
Exercise is a bonus.

"Most weight loss occurs because of decreased caloric intake.
However, evidence shows the only way to maintain weight loss is to be engaged in regular physical activity."
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/physical_activity/index.html

Hard to pick who is right when it seems to change all the time.

If you get your info from reputable sources (your doctor, the CDC, Harvard Medical School, PubMed) it shouldn't change all that much, unless something really unusual turns up in some research.

I'd just hate to get in a good loss program only for the body to stall out and then you get discouraged.

There will be plateaus in any weight loss journey.
If you're not improving in some way in a couple weeks (losing weight, losing inches, increasing weight lifted, increasing speed or incline for cardio) then you need to tweak something.
Cut 25-50 calories per day.
Add intervals to your cardio. (You are doing cardio every day, right?) I'm currently doing 30 second sprints every 2 minutes on the elliptical. It's really increased the calorie burn, but isn't terribly hard.

This all comes down to 5th grade math...really...it's that simple.

You require XXXX calories to maintain your weight...lets say WITHOUT exercise, that number is 2300 for example. To lose about 1 Lb per week just deduct 500 calories from that (this is what MFP already does for you...being a calculator and all, it calculates stuff like this)...so your goal would be 1800 calories in this case.

Now lets say you exercise and you burn 300 calories...now you've performed an activity that isn't included in your activity level on MFP...so to account for that, MFP gives you those 300 calories to "eat back." So now you're goal is 1800 + 300 = 2,100 calories...but you still have the same 500 calorie deficit because now your NON EXERCISE maintenance number of 2300 now includes 300 additional calories in exercise...making your maintenance number 2,600 calories and 2,600 - 2,100 = 500 calorie deficit still.

Alternatively, most other calculators include that exercise estimate up front in the equation.

In RE to eat more to lose, this is largely about dietary adherence...basically the tortoise and the hare. When one establishes a nice easy goal of cutting back maybe 500 calories (basically a snack or two) it's pretty easy to maintain without feeling like you're missing out on life and ****...weight loss tends to be slow, but it also tends to be steady and people don't feel so much need to "cheat" or binge or whatever...dietary adherence is often much better.

Conversely, people who establish very aggressive calorie goals often have a great deal of trouble with dietary adherence, not to mention energy levels, etc. Binges and cheat meals and falling off the wagon, etc seem to be pretty common when one is trying to sprint to the dietary finish line vs taking it easy with a nice slow jog.

Yep. Not to mention, it CAN happen that a person loses faster when they eat more, because when you have a large calorie deficit, one of the things that happens is that people feel tired and move less. And when they do move, they put little intensity into it - because what used to be no big deal now feels like an effort. So they burn less as well.

In contrast, when you have a smaller deficit, you feel more energetic. You fidget more. You put more into your workouts and regular daily activities. You feel less like napping, and maybe instead of lying down on the couch to watch TV, you decide to sit up, that sort of thing. All of this stuff means you burn more. Sometimes, the difference in movement and effort more than compensates for the increase in intake.

People who say that eating more makes you lose more are just not very bright people. No, eating more does not make you lose more. The less you eat, the more you lose. Of course, if you eat more and burn it off, then you can eat more and lose more...but it wasn't the eating that caused the loss.

I don't like this "starvation mode" business because it's a little insulting to people who actually starve and would possibly kill for a meal. Luckily, they aren't hanging out online and don't know people make light of their plight with this, "I am afraid to eat less because I'll go into starvation mode and gain weight!" stuff. I know people who say that aren't trying to be mean, callous or shallow and I don't think they're bad people at all. Not in any way. I just don't like that this myth exists when people really do starve.

Eating more is not going to work. There are many paths to weight loss! But that's not one of them.

Then I guess all the people who ate 1200 calories a day for fat loss and have repeated this cycle 3-4x times now have it right.

eat at a healthy deficit for your specific body/weight/activity levels, which for almost everyone is not 1200 calories. Better to eat say, 2000 calories to lose 2-4lbs a month and keep it off for the rest of your life than to eat 1300 calories to lose close to 10lbs a month and wind up gaining it back after a while.

but let's be honest, not all of us got overweight by eating 1200 calories a day, some of us got overweight by eating 3,4,5 times that on a consistent basis. the eat more to lose never made sense to *me* because in my world i have never intentionally starved myself. that's stuff people who didnt grow up poor and didnt learn to appreciate having food :laugh:

I would bet money over 90% of people who THINK they are eating 1200 calories a day simply suck at counting calories and also do a lot of cheat/free meals they don't count at all. So really an accurately counted 2000 calories a day might actually be LESS food then what a poorly counted 1200 calories works out too when you account for cheating.

+1