Eating more to lose weight
Will_Run_for_Food
Posts: 561 Member
I keep seeing comments from people on these forums that say they have increased their calorie intake and have lost weight. Can someone please explain this to me? Does that actually work (to an extent, obviously....I'm talking 200-300 calories, not +1,000), and if so, doesn't it go against MFP's entire notion of maintaining a calorie deficit to lose weight? Which is it?? Gah... too many "rules".
0
Replies
-
Will_Run_for_Food wrote: »I keep seeing comments from people on these forums that say they have increased their calorie intake and have lost weight. Can someone please explain this to me? Does that actually work (to an extent, obviously....I'm talking 200-300 calories, not +1,000), and if so, doesn't it go against MFP's entire notion of maintaining a calorie deficit to lose weight? Which is it?? Gah... too many "rules".
No it doesn't work. To lose weight you need to be in caloric deficit. if you are not losing, you are not in a deficit so why would you add more calories?0 -
No it doesn't work. To lose weight you need to be in caloric deficit. if you are not losing, you are not in a deficit so why would you add more calories?
Exactly what I thought....but I've seen threads and blog posts about people adding calories and somehow losing. Trying to understand the science behind that.0 -
Will_Run_for_Food wrote: »
No it doesn't work. To lose weight you need to be in caloric deficit. if you are not losing, you are not in a deficit so why would you add more calories?
Exactly what I thought....but I've seen threads and blog posts about people adding calories and somehow losing. Trying to understand the science behind that.
Me too. It's most confuddling. On alot of my fasting groups people get chastised for not eating enough when they're not losing weight.... just doesn't make sense to me0 -
It worked for me and I'll tell you how. I was eating 1200 cals, as recommended by mfp, and I was hungry, angry, miserable, tired and couldn't sustain it. Upped my calories by 50 every week until I reached a point where my weight was slowing to a stall. Then, and only then did I start eating 50 cals less each week. I'm currently losing about a pound on 1350 to 1400 cals a day. And I'm not miserable.
You can play around with BMI, TDEE, etc but this is what worked for me because I tried those and didn't feel any better ~ it was either too high, every website had different numbers...
Anyway, good luck. Everybody is different and it takes time to figure out what works best for you.0 -
I know there's a lot of talk on the forums about TDEE, BMR, etc... In my personal experience, how much I eat while trying to lose weight is a choice for my mental health. When I lost about 20 lbs a few years ago on the site, I was eating at 1200 everyday and was MISERABLE. However, this time I am eating somewhere between 1500-1600 everyday. I know I will lose slower, but I am satisfied at the end of the day instead of laying in bed with my stomach growling.
TLDR: Do what works for you. Listen to your body and eat at some sort of deficit and you will lose.0 -
I think the thought behind it is when you eat veggies, fruits, lean meats you can typically get more per calorie then other things. Now, that doesn't disregard the fact that calories still matter and I think that's where people get confused.
Calories in vs out will always be true but many people find adding a large variety of low calorie nutrient dense foods is more sustainable then the same caloric amount then eating the same amount in say, fast food or something.
At least, that's my take on it. I go halfsies with it most days. I make an effort to eat mostly nutrient dense foods and then fill in the rest with fun. But I weigh my solid foods on a food scale and only use measuring cups for liquids and count strategically because yes, calories matter for weight loss
0 -
Will_Run_for_Food wrote: »
No it doesn't work. To lose weight you need to be in caloric deficit. if you are not losing, you are not in a deficit so why would you add more calories?
Exactly what I thought....but I've seen threads and blog posts about people adding calories and somehow losing. Trying to understand the science behind that.
If they upped their calories and are losing, then they likely were eating much more than they realized.0 -
No. If you aren't losing weight, you're eating too much. I don't know why so many tell other people to up their calories when they aren't losing, it makes no sense.
Some people say eat more to lose weight and mean eat more, but still be in a deficit, and lose weight more slowly. Some find it more sustainable and less restrictive. A lot of people give up because they set their calories too low and are miserable through the process.0 -
This is a very stupid question, but I have to ask. For a calorie deficit, if I am supposed to consume about 1600 calories a day (My BMR cal is about 1450), and I run for an hour, do I add back the amount of calories I burned? So I should be eating something like 2100 calories. Or does that initial 1600 include any workouts I do? Will any weight loss progress slow if I'm not eating enough?0
-
Will_Run_for_Food wrote: »I keep seeing comments from people on these forums that say they have increased their calorie intake and have lost weight. Can someone please explain this to me? Does that actually work (to an extent, obviously....I'm talking 200-300 calories, not +1,000), and if so, doesn't it go against MFP's entire notion of maintaining a calorie deficit to lose weight? Which is it?? Gah... too many "rules".
Re: to many rules.
Just stick to the one and only golden rule. 1. Calorie deficit to lose fat. CICO
The rest of the rules to fat loss are more like guidelines to maybe help you enjoy the journey. adopt the ones you like, ignore the one you don't0 -
mhauswir18 wrote: »This is a very stupid question, but I have to ask. For a calorie deficit, if I am supposed to consume about 1600 calories a day (My BMR cal is about 1450), and I run for an hour, do I add back the amount of calories I burned? So I should be eating something like 2100 calories. Or does that initial 1600 include any workouts I do? Will any weight loss progress slow if I'm not eating enough?
Maybe start your own thread instead of hijacking this one0 -
mhauswir18 wrote: »This is a very stupid question, but I have to ask. For a calorie deficit, if I am supposed to consume about 1600 calories a day (My BMR cal is about 1450), and I run for an hour, do I add back the amount of calories I burned? So I should be eating something like 2100 calories. Or does that initial 1600 include any workouts I do? Will any weight loss progress slow if I'm not eating enough?
Your weight loss will not slow down if you aren't eating enough. In extreme cases (long term, very low calorie diets) a person's metabolism can slow down.
If when you plug your numbers into MFP, it tells you 1600 calories, it does not include exercise. You can eat back some of those calories, although if you're using MFP's calorie burns, I would not suggest eating them all. Maybe use half of the number they tell you that you burn.
If you calculated your TDEE on a different site and are using that number, it already includes exercise, so you wouldn't eat those calories back.
0 -
mhauswir18 wrote: »This is a very stupid question, but I have to ask. For a calorie deficit, if I am supposed to consume about 1600 calories a day (My BMR cal is about 1450), and I run for an hour, do I add back the amount of calories I burned? So I should be eating something like 2100 calories. Or does that initial 1600 include any workouts I do? Will any weight loss progress slow if I'm not eating enough?
According to MFP, the calories you burn through exercise are "extra", so you can eat them back. So if MFP says to eat 1200 calories but you burn 500 going for a run, you can eat 1700 calories.
Personally, I eat back my exercise calories. I cannot consume only 1200 calories a day if I burn more than 100 calories - I am just miserable.0 -
Okay great, thank you both!
0 -
And sorry for "hijacking" your post Will_Run_for_Food. Thanks for the good info!0
-
Will_Run_for_Food wrote: »I keep seeing comments from people on these forums that say they have increased their calorie intake and have lost weight. Can someone please explain this to me? Does that actually work (to an extent, obviously....I'm talking 200-300 calories, not +1,000), and if so, doesn't it go against MFP's entire notion of maintaining a calorie deficit to lose weight? Which is it?? Gah... too many "rules".
No it doesn't work. To lose weight you need to be in caloric deficit. if you are not losing, you are not in a deficit so why would you add more calories?
Ummm...you can eat more and still be in a calorie deficit to lose weight.
OP, the idea behind eating more to lose more is primarily dietary adherence. It's pretty easy for example to adhere to a 500ish calorie deficit...it's pretty much just cutting out a couple snacks or whatever...a 1000 calorie deficit is another matter. Many people can do it in short bursts and then they get hungry and discouraged or whatever and give up and then start over and then give up and then start over, etc, etc, etc...when if they would have just elected a more reasonable calorie deficit they could have been easily and slowly but steadily been losing weight.
Basically a tortoise and a hare kind of thing.
I would also add that big energy deficits also burn a greater % of lean mass and it's also a greater stress on the body which jacks with your hormones...these same hormones are responsible for any number of bodily functions, including an optimally functioning metabolism.0 -
I lost my weigh eating 1700 calls a day now I don't track but think I am around the 3000 mark I would say. Slowly gaining but I know if I cut to 2000 a day I would lose. Just need to get back in the game..0
-
It's not either or. I increased my calories from about 1300 to 1700 about 4 months ago and I am losing about a pound a week, but that 1700 is still a deficit for me. (My TDEE is about 2150). It's a smaller deficit, but I can stick to 1700 much more easily than I could ever stick to 1300. Also, because I don't feel like I'm starving all the time, I have plenty of energy to do my workouts. That is a HUGE improvement and makes the slower weight loss well worth it. I think that is why I'm losing more consistently than than I did in the past. I also feel for the first time in my life that this is something I can comfortably continue to do. In the past I was always looking forward to the day when I could be "off" my diet!0
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »Will_Run_for_Food wrote: »I keep seeing comments from people on these forums that say they have increased their calorie intake and have lost weight. Can someone please explain this to me? Does that actually work (to an extent, obviously....I'm talking 200-300 calories, not +1,000), and if so, doesn't it go against MFP's entire notion of maintaining a calorie deficit to lose weight? Which is it?? Gah... too many "rules".
No it doesn't work. To lose weight you need to be in caloric deficit. if you are not losing, you are not in a deficit so why would you add more calories?
Ummm...you can eat more and still be in a calorie deficit to lose weight.
OP, the idea behind eating more to lose more is primarily dietary adherence. It's pretty easy for example to adhere to a 500ish calorie deficit...it's pretty much just cutting out a couple snacks or whatever...a 1000 calorie deficit is another matter. Many people can do it in short bursts and then they get hungry and discouraged or whatever and give up and then start over and then give up and then start over, etc, etc, etc...when if they would have just elected a more reasonable calorie deficit they could have been easily and slowly but steadily been losing weight.
Basically a tortoise and a hare kind of thing.
I would also add that big energy deficits also burn a greater % of lean mass and it's also a greater stress on the body which jacks with your hormones...these same hormones are responsible for any number of bodily functions, including an optimally functioning metabolism.
If they werent in a calorie deficit at the calories they eat now , adding more calories would not create a deficit lol.0 -
Wow, completely missing the point again I see.
0 -
Basically, the more exercise you do, the more you can eat (eating back the calories). That's how you "up the calories" and still be at a deficit.0
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »Will_Run_for_Food wrote: »I keep seeing comments from people on these forums that say they have increased their calorie intake and have lost weight. Can someone please explain this to me? Does that actually work (to an extent, obviously....I'm talking 200-300 calories, not +1,000), and if so, doesn't it go against MFP's entire notion of maintaining a calorie deficit to lose weight? Which is it?? Gah... too many "rules".
No it doesn't work. To lose weight you need to be in caloric deficit. if you are not losing, you are not in a deficit so why would you add more calories?
Ummm...you can eat more and still be in a calorie deficit to lose weight.
OP, the idea behind eating more to lose more is primarily dietary adherence. It's pretty easy for example to adhere to a 500ish calorie deficit...it's pretty much just cutting out a couple snacks or whatever...a 1000 calorie deficit is another matter. Many people can do it in short bursts and then they get hungry and discouraged or whatever and give up and then start over and then give up and then start over, etc, etc, etc...when if they would have just elected a more reasonable calorie deficit they could have been easily and slowly but steadily been losing weight.
Basically a tortoise and a hare kind of thing.
I would also add that big energy deficits also burn a greater % of lean mass and it's also a greater stress on the body which jacks with your hormones...these same hormones are responsible for any number of bodily functions, including an optimally functioning metabolism.
If they werent in a calorie deficit at the calories they eat now , adding more calories would not create a deficit lol.
the OP didn't say anything about not losing weight...she simply asked about eating more and still losing weight...which you can do...LOL0 -
Oooookay, this all makes so much more sense now. I especially like the tortoise and the hara analogy. So up your calories, but make sure it's still in a deficit, and you're more likely to lose because it's sustainable. With lower calorie budgets, you might be more tempted to binge, and as such it is NOT sustainable. Am I right?0
-
Will_Run_for_Food wrote: »Oooookay, this all makes so much more sense now. I especially like the tortoise and the hara analogy. So up your calories, but make sure it's still in a deficit, and you're more likely to lose because it's sustainable. With lower calorie budgets, you might be more tempted to binge, and as such it is NOT sustainable. Am I right?
*nods*0 -
Will_Run_for_Food wrote: »Oooookay, this all makes so much more sense now. I especially like the tortoise and the hara analogy. So up your calories, but make sure it's still in a deficit, and you're more likely to lose because it's sustainable. With lower calorie budgets, you might be more tempted to binge, and as such it is NOT sustainable. Am I right?
Let's put it this way, I started my little safari about 2.5 years ago along with one of my buddies. I did what most people do, I went as aggressive as possible at first...after the first couple of weeks I was like, "no way...I'm never going to be able to stick this out for 9 months or whatever it's going to take me to lose weight." So I upped my calories to lose about 1 Lb per week rather than 2...it was easy...I wasn't hungry...I had energy, and I could still eat things I enjoyed eating.
My buddy on the other hand has never quite gotten there. In this same time period, he has bounced around losing 10 Lbs here and gaining 5 back there and then trying to get back on the wagon and quickly falling off again. In 2.5 years he's lost a gross of about 15 Lbs...I lost 40 in about 8-9 months and have been maintaining since April/May of 2013.
0 -
The "eating more" part does not refer to eating more than you were even before you started trying to lose weight. It means eating more than the bare minimum, generally the standard 1200 or so calorie goal that most people get when they sign up for MFP because they go for the 2lbs a week loss goal, which is far too aggressive in many cases.
From my own experience? I did the 1200, even 1400 and 1500, lost a bit, but it sucked and wasn't sustainable. I was tired, burnt out, didn't have energy for workouts.
I can eat 2000 calories a day and I'm still in a deficit for my height/weight/age/activity level, and I've had my best success with dropping the pounds, and more importantly the FAT while eating this way.
So yes, I eat more (than 1200 calories) to lose weight, and have done so for over three years now, and with great success. It's about creating a reasonable calorie deficit rather than a cavernous one.
0 -
For some people creating too large a deficit does not lead to to weight loss. Therefore eating more and creating a smaller deficit is what they need.0
This discussion has been closed.
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