Fat Burn

Options
Anyone who has tried the eat more to lose weight concept?? I lift weights an I heard 1200 aint enough for my activity level, can someone shed more light on this? am quite anxious about uping the calories

Replies

  • kyrannosaurus
    kyrannosaurus Posts: 350 Member
    Options
    Eating more will not make you lose more. It will however make you lose a greater percentage of fat, which is what you want. The less you eat the more muscle mass you will lose. You'll get better results in the long run eating more calories and having a smaller deficit.
  • Orphia
    Orphia Posts: 7,097 Member
    Options
    Eating more will not make you lose more. It will however make you lose a greater percentage of fat, which is what you want. The less you eat the more muscle mass you will lose. You'll get better results in the long run eating more calories and having a smaller deficit.

    ^That makes no sense at all.

    The "eating more to lose weight" was some sort of myth that did the rounds several years ago. It's been totally debunked.

    Calories in need to be less than calories out.

    1200 calories is probably much too few for most women, though. You can still be at a calorie deficit if you eat a few hundred more calories. (Is that what you were trying to say, kyrannosaurus?)

    OP, what is your height and weight?
  • kyrannosaurus
    kyrannosaurus Posts: 350 Member
    Options
    Orphia wrote: »
    Eating more will not make you lose more. It will however make you lose a greater percentage of fat, which is what you want. The less you eat the more muscle mass you will lose. You'll get better results in the long run eating more calories and having a smaller deficit.

    ^That makes no sense at all.

    The "eating more to lose weight" was some sort of myth that did the rounds several years ago. It's been totally debunked.

    Calories in need to be less than calories out.

    1200 calories is probably much too few for most women, though. You can still be at a calorie deficit if you eat a few hundred more calories. (Is that what you were trying to say, kyrannosaurus?)

    OP, what is your height and weight?

    What doesn't make sense? Eating more will not make her lose more. That's what I said. The bigger the deficit the faster the weight loss will be. So eating more calories will result in a slower weight loss but more of the weight loss will be fat... hence the better results in the long run.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    There isn't a strong correlation between deficit and % of weight loss that is fat.
  • Meselele
    Meselele Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    @Orphia my weight is 128.9lb nd 521ft currently I wanna drop fat while retaining my muscles hence I lift heavy but I have not see much results, ppl say am under eating.
  • Meselele
    Meselele Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    5.21ft I meant
  • jennifer_417
    jennifer_417 Posts: 12,344 Member
    Options
    Orphia wrote: »
    Eating more will not make you lose more. It will however make you lose a greater percentage of fat, which is what you want. The less you eat the more muscle mass you will lose. You'll get better results in the long run eating more calories and having a smaller deficit.

    ^That makes no sense at all.

    The "eating more to lose weight" was some sort of myth that did the rounds several years ago. It's been totally debunked.

    Calories in need to be less than calories out.

    1200 calories is probably much too few for most women, though. You can still be at a calorie deficit if you eat a few hundred more calories. (Is that what you were trying to say, kyrannosaurus?)

    OP, what is your height and weight?

    What doesn't make sense? Eating more will not make her lose more. That's what I said. The bigger the deficit the faster the weight loss will be. So eating more calories will result in a slower weight loss but more of the weight loss will be fat... hence the better results in the long run.

    It doesn't make sense because it's not correct.

  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    Meselele wrote: »
    5.21ft I meant

    5` 2" ? So you might be at 20% fat now ?
  • Meselele
    Meselele Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    The last time I checked my fat percentage I was @ 21.5%
  • Meselele
    Meselele Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    @yarwell I just need proper nutrition advice cz I lift quite heavy but am seeing soo little results,
  • 999tigger
    999tigger Posts: 5,235 Member
    Options
    You are already a normal weight.
    What sort of exercise are you doing and for how long have you been exercising.
    Ordinarily eating more will not help you lose faster as it is more calories and a calorie deficit is required to lose weight. By lifting you are doing the right thing to retain LBM and ensure the max % of body fat loss v muscle loss.

    You do need to fuel your workouts though and consider eating exercise calories burned back. You should try and hit your macros, especially the one for protein, as you are lifting. 1200 is the min for a sedentary female, so use some common sense see how your weight loss goes, listen to your body and adjust accordingly. If you are doing additional cardio then eat 50% of those calories back and adjust. Most people dont eat extra for lifting as it burns relatively few calories. The golden rule is always listen to your body, so as long as you are netting 1200, hitting your macro and feel fine then dont worry about eating more. Plenty of people cna eat more and still lose though.

    If you are just lifting, then progress is slow, you have little to lose and building muscle takes time. Look at the progress you make on what you can lift. Be consistent and patient.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    Closed diary so hard to tell. If you're eating 75g of protein and 30g of fat/oil you have the basics, a variety of foods to provide your micro needs.

    As you aren't tall or heavy your energy use may not be much higher than what you're eating.
  • kyrannosaurus
    kyrannosaurus Posts: 350 Member
    Options
    yarwell wrote: »
    There isn't a strong correlation between deficit and % of weight loss that is fat.

    The trainers and doctor have always drilled this into me that I needed a smaller deficit to minimise muscle loss. If an aggressive deficit isn't going to cause a greater amount of muscle wastage why are 1200 diets so controversial?
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    Pass, 1200 isn't even a thing in the UK so I don't know. Typically it is nutrional adequacy that is a concern, muscle loss is mainly a sports science thing. That and commercial interests in exercise.

    The low calorie Protein Sparing Modified Fast is designed to preserve muscle at a high deficit and if you trawl through studies you probably won't find a clear correlation (I haven't) not least due to the vagaries of determining body fat.

    Loss of FFM is often loss of water too.
  • 999tigger
    999tigger Posts: 5,235 Member
    Options
    yarwell wrote: »
    There isn't a strong correlation between deficit and % of weight loss that is fat.

    The trainers and doctor have always drilled this into me that I needed a smaller deficit to minimise muscle loss. If an aggressive deficit isn't going to cause a greater amount of muscle wastage why are 1200 diets so controversial?

    You are mixing up the ratio of muscle loss with % of muscle loss. 1200 diets arent controversial, they just mark the min amount a woman needs for basic nutrition and below which you should not go. On a sustainability level its a challenge and many other dieters lose on more than this.