Is it true that you cannot eat as much as a person that was always of normal weight?

I think it somehow got lost in translation. The guideline is that you don't go from a calorie deficit directly into your TDEE calories. Your body can't handle that quick of a jump and the result is an initial weight gain but this weight gain will stop as soon as your body adjusts. You should instead transition to your TDEE calories over a few weeks period of time adding a few hundred calories per day each week until you reach TDEE.

littlecrystal wrote: »

Ah, found the name. The programme is called The weight of the nation.

I looked at some of the literature regarding the documentary and it talks about a "theory" that once you loose weight your body is always trying to get back to the original weight. It doesn't sound like there's any actual proof that you need to be lower than your TDEE. If there was I would think that they would use the word "fact" and refer to specific studies and not just assumptions.

If I remember correctly, it was based on measuring the energy requirements of a relatively small sample group, and it's not clear that this remains the case forever (so your body may well adapt to your new composition/size etc. over time)

Either way, it's irrelevant on the individual level. What are you going to do? Not lose the weight because you have to eat less than some hypothetical identical person who wasn't overweight? You'll never know what your TDEE would have been if you had never been overweight, because, well, you were overweight and that is the sum total of your experience.

I honestly couldn't care less if I have to eat less than I otherwise would. For me, maintenance requires constant vigilance, so all my effort goes into maintaining what I've lost, not worrying about what could have been.

Sorry if I'm a bit short, but I don't think these discussions are particularly helpful, although they are quite interesting, I suppose.

There is some research into "adaptive thermogenesis", which is what some say happens when you lose weight by cutting calories (which is what everyone does to lose weight, even if you are cutting calories by burning more in exercise). The research does seem to indicate that your body's metabolism slows slightly after dieting. But what is not clear is whether it is permanent, or whether the effect goes away over time. What does seem to be more definite is that cutting your calories more drastically seems to cause this effect more for.

There is actually a good MFP three about this somewhere. Search for "adaptive thermogenesis".

This also sounds like the point of "reverse dieting." Its a long progression to add back calories to maintenance like @giolis was mentioning. You add 50-100 cal a day to your original deficit each week until you stabilize. I've heard of it but never practiced. I have always been in"diet mode" since I've started calorie counting. Would work hard all week keeping under 1200 and waste it all in one day with social gatherings.

I've learned a lot since then though. Constant deficit is just not worth living. Stress hormones and other factors start to play into the game. There is still much to learn about the body as we now dive into gut bacteria influence, too! What I have been doing is calorie cycle or 5:2 intermittent fasting in fear of being stuck in this forever low-calorie deficit. I have calculated a weekly deficit but still have days that are "surplus" because other days are so deficit. My personal theory is that this constant adjustments from day to day will allow me to avoid this reverse dieting conundrum. But from my understanding this might be a lifestyle change and not a diet.

I'm not sure that the 20% reduction is totally accurate, but I do believe that the body tries to move to its "set point." If an individual was over weight for a long period of time, their set point would be higher. After losing weight, the body tries to over eat in order to gain weight back to your set point. I have heard you can train your body to have a new set point but that it takes a long long time.

A good place to start looking for health-related research:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/


.

besee_2000 wrote:

I have always been in "diet mode" since I've started calorie counting.
Would work hard all week keeping under 1200 and waste it all in one day with social gatherings

Unless you're very short, 1200 is the _minimum_ calorie intake for a woman.
Your profile says you have very little to lose, so your daily deficit (from maintenance, which is about 10 cal/lb)
should be around 250.

I'm not sure about that but what I can contribute is that it takes less to fill me now, that didn't happen overnight but it was a gradual thing. I sit down alot to a big enough plate of food only to find I can only eat just over half of it...my brain registers I'm full quicker maybe? Don't know but I'm not complaining lol

SideSteel wrote: »

You're essentially referring to Adaptive Thermogenesis as tigerblue mentioned previously in this thread.

Basically, you burn fewer calories. You can offset this to varying degrees with increased LBM and increased activity.

Exactly what I have heard and read. That is why I will take two weeks every month or so and eat slightly above maintenance calories and do compound exercises at heavy weights