Eating more = losing weight?
Thatonechickoverthere
Posts: 100 Member
I used to over eat and gained a lot of weight so I started exercising and eating less calories and only healthy foods and I lost weight. After a few months of losing 20 lbs I reached a plateau. I was eating 1200 calories a day and exercising but not losing any weight. Then I downloaded this app and it told me to eat 2,000 calories a day! I never thought that would help me lose weight, I thought it was too many calories. But I listened to the app and had about 1,800 a day. After that it was late at night and I wasn't hungry anymore. After a week of using this app, I was under my calorie goal everyday except one day, I went over. I chose too many high calorie foods on accident that day. Anyway so after a week of essentially eating more, I had lost 2.5 lbs in a week! After a month of not losing anything! I never thought that eating more would help. This app allowed me to cheat more and be flexible and not worry so much about what I ate and I didn't have to be strict. I am really grateful for this app! Losing weight won't be as boring as I thought eating wise, or as strict. 
0
Replies
-
I'm curious as to how you were calculating your 1200 calories before you started using MFP.0
-
I don't think you are eating more
I think you are logging more accurately
Well done0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »I'm curious as to how you were calculating your 1200 calories before you started using MFP.
This was the question in my head, too. If not logging food in something like MFP a lot of people severely underestimate what they're eating, by as much as 40%.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »I'm curious as to how you were calculating your 1200 calories before you started using MFP.
I wonder if OP calorie intake lowered as she lost weight.0 -
I'm in the same boat. If I cut my calories more I plateau. I eat about 2000 on exercise days and 1600 on rest days and lose about two pounds a week. I think for me it comes down to what I'm eating as much as how much I'm eating.0
-
I don't believe that eating more is the key to weight loss. If a diet of donuts and fried foods were the way, that would be lovely, but no.
I do think there is something to be said for the break, though. There is something about beginning losing that helps me lose more and do it quicker and it's not a water issue. I lost quickly when I began. After a LONG time, I plateaued. Took a LONG break, went back to it and the weight started coming off at a good chop again. It came off like it's supposed to! Then it slowed down again.
At first, I thought, "Well, I was so obese. That's why it came off quickly and then slowed down. I was smaller." But, no. I was barely in the overweight category the second time I started losing and it came off quickly again.
There's something up with that, at least for me.0 -
Check out Eat to Perform's Wave Method for fat loss. It pretty much is what you describe.
Also, just because I and the OP are eating more it doesn't mean we are eating donuts. I only cheat for birthday cake so I don't feel like a jerk at parties. I eat way more whole foods, and don't eat bread or sugar anymore.0 -
Unless you're also, even subconsciously, cutting burn, or have a medical condition that makes literally no sense.tannibal_lecter wrote: »I'm in the same boat. If I cut my calories more I plateau. I eat about 2000 on exercise days and 1600 on rest days and lose about two pounds a week. I think for me it comes down to what I'm eating as much as how much I'm eating.
0 -
http://www.eattoperform.com/2015/01/19/the-calorie-wave-method-by-paul-nobles/
It actually makes perfect sense0 -
No, failing to lose weight on fewer calories, given constant burn, doesn't make sense. Even with "actually" and a link.tannibal_lecter wrote: »http://www.eattoperform.com/2015/01/19/the-calorie-wave-method-by-paul-nobles/
It actually makes perfect sense
0 -
tannibal_lecter wrote: »http://www.eattoperform.com/2015/01/19/the-calorie-wave-method-by-paul-nobles/
It actually makes perfect sense
"By waving from low-high Calories day to day, you can spend part of the week in a Calorie deficit and part of the week near maintenance. A wave will typically last no more than 2-3 months. After this the athlete goes back to their true maintenance for an extended period of time (3-6 months) before rinsing and repeating, until they arrive at the best body composition for their sport."
Like this plan would take too long for me.
0 -
It happens, and telling someone their reality is wrong or didn't happen just because it doesn't happen to you is kinda rude.
0 -
I don't believe that eating more is the key to weight loss. If a diet of donuts and fried foods were the way, that would be lovely, but no.
I do think there is something to be said for the break, though. There is something about beginning losing that helps me lose more and do it quicker and it's not a water issue. I lost quickly when I began. After a LONG time, I plateaued. Took a LONG break, went back to it and the weight started coming off at a good chop again. It came off like it's supposed to! Then it slowed down again.
At first, I thought, "Well, I was so obese. That's why it came off quickly and then slowed down. I was smaller." But, no. I was barely in the overweight category the second time I started losing and it came off quickly again.
There's something up with that, at least for me.
what do donuts and fried food have to do with the OP?
and for the millionth time no one is advocating a diet of 100% donuts and fried food, that is a ridiculous straw man argument.0 -
@yopeeps025 it isn't an instant fix for sure. It is a pretty flexible method though, I lost 34 pounds in 20 weeks.0
-
What if someone told you she could fly, travel faster than the speed of light, or otherwise act inconsistently with physics?tannibal_lecter wrote: »It happens, and telling someone their reality is wrong or didn't happen just because it doesn't happen to you is kinda rude.
I mean, even the quote above says you'd be eating at maintenance part of the time and in a deficit part of the time. That's cutting calories below maintenance.
0 -
It's not an argument, lol.I don't believe that eating more is the key to weight loss. If a diet of donuts and fried foods were the way, that would be lovely, but no.
I do think there is something to be said for the break, though. There is something about beginning losing that helps me lose more and do it quicker and it's not a water issue. I lost quickly when I began. After a LONG time, I plateaued. Took a LONG break, went back to it and the weight started coming off at a good chop again. It came off like it's supposed to! Then it slowed down again.
At first, I thought, "Well, I was so obese. That's why it came off quickly and then slowed down. I was smaller." But, no. I was barely in the overweight category the second time I started losing and it came off quickly again.
There's something up with that, at least for me.
what do donuts and fried food have to do with the OP?
and for the millionth time no one is advocating a diet of 100% donuts and fried food, that is a ridiculous straw man argument.
I didn't suggest...or even think...that anyone advocated that diet.
You're arguing against things that weren't said.
0 -
tannibal_lecter wrote: »@yopeeps025 it isn't an instant fix for sure. It is a pretty flexible method though, I lost 34 pounds in 20 weeks.
They have such a big diet break while you could be losing off a constant deficit.
0 -
I don't think you understand what was originally said.
When eating 1200 calories I stopped losing, and then started losing when I ate closer to maintenance. No one was saying we ate over maintenance, we just ate considerably more than before.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »tannibal_lecter wrote: »http://www.eattoperform.com/2015/01/19/the-calorie-wave-method-by-paul-nobles/
It actually makes perfect sense
"By waving from low-high Calories day to day, you can spend part of the week in a Calorie deficit and part of the week near maintenance. A wave will typically last no more than 2-3 months. After this the athlete goes back to their true maintenance for an extended period of time (3-6 months) before rinsing and repeating, until they arrive at the best body composition for their sport."
Like this plan would take too long for me.
so it is a recomposition plan?0 -
Yes it's true, The lower you go more abrupt the faster your metabolism haunts then you can't wind down anymore because you've already dropped so low. That's why they tell ya to slowly decrease calories instead of in one big shot, ya u will lose weight but then you are a t a plateau when your at a 1000 calorie deficit, lucky for you this is heathy to be taking in 2000 keep at it and slowly decrease calories again, your body is happy it's back into the swing of things0
-
tannibal_lecter wrote: »I don't think you understand what was originally said.
When eating 1200 calories I stopped losing, and then started losing when I ate closer to maintenance. No one was saying we ate over maintenance, we just ate considerably more than before.
I think everyone understands what you're saying, but it isn't mathematically/scientifically possible. Much more likely answer is that you thought you were eating 1200 calories, but it turns out you were eating more all along. Or maybe you really did eat at 1200, but it was unsustainable, so you had "cheat" days that cancelled out the large deficit. Once you upped your calories closer to maintenance, it was sustainable for you.
0 -
tannibal_lecter wrote: »I don't think you understand what was originally said.
When eating 1200 calories I stopped losing, and then started losing when I ate closer to maintenance. No one was saying we ate over maintenance, we just ate considerably more than before.
who is "we"? I don't think you are the OP...are you?
so based on your not losing at 1200 calories theory, how do people die from starvation?0 -
I understand what was written.tannibal_lecter wrote: »I don't think you understand what was originally said.
When eating 1200 calories I stopped losing, and then started losing when I ate closer to maintenance. No one was saying we ate over maintenance, we just ate considerably more than before.
If you stopped losing at 1200 and then started losing at 1200+, you were moving more and that more than offset the additional intake, you were measuring incorrectly, or it was due to the normal fluctuations that happen during weight loss. Adding more energy to a system doesn't cause it to behave as if you are removing energy from it.
0 -
It's not an argument, lol.I don't believe that eating more is the key to weight loss. If a diet of donuts and fried foods were the way, that would be lovely, but no.
I do think there is something to be said for the break, though. There is something about beginning losing that helps me lose more and do it quicker and it's not a water issue. I lost quickly when I began. After a LONG time, I plateaued. Took a LONG break, went back to it and the weight started coming off at a good chop again. It came off like it's supposed to! Then it slowed down again.
At first, I thought, "Well, I was so obese. That's why it came off quickly and then slowed down. I was smaller." But, no. I was barely in the overweight category the second time I started losing and it came off quickly again.
There's something up with that, at least for me.
what do donuts and fried food have to do with the OP?
and for the millionth time no one is advocating a diet of 100% donuts and fried food, that is a ridiculous straw man argument.
I didn't suggest...or even think...that anyone advocated that diet.
You're arguing against things that weren't said.
nope, not arguing. I am making a statement fact. Donuts and fried food have nothing to do with OP.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I understand what was written.tannibal_lecter wrote: »I don't think you understand what was originally said.
When eating 1200 calories I stopped losing, and then started losing when I ate closer to maintenance. No one was saying we ate over maintenance, we just ate considerably more than before.
If you stopped losing at 1200 and then started losing at 1200+, you were moving more and that more than offset the additional intake, you were measuring incorrectly, or it was due to the normal fluctuations that happen during weight loss. Adding more energy to a system doesn't cause it to behave as if you are removing energy from it.
Well we know what factors do happen from a long deficit to increasing calories.0 -
Yes it's true, The lower you go more abrupt the faster your metabolism haunts then you can't wind down anymore because you've already dropped so low. That's why they tell ya to slowly decrease calories instead of in one big shot, ya u will lose weight but then you are a t a plateau when your at a 1000 calorie deficit, lucky for you this is heathy to be taking in 2000 keep at it and slowly decrease calories again, your body is happy it's back into the swing of things
wut???
how could you plateau on a 1000 calorie deficit..????
apologies, but this makes no sense.0 -
Yes it's true, The lower you go more abrupt the faster your metabolism haunts then you can't wind down anymore because you've already dropped so low. That's why they tell ya to slowly decrease calories instead of in one big shot, ya u will lose weight but then you are a t a plateau when your at a 1000 calorie deficit, lucky for you this is heathy to be taking in 2000 keep at it and slowly decrease calories again, your body is happy it's back into the swing of things
I'm really sorry I've read this twice and I still don't understand what you're saying, could you rephrase it0 -
It's not an argument, lol.I don't believe that eating more is the key to weight loss. If a diet of donuts and fried foods were the way, that would be lovely, but no.
I do think there is something to be said for the break, though. There is something about beginning losing that helps me lose more and do it quicker and it's not a water issue. I lost quickly when I began. After a LONG time, I plateaued. Took a LONG break, went back to it and the weight started coming off at a good chop again. It came off like it's supposed to! Then it slowed down again.
At first, I thought, "Well, I was so obese. That's why it came off quickly and then slowed down. I was smaller." But, no. I was barely in the overweight category the second time I started losing and it came off quickly again.
There's something up with that, at least for me.
what do donuts and fried food have to do with the OP?
and for the millionth time no one is advocating a diet of 100% donuts and fried food, that is a ridiculous straw man argument.
I didn't suggest...or even think...that anyone advocated that diet.
You're arguing against things that weren't said.
nope, not arguing. I am making a statement fact. Donuts and fried food have nothing to do with OP.
I assume Kalikel was saying that if you aren't losing weight at an appropriate deficit, then adding in MORE calories (from donuts) isn't going to make you lose more weight. To be fair, it doesn't matter if OP is adding calories by means of donuts or spinach, but I agree with the overall message here.0 -
Yes it's true, The lower you go more abrupt the faster your metabolism haunts then you can't wind down anymore because you've already dropped so low. That's why they tell ya to slowly decrease calories instead of in one big shot, ya u will lose weight but then you are a t a plateau when your at a 1000 calorie deficit, lucky for you this is heathy to be taking in 2000 keep at it and slowly decrease calories again, your body is happy it's back into the swing of things
I'm really sorry I've read this twice and I still don't understand what you're saying, could you rephrase it
Please don't.0 -
For Pete's sake.
Strawman and Anecdotal have been used so far. I think I'm gonna create Fallacy Bingo for MFP if it doesn't exist yet. (Though arguably I could be applying Fallacy Fallacy by calling something anecdotal, right?)
Not everyone is trying to have, much less trying to win an argument. Some people go to discussion boards to discuss.
Even if you are having a discussion, avoiding logical fallacies is a good idea.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions