(Untitled)

Welcome to MFP. This is a great resource with lots of knowledgeable folks. All the best in your journey to health. I eat back about half my calories from exercise. & so far it's working. I'm down 61 pounds.

Hello and welcome. I am not a weight loss expert but from what I've learned here and from my own personal experience, eat what MFP recommends and about 50-75% of the exercise calories. I'm sure some much more helpful answers will come your way. I'd also recommend reading all the pinned posts at the top of all the forums. I learned a ton there.

You will not lose faster by eating more. It really doesn't work that way. That said, yes, you should be eating your exercise calories or at least the majority of them.

The way MFP works is that it gives you a calorie goal based on no exercise. Not everyone can exercise, after all. So, you already have the deficit needed to lose weight at the rate you specified in your goals (I'm guessing 2 pounds per week) built into your calorie goal for each day. That means based on your stats MFP figured out that you need to eat X calories per day to maintain your current weight and it then subtracts 1000 calories per day to meet a 2 pound per week loss (a deficit of 7,000 calories).

When you exercise, you earn calories to eat because eating them maintains the 1000 calorie deficit needed to meet your goal. Since you have a lot of weight to lose, you may find that you don't want to eat the extra calories because you already have a lot of calories available to you each day. You need to be a bit wary about trying to lose weight too quickly, though. There comes a point that your body is going to decide that your excess muscles (since you have less mass to move around so you aren't using them like you used to) are an easier target than your excess fat. Sacrificing lean muscle mass for a faster weight loss is not wise.

MissMollyPacendova wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

You won't lose more weight by eating more -- eating more calories will cause you to lose less weight.

So are you saying that if it's saying that my daily caloric intake should be 1900 calories, but I have only been eating 1200 then I should be losing more weight, and eating the 1900 would cause me to lose less weight? Because according to this, I have been under eating.

Yes. If your daily intake should be 1,900 and you're eating 1,200, you would see more weight loss than if you were eating 1,900 (assuming your activity is the same for both). You're losing weight though!

But given how low you're eating and your rate of loss, this may be a logging issue. That is, you may be eating more than 1,200. Are you using a food scale to measure your food?

OP, you said that you just started using the app. How long have you been counting calories? Are you weighing your foods using a digital kitchen scale?

MissMollyPacendova wrote: »

In short, when you don't have consume enough calories your metabolism slows down because it thinks you are starving. So I don't agree that the less you eat the more you lose, within reason, of course.

So, as I said, I respect your opinion, and I sincerely appreciate that you took time to advise me. I think I just need to consult a nutritionist or doctor.
Thank you

This is a pretty widespread myth, so I can understand why you think that. While long-term starvation will impact the metabolism, 1,200 calories isn't going to put you in that range. And even if your metabolism slows, you will still lose weight -- if this wasn't the case, then nobody would ever starve to death. I understand where you're coming from though: there is so much misinformation, half-truths, and junk science floating out there about weight loss that many of us have had to unlearn what we thought we knew.

For those of us dieting to lose weight and not in siege/prison camp situations, the less we eat, the more we will lose. This doesn't mean we should eat as little as possible -- but as to your question (Will I lose more if I eat 1,900 a day as opposed to 1,200 a day?), the answer is clear.

Starvation mode as it is usually spoken about is a myth. Why would anorexics get so obviously thin if starvation mode was true?? Wouldn't their body just slow down their rate of loss to compensate?

If you truly starve your body, over time it will shut down less important processes like creating hair and muscle to divert energy to keeping you alive. And if you under-eat for a VERY long period of time, over the course of years your body may get to the point where it functions on slightly fewer calories.

But under-eating for a few weeks will not slow down your loss. It will make you grumpy, tired, and really hungry, and you will lose weight too fast and lose more muscle than you want to.

If you don't have a food scale, give it a try - it is eye-opening. Best of luck!

If you are concerned about that, anecdotal evidence has it that you'd only need maybe a week of bumping up your calories before going back to the lower figure. People do 'nudge' little plateaus that way when eating a low amount for a while. No harm in trying it.

I don't know of any studies on nudging plateaus in weight loss, so why that would work is just speculation, of course. If that bothers anyone, just forget I said it

MissMollyPacendova wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

MissMollyPacendova wrote: »

In short, when you don't have consume enough calories your metabolism slows down because it thinks you are starving. So I don't agree that the less you eat the more you lose, within reason, of course.

So, as I said, I respect your opinion, and I sincerely appreciate that you took time to advise me. I think I just need to consult a nutritionist or doctor.
Thank you

This is a pretty widespread myth, so I can understand why you think that. While long-term starvation will impact the metabolism, 1,200 calories isn't going to put you in that range. And even if your metabolism slows, you will still lose weight -- if this wasn't the case, then nobody would ever starve to death. I understand where you're coming from though: there is so much misinformation, half-truths, and junk science floating out there about weight loss that many of us have had to unlearn what we thought we knew.

For those of us dieting to lose weight and not in siege/prison camp situations, the less we eat, the more we will lose. This doesn't mean we should eat as little as possible -- but as to your question (Will I lose more if I eat 1,900 a day as opposed to 1,200 a day?), the answer is clear.

I'm seriously not interested in debating you. I have my opinions and experiences, and am no longer interested in others' opinions or thoughts on the matter.

But thanks for the input

This isn't a debate. Even if you aren't interesting in having your preconceptions about weight loss and how it works challenged, I think it's important to point out for anyone else who may be reading this thread that eating more will not produce a greater weight loss.

Yes, we all have our own opinions and experiences. That doesn't mean that there isn't some sort of objective truth that can give us a greater understanding of how our bodies work.

MissMollyPacendova wrote: »

jemhh wrote: »

MissMollyPacendova wrote: »

In short, when you don't have consume enough calories your metabolism slows down because it thinks you are starving. So I don't agree that the less you eat the more you lose, within reason, of course.

So, as I said, I respect your opinion, and I sincerely appreciate that you took time to advise me. I think I just need to consult a nutritionist or doctor.
Thank you

I would suggest a registered dietitian since nutritionists are a dime a dozen.

Adaptive thermogenesis happens over time during weight loss. But you seem to be inching toward what people call "starvation mode" which is a bunch of hooey. If you eat in a caloric deficit, you will continue to burn fat and lose fat. Some people diet extremely, which leads to cortisol issues, resulting in water retention that masks fat loss. But considering that you have not answered "yes" to the question of whether you are weighing your food with a digital kitchen scale, I doubt that is your problem. My guess is that you are simply eating more than you think you are.

I didn't answer the question about the scale because at that point I ceased to be interested in others' opinions. But for the record, I am very careful with serving sizes.

Thank you for your concern

It would be a shame to miss out on help just because you aren't hearing what you want to hear.