Not eating enough, lesson learned
Options
Replies
-
the fewer calories you eat, the more weight you will lose. Period.
No.
The larger your deficit, the more weight you will lose. That is not the same thing.
For many people, eating less leads them to move less and therefore burn fewer calories. For those people, eating enough to increase their activity level can actually increase their deficit and lead to increased weight loss (as long as the increase in calorie burn is greater than the increase in calorie intake).
You are correct that starvation mode does not exist; however, your follow-up statement was incorrect.28 -
Tomk652015 wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »Seattleovercast wrote: »The same thing happened to me. I had my calories set high when I first started counting and the weight was dropping off. I was eating the same foods, and working out the same. When I dropped my calorie goal my weight slowed and then stopped all together. I was still eating the same healthy foods, exercising the same amount but the weight wouldn't come off. Once I bumped it back up to my initial calorie goal, the weight started coming off again!
something else at play here to cause that. the greater the calorie deficit you are under, the more you will lose. its just simple math. there are a lot of factors but math is math. caveat....you have to do the math correctly.
The human body is complex, it's not just math.
well what would it be then? the question is what makes your body lose weight? I pose that burning (by whatever means) more energy than you consume. example, your TDEE is 2500 cals, You consume 1500, your deficit is 1000. over time, your weight drops faster than if your TDEE is 2500 and you consume 2000 with a deficit of 500. See..math.
A lot of what's written on this forum assumes that 3500 == 1lb is a hard fact. Some quick google searches would tell you that this is not as settled, scientifically, as people want it to be. Yeah the numbers make things easier to implement but they aren't the sum total of how your body regulates your weight. If it's working for him, so be it. Show me your data/research before you shut him down.6 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »the fewer calories you eat, the more weight you will lose. Period.
No.
The larger your deficit, the more weight you will lose. That is not the same thing.
For many people, eating less leads them to move less and therefore burn fewer calories. For those people, eating enough to increase their activity level can actually increase their deficit and lead to increased weight loss (as long as the increase in calorie burn is greater than the increase in calorie intake).
You are correct that starvation mode does not exist; however, your follow-up statement was incorrect.
My statement could've been worded better but it seems like everyone has picked up on what I was suggesting - which is the same thing you are saying.4 -
I hate to spoil the party OP but it is "just" maths. Biology = Chemistry = Physics = Maths4
-
SusanMFindlay wrote: »the fewer calories you eat, the more weight you will lose. Period.
No.
The larger your deficit, the more weight you will lose. That is not the same thing.
For many people, eating less leads them to move less and therefore burn fewer calories. For those people, eating enough to increase their activity level can actually increase their deficit and lead to increased weight loss (as long as the increase in calorie burn is greater than the increase in calorie intake).
You are correct that starvation mode does not exist; however, your follow-up statement was incorrect.
My statement could've been worded better but it seems like everyone has picked up on what I was suggesting - which is the same thing you are saying.
The original poster said *nothing* about starvation mode. He said he increased his food intake and that helped him lose weight. Another poster agreed that they'd had the same experience. *You* are the one who brought "starvation mode" into the conversation and basically told him that his experience was invalid.
I get that "starvation mode" is a hot button around here, but the "eating more is never ever the answer under any circumstances" crowd is also wrong. Finding the right balance between intake and burn is what matters.24 -
Tomk652015 wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »Seattleovercast wrote: »The same thing happened to me. I had my calories set high when I first started counting and the weight was dropping off. I was eating the same foods, and working out the same. When I dropped my calorie goal my weight slowed and then stopped all together. I was still eating the same healthy foods, exercising the same amount but the weight wouldn't come off. Once I bumped it back up to my initial calorie goal, the weight started coming off again!
something else at play here to cause that. the greater the calorie deficit you are under, the more you will lose. its just simple math. there are a lot of factors but math is math. caveat....you have to do the math correctly.
The human body is complex, it's not just math.
well what would it be then? the question is what makes your body lose weight? I pose that burning (by whatever means) more energy than you consume. example, your TDEE is 2500 cals, You consume 1500, your deficit is 1000. over time, your weight drops faster than if your TDEE is 2500 and you consume 2000 with a deficit of 500. See..math.
A lot of what's written on this forum assumes that 3500 == 1lb is a hard fact. Some quick google searches would tell you that this is not as settled, scientifically, as people want it to be. Yeah the numbers make things easier to implement but they aren't the sum total of how your body regulates your weight. If it's working for him, so be it. Show me your data/research before you shut him down.
i never said anything about 3500 cals is a pound. the crux of my statement solely revolves around the fact that when you burn more calories than you consume you lose weight. throw any number you want at it. that law doesn't change.3 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »the fewer calories you eat, the more weight you will lose. Period.
No.
The larger your deficit, the more weight you will lose. That is not the same thing.
For many people, eating less leads them to move less and therefore burn fewer calories. For those people, eating enough to increase their activity level can actually increase their deficit and lead to increased weight loss (as long as the increase in calorie burn is greater than the increase in calorie intake).
You are correct that starvation mode does not exist; however, your follow-up statement was incorrect.
My statement could've been worded better but it seems like everyone has picked up on what I was suggesting - which is the same thing you are saying.
The original poster said *nothing* about starvation mode. He said he increased his food intake and that helped him lose weight. Another poster agreed that they'd had the same experience. *You* are the one who brought "starvation mode" into the conversation and basically told him that his experience was invalid.
I get that "starvation mode" is a hot button around here, but the "eating more is never ever the answer under any circumstances" crowd is also wrong. Finding the right balance between intake and burn is what matters.
No need to be defensive. He may not have said the words "starvation mode" but it was very clear that he was suggesting the definition of "starvation mode" was indeed happening to him.the "eating more is never ever the answer under any circumstances" crowd is also wrong
If you'll read my post you will find that I am encouraging people to take a balanced approach and eat sustainably. Eat as many calories as you can while still losing weight!2 -
Tomk652015 wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »Seattleovercast wrote: »The same thing happened to me. I had my calories set high when I first started counting and the weight was dropping off. I was eating the same foods, and working out the same. When I dropped my calorie goal my weight slowed and then stopped all together. I was still eating the same healthy foods, exercising the same amount but the weight wouldn't come off. Once I bumped it back up to my initial calorie goal, the weight started coming off again!
something else at play here to cause that. the greater the calorie deficit you are under, the more you will lose. its just simple math. there are a lot of factors but math is math. caveat....you have to do the math correctly.
The human body is complex, it's not just math.
well what would it be then? the question is what makes your body lose weight? I pose that burning (by whatever means) more energy than you consume. example, your TDEE is 2500 cals, You consume 1500, your deficit is 1000. over time, your weight drops faster than if your TDEE is 2500 and you consume 2000 with a deficit of 500. See..math.
A lot of what's written on this forum assumes that 3500 == 1lb is a hard fact. Some quick google searches would tell you that this is not as settled, scientifically, as people want it to be. Yeah the numbers make things easier to implement but they aren't the sum total of how your body regulates your weight. If it's working for him, so be it. Show me your data/research before you shut him down.
i never said anything about 3500 cals is a pound. the crux of my statement solely revolves around the fact that when you burn more calories than you consume you lose weight. throw any number you want at it. that law doesn't change.
You need to do a lot more reading before you start talking about "laws". Truth is, like the rest of us, you're parroting what someone else has come up with; I doubt that any of us on this forum has any hard scientific data to prove your "law".
Maybe start by reading this. http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/energy-balance-myths/3 -
Well, i think I found out why I was not losing and even gaining at times, I was not eating enough. I was eating 1000 calories below the highest weight loss setting in my fitness pall. For weeks I was not losing weight and I had no idea why i lost a lot when I starting cutting lower but it stalled. So, I am trying to eat my full recommended intake and after eating so few calories it feels indulgent lol. It worked and am losing weight gain, I guess I was curing to low and my body felt like it was starving.
Lesson learned.
Wrong. You don't lose weight by eating MORE. Nope nope nope. Not happening.
4 -
And yet we have several examples of it happening. It happened to me.fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Well, i think I found out why I was not losing and even gaining at times, I was not eating enough. I was eating 1000 calories below the highest weight loss setting in my fitness pall. For weeks I was not losing weight and I had no idea why i lost a lot when I starting cutting lower but it stalled. So, I am trying to eat my full recommended intake and after eating so few calories it feels indulgent lol. It worked and am losing weight gain, I guess I was curing to low and my body felt like it was starving.
Lesson learned.
Wrong. You don't lose weight by eating MORE. Nope nope nope. Not happening.
Maybe there are explanations for that you haven't thought of? For example, maybe when we raised our caloric intake, we had more energy and we became more active? I'm not talking about exercising more, but the kind of activity someone might do unconsciously or involuntarily. That's one possibility, anyway.14 -
I so wish this were true for me, The eat more to lose more didn't work for me :sad: The bigger the deficit, the more I lose.
OP if you are able to eat more and still lose, just do it
4 -
Well...if you eat so little that you end up spending all your time lying on the couch then eating more so you can improve the co part of the equation could be helpful. It could also be that if you give yourself more calories to work with you become significantly more compliant and stop eating subconsciously.
Still cico and no starvation mode.3 -
Things are not always so simple over time as many here would suggest. Adaptations over time are real. It is math but the math changes over time and upping calories or taking a break can have definite benefits. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/EvgeniZyntx?month=2013083
-
Is this why people with anorexia and are all skin and bones eat 1200 calories?
Oh wait, no they don't.
They often hardly eat at all and get thinner and thinner. Crazy.7 -
Tomk652015 wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »Seattleovercast wrote: »The same thing happened to me. I had my calories set high when I first started counting and the weight was dropping off. I was eating the same foods, and working out the same. When I dropped my calorie goal my weight slowed and then stopped all together. I was still eating the same healthy foods, exercising the same amount but the weight wouldn't come off. Once I bumped it back up to my initial calorie goal, the weight started coming off again!
something else at play here to cause that. the greater the calorie deficit you are under, the more you will lose. its just simple math. there are a lot of factors but math is math. caveat....you have to do the math correctly.
The human body is complex, it's not just math.
well what would it be then? the question is what makes your body lose weight? I pose that burning (by whatever means) more energy than you consume. example, your TDEE is 2500 cals, You consume 1500, your deficit is 1000. over time, your weight drops faster than if your TDEE is 2500 and you consume 2000 with a deficit of 500. See..math.
A lot of what's written on this forum assumes that 3500 == 1lb is a hard fact. Some quick google searches would tell you that this is not as settled, scientifically, as people want it to be. Yeah the numbers make things easier to implement but they aren't the sum total of how your body regulates your weight. If it's working for him, so be it. Show me your data/research before you shut him down.
So . . I'm going to need more information about this. Links/info, please? I depend heavily on calorie math, so very curious.1 -
jardane1, I've had the same experience as you. The majority of posters on MFP don't believe true life experience, but someday if it ever happens to them, they'll change their minds.6
-
I don't believe in starvation mode but there was a period of time where I was tracking my calories religiously and eating 1200 calories or less and then eating 1500 and then suddenly losing tons of weight. Our bodies are all different and sometimes require more calories for function.4
-
Don't look the gift horse in the mouth. And lucky you!
0 -
I don't see why everyone has to argue all the time on here. Just say "that's awesome keep up the good work and glad you're losing again" there that's alot better.
19 -
Math can be complex too but that doesn't make it less true.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 935 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions