Eat more to lose more?
Replies
-
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »100_PROOF_ wrote: »Remember this op - weight loss always comes down to calories. There's no way around that. Calories in calories out.
If you are truly creating a consistent calorie deficit, you will lose weight. Weight loss isn't always linear though. You must trust the process. Trust the math and science to back it up. Calories in calories out.
Exactly. Consuming more calories does not help you lose weight. Having more “motivation” does not help you lose weight. Only eating less than you burn loses weight.
Other issues may help you stay on track but saying “eating more to lose more” is horribly misleading and perpetuates the myth of starvation mode.
Being in a deficit causes weight loss. There are many different ways of achieving that.
While I mentioned above, OP should start with being more accurate above all else, making absolute statements such as "this never leads to this" can be misleading as well.
Sorry, I may be confused. I thought OP was suggesting that eating more calories would “jump start” her weight loss? Are we saying that it would? Or could? Or might? “Never” seems a good word to use there...
If eating more causes her to move more (an amount of movement that requires more energy than the extra food provides) then yes, her weight loss could increase by eating more.
I know we like to act like "but, math, durr" but rarely does one part of the equation change without another changing as well.
But do you think that’s what OP meant? Or what the average person in the street understands by starvation mode?
I think it more likely that people believe the myth that consuming more calories will “kick start” their weight loss. OP even used words to that effect.
By all means let’s be clear about the issues of diet fatigue and over training and the benefits of carefully managed diet breaks. But suggesting that if you eat more you lose more?2 -
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »100_PROOF_ wrote: »Remember this op - weight loss always comes down to calories. There's no way around that. Calories in calories out.
If you are truly creating a consistent calorie deficit, you will lose weight. Weight loss isn't always linear though. You must trust the process. Trust the math and science to back it up. Calories in calories out.
Exactly. Consuming more calories does not help you lose weight. Having more “motivation” does not help you lose weight. Only eating less than you burn loses weight.
Other issues may help you stay on track but saying “eating more to lose more” is horribly misleading and perpetuates the myth of starvation mode.
Being in a deficit causes weight loss. There are many different ways of achieving that.
While I mentioned above, OP should start with being more accurate above all else, making absolute statements such as "this never leads to this" can be misleading as well.
Sorry, I may be confused. I thought OP was suggesting that eating more calories would “jump start” her weight loss? Are we saying that it would? Or could? Or might? “Never” seems a good word to use there...
Sometimes when people eat too little they lose energy and their NEAT decreases because they simply don't move around as much. Eating a little more can fix that.
Also, in the short term, undereating can cause stress responses in the body, hormone issues, that can mess with water weight and metabolism. Taking a diet break and then eating at a more reasonable deficit can balance that out.
So it's like semantics and a technicality
Absolutely it’s no doubt semantics and a technicality. But an important one. Its terrifying that the myth about “kick starting” weight loss by consuming more calories perpetuates despite all evidence to the contrary. It’s like “whack a mole”...1 -
Here's a thread that goes into detail about the concept of diet breaks. The information you need is mostly in the first post, and the next few pages answer questions about how it works in real life. I agree a diet break is most likely in order, and as you will see, just one or two days isn't nearly enough time to see results.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p11 -
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »100_PROOF_ wrote: »Remember this op - weight loss always comes down to calories. There's no way around that. Calories in calories out.
If you are truly creating a consistent calorie deficit, you will lose weight. Weight loss isn't always linear though. You must trust the process. Trust the math and science to back it up. Calories in calories out.
Exactly. Consuming more calories does not help you lose weight. Having more “motivation” does not help you lose weight. Only eating less than you burn loses weight.
Other issues may help you stay on track but saying “eating more to lose more” is horribly misleading and perpetuates the myth of starvation mode.
Being in a deficit causes weight loss. There are many different ways of achieving that.
While I mentioned above, OP should start with being more accurate above all else, making absolute statements such as "this never leads to this" can be misleading as well.
Sorry, I may be confused. I thought OP was suggesting that eating more calories would “jump start” her weight loss? Are we saying that it would? Or could? Or might? “Never” seems a good word to use there...
If eating more causes her to move more (an amount of movement that requires more energy than the extra food provides) then yes, her weight loss could increase by eating more.
I know we like to act like "but, math, durr" but rarely does one part of the equation change without another changing as well.
But do you think that’s what OP meant? Or what the average person in the street understands by starvation mode?
I think it more likely that people believe the myth that consuming more calories will “kick start” their weight loss. OP even used words to that effect.
By all means let’s be clear about the issues of diet fatigue and over training and the benefits of carefully managed diet breaks. But suggesting that if you eat more you lose more?
I think that the OP doesn't know and is asking for more information and the fact is that there are times when raising calories eaten results in increased weight loss. I'm not sure why you object to this being mentioned.
You are the first person in this thread who mentioned "starvation mode." If a person wants to ask about it, they usually trot out that phrase immediately but this OP did not so I did not assume that it's what was on her/his mind.4 -
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »100_PROOF_ wrote: »Remember this op - weight loss always comes down to calories. There's no way around that. Calories in calories out.
If you are truly creating a consistent calorie deficit, you will lose weight. Weight loss isn't always linear though. You must trust the process. Trust the math and science to back it up. Calories in calories out.
Exactly. Consuming more calories does not help you lose weight. Having more “motivation” does not help you lose weight. Only eating less than you burn loses weight.
Other issues may help you stay on track but saying “eating more to lose more” is horribly misleading and perpetuates the myth of starvation mode.
Being in a deficit causes weight loss. There are many different ways of achieving that.
While I mentioned above, OP should start with being more accurate above all else, making absolute statements such as "this never leads to this" can be misleading as well.
Sorry, I may be confused. I thought OP was suggesting that eating more calories would “jump start” her weight loss? Are we saying that it would? Or could? Or might? “Never” seems a good word to use there...
If eating more causes her to move more (an amount of movement that requires more energy than the extra food provides) then yes, her weight loss could increase by eating more.
I know we like to act like "but, math, durr" but rarely does one part of the equation change without another changing as well.
But do you think that’s what OP meant? Or what the average person in the street understands by starvation mode?
I think it more likely that people believe the myth that consuming more calories will “kick start” their weight loss. OP even used words to that effect.
By all means let’s be clear about the issues of diet fatigue and over training and the benefits of carefully managed diet breaks. But suggesting that if you eat more you lose more?
Personally, I believe there are cases where that can be true. It's certainly not the most common reason why weight loss slows. It's probably not even a very common reason at all.
Anecdotally, some people seem to be wired so that changes in calorie intake are more likely to cause changes in NEAT and exercise performance. Their bodies adapt to reduced calories by down-regulating activity, perhaps in quite subtle ways. Think about it: Evolutionarily, this would be a good survival adaptation.
On the flip side, some people's body's up-regulate activity in response to increased calories. In the maintenance forum, we sometimes see sensible-seeming people say that when they started gradually increasing daily calories to get to their maintenance level (even maintenance level calculated off their own recent weight loss data), they found they kept losing weight for longer than they'd expected, and landed finally at a higher weight-stabilizing calorie level than they ever expected.
Would the people who are quick to down-regulate activity on reduced calories be the same ones who up-regulate more quickly at higher calories? I don't have any perspective on that, not really having seen that whole picture reported from one and the same person, as far as I can recall. Habit would play some role, i.e., some forms of down-regulation might become habits that stick even when energy perks up (say, less frequent recreational shopping at malls that require extensive walking).
I suspect that for some people there could be an intake point that's "a knee in the curve". That is, the activity to intake response isn't a straight line as calorie intake increases linearly. If so, then there may be a calorie intake that's an optimal level for an individual to lose weight at a certain rate. If they increase the deficit "too much", they reduce their NEAT/exercise intensity enough to wipe out some of the deficit. If they eat a little more, not wiping out the whole theoretical deficit, just a little, perhaps their activity perks up to "normal" and they see the full deficit effect. Is this speculative? Yes.
There are two sides to the CICO equation, CI and CO. CI and CO are not completely independent of one another in a behavioral and psychological sense, to some extent not even in a physiological sense. If reducing/increasing CI has an effect on CO, then "consuming more calories never helps you lose weight" (with no reference at all to magnitude of "more") is an oversimplification. It's also a bit of slap in the face to the minority who are seeing truly anomalous results. (Even if you're a skeptic, I think it's worth creating that face-saving room for them while we ask to see their diary, ask about cheat days, length of stall, etc. It helps the communication go better, vs. simply being curtly dismissive of what they're reporting.)
TDEE changes from day to day. It can change by hundreds of calories, for a variety of reasons. One reason is activity, another is exercise intensity. Both of those can be influenced by CI. We are dynamic systems, not fixed ones. Even your car gets better gas mileage (or kilometerage
) at some speeds vs. others, and it doesn't even have subjective experience (AFAIK ).
Will someone ever stop losing weight at calories below their actual current TDEE? Of course not. That's nonsense. Is there some optimal level of calories that gets the best result, for reasons of CI/CO interrelationships (not just binge potential)? Maybe.
JMO, no science to back it up.
Edited: Missing word.6 -
Redordeadhead wrote: »No.
The answer to "I'm not losing weight" is never "eat more".
I also agree with the suggestion to check your logging accuracy: weighing all solids, logging everything, including "cheats", using accurate database entries and verifying the accuracy of exercise calories/eating back only a percentage. Plus giving it sufficient time.
While the OP should definitely get the most accurate logging in place first before doing anything else, I disagree with your statement.
Sometimes increasing calories can help people better adhere to their deficit, not binge, and it can also help them move more. If I was eating only 1200 cals over time I know my workouts would suffer, my energy would drop and I would sloth around (not walk much, sit more, avoid extra activities).. so increasing calories could definitely help with that.
Very true, I agree with you. I interpreted the OP as asking whether eating more, on its own (not taking into account the impact on NEAT etc.) would speed up weight loss as somehow not eating enough was causing the body to not lose weight.
The mention of 'jump start' made me think it was linked to the notion of starvation mode or slowed metabolism that we often see used mistakenly on the forums, but perhaps it wasn't meant that way. It is of course a bit more complex.2 -
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »100_PROOF_ wrote: »Remember this op - weight loss always comes down to calories. There's no way around that. Calories in calories out.
If you are truly creating a consistent calorie deficit, you will lose weight. Weight loss isn't always linear though. You must trust the process. Trust the math and science to back it up. Calories in calories out.
Exactly. Consuming more calories does not help you lose weight. Having more “motivation” does not help you lose weight. Only eating less than you burn loses weight.
Other issues may help you stay on track but saying “eating more to lose more” is horribly misleading and perpetuates the myth of starvation mode.
Being in a deficit causes weight loss. There are many different ways of achieving that.
While I mentioned above, OP should start with being more accurate above all else, making absolute statements such as "this never leads to this" can be misleading as well.
Sorry, I may be confused. I thought OP was suggesting that eating more calories would “jump start” her weight loss? Are we saying that it would? Or could? Or might? “Never” seems a good word to use there...
If eating more causes her to move more (an amount of movement that requires more energy than the extra food provides) then yes, her weight loss could increase by eating more.
I know we like to act like "but, math, durr" but rarely does one part of the equation change without another changing as well.
But do you think that’s what OP meant? Or what the average person in the street understands by starvation mode?
I think it more likely that people believe the myth that consuming more calories will “kick start” their weight loss. OP even used words to that effect.
By all means let’s be clear about the issues of diet fatigue and over training and the benefits of carefully managed diet breaks. But suggesting that if you eat more you lose more?
Just my own personal n=1 experience...I initially went to maintenance because I had basically completely stalled out for over a month and just figured whatever...I was at a healthy BF% anyway which was my ultimate goal, just not as low as I had hoped for. I was also pretty lethargic much of the time and had stopped making much, if any progress in the weight room and I was running at the time and my runs had become a struggle.
I was on about 2200-2300 calories per day for about 7 months. I upped my calories to 2500-2600 thinking that would be a good maintenance number or at least a good place to start out. Low and behold I started losing again at the rate of about 1 Lb per week and lost another 5 Lbs. What stood out to me most is that I simply had more energy in my day to day...I wasn't as fatigued and lethargic and had a hard time sitting still and was really fidgety. I also started hitting PRs and making progress in the weight room and my runs just felt like night and day easier. Also, weird things like my finger nails suddenly needed to be cut way more often...my hair was growing faster and needed to shave my head every week instead of every couple of weeks...stuff like that.
I also wonder if there wasn't also some hormonal stuff going on there as well. At any rate, I finally petered out to maintenance after an additional 5 Lb loss at about 3,000 calories...far more than I would have predicted given my complete stall at 2200-2300 calories.8 -
Silentpadna wrote: »CourtneyCatherine7 wrote: »I weigh my foods and have an arm band to calculate calories burned. Doing the same as I always have as I did to lose the 30. I have 50-60 more to lose.
I've tried diet breaks for a day or 2, doesn't help much. Just going by the whole " Your body needs calories to burn calories" and metabolism stuff. Just trying put 1500 calories instead for a few days.
If you have 50-60 more to lose, then chances are your 1200 calorie intake is not accurate (or your "stall" hasn't been for very long). If your stall has been for 6-8 weeks or more, then you are likely eating close to maintenance. There are not many height/weight/age combinations that will come up with a 1200 calorie intake as maintenance.
Perhaps if you provided those stats (ht/wt/age), we can help ballpark some numbers for you. I'm fairly certain that if you have that much to still lose, then you would not be maintaining on 1200. If your stats are anywhere in the normal range, signs point to your logging/weighing/measuring.
I'm 23/5"5/190lbs
SW 220
GW 140-1300 -
I'm guessing OP is eating back the calories that whatever "armband" is giving her credit for and that's probably the culprit in this scenario.
Try setting MFP to your current stats (height, weight, etc) and set for sedentary or lightly active and don't give yourself credit for your daily movements. That might solve the issue right there. Assuming you are eating back your calories burned from your device.5 -
CourtneyCatherine7 wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »CourtneyCatherine7 wrote: »I weigh my foods and have an arm band to calculate calories burned. Doing the same as I always have as I did to lose the 30. I have 50-60 more to lose.
I've tried diet breaks for a day or 2, doesn't help much. Just going by the whole " Your body needs calories to burn calories" and metabolism stuff. Just trying put 1500 calories instead for a few days.
If you have 50-60 more to lose, then chances are your 1200 calorie intake is not accurate (or your "stall" hasn't been for very long). If your stall has been for 6-8 weeks or more, then you are likely eating close to maintenance. There are not many height/weight/age combinations that will come up with a 1200 calorie intake as maintenance.
Perhaps if you provided those stats (ht/wt/age), we can help ballpark some numbers for you. I'm fairly certain that if you have that much to still lose, then you would not be maintaining on 1200. If your stats are anywhere in the normal range, signs point to your logging/weighing/measuring.
I'm 23/5"5/190lbs
SW 220
GW 140-130
Thank you for providing this. Using one of many TDEE calculators out there, here are some numbers that should be in the ballpark (note: using TDEE - total daily energy expenditure - is another method to work out an average deficit).
At your starting weight:
With little to no exercise (or sedentary), the average person with your stats would burn 2165 calories per day. This would also be your maintenance level - the number of calories you would consume to maintain your weight (over time). Bear in mind that this is an estimate. It might vary by 10% or so (this would capture the majority of the population with these stats). Let's say for the sake of argument that yours is under by 10%. If that is the case, your average maintenance calories would be (2165-216) 1949 calories.
If you were logging and measuring correctly, 1200 calories would still give you an aggressive deficit.
Now, at your current weight:
Your new TDEE (or maintenance) at your current weight of 190 would be 2008. Using a 10% "fudge factor" as above, your maintenance calories would still be at 1800. So you should still be losing at a good clip if you were eating 1200 calories.
If you are more than sedentary, those numbers jump more.
What MFP does:
When you enter your stats in MFP, it calculates your calories sort of in reverse, but you end up in the same place. MFP uses NEAT, and then you add exercise on top of that. If you use TDEE less a deficit, it starts with a given activity level and subtracts the deficit. The math works the same, so eat what MFP gives you.
Bottom Line
It's hard to be accurate measuring. It takes diligence, but I truly believe that if you are stalled, the reason is that your accuracy is off. If it has been a very short time, it may just be fluctuation.
So, measure accurately and trust the process, and give it time. Lots of time.
2 -
Sometimes water retention can last for several weeks. The amount of time it lasts can often coincide with the amount of patience a person has. So often the person gets pissed off and starts eating more and at the same time their weight drops the retained water. The person concludes it is their increased eating that caused the drop.
Some people like me a more persistent. They don't start eating because they trust the science. The retained water still drops at the same time as with the other group of people. This group notes it down as a normal bodily function and moves on.4 -
Water retention. How long has it been since you last lost weight? My guess is not very long. Weight loss isn't linear and it's very common to have 3-4 weeks stalls when you don't lose anything (especially for women and those pesky cycles).
With your stats, 1200 calories is WAY TOO LITTLE if you're not eating back exercise calories. You have a huge deficit and you're going to burn through your lean mass (muscle) like crazy. How long did it take you to lose those 30 lbs? I'm guessing 2-3 months tops? Assuming obviously that you're accurate in your logging. I know you're weighing your food, but it's possible to use inaccurate entries (raw, dry, cooked etc).
So yeah, I'd eat more, but not to lose more, to lose in a much healthier way and not metabolize your muscle mass. For what it's worth, I lost 80 lbs without eating less than 1650 calories (counting exercise), same stats but 10 years older than you.1 -
Just to be clear/complete... it sounds like there are 2 slightly different themes to the responses here.
- Eat more... magic happens... scale starts moving again
- Eat more... feel better, move more, adhere better, deficit better... scale starts moving
The first one is a thing, but not for most people. There's a good thread going about refeeds - look it up if you think this scenario applies to you. The hugely oversimplified cliff notes is that if you maintaining a big enough deficit for long enough, your body/hormones adapt and what was a deficit no longer is. Eating more can help "reset" things.
The second scenario is the case for far more people. They maintain a deficit, lose some weight, then plateau. That plateau could happen for a number of reasons... because they get lazy with their logging/tracking, they get lazy with their workouts, they are moving less in general (NEAT), simply don't have the drive they did when they started out, etc etc. In this case, eating more can help with some of those "symptoms"... and the trickle down effect of eating more is a more consistent deficit which means weight loss... but that only happens IF those symptoms are aleviated. If you eat more but continue to be lazy, unmotivated, sloppy with your logging, etc etc, you won't see any improvement in weight loss.
The vast majority of people should assume they fall into #2. Because they probably do.4 -
Water retention. How long has it been since you last lost weight? My guess is not very long. Weight loss isn't linear and it's very common to have 3-4 weeks stalls when you don't lose anything (especially for women and those pesky cycles).
With your stats, 1200 calories is WAY TOO LITTLE if you're not eating back exercise calories. You have a huge deficit and you're going to burn through your lean mass (muscle) like crazy. How long did it take you to lose those 30 lbs? I'm guessing 2-3 months tops? Assuming obviously that you're accurate in your logging. I know you're weighing your food, but it's possible to use inaccurate entries (raw, dry, cooked etc).
So yeah, I'd eat more, but not to lose more, to lose in a much healthier way and not metabolize your muscle mass. For what it's worth, I lost 80 lbs without eating less than 1650 calories (counting exercise), same stats but 10 years older than you.
The 30lbs has come off pretty consistently since late January.0 -
Have you heard of calorie cycling? Google it and you can find the calculator. It gives you higher and lower days of calories to eat so that your body does not adapt to eating the same amount daily. It's helped me breakthrough plateaus many times.
However, what works for one person may or may not work for you. You will have to tweak your calories and see what works. Hang in there! I've been on this journey for many years and I am finally seeing my goal weight within reach. Haha... 8
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K 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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions