Is this a thing? (losing more when eating more calories)

justanotherjenn wrote: »

I have heard people talk about how if you eat too little, your body holds on to the fat it has, or something like that. Is that still true or is this just a total coincidence?

This is not true - the body burns calories whether you feed a certain amount or not. Your body will not 'hold on to fat' like this.

No, it's not a thing. Science is a thing and there's no way around energy balance. What trips up many people is how incredibly inaccurate we can be in our efforts to calculate/track/manage/evaluate our own energy balance for the sake of weight control.

From personal experience, eating too little has a noticeable effect on my NEAT. Not to the point I don't lose weight, but I can see how someone might perceive it that way in the short term.

I'd rather eat more and in return feel better and move more while getting essentially the same results.

I think the myth comes from people having diet/food stress and probably scale stress that causes water retention and masks losses. When a person eats and believes it will result in weight loss one or both of those things probably relaxes the person and the water is released.

I do my entire week's deficit in 6 days and eat maintenance on the 7th and I find it very relaxing. When I have been unable to do it because life is messy I feel the impact of it immediately.

what some people find is that an increase in calories - they move more (more steps, more fidgiting) as well as sleeping better and working out more effectively - all of which contribute to increased weight loss

tlf318 wrote: »

I was wondering the same thing.I was at 205 pounds I'm 5'3" & I'm stuck in a rut at 155.5 pounds.I've been on SlimQuick Regular Strength was losing 1-5 pounds a day & best of all NO EXERCISE.I went off of the drug for 4 months I gained only 1-5 pounds I was LIKE WOW cool.I'm on a 1200-1400 calorie a day diet Sugar Free,Fat Free & Reduced Fat.I can make a grilled cheese 100 calories.I use Butter Spray,Kraft 30 calorie cheese slice fat free,& 2 slices Aunt Millies bread 70 calories for 2 slices their 35 calories each.I need to lose just 15-25 pounds according to BMI either 140 pounds or 130 pounds.Right now slightly over weight.So any help or guidance to get my metabolism to work would be great.This is a great site thanks for creating it for us.Oh I also love Smart Ones & Healthy Choice meals those are helpful.

Losing 1-5 pounds per day is very, very much a health risk. I would not recommend it. Eat a sensible number of calories, don't try to lose more than 0.5-1 pounds a week at your current weight.

If I underate that severely, I would seriously reduce my daily life activity through fatigue and weakness. If that's your issue, taking a formal diet break at maintenance calories could be helpful. Info is here:

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks

Are you eating enough protein (hitting your MFP protein goal as a minimum, at least)? Are you eating any vegetables and fruits (a bare minimum of 5 servings daily would be a good plan)? Are you getting enough healthy fats (it sounds like you're trying to be reduced fat with everything, but an essential minimum of fat is required for adequate nutrition, as much of it as possible from sources like nuts, seeds, avocados, olive oil, etc.)?

Calories determine weight loss, period. But over the long haul, excessively low calories or inadequate nutrition can affect your energy level, health, and body composition, in ways that largely show up on the "calories out" side of the CICO equation.

The classic advice to improve weight loss and let you eat more would be exercise or NEAT improvement. (It's entirely possible to lose weight without adding exercise, but exercise is important to health and especially to healthy independent aging. As someone who believes in finding exercise that's fun, and who's successfully done that, I have to admit I Can't Even with the idea of "best of all NO EXERCISE". But that's just me.)

If not exercise, consider this:

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss

BTW, your metabolism works. Metabolisms don't break . . . well, they do, but that's called "dead". Your metabolism is the end-point summation of your body processes' energy consumption, that's all. If you're breathing, heart beating, thinking, etc., your metabolism is fine - especially true if you're generally healthy.

Best wishes for reaching your goals!

jjpptt2 wrote: »

jjpptt2 No, it's not a thing. Science is a thing and there's no way around energy balance. What trips up many people is how incredibly inaccurate we can be in our efforts to calculate/track/manage/evaluate our own energy balance for the sake of weight control.

I agree and disagree.

I've known many family members and friends who either miscalculate food quantities, leave out food, or cheat on almost every 'diet'. Many eat 50-75% of the programmed food quantities, and then add another 500-1500 calories on top of the program. Maybe they're good for 3-5 days, then they run to fast food, happy hour, or ice cream.

But its likely more complex than that when one adds in cardio, weights, etc. I stalled at 286-87, tall guy, big boned. MFP members told me to up my calorie intake (I was way under eating at 800 - 1,000 CPD, cucumber gonzo, little protein). So I upped my CPD to 1700-2100 (TDEE says I burn 2800 a day w/ no exercise), hiking, treading water, and just started light lifting 3 days a week. I lost 4-5 pounds, and then 2 back on. Technically, this shouldn't happen. I'm trying to figure it out.

Last night I posted a new science article about a protein in the body that can kick in, and prevent fat loss. (In The Atlantic.) It was spurred by virtually all of The Biggest Losers contestants gaining all of their weight back, and more.

One new component I learned - for me -is that swimming promotes a larger water weight loss, short term. I don't recall the medical term. When we swim, blood surrounds core organs, probably to retain heat. "Our body senses this increase in blood volume in the chest and interprets it as too much blood/water. This sends signal to our kidneys to get rid of this excess water. Therefore our kidneys produce more urine and we have to pee."

Here to learn. Break a leg!

Edit: halfway to goal weight.

TallGent66 wrote: »

jjpptt2 wrote: »

jjpptt2 No, it's not a thing. Science is a thing and there's no way around energy balance. What trips up many people is how incredibly inaccurate we can be in our efforts to calculate/track/manage/evaluate our own energy balance for the sake of weight control.

I agree and disagree.

I've known many family members and friends who either miscalculate food quantities, leave out food, or cheat on almost every 'diet'. Many eat 50-75% of the programmed food quantities, and then add another 500-1500 caliries on top of the program. Maybe they're good for 3-5 days, then they run to fast food, happy hour, or ice cream.

But its likely more complex than that when one adds in cardio, weights, etc. I stalled at 286-87, tall guy, big boned. MFP members told me to up my calorie intake (I was way under eating at 800 - 1,000 CPD, cucumber gonzo, little protein). So I upped my CPD to 1700-2100 (TDEE says I burn 2800 a day w/ no exercise), hiking, treading water, and just started light lifting 3 days a week. I lost 4-5 pounds, and then 2 back on. Technically, this shouldn't happen. I'm trying to figure it out.

Last night I posted a new science article about a protein in the body that can kick in, and prevent fat loss. (In The Atlantic.) It was spurred by virtually all of The Biggest Losers contestants gaining all of their weight back, and more.

One new component I learned - for me -is that swimming promotes a larger water weight loss, short term. I don't recall the medical term. When we swim, blood surrounds core organs, probably to retain heat. "Our body senses this increase in blood volume in the chest and interprets it as too much blood/water. This sends signal to our kidneys to get rid of this excess water. Therefore our kidneys produce more urine and we have to pee."

Here to learn. Break a leg!

To the bolded: That's just water weight fluctuation, not fat loss, so who cares?

Absent a serious medical problem that causes pathological water retention so requires medical management, people should not be trying to manipulate their water weight for "weight loss". That's not healthy, and water weight manipulation is fake weight loss. Fat loss is the thing we actually want.

Understanding our water retention (why it happens, how long it lasts, etc.) helps us manage our weight loss, by keeping us calm and on course during water-weight fluctuations. That's all.

TallGent66 wrote: »

I agree and disagree.

I've known many family members and friends who either miscalculate food quantities, leave out food, or cheat on almost every 'diet'. Many eat 50-75% of the programmed food quantities, and then add another 500-1500 calories on top of the program. Maybe they're good for 3-5 days, then they run to fast food, happy hour, or ice cream.

But its likely more complex than that when one adds in cardio, weights, etc. I stalled at 286-87, tall guy, big boned. MFP members told me to up my calorie intake (I was way under eating at 800 - 1,000 CPD, cucumber gonzo, little protein). So I upped my CPD to 1700-2100 (TDEE says I burn 2800 a day w/ no exercise), hiking, treading water, and just started light lifting 3 days a week. I lost 4-5 pounds, and then 2 back on. Technically, this shouldn't happen. I'm trying to figure it out.

Sure, there's definitely more to it than just correctly estimating intake... I didn't mean to gloss over that. Energy balance is about everything the body does that impacts calories burned and everything we do that impacts calories consumed... and that can be a HUGE umbrella. Calories burned through exercise, calories burned through daily living, and calories consumed through eating/drinking isn't the entire equation, but it is 90% of it for 90% of people... which is why we always start there with these types of discussions.

TallGent66 wrote: »

Last night I posted a new science article about a protein in the body that can kick in, and prevent fat loss. (In The Atlantic.) It was spurred by virtually all of The Biggest Losers contestants gaining all of their weight back, and more.

I'm curious how biggest loser contestants (their situations, experiences, successes, failures, etc) relate to most of us. It's like me saying that Dwayne Johnson eats 5000 cals per day and is huge, so clearly I should to.

TallGent66 wrote: »

One new component I learned - for me -is that swimming promotes a larger water weight loss, short term. I don't recall the medical term. When we swim, blood surrounds core organs, probably to retain heat. "Our body senses this increase in blood volume in the chest and interprets it as too much blood/water. This sends signal to our kidneys to get rid of this excess water. Therefore our kidneys produce more urine and we have to pee."

I'm not sure managing water weight is a wise strategy for weight loss. Understanding it, sure. But...

nooboots wrote: »

I dont understand that comment about a protein in the body kicking in and preventing fat loss.

You used the 'biggest loser' contestants as examples. But surely if they lost weight in the first place (before gaining it back), then surely this is not relevant to them as otherwise they wouldnt have lost weight if they had some protein preventing fat loss?

Unfortunately, the Biggest Loser study is often cited to support a lot of stuff it doesn't. Those contestants lost weight incredibly fast, by under-eating and over-exercising over several months. This most likely leads to some adaptive thermogenesis. In addition, they are then cut loose, and end up having difficulty sticking to the diet and exercise they learned while on the show. So they went from eating way too much to way too little, from being sedentary to aggressive exercise. All of this conspires to lower their TDEE dramatically and leave them with no plan, and weight gain is the result. Applying this to the average person makes no sense, other than perhaps a cautionary tale that losing weight aggressively has some definite downsides.

I agree that I see no connection between the Biggest Loser study and the study in the Guardian article. I think that's an example of a reporter either not understanding what they were reporting on, or purposefully using hyperbole and dubious references to pump up the article.

TallGent66 wrote: »

nooboots wrote: »

I dont understand that comment about a protein in the body kicking in and preventing fat loss.

You used the 'biggest loser' contestants as examples. But surely if they lost weight in the first place (before gaining it back), then surely this is not relevant to them as otherwise they wouldnt have lost weight if they had some protein preventing fat loss?

"In a study of former contestants on a season of the weight-loss reality show The Biggest Loser, scientists found that years later, the contestants not only had gained back much or all of the weight they’d lost on the show, but also had far weaker metabolisms than most people their size. The contestants’ bodies had fought for years to regain the weight, contrary to the contestants’ efforts and wishes. No one was sure why."

"Along with a team of researchers, Ann Marie Schmidt, an endocrinologist at the New York University School of Medicine, has been unraveling the mystery. In a new study published today, Schmidt and her team have unlocked a molecular mechanism controlling weight gain and loss in mice: a protein that shuts down the animals’ ability to burn fat in times of bodily stress, including when dieting or overeating. This discovery might hold the key to understanding why it’s so hard for humans to lose weight, and even harder to keep it off."

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/07/weight-loss-rage-proteins/594073/

FWIW.

I've watched "My 600-pound Life", and it seems like many lose large amounts of weight when they stick to the program, even with minimal excercise.

Speaking of "My 600 Pound Life", I've watched about half of the current season and everyone who was either on a controlled diet in a hospital setting or have the mental wherewithal to be able to control their diet themselves lost weight as expected.

Many go through a period of denial in which they tell themselves that they are eating 1200 calories a day but the scale shows they are not. Dr. Now threatens them with death, and that gets through to many of them.

I think they should all get therapy and other tools much earlier in the process though. "Eat 1200 calories or you will die" isn't adequate as far as I'm concerned. It's like saying "Stop smoking or you will die" - while that may work for some, many need more tools than that.

kimny72 wrote: »

nooboots wrote: »

I dont understand that comment about a protein in the body kicking in and preventing fat loss.

You used the 'biggest loser' contestants as examples. But surely if they lost weight in the first place (before gaining it back), then surely this is not relevant to them as otherwise they wouldnt have lost weight if they had some protein preventing fat loss?

Unfortunately, the Biggest Loser study is often cited to support a lot of stuff it doesn't. Those contestants lost weight incredibly fast, by under-eating and over-exercising over several months. This most likely leads to some adaptive thermogenesis. In addition, they are then cut loose, and end up having difficulty sticking to the diet and exercise they learned while on the show. So they went from eating way too much to way too little, from being sedentary to aggressive exercise. All of this conspires to lower their TDEE dramatically and leave them with no plan, and weight gain is the result. Applying this to the average person makes no sense, other than perhaps a cautionary tale that losing weight aggressively has some definite downsides.

I agree that I see no connection between the Biggest Loser study and the study in the Guardian article. I think that's an example of a reporter either not understanding what they were reporting on, or purposefully using hyperbole and dubious references to pump up the article.

Yeah. I have to say that any writer who attributes cognition, emotions, and goals to bodily functions -- as in the quoted passage form the Atlantic that has the body battling against the dieter to achieve its own separate goal of regaining the weight -- shouldn't be writing about science.