eating more = weight loss???

Yes, I'm finding that out too!

can people be more specific because i want this message to be heard loud and clear.

How many calories do you eat when you DON'T lose (the lesser amount)?

How many do you eat when you're eating what is recommended (the higher amount)?

Yes. I have been eating 1200+ exercise calories and losing a pound or two here and there. This week I increased my calories to 1650, ignoring exercise (I did exercise, just didn't eat those calories back) but that still put me well over what I have been eating. I lost FOUR pounds this week.

I always eat my full calories. That way I don't feel deprived and I have the energy I need to keep moving!

let me clarify! okay when i say eat less then my recommended calorie intake I am in NO WAY starving myself!

Say if I don't eat back the calories I burnt from exercise or maybe I am about 300-400 calories under my required caloric intake for the day.

So the lesser amount say about 900 when I see no results and then I will only lose weight if I eat the higher amount of about 1200.

can you further clarify, sorry, do you mean 900 net calories or 900 total calories ingested on low days?

You do realize your weight is variable depending on time/water/etc.. ? Ask yourself how it makes sense eating more to a certain amount loses more weight than eating less.

I have been finding that if I meet my caloric intake for the day, rather then eating less I will only lose weight.. My body will refuse to lose weight unless I eat my up too my 1200 calories a day! Does anyone else find that they too need to eat more to see results?

If your consuming more calories on exercise days. Then it's because your refueling your body with sufficient amounts of nutrients to replenish what was lost during that exercise. If your eating at maintenance without any exercise at all. Then you will neither gain or lose. Weight/fat loss equals calorie deficit.

A great way to think about this, is to see your metabolism as a fire. It burns hotter when you keep giving it a steady supply of fuel. If you quit giving the fuel and stoking the fire, it fades to coals.

This is how I tend to think about it too.

You do realize your weight is variable depending on time/water/etc.. ? Ask yourself how it makes sense eating more to a certain amount loses more weight than eating less.

it makes sense because when we restrict our calories TOO much the body "catches on" and will slow down the metabolic rate (primarily NEAT goes down) and then we don't lose as much weight as we would predict based on our calorie "deficit." When we eat more the body is no longer fearful that a famine is around the corner so excess weight is shed more willingly.

I think of it like my computer. If I don't have enough RAM, and I try to run too many processes at once, it slows to a crawl.

If I don't give my body enough food, it's like a computer lacking in RAM: it doesn't function optimally, either. My hair growth will slow. My skin will look dull. My brain won't work right. (Ex: My brain will think "700 calories is enough!" :laugh: ) So I might still lose weight if I don't eat enough, but at what cost? I'd rather eat more and feel good while losing.

(FYI: 39 years old, 127 pounds, 5'5, eating around 1800-2000 daily (1500 + exercise calories) to lose about a half pound a week, but I've been slacking a bit lately and not logging because, quite frankly, that last pound isn't that important.)

You do realize your weight is variable depending on time/water/etc.. ? Ask yourself how it makes sense eating more to a certain amount loses more weight than eating less.

it makes sense because when we restrict our calories TOO much the body "catches on" and will slow down the metabolic rate (primarily NEAT goes down) and then we don't lose as much weight as we would predict based on our calorie "deficit." When we eat more the body is no longer fearful that a famine is around the corner so excess weight is shed more willingly.

I disagree with you. I think too many people throw around the "starvation mode" excuse on these forums too much. I really think the body needs to be deprived of nutrients a lot longer than most people describe their 'starvation' period. I'm also not a big believer on the fluxation of metabolic rate. There's really not much evidence suggesting the body expends the calories you eat differently on different days. Most studies conclude one thing -- 'calories in / calories out'

Of course, if you pointed me to resources supporting evidence to what you stated, I would certainly like to take a read to educate myself.

A great way to think about this, is to see your metabolism as a fire. It burns hotter when you keep giving it a steady supply of fuel. If you quit giving the fuel and stoking the fire, it fades to coals.

I love this.


...and YES. Eat more = lose/maintain better! When I start to eat under my cals, I notice way more pouch-ness in my stomach.... in a sense I am still getting used to this foreign concept

I disagree with you. I think too many people throw around the "starvation mode" excuse on these forums too much. I really think the body needs to be deprived of nutrients a lot longer than most people describe their 'starvation' period. I'm also not a big believer on the fluxation of metabolic rate. There's really not much evidence suggesting the body expends the calories you eat differently on different days. Most studies conclude one thing -- 'calories in / calories out'

Of course, if you pointed me to resources supporting evidence to what you stated, I would certainly like to take a read to educate myself.

^ While I agree with you on calories in/out, and I also agree that starvation mode is a mythical term floating around with no substance (you don't see fat anorexics if you'll accept anecdote)---however-- downregulation of thyroidal hormones (believe it's T3, T4) occurs, and it does lower metabolic rate. It's typically regulated with a few maintenance days.

That being said, people tend to throw the term "starvation mode" and suggest that your body actually stores fat in a deficit, which doesn't happen. That's how I understand it/what I have read anyways. Just thought I'd share.

Now we're getting closer to fact instead of dumb anecdotes. There are indeed metabolic adaptations that occur when calories are consistently ratcheted down for an extended period (typically months). A few days to a couple of weeks of maintenance calories (i.e. caloric equilibrium) can "reset" these adaptations making it appear that more food actually equaled weight loss. It would not be sustained and furthermore, as pgalasti pointed out, fluid fluctuations make it particularly difficult to measure how this is changing the actual desired effect (which is fat loss, not weight loss).

But right, a sustained deficit will not halt or reverse weight loss. What further complicates this is NEAT. There is speculation that NEAT changes as intake changes. This is highly individualized.

I'm just at the beginning of my experiment with this, but so far I'm loving it! I have lost 32 pounds since May, and when I reached a healthy bmi, things halted in terms of weight loss. I tried everything - I had reached a plateau prior to this when I first started MFP (I lost 20 pounds on WW), and when I first joined I started eating more calories because WW had me on about 1400 a day. I ate more (about 1900 average after exercise). and lost about 4 pounds. Then I plateaued again and only saw the scale move up 1 pound for one day, but that was enough to convince me that more calories was not the answer. So I lowered them a little, and then a little more, lost a little weight but not much, and then stopped again. I started noticing some of the old signs - cold all the time, low energy, etc, so I tried everything. Played with my macros, added more fat (which did help a lot), but still no weight loss. I wasn't gaining, but I wasn't losing either - fyi I'm 5'8" at 157. I do have some to lose, not much.

Well this past month I've been slowly upping my calories again. I changed my goal to lose .5 lb a week, and at first I was hesitant to eat all those extra calories. But eventually I did, and I still didn't gain. But I did notice I had A TON more energy. Less aches and pains during my workouts and I just had so much get up and go in my step - awesome feeling. I'm running in my 1st half marathon on sunday, so I decided that this week I would up it to maintenance level so I would have maximum energy for the race. I've actually been going over my maintenance calories for the last two days by 100 - 200 calories. I've been eating 2500+ calories this past week, and haven't gained a pound. I was actually a little lower this morning.

I've done some reading about Diet Breaks and refeeds (google it) and they say for maximum benefits, it is best when you are closer to goal to have a diet break every 6-8 weeks, to reset metabolism and hormone levels for optimum weight loss results when you return to your deficit. I'm going to continue eating at or above maintenance for as long as it takes for me to either lose weight, or gain weight. I'd actually like to know what is my maximum number I'd need to not gain weight. I'm ok with gaining 2 or 3 real pounds (not water weight) if it will mean that I will know what my true maintenance number is, so I'll know what deficit I should be at. I still can't believe I'm eating so much and not gaining (fyi I run 30 - 35 miles per week, so my numbers might be high for someone who doesn't run as much as I do). And also, diet greats are great psychologically too, and I'm learning a lot. I've never kept track of when I eat too much, only when I don't eat enough. It's a great learning experience.

Oh, and my nails - oh my god. I've always had gross, non-existent nails I always attributed it to biting them - they are GORGEOUS now. They are thick, strong, growing, healthy - it's amazing. I've always sort of been on a diet for the past 15 years and have never really filled myself at maintenance level with healthy foods. I love this. LOVE IT.

I disagree with you. I think too many people throw around the "starvation mode" excuse on these forums too much. I really think the body needs to be deprived of nutrients a lot longer than most people describe their 'starvation' period. I'm also not a big believer on the fluxation of metabolic rate. There's really not much evidence suggesting the body expends the calories you eat differently on different days. Most studies conclude one thing -- 'calories in / calories out'

Of course, if you pointed me to resources supporting evidence to what you stated, I would certainly like to take a read to educate myself.

^ While I agree with you on calories in/out, and I also agree that starvation mode is a mythical term floating around with no substance (you don't see fat anorexics if you'll accept anecdote)---however-- downregulation of thyroidal hormones (believe it's T3, T4) occurs, and it does lower metabolic rate. It's typically regulated with a few maintenance days.

That being said, people tend to throw the term "starvation mode" and suggest that your body actually stores fat in a deficit, which doesn't happen. That's how I understand it/what I have read anyways. Just thought I'd share.

google metabolic adaptation. for the general public it's not useful to use incredibly scientific terminology to explain the metabolic occurrences that can account for a less than predicted loss of weight.

What essentially occurs is that the body reaches a homeostasis because the metabolism downregulates to conserve energy. You might lose weight for quite some time but eventually the weight loss is so slow that it is nearly negligible and the person must reduce their calories further to continue losing.

Not only that, there is less physical activity...non-exercise activity thermogenesis accounts for a significant portion of our BMR so if you move less because you're tired and lack energy then you will expend less.

In addition there is a loss of lean muscle mass with too great a calorie deficit and with less muscle mass the metabolism is naturally slower.

Here's a nice read...not COMPLETELY comprehensive but it does show that TDEE goes down in response to caloric restriction/low calorie dieting.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004377