Can't get on board with eating MORE calories...

Me neither. I eat 1300 cal, and burn about 300 in exercising. So I live on 1000 cal a day and that works great for me. I loose about 1/2 to 1 pound every week, which is totally healthy. When I am down to my ideal weight, I plan to eat each month 200 cal more, until I am back to the 1800 cal, my body needs to maintain. Everyone should figure out, what works best for (slow) weightloss.

Hi,

I've been overweight the past 15 or so years. I'm really dedicated to losing now but I'm having a hard time with the whole calories thing. I know losing is a simple equation of calories in/calories out. That's why I can't figure out this whole, "eat more to lose more" thing. Is it true? Has anyone seen it work? I have been keeping to 1200 cal/day and haven't lost much. MFP says I should be eating more like 1500. I'm nervous to try more calories for fear of gaining. I have been diagnosed with PCOS which means at this point gaining is extra easy and losing is extra hard.

I guess I'm just looking for some support on the higher calorie thing.

Thanks for listening to me ramble...

-Beth

Of course; it works for me.
If you restrict calories too much, you can forget losing weight and keeping it off.
Your metabolism will stifle.
To prevent this MFP recommends a slight deficit to reflect a 1 lb weekly weight loss.
And that includes eating back your exercise calories to retain that slight deficit.

Simply stated MFP has already figured out your total calories you need to eat per day to lose 1lb etc. a week. That's WITHOUT exercise. You'll notice that when you actually add exercise in, the calorie limit goes up. Why? Because it's telling you to eat your exercise calories. Large deficits aren't really good to do because while you will lose weight, what kind of weight will it be? In many cases you'll lose lean muscle tissue which LOWERS your metabolic rate even more. Then you have to eat even less to compensate for less of a calorie burn to continue to lose the same amount of weight each week.
Be efficient. Exercise hard and eat back the calories. The hard exercise will RAISE your metabolic rate and burn more fat at rest.

The human body is only capable of losing so much fat in a day. Youll lose the same amount daily taking 20% from TDEE than you will at 1200 calories. The problem with 1200 calories though...its a metabolism killer. It slows it down! So its going to take a lot longer to lose the weight than if you took your TDEE and subtracted 20%.

To summarize:
My TDEE is 2500 calories daily.
My cutting number is 2000.
I lose 1lb a week at 2000 calories daily.
I lost .25lb weekly at 1200 before my metabolism came to a crawl.
So now I cut to 2000 and work out and lose a lot of weight.

Simple right?

I think there's a balance to find personally.. it's important to not put yourself in starvation mode and all..

But there's also studies that show that some calorie restriction in lab mice adds to their health and longevity.

MFP is a great way to find where your personal tipping point is, the point where you maintain, the point where less cals than that you lose, the point where more cals than that you gain.

Restricting myself slightly from maintenance calories is the only way I've been able to lose. I'm quite active and eat very clean, and if I go over my personal amount of maintenance calories then I gain, for me it's simple as that.

When I get to my goal weight I do plan to push my max maintenance calories and see how much more muscle I can build that way.

Everyone is different but this makes sense to me and works for me.

A basic diet of 2000 cal plus exercise 2-5 times a week is the "normal" maintainable diet for most humans, correct? That's why most labels say "for a 2000 cal diet"

However, I still want to lose weight.

So for example, I take in 1800, exercise 600 bring my total calories in back down to 1200 thus having a deficit from a maintainable diet of 2000 cal of 800 cal a day that with in a weeks time is 5600 cal. That should give you a 1.5 lb loss.

I know not everyone can or will eat a 2000 cal diet but this is an example.

I log my food on MFP and my excercise and usually still have a net left.

Feel free to view my diary

It's working for me.

The moral of the story is to have a good base of calories to work from then subtract with training.
Its better to have a fully functional metabolism to lose weight than to restrict cals to an extent that kills the metabolism.

Hi,

I've been overweight the past 15 or so years. I'm really dedicated to losing now but I'm having a hard time with the whole calories thing. I know losing is a simple equation of calories in/calories out. That's why I can't figure out this whole, "eat more to lose more" thing. Is it true? Has anyone seen it work? I have been keeping to 1200 cal/day and haven't lost much. MFP says I should be eating more like 1500. I'm nervous to try more calories for fear of gaining. I have been diagnosed with PCOS which means at this point gaining is extra easy and losing is extra hard.

I guess I'm just looking for some support on the higher calorie thing.

Thanks for listening to me ramble...

-Beth

I know it seems very counter-intuitive...however, if you don't consume adequate calories (are you doing physical exercise too?), your body will believe it is starving-and do everything it can to hold onto subcutaneous and visceral fat (fat under the skin and fat around your internal organs)-kind of like a bear hibernating in winter.

My sisters are athletes (marathoners and triathelets)...you should see their calorie requirements for the day-it's crazy.

Your body needs adequate fuel to burn fat. No worries-if it says 1500, shoot for 1500-it can't be worse than where you are now since you said you're not losing.

Word of caution-it is a bit easier for men to lose weight than women...unfortunate but very true. Curse your fast metabolisms

I too could not get my head around this concept; I was stuck for ages without losing so upped my calorie intake to offset the calories burned through exercise and have definitely kick started my loss again. Keep positive and give it a try......

Thank you!!!

None of that changes the fact that it's based on calories in vs calories out. Also, PCOS does not cause carbs to instantly become fat, that's not how insulin resistance works. Insulin resistance also changes the entire metabolic equation by wreaking havoc on a person's metabolism. It's still calories in vs calories out. If hormones slow your metabolism due to a conservation response from long term calorie restriction, it doesn't mean that calories in vs calories out doesn't apply, it just means calories out are lower than expected. Then when you spike your intake, and the hormones reset your metabolism to a higher level, you then eat more while burning more.

Bottom line, it's always calories in vs calories out, even factoring in different circumstances.

I like Tigersword. Great info! Always learning when you are around.

None of that changes the fact that it's based on calories in vs calories out. Also, PCOS does not cause carbs to instantly become fat, that's not how insulin resistance works. Insulin resistance also changes the entire metabolic equation by wreaking havoc on a person's metabolism. It's still calories in vs calories out. If hormones slow your metabolism due to a conservation response from long term calorie restriction, it doesn't mean that calories in vs calories out doesn't apply, it just means calories out are lower than expected. Then when you spike your intake, and the hormones reset your metabolism to a higher level, you then eat more while burning more.

Bottom line, it's always calories in vs calories out, even factoring in different circumstances.

THIS IS CORRECT

Conservation of Energy is not just a good idea... ITS THE LAW!

bump

I was also nervous! But since bumping up to 1600-1800 calories a day...I have lost 7 lbs in almost 3 weeks! It's def better for you!

good luck!