For the 500,000 time EATING MORE WORKS

are you guys eating over your BMR on days that you don't work out?

If I'm reading right, you never ever want to go below your BMR - that is the number that your body NEEDS to function correctly.

are you guys eating over your BMR on days that you don't work out?

I never net below my BMR.

Well done!! That is AWESOME!

ok but doesn't work for me. I eat more, I gain. period. even if extra cals are mostly FRUIT. still gain

ok but doesn't work for me. I eat more, I gain. period. even if extra cals are mostly FRUIT. still gain

Eat more than what?

If you eat more than TDEE then yes you will gain weight, but nobody has ever suggested that.

Also what is TDEE?

Bumping to follow.....

But also want to say to those that feel that "eating more" is ramming a one size fit all approach down people's throats: How can eating according to your own personal nutrients REQUIRED by YOUR body, be one size fit all? But yet eating 1200 cals isn't? I don't get the logic. To me, telling people to eat 1200 cals is one-size-fit-all. It's a generic # that just gets tossed around aimlessly, because in medical/nutrition/fitness fields, we are told to never allow a client to drop BELOW 1200. Somewhere along the line it became a magic weight loss #....???? Where as each person, when BMR or TDEE calculations according to their personal stats receive an actual PERSONALIZED number, such as 1567, or 1798, or 3245, etc. Yet, no two are the same.

Which one sounds more "one size" approach?

And to those that feel completely satisfied on 1200 cals. Of course you do. Our bodies are an amazingly adaptive machine. It adapts to whatever you put it through. So even if you *should* be eating 2200 cals/day, but you choose to *actually* eat 1300, eventually your body will adapt to the 1300. So essentially, what you have done is made your body adapt to less than it needed.

Or rather, 1200 is the new 2000.

Agree with your first paragraph. The problem with all this is that there are too many generalizations that don't necessarily apply to all. Even the using of three or four simple measurements and then getting a body fat % is, in and of itself, flawed approach as is trusting someone using a $10 pair of calipers that had 30 seconds of training at a gym. Too, none of this really tells any individual their true BRM numbers nor does a "study" looking at 24 subjects tell us anything concrete, which, in any scientific world, is not even considered a statistically significant sample size.

What works for one may not work for another. The general weight charts also don't apply across the boards. You are likely to lose lean body on a weight loss plan - any plan - regardless how fast or slow you go, work out with weights or not, if you are significantly high to start as your body has built a structure to handle that weight that it just does not need to deal with at a lower weight number. What we really want is to re-distribute that muscle in vanity patterns rather than the "required to deal with it" patterns (hey, me too). Example - using the charts (on the top most end for maximum relief) my ideal weight as stated should be 174 but today I am well above that even on a lean body mass number without any fat%.

you may be confusing BMR for TDEE.

I don't think he was. And like that poster, I also don't net above my BMR by practice nor following what MFP has allotted daily for me either. I did follow the "eat your BMR" approach for a while, still lost lean mass. The only thing I saw was a month of slower weight loss (even less than the .7% per week as cited in the sampling study).

you may be confusing BMR for TDEE.

I don't think he was. And like that poster, I also don't net above my BMR by practice nor following what MFP has allotted daily for me either. I did follow the "eat your BMR" approach for a while, still lost lean mass. The only thing I saw was a month of slower weight loss (even less than the .7% per week as cited in the sampling study).

That is really interesting - I have not read the 0.7% statistic anywhere.

I do track my loss as a % of my body weight each week, and my average loss for the past 6 weeks, is actually 0.71%,, and I haven't lost any lean mass.

I must be a model participant

BUMP

BUMP

I just posted a topic asking if I should eatmy calories back burned during exercise. Now I know I am def supposed to be doing that Excitinggggggggggg

Bumpity

BUMP

I just posted a topic asking if I should eatmy calories back burned during exercise. Now I know I am def supposed to be doing that Excitinggggggggggg

Yeap, after exercise you should have a net of 1200 calories at the lowest.

According to my BMR and TDEE I do need 1200 calories (I'm short and not much more to lose) but I work out my calories weekly so it varies and I eat back all exercise calories including walking so I'm never under 1200 and it's always net.

I just want to say that every pound of weight I've lost since I started has been because I adopted the "eat more" diet. 14 pounds in 2 weeks, can't argue with that!

Oh and I'm not even exercising!

That is the beauty of weight loss, you never have to do any exercise. But, don't believe for one minute that all the weight you are losing, whether through eating more or eating less, is just fat melting off at that pace. It IS also water AND lean body mass. And if you are not resistance training, it is more likely a good % of muscle and water.