someone, explain how eating more = weightloss? please

then why are all the kids in Africa... the ones you see on "feed the children" ads... all are bone? their bodies have gone for how long with out food?

I know the body can survive at least 40 days without food, water much less... I doubt one day is going to make that big of a difference.

They are ACTUALLY starving. Their bodies have used their fat stores.... that's why they're all bone. That is a very very extreme example that cannot be applied here...

Then give me a better example... please, cause they still prove my point that eating more does not = weight loss

They have very little LBM as well.
By eating more you are feeding the LBM to preserve or in some cases of extremely overweight who can actually build muscle while in a deficit.
By eating slightly lower than TDEE youll lose fat while maintaining LBM.
If you diet down too low at a low calorie, hormonal responses will signal the body to maintain fat stores for energy later.
Leptin bottoms out telling the CNS to burn other energy sources.
These energy sources tend to come from protein sources like damaged muscle tissue or even organ tissue.

hope that answers your question.

I think if the responses to hormones and LBM and metabolism were as severe as people here believe them to be, no doctor or managed weight plan would have people eating below their BMR. They all do.

Do people really think you're onto something from reading internet forums and blogs that the medical and weight loss community missed?

LOL the 200 or so ppl following my plan seem to be doing well.
they eat closer to 2k a day and lose fat but maintain LBM and are getting stronger.
To that I laugh!

Doctors and weight loss programs tend to be short term and also tend to have a lot of bounce back.
It helps business!

then why are all the kids in Africa... the ones you see on "feed the children" ads... all are bone? their bodies have gone for how long with out food?

I know the body can survive at least 40 days without food, water much less... I doubt one day is going to make that big of a difference.

They are ACTUALLY starving. Their bodies have used their fat stores.... that's why they're all bone. That is a very very extreme example that cannot be applied here...

Then give me a better example... please, cause they still prove my point that eating more does not = weight loss

They have very little LBM as well.
By eating more you are feeding the LBM to preserve or in some cases of extremely overweight who can actually build muscle while in a deficit.
By eating slightly lower than TDEE youll lose fat while maintaining LBM.
If you diet down too low at a low calorie, hormonal responses will signal the body to maintain fat stores for energy later.
Leptin bottoms out telling the CNS to burn other energy sources.
These energy sources tend to come from protein sources like damaged muscle tissue or even organ tissue.

hope that answers your question.

I think if the responses to hormones and LBM and metabolism were as severe as people here believe them to be, no doctor or managed weight plan would have people eating below their BMR. They all do.

Do people really think you're onto something from reading internet forums and blogs that the medical and weight loss community missed?

LOL the 200 or so ppl following my plan seem to be doing well.
they eat closer to 2k a day and lose fat but maintain LBM and are getting stronger.
To that I laugh!

Doctors and weight loss programs tend to be short term and also tend to have a lot of bounce back.
It helps business!

Yes, I'm sure the entire medical and scientific community have it all wrong and you have it right.

Of course people can lose at a higher deficit. What they can't do is lose more than they can at a lower deficit.

Forum readers sent the Kimkins gal millions of dollars for her diet plan. Did that mean it was based on scientific facts? At least your's isn't dangerous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimkins

Yes, I'm sure the entire medical and scientific community have it all wrong and you have it right.

Of course people can lose at a higher deficit. What they can't do is lose more than they can at a lower deficit.

Forum readers sent the Kimkins gal millions of dollars for her diet plan. Did that mean it was based on scientific facts? At least your's isn't dangerous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimkins

I wish I were unscrupulous enough to do something like that. So much more money in BS than in the truth.

then why are all the kids in Africa... the ones you see on "feed the children" ads... all are bone? their bodies have gone for how long with out food?

I know the body can survive at least 40 days without food, water much less... I doubt one day is going to make that big of a difference.

They are ACTUALLY starving. Their bodies have used their fat stores.... that's why they're all bone. That is a very very extreme example that cannot be applied here...

Then give me a better example... please, cause they still prove my point that eating more does not = weight loss

They have very little LBM as well.
By eating more you are feeding the LBM to preserve or in some cases of extremely overweight who can actually build muscle while in a deficit.
By eating slightly lower than TDEE youll lose fat while maintaining LBM.
If you diet down too low at a low calorie, hormonal responses will signal the body to maintain fat stores for energy later.
Leptin bottoms out telling the CNS to burn other energy sources.
These energy sources tend to come from protein sources like damaged muscle tissue or even organ tissue.

hope that answers your question.

I think if the responses to hormones and LBM and metabolism were as severe as people here believe them to be, no doctor or managed weight plan would have people eating below their BMR. They all do.

Do people really think you're onto something from reading internet forums and blogs that the medical and weight loss community missed?

LOL the 200 or so ppl following my plan seem to be doing well.
they eat closer to 2k a day and lose fat but maintain LBM and are getting stronger.
To that I laugh!

Doctors and weight loss programs tend to be short term and also tend to have a lot of bounce back.
It helps business!

Yes, I'm sure the entire medical and scientific community have it all wrong and you have it right.

Of course people can lose at a higher deficit. What they can't do is lose more than they can at a lower deficit.

Forum readers sent the Kimkins gal millions of dollars for her diet plan. Did that mean it was based on scientific facts? At least your's isn't dangerous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimkins

I'm mot making any money off the ppl I help so I only want them to lose the weight the correct way.
I don't want them to crash diet down to goal then come back a year later after it all came back but now it's harder to take off.
Same thing with 128 question PTs.
They have brand new clients doing ****ty 4 day splits because they know that the client will have to keep coming back.
Not to mention the MediFast groups and the deals they have with food companies is all based around money.
So unless you've tried my plans or any type of "Eat More to Weigh Less" I don't see how you could refute it.
It makes logical sense.
You fuel your day not starve it.
AND
The fact that I have ppl who rarely plateau and constantly lose says volumes on how well this works.
Either you try it and see for yourself or STFU about it.

What that means is when you eat enough, you aren't putting your body in starvation mode.

If you drop your calorie intake by a considerable amount (like 600 calories a day in an attempt to lose weight) and start starving yourself, your body will start to hold on to every calorie you eat and store it as fat because it thinks you are starving and there is no food. However, if you eat small meals frequently and do not starve yourself, then your body has no reason to hold on to calories, thus increasing your metabolism which promotes weight loss. Of course, exercise promotes health and increases metabolism too.

Well put!