someone, explain how eating more = weightloss? please

I have just been tracking my calories and workouts here for a short while. I am 5'10", 169, 60 years old, bf 17%. I want to get down to 160, maybe 155. Want to get my bf% down.

I am just about done with the P90X2 exercise program which is fairly intense about 4 days of the week. On the other days, I sometimes do Yoga, elliptical, bike riding. So I am fairly active.

When I log in my calories and exercise it usually says something like. If every day was like today, you would weigh 155 in 5 weeks.

One week has gone by with similar messages and I have gone from 170 to 169. Obviously, something is not right.

Am I eating too little? The graphic tells me my goal is 1390 calories before adding in exercise. This goal was calculated to give me a daily calorie deficit of 750. I usually have an additional 300-500 calorie deficit per day.

BMR 1755
TDEE 2414

Perfect weight 153lbs

Should be netting daily to lose wight 1900-2100 daily.
Can eat up to 2900 on workout days up to 3 days a week and still remain in a deficit for the week.

Eating 2k a day will result in a 1lb loss per week in fat as long as you maintain 3 days on P90X.

1300?

These numbers if eaten daily you wont be adding in calories burned.

I appreciate the time you have taken to input my numbers and come up with a plan.

When I plug my 60 years, 5"10", 169 into the BMR calculator here, it comes up with 1583 and not 1755. You must be using a different calculator.

MFP has me at 2140 calories burned from "normal daily activity" and then came up with a deficit of 750 per day based on goal of 1.5 lbs a week to come up with a target of 1390 calories a day without taking into consideration exercise. I have been eating 300-500 less on average per day than MFP says to do. My net calories probably averaged about 1000 when taking off for exercise. My gross calories averaged probably 1600-1700 even on days when I burned up close to 1000 calories on exercise.

Sounds like either way I look at it, I need to up the calories a bit and get away from a "More is Better" mentality. Right?

This is correct.
Also 1.5 may be a bit out of range for you at your age.
Keep in mind that you arent the young buck you used to be and now have a host of other issues that could come along with weight loss.
You are stressing your body when you diet.
You stress it even more when you work out.
Muscle loss.
Bone density issues.
Testosterone issues.

Look at weight loss like this:

Weight loss is 70% nutrition. You can get to goal just by eating right.
Weight loss is 20% training. You can add training but some training would actually set you back. Like excessive cardio.
Weight loss is 10% rest. If you dont have rest you wont recover for the next training.

For most guys who have a gym membership, lifting is your absolute best bet.
You start up on a 5x5 routine and you eat right on lifting days, testosterone goes up, cortisol goes down, less stress on the system, muscle gains, fat loss, flexy flexy on the beach.
www.stronglifts.com
www.bodyrecomposition.com

PM me if you need help.

How about a Visual - 300 Calories.

70 Cups of lettuce or 1 creme filled doughnut

This statement is usually directed to people who don't supply enough calories to compensate for their body's daily needs.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

But isn't that pretty much the definition of weight loss?

tl;dr

No one's body goes into "starvation mode" if they drop below 1200 calories. Starvation mode is something that very, very, very few people in 1st world countries will ever experience. It happens from an extremely long time of caloric and nutritional deprivation. Think. Use your brains. If your body went into starvation mode within a week or a month or even several months of consuming low amounts of calories there would be no such thing as an anorexic or someone starving to death.

The minimum amount you'll burn in a day is BMR. The actual amount you burn in a day is called TDEE around here (Total Daily Energy Expenditure), which includes exercise AND a whole bunch of other activities like showering, eating, driving, moving around an office, changing diapers, sex, and whatever else you do in a day.

If you eat more than BMR but less than TDEE you will lose weight.

So some of us want to eat closer to our actual TDEE to lose weight (I like a ~400 cal/day deficit, personally) to lose weight slowly and without much effort while preserving lean muscle mass. Others choose to eat closer to BMR... or less.

Many people decide they want to lose weight and are bombarded with messages about eating 1200 calories/day, eating 500 calories plus HCG injections, eating 300 calories plus B vitamin injections or whatever... the truth is, as long as what you eat is somewhat less than what you burn, you'll lose weight.

It doesn't have to be super restrictive. Just tracked accurately.

This above is how I see it.

It's not about eating tons of food. Obviously you'd gain weight. It's about eating more food rather than being super restrictive and still losing weight. When I first started, I did the 1200 calorie thing and soon stopped losing. Increasing my calories has helped me.

^^^ This. I think some people mistakenly get the idea that EM2WL means to over eat. That's not the philosophy, at least not from my understanding. It simply means you don't have to feel hungry all the time. You don't have to delete whole categories of food from your diet ("diet" meaning the type of food you choose to eat).

When we are overweight it's because we've eaten way more than our bodies need and more than our bodies can use. Constant or long term drastic calorie reductions make our bodies less efficient in burning calories. If we get back on a regular feeding schedule (whatever that is--for me it's 3 meals plus snacks when I need them) and consume enough calories to cover our daily activities, we will not continue to gain. It doesn't take a giant deficit to lose weight and keep it off, but some people are in a hurry and want to drop weight faster, so they eat less. Yes, they lose weight initially, but unless they are willing to always and forever eat less, they will always and forever fight the battle of being up and down on the scale. At least that's how I understand it, and it's working for me so far.

bump will read later

i don't feel like my metabolism has slowed... (except for being colder than I was when fat) but I have NEVER had this much energy and vitality. I cut hedges today for pete's sake in the 90 degree heat because reading while tanning was booorriinng... I used to tan competitively so this is new for me...no gi distress,,, skin color ... well.. sweet....hair- what's left of it silky....I don't know if i should consider reset or not.. cos james brown said it.. I feel good..if 10lbs too heavy..

This statement is usually directed to people who don't supply enough calories to compensate for their body's daily needs.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

But isn't that pretty much the definition of weight loss?

Nope. Your body needs a certain punt of calories to carry out it's basic functions, such as grow hair, nails, pump blood, breathe, repair muscle etc. Which you would do even if you were at rest all day.

Then on top of that you get up, walk about, brush your teeth, go to work, go to the gym etc,

Add the two together and that's your daily calorie expenditure.

The eat more philosophy as that there is a sweet spot between the two for fat loss.

I know that's your expenditure. How you lose weight is eating less.

That Venuto newletter you posted yesterday cited research that found that the reduction in metabolism from dieting from obese down to healthy was found to be 3-5% (controlling for the expected reduction, I assume). If that's true there is no sweet spot. Eating less always means losing more. 3-5% change will not overcome any increase in intake.

I agree that you should eat more IF you're feeling so deprived you're prone to binge or to give up entirely, though. But if you're more motivated by scale results than by eating more, you will probably do best eating at 500-1000 calories/day under your expenditure, in my opinion. Both are valid plans.

I know but 1200 cover most women's needs.