Does eating more to weight less work for everyone?
Replies
-
It's not about eating a lot but more about eating smaller portions more times in a day. That way it keeps your metabolism going throughout the day and your body never goes into starvation mode thus losing weight. It's working for some people it's all all about being careful with what you eat and when.
You are a new poster so welcome! With respect, your info is incorrect. Eating more frequently, or less frequently within a 24 hour period has no impact on metabolism. Also, that has nothing to do with starvation mode which is not triggered until somwhere between 4 and 7 days of severe calorie restriction. You have posted a myth and a fallacy with your first post. Congratualtions! I think that must be a record!! :flowerforyou:0 -
A stall is no weight OR measurement changes in 3 weeks.
Did you measure?
Since you were exercising with good workout there, and actually feeding enough for your body to make improvements, that means easily no weight loss, only fat loss.
Remember too, just as you cannot spot reduce, you can't spot measure, like just the waist, must measure many spots.
I have been measuring waist, hips and thighs - no change. I am so stalled, that if you looked "stalled" up in the dictionary you would see my face frowning back at you!:huh:
No, there are many with 3-6 months of no weight nor measurement changes, plugging along doing the same thing that isn't working. So at least you aren't insane. Isn't that the definition of insane, doing the same thing expecting a different result.
3 spots is all?
Ya, this fits in exactly with the idea of wanting to spot reduce, you are measuring 3 spots, and could be losing fat other places and would never know.
This is the same reason many people notice they seem to fit in the same pants but can gain some lbs before the pants are negatively effected. Same effect going the other direction.
You need to measure everywhere there are fat stores, lower arms, upper arms, neck, chest, natural waist, belly button, hips, thighs, calves.
If, if, you reset your metabolism somewhat, you'll likely get some more loss on the 1220 again, and eating more on workout days will help greatly. I'm thinking you may have just missed where you were losing.
Do recommend though, add the extra calories related to the workout in the next 24 hrs, doesn't have to be the same day you "earned" them, so you may be green on workout days by half the workout, get the other half in breakfast or lunch or snack the next day, and don't worry about being in red.
MFP logging stops at midnight your time, your body's needs can go well into the next day.0 -
It's not about eating a lot but more about eating smaller portions more times in a day. That way it keeps your metabolism going throughout the day and your body never goes into starvation mode thus losing weight. It's working for some people it's all all about being careful with what you eat and when.
You are a new poster so welcome! With respect, your info is incorrect. Eating more frequently, or less frequently within a 24 hour period has no impact on metabolism. Also, that has nothing to do with starvation mode which is not triggered until somwhere between 4 and 7 days of severe calorie restriction. You have posted a myth and a fallacy with your first post. Congratualtions! I think that must be a record!! :flowerforyou:
Yikes, be kind...0 -
My problems with the Road Map post are these:
1- There is no reason a person trying to lose weight has to eat above their BMR. Seriously, research it, ask any doctor, think about it. Here's one trainer's explanation in the link below. I've talked about this ad nauseum so I'll stop trying to explain it myself. People act like I'm saying the earth is flat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAvFsIUxvY
2- The body doesn't flip a switch at some calorie level and start catabolizing muscle and changing hormonal responses. It's all on a scale. The reason you see 1200 and '2 lbs/week loss goal' so much is because those are believed to be levels that are aggressive enough to produce results while minimizing negative externalities like metabolism slowing and excesive LBM loss.
3- People not losing at 1200 usually haven't given it enough time. They're working out too hard, they're impatient, they want scale results, but water effects are hiding fat loss.
I did your math. For me, it recommends about 1580/day, which is a great plan. I choose to go a bit lower, around 1350 (which is below my BMR, by the way). I am not damaging myself, lacking energy, losing hair, lethargic, etc., etc.0 -
Of course it doesn't work for everyone. Nothing works for everyone. Weight Watchers (which is eat less) works for some, but not all. Eat more works for some, but not all.
Everyone is different. Everyone has to find and follow what works best for him/her.0 -
It's not about eating a lot but more about eating smaller portions more times in a day. That way it keeps your metabolism going throughout the day and your body never goes into starvation mode thus losing weight. It's working for some people it's all all about being careful with what you eat and when.
You are a new poster so welcome! With respect, your info is incorrect. Eating more frequently, or less frequently within a 24 hour period has no impact on metabolism. Also, that has nothing to do with starvation mode which is not triggered until somwhere between 4 and 7 days of severe calorie restriction. You have posted a myth and a fallacy with your first post. Congratualtions! I think that must be a record!! :flowerforyou:
Yikes, be kind...
I was trying to be. Trying to say it as nice a way as I could and put in a little humor.0 -
It's not about eating a lot but more about eating smaller portions more times in a day. That way it keeps your metabolism going throughout the day and your body never goes into starvation mode thus losing weight. It's working for some people it's all all about being careful with what you eat and when.
You are a new poster so welcome! With respect, your info is incorrect. Eating more frequently, or less frequently within a 24 hour period has no impact on metabolism. Also, that has nothing to do with starvation mode which is not triggered until somwhere between 4 and 7 days of severe calorie restriction. You have posted a myth and a fallacy with your first post. Congratualtions! I think that must be a record!! :flowerforyou:
Here we go again. Another MFPer just looking for a fight because he/she has nothing better to do with his/her time.0 -
It's not about eating a lot but more about eating smaller portions more times in a day. That way it keeps your metabolism going throughout the day and your body never goes into starvation mode thus losing weight. It's working for some people it's all all about being careful with what you eat and when.
Lol I have a feeling you are about to get attacked.
...And she was...0 -
I upped my calories as I had plateaued but still nothing happened. I went back down and a couple of weeks later finally lost 2 pounds. So many people have done really well by upping their calories though so it's well worth a try!0
-
I upped my calories as I had plateaued but still nothing happened. I went back down and a couple of weeks later finally lost 2 pounds. So many people have done really well by upping their calories though so it's well worth a try!
It kinda worked the same me with me...I guess when people saying "upping your calorie" they didn't finish saying "then lower it again you should see something different". Good luck to you.0 -
My problems with the Road Map post are these:
1- There is no reason a person trying to lose weight has to eat above their BMR. Seriously, research it, ask any doctor, think about it. Here's one trainer's explanation in the link below. I've talked about this ad nauseum so I'll stop trying to explain it myself. People act like I'm saying the earth is flat.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAvFsIUxvY
2- The body doesn't flip a switch at some calorie level and start catabolizing muscle and changing hormonal responses. It's all on a scale. The reason you see 1200 and '2 lbs/week loss goal' so much is because those are believed to be levels that are aggressive enough to produce results while minimizing negative externalities like metabolism slowing and excesive LBM loss.
3- People not losing at 1200 usually haven't given it enough time. They're working out too hard, they're impatient, they want scale results, but water effects are hiding fat loss.
I did your math. For me, it recommends about 1580/day, which is a great plan. I choose to go a bit lower, around 1350 (which is below my BMR, by the way). I am not damaging myself, lacking energy, losing hair, lethargic, etc., etc.
And again, just because you chose a different way, doesn't mean Dan's is wrong - just different to your choice.
Also - we've already established that youtube guy doesn't even understand BMR
the beauty of youtube is everyone can find something to support opinion - for example this guy says to eat above BMR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PTyXnoDfVw
At the end of the day, everyone is going to do their own research, and then pick a method that works, and that fits in with their lifestyle.
I agree the peope that start on 1200 are impatient - they are usually the ones aiming for 2lb a week, which is unrealistic for a lot of them.0 -
Did NOT work for me.. I'm now trying to lose the ~20# I gained doing it.
I'm happy (and jealous!) for those for whom this has worked, but one size does not fit all.0 -
My problems with the Road Map post are these:
1- There is no reason a person trying to lose weight has to eat above their BMR. Seriously, research it, ask any doctor, think about it. Here's one trainer's explanation in the link below. I've talked about this ad nauseum so I'll stop trying to explain it myself. People act like I'm saying the earth is flat.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAvFsIUxvY
2- The body doesn't flip a switch at some calorie level and start catabolizing muscle and changing hormonal responses. It's all on a scale. The reason you see 1200 and '2 lbs/week loss goal' so much is because those are believed to be levels that are aggressive enough to produce results while minimizing negative externalities like metabolism slowing and excesive LBM loss.
3- People not losing at 1200 usually haven't given it enough time. They're working out too hard, they're impatient, they want scale results, but water effects are hiding fat loss.
I did your math. For me, it recommends about 1580/day, which is a great plan. I choose to go a bit lower, around 1350 (which is below my BMR, by the way). I am not damaging myself, lacking energy, losing hair, lethargic, etc., etc.
the beauty of youtube is everyone can find something to support opinion - for example this guy says to eat above BMR
The above statement can be equally applied to anything on the internet, newsgroup, blog, anything in that catagory.
0 -
you will lose weight by upping your calories ,,,,only if you also start upping ur workout intensity, as it will lift you out of survival mode....but if you just increase your calories....it should put a bit of weight on you first and then start to give you more energy, ....when you get that energy, you must use it......plenty of scientific studies to prove this.....good luck!!!0
-
Worked for me. Was on 800-1000 (medically supervised plan) and lost about 10 pounds but felt terrible. Found this site, researched, reached out to several folks, including Dan who worked my numbers and I switched. Eat 1,700/day and strength train 3xs/week and I've lost 33 pounds, plus 5 inches off my waist, 5 inches off my hips, down 9% BF and I keep losing at a steady clip. The bonus? I don't feel like complete crap every day from not getting enough nutrition!
So yea, it might not work for everyone, but it's worked for me and I'm thrilled. BTW, going from my VLCD to fueling my body took about a month of up/down/plateau before the decline was strong and steady ... so give it some time!! (And Dan walked me off that "I'm quitting!" ledge, too).0 -
A stall is no weight OR measurement changes in 3 weeks.
Did you measure?
Since you were exercising with good workout there, and actually feeding enough for your body to make improvements, that means easily no weight loss, only fat loss.
Remember too, just as you cannot spot reduce, you can't spot measure, like just the waist, must measure many spots.
I have been measuring waist, hips and thighs - no change. I am so stalled, that if you looked "stalled" up in the dictionary you would see my face frowning back at you!:huh:
No, there are many with 3-6 months of no weight nor measurement changes, plugging along doing the same thing that isn't working. So at least you aren't insane. Isn't that the definition of insane, doing the same thing expecting a different result.
3 spots is all?
Ya, this fits in exactly with the idea of wanting to spot reduce, you are measuring 3 spots, and could be losing fat other places and would never know.
This is the same reason many people notice they seem to fit in the same pants but can gain some lbs before the pants are negatively effected. Same effect going the other direction.
You need to measure everywhere there are fat stores, lower arms, upper arms, neck, chest, natural waist, belly button, hips, thighs, calves.
If, if, you reset your metabolism somewhat, you'll likely get some more loss on the 1220 again, and eating more on workout days will help greatly. I'm thinking you may have just missed where you were losing.
Do recommend though, add the extra calories related to the workout in the next 24 hrs, doesn't have to be the same day you "earned" them, so you may be green on workout days by half the workout, get the other half in breakfast or lunch or snack the next day, and don't worry about being in red.
MFP logging stops at midnight your time, your body's needs can go well into the next day.
Thanks, I will have a go at the lower calories and see how it goes. Because i work out on alternate days, I will only ever be on 1220 for one day at a time, which should help!0 -
And again, just because you chose a different way, doesn't mean Dan's is wrong - just different to your choice.
Also - we've already established that youtube guy doesn't even understand BMR
the beauty of youtube is everyone can find something to support opinion - for example this guy says to eat above BMRhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PTyXnoDfVw
At the end of the day, everyone is going to do their own research, and then pick a method that works, and that fits in with their lifestyle.
I agree the peope that start on 1200 are impatient - they are usually the ones aiming for 2lb a week, which is unrealistic for a lot of them.
I didn't say Dan's plan was wrong. Or that people should not pick his method.
That youtube guy has like a masters in physiology.
I've said this many times before but it's hard to find authoritative people who refute "don't eat below your BMR" because no one says "don't eat below your BMR" outside a few dieter forums.
2 lbs/week isn't considered unrealistic for ANYone outside of MFP's forums.
I'm not going to go around with you again. Dan asked me what parts of his Road Map post I took issue with, I told him.0 -
My problems with the Road Map post are these:
1- There is no reason a person trying to lose weight has to eat above their BMR. Seriously, research it, ask any doctor, think about it. Here's one trainer's explanation in the link below. I've talked about this ad nauseum so I'll stop trying to explain it myself. People act like I'm saying the earth is flat.
To a point this is correct. But the 40-50% drop in leptin alone will result in fat loss slowing.2- The body doesn't flip a switch at some calorie level and start catabolizing muscle and changing hormonal responses. It's all on a scale. The reason you see 1200 and '2 lbs/week loss goal' so much is because those are believed to be levels that are aggressive enough to produce results while minimizing negative externalities like metabolism slowing and excesive LBM loss.
This is info spouted by the same BS people who say eating 6 meals a day will help me lose fat.
The fact is when dieting and working out too much you have increased cortisol above and beyond the normal limits of what the body produces naturally.
This will burn LBM.
It's what it does under stress!3- People not losing at 1200 usually haven't given it enough time. They're working out too hard, they're impatient, they want scale results, but water effects are hiding fat loss.
When metabolic rate slows so does fat loss. Why do you think the national average dietary intake on food labels is 2000-2500.
1200 cals is what I eat for breakfast!!!!!
Thats like saying "My car isnt running well so i'll cut down on the oil and only keep the tank 1/4 full!"
I laugh at this. The people who have jumped on board with the Road Map have lost fat.
Period.I did your math. For me, it recommends about 1580/day, which is a great plan. I choose to go a bit lower, around 1350 (which is below my BMR, by the way). I am not damaging myself, lacking energy, losing hair, lethargic, etc., etc.
I challenge you to eat 1800 daily.
Measure your results weekly.
There is no reason unless you are Obese II or higher to eat below BMR.
There is no reason to eat less if you can eat more and lose weight.
Why dont you try this for 1 month and see?
Unless you have some medical reason not to eat properly then I dont see what the fuss is.
And I can find several studies showing that in the long run, a moderate deficit creates longer weight loss.
Why cut so low if you dont have to.
Thats all.
So...when will you try it?
BTW my way isnt my way.
I learned this from pros in the field.
People who charge $300 an hour for their input on health, weight loss and muscle gains.
They arent doctors or RNs.
They are nutritionists who didnt take 120 question quiz to get a state certification.
This info works.
And untill you try it I feel your points are moot.
I feel that no matter what school you went to and what degrees ore certifications you have, untill you admit that this works I wont stop.
Period.
I challenge you Mcarter99, just like I challenged Watboy (who by the way is losing fat and gaining lean mass) to try my methods.
If it doesnt work I will back down.
Unless you have some type of medical issue preventing you from losing weight,my methods work.
Youll eat better.
You wont feel hungry.
Youll maintain LBM better than these low cal deals.
1300 cals is laughable.
I have women at 5' tall eating 1800 and losing fat working out a hand full of times a week.
So when will you try it?0 -
Did NOT work for me.. I'm now trying to lose the ~20# I gained doing it.
I'm happy (and jealous!) for those for whom this has worked, but one size does not fit all.
20 lbs over what period of time?
Because that would mean 70,000 extra calories if it is thought that was fat lbs.
That would mean 10,000 extra calories if it was glucose stores (not actually possible).
That would mean 20,000 extra calories if it was new muscle (which would then hold more glucose).
So whichever thing you think it was, divide the above by number of days to gain it, there's your surplus each day.
Now take whatever you were eating at each day minus that surplus, there's your TDEE for whatever your routine was during that weight gain time.0 -
I'm kind of scared of this too. I have lost 43lbs and now my weight loss has just stopped, no matter what I do I can't lose. I've decided to go from 1200 to 1500 cals a day (with exercise) and just hope that works. I think it can be very daunting if you're raising it for the first time, but it's worth a try.0
-
1,300 calories is not laughable to these people, in this peer reviewed journal article. Quote: Successful maintainers of weight loss reported continued consumption of a low-energy and low-fat diet. Women in the registry reported eating an average of 1,306 kcal/day
These women have kept their weight off for 5 or more years. As 1,300 is average, obviously some ate higher and some ate lower.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9550162?dopt=Abstract0 -
Basically, they never stopped eating at an abnormally low level.1,300 calories is not laughable to these people, in this peer reviewed journal article. Quote: Successful maintainers of weight loss reported continued consumption of a low-energy and low-fat diet. Women in the registry reported eating an average of 1,306 kcal/day
These women have kept their weight off for 5 or more years. As 1,300 is average, obviously some ate higher and some ate lower.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9550162?dopt=Abstract0 -
Did not work for me. I have a 1760 TDEE so there is no eating more for me. I'm good at 1300-1500 per day.0
-
Basically, they never stopped eating at an abnormally low level.1,300 calories is not laughable to these people, in this peer reviewed journal article. Quote: Successful maintainers of weight loss reported continued consumption of a low-energy and low-fat diet. Women in the registry reported eating an average of 1,306 kcal/day
These women have kept their weight off for 5 or more years. As 1,300 is average, obviously some ate higher and some ate lower.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9550162?dopt=Abstract
That does not make it laughable, nor unsustainable if they have been doing so for over 5 years. Abnormally low according to whom?0 -
Basically, they never stopped eating at an abnormally low level.1,300 calories is not laughable to these people, in this peer reviewed journal article. Quote: Successful maintainers of weight loss reported continued consumption of a low-energy and low-fat diet. Women in the registry reported eating an average of 1,306 kcal/day
These women have kept their weight off for 5 or more years. As 1,300 is average, obviously some ate higher and some ate lower.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9550162?dopt=Abstract
That does not make it laughable, nor unsustainable if they have been doing so for over 5 years. Abnormally low according to whom?
Yes, not everyone is created equal. Some people actually I was thinking of most of us might be able to do just 1300 throughout the rest of the life. The thing is we don't want to. Part of the good thing about being live is to enjoy and indulge...Of course it all comes with cost.0 -
Did not work for me. I have a 1760 TDEE so there is no eating more for me. I'm good at 1300-1500 per day.
If you are eating at 1500 a day, then you are doing eactly what the EM"WL group are advocating - taking a 15% deficit from TDEE.
It's just about eating at a moderate defict, not one that's too aggressive.
This is a good article on deficits
http://davfitfitnessforum.forumotion.com/t56-muscle-retaining-factor-1-severity-of-calorie-deficit-by-tom-venuto-a-trusted-friend0 -
My problems with the Road Map post are these:
1- There is no reason a person trying to lose weight has to eat above their BMR. Seriously, research it, ask any doctor, think about it. Here's one trainer's explanation in the link below. I've talked about this ad nauseum so I'll stop trying to explain it myself. People act like I'm saying the earth is flat.
To a point this is correct. But the 40-50% drop in leptin alone will result in fat loss slowing.2- The body doesn't flip a switch at some calorie level and start catabolizing muscle and changing hormonal responses. It's all on a scale. The reason you see 1200 and '2 lbs/week loss goal' so much is because those are believed to be levels that are aggressive enough to produce results while minimizing negative externalities like metabolism slowing and excesive LBM loss.
This is info spouted by the same BS people who say eating 6 meals a day will help me lose fat.
The fact is when dieting and working out too much you have increased cortisol above and beyond the normal limits of what the body produces naturally.
This will burn LBM.
It's what it does under stress!3- People not losing at 1200 usually haven't given it enough time. They're working out too hard, they're impatient, they want scale results, but water effects are hiding fat loss.
When metabolic rate slows so does fat loss. Why do you think the national average dietary intake on food labels is 2000-2500.
1200 cals is what I eat for breakfast!!!!!
Thats like saying "My car isnt running well so i'll cut down on the oil and only keep the tank 1/4 full!"
I laugh at this. The people who have jumped on board with the Road Map have lost fat.
Period.I did your math. For me, it recommends about 1580/day, which is a great plan. I choose to go a bit lower, around 1350 (which is below my BMR, by the way). I am not damaging myself, lacking energy, losing hair, lethargic, etc., etc.
I challenge you to eat 1800 daily.
Measure your results weekly.
There is no reason unless you are Obese II or higher to eat below BMR.
There is no reason to eat less if you can eat more and lose weight.
Why dont you try this for 1 month and see?
Unless you have some medical reason not to eat properly then I dont see what the fuss is.
And I can find several studies showing that in the long run, a moderate deficit creates longer weight loss.
Why cut so low if you dont have to.
Thats all.
So...when will you try it?
BTW my way isnt my way.
I learned this from pros in the field.
People who charge $300 an hour for their input on health, weight loss and muscle gains.
They arent doctors or RNs.
They are nutritionists who didnt take 120 question quiz to get a state certification.
This info works.
And untill you try it I feel your points are moot.
I feel that no matter what school you went to and what degrees ore certifications you have, untill you admit that this works I wont stop.
Period.
I challenge you Mcarter99, just like I challenged Watboy (who by the way is losing fat and gaining lean mass) to try my methods.
If it doesnt work I will back down.
Unless you have some type of medical issue preventing you from losing weight,my methods work.
Youll eat better.
You wont feel hungry.
Youll maintain LBM better than these low cal deals.
1300 cals is laughable.
I have women at 5' tall eating 1800 and losing fat working out a hand full of times a week.
So when will you try it?
I tried it in Jan-Feb of 2011. I did WW new plan while tracking calories as well. It was 1800ish calories a day. I lost 2 lbs. in 8 weeks. Now I lose three times that rate.
My Fitbit says my total burn yesterday was 1550 calories. How could I possibly lose weight on 1800? Before saying my leptin ate my ghrelin and my metabolism is now screwed, bear in mind that 1550 is an estimate based on my BMR and my activity for yesterday.
Why would a human body burn off the muscle it needs to hunt and outrun predators when it has tens of thousands of calories of the perfect fuel, the fuel it stored for just this rainy day- easily accessed fat sitting in fat cells?
Why do you suggest I eat 1800 when your Road Map instructions said 1550?0 -
It did not work for me.0
-
Yup as soon as I typed that out I thought to myself...wait...then I did the math and was like...oh. When I did EMTWL I was at 1800-1900 and gained, and that's part of how I figured out I had such a low TDEE. So it was useful to me in a way.Did not work for me. I have a 1760 TDEE so there is no eating more for me. I'm good at 1300-1500 per day.
If you are eating at 1500 a day, then you are doing eactly what the EM"WL group are advocating - taking a 15% deficit from TDEE.
It's just about eating at a moderate defict, not one that's too aggressive.
This is a good article on deficits
I http://davfitfitnessforum.forumotion.com/t56-muscle-retaining-factor-1-severity-of-calorie-deficit-by-tom-venuto-a-trusted-friend0 -
bump0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions