Eat more to weigh less....
Replies
-
Conclusions: Despite relative preservation of FFM, exercise did not prevent dramatic slowing of resting metabolism out of proportion to weight loss. This metabolic adaptation may persist during weight maintenance and predispose to weight regain unless high levels of physical activity or caloric restriction are maintained.
(Direct quote from the study)...ie....EITHER DO MORE EXERCISE OR LOWER YOUR CALORIES!...
.so where did all of this "eat more to weigh less" business come from?
::sigh:: You obviously didn't do the reading regarding the group and no one can do that for you.
Eating at TDEE -15% (or -20%, etc.) is pretty standard and it works. In fact, that is why MFP confuses so many people when they first join because they are used to a system where you eat a flat rate (aka TDEE minus some percentage) and do not eat your exercise calories back. That is pretty much the core idea of the group, TDEE less some percentage. Thus, it IS lowering your calories FROM TDEE.
TDEE is your maintenance level factoring in your average activity level. Therefore, when you cut some percentage you are lowering your calories and will lose weight if you keep to your routine. You do not eat back any exercise calories as you would using the classic MFP approach.
"EM2WL" is just a nifty catch phrase. Most groups have them. It isn't like you eat like a horse and don't do anything and expect to lose weight. You just might be eating more than the ridiculously low number you were before (hence the "eat more"). You start to "weigh less" because you can lose weight on a flat TDEE -% program.
TDEE factors in your average exercise for the week. It isn't like you are sitting on your bum just stuffing your face. In fact, people encourage activity and recommend heavy lifting, but it is not required. These people work just as hard as anyone else, they don't sit around pigging out as you love to imply.
Why don't you actually READ what the group advocates before getting on some crazy rant?
Can other weight loss approaches work too? Sure. It is just a numbers game when it comes down to it, but the "EM2WL" philosophy works for some people. Everyone needs to play around and find what works for them.
If someone doesn't like it, or it doesn't work for them and their goals, they don't have to do it. However, it does help people. Check out the success stories for the people it did work for.0 -
I don't think you can say that study says anything about 'eating back'. I tried to read the whole study but my academic library doesn't have it.
Here's what I've heard and read. Losing large amounts of weight AT ANY SPEED can result in a 'slower metabolism' (more than the change in BMR predicts alone), but it's probably a small reduction-- 3-5%ish. We think that by incorporating strength training to protect lean mass and by not going into extreme deficit territory (losing more than 2 lbs/week), we're doing all we can to minimize the problem. If you want to lose it very slowly just in case, that's ok, too. But losing up to 2 lbs/week is not considered risky, either.
This is true, the study did look at 10/week fast losses. The reason I wanted to eat more is I found that I started getting more hungry after exercise and couldn't keep up with exercise unless I ate more as I simply did not have the energy. I am ok with a slower weight loss of 1/2 per week since I'm in this for a long term lifestyle change.
The reason I wanted to eat at maintenance was I was worried my metabolism is messed up after eating below 1200 for a month and a half but I think the time frame is too short to cause any real harm. The second reason I contemplated eating at maintenance was so I can build muscle which would help me lose once I cut calories again.
Thanks everyone for your input on this topic, many different views here.
Conclusion I reached is I will eat if I am hungry up to a certain amount and not force food down my throat if I have left over calories. I will continue logging what I eat so I don't fall back into overeating. I think I will try upping calories from 1600 to 1800 on workout days so I have enough energy to finish exercises.
Thanks everyone.0 -
Yay for Drama and suspense!!!!!0 -
As has been posted already, you are better off asking this in the Em2wl section.
Most of the threads here just get bashed by people with no idea what they are talking about.....as you can see already.
If this theory is getting "bashed"when discussed out in the open...there is a damn good chance that a lot of folks are recognizing SNAKE OIL and not SCIENCE! DON'T FLATTER YOURSELF...A lot of people know a lot more than YOU think that they do....To me this sounds a lot like A SORRY ripoff of the old weight watchers points system....i.e. The heavier you are when you start....The higher the points/calories you need to lose weight...but even with weight watchers...once you started losing weight your points/calories dropped. Just telling obese people that they should eat more to weigh less is like selling crack as a cure for drug addiction.
Oh my word you are so uninformed, LOL!!!0 -
Yay for Drama and suspense!!!!!
BWAHAHAHA0 -
Have you been here since May and lost 19 lbs? I would just keep doing what you were doing and not mess with those stupid 'metabolism reset' ideas. Our bodies aren't alarm clocks. 1600 calories a day isn't starvation level. Your metabolism is fine.
Maybe you are right but I have been on a special program for about a month and a half where I was eating between 800-1000 calories daily and lost all of the 19 lb this way. I don't think I would have messed up my metabolism in a month.
I decided to opt for more exercise instead and have upped my calories to 1300-1600 and started exercising and did not see my weight shift at all (for a month). In the last couple of days I upped my calories again to 1600-1800 or so because I was getting more hungry from all the exercise.
Maybe I will just stick to 1800 as someone suggested for 3 weeks and see how that shakes out.
Was that the HCG diet thing? 2,200 calories... that seems like a lot hun. I'm on a cut now and I'm eating right at 2100 calories and I'm 6'0 with weight varying between 203 and 200 right now. I'd reconsider the 1600 to 1800 but try and make better food choices. Also, try and split your meals over 5 to 6 meals a day, see if that helps you manage your hunger at all.0 -
I've lost weight both ways. No, sorry, I've lost ALOT of weight both ways.
If you give your body a low set rate of fuel, it is going to adapt to that and change the way it performs based on that available energy. The result of this, your body will only burn so much energy. Now, it can only adjust so much. So, where the remainder of this energy comes from is the factor that gives the eating low to lose a lot it's edge.
However, if you adjust your fuel based on the energy you are expending. Your body will perform more efficiently. Thus causing it to expend more energy. It's called the ****ing awesome cycle. You get it by being really awesome and eating plenty of food to energize your body.
Both ways work. And they both work really well.
P.S. You guys get way to competitive in your arguments. How about a, good point sir, here and there.0 -
Have you been here since May and lost 19 lbs? I would just keep doing what you were doing and not mess with those stupid 'metabolism reset' ideas. Our bodies aren't alarm clocks. 1600 calories a day isn't starvation level. Your metabolism is fine.
Maybe you are right but I have been on a special program for about a month and a half where I was eating between 800-1000 calories daily and lost all of the 19 lb this way. I don't think I would have messed up my metabolism in a month.
I decided to opt for more exercise instead and have upped my calories to 1300-1600 and started exercising and did not see my weight shift at all (for a month). In the last couple of days I upped my calories again to 1600-1800 or so because I was getting more hungry from all the exercise.
Maybe I will just stick to 1800 as someone suggested for 3 weeks and see how that shakes out.
Was that the HCG diet thing? 2,200 calories... that seems like a lot hun. I'm on a cut now and I'm eating right at 2100 calories and I'm 6'0 with weight varying between 203 and 200 right now. I'd reconsider the 1600 to 1800 but try and make better food choices. Also, try and split your meals over 5 to 6 meals a day, see if that helps you manage your hunger at all.
I'm not sure what HCG is, but no it was not. It was Ideal Protein Program. 2,200 is supposed to be maintenance level not a cut and it does seem like too much food though. I exercise a lot so that's why the number is fairly high. At sedentary lifestyle my maintenance would be about 1700-1800.0 -
EM2WL promotes a sort of middle-ground when it comes to dieting, nothing super extreme. It promotes eating less than your TDEE but more than your BMR, and slow, healthy weight loss over extreme low-calorie dieting. That's it. It's not some crazy "eat only celery all day!" group, or "stuff your face with as many cheeseburgers as possible!" either. Eat less than you expend, but not too much. That's it. I don't see what's so rubbish about it since that's all it is.
THANK YOU!Is there any actual medical documentation on this whole "Eat more to weigh less" theory? The members should either post their information/documentation publicly or get banned from this site for promoting weight loss rubbish.
It doesn't make sense. Ever see an anorexic? Ever see a morbidly obese person? Do you think the anorexic eats a lot and the morbidly obese eats little? I'm not trying to be judgmental, don't take it the wrong way. I'm neither trying to put down the obese or promote the anorexics.
If your goal is not to be judgmental, it might be good if you got your information straight before... well, judging.
^^ This!! Your profile pic is quite apropos as you are my hero!!0 -
-
Thirdly, I notice that you have not answered a single question that anyone has asked of you, so I suggest you stop posturing and deflecting and educate yourself a little.
That's funny...because I noticed that with you around...nobody else seems to get a chance to answer any questions....You just like to barge right in and answer all of the questions for everyone....Are you another all knowing "authority"?
Yes - I am physically stopping you from actually answering any of the questions.
if only...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions