eating more to lose but still less than maintenance- thoughts

[MackenzieDenise]

Recently I emailed a a trainer from this site and told him that I'm 5'5 and 130 pounds. I work out 5-6 days a week if not 6-7 days doing cardio/weights. I have been trying to lose about 4-5 pounds but i have stalled. I had mentioned that at around 1750 calories I wasn't seeing much change so I was going to drop it down to 1650 to see. He suggested that based on my activity level I might be in a severe deficient thus stopping any changes from happening and he suggested to increase my calories to 1850-1950. I'm not stating that I am eating more than my maintenance but just not as big of a deficient now.

If you google or research eat more to lose weight you find thousands of articles that talk about being to far into a deficient that you hold on to fat rather than lose it..so its confusing. Some say it is bull and others say it is fact. I understand both sides but not sure which to believe or which helps.


I found this one one of the forums "your body needs the caloires/nutrients to complete what it needs to complete. if you are eating to little then your body will resort to taking muscle and its glycogen for energy. muscle helps speed up your metabolism. yes eating more will slow down the fat loss a bit but you will be doing it correclty and you will see better results in the end, plus they will be more long term results. unfortunalty there are no short cuts in correct fat loss, it is a marathon not a sprint. hope that helps."

My trouble with this whole idea is that it is hard for me to get my head away from the concept that you eat less to lose.

What are your thoughts, just curious what people think

[eraser51]

+1

guess its the old starvation mode question...I lost good on atkins and dont want to gain or wait anymore after a 8 week stall

I just cut another 500 from 1700kcal so been around 1200-1500 .. lets see if this works

[geniash]

When in a deficit, your body adjusts over time to compensate by slowing down the metabolism. The bigger the deficit the sooner you hit the plateau. By increasing the calorie intake you jump start your metabolism. By exercising, taking some supplements, staying active, doing regular re-feeds you aim to keep your metabolism up to help achieve the goal of loosing fat.

[JPWheeler]

It's true.. I know because I experienced it. .. I used to eat 1400 calories sedentary to lose weight... and then u started boxing.. so I upped it to like 1700.. and I lost for a bit then I plateud for weeks I was at a loss so one day I was like stuff it I'll fight at the next weight class up and put my calories to 2k then all of a sudden I started losing weight again .. so it is true... on the days I ate to low while being active I'd plateu and stall and sometimes even gain a few hundred grams... but the days I at more I lost... and yes I upped my calories but I still never went over maintenance. .. just didn't adjust enough for the car dio I was doing I think some of it depends on genetics to though so I'm not sure.. but trust me give it a try and see what happens

[saw7988]

Yes, your metabolism adapts to reduced caloric intake, but this effect is FAR smaller than people think, for better or for worse. From the Minnesota starvation study, where calories were orders of magnitude lower than what anyone here would consider rational, protein was severely deficient, and no measures to maintain LBM (ie resistance training) were taken, in the end only an average of about 15% adaptation was seen beyond what occurred as a result from changes in bodyweight. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume normal circumstances are going to be more like 5-10%, at worst.

Now on the other side, when you increase your calorie intake, you don't just flip this magical switch where your body says ok that's better, now I'll do what I should do on a "normal" deficit. No, you've just shrunk your deficit. Weight loss should be slower. Some of the more knowledgeable experts, such as Lyle McDonald, say what is most likely happening is that the person who isn't losing weight on extremely low calories is likely cheating (they may not even realize it sometimes), and then when they "eat more" they're actually logging more accurately, and end up eating less.

Personal anecdote is sometimes a terrifyingly unreliable/inaccurate thing. Especially with the extraordinarily subjective biases of body image, fitness, and also when your body thinks you're starving to death.

TLDR: If you're not losing weight, you need to eat less and/or burn more.

[jp973156]

When in a deficit, your body adjusts over time to compensate by slowing down the metabolism. The bigger the deficit the sooner you hit the plateau. By increasing the calorie intake you jump start your metabolism. By exercising, taking some supplements, staying active, doing regular re-feeds you aim to keep your metabolism up to help achieve the goal of loosing fat.

Can you elaborate on this "re-feeds" thing? Any research on this subject would be much appreciated as well. I think that more on this topic could benefit the user and thread, potentially.

[FishySteak]

The metabolic adaptation due to lowered calories is just as saw7988 says. Your metabolism is essentially compensating for the deficit, but it's not going to be that much of a difference, and it's not going to completely stop weight loss, though it might slow it down. Most likely, the calorie counting may but just a bit off, or the workouts may be slightly lacking compared to before. I would either try a reverse diet for just a bit to see how your weight moves. If it doesn't go up, you can keep adding calories slowly until your maintenance, then continue dieting, which should make it easier.

You can also try refeeds. Refeeds are one day every once in a while, where you up your calories to your estimated maintenance and increase carbs while limiting fats. Drop protein and fats to minimum and get the rest of your calories from carbs. This is mostly for leptin while regulates hunger, body fat, among other things. Generally the lower bf% you are, the more often you need this. You can really get your carbs from anywhere, but try not to get too much from fruit. Nothing wrong with fruit, it's just that the fructose in it won't be as beneficial for this particular purpose.

[wesleycneill]

Yes, your metabolism adapts to reduced caloric intake, but this effect is FAR smaller than people think, for better or for worse. From the Minnesota starvation study, where calories were orders of magnitude lower than what anyone here would consider rational, protein was severely deficient, and no measures to maintain LBM (ie resistance training) were taken, in the end only an average of about 15% adaptation was seen beyond what occurred as a result from changes in bodyweight. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume normal circumstances are going to be more like 5-10%, at worst.

TLDR: If you're not losing weight, you need to eat less and/or burn more.

This.

I found myself either unintentionally cheating or intentionally cheating without logging what I ate (and when I logged, I found that my cheats were so overboard that it often knocked back my progress by a whole week in one meal).

Your metabolism will slow as you lose weight, due to the weight loss itself, but not by much. Your hormones may be slightly out of wack, and your body may be making some small attempt at storing fat, but it is negligible.

If you are plateauing, eat maintenance for a few days. Not to reset your metabolism, but to get your sanity back and keep yourself (log it) honest. Then start again. It's all about self-honesty and self-control. Once I realized that, I dropped down to 10% bodyfat with ease.

[viccles007]

Sorry to hijack the thread, but am going to try eating at maintenance for a few days. I calculated my maintenance to be around 2300 (still can't figure out how it can be so high!) but I eat around 1800-1900 a day. My aim isn't weight loss but have been staying the same/losing 100 grams a week. I track VERY carefully and rather over estimate than underestimate. So am assuming it could be what you mentioned above since I have been eating low cal (was eating around 1300-1400 when I was sick last year) for a long time.

[wesleycneill]

Sorry to hijack the thread, but am going to try eating at maintenance for a few days. I calculated my maintenance to be around 2300 (still can't figure out how it can be so high!) but I eat around 1800-1900 a day. My aim isn't weight loss but have been staying the same/losing 100 grams a week. I track VERY carefully and rather over estimate than underestimate. So am assuming it could be what you mentioned above since I have been eating low cal (was eating around 1300-1400 when I was sick last year) for a long time.

2300 is most likely not correct at your height age and weight. I'm your age, 6 feet tall at 175 lbs, with about 10% body fat. My maintenance is roughly 2300 calories. That should put yours significantly lower.

My suggestion is to calculate your BMR (if you know your bodyfat percentage, Katch-Mcardle equation is most accurate) and multiply it by 1.2 (sedentary activity multiplier). That will give you the most conservative maintenance number. Then, track all your exercise and food meticulously. You may still have to adjust but it shouldn't be by more than 10% or so (200 cals)

Now if you are a construction worker or are in some other labor intensive field, this method isn't reliable, but for the 99% of us who's job includes only runs to Starbucks or to the printer, it works great. Cheers!

Can you elaborate on this "re-feeds" thing? Any research on this subject would be much appreciated as well. I think that more on this topic could benefit the user and thread, potentially.

I'm not so sure re-feeds are totally scientific. There is, however, some evidence that during extended deficit dieting Cortisol (Stress hormone) and Ghrelin (Fat Retention/Hunger inducing hormone) increase while Leptin (Satiation and Fat loss signalling hormone) decreases.

I am not sure what the scale of the affect on fat loss/storage actually is, but I will say this. About once every 6-9 days while cutting, I wake voraciously hungry and can only think about processed foods. I would be tired, stressed and hungry no matter what I ate. So for dinner I would boost carbs and overall calories. The next day, I would be right back on track. I got down to 10% bodyfat fairly easily after I figured out self control, tracking and re-feeds. But looking at your avatar, you don't look like you need to worry about cutting. GJ bro!

[viccles007]

Don't think age has anything to do with it. I train 6 days a week though.

[Neofolis]

Age does effect BMR, it will decrease as your get older.

I have been weighing myself every morning and evening this week, just to monitor how my weight fluctuates. As you'd expect, my weight is lower in the mornings, generally 0.6-0.8kg, although this is mostly water, I'm still surprised it is that much. I also notice that my refeed day increases my weight a bit, even though it is still below maintenance, it is higher carb and my weight seems to increase for the next 2 days then start decreasing again for the rest of the week, even though my calories are the same. All of these changes are probably water related, but it's interesting to see how much the fluctuations are. My usual weigh in day is Saturday and my refeed day is Sunday and, although I'm losing around 1kg or just under per week on average, on Tuesday evening my weight was 2kg more than the previous Saturday morning. At this point, it is still over 1kg higher than last Saturday and I'm wondering how it is going to go down this week, but I guess I'll see what happens over the next couple of days.