Calorie and Metabolism Question

[kat2002]

I've heard some people say that if your fat loss has stalled that maybe you should "add more calories" and then you'll start losing again. Is there really a magic number of calories where your metabolism works more efficently than it otherwise would?

I'm confused because it seems that it would really be about calories eaten minus calories burned=fatloss?

I guess I'm questioning the concept of a starvation mode where your body thinks that its not getting enough calories and holds on to the fat and whether that is fact or myth?

On edit: And I'm talking about only as low as what would be widely regarded as the calorie limit for women (1200)..not true starvation or anything.

[Leah]

The magic number is anything above maintenance. (To answer in terms of dieting...there's probably a point during hyper-caloric eating where you become less "efficient" )

And what your maintenance is does depend on calories + activity. If you're training a lot you're going to need more food to maintain than you would if you weren't training so much.

[amyloo]

I'm no expert, but I do know that not every person needs the same amount of calories, male or female. 1200 isn't a magic number of calories for women, in fact, it may be "starvation" amounts for some women, depending on their size.
You need to determine your basal caloric needs, plus any addtional depending on your activity level. I believe that is then your "maintenance" number of calories, and your caloric deficit would be however many calories less than that.
If your maintenance calories are 2000 per day and you have been eating 1200 for long periods of time, then your body will do it's best to squeeze out all it needs from those 1200, reducing your metabolism in order to do so.

[poke]

From what I understand, the point at which your body no longer processes food properly has to do with your Basal Metabolic Rate. This is the number of calories your body would burn if all you did all day was sit on the couch and not move. It is different for everybody, so you can't pick a general number like 1200 and really rely on it. When your body gets below this number, it starts behaving in starvation mode, because you aren't even getting enough to continue existing (in the long run.) You will see people cycle caloric intake and go below maintenance for a day here and there, but by returning to a higher average they are keeping from getting stuck in starvation mode. I don't know what to offer you as proof it exists, except a lot of anecdotes. I have never done it, but I've met plenty of people who eat 1000 Cals a day and yet don't become cut - just small and flabby. I would imagine part of the deal is that when you eat food, you have the energy to workout and burn more calories (and increase your metabolism so that you continue burning more calories) than if you just ate less and less and had no energy.

If your body isn't getting enough to maintain what it already has, it isn't going to build more on luxury. In other words, your body won't allow your hair to fall out in favor of bigger biceps. It will pick what will help it survive in the long run - for example fat in the midsection and not a lot of muscle mass. The longer you restrict calories below BMR, the more inclined your body is to this.

Does that make more sense?

[kat2002]

I think I understand what everyone is saying, but say hypothetically that you're eating a calorie restricted diet and consistently losing 1-1.5/week since you started, adding more calories isn't magically going to make you start losing 2 pounds/week. It seems like on some other forums, this is what people are saying.

[strongchick]

Well, they're wrong.

Can't fight the rules of thermodynamics.

[kat2002]

Well, they're wrong.

Can't fight the rules of thermodynamics.

Okay, thank you! :clap: Would the same be true for someone who's fat loss has completely stalled? Eat more and start losing again? :confused:

[Blondell]

Stats please? Cals? weight? Where are your cals coming from?

[jrb1980]

Originally posted by kat2002@May 16 2006, 02:47 PM
I think I understand what everyone is saying, but say hypothetically that you're eating a calorie restricted diet and consistently losing 1-1.5/week since you started, adding more calories isn't magically going to make you start losing 2 pounds/week. It seems like on some other forums, this is what people are saying.
I know what you are saying - I got that impression from responses on the o2 site a lot. I think what the posters were saying (or trying to say) was that it might do your body some good to go spend a little bit of time - like a week or two at maintenance (during which time you may even gain a little bit), and then drop your calories back down. The idea is that after spending some time at maintenance your body may be more ready to lose again. At least that is how I understood it.

[Kathryn]

yep don't get caught like I did...I was on crash diets before and had to slowly increase to maintenance...then I reduced it by 500 and then it went down by 700 and then 900...and now I'm back up to maintenance for this week to reset my metabolism...

[poke]

Originally posted by kat2002@May 16 2006, 11:47 PM
I think I understand what everyone is saying, but say hypothetically that you're eating a calorie restricted diet and consistently losing 1-1.5/week since you started, adding more calories isn't magically going to make you start losing 2 pounds/week. It seems like on some other forums, this is what people are saying.
Well, no, you're right. A blanket approach isn't the way to go. Maybe something else has caused the stall? A lot of times when people are very overweight and they start losing they will stall along the way because the effort they put into being fat is gone. For example, taking the same flight of stairs when you weigh 200lbs will burn more calories than when you weigh 160lbs. In this case, increasing calories isn't the solution. Changing the exercise routine will help more. Like bdd suggested, how about posting your stats, weight, exercise and eating plan?

And, if adding calories does turn out to be the solution, be sure to make it clean food that you are eating more of. Adding a twinkie a day isn't going to get you the results you want! ;)

[kat2002]

Originally posted by bdd814@May 16 2006, 11:22 AM
Stats please? Cals? weight? Where are your cals coming from?
5'3", 139 (down from 153 in late February..my original goal was 135 but now I'm thinking I may keep going because I still have alot of body fat, don't know the percentage), I'm eating approximately 1300 calories/day.

My weightloss hasn't actually stalled, I'm asking more as a hypothetical though. Well actually it's slowed a tiny bit, but that's because I've hit an activity slump. I could stand to eat cleaner because while I'm eating healthy, I'm relying on convenience type foods (I've been doing Jenny Craig). I know you guys will probably poo-poo that..but it's alot better than what I was doing (eating out every meal). I think that things are going well though I still hear "eat more!!" being given out as blanket advice but I'm wary, so that's why I asked my question.

I also feel that my lifestyle is overall sedentary, which is why I feel I'm getting enough calories. Even though I've been lifting, I've been laxadasical with my cardio and spend most of the day sitting. This summer though, I'll be able to up my activity level so I'm contemplating simultaneously upping my cals, but I haven't decided yet..

[strongchick]

Well, I would argue in your specific case you are undereating. I'd eat more.