I’m trying to lose weight and was told that hwo I eat about 800-1000 calories a day is too low and lowers my metobolism which will prevent weight loss. I’ve looked up some meal plans and can’t really afford stuff like chicken breast, steak, or salmon every week. So that is why I’m wondering how I can eat 1500 calories a day. Are there some alternatives that I can do?
Also I’d like to ask, say I exercise and burn say 500 calories would I have to eat those calories back or no? I ask cuz I’ve been told yes and told no.
You’re absolutely going to lose weight at 500-1000 kcal a day. It’s not particularly healthy, and you’re going to lose significant muscle mass, but you will absolutely lose weight rapidly. A significant caloric deficit will not prevent weight loss; its thermodynamics. You’ll lose muscle with that much of a deficit, which in turn decreases basal metabolic rate, but you’re not going to violate thermodynamics.
How are you tracking intake? If you’re not losing weight, I don’t believe you’re tracking calories correctly. Are you using a scale and weighing portions, or just eyeballing it?
Your body probably will go full panic mode and store back as much as possible as soon as you starts to eat normally again. I’d advice agains doing anything so violent, and just lower your food intake to a bit under normal.
Store back what? That’s not how physics works. If they continue to eat only what their body needs to maintain a set weight, they’re not magically going to gain weight because their body somehow is able to violate the laws of physics.
It’s callef the yoyo effect (that’s why you should see a nutritionist when you want to lose weight). Also recent research hints at cells becoming more efficient when there is less energy available. There is even a Kurzhesagt video about it if you are interested.
It seems it is not so easy as calories in, calories out.
No…just no. You’re arguing against literal physical laws here. Most people do not accurately count their calories and end up posting antidotal garbage that gets passed off as science.
Dude, cells are not using up 100% of the energy you ingest, if they did you could live off a sugar cube a year. I think it might be you that doesn’t understand how the laws of physics work lol.
You have just argued that they do. You cannot magically create mass from eating less. That’s literally what you’re stating.
I didn’t state something along those lines, ofc you cannot gain 100gram eating only 50grams.
Let me expmain:
If your body gets 100 “energy” out of a burger, that doesn’t mean getting “200” energy out of a burger is against physics.
Then that’s CICO… what’s your point?
So first off, I don’t think you should bring the laws of physics into conversations of how human bodies store fat. I know it’s tempting - I’ve been there before - but it’s just too reductive to be useful in the conversation, and it leads to generally poor conclusions.
While it’s true that energy cannot be ‘conjured from nothing’ - human bodies don’t quite work on a fixed energy in/out model. They can be variably efficient in how much energy is required to perform certain tasks, and secondary systems can be turned off when the need to conserve energy becomes apparent (leptin is the signaling mechanism for this).
The main mechanisms that cause rebound weight gain after sharp dieting is a reduction in passive energy needs stemming from the change in leptin levels, along with leptins very strong effect on appetite.
I suggest to you, and anyone still under the impression that CICO is a useful model for understanding human metabolism, to read the book The Hungry Brain. It’s hugely useful for gaining greater insight into the subject.
Are you suggesting our bodies are more efficient and break thermodynamics?
What secondary systems get turned off? You’re body is going to utilize energy anyway it can if it needs it, if it doesn’t it stores it, usually in the form of fat.
No it’s from eating way more calories…this is literally junk science your parroting here. The rebound in weight is because someone decides to stuff themselves again.
That book is about the psychology of overeating.
Hell here is a quote from his AMA:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5stv4n/comment/ddhwzhf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Did you miss the “when you start eating normally again” bit?
You can rant all you want about the laws of physics, but you might want to practice your reading comprehension.
Then you’re not eating normally… you’re eating more than you need.
Most people don’t count calories. You said it yourself, a few posts below. Are you going to start redefining “normal” now to meet your argument?
Wow…so you think my argument of CICO is bunk… because…most people don’t count calories…the fuck type of logic is this?
You really need to work on that reading comprehension. Valmond stated that people will regain weight when they return to eating normally after dieting.
You claim that’s not how physics work, then move the goal posts stating “if people only eat what they need, they won’t gain the weight back.” Well no shit Sherlock, but they’re not eating normally. They’re gaining the weight back if they go back to eating normally.
Quit being so quick to attack folk and read the fucking post.
Again, that’s not normal eating is it? If they were obese in the first place. Stop acting like it’s somehow normal for someone to consume 4000 calories a day or more.