'You're not eating enough'. Is this a myth?

[lardylady]

Every now and then, I read this on threads where people are wondering why they are not losing any weight. I can never understand this- how can 'not eating enough' prevent you from losing weight? Surely, anorexics don't eat enough and they're not exactly fat! I would be genuinely interested to know if there is any Science behind this statement or is it just a handy excuse to trot out when someone hits a wall in their dieting campaign?

 

[donna88]

Anorexics eat a lot less then what I see most people eating on here.

I don't know the science behind it but not eating enough can slow your losses down or even make them stop, it happened to me so I'm a firm believer in it. But again I can't explain why as I don't know the science. It probably completely depends on the person as well, some people don't find eating less has a bad effect on their WI's, some do.

 

[Gallifreya]

Hi, I have often thought about this as well. There may be a 'tiny' amount of truth in this idea, because apparently, the less you eat the more your metabolism shuts down in self-defence, or so I have heard. However, I think you have to be in actual starvation for this to happen and although the metabolism 'slows', it still works, so yes, even anorexics can lose weight. However, it is obviously not at all healthy or desirable to reduce your calorie intake to this kind of level. Personally, and this is purely my opinion, if you follow the SW plan it is unlikely that this will ever be the case. There are all kinds of other reasons why we seem to 'hang on' to our weight some weeks, but unless you are already seriously emaciated, I think this is probably just another piece of dieting folklore. Normal healthy people following a sensible weight-loss diet and doing a moderate amount of exercise should always lose weight effectively in the long term.

 

[SallyVater]

If you reduce your caloric intake too much your body is programmed to hold on to the fat reserves to keep your basic functions going. Of course this won't last forever as eventually your body will be forced into using your reserves, but the problem with this is that it will often start breaking down muscle tissues as well (and muscles are the fat burners of our bodies) which is obviously not great. People with severe eating disorders have often damaged their internal organs as the body will break these down as well when things get really desperate.

Too much of a calorie deficit also damages your metabolism as our bodies slow everything down, and another problem is that you may lose weight initially by cutting back heavily, but this weight will probably re-appear (with a few friends) when you try to increase your intake. SW teaches us to eat heartily but healthily and there is no need to ever feel hungry or deprived so I think this is why people on these boards encourage others to eat more superfree and free foods.

Here's an interesting article Can I Be Eating Too Little To Lose Weight? | LIVESTRONG.COM

 

[gazter]

While the term 'starvation mode' is over used, there are plenty of people with experience that reducing what you eat has very diminishing returns. Your metabolism will reduce itself to match what is available.

Like an engine running rich or lean, it adjusts to whats out there. A similar example is water. When your body has access to plentiful water, you drink it, it pees it like no tomorrow, if your water intake drops it holds onto the water. If you eat less than you burn you will lose weight, in pretty much all circumstances, however the rate of loss can drop dramatically.

Most people have a sweet spot, if you follow the diet correctly you should be getting 300 calories from your syns, 240 calories from your healthy extras, and then a good 500 to a 1000 calories from free and superfree foods. There are weeks where i have found the pounds fly out, and other weeks, such as when i did a few success express, in which nothing was happening.

If you consume too little your body behaves weirdly, it holds onto all it can, it will also break down lean tissue such as muscle to obtain what it needs.

PS. For people with very high levels of fat, the above largely doesnt apply, your body is able to metabolise all the energy it needs from the fat cells in your body.

 

[jaylou]

It's normally used in the "not eaten enough this week and that's why I haven't lost" context and so I don't think there's much science in it. I think it would take a while for the starvation/body conserving its fat stores etc to kick in

If people haven't eaten enough food on the plan then there's normally something else!

 

[lardylady]

Another oft used excuse for not losing weight is that 'muscle weighs more than fat'. Yes, this would apply to a champion bodybuilder or professional sports person, but not the average SW member who happens to have done a couple of Zumba classes and a few sit ups that week.

 

[SallyVater]

Another oft used excuse for not losing weight is that 'muscle weighs more than fat'. Yes, this would apply to a champion bodybuilder or professional sports person, but not the average SW member who happens to have done a couple of Zumba classes and a few sit ups that week.

However, when you up your exercise you certainly can see a gain or STS on the scales in the first couple of weeks. This isn't to do with the "muscles weigh more than fat" thing (which isn't strictly true anyway, it's all to do with mass vs weight) but more to do with the water retention. Damn that water retention!

 

[gazter]

Another oft used excuse for not losing weight is that 'muscle weighs more than fat'. Yes, this would apply to a champion bodybuilder or professional sports person, but not the average SW member who happens to have done a couple of Zumba classes and a few sit ups that week.

Very true, but delayed onset muscle soreness is very real and can show substantial gain on the scales. If your muscles are sore following exercise they are most likely holding on to fluids to repair themselves.

This can last for a week or two depending on what exercises you do, and can happen again when you switch to exercising different muscles. Of course it is all temporary, but very real.

It acts as a negative motivator to do exercise. I have heard many people dismiss beginning an exercise programme because they dont want to put on anything.

 

[gazter]

However, when you up your exercise you certainly can see a gain or STS on the scales in the first couple of weeks. This isn't to do with the "muscles weigh more than fat" thing (which isn't strictly true anyway, it's all to do with mass vs weight) but more to do with the water retention. Damn that water retention!

oops sorry, didnt read your post, and muscle does have a greater mass.

If we could all manage it, weighing ourselves on a monthly basis, or using the four week result as the most important number, would help iron out the odd way our bodies work and that our losses are sometimes based on how we ate and exercised a couple of weeks ago, not necessarily that particular week.

 

[SallyVater]

oops sorry, didnt read your post, and muscle does have a greater mass.

If we could all manage it, weighing ourselves on a monthly basis, or using the four week result as the most important number, would help iron out the odd way our bodies work and that our losses are sometimes based on how we ate and exercised a couple of weeks ago, not necessarily that particular week.

Yup. I gained 1.5lbs this week and it's most likely to be because I've done 5 x exercise classes, 3 of which were weight based. Logically I know that I'm holding onto water but I still feel horribly disappointed this week! I never felt this sort of pressure when I was only doing monthly peeks at the scales when I was CC up to my TDEE.