There's a great (imo) article in Runner's World this month called the Weight Loss Manifesto by Amby Burfoot (pg 60 iirc).  He talks about some studies and ideas that have been around for a while, that really make sense to me.  Basically, the thinking is that our bodies operate best when they are in a high energy intake and output scenario.  To put it simply, eat more, move more, instead of the often preached (by me many times), eat less, move more mantra.  I don't have it in front of me, so I forget the research he used, but I did find this study that basically says the same thing:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3401553/

According to the RW article, and the study above, our calorie intake actually hasn't increased that much over the last 30-40 years, what's really changed is our energy output (decreased obviously, in large part due to industrialization and technology).  The eat less, move more model definitely works for initial weight loss, but I think once you've reached a healthy weight, a transition to eat more, move more seems more sustainable long term.  Our bodies will find the balance on their own, so long as we keep the energy output high enough.

I started thinking about my training over the last few years (coming up on my three year runiversary, woohoo!), and the best I've felt through all of the different cycles I've gone through (calorie deficits, marathon training, etc.), was when I was running high mileage while training for Richmond last fall.  I was doing doubles 4-5 times a week, running 14-15 hours a week.  I was also out on a ship at the time, so I was walking a lot, going up and down ladders (stairs), basically on my feet and moving almost all day, in addition to my running.  I felt incredible.  I wasn't tracking my food, but I know I was eating a lot, mostly rice and vegetables with lean protein, a full plate at every meal, but I was still dropping body fat.

Just some food for thought.

I have not read either article but my daily intake calorie-wise is roughly 2200-2500 give or take a few here and there.  I sometimes go lower but rarely higher.

That is my sweet spot and allows me to run and recover effectively without feeling weak or affecting my energy.

Its no coincidence that the countries with the higher caloric intake are also towards the higher end of the obesity charts

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_energy_intake

 

 

For sure it is possible to eat too little, but the last message that needs to be preached in the US is eat more.

 

For the majority of people in the Western world, the best results do come from eat less, move more.

Maybe not eat more, but eat the same and move more, a lot more.  I think that's the big thing we're missing here in the US, overall lack of activity, and not just exercise, but just keeping moving more throughout the day.  And even when people do start exercising, 30mins three times a week isn't going to cut it.  I think it needs to be every day.  Maybe not rigorous exercise every day, but do something, walk, bike, something.

Also, this is for long term maintenance, eat less/move more is definitely the way to go for overweight/obese people who need to drop down to a healthy weight (it certainly worked for me).  The problem that most people experience is maintaining after they've lost the weight, you can't eat less forever, which is why less than 5% of people who lose significant amounts of weight keep it off long term.

Basically, the point is to increase your energy output as much as you can, and then let your body dictate how much to eat to support that output.  Obvious caveats apply for eating whole/natural/etc..  But your body will find a balance, and if you maintain a high energy output, it will be a lean/healthy balance.

Haven't read the link or the RW article yet.

But it would be shocking to me if we really have not increased our calorie intake over the last 30-40 years, with all the increased consumption of processed foods with lots of added sugar/HFCS, fast food and other dining out with enormous portion sizes. I don't doubt that we have decreased our calories burned.

From personal experience - when I am at my highest mileage, I eat the entire house, and my weight stays constant. So eat more / move more doesn't work for me.

Haven't read the link or the RW article yet.

But it would be shocking to me if we really have not increased our calorie intake over the last 30-40 years, with all the increased consumption of processed foods with lots of added sugar/HFCS, fast food and other dining out with enormous portion sizes. I don't doubt that we have decreased our calories burned.

 

From personal experience - when I am at my highest mileage, I eat the entire house, and my weight stays constant. So eat more / move more doesn't work for me.

We have increased our intake, but not enough to account for the soaring obesity rates, according to these articles/studies.  The study I linked stated from 1971 to 2000 the average increase was 168 kcal/day for men and 335 kcal/day for women.  The study the RW article referenced suggested less of an increase, but it was also for a shorter and more recent period of time.  Both articles/studies point to the lack of exercise/activity as being the main factor, not overeating.

Your weight stayed the same, but did your bodyfat % change?  Hopefully your fitness increased, so I guess maintaining your weight while increasing your fitness is still a good thing.

"It's ok to eat cupcakes and pizza"  <----- What every runner just heard.

 

We have increased our intake, but not enough to account for the soaring obesity rates, according to these articles/studies.  The study I linked stated from 1971 to 2000 the average increase was 168 kcal/day for men and 335 kcal/day for women. 

This still sounds surprisingly low.

 

Your weight stayed the same, but did your bodyfat % change?  Hopefully your fitness increased, so I guess maintaining your weight while increasing your fitness is still a good thing.

No idea, never had it measured. I only hope it has been a good thing. I was not really overweight before I started running, so never tried to lose use running for weight loss. But if I was, I'd be disappointed, and/or would need to reduce my calorie intake..(Or reduce the amount of the increased intake.)

Haven't read the link or the RW article yet.

But it would be shocking to me if we really have not increased our calorie intake over the last 30-40 years, with all the increased consumption of processed foods with lots of added sugar/HFCS, fast food and other dining out with enormous portion sizes. I don't doubt that we have decreased our calories burned.

 

From personal experience - when I am at my highest mileage, I eat the entire house, and my weight stays constant. So eat more / move more doesn't work for me.

We have.

Per the USDA

Cropped from

http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf

Don't forget 100 calories per day = 36500 calories /year or about 10.4 pounds of fat accumulation per year.

I don't particularly like linking to blogs as a rule, (I prefer peer reviewed articles) but this one gives a good oversight of the reasons why its down in part the amount of food eaten.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2014/04/calorie-intake-and-us-obesity-epidemic.html

Watch what you eat (the amount especially, but also the variety) AND move more.

Personally I agree that I feel better when I do exercise higher amounts, and fuel that with extra food, but thats not a message for the general population. If you walk a couple of miles and guzzle an Gatorade, you may well have consumed more calories than you walked off.