new and a little lost...

leanne0627

Hi I'm new to the idea of eating more and just wanted to say thank you to everyone who made this site as I have never felt better in my entire life. I do have a question about increasing calories though. Background info: I'm female and 5 feet 8 inches 34 years old. I'm workin out 6 days a week cardio and weights. I weigh 218.6 right now I have been overweight since I was a child, started dieting around 13. By 16 I was prescribed phen phen until it was taken off the market and of course I gained everything I lost back. After that had numerous low cal diets losing and gaining the same weight. I gave up dieting a few years ago but never really ate normally since. I felt like if I ate like a normal person I would gain weight. I wasn't trackin calories but id say it was pretty low I'd only eat once a day and some days not at all and still stayed the same weight (225) i was never hungry and would have to force myself to eat. I had been feeling like I had no energy, slept a lot but not good sleep, my hair was dry and breaking and falling out and my skin looked bad. A month ago I joined a gym thinking exercise might make me feel better and around the same time I found this site and it clicked... I wasn't eating enough. I slowly over the last month started eating more and omg do I feel amazing!!! I have so much energy that I cant even sit and watch TV anymore I have to move all the time! My skin looks so much healthier its glowing and my hair Is shiny and not falling out!!! Mentaly i feel like a different person im so much happier. I actually get hungry now and eat every few hours.
So thank u to everyone who made this site for changing my life so much already! My questions are about finding the right calories to eat. I've been slowly increasing from prob around 800 to 1200 to 1400 to 1600 and some days even more and I've lost about 6 _pounds so far and inches too.. I'm down from a size 16 to a 14 and just in the last 4 days lost a half a inch of everywhere I had measured just four days before I'm thinking maybe I found my sweet spot that allows me to lose weight. Sorry about the long post but I wanted to give enough background to answer my question. My question is since I feel so good at 1600 and I'm losing weight should I stay at that level or continue to keep slowly increasing my calories to see if I can eat even more and lose? I did have few days where I ate 1900 and on those days I didnt lose anything though and felt bloated and stuffed. At 1600 I see the scale go down about .2 a day which feels amayzing. Anyways any insight on what to do is appreciated

heybales

You can't measure 0.2 lbs as accurate. That's probably not even in the accuracy level of the scale - let alone known expected water fluctuations that can easily be 1-3 lbs daily.

Your body easily could have finally gotten unstressed and dropped some cortisol retained water.

What if you could eat more, get body totally unstressed, then take a reasonable deficit that ended up being higher eating level than 1600, and actually lose more?

Because if body was suppressed eating less by max amount, it doesn't mean you increase a little bit and it becomes totally unsuppressed. You are likely still suppressed by some amount.

Same way some eat 1200 and maintain weight. Eat 1400 maintain weight. Eat 1600 maintain weight.
Body is increasing daily burn each time to match eating level, but not unstressed enough to burn as high as it could, whereas eating more and then coming back to 1600 could cause loss.

Go higher.

leanne0627

Its been a average of .2 a day for two weeks or so for a total of around 7 pounds and down a size so I dont think its just water weight but I'm all for eating more. How many calories should I go up at a time and to how many? My fitbit is saying I burn around 2700 a day but that would be too much. Sorry for all the questions just not sure where to go from here

heybales

leanne0627 wrote: »

Its been a average of .2 a day for two weeks or so for a total of around 7 pounds and down a size so I dont think its just water weight but I'm all for eating more. How many calories should I go up at a time and to how many? My fitbit is saying I burn around 2700 a day but that would be too much. Sorry for all the questions just not sure where to go from here

Why would eating what you burn be too much?
It was eating more than you burn that caused fat gain.

Aren't you going to be eating what you burn eventually?

So indeed, if it's been consistent loss, that's better, but still, that's not good to be that beholden to the scale and thinking it can accurately report anything day after day. Unless you do no workouts making each day a valid weigh-in day, then some of the loss is muscle mass too, unless you have a minor deficit, which you obviously don't.

So you think you have a deficit of over 1000 calories, but you lose only 1.4 lbs a week for 2 weeks?
Where's the other 0.6 lbs?
It's because that math doesn't work when you lose muscle mass, and when your system is suppressed, not really burning that much.

So don't jump up to eating that amount, slowly increase up to there and unstress your body.

Eat 1700 for a week, then 1800, then 1900, ect. Until you get up to eating what you burn daily.

Now, about what Fitbit says you burn daily.
Normally it underestimates your daily burn, and except for walking and running flat, underestimates exercise by some amount.
Are you manually logging non-step based exercise?
Swimming would be obvious, but also lifting, rowing, biking, elliptical.

leanne0627

Yes I'm logging major exercise yesterday it had me at almost 3000 though for yeterday even higher than normal as it seems the more i eat the more i move around naturally. I cannot sit still anymore. It just seems like a huge number I guess coming from a life of barely eating but I'll work on continuing to incease my calories as I was doing. I never went into this expecting to lose weight its just been an added bonus. Maybe I need to step away from the scale for a bit and hide my tape measure . Thanks for your help

mymodernbabylon

Definitely hide the scale right now. I'm much older, shorter, weigh less and workout less than you and I eat 2300 calories for maintenance so it wouldn't be shocking if you could eat a lot more than me at maintenance.

leanne0627

Thanks I needed to hear that. I guess I was in shock that I can eat this much without gaining. I knew other people ate more than me but i just always thought i was different somehow and couldnt eat normally. I didnt know i had done this to myself and it could be fixed. But after reading through everything on here and the science behind it it totally makes sense now. And since i feel better than ever I'm so excited to keep going up and im just going to trust that it will be OK.

heybales

leanne0627 wrote: »

Yes I'm logging major exercise yesterday it had me at almost 3000 though for yeterday even higher than normal as it seems the more i eat the more i move around naturally. I cannot sit still anymore. It just seems like a huge number I guess coming from a life of barely eating but I'll work on continuing to incease my calories as I was doing. I never went into this expecting to lose weight its just been an added bonus. Maybe I need to step away from the scale for a bit and hide my tape measure . Thanks for your help

How do you get the estimates for calorie burn on the major exercise?
Using HRM, or Fitbit or MFP database?
What is the exercise? As that will determine potential accuracy of those 2 methods.

leanne0627

i normally do the elliptical at the gym, also yoga and and weights. I have tried logging it into MFP and also fitbit but they give me much different numbers. On MFP it normally gives me a higher calorie burn like over 700 calories for the hour and on fitbit it gives me a smaller number for the same exercise normally around 500/hour. Which one do you think is more accurate?

leanne0627

Oh I don't have a hrm moniter yet. I would have loved to buy the fitbit with the hrm built in but I don't think its out in stores yet. At least not that I could find. Im a single mom though so I cant really spend a ton of money, especially now with my drastic increase in food bills! but if you think its needed to get an accurate burn rate I can get one.

mymodernbabylon

I tend to think that MFP gives almost 50% higher on most things (though not all). But that's why I don't do the MFP exercise thing and go with TDEE as I keep my exercise reasonably consistent.

heybales

leanne0627 wrote: »

Oh I don't have a hrm moniter yet. I would have loved to buy the fitbit with the hrm built in but I don't think its out in stores yet. At least not that I could find. Im a single mom though so I cant really spend a ton of money, especially now with my drastic increase in food bills! but if you think its needed to get an accurate burn rate I can get one.

That's not going to be an accurate HRM, especially as HR increases. And the best formula for calorie burn for HR is by Polar, and they ain't selling their studies and work to Fitbit.

Besides, for walking and running, formula based on mass/pace/time is more accurate than HRM formula.
So I hope they don't make that mistake, and keep using their current system.

Fitbit and MFP both use database built on results from studies that determined calorie burn per resting metabolism, and weight plays into that.
But Fitbit is using more of it, or has updated it through the years, because their descriptions allow better accuracy for effort.
That's where the difference comes in - descriptive intensity to select. Spin bike or Elliptical is hardly descriptive of effort. Running 6 mph is exact. if you did it.

Like the walking and running level entries are the same on both sites - and much more accurate than a HRM actually - if you really did that pace the whole time stated level.

But where MFP may have 3.5 mph and then 4 mph, Fitbit uses the formula straight out if you really did 3.7 mph.

So very correct logging those workouts, as none are step based and badly underestimated.

Oh, HRM won't be useful for Yoga or lifting anyway - so see, wasted money if purpose is merely calorie burn. Yoga is below the aerobic exercise zone, and lifting is anaerobic above it and non-steady state.

Now, considering how accurate walking and running is, if you can duplicate your elliptical effort, as shown by HR and breathing rate, on a treadmill, and then that tells you your calorie burn best - then you got your burn for elliptical too.
Next time doing elliptical, if there is HR option, use it and notice what it hovers around after 10 warmup, or wait for reading at end regarding avgHR. Notice breathing effort too. Cut that workout short, and jump on treadmill. Ramp the speed up (not much incline if possible) until HR and breathing are the same.
Now that entry can be looked up for mph, and you can see what you burn per min say on either machine at that level of effort. Use the Gross option, as that's what is being used by everything else.

http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

leanne0627

Thank you so much, I will try this next time I am at the gym

Nayners21

I just went through all the posts, cuz I too tried increasing my calories (based on IIFYM eating 1900 calories/day). I really want to lose 20-30 more pounds. Eating at 1900 calories helped me maintain weight but I felt that it was an excuse that I could eat more (no matter if it fit my macros). I too do weight training 5 days a week, and am very curious. I must admit, I definitely did not give it time because the scale wasn't moving. I lost 50 pounds eating around 1200-1400 calories a day, and I feel that's what I need to do. But again, the scale isn't moving. I've been at this plateau for about 8 months.

RoxieDawn

Please, please... somebody explain this me? I am want to EM2LW. This does not have to relate to my exact dieting structure now. I joined this to see if I could really EM2LW because I am losing at a ridiculous deficit.

HELP PLEASE..

heybales

gia07 wrote: »

Please, please... somebody explain this me? I am want to EM2LW. This does not have to relate to my exact dieting structure now. I joined this to see if I could really EM2LW because I am losing at a ridiculous deficit.

HELP PLEASE..

Best to start a new topic, but the basic idea of the method is a reasonable deficit is better than an extreme one, for long term success and health.

leanne0627

Nayners- Im pretty new to this whole idea of EM2LW but you may want to try increasing just to see if it gets you off the plateau what could it hurt right? I hide my scale so Im not sure if Im still losing but I think I am because a couple people told me today how thin I look today. I might be an unusual case though because of how really low I ate for so very long. I had been to a bunch of doctors over the last few years to complain about a lack of energy and just not feeling well, and they all told me to lose weight and Id have more energy. When I tried to tell them I didn't know where to cut from I was only eating once a day and not junk food they just said something along the lines of cut out sugar, try exercising more blah blah. I guess they didn't think someone overweight could really be eating that little I dunno either way It just never dawned on me I needed to eat more. I was never hungry. But anyways I had an extreme energy level change after eating more for a few weeks, to the point where I have trouble even sitting still now, where before I barely had energy to move. So I am guessing losing while upping my calories is a result of that and may not be the same for everyone. Although Ive since learned that lack of fidgeting and some of the other symptoms I had like hair loss, very slow bowels, being cold all the time etc. are all symptoms of a suppressed metabolism so if yours is suppressed maybe you would have more energy too??? Im hoping the scale continues to go down but even if it doesn't I wouldn't stop eating more because of how good I feel. Not sure if that answers your question if not let me know. Good luck

heybales

Nayners21 wrote: »

I just went through all the posts, cuz I too tried increasing my calories (based on IIFYM eating 1900 calories/day). I really want to lose 20-30 more pounds. Eating at 1900 calories helped me maintain weight but I felt that it was an excuse that I could eat more (no matter if it fit my macros). I too do weight training 5 days a week, and am very curious. I must admit, I definitely did not give it time because the scale wasn't moving. I lost 50 pounds eating around 1200-1400 calories a day, and I feel that's what I need to do. But again, the scale isn't moving. I've been at this plateau for about 8 months.

Best to start a new topic with your stats, workout routine and time, how you log your food, and these specifics.

Or keep doing what isn't working.

I'm sure you've heard the definition of insanity, right? ;-)

heybales

Here is interesting case study, nothing unusual here as far as method used, nor results expected from his Dr. You'll find the suppression expected in studies even.
40 yr old male, 6 ft, 450 lbs, 40% BF.
Estimated BMR 3000, estimated sedentary TDEE 4000.

Diet of 2000, so 2000 cal deficit. 4 lbs loss. 446.
BMR 3000 still, TDEE 3900.
1900 cal deficit. 3.8 lb loss. 442.
Next week about the same.
338.

But by 4-5 week out, weight loss starts dropping off much more than the minor amount the weight loss causes.
BMR around 2500, BF% 35%, TDEE should be around 3200 still, but results don't bear that out.
Eventually by week 6, it matches the 20% reduction in daily burn caused by a huge deficit.
Observed TDEE 2560, eating 2000, 1 lb weekly loss.

After 6 weeks. Now, enough weight is gone that exercise is introduced to increase that TDEE back up again, and create the needed deficit, only need 500 extra daily to get back to 2 lbs weekly. For 400 lb person, not hard to create 500 in exercise.

But if body was burning fully, you'd be getting over 2 lbs weekly loss.

In this case too, eating level is lowered. It's figured it's enough to still live easily on though, it is really, 2000 calories and not moving much.

It's no wonder folks like this end up failing, they get down to such stupid eating levels compared to what it could be.
And then they end up needing to exercise to keep losing weight, more and more just to keep it decent rate.

So while for obese BMI an extreme deficit could work for maybe 3 weeks before you might start seeing impact, and increase in eating levels could help them sustain, it's rarely done.

Shoot, one study with overweight BMI folks, only a 25% deficit (not the close to 50% many make from potential TDEE), slowed their daily burn down by 20% after just 3 months.
So they burned 370 below what they could be, even accounting for lost muscle mass. After 3 more months, it had recovered to only about 200 below. But still, overweight could reach goal by 3 months. So that means maintenance was 200 below what it needed to be. Almost like not even getting to increase calories to move in to maintenance.
What a let down.

leanne0627

heybales- That's a good study and makes total sense. I find this stuff so interesting, Ive been reading everything I can find online about it, especially the scientific studies. Your right the way they have people lose weight now is the wrong approach. I have no idea why the EM2WL approach is not more popular it makes total sense after reading through everything on here and also all the studies that have been done. It would help so many people lose weight safely without having to completely starve themselves and eventually just gaining the weight back when they eat more. I guess everyone just assumes a bigger deficit will just help people lose the weight quicker but with the metabolism becoming suppressed so quickly its just setting people up for failure and a life of struggling to keep there weight down. Each time they lose and gain weight there metabolism is going down and down until one day just to maintain they have to eat so little it affects their health. I wish I had heard all this information years ago! But I am so thankful I at least have heard it now and have a chance to improve my health and life!

heybales

Well, there is one good reason why studies go for faster weight loss - time and adherence.

Studies cost a lot, more time, more cost. So for the longest time, and even still, they figure fast weight loss to either prove some things out, or to maintain during the study to prove some things out, is acceptable.
Shoot, usually in those studies they don't even reach goal weight, they just stop the diet because they are ready for the maintenance phase.

But then reports or articles pick up on these studies and their declarations, and the claims are made about how fast you can lose weight.

Never mind the more than likely end results are not great.

My first clue to look at them better was actually a person here on MFP that had been in a study with drastic weight loss - but not to goal weight, just some number of weeks, whatever it was.
She attempt to continue that rate of loss on her own. And even if it had been reasonable at first - it sure wasn't at the point she was at, and she failed badly.
Not being lab tested at the wahzoo for everything led to some medical issues, lowered RMR test from what she got as final measurement in study despite not much more weight lost, ect.

And stressed, because she viewed the study as a weight loss assist. Not the fact the weight loss was to measure something else happening in body probably, it was merely side effect almost to main focus. She didn't know of course.

So there are some studies that show good results that are still short, but that's mainly because deficits were small, really proving out benefit of reasonable weight loss - which really isn't new. Just hard to do in studies.

First one talked about in these summaries is that example, and their surprise over what didn't happen that usually does.
http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/2/196.full

And in this one showing the metabolic efficiency, or adaptive thermogenesis, shows recovery is possible. Be mindful that if it had continued on and cardio was no longer a resistance workout to these folks, what might have happened differently later on.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251

And then the researchers that discovered leptin and it's effects. They have rather negative view on recovery, which newer study above shows is possible merely eating at maintenance, faster if slowly eating over maintenance.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2i_cmltmQ6A

leanne0627

Thanks Ill take a look at these I'd love to get a hold of a machine to test RMRs. I wonder if my school has one. I have to do a thesis next year, and although Im a psych major not health I would love to figure out a way to do my on study on this kind of thing.

heybales

Need a metabolic cart for that RMR test.

Let's see - motivational impact on exercise habits by ones seeing their resting metabolism.

Ehhh, maybe not.

leanne0627

Lol. I really just want to test myself. I know we have mri s and stuff for the grads students to use so we prob have one. It'd be interesting for a thesis and an area of research have you ever come across someone here who can't reset their metabolism? From what I read online it looks like if ur metabolism was suppressed during puberty there may be issues with recovery. Not sure how true that is but has me a little worried. I took all that fen phen during that time

heybales

Never actually looked in to that. Since actual studies would never occur being unethical, it would have to be after the fact, and I'm betting accuracy of eating levels would be just horrible based on looking back years, too unknown the actual level of deficit or potential deficit being taken.

Just thinking locally about a couple of pre-teens or tad younger that were abused and locked up and malnourished for a while, one had heart transplant already because that was damaged so badly (perhaps genetics too, who knows) from what she went through, but otherwise reports say body is back to looking better. But that doesn't mean much.

I'm wondering if any logging years later as to health stats and apparent recovery.
I know so many are scarred emotionally that messes up their physical anyway, so might be hard to distinguish between that connection.

I could understand it having more of an impact as systems are trying to develop normally as best they can. Or would that mean recovery would take longer, perhaps more sensitive to extremes than might have been, or extremes don't have to be that far out to be negative effect.

I have met some that seem to have more problems than others resetting.
Some ended up having minor thyroid problems. Because of, or in spite of, extreme deficit? Who can know.
Others I don't have the details to be assured how well they either gave it a chance, or were true to following the advice they said they wanted to try to follow.

leanne0627

Yeah your right there are so many variables its hard to really know the cause. I feel like anyone should be able to improve at least some if given enough time and consistency. After the reset what is the best way to get the body not to just immedialty adapt to the lower calorie level again? I know a small deficit is key, but since our bodies have a set fat point and will fight losing weight, it seems like it would just lower again? Would staggering calories work? Like eating at TDEE every other day and having a bit bigger deficit on non diet days? Or three weeks at a deficit then a week at TDEE? I want to have a good plan when I take my cut that will allow me to keep this new better metabolism I'm getting

leanne0627

I want to have a doc check my thyroid too as a low thyroid runs in the family. If I asked for an RMR test at the same time do you think they would give me one or would I need a better reason then curiosity and trouble losing weight to get one? I've been trying to find somewhere to just pay to get one but I can't find anywhere. My fitness center didn't know either. I'm in Ontario Canada if anyone here knows where to get it and again ty halebales for answerin all my questions. Ur awesome!

heybales

The few studies with reasonable deficits really show the RMR not lowering after even up to 6 months I've seen. And even with bigger deficits, no lowering if resistance training was part of package. I'm sure individual body stress (other diseases?) and genetics plays in too.
Which probably speaks well to idea of every 6 weeks taking a diet break and just eating at estimated TDEE that week, no matter what the activity level is, just to destress before it matters. Plan it out well, and make that week hit normally big eating week anyway, be like having your cake and eating it too!

The hormone aspect is why the study on that 5:2 diet went well, 5 days eating at TDEE (actually, not measured, just whatever they felt like eating as normal) and 2 days eating 25% of TDEE. Weekly deficits was 22% then, and they had no problems reaching goal weight. But I don't think they threw exercise in either as new part of equation.
And most people do make wholesale changes to diet and exercise.
My personal routine makes the 2 rest days I could do at 25% of TDEE, the days that really need more food for recovery because of prior day's workouts. So not good for me to even attempt.

I did finish up my last 7 lbs with idea that seemed to work well for me.
2 No exercise days, ate at maintenance around 2000-2400.
2 Light exercise days, 10% deficit off that day's TDEE (using Fitbit with corrected workouts). TDEE up to 3000.
2 Moderate days, 15% deficit TDEE up to 4000.
1 Big burn days, 20% deficit TDEE over 4000, since usually long slow cardio, when fat burn was at the best. Need to replace carbs, not fat burned. Had some 5000 and higher days.
Avg deficit was I don't know, never worked it out, I just let happen whatever was going to happen.

This worked out great for performance, hunger, keeping the fire burning high, but I've been wary of suggesting it because it takes a bit of work and math, different eating goals daily, different deficit amounts, ect, and closer to MFP style, with need to log exercise, so as accurate as possible, and memorize protein and fat grams needed.


Interesting thought on RMR given at time of thyroid test. Both need to be fasted state, rested, ect.
And I'd think it would be telling too. I could see someone having numbers on the border, but RMR is right where expected, so would appear no effect from iffy thyroid.
Then again, numbers could be decent but RMR is way low, or high, indicating something else is amiss to check out.
Seems like they should have and use one, I'm betting not though.

Did you search for metabolism test locally too, or metabolic test, ect? I've seen several that don't call it RMR. Shoot, the print out didn't even say RMR, sometimes BMR, which isn't correct either.
That's strange no one locally would have one.
You'd also want to be careful of how they use it. If they say the just show up at gyms or the mall, avoid them. Those would be invalid tests if the people didn't come in fasted and no workouts within 24 hrs, and they know it. So if they are willing to give tests for invalid data, why would they spend extra money to calibrate the equipment for accuracy frequently when it doesn't matter.

heybales

If no one really has one in town, and big enough town - I sense an investment opportunity. Find a business major to go in with!

leanne0627

I did google for both BMR and RMR and also metabolic testing in the area and couldn't find anything except at the hospital with a doctors prescription. Im in Niagara falls, not a huge town, but not tiny either, I would have thought someone would do it, but maybe not. I even checked neighboring areas. I only found some in Toronto and thats about 2 hours from here. That would be a great business opportunity Hmm have your BMR tested and get some counseling at the same time! hehe I bet I could make it work I guess I will make a doctors apt for after the holidays and try to get it done that way. I feel like knowing my accurate number would be so helpful, and then maybe again in a few months to see how much I increased it. I know almost everyone is pretty close to the predicted numbers, but some do vary and a 20% difference off what the computer gives you could be my entire deficit. I did find a bunch of studies on anorexics that were interesting. Metabolic rate was within 10% of normal after just two weeks of refeeding. If they can improve in just two weeks, wow then for sure I would be able to (as long as no thyroid issues?). I also read another study that tested the BMRs of women who claimed that they had a super slow metabolism and could only eat 1200 calories a day and found that there BMRs were all normal, except one lady and she ended up having thyroid issues. Their problem was that they were underestimating there food intake by 47%. Wow. So they were actually eating over 2000 a day! Im definatly going to make sure Im logging everything accurately!

I think the way you lost weight with staggering your calories around is a smart move. Definatly would be a little more time consuming but I like numbers and think that may work for me. It would keep your body guessing so it couldn't adapt to a lower calorie. Or even just a day a week at matience if I find that it is to hard to have a different goal everyday. I guess I just want to make sure after all this work to improve my metabolism that I am able to keep it Again thanks for the info

MomFLYer

leanne0627 wrote: »

Lol. I really just want to test myself. I know we have mri s and stuff for the grads students to use so we prob have one. It'd be interesting for a thesis and an area of research have you ever come across someone here who can't reset their metabolism? From what I read online it looks like if ur metabolism was suppressed during puberty there may be issues with recovery. Not sure how true that is but has me a little worried. I took all that fen phen during that time

I was malnourished in my teens due to Crohn's - it is VERY difficult for me to lose weight (possibly due to the high doses of Prednisone from ages 13-19?). I do find I can lose on a high protein/fat & lower carb diet - but still have to workout like a madwoman...