At my wits end, really need some advice.
Replies
-
^ this
This ^^^^^Eat less?
Errr no. The opposite actually. Burning 4500 calories a week is 640ish calories minus'd from your daily 1800, which means you are eating less than 1200 calories a day. You don't eat anywhere near enough to provide the energy needed to fuel your workouts, therefore your body is keeping hold of everything you do consume and not letting go of excesses. NET 1800 and you'll lose weight.
DO NOT eat less. Your body CANNOT lose if there is not enough energy put back in your body to burn fat! If you do not eat enough your body will hold on to your calories and fat and you will not lose.
Bro science backed up by nothing really. If you are burning more than 1800 and you eat 1800, you will lose weight. If you eat 1200 you will lose more but it might be too little to function well and if you have trouble with keeping on track the binge monster might visit. But don't buy into the "eat more to lose more" craziness.
The body holds onto nothing. It has to use energy and if there is a deficit, it will take it from its own warehouse - the fat stores.
It will not hold onto calories, it will use them.0 -
When I first switched to MFP from WW, I wasn't losing anything, only maintaining. I kept tracking my points on WW and calories on MFP and found that I usually ran out of points before I ran out of calories. I knew that (for me) I was eating too much. I usually come close to my calories, but always stop when I'm out of points, I have been losing steadily since then.
I also found the less carbs I eat, the more points I have. WW is very hard on carb eaters!
I love the MFP database so much more though so I continue to track on both.0 -
if it was as simple as cutting down and down, simple calories in vs out, why aren't there more MFPers withering to nothing and disappearing? Your body puts a halt on it and your metabolism slows. I have had this happen and upped from net 1200 to 1600 over a few weeks (NET = eat back exercise calories) and I started to lose AND gain some nice muscle
I have recently changed again down to 1500 as I am happy with muscle gain and aiming for a decrease in body fat %.
If you are truly burning that much, you are netting quite low already. It is probably wise to try increasing for about 3-4 weeks and seeing what happens. At worst you'll cain a few pounds, but this is unlikley given how active you are.
As another poster said, try taking a week off. I found when I took a week off my body transformed a lot more from getting good rest. Be sure you're sleeping well!
Good luck feel free to friend me if you have any questions... I am not a weight loss guru but hopefully can try and help! 0 -
No study has ever found a point at which anyone loses more by eating more. It becomes less efficient to reduce intake at some point (removing 10 more calories might only add 7 to the deficit as metabolism slows) but it never starts going the other way. NEVER.
There are many, MANY people on this site who can tell you from personal experience that you're wrong. Plenty of people have stopped losing weight, increased their calories, and started losing again. It's called "Eat more to weigh less", and yes it's a real thing.
OP I havent looked at your diary but if it's true that you're eating 1800 calories and burning over 600, I would also recommend that you eat more. Calculate your BMR and your net calories should always be higher than that. See this thread for a better explanation: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/912920-in-place-of-a-road-map-3-20130 -
OK I'll try eating less for a couple of weeks and see how I get on. I'm not going to mess with my exercise too much as the classes are designed so you don't get used to them and they are still a challenge for me so I'm fine with that. I try to change a couple of things each week anyway for variety.
If I don't lose weight after a couple of week on 1400 cals I think I will just leave it and be chubbby and happy as this is getting unhealthy mentally.
Thanks for your replies.
400 less per day seems too drastic IMO. I'd drop it only 200 a day. You workout too strenuously and are too close to goal to warrant such a drastic drop in calories at this point.
How sure are you of your calorie burns? 4500 per week seems high for someone who is already fit, but those are intense workouts.0 -
Eat less?
Errr no. The opposite actually. Burning 4500 calories a week is 640ish calories minus'd from your daily 1800, which means you are eating less than 1200 calories a day. You don't eat anywhere near enough to provide the energy needed to fuel your workouts, therefore your body is keeping hold of everything you do consume and not letting go of excesses. NET 1800 and you'll lose weight.
This ^^^^^
DO NOT eat less. Your body CANNOT lose if there is not enough energy put back in your body to burn fat! If you do not eat enough your body will hold on to your calories and fat and you will not lose.
Your body cannot lose fat on a calorie deficit?? :huh:0 -
No study has ever found a point at which anyone loses more by eating more. It becomes less efficient to reduce intake at some point (removing 10 more calories might only add 7 to the deficit as metabolism slows) but it never starts going the other way. NEVER.
There are many, MANY people on this site who can tell you from personal experience that you're wrong. Plenty of people have stopped losing weight, increased their calories, and started losing again. It's called "Eat more to weigh less", and yes it's a real thing.
OP I havent looked at your diary but if it's true that you're eating 1800 calories and burning over 600, I would also recommend that you eat more. Calculate your BMR and your net calories should always be higher than that. See this thread for a better explanation: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/912920-in-place-of-a-road-map-3-2013
And anonymous posts on an internet forum are right up there with medical studies as far as sources of information to base significant life decisions on? OK.
There are also as many posters who like myself find this to be untrue for them and find that science says it is untrue. So do you truly believe that there is a point at which you could stop eating during the day and you will expend less calories than if you eat one more bite? Because unless you believe that - that there is a specific point and therefore a single bite - at which this occurs then you cannot believe it ever occurs. The math does not work unless it "crosses zero" at some point. Such a point has never been proven to exist. NEVER.0 -
This whole eat more to weigh less thing makes perfect sense if applied correctly. If you were to eat more and exercise in a way to build a smll amount of muscle then cut back it would drastically improve your ability to lose fat. Its not that complicated one lb of sedentary fat only needs 2 calories a day to maintain unlike muacle which needs between 25 and 50 up for some debate but I will not argue. Regardless its much more than fat needs. But u do need a slight surplus for muscle gains. So if you were to put on one lb of muscle and eat the same as you were maintaining your body will need to steal from calories used for fat maintenance to maintain muscle which is always priority unlike what some people will tell you about catabolic reaction. So lift heavier weight and keep it up with body pump. I would also suggest squatting heavy.0
-
No study has ever found a point at which anyone loses more by eating more. It becomes less efficient to reduce intake at some point (removing 10 more calories might only add 7 to the deficit as metabolism slows) but it never starts going the other way. NEVER.
There are many, MANY people on this site who can tell you from personal experience that you're wrong. Plenty of people have stopped losing weight, increased their calories, and started losing again. It's called "Eat more to weigh less", and yes it's a real thing.
OP I havent looked at your diary but if it's true that you're eating 1800 calories and burning over 600, I would also recommend that you eat more. Calculate your BMR and your net calories should always be higher than that. See this thread for a better explanation: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/912920-in-place-of-a-road-map-3-2013
And anonymous posts on an internet forum are right up there with medical studies as far as sources of information to base significant life decisions on? OK.
There are also as many posters who like myself find this to be untrue for them and find that science says it is untrue. So do you truly believe that there is a point at which you could stop eating during the day and you will expend less calories than if you eat one more bite? Because unless you believe that - that there is a specific point and therefore a single bite - at which this occurs then you cannot believe it ever occurs. The math does not work unless it "crosses zero" at some point. Such a point has never been proven to exist. NEVER.
I don't want to get into a huge debate here because I know this is a touchy subject for a lot of people. All I'm trying to say is that OP is already netting under 1200 calories, which most people agree isn't healthy. Therefore, the people telling her to eat less are not offering good advice. So, why not try the alternative - eating more? I agree with you that there isn't science in place to back this up, but there's nothing wrong with giving it a try. Especially when there ARE so many people with personal experiences showing that it has helped them.
Do I think OP could lose weight eating 800 calories a day? Of course. That's basic math. Do I think it would be healthy to do so? Absolutely not. So let's stop recommending it to her.
I used to net 1200 or less a day and yes I was losing weight. Then I increased to 1400+ a day and I'm still losing weight - even faster than I was before! I think they key is to eat more than your BMR but less than your TDEE (and yes, this IS scientifically proven to work). Clearly OP is currently eating under her BMR. All I'm suggesting is that she increase her calories to be above that number, but still less than her TDEE, therefore allowing weight loss. This is why I linked her to the road map thread.0 -
This whole eat more to weigh less thing makes perfect sense if applied correctly. If you were to eat more and exercise in a way to build a smll amount of muscle then cut back it would drastically improve your ability to lose fat. Its not that complicated one lb of sedentary fat only needs 2 calories a day to maintain unlike muacle which needs between 25 and 50 up for some debate but I will not argue. Regardless its much more than fat needs. But u do need a slight surplus for muscle gains. So if you were to put on one lb of muscle and eat the same as you were maintaining your body will need to steal from calories used for fat maintenance to maintain muscle which is always priority unlike what some people will tell you about catabolic reaction. So lift heavier weight and keep it up with body pump. I would also suggest squatting heavy.
This is a different ting than most people are suggesting. You aren't basing it on some mumbo jumbo bro science and saying eat more and your metabolism will magically adjust and more than make up the difference. You are saying give the body extra fuel and make some more muscle, then cut back. That does work, though not as much as most people hope. I don't ant to bulk up, but I could add maybe 5# of muscle at most. Your figures for maintaining muscle are much higher than the ones I have seen documented. I have seen numbers under 20 calories per pound, but that is just for existing. Still, 100 extra calories burned a day would help. That muscle won't stay as muscle unless I continue to work out though.0 -
Hi just logging in with what I have learned. I am 71 yrs old, started at 265 lbs am now at 232.6 lbs.
1. If you put all of your data into My Fitness Pal it will tell you how many calories you should eat.
Your data must include your height, weight, and level of activity - sedentary, moderate activity, active.
2. If you eat only those calories and exercise you will lose weight.
3. If you eat those calories plus all the calories you have burned off exercising your weight loss will be less.
4. You will have periods of time where you will not lose weight - I went 3 weeks with no change.
That is your bodies way to adjust to your previous weight loss.
It seems we ladies have bodies that need time to adjust before weight loss can continue.
I don't know about men. It is kind of like when you read something then take time to assimilate it.
Your body has lost weight and then takes time to tell all your body components you are ok.
Then you will start to lose again.
5. Once you are on maintenance you can exercise so you can eat more calories -
but if you want to lose you don't eat those calories you burned exercising.
EXAMPLE:
Say you are to eat 1500 calories according to My Fitness Pal and are moderately active and you burn 500 calories exercising.
Now if you eat only 1500 calories you and not exercise you will loose very mildly. Maybe 1/8 lb to 1/2 lb a week.
Now if you eat only 1500 calories and burn 500 calories you may lose up to 1 1/2 lbs or more a week.
As long as your are eating the 1500 calories you are getting all the nutrition you need - you do not have to worry about your health.
But you will still have a week or two with no weight loss but will fine on week three and four you may loose 3 lbs. It will all even out.
Your reasons for exercising are multiple. 1. To get healthier 2. To lose weight 3. To maintain weight while eating more (this is for maintenance only)
There will be times while you are dieting that you will exercise because you ate more - say at a dinner out and that is ok sometimes. But for regular weight loss that should not be the rule but the exception.
I do hope this helps you. I have found it to work for me quite well.
Remember when you are exercising you are not burning off vitamins, protein, and minerals, you are burning off fat. Your body will maintain the vitamins, protein, and minerals that keep you healthy.
While trying to loose do not consider exercise as a way to eat more. It is a way to lose more. Again once you are on maintenance you will find if you want to eat more than the allowed maintenance calories you will need to burn them with exercise.
Don't give up, Keep on keeping on and you will succeed.
Wilmakt0 -
I don't want to get into a huge debate here because I know this is a touchy subject for a lot of people. All I'm trying to say is that OP is already netting under 1200 calories, which most people agree isn't healthy. Therefore, the people telling her to eat less are not offering good advice. So, why not try the alternative - eating more? I agree with you that there isn't science in place to back this up, but there's nothing wrong with giving it a try. Especially when there ARE so many people with personal experiences showing that it has helped them.
Do I think OP could lose weight eating 800 calories a day? Of course. That's basic math. Do I think it would be healthy to do so? Absolutely not. So let's stop recommending it to her.
I used to net 1200 or less a day and yes I was losing weight. Then I increased to 1400+ a day and I'm still losing weight - even faster than I was before! I think they key is to eat more than your BMR but less than your TDEE (and yes, this IS scientifically proven to work). Clearly OP is currently eating under her BMR. All I'm suggesting is that she increase her calories to be above that number, but still less than her TDEE, therefore allowing weight loss. This is why I linked her to the road map thread.
I don't want to insult the OP because I don't think there is purposefully misleading information provided, but the basic math says that the calories consumed are not less than those burned.
You say your rate of loss is faster at 1400+ than at 1200? So you truly believe that there is a point where you could take another bite and it cause an increase in the calorie deficit rather than a decrease? Lots of people have made the claim but no one has been able to demonstrate it under clinical scrutiny.0 -
I was eating less then 1200 calories a day and the weight wouldn't come off. I had to up my calories to not go under 1200 with excercises and the weight starting coming off. Just make sure they are good calories and you should be fine.0
-
I don't want to get into a huge debate here because I know this is a touchy subject for a lot of people. All I'm trying to say is that OP is already netting under 1200 calories, which most people agree isn't healthy. Therefore, the people telling her to eat less are not offering good advice. So, why not try the alternative - eating more? I agree with you that there isn't science in place to back this up, but there's nothing wrong with giving it a try. Especially when there ARE so many people with personal experiences showing that it has helped them.
Do I think OP could lose weight eating 800 calories a day? Of course. That's basic math. Do I think it would be healthy to do so? Absolutely not. So let's stop recommending it to her.
I used to net 1200 or less a day and yes I was losing weight. Then I increased to 1400+ a day and I'm still losing weight - even faster than I was before! I think they key is to eat more than your BMR but less than your TDEE (and yes, this IS scientifically proven to work). Clearly OP is currently eating under her BMR. All I'm suggesting is that she increase her calories to be above that number, but still less than her TDEE, therefore allowing weight loss. This is why I linked her to the road map thread.
I don't want to insult the OP because I don't think there is purposefully misleading information provided, but the basic math says that the calories consumed are not less than those burned.
You say your rate of loss is faster at 1400+ than at 1200? So you truly believe that there is a point where you could take another bite and it cause an increase in the calorie deficit rather than a decrease? Lots of people have made the claim but no one has been able to demonstrate it under clinical scrutiny.
You're right, this hasn't been demonstrated clinically or scientifically. And of course I don't believe there's a point like that. I'm not going to pretend to be able to explain this, because mathematically it doesn't make sense. I never said it does.
All I know is that I am now eating 250+ calories more than I used to, and I'm losing weight at the same rate or even more quickly. And yes, I tracked everything CAREFULLY the whole time. I'm definitely eating more now. That's the truth, take it or leave it. You can decide not to believe me, you can say I must have miscalculated, you can say it doesn't make any sense - that's your choice. That's not going to stop me from recommending it to the OP, knowing that it has worked for me and many others (like the person who just posted above me).
We could debate this all day but I won't. Let the OP make her own decision with the information provided.0 -
I don't want to get into a huge debate here because I know this is a touchy subject for a lot of people. All I'm trying to say is that OP is already netting under 1200 calories, which most people agree isn't healthy. Therefore, the people telling her to eat less are not offering good advice. So, why not try the alternative - eating more? I agree with you that there isn't science in place to back this up, but there's nothing wrong with giving it a try. Especially when there ARE so many people with personal experiences showing that it has helped them.
Do I think OP could lose weight eating 800 calories a day? Of course. That's basic math. Do I think it would be healthy to do so? Absolutely not. So let's stop recommending it to her.
I used to net 1200 or less a day and yes I was losing weight. Then I increased to 1400+ a day and I'm still losing weight - even faster than I was before! I think they key is to eat more than your BMR but less than your TDEE (and yes, this IS scientifically proven to work). Clearly OP is currently eating under her BMR. All I'm suggesting is that she increase her calories to be above that number, but still less than her TDEE, therefore allowing weight loss. This is why I linked her to the road map thread.
I don't want to insult the OP because I don't think there is purposefully misleading information provided, but the basic math says that the calories consumed are not less than those burned.
You say your rate of loss is faster at 1400+ than at 1200? So you truly believe that there is a point where you could take another bite and it cause an increase in the calorie deficit rather than a decrease? Lots of people have made the claim but no one has been able to demonstrate it under clinical scrutiny.
You're right, this hasn't been demonstrated clinically or scientifically. And of course I don't believe there's a point like that. I'm not going to pretend to be able to explain this, because mathematically it doesn't make sense. I never said it does.
All I know is that I am now eating 250+ calories more than I used to, and I'm losing weight at the same rate or even more quickly. And yes, I tracked everything CAREFULLY the whole time. I'm definitely eating more now. That's the truth, take it or leave it. You can decide not to believe me, you can say I must have miscalculated, you can say it doesn't make any sense - that's your choice. That's not going to stop me from recommending it to the OP, knowing that it has worked for me and many others (like the person who just posted above me).
We could debate this all day but I won't. Let the OP make her own decision with the information provided.
I had a very similar experience. I felt stalled and frustrated and was netting 1200 calories a day. Now I have increased to 1600 and more recently joined the gym and had my stats calculated properly. With a BMR of 1430 (minimum calories requirement per day) it is no surprise that my body was trying to maintain weight. Realistically, I should have weighed 30kilos if it is as simple as the above posts say. More people struggling with anorexia and eating 700calories a day should not have survived (I am glad they have/did/are surviving) and so on. It is with this extreme you can see how there is some truth in what myself and LaurenAOK are saying.
Can someone link the 'in place of a roadmap' thread please, ASAP? not sure where it is.
Cheers0 -
Can someone link the 'in place of a roadmap' thread please, ASAP? not sure where it is.
Cheers
I linked it in another post but here it is again! http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/912920-in-place-of-a-road-map-3-20130 -
Here's my take on the matter, FWIW: Metabolic science is still in its infancy. We know a lot about how to lose weight, but there is a lot more that we don't know, especially in the community of individuals who go from a heavy weight down to a lean one. They are metabolically different than people who have never been that big. Because there is such an absolute dearth of information, an over abundance of pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo has risen up from all corners of our society to take its place (and claim the brass ring that comes with supplying bad information.) I think that's why we all have such varying opinions on how to do this and keep it off.
OP, one thing I would suggest: import a couple of days of your food journal and make it public so we can help you in a more targeted manner. It isn't just a matter of calories in vs. calories out because - and this is something for which there actually is an abundance of academic literature - not all calories interact with your body in the same fashion. While it's true that all the calories you eat will be eventually converted to glucose in your liver, eating too much refined sugar and processed food can cause blood glucose to spike. Even if you are exercising as much as you say, these kinds of spikes can do a real number on your liver's ability to metabolize food. Furthermore, if your muscle tissue can't use all the glucose in your blood it eventually gets stored as fat, which could lead to a lot of frustration if you're trying to lose weight. Have you been checked out for insulin resistance? IR can make it very difficult to lose weight, even when it seems like you're doing everything else correctly...and it's incredibly common in women. Just a thought.0 -
Can someone link the 'in place of a roadmap' thread please, ASAP? not sure where it is.
Cheers
I linked it in another post but here it is again! http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/912920-in-place-of-a-road-map-3-2013
thank you! thought it would be good for OP, should have looked closer - didn't realise you already posted :laugh:0 -
No study has ever found a point at which anyone loses more by eating more. It becomes less efficient to reduce intake at some point (removing 10 more calories might only add 7 to the deficit as metabolism slows) but it never starts going the other way. NEVER.
Thank you! I've been pretty sure that Eat more/Weigh less is bro-science, espoused mainly by highly energetic men (and some women) in their early 20s. If it worked that way for everyone, MFP would be a lonely place.0 -
I was eating at 2000 and losing around 1 and a half pounds to 2 pounds a week right up till I lost around 28 pounds, I then stalled for a week completely, upped my calories to 2600 and lost another 4 pounds in the following 3 weeks. There are several posts a day of people saying they can't lose weight while eating 1200 calories and I have seen many posts of people saying they stalled and then started losing again when they upped their calories by 400-800.No study has ever found a point at which anyone loses more by eating more. It becomes less efficient to reduce intake at some point (removing 10 more calories might only add 7 to the deficit as metabolism slows) but it never starts going the other way. NEVER.0 -
Are you still losing inches? It could just be that you're building muscle. I would try lowering your calories, but still eating full healthy meals! I also attened those same classes and I dont think you should stop! Like you said, they are made so it challenges you differently every time.
Remember that getting a good sleep every night is a important part of a healthy life style
Good luck! 0 -
At a deficit that is impossible, they cannot build muscle on 1100 calories, most people wouldn't be able to build muscle on less than 2500 calories.Are you still losing inches? It could just be that you're building muscle. I would try lowering your calories, but still eating full healthy meals! I also attened those same classes and I dont think you should stop! Like you said, they are made so it challenges you differently every time.
Remember that getting a good sleep every night is a important part of a healthy life style
Good luck!0 -
I was eating at 2000 and losing around 1 and a half pounds to 2 pounds a week right up till I lost around 28 pounds, I then stalled for a week completely, upped my calories to 2600 and lost another 4 pounds in the following 3 weeks. There are several posts a day of people saying they can't lose weight while eating 1200 calories and I have seen many posts of people saying they stalled and then started losing again when they upped their calories by 400-800.No study has ever found a point at which anyone loses more by eating more. It becomes less efficient to reduce intake at some point (removing 10 more calories might only add 7 to the deficit as metabolism slows) but it never starts going the other way. NEVER.
And you are an 18 year old young man! Please don't confuse yourself with everybody else here. Women cannot eat as much as you. Older men cannot eat as much. Older women, even less. Almost no one can eat as much as an 18YO male! If I ate 2400 cals a day I'd be gaining 5 pounds a week.0 -
How can you gain 5 pounds a week if you eat 2400? if you eat that much depending on your weight and height, and if you exercise, you will still have a deficit. my TDEE shows I can eat 2600 to maintain my weight or 2077 to lose one pound a week. I've been eating around 1800-2000 a day and working my butt off and it's working for me!0
-
I calculated the TDEE of a 40 year old woman with the same weight and exercise as the OP, their TDEE is 2430 meaning to lose weight they should NOT go under 1400 calories as this is already 2 pounds a week, the OP is in a deficit of 1230 already and contemplating going in more of a deficit, nearing the loss of 3lb a week which isn't healthy, plus trying to get all your nutrients in with 1200 calories would be difficult. If the weight loss has stalled I would recommend trying to lose a pound a week, meaning eating 1930 calories a dayish and continuing with the exercise.
And you are an 18 year old young man! Please don't confuse yourself with everybody else here. Women cannot eat as much as you. Older men cannot eat as much. Older women, even less. Almost no one can eat as much as an 18YO male! If I ate 2400 cals a day I'd be gaining 5 pounds a week.
I was eating at 2000 and losing around 1 and a half pounds to 2 pounds a week right up till I lost around 28 pounds, I then stalled for a week completely, upped my calories to 2600 and lost another 4 pounds in the following 3 weeks. There are several posts a day of people saying they can't lose weight while eating 1200 calories and I have seen many posts of people saying they stalled and then started losing again when they upped their calories by 400-800.No study has ever found a point at which anyone loses more by eating more. It becomes less efficient to reduce intake at some point (removing 10 more calories might only add 7 to the deficit as metabolism slows) but it never starts going the other way. NEVER.0 -
^ Thank you for speaking some sense! :flowerforyou: it would take a surplus of 2500 calories a day to gain that kind of weight which for a female would be around 5000ish calories every day after exercise...How can you gain 5 pounds a week if you eat 2400? if you eat that much depending on your weight and height, and if you exercise, you will still have a deficit. my TDEE shows I can eat 2600 to maintain my weight or 2077 to lose one pound a week. I've been eating around 1800-2000 a day and working my butt off and it's working for me!0 -
It's apparent you don't understand the "eat more to weight less" idea. The point is to individualize your calorie goal so that you eat enough so that you are at a smaller deficit rather than a huge deficit. No one is saying everyone should eat 2600 calories. They're saying eating 20% below your TDEE, whatever that number may be. If you are a 50 year old woman, clearly your TDEE will be lower and therefore your "eating more" will still be a smaller number. Calculators adjust by age, height, weight, gender, and whatever activity level you have.
I was eating at 2000 and losing around 1 and a half pounds to 2 pounds a week right up till I lost around 28 pounds, I then stalled for a week completely, upped my calories to 2600 and lost another 4 pounds in the following 3 weeks. There are several posts a day of people saying they can't lose weight while eating 1200 calories and I have seen many posts of people saying they stalled and then started losing again when they upped their calories by 400-800.No study has ever found a point at which anyone loses more by eating more. It becomes less efficient to reduce intake at some point (removing 10 more calories might only add 7 to the deficit as metabolism slows) but it never starts going the other way. NEVER.
And you are an 18 year old young man! Please don't confuse yourself with everybody else here. Women cannot eat as much as you. Older men cannot eat as much. Older women, even less. Almost no one can eat as much as an 18YO male! If I ate 2400 cals a day I'd be gaining 5 pounds a week.0 -
I was eating at 2000 and losing around 1 and a half pounds to 2 pounds a week right up till I lost around 28 pounds, I then stalled for a week completely, upped my calories to 2600 and lost another 4 pounds in the following 3 weeks. There are several posts a day of people saying they can't lose weight while eating 1200 calories and I have seen many posts of people saying they stalled and then started losing again when they upped their calories by 400-800.No study has ever found a point at which anyone loses more by eating more. It becomes less efficient to reduce intake at some point (removing 10 more calories might only add 7 to the deficit as metabolism slows) but it never starts going the other way. NEVER.
There are also several saying its not so and offering experience in the other direction. The assertion you make is only supported by unproven internet postings. The other position in the debate has unproven internet postings also and has science and studies to back it up. For some reason, every time one of these people who says they will gain weight or stall at a lower calorie intake is placed in a clinical environment and every calorie of food eaten and effort expended is recorded it doesn't happen.
I have made some of my friends who are "trying" to lose weight upset when they asked me what is working so well for me this time (I have had failed attempts to lose in the past). I tell them the truth - this time I am really doing what I say I am doing. When I cut out snacks I really cut them out; I have none at all. This time whenever I go out to get some exercise I run for miles (lately it is usually 5 or more) and I do this 3 times a week. I do some dumb bell work every day. I look them in the eye and say that every plan I have tried in the past would have worked if I were this faithful to it. They often infer correctly that I am also saying that they are not really doing what they say they are doing.
People are more likely to stick to a plan if it is easy; I get that. A smaller deficit is easier. Pretending it is somehow better through mumbo jumbo bro-science rubs me the wrong way.0 -
How can you gain 5 pounds a week if you eat 2400? if you eat that much depending on your weight and height, and if you exercise, you will still have a deficit. my TDEE shows I can eat 2600 to maintain my weight or 2077 to lose one pound a week. I've been eating around 1800-2000 a day and working my butt off and it's working for me!
The poster who posted that is 61 yo, you are 25. BIG difference. Maybe 5 lbs a week is exaggerated, but age makes a difference. Just wait. You'll see.0 -
Here's food for thought:
If you over-eat 20 calories a day, you will gain 2 pounds in one year.
If you over-eat 20 calories a day, you will gain 50 pounds in 25 years.
...... How easy it might be to under or over estimate your calorie intake when you take a few things into consideration...
1) When they say 1 cup of lettuce = XX calories.... do you ever wonder if they placed the lettuce in the cup loosely or packed it in as tightly as possible? The volume is different either way, even though you've used a real measuring cup.
2) Unless you are using a heart rate monitor and an accurate formula .... do you ever wonder if you're burning more or less calories?
And while we're questioning it... there are other factors to consider when trying to lose weight.
1) What about hormones? What if you are insulin resistant and don't know it? What about cortisol? You know the hormone that increases when you're stressed and makes you gain weight whenever you so much as look at food. (Not really, but if you're super stressed then it just makes losing weight that much more difficult).
2) What about sleep?
It seems like you need to be a nutritional expert/chemist/biologist/crazy mad scientist to really know what's going on inside your body. Doctors go to school for years and years to study the human body and they still haven't figured it out.
I don't know the answers, but I think it's interesting that so many people think they do. Just an observation. Good luck and I hope you find the "right" answer soon.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions