At my wits end, really need some advice.

Options
123578

Replies

  • honsi
    honsi Posts: 210 Member
    Options
    TDEE Refeed?
  • DanIsACyclingFool
    DanIsACyclingFool Posts: 417 Member
    Options
    By that I mean taking a break from all training to let your body rest and recuperate, and eating at or slightly above TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) for a short period of time. The refeed should get a lot of it's extra calories from carbs (calories from fat do not have the same effect).

    When in a caloric deficit the metabolism slows down to some degree as hormone levels fall. This decreases your TDEE so that you may no longer be in a caloric deficit at all. The calories that you used to lose weight at are now too many to continue to lose weight, and your fat loss plateaus. It's the body's way of trying to restore balance to the thermodynamic energy balance equation that you deliberately upset by dieting and exercising in the first place.

    The influx of carb-rich calories has been demonstrated to assist in the restoration of thyroid, leptin, and testosterone levels which are naturally suppressed in response to a sustained caloric deficit. As a result, your slowed down metabolism speeds back up to some degree, and TDEE increases with it. When you recommence your diet and exercise routine at the previous level, you are once again in a caloric deficit and fat loss resumes, smiles return, etc.

    The other approach is to increase training intensity (which increases the chances of injury and further upsets the hormone balance) or decrease calories taken in (which makes you frustrated, hungery, irritable, further reduces hormonal balance, etc).

    As others have said if you are truly in a caloric deficit you will lose weight (though it's not guaranteed to be fat loss, it could be muscle instead). But you absolutely need to be in a confirmed deficit, and you want to do whatever you can to make that loss be fat. Keeping the hormonal balance happy is a good way to keep the body strong and healthy and the metabolism cranking, giving you the highest possible TDEE. It's also a great break mentally, your training aches and pains will go away, and you'll be ready to CRUSH your workouts with renewed vigor when you start back up. It's a great plateau busting strategy. It's also very difficult to talk someone whose weight loss has stalled into stopping their workouts and eating so much more than they have been. Most people are afraid they are going to pile the weight back on during those two weeks.
  • honsi
    honsi Posts: 210 Member
    Options
    OK this sounds interesting , kind of re setting everything again. I'm still not sure how I work out TDEE? Sorry if I sound dumb but this is all new to me so I want to be clear.
    I've realised on this site that people just assume you know what they are talking about.
    Its true that I am very reluctant to stopped the training and diet ( but esp the training) partly because I hate it and worry i wont start back up again esp with me being as frustrated as I am right now.
  • kansasredneckwomen
    kansasredneckwomen Posts: 7
    Options
    Good job on your research. Our bodies have a built in mechanism to prevent starvation. When we do not get enough calories, our thyroid will release reverse T4. This hormone goes to our cells and causes them to utilize as little energy as necessary, in order to conserve energy needed for vital organs to survive. This is shown to us as a "reduced metabolism". The whole process is actually more complicated than that but the above is the main controller.
  • DanIsACyclingFool
    DanIsACyclingFool Posts: 417 Member
    Options
    OK this sounds interesting , kind of re setting everything again. I'm still not sure how I work out TDEE? Sorry if I sound dumb but this is all new to me so I want to be clear.
    I've realised on this site that people just assume you know what they are talking about.
    Its true that I am very reluctant to stopped the training and diet ( but esp the training) partly because I hate it and worry i wont start back up again esp with me being as frustrated as I am right now.

    The OP of this thread has put together an excellent primer on the basics. That includes calculating what you burn throughout the day (TDEE). I prefer to start with BMR and add all exercise manually to get TDEE.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12/

    As to your point of us assuming a certain level of knowledge, yes, we want to help, but we also want you to seek knowledge independently. Use google or MFP's search function on terms, calculations, etc you don't understand. If you are conversant on the basics we can talk intelligently about specifics that apply to YOU.

    Most people instinctively fear taking a diet/training break. They fear they'll balloon back up and lose that progress they've already worked so hard for, or that once they stop they'll never recapture that drive that caused them to start the first time and stay on a break forever. There's no reason for either of those to happen. Make it a part of your plan and stick to it. Your frustration should evaporate once you realize that what you are experiencing is normal and there are solutions.

    A rest/reefed can be a powerful tool. To use a Leigh Peele-type analogy, you'll get to the finish line faster if you stop and take a pit stop now and then rather than running in the red until the engine quits or you run out of gas.

    Weight loss is a practical application of science. It's not subject to opinion or what we think we're entitled to eat. Once you divorce emotion from it and control both calories in and calories out it's really just a game of math. Now, you can work with the science or against it and still persevere, but against is harder. You may feel like you are doing everything right and life is just being unfair by not letting you continue to lose, but if you're stuck for more than a few weeks you need to adjust something.

    One last thing: if you truly hate your training look for something you won't hate. Maybe it's swimming or dancing or tennis. It doesn't HAVE to be a fitness class. And training is about fitness. Weight loss is about diet. The two often go hand in hand but keep them separate in your mind. The very best training in a deficit is resistance training to preserve muscle mass and fight that metabolic reduction.
  • honsi
    honsi Posts: 210 Member
    Options
    Yes I have a bit of learning to do, thanks for the post.
    As for the exercise, the classes I'm going to now I like better than other things I have tried and I have stuck with them and there have been big improvements in my fitness and muscle tone.I still try new things as well. Its good to shop around.
    And you are right about the break actually, there have been a couple of times when I haven't been able to exercise for a couple of weeks and I did get back into it with out any problems. Exercise has become part of my routine now which is great.
  • 55in13
    55in13 Posts: 1,091 Member
    Options
    But in the long run, you really don't want your metabolism to slow down like that.

    Slow down like what? Studies on people with a BMI over 20 show a metabolic slowdown of between 4% and 10% when they go on reduced calorie diets. People throw around crazy numbers from the MN study where one guy with less than 7% BF had a 40% slow down and act like that is the norm or is common. It is not. Granted, 10% is more than twice 4% but the math just doesn't work if you start running your calories up and down to try to keep it closer to the 4% mark. It isn't an instant switch - when you start eating more trying to get it back up you will be at the reduced metabolism to start with, getting even more extra calories. IMO, it is much simpler to just assume you will need to cut back a little extra to cover it. I think the roller coaster works for some because it gives people a day here and there as a break from their diet, making it easier to stay on it.
  • Ashleyxjamie
    Ashleyxjamie Posts: 223 Member
    Options
    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.
  • notsobigmama2
    notsobigmama2 Posts: 5
    Options
    I was in the same situation - same length of time losing weight, same types of classes. While moaning on the NHS Forum, someone responded by informing me that as I was now a quarter of a person less than when I started, it stood to reason that I did not need the same amount of calories that I did at the start of my weight loss.

    This advice, coupled with "honest logging" as someone here put it, has resulted in my weight loss starting again. I also jump started it by having a wee go on the Fast Diet.

    Sometimes, you just need to take a time out or try something a bit different.

    I wish you well and hope you stick with it.
  • 55in13
    55in13 Posts: 1,091 Member
    Options
    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.

    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.
  • __Di__
    __Di__ Posts: 1,630 Member
    Options
    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.

    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.
    ^ this

    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.
  • wants2travel
    wants2travel Posts: 32 Member
    Options
    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.
  • JessHealthKick
    JessHealthKick Posts: 800 Member
    Options
    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!
  • LaurenAOK
    LaurenAOK Posts: 2,475 Member
    Options
    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
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    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.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    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:
  • 55in13
    55in13 Posts: 1,091 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Jessemelcher
    Jessemelcher Posts: 15 Member
    Options
    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.
  • LaurenAOK
    LaurenAOK Posts: 2,475 Member
    Options
    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.
  • 55in13
    55in13 Posts: 1,091 Member
    Options
    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.

Categories