I'm gaining at 1300 :(
Options
Replies
-
arditarose wrote: »You are probably eating more than you think. You are underweight though...perhaps it should not be a huge concern?A 20 year old at 5'4 and 104 pounds should not be so concerned with gaining weight. You are underweight. Please see a medical and or psychological professional. My ED spidey sense is up here.
At 5'4" and 104 pounds her BMI is 17.7, which is not much lower than the normal range which starts at 18.5. I cannot agree with the recommendations to not worry about it or to seek professional help.
If you are working out you may be putting on muscle mass which is more dense than fat and will increase your weight. If this isn't the case, you either aren't tracking everything, eating to much junk, or it may even be that you are not taking in enough calories.
0 -
arditarose wrote: »You are probably eating more than you think. You are underweight though...perhaps it should not be a huge concern?A 20 year old at 5'4 and 104 pounds should not be so concerned with gaining weight. You are underweight. Please see a medical and or psychological professional. My ED spidey sense is up here.
At 5'4" and 104 pounds her BMI is 17.7, which is not much lower than the normal range which starts at 18.5. I cannot agree with the recommendations to not worry about it or to seek professional help.
If you are working out you may be putting on muscle mass which is more dense than fat and will increase your weight. If this isn't the case, you either aren't tracking everything, eating to much junk, or it may even be that you are not taking in enough calories.
yeah, I don't know how I missed that gem.0 -
arditarose wrote: »You are probably eating more than you think. You are underweight though...perhaps it should not be a huge concern?A 20 year old at 5'4 and 104 pounds should not be so concerned with gaining weight. You are underweight. Please see a medical and or psychological professional. My ED spidey sense is up here.
At 5'4" and 104 pounds her BMI is 17.7, which is not much lower than the normal range which starts at 18.5. I cannot agree with the recommendations to not worry about it or to seek professional help.
If you are working out you may be putting on muscle mass which is more dense than fat and will increase your weight. If this isn't the case, you either aren't tracking everything, eating to much junk, or it may even be that you are not taking in enough calories.
Increasing muscle mass doesn't work that way.
0 -
arditarose wrote: »You are probably eating more than you think. You are underweight though...perhaps it should not be a huge concern?A 20 year old at 5'4 and 104 pounds should not be so concerned with gaining weight. You are underweight. Please see a medical and or psychological professional. My ED spidey sense is up here.
At 5'4" and 104 pounds her BMI is 17.7, which is not much lower than the normal range which starts at 18.5. I cannot agree with the recommendations to not worry about it or to seek professional help.
If you are working out you may be putting on muscle mass which is more dense than fat and will increase your weight. If this isn't the case, you either aren't tracking everything, eating to much junk too much food, or it may even be that you are not taking in enough calories.
yes, she is underweight.
no, it is not muscle.
fixed all the wrong.
the only thing correct is that she is not tracking accurately ...
0 -
Metabolic damage from a constant state of caloric restriction is a possibility, try reverse dieting to bring your metabolism up and then resuming a slow restriction. Some people cut out 500c from maintenance when 100 works just aswell and you have 400 to play with.0
-
arditarose wrote: »You are probably eating more than you think. You are underweight though...perhaps it should not be a huge concern?A 20 year old at 5'4 and 104 pounds should not be so concerned with gaining weight. You are underweight. Please see a medical and or psychological professional. My ED spidey sense is up here.
At 5'4" and 104 pounds her BMI is 17.7, which is not much lower than the normal range which starts at 18.5. I cannot agree with the recommendations to not worry about it or to seek professional help.
If you are working out you may be putting on muscle mass which is more dense than fat and will increase your weight. If this isn't the case, you either aren't tracking everything, eating to much junk too much food, or it may even be that you are not taking in enough calories.
yes, she is underweight.
no, it is not muscle.
fixed all the wrong.
the only thing correct is that she is not tracking accurately ...
^^This.
She needs to talk with a health care professional, not people on the internet that do not know her, and probably are not qualified to advise her (myself included). At 103# and 5'4" she is underweight.
0 -
Eattheiron wrote: »Metabolic damage from a constant state of caloric restriction is a possibility, try reverse dieting to bring your metabolism up and then resuming a slow restriction. Some people cut out 500c from maintenance when 100 works just aswell and you have 400 to play with.
500x30=/=100x30 one month cut right? Also metabolic damage, what do you call constant state? (how long)
0 -
arditarose wrote: »You are probably eating more than you think. You are underweight though...perhaps it should not be a huge concern?A 20 year old at 5'4 and 104 pounds should not be so concerned with gaining weight. You are underweight. Please see a medical and or psychological professional. My ED spidey sense is up here.
At 5'4" and 104 pounds her BMI is 17.7, which is not much lower than the normal range which starts at 18.5. I cannot agree with the recommendations to not worry about it or to seek professional help.
If you are working out you may be putting on muscle mass which is more dense than fat and will increase your weight. If this isn't the case, you either aren't tracking everything, eating to much junk, or it may even be that you are not taking in enough calories.
Wow. I think you hit all the points.
Adding muscle without trying at all.
Gaining weight because she's eating to much but maybe she's gaining weight because she's not eating enough.
And maybe it's junk food.
Oy.
lol. Thanks for the cliffs.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »Eattheiron wrote: »Metabolic damage from a constant state of caloric restriction is a possibility, try reverse dieting to bring your metabolism up and then resuming a slow restriction. Some people cut out 500c from maintenance when 100 works just aswell and you have 400 to play with.
500x30=/=100x30 one month cut right? Also metabolic damage, what do you call constant state? (how long)
Not quite as everbody is different but the point was your body isnt a calculator 1 and 1 doesnt always equal 2. 500c cut to fast signals your body to HOLD all fat as it genuinely thinks your starving to death. Lets assume you lose 5lbs from this, if you had gone down slower aka 100c every 3 weeks instead of 5 lbs then a plateau you would lose a solid 1-2 lbs a week which equals more lost, long term and easier imo.
Metabolic damage although controversial at this time has seen alot of research for it especially from Layne Norton, multiple months of constant caloric restriction can effectively stop your metabolism from cutting weight. Going lower gives no results, increase excercise gives no results and increasing calories leads to a gain in weight (most dont want that lol)
0 -
Eattheiron wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »Eattheiron wrote: »Metabolic damage from a constant state of caloric restriction is a possibility, try reverse dieting to bring your metabolism up and then resuming a slow restriction. Some people cut out 500c from maintenance when 100 works just aswell and you have 400 to play with.
500x30=/=100x30 one month cut right? Also metabolic damage, what do you call constant state? (how long)
Not quite as everbody is different but the point was your body isnt a calculator 1 and 1 doesnt always equal 2. 500c cut to fast signals your body to HOLD all fat as it genuinely thinks your starving to death. Lets assume you lose 5lbs from this, if you had gone down slower aka 100c every 3 weeks instead of 5 lbs then a plateau you would lose a solid 1-2 lbs a week which equals more lost, long term and easier imo.
Metabolic damage although controversial at this time has seen alot of research for it especially from Layne Norton, multiple months of constant caloric restriction can effectively stop your metabolism from cutting weight. Going lower gives no results, increase excercise gives no results and increasing calories leads to a gain in weight (most dont want that lol)
So you assume metabolic damage to OP when OP said nothing about logging calories? Even if OP logs foods does OP use a food scale? Lets are questions that OP would have to answer before I can assume she is eating 1300 calories.
Also I'm lost on your example but I think I kind of get what you are saying.
0 -
Eattheiron wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »Eattheiron wrote: »Metabolic damage from a constant state of caloric restriction is a possibility, try reverse dieting to bring your metabolism up and then resuming a slow restriction. Some people cut out 500c from maintenance when 100 works just aswell and you have 400 to play with.
500x30=/=100x30 one month cut right? Also metabolic damage, what do you call constant state? (how long)
Not quite as everbody is different but the point was your body isnt a calculator 1 and 1 doesnt always equal 2. 500c cut to fast signals your body to HOLD all fat as it genuinely thinks your starving to death. Lets assume you lose 5lbs from this, if you had gone down slower aka 100c every 3 weeks instead of 5 lbs then a plateau you would lose a solid 1-2 lbs a week which equals more lost, long term and easier imo.
Metabolic damage although controversial at this time has seen alot of research for it especially from Layne Norton, multiple months of constant caloric restriction can effectively stop your metabolism from cutting weight. Going lower gives no results, increase excercise gives no results and increasing calories leads to a gain in weight (most dont want that lol)
sorry but the bolded makes no sense. Are you trying to say that a 500 calorie deficit is going to result in someone going into starvation mode?
First, starvation mode is a myth.
Second, to suffer metabolic damage you would have to chronically under eat for a long time. Chronically under eat = under 1000 calories a day for extended period.
I went from a bulk to a cut two months ago, and I did not ease into it. I just cut 500 calories and have been losing about a pound a week since then...
I may be misunderstanding you though, so feel free to clarify...
0 -
Eattheiron wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »Eattheiron wrote: »Metabolic damage from a constant state of caloric restriction is a possibility, try reverse dieting to bring your metabolism up and then resuming a slow restriction. Some people cut out 500c from maintenance when 100 works just aswell and you have 400 to play with.
500x30=/=100x30 one month cut right? Also metabolic damage, what do you call constant state? (how long)
Not quite as everbody is different but the point was your body isnt a calculator 1 and 1 doesnt always equal 2. 500c cut to fast signals your body to HOLD all fat as it genuinely thinks your starving to death. Lets assume you lose 5lbs from this, if you had gone down slower aka 100c every 3 weeks instead of 5 lbs then a plateau you would lose a solid 1-2 lbs a week which equals more lost, long term and easier imo.
Metabolic damage although controversial at this time has seen alot of research for it especially from Layne Norton, multiple months of constant caloric restriction can effectively stop your metabolism from cutting weight. Going lower gives no results, increase excercise gives no results and increasing calories leads to a gain in weight (most dont want that lol)
sorry but the bolded makes no sense. Are you trying to say that a 500 calorie deficit is going to result in someone going into starvation mode?
First, starvation mode is a myth.
Second, to suffer metabolic damage you would have to chronically under eat for a long time. Chronically under eat = under 1000 calories a day for extended period.
I went from a bulk to a cut two months ago, and I did not ease into it. I just cut 500 calories and have been losing about a pound a week since then...
I may be misunderstanding you though, so feel free to clarify...
Basically what I interpet from this example is with larger deficit a stall would happen quicker than a smaller deficit which is true. Now how he gets losing more weight overall because of a smaller deficit that makes no sense.
0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »5'4" and you're concerned about being over 103 lbs.? You need to see a doctor.
Agreed.0 -
In my opinion 103 5"4' is on the skinny side. But aside from that you asked how you could be gaining. When I started tracking I would put in for example chicken; didn't specify if it was baked fried boiled? What part of the chicken chicken breast drumstick thigh. The amount of food (ounces, grams) And the seasonings marinades sauces....all those things can add alarming amounts of cals.0
-
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions