eating more to lose more

malibu927

erinavery13 wrote: »

I think I often don't eat enough unintentionally....I've only just started keeping track and realizing this. Have I accidentally put my body in starvation mode then gain weight the rare times I eat like a normal person? Or maybe it just fluctuates...Idk

But thinking I should try to make sure I eat breakfast everyday and some snacks.

Liking this app so far...good to figure this stuff out

Starvation mode doesn't work like that. Most likely it's fluctuation.

Only eat breakfast/snacks if you feel you need to, as meal timing/frequency is a personal preference. Just make sure you're logging everything you consume accurately.

SLLRunner

gingerbreadbeans wrote: »

It's a phrase I'm sceptical of but now that I'm 2 weeks from my "used to be" goal-date and am no longer losing (and my weighing etc is accurate) on netting 1000 calories ot less, who has had success with this?

I'm talking that I've been doing 1000 calories or less for 2-3 years not 2-3 weeks and I don't think I should be dropping lower...

Did you gradually build up? Or jump straight up 200 or so to see results?

Did anyone do it and not see results and get them in another way?

Thanks in advance

Hi Ginger,

I have not read any of the other replies, but I have looked through your diary. You say you have been netting 1.000 calories for the last two or three years. Well, if your diary has looked this way for that long, I guarantee that you are not netting 1,000 calories, you just think you are because you are underestimating calorie intake and overestimating exercise.

You have a lot of generic entries in your diary, which makes me think you don't weigh your food. Do you do a lot of guesstimating? That in itself can lead to underestimating food. Do you weigh your food?

I doubt you are burning over 300 calories in an hour of doubles tennis, and weight lifting should not be counted for its calorie burn. What I do, and most other weight lifters do, is count one calorie and include as part of their normal activity. Anything that is not steady state cardio is too difficult to estimate. Where do you get those calorie burns from?

If I am wrong, and I could very well be, I urge you to go to a doctor because then you have an underlying medical condition that needs attention.

SLLRunner

gingerbreadbeans wrote: »

Yeah I reread which is why I'm totally up for eating more haha . I'm just not sure whether to jump right up to 1300 and increase slowly or increase slowly from 1100 upwards

I do a lot of running / weight lifting and of course there's a lot of stuff out there on the starvation "myth" too, to complicate everything!

I have 15lbs or so to lose (mostly from an injury lay off of 4 months). BMR is around 1300-1350 and maintenance probably 1500-1600.

If you are not losing weight at "1,000 calories," you won't lose it if you increase it by any amount.

SLLRunner

malibu927 wrote: »

gingerbreadbeans wrote: »

no i think it's usually pretty accurate - i use a Garmin HRM for my runs, weight lifting etc and there's usually some spare anyway

HRMs are extremely inaccurate for lifting. They're only meant for steady-state cardio.

Yep, and inaccurate for tennis as well.

heybales

Taking a smaller deficit, ie eating more, will likely help your body not be stressed out.

Workouts getting better is one sign.

See if you start getting even hungrier.

See if you feel hotter more often - great in winter, perhaps not in summer.

See if you fidget and move around more.

That's how the body can adapt and change the Calories Out on you based on your Calories In. You can actually change the equation by how much you eat.

Remember, even if you ate 250 calories over true maintenance for 2 weeks each and every day, you'd only slowly gain 1 lb. And if lifting, not even fat.

atypicalsmith

I think eating more to lose more is a great idea. I did it for years and was suddenly 60 pounds overweight. (If you count eleven years as "suddenly"). For some insanely crazy reason, now I am eating less and I am losing. I must be missing something.