Eating 1,200 calories and putting on weight
ellamroberts873
Posts: 19 Member
So I was eating around 800/900 calories a day which I know is very low. Although i did reach my goal weight of 7 stone 10. So I decided now I reached my goal weight that I should eat a healthy amount and am now eating 1,200 calories a day. However over the past two weeks I have put on 3 pounds and am now not at my goal weight anymore which is so upsetting after all the hard work. Could it be my weight evening out and it will go back down? Or do I need to eat less again?
0
Replies
-
Eating so few calories (800/900) is likely to have slowed your metabolism. It's not recommended to eat less than 1000 a day unless you are very, very small and very, very inactive. 1200 calories is a typical number to aim for to lose weight, how did you come to decide that this was an appropriate number for maintenance?
1 -
- After dieting your increased intake of food will lead to an increase in water retention.
- You also will have more in-transit (inside your digestive tract) food. This will lead to an increase in weight.
- There is also a chance that due to the severe calorific restriction some of your weight loss has been from muscle loss and now your maintenance calories are lower than they would have been has you lost at a slower rate.
I suspect that there is a bit of all three going on here.19 -
dancing_daisy wrote: »Eating so few calories (800/900) is likely to have slowed your metabolism. It's not recommended to eat less than 1000 a day unless you are very, very small and very, very inactive. 1200 calories is a typical number to aim for to lose weight, how did you come to decide that this was an appropriate number for maintenance?
Well to be honest MFP seems to say that for me to maintain I should be eating around 1,800 but this just seems far too much for me and I feel that if I do eat anywhere near that much that I will just put the weight back on.0 -
StealthHealth wrote: »
- After dieting your increased intake of food will lead to an increase in water retention.
- You also will have more in-transit (inside your digestive tract) food. This will lead to an increase in weight.
- There is also a chance that due to the severe calorific restriction some of your weight loss has been from muscle loss and now your maintenance calories are lower than they would have been has you lost at a slower rate.
I suspect that there is a bit of all three going on here.
Thanks for your reply! That does seem to make sense. I am also now trying to build some form of muscle, will this just make me gain weight? Or will this make my metabolism speed up again and I will stay the same weight?0 -
It's natural for most people to gain a few lbs after getting to goal and then ncreasing calories. Might be an idea to lose around 5lbs under your goal weight as a buffer for when you start eating at maintenance.
I doubt 1200 is maintenance for you, unless you're 2ft tall.
Losing weight on 800/900 cals as you did was crash dieting and not a healthy way to lose weight.
4 -
ellamroberts873 wrote: »StealthHealth wrote: »
- After dieting your increased intake of food will lead to an increase in water retention.
- You also will have more in-transit (inside your digestive tract) food. This will lead to an increase in weight.
- There is also a chance that due to the severe calorific restriction some of your weight loss has been from muscle loss and now your maintenance calories are lower than they would have been has you lost at a slower rate.
I suspect that there is a bit of all three going on here.
Thanks for your reply! That does seem to make sense. I am also now trying to build some form of muscle, will this just make me gain weight? Or will this make my metabolism speed up again and I will stay the same weight?
I guess that this will come as bad news but, in order to gain muscle you will need to eat more. As an absolute minimum you may (although unlikely) gain a little on your maintenance calories of 1800 but it is much, much more likely that you will need to eat more to gain/re-gain any muscle. And the worst part is that muscle gain nearly always involves some fat gain (but which is easier to lose because of the increased metabolic rate but mainly because of the increased work rate in the gym or however you exercise from being stronger)
Will you increase in weight? Yep, but then if you want to add muscle that is what you want to happen!
I think you need to worry less about weight and more about health and what your weight comprises of (muscle, lean body mass, fat etc). Aesthetics are a personal thing but I would point out that for many girls (and certainly the current trend) a look which is higher in muscle and lower in body fat seems to be the goal.9 -
My goal is actually about 5 pounds less than what I want my maintenance weight to be, because I usually gain a few pounds whenever I up my calories to maintenance levels. It's mostly just water that was lost. That's why all these fad diets say you can lose 5 pounds your first week or whatever. It's all water.3
-
dancing_daisy wrote: »Eating so few calories (800/900) is likely to have slowed your metabolism. It's not recommended to eat less than 1000 a day unless you are very, very small and very, very inactive. 1200 calories is a typical number to aim for to lose weight, how did you come to decide that this was an appropriate number for maintenance?
This is not true. The only reason websites don't recommend low calorie diets is because you have to understand nutrition to keep a small number of calories balanced. I see a lot of 1200 calorie logs on MFP which are a joke nutritionally speaking.
You've done really well so far.
ANY diet will slow down metabolism. The secret is to come back up gradually - not in a big hike as you did. 400 extra calories a day in one hit is too much. The result is going to be binging if you are not careful.
I'd recommend waiting to see if the scales right themselves. Normally 5lbs either way is considered normal fluctuation. (Only you know if that's a normal fluctuation for you)
But if you continue to gain I'd suggest going back to 1000 and slowly ratcheting up from there 100cals/day added each week IF you are losing weight.
You must be quite petite now, only 7st 10lbs, so 1200 cals along with a few inaccuracies might well be your maintenance regime. You'll never be able to go back to your old way of eating. You were much bigger then and needed more calories.
Try to increase activity to tone your body and to boost your metabolism.
And make sure your diet includes every food group i.e. Lean protein, wholemeal bread and grains, veg, full fat dairy and fruit. They all have their part to play in making you a beautiful person.
Good luck7 -
Vegplotter wrote: »
This is not true. ...... ANY diet will slow down metabolism.dancing_daisy wrote: »Eating so few calories (800/900) is likely to have slowed your metabolism. It's not recommended to eat less than 1000 a day unless you are very, very small and very, very inactive. 1200 calories is a typical number to aim for to lose weight, how did you come to decide that this was an appropriate number for maintenance?
^^^^ That is what I meant, not specifically 800/900 calories. OP still has't given stats, we're all assuming the numbers are correct.
0 -
Good point!1
-
How did you decide that 1200 cals is your maintenance?
When you were eating 800/900 a day, how much weight were you losing in a month by the end?0 -
How did you decide that 1200 cals is your maintenance?
When you were eating 800/900 a day, how much weight were you losing in a month by the end?
At the beginning I was loosing about 5 pounds a month and the last months I have lost around 2 pounds. But now each day there is an extra pound on the scales. Even though I'm still burning around 200cal each day and eating 1,200maximum.0 -
Do you want to look good or see a specific number on the scale? Here are pictures of a woman on her weight loss journey. On the left, at her goal weight. On the right, (14 pounds heavier) after a progressive lifting program. Which body is more like the one you want? No one can see the number on the scale; everyone can see how you look. Eat some more and pick up heavy things!
11 -
Do you want to look good or see a specific number on the scale? Here are pictures of a woman on her weight loss journey. On the left, at her goal weight. On the right, (14 pounds heavier) after a progressive lifting program. Which body is more like the one you want? No one can see the number on the scale; everyone can see how you look. Eat some more and pick up heavy things!
This.
Eat based upon your daily activities and lift weights.1 -
How tall are you OP? What's your activity level like? Were you weighing your food and logging accurately when losing? Are you still?
Maintenance is a range, not a set weight. Most people, myself included, have a 3-5 lb range in which weight naturally fluctuated. Additionally, when transitioning to maintenance, especially after being at such an aggressive deficit, people often see a temporary spike due to water retention from glycogen stores being replenished. That usually settles back down.
Also where did the 1800 cal maintenance level estimate come from? Was that MFP or a TDEE calculator? Answering the questions I asked above will help determine if that is appropriate but I would be more likely to believe a TDEE of 1800 than 1200...0 -
Or maybe, just maybe, you're eating more than you think.10
-
Vegplotter wrote: »dancing_daisy wrote: »Eating so few calories (800/900) is likely to have slowed your metabolism. It's not recommended to eat less than 1000 a day unless you are very, very small and very, very inactive. 1200 calories is a typical number to aim for to lose weight, how did you come to decide that this was an appropriate number for maintenance?
This is not true. The only reason websites don't recommend low calorie diets is because you have to understand nutrition to keep a small number of calories balanced. I see a lot of 1200 calorie logs on MFP which are a joke nutritionally speaking.
You've done really well so far.
ANY diet will slow down metabolism. The secret is to come back up gradually - not in a big hike as you did. 400 extra calories a day in one hit is too much. The result is going to be binging if you are not careful.
I'd recommend waiting to see if the scales right themselves. Normally 5lbs either way is considered normal fluctuation. (Only you know if that's a normal fluctuation for you)
But if you continue to gain I'd suggest going back to 1000 and slowly ratcheting up from there 100cals/day added each week IF you are losing weight.
You must be quite petite now, only 7st 10lbs, so 1200 cals along with a few inaccuracies might well be your maintenance regime. You'll never be able to go back to your old way of eating. You were much bigger then and needed more calories.
Try to increase activity to tone your body and to boost your metabolism.
And make sure your diet includes every food group i.e. Lean protein, wholemeal bread and grains, veg, full fat dairy and fruit. They all have their part to play in making you a beautiful person.
Good luck
I think the information is not complete enough to be confident that this advice is good.
She reports that she is 111 pounds now.
It is difficult to put this into context without knowing height right?1 -
It's normal to put on a bit of of water weight when you start eating a bit more.
However... I'm guessing that you're eating much more than you think.0 -
Calorie consumption is much more linked to weight than it is to height. I stand by my advice.2
-
You won't have gained any actual weight (as in fat) it's simply not possible in a deficit. So you can calm your panic!
Just focus on being healthy and happy and reaching your goals and don't obsess too much over the numbers on the scale.1 -
Vegplotter wrote: »Calorie consumption is much more linked to weight than it is to height. I stand by my advice.
But without knowing her height, you have no idea if her ~110 lbs is a healthy weight for her. She's already been eating VLCD of 800-900 cals and thinks 1200 is her maintenance. Unless she's 4'6 that's probably not the case, so suggesting that she eats 1000 is also below the recommended minimum amount....
We don't have enough info to give proper advice which is why I asked clarifying questions.6 -
I'm betting your leaving out important info when logging your calories.... In other words, I bet you are eating more then you think.0
-
IF the OP is taller than 5'5'', she is underweight by BMI standards right now. She would be at the top of the normal range even if she were 4'6''.
She ate a VERY low calorie diet to reach her goal. She said she lost 5/pounds per/month, implying that she ate 800-900 calories for multiple month.
I DO NOT think it's responsible to recommend she lower her calories below 1200 to lose more weight without knowing her height.
1 -
I don't think it appropriate to recommend anyone at a healthy weight eat under 1200, even coming off extreme and dangerous calorie restriction. The priority must be to meet nutritional needs with some immediate urgency, water weight scale increases be damned. Anything else is irresponsible.0
-
Well, at very low calorie levels over a long time, combined with a small person with a low maintenance, the whole "starvation mode doesn't mean you won't lose weight!" thing breaks down.
If you're lightly active and 30 years old you need about 1800 calories to maintain a weight of 115.
She was eating approximately half that - which is the actual % cut in calories that the Minnesota Starvation Experiment used.
Studies have shown reductions in RMR of 25% or more due to large calorie deficits.
(The Minnesota subjects averaged a 40% drop in RMR).
1800-25% = 1350. That's a few small logging errors away from not losing on what she thinks is 1200.
1800-40% = 1080. That's actually low enough she'd be regaining on 1200.
She actually could have brutalized her own metabolism so much that its gaining on 1200 calories a day.1 -
Okay, if MFP is saying her maintenance is 1800, that's about right for a 30 year old lightly active woman weighing 115.
But she's been on a VLCD for probably months.
Studies have found drops in RMR of 25% or more with prolonged VLCD.
The Minnesota Starvation Experiment subjects averaged a 40% drop in RMR.
1800-25% = 1350. That's close enough to 1200 that a few logging errors coudl make the difference.
1800-40%= 1080. That's low enough that you'd regain on 1200.
The Minnesota experiment put those men on 50% of their maintenance calories. That's exactly what she did to herself in going as low as 800-900. So yeah, I think the 40% number is definitely possible. In which case she's damaged her metabolism to the point that she can barely eat without regaining.2 -
Okay, if MFP is saying her maintenance is 1800, that's about right for a 30 year old lightly active woman weighing 115.
But she's been on a VLCD for probably months.
Studies have found drops in RMR of 25% or more with prolonged VLCD.
The Minnesota Experiment subjects averaged a 40% drop in RMR.
1800-25% = 1350. That's close enough to 1200 that a few logging errors coudl make the difference.
1800-40%= 1080. That's low enough that you'd regain on 1200.
The Minnesota experiment put those men on 50% of their maintenance calories. That's exactly what she did to herself in going as low as 800-900. So yeah, I think the 40% number is definitely possible. In which case she's brutalized her metabolism to the point that she can barely eat without regaining.0 -
Okay, if MFP is saying her maintenance is 1800, that's about right for a 30 year old lightly active woman weighing 115.
But she's been on 800-900 for weeks to months. RMR has been found to drop 25% or more with prolonged VLCD. The Minnesota Experiment subjects averaged a 40% drop in RMR.
1800-25% = 1350. That's close enough to 1200 that a few logging errors could make the difference.
1800-40%= 1080. That's low enough that you'd regain on 1200.
The Minnesota experiment put those men on 50% of their maintenance calories. That's exactly what she did to herself in going as low as 800-900. So yeah, I think the 40% number is definitely possible. In which case she's brutalized her metabolism to the point that she can barely eat without regaining.0 -
From another post, OP is 5'4''.
Her BMI at 111 is 19.1. It was NOT outside the normal range when she started losing weight. Yet she ate 800-900 calories per/day for ~four months.
She started a thread earlier that inspired a large number of people to urge her to seek professional help. After reading that thread, my sense is that this is likely the best advice any of us could offer.
Going back down to 1000 calories is not something anyone should suggest.7 -
VintageFeline wrote: »I don't think it appropriate to recommend anyone at a healthy weight eat under 1200, even coming off extreme and dangerous calorie restriction. The priority must be to meet nutritional needs with some immediate urgency, water weight scale increases be damned. Anything else is irresponsible.
Actually, it is ok if you're under 5 feet. I am not, but users here have said that they need to eat around 1k calories to lose weight at that height. Not everyone's TDEE is the same.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions