Increasing calories helped--thanks!

Lilith200

A couple of months ago I started on the journey to become healthier by tracking calories and increasing exercise. The first 2 weeks I lost 10lbs then nothing. I apparently hit a wall but held out hope I was doing the right things. My caloric intake was around 1100 calories each day, which apparently was my norm because I didn't really change much...just tracked. My macros looked good and I continued to eat whole foods.

After feeling depressed and frustrated, I noticed I was incredibly forgetful and having a difficult time concentrating. So I turned to this forum to see if anyone else experienced this. And that's when I discovered I wasn't eating enough and apparently haven't been for years despite weighing over 200lbs.

So I took the trusting plunge and increased my calories to 1600 per day...mostly. I gotta be honest, most days I choked down as much as I could and still only reached 1500 calories.

But it worked! I have lost 8lbs since then and feel happier, less forgetful, and have an easier time concentrating. My energy has also picked up a bit.

So thank you to all the wise souls who shared their wisdom about metabolism and who shared deeper insights than the standard "calories in/calories out" advice so common on some forums. Looking at me no one would ever guess it possible that I was a chronic under-eater so I am incredibly grateful for those of you who have shared such helpful information! THANK YOU!!

middlehaitch

That is wonderful.
So glad things have turned around for you and you were nice enough to come back and update us.

Cheers, h.

goldthistime

So glad that you are getting result while eating more. That's always the goal.

Umm but, in the long run, less calories would certainly have resulted in faster weight loss. It's just math. If you had actually been a chronic undereater for years, your weight would have been dropping.

As to metabolism, I'm in agreement that the harder you diet, the more your metabolism drops but I can't imagine many situations where the drop would be great enough to stop weight loss altogether.

elphie754

Except calorie in/calorie out IS science that your body doesn't defy....

middlehaitch

@goldthistime I had the same thought as you, then re thought and decided general activity levels have probably risen enough that intake, activity and loss are more inline with what is expected, in general, with @Lilith200's stats.

Cheers, h.

Dove0804

Oh dear.

I'm happy that you've had success recently, but don't try to discredit CICO- for someone at your weight, 1600 calories per day is likely reasonable for weight loss (I don't have your details), but I do not believe for one second that you were eating around 1100 calories/day for years and maintained over 200 lbs. It's physically impossible. At the risk of sounding harsh, I believe that you were not counting calories correctly and were likely trying to make excuses to yourself that you "weren't eating that much". Just about every single one of us on the boards have been in that boat before.

Yes, 1100 calories is too few calories, but not in the sense that it is going to stall or stop weight loss. Starvation mode is an absolute myth. The "wisdom about metabolism" you received is not wisdom, it is misguided. Metabolism is primarily affected by things like age, muscle mass, height, gender, and current weight. It is not significantly affected by the time of day you eat, what foods you eat, how often you eat, etc, but many people struggle to find excuses for what they're doing wrong, and hate to be told that they're eating too much.

Calories in / calories out is what everything boils down to. Most people find long, and most importantly lasting success when they realize this. It's hard to be honest with ourselves- it really truly is, but it's extremely important.

I hope you continue to have success.

nosebag1212

That's not how the body works at all, you cannot create energy out of thin air.

1. Your body was retaining water due to increased cortisol from the calorie deficit which masked fat loss on the scale, when you increased calories your cortisol went down chich caused your body to released the excess water which is what caused your scale weight to go down.

2. Your original 1100 calorie intake made you feel tired and run down and as a result your NEAT decreased and you ended up burning less calories due to being less active, when you increased to 1600 you had more energy and as a result were inadvertently more active and so burned off more energy (enough to exceed the 500 calorie increase) without even being aware of it.

3. You were eating much more than 1100 calories originally and weren't tracking your intake accurately (not weighing portions, using wrong database entries etc).

You lost weight due to one of the three reasons above (or a combination), most likely number 1. This idea that the body can slow its metabolism down to a snail's pace enough to outrun a large deficit needs to die. If that was the case you would never see starving children in 3rd world countries.

That being said, 1100 calories is extremely low and only really appropriate for very small/inactive older women, so 1600 is probably a much more suitable intake for you to lose fat sustainably than 1100 was.

Pawsforme

I'm glad you've found something that works for you. But I too seriously doubt that you were eating 1100 calories a day for years and maintaining at 200 pounds and then started losing on 1600. It just doesn't work that way.

courtneyfabulous

It sounds like you were eating below your BMR before which is never a good idea. Glad you are seeing results and feeling better now on more calories!!

CICO is the norm, but it IS possible to have a slowed metabolism due to eating too few calories. It's not possible to get to 200 pounds eating ONLY a thousand cals a day, but it CAN stall your weight loss to eat too few calories or too few carbs because it screws up your hormones. People forget this.

goldthistime

middlehaitch wrote: »

@goldthistime I had the same thought as you, then re thought and decided general activity levels have probably risen enough that intake, activity and loss are more inline with what is expected, in general, with @Lilith200's stats.

Cheers, h.

Yup. If you eat so little that you end up lethargic calories out can plummet. It's a bad idea for anyone.

OP I just want to reiterate how happy I am that you found a healthier approach to weight loss, one that is actually working for you!

JeromeBarry1

goldthistime wrote: »

Yup. If you eat so little that you end up lethargic calories out can plummet.

BINGO!

Dove0804

courtneyfabulous wrote: »

CICO is the norm, but it IS possible to have a slowed metabolism due to eating too few calories. It's not possible to get to 200 pounds eating ONLY a thousand cals a day, but it CAN stall your weight loss to eat too few calories or too few carbs because it screws up your hormones. People forget this.

Yes, eating too few calories over an extended period of time can slow metabolism. No, it does not stop weight loss. If someone is eating too few calories, it will be unhealthy but they will lose weight.

GottaBurnEmAll

I'm just going to echo what everyone else said here. And add... you did not get to 200 pounds eating 1100 calories or undereating in any way. You were likely inaccurately tracking in addition to, as others said, drastically reducing your energy levels which in turn lowered your energy output (calories out). That is why your weight loss stalled.

Once you upped your calories, your energy levels increased, and your calories out came back up. Even if you didn't exercise more, your movements became more energetic. You swung your legs when you crossed them, you walked across the room more quickly, you tapped your foot while you were sitting, etc.

You did NOT defy physics.

Lilith200

Wow... I am so incredibly happy that I didn't read many of these comments back when I was under eating and needing more nutrients to fuel my workouts lol! I understand that weight loss is a topic that often resembles ideology so I get it...we know what we know and 'believe' what we know is generalizable to everyone. I mostly was hoping that some of the well informed folks who provided rich depth in their understanding of metabolism would know that it was their wisdom, judgement-free, thoughtful information that helped steer me away from the very unhealthy track I was on in being under nourished. Their insights helped tremendously because for the first time I didn't feel pressured into cutting even more calories. A pressure that is too deeply ingrained in our culture, especially the weight loss culture.

So I guess all I would hope to convey to anyone reading this thread is that metabolism is not static and involves more complex elements than cutting calories to dangerously low levels. If you have spent 5 weeks like I did eating 1000-1100 calories per day, exercising 6 days a week for a minimum of 45 minutes and maximum of 90 minutes, and if you are still not losing weight, are feeling unable to concentrate well and leaning towards new symptoms of depression, please reexamine how you are approaching your journey and consider increasing your calories. You deserve to be healthy AS you go, not just after you reach that magic number on the scale that tells you that you have made it!

And finally, I never said I ended up 200 lbs from under eating. What I said was that I have been under eating for years, which is true, after I gained the weight. I suffered many, many, many health problems after pregnancy that resulted in multiple surgeries and long term immobility. I have been (mostly) better for the past 3 years but haven't led an active lifestyle until this year after my last health issue was resolved (finally!). So probably I stayed at 215 lbs while chronically under eating because I wasn't getting any exercise (as in very, very little walking around the house). So please understand, implying that I was dishonest with myself about my caloric intake may resolve ones own beliefs about weight loss, but it isn't grounded in the reality of my experience, is saturated in false assumptions, and perpetuates ideas that influence people like myself to eat too little, which is not healthy. If I were dishonest with myself (as a few have implied) then whatever mistakes or 'cheating' that I would presumably be perpetuating would have carried over to the new 1600 calorie daily intake, which apparently it's not. I also reduced my workouts to 3 days per week instead of 5-6, but did add HIIT which I am sure has also helped. But one shouldn't do HIIT without sufficient nutrients to repair anyways in my view. So while calories in/calories out may be the general "rule" of science, there are always additional factors to be considered and no one in their right mind should be promoting consumption of less than 1200 calories per day. It's just not safe for prolonged periods of time, especially if one is also including work outs into the mix. I don't need to lose all my weight in 2 months. I need to find health as I go, which should help me to eventually reach a healthier weight. Yes, I care about what I weigh, but I care about my physical and emotional health more... I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

My apology for any tone of disappointment you may be hearing from me here. My original post was to share my joy and gratitude for those who helped me view nutrition in a healthier manner, views that have helped me both physically and psychologically. I never post. Ever. Not until yesterday. And probably I won't again. I am incredibly anxious to post this so probably won't check back to read any responses that may result. I appreciate the bravery of those who posted questions that resulted in feedback that helped me so much (clearly I don't have such bravery yet...one day maybe). And I also appreciate everyone's good will in commenting here (I believe everyone had good motives), but I am disappointed in some of the judgments. Not angry, just disappointed.

And I am hopeful that someone reading this will seek out more information about how to lose weight in a healthier way. If you are hitting a wall and no one seems to believe your self assessed daily caloric intake or activity level, keep looking for answers until you find some that help you achieve health. Better to go slow and get it right than to under nourish your body, which needs nutrients to get you to where you want to ultimately be. And let's be honest...a 200lb person typically expends more than 2000 calories per day so 1600 is nothing to laugh at and will still help one lose weight.

Love to you all and best wishes for the journey you are traveling, in all the glorious and diverse ways you are experiencing your journeys!

Evamutt

good to hear how great you're doing. I don't know how many calories i was eating a day, but for years i only ate twice a day & never lost weight. Now i'm eating several times a day & loosing weight & have more energy. Keep up the good work!

Dove0804

Lilith200 wrote: »

I never post. Ever. Not until yesterday. And probably I won't again.

Well, at least one source of misinformation ends here. I'm disappointed that it continues to be spread.
No one here is judging- we're all genuinely happy that you've found success so far, but many people come to the boards, get upset when they're told what they don't want to hear, say we're all mean, and leave.

No one is saying that 1100 calories is healthy and no one on the boards is going to pressure you to eat that little- just that maintaining at 215 lbs is physically not possible by eating 1100 calories for an extended period of time.
The starvation mode myth continues to be perpetuated because it's a lot easier to accept and makes us feel better about ourselves to hear that we're not eating enough instead of facing the reality that we're eating more than we think we are.

Most of us have been there.

8 lbs is a good start. We all truly wish you well.

lightenup2016

I don't get what the issue is here. The OP stated that she feels better and is losing weight again while eating more. Why in the world should people be doubting this? Whether it's retained water that's been lost, or increased energy, faster metabolism, or whatever, the fact is that eating more than she was has helped her get back to losing weight. As she said, if she was "eating more than she thought" at what she says was 1100 calories, wouldn't she still be eating even more at what she says is 1600?

Congrats, OP, I hope you continue to lose the weight and have better energy!

singingflutelady

lightenup2016 wrote: »

I don't get what the issue is here. The OP stated that she feels better and is losing weight again while eating more. Why in the world should people be doubting this? Whether it's retained water that's been lost, or increased energy, faster metabolism, or whatever, the fact is that eating more than she was has helped her get back to losing weight. As she said, if she was "eating more than she thought" at what she says was 1100 calories, wouldn't she still be eating even more at what she says is 1600?

Congrats, OP, I hope you continue to lose the weight and have better energy!

But you would lose more weight at 1100 calories than 1600 calories not that I am recommending that at all. My verdict is water retention from exercise that she lost when she stopped exercising as much

SusanMFindlay

lightenup2016 wrote: »

As she said, if she was "eating more than she thought" at what she says was 1100 calories, wouldn't she still be eating even more at what she says is 1600?

Not necessarily. We don't know, for example that she's eating exactly the same foods. Maybe, at the lower calorie count, she used a "diet" bread that reported a lot less calories on the label than were actually in a slice. Stuff like that. And a higher goal makes many people less likely to subconsciously "cheat the count" by licking spoons, not log cooking spray, etc.

That said, I am very happy that the OP made this change and that she's seeing the results she was working hard for. Personally, I cannot imagine living on 1100 (or even 1200) calories/day. I am always amazed when people say they can live on so little.

SLLRunner

@Lilith200, congratulations on finding that sweet spot in your weight loss journey. It's true, when we find that sweet spot it's absolutely incredible. We are happier, move more, watch our intake and life is good.

However, there is not one single person in this conversation who is being rude to you, they are simply telling you the truth in responding to your claim that your were not losing on 1100 calories.

How can it be that you were 200 pounds and eating only 1100 calories a day? I can tell you, when I was 226 pounds years ago, I was only eating two meals a day, trying to lose weight and convinced I was not eating that much at all and could not figure out why I was growing instead of losing. Well, those two meals a day were not large but they were calorie laden, and certainly well over the 1200 or 1300 I tried to convince myself I was eating.

lightenup2016

SusanMFindlay wrote: »

lightenup2016 wrote: »

As she said, if she was "eating more than she thought" at what she says was 1100 calories, wouldn't she still be eating even more at what she says is 1600?

Not necessarily. We don't know, for example that she's eating exactly the same foods. Maybe, at the lower calorie count, she used a "diet" bread that reported a lot less calories on the label than were actually in a slice. Stuff like that. And a higher goal makes many people less likely to subconsciously "cheat the count" by licking spoons, not log cooking spray, etc.

That said, I am very happy that the OP made this change and that she's seeing the results she was working hard for. Personally, I cannot imagine living on 1100 (or even 1200) calories/day. I am always amazed when people say they can live on so little.

I'm sorry, I don't see how some variance in bread slices (or just about any other food), could account for 1000 calories per day. If she's now losing a lb a week eating what she says is 500 calories more, but everyone claims she must have been eating more than she thought, wouldn't she have to have previously been 1000 calories off per day (eating 2100 calories instead of 1100)? I just got a food scale a week ago, and if anything I had previously been overestimating my calories, not underestimating. And seriously, a few grams off here and there? I've seen maybe about a 30 calorie difference over a range of items, nowhere near 1000. Besides, she feels better and has more energy--I think she MIGHT just be able to tell that she's actually eating more than before.

I generally hold to the CICO rule, but I think it's highly likely that other factors come into play with weight loss. Why can't people open their minds and listen to others' experiences? Learn from them, don't dismiss them.

singingflutelady

lightenup2016 wrote: »

SusanMFindlay wrote: »

lightenup2016 wrote: »

As she said, if she was "eating more than she thought" at what she says was 1100 calories, wouldn't she still be eating even more at what she says is 1600?

Not necessarily. We don't know, for example that she's eating exactly the same foods. Maybe, at the lower calorie count, she used a "diet" bread that reported a lot less calories on the label than were actually in a slice. Stuff like that. And a higher goal makes many people less likely to subconsciously "cheat the count" by licking spoons, not log cooking spray, etc.

That said, I am very happy that the OP made this change and that she's seeing the results she was working hard for. Personally, I cannot imagine living on 1100 (or even 1200) calories/day. I am always amazed when people say they can live on so little.

I'm sorry, I don't see how some variance in bread slices (or just about any other food), could account for 1000 calories per day. If she's now losing a lb a week eating what she says is 500 calories more, but everyone claims she must have been eating more than she thought, wouldn't she have to have previously been 1000 calories off per day (eating 2100 calories instead of 1100)? I just got a food scale a week ago, and if anything I had previously been overestimating my calories, not underestimating. And seriously, a few grams off here and there? I've seen maybe about a 30 calorie difference over a range of items, nowhere near 1000. Besides, she feels better and has more energy--I think she MIGHT just be able to tell that she's actually eating more than before.

I generally hold to the CICO rule, but I think it's highly likely that other factors come into play with weight loss. Why can't people open their minds and listen to others' experiences? Learn from them, don't dismiss them.

More energy probably has the op burning more. Eating 500 calories more isn't going to magically cause you to lose weight if nothing else changes. It's mathematically impossible unless the weight is water, etc. I am still guess it's water as fluid retention is a pita.

Oh and I do have lots of experience with chronic undereating. I ate 500 a day for several months and exercised. Yes my metabolism slowed but I still lost over 2 lbs a week.

SusanMFindlay

lightenup2016 wrote: »

I've seen maybe about a 30 calorie difference over a range of items, nowhere near 1000. Besides, she feels better and has more energy--I think she MIGHT just be able to tell that she's actually eating more than before.

Whereas, only weeks ago, a scale showed me that a bag was lying about the calories in its bread by 75 calories/slice (or 150 cals/"serving").

I currently feel better and have more energy than I did six months ago. I'm definitely eating less. But I'm eating *better*. I was only offering the general possibility that switching from a really restrictive diet (which might include a lot of "diet" foods) to a less restrictive diet (which, among other things, might include more healthy fats) could do that. I also think that some of the extra "deficit" has come from feeling better and increasing NEAT.

I am not saying that this specifically applies to the OP, but it could apply to other people in the same situation - which was why I thought it worth mentioning.

lightenup2016

I'm familiar with how science works, my PhD is in Molecular Biology. The OP never said nothing else changed, nor did I imply that. The fact is that she is eating more and now losing weight, and she was simply thanking people for their suggestion to increase calories. Why does it matter WHY the increase helped? It could be loss of water weight, it could be increase in energy, it could be a boost in metabolism, or more likely all of these. But when I hear these stories, and read the responses in which people state that "it just doesn't work that way", and "you were eating more than you thought" (but magically now at 1600 calories her logging is spot on?!?) the implication is that the OP is ridiculously ignorant and completely unable to manage or understand any of the numbers, theories, or logistics of weight loss. And I don't think that gives these forums a very supportive feel.

SLLRunner

lightenup2016 wrote: »

I'm familiar with how science works, my PhD is in Molecular Biology. The OP never said nothing else changed, nor did I imply that. The fact is that she is eating more and now losing weight, and she was simply thanking people for their suggestion to increase calories. Why does it matter WHY the increase helped? It could be loss of water weight, it could be increase in energy, it could be a boost in metabolism, or more likely all of these. But when I hear these stories, and read the responses in which people state that "it just doesn't work that way", and "you were eating more than you thought" (but magically now at 1600 calories her logging is spot on?!?) the implication is that the OP is ridiculously ignorant and completely unable to manage or understand any of the numbers, theories, or logistics of weight loss. And I don't think that gives these forums a very supportive feel.

Could it be that you are missing the point? People are saying that your weight loss doesn't stall at 1100 calories, then start up again when you up your calories by 400/500 calories. The OP indicated that it was the increase in calories that caused the weight loss, which is scientifically impossible.

lightenup2016

SLLRunner wrote: »

lightenup2016 wrote: »

I'm familiar with how science works, my PhD is in Molecular Biology. The OP never said nothing else changed, nor did I imply that. The fact is that she is eating more and now losing weight, and she was simply thanking people for their suggestion to increase calories. Why does it matter WHY the increase helped? It could be loss of water weight, it could be increase in energy, it could be a boost in metabolism, or more likely all of these. But when I hear these stories, and read the responses in which people state that "it just doesn't work that way", and "you were eating more than you thought" (but magically now at 1600 calories her logging is spot on?!?) the implication is that the OP is ridiculously ignorant and completely unable to manage or understand any of the numbers, theories, or logistics of weight loss. And I don't think that gives these forums a very supportive feel.

lightenup2016 wrote: »

I'm familiar with how science works, my PhD is in Molecular Biology. The OP never said nothing else changed, nor did I imply that. The fact is that she is eating more and now losing weight, and she was simply thanking people for their suggestion to increase calories. Why does it matter WHY the increase helped? It could be loss of water weight, it could be increase in energy, it could be a boost in metabolism, or more likely all of these. But when I hear these stories, and read the responses in which people state that "it just doesn't work that way", and "you were eating more than you thought" (but magically now at 1600 calories her logging is spot on?!?) the implication is that the OP is ridiculously ignorant and completely unable to manage or understand any of the numbers, theories, or logistics of weight loss. And I don't think that gives these forums a very supportive feel.

Could it be that you are missing the point? People are saying that your weight loss doesn't stall at 1100 calories, then start up again when you up your calories by 400/500 calories. The OP indicated that it was the increase in calories that caused the weight loss, which is scientifically impossible.

An increase in calories CAN cause weight loss, by any of the reasons stated above (water loss, increased NEAT, etc). Have you read about the Minnesota Starvation Experiment? Once the half-starved men had their calories increased again (under a controlled environment), many continued to lose weight. During the starvation period, any time they had a "refeed" they also lost weight. Likely water weight, but weight nonetheless. So when someone says they've lost weight from increasing calories, I don't care if it's water loss or weight loss due to increased calories out (NEAT), they've still lost weight.

SLLRunner

lightenup2016 wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

lightenup2016 wrote: »

I'm familiar with how science works, my PhD is in Molecular Biology. The OP never said nothing else changed, nor did I imply that. The fact is that she is eating more and now losing weight, and she was simply thanking people for their suggestion to increase calories. Why does it matter WHY the increase helped? It could be loss of water weight, it could be increase in energy, it could be a boost in metabolism, or more likely all of these. But when I hear these stories, and read the responses in which people state that "it just doesn't work that way", and "you were eating more than you thought" (but magically now at 1600 calories her logging is spot on?!?) the implication is that the OP is ridiculously ignorant and completely unable to manage or understand any of the numbers, theories, or logistics of weight loss. And I don't think that gives these forums a very supportive feel.

lightenup2016 wrote: »

I'm familiar with how science works, my PhD is in Molecular Biology. The OP never said nothing else changed, nor did I imply that. The fact is that she is eating more and now losing weight, and she was simply thanking people for their suggestion to increase calories. Why does it matter WHY the increase helped? It could be loss of water weight, it could be increase in energy, it could be a boost in metabolism, or more likely all of these. But when I hear these stories, and read the responses in which people state that "it just doesn't work that way", and "you were eating more than you thought" (but magically now at 1600 calories her logging is spot on?!?) the implication is that the OP is ridiculously ignorant and completely unable to manage or understand any of the numbers, theories, or logistics of weight loss. And I don't think that gives these forums a very supportive feel.

Could it be that you are missing the point? People are saying that your weight loss doesn't stall at 1100 calories, then start up again when you up your calories by 400/500 calories. The OP indicated that it was the increase in calories that caused the weight loss, which is scientifically impossible.

An increase in calories CAN cause weight loss, by any of the reasons stated above (water loss, increased NEAT, etc). Have you read about the Minnesota Starvation Experiment? Once the half-starved men had their calories increased again (under a controlled environment), many continued to lose weight. During the starvation period, any time they had a "refeed" they also lost weight. Likely water weight, but weight nonetheless. So when someone says they've lost weight from increasing calories, I don't care if it's water loss or weight loss due to increased calories out (NEAT), they've still lost weight.

Those men were emaciated and had lost excess body fat and muscle by the time their calories were increased. And, they were literally starving. That hardly compares to a 200 pound woman, or even the ordinary dieter. Someone who is of normal weight or more will not be literally starving, as those in the starvation experiment.

lightenup2016

They were semi-starved, eating 1500 calories a day and doing exercise, which could correspond to a female eating 1100 calories and exercising. Regardless, I imagine a very thin woman eating 1100 calories coming on here and saying she lost weight when she upped her calories, would still be greeted with messages stating that she had been "eating more than she thought" before that, because "it just doesn't work that way." But in fact, it can happen that way. Yes I do agree that CICO is generally how it works, but there are other factors that can be affected by an increase in calories, and this can indirectly cause weight loss.

We could go back and forth for a while here. Maybe we just agree to disagree? I'd put a smiley emoji but that always cuts my message short!

Sued0nim

Lilith200 wrote: »

A couple of months ago I started on the journey to become healthier by tracking calories and increasing exercise. The first 2 weeks I lost 10lbs then nothing. I apparently hit a wall but held out hope I was doing the right things. My caloric intake was around 1100 calories each day, which apparently was my norm because I didn't really change much...just tracked. My macros looked good and I continued to eat whole foods.

After feeling depressed and frustrated, I noticed I was incredibly forgetful and having a difficult time concentrating. So I turned to this forum to see if anyone else experienced this. And that's when I discovered I wasn't eating enough and apparently haven't been for years despite weighing over 200lbs.

So I took the trusting plunge and increased my calories to 1600 per day...mostly. I gotta be honest, most days I choked down as much as I could and still only reached 1500 calories.

But it worked! I have lost 8lbs since then and feel happier, less forgetful, and have an easier time concentrating. My energy has also picked up a bit.

So thank you to all the wise souls who shared their wisdom about metabolism and who shared deeper insights than the standard "calories in/calories out" advice so common on some forums. Looking at me no one would ever guess it possible that I was a chronic under-eater so I am incredibly grateful for those of you who have shared such helpful information! THANK YOU!!

Congratulations at finding your sweet spot where you can achieve a good CI<CO balance, it's hardest to hit at supremely low calories as your CO is affected and your nutritional balance

I haven't read thread

I'm pretty sure it's become a you can't increase calories to lose more conversation...true in isolation, but accurate logging of calories in and fuelling for greater activity can adjust the difference between CI and CO ...and time is always a great "perception of plateau" dismisser

Anyway this is a positive result ..I tried to find your previous thread but like many it's been deleted, which is a shame

nosebag1212

Lilith200 wrote: »

Wow... I am so incredibly happy that I didn't read many of these comments back when I was under eating and needing more nutrients to fuel my workouts lol! I understand that weight loss is a topic that often resembles ideology so I get it...we know what we know and 'believe' what we know is generalizable to everyone. I mostly was hoping that some of the well informed folks who provided rich depth in their understanding of metabolism would know that it was their wisdom, judgement-free, thoughtful information that helped steer me away from the very unhealthy track I was on in being under nourished. Their insights helped tremendously because for the first time I didn't feel pressured into cutting even more calories. A pressure that is too deeply ingrained in our culture, especially the weight loss culture.

So I guess all I would hope to convey to anyone reading this thread is that metabolism is not static and involves more complex elements than cutting calories to dangerously low levels. If you have spent 5 weeks like I did eating 1000-1100 calories per day, exercising 6 days a week for a minimum of 45 minutes and maximum of 90 minutes, and if you are still not losing weight, are feeling unable to concentrate well and leaning towards new symptoms of depression, please reexamine how you are approaching your journey and consider increasing your calories. You deserve to be healthy AS you go, not just after you reach that magic number on the scale that tells you that you have made it!

And finally, I never said I ended up 200 lbs from under eating. What I said was that I have been under eating for years, which is true, after I gained the weight. I suffered many, many, many health problems after pregnancy that resulted in multiple surgeries and long term immobility. I have been (mostly) better for the past 3 years but haven't led an active lifestyle until this year after my last health issue was resolved (finally!). So probably I stayed at 215 lbs while chronically under eating because I wasn't getting any exercise (as in very, very little walking around the house). So please understand, implying that I was dishonest with myself about my caloric intake may resolve ones own beliefs about weight loss, but it isn't grounded in the reality of my experience, is saturated in false assumptions, and perpetuates ideas that influence people like myself to eat too little, which is not healthy. If I were dishonest with myself (as a few have implied) then whatever mistakes or 'cheating' that I would presumably be perpetuating would have carried over to the new 1600 calorie daily intake, which apparently it's not. I also reduced my workouts to 3 days per week instead of 5-6, but did add HIIT which I am sure has also helped. But one shouldn't do HIIT without sufficient nutrients to repair anyways in my view. So while calories in/calories out may be the general "rule" of science, there are always additional factors to be considered and no one in their right mind should be promoting consumption of less than 1200 calories per day. It's just not safe for prolonged periods of time, especially if one is also including work outs into the mix. I don't need to lose all my weight in 2 months. I need to find health as I go, which should help me to eventually reach a healthier weight. Yes, I care about what I weigh, but I care about my physical and emotional health more... I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

My apology for any tone of disappointment you may be hearing from me here. My original post was to share my joy and gratitude for those who helped me view nutrition in a healthier manner, views that have helped me both physically and psychologically. I never post. Ever. Not until yesterday. And probably I won't again. I am incredibly anxious to post this so probably won't check back to read any responses that may result. I appreciate the bravery of those who posted questions that resulted in feedback that helped me so much (clearly I don't have such bravery yet...one day maybe). And I also appreciate everyone's good will in commenting here (I believe everyone had good motives), but I am disappointed in some of the judgments. Not angry, just disappointed.

And I am hopeful that someone reading this will seek out more information about how to lose weight in a healthier way. If you are hitting a wall and no one seems to believe your self assessed daily caloric intake or activity level, keep looking for answers until you find some that help you achieve health. Better to go slow and get it right than to under nourish your body, which needs nutrients to get you to where you want to ultimately be. And let's be honest...a 200lb person typically expends more than 2000 calories per day so 1600 is nothing to laugh at and will still help one lose weight.

Love to you all and best wishes for the journey you are traveling, in all the glorious and diverse ways you are experiencing your journeys!

TLDR, no person maintains 200 lbs on 1100 calories a day for 5 weeks regardless of their activity level (not counting temporary water retention due to increased cortisol), period. What you are proposing is akin to claiming it's possible to fly to the moon with nothing more than a gallon of petrol for fuel, it's physically impossible. You were not eating 1100 calories a day, you are not a special snowflake who defies the laws of thermodynamics.

stevencloser

lightenup2016 wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

lightenup2016 wrote: »

I'm familiar with how science works, my PhD is in Molecular Biology. The OP never said nothing else changed, nor did I imply that. The fact is that she is eating more and now losing weight, and she was simply thanking people for their suggestion to increase calories. Why does it matter WHY the increase helped? It could be loss of water weight, it could be increase in energy, it could be a boost in metabolism, or more likely all of these. But when I hear these stories, and read the responses in which people state that "it just doesn't work that way", and "you were eating more than you thought" (but magically now at 1600 calories her logging is spot on?!?) the implication is that the OP is ridiculously ignorant and completely unable to manage or understand any of the numbers, theories, or logistics of weight loss. And I don't think that gives these forums a very supportive feel.

lightenup2016 wrote: »

I'm familiar with how science works, my PhD is in Molecular Biology. The OP never said nothing else changed, nor did I imply that. The fact is that she is eating more and now losing weight, and she was simply thanking people for their suggestion to increase calories. Why does it matter WHY the increase helped? It could be loss of water weight, it could be increase in energy, it could be a boost in metabolism, or more likely all of these. But when I hear these stories, and read the responses in which people state that "it just doesn't work that way", and "you were eating more than you thought" (but magically now at 1600 calories her logging is spot on?!?) the implication is that the OP is ridiculously ignorant and completely unable to manage or understand any of the numbers, theories, or logistics of weight loss. And I don't think that gives these forums a very supportive feel.

Could it be that you are missing the point? People are saying that your weight loss doesn't stall at 1100 calories, then start up again when you up your calories by 400/500 calories. The OP indicated that it was the increase in calories that caused the weight loss, which is scientifically impossible.

An increase in calories CAN cause weight loss, by any of the reasons stated above (water loss, increased NEAT, etc). Have you read about the Minnesota Starvation Experiment? Once the half-starved men had their calories increased again (under a controlled environment), many continued to lose weight. During the starvation period, any time they had a "refeed" they also lost weight. Likely water weight, but weight nonetheless. So when someone says they've lost weight from increasing calories, I don't care if it's water loss or weight loss due to increased calories out (NEAT), they've still lost weight.

Water weight matters as much as the weight of the clothes you wear. It has nothing to do with energetic tissue in your body. Which you should know as a biologist.