Increasing calories helped--thanks!
Replies
-
lightenup2016 wrote: »I think YOU guys are missing the point! You can't see the forest for the trees.
In NO way did the OP suggest that she defied the laws of thermodynamics. She did not say that eating more calories directly made her body lose fat and that it never would have done so if she'd stuck to lower calories. She simply stated that increasing her calories from 1100 up to 1600 RESULTED in her feeling better, having more energy, and losing 8 lbs over 2 months. There is no WHY implicated there. It can be an indirect result. It could be that her body is less stressed which equals lowered cortisol, which equals the body not hanging on to water weight. It could mean she is moving more, and as such she is burning more. She did not imply she is a special snowflake, but simply that she tried a suggestion and got the desired effect, which btw, is likely much healthier, and definitely easier and more comfortable for her. She did NOT state or imply that she would never have lost any weight if she had kept up with the 1100 calorie regimen. She very likely would have (unless her CO really was too low then), but who cares? She feels better this way, is healthier, and is still seeing the scale move.
You guys snub your nose at any suggestion to increase calories, and don't actually LISTEN to the main idea here. Go back and re-read. No, not everyone here is a physicist or biochemist, but I daresay that people do know their bodies to some extent, and you flatly denying that their experience happened is basically calling them liars, or at the least, saying they're extremely ignorant. This is not constructive, but instead insulting, and not inviting in any way. Get over yourselves.
No........
She said in her initial post: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.
YOU are missing the point.
2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Hello OP! It sounds like we've been having similar issues.
I lost 70 pounds over 9 months almost 2 years ago and then over the course of a year I gained most of that back when I fell into a period of major depression. But a little over a month ago I decided to start losing weight again.
The first 2 weeks I lost about 10 pounds. The next week I lost about 2 more. It was about this time that I started really counting calories and exercising 5 times a week. Before then I had just been eating healthier(I was probably eating around 1700 or so a day) and exercising 3 times a week.
So 2 weeks ago I began counting calories (I have a food scale and I am great about measuring) and eating around 1400 calories a day. I also upped my workouts to 5 times a week,burning between 500 to 600 calories per workout. Now according to CICO I should have been losing a good amount the past 2 weeks yes?
But I haven't lost a single pound, not for 2 weeks. Someone who weighs as much as I do (260) shouldn't be hitting a plateau so early on. I even bought a new scale because I was convinced my scale was broken. I have been flabbergasted trying to figure it out.
I've been searching around on here and on other open forums out there and it seems like this is actually a common problem. Now I'm not an expert and I don't know exactkt why this happens. But it seems like if you work out too much and also diet extensively, it is possible to not lose any weight.
But now that I think about it, when I lost 70 pounds over 9 months almost 2 years ago, I started out only exercising once or twice a week and very gradually increased to 5 times a week exercising and I never experienced this issue then. I'm going to try something similar to what the OP did and I'm going to increase my calories to 1500 and decrease my workouts to 3 times a week for a while. And I'm confident that will restart my weight loss.
Yes I know it makes no sense, but I'm sure some one smarter than me and all the smart *kitten* on this thread could probably explain this phenomenon. There's more to weight loss than CICO.
(Edit: I should also mention that I have not been eating back my exercise calories, truly just eating 1400 a day)
If you've read as much as you've said you've read, then you wouldn't be resorting to name calling.
You'd also realize CICO encompasses what you're experiencing.
Everyone who claims that CICO doesn't work doesn't understand what CICO means.
I don't think they're claiming it doesn't work, rather other things can also impact weight loss other than how much you eat and how much you move. You're almost insulting the complexity of your body if you think it works like a standard calculator 24/7 365 days a year. If think about it, when reading food labels it doesn't actually tell you at which rate the food is being burnt, which foods are more efficient in which bodies nor does it account for every individuals genetic make up and health level, so on and so forth. That being said generally it works until accurate calculated potential results are not met. Then you question things and start picking it apart. I have my own personal approach to CICO but yes generally it does work.
That's just it. CICO is NOT just saying calories in, calories out. It encompasses all of those factors people keep saying it doesn't account for.
The acronym, itself, says that, but scientists, when they discuss CICO do indeed factor those things in and acknowledge them.
All of those things you mentioned fall under either calories in or calories out.
I'm sure they do when they're in the lab but in real time things don't always relay *exactly how they should *all the time in practice. There's still a grey area IMO. Something so general can never be tailor made to every human on the planet. At least not 365 days a year. I know every human has the same heart, lungs, eyes etc but there's still nuances between us.
What are you talking about? You're talking about factors, but the thing is those factors fall under the umbrella of CICO.
The fact that you can't predict them doesn't invalidate the principle of CICO.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Hello OP! It sounds like we've been having similar issues.
I lost 70 pounds over 9 months almost 2 years ago and then over the course of a year I gained most of that back when I fell into a period of major depression. But a little over a month ago I decided to start losing weight again.
The first 2 weeks I lost about 10 pounds. The next week I lost about 2 more. It was about this time that I started really counting calories and exercising 5 times a week. Before then I had just been eating healthier(I was probably eating around 1700 or so a day) and exercising 3 times a week.
So 2 weeks ago I began counting calories (I have a food scale and I am great about measuring) and eating around 1400 calories a day. I also upped my workouts to 5 times a week,burning between 500 to 600 calories per workout. Now according to CICO I should have been losing a good amount the past 2 weeks yes?
But I haven't lost a single pound, not for 2 weeks. Someone who weighs as much as I do (260) shouldn't be hitting a plateau so early on. I even bought a new scale because I was convinced my scale was broken. I have been flabbergasted trying to figure it out.
I've been searching around on here and on other open forums out there and it seems like this is actually a common problem. Now I'm not an expert and I don't know exactkt why this happens. But it seems like if you work out too much and also diet extensively, it is possible to not lose any weight.
But now that I think about it, when I lost 70 pounds over 9 months almost 2 years ago, I started out only exercising once or twice a week and very gradually increased to 5 times a week exercising and I never experienced this issue then. I'm going to try something similar to what the OP did and I'm going to increase my calories to 1500 and decrease my workouts to 3 times a week for a while. And I'm confident that will restart my weight loss.
Yes I know it makes no sense, but I'm sure some one smarter than me and all the smart *kitten* on this thread could probably explain this phenomenon. There's more to weight loss than CICO.
(Edit: I should also mention that I have not been eating back my exercise calories, truly just eating 1400 a day)
If you've read as much as you've said you've read, then you wouldn't be resorting to name calling.
You'd also realize CICO encompasses what you're experiencing.
Everyone who claims that CICO doesn't work doesn't understand what CICO means.
I don't think they're claiming it doesn't work, rather other things can also impact weight loss other than how much you eat and how much you move. You're almost insulting the complexity of your body if you think it works like a standard calculator 24/7 365 days a year. If think about it, when reading food labels it doesn't actually tell you at which rate the food is being burnt, which foods are more efficient in which bodies nor does it account for every individuals genetic make up and health level, so on and so forth. That being said generally it works until accurate calculated potential results are not met. Then you question things and start picking it apart. I have my own personal approach to CICO but yes generally it does work.
That's just it. CICO is NOT just saying calories in, calories out. It encompasses all of those factors people keep saying it doesn't account for.
The acronym, itself, says that, but scientists, when they discuss CICO do indeed factor those things in and acknowledge them.
All of those things you mentioned fall under either calories in or calories out.
Thing is, especially when you don't read extensively here AND follow the many links, being told CICO never fails and eating more is never the answer isn't helpful. Both may be true, but they don't help either.
Too large of a deficit can, in a sense, activate a body's self-protection *to a degree* and reduce CO. Even when the individual doesn't see it happening. I guarantee my months long 1000 deficit caused that for me. Was it a metabolic slow down? Potentially partially. Was it a reduction in NEAT? Almost certainly. In the midst of it I couldn't see it. But knowing my logging was as on point as possible, to see a marked reduction in loss rate was very disheartening. It caused me to increase deficit by stopping using any exercise calories. Which, in hindsight was a horrible idea. My previous desire to improve my pace slipped a lot. I quit looking for excuses to increase my step count. I was obsessing and stressing over it. While staying in my calories, I was not making nearly as nutritious choice in food. NEAT tanked, drive tanked and loss rate tanked.
Thank goodness when I reached out here I got good advice and articles. In the end, a diet break to help reset me mentally (and maybe some positive hormonal resets) coupled with a reduced deficit coming out of the break has losses exceeding deficit. NEAT is up, workouts are back to energetic and any potential cortisol related water retention has corrected itself. In *my case eating more was the solution. But that sentence is as unhelpful as the reverse was above.
Compassion, curiosity and tailoring advice to the specific poster can go a long way to actually being helpful to a poster, and lurkers.
I'm not sure what you're arguing against here.
At this point, this is a discussion about how the process works, not about a poster stalled and reaching out for solutions.
If I go into a thread with someone reaching out for solutions, I have a different approach. When I'm in a thread with people saying that science doesn't apply to them, I call them out on their fallacy. They don't need compassion, they need fact checking.3 -
I think a lot of people are experiencing troubles but are afraid to post because they see how others are treated and are not believed.
I think when people post woo and fads they cloud the water and make others confused; they feed into the multimillion dollar health & fitness industry by promoting tabloid style extrapolations that are not firmly grounded in actual science; they take everyone to the lowest common denominator of celebrity endorsed derpitude and reality TV. They make people yo-yo and fail,
When other people confirm that it really isn't that complicated, that majoring in the minors or believing the latest B-list celeb sponsored nonsense is detrimental they do us all an amazing service
The core science behind weight loss is simple, there are many interesting theories and many have infinitesimal impacts on overall weight loss, but that's where some like to live
That derp and misunderstanding kept me fat and unhealthy and wishing for 3 decades
CICO focus make me slim and fit in under a year and has kept me here for almost 2
I know who I'm most grateful to and it isn't those who spread incorrect unfounded information around
Funny how the same thing happened to me with people pounding how simple it is to lose weight on 1200 calories, but that doesn't work for everyone. You do you. YAHOO.
What I always pound on about 1200 calories is that it is only appropriate for women who are very short, or older and sedentary.
Women outside that demographic who are eating 1200 calories and not losing weight over a month or so are under counting their calories in and/or over counting calories out. This is especially true for women who weigh 200 plus. It's simply not possibly for average height women to maintain 200 pounds at 1100 calories or 260 pounds at 1400 calories for weeks on end. Something is wrong with the math.
I wish people weren't insulted when this is pointed out, as study after study shows it is very common to underestimate intake.
Someone should collect all the threads that say "Weight loss became so much easier once I tightened up my food logging."3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Hello OP! It sounds like we've been having similar issues.
I lost 70 pounds over 9 months almost 2 years ago and then over the course of a year I gained most of that back when I fell into a period of major depression. But a little over a month ago I decided to start losing weight again.
The first 2 weeks I lost about 10 pounds. The next week I lost about 2 more. It was about this time that I started really counting calories and exercising 5 times a week. Before then I had just been eating healthier(I was probably eating around 1700 or so a day) and exercising 3 times a week.
So 2 weeks ago I began counting calories (I have a food scale and I am great about measuring) and eating around 1400 calories a day. I also upped my workouts to 5 times a week,burning between 500 to 600 calories per workout. Now according to CICO I should have been losing a good amount the past 2 weeks yes?
But I haven't lost a single pound, not for 2 weeks. Someone who weighs as much as I do (260) shouldn't be hitting a plateau so early on. I even bought a new scale because I was convinced my scale was broken. I have been flabbergasted trying to figure it out.
I've been searching around on here and on other open forums out there and it seems like this is actually a common problem. Now I'm not an expert and I don't know exactkt why this happens. But it seems like if you work out too much and also diet extensively, it is possible to not lose any weight.
But now that I think about it, when I lost 70 pounds over 9 months almost 2 years ago, I started out only exercising once or twice a week and very gradually increased to 5 times a week exercising and I never experienced this issue then. I'm going to try something similar to what the OP did and I'm going to increase my calories to 1500 and decrease my workouts to 3 times a week for a while. And I'm confident that will restart my weight loss.
Yes I know it makes no sense, but I'm sure some one smarter than me and all the smart *kitten* on this thread could probably explain this phenomenon. There's more to weight loss than CICO.
(Edit: I should also mention that I have not been eating back my exercise calories, truly just eating 1400 a day)
If you've read as much as you've said you've read, then you wouldn't be resorting to name calling.
You'd also realize CICO encompasses what you're experiencing.
Everyone who claims that CICO doesn't work doesn't understand what CICO means.
I don't think they're claiming it doesn't work, rather other things can also impact weight loss other than how much you eat and how much you move. You're almost insulting the complexity of your body if you think it works like a standard calculator 24/7 365 days a year. If think about it, when reading food labels it doesn't actually tell you at which rate the food is being burnt, which foods are more efficient in which bodies nor does it account for every individuals genetic make up and health level, so on and so forth. That being said generally it works until accurate calculated potential results are not met. Then you question things and start picking it apart. I have my own personal approach to CICO but yes generally it does work.
That's just it. CICO is NOT just saying calories in, calories out. It encompasses all of those factors people keep saying it doesn't account for.
The acronym, itself, says that, but scientists, when they discuss CICO do indeed factor those things in and acknowledge them.
All of those things you mentioned fall under either calories in or calories out.
Thing is, especially when you don't read extensively here AND follow the many links, being told CICO never fails and eating more is never the answer isn't helpful. Both may be true, but they don't help either.
Too large of a deficit can, in a sense, activate a body's self-protection *to a degree* and reduce CO. Even when the individual doesn't see it happening. I guarantee my months long 1000 deficit caused that for me. Was it a metabolic slow down? Potentially partially. Was it a reduction in NEAT? Almost certainly. In the midst of it I couldn't see it. But knowing my logging was as on point as possible, to see a marked reduction in loss rate was very disheartening. It caused me to increase deficit by stopping using any exercise calories. Which, in hindsight was a horrible idea. My previous desire to improve my pace slipped a lot. I quit looking for excuses to increase my step count. I was obsessing and stressing over it. While staying in my calories, I was not making nearly as nutritious choice in food. NEAT tanked, drive tanked and loss rate tanked.
Thank goodness when I reached out here I got good advice and articles. In the end, a diet break to help reset me mentally (and maybe some positive hormonal resets) coupled with a reduced deficit coming out of the break has losses exceeding deficit. NEAT is up, workouts are back to energetic and any potential cortisol related water retention has corrected itself. In *my case eating more was the solution. But that sentence is as unhelpful as the reverse was above.
Compassion, curiosity and tailoring advice to the specific poster can go a long way to actually being helpful to a poster, and lurkers.
I'm not sure what you're arguing against here.
At this point, this is a discussion about how the process works, not about a poster stalled and reaching out for solutions.
If I go into a thread with someone reaching out for solutions, I have a different approach. When I'm in a thread with people saying that science doesn't apply to them, I call them out on their fallacy. They don't need compassion, they need fact checking.
What "fallacy"? You would rather someone who is stalling at 1100 or 1200 dip down to 800-900? It would be better to get strengthened, heal, and then lose at a more sensible deficit.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Hello OP! It sounds like we've been having similar issues.
I lost 70 pounds over 9 months almost 2 years ago and then over the course of a year I gained most of that back when I fell into a period of major depression. But a little over a month ago I decided to start losing weight again.
The first 2 weeks I lost about 10 pounds. The next week I lost about 2 more. It was about this time that I started really counting calories and exercising 5 times a week. Before then I had just been eating healthier(I was probably eating around 1700 or so a day) and exercising 3 times a week.
So 2 weeks ago I began counting calories (I have a food scale and I am great about measuring) and eating around 1400 calories a day. I also upped my workouts to 5 times a week,burning between 500 to 600 calories per workout. Now according to CICO I should have been losing a good amount the past 2 weeks yes?
But I haven't lost a single pound, not for 2 weeks. Someone who weighs as much as I do (260) shouldn't be hitting a plateau so early on. I even bought a new scale because I was convinced my scale was broken. I have been flabbergasted trying to figure it out.
I've been searching around on here and on other open forums out there and it seems like this is actually a common problem. Now I'm not an expert and I don't know exactkt why this happens. But it seems like if you work out too much and also diet extensively, it is possible to not lose any weight.
But now that I think about it, when I lost 70 pounds over 9 months almost 2 years ago, I started out only exercising once or twice a week and very gradually increased to 5 times a week exercising and I never experienced this issue then. I'm going to try something similar to what the OP did and I'm going to increase my calories to 1500 and decrease my workouts to 3 times a week for a while. And I'm confident that will restart my weight loss.
Yes I know it makes no sense, but I'm sure some one smarter than me and all the smart *kitten* on this thread could probably explain this phenomenon. There's more to weight loss than CICO.
(Edit: I should also mention that I have not been eating back my exercise calories, truly just eating 1400 a day)
If you've read as much as you've said you've read, then you wouldn't be resorting to name calling.
You'd also realize CICO encompasses what you're experiencing.
Everyone who claims that CICO doesn't work doesn't understand what CICO means.
I don't think they're claiming it doesn't work, rather other things can also impact weight loss other than how much you eat and how much you move. You're almost insulting the complexity of your body if you think it works like a standard calculator 24/7 365 days a year. If think about it, when reading food labels it doesn't actually tell you at which rate the food is being burnt, which foods are more efficient in which bodies nor does it account for every individuals genetic make up and health level, so on and so forth. That being said generally it works until accurate calculated potential results are not met. Then you question things and start picking it apart. I have my own personal approach to CICO but yes generally it does work.
That's just it. CICO is NOT just saying calories in, calories out. It encompasses all of those factors people keep saying it doesn't account for.
The acronym, itself, says that, but scientists, when they discuss CICO do indeed factor those things in and acknowledge them.
All of those things you mentioned fall under either calories in or calories out.
Thing is, especially when you don't read extensively here AND follow the many links, being told CICO never fails and eating more is never the answer isn't helpful. Both may be true, but they don't help either.
Too large of a deficit can, in a sense, activate a body's self-protection *to a degree* and reduce CO. Even when the individual doesn't see it happening. I guarantee my months long 1000 deficit caused that for me. Was it a metabolic slow down? Potentially partially. Was it a reduction in NEAT? Almost certainly. In the midst of it I couldn't see it. But knowing my logging was as on point as possible, to see a marked reduction in loss rate was very disheartening. It caused me to increase deficit by stopping using any exercise calories. Which, in hindsight was a horrible idea. My previous desire to improve my pace slipped a lot. I quit looking for excuses to increase my step count. I was obsessing and stressing over it. While staying in my calories, I was not making nearly as nutritious choice in food. NEAT tanked, drive tanked and loss rate tanked.
Thank goodness when I reached out here I got good advice and articles. In the end, a diet break to help reset me mentally (and maybe some positive hormonal resets) coupled with a reduced deficit coming out of the break has losses exceeding deficit. NEAT is up, workouts are back to energetic and any potential cortisol related water retention has corrected itself. In *my case eating more was the solution. But that sentence is as unhelpful as the reverse was above.
Compassion, curiosity and tailoring advice to the specific poster can go a long way to actually being helpful to a poster, and lurkers.
I'm not sure what you're arguing against here.
At this point, this is a discussion about how the process works, not about a poster stalled and reaching out for solutions.
If I go into a thread with someone reaching out for solutions, I have a different approach. When I'm in a thread with people saying that science doesn't apply to them, I call them out on their fallacy. They don't need compassion, they need fact checking.
What "fallacy"? You would rather someone who is stalling at 1100 or 1200 dip down to 800-900? It would be better to refeed, get strengthened, heal, and then lose at a more sensible deficit.
Why are you putting words in my mouth?
The fallacy is that CICO doesn't work.
You don't understand refeeding. Full stop.
In all of the cases of the people on the drastically low deficits who needed to lose (BTW, most of them were bikini competitors and body builders making weight for a show) who eventually used refeeding, do you know what came to light? I found this out on Facebook through Brad Schoenfeld and Alan Aragon. Guess what the dirty little secret is why the scale never moved?
They were all binging and not logging. Sneaking bites of food and not logging them too.
Refeeding? You know what happened with those bikini competitors? They gave them back some of the calories they were eating anyway and the competitors just started working out harder and compensated for the extra calories.
Saying that...
So, when I go into a thread with someone who is stalled in 1200 calories, what I do is ask for their stats, and examine their logging, their activity levels and assess whether they really need to eat 1200. Some short older sedentary women do.
Most people don't.
I usually suggest people up their NEAT and their calories. Sometimes, depending on the length of eating at deficit, I suggest a diet break.
I don't just blithely suggest they up their calories and act like it's some kind of magical solution.
I also don't suggest they try to build muscle because that's near impossible in a deficit and building enough to make a metabolic difference in a deficit? That's a laughable concept.
8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Hello OP! It sounds like we've been having similar issues.
I lost 70 pounds over 9 months almost 2 years ago and then over the course of a year I gained most of that back when I fell into a period of major depression. But a little over a month ago I decided to start losing weight again.
The first 2 weeks I lost about 10 pounds. The next week I lost about 2 more. It was about this time that I started really counting calories and exercising 5 times a week. Before then I had just been eating healthier(I was probably eating around 1700 or so a day) and exercising 3 times a week.
So 2 weeks ago I began counting calories (I have a food scale and I am great about measuring) and eating around 1400 calories a day. I also upped my workouts to 5 times a week,burning between 500 to 600 calories per workout. Now according to CICO I should have been losing a good amount the past 2 weeks yes?
But I haven't lost a single pound, not for 2 weeks. Someone who weighs as much as I do (260) shouldn't be hitting a plateau so early on. I even bought a new scale because I was convinced my scale was broken. I have been flabbergasted trying to figure it out.
I've been searching around on here and on other open forums out there and it seems like this is actually a common problem. Now I'm not an expert and I don't know exactkt why this happens. But it seems like if you work out too much and also diet extensively, it is possible to not lose any weight.
But now that I think about it, when I lost 70 pounds over 9 months almost 2 years ago, I started out only exercising once or twice a week and very gradually increased to 5 times a week exercising and I never experienced this issue then. I'm going to try something similar to what the OP did and I'm going to increase my calories to 1500 and decrease my workouts to 3 times a week for a while. And I'm confident that will restart my weight loss.
Yes I know it makes no sense, but I'm sure some one smarter than me and all the smart *kitten* on this thread could probably explain this phenomenon. There's more to weight loss than CICO.
(Edit: I should also mention that I have not been eating back my exercise calories, truly just eating 1400 a day)
If you've read as much as you've said you've read, then you wouldn't be resorting to name calling.
You'd also realize CICO encompasses what you're experiencing.
Everyone who claims that CICO doesn't work doesn't understand what CICO means.
I don't think they're claiming it doesn't work, rather other things can also impact weight loss other than how much you eat and how much you move. You're almost insulting the complexity of your body if you think it works like a standard calculator 24/7 365 days a year. If think about it, when reading food labels it doesn't actually tell you at which rate the food is being burnt, which foods are more efficient in which bodies nor does it account for every individuals genetic make up and health level, so on and so forth. That being said generally it works until accurate calculated potential results are not met. Then you question things and start picking it apart. I have my own personal approach to CICO but yes generally it does work.
That's just it. CICO is NOT just saying calories in, calories out. It encompasses all of those factors people keep saying it doesn't account for.
The acronym, itself, says that, but scientists, when they discuss CICO do indeed factor those things in and acknowledge them.
All of those things you mentioned fall under either calories in or calories out.
Thing is, especially when you don't read extensively here AND follow the many links, being told CICO never fails and eating more is never the answer isn't helpful. Both may be true, but they don't help either.
Too large of a deficit can, in a sense, activate a body's self-protection *to a degree* and reduce CO. Even when the individual doesn't see it happening. I guarantee my months long 1000 deficit caused that for me. Was it a metabolic slow down? Potentially partially. Was it a reduction in NEAT? Almost certainly. In the midst of it I couldn't see it. But knowing my logging was as on point as possible, to see a marked reduction in loss rate was very disheartening. It caused me to increase deficit by stopping using any exercise calories. Which, in hindsight was a horrible idea. My previous desire to improve my pace slipped a lot. I quit looking for excuses to increase my step count. I was obsessing and stressing over it. While staying in my calories, I was not making nearly as nutritious choice in food. NEAT tanked, drive tanked and loss rate tanked.
Thank goodness when I reached out here I got good advice and articles. In the end, a diet break to help reset me mentally (and maybe some positive hormonal resets) coupled with a reduced deficit coming out of the break has losses exceeding deficit. NEAT is up, workouts are back to energetic and any potential cortisol related water retention has corrected itself. In *my case eating more was the solution. But that sentence is as unhelpful as the reverse was above.
Compassion, curiosity and tailoring advice to the specific poster can go a long way to actually being helpful to a poster, and lurkers.
I'm not sure what you're arguing against here.
At this point, this is a discussion about how the process works, not about a poster stalled and reaching out for solutions.
If I go into a thread with someone reaching out for solutions, I have a different approach. When I'm in a thread with people saying that science doesn't apply to them, I call them out on their fallacy. They don't need compassion, they need fact checking.
What "fallacy"? You would rather someone who is stalling at 1100 or 1200 dip down to 800-900? It would be better to refeed, get strengthened, heal, and then lose at a more sensible deficit.
I'd rather they knuckle down and buy a food scale and track every single thing that goes into their mouths while using correct database entries to ensure they're actually eating 1200 calories (often times they are at more than double that, people are terrible at estimating their intakes). Then if they are actually eating at a true 1200 calories they should wait it out as it's most likely water retention masking their fat loss. There are very few grown adults who will maintain their weight on 1200 calories, basically very small older females who are completely sedentary, or people who have legitimate medical conditions which they should be having professional treatment for. Certainly not people who weigh 200 lbs like the OP.6 -
I'm not blithely suggesting anything. I am giving the OP the benefit of the doubt that she is smart enough to have logged correctly.3
-
I'm not suggesting anyone build muscle. I said I am working on that. But if someone decides to then great!0
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Hello OP! It sounds like we've been having similar issues.
I lost 70 pounds over 9 months almost 2 years ago and then over the course of a year I gained most of that back when I fell into a period of major depression. But a little over a month ago I decided to start losing weight again.
The first 2 weeks I lost about 10 pounds. The next week I lost about 2 more. It was about this time that I started really counting calories and exercising 5 times a week. Before then I had just been eating healthier(I was probably eating around 1700 or so a day) and exercising 3 times a week.
So 2 weeks ago I began counting calories (I have a food scale and I am great about measuring) and eating around 1400 calories a day. I also upped my workouts to 5 times a week,burning between 500 to 600 calories per workout. Now according to CICO I should have been losing a good amount the past 2 weeks yes?
But I haven't lost a single pound, not for 2 weeks. Someone who weighs as much as I do (260) shouldn't be hitting a plateau so early on. I even bought a new scale because I was convinced my scale was broken. I have been flabbergasted trying to figure it out.
I've been searching around on here and on other open forums out there and it seems like this is actually a common problem. Now I'm not an expert and I don't know exactkt why this happens. But it seems like if you work out too much and also diet extensively, it is possible to not lose any weight.
But now that I think about it, when I lost 70 pounds over 9 months almost 2 years ago, I started out only exercising once or twice a week and very gradually increased to 5 times a week exercising and I never experienced this issue then. I'm going to try something similar to what the OP did and I'm going to increase my calories to 1500 and decrease my workouts to 3 times a week for a while. And I'm confident that will restart my weight loss.
Yes I know it makes no sense, but I'm sure some one smarter than me and all the smart *kitten* on this thread could probably explain this phenomenon. There's more to weight loss than CICO.
(Edit: I should also mention that I have not been eating back my exercise calories, truly just eating 1400 a day)
If you've read as much as you've said you've read, then you wouldn't be resorting to name calling.
You'd also realize CICO encompasses what you're experiencing.
Everyone who claims that CICO doesn't work doesn't understand what CICO means.
I don't think they're claiming it doesn't work, rather other things can also impact weight loss other than how much you eat and how much you move. You're almost insulting the complexity of your body if you think it works like a standard calculator 24/7 365 days a year. If think about it, when reading food labels it doesn't actually tell you at which rate the food is being burnt, which foods are more efficient in which bodies nor does it account for every individuals genetic make up and health level, so on and so forth. That being said generally it works until accurate calculated potential results are not met. Then you question things and start picking it apart. I have my own personal approach to CICO but yes generally it does work.
That's just it. CICO is NOT just saying calories in, calories out. It encompasses all of those factors people keep saying it doesn't account for.
The acronym, itself, says that, but scientists, when they discuss CICO do indeed factor those things in and acknowledge them.
All of those things you mentioned fall under either calories in or calories out.
Thing is, especially when you don't read extensively here AND follow the many links, being told CICO never fails and eating more is never the answer isn't helpful. Both may be true, but they don't help either.
Too large of a deficit can, in a sense, activate a body's self-protection *to a degree* and reduce CO. Even when the individual doesn't see it happening. I guarantee my months long 1000 deficit caused that for me. Was it a metabolic slow down? Potentially partially. Was it a reduction in NEAT? Almost certainly. In the midst of it I couldn't see it. But knowing my logging was as on point as possible, to see a marked reduction in loss rate was very disheartening. It caused me to increase deficit by stopping using any exercise calories. Which, in hindsight was a horrible idea. My previous desire to improve my pace slipped a lot. I quit looking for excuses to increase my step count. I was obsessing and stressing over it. While staying in my calories, I was not making nearly as nutritious choice in food. NEAT tanked, drive tanked and loss rate tanked.
Thank goodness when I reached out here I got good advice and articles. In the end, a diet break to help reset me mentally (and maybe some positive hormonal resets) coupled with a reduced deficit coming out of the break has losses exceeding deficit. NEAT is up, workouts are back to energetic and any potential cortisol related water retention has corrected itself. In *my case eating more was the solution. But that sentence is as unhelpful as the reverse was above.
Compassion, curiosity and tailoring advice to the specific poster can go a long way to actually being helpful to a poster, and lurkers.
I'm not sure what you're arguing against here.
At this point, this is a discussion about how the process works, not about a poster stalled and reaching out for solutions.
If I go into a thread with someone reaching out for solutions, I have a different approach. When I'm in a thread with people saying that science doesn't apply to them, I call them out on their fallacy. They don't need compassion, they need fact checking.
What "fallacy"? You would rather someone who is stalling at 1100 or 1200 dip down to 800-900? It would be better to refeed, get strengthened, heal, and then lose at a more sensible deficit.
Why are you putting words in my mouth?
The fallacy is that CICO doesn't work.
You don't understand refeeding. Full stop.
In all of the cases of the people on the drastically low deficits who needed to lose (BTW, most of them were bikini competitors and body builders making weight for a show) who eventually used refeeding, do you know what came to light? I found this out on Facebook through Brad Schoenfeld and Alan Aragon. Guess what the dirty little secret is why the scale never moved?
They were all binging and not logging. Sneaking bites of food and not logging them too.
Refeeding? You know what happened with those bikini competitors? They gave them back some of the calories they were eating anyway and the competitors just started working out harder and compensated for the extra calories.
Saying that...
So, when I go into a thread with someone who is stalled in 1200 calories, what I do is ask for their stats, and examine their logging, their activity levels and assess whether they really need to eat 1200. Some short older sedentary women do.
Most people don't.
I usually suggest people up their NEAT and their calories. Sometimes, depending on the length of eating at deficit, I suggest a diet break.
I don't just blithely suggest they up their calories and act like it's some kind of magical solution.
I also don't suggest they try to build muscle because that's near impossible in a deficit and building enough to make a metabolic difference in a deficit? That's a laughable concept.
I'm talking about adding 50 calories a day and slowly adding calories over time-- not binging. I've never been a Binger because I hate feeling full. Please stop assuming.
Perhaps the word "refeed" triggered something within you? I edited the word out of my post because I did not mean it in the body building sense of the word.
You can't generalize nor can I. But for those who are stuck at 1200 calories and are not losing, there is hope!2 -
This content has been removed.
-
Ok! Y'all got me convinced more calories will help me lose weight. I'm calling Dominos now.
The OP is still on a deficit with her 1600 calories. Going too low in calories and too big with the deficit was the original problem.
Conversely, you can't go above TDEE and expect to lose weight. There is a happy medium. No one is endorsing binging or eating over TDEE. That would be eating over maintenance, so of course you would gain.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Hello OP! It sounds like we've been having similar issues.
I lost 70 pounds over 9 months almost 2 years ago and then over the course of a year I gained most of that back when I fell into a period of major depression. But a little over a month ago I decided to start losing weight again.
The first 2 weeks I lost about 10 pounds. The next week I lost about 2 more. It was about this time that I started really counting calories and exercising 5 times a week. Before then I had just been eating healthier(I was probably eating around 1700 or so a day) and exercising 3 times a week.
So 2 weeks ago I began counting calories (I have a food scale and I am great about measuring) and eating around 1400 calories a day. I also upped my workouts to 5 times a week,burning between 500 to 600 calories per workout. Now according to CICO I should have been losing a good amount the past 2 weeks yes?
But I haven't lost a single pound, not for 2 weeks. Someone who weighs as much as I do (260) shouldn't be hitting a plateau so early on. I even bought a new scale because I was convinced my scale was broken. I have been flabbergasted trying to figure it out.
I've been searching around on here and on other open forums out there and it seems like this is actually a common problem. Now I'm not an expert and I don't know exactkt why this happens. But it seems like if you work out too much and also diet extensively, it is possible to not lose any weight.
But now that I think about it, when I lost 70 pounds over 9 months almost 2 years ago, I started out only exercising once or twice a week and very gradually increased to 5 times a week exercising and I never experienced this issue then. I'm going to try something similar to what the OP did and I'm going to increase my calories to 1500 and decrease my workouts to 3 times a week for a while. And I'm confident that will restart my weight loss.
Yes I know it makes no sense, but I'm sure some one smarter than me and all the smart *kitten* on this thread could probably explain this phenomenon. There's more to weight loss than CICO.
(Edit: I should also mention that I have not been eating back my exercise calories, truly just eating 1400 a day)
If you've read as much as you've said you've read, then you wouldn't be resorting to name calling.
You'd also realize CICO encompasses what you're experiencing.
Everyone who claims that CICO doesn't work doesn't understand what CICO means.
I don't think they're claiming it doesn't work, rather other things can also impact weight loss other than how much you eat and how much you move. You're almost insulting the complexity of your body if you think it works like a standard calculator 24/7 365 days a year. If think about it, when reading food labels it doesn't actually tell you at which rate the food is being burnt, which foods are more efficient in which bodies nor does it account for every individuals genetic make up and health level, so on and so forth. That being said generally it works until accurate calculated potential results are not met. Then you question things and start picking it apart. I have my own personal approach to CICO but yes generally it does work.
That's just it. CICO is NOT just saying calories in, calories out. It encompasses all of those factors people keep saying it doesn't account for.
The acronym, itself, says that, but scientists, when they discuss CICO do indeed factor those things in and acknowledge them.
All of those things you mentioned fall under either calories in or calories out.
Thing is, especially when you don't read extensively here AND follow the many links, being told CICO never fails and eating more is never the answer isn't helpful. Both may be true, but they don't help either.
Too large of a deficit can, in a sense, activate a body's self-protection *to a degree* and reduce CO. Even when the individual doesn't see it happening. I guarantee my months long 1000 deficit caused that for me. Was it a metabolic slow down? Potentially partially. Was it a reduction in NEAT? Almost certainly. In the midst of it I couldn't see it. But knowing my logging was as on point as possible, to see a marked reduction in loss rate was very disheartening. It caused me to increase deficit by stopping using any exercise calories. Which, in hindsight was a horrible idea. My previous desire to improve my pace slipped a lot. I quit looking for excuses to increase my step count. I was obsessing and stressing over it. While staying in my calories, I was not making nearly as nutritious choice in food. NEAT tanked, drive tanked and loss rate tanked.
Thank goodness when I reached out here I got good advice and articles. In the end, a diet break to help reset me mentally (and maybe some positive hormonal resets) coupled with a reduced deficit coming out of the break has losses exceeding deficit. NEAT is up, workouts are back to energetic and any potential cortisol related water retention has corrected itself. In *my case eating more was the solution. But that sentence is as unhelpful as the reverse was above.
Compassion, curiosity and tailoring advice to the specific poster can go a long way to actually being helpful to a poster, and lurkers.
I'm not sure what you're arguing against here.
At this point, this is a discussion about how the process works, not about a poster stalled and reaching out for solutions.
If I go into a thread with someone reaching out for solutions, I have a different approach. When I'm in a thread with people saying that science doesn't apply to them, I call them out on their fallacy. They don't need compassion, they need fact checking.
What "fallacy"? You would rather someone who is stalling at 1100 or 1200 dip down to 800-900? It would be better to refeed, get strengthened, heal, and then lose at a more sensible deficit.
Why are you putting words in my mouth?
The fallacy is that CICO doesn't work.
You don't understand refeeding. Full stop.
In all of the cases of the people on the drastically low deficits who needed to lose (BTW, most of them were bikini competitors and body builders making weight for a show) who eventually used refeeding, do you know what came to light? I found this out on Facebook through Brad Schoenfeld and Alan Aragon. Guess what the dirty little secret is why the scale never moved?
They were all binging and not logging. Sneaking bites of food and not logging them too.
Refeeding? You know what happened with those bikini competitors? They gave them back some of the calories they were eating anyway and the competitors just started working out harder and compensated for the extra calories.
Saying that...
So, when I go into a thread with someone who is stalled in 1200 calories, what I do is ask for their stats, and examine their logging, their activity levels and assess whether they really need to eat 1200. Some short older sedentary women do.
Most people don't.
I usually suggest people up their NEAT and their calories. Sometimes, depending on the length of eating at deficit, I suggest a diet break.
I don't just blithely suggest they up their calories and act like it's some kind of magical solution.
I also don't suggest they try to build muscle because that's near impossible in a deficit and building enough to make a metabolic difference in a deficit? That's a laughable concept.
I'm talking about adding 50 calories a day and slowly adding calories over time-- not binging. I've never been a Binger because I hate feeling full. Please stop assuming.
Perhaps the word "refeed" triggered something within you? I edited the word out of my post because I did not mean it in the body building sense of the word.
You can't generalize nor can I. But for those who are stuck at 1200 calories and are not losing, there is hope!
Adding 50 calories a day is not what a refeed is. Adding 50 calories a week or every other week is reverse dieting.
It's also used in conjunction with slowly increasing activity levels and carefully monitoring weight.
It's helpful to know what you're talking about and to be specific when you're using terms if you're going to use them.
And no, you did not "trigger" me.
You do keep making posts about upping calories with very little context. I have never seen you mention specifics until now. Never.
Editing to add that if you want to know what a refeed is, it's usually a carefully controlled day of eating at or slightly above maintenance in a specific macro balance (usually carb heavy) and used by body builders. In casual use, it's just a maintenance eating day.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Hello OP! It sounds like we've been having similar issues.
I lost 70 pounds over 9 months almost 2 years ago and then over the course of a year I gained most of that back when I fell into a period of major depression. But a little over a month ago I decided to start losing weight again.
The first 2 weeks I lost about 10 pounds. The next week I lost about 2 more. It was about this time that I started really counting calories and exercising 5 times a week. Before then I had just been eating healthier(I was probably eating around 1700 or so a day) and exercising 3 times a week.
So 2 weeks ago I began counting calories (I have a food scale and I am great about measuring) and eating around 1400 calories a day. I also upped my workouts to 5 times a week,burning between 500 to 600 calories per workout. Now according to CICO I should have been losing a good amount the past 2 weeks yes?
But I haven't lost a single pound, not for 2 weeks. Someone who weighs as much as I do (260) shouldn't be hitting a plateau so early on. I even bought a new scale because I was convinced my scale was broken. I have been flabbergasted trying to figure it out.
I've been searching around on here and on other open forums out there and it seems like this is actually a common problem. Now I'm not an expert and I don't know exactkt why this happens. But it seems like if you work out too much and also diet extensively, it is possible to not lose any weight.
But now that I think about it, when I lost 70 pounds over 9 months almost 2 years ago, I started out only exercising once or twice a week and very gradually increased to 5 times a week exercising and I never experienced this issue then. I'm going to try something similar to what the OP did and I'm going to increase my calories to 1500 and decrease my workouts to 3 times a week for a while. And I'm confident that will restart my weight loss.
Yes I know it makes no sense, but I'm sure some one smarter than me and all the smart *kitten* on this thread could probably explain this phenomenon. There's more to weight loss than CICO.
(Edit: I should also mention that I have not been eating back my exercise calories, truly just eating 1400 a day)
If you've read as much as you've said you've read, then you wouldn't be resorting to name calling.
You'd also realize CICO encompasses what you're experiencing.
Everyone who claims that CICO doesn't work doesn't understand what CICO means.
I don't think they're claiming it doesn't work, rather other things can also impact weight loss other than how much you eat and how much you move. You're almost insulting the complexity of your body if you think it works like a standard calculator 24/7 365 days a year. If think about it, when reading food labels it doesn't actually tell you at which rate the food is being burnt, which foods are more efficient in which bodies nor does it account for every individuals genetic make up and health level, so on and so forth. That being said generally it works until accurate calculated potential results are not met. Then you question things and start picking it apart. I have my own personal approach to CICO but yes generally it does work.
That's just it. CICO is NOT just saying calories in, calories out. It encompasses all of those factors people keep saying it doesn't account for.
The acronym, itself, says that, but scientists, when they discuss CICO do indeed factor those things in and acknowledge them.
All of those things you mentioned fall under either calories in or calories out.
Thing is, especially when you don't read extensively here AND follow the many links, being told CICO never fails and eating more is never the answer isn't helpful. Both may be true, but they don't help either.
Too large of a deficit can, in a sense, activate a body's self-protection *to a degree* and reduce CO. Even when the individual doesn't see it happening. I guarantee my months long 1000 deficit caused that for me. Was it a metabolic slow down? Potentially partially. Was it a reduction in NEAT? Almost certainly. In the midst of it I couldn't see it. But knowing my logging was as on point as possible, to see a marked reduction in loss rate was very disheartening. It caused me to increase deficit by stopping using any exercise calories. Which, in hindsight was a horrible idea. My previous desire to improve my pace slipped a lot. I quit looking for excuses to increase my step count. I was obsessing and stressing over it. While staying in my calories, I was not making nearly as nutritious choice in food. NEAT tanked, drive tanked and loss rate tanked.
Thank goodness when I reached out here I got good advice and articles. In the end, a diet break to help reset me mentally (and maybe some positive hormonal resets) coupled with a reduced deficit coming out of the break has losses exceeding deficit. NEAT is up, workouts are back to energetic and any potential cortisol related water retention has corrected itself. In *my case eating more was the solution. But that sentence is as unhelpful as the reverse was above.
Compassion, curiosity and tailoring advice to the specific poster can go a long way to actually being helpful to a poster, and lurkers.
I'm not sure what you're arguing against here.
At this point, this is a discussion about how the process works, not about a poster stalled and reaching out for solutions.
If I go into a thread with someone reaching out for solutions, I have a different approach. When I'm in a thread with people saying that science doesn't apply to them, I call them out on their fallacy. They don't need compassion, they need fact checking.
What "fallacy"? You would rather someone who is stalling at 1100 or 1200 dip down to 800-900? It would be better to refeed, get strengthened, heal, and then lose at a more sensible deficit.
...In all of the cases of the people on the drastically low deficits who needed to lose (BTW, most of them were bikini competitors and body builders making weight for a show) who eventually used refeeding, do you know what came to light? I found this out on Facebook through Brad Schoenfeld and Alan Aragon. Guess what the dirty little secret is why the scale never moved?
They were all binging and not logging. Sneaking bites of food and not logging them too.
Refeeding? You know what happened with those bikini competitors? They gave them back some of the calories they were eating anyway and the competitors just started working out harder and compensated for the extra calories.
...
Yes, I bet this is very common - people under-eating most of the time but not logging binges/cheat days/meals. When they up their calories they are in fact eating less than before, as well as no longer having the stress of an overly aggressive calorie deficit - stress increases cortisol which leads to water retention.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/dietary-restraint-and-cortisol-levels-research-review.html/
...a group of women who scored higher on dietary restraint scores showed elevated baseline cortisol levels. By itself this might not be problematic, but as often as not, these types of dieters are drawn to extreme approaches to dieting.
They throw in a lot of intense exercise, try to cut calories very hard (and this often backfires if disinhibition is high; when these folks break they break) and cortisol levels go through the roof. That often causes cortisol mediated water retention (there are other mechanisms for this, mind you, leptin actually inhibits cortisol release and as it drops on a diet, cortisol levels go up further). Weight and fat loss appear to have stopped or at least slowed significantly. This is compounded even further in female dieters due to the vagaries of their menstrual cycle where water balance is changing enormously week to week anyhow.
And invariably, this type of psychology responds to the stall by going even harder. They attempt to cut calories harder, they start doing more activity. The cycle continues and gets worse. Harder dieting means more cortisol means more water retention means more dieting. Which backfires (other problems come in the long-term with this approach but you’ll have to wait for the book to read about that).
When what they should do is take a day or two off (even one day off from training, at least in men, lets cortisol drop significantly). Raise calories, especially from carbohydrates. This helps cortisol to drop. More than that they need to find a way to freaking chill out. Meditation, yoga, get a massage... Get in the bath, candles, a little Enya, a glass of wine, have some you-time but please just chill.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Hello OP! It sounds like we've been having similar issues.
I lost 70 pounds over 9 months almost 2 years ago and then over the course of a year I gained most of that back when I fell into a period of major depression. But a little over a month ago I decided to start losing weight again.
The first 2 weeks I lost about 10 pounds. The next week I lost about 2 more. It was about this time that I started really counting calories and exercising 5 times a week. Before then I had just been eating healthier(I was probably eating around 1700 or so a day) and exercising 3 times a week.
So 2 weeks ago I began counting calories (I have a food scale and I am great about measuring) and eating around 1400 calories a day. I also upped my workouts to 5 times a week,burning between 500 to 600 calories per workout. Now according to CICO I should have been losing a good amount the past 2 weeks yes?
But I haven't lost a single pound, not for 2 weeks. Someone who weighs as much as I do (260) shouldn't be hitting a plateau so early on. I even bought a new scale because I was convinced my scale was broken. I have been flabbergasted trying to figure it out.
I've been searching around on here and on other open forums out there and it seems like this is actually a common problem. Now I'm not an expert and I don't know exactkt why this happens. But it seems like if you work out too much and also diet extensively, it is possible to not lose any weight.
But now that I think about it, when I lost 70 pounds over 9 months almost 2 years ago, I started out only exercising once or twice a week and very gradually increased to 5 times a week exercising and I never experienced this issue then. I'm going to try something similar to what the OP did and I'm going to increase my calories to 1500 and decrease my workouts to 3 times a week for a while. And I'm confident that will restart my weight loss.
Yes I know it makes no sense, but I'm sure some one smarter than me and all the smart *kitten* on this thread could probably explain this phenomenon. There's more to weight loss than CICO.
(Edit: I should also mention that I have not been eating back my exercise calories, truly just eating 1400 a day)
If you've read as much as you've said you've read, then you wouldn't be resorting to name calling.
You'd also realize CICO encompasses what you're experiencing.
Everyone who claims that CICO doesn't work doesn't understand what CICO means.
I don't think they're claiming it doesn't work, rather other things can also impact weight loss other than how much you eat and how much you move. You're almost insulting the complexity of your body if you think it works like a standard calculator 24/7 365 days a year. If think about it, when reading food labels it doesn't actually tell you at which rate the food is being burnt, which foods are more efficient in which bodies nor does it account for every individuals genetic make up and health level, so on and so forth. That being said generally it works until accurate calculated potential results are not met. Then you question things and start picking it apart. I have my own personal approach to CICO but yes generally it does work.
That's just it. CICO is NOT just saying calories in, calories out. It encompasses all of those factors people keep saying it doesn't account for.
The acronym, itself, says that, but scientists, when they discuss CICO do indeed factor those things in and acknowledge them.
All of those things you mentioned fall under either calories in or calories out.
Thing is, especially when you don't read extensively here AND follow the many links, being told CICO never fails and eating more is never the answer isn't helpful. Both may be true, but they don't help either.
Too large of a deficit can, in a sense, activate a body's self-protection *to a degree* and reduce CO. Even when the individual doesn't see it happening. I guarantee my months long 1000 deficit caused that for me. Was it a metabolic slow down? Potentially partially. Was it a reduction in NEAT? Almost certainly. In the midst of it I couldn't see it. But knowing my logging was as on point as possible, to see a marked reduction in loss rate was very disheartening. It caused me to increase deficit by stopping using any exercise calories. Which, in hindsight was a horrible idea. My previous desire to improve my pace slipped a lot. I quit looking for excuses to increase my step count. I was obsessing and stressing over it. While staying in my calories, I was not making nearly as nutritious choice in food. NEAT tanked, drive tanked and loss rate tanked.
Thank goodness when I reached out here I got good advice and articles. In the end, a diet break to help reset me mentally (and maybe some positive hormonal resets) coupled with a reduced deficit coming out of the break has losses exceeding deficit. NEAT is up, workouts are back to energetic and any potential cortisol related water retention has corrected itself. In *my case eating more was the solution. But that sentence is as unhelpful as the reverse was above.
Compassion, curiosity and tailoring advice to the specific poster can go a long way to actually being helpful to a poster, and lurkers.
I'm not sure what you're arguing against here.
At this point, this is a discussion about how the process works, not about a poster stalled and reaching out for solutions.
If I go into a thread with someone reaching out for solutions, I have a different approach. When I'm in a thread with people saying that science doesn't apply to them, I call them out on their fallacy. They don't need compassion, they need fact checking.
What "fallacy"? You would rather someone who is stalling at 1100 or 1200 dip down to 800-900? It would be better to refeed, get strengthened, heal, and then lose at a more sensible deficit.
Why are you putting words in my mouth?
The fallacy is that CICO doesn't work.
You don't understand refeeding. Full stop.
In all of the cases of the people on the drastically low deficits who needed to lose (BTW, most of them were bikini competitors and body builders making weight for a show) who eventually used refeeding, do you know what came to light? I found this out on Facebook through Brad Schoenfeld and Alan Aragon. Guess what the dirty little secret is why the scale never moved?
They were all binging and not logging. Sneaking bites of food and not logging them too.
Refeeding? You know what happened with those bikini competitors? They gave them back some of the calories they were eating anyway and the competitors just started working out harder and compensated for the extra calories.
Saying that...
So, when I go into a thread with someone who is stalled in 1200 calories, what I do is ask for their stats, and examine their logging, their activity levels and assess whether they really need to eat 1200. Some short older sedentary women do.
Most people don't.
I usually suggest people up their NEAT and their calories. Sometimes, depending on the length of eating at deficit, I suggest a diet break.
I don't just blithely suggest they up their calories and act like it's some kind of magical solution.
I also don't suggest they try to build muscle because that's near impossible in a deficit and building enough to make a metabolic difference in a deficit? That's a laughable concept.
I'm talking about adding 50 calories a day and slowly adding calories over time-- not binging. I've never been a Binger because I hate feeling full. Please stop assuming.
Perhaps the word "refeed" triggered something within you? I edited the word out of my post because I did not mean it in the body building sense of the word.
You can't generalize nor can I. But for those who are stuck at 1200 calories and are not losing, there is hope!
Adding 50 calories a day is not what a refeed is. Adding 50 calories a week or every other week is reverse dieting.
It's also used in conjunction with slowly increasing activity levels and carefully monitoring weight.
It's helpful to know what you're talking about and to be specific when you're using terms if you're going to use them.
And no, you did not "trigger" me.
You do keep making posts about upping calories with very little context. I have never seen you mention specifics until now. Never.
Editing to add that if you want to know what a refeed is, it's usually a carefully controlled day of eating at or slightly above maintenance in a specific macro balance (usually carb heavy) and used by body builders. In casual use, it's just a maintenance eating day.
Thanks. I usually do say "reverse dieting" and did not mean refeed. I corrected my post.0 -
Right, she just said "tracking calories", which could mean using measuring cups and spoons or eyeballing.
Also, there are many items in the database that are incorrect.2 -
kshama2001 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Hello OP! It sounds like we've been having similar issues.
I lost 70 pounds over 9 months almost 2 years ago and then over the course of a year I gained most of that back when I fell into a period of major depression. But a little over a month ago I decided to start losing weight again.
The first 2 weeks I lost about 10 pounds. The next week I lost about 2 more. It was about this time that I started really counting calories and exercising 5 times a week. Before then I had just been eating healthier(I was probably eating around 1700 or so a day) and exercising 3 times a week.
So 2 weeks ago I began counting calories (I have a food scale and I am great about measuring) and eating around 1400 calories a day. I also upped my workouts to 5 times a week,burning between 500 to 600 calories per workout. Now according to CICO I should have been losing a good amount the past 2 weeks yes?
But I haven't lost a single pound, not for 2 weeks. Someone who weighs as much as I do (260) shouldn't be hitting a plateau so early on. I even bought a new scale because I was convinced my scale was broken. I have been flabbergasted trying to figure it out.
I've been searching around on here and on other open forums out there and it seems like this is actually a common problem. Now I'm not an expert and I don't know exactkt why this happens. But it seems like if you work out too much and also diet extensively, it is possible to not lose any weight.
But now that I think about it, when I lost 70 pounds over 9 months almost 2 years ago, I started out only exercising once or twice a week and very gradually increased to 5 times a week exercising and I never experienced this issue then. I'm going to try something similar to what the OP did and I'm going to increase my calories to 1500 and decrease my workouts to 3 times a week for a while. And I'm confident that will restart my weight loss.
Yes I know it makes no sense, but I'm sure some one smarter than me and all the smart *kitten* on this thread could probably explain this phenomenon. There's more to weight loss than CICO.
(Edit: I should also mention that I have not been eating back my exercise calories, truly just eating 1400 a day)
If you've read as much as you've said you've read, then you wouldn't be resorting to name calling.
You'd also realize CICO encompasses what you're experiencing.
Everyone who claims that CICO doesn't work doesn't understand what CICO means.
I don't think they're claiming it doesn't work, rather other things can also impact weight loss other than how much you eat and how much you move. You're almost insulting the complexity of your body if you think it works like a standard calculator 24/7 365 days a year. If think about it, when reading food labels it doesn't actually tell you at which rate the food is being burnt, which foods are more efficient in which bodies nor does it account for every individuals genetic make up and health level, so on and so forth. That being said generally it works until accurate calculated potential results are not met. Then you question things and start picking it apart. I have my own personal approach to CICO but yes generally it does work.
That's just it. CICO is NOT just saying calories in, calories out. It encompasses all of those factors people keep saying it doesn't account for.
The acronym, itself, says that, but scientists, when they discuss CICO do indeed factor those things in and acknowledge them.
All of those things you mentioned fall under either calories in or calories out.
Thing is, especially when you don't read extensively here AND follow the many links, being told CICO never fails and eating more is never the answer isn't helpful. Both may be true, but they don't help either.
Too large of a deficit can, in a sense, activate a body's self-protection *to a degree* and reduce CO. Even when the individual doesn't see it happening. I guarantee my months long 1000 deficit caused that for me. Was it a metabolic slow down? Potentially partially. Was it a reduction in NEAT? Almost certainly. In the midst of it I couldn't see it. But knowing my logging was as on point as possible, to see a marked reduction in loss rate was very disheartening. It caused me to increase deficit by stopping using any exercise calories. Which, in hindsight was a horrible idea. My previous desire to improve my pace slipped a lot. I quit looking for excuses to increase my step count. I was obsessing and stressing over it. While staying in my calories, I was not making nearly as nutritious choice in food. NEAT tanked, drive tanked and loss rate tanked.
Thank goodness when I reached out here I got good advice and articles. In the end, a diet break to help reset me mentally (and maybe some positive hormonal resets) coupled with a reduced deficit coming out of the break has losses exceeding deficit. NEAT is up, workouts are back to energetic and any potential cortisol related water retention has corrected itself. In *my case eating more was the solution. But that sentence is as unhelpful as the reverse was above.
Compassion, curiosity and tailoring advice to the specific poster can go a long way to actually being helpful to a poster, and lurkers.
I'm not sure what you're arguing against here.
At this point, this is a discussion about how the process works, not about a poster stalled and reaching out for solutions.
If I go into a thread with someone reaching out for solutions, I have a different approach. When I'm in a thread with people saying that science doesn't apply to them, I call them out on their fallacy. They don't need compassion, they need fact checking.
What "fallacy"? You would rather someone who is stalling at 1100 or 1200 dip down to 800-900? It would be better to refeed, get strengthened, heal, and then lose at a more sensible deficit.
...In all of the cases of the people on the drastically low deficits who needed to lose (BTW, most of them were bikini competitors and body builders making weight for a show) who eventually used refeeding, do you know what came to light? I found this out on Facebook through Brad Schoenfeld and Alan Aragon. Guess what the dirty little secret is why the scale never moved?
They were all binging and not logging. Sneaking bites of food and not logging them too.
Refeeding? You know what happened with those bikini competitors? They gave them back some of the calories they were eating anyway and the competitors just started working out harder and compensated for the extra calories.
...
Yes, I bet this is very common - people under-eating most of the time but not logging binges/cheat days/meals. When they up their calories they are in fact eating less than before, as well as no longer having the stress of an overly aggressive calorie deficit - stress increases cortisol which leads to water retention.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/dietary-restraint-and-cortisol-levels-research-review.html/
...a group of women who scored higher on dietary restraint scores showed elevated baseline cortisol levels. By itself this might not be problematic, but as often as not, these types of dieters are drawn to extreme approaches to dieting.
They throw in a lot of intense exercise, try to cut calories very hard (and this often backfires if disinhibition is high; when these folks break they break) and cortisol levels go through the roof. That often causes cortisol mediated water retention (there are other mechanisms for this, mind you, leptin actually inhibits cortisol release and as it drops on a diet, cortisol levels go up further). Weight and fat loss appear to have stopped or at least slowed significantly. This is compounded even further in female dieters due to the vagaries of their menstrual cycle where water balance is changing enormously week to week anyhow.
And invariably, this type of psychology responds to the stall by going even harder. They attempt to cut calories harder, they start doing more activity. The cycle continues and gets worse. Harder dieting means more cortisol means more water retention means more dieting. Which backfires (other problems come in the long-term with this approach but you’ll have to wait for the book to read about that).
When what they should do is take a day or two off (even one day off from training, at least in men, lets cortisol drop significantly). Raise calories, especially from carbohydrates. This helps cortisol to drop. More than that they need to find a way to freaking chill out. Meditation, yoga, get a massage... Get in the bath, candles, a little Enya, a glass of wine, have some you-time but please just chill.
Bingo. That's also Lyle describing a sort of refeed. And this piece is talking a lot about physique competitors, body builders, and bikini competitors. Because those are the types who they can study easily.
Most of what they know about this kind of stuff is known from these groups of people.
3 -
kshama2001 wrote: »
Right, she just said "tracking calories", which could mean using measuring cups and spoons or eyeballing.
Also, there are many items in the database that are incorrect.
You are right, internet food databases in general are notoriously underestimated and it pays off to do our own research for correct calorie counts.2 -
People need to watch the show "Secret Eaters." People very often think they're eating less than they are. My doubts here are based around the improbability of someone reaching 200 pounds eating only 1100 calories a day.6
-
My goodness...really I had no clue posting a "thank you" would result in all of this. I am like many people I think in that I am learning as I go and don't know many of the in depth things talked about in this thread. I don't doubt everyone contributing is right about what they are saying, even if it may come across arrogant or insensitive at times (that's just personal communication style I think). I was hurt by some some of the assertions that I was incompetent, calculated in spreading myths, and dishonest with myself and others. Hurt because none of those things are true...for real!
So here is my 'attempt' to calm the waters a bit....maybe? Increasing my calories to 1600 did not include changing what I was eating beyond paying more attention to the vitamin and mineral calculations in my log (yes I log and no, I won't share because I don't trust anyone after all this nonsense ha!). I don't buy "diet" food, just stick with whole grains and high fiber, lean proteins, plenty of vegetables and some fruit (mostly things like a kiwi fruit for vitamin c or banana for potassium...still learning about what whole foods give what nutrients). So clearly I don't know enough to have an agenda lol! Like I said before, calories in is calculated the same with 1600 as with 1100 so any errors would have carried over if I was somehow deceiving myself. The foods have not changed, just increased a bit (perhaps why getting to the 1600 goal sometimes is such a challenge?).
Probably CICO is still at play (I am not denying that!) in that the extra nutrients increased my CO because I haven't had the extreme fatigue and difficulty concentrating from nutrient deficiencies, which probably also reduced my cortisol and water retention as I have noticed doing more non-workout activity during my day (I feel like running up my stairs at home whereas before I would slowly make the long trek up ha!). So I think everyone who has contributed is mostly right (except the nonsense about me being a 'secret eater'...good lord! Again this would have carried over to the new calorie goal and I already shared that there were many medical experiences that led to the weight gain, obviously 1100 calories didn't get me here years ago!) but the messages got lost in the perhaps unintentional personal tones used regarding disbelief and such.
I think if people want to have a nuanced discussion about CICO and metabolism, they should start their own thread that isn't attached to a poster simply sharing an experience resulting in gratitude and overall feelings of hope and even dignity. Because my change did result in gratitude, hope, and a renewed sense of dignity that I can feel good about progress after taking care to listen to my body.
At some point I will have to reassess what my calories look like as I expect future plateaus along my journey. I just happen to be in a good place for where my body is at now with the current caloric intake combined with current workout regimen (I know that too will eventually need to be switched up as my metabolism adapts to what I demand through workouts).
So please be kind to one another and maybe extend the benefit of doubt to others. When hearing something that contradicts what you 'know' to be true, use critical thinking to explore how something could be true assuming what someone shares is also true. Things are often not as simple as an either/or dichotomy, especially in human physiology where complex dynamics may be at play to challenge such dichotomies. Because when we do this we have the opportunity to deepen our knowledge for why we know what we know, which is much more rewarding than dismissing others and leaving our assumptions unexamined. The point is to grow in our knowledge after all, right? Also, it might make people like me less inclined to isolate from a community that could help us.
I am typically a very private person who doesn't reach out for help with such a personal journey, so while I may benefit from not having to defend my integrity, I miss out because I am alone so am limited by what others post, who are brave enough to ask for help. Seriously, my husband knows about my lifestyle changes but I haven't talked about my efforts with any of my friends or colleagues! And I also tend to be overly wordy (clearly!) when I do participate due to less experience sharing my thoughts! So please be kind to one another and 'argue' with fairness of personal assumptions and tone in mind. This will help people like me feel more inclined to reach out for help when we need it!
Love to you all (even those with snark...I can be snarky too sometimes lol!)7 -
So I don't know about other people, but for me specifically, what caused me forgetfulness, "brain fog", and cognitive problems so bad that my doc did a CT scan of my brain was...not enough fat. I went too low on fat, and after a few weeks, I became depressed, couldn't think worth a darn, like static in my brain. Went on for like a month. Upped my fat intake, within 48hrs, bam, 100% better. Your body needs minimum 30g fat a day for brain health, it turns out.4
-
I stopped here " 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".
you maintained while undereating because you were immobile. You lost because you became active again. Ta-da!
I'm very happy for you, but discounting cico is not necessary, nobody but nobody would recommend that you eat less than 1100, that is absolutely too little for most of the population and 1600 is a more reasonable amount.5 -
To make one thing perfectly clear. Adaptive Thermogenesis/Metabolic adaptation/starvation mode or whatever you want to call it, will not make anyone maintain at 1200, then lose pounds at 1600, that's a TDEE difference of almost 1000 calories.5
-
stevencloser wrote: »To make one thing perfectly clear. Adaptive Thermogenesis/Metabolic adaptation/starvation mode or whatever you want to call it, will not make anyone maintain at 1200, then lose pounds at 1600, that's a TDEE difference of almost 1000 calories.
Yes it will. But hold on, I'm not going to be derpy!
It will make them binge, take bites they don't log, and all sorts of things where they're basically not eating 1200 calories but then swear up and down they're eating 1200 calories.
It will also possibly make them over restrict after the binging which will really make them slow down. So that for their low calorie periods, their TDEE is down, down, down.
But none of this gets reported. Because you think that the binges "aren't that much". And the little bites are "just a teeny bit" that "doesn't make a difference" because "I exercised all this off anyway". After all, everything is just an estimate, it will out come out in the end with rounding, amirite?
People who have had weight problems are masters at fooling themselves about their own behaviors. It's all too easy to carry this tendency for fooling yourself over into weight loss.
8 -
I would tell anyone not to increase calories quickly or binge. Definitely research reverse dieting to reboot metabolism if you have gotten stuck stalling at low calories for a long time.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/content/the-ultimate-guide-to-reverse-dieting.html2 -
I'm someone who experienced something similar to what @GottaBurnEmAll posted. After I'd lost the "easy weight" I had real trouble sticking to 1200 calories a day and I found myself doing things like refusing to accurately measure many things (because I didn't want to find out I was underestimating), choosing the lowest calorie version in the database and STILL skipping logging (ie overeating) every 4th day or so because I was SO HUNGRY. For me, the real success began when I lowered my target to 0.5lb a week and all my little head games stopped.2
-
goldthistime wrote: »I'm someone who experienced something similar to what @GottaBurnEmAll posted. After I'd lost the "easy weight" I had real trouble sticking to 1200 calories a day and I found myself doing things like refusing to accurately measure many things (because I didn't want to find out I was underestimating), choosing the lowest calorie version in the database and STILL skipping logging (ie overeating) every 4th day or so because I was SO HUNGRY. For me, the real success began when I lowered my target to 0.5lb a week and all my little head games stopped.
I have a problem similar to this except I can't pull it together for a 250 calorie daily deficit either.0 -
arditarose wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »I'm someone who experienced something similar to what @GottaBurnEmAll posted. After I'd lost the "easy weight" I had real trouble sticking to 1200 calories a day and I found myself doing things like refusing to accurately measure many things (because I didn't want to find out I was underestimating), choosing the lowest calorie version in the database and STILL skipping logging (ie overeating) every 4th day or so because I was SO HUNGRY. For me, the real success began when I lowered my target to 0.5lb a week and all my little head games stopped.
I have a problem similar to this except I can't pull it together for a 250 calorie daily deficit either.
Definitely the lower bf% you go the tougher it is.
0 -
arditarose wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »I'm someone who experienced something similar to what @GottaBurnEmAll posted. After I'd lost the "easy weight" I had real trouble sticking to 1200 calories a day and I found myself doing things like refusing to accurately measure many things (because I didn't want to find out I was underestimating), choosing the lowest calorie version in the database and STILL skipping logging (ie overeating) every 4th day or so because I was SO HUNGRY. For me, the real success began when I lowered my target to 0.5lb a week and all my little head games stopped.
I have a problem similar to this except I can't pull it together for a 250 calorie daily deficit either.
You know what I did? I set it for a 500 deficit so I have something to shoot for but don't care so long as I stay under maintenance...I lost one whole pound last month lol but one pound while living comfortably is better than either alternative.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions