Under 1200 calories and started gaining weight

WinoGelato

fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

I'm 5'2 and not a marathon runner and I maintain at 2200. There's just no way that you are maintaining weight with a net calorie intake in the mid hundreds.

That's outrageous. I mean, seriously, I would be at 200 pounds in no time. I guess that's evidence of how differently our bodies work.

It's actually not outrageous. That is what we keep trying to explain. Most people have a high enough TDEE that they can maintain, or even lose, eating more than 1200, some more than 1500, and a few even more than 1800 calories. There is a whole thread with thousands of posts from women who aim for calorie goals above 1800 in order to lose or maintain weight. And the thing is, that your TDEE isn't just something that you are stuck with. I actually eat more now than I did before I lost 35 lbs, because I've worked to increase my activity level, and I ate to fuel that activity.

You've done the opposite. You've convinced yourself that you are an outlier, and that you have to eat low calories just to maintain. But what you've described about your habits, your intake, and your activity suggests that you created this scenario for yourself, it didn't just happen to you. If you really wanted to adjust your TDEE and move that calorie target up, there are ways that you could do that, over time - and many of them have been suggested to you in other threads. But like so many, you wear this low calorie number as a badge of honor, constantly defending it in threads like these when people are suggesting to the OP that she shouldn't in fact, try to eat less than she already is. That she needs to be patient, and accurate, and active, and reasonable with her expectations. And that by doing all of those things, she can probably achieve her weight loss goals while eating MORE than 1200 calories, not less. And that besides getting to enjoy more food, and providing herself a goal that will enable her to achieve nutritional goals too, she will fuel her activity and continue to become stronger while losing, rather than constantly sacrificing to stay under a meager calorie target in order to see results.

Again, I will quote a wise rabbit... "the winner is the one who eats the most and still achieves their goals".

cerise_noir

ugofatcat wrote: »

Also, to all the people saying that the doctor has no nutrition training, are any of you qualified to speak on behalf of the medical association? How do you know doctors don't receive nutrition training, have you gone through medical school?

My Doctor openly admitted to knowing jack about nutrition, and confirmed that Doctors get very minimal nutrition training.

ndj1979

BootCampC wrote: »

I believe tracking macros matter more than the calorie itself.. since I changed to 35% protein 25% carbs and 40% fat , I am seeing results in the mirror and on the scale

Nope

ceiswyn

Gaining weight over a short term period might be absolutely nothing to do with your diet. My weight loss 'stalls' regularly every month because I naturally gain and lose about half a stone in water weight over the course of my menstrual cycle.

xmichaelyx

ChristyRunStarr wrote: »

EAT MORE. your body is thinking it's not going to get enough food (because it's NOT).

People still believe that "starvation mode" is a thing? Don't be ridiculous. "Eat more to lose weight" is terrible, unscientific, harmful, and WRONG advice.

Yes, a handful of people will say, "But that's how I lost weight!" Those people are liars unsophisticated and -- intentionally or unintentionally -- disingenuous.

*Edited to avoid hurting the feelings of people are being untruthful.

LessCookiess

I think you've allowed your body to get used to under-eating so much that it's hurting you Op. your metabolism might have slowed down im not sure, but I've read research discussing how contestants on the biggest loser ended up getting a slower metabolism.

Annie_01

xmichaelyx wrote: »

ChristyRunStarr wrote: »

EAT MORE. your body is thinking it's not going to get enough food (because it's NOT).

People still believe that "starvation mode" is a thing? Don't be ridiculous. "Eat more to lose weight" is terrible, unscientific, harmful, and WRONG advice.

Yes, a handful of people will say, "But that's how I lost weight!" Those people are liars unsophisticated and -- intentionally or unintentionally -- disingenuous.

*Edited to avoid hurting the feelings of people are being untruthful.

Possibly...when people say they eat more to lose more what they are actually doing is eating more to fuel a more active lifestyle. The more active someone is the easier it is to eat more.

I am not sure how "unsophisticated" fits in but I think most people are not trying to be disingenuous...I think that probably they found that they could eat more and still lose weight.

I guess an example would be...someone eats only 1200 calories...they might not have the energy to do much exercise. Then they up their calories to 1500 and are more energetic...exercise...lift...run...etc...etc...and they end up losing more weight due to the increase in activity. Thus...at least IMO...is where the "Eat More To Lose More" comes in to play...maybe.

PAV8888

xmichaelyx wrote: »

"Eat more to lose weight" is terrible, unscientific, harmful, and WRONG advice.

Yes, a handful of people will say, "But that's how I lost weight!" Those people are liars unsophisticated and -- intentionally or unintentionally -- disingenuous.

*Edited to avoid hurting the feelings of people are being untruthful.

Actually I think you're the one being unsophisticated in this.

You are neglecting to consider that neither NEAT nor TDEE are static.

In the case of people who have been chronically or drastically under-eating, eating more than an extremely small and restrictive amount that has not been providing sufficient nutrition CAN (obviously as has been seen many times) provide them with sufficient nutritional resources to subsequently generate higher NEAT and higher TDEE values.

The net result of playing in a bigger TDEE pool is that previously paper deficits (that did non exist in reality due to lowered NEAT/TDEE values) now start once more to exist in reality... and weight loss follows.

ugofatcat

PAV8888 wrote: »

xmichaelyx wrote: »

"Eat more to lose weight" is terrible, unscientific, harmful, and WRONG advice.

Yes, a handful of people will say, "But that's how I lost weight!" Those people are liars unsophisticated and -- intentionally or unintentionally -- disingenuous.

*Edited to avoid hurting the feelings of people are being untruthful.

Actually I think you're the one being unsophisticated in this.

You are neglecting to consider that neither NEAT nor TDEE are static.

In the case of people who have been chronically or drastically under-eating, eating more than an extremely small and restrictive amount that has not been providing sufficient nutrition CAN (obviously as has been seen many times) provide them with sufficient nutritional resources to subsequently generate higher NEAT and higher TDEE values.

The net result of playing in a bigger TDEE pool is that previously paper deficits (that did non exist in reality due to lowered NEAT/TDEE values) now start once more to exist in reality... and weight loss follows.

Can you cite this source please?