Not eating enough, lesson learned
Replies
-
I so wish this were true for me, The eat more to lose more didn't work for me :sad: The bigger the deficit, the more I lose.
OP if you are able to eat more and still lose, just do it
4 -
Well...if you eat so little that you end up spending all your time lying on the couch then eating more so you can improve the co part of the equation could be helpful. It could also be that if you give yourself more calories to work with you become significantly more compliant and stop eating subconsciously.
Still cico and no starvation mode.3 -
Things are not always so simple over time as many here would suggest. Adaptations over time are real. It is math but the math changes over time and upping calories or taking a break can have definite benefits. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/EvgeniZyntx?month=2013083
-
Is this why people with anorexia and are all skin and bones eat 1200 calories?
Oh wait, no they don't.
They often hardly eat at all and get thinner and thinner. Crazy.7 -
Tomk652015 wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »Seattleovercast wrote: »The same thing happened to me. I had my calories set high when I first started counting and the weight was dropping off. I was eating the same foods, and working out the same. When I dropped my calorie goal my weight slowed and then stopped all together. I was still eating the same healthy foods, exercising the same amount but the weight wouldn't come off. Once I bumped it back up to my initial calorie goal, the weight started coming off again!
something else at play here to cause that. the greater the calorie deficit you are under, the more you will lose. its just simple math. there are a lot of factors but math is math. caveat....you have to do the math correctly.
The human body is complex, it's not just math.
well what would it be then? the question is what makes your body lose weight? I pose that burning (by whatever means) more energy than you consume. example, your TDEE is 2500 cals, You consume 1500, your deficit is 1000. over time, your weight drops faster than if your TDEE is 2500 and you consume 2000 with a deficit of 500. See..math.
A lot of what's written on this forum assumes that 3500 == 1lb is a hard fact. Some quick google searches would tell you that this is not as settled, scientifically, as people want it to be. Yeah the numbers make things easier to implement but they aren't the sum total of how your body regulates your weight. If it's working for him, so be it. Show me your data/research before you shut him down.
So . . I'm going to need more information about this. Links/info, please? I depend heavily on calorie math, so very curious.1 -
jardane1, I've had the same experience as you. The majority of posters on MFP don't believe true life experience, but someday if it ever happens to them, they'll change their minds.6
-
I don't believe in starvation mode but there was a period of time where I was tracking my calories religiously and eating 1200 calories or less and then eating 1500 and then suddenly losing tons of weight. Our bodies are all different and sometimes require more calories for function.4
-
Don't look the gift horse in the mouth. And lucky you!
0 -
I don't see why everyone has to argue all the time on here. Just say "that's awesome keep up the good work and glad you're losing again" there that's alot better.
19 -
Math can be complex too but that doesn't make it less true.1
-
Well as a former anorexic my body never stalled its weight loss...my body never went into survival mode or any other mode...I just kept getting thinner and thinner...for years...so I guess my body follows the math equation and my reality is different then.9
-
I don't see why everyone has to argue all the time on here. Just say "that's awesome keep up the good work and glad you're losing again" there that's alot better.
Because that allows misinformation to perpetuate. These forums aren't just a conversation between OP and responders, they're a record which are found by people googling and looking for answers. If misinformation was just congratulated, more people would be gulled into thinking that they aren't losing weight so the solution is eat more.34 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »the fewer calories you eat, the more weight you will lose. Period.
No.
The larger your deficit, the more weight you will lose. That is not the same thing.
For many people, eating less leads them to move less and therefore burn fewer calories. For those people, eating enough to increase their activity level can actually increase their deficit and lead to increased weight loss (as long as the increase in calorie burn is greater than the increase in calorie intake).
You are correct that starvation mode does not exist; however, your follow-up statement was incorrect.
My statement could've been worded better but it seems like everyone has picked up on what I was suggesting - which is the same thing you are saying.
The original poster said *nothing* about starvation mode. He said he increased his food intake and that helped him lose weight. Another poster agreed that they'd had the same experience. *You* are the one who brought "starvation mode" into the conversation and basically told him that his experience was invalid.
I get that "starvation mode" is a hot button around here, but the "eating more is never ever the answer under any circumstances" crowd is also wrong. Finding the right balance between intake and burn is what matters.
Eh, just to jump in here eating more is never the answer to why a person isn't losing weight. If you aren't losing weight you are either a) eating more than you think or b) haven't given it enough time.
I see tons of posters on here all the time going on about how they eat 800 calories a day (exaggeration here but you get my point), exercise all the time, and weigh everything but still aren't losing weight. Yeah, and I'm Mary Poppins.
If you watch shows like The Biggest Loser you see morbidly obese people actually eating low cal diets and working out all the time. It's how they drop the weight so quickly. Also, disclaimer: I would not recommend anyone to do that.
I think what it really is, is people tend to be more inaccurate with their logging the fewer calories they think they are consuming. I also would bet you dollars to donuts they are going over their calories more often because it's hard to eat at *insert extremely low ridiculous number here* for an extended period of time.7 -
Tomk652015 wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »Seattleovercast wrote: »The same thing happened to me. I had my calories set high when I first started counting and the weight was dropping off. I was eating the same foods, and working out the same. When I dropped my calorie goal my weight slowed and then stopped all together. I was still eating the same healthy foods, exercising the same amount but the weight wouldn't come off. Once I bumped it back up to my initial calorie goal, the weight started coming off again!
something else at play here to cause that. the greater the calorie deficit you are under, the more you will lose. its just simple math. there are a lot of factors but math is math. caveat....you have to do the math correctly.
The human body is complex, it's not just math.
well what would it be then? the question is what makes your body lose weight? I pose that burning (by whatever means) more energy than you consume. example, your TDEE is 2500 cals, You consume 1500, your deficit is 1000. over time, your weight drops faster than if your TDEE is 2500 and you consume 2000 with a deficit of 500. See..math.
A lot of what's written on this forum assumes that 3500 == 1lb is a hard fact. Some quick google searches would tell you that this is not as settled, scientifically, as people want it to be. Yeah the numbers make things easier to implement but they aren't the sum total of how your body regulates your weight. If it's working for him, so be it. Show me your data/research before you shut him down.
i never said anything about 3500 cals is a pound. the crux of my statement solely revolves around the fact that when you burn more calories than you consume you lose weight. throw any number you want at it. that law doesn't change.
You need to do a lot more reading before you start talking about "laws". Truth is, like the rest of us, you're parroting what someone else has come up with; I doubt that any of us on this forum has any hard scientific data to prove your "law".
Maybe start by reading this. http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/energy-balance-myths/
So his first point is calorie intake doesn't correspond to weight loss because water weight is a thing. That's as intelligent as saying the same but substituting water weight for your choice of clothes on any given day.
Then he equates dxa scan lean mass with muscle which is wrong, and at this point I don't care enough anymore to keep reading.7 -
The issue is, as others have stated, this perpetuates false notions. The OP didn't say "Hey, I lost more weight by eating more because undereating caused me to be lethargic and eating more calories gave me more energy, therefore increasing my TDEE!" The OP clearly stated that their body felt like it was starving which implies the ever-so-popular starvation mode. While it's true that undereating may cause water retention, stress, loss of energy, etc. that can lead to temporary stalls, it doesn't mean raising your calories all of a sudden makes you lose more weight. That is weight you would have lost if you just waited it out.
People tend to want immediate gratification, so if they have an 1000 calorie deficit every day for a week, they will think they should weigh exactly two pounds less after the 7th day and it's not the case. If they don't lose, they'll claim they were in starvation mode, increase calories, and when that two pounds finally comes off, they attribute it to the higher calorie count instead of the fact that bodies are not instant input/output machines. If one is going to claim they lost more weight by eating more, without elaborating on the actual reasons as to why, it's misleading.20 -
Tomk652015 wrote: »Seattleovercast wrote: »The same thing happened to me. I had my calories set high when I first started counting and the weight was dropping off. I was eating the same foods, and working out the same. When I dropped my calorie goal my weight slowed and then stopped all together. I was still eating the same healthy foods, exercising the same amount but the weight wouldn't come off. Once I bumped it back up to my initial calorie goal, the weight started coming off again!
something else at play here to cause that. the greater the calorie deficit you are under, the more you will lose. its just simple math. there are a lot of factors but math is math. caveat....you have to do the math correctly.
The human body is complex, it's not just math.
Actually it is just math.
The math is complex because the body is complex, but math (and proven science) is always true regardless of our opinion of it.
Now we substitute the complex with simpler estimates and inaccurate (by their very nature) measurements. So although we sometimes think we are showing that the math doesn't work, that's not what we are actually showing. What we are showing in cases like yours is that our estimates don't always work either because they are inaccurate or our measurements are. But it ain't the math.4 -
Starvation mode is a myth - the fewer calories under your TDEE you eat, the more weight you will lose. Period.
There are a few things that might've prevented you from losing weight, and it's not "starvation mode":
- Inaccurate tracking (not using a food scale, not using reliable MFP database entries, forgetting to log)
- Water weight (from starting a new exercise routine, consuming a lot of salt, stress, etc.)
- Constipation
- Normal weight fluctuations (weight goes up and down due to all kinds of causes, so if you weigh yourself on the 'wrong' day you could think you're not losing)
- Unreliable bathroom scale
With that said - the goal of weight loss is creating sustainable habits, not crash dieting. Your body needs a certain amount of nutrients (based on your gender, weight, height, activity level) and if you don't get enough of those nutrients, you can have some nasty side effects, like losing your hair or passing out.
The goal of losing weight should always be slow and steady - eat enough calories to feel good (not ravenous all the time), and lose 0.5-2lbs a week (once again, depending on your gender, height, weight and activity level).
Starvation mode, as it is typically described on here, is a myth. However, if you eat at a deficit that is too high, you will probably experience milder-yet-still-unpleasant side effects (lethargy, irritability, feeling light-headed) before the really nasty ones. And when you're tired and grouchy and you just feel like crap, it's that much more difficult to maintain the same level of physical activity as you did before.
Additionally, if you feel that awful, it's likely to FEEL like you've been cutting calories for, like, a REALLY REALLY LONG TIME. Like... WEEKS. Sorry to have to say this, but "weeks" isn't a long time when it comes to keeping the weight off. Presumably, you'll want to do that for the rest of your life. And I sure hope that's more than "weeks" or even "months!"
So in that sense, it does make weight loss "harder," but at the same time, it doesn't negate CICO.0 -
Well, i think I found out why I was not losing and even gaining at times, I was not eating enough. I was eating 1000 calories below the highest weight loss setting in my fitness pall. For weeks I was not losing weight and I had no idea why i lost a lot when I starting cutting lower but it stalled. So, I am trying to eat my full recommended intake and after eating so few calories it feels indulgent lol. It worked and am losing weight gain, I guess I was curing to low and my body felt like it was starving.
Lesson learned.
To the OP and the rest who have a similar experience...sorry but the bolded parts are just not possible with the science we have now and have had for centuries...aka people actually starving...
YOu can't stall or gain on a calorie deficit unless it is "water weight" brought on by sodium, increased exercise or cortisol (stress hormone.)
It can appear that by eating more you are losing faster but in reality you have relieved your body of water weight by getting rid of the low calorie stresses...new exercise is no longer new and you have more energy to exercise maybe just a bit more or move just a bit more.
Even in this OP it states "I lost a lot when I started cutting even lower" which makes sense...the stall makes sense too...cortisol...water retention...
Other factors come into play as well...when you first start counting calories without being accurate by using a food scale and "guesstimating" you typically are eating more than you think...then you cut even lower and start losing but easily go back ot the bad estimates...then as you increase your calories you subconsiously choose smaller portions so in fact when you were logging 1200 your were probably eating closer to 1600-1800 and then as you start logging 1600 you are actually 1200-1400...which is one scenario.
Another scenario is that you are eating too little and are tired and not moving as much as you think...your hungry...your body is stressed and you start holding onto water weight.
5 -
Three of us (OP, a second poster, and me) reported similar experiences. If you believe CICO is valid, then it's not fewer calories that leads to fat loss - it's a bigger deficit. If for some reason CO decreased at the same time CI did, that would explain why we either weren't losing fat, or why we were only losing very slowly.Well, i think I found out why I was not losing and even gaining at times, I was not eating enough. I was eating 1000 calories below the highest weight loss setting in my fitness pall. For weeks I was not losing weight and I had no idea why i lost a lot when I starting cutting lower but it stalled. So, I am trying to eat my full recommended intake and after eating so few calories it feels indulgent lol. It worked and am losing weight gain, I guess I was curing to low and my body felt like it was starving.
Lesson learned.
To the OP and the rest who have a similar experience...sorry but the bolded parts are just not possible with the science we have now and have had for centuries...aka people actually starving...
YOu can't stall or gain on a calorie deficit unless it is "water weight" brought on by sodium, increased exercise or cortisol (stress hormone.)
It can appear that by eating more you are losing faster but in reality you have relieved your body of water weight by getting rid of the low calorie stresses...new exercise is no longer new and you have more energy to exercise maybe just a bit more or move just a bit more.
Even in this OP it states "I lost a lot when I started cutting even lower" which makes sense...the stall makes sense too...cortisol...water retention...
Other factors come into play as well...when you first start counting calories without being accurate by using a food scale and "guesstimating" you typically are eating more than you think...then you cut even lower and start losing but easily go back ot the bad estimates...then as you increase your calories you subconsiously choose smaller portions so in fact when you were logging 1200 your were probably eating closer to 1600-1800 and then as you start logging 1600 you are actually 1200-1400...which is one scenario.
Another scenario is that you are eating too little and are tired and not moving as much as you think...your hungry...your body is stressed and you start holding onto water weight.
Just to respond to things others have said, none of us said were anorexic or actually starving, just that we were eating very low calorie diets. The results in extreme cases don't necessarily predict what is likely to happen in more moderate circumstances. And none of us said we were getting fatter on fewer calories. I can't speak for the other two, but the theories about me actually eating more than I thought I was, or it all being water weight are wrong. I was keeping track of my eating the same way before as I am now, and I was on a much more restrictive diet then than I am now. During the 6 months I was losing weight extremely slowly, it definitely wasn't water weight. And I didn't lose 30 pounds of water weight since then.
The most scientific approach, it seems to me, would be to accept the data we have, instead of rejecting the data because it doesn't fit our hypothesis.4 -
Three of us (OP, a second poster, and me) reported similar experiences. If you believe CICO is valid, then it's not fewer calories that leads to fat loss - it's a bigger deficit. If for some reason CO decreased at the same time CI did, that would explain why we either weren't losing fat, or why we were only losing very slowly.Well, i think I found out why I was not losing and even gaining at times, I was not eating enough. I was eating 1000 calories below the highest weight loss setting in my fitness pall. For weeks I was not losing weight and I had no idea why i lost a lot when I starting cutting lower but it stalled. So, I am trying to eat my full recommended intake and after eating so few calories it feels indulgent lol. It worked and am losing weight gain, I guess I was curing to low and my body felt like it was starving.
Lesson learned.
To the OP and the rest who have a similar experience...sorry but the bolded parts are just not possible with the science we have now and have had for centuries...aka people actually starving...
YOu can't stall or gain on a calorie deficit unless it is "water weight" brought on by sodium, increased exercise or cortisol (stress hormone.)
It can appear that by eating more you are losing faster but in reality you have relieved your body of water weight by getting rid of the low calorie stresses...new exercise is no longer new and you have more energy to exercise maybe just a bit more or move just a bit more.
Even in this OP it states "I lost a lot when I started cutting even lower" which makes sense...the stall makes sense too...cortisol...water retention...
Other factors come into play as well...when you first start counting calories without being accurate by using a food scale and "guesstimating" you typically are eating more than you think...then you cut even lower and start losing but easily go back ot the bad estimates...then as you increase your calories you subconsiously choose smaller portions so in fact when you were logging 1200 your were probably eating closer to 1600-1800 and then as you start logging 1600 you are actually 1200-1400...which is one scenario.
Another scenario is that you are eating too little and are tired and not moving as much as you think...your hungry...your body is stressed and you start holding onto water weight.
Just to respond to things others have said, none of us said were anorexic or actually starving, just that we were eating very low calorie diets. The results in extreme cases don't necessarily predict what is likely to happen in more moderate circumstances. And none of us said we were getting fatter on fewer calories. I can't speak for the other two, but the theories about me actually eating more than I thought I was, or it all being water weight are wrong. I was keeping track of my eating the same way before as I am now, and I was on a much more restrictive diet then than I am now. During the 6 months I was losing weight extremely slowly, it definitely wasn't water weight. And I didn't lose 30 pounds of water weight since then.
The most scientific approach, it seems to me, would be to accept the data we have, instead of rejecting the data because it doesn't fit our hypothesis.
Actually the OP did...the quote was "not losing and even gaining at times, I was not eating enough"
Which I addressed as not being valid.
As for stalling on a deficit which is what I said wasn't valid...you can't. If you are in a deficit you won't stall.
CICO is valid proven by science and centuries of starvation...I never once said it was "fewer calories"
I indicated what could cause you to think you could eat more and lose weight but it still doesn't invalidate CICO.
causation vs correlation comes into play and n=1 is not science4 -
If you believe CICO is valid, then it's not fewer calories that leads to fat loss - it's a bigger deficit. If for some reason CO decreased at the same time CI did, that would explain why we either weren't losing fat, or why we were only losing very slowly.
While I do not feel that adaptive thermogenesis is the answer to everything, I also don't understand why it is so readily dismissed as either flat out impossible or always inconsequential by a number of frequent posters.
In any case, the thread reference is sitting in the middle of the most helpful posts links at the beginning of this forum section: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1
4 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Well, i think I found out why I was not losing and even gaining at times, I was not eating enough. I was eating 1000 calories below the highest weight loss setting in my fitness pall. For weeks I was not losing weight and I had no idea why i lost a lot when I starting cutting lower but it stalled. So, I am trying to eat my full recommended intake and after eating so few calories it feels indulgent lol. It worked and am losing weight gain, I guess I was curing to low and my body felt like it was starving.
Lesson learned.
Wrong. You don't lose weight by eating MORE. Nope nope nope. Not happening.
And yet we have several examples of it happening. It happened to me.
Maybe there are explanations for that you haven't thought of? For example, maybe when we raised our caloric intake, we had more energy and we became more active? I'm not talking about exercising more, but the kind of activity someone might do unconsciously or involuntarily. That's one possibility, anyway.
Then it didn't happen by "eating more" did it. You won't lose weight by consuming a greater number of calories, all other factors remaining the same. That's a no brainer.
5 -
If you believe CICO is valid, then it's not fewer calories that leads to fat loss - it's a bigger deficit. If for some reason CO decreased at the same time CI did, that would explain why we either weren't losing fat, or why we were only losing very slowly.
While I do not feel that adaptive thermogenesis is the answer to everything, I also don't understand why it is so readily dismissed as either flat out impossible or always inconsequential by a number of frequent posters.
In any case, the thread reference is sitting in the middle of the most helpful posts links at the beginning of this forum section: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1
Isn't it the idea that, when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras? That adaptive thermogenesis isn't the most probable issue for the majority of casual posters? Thank you for the link, BTW, as I personally didn't know that much about it. 1 -
The bolded part was just a hypothesis. I don't know whether that was the reason, or whether it was something else. The point is, it happened and all evidence points to it being caused in some way by taking in more calories. Just how that happened, I can't say for sure nor could my doctor.fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Well, i think I found out why I was not losing and even gaining at times, I was not eating enough. I was eating 1000 calories below the highest weight loss setting in my fitness pall. For weeks I was not losing weight and I had no idea why i lost a lot when I starting cutting lower but it stalled. So, I am trying to eat my full recommended intake and after eating so few calories it feels indulgent lol. It worked and am losing weight gain, I guess I was curing to low and my body felt like it was starving.
Lesson learned.
Wrong. You don't lose weight by eating MORE. Nope nope nope. Not happening.
And yet we have several examples of it happening. It happened to me.
Maybe there are explanations for that you haven't thought of? For example, maybe when we raised our caloric intake, we had more energy and we became more active? I'm not talking about exercising more, but the kind of activity someone might do unconsciously or involuntarily. That's one possibility, anyway.
Then it didn't happen by "eating more" did it. You won't lose weight by consuming a greater number of calories, all other factors remaining the same. That's a no brainer.
0 -
It is possible for people to gain weight at times, as OP said, even while reducing calorie intake. It doesn't mean they gained fat.
Three of us (OP, a second poster, and me) reported similar experiences. If you believe CICO is valid, then it's not fewer calories that leads to fat loss - it's a bigger deficit. If for some reason CO decreased at the same time CI did, that would explain why we either weren't losing fat, or why we were only losing very slowly.Well, i think I found out why I was not losing and even gaining at times, I was not eating enough. I was eating 1000 calories below the highest weight loss setting in my fitness pall. For weeks I was not losing weight and I had no idea why i lost a lot when I starting cutting lower but it stalled. So, I am trying to eat my full recommended intake and after eating so few calories it feels indulgent lol. It worked and am losing weight gain, I guess I was curing to low and my body felt like it was starving.
Lesson learned.
To the OP and the rest who have a similar experience...sorry but the bolded parts are just not possible with the science we have now and have had for centuries...aka people actually starving...
YOu can't stall or gain on a calorie deficit unless it is "water weight" brought on by sodium, increased exercise or cortisol (stress hormone.)
It can appear that by eating more you are losing faster but in reality you have relieved your body of water weight by getting rid of the low calorie stresses...new exercise is no longer new and you have more energy to exercise maybe just a bit more or move just a bit more.
Even in this OP it states "I lost a lot when I started cutting even lower" which makes sense...the stall makes sense too...cortisol...water retention...
Other factors come into play as well...when you first start counting calories without being accurate by using a food scale and "guesstimating" you typically are eating more than you think...then you cut even lower and start losing but easily go back ot the bad estimates...then as you increase your calories you subconsiously choose smaller portions so in fact when you were logging 1200 your were probably eating closer to 1600-1800 and then as you start logging 1600 you are actually 1200-1400...which is one scenario.
Another scenario is that you are eating too little and are tired and not moving as much as you think...your hungry...your body is stressed and you start holding onto water weight.
Just to respond to things others have said, none of us said were anorexic or actually starving, just that we were eating very low calorie diets. The results in extreme cases don't necessarily predict what is likely to happen in more moderate circumstances. And none of us said we were getting fatter on fewer calories. I can't speak for the other two, but the theories about me actually eating more than I thought I was, or it all being water weight are wrong. I was keeping track of my eating the same way before as I am now, and I was on a much more restrictive diet then than I am now. During the 6 months I was losing weight extremely slowly, it definitely wasn't water weight. And I didn't lose 30 pounds of water weight since then.
The most scientific approach, it seems to me, would be to accept the data we have, instead of rejecting the data because it doesn't fit our hypothesis.
Actually the OP did...the quote was "not losing and even gaining at times, I was not eating enough"
Which I addressed as not being valid.
The consensus of anecdotal experience is that weight loss isn't linear, regular, or predictable. Many people on this site alone have reported that their weight loss stalled while they were maintaining a deficit. There are potentially all kinds of reasons why it might do that, but I have no reason to doubt that it really happens.As for stalling on a deficit which is what I said wasn't valid...you can't. If you are in a deficit you won't stall.
No one is disputing CICO. The question is whether you can eat less and not lose weight, and that's definitely possible. Reducing CI may not result in fat loss if CO also goes down. Similarly, you can increase CI and still lose weight (or even lose more weight), if CO goes up more. While we know a few things that can cause CO to go up or down, we don't know everything. It's also not feasible to measure CO in someone long-term.CICO is valid proven by science and centuries of starvation...I never once said it was "fewer calories"
I indicated what could cause you to think you could eat more and lose weight but it still doesn't invalidate CICO....
5 -
[While we know a few things that can cause CO to go up or down, we don't know everything. It's also not feasible to measure CO in someone long-term.
While I generally (obviously) agree with many of the points you raise I am curious as to why it is not feasible to measure CO in someone long-term?
if you can measure CO at any point of time you can continue measuring it the same way. This is no different than saying we can't measure CI because foods have a 20% error or what have you.
The reality is that more or less we CAN measure CI, CO, and weight level OVER TIME.
Is it 100% accurate? Absolutely not... but it is close enough to be useful with some effort.4 -
I like your steampunk gear! I make steampunk costumes myself0
-
The bolded part was just a hypothesis. I don't know whether that was the reason, or whether it was something else. The point is, it happened and all evidence points to it being caused in some way by taking in more calories. Just how that happened, I can't say for sure nor could my doctor.fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Well, i think I found out why I was not losing and even gaining at times, I was not eating enough. I was eating 1000 calories below the highest weight loss setting in my fitness pall. For weeks I was not losing weight and I had no idea why i lost a lot when I starting cutting lower but it stalled. So, I am trying to eat my full recommended intake and after eating so few calories it feels indulgent lol. It worked and am losing weight gain, I guess I was curing to low and my body felt like it was starving.
Lesson learned.
Wrong. You don't lose weight by eating MORE. Nope nope nope. Not happening.
And yet we have several examples of it happening. It happened to me.
Maybe there are explanations for that you haven't thought of? For example, maybe when we raised our caloric intake, we had more energy and we became more active? I'm not talking about exercising more, but the kind of activity someone might do unconsciously or involuntarily. That's one possibility, anyway.
Then it didn't happen by "eating more" did it. You won't lose weight by consuming a greater number of calories, all other factors remaining the same. That's a no brainer.
The "evidence" doesn't point to anything of the kind. Unless you spent the week in a lab that recorded your activities and eating, you have no evidence. The only way you can lose weight is if you are burning more calories than you are consuming (barring medical issues of course).1 -
It's magic folks - some people pull fuel out of the air they breath. The could stop eating completely and maintain on purified water. rofl1
-
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
The bolded part was just a hypothesis. I don't know whether that was the reason, or whether it was something else. The point is, it happened and all evidence points to it being caused in some way by taking in more calories. Just how that happened, I can't say for sure nor could my doctor.fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Well, i think I found out why I was not losing and even gaining at times, I was not eating enough. I was eating 1000 calories below the highest weight loss setting in my fitness pall. For weeks I was not losing weight and I had no idea why i lost a lot when I starting cutting lower but it stalled. So, I am trying to eat my full recommended intake and after eating so few calories it feels indulgent lol. It worked and am losing weight gain, I guess I was curing to low and my body felt like it was starving.
Lesson learned.
Wrong. You don't lose weight by eating MORE. Nope nope nope. Not happening.
And yet we have several examples of it happening. It happened to me.
Maybe there are explanations for that you haven't thought of? For example, maybe when we raised our caloric intake, we had more energy and we became more active? I'm not talking about exercising more, but the kind of activity someone might do unconsciously or involuntarily. That's one possibility, anyway.
Then it didn't happen by "eating more" did it. You won't lose weight by consuming a greater number of calories, all other factors remaining the same. That's a no brainer.
The "evidence" doesn't point to anything of the kind. Unless you spent the week in a lab that recorded your activities and eating, you have no evidence. The only way you can lose weight is if you are burning more calories than you are consuming (barring medical issues of course).
Obviously I was using more calories than I was taking in - that's why I was losing weight. And I was losing more weight than before, which meant the deficit was greater than it was before. The increase in my rate of weight loss was happening at a time when I was eating more calories and my exercise was about the same. So my best hypothesis is that something other than more exercise increased my calorie use. What that is, I can't say.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions