Of refeeds and diet breaks
Replies
-
Thank you for this post. I need to bookmark it. I am in the dieting phase and felt like i needed to be in that phase until i reach my goal but i am SO FREAKING HUNGRY that food is taking up most of my thoughts. The refeed phase at maintenance seems like it will stave off that hangry feeling. Now i just need to peruse these articles to see what’s the best way to do it for me. Before i dive in... is there a general rule of thumb for how long to diet and then refeed. My body is feeling like it needs to be in the refeed phase like... now. Lol.5
-
prettysoul1908 wrote: »Thank you for this post. I need to bookmark it. I am in the dieting phase and felt like i needed to be in that phase until i reach my goal but i am SO FREAKING HUNGRY that food is taking up most of my thoughts. The refeed phase at maintenance seems like it will stave off that hangry feeling. Now i just need to peruse these articles to see what’s the best way to do it for me. Before i dive in... is there a general rule of thumb for how long to diet and then refeed. My body is feeling like it needs to be in the refeed phase like... now. Lol.
Depends on a few things. What are your stats? Current calorie intake (net and gross) and how long have you being dieting for?0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »
Depends on a few things. What are your stats? Current calorie intake (net and gross) and how long have you being dieting for?
Thank you for the reply! I’m 5’6 and currently around 156. I have my goals staggered with my first goal being 150. My ultimate goal is 135. I’ve been back to weighing/logging everything for about 3 weeks. Last week due to a few factors including lack of hunger i was averaging about 1000-1100 calories a day (kinda gave me a mental rush so I’ve been trying to keep up with that).
I have MFP set to lose 2 pounds a week (probably a little aggressive) and my daily calorie allotment is 1280. I have a Fitbit but i try not to eat back those calories if i can help it.
Honestly I’m feeling a little disappointed in this hungry feeling (i know that’s a little illogical) so this idea of refeeding and diet breaks while staying on track will help me mentally.
Thanks for any feedback and for being my sounding board lol0 -
You're basically undereating if your logging is accurate. So you are literally starving. You have way too little to lose to even be thinking about 2lbs per week. 1lb would be better, 0.5lb best. What has your average rate of loss been so far?8
-
-
prettysoul1908 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »
Depends on a few things. What are your stats? Current calorie intake (net and gross) and how long have you being dieting for?
Thank you for the reply! I’m 5’6 and currently around 156. I have my goals staggered with my first goal being 150. My ultimate goal is 135. I’ve been back to weighing/logging everything for about 3 weeks. Last week due to a few factors including lack of hunger i was averaging about 1000-1100 calories a day (kinda gave me a mental rush so I’ve been trying to keep up with that).
I have MFP set to lose 2 pounds a week (probably a little aggressive) and my daily calorie allotment is 1280. I have a Fitbit but i try not to eat back those calories if i can help it.
Honestly I’m feeling a little disappointed in this hungry feeling (i know that’s a little illogical) so this idea of refeeding and diet breaks while staying on track will help me mentally.
Thanks for any feedback and for being my sounding board lol
Feeling really hungry and eating very little calories never really allows one to hit their goals. And I always say, the one who can eat the most and still lose will have a better chance at a sustainable diet long term because you aren't going from super low calories to fairly high calories.
Personally, I'd recommend bumping calories up to around 1600 or 1700 (about 1lb per week) and follow a good resistance program (if you want to lean out and improve body composition) with roughly 100 to 130g of protein. And of course, since you are leaner, have a good food scale to increase accuracy.4 -
I call it my round robin tournament every year. In the span of three days, I go 10 different places. And including the trip (~160miles both ways), I generally put close to 600 miles on my car. It's insane. I have about 3 places line up each day. I'd almost rather be working.4 -
VintageFeline wrote: »You're basically undereating if your logging is accurate. So you are literally starving. You have way too little to lose to even be thinking about 2lbs per week. 1lb would be better, 0.5lb best. What has your average rate of loss been so far?
I’ve lost 6 pounds since i last weighed myself last Friday. Most of that weight fell off in the last week and a half ( For the first two weeks i had my settings at 1 pound a week and was set at not active. It actually gave me the same allotment of 1280 that i have now. I changed my settings to 2 pounds and active and got 1280 also but the Fitbit adjustment isn’t as hefty. The psychological part of wanting to lose weight has me going against what i already know (too aggressive of goal, underrating). Le sigh0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »You're basically undereating if your logging is accurate. So you are literally starving. You have way too little to lose to even be thinking about 2lbs per week. 1lb would be better, 0.5lb best. What has your average rate of loss been so far?
^^Thisprettysoul1908 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »
Depends on a few things. What are your stats? Current calorie intake (net and gross) and how long have you being dieting for?
Thank you for the reply! I’m 5’6 and currently around 156. I have my goals staggered with my first goal being 150. My ultimate goal is 135. I’ve been back to weighing/logging everything for about 3 weeks. Last week due to a few factors including lack of hunger i was averaging about 1000-1100 calories a day (kinda gave me a mental rush so I’ve been trying to keep up with that).
I have MFP set to lose 2 pounds a week (probably a little aggressive) and my daily calorie allotment is 1280. I have a Fitbit but i try not to eat back those calories if i can help it.
Honestly I’m feeling a little disappointed in this hungry feeling (i know that’s a little illogical) so this idea of refeeding and diet breaks while staying on track will help me mentally.
Thanks for any feedback and for being my sounding board lol
Feeling really hungry and eating very little calories never really allows one to hit their goals. And I always say, the one who can eat the most and still lose will have a better chance at a sustainable diet long term because you aren't going from super low calories to fairly high calories.
Personally, I'd recommend bumping calories up to around 1600 or 1700 (about 1lb per week) and follow a good resistance program (if you want to lean out and improve body composition) with roughly 100 to 130g of protein. And of course, since you are leaner, have a good food scale to increase accuracy.
^^And this
You may like to read this too: https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html/0 -
prettysoul1908 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »You're basically undereating if your logging is accurate. So you are literally starving. You have way too little to lose to even be thinking about 2lbs per week. 1lb would be better, 0.5lb best. What has your average rate of loss been so far?
I’ve lost 6 pounds since i last weighed myself last Friday. Most of that weight fell off in the last week and a half ( For the first two weeks i had my settings at 1 pound a week and was set at not active. It actually gave me the same allotment of 1280 that i have now. I changed my settings to 2 pounds and active and got 1280 also but the Fitbit adjustment isn’t as hefty. The psychological part of wanting to lose weight has me going against what i already know (too aggressive of goal, underrating). Le sigh
That is way, way too fast (you know this, I think). Up your cals. Trust your Fitbit until you have more data to say otherwise.
Trust me, you don't want to end up dealing with jacked up cortisol. It's a *kitten*. Not to mention all the other effects of undereating.7 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »prettysoul1908 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »You're basically undereating if your logging is accurate. So you are literally starving. You have way too little to lose to even be thinking about 2lbs per week. 1lb would be better, 0.5lb best. What has your average rate of loss been so far?
I’ve lost 6 pounds since i last weighed myself last Friday. Most of that weight fell off in the last week and a half ( For the first two weeks i had my settings at 1 pound a week and was set at not active. It actually gave me the same allotment of 1280 that i have now. I changed my settings to 2 pounds and active and got 1280 also but the Fitbit adjustment isn’t as hefty. The psychological part of wanting to lose weight has me going against what i already know (too aggressive of goal, underrating). Le sigh
That is way, way too fast (you know this, I think). Up your cals. Trust your Fitbit until you have more data to say otherwise.
Trust me, you don't want to end up dealing with jacked up cortisol. It's a *kitten*. Not to mention all the other effects of undereating.
I suspect a good amount of that is water, but even so, that is too few calories.3 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »prettysoul1908 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »You're basically undereating if your logging is accurate. So you are literally starving. You have way too little to lose to even be thinking about 2lbs per week. 1lb would be better, 0.5lb best. What has your average rate of loss been so far?
I’ve lost 6 pounds since i last weighed myself last Friday. Most of that weight fell off in the last week and a half ( For the first two weeks i had my settings at 1 pound a week and was set at not active. It actually gave me the same allotment of 1280 that i have now. I changed my settings to 2 pounds and active and got 1280 also but the Fitbit adjustment isn’t as hefty. The psychological part of wanting to lose weight has me going against what i already know (too aggressive of goal, underrating). Le sigh
That is way, way too fast (you know this, I think). Up your cals. Trust your Fitbit until you have more data to say otherwise.
Trust me, you don't want to end up dealing with jacked up cortisol. It's a *kitten*. Not to mention all the other effects of undereating.
I suspect a good amount of that is water, but even so, that is too few calories.
Yep, agree on both
Actual 6 lb of fat in a week and a half is not likely at that size.
But no wonder you're hungry @prettysoul1908!!3 -
I call it my round robin tournament every year. In the span of three days, I go 10 different places. And including the trip (~160miles both ways), I generally put close to 600 miles on my car. It's insane. I have about 3 places line up each day. I'd almost rather be working.
I remember those kind of years when the kids were little. Fun and not all at the same time!0 -
Thanks for the info and feedback everyone. Sometimes i get way too in my own head so i needed the perspective. I’m going to weigh myself in the morning and readjust my goals. I’ll check back in with you guys. Thanks again!6
-
I learned something interesting today. Since I've lost nearly 100 lbs, I wanted blood work done to make sure things were okay and to see if some things had improved. My blood sugar was good though a little up from last time; still 10 pts below 100 so I think I'm still doing ok on that front. My calcium, b12, and d levels were all good, which is good to know. She had ordered a pretty extensive set of labs and I don't know what a lot of the things were but everything was in the normal range.
However, the one thing that had trended in the wrong direction was cholesterol, which had gone up some. Before I panicked, I googled it and found that apparently this can happen to some people as they lose weight, but the effect is supposed to only be temporary and the levels are supposed to drop once the weight stabilizes.
Huh but good news anyway especially as I thought conventional Wisconsin losing weight would lower cholesterol!
There was also a level for protein which fell about the middle of the healthy range indicated by the summary. Not sure what that was measuring-protein in the blood?0 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »I learned something interesting today. Since I've lost nearly 100 lbs, I wanted blood work done to make sure things were okay and to see if some things had improved. My blood sugar was good though a little up from last time; still 10 pts below 100 so I think I'm still doing ok on that front. My calcium, b12, and d levels were all good, which is good to know. She had ordered a pretty extensive set of labs and I don't know what a lot of the things were but everything was in the normal range.
However, the one thing that had trended in the wrong direction was cholesterol, which had gone up some. Before I panicked, I googled it and found that apparently this can happen to some people as they lose weight, but the effect is supposed to only be temporary and the levels are supposed to drop once the weight stabilizes.
Huh but good news anyway especially as I thought conventional Wisconsin losing weight would lower cholesterol!
There was also a level for protein which fell about the middle of the healthy range indicated by the summary. Not sure what that was measuring-protein in the blood?
Total cholesterol is a *kitten* measure... because it increases as HDL increases. And dieting and exercise can mess up blood work. You are better off looking and non hdl chesterol numbers and maybe HDL to Cholesterol ratios.
The biggest thing is, if you have little to no family history of heart disease and your numbers fall within a good range, than you are in a good state of health. My LDLs will always be and have always been fairly high, because my parents... both are at a higher range.1 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »I learned something interesting today. Since I've lost nearly 100 lbs, I wanted blood work done to make sure things were okay and to see if some things had improved. My blood sugar was good though a little up from last time; still 10 pts below 100 so I think I'm still doing ok on that front. My calcium, b12, and d levels were all good, which is good to know. She had ordered a pretty extensive set of labs and I don't know what a lot of the things were but everything was in the normal range.
However, the one thing that had trended in the wrong direction was cholesterol, which had gone up some. Before I panicked, I googled it and found that apparently this can happen to some people as they lose weight, but the effect is supposed to only be temporary and the levels are supposed to drop once the weight stabilizes.
Huh but good news anyway especially as I thought conventional Wisconsin losing weight would lower cholesterol!
There was also a level for protein which fell about the middle of the healthy range indicated by the summary. Not sure what that was measuring-protein in the blood?
Isn't "normal" a lovely word? Congratulations on your good work and results!0 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »I learned something interesting today. Since I've lost nearly 100 lbs, I wanted blood work done to make sure things were okay and to see if some things had improved. My blood sugar was good though a little up from last time; still 10 pts below 100 so I think I'm still doing ok on that front. My calcium, b12, and d levels were all good, which is good to know. She had ordered a pretty extensive set of labs and I don't know what a lot of the things were but everything was in the normal range.
However, the one thing that had trended in the wrong direction was cholesterol, which had gone up some. Before I panicked, I googled it and found that apparently this can happen to some people as they lose weight, but the effect is supposed to only be temporary and the levels are supposed to drop once the weight stabilizes.
Huh but good news anyway especially as I thought conventional Wisconsin losing weight would lower cholesterol!
There was also a level for protein which fell about the middle of the healthy range indicated by the summary. Not sure what that was measuring-protein in the blood?
Total cholesterol is a *kitten* measure... because it increases as HDL increases. And dieting and exercise can mess up blood work. You are better off looking and non hdl chesterol numbers and maybe HDL to Cholesterol ratios.
The biggest thing is, if you have little to no family history of heart disease and your numbers fall within a good range, than you are in a good state of health. My LDLs will always be and have always been fairly high, because my parents... both are at a higher range.
I will mirror what Lemon is saying and expand on it to say that you may want to compare HDL and triglycerides. I mentioned this in a previous post, but if you're managing blood glucose, I might suspect that you may be following a more low carb, higher fat style of diet. If that's the case, circulating free fatty acids in the blood rise due to the nature of higher fat foods. This is totally normal and somewhat self-explanatory, but in no way does it mean that your risk of CV has necessarily increased. It's all in context.
Higher fat foods = higher circulating fatty acids = elevation in cholesterol levels. As Lemon mentioned, HDL will increase as your health improves. Triglycerides are what you would ultimately like to reduce since it is a measure of packaged sugar lipids that get stored directly into fat cells. LDL is a subjective panel since it is not accurately measured into its constituent particle size and concentration numbers, unless you specifically ask for an NMR lipo-profile test, which most health insurance companies don't provide in standard testing. Though, you can predict the quality of LDL if triglycerides are low and HDL is high (ideally within a 1:1 ratio, or evenly matched numbers).2 -
Someone remind me to log a kilo of cherries at some point, 'k?
(actually I have a bowl to pop the pips in, and count at the end of the day...)
'Tis the season of cherry street stalls that Nony can't walk past!7 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Someone remind me to log a kilo of cherries at some point, 'k?
(actually I have a bowl to pop the pips in, and count at the end of the day...)
'Tis the season of cherry street stalls that Nony can't walk past!
I love cherries. So expensive though.0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Someone remind me to log a kilo of cherries at some point, 'k?
(actually I have a bowl to pop the pips in, and count at the end of the day...)
'Tis the season of cherry street stalls that Nony can't walk past!
I love cherries. So expensive though.
Yep, especially pre-Christmas, and if you don't live near a cherry growing hot spot. I admit I paid $25 for that box...after Christmas they'll drop significantly. I forget what I was paying last summer.0 -
So I went for a walk with the friend who did the weed whacking for me on Saturday tonight. As we're wandering along, he casually announces that, oh yeah, he'd been feeling a bit off before he'd come over, stiff neck etc, and turns out he had a mild case of shingles (he's had them before, so is pretty sure). I currently have a pretty much non-functioning immune system. Chicken pox (and therefore shingles) is one of the things on the list of things to tell my doctor if I come in contact with. I have felt absolutely punk today. I could just about cry at this point.
Also, things I could have done with knowing a little sooner than five days later.2 -
{{{Nony}}}
That just sucks. I hope you can get some good rest tonight and feel better tomorrow. Hopefully, hopefully, he has kept those darn shingles to himself. And hopefully you are asleep right now - I think it's beddy-byes time in NZ.2 -
JoLightensUp wrote: »{{{Nony}}}
That just sucks. I hope you can get some good rest tonight and feel better tomorrow. Hopefully, hopefully, he has kept those darn shingles to himself. And hopefully you are asleep right now - I think it's beddy-byes time in NZ.
It's well past my bedtime. And I just had a giant shake to hit the stupid number of calories I burned today (but if I hadn't gone for that walk, I wouldn't know about the shingles, so...).
Suspect my doctor will just prescribed anti-virals straight off the bat rather than risk it. Fingers crossed he didn't have the damn blisters yet on Saturday.1 -
In more positive news, whilst I was waiting for my completely inept friend at the park because he can't tell north from south and upstream from downstream, I tried some chin ups and pull ups on the bars there, and I can actually pull myself up a little!! Like a really little, but still, movement!4
-
Frantic Googling suggests that because I've had chicken pox I should be okay, ie can't catch it/shingles from someone else. I got the pox for my first Christmas
5 -
For whatever it's worth I had chicken pox when I was 10, then got shingles when I was 30—a case bad enough that my doctor said she couldn't understand why I wasn't wailing in pain while in her office being examined.Nony_Mouse wrote: »Frantic Googling suggests that because I've had chicken pox I should be okay, ie can't catch it/shingles from someone else. I got the pox for my first Christmas
ETA: Forgot to specify that she suspected it was stress-related as opposed to being caught from someone else, yes.
2 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Frantic Googling suggests that because I've had chicken pox I should be okay, ie can't catch it/shingles from someone else. I got the pox for my first Christmas
Shingles is the re-activation of the chicken pox virus that is lurking in your body. Basically, if you've ever had chicken pox, you're at risk for shingles. You'll never catch chicken pox again from another person, but you can develop shingles at later points in your life, and yeah, I've been told it can happen when your immune system is down.
It's funny because when I was a kid, it was thought to be the other way around, and my mother swore that if you had chicken pox, you'd never get shingles. She even purposely sent my brother to play with a friend's son so he would catch chicken pox and get it out of the way!
And she really couldn't understand why you'd get the chicken pox vaccine.....0 -
Total cholesterol is a *kitten* measure... because it increases as HDL increases. And dieting and exercise can mess up blood work. You are better off looking and non hdl chesterol numbers and maybe HDL to Cholesterol ratios.
The biggest thing is, if you have little to no family history of heart disease and your numbers fall within a good range, than you are in a good state of health. My LDLs will always be and have always been fairly high, because my parents... both are at a higher range.
I will mirror what Lemon is saying and expand on it to say that you may want to compare HDL and triglycerides. I mentioned this in a previous post, but if you're managing blood glucose, I might suspect that you may be following a more low carb, higher fat style of diet. If that's the case, circulating free fatty acids in the blood rise due to the nature of higher fat foods. This is totally normal and somewhat self-explanatory, but in no way does it mean that your risk of CV has necessarily increased. It's all in context.
Higher fat foods = higher circulating fatty acids = elevation in cholesterol levels. As Lemon mentioned, HDL will increase as your health improves. Triglycerides are what you would ultimately like to reduce since it is a measure of packaged sugar lipids that get stored directly into fat cells. LDL is a subjective panel since it is not accurately measured into its constituent particle size and concentration numbers, unless you specifically ask for an NMR lipo-profile test, which most health insurance companies don't provide in standard testing. Though, you can predict the quality of LDL if triglycerides are low and HDL is high (ideally within a 1:1 ratio, or evenly matched numbers).
Actually, I'm not doing low carb at all . I've got carbs set to 45% protein set to 30% and fat to 25%, but most days, I don't hit the fat goal, and I'm always struggling to get the protein goal, so I figure I'm probably eating a higher carb diet than what my macro's are set for.
I'm not diabetic or even pre-diabetic, though I was diagnosed as insulin resistant. I do keep an eye on blood sugar levels, though, because diabetes is very prevalent on my mom's side, and both of my parents and my sister have developed it. My motivation in January to start losing weight was because I really, really didn't want to become diabetic!
My dad's side has a pretty heavy trend toward heart disease, with several folks having had heart attacks or strokes or died from them on his side. My mom's dad died from a massive heart attack, though her mother at age 80 just had a heart cath done ahead of having a valve replaced and she was told her arteries are perfectly clean - clean as someone significantly younger than she is, so I figure my chances for heart disease are probably something like 70/30 lol
From February 2017 to now, my fasting blood sugar went from 81 to 90 - still in the good range, though a bit up from before (but I fasted for something like 8 or 9 hours, which was the bare minimum, which might possibly explain the slight elevation). A1C stayed at 5.3 - still under 6, so good, and actually down a little from 2015. So I'm not worried about blood sugar levels.
From February 2017 to now, total cholesterol went up from 159 to 164. Hdl stayed the same at 40 (down from my 2016 high at 47), but the ratio went up because total went up. Non-HDL went up from 119 to 124. LDL went from 94 to 104. Triglycerides went from 127 to 100, which is a very good downward trend from 2015 level of 156.
The values taken yesterday were after losing over 75 lbs from my weight in February when the first set of values were taken, which means my triglycerides have greatly improved, but HDL hasn't budged, even after losing 75 lbs, and total and LDL both went up some.
I've tried to cut out the processed foods and am trying to eat more lean meats, fish, and frozen or fresh vegetables, though I still get processed meat in my lunches. I've been following something closer to a Meditteranean style diet and am definitely not cooking from pre-packaged meal kits; most of my grocery bill is produce or frozen and dairy; very little from the middle sections of the grocery aisle.
I'm not worried, but hadn't known that losing weight could actually cause a temporary rise in cholesterol levels for some folks, though I suppose it does make sense in a way. My doctor is happy, anyway!
This does give me another question: if obesity elevates your risk of having a fatty liver, would higher cholesterol as you lose weight might indicate the liver is losing that extra fat?1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions