Aggh what is happening?

Lleldiranne

Depending on your age, weight, sex, you could be vastly under eating. So.. fill us in with more data.

OR OVEREATING. Which, since there is a weight GAIN, is much more likely. :grumble:

Do you think that overeating will cause a 1.5 lb gain overnight, which then comes off over the week on the 1300 calories daily? That must be a REALLY big cheat meal. Isn't it more likely that something in that one meal is causing water retention or something that is not gaining fat?


That said, I do agree that there are a LOT of people who think that they are eating at a deficit who aren't weighing and measuring correctly and are eating 400 or 500 calories more than they think. So yes, that is one place to start - weigh everything, see where you really are, then adjust your calories down by 200 or so (but also reflect your true calorie goal in your diary). I actually fall into this category. I'm lazy and don't weigh my foods, so I probably eat closer to 1800 or 2000 calories than my diary goal of 1600. But I'm happy with what's going on right now so I don't see a need to change it :laugh:

I also have known some people who don't lose on a low calorie amount like 1300 calories, but when they increase their calories, they start losing. I don't know why … the only thing I can think of is that their calories out adjusts in some way, because they can't be defying thermodynamics. Anecdotes =/= science, so all I can say is I've seen it happen. So, when someone is eating a low amount like this and not losing, what does it hurt to suggest that they increase their daily calories by a couple hundred a day? Worst case, they gain a few pounds over the month and then know they have to go the other way. (OK, I'll admit to some that would be devastating, but one month is practically nothing in a lifetime of working toward healthy habits; at the same time, they may still be working on choosing more nutrient dense foods or increasing their exercise, and are really healthier at the end of the month anyway).

davert123

There is no way at all that 1.5kg in a day is fat. It is mainly water retention for some reason. 1lb of fat is 3500 cals . I would try and do more exercise which may help with the water retention :-)

davert123

Depending on your age, weight, sex, you could be vastly under eating. So.. fill us in with more data.

OR OVEREATING. Which, since there is a weight GAIN, is much more likely. :grumble:

No its not :-) The OP would have to eat 23 bigmacs in a day to make this difference

kathrinnbauer

Funny how people here think that their bodies work like engines. Thermodynamics and math say that if you eat less you lose weight, if you don't lose weight you eat too much. I am sure this worked out perfectly fine if we were cars or radiators. But we aren't and there are many hormones that regulate our metabolism and metabolism can slow down a lot - enough to make any caluclation of daily intake needs completly unreliable. I am not blaming people for thinking that eating less might mean more weight loss. I also thought it worked that way and tried to lose weight cutting back more and more calories. Well, guess what: it didn't work out. And even if it is true that some people underestimate their intake there is no need to express that concern in that way and to write comments that implicitly suggest that others were stupid and unable to understand basic mathmatic concepts.

I also agree with the posts that stated that it is very unlikely to gain 1,5 kg fat over night. 1,5 kg fat are about 10500 kcal. I don't think you ingest that much extra in your cheat meals. So it is most likely that you retain fluids.

katelynnsmom2

Depending on your age, weight, sex, you could be vastly under eating. So.. fill us in with more data.

OR OVEREATING. Which, since there is a weight GAIN, is much more likely. :grumble:

Do you think that overeating will cause a 1.5 lb gain overnight, which then comes off over the week on the 1300 calories daily? That must be a REALLY big cheat meal. Isn't it more likely that something in that one meal is causing water retention or something that is not gaining fat?


That said, I do agree that there are a LOT of people who think that they are eating at a deficit who aren't weighing and measuring correctly and are eating 400 or 500 calories more than they think. So yes, that is one place to start - weigh everything, see where you really are, then adjust your calories down by 200 or so (but also reflect your true calorie goal in your diary). I actually fall into this category. I'm lazy and don't weigh my foods, so I probably eat closer to 1800 or 2000 calories than my diary goal of 1600. But I'm happy with what's going on right now so I don't see a need to change it :laugh:

I also have known some people who don't lose on a low calorie amount like 1300 calories, but when they increase their calories, they start losing. I don't know why … the only thing I can think of is that their calories out adjusts in some way, because they can't be defying thermodynamics. Anecdotes =/= science, so all I can say is I've seen it happen. So, when someone is eating a low amount like this and not losing, what does it hurt to suggest that they increase their daily calories by a couple hundred a day? Worst case, they gain a few pounds over the month and then know they have to go the other way. (OK, I'll admit to some that would be devastating, but one month is practically nothing in a lifetime of working toward healthy habits; at the same time, they may still be working on choosing more nutrient dense foods or increasing their exercise, and are really healthier at the end of the month anyway).

This! just what I was thinking they should have like buttons. I personally eat at a low calorie diet with cheat days and on my old account lost 27lbs quit for a year and only gained 3 lbs. freak of nature I guess. Everyone is different just have to find the balance somehow. I totally agree that posters tend to jump on other posters automatically with your eating too few calories. They would jump on me I know that but im sedentary. Water weight seems much more plausable.