Eating less cals, gained weight?
HeavyHilda
Posts: 25
I have managed to cut my cals way back, had it set to 1,500 for starting but have done better and am keeping it under 1,300. What I have noticed is that I gained a pound or two and then stayed the same? I'm eating veggies only (no carbs, dairy, wheat) and only exception is my morning coffee and that has stayed the same.
Seems I have read where you have to eat more to lose but I'm not sure how that works. For those that don't know, exercise is limited because of Fibromyalgia but I get what I can.
Can someone explain how this works to eat more and lose? What do I need to eat more of?
Seems I have read where you have to eat more to lose but I'm not sure how that works. For those that don't know, exercise is limited because of Fibromyalgia but I get what I can.
Can someone explain how this works to eat more and lose? What do I need to eat more of?
0
Replies
-
Your metabolism has probably slowed.0
-
On 1300 calories chances are you crashed your metabolism and your organism is transforming in fat as you are de re ing him from all the macros needed.
Age? Height? Weight? Activity levels?0 -
Yes, need more details. And if you opened your diary that would be helpfull too.
By the way, where are these no-carb veggies?0 -
It's doubtful that anything bad has happened to your metabolism. You may be eating more than you think, depending on how accurately you are logging. Do you weigh and measure everything?
Open your diary please.0 -
What has worked for me is eat what you exercise. So if you burn 100 calories, eat 100 calories. I also eat the recommended 1,200 calories. That is what they mean by eat more to lose weight.0
-
Your metabolism hasn't crashed and the "eat more to lose" is aimed at people who have been following VLCD diets and are actually starving themselves. Restricting food groups isn't going to make you lose weight, neither is adding other foods. It comes down to calories in/calories out. If you aren't losing, you're eating too much. Most likely your logging is off somewhere.0
-
Your metabolism hasn't crashed and the "eat more to lose" is aimed at people who have been following VLCD diets and are actually starving themselves. Restricting food groups isn't going to make you lose weight, neither is adding other foods. It comes down to calories in/calories out. If you aren't losing, you're eating too much. Most likely your logging is off somewhere.
^I second this0 -
I have managed to cut my cals way back, had it set to 1,500 for starting but have done better and am keeping it under 1,300. What I have noticed is that I gained a pound or two and then stayed the same? I'm eating veggies only (no carbs, dairy, wheat) and only exception is my morning coffee and that has stayed the same.
Seems I have read where you have to eat more to lose but I'm not sure how that works. For those that don't know, exercise is limited because of Fibromyalgia but I get what I can.
Can someone explain how this works to eat more and lose? What do I need to eat more of?
That is absolutely not possible. Some people CAN eat more than 1200 calories and still lose, because of their age, height, weight and activity, but that does not mean they lose BECAUSE they eat more. That is scientifically impossible. You probably eat more than you think you do. If you stay the same it means that you are eating at maintenance and even for me ( 5 feet , almost 66 ) maintenance is 1690 calories with modest ( walking at a fast pace 30 minutes six times a week) exercise.0 -
Your metabolism hasn't crashed and the "eat more to lose" is aimed at people who have been following VLCD diets and are actually starving themselves. Restricting food groups isn't going to make you lose weight, neither is adding other foods. It comes down to calories in/calories out. If you aren't losing, you're eating too much. Most likely your logging is off somewhere.
I completely agree! It's all about calories in/calories out. I measure everything and I eat, and since I started doing that I've noticed the weight dropping and my clothes feeling looser. Don't restrict yourself on veggies only, that'll get boring after awhile and you may end up binging, where you will gain tons of weight. Make sure you are also keeping hydrated. Drink as much water as you can!0 -
Give this a read, it emphasizes the importance of weighing and measuring your food and your overall logging accuracy.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/872212-you-re-probably-eating-more-than-you-think0 -
URGH!!!!!
This thing is so frustrating, and it's so hard to buy.
There are people all over the world starving to death - their metabolisms have shut down, yet they continue to emaciate. Many of them ARE eating, but just insufficient calories.
Why is it that only people who are TRYING to lose weight experience this phenomenon?
It does not make scientific sense. It's a physical impossibility. It's supposed to be math. Fewer calories in, more stored energy (fat) burned by the body.
The only way I can make sense of it is that there's this weird range in which your metabolism does slow down to even slower than required by your reduced caloric intake. So if you drop down to, oh, say under 1,000 cals a day, you'd eventually start to lose weight again. However, your health would decline and you'd feel like crap.
From my observations, it seems that anything in the 1,000 - 1,200 range causes that weird "eat less, not losing weight" And that range is varies greatly among people - for some people, the range might be 900 - 1100 and for other, it could be 1100 - 1300. You might have found your range.
And the reason I believe this seeming impossibility is because I've experienced it myself. Oh yeah, don't let my ticker fool you - I've lost 70 pounds before, and gained it all back. And what really annoyed me was that sometimes I could shake myself off a weight loss plateau by eating more. Baffled the heck out of me. But whaddya gonna do . . .0 -
This:
And this:Give this a read, it emphasizes the importance of weighing and measuring your food and your overall logging accuracy.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/872212-you-re-probably-eating-more-than-you-think
I have MFP set to lose 1.5 lbs./week. My actual loss has been about 1 lb./week. Am I a special snowflake? No, I figure I am just expending fewer calories than MFP thinks for my activity level, and probably underestimating intake by 100-150 calories a day. Maybe more--in one of the studies mentioned in the second link, even dieticians, who are aware of such problems, underestimated intake by over 200 calories/day, though they did better than the other study group.
If you're eating more sodium (salting veggies, for example), that could result in more water retention.0 -
Got it!
Thank all of you so much, I got a lot of good info from each of you
Will start to measure my food and cut back even more. I'm new to the menopause thing as of the first of this year and have read where your metabolism dies when that happens. I believe this to be correct as I sit here with my belly in my lap, lol.
btw, to the younger women, yes hot flashes are as bad as the older women tell you they are ~ I never believed the older women when I was younger.
If there are any women older reading this, please let me know if estrogen and progesterone pills will make me gain, not sure but it did start about the time I started taking those pills. The natural stuff didn't work after a few months.
5'3", 156lbs now and shooting for 135lbs. Don't want to be skinny, I love having curves but the one's on my back have to go!0 -
URGH!!!!!
This thing is so frustrating, and it's so hard to buy.
There are people all over the world starving to death - their metabolisms have shut down, yet they continue to emaciate. Many of them ARE eating, but just insufficient calories.
Why is it that only people who are TRYING to lose weight experience this phenomenon?
It does not make scientific sense. It's a physical impossibility. It's supposed to be math. Fewer calories in, more stored energy (fat) burned by the body.
The only way I can make sense of it is that there's this weird range in which your metabolism does slow down to even slower than required by your reduced caloric intake. So if you drop down to, oh, say under 1,000 cals a day, you'd eventually start to lose weight again. However, your health would decline and you'd feel like crap.
From my observations, it seems that anything in the 1,000 - 1,200 range causes that weird "eat less, not losing weight" And that range is varies greatly among people - for some people, the range might be 900 - 1100 and for other, it could be 1100 - 1300. You might have found your range.
And the reason I believe this seeming impossibility is because I've experienced it myself. Oh yeah, don't let my ticker fool you - I've lost 70 pounds before, and gained it all back. And what really annoyed me was that sometimes I could shake myself off a weight loss plateau by eating more. Baffled the heck out of me. But whaddya gonna do . . .
No, you ARE confused. Either you were not tracking your calories accurately or you were over estimating calorie burns. There is no metabolic 'shut-down' that magically happens at 1000-1200 calorie intakes (or whatever range you are imagining). That is why it seems illogical to you. Because it IS illogical.
What you have to do is count accurately. Or as accurately as you can. Keep track of losses or gains, and figure out where to go from there. If you are not losing weight, you are eating maintenance. Gaining, over maintenance. Losing, under maintenance.0 -
Got it!
Thank all of you so much, I got a lot of good info from each of you
Will start to measure my food and cut back even more. I'm new to the menopause thing as of the first of this year and have read where your metabolism dies when that happens. I believe this to be correct as I sit here with my belly in my lap, lol.
btw, to the younger women, yes hot flashes are as bad as the older women tell you they are ~ I never believed the older women when I was younger.
If there are any women older reading this, please let me know if estrogen and progesterone pills will make me gain, not sure but it did start about the time I started taking those pills. The natural stuff didn't work after a few months.
5'3", 156lbs now and shooting for 135lbs. Don't want to be skinny, I love having curves but the one's on my back have to go!
Measure accurately before you do any cutting or adding, just to see where you are at. At least for one day. Just an idea.0 -
Your diary isn't open.0
-
The only way I can make sense of it is that there's this weird range in which your metabolism does slow down to even slower than required by your reduced caloric intake.
You should have stopped at "It does not make scientific sense."
Because that's correct.
What you suggest above doesn't exist.0 -
I'm not trying to disagree with the above posts and I don't have a great controlled study link for you to check out, but I did want to share my experience.
I started MFP set at 1200 calories per day and was not eating my exercise calories back, giving me a net intake of around 900-1000 calories. Over about a month I gained three pounds. I did not contribute that to fluid retention over that long a period.
I upped my target to 1400 calories (basing that on my BMR) and began eating my exercise calories back. In the last eight months I have lost 25 pounds.
Take from it what you will and good luck with your efforts.0 -
I've had fluid retention gains for months, due to hard work outs.
" I'm new to the menopause thing as of the first of this year and have read where your metabolism dies when that happens. I believe this to be correct as I sit here with my belly in my lap, lol. "
Metabolism 'dies' when you die, period. The only reason it slows as we age is we get less active and have less muscle. But you will always burn the vast majority of your calories in your BMR and that never goes away. Though it gets less as you age. But not by a ton.
I agree, there is no magic "1000-1200" diet black hole. It's just math, though water and the fact that it's all based on long term averages (not daily deficits) throws a lot of people. And I think people get bingey in that 1000-1200 range and start sabotaging their logging and feeling like a week is a month and all kinds of weird stuff.0 -
I'm 56 now, lost 30 lbs at 53 in 6 months by managing calories with very little intentional exercise. Your metabolism doesn't die with menopause. It's usually that we slow down, don't move as much, eat more and get lazy.
Not sure about hormone replacements and weight gain but I think that would be contradictory of the metabolism tanking statement since the pills are supposed to make you not have the effects of menopause.
I didn't take any hormone replacements because I watched my mother suffer through breast cancer exacerbated by estrogen replacements. Did you know that taking the replacements is only prolonging menopause? When my mom was diagnosed they immediately took her off the hormone replacements and she had to go through the hot flashes, etc while undergoing cancer surgery and treatments. I decided right then and there to just tough it out and be done with it.0 -
Wow! Many disagreements here.:huh:
Only things I wish to add:
1) I am a vegetarian (since 1979) with the exception of a few kosher fish. I will not be eating any meat other than the cold water fish. period.
2) I am aware my diary is not open, thank you.
My question was answered and I truly appreciate it. As stated above, I will cut my calories and measure food.
Thank you all that took the time to reply, will get some exercise at the firing range today -
Hope everyone has a wonderful weekend! :flowerforyou:0 -
URGH!!!!!
This thing is so frustrating, and it's so hard to buy.
There are people all over the world starving to death - their metabolisms have shut down, yet they continue to emaciate. Many of them ARE eating, but just insufficient calories.
Why is it that only people who are TRYING to lose weight experience this phenomenon?
It does not make scientific sense. It's a physical impossibility. It's supposed to be math. Fewer calories in, more stored energy (fat) burned by the body.
The only way I can make sense of it is that there's this weird range in which your metabolism does slow down to even slower than required by your reduced caloric intake. So if you drop down to, oh, say under 1,000 cals a day, you'd eventually start to lose weight again. However, your health would decline and you'd feel like crap.
From my observations, it seems that anything in the 1,000 - 1,200 range causes that weird "eat less, not losing weight" And that range is varies greatly among people - for some people, the range might be 900 - 1100 and for other, it could be 1100 - 1300. You might have found your range.
And the reason I believe this seeming impossibility is because I've experienced it myself. Oh yeah, don't let my ticker fool you - I've lost 70 pounds before, and gained it all back. And what really annoyed me was that sometimes I could shake myself off a weight loss plateau by eating more. Baffled the heck out of me. But whaddya gonna do . . .
No, you ARE confused. Either you were not tracking your calories accurately or you were over estimating calorie burns. There is no metabolic 'shut-down' that magically happens at 1000-1200 calorie intakes (or whatever range you are imagining). That is why it seems illogical to you. Because it IS illogical.
What you have to do is count accurately. Or as accurately as you can. Keep track of losses or gains, and figure out where to go from there. If you are not losing weight, you are eating maintenance. Gaining, over maintenance. Losing, under maintenance.
Well, I'm starting over anyway - - drifted away for 4 years, gained all my weight back & and some, so now I have a chance to try it again. Counting as accurately as I can.
Funny you should tell me I'm confused - when I was here 4 years ago I took your position and argued with about 10 people. I said there's just no way this can happen - it's math. Fewer calories means losing weight, more calories means gaining weight. Oh my, everyone jumped ALL OVER ME - where were you when I needed you?0 -
The only way I can make sense of it is that there's this weird range in which your metabolism does slow down to even slower than required by your reduced caloric intake.
You should have stopped at "It does not make scientific sense."
Because that's correct.
What you suggest above doesn't exist.
The message is good, the tone is off.0 -
Well, apparently, the thinking has changed in the dieting milieu since I was here last. The metabolism slowdown seems to be myth. I googled it.
For those of you who provided a friendly correction, thanks.
For those of you who are snarky, pffffffff!0 -
URGH!!!!!
This thing is so frustrating, and it's so hard to buy.
There are people all over the world starving to death - their metabolisms have shut down, yet they continue to emaciate. Many of them ARE eating, but just insufficient calories.
Why is it that only people who are TRYING to lose weight experience this phenomenon?
It does not make scientific sense. It's a physical impossibility. It's supposed to be math. Fewer calories in, more stored energy (fat) burned by the body.
The only way I can make sense of it is that there's this weird range in which your metabolism does slow down to even slower than required by your reduced caloric intake. So if you drop down to, oh, say under 1,000 cals a day, you'd eventually start to lose weight again. However, your health would decline and you'd feel like crap.
From my observations, it seems that anything in the 1,000 - 1,200 range causes that weird "eat less, not losing weight" And that range is varies greatly among people - for some people, the range might be 900 - 1100 and for other, it could be 1100 - 1300. You might have found your range.
And the reason I believe this seeming impossibility is because I've experienced it myself. Oh yeah, don't let my ticker fool you - I've lost 70 pounds before, and gained it all back. And what really annoyed me was that sometimes I could shake myself off a weight loss plateau by eating more. Baffled the heck out of me. But whaddya gonna do . . .
0 -
I'm not trying to disagree with the above posts and I don't have a great controlled study link for you to check out, but I did want to share my experience.
I started MFP set at 1200 calories per day and was not eating my exercise calories back, giving me a net intake of around 900-1000 calories. Over about a month I gained three pounds. I did not contribute that to fluid retention over that long a period.
I upped my target to 1400 calories (basing that on my BMR) and began eating my exercise calories back. In the last eight months I have lost 25 pounds.
Take from it what you will and good luck with your efforts.
You have to understand how ridiculous that is right?
In the beginning you were eating more than you accounted for or overestimated burns. Period. By sharing your story you can negatively impact others. This is how the whole "eat more to weigh less" bs is perpetuated.
Reality: eating more will not make you lose more weight than eating less. :explode:
*head explodes*0 -
That's because a calorie is not a calorie. A snickers bar and a piece of steak can have the same amount of calories - but, what happens in your body when you eat them is completely different from a biochemistry point of view. I'm not suggesting you are eating junk food like snicker bars, but same metaphor applies with a bowl of fruit versus a piece of steak of same caloric level.
Google this "a calorie is not a calorie". And you will discover what I mean.
Good luck.0 -
That's because a calorie is not a calorie. A snickers bar and a piece of steak can have the same amount of calories - but, what happens in your body when you eat them is completely different from a biochemistry point of view. I'm not suggesting you are eating junk food like snicker bars, but same metaphor applies with a bowl of fruit versus a piece of steak of same caloric level.
Google this "a calorie is not a calorie". And you will discover what I mean.
Good luck.
A calorie is a calorie. It is a unit of measurement.
And of course you cannot compare steak, fruit, and a snickers bar... they have completely different macronutrient levels.
Although I do think eating whole foods is beneficial for weight loss, a calorie is still a calorie.0 -
I'm not trying to disagree with the above posts and I don't have a great controlled study link for you to check out, but I did want to share my experience.
I started MFP set at 1200 calories per day and was not eating my exercise calories back, giving me a net intake of around 900-1000 calories. Over about a month I gained three pounds. I did not contribute that to fluid retention over that long a period.
I upped my target to 1400 calories (basing that on my BMR) and began eating my exercise calories back. In the last eight months I have lost 25 pounds.
Take from it what you will and good luck with your efforts.
You have to understand how ridiculous that is right?
In the beginning you were eating more than you accounted for or overestimated burns. Period. By sharing your story you can negatively impact others. This is how the whole "eat more to weigh less" bs is perpetuated.
Reality: eating more will not make you lose more weight than eating less. :explode:
*head explodes*
She did say she started an exercise program at the same time, and this was over a period of a month. She could have been retaining water in her muscles. But seriously - you really can't eat MORE and lose MORE weight. You can eat less, lose more. Eat more, lose less. Eat more again and maintain. Or overeat and gain weight. It's not rocket science.
Excuse the yelling ladies, we get really tired of having to explain this over and over again. :flowerforyou:0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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