went from 1200 calories to 1500 and lost more weight?

otillie03103

I just tried the TDEE calculator and it states I should be eating about 1555 calories instead of the 1200 MFP tells me to eat. Wow! Maybe I will try it for a week and see if I notice any difference.

Jkn921

I'm going to do this too, my scale hasn't changed for a month (barely) so I'm increasing my calories to 1400-1500 then maybe 1600. I think you have to experiment and see how it works for you. I personally find it difficult eating so much and I don't have a eating disorder I generally don't get very hungry. I'm expecting to gain some weight and be a bit bloated but then to even out, will try this month and see what happens.

JessyLovesJCS

OK, so...I have this same challenge! I went 2 months under calories or near (per MFP for 2 pounds/week) and lost just 2 pounds. Frustrating! (And yes, I weigh/measure food, compare labels to those on the MFP database to make sure, record every nibble.) I took a 'break' over Christmas and New Year's while visiting family for 11 days. I did watch what I ate, but I didn't log and know I ate much more than I usually do and MUCH more processed, carb-y foods (i.e. pizza, chips, sweet treats like caramels, donuts, sweet tea)...and didn't exercise a bit! In fact, I took naps most afternoons and went to bed earlier! Laziness! Over the course of those 11 days I lost 6 pounds! Huh? Since I have been back to eating better and exercising I have only lost 2 pounds this month!

Now, for the TDEE - 20% people, I did lots of different calculators for TDEE, but came up with about 1865 calories per day TDEE - 20%. I have been eating about 1300-1400 (average) calories per day (and oftentimes don't count my exercise since it's walking or light aerobics for 30 minutes). I just increased daily calories to 1680, closer to TDEE - 20%. Think it'll do any good? LOL

edwardkim85

However, I binged (or so I thought) the past 5 days and consumed around 1500 calories a day - and I LOST weight. A solid 3 pounds at that.

Weird, huh?

First of all, 1500 isn't a 'binge'...

And if you've been eating 1200(without knowing your stats, but doesn't matter) for an extended period of time , your body must have been in starvation mode.

Upping kcal to 1500 would have made your body more efficient at burning kcal.

It's not necessarily true when people say ' eat more, your'e eating too little', but it's good to switch it up here and there.

If you don't eat at your maintenance once in a while and eat 1200 kcal forever, you will be prone to re-gaining weight back easily when you reach your 'ideal' weight.

I thought "starvation mode" was a myth or inaccurate science. That's what is said here on MFP by some posters.

It's not a 'myth', but a fact... It's a bit exagerrated that's all. Here's a good article + check out the site I referenced below - Lots of studies done on it.

"Ancel Key’s Minnesota starvation study is the classic work in this area, which dates back to 1950 and is still referenced to this day. In this study, there was a 40% (approx) decrease in metabolism due to 6 months of “semi-starvation” at 50% deficit.

Much or most of the decrease was due to loss of body mass, (which was much more pronounced because the subjects were not weight training), but not all of the metabolic decline could be explained simply by the loss of body weight, thus “metabolic adaptation” to starvation was proposed as the explanation for the difference.

Abdul Dulloo of the University of Geneva did a series of studies that revisited the 1300 pages of data that keys collected from this landmark study, which will not ever be repeated due to ethical considerations. (it’s not easy to do longitudinal studies that starve people, as you can imagine)"

http://www.burnthefatinnercircle.com/members/378.cfm

SezxyStef

However, I binged (or so I thought) the past 5 days and consumed around 1500 calories a day - and I LOST weight. A solid 3 pounds at that.

Whoa, let's not throw around the term "binge" so lightly! 1500 calories IN A DAY, is far from binging! I could binge eat 1500 (and far more!) in one meal! ... but I don't like to brag! LOL! Seriously, eat more, don't starve yourself. Body needs fuel and all of that good stuff.

Glad I wasn't the only one who thought this. Hehe.

Lol well I shouldve been more specific..."binged" on cookies, beer, and other crap, all while not exercising- The sugar I need to avoid!

Hello water weight...

You say you had been exercising and eating 1200 calories and lost 3lbs...then stopped exercising for a week and ate the food..

Yah water weight from the release of it in your muscles from not exercising....that and glycogen weren't needed for repair...

But keep eating 1500 and you will lose.

evileen99

Well as far as stats go, i'm currently 152, 5'6 and I *eventually* want to get back down to 120.

You definitely need to be eating more than 1200 a day.

Apinget

Unfortunately I had the opposite problem, where I was eating about 1500 and had to go down to 1200 to start shedding fat and revealing my muscle. I cook the food for my boyfriend and I for the entire week, package it, and grab and heat when lunch or dinner rolls around. I was packing the same amount for my boyfriend and myself (adding to a higher calorie count) but was stagnant in my weight loss until I cut back a bit. I am 4'11" so I'm wondering if my short stature contributed, but I'm not fully sure.

Now that I've been building muscle since August and making some decent gains I'm curious if my calories could be upped a bit without resulting in me undoing my hard work. 1500 would be a nice amount to consume and would allow for snacks to be eaten more regularly which is one joy I've been having to forego to fit my calorie goals. I'd imagine extra muscles requires extra energy to maintain, has anyone had to lower their calorie intake only to raise it again?

_db_

I thought "starvation mode" was a myth or inaccurate science. That's what is said here on MFP by some posters.

It's not a 'myth', but a fact... It's a bit exagerrated that's all. Here's a good article + check out the site I referenced below - Lots of studies done on it.

"Ancel Key’s Minnesota starvation study is the classic work in this area, which dates back to 1950 and is still referenced to this day. In this study, there was a 40% (approx) decrease in metabolism due to 6 months of “semi-starvation” at 50% deficit.

...

I believe it to be a myth. If you read the literature, you'll notice that the the starvation period was 24 weeks long, which is represented by the S12 and S24 points in the graph below, S24 being the end of the (semi)starvation period, whereupon the subjects entered a rehab period. What does this actually say? It says that one will continue to lose fat, at a faster rate than they lose FFM, even when their metabolism adapts to the energy deficit.

WalkingAlong

Plus in that experiment the men had low body fat at the outset.

Guamybear

Have you ever calculated your body metabolic rate? You an do so here: http://www.dietitian.com/calcbody.php#.Uul3fGRdUV0

Anyways, my bmr is about 1440. I've done 1200 calories before and I'm always hungry and irritable. I truly think it's because I was starving myself. The bmr is the amount of calories your body burns on a daily basis. So if I'm not eating the 1440 I'm depriving my body. My maintenance calorie level is somewhere in the 1700s, so as long as I eat between those numbers I lose a little each week. Combine that with drinking enough water, eating a healthy diet, and exercising and I'm losing more weight than I've lost in a long time.

Good luck and listen to your body when it's hungry! Learn the difference between hunger pains and eating because you are bored/craving.

This is only what your body burns if you are in coma doing nothing. Your body actually burns more with daily activities..

SezxyStef

I thought "starvation mode" was a myth or inaccurate science. That's what is said here on MFP by some posters.

It's not a 'myth', but a fact... It's a bit exagerrated that's all. Here's a good article + check out the site I referenced below - Lots of studies done on it.

"Ancel Key’s Minnesota starvation study is the classic work in this area, which dates back to 1950 and is still referenced to this day. In this study, there was a 40% (approx) decrease in metabolism due to 6 months of “semi-starvation” at 50% deficit.

...

I believe it to be a myth. If you read the literature, you'll notice that the the starvation period was 24 weeks long, which is represented by the S12 and S24 points in the graph below, S24 being the end of the (semi)starvation period, whereupon the subjects entered a rehab period. What does this actually say? It says that one will continue to lose fat, at a faster rate than they lose FFM, even when their metabolism adapts to the energy deficit.

I agree that "starvation mode" is a myth....

ell_v131

However, I binged (or so I thought) the past 5 days and consumed around 1500 calories a day - and I LOST weight. A solid 3 pounds at that.

Weird, huh?

First of all, 1500 isn't a 'binge'...

And if you've been eating 1200(without knowing your stats, but doesn't matter) for an extended period of time , your body must have been in starvation mode.

Upping kcal to 1500 would have made your body more efficient at burning kcal.

It's not necessarily true when people say ' eat more, your'e eating too little', but it's good to switch it up here and there.

If you don't eat at your maintenance once in a while and eat 1200 kcal forever, you will be prone to re-gaining weight back easily when you reach your 'ideal' weight.

I thought "starvation mode" was a myth or inaccurate science. That's what is said here on MFP by some posters.

It's not a 'myth', but a fact... It's a bit exagerrated that's all. Here's a good article + check out the site I referenced below - Lots of studies done on it.

"Ancel Key’s Minnesota starvation study is the classic work in this area, which dates back to 1950 and is still referenced to this day. In this study, there was a 40% (approx) decrease in metabolism due to 6 months of “semi-starvation” at 50% deficit.

Much or most of the decrease was due to loss of body mass, (which was much more pronounced because the subjects were not weight training), but not all of the metabolic decline could be explained simply by the loss of body weight, thus “metabolic adaptation” to starvation was proposed as the explanation for the difference.

Abdul Dulloo of the University of Geneva did a series of studies that revisited the 1300 pages of data that keys collected from this landmark study, which will not ever be repeated due to ethical considerations. (it’s not easy to do longitudinal studies that starve people, as you can imagine)"

http://www.burnthefatinnercircle.com/members/378.cfm

not Minessota again...

Adaptive Thermogenesis is a thing. But almost no-one living in a first world country will ever get to that point. Starvation mode as used on these forums is a myth. Can't gain weight because you eat too little. Simple as that.

On the other hand the statement "If you don't eat at your maintenance once in a while and eat 1200 kcal forever, you will be prone to re-gaining weight back easily when you reach your 'ideal' weight."is correct.