900 calorie burn - up and down in weight
Replies
-
It's totally normal for your weight to fluctuate by that much. Mine does sometimes. You're exercising a lot, so your muscles are probably retaining a lot of water to help them recover. Plus, as others have said, water retention depends on how much water you're drinking and how much sodium you've eaten. We ladies also retain water/bloat depending where we are in our cycle. Unless you're eating thousands of calories over your goal (which you're not), those pounds aren't fat.
People keep bringing up your net calories because we want you to be safe.0 -
5.5 pounds in 3 weeks is a great rate of weight loss. You are clearly getting a reasonable deficit in. If you want to learn more about the process, and how your body responds in a deficit, then you could try to log your food with a little more accuracy.
Personally, I weigh myself way too regularly, but I don't get too hung up on specific numbers. I'm just intrigued. I have one proper weigh in day a week - this is the one I record into mfp. This enables me to see the trend. All sorts of factors come into play on a day by day basis - water retention, where you are at with your digestion of your meals and 'bloating' (whatever that is... it's a woman thing, right?)0 -
MFP won't put you below 1200 this is correct. And yes eventually she won't have the excessive fat stores and have to increase her cals to support her energy needs, but for now that is not the case.
She is over 200lbs she has the stored energy to fuel her body for a long time still. She is eating 1300 cals and this gives her the micros she needs to stay healthy(this is the true reason behind the 1200min for weight loss).Yeah, so everyone keep quiet about the fact she's basically starving herself, because that's not what she asked, and this isn't a support forum on a website that promotes safe and sustainable weightloss. :huh:
So yeah, anyway. Weight fluctuations are normal.
How do you know 1300 cals is giving her everything she needs? 1200 is actually a minimum to net on MFP, not eat in total. So actually, she's netting 400 cals a day, which is 800 less than your idea of a healthy minimum.
People with a lot to lose can follow VLCD for a limited time (normally under medical supervision), but this is meant to be a lifestyle change, and MFP promotes healthy weight loss. It's all well and good telling her she can eat this way, but when she eventually gets shaky and tired and miserable and cannot workout properly and plateaus and starts binging, as so many on here that eat too little do, then that would have been some terrible advice.
Again the reason for cal minimums for people losing weight is to make sure they are getting enough micros to support health. A person regardless of cal intake can be micro deficient so to say increasing cals will ensure a healthy diet is silly.
I didn't say it would make a healthy diet. It's a healthy amount of calories to eat to lose weight. If she uses all those calories on krispy kremes and cheeseburgers, that's up to her, but then if we are going by your reasoning, how can you say that 1200 cals will give her 'enough micros to support health'? That's just as silly.
I notice you've completely ignored my comment about the 1200 cals. Here, I'll bold it out for you, just in case:
1200 is actually a minimum to net on MFP, not eat in total. So actually, she's netting 400 cals a day, which is 800 less than your idea of a healthy minimum.
My idea of a healthy minimum is not net. MFP chooses net as the way to measure and that is fine. I would prefer to say a healthy min is not cals but the appropriate amount of micros, fat, and protein in your diet.
'Your idea' of a healthy minimum is your opinion, and therefore shouldn't be preached as gospel. You shouldn't be coming on here and telling someone who is quite obviously undereating that it's fine to do so. That's shameful.
And yes, obviously diet and macros determine a healthy minimum, but calories are a measurement of energy, and quite simply, if you burn more energy than you take in to the extreme, that is not healthy. What the OP is doing is not healthy, especially not long-term. I cannot understand why you criticize members that point that out and then promote a VLCD.0 -
Recommended macros minimums
Fat->0.4g/lb of body weight >84g = 756cals
Protein->1g/lb lean body weight >100g? = 400cals
Carbs-> 25g = 100cals these need to be vitamin and mineral dense carbs
This is a total of 1256cals
Op these are minimums! As the others have said you can still lose weight and eat more. It makes it more sustainable and enjoyable if you do.0 -
Anyway, in crude terms, 3500 calories burnt = a pound of weight lost. Therefore 900 calories burnt = 0.25 pounds of weight lost. Over a week, it adds up, but on a day by day basis, water / sodium / general digestion factors win through.0
-
I love how VLCD is thrown around when someone is eating 1200 cals. LCD sure, VLCD no. It's like starvation mode, it's the fall back for people who only read these boards.
MFP won't put you below 1200 this is correct. And yes eventually she won't have the excessive fat stores and have to increase her cals to support her energy needs, but for now that is not the case.
She is over 200lbs she has the stored energy to fuel her body for a long time still. She is eating 1300 cals and this gives her the micros she needs to stay healthy(this is the true reason behind the 1200min for weight loss).Yeah, so everyone keep quiet about the fact she's basically starving herself, because that's not what she asked, and this isn't a support forum on a website that promotes safe and sustainable weightloss. :huh:
So yeah, anyway. Weight fluctuations are normal.
How do you know 1300 cals is giving her everything she needs? 1200 is actually a minimum to net on MFP, not eat in total. So actually, she's netting 400 cals a day, which is 800 less than your idea of a healthy minimum.
People with a lot to lose can follow VLCD for a limited time (normally under medical supervision), but this is meant to be a lifestyle change, and MFP promotes healthy weight loss. It's all well and good telling her she can eat this way, but when she eventually gets shaky and tired and miserable and cannot workout properly and plateaus and starts binging, as so many on here that eat too little do, then that would have been some terrible advice.
Again the reason for cal minimums for people losing weight is to make sure they are getting enough micros to support health. A person regardless of cal intake can be micro deficient so to say increasing cals will ensure a healthy diet is silly.
I didn't say it would make a healthy diet. It's a healthy amount of calories to eat to lose weight. If she uses all those calories on krispy kremes and cheeseburgers, that's up to her, but then if we are going by your reasoning, how can you say that 1200 cals will give her 'enough micros to support health'? That's just as silly.
I notice you've completely ignored my comment about the 1200 cals. Here, I'll bold it out for you, just in case:
1200 is actually a minimum to net on MFP, not eat in total. So actually, she's netting 400 cals a day, which is 800 less than your idea of a healthy minimum.
My idea of a healthy minimum is not net. MFP chooses net as the way to measure and that is fine. I would prefer to say a healthy min is not cals but the appropriate amount of micros, fat, and protein in your diet.
'Your idea' of a healthy minimum is your opinion, and therefore shouldn't be preached as gospel. You shouldn't be coming on here and telling someone who is quite obviously undereating that it's fine to do so. That's shameful.
And yes, obviously diet and macros determine a healthy minimum, but calories are a measurement of energy, and quite simply, if you burn more energy than you take in to the extreme, that is not healthy. What the OP is doing is not healthy, especially not long-term. I cannot understand why you criticize members that point that out and then promote a VLCD.0 -
I love how VLCD is thrown around when someone is eating 1200 cals. LCD sure, VLCD no. It's like starvation mode, it's the fall back for people who only read these boards.
MFP won't put you below 1200 this is correct. And yes eventually she won't have the excessive fat stores and have to increase her cals to support her energy needs, but for now that is not the case.
She is over 200lbs she has the stored energy to fuel her body for a long time still. She is eating 1300 cals and this gives her the micros she needs to stay healthy(this is the true reason behind the 1200min for weight loss).Yeah, so everyone keep quiet about the fact she's basically starving herself, because that's not what she asked, and this isn't a support forum on a website that promotes safe and sustainable weightloss. :huh:
So yeah, anyway. Weight fluctuations are normal.
How do you know 1300 cals is giving her everything she needs? 1200 is actually a minimum to net on MFP, not eat in total. So actually, she's netting 400 cals a day, which is 800 less than your idea of a healthy minimum.
People with a lot to lose can follow VLCD for a limited time (normally under medical supervision), but this is meant to be a lifestyle change, and MFP promotes healthy weight loss. It's all well and good telling her she can eat this way, but when she eventually gets shaky and tired and miserable and cannot workout properly and plateaus and starts binging, as so many on here that eat too little do, then that would have been some terrible advice.
Again the reason for cal minimums for people losing weight is to make sure they are getting enough micros to support health. A person regardless of cal intake can be micro deficient so to say increasing cals will ensure a healthy diet is silly.
I didn't say it would make a healthy diet. It's a healthy amount of calories to eat to lose weight. If she uses all those calories on krispy kremes and cheeseburgers, that's up to her, but then if we are going by your reasoning, how can you say that 1200 cals will give her 'enough micros to support health'? That's just as silly.
I notice you've completely ignored my comment about the 1200 cals. Here, I'll bold it out for you, just in case:
1200 is actually a minimum to net on MFP, not eat in total. So actually, she's netting 400 cals a day, which is 800 less than your idea of a healthy minimum.
My idea of a healthy minimum is not net. MFP chooses net as the way to measure and that is fine. I would prefer to say a healthy min is not cals but the appropriate amount of micros, fat, and protein in your diet.
'Your idea' of a healthy minimum is your opinion, and therefore shouldn't be preached as gospel. You shouldn't be coming on here and telling someone who is quite obviously undereating that it's fine to do so. That's shameful.
And yes, obviously diet and macros determine a healthy minimum, but calories are a measurement of energy, and quite simply, if you burn more energy than you take in to the extreme, that is not healthy. What the OP is doing is not healthy, especially not long-term. I cannot understand why you criticize members that point that out and then promote a VLCD.
You don't think netting 400 cals is a VLCD?
0 -
Medical definition of a VLCD is a total cal intake of 800 cals or less. Sooo......:flowerforyou:
I love how VLCD is thrown around when someone is eating 1200 cals. LCD sure, VLCD no. It's like starvation mode, it's the fall back for people who only read these boards.
MFP won't put you below 1200 this is correct. And yes eventually she won't have the excessive fat stores and have to increase her cals to support her energy needs, but for now that is not the case.
She is over 200lbs she has the stored energy to fuel her body for a long time still. She is eating 1300 cals and this gives her the micros she needs to stay healthy(this is the true reason behind the 1200min for weight loss).Yeah, so everyone keep quiet about the fact she's basically starving herself, because that's not what she asked, and this isn't a support forum on a website that promotes safe and sustainable weightloss. :huh:
So yeah, anyway. Weight fluctuations are normal.
How do you know 1300 cals is giving her everything she needs? 1200 is actually a minimum to net on MFP, not eat in total. So actually, she's netting 400 cals a day, which is 800 less than your idea of a healthy minimum.
People with a lot to lose can follow VLCD for a limited time (normally under medical supervision), but this is meant to be a lifestyle change, and MFP promotes healthy weight loss. It's all well and good telling her she can eat this way, but when she eventually gets shaky and tired and miserable and cannot workout properly and plateaus and starts binging, as so many on here that eat too little do, then that would have been some terrible advice.
Again the reason for cal minimums for people losing weight is to make sure they are getting enough micros to support health. A person regardless of cal intake can be micro deficient so to say increasing cals will ensure a healthy diet is silly.
I didn't say it would make a healthy diet. It's a healthy amount of calories to eat to lose weight. If she uses all those calories on krispy kremes and cheeseburgers, that's up to her, but then if we are going by your reasoning, how can you say that 1200 cals will give her 'enough micros to support health'? That's just as silly.
I notice you've completely ignored my comment about the 1200 cals. Here, I'll bold it out for you, just in case:
1200 is actually a minimum to net on MFP, not eat in total. So actually, she's netting 400 cals a day, which is 800 less than your idea of a healthy minimum.
My idea of a healthy minimum is not net. MFP chooses net as the way to measure and that is fine. I would prefer to say a healthy min is not cals but the appropriate amount of micros, fat, and protein in your diet.
'Your idea' of a healthy minimum is your opinion, and therefore shouldn't be preached as gospel. You shouldn't be coming on here and telling someone who is quite obviously undereating that it's fine to do so. That's shameful.
And yes, obviously diet and macros determine a healthy minimum, but calories are a measurement of energy, and quite simply, if you burn more energy than you take in to the extreme, that is not healthy. What the OP is doing is not healthy, especially not long-term. I cannot understand why you criticize members that point that out and then promote a VLCD.
You don't think netting 400 cals is a VLCD?0 -
Can we not just agree that DirtyCurvesAh is right, as it appears to be her superpower to always be right.
What I'd really like to know is whether OP is actually losing weight under this current set up. Why is she worried about fluctuations when the trend should be a (fairly unhealthy) 3-4 pounds a week weight loss?
I've lost 5.5 pounds since I started 3 weeks ago. What I do not understand, as I have very basic knowledge of this whole process, is how i can gain 2 pounds in 1 day when working out as hard as i do. Fluctuations might not be a big deal to you but i'm trying to gain a better understanding of my body and why it reacts the way it does.
I frequently gain 2lbs over the course of one day and then it comes off the next. It's straight up normal fluctuations; the food you've eaten over the day and the water you're holding on to can add up to 2lbs. If I'm on my period, I'm usually up 3lbs or more because my body holds on to extra weight. If I eat a ton of salt or am constipated, same thing. Today for example, I am 4lbs heavier than I was on Friday, because I had a lovely sodium binging weekend (traveling and fast food). I didn't gain 4lbs of fat with what I ate over the weekend, because I didn't eat that much over my maintenance and checked my measurements to be sure. If it is really freaking you out to see the normal fluctuations, weigh yourself less or check against your measurements, because that's a better indication.0 -
Medical definition of a VLCD is a total cal intake of 800 cals or less. Sooo......:flowerforyou:
I love how VLCD is thrown around when someone is eating 1200 cals. LCD sure, VLCD no. It's like starvation mode, it's the fall back for people who only read these boards.
MFP won't put you below 1200 this is correct. And yes eventually she won't have the excessive fat stores and have to increase her cals to support her energy needs, but for now that is not the case.
She is over 200lbs she has the stored energy to fuel her body for a long time still. She is eating 1300 cals and this gives her the micros she needs to stay healthy(this is the true reason behind the 1200min for weight loss).Yeah, so everyone keep quiet about the fact she's basically starving herself, because that's not what she asked, and this isn't a support forum on a website that promotes safe and sustainable weightloss. :huh:
So yeah, anyway. Weight fluctuations are normal.
How do you know 1300 cals is giving her everything she needs? 1200 is actually a minimum to net on MFP, not eat in total. So actually, she's netting 400 cals a day, which is 800 less than your idea of a healthy minimum.
People with a lot to lose can follow VLCD for a limited time (normally under medical supervision), but this is meant to be a lifestyle change, and MFP promotes healthy weight loss. It's all well and good telling her she can eat this way, but when she eventually gets shaky and tired and miserable and cannot workout properly and plateaus and starts binging, as so many on here that eat too little do, then that would have been some terrible advice.
Again the reason for cal minimums for people losing weight is to make sure they are getting enough micros to support health. A person regardless of cal intake can be micro deficient so to say increasing cals will ensure a healthy diet is silly.
I didn't say it would make a healthy diet. It's a healthy amount of calories to eat to lose weight. If she uses all those calories on krispy kremes and cheeseburgers, that's up to her, but then if we are going by your reasoning, how can you say that 1200 cals will give her 'enough micros to support health'? That's just as silly.
I notice you've completely ignored my comment about the 1200 cals. Here, I'll bold it out for you, just in case:
1200 is actually a minimum to net on MFP, not eat in total. So actually, she's netting 400 cals a day, which is 800 less than your idea of a healthy minimum.
My idea of a healthy minimum is not net. MFP chooses net as the way to measure and that is fine. I would prefer to say a healthy min is not cals but the appropriate amount of micros, fat, and protein in your diet.
'Your idea' of a healthy minimum is your opinion, and therefore shouldn't be preached as gospel. You shouldn't be coming on here and telling someone who is quite obviously undereating that it's fine to do so. That's shameful.
And yes, obviously diet and macros determine a healthy minimum, but calories are a measurement of energy, and quite simply, if you burn more energy than you take in to the extreme, that is not healthy. What the OP is doing is not healthy, especially not long-term. I cannot understand why you criticize members that point that out and then promote a VLCD.
You don't think netting 400 cals is a VLCD?
You're very focused on your 'definitions' aren't you? So because a website tells you a VLCD is 800 cals or less, you think that the OP is in fact eating normally and healthily? Sigh. I give up, it's clear you will never see that what you are encouraging is wrong. Perhaps you should start your own weight loss website, seeing as you apparently know more than MFP. :yawn:0 -
If you are really exercise burning 900 calories a day, you need to eat at least 2,000 calories a day. that is the problem and the simple solution.0
-
Sigh, I give up, asking people to use medical terms as defined by the medical community is too much to ask.:ohwell:
Medical definition of a VLCD is a total cal intake of 800 cals or less. Sooo......:flowerforyou:
I love how VLCD is thrown around when someone is eating 1200 cals. LCD sure, VLCD no. It's like starvation mode, it's the fall back for people who only read these boards.
MFP won't put you below 1200 this is correct. And yes eventually she won't have the excessive fat stores and have to increase her cals to support her energy needs, but for now that is not the case.
She is over 200lbs she has the stored energy to fuel her body for a long time still. She is eating 1300 cals and this gives her the micros she needs to stay healthy(this is the true reason behind the 1200min for weight loss).Yeah, so everyone keep quiet about the fact she's basically starving herself, because that's not what she asked, and this isn't a support forum on a website that promotes safe and sustainable weightloss. :huh:
So yeah, anyway. Weight fluctuations are normal.
How do you know 1300 cals is giving her everything she needs? 1200 is actually a minimum to net on MFP, not eat in total. So actually, she's netting 400 cals a day, which is 800 less than your idea of a healthy minimum.
People with a lot to lose can follow VLCD for a limited time (normally under medical supervision), but this is meant to be a lifestyle change, and MFP promotes healthy weight loss. It's all well and good telling her she can eat this way, but when she eventually gets shaky and tired and miserable and cannot workout properly and plateaus and starts binging, as so many on here that eat too little do, then that would have been some terrible advice.
Again the reason for cal minimums for people losing weight is to make sure they are getting enough micros to support health. A person regardless of cal intake can be micro deficient so to say increasing cals will ensure a healthy diet is silly.
I didn't say it would make a healthy diet. It's a healthy amount of calories to eat to lose weight. If she uses all those calories on krispy kremes and cheeseburgers, that's up to her, but then if we are going by your reasoning, how can you say that 1200 cals will give her 'enough micros to support health'? That's just as silly.
I notice you've completely ignored my comment about the 1200 cals. Here, I'll bold it out for you, just in case:
1200 is actually a minimum to net on MFP, not eat in total. So actually, she's netting 400 cals a day, which is 800 less than your idea of a healthy minimum.
My idea of a healthy minimum is not net. MFP chooses net as the way to measure and that is fine. I would prefer to say a healthy min is not cals but the appropriate amount of micros, fat, and protein in your diet.
'Your idea' of a healthy minimum is your opinion, and therefore shouldn't be preached as gospel. You shouldn't be coming on here and telling someone who is quite obviously undereating that it's fine to do so. That's shameful.
And yes, obviously diet and macros determine a healthy minimum, but calories are a measurement of energy, and quite simply, if you burn more energy than you take in to the extreme, that is not healthy. What the OP is doing is not healthy, especially not long-term. I cannot understand why you criticize members that point that out and then promote a VLCD.
You don't think netting 400 cals is a VLCD?
You're very focused on your 'definitions' aren't you? So because a website tells you a VLCD is 800 cals or less, you think that the OP is in fact eating normally and healthily? Sigh. I give up, it's clear you will never see that what you are encouraging is wrong. Perhaps you should start your own weight loss website, seeing as you apparently know more than MFP. :yawn: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
- 427 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