Up my calories?

TheVirgoddess

Either your workouts are extremely low intensity, or your food logging is messed up, because you cannot support that level of activity on that level of calories.

Open up your diary...

My workout intensity isn't low and my food logging isn't messed up. Not everyone is the same. I can workout this much with this amount of calories.

You can, but it's really not healthy hon. You eat 1200, how much are you burning? Your net is probably *super* low - and if so your body won't let go of a single pound because it's not getting enough nutrients.

Your plan to up your cals a bit is a good one. I hope you find success in it.

Aaron_K123

Either your workouts are extremely low intensity, or your food logging is messed up, because you cannot support that level of activity on that level of calories.

Open up your diary...

My workout intensity isn't low and my food logging isn't messed up. Not everyone is the same. I can workout this much with this amount of calories.

You can, but it's really not healthy hon. You eat 1200, how much are you burning? Your net is probably *super* low - and if so your body won't let go of a single pound because it's not getting enough nutrients.

Your plan to up your cals a bit is a good one. I hope you find success in it.

This idea that your body "holds on" to fat if you don't eat enough to sustain your body makes no sense. Where do you get that from?

TheVirgoddess

Either your workouts are extremely low intensity, or your food logging is messed up, because you cannot support that level of activity on that level of calories.

Open up your diary...

My workout intensity isn't low and my food logging isn't messed up. Not everyone is the same. I can workout this much with this amount of calories.

You can, but it's really not healthy hon. You eat 1200, how much are you burning? Your net is probably *super* low - and if so your body won't let go of a single pound because it's not getting enough nutrients.

Your plan to up your cals a bit is a good one. I hope you find success in it.

This idea that your body "holds on" to fat if you don't eat enough to sustain your body makes no sense. Where do you get that from?

My doctor.

Aaron_K123

Either your workouts are extremely low intensity, or your food logging is messed up, because you cannot support that level of activity on that level of calories.

Open up your diary...

My workout intensity isn't low and my food logging isn't messed up. Not everyone is the same. I can workout this much with this amount of calories.

You can, but it's really not healthy hon. You eat 1200, how much are you burning? Your net is probably *super* low - and if so your body won't let go of a single pound because it's not getting enough nutrients.

Your plan to up your cals a bit is a good one. I hope you find success in it.

This idea that your body "holds on" to fat if you don't eat enough to sustain your body makes no sense. Where do you get that from?

My doctor.

Your doctor is wrong. What do you think happens to you if you continue to eat far to little. Do you just continue to maintain your weight indefinitely? If so is that now your maintenance level? Can you live for the rest of your life eating "far to little"?

Could I maintain my weight eating 1000 calories a day considering that is not enough for me? Or do I have to eat even less before I hit a level I can maintain at?

Dont you see the problem with that logic? Perhaps your doctor was just trying to convince you to eat more and used a scare tactic.

Velum_cado

Either your workouts are extremely low intensity, or your food logging is messed up, because you cannot support that level of activity on that level of calories.

Open up your diary...

My workout intensity isn't low and my food logging isn't messed up. Not everyone is the same. I can workout this much with this amount of calories.

You can, but it's really not healthy hon. You eat 1200, how much are you burning? Your net is probably *super* low - and if so your body won't let go of a single pound because it's not getting enough nutrients.

Your plan to up your cals a bit is a good one. I hope you find success in it.

This idea that your body "holds on" to fat if you don't eat enough to sustain your body makes no sense. Where do you get that from?

My doctor.

MY doctor (psychiatrist) told me if I continued to be friends with so many gay men, I'd become a lesbian.

Aaron_K123

MY doctor (psychiatrist) told me if I continued to be friends with so many gay men, I'd become a lesbian.

Yup. Simply having a basic medical degree doesn't make you infallibly right about everything, even things people might assume you should know.

FightingFree

Before I gained weight (by eating badly and not exercising - nothing to do with this) I did moderately intense cardio for 30 mins, and would have maybe a 40 minute walk everyday - I was also a student and sedentary other than this routine. I worked in strength training everyday if I could (just body weight exercises, nothing more) and WAY shorter than you. I was maintaining my weight at around 113 lbs (ideal for my height) at 2500 calories per day...

I would seriously recommend bumping up your calories - give it a go for a month - perhaps just up to 1500 the first week, then 1800 the next if you're not feeling overly confident with it, but I guarantee you will not gain weight - you only start gaining weight when you just start eating EVERYTHING like I did without logging and exercising - in fact, I remember when I first realised my cals were too low (around 1200) and jumped up to about 1900 - I think I lost more weight that month than ever before.

TheVirgoddess

Your doctor is wrong. What do you think happens to you if you continue to eat far to little. Do you just continue to maintain your weight indefinitely? If so is that now your maintenance level? Can you live for the rest of your life eating "far to little"?

Could I maintain my weight eating 1000 calories a day considering that is not enough for me? Or do I have to eat even less before I hit a level I can maintain at?

Dont you see the problem with that logic? Perhaps your doctor was just trying to convince you to eat more and used a scare tactic.

No, he said you'll eventually lose, but that that sort of weight loss is very unhealthy - and isn't sustainable for any length of time.

I suppose it makes more sense to believe a random person on the internet rather than the person I've chosen as my healthcare partner.

I really don't need the smartassed remarks, either. I'm on here trying to do the best I can with the information that I've been given by the person who knows my body better than anyone on here possibly could.

Does that mean he's right all the time? Of course not. But eating way too few calories is bad for you, I think that much is pretty damned obvious. Which, coincidentally, was my entire point. If you want to get caught up in semantics, knock yourself out.

Aaron_K123

Your doctor is wrong. What do you think happens to you if you continue to eat far to little. Do you just continue to maintain your weight indefinitely? If so is that now your maintenance level? Can you live for the rest of your life eating "far to little"?

Could I maintain my weight eating 1000 calories a day considering that is not enough for me? Or do I have to eat even less before I hit a level I can maintain at?

Dont you see the problem with that logic? Perhaps your doctor was just trying to convince you to eat more and used a scare tactic.

No, he said you'll eventually lose, but that that sort of weight loss is very unhealthy - and isn't sustainable for any length of time.

I suppose it makes more sense to believe a random person on the internet rather than the person I've chosen as my healthcare partner.

I really don't need the smartassed remarks, either. I'm on here trying to do the best I can with the information that I've been given by the person who knows my body better than anyone on here possibly could.

Does that mean he's right all the time? Of course not. But eating way too few calories is bad for you, I think that much is pretty damned obvious. Which, coincidentally, was my entire point. If you want to get caught up in semantics, knock yourself out.

Eating to little is bad for you. It will result in muscle loss and decrease in bone density, lethargy associated with anemia and potential kidney and liver issues. What it wont do though is make you hold ont fat and maintain your weight. Just ask an anorexic.

Note in my posts I have stressed the importance of eating more. Still, misinformation is still misinformation no matter how well intended.

Dont listen to me just think it through and you will see why that doesn't make sense. I value logic over emotion or personal anecdote when it comes to reality.

TheVirgoddess

Eating to little is bad for you. It will result in muscle loss and decrease in bone density, lethargy associated with anemia and potential kidney and liver issues. What it wont do though is make you hold ont fat and maintain your weight. Just ask an anorexic.

Sugar, I know this. He said initially when you cut your calories to an unhealthy intake, your weight loss will stall because your body will sorta freak out. Then you'll begin to lose again - but at the cost of your health. The OP has been exercising more only recently, so I figured she might be in the "freak out" mode and encouraged her to up her intake before unhealthy mode. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my post, or didn't articulate myself well - that happens (honestly? I had to poop so I was rushing).

Sometimes just asking what people mean (instead of climbing up their butts) helps.

Aaron_K123

Eating to little is bad for you. It will result in muscle loss and decrease in bone density, lethargy associated with anemia and potential kidney and liver issues. What it wont do though is make you hold ont fat and maintain your weight. Just ask an anorexic.

Sugar, I know this. He said initially when you cut your calories to an unhealthy intake, your weight loss will stall because your body will sorta freak out. Then you'll begin to lose again - but at the cost of your health. The OP has been exercising more only recently, so I figured she might be in the "freak out" mode and encouraged her to up her intake before unhealthy mode. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my post, or didn't articulate myself well - that happens (honestly? I had to poop so I was rushing).

Sometimes just asking what people mean (instead of climbing up their butts) helps.

Fair enough my apologies. I agree with what you say here.

TheVirgoddess

I will, in the future, try to make sure that if I give advice, I'll be a lot clearer.

Aaron_K123

I will, in the future, try to make sure that if I give advice, I'll be a lot clearer.

I will try to give more thought to the people making the statements not just the statements themselves. I think we are both just concerned for the health of another.

SLLRunner

Be sure your minimum calorific intake is at least 10x=body weight/lbs to avoid 'starvation response'.
Otherwise your metabolism will slow down and you'll find it harder to utilize stored fat as fuel.

The quote above is nonsense.

(I'm a professionally qualified nutritionist)

It's still nonsense.

Just about what I was going to say, but you beat me to it.

SLLRunner

Either your workouts are extremely low intensity, or your food logging is messed up, because you cannot support that level of activity on that level of calories.

Open up your diary...

My workout intensity isn't low and my food logging isn't messed up. Not everyone is the same. I can workout this much with this amount of calories.

Certainly, you can't be serious. Working out 4 hours a day is overdoing it.

SLLRunner

That is the problem. Her weight is "stable" at essentially starvation mode. It is not her weight that needs to become stable, but her body needs to adjust to the new level of homeostasis. It is not healthy to be at a "stable" weight while eating at a starvation level of calories.

This information is incorrect. Read other posts in here where starvation mode is refuted because...well...it's not based on the number of calories you eat, it's based on how much weight and muscle you've lost, and you're pretty much emaciated

SLLRunner

Calories in vs. calories out is not always true.

Yes it is. .

Even for those with special medical problems where they have to find their calorie deficit through medical care and trial and error, well....calories in/calories out is still true,

A calorie deficit is the only thing required to lose weight. .

Orangesky50

"This idea that your body "holds on" to fat if you don't eat enough to sustain your body makes no sense. Where do you get that from?"

This idea comes from Biology.


Our body has biofeedback mechanisms that helps it to stay in homeostasis. ( For instance, we shiver when we are cold.) I think that as we begin to understand these biofeedback mechanisms in the area of weight loss, we will begin to be more successful in helping people loose weight. In reality, people's bodies, can literally change their metabolism so they can live on less and less food. In other words, the body becomes more and more efficient at getting energy from our calories and stores the rest for future use. It is an evolutionary mechanism that helps us survive when we are faced with frequent famines. It is these biofeedback mechanisms which are causing obesity in many people, in my opinion. This is why the men in the starvation experiment gained more weight and had a new "normal" weight that was higher than their original weight, after their period of starvation. Our body wants to find a place of stability. We can actually CAUSE illness by starving ourselves. Then we no longer fit in your bell shaped curve, but rather become "special snowflakes" who cannot loose weight to save our lives.

Orangesky50

SSL_Runner: I agree we do need a calorie deficit, BUT the current model isn't true. We do NOT loose a pound for every 3500 calories burned. Not all bodies respond to calorie deficit in the same way, and in fact having too great of calorie deficit sets MANY people up for a lifetime of obesity. So, what I am saying is the "simple" idea that ALL you need for weight loss is calorie deficit and no other factors matter is what is false. There are other factors including hormones, sleep, medications, stress, emotional state, sex, age, weight, past history of dieting, vitamins, the types of foods you eat, your bodies biofeedback mechanisms, etc. etc. and etc. , that all come in to play. If the ONLY think that matters is calorie deficit, then how can the side effects for many medications be weight gain or weigh loss..... even when the patient doesn't eat more or less????? There are MANY more factors. It is NOT a simple mathematical formula that you can apply to all people. This is what I am saying.

Aaron_K123

"This idea that your body "holds on" to fat if you don't eat enough to sustain your body makes no sense. Where do you get that from?"

This idea comes from Biology.


Our body has biofeedback mechanisms that helps it to stay in homeostasis. ( For instance, we shiver when we are cold.) I think that as we begin to understand these biofeedback mechanisms in the area of weight loss, we will begin to be more successful in helping people loose weight. In reality, people's bodies, can literally change their metabolism so they can live on less and less food. In other words, the body becomes more and more efficient at getting energy from our calories and stores the rest for future use. It is an evolutionary mechanism that helps us survive when we are faced with frequent famines. It is these biofeedback mechanisms which are causing obesity in many people, in my opinion. This is why the men in the starvation experiment gained more weight and had a new "normal" weight that was higher than their original weight, after their period of starvation. Our body wants to find a place of stability. We can actually CAUSE illness by starving ourselves. Then we no longer fit in your bell shaped curve, but rather become "special snowflakes" who cannot loose weight to save our lives.

You are referring to adaptive thermogenesis which at most can reduce your BMR temporarily by 40%. At no point does this make it impossible to lose weight and only occurs to that extent under true starvation conditions.

You are pointing to a real effect but assuming it does more than it can do. Adaptive thermogenesis will nrver make you maintain forever it will just slow dramatic weightloss during longterm starvation.