Maintaining/gaining on less calories?!
Options
Replies
-
Thank you so much again! The short run is not really intense. For some reason, the running is getting more difficult lately instead of easier. Usually my legs already feel heavy when I start running. Therefore, I can't seem to get faster, even if the run is short.
I don't do anything in particular for recovery, apart from trying to never run two days in a row. The day after usually go for a bike ride or something. The program only specifies the number of minutes you should run and how long to run fast and slow in the interval training. It doesn't give an absolute speed or something.
How do I check wether it is indeed water weight and how do I get rid of it?
And in the mean time, should I keep eating like this or eating more or less?
Is it possible that these 2000 calories are still not enough, even though it is around the same number as I got when filling out your excel file to determine TDEE?0 -
How do you get rid of some of that water weight?
Drain your blood and stop doing cardio. Really.
Stress related - remove stress.
You can only control so much probably, but diet, exercise, sleep, stress about diet, stress about weight, food eaten in case any sensitivities.
So actually, you can control a lot.
Now if your body is dealing with a disease, like diabetes, or fibromyalgia, or PCOS, or other - you can't control that, so you must lessen even more the stresses you can control.
A healthy body can do a certain amount of exercise with a certain amount of deficit and recover enough it's not too stressful, going over the acceptable limit the body has.
But an unhealthy body with stress from something else can't - it just adds to what you've got and could go over the limit.
Do you have HRM to train to?
Because it sounds like you aren't recovering well enough.
How intense is the workouts the day after the long run and the interval run? What are the workouts? You mention bike or something.
Eating level depends if you've been close to right, or well under. But yes you are doing more than last time you were eating at this level, right? And what happened then?
But if the current eating level is already adding to the total stress level, eating less ain't going to do anything but add more stress.
And while you could lose fat (like you could be doing right now actually), the increased stress could totally hide it with more water weight. And then your stress over that effect on the scale, staying the same or going up, could add even more.
So this is written from perspective of not eating too little, but just the effects of stress. Sadly the comments here aren't about the stress from undereating, rather the belief it's not happening.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html#more-9313
You weigh the foods you eat still?0 -
I don't have a HRM. I only use an app on my phone to track my runs.
I'm indeed working out way more than last time I ate this amount of calories. Back then, I did two gym sessions a week only. Now I do only one, but I do 3 half marathon trainings a week. Back then, my weight was stable at about 25 lbs less then my current weight, whereas now the scale keeps going up. Then how can I figure out whether I should eat less or more? And how much less or more? I am totally lost.0 -
You weighed less and did less, and ate this same amount of calories and maintained.
You now weigh more and are doing more, eating the same amount of calories.
So first - lets think logically. Because you have to understand the concepts or you'll always be doomed to confusion when your activity level changes.
Think you have more muscle usage now compared to back then, perhaps even more muscle?
Just based on those first 2 sentences, trusting the fact of how much you ate is truth - should you be eating more or less now?
How long are the running workouts, and what intensity level on all of them?
For half-marathon training, there really is no need to go more than about 210 min a week running, 30 min, 60 min, and working way up to 120 min if not there yet.
How tired does your workouts leave you, like how lazy outside your workouts are you. Can you decently compare to daily activity prior.
Hard and/or long workouts, especially when not eating enough, will cause body to slow you down. If you can push in the exercise no matter what, then it'll be rest the day.
Many people find with Fitbit's for instance before they become inspired to get steps in, is that a good hard workout that may indeed burn 800 calories in a hour, then leaves them missing out on 200-400 calories because of moving less rest of the day.
So in reality, only burning say 400 more than normal.
Now, Fitbit protects the deficit even then because it lowers correctly what you burned, MFP takes off deficit, and it's accounted for.
What others discover is they eat back those calories correctly, wiping out a big part of the deficit in the day. But sadly it doesn't happen often enough to help body speed up, just lose some of the deficit.
In your case, mix multiple days together as recovery to constant hard workouts, and the workout may have provided no additional calorie burn.
If you want to test it out and can't stand going higher, than go lower and pay very close attention to performance on the running, your pace, your time at certain distance, ect.
And watch for energy levels.
Some people must see for themselves and compare, and if going higher freaks you out, then that stress just causes it to happen.
Self-fulfilling prophecy.0 -
Well, I think I have more muscle mass now and I definitely have more muscle usage. So I'd say I should be eating more than back then.
In the training, 210 min is about the max, that is one short run of 50 mins, one interval run of about 45 mins and the longest run now is 115 mins. The milage is decreasing now, because the marathon is getting closer.
Also, I've noticed that I my running is really getting worse every time. I struggle even with the long runs. My legs feel heavy, even after I just started running, which is scaring me. I mean, I ran the half marathon distance in my second week of training, because I had such a good run, and I was only a little sore the day after. But now I struggle to complete 45 mins?! And about two weeks ago, I managed to run 10 miles, but I was sore for a week. What is happening?
I have a 10 mile race this Sunday, so the last two weeks I've been easing up on the running a little, because I'm afraid it is getting too much for me. But is that possible, even if at the start I was doing so well, so I know I can do it, but it seems like my body is just not working anymore?
I not active besides my workouts, but I've always been like that, so that should not be the issue here. I don't eat back my exercise calories. I eat around 2000 each day, but only on days of a long run, I make sure I net my RMR (as tested in the hospital).
You suggest eating less, but if it turns out I'm already eating too little now, shouldn't eating even less make matters worse? Just asking...0 -
Yes, it should make matters much worse and very evident in case you have any doubt - which I thought I was seeing a lot of.
But I'm not sure why you have this doubt when your performance is likely showing exactly what is happening.
With that much variety between run days - frankly average TDEE daily isn't going to work for you well.
To spread 2000 calorie burn on big run day across 7 days just means you are very lacking what you need on that day - and way more than you need on several other days.
The problem I see though is you are NOT spreading it out either, you are just way under.
You even gotten an estimate of what you burn on those runs?
Mass and pace is more accurate than HRM, if you are accurate on pace and time and weight. Incline helps too if you know, like if outside running, because that means even more burn.
Find some past runs where you have the data, and see what you've really burned.
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
I'm going to suggest your best bet right now is MFP style - but with the same reasonable deficit TDEE method would give you.
When you log the running calories (using link above use NET option), knock 15% off the burn. Because if it had been included in the TDEE it would have had 15% removed too.
Then eat correctly and reach goal when you hit it.
If you run through some past workouts - how much should you have been eating on those days?0 -
So you're saying I should eat my TDEE for sedentary (excluding workouts) and eat my exercise calories back?
On most days, that would leave me less calories than now. Isn't that a problem then?
Because I thought you said I'm way under and should eat more. But eating sedentary TDEE - 15% + running calories - 15% would give me a lower intake.
You say my performance is showing exactly what is happening. Do you mean I haven't been eating enough to fuel my workouts? If so, then why did I run just fine in the first couple of weeks, but now I'm getting worse and worse, even though I haven't changed my caloric intake (except maybe a little on the long-run days, since they were getting longer and I would net below BMR on those days if I didn't eat more). I don't understand.
By the way, I use the number of calories burned based on what Runkeeper says. It uses weight, height and the run statistics to determine this. I saw its very similar to what the website you referred to gives me.0 -
MFP Sedentary - not that TDEE table sedentary from 1919 study.
So on most days when you are not working out you would eat less calories than now, right?
But what about workout days, would you be eating more calories than now using my suggestion?
If your long run is at the right pace, you should be burning at least 40% of those calories as fat. Obviously fat doesn't need to be eaten back to replace that, carbs needs to be replaced for the other 60% though. So even if it is less (doubtful), your diet should still allow eating enough to replace carbs.
Also, sedentary doesn't mean no exercise in the context of MFP that doesn't include exercise anyway in the figures.
Sedentary means 45 hrs desk job / commute with no kids or dogs and outside of exercise, a real bump on a log. Are you actually that type of sedentary?
Lack of food and performance doesn't show up immediately. You don't understand because you just don't happen to understand how the body works, that's all. 2 reasons performance would not take immediate the next day hit.
Your recovery in a diet is slower, bigger deficit, bigger impact. And slowly but surely you have not been getting enough recovery, and now that lack is showing up in your performance being worse. And it sadly won't come back overnight either.
Also, you have slowly but surely depleted your glucose stores to a lower level than what you had at the start. So less quick energy available if you hit hills hard, or similar high energy needs.
Mostly the first reason.
With correct MFP Activity level selected (really sedentary) and weight loss goal of say 1/2 lb weekly (250 cal deficit), what does MFP say your daily calorie burn is from normal activity on the Goals page?0 -
Okay for sedentary, MFP gives me 1300 calories a day for 1 lb per week and 1550 for 0.5 lbs per week. But should't I correct for the fact that my RMR was tested at 1322 instead of the 1483 that MFP calculates based on my height, weight and age?
Outside of work I'm also pretty sedentary. I only go to work by bicycle, which takes me about 30 mins per day, but I don't think that would make me lightly active. Then two of my weekly runs give about 495 calories each, based on the website you provided, and the long one would be about 1174 this week. Then I have one gym session of 30 mins on a cross trainer and 45 mins of weights. I have no idea how much that would give me.
Using the 1550 calories, and then adding exercise calories, I would be averaging lower than now. But I thought you said I was eating too little? Or is the problem that I eat too little on training days and too much on rest days?
By the way, I'm not expecting to be losing weight with my current eating level, but I'm supposed to at least maintain on this. Instead I'm gaining a pound per week. I obviously want to lose weight, but I just wanted to say that I started eating this amount with the goal of maintaining, which unfortunately hasn't happened and my weight has gone up so much that I need to lose weight again.0 -
Okay for sedentary, MFP gives me 1300 calories a day for 1 lb per week and 1550 for 0.5 lbs per week. But should't I correct for the fact that my RMR was tested at 1322 instead of the 1483 that MFP calculates based on my height, weight and age?
Outside of work I'm also pretty sedentary. I only go to work by bicycle, which takes me about 30 mins per day, but I don't think that would make me lightly active. Then two of my weekly runs give about 495 calories each, based on the website you provided, and the long one would be about 1174 this week. Then I have one gym session of 30 mins on a cross trainer and 45 mins of weights. I have no idea how much that would give me.
Using the 1550 calories, and then adding exercise calories, I would be averaging lower than now. But I thought you said I was eating too little? Or is the problem that I eat too little on training days and too much on rest days?
By the way, I'm not expecting to be losing weight with my current eating level, but I'm supposed to at least maintain on this. Instead I'm gaining a pound per week. I obviously want to lose weight, but I just wanted to say that I started eating this amount with the goal of maintaining, which unfortunately hasn't happened and my weight has gone up so much that I need to lose weight again.
You are kidding me - you bike to work each day and don't count it! Neither in daily activity setting or logging as exercise?!
No wonder your body is rebelling.
I'm really beginning to doubt you have an accurate assessment of what sedentary is. Here are the hours of activity for sedentary in a week.
40 hr work sitting, 56 hr sleeping, 65 hr sitting/standing, 7 hr slow walking.
So that means if you did a long walking shopping session on weekends just looking around for 3 hrs - you went over this. That 7 hrs weekly walking is only 1 hr a day, for all walking. That is easily met, even with desk job.
I'd suggest you need to log that ride at whatever correct speed you do it, which means you need the distance. Don't count waiting at lights (like 15 min time is really 3 min of stopped at lights waiting, then that is 12 min of ride time for same distance) to figure that average. Once you get the right speed entry, it'll be easy to log in the future. Take 15% off whatever MFP gives you to log as calorie burn.
And NO you do not want to base eating on a lower than expected RMR test - unless you feel like keeping it low and probably suppressing it even more is the way to go.
If you want to go that direction, then we go right back to my suggestion of eating even less so you can have the negative effects right up in your face obvious to see.
45 min of weights would be logged as strength training, unless you did it circuit style with 60 sec or less rests and lift to lift repeating after all were done, then circuit training is in there. Again, 15% off the estimate given.
Cross trainer, if you put your weight in, I'd go for it's calorie count. Then log 15% less.
And then the running is using that other site with your stats of speed/time and using NET option, again less 15%.
So current BMR 1440 x 1.25 sedentary = 1800 non-exercise TDEE estimated.
1800 - 14% deficit (250 cal or 0.5 lb weekly) = 1550 on non-exercise days.
But you'll never see that goal likely. Why?
Because you'll log your biking every day it's done.
On weekends when not done, you have a long run.
Perhaps one day you will have that as goal. Go out for a walk of 60 min, log it (less 15%). There, now you are eating more.
I think the issue is exactly what you said, I phrased it differently. Not enough when your body really needs it, too much when it doesn't.
In your case, you were also missing some exercise that should have been accounted for too.
And 1 lb a week, again, have you done the math if that was supposedly fat you think you are gaining?
Show me what the math would be with your eating level if that was 1 lb of fat being gained a week. It'll be good for you to always do this.0 -
Yeah, I did the math before and judging by that, it can't be fat. Because since I upped to 2000 calories, I've been gaining on average 1 lb per week, so that would be a surplus of 500 calories per day. That implies that I would maintain on 1500, while running 200 mins (maximum) a week, strength training once or twice per week and biking about half an hour on weekdays. Since I'm 5 ft 9 and weigh 145 lbs now, 1500 for maintainance seems way too low to me. But if the 20 lbs are not all fat, then what is it? It can't be much muscle and I read water weight can only be like 4 lbs or something.
I know it is possible to gain when eating too little, but isn't that only when you're eating like 1000 calories per day? I feel like I am eating too much to be in "starvation mode"...0 -
Starvation mode, adaptive thermogenesis, metabolic efficiency - isn't about the eating level - it's totally about the amount of deficit from what the body could maintain on.
That's the threat.
The effect has been seen, regularly enough it's expected, in morbidly obese patients put on a diet to lose enough weight to have surgery. Their normal TDEE may be 4000-5000, and when they feed them 2000-2500 (50% deficit), which sounds like enough, they expected after a few weeks that the TDEE will lower not only from less weight, but by good 20-25% because of metabolic efficiency. So weight loss will slow even more then weight would indicate. That's why they hope to add exercise at some point, to offset that and increase TDEE back up by being more active.
And no, it's not possible to gain from eating too little - that's a myth.
What happens is someone has suppressed their daily burn so much they are eating at maintenance.
Then on a regular basis they binge from eating so little. That doesn't raise their metabolism, it stores the extra as fat, and weight goes up.
Starvation mode is merely your body suppressing it's burn. That's what you did, below what it could have been.
Now you are trying to unstress the body so it'll increase that back up.
As to what can add weight that fast.
Water weight as you said, increased carbs in the muscles finally, increased blood volume, ect. True on carbs, unless doing endurance training, and even then could only be maybe 2 lbs max. Blood volume another lb.
Not increased muscle, not undereating. Body isn't going to expend precious energy it's not getting enough of to build more muscle that will require even more energy to maintain when it's not getting enough now.
Glad you did the math - when you spell it out, it's very ridiculous to think of maintaining on 1500 if the weight gain really was fat.
You do you have any health issues the body is also dealing with?
Because stress, from under-eating, from food allergies/sensitivities, from lack of sleep, from life, ect, elevate cortisol that can help retain upwards of 20 lbs of water.
And if illness or disease then there is even more stress.
So you didn't increase slowly, but jumped straight up to 2000?
And you were eating how much with maintaining weight?
So you actually do have a surplus then until such time as your metabolism speeds back up. That difference is real fat gain actually.0 -
Today I had my body composition measured by a professional in the hospital and it turns out that the last 10 lbs I gained were all fat!
How the hell is that possible? In those three months that I gained those pounds, I worked out about 5 times a week. I thought that at least some part of the gain would be muscle, but it turns out it is not. Does this mean my maintenance is really 1500 calories only? With the exercise I'm doing that sounds really ridiculous.0 -
Today I had my body composition measured by a professional in the hospital and it turns out that the last 10 lbs I gained were all fat!
How the hell is that possible? In those three months that I gained those pounds, I worked out about 5 times a week. I thought that at least some part of the gain would be muscle, but it turns out it is not. Does this mean my maintenance is really 1500 calories only? With the exercise I'm doing that sounds really ridiculous.
Yes, it is ridiculous, so let reason enter in to the initial reaction. No need for more stress.
Body comp measured how exactly?
And measured the same way at first that you are comparing too?
Every method has range of accuracy, and if on one side of range first time and other side this time, totally false gain in BF%, and merely in the overlap of inaccuracy.
And all measurement methods require normal level of hydration, so rules for valid weigh-in day apply to BF% measurements too.
Were both measurements done on valid weigh-in days?
If 10 lbs really is fat and not potential inaccuracies in method use, then the following applies.
10 lbs x 3500 = 35000 / 90 days = 389 over true maintenance. Which true, I doubt.
Also, besides the almost daily 30 min bike ride that was unaccounted for, lay out your schedule for those other workouts for day of the week. And comment how intense the run is to you. Not the speed, that's meaningless, how intense for you. Same with weights.0 -
Both times they used two methods: BIA and calipers. Both times measurements were taken in a fasted state. Last time I got 25% and 26%, this time I got 29% and 30%. So definitely an increase of about 4%. To me that seems crazy, since I'm working out 5x a week, that's a lot more than I have ever done before. And on top of that I weigh more than ever too!
I wil give an overview of my weekly activities:
30 min bike ride 3x a week (stopping at traffic lights so slow speed, about 14-15 km/h)
45-60 min bike ride 2x a week (about 16-17 km/h)
30 min elliptical trainer (normal pace) and 45 mins of weights (not light weights, try to go as heavy as I can)
45 min run (about 10 km/h)
45 min interval run (average speed about 10 km/h)
90-110 min long run (about 9 km/h)
In the beginning my long runs were shorter obviously (started from 60 mins), but for the first two months I did the elliptical+weights training twice a week instead of once. And in the three months while working out like this, eaten 2000 calories, I gained 10 lbs of pure fat. To me, that's just crazy. It's not like those 2000 calories leave me hungry (If I only ate when I was hungry I would probably eat much less), but I feel like I should not be gaining on this with this amount of exercise. But on the other hand, I feel like I cannot be gaining due to "starvation mode" because for that I eat too much.
At the beginning of this year, I only did the 30 mins bike rides 3x a week and the elliptical+weights training 2x a week, while eating 1700 calories and maintaining a weight of 16 lbs lower. A year ago, I only did like three 15 mins bike rides a week, two 45 min bike rides and 2 gym sessions (15-30 mins of running, 15-30 mins of weight training, not as heavy as now) and maybe like two 45 min walks (not runs) extra week and I maintained a weight of 26 lbs less than now on 2100 calories. To me, it's all one big mystery.0 -
So first, best BIA's are only up to 5% accurate if you are in the same hydrated state. So the inaccuracy overlaps each other there.
Calipers are same 5%, again overlap within the range of potential accuracy.
Best you can say is the following.
First measurements BIA and calipers:
22.5 - 27.5% and 23.5 - 28.5%
Second measurements:
26.5 - 31.5% and 27.5 - 32.5%
And you would have no clue which side of that best potential range of accuracy you fell for each set of measurements.
And if the accuracy was not at best 5%, but actually 7 or 10% - even more overlap.
So in essence, you don't have any measurements that truly tell a story that you can put much stock in right now.
But, if you were using the spreadsheet, that increase, real or not, of BF%, would cause your BMR to be lower, your TDEE to be lower, and your TDEG to be lower.
So you would eat less.
Self adjusting.
The only thing you know for sure is weight has gone up, you still don't have reliable enough data for BF% to know what it's doing yet. Those potentially inaccurate measurements give trends, over time. Like months.
2 data points does not a trend make.
So my last request to look at your workouts. You commented on the lifting, heavy for you.
What days of the week do those occur on, because doing certain workouts in certain order is just a stress on the body with little to no recovery.
And I asked for how intense the runs are, and those longer bike sessions, speed is worthless to describe intensity, you could be so fit for running or biking that the faster speed isn't intense anymore. Then again you could be totally out of breath feeling like you are going as hard as you can for each workout. I get the idea the interval run is hard.
Is the speed for running/biking now faster compared to those times in the past doing them? Since weight has gone up, same speed/pace would be bigger calorie burn. But if you slowed down a lot compared to start of year, you could be burning a lot less.
Why am I interested in this?
I still think your stress levels are jacking up your hormones and causing bad water weight gain.
Until you have a DEXA scan you have no clue if it's "10 lbs of pure fat".
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html#more-93130
