So exactly when does all the bad stuff happen?
Replies
-
Your diary doesn't look extreme. It looks sensible and moderate. That's why you haven't run into problems. I don't think most people do. It is only those extreme dieters who do so in an unhealthy way (long periods of fasting, fad diets where they eat only one food, or they don't eat enough over a very extended period to even reach their BMR) who probably run into those types of problems. I don't know any of my friends on MFP who have "suffered" from any adverse side effects. Like me, as we lose, the healthier we feel.0
-
I agree that your logging is inaccurate and you're double dipping your fitbit calories.
If you want to log Zumba and such I'd recommend doing it on Fitbit's site, because that way those burns will override your fitbit adjustment for the time period during which you were exercising. That's how I log my lifting and my physical therapy.
That said, your rate of loss isn't unreasonable, which backs up the idea that you're not really doing a VLCD, so if you prefer the way you're doing it just keep doing that. But don't think it means you're netting negatives, because I don't think it does. Personally since you're down to vanity pounds I'd start to ramp up your calories as you move toward maintenance.
eta: I did read that you say you're deleting your fitbit calories and weighing but that's not what your diary indicates.
Thanks! So you find that logging your exercise on Fitbit gives you more accuracy than on MFP? And you just use MFP to log your foods? I may try that... Yes, sorry I know my diary doesn't reflect the adjustment deletion. I don't want to disconnect so I delete as I go throughout the day and the system automatically adds it back in. Before I end my day I delete the number, refresh and take a look at the number that way.
I deleted mine. I also do TDEE though, so I log my exercise on here but log it as 1 calorie burned. I log my actual exercise on my fitbit. I don't have the two linked, but that's me.0 -
Your diary doesn't look extreme. It looks sensible and moderate. That's why you haven't run into problems. I don't think most people do. It is only those extreme dieters who do so in an unhealthy way (long periods of fasting, fad diets where they eat only one food, or they don't eat enough over a very extended period to even reach their BMR) who probably run into those types of problems. I don't know any of my friends on MFP who have "suffered" from any adverse side effects.
Thanks. I had a couple of connections on here who warned me of things and I never quite understood it because I feel that I am doing things the right way and I feel fine. So what you have said makes more sense to me than the 'warnings" on a low calorie day.0 -
The OP wrote that she has been at , "...a fairly substantial deficit and/or negative net at the end of the day about 90% of the time." Negative net. You don't think that's extreme?Your diary for the last week shows you eating 1300 - 1600 calories per day. It looks like you are not doing an extreme diet. I believe the "bad stuff" happens when you restrict calories BELOW what is healthy for that individual. You know, the people that are netting 300 - 600 calories a day.
I have been at 1500 - 1600 calories - give or take - for 2 and 1/2 years. I'm fine too. Because I meet my macros, meet my calories. So, what is the point of this post?
That would depend on the calorie target and how much under. If her target is 1000 cals, then yes. That's fairly extreme unless she has a form of dwarfism. If it's 1500, and she's usually under by 100 cals or so, not extreme.0 -
I agree that your logging is inaccurate and you're double dipping your fitbit calories.
If you want to log Zumba and such I'd recommend doing it on Fitbit's site, because that way those burns will override your fitbit adjustment for the time period during which you were exercising. That's how I log my lifting and my physical therapy.
That said, your rate of loss isn't unreasonable, which backs up the idea that you're not really doing a VLCD, so if you prefer the way you're doing it just keep doing that. But don't think it means you're netting negatives, because I don't think it does. Personally since you're down to vanity pounds I'd start to ramp up your calories as you move toward maintenance.
eta: I did read that you say you're deleting your fitbit calories and weighing but that's not what your diary indicates.
Thanks! So you find that logging your exercise on Fitbit gives you more accuracy than on MFP? And you just use MFP to log your foods? I may try that... Yes, sorry I know my diary doesn't reflect the adjustment deletion. I don't want to disconnect so I delete as I go throughout the day and the system automatically adds it back in. Before I end my day I delete the number, refresh and take a look at the number that way.
I deleted mine. I also do TDEE though, so I log my exercise on here but log it as 1 calorie burned. I log my actual exercise on my fitbit. I don't have the two linked, but that's me.
I was thinking of doing something like this but wasn't sure how well it would work out. Do you feel that Fitbit is more accurate than MFP?0 -
One year and 7 pounds lost does not an expert make, or is that a real number? Doesn't seem like it was any big feat to begin with if those are your true numbers.
No. It's one year and over 80 pounds. I have seven vanity pounds to go.
And I don't claim to be an expert at anything. Thanks anyway.
If you were really coming in at negative net calories every day, I suspect you'd have lost more than 80 pounds in a year. You're averaging about 1.5 lbs/week over the span of a year, which is about right. My guess is you're eating more and burning less than you think, and your actual deficit isn't nearly as extreme as you think it is, in which case you aren't seeing the "bad stuff" simply because you aren't cutting as aggressively as you think you are. But either way, congrats on the weight loss.0 -
I agree that your logging is inaccurate and you're double dipping your fitbit calories.
If you want to log Zumba and such I'd recommend doing it on Fitbit's site, because that way those burns will override your fitbit adjustment for the time period during which you were exercising. That's how I log my lifting and my physical therapy.
That said, your rate of loss isn't unreasonable, which backs up the idea that you're not really doing a VLCD, so if you prefer the way you're doing it just keep doing that. But don't think it means you're netting negatives, because I don't think it does. Personally since you're down to vanity pounds I'd start to ramp up your calories as you move toward maintenance.
eta: I did read that you say you're deleting your fitbit calories and weighing but that's not what your diary indicates.
Thanks! So you find that logging your exercise on Fitbit gives you more accuracy than on MFP? And you just use MFP to log your foods? I may try that... Yes, sorry I know my diary doesn't reflect the adjustment deletion. I don't want to disconnect so I delete as I go throughout the day and the system automatically adds it back in. Before I end my day I delete the number, refresh and take a look at the number that way.
I deleted mine. I also do TDEE though, so I log my exercise on here but log it as 1 calorie burned. I log my actual exercise on my fitbit. I don't have the two linked, but that's me.
I was thinking of doing something like this but wasn't sure how well it would work out. Do you feel that Fitbit is more accurate than MFP?
Yes, Though I still feel it's a little high. Though again, I don't focus on my calorie burn #, I do TDEE so I eat a set # of calories every day.
Your Fitbit will have a pretty good idea what your TDEE is. I got so nerdy I created a spreadsheet and go on an average.0 -
One year and 7 pounds lost does not an expert make, or is that a real number? Doesn't seem like it was any big feat to begin with if those are your true numbers.
No. It's one year and over 80 pounds. I have seven vanity pounds to go.
And I don't claim to be an expert at anything. Thanks anyway.
If you were really coming in at negative net calories every day, I suspect you'd have lost more than 80 pounds in a year. You're averaging about 1.5 lbs/week over the span of a year, which is about right. My guess is you're eating more and burning less than you think, and your actual deficit isn't nearly as extreme as you think it is, in which case you aren't seeing the "bad stuff" simply because you aren't cutting as aggressively as you think you are. But either way, congrats on the weight loss.
This. Yup...
And I think I have forgotten to say congrats on the loss. I do think you've been eating more and burning less than you think, so you've been doing it the healthier way the whole time. Which is a good thing. It's more sustainable. Plus, you don't really want to experience your hair falling out or any of that other stuff...trust me.0 -
The Adaptive Thermogenesis thread has about 15-20 people commenting on their own "crash and burn" experiences and the medical literature clearly identified a hysteresis effect to weight loss - the path you follow affects metabolism. So much for information.
Whether you want to believe it or not - your business.
Are you really keeping a significant cut now?
Having lost 50 lbs your metabolism has shifted because, with weight loss, one needs a lot less to move around, etc... What you thought was a significant deficit is probably no longer that.
If you are losing less than 2 lbs a week you are not in a "huge" deficit or you've impacted your metabolism.
So unless you are planning to lose those remaining 7 vanity pounds in two or less weeks, I'm going to suggest that your significant "cut" isn't as large as you think it is.
When was the last time you recalculated your TDEE?
Now, if you really want to see what your max TDEE has been at different weight as you lose - run this:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/EvgeniZyntx/view/new-mfp-data-export-tool-major-update-659927
Then post the image of the TDEE and TDEE vs Weight graphs and we can discuss if your TDEE has not changed over time.
All of this...
Unfortunately, it's very difficult to understand how much your metabolism has been effected unless you have test done before and after. Your TDEE will drop, as will your RMR and BMR. It's a natural process throughout weight loss. I can tell you, from anecdotal experience, that I am working with a women who did 4 rounds of HCG and only loses about .5 lb per week at 1400 calories, which exercising 6 hours a week (mix of NROLFW and HIIT) and no medical conditions. From a ton of other people I have worked with, similar people her size average about .8-1 lb per week at 1700-1900 calories. So while most people lose at 1700, she is maintaining at that much. Our plan is to start a bulk once she gets to a low enough body fat %. Oh and I have been working with her over a 1 year period at this point.
OP, any thought on this?
I'm quoting myself to add an element - if you do run that analysis - it pretty much does so by ignoring your posted exercise calories and focusing on reported diary and weight loss - it might help to give you an idea of your own actual TDEE (based on your logging method, quality and content) and it;'s evolution.0 -
Thanks! So you find that logging your exercise on Fitbit gives you more accuracy than on MFP? And you just use MFP to log your foods? I may try that... Yes, sorry I know my diary doesn't reflect the adjustment deletion. I don't want to disconnect so I delete as I go throughout the day and the system automatically adds it back in. Before I end my day I delete the number, refresh and take a look at the number that way.
I recently started logging on Fitbit instead of MFP because the two sites always disagree on what I should eat (I'm short, and MFP adds my exercise calories starting at 1200, where Fitbit goes by what I'm actually doing, and the Fitbit # seems the more accurate to me. The database isn't as big, but I don't think user generated results show up, which I believe makes it more reliable.0 -
About the moment you posted this thinly veiled attempt at validating your methodology for weight loss under the pretense of looking to be educated on the dangers of negative net calories, substantial deficits etc.So I am wondering when all the bad stuff that I keep hearing about e.g., ruined metabolism, muscle loss, starvation mode, etc. is supposed to happen? I have been going strong for a year and three months, still solid with a fairly substantial deficit and/or negative net at the end of the day about 90% of the time. I have not experienced any of the scary stuff people like to talk about. Honestly, I just continue to feel better and stronger with more energy and endurance...
Anyone else experience this? Anyone experience a "Real" crash and burn? Could it be that everyone is just different and some can tolerate and/or even thrive on extreme low calorie and hard work and others can't? I would love to understand this because many folks took great pains in 'warning' me of the dangers. Well, I am in deep waters and there are no dangers as far as the eye can see. Is there a magical time-frame like two years in? I know that a body can take a lot of abuse for a long time before breaking down, but how long exactly? Could it also be true that a body will actually learn to adapt to it's new environment when given no other choice?
I am not being sarcastic here, I really would like to hear some stories and opinions on all of this. And I don't mean opinions or nastiness toward me and please no lectures and no opinions on my own health and nutrition plan.
Just personal experience, personal perspective based on what we have heard, read, etc.
There is so much conflicting information!
I'd love to hear some real life experiences.
Thanks!
ETA: Because you will and have been called out on logging inaccuracies that paint a somewhat different picture, If this were a study it would be invalidated at a single glance of the data you have provided.
But I will congratulate you on your weight loss and well being, but tsk tsk for creating a thread that potentially validates and promotes unhealthy deficits.0 -
Regardless of what you think you burn or how many calories you think you eat, the truth lies in how much weight you gain/lose over a period of time. Your body is the ultimate arbiter in this.
Your 58 lb weight loss in "just over 10 months" (I called it 42 weeks), indicates a daily calorie deficit of 690. that is a very reasonable amount and a healthy rate at which to lose weight. That's why you aren't seeing any of the "bad stuff".
Good job.
This is about all that's needed.
It's simple, your food counts are bit off cause you don't weigh, your exercise calorie burns are inflated a bit, and you double dip on them from time to time. You aren't doing anything extreme. Pretty standard really.
Great job on all the progress.0 -
I personally find it slightly harder to keep up with my usual fitness routine which is pretty intense. I've had a few days of unusual tiredness, but nothing excessive. I have already reached my weight goal and am only concentrating on losing a few pounds, so it's fairly easy for me to keep up.
I have in the past been on VLC diets and those had a very dramatic impact on my life. The main difference I notice is exercise. One thing is to eat 1000kcal a day, it is completely and uttelry different to eat 2000 and burn 1000, your body has the chance to get all the nutrients it needs and is much less likely to suffer from restriction.0 -
I would say that the bad stuff started happening right about the time you said, "Hey! I have a great idea for a forum post!"0
-
I agree that your logging is inaccurate and you're double dipping your fitbit calories.
If you want to log Zumba and such I'd recommend doing it on Fitbit's site, because that way those burns will override your fitbit adjustment for the time period during which you were exercising. That's how I log my lifting and my physical therapy.
That said, your rate of loss isn't unreasonable, which backs up the idea that you're not really doing a VLCD, so if you prefer the way you're doing it just keep doing that. But don't think it means you're netting negatives, because I don't think it does. Personally since you're down to vanity pounds I'd start to ramp up your calories as you move toward maintenance.
eta: I did read that you say you're deleting your fitbit calories and weighing but that's not what your diary indicates.
Thanks! So you find that logging your exercise on Fitbit gives you more accuracy than on MFP? And you just use MFP to log your foods? I may try that... Yes, sorry I know my diary doesn't reflect the adjustment deletion. I don't want to disconnect so I delete as I go throughout the day and the system automatically adds it back in. Before I end my day I delete the number, refresh and take a look at the number that way.
That's what I'd do. It's been accurate for the 7ish weeks I've been doing it.0 -
The entire idea of weight loss is fraught with inaccurate estimates and guesses. I'm in the same boat as the OP, doing the best I can with the data I have. I bike for 2-7 hours a day but the calorie burns are over the top high so report them as if I were a 150 lbs rider instead of a 230 lbs rider and that seems to get them a bit closer to reality.
I weigh the food I eat at home but tend to grab some fast food when out for a long ride so that could be plus or minus a whole bunch at the discretion of whoever put together my sandwich.
If I were to follow the MFP suggestions I would be losing weight much more slowly or not at all due to overestimated calorie burns and underestimated food consumption. So I just do the best I can and most days I end up with pretty close to a reported negative net caloric intake (except maybe yesterday, I was starving from a 100 mile bike ride the day before).
Personally I just try to eat a healthy amount of food, normally between 1700-1900 calories for me and then get as much exercise as I can enjoy everyday. So far that averages out to about a half pound a day lost but I am sure that will slow down as I get fitter and don't have a ready supply of fat to fuel my long endeavors.
Just my two cents.0 -
For me personally, it took a little over three years for the very low calorie diet to catch up with me. I found myself at 25 with thinning bones, hair falling out, very dry skin, anemia, and a couple other non-reparable (but thankfully not terribly serious) health issues. At 43, my bones are stronger, the anemia is under control, but I still have patulous eardrums (forever). I also have a couple other permanent health consequences that I don't want to talk about on a public forum. After going back to eating 'normally', I gained 2-5 pounds every year and ended up overweight and 38 years old.
At that point in time, I decided to take control of my health. I did a very moderate calorie cut (just -250 a day). I lost weight easily and steadily eating over 2000 calories a day and mostly just walking and doing circuit training for strength.
I've been at my goal weight for over 2 years now and according to my doctor, I've never been healthier.0 -
I am weighing my foods/liquids and am getting a close to accurate burn number.
It seems like the question about effect on metabolism and/or whether you are accurately calculating calories and burn could be addressed by the following:
Has your loss been consistent with what your deficit would predict? What have you calculated it to be, and how much per week have you lost? If less now than when you were losing the bulk of the 80, what was your typical deficit, as you calculated it, and what was your typical loss in a month?0 -
For me personally, it took a little over three years for the very low calorie diet to catch up with me. I found myself at 25 with thinning bones, hair falling out, very dry skin, anemia, and a couple other non-reparable (but thankfully not terribly serious) health issues. At 43, my bones are stronger, the anemia is under control, but I still have patulous eardrums (forever). I also have a couple other permanent health consequences that I don't want to talk about on a public forum. After going back to eating 'normally', I gained 2-5 pounds every year and ended up overweight and 38 years old.
At that point in time, I decided to take control of my health. I did a very moderate calorie cut (just -250 a day). I lost weight easily and steadily eating over 2000 calories a day and mostly just walking and doing circuit training for strength.
I've been at my goal weight for over 2 years now and according to my doctor, I've never been healthier.
Wow three years is a long time. Did it begin slowly or come on all of a sudden? Thanks for sharing... I am so happy that you're back to health and doing well.0 -
I was questioning the diary entries too - lots of entries showing "8 almonds" or "10 blueberries", etc, rather than by weight in grams or ounces. Also agree that MFP calorie burn estimates can be high, so with those factors, consumed cals may be higher and burned cals may be lower than you think, and your deficit may not be a large as you estimate it is.
The OP wrote that she has been at , "...a fairly substantial deficit and/or negative net at the end of the day about 90% of the time." Negative net. You don't think that's extreme?Your diary for the last week shows you eating 1300 - 1600 calories per day. It looks like you are not doing an extreme diet. I believe the "bad stuff" happens when you restrict calories BELOW what is healthy for that individual. You know, the people that are netting 300 - 600 calories a day.
I have been at 1500 - 1600 calories - give or take - for 2 and 1/2 years. I'm fine too. Because I meet my macros, meet my calories. So, what is the point of this post?
That is extreme, though looking at her diary, if she's not weighing her food, then she's eating more than she things. Also, pretty sure those burns are estimates that come from MFP - which we all now are incredibly high. So while OP thinks she's been on an extreme diet, she probably hasn't really been.
I am weighing my foods/liquids and am getting a close to accurate burn number.
But even if it is all accurate, why on earth would you want to come in with negative net cals? Negative net = out of fuel. The fact that you say you're still feeling strong and energetic is what makes me think you're eating more and burning less than you think. To be at negative net or super low cals for so long without wearing down doesn't make sense.0 -
The entire idea of weight loss is fraught with inaccurate estimates and guesses. I'm in the same boat as the OP, doing the best I can with the data I have. I bike for 2-7 hours a day but the calorie burns are over the top high so report them as if I were a 150 lbs rider instead of a 230 lbs rider and that seems to get them a bit closer to reality.
I weigh the food I eat at home but tend to grab some fast food when out for a long ride so that could be plus or minus a whole bunch at the discretion of whoever put together my sandwich.
If I were to follow the MFP suggestions I would be losing weight much more slowly or not at all due to overestimated calorie burns and underestimated food consumption. So I just do the best I can and most days I end up with pretty close to a reported negative net caloric intake (except maybe yesterday, I was starving from a 100 mile bike ride the day before).
Personally I just try to eat a healthy amount of food, normally between 1700-1900 calories for me and then get as much exercise as I can enjoy everyday. So far that averages out to about a half pound a day lost but I am sure that will slow down as I get fitter and don't have a ready supply of fat to fuel my long endeavors.
Just my two cents.
Yay for another well said and thoughtful comment. Thanks for sharing your experience and thoughts, I appreciate it!
Yes I too find that MFP tends to tell me things that are not exactly accurate.0 -
I was questioning the diary entries too - lots of entries showing "8 almonds" or "10 blueberries", etc, rather than by weight in grams or ounces. Also agree that MFP calorie burn estimates can be high, so with those factors, consumed cals may be higher and burned cals may be lower than you think, and your deficit may not be a large as you estimate it is.
The OP wrote that she has been at , "...a fairly substantial deficit and/or negative net at the end of the day about 90% of the time." Negative net. You don't think that's extreme?Your diary for the last week shows you eating 1300 - 1600 calories per day. It looks like you are not doing an extreme diet. I believe the "bad stuff" happens when you restrict calories BELOW what is healthy for that individual. You know, the people that are netting 300 - 600 calories a day.
I have been at 1500 - 1600 calories - give or take - for 2 and 1/2 years. I'm fine too. Because I meet my macros, meet my calories. So, what is the point of this post?
That is extreme, though looking at her diary, if she's not weighing her food, then she's eating more than she things. Also, pretty sure those burns are estimates that come from MFP - which we all now are incredibly high. So while OP thinks she's been on an extreme diet, she probably hasn't really been.
I am weighing my foods/liquids and am getting a close to accurate burn number.
But even if it is all accurate, why on earth would you want to come in with negative net cals? Negative net = out of fuel. The fact that you say you're still feeling strong and energetic is what makes me think you're eating more and burning less than you think. To be at negative net or super low cals for so long without wearing down doesn't make sense.
You're right it doesn't makes sense. Exactly why I am posing the question.
As far as logging things like 8 almonds, etc. I do weigh them and I know how many calories are in one almond (within a percent or two based on the weight). I tend to pick the item in the list that seems reasonable and stick with it. If I am over estimating that's cool. If I am under estimating the calories then I'll also under estimate my calorie burn.0 -
Do you weigh all of your foods?
How do you know you're burning 1000 calories with exercise? MFP calorie burns or heart rate monitor?
(I peaked your food/exercise diary). Personally, your burns seem high and if you are not weighing your foods then you are eating more than you think. So your deficit probably isn't as high as you think it may be.
I'm putting my money on this^ explanation.
Meanwhile, I'm sure there are some revelations in the four pages not yet read.0 -
The Adaptive Thermogenesis thread has about 15-20 people commenting on their own "crash and burn" experiences and the medical literature clearly identified a hysteresis effect to weight loss - the path you follow affects metabolism. So much for information.
Whether you want to believe it or not - your business.
Are you really keeping a significant cut now?
Having lost 50 lbs your metabolism has shifted because, with weight loss, one needs a lot less to move around, etc... What you thought was a significant deficit is probably no longer that.
If you are losing less than 2 lbs a week you are not in a "huge" deficit or you've impacted your metabolism.
So unless you are planning to lose those remaining 7 vanity pounds in two or less weeks, I'm going to suggest that your significant "cut" isn't as large as you think it is.
When was the last time you recalculated your TDEE?
Now, if you really want to see what your max TDEE has been at different weight as you lose - run this:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/EvgeniZyntx/view/new-mfp-data-export-tool-major-update-659927
Then post the image of the TDEE and TDEE vs Weight graphs and we can discuss if your TDEE has not changed over time.
Ooh, yes...please run that calculator. I use that to see the trend of my own TDEE and how it is affected by certain deficits and surpluses. It's fascinating (if you're into that kind of thing).0 -
The Adaptive Thermogenesis thread has about 15-20 people commenting on their own "crash and burn" experiences and the medical literature clearly identified a hysteresis effect to weight loss - the path you follow affects metabolism. So much for information.
Whether you want to believe it or not - your business.
Are you really keeping a significant cut now?
Having lost 50 lbs your metabolism has shifted because, with weight loss, one needs a lot less to move around, etc... What you thought was a significant deficit is probably no longer that.
If you are losing less than 2 lbs a week you are not in a "huge" deficit or you've impacted your metabolism.
So unless you are planning to lose those remaining 7 vanity pounds in two or less weeks, I'm going to suggest that your significant "cut" isn't as large as you think it is.
When was the last time you recalculated your TDEE?
Now, if you really want to see what your max TDEE has been at different weight as you lose - run this:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/EvgeniZyntx/view/new-mfp-data-export-tool-major-update-659927
Then post the image of the TDEE and TDEE vs Weight graphs and we can discuss if your TDEE has not changed over time.
All of this...
Unfortunately, it's very difficult to understand how much your metabolism has been effected unless you have test done before and after. Your TDEE will drop, as will your RMR and BMR. It's a natural process throughout weight loss. I can tell you, from anecdotal experience, that I am working with a women who did 4 rounds of HCG and only loses about .5 lb per week at 1400 calories, which exercising 6 hours a week (mix of NROLFW and HIIT) and no medical conditions. From a ton of other people I have worked with, similar people her size average about .8-1 lb per week at 1700-1900 calories. So while most people lose at 1700, she is maintaining at that much. Our plan is to start a bulk once she gets to a low enough body fat %. Oh and I have been working with her over a 1 year period at this point.
OP, any thought on this?
I'm quoting myself to add an element - if you do run that analysis - it pretty much does so by ignoring your posted exercise calories and focusing on reported diary and weight loss - it might help to give you an idea of your own actual TDEE (based on your logging method, quality and content) and it;'s evolution.
0 -
The Adaptive Thermogenesis thread has about 15-20 people commenting on their own "crash and burn" experiences and the medical literature clearly identified a hysteresis effect to weight loss - the path you follow affects metabolism. So much for information.
Whether you want to believe it or not - your business.
Are you really keeping a significant cut now?
Having lost 50 lbs your metabolism has shifted because, with weight loss, one needs a lot less to move around, etc... What you thought was a significant deficit is probably no longer that.
If you are losing less than 2 lbs a week you are not in a "huge" deficit or you've impacted your metabolism.
So unless you are planning to lose those remaining 7 vanity pounds in two or less weeks, I'm going to suggest that your significant "cut" isn't as large as you think it is.
When was the last time you recalculated your TDEE?
Now, if you really want to see what your max TDEE has been at different weight as you lose - run this:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/EvgeniZyntx/view/new-mfp-data-export-tool-major-update-659927
Then post the image of the TDEE and TDEE vs Weight graphs and we can discuss if your TDEE has not changed over time.
All of this...
Unfortunately, it's very difficult to understand how much your metabolism has been effected unless you have test done before and after. Your TDEE will drop, as will your RMR and BMR. It's a natural process throughout weight loss. I can tell you, from anecdotal experience, that I am working with a women who did 4 rounds of HCG and only loses about .5 lb per week at 1400 calories, which exercising 6 hours a week (mix of NROLFW and HIIT) and no medical conditions. From a ton of other people I have worked with, similar people her size average about .8-1 lb per week at 1700-1900 calories. So while most people lose at 1700, she is maintaining at that much. Our plan is to start a bulk once she gets to a low enough body fat %. Oh and I have been working with her over a 1 year period at this point.
OP, any thought on this?
I'm quoting myself to add an element - if you do run that analysis - it pretty much does so by ignoring your posted exercise calories and focusing on reported diary and weight loss - it might help to give you an idea of your own actual TDEE (based on your logging method, quality and content) and it;'s evolution.
Yes, I am going to run through this later. Thank you for the thoughts, information and links!0 -
I went way under once thinking I am gonna really lose weight now. Big mistake, I felt really bad and took two days to recover. I just went for the slow and steady after that. Worst part was I didn't even lose a pound.0
-
For me personally, it took a little over three years for the very low calorie diet to catch up with me. I found myself at 25 with thinning bones, hair falling out, very dry skin, anemia, and a couple other non-reparable (but thankfully not terribly serious) health issues. At 43, my bones are stronger, the anemia is under control, but I still have patulous eardrums (forever). I also have a couple other permanent health consequences that I don't want to talk about on a public forum. After going back to eating 'normally', I gained 2-5 pounds every year and ended up overweight and 38 years old.
At that point in time, I decided to take control of my health. I did a very moderate calorie cut (just -250 a day). I lost weight easily and steadily eating over 2000 calories a day and mostly just walking and doing circuit training for strength.
I've been at my goal weight for over 2 years now and according to my doctor, I've never been healthier.
Wow three years is a long time. Did it begin slowly or come on all of a sudden? Thanks for sharing... I am so happy that you're back to health and doing well.
It happened slowly and it took me some time to realize that it was my DIET that was making me sick. I thought I was so healthy. I had a lot of pride in my low-calorie, low-fat lifestyle. I thought I was doing good things for my body, but it turned out to be just the opposite over the long haul.
I was stunned when my doctor gave me all the bad news in a complete physical.0 -
For me personally, it took a little over three years for the very low calorie diet to catch up with me. I found myself at 25 with thinning bones, hair falling out, very dry skin, anemia, and a couple other non-reparable (but thankfully not terribly serious) health issues. At 43, my bones are stronger, the anemia is under control, but I still have patulous eardrums (forever). I also have a couple other permanent health consequences that I don't want to talk about on a public forum. After going back to eating 'normally', I gained 2-5 pounds every year and ended up overweight and 38 years old.
At that point in time, I decided to take control of my health. I did a very moderate calorie cut (just -250 a day). I lost weight easily and steadily eating over 2000 calories a day and mostly just walking and doing circuit training for strength.
I've been at my goal weight for over 2 years now and according to my doctor, I've never been healthier.
(Not to hijack this thread, but this is the kind of story that I wish more people could be aware of. This is what so many are "preaching" about when they counter the aggressive VLF/VLCD in the forums. There *are* potential consequences of aggressive diets to consider, and at the very least, people taking an aggressive approach should be aware of these issues to watch carefully for them.)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions