Another tip from Jillian Michaels: Think your metabolism's g

Sueboo31

I think what she is saying is that in order to fix what you have screwed up with the years of yo-yo dieting (read it again people) is to take your current weight x 12 and stick to that for 1-2 months to fix your body; then you can start with a deficit and start losing weight the healthy way. I think she hit the nail on the head with this one.
[/quote]

I agree with this ^

To the OP... Thanks for posting. Very interesting.

SeasideOasis

I zig-zag my calories. If I take my body weight x 12 calories, it equals the amount of calories I eat on my high zig zag day. This seems to make sense to me. Luckily, I rarely did 'yo yo diets' in the past, so my metabolism isn't messed up, just a little slower. It seems to have gotten better since I started averaging 4000 burned calories a week.

girliegirl1822

wow I would have to eat 500 more cals them mfp says.

reyna99

bump

stormieweather

My average calories burnt is 1950 (incl exercise) a day. My weight (155) times 12 equals 1860.

I agree with resetting your metabolism after yo-yo dieting or extended periods of eating at a deficit. I did this last fall and although I gained 5 pounds, I was able to restart my weight loss this year and it went much faster than before the reset. Now, I eat at maintenance for 1 week, after every 3 months of "dieting", to reset my leptin levels and sanity . It works!

Calif_Girl67

Okay, here's the game plan: First, set your daily caloric intake at 12 calories per pound of body weight. (For example, my weight is 117; 117 x 12 = 1,404 calories a day.) Then stick like glue to that calorie allowance for at least one to two months, depending on your metabolism. This will allow your body time to readjust your metabolic set point accordingly.

There is no way that this would be correct, I did the math and mine would be eating ,2664 calories. I have my goals set to 1550 calories a day every day.

Try eating 1 Tblsp of Virgin Coconut Oil to boost your Metabolism, Its great for that and many other things. I bought some and read a post on here someplace were that is all that person did and she didn't exercise and lost a ton of weight with pics to prove it! Doesn't hurt to try it. I decided to try it because my Metabolism seem to be slow.

wildon883r

12 calories per pound is exactly what MFP has me at for .5 lbs a week weight loss. It's right on. I would say that you can't apply this equally to both men and women. The reason women generally are only allowed half the calories a man is because they lack of muscle mass of a man. MFP doesnt take in to account various frame sizes that plays a huge part when shooting for an ideal body weight be it male or female. This notion of resetting ones metabolism is quackery lol. JM is a exercise goddess not a nutriton and biology mastermind.

RTricia

Mine would be 1596 which is not much more than where I am currently at maintenance, 1450 plus my exercise calories.

I think what she is saying is that in order to fix what you have screwed up with the years of yo-yo dieting (read it again people) is to take your current weight x 12 and stick to that for 1-2 months to fix your body; then you can start with a deficit and start losing weight the healthy way. I think she hit the nail on the head with this one.

I've starved myself on some days, binged and purged on other days, ate like a mad woman on the rest.

My body needs more than ninety days to understand what I'm doing...

Thanks for posting!

nwachim

bump

AmyRhubarb

12 x my current weight gives me fewer calories (1620) than what I eat now (1900) - and I lose fat.

But rather than a simple math equation to find my calorie goal, I'd rather use something that uses a bit more info, like height, weight & body fat percentage. I set my goals according to the info and tools here - http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/974888-in-place-of-a-road-map-2k13 Works beautifully.

skylark94

I have always had great luck by increasing my intake to help bust a plateau. Jillian's formula actually still seems low to me. When I needed a reset I would bump to maintnacne for a while, which put me around 2,200 most days.

125x12= 1,500 for me. I eat quite a bit more than that most days and I am still losing.

Minnie2361

12 calories per pound is exactly what MFP has me at for .5 lbs a week weight loss. It's right on. I would say that you can't apply this equally to both men and women. The reason women generally are only allowed half the calories a man is because they lack of muscle mass of a man. MFP doesnt take in to account various frame sizes that plays a huge part when shooting for an ideal body weight be it male or female. This notion of resetting ones metabolism is quackery lol. JM is a exercise goddess not a nutriton and biology mastermind.

I agree with you on this. So far no one has produced the science to back it up.

Here is a review of a study on Yo Yo dieting

A new study by researchers at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, published online in the journal Metabolism, for the first time has shown that a history of yo-yo dieting does not negatively affect metabolism or the ability to lose weight long term.

"A history of unsuccessful weight loss should not dissuade an individual from future attempts to shed pounds or diminish the role of a healthy diet and regular physical activity in successful weight management," said the study's senior author Anne McTiernan, M.D., Ph.D., a member of the Hutchinson Center's Public Health Sciences Division.

Two-thirds of the U.S. population is currently overweight or obese and it is estimated that nearly half of American women are currently dieting to lose weight. Obesity is a known risk factor for many cancers as well as heart disease and diabetes. A relationship between body fat and the production of certain hormones and inflammatory markers is thought to contribute to increased cancer risk.

"We know there's an association between obesity, sedentary behavior and increased risk of certain cancers," McTiernan said. "The World Health Organization estimates that a quarter to a third of cancers could be prevented with maintenance of normal weight and keeping a physically active lifestyle."

The study was based on data from 439 overweight-to-obese, sedentary Seattle-area women, ages 50 to 75, who were randomly assigned to one of four groups: reduced-calorie diet only, exercise only (mainly brisk walking), reduced-calorie diet plus exercise and a control group that received no intervention. At the end of the yearlong study, participants on the diet-only and diet-plus-exercise arms lost an average of 10 percent of their starting weight, which was the goal of the intervention.

The analysis aimed to determine whether women with a history of moderate or severe weight cycling were at a disadvantage compared to non-weight-cyclers when it came to losing weight. Of the study participants overall, 18 percent (77 women) met the criteria for severe weight cycling (having reported losing 20 or more pounds on three or more occasions) and 24 percent (103 women) met the criteria for moderate weight cycling (having reported losing 10 or more pounds on three or more occasions).

Although severe weight cyclers were, on average, nearly 20 pounds heavier than non-cyclers at the start of the study, at the end of the study the researchers found no significant differences between those who yo-yo dieted and those who didn't with regard to the ability to successfully participate in diet and/or exercise programs. The cyclers also did not differ from the non-cyclers with regard to the impact of diet or diet-plus-exercise on weight loss, percentage of body fat and lean muscle mass gained or lost. Other physiological factors such as blood pressure, insulin sensitivity, and blood concentrations of hormones such as leptin (which helps make one feel full) and adiponectin (which helps regulate glucose levels) also did not differ significantly among those whose weight fluctuated and those whose did not.

These finding may represent a first in the scientific community. "To our knowledge, no previous studies have examined the effect of prior weight cycling on the body composition, metabolic and hormonal changes induced by a comprehensive lifestyle intervention in free-living women," the authors wrote.

The National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute and the Canadian Institutes of Health funded the research. The study also included investigators at Harvard Medical School, the National Cancer Institute and the University of Washington

Martucha123

That seems resanoble if you are not obese. It would be 700 kcal lessvthan i need to maintain my weight

pcastagner

The studies behind her metabolic set point theory are WHERE?


Yeah, eating at maintenance for a while is a great idea, because you can figure out what maintenance is, and make athletic gains.

Otherwise, just more bro science that will be replaced in a few years by newer bro science.

llkilgore

It works out to 1476 for me. I lost 58 pounds on 1500-1800 calories per day, exercise calories included, and have maintained for 2 years on about 1900. That's more than Scooby calculates for my TDEE so I guess I'm doing alright.

I have no history of yo-yo dieting and, because of my age, was too afraid of muscle loss to risk a really aggressive calorie deficit. So I never needed a reset.

bcattoes

Sounds reasonable. I don't know about the 12 calories per lb, but the exercise is an important factor that many articles about resetting metabolism leave out.

Koldnomore

Okay, here's the game plan: First, set your daily caloric intake at 12 calories per pound of body weight. (For example, my weight is 117; 117 x 12 = 1,404 calories a day.) Then stick like glue to that calorie allowance for at least one to two months, depending on your metabolism. This will allow your body time to readjust your metabolic set point accordingly.

Note she does not say this is for weight LOSS. It's to reset your metabolism - basically you are eating at maintenance for a while. This is not a radical idea, actually I have seen it suggested many times to fix issues for people who have been starving themselves to try and lose weight.

12 cal/lb puts me around 2k ..which is just about right to maintain (actually depending on how much I walked I might still be in a deficit on it)

septembergrrl

It would be scary to eat that many calories, but I can see where it might help if you've never eaten "normally" and just need to hit the reset button. With the amount of exercise she recommends, your weight gain would probably be minimal.

A month or two sounds like a lot, but I have heard the recommendation before to eat 1800-2000/day or so for a week if you're at a plateau. So this is something to keep in mind.

elisabeisme

This rough estimate formula sounds like the right ball park for maintenance. It jibes with my spring plateau experience at 165 pounds ("overweight" category for my height of 5'4" according to BMI).

12 x 165 lbs = 1980 calories

During my plateau, I maintained that weight (duh), while netting 1891 and grossing 2067. At the time, I was exercising only an average of 3.3 days per week. I plateaued for 5 months.

In case anyone is interested in comparing, I dissected my results for both plateaus and weight loss periods in a recent blog post:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/elisabeisme/view/analysis-paralysis-examining-my-numbers-to-understand-my-weight-loss-results-578625

Yooperm35

First, set your daily caloric intake at 12 calories per pound of body weight.

eh?!
that is 700 cals a day over what MFP recommends as my daily allowance!
i would be a whale if i did this!

MFPs 1200 calories is simply not enough. I did lose weight when first joined andI followed MFP to a "T" but I was also tired, hungry, my finger nails were cracking and tearing and my hair was falling out. I gained the weight back when I tried to go to maintenance and here I am again finally down to the last few pounds. I'm doing it right this time. Do you think Jillian doesn't know what she is talking about?