Weight Plateau... Not enough calories?
LizLauren
Posts: 5
So, I have been eating right around 1200 calories a day... however I have been doing insanity for 3 weeks & burning around 350-400 calories a day. Am I eating too few calories? I had lost 15lbs prior to starting insanity & my weight is seeming to plateau, even though I am busting my *kitten* to lose this weight. I am eating well, I drink pretty much water & very little unsweetened tea all day. I need help! Any suggestions?
0
Replies
-
Are you Logging the workout into MFP and consuming the additional calories it is giving you? If not then yes, you are consuming too few calories. (lost 6lbs in one week after figuring out why I had plateaued for two weeks
same reason! ) 0 -
No!! I haven't eaten the extra calories since I've been exercising so late. Thank you for the advice! I'll make sure I do that!0
-
i feel dumb,but what do you girls mean by eating the extra calories? i myself to feel as if im at a plateau
/ 0 -
i feel dumb,but what do you girls mean by eating the extra calories? i myself to feel as if im at a plateau/
you are supposed to eat back whatever you burn to healthily lose weight and prevent your body from going into starvation mode (where your body then burns and eats away lean muscle causing SEVERE long term health problems).
you should eat a minimum of 1200 NET calories a day.. but you should actually eat your BMR calories each day (NET)... to give your body what it needs to function. You can calculate this online (even on this website).0 -
i feel dumb,but what do you girls mean by eating the extra calories? i myself to feel as if im at a plateau/
well when your doing intense exercise and burning 300-500 calories your body needs the extra calories - otherwise your eating too few calories and you body will go in to starvation mode and lock down and hold on to any weight you have- or want to loose instead you will plateau!
up your calorie intake if you are exercising make sure you log everything im to MFP and give it a few weeks and you should start to see the weight fall Off!! i was doing a similar thing infact one week i put on 1.5lb even though i had been working out 6/7days and had walked 17 miles in the week!
wasnt until someone told me what i was doing wrong i switched it up and eat a little more calories before my work out like a banana & a slice of seeded batch toast and the following 2 weeks i lost 5.5lb!!
hope it works out for you
0 -
Does Insanity come with it's own diet plan? I know that P90X does and it's way more than 1200 cal per day if you follow that workout. This may be your problem. When you follow a specific training like these you need to follow the plan that comes with if you want to get the results they promote. Good luck!! 0
-
you should never eat under your BMR which I can assure you will be higher than 1200 regardless of what you weigh0
-
WOW..thanks girls i will def try this!0
-
No!! I haven't eaten the extra calories since I've been exercising so late. Thank you for the advice! I'll make sure I do that!
Note: Meal timing does not affect weight loss. Many will argue you into a brick wall that it does.0 -
just when I think I got it BAM....I am so confused so do we eat back the calories you get from exercisig or not? and when you loose weight dont your calorie intake go up? So you should be adjusting it as the weight comes off.0
-
Yes! Eat back your exercise calories.0
-
yes totally! I just finished INSANITY with my husband! About to start P90x2! Use the front of the nutrition book! It gives you a calculation to use! I think I eat around 1800 calories a day and my husband 2300! Once you hit phase 2 of INSANITY you may need to up your calories in order to keep up! You should be burning closer to 650 calories doing a workout also so your body will need more to keep up! I am also training for an upcoming 10k so sometimes you just need to listen to your body!0
-
Bro-science Alert! Tip, google this and look for credible sources instead of anecdotal experiences of others that live by myths of dieting. Educate yourself to the truth and no others will need to tell you how to fail.0
-
Bro-science Alert! Tip, google this and look for credible sources instead of anecdotal experiences of others that live by myths of dieting. Educate yourself to the truth and no others will need to tell you how to fail.
Yes, educate yourself to the fact someone small, like her, shouldn't be creating huge calorie deficits. It may work for you because you are obese and have a lot to lose. Be careful of the advice you are giving out all over these forums. Come back ready to discuss after you have more experience.0 -
Bro-science Alert! Tip, google this and look for credible sources instead of anecdotal experiences of others that live by myths of dieting. Educate yourself to the truth and no others will need to tell you how to fail.
Yes, educate yourself to the fact someone small, like her, shouldn't be creating huge calorie deficits. It may work for you because you are obese and have a lot to lose. Be careful of the advice you are giving out all over these forums. Come back ready to discuss after you have more experience.
I still have no see one bit of proof on this forum that says that any specific calorie deficit is better than other. All I see is anecdotal experiences of people making claims that's are baseless, or results of their own efforts that are in NO way scientific or proving. If anything, material is easy to find to suggest that the larger the calorie deficit, the more fat is burned. that is how Fasting works, and humans have been doing it LONG before obesity and when food was plentiful. Take your own advice and educate yourself rather than using crude analogies and using my "obesity" as an example.0 -
Bro-science Alert! Tip, google this and look for credible sources instead of anecdotal experiences of others that live by myths of dieting. Educate yourself to the truth and no others will need to tell you how to fail.
Yes, educate yourself to the fact someone small, like her, shouldn't be creating huge calorie deficits. It may work for you because you are obese and have a lot to lose. Be careful of the advice you are giving out all over these forums. Come back ready to discuss after you have more experience.
I still have no see one bit of proof on this forum that says that any specific calorie deficit is better than other. All I see is anecdotal experiences of people making claims that's are baseless, or results of their own efforts that are in NO way scientific or proving. If anything, material is easy to find to suggest that the larger the calorie deficit, the more fat is burned. that is how Fasting works, and humans have been doing it LONG before obesity and when food was plentiful. Take your own advice and educate yourself rather than using crude analogies and using my "obesity" as an example.
There are many studies out there that show enough food is required to ensure you do not suffer from malnutrition
There are studies out there that show a metabolic slowdown (approx. 17% I believe) if you eat at a too large of a deficit, outside the BMR reduction due to weigh loss alone
ETA: in the interests of accruacy, the 17% may be wrong and I am happy to be corrected on that by the folks that actually know what they are talking about!0 -
Bro-science Alert! Tip, google this and look for credible sources instead of anecdotal experiences of others that live by myths of dieting. Educate yourself to the truth and no others will need to tell you how to fail.
Yes, educate yourself to the fact someone small, like her, shouldn't be creating huge calorie deficits. It may work for you because you are obese and have a lot to lose. Be careful of the advice you are giving out all over these forums. Come back ready to discuss after you have more experience.
I still have no see one bit of proof on this forum that says that any specific calorie deficit is better than other. All I see is anecdotal experiences of people making claims that's are baseless, or results of their own efforts that are in NO way scientific or proving. If anything, material is easy to find to suggest that the larger the calorie deficit, the more fat is burned. that is how Fasting works, and humans have been doing it LONG before obesity and when food was plentiful. Take your own advice and educate yourself rather than using crude analogies and using my "obesity" as an example.
Well if you'e in science based field, you'd know that most science is BS. You're right, the larger the deficit the greater the weight loss IF METABOLIC RATE DOESNT SLOW DOWN. but sadly, it does.
According to a popular thread on this forum for the religious minimal calorie crowd, the article used as "proof" indicates a 17% reduction in TDEE as people became more accustomed to eating less, accustomed to increased activity and the accustomed reduced thermic effect of food. This is normal. This isn't a drastic metabolism shift. In fact, its fairly minor. This means that as TDEE changes, diet and exercise can be adjusted to maintain the calorie deficit and continue losing fat. This change, accordind to the article was temporary. Also as people became less heavy, TDEE was naturally reduced. This causes the need for further calorie restrictions or more exercise to make up for the difference. Normal!
NOTE that this article had two groups. One that was purely low calorie and one that was higher calorie and exercised. Both groups lost similar bodyfat over the course of this study. Its funny how people tend to pick out what they want to hear rather than absorb all of the facts.
So, according to the dogma crowd, eating more helps fat loss by keeping the metabolism high. This makes some sense and I can understand where this comes from. But TDEE is greatly reduced as weight is lost. This is a MUCH larger impact on TDEE than a slight reduction in BMR.
In conclusion, that aticle suggests (not in words, but by its findings) weight loss will continue with a calorie deficit from either eating less or increasing TDEE from exercize and other activity.
The charts suggest only a 150-200 kcal difference in total TDEE as weight is lost and a minor adaptaion to a reduced calorie deficit
Also, No where does this article says it proves anything, only that research suggests. No where in the article does it say that prolonged calorie reduction will cause the metabolism to decrease even more or has a compound effect. No where are the words starvation used or a suggested reaction to reduced caloric intake to put on more fat.
TLDR: Eating less and losing weight causes reduction in TDEE that requires more of a calorie deficit or increased TDEE through exercise to maintain fat loss. AKA, its normal for the body to require fewer calories as people start eating less. Its not starvation.
By the way, if science is bull****, then how does anything in the world work? Magic?0 -
I actually posted this on another thread, but am reposting here becasue it is relevent:
I can lose weight eating 1900 calories a day, ensure that I get enough micronutrients through food, go out and enjoy myself and have a meal/glass of wine etc, get enough energy to strength train, get enough protein and fats (yes, you need fats too), not worry about gaining when I hit my target and go to maintanance.
Or, I can eat less than 1000 calories a day, not get enough micronutrients through food, never go out for a meal, have declining energy levels, not get enough protein or fats and gain when I try to eat more when I have hit my target and run the risk of having a suppressed metabolism.
Now, I can lose weight on both (I am currently losing at 1900) - but I know which one I prefer. So whether you believe in starvation mode or not, my question is....why would you pick the latter?
I get that this is a cost/benefit decision. If someone is very overweight, then the cost/benefit is different than someone who has 5, 10, 20lbs to lose.
Also, there are so many posts from folks under 1200 saying that 'it works for me' or 'I have lost no muscle mass' - how do they know? - have they had their metabolism tested and a DEXA scan before and after?0 -
According to a popular thread on this forum for the religious minimal calorie crowd, the article used as "proof" indicates a 17% reduction in TDEE as people became more accustomed to eating less, accustomed to increased activity and the accustomed reduced thermic effect of food. This is normal. This isn't a drastic metabolism shift. In fact, its fairly minor. This means that as TDEE changes, diet and exercise can be adjusted to maintain the calorie deficit and continue losing fat. This change, accordind to the article was temporary. Also as people became less heavy, TDEE was naturally reduced. This causes the need for further calorie restrictions or more exercise to make up for the difference. Normal!
NOTE that this article had two groups. One that was purely low calorie and one that was higher calorie and exercised. Both groups lost similar bodyfat over the course of this study. Its funny how people tend to pick out what they want to hear rather than absorb all of the facts.
So, according to the dogma crowd, eating more helps fat loss by keeping the metabolism high. This makes some sense and I can understand where this comes from. But TDEE is greatly reduced as weight is lost. This is a MUCH larger impact on TDEE than a slight reduction in BMR.
In conclusion, that aticle suggests (not in words, but by its findings) weight loss will continue with a calorie deficit from either eating less or increasing TDEE from exercize and other activity.
The charts suggest only a 150-200 kcal difference in total TDEE as weight is lost and a minor adaptaion to a reduced calorie deficit
Also, No where does this article says it proves anything, only that research suggests. No where in the article does it say that prolonged calorie reduction will cause the metabolism to decrease even more or has a compound effect. No where are the words starvation used or a suggested reaction to reduced caloric intake to put on more fat.
TLDR: Eating less and losing weight causes reduction in TDEE that requires more of a calorie deficit or increased TDEE through exercise to maintain fat loss. AKA, its normal for the body to require fewer calories as people start eating less. Its not starvation.
By the way, if science is bull****, then how does anything in the world work? Magic?
Okay lets start with the 2 groups... What was their sex, how fat where they, any medical issues such as insulin resistance, exercise performed, how where the fed, where they fed food, or did they go home and eat what they where told to or what?
Tons of error's in that already. Eat 1,200 calories a day and tell me what happens? As the poster above said, "until it happens to you, you won't believe it." Where the diets carb based, or protein based as well? That also has a big effect on thyroid function as well.
Let me ask you this in reply to your "science is bs" question. Why do you assume it works they way they claim?
What I was quoting was the article that many people use to subscribe to the belief that there is a magical minimum number of calories one MUST consume. That article doesn't say anywhere that its better either way, but people spread that one way is clearly superior. If you want answers to the study, go and look at it for yourself. I use their own "proof" against them.
I'm not saying one was is better than another, I'm just knocking the belief in magical numbers.
As for nutrition, there are many ways to maintain nutrition on a very low calorie diet. But, people turn a blind eye to fact and just make assumptions rather than learn.
I eat 30% below my BMR. I eat fruits, veggies, lean meats, and good fats. My diet isn't perfect, but I respond better to fats and protein. I have great energy. I can work out with intensity. I'm getting stronger. I'm dropping inches and fat every day. But according to the bro-scientists, I'm wrong.
We all know a calorie deficit will cause fat loss. I just don't support people spreading baseless bro-science jargon and giving it as advice when it has NO relevance. Sometimes the advice works, but that doesn't make it any better or any more dangerous.
You ask all those questions about the studies and that's a good thing. People give out bro-science advice without knowing anything or asking relevant questions. These people should do their own research and get real professional advice rather than listening to fanatics.0 -
According to a popular thread on this forum for the religious minimal calorie crowd, the article used as "proof" indicates a 17% reduction in TDEE as people became more accustomed to eating less, accustomed to increased activity and the accustomed reduced thermic effect of food. This is normal. This isn't a drastic metabolism shift. In fact, its fairly minor. This means that as TDEE changes, diet and exercise can be adjusted to maintain the calorie deficit and continue losing fat. This change, accordind to the article was temporary. Also as people became less heavy, TDEE was naturally reduced. This causes the need for further calorie restrictions or more exercise to make up for the difference. Normal!
NOTE that this article had two groups. One that was purely low calorie and one that was higher calorie and exercised. Both groups lost similar bodyfat over the course of this study. Its funny how people tend to pick out what they want to hear rather than absorb all of the facts.
So, according to the dogma crowd, eating more helps fat loss by keeping the metabolism high. This makes some sense and I can understand where this comes from. But TDEE is greatly reduced as weight is lost. This is a MUCH larger impact on TDEE than a slight reduction in BMR.
In conclusion, that aticle suggests (not in words, but by its findings) weight loss will continue with a calorie deficit from either eating less or increasing TDEE from exercize and other activity.
The charts suggest only a 150-200 kcal difference in total TDEE as weight is lost and a minor adaptaion to a reduced calorie deficit
Also, No where does this article says it proves anything, only that research suggests. No where in the article does it say that prolonged calorie reduction will cause the metabolism to decrease even more or has a compound effect. No where are the words starvation used or a suggested reaction to reduced caloric intake to put on more fat.
TLDR: Eating less and losing weight causes reduction in TDEE that requires more of a calorie deficit or increased TDEE through exercise to maintain fat loss. AKA, its normal for the body to require fewer calories as people start eating less. Its not starvation.
By the way, if science is bull****, then how does anything in the world work? Magic?
Okay lets start with the 2 groups... What was their sex, how fat where they, any medical issues such as insulin resistance, exercise performed, how where the fed, where they fed food, or did they go home and eat what they where told to or what?
Tons of error's in that already. Eat 1,200 calories a day and tell me what happens? As the poster above said, "until it happens to you, you won't believe it." Where the diets carb based, or protein based as well? That also has a big effect on thyroid function as well.
Let me ask you this in reply to your "science is bs" question. Why do you assume it works they way they claim?
What I was quoting was the article that many people use to subscribe to the belief that there is a magical minimum number of calories one MUST consume. That article doesn't say anywhere that its better either way, but people spread that one way is clearly superior. If you want answers to the study, go and look at it for yourself. I use their own "proof" against them.
I'm not saying one was is better than another, I'm just knocking the belief in magical numbers.
As for nutrition, there are many ways to maintain nutrition on a very low calorie diet. But, people turn a blind eye to fact and just make assumptions rather than learn.
I eat 30% below my BMR. I eat fruits, veggies, lean meats, and good fats. My diet isn't perfect, but I respond better to fats and protein. I have great energy. I can work out with intensity. I'm getting stronger. I'm dropping inches and fat every day. But according to the bro-scientists, I'm wrong.
We all know a calorie deficit will cause fat loss. I just don't support people spreading baseless bro-science jargon and giving it as advice when it has NO relevance. Sometimes the advice works, but that doesn't make it any better or any more dangerous.
You ask all those questions about the studies and that's a good thing. People give out bro-science advice without knowing anything or asking relevant questions. These people should do their own research and get real professional advice rather than listening to fanatics.
Did you have your metabolism tested and a DEXA scan before you started and have you had one since?0 -
I'm so glad I found your message board because I'm ready to run screaming down the street in frustration.
From the beginning, I was not a fat child, but taller than most girls and probably could have afforded to lose 5-6 pounds. Nothing too traumatic. As a teen I went through a real rough period and was always about 30-40 pounds over what I wanted to be.
I weighed 182 when I got married and my doctor said 162 would have been fine. From 182 over the next 15 years I ballooned up to 335 pounds. I hated myself, I loathed myself and had no hope of ever losing weight of any amount.
This was a really bad time of my life, I mean horrible. I couldn't work because of orthopedic problems and my income dropped by 50%. My husband, as it turned out, didn't want to work so I supported the both of us for 20 plus years. About the time I actually went to the doctor and weighed in at 335 I knew I had to do something. I decided then and there I would cut my food intake in half. I wouldn't worry about calories or exercise, just eat half of what I normally do.
That started working. About that time I left that horrid man and went to a battered woman's shelter. I left him our car so at that same point I began to walk everywhere I wanted to go. I worked my way up to 2 miles per day. That and the one-half amount of food and the weight dropped off 8-10 pounds every month for almost a year. Then I moved, got a car and the pounds started coming back. Well I did a little online research and after subjecting myself to a gym 3 days a week (with minimum results for a year) I knew I didn't want to do that. I ended up buying a mini-trampoline which is fantastic. It's the best aerobic and anaerobic exercise out there and you can do it in the privacy of your bedroom, garage, wherever. I watch TV and have my timer set. I do three sessions of 15 minutes each day. That's 45 minutes of good solid exercise five days a week.
I got back up to 255, went back to the doctor, and he prescribed a diet pill for me to give me a quick start. In six months I was down to 195. Now at this point I wasn't really serious about the mini-trampoline. Maybe once or twice a week. But for two months now I've been using this handy exercise tool but now I've been at this weight for over 6 months now and my calories have been as low as 300 and as high as 800. Again, doing the five day a week 45 minutes a day mini-trampoline. But my body just doesn't want to let go of thislast 40-50 pounds.
I read several places where if you eat too little your body thinks you're starving so it holds onto every available fat molecule and
thus no weight comes off.
I just started increasing my calories to between 800 to 1000 and praying I don't gain.
All the experts say when you hit a plateau to eat less and work out more. But I think there's more to it.
Some days I wouldn't eat anything until 3:00 p.m., just because of my diet pill and I just wasn't hungry.
I think I've confused my body and it just doesn't know what to do. I don't know whether to go on a 2 week fast,
increase my calories to 1200, increase my trampoline time to 2 hours a day, or just collapse crying on the bed.
Can you make any suggestions so I can move beyond this dratted plateau and get down to where I long to be?
Sorry this was so long, but I had to tell you how far I've come (from 335 to 195) and 6 months stubbornly fixed
at my "low" weight.
Thanks for any ideas or suggestions.
Linda0 -
I'm so glad I found your message board because I'm ready to run screaming down the street in frustration.
From the beginning, I was not a fat child, but taller than most girls and probably could have afforded to lose 5-6 pounds. Nothing too traumatic. As a teen I went through a real rough period and was always about 30-40 pounds over what I wanted to be.
I weighed 182 when I got married and my doctor said 162 would have been fine. From 182 over the next 15 years I ballooned up to 335 pounds. I hated myself, I loathed myself and had no hope of ever losing weight of any amount.
This was a really bad time of my life, I mean horrible. I couldn't work because of orthopedic problems and my income dropped by 50%. My husband, as it turned out, didn't want to work so I supported the both of us for 20 plus years. About the time I actually went to the doctor and weighed in at 335 I knew I had to do something. I decided then and there I would cut my food intake in half. I wouldn't worry about calories or exercise, just eat half of what I normally do.
That started working. About that time I left that horrid man and went to a battered woman's shelter. I left him our car so at that same point I had to walk everywhere I wanted to go. I worked my way up to walking 2 miles per day. That and the one-half amount of food I was eating and the weight dropped off 8-10 pounds every month for almost a year. Then I moved, got a car and the pounds started coming back. Well I did a little online research and after subjecting myself to a gym 3 days a week (with minimum results for a year) I knew I didn't want to do that. I ended up buying a mini-trampoline which is fantastic. It's the best aerobic and anaerobic exercise out there and you can do it in the privacy of your bedroom, garage, wherever. I watch TV and have my timer set. I do three sessions of 15 minutes each day. That's 45 minutes of good solid exercise five days a week.
I got back up to 255, went back to the doctor, and he prescribed a diet pill for me to give me a quick start. In six months I was down to 195. Now at this point I wasn't really serious about the mini-trampoline. Maybe once or twice a week. But for two months now I've been using this handy exercise tool but now I've been at this weight for over 6 months now and my calories have been as low as 300 and as high as 800. Again, doing the five day a week 45 minutes a day mini-trampoline. But my body just doesn't want to let go of this last 40-50 pounds.
I read several places where if you eat too little your body thinks you're starving so it holds onto every available fat molecule and
thus no weight comes off.
I just started increasing my calories to between 800 to 1000 and praying I don't gain.
All the experts say when you hit a plateau to eat less and work out more. But I think there's more to it.
Some days I wouldn't eat anything until 3:00 p.m., just because of my diet pill and I just wasn't hungry.
I think I've confused my body and it just doesn't know what to do. I don't know whether to go on a 2 week fast,
increase my calories to 1200, increase my trampoline time to 2 hours a day, or just collapse crying on the bed.
Can you make any suggestions so I can move beyond this dratted plateau and get down to where I long to be?
Sorry this was so long, but I had to tell you how far I've come (from 335 to 195) and 6 months stubbornly fixed
at my "low" weight.
Thanks for any ideas or suggestions.
Linda0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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