Do I need to eat more?

RockitRacer

I made a post on EM2WL, but i want a more varied response.

So I was on low carb for a long time (like a year and a half) and tried to eat less than 50 carbs a day, if i ate any more than that I gained weight, and i figured i couldn't of been eating any more than 1200 calories a day, i ate only deli meat and low carb bars, that's it.


I actually lost 40 pounds on low carb, but i slowly gained it all back the next year. About 3 weeks ago I wanted to lose it again and then some, so i went back on low carb, but I couldn't stand eating so little and eating the same thing every single day. So the next week I did a lot of research and I read that even to maintain my weight I need to be eating over double that. So for the past 3 weeks I've been eating alot more, my goal is about 3100ish, which is my TDEE, it's even hard for me to eat that many calories, I feel like I eat everything in the house.

So during the past 3 weeks of eating a lot more, I have gained 14 pounds! (although I haven't weighed in about a week, I probably gained even more since then) that's a pound a day. What's really sad is I am back to 250, where I started at, and I was at 237 just two weeks ago...What the heck do I do? Why do I gain weight? I feel like a fat toad and depressed, every part of me wants to go back to eating how I was on low carb...should I?


i'm 18, and I weigh about 250 (as checked a week ago)

mcarter99

Why is your goal to eat at your TDEE if you want to lose weight? You want to eat well below your TDEE. 1000 calories/day below it to lose around 2 lbs/week. You are absolutely NOT hurting anything by doing that. It's a very conservative weight loss plan, not aggressive. That's according to authorities, not internet mythology. Please don't give up. It really is that simple.

Sidesteal

You do not need to eat more.
What method did you use to arrive at 3100 TDEE and roughly what RATE did you gain weight at that intake?
Do you have any insulin related conditions that you are aware of?
How active are you outside of the gym and what does your training entail?

RockitRacer

I used this calculator: http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/ I just did it and it came out 3267

I don't have any insulin conditions that I am aware of.

I try to do hardcore swimming everyday, and I try to speed walk every once and a while.

If not eating enough isn't the problem..Then what is?..

Sidesteal

It is likely that you are eating too much.
How active are you outside of your exercise routine? Just day to day living.
How fast did you gain weight at that intake level?

KrystieNye

I started eating at 1200 calories/day, but didn't lose weight for 2 weeks in a row. I then upped my calories to about 1500/day (which I eat every day, regardless of excercise). Since I increased my calories, I have started losing weight again. From the sound of it, you may have just increased your calorie intake by too much. It might take some experimenting, but try lowering your calories and then increase slowly, instead of all at once until you find what range works for you. Good luck!

RockitRacer

Outside of my workout routine, I'm pretty sedentary.

And I probably don't reach that intake level, probably between 2400 and that level. But like I said, I gained 14 pounds in 2 weeks on it. That's the part that worries me the most, gaining 14 pounds from putting my calorie count to a point where I should be maintaining weight, and most of the time I don't even make it to that level, probably closer to 2400.

stupidloser

What I like to do when calculating my caloric needs is to use only the weight of my lean body mass and not my total weight. For example, if I weigh 200lbs. and 30 lbs of that is fat, I do not want to eat enough calories to sustain 170lbs of lean mass+30lbs of fat. I want to eat enough calories to sustain only my 170 lbs of lean mass. These calories are like coal for the furnace and that 30 lbs. of fat is not a furnace, it is coal. To tap into that coal reserve I can either eat less than the amount needed to sustain 170lbs to force my body to dip into the reserves or exercise off the 30lbs of fat or a combination of both. Does this make any sense to anyone? Then you also need to figure out how many of those calories should be carbs, protein and fat. And it gets even more complicated, but I won't go there. 30 lbs is equal to 13440 grams of fat. Each gram of fat is 9 calories. To burn off that 30lbs of fat, I take 13440g(30lbs) x 9 calories = 120,960 fat calories I need to burn. I usually burn about 400 fat calories, not carbs 5 times per eek. On a weekly basis, that comes out to 2000 fat calories per week. At this rate, it will take 60.48 weeks or 1.163 yrs to burn off the 30 lbs.. That is I don't overeat and replace any of those fat calories I burned off.

crisanderson27

Outside of my workout routine, I'm pretty sedentary.

And I probably don't reach that intake level, probably between 2400 and that level. But like I said, I gained 14 pounds in 2 weeks on it. That's the part that worries me the most, gaining 14 pounds from putting my calorie count to a point where I should be maintaining weight, and most of the time I don't even make it to that level, probably closer to 2400.

Your body is going to bounce...weight loss tuning isn't like switching a switch off and on. That being said, a reasonable rate of loss is about 20% or so below maintenance. If 3200 is your true maintenance (seems high to me), you'd need to eat around 2500cal to lose weight at a healthy rate. That gives you about 700cal/day deficit.

If you give me your height, weight, and age...I'll get you a target number for maintenance, and for cutting...that will get you in the ballpark for starting out. You will need to tune it from there for any variance in activity.

Oh, and for the record...my maintenance at 5'7" and 190lbs, 37yrs old...is 2700.

heybales

I actually lost 40 pounds on low carb, but i slowly gained it all back the next year. About 3 weeks ago I wanted to lose it again and then some, so i went back on low carb, but I couldn't stand eating so little and eating the same thing every single day. So the next week I did a lot of research and I read that even to maintain my weight I need to be eating over double that. So for the past 3 weeks I've been eating alot more, my goal is about 3100ish, which is my TDEE, it's even hard for me to eat that many calories, I feel like I eat everything in the house.

So during the past 3 weeks of eating a lot more, I have gained 14 pounds! (although I haven't weighed in about a week, I probably gained even more since then) that's a pound a day. What's really sad is I am back to 250, where I started at, and I was at 237 just two weeks ago...What the heck do I do? Why do I gain weight? I feel like a fat toad and depressed, every part of me wants to go back to eating how I was on low carb...should I?

i'm 18, and I weigh about 250 (as checked a week ago)

Ok, so wrong theory on Eat More to lose weight.
It really should be eat more than current restriction but less than previously and lose weight - but way too long.

So you just about nailed your true TDEE then, at least for whatever level of activity you are at.

So if you really avg 2500 daily for last 14 days (and please adjust this math to the best true figures you can find, because your comments above about 3 wks don't match up as to when higher eating started) and gained 15 lbs say.

That means 15 lbs lets say fat x 3500 cal/lb = 52500 / 14 days = 3750 cals eaten surplus every day.

That would mean your true TDEE is negative calories - and you know that isn't the case.

Now, if within these couple weeks you have some weigh-in near the end, not water weight gain which the 15 must be then - you can do that same math. Resetting to eating TDEE for a couple weeks can be very useful as you go about your planned exercise routine. You can confirm or deny the TDEE estimate, and tweak to what it really is.

With known TDEE where you did not gain or lose (or adjusted it because you did), and you know your current BMR, you can come up with your own custom multiplier from BMR to TDEE.

And keep using that as your weight and BMR drop.

crisanderson27

What I like to do when calculating my BMR(basic metabolic rate) is to use my BMI and not actual weight. For example, if you weigh 200lbs. and 30 lbs of that is fat, you do not want to eat enough calories to sustain 170lbs of lean mass+30lbs of fat. You want to eat enough calories to sustain only your 170 lbs of lean mass. These calories are like coal for the furnace and that 30 lbs. of fat is not a furnace, it is coal. To tap into that coal reserve you can either eat less than the amount needed to sustain 170lbs to force your body to dip into the reserves or exercise off the 30lbs of fat or a combination of both.

You keep forgetting that your body can only metabolize so much fat in one day. If you only eat enough to support your LBM, and what your body can pull from fat reserves in a day isn't enough to supply the additional energy...your body WILL metabolize lean mass.

Its science man...plain and simple.

Sidesteal

I think it would be reasonable for you to start your intake roughly at the following levels. Keep in mind I am eyeballing this and I don't know what your lean mass is. This is an estimate but I believe this would be "reasonable" as a place to begin.

2000 calories
170 protein
70 fat
170 carbohydrate

This is a starting point.

I would eat at this intake for a month and observe results.

Additionally, it seems as though, based on your posts, that you are estimating intake and not precisely tracking it. If this is the case, I would correct this for accuracy sake. There's a substantial difference between eating at 3200 and eating "closer to 2400".

heybales

You keep forgetting that your body can only metabolize so much fat in one day. If you only eat enough to support your LBM, and what your body can pull from fat reserves in a day isn't enough to supply the additional energy...your body WILL metabolize lean mass.

Its science man...plain and simple.

I've heard that mentioned 2 times now - your body can only metabolize so much fat in a day.

Where is the study for this, I've never found it?

I find instead studies of ultramarathoners who have trained their aerobic system so well that they slip into 50% fat burning mode for 24 hrs and have no issues. At some point in there the glucose is usually used up and they do burn some muscle, but the fat burning stayed at 50% or better.

That is a lot of fat burned in a day, so I'd love to see that study.

Sidesteal

You keep forgetting that your body can only metabolize so much fat in one day. If you only eat enough to support your LBM, and what your body can pull from fat reserves in a day isn't enough to supply the additional energy...your body WILL metabolize lean mass.

Its science man...plain and simple.

I've heard that mentioned 2 times now - your body can only metabolize so much fat in a day.

Where is the study for this, I've never found it?

I find instead studies of ultramarathoners who have trained their aerobic system so well that they slip into 50% fat burning mode for 24 hrs and have no issues. At some point in there the glucose is usually used up and they do burn some muscle, but the fat burning stayed at 50% or better.

That is a lot of fat burned in a day, so I'd love to see that study.

Might not be exactly the one, but this is relevant to the topic:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615

EDIT: It probably is the correct study.

crisanderson27

You keep forgetting that your body can only metabolize so much fat in one day. If you only eat enough to support your LBM, and what your body can pull from fat reserves in a day isn't enough to supply the additional energy...your body WILL metabolize lean mass.

Its science man...plain and simple.

I've heard that mentioned 2 times now - your body can only metabolize so much fat in a day.

Where is the study for this, I've never found it?

I find instead studies of ultramarathoners who have trained their aerobic system so well that they slip into 50% fat burning mode for 24 hrs and have no issues. At some point in there the glucose is usually used up and they do burn some muscle, but the fat burning stayed at 50% or better.

That is a lot of fat burned in a day, so I'd love to see that study.

I'll look and see if I can find them (they were on my old hard drive favorites)...there was more than one. A couple of people that I'm sure both you and I trust feel the same way...based on similar information, so between the studies I'd read, and their feelings...I never considered questioning it.

Sidesteal

Additionally, the study suggests that you should keep your deficit under this theoretical maximum to avoid lean mass losses.

This is obviously a simplification and it's just a study, but anecdotal evidence would suggest that this would be a damn good idea too.

RockitRacer

@Sidesteal Well my point was that I'm still gaining weight, even though I barely reach my TDEE, which should, in theory, make me lose weight, which is really weird and rather disconcerting to me. Not sure how 2000 is gonna help, but I guess I can try it and enter it all in MFP.

oh, and to whoever asked, I'm 5'9"

kdeaux1959

1200 is too little for most males... 3100 is obviously too much. I would try to net about 2000 most likely with exercise. Cardio and weights. Best wishes.

Sidesteal

@Sidesteal Well my point was that I'm still gaining weight, even though I barely reach my TDEE, which should, in theory, make me lose weight, which is really weird and rather disconcerting to me. Not sure how 2000 is gonna help, but I guess I can try it and enter it all in MFP.

oh, and to whoever asked, I'm 5'9"

My point was that your TDEE estimation was likely too high, and additionally I would keep closer tabs on your intake levels.
2000 is less than 3100, this is how it should help.

Additionally, given your activity and your stats, you should be able to lose weight on 2000 calories.

The rate at which you were gaining weight suggests to me that you are either eating well over 2400 calories (due to estimation/counting errors -- I'm not saying you are doing this intentionally) or you have a medical condition.

crisanderson27

@Sidesteal Well my point was that I'm still gaining weight, even though I barely reach my TDEE, which should, in theory, make me lose weight, which is really weird and rather disconcerting to me. Not sure how 2000 is gonna help, but I guess I can try it and enter it all in MFP.

oh, and to whoever asked, I'm 5'9"

My point was that your TDEE estimation was likely too high, and additionally I would keep closer tabs on your intake levels.
2000 is less than 3100, this is how it should help.

Additionally, given your activity and your stats, you should be able to lose weight on 2000 calories.

The rate at which you were gaining weight suggests to me that you are either eating well over 2400 calories (due to estimation/counting errors -- I'm not saying you are doing this intentionally) or you have a medical condition.

Exactly. Given his activity level...I used a multiplier of 1.3, and came up with 2788 for maintenance/TDEE. That gives you a target of 2200 for 20% loss. I'm sure the 2000cal that Sidesteal has recommended wouldn't hurt either...and that would give you a small cushion for days where you went over for some reason.

Also, I keep seeing the OP writing that he should eat TDEE to lose. TDEE is what you'd eat to maintain your current weight. BMR is what you'd need if you were completely bed ridden. Something between the two...is where you want to eat for healthy weight loss.

Which is what I mentioned above.

RockitRacer

No, what i've been saying is that I had been trying to eat my TDEE and I had still been gaining alot of weight there, I know it's where you maintain weight, but I wasn't is my point. But what I usually eat is probably closer to what you said is my TDEE. Even though i'm almost positive I didn't eat over that, I'll just go ahead and eat around 2000 and see what happens and check back in with you guys in a month.