Weight gain despite being good

susiemou

No public diary to verify statement? Girl bai.

What???? Did i ask to be called a liar because i thought that might be fun today?
My friends can see my diary. Just ask......

Who called you a liar?

Well what did you mean then? If you're just stirring, i hope you have a nice day.

Girl, I can only imagine you're so angry because of how hungry you are. You come in complaining about weight but no one can see your diary to advise: that goes for too many calories OR too few. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

I don't believe the OP asked for advice, she asked for encouragement. And you jumping in and saying you want to verify? That's just rude.

Thanks Alice, you get what i was trying to say, thank goodness! I'm not angry, just find negativity unhelpful.

PUZZLER49

I am struggling also, so I decided to drink more water. It seems to have done the trick and the weight finally went down by a couple of pounds. I don't hear many express the importance of drinking water. You need water to wash the burned fat out of your system. I hope this works for you as well

been285

ebbs and flowsss ....
grab a towel and DONT PANIC
soldier on for the next 3 weeks or so .
If you are still gaining at that point you will have to find a way to break your plateau .

bye ....... later

firstsip

No public diary to verify statement? Girl bai.

What???? Did i ask to be called a liar because i thought that might be fun today?
My friends can see my diary. Just ask......

Who called you a liar?

Well what did you mean then? If you're just stirring, i hope you have a nice day.

Girl, I can only imagine you're so angry because of how hungry you are. You come in complaining about weight but no one can see your diary to advise: that goes for too many calories OR too few. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

I don't believe the OP asked for advice, she asked for encouragement. And you jumping in and saying you want to verify? That's just rude.

Thanks Alice, you get what i was trying to say, thank goodness! I'm not angry, just find negativity unhelpful.

Lesa_Sass

What's your standard calorie intake and macros, and what's your exercise regime?

Calorie goal is 1200 and i'm usually under, so i agree with previous posters, that as i'm not overeating i can't really be gaining fat/weight. Have just started doing the shred and i walk quite a bit, run occasionally and netball every other week. Don't know what macro's are :huh:

You're 5' 10" tall and only eat 1200 calories a day? My goodness, your body has to be starving. I'm only 5' 4" and eating around 1900 and I still get hungry. Your BMR alone has to be higher than 1200.

^^^^This.

I am 5'3 and 44 years old and I was still losing at 1600 per day. I was at a stand still for months at 1200 per day and when I finally wrapped my head around eating more, I started losing at an accelerated rate.

Just try it for 3 weeks and put the scale away for those 3 weeks. I will work and you will feel way better when you give your body the proper fuel and nutrients it needs to function.

Like I said before, the hardest part was wrapping my head around it. You are hearing from most everyone in this thread to eat more, if you refuse to then that is on you.

susiemou

Thanks for the advice everyone, appreciate it. :happy:

norcal_yogi

Yeah, i don't buy into the starvation mode thing either, but i didn't think weight gain from exercise would be so rapid, and disheartening...

It can quite easily!, from what i can gather you've only just started JM's DVD's, and so your convcerned about the immediate weight gain?! That is normal, if your not an exersize junkie, than any new routine will cause you to put on weight when you start, but it's water... just good old H2O, where you've worked those muscles you've put little micro tears in them and each one of those is repaired by 1g of glycogen and 4g water!

I exersize a fair ammout already and i started p90x and gained 4lbs overnight!.... you'll drop as quickly as you gained so dont sweat it!....

Also can people stop banding around 'starvation mode' and explain what it is clearly, not that your body will hold onto all of its fat or start producing fat... for those who are still unsure, it's the ration of fat to muscle loss... if your pushing yourself too hard your body will make up the difference and instead of consume fat, consume muscle and lean tissue (as it's easier and releases the energy it needs more quickly), and you want to preserve muscle as this is what fuels your metabolism (to over simplify)... so in a week your 2lbs of loss could be 1.8lbs of fat 0.2lbs of good muscle or 1.8lbs of muscle and 0.2lbs of fat... we all know which we'd prefer!

Hope that helps!

Simon x

thanks Simon!

pamcuster

I have a question regarding the debate between eating more and eating less to lose weight...

Please understand, I don't wish to stir up a debate...as you can see from my ticker, I wouldn't be qualified to argue for either side. So, my question is completely sincere. (I'm trying to be clear about that since tone is nearly impossible to judge in written messages!)

My question is...IF there is such a thing as 'starvation mode,' why do anorexics lose weight? From my understanding, they eat fewer and fewer calories, and their weight plummets. (Note here, that I realize that's unhealthy...the question here is about actually losing weight, not getting healthier. And I do believe that health is infinitely more important than *quick* weight loss!) I am simply trying to understand the concept of 'starvation mode,' and it seems to have no physical evidence to support it. I mean, people in *starving* countries are really and truly in 'starvation mode,' and they waste away to nothing; their bodies don't hold onto weight in order to keep them alive. What am I missing?

Thanks, Pam

Lesa_Sass

I have a question regarding the debate between eating more and eating less to lose weight...

Please understand, I don't wish to stir up a debate...as you can see from my ticker, I wouldn't be qualified to argue for either side. So, my question is completely sincere. (I'm trying to be clear about that since tone is nearly impossible to judge in written messages!)

My question is...IF there is such a thing as 'starvation mode,' why do anorexics lose weight? From my understanding, they eat fewer and fewer calories, and their weight plummets. (Note here, that I realize that's unhealthy...the question here is about actually losing weight, not getting healthier. And I do believe that health is infinitely more important than *quick* weight loss!) I am simply trying to understand the concept of 'starvation mode,' and it seems to have no physical evidence to support it. I mean, people in *starving* countries are really and truly in 'starvation mode,' and they waste away to nothing; their bodies don't hold onto weight in order to keep them alive. What am I missing?

Thanks, Pam

If you notice, anorexics do not have any muscle to eat so the body starts attacking the rest of its self.

firstsip

I have a question regarding the debate between eating more and eating less to lose weight...

Please understand, I don't wish to stir up a debate...as you can see from my ticker, I wouldn't be qualified to argue for either side. So, my question is completely sincere. (I'm trying to be clear about that since tone is nearly impossible to judge in written messages!)

My question is...IF there is such a thing as 'starvation mode,' why do anorexics lose weight? From my understanding, they eat fewer and fewer calories, and their weight plummets. (Note here, that I realize that's unhealthy...the question here is about actually losing weight, not getting healthier. And I do believe that health is infinitely more important than *quick* weight loss!) I am simply trying to understand the concept of 'starvation mode,' and it seems to have no physical evidence to support it. I mean, people in *starving* countries are really and truly in 'starvation mode,' and they waste away to nothing; their bodies don't hold onto weight in order to keep them alive. What am I missing?

Thanks, Pam

It's mostly a metabolic issue--when an anorexic (trust me, been there) again puts on weight, they put it on DRAMATICALLY fast. There's many people like me here who have metabolic issues from prolonged undereating. You'll lose weight eating below 1200, absolutely... but you'll be losing muscle first, then the fat, so if you ever eat say... normal again, it becomes fat almost instantly. The body spends more energy maintaining muscle than fat (hence the metabolic positives of gaining muscle), and the body has had no energy from "starving"... so it makes fat. The people in those starving countries, if they were to go from MAYBE 200-500 calories a day to 1500-2000 in a quick period of time, with little strength training, their bodies will rapidly store those calories as fat. So, the issue with the "starvation mode" people propagate on the forums... it's not that you won't lose weight eating at a low period for a long time. It's that you'll also be losing muscle, and when you return to non-deficit calories ( like maintenance), gains will likely come from fat.

Anna800

No public diary to verify statement? Girl bai.

Yes we need to see your diary.

FitFabFlirty92

I have a question regarding the debate between eating more and eating less to lose weight...

Please understand, I don't wish to stir up a debate...as you can see from my ticker, I wouldn't be qualified to argue for either side. So, my question is completely sincere. (I'm trying to be clear about that since tone is nearly impossible to judge in written messages!)

My question is...IF there is such a thing as 'starvation mode,' why do anorexics lose weight? From my understanding, they eat fewer and fewer calories, and their weight plummets. (Note here, that I realize that's unhealthy...the question here is about actually losing weight, not getting healthier. And I do believe that health is infinitely more important than *quick* weight loss!) I am simply trying to understand the concept of 'starvation mode,' and it seems to have no physical evidence to support it. I mean, people in *starving* countries are really and truly in 'starvation mode,' and they waste away to nothing; their bodies don't hold onto weight in order to keep them alive. What am I missing?

Thanks, Pam

I'm not really an expert on this either, but I gather that with anorexics, they tend to eat little to no food -- say 200-800 calories a day depending on how severe the case is. Same with people starving in different countries -- they are literally not eating for weeks at a time, or eating very small amounts. People on here aren't literally starving, some are just restricting their calories way too much and also overexercising without fueling those workouts. So they're getting SOME of the nutrition they need, but not enough. It creates the perfect storm for your body to hold onto the fat and stall your weight loss. So "starvation mode" is, in my opinion, real, but maybe it should be called something else since it's not the same as literally starving.

And for the OP, if you're 5'10, I definitely think you should try eating more. You may see an uptick on the scale at first, but afterward there should be a steady drop in weight from week to week. If what you're doing right now isn't working, it's at least worth a try, right?

pamcuster

I have a question regarding the debate between eating more and eating less to lose weight...

Please understand, I don't wish to stir up a debate...as you can see from my ticker, I wouldn't be qualified to argue for either side. So, my question is completely sincere. (I'm trying to be clear about that since tone is nearly impossible to judge in written messages!)

My question is...IF there is such a thing as 'starvation mode,' why do anorexics lose weight? From my understanding, they eat fewer and fewer calories, and their weight plummets. (Note here, that I realize that's unhealthy...the question here is about actually losing weight, not getting healthier. And I do believe that health is infinitely more important than *quick* weight loss!) I am simply trying to understand the concept of 'starvation mode,' and it seems to have no physical evidence to support it. I mean, people in *starving* countries are really and truly in 'starvation mode,' and they waste away to nothing; their bodies don't hold onto weight in order to keep them alive. What am I missing?

Thanks, Pam

It's mostly a metabolic issue--when an anorexic (trust me, been there) again puts on weight, they put it on DRAMATICALLY fast. There's many people like me here who have metabolic issues from prolonged undereating. You'll lose weight eating below 1200, absolutely... but you'll be losing muscle first, then the fat, so if you ever eat say... normal again, it becomes fat almost instantly. The body spends more energy maintaining muscle than fat (hence the metabolic positives of gaining muscle), and the body has had no energy from "starving"... so it makes fat. The people in those starving countries, if they were to go from MAYBE 200-500 calories a day to 1500-2000 in a quick period of time, with little strength training, their bodies will rapidly store those calories as fat. So, the issue with the "starvation mode" people propagate on the forums... it's not that you won't lose weight eating at a low period for a long time. It's that you'll also be losing muscle, and when you return to non-deficit calories ( like maintenance), gains will likely come from fat.

Soooo, in theory, would it work to strength-train *while* restricting calories, in order to preserve the muscle? ...and have the majority of the calories consumed be protein?

sa11yjane

I did JM's 30 day shred for over 30 days.....and didn't lose any weight at all and no inches either!!! However, I did build up my strength and now have muscles (albeit tiny ones!) in my arms

EnchantedEvening

You could be at a point in your cycle where you start retaining water. I gained five pounds over the weekend due to my cycle, and I'm doing my best to drink tons of water and exercise so it drops back to my "normal" weight once the week is over. If I hadn't been charting my weight every day for the past three months, I never would have noticed the pattern and it might have sent me into freak-out mode.

EnchantedEvening

No public diary to verify statement? Girl bai.

What???? Did i ask to be called a liar because i thought that might be fun today?
My friends can see my diary. Just ask......

Who called you a liar?

Don't play innocent with semantics. Saying you can't verify someone's statement is as good as saying they're probably lying. You meant to stir the pot, succeeded with your snarky (and stupid) "girl bai" phrase, and then played it off like the OP was upset for no reason.

Lame. Grow the hell up. All you had to do was ask, "Could you make your diary public so we can take a look at it?" but that requires maturity, which you clearly do not possess.

Lesa_Sass

No public diary to verify statement? Girl bai.

What???? Did i ask to be called a liar because i thought that might be fun today?
My friends can see my diary. Just ask......

Who called you a liar?

Don't play innocent with semantics. Saying you can't verify someone's statement is as good as saying they're probably lying. You meant to stir the pot, succeeded with your snarky (and stupid) "girl bai" phrase, and then played it off like the OP was upset for no reason.

Lame. Grow the hell up. All you had to do was ask, "Could you make your diary public so we can take a look at it?" but that requires maturity, which you clearly do not possess.

LOL, and this statement exudes maturity? This is way more nasty than what the girl who was talking about the diary. I will agree that her wording could have been a little better but I think her statement was taken way out of context, as where your statement, well there is no way it could be taken out of context.

I only wonder if you are having a bad day or if your attitude is generally like this? I sincerely hope that it is just a bad day.:flowerforyou: I hope it gets better.

firstsip

No public diary to verify statement? Girl bai.

What???? Did i ask to be called a liar because i thought that might be fun today?
My friends can see my diary. Just ask......

Who called you a liar?

Don't play innocent with semantics. Saying you can't verify someone's statement is as good as saying they're probably lying. You meant to stir the pot, succeeded with your snarky (and stupid) "girl bai" phrase, and then played it off like the OP was upset for no reason.

Lame. Grow the hell up. All you had to do was ask, "Could you make your diary public so we can take a look at it?" but that requires maturity, which you clearly do not possess.

You seem upset.

firstsip

I have a question regarding the debate between eating more and eating less to lose weight...

Please understand, I don't wish to stir up a debate...as you can see from my ticker, I wouldn't be qualified to argue for either side. So, my question is completely sincere. (I'm trying to be clear about that since tone is nearly impossible to judge in written messages!)

My question is...IF there is such a thing as 'starvation mode,' why do anorexics lose weight? From my understanding, they eat fewer and fewer calories, and their weight plummets. (Note here, that I realize that's unhealthy...the question here is about actually losing weight, not getting healthier. And I do believe that health is infinitely more important than *quick* weight loss!) I am simply trying to understand the concept of 'starvation mode,' and it seems to have no physical evidence to support it. I mean, people in *starving* countries are really and truly in 'starvation mode,' and they waste away to nothing; their bodies don't hold onto weight in order to keep them alive. What am I missing?

Thanks, Pam

It's mostly a metabolic issue--when an anorexic (trust me, been there) again puts on weight, they put it on DRAMATICALLY fast. There's many people like me here who have metabolic issues from prolonged undereating. You'll lose weight eating below 1200, absolutely... but you'll be losing muscle first, then the fat, so if you ever eat say... normal again, it becomes fat almost instantly. The body spends more energy maintaining muscle than fat (hence the metabolic positives of gaining muscle), and the body has had no energy from "starving"... so it makes fat. The people in those starving countries, if they were to go from MAYBE 200-500 calories a day to 1500-2000 in a quick period of time, with little strength training, their bodies will rapidly store those calories as fat. So, the issue with the "starvation mode" people propagate on the forums... it's not that you won't lose weight eating at a low period for a long time. It's that you'll also be losing muscle, and when you return to non-deficit calories ( like maintenance), gains will likely come from fat.

Soooo, in theory, would it work to strength-train *while* restricting calories, in order to preserve the muscle? ...and have the majority of the calories consumed be protein?

Yup! That's why lots of "fitness gurus" recommend starting strength training even on a deficit with 40/30/30 macros (with 40 being protein)--you'll retain lean muscle (with the potential to build some with increased protein). When people so famously have hanging skin or "skinny fatness," it's generally from a cardio-only exercise program with a deficit, or eating purely at a deficit. Strength training on top of these things results in body re-composition... in other words, overall "weight loss" may be slower, but appearance and overall health will be better.