Increased calories=gained weight

NWCountryGal

I also read the diary and yes, way under 1200 which I could not do, not knowing all I do know about the need for proper nutrition to build a body not tear it down. For me also, it has been a struggle to find the correct amount of calories and exercise that works for me. Finally hit on 1400 and if I exercise I eat back most or all of those so not to drop below. I finally lost another lb after months of staying at the same weight but the main problem was not sticking to one amount plus, overestimating my exercise amount in finding my correct "goal" amount to eat.

denise

I went back and looked at your diary back to around the first part of November, and I saw only 3 days that you actually made it up to 1200 calories. Most days were only around 800 or 900. That is not enough for anyone

bcattoes

Current weight and height are factors. As is age. Unfortuately our metabolism tends to slow with age. 1200 may not be a good number for you if you are shorter, slighter, and older. If in doubt, consult a physician or other professional!

Metabolisms slowing with age is a myth. You can manipulate your metabolism at any age. You can speed it up, slow it down , or completely destroy it. it all depends on your food intake and activity level.

Actually it's not a myth. Metabolism will slow with age no matter what you do. And for women, the hormonal changes of menopause can have a big impact. If you do everything right it won't slow much, though. But very few people do everything right. For most people, metabolism slows quite a bit with age.

The myth would be that you can completely destroy your metabolism (assuming we are only talking about the living).

bcattoes

I went back and looked at your diary back to around the first part of November, and I saw only 3 days that you actually made it up to 1200 calories. Most days were only around 800 or 900. That is not enough for anyone

That is simply not true. While I would suggest anyone eating that low be under a doctor's supervision, it is possible to eat that low safely.

The poster is 63. If she is short and somewhat sedentary, then that might be the calorie level that works for her. Yes, it IS possible.

Um, yeah. My post said it IS possible (I didn't yell it, but still said "is"). It would be possible to eat that low safely even is she wasn't sedentary.

NWCountryGal

Good point! For me, learning what type of weight I want to lose is most important. Or gain for that matter. denise

I think your food measurements and/or your exercise (calories burned) must be off. Too loose 81lbs at that kind of calorie deficit I would think that your lean muscle % is very low. When you say exercise what is that?

DebbieLyn63

BMR for a female aged 63 weight 220lbs height 4'11 (all estimated) is still at least 1500.. Even with the chronic under eating. Thus eating <1000 is not cool. However this is why it is important to DO THE RESEARCH yourself.. IF we assume that your BMR has now been suppressed to around 1500 (for a normal metabolism it's actually closer to 1600 at your age/weight) then a 20% cut would put you at 1200. So you are a perfect example of someone that probably should be eating 1200 - 1300 ..BUT NOT 800

I would suggest making sure you are eating 1200 and give it more than 2 weeks. That is not nearly long enough to make a determination.

Try that math again, a 5'0", 63 yo women has a base BMR of only 1112, and a sedentary TDEE of only 1334. Factor in a very high body fat % and it could be even lower than that.

DebbieLyn63

I went back and looked at your diary back to around the first part of November, and I saw only 3 days that you actually made it up to 1200 calories. Most days were only around 800 or 900. That is not enough for anyone

That is simply not true. While I would suggest anyone eating that low be under a doctor's supervision, it is possible to eat that low safely.

The poster is 63. If she is short and somewhat sedentary, then that might be the calorie level that works for her. Yes, it IS possible.

Um, yeah. My post said it IS possible (I didn't yell it, but still said "is"). It would be possible to eat that low safely even is she wasn't sedentary.

Sorry, my response was to the original comment above yours, saying that it was not enough for anyone. I should have deleted your comment before posting. My bad. I was actually agreeing with your comment, but didn't make that clear.

allthenamesaretaken1

I would find what your BMR would be when you reach your goal and net that amount of calories.

Netting under 1200 calories can cause negative results.

DebbieLyn63

For a 5' tall, 63 yr old, sedentary female-

Caloric Need:
Estimated Base BMR: 1112 Calories.
Estimated TDEE: 1334 Calories.
Estimated Daily Caloric Need For Weight Loss: 834 Calories.

ironanimal

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Glycogen+and+Water+Retention

Firefox7275

Actually it's not a myth. Metabolism will slow with age no matter what you do. And for women, the hormonal changes of menopause can have a big impact. If you do everything right it won't slow much, though. But very few people do everything right. For most people, metabolism slows quite a bit with age.

The myth would be that you can completely destroy your metabolism (assuming we are only talking about the living).

Research indicates the vast majority of any 'age related' change in metabolism is simple decrease in muscle mass - the old use it or lose it - sometimes yo yo or crash dieting but often sedentary behaviour too. The effects of hormonal changes can change where our bodies prefer to lay down fat from being hips and thighs (pear) to the waist area (apple). Much of this can be overcome with scientifically designed diet and exercise regimes - there are post menopausal ladies competing in Fitness and Figure who did not train in their youth yet have lean, tight muscular bodies because they committed to the lifestyle 100%, or go to any 10K race, you will see plenty of tiny mature ladies in the Masters category with lean bodies trouncing their overweight pre-menopausal counterparts, are they all defying the laws of biology?

nellyett

Current weight and height are factors. As is age. Unfortuately our metabolism tends to slow with age. 1200 may not be a good number for you if you are shorter, slighter, and older. If in doubt, consult a physician or other professional!

Metabolisms slowing with age is a myth. You can manipulate your metabolism at any age. You can speed it up, slow it down , or completely destroy it. it all depends on your food intake and activity level.

Actually it's not a myth. Metabolism will slow with age no matter what you do. And for women, the hormonal changes of menopause can have a big impact. If you do everything right it won't slow much, though. But very few people do everything right. For most people, metabolism slows quite a bit with age.

The myth would be that you can completely destroy your metabolism (assuming we are only talking about the living).

Just want to throw in my 2 cents....a lot of the 'metabolism slowdown' with age is due to loss of lean muscle mass. It is more metabolically active than fat tissue. The less muscle mass we have, the slower our resting metabolism. As we age, we lose a certain percentage of muscle every year and this is why it is perceived as a slowdown.

Heavy resistance training at any age is most beneficial, especially for women as it also keeps bone density higher than without training.

khall69

1,000 calories is just not healthy...1,500 or above daily, moderate exercise, and patience...it WILL come off...hang in there, you can do it!!!!

bcattoes

Current weight and height are factors. As is age. Unfortuately our metabolism tends to slow with age. 1200 may not be a good number for you if you are shorter, slighter, and older. If in doubt, consult a physician or other professional!

Metabolisms slowing with age is a myth. You can manipulate your metabolism at any age. You can speed it up, slow it down , or completely destroy it. it all depends on your food intake and activity level.

Actually it's not a myth. Metabolism will slow with age no matter what you do. And for women, the hormonal changes of menopause can have a big impact. If you do everything right it won't slow much, though. But very few people do everything right. For most people, metabolism slows quite a bit with age.

The myth would be that you can completely destroy your metabolism (assuming we are only talking about the living).

Just want to throw in my 2 cents....a lot of the 'metabolism slowdown' with age is due to loss of lean muscle mass. It is more metabolically active than fat tissue. The less muscle mass we have, the slower our resting metabolism. As we age, we lose a certain percentage of muscle every year and this is why it is perceived as a slowdown.

Heavy resistance training at any age is most beneficial, especially for women as it also keeps bone density higher than without training.

Agreed, though I don't believe it even has to be that "heavy" (depending on your definition) Bone density, though, depends on more than just resistance, though that certainly is an important factor.

bcattoes

Actually it's not a myth. Metabolism will slow with age no matter what you do. And for women, the hormonal changes of menopause can have a big impact. If you do everything right it won't slow much, though. But very few people do everything right. For most people, metabolism slows quite a bit with age.

The myth would be that you can completely destroy your metabolism (assuming we are only talking about the living).

Research indicates the vast majority of any 'age related' change in metabolism is simple decrease in muscle mass - the old use it or lose it - sometimes yo yo or crash dieting but often sedentary behaviour too. The effects of hormonal changes can change where our bodies prefer to lay down fat from being hips and thighs (pear) to the waist area (apple). Much of this can be overcome with scientifically designed diet and exercise regimes - there are post menopausal ladies competing in Fitness and Figure who did not train in their youth yet have lean, tight muscular bodies because they committed to the lifestyle 100%, or go to any 10K race, you will see plenty of tiny mature ladies in the Masters category with lean bodies trouncing their overweight pre-menopausal counterparts, are they all defying the laws of biology?

No, nor did I ever suggest they were.

bcattoes

I went back and looked at your diary back to around the first part of November, and I saw only 3 days that you actually made it up to 1200 calories. Most days were only around 800 or 900. That is not enough for anyone

That is simply not true. While I would suggest anyone eating that low be under a doctor's supervision, it is possible to eat that low safely.

The poster is 63. If she is short and somewhat sedentary, then that might be the calorie level that works for her. Yes, it IS possible.

Um, yeah. My post said it IS possible (I didn't yell it, but still said "is"). It would be possible to eat that low safely even is she wasn't sedentary.

Sorry, my response was to the original comment above yours, saying that it was not enough for anyone. I should have deleted your comment before posting. My bad. I was actually agreeing with your comment, but didn't make that clear.

No worries.

DebbieLyn63

1,000 calories is just not healthy...1,500 or above daily, moderate exercise, and patience...it WILL come off...hang in there, you can do it!!!!

And on what do you base this statement of fact?

suckerlove

If I break 1000-1100 I gain. Every. Single. Time.

kittymoney

Since you had a lower calorie amount, THIS is what has happened:

1. Your body depleted glycogen energy stores in the muscles
2. Your body got rid of the water that stored that energy
3. Since you upped your calories, your body was able to restore some of the glycogen stores
4. In storing those, it had to retain more water
5. Processing more food also requires more water

You didn't gain fat. You gained water.

Shorter people and people with less to lose have to go slower with weight loss or they do interesting things to their hormones (which will effect their daily energy expenditure greatly) more easily than those that are larger.

^^^^^^^^^
THIS - yep I was one of those too. What I learned - my body punished me because I punished it - my brain over took what my body needed and then it said - i am going to get back at you. Finally figured it out and now I am starting to see a change after 6 weeks. Yep 6 weeks.

thisisiamj

I upped my calories from 1200-1300 to around 1600-1700 (sometimes more) for the past almost year, and I never once lost, only maintained. Sometimes I'd gain a couple pounds then lose a couple pounds but I've been stuck right at about 163 all year long. I believe, you do have to have a deficit in order to lose, I don't understand this eat way more to lose nonsense, it might work for some, but for me, I need to restrict in order to lose.

The idea behind eat more to lose is that you still have to eat @ a deficit to lose. Many folks on here find themselves eating 1200 calories to lose, then hit a plateau simply because they're not fueling their body. The idea is that you don't have to eat the bare minimum to still lose. If you don't have a whole lot to lose, it's recommended you do TDEE - 15%.

gingerveg

That stinks. I did increase my calories to 1400 net from 1200 too and am still losing weight. It just goes to show you have to try it out to see if it works for you.