TDEE reduced by 20%...no way

psuLemon

Yes I tried for a month to increase.

Before you tried and gained, how long did you eat at 1200 calories? It's very possible that you suppressed our RMR and your metabolism became more effective to burning calories. So naturally, you could have an RMR around 1400, but due to long term suppression, it could have adapted to 1200 or less. Additionally, when you increase calories, most people (especially women) increase carbs. When you increase carbs you increase water/glycogen storage which could account for a few lbs. This is why it's suggested to slowly increase. So if you were at 1200, I would suggest adding 100-200 calories a week until you hit your goal.

Also, with your guess about where you used to eat, most people under estimate calories by 400 calories, so it's quite easily that you were eating 2000+ calories in a day.

mmapags

IMO BMI is a garbage stat. whenever I do my BMI it says that I am "moderately obese" and I have 13% body fat so that is impossible....

how old are you?

you could always take the 522 cal increase (1400 to 1922) and split it in half and bump up to 1650 per day and see how that goes for a few weeks...

^^^good advice.

BMI = nonsense

It is was also calulated about 100 years ago and was never meant to be a measurement for individuals. It was a measurement of populations. Useless as a barometer of an individuals health.

neandermagnon

just calculated my TDEE- 20% and its 1929. That cannot be right...that is more than I have eaten ever! When I increased to 1400 calories I gained weight.
I am 5 ft, barley any inches but I work out almost every day, intensely. I am 129lbs currently, and a size 2, I have lots of muscles haa.
That seems like a HUGE amount of food. Does anyone (short ladies in particular) actually lose eating a number that high? I know everyone is different and I have always been more likely to gain than any of my friends/family members, so maybe my disbelief is purely a reflection of my experience.

Im just curious what people thing about this. Does anyone else think its way to high? Or am I stuck in 1200 mentality?

I'm 5'1" and workout 3-4 times a week (heavy lifting to failure, takes a total of around 1 hr each workout, including all the resting between sets) and I don't do any cardio, apart from walking, and going up and down the stairs to my apartment. So really, I'm not doing that much exercise, and I'm not someone who does like 2hrs cardio a day.

I maintain on around 1900 calories and recently switched back to cutting, and was starving and "hangry" on 1580 calories (never used to be when cutting at a moderate deficit, and a moderate deficit in the past was 1500 cals/day, but I am possibly more active now than in the past), to the point that I've gone back to square one to see if my maintenance really is 1900 calories, or in fact more than that. It's actually possible that I was maintaining on more than 1900 cals/day, just that when I track to see now many cals/day I'm eating, I eat less (because I'm "being good" when tracking...) so think that I'm maintaining on less than I am... so currently I'm aiming for around this number of calories to see if my weight really is stable at this number.

You're about the same height as me, and you're a lot more active than me, so you are very likely to have a higher TDEE than me. I have a large frame, but that seems to only give me an extra 50 calories a day (i.e. the difference between Harris Benedict formula which is based on weight and height and assumes an average frame size, and Katch-McArdle, which is based on lean body mass, so would account for frame size). You being more active than me counts for a lot more than frame size or one inch difference in height would do.

And yes this method has worked for me in the past, I went from obese to a healthy body fat percentage using the TDEE - 20% method. I'm currently maintaining my weight but want to improve my body fat percentage (from approx 22% currently, to maybe 18-20%, although I have a look in mind, more than getting fussed about the exact numbers) so I'm going to be doing TDEE - 10 or 15% for a phase to cut fat, then TDEE + don't know what exactly, I'll see when I get there, to gain some more lean body mass. My numbers may be a little off, i.e. I think maybe my maintenance calories is a bit more than 1900 cals/day, but they're not that far off, and this method works.

Tzippy7

Yes I tried for a month to increase.

Before you tried and gained, how long did you eat at 1200 calories? It's very possible that you suppressed our RMR and your metabolism became more effective to burning calories. So naturally, you could have an RMR around 1400, but due to long term suppression, it could have adapted to 1200 or less. Additionally, when you increase calories, most people (especially women) increase carbs. When you increase carbs you increase water/glycogen storage which could account for a few lbs. This is why it's suggested to slowly increase. So if you were at 1200, I would suggest adding 100-200 calories a week until you hit your goal.

Also, with your guess about where you used to eat, most people under estimate calories by 400 calories, so it's quite easily that you were eating 2000+ calories in a day.

Yes, my metabolism has had alot of poor eating to deal with. I regularly starved myself in Highschool and this past summer in Haiti I was incredibly sick and ate way below 1200.

This is very interesting. I like the idea of slowly increasing.

psuLemon

Yes I tried for a month to increase.

Before you tried and gained, how long did you eat at 1200 calories? It's very possible that you suppressed our RMR and your metabolism became more effective to burning calories. So naturally, you could have an RMR around 1400, but due to long term suppression, it could have adapted to 1200 or less. Additionally, when you increase calories, most people (especially women) increase carbs. When you increase carbs you increase water/glycogen storage which could account for a few lbs. This is why it's suggested to slowly increase. So if you were at 1200, I would suggest adding 100-200 calories a week until you hit your goal.

Also, with your guess about where you used to eat, most people under estimate calories by 400 calories, so it's quite easily that you were eating 2000+ calories in a day.

Yes, my metabolism has had alot of poor eating to deal with. I regularly starved myself in Highschool and this past summer in Haiti I was incredibly sick and ate way below 1200.

This is very interesting. I like the idea of slowly increasing.

Then it's quite possible you will fall out of the realm of being in the standard deviation. It's not to say you can never fix it.. but it may take 6months + to get your RMR to align to your true BMR. The issue you will deal with is the average person your size will generally have more lean body mass.. The more LBM you have, the more calories you burn at rest. So quite possibly, you can do a bulk phase, add 10 lbs of muscle or so and then fit back into the standard deviation. Unfortunately, when you starve yourself or suppress calories a lot, your body then converts the amino acids in your muscle to energy which will cause your body to lose muscle mass... thence the slowing of your metabolic rate.

kcallas88

I'm 5'2", 24 yrs old and I eat about 2000ish a day. Not loosing but certainly decreasing body fat which at this pt is my main goal. I wouldn't listen to BMI, if you abused your metabolism for years then it will take a while to "fix" it. Maybe slowly increase and make sure that you are eating nutrient rich foods and opposed to crap. Maybe focus more on body fat and how you look as opposed to the scale if you are that close to your goal weight.

ashfuse

Basically, from what I've read, your metabolism is damaged from your poor eating. Slowly increase until you reach
TDEE. Eat at TDEE for a long time. This is called a Refeed. If you want more info, I think it would be very beneficial for you to look up the group Eat More 2 Weigh Less.

wibutterflymagic

9 lbs to go, I know BMI is problematic but TOM and water weight still push me back to an unhealthy weight range. I want a little more distance from that red line haha

I think you have a warped sense of what 'unhealthy" is. Water weight from TOM is not adding the amount of lbs that it would take to put you at an "unhealthy" weight. 5lbs of water bloat is not the same as 5lbs of actual fat. We all get bloated from time to time. It's not our true weight. Don't be so concerned about a random # on a health chart . If you're pic is of you recently then you are in a healthy weight range. You look good!!