Stalled after raising my calorie from 1200

Options
1356

Replies

  • JacksMom12
    JacksMom12 Posts: 1,044 Member
    Options
    The problem with 1200 is that you don't HAVE to do it that way. Yes, 1200 works. But so does much more. Give it time. I lost the same per week eating 1200 and eating 1600. So I chose 1600. The problem with eating less isn't that it doesn't work. It does. But in the long run, it doesn't. Your body will adapt to 1200 and then as you lose weight, get smaller, and stall out... Where would you go from there? 1000? 800? What about maintenance? Can you really eat 1200 for the rest of your life? Ick.

    I maintain on 2300 calories and am 5'4 and 118. If I had stuck with 1200, my maintence would have sucked and I'd probably have gained it all back by now.
  • SarahDavs
    SarahDavs Posts: 161 Member
    Options
    whierd, to be clear, I in no way have it figured out. That's why I posted this in the first place. I have never heard of eating more to lose more before I started reading the MFP forums aout 3 weeks ago. It is a totally new concept to me and it's a little scary.
  • Elleinnz
    Elleinnz Posts: 1,661 Member
    Options
    This shows what happens on the scale day by day.....

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Elleinnz/view/weighing-daily-don-t-believe-the-scale-135325
  • LJSmith1989
    LJSmith1989 Posts: 650
    Options
    I eat 1645 calories a day (5'1 based on TDEE -15%) ... I have started lifting and am getting ready to up my calories.. Can't wait.
  • whierd
    whierd Posts: 14,025 Member
    Options
    whierd, to be clear, I in no way have it figured out. That's why I posted this in the first place. I have never heard of eating more to lose more before I started reading the MFP forums aout 3 weeks ago. It is a totally new concept to me and it's a little scary.

    Eating More To Lose More is generally the belief in eating a high amount of relatively low calorie foods (lean meats, veggies, etc) to keep you full while still maintaining a caloric deficit. If this suits you, then it can be a great way to lose weight.

    I personally subscribe to the IIFYM (If It Fits Your Macros) crowd and believe calories are king. That means I could eat a poptart icecream sandwich everyday if I wanted as long as I do noy exceed my calorie goals.
  • Elleinnz
    Elleinnz Posts: 1,661 Member
    Options
    b) that said, 1100 calories is almost never enough for an adult. Unless they're very very tiny. Like a little person.

    I'm not going to sit here and argue with you guys, but I have to ask you where you learned that. From lessons and classes getting your trainer's or nutritionists license?

    All of you eat more types pull numbers and stats out of thin air, and I'm tired of ignorance. There's nothing wrong with Fasting, Calorie cutting, listening to your body and holding off on eating when you aren't hungry.

    unless you truly AREN'T eating nutritious food...

    1600 calories is TEN portions of 4 oz baked chicken breasts PLUS 6 cups of steamed broccoli. In an entire DAY I don't think I could eat that much food. I eat around 1400, I'm a short guy and I only do lifting. My job is sedentary.

    Now I'll sit back while you try and tell me how you eat SO much nutritious food in a day to get to 1800, without adding in high calorie junk.

    Where did I learn this - by experimenting and fine tuning my diet over the past 950 days to a point where I know what works for me - a 52 year old woman - and you know what - it is eating over 2000 calories a day!!

    And for truly eating nutritious food :you be the judge - please tell me what is wrong with my diary.....

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/diary/Elleinnz?date=2013-04-23
  • REDI4CHANGE60
    REDI4CHANGE60 Posts: 170
    Options
    I lose just fine at 1100kcal per day, as long as I eat fairly regularly and do exercise. But I am quite short so (5ft 1) so I think I have a lower calorie requirement than a lot of people!

    no sweetie, no you don't. I'm only an inch taller than you, and twice your age, and my calorie requirement is a lot more than that, just to keep my body functioning. You need to eat more, or you're going to cause metabolic damage to yourself.

    Agreed - I'm 5'2 eating 1600-1800 cals a day.

    The self applied logic falls short of brilliance right here - If that applied everywhere, then why are two people, of the same height different in appearance? Some people are blessed with great metabolisms, they can eat anything and still be skinny. A lot of thin guys who are trying to bulk on muscle just CAN'T, they have to add mass gaining shakes to their diet..

    So the "I'm as tall as you and eat 30% more food than you" is an irrelevant statement. Do you two also share the same genes? lifestyle? stresses?

    No? oh what a surprise.


    Wow .... you jump one person for being snarky (which, BTW, I agreed with) then you post the above? Glad he called you on it.
  • Siege_Tank
    Siege_Tank Posts: 781 Member
    Options
    If you think nut butters are meaningless and unfulfilling, well then I can only assume you haven't tried them or are unaware of what healthy fats are. Also, you are in here giving your opinion just like everyone else.

    I am a cheerleader for getting healthy.

    I didn't say they were meaningless, I said they were unfullfilling. I eat plenty of healthy fats a lot of the time, I love fish.

    I've just never eaten a spoonful of peanut butter and said with a smacky mouth "MMM, I am SO *full* right now! That hit the spot!"

    And if you want to talk about getting healthy,

    losing weight = getting healthy.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

    CNN called it a "twinkie" diet, but he had his cholesterol, triglycerides, his blood pressure, his blood sugar. He was eating JUNK food, but at a calorie deficit.

    All of those "health" markers improved. As he lost weight, everything improved, even his body composition, he lost 27 pounds.

    He ate crap, and said it's not a good idea to eat it, but he went from maintaining his weight at 2600 calories per day, cut to 1800 calories of JUNK, and got healthier, his doctors are no longer worried.

    Here's the truth about "healthy" eating. There's no such thing. "Nutritious" eating is eating foods that are loaded with nutrients, vitamins and minerals. But eating more vitamins and minerals than you need each day doesn't make you healthier.

    When you eat a carb, a fat, or a protein, your body will break it down into the most basic components of what you ate. It doesn't matter if those fatty carbs were from an avocado or a little debbie, what matters is the amounts, the calories. While avocados have more nutrients in them than little debbies, they won't improve your health if you are consuming all your vitamin and mineral needs elsewhere.

    A study that says that people who eat brown rice are less likely to have heart disease gets translated in the news into "BROWN RICE MORE HEALTHY". Without mention that those who eat brown rice are probably watching what they eat all the time, make less fattening choices, and probably don't consume a typical western diet. The study also failed to investigate the differences in their bodyfat % and if they were overweight. Not to mention that the incidence of heart rate was statistically insignificant between the two groups that were measured in the study.

    Now there are studies coming out that show that the extra fiber in whole grains and brown rice are actually INHIBITING nutrient uptake. While they may have more "nutrients", they are attached to the fiber, which is indigestible to humans. That's kind of an important distinction. If we aren't able to digest it, then why is it healthy????

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2822877
    Fiber and nutrient availability

    GOD I love logic and reasoning!
  • SarahDavs
    SarahDavs Posts: 161 Member
    Options
    whierd, to be clear, I in no way have it figured out. That's why I posted this in the first place. I have never heard of eating more to lose more before I started reading the MFP forums aout 3 weeks ago. It is a totally new concept to me and it's a little scary.

    Eating More To Lose More is generally the belief in eating a high amount of relatively low calorie foods (lean meats, veggies, etc) to keep you full while still maintaining a caloric deficit. If this suits you, then it can be a great way to lose weight.

    I personally subscribe to the IIFYM (If It Fits Your Macros) crowd and believe calories are king. That means I could eat a poptart icecream sandwich everyday if I wanted as long as I do noy exceed my calorie goals.
    I'm still trying to wrap my head around all the different info. I have PCOS and can't lose weight the way you're doing it. I have to stay within specific macros (high protein/low cal/low carb) and stay within my calorie goal... and exercise.
  • toutmonpossible
    toutmonpossible Posts: 1,580 Member
    Options
    Well, I upped my calorie intake from 1200 to 1400 last week. Even though I was losing about 1 1/2 pounds a week from the 1200. But I kept reading all the MFP threads about 1200 not being enough to sustain you. But and I didn't lose even .1 of a pound, or any inches. I'm going back to 1200. I'm 123 pounds right now and exercise everyday. Do you think if I'm eating healthy foods about every 3 hours at 1200 a day that my body will really go into starvation mode? Is anyone else losing and doing just fine at 1200?

    ETA: I meant I weigh *223* pounds. :3

    Yes, you will do fine. 1200 calories will not put a 223-pound person into "starvation mode," it won't put ME into starvation mode and I weigh around 100. Your body will use your fat reserves for energy.

    You do not need to eat every three hours. You can eat once a day, four times a day, 500 calories a day twice a week and spread the balance over the remaining five days (the 5:2 form of Intermittent Fasting). You can eat at 6 a.m., you can eat at midnight. It doesn't matter. All that does is that you create an appropriate deficit by consuming mainly healthy foods and a balanced diet, although we all slip up.
  • SarahDavs
    SarahDavs Posts: 161 Member
    Options
    Siege_Tank, oh man, I can't keep up with the studies. *head exploding*
  • Siege_Tank
    Siege_Tank Posts: 781 Member
    Options
    Siege_Tank, oh man, I can't keep up with the studies. *head exploding*

    Sorry, all their talk about healthy eating, and starvation mode and everything is pointless.

    Don't eat when you aren't hungry. If you are overweight, then eat less. Your cut can be small, or it can be drastic, depending on the results you want.

    All their talk about damaging your metabolism and not eating enough is non-sense. It's noise.

    Eat less. When you get close to your goal, start eating more, and gradually up your calories once you get near your goal, like a plane landing.

    ETA: Sorry about citing so many studies, I just don't like saying something, and then having it argued by people who don't know what they're talking about, or are saying things that are false. It's not their fault, they just don't know any better. They look at their own body and own results, and use that as their basis for knowledge.
  • baptiste565
    baptiste565 Posts: 590 Member
    Options
    Siege_Tank, oh man, I can't keep up with the studies. *head exploding*
    there are many variables in weight loss/fitness. if something is working for u, i would stay with it.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,867 Member
    Options
    OP, it's not about eating more to lose more necessarily...it's about eating more to lose in a healthy and sustainable way. You do not have the fat stores for a very large deficit. 2 Lbs per week is really only appropriate for people with a lot of weight to lose. Ultimately, you just stall out your metabolism if you don't have the fat stores to maintain the deficit. It's not starvation mode...that's a very misunderstood term. What it is is your bodies natural evolutionary response to, essentially, famine and it's how your body protects itself in a low calorie environment.

    For a handful of cosmetic Lbs you should be shooting for a very small deficit...like 0.5 per week at the most and work on body composition...i.e. start a structured strength training regimen. It is the only way you're going to change your body comp....not a bunch of dieting and cardio.
  • Annie83uk
    Annie83uk Posts: 128
    Options
    i think you should just try and do what suits you but i think 1200-1400 is reasonable, try it for another week or two and see how you get on, everybody's body is different, if you are still unsure it might be best to get advice from a doctor rather than people who aren't really qualified and are in the same boat as you. good luck with your weight loss, hope you get the answers you are after :indifferent:
  • whierd
    whierd Posts: 14,025 Member
    Options
    Siege_Tank, oh man, I can't keep up with the studies. *head exploding*

    Sorry, all their talk about healthy eating, and starvation mode and everything is pointless.

    Don't eat when you aren't hungry. If you are overweight, then eat less. Your cut can be small, or it can be drastic, depending on the results you want.

    All their talk about damaging your metabolism and not eating enough is non-sense. It's noise.

    Eat less. When you get close to your goal, start eating more, and gradually up your calories once you get near your goal, like a plane landing.

    ETA: Sorry about citing so many studies, I just don't like saying something, and then having it argued by people who don't know what they're talking about, or are saying things that are false. It's not their fault, they just don't know any better. They look at their own body and own results, and use that as their basis for knowledge.

    Nutritionist license please.
  • Iron_Feline
    Iron_Feline Posts: 10,750 Member
    Options
    The problem with 1200 is that you don't HAVE to do it that way. Yes, 1200 works. But so does much more. Give it time. I lost the same per week eating 1200 and eating 1600. So I chose 1600. The problem with eating less isn't that it doesn't work. It does. But in the long run, it doesn't. Your body will adapt to 1200 and then as you lose weight, get smaller, and stall out... Where would you go from there? 1000? 800? What about maintenance? Can you really eat 1200 for the rest of your life? Ick.

    I maintain on 2300 calories and am 5'4 and 118. If I had stuck with 1200, my maintence would have sucked and I'd probably have gained it all back by now.

    ^^^ This.
  • REDI4CHANGE60
    REDI4CHANGE60 Posts: 170
    Options
    there are many variables in weight loss/fitness. if something is working for u, i would stay with it.

    THIS! I have been losing on approx 1200 calories, a low carb, high protein diet - clean, not processed foods. I am not really counting anything, just being careful what I put in my mouth and it tends to add up to the 1200 calories daily. Is it working? Yes. Am I sticking with it? Yes. If it stops working, will I revise my plan and make changes? Yes.
  • Siege_Tank
    Siege_Tank Posts: 781 Member
    Options

    Nutritionist license please.

    I didn't give her personalized advice, telling her how many calories to eat, numbers to follow. I gave her general guidelines on how to accomplish her goals.

    I don't hate everyone, I hate intolerance and ignorance. There is no reason why people should shame this person into eating more than what she is hungry for. When they make arguments, I call them out, because what they say is false. This person came here looking for advice, and most of the posters have told her to adopt a diet that would see her gain weight.

    Gee.
  • sexymuffintop
    sexymuffintop Posts: 636
    Options
    i think you should just try and do what suits you but i think 1200-1400 is reasonable, try it for another week or two and see how you get on, everybody's body is different, if you are still unsure it might be best to get advice from a doctor rather than people who aren't really qualified and are in the same boat as you. good luck with your weight loss, hope you get the answers you are after :indifferent:

    1200-1400 isn't reasonable. Thats a big fat whopper lie. It's reasonable for a child yes, fully grown, active adult, nope. Nadda, no way.

Categories