Increased calories=gained weight
Replies
-
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.
0 -
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!!!!0
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
If I break 1000-1100 I gain. Every. Single. Time.0
-
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.0 -
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%.0 -
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.0
-
Strangely I have found the total opposite. i started on 1200 which was fine in the summer, I lost a fair few pounds very quickly then it slowed and stopped. I used to eat back any calories through exercise ( or do exercise to have extra calories for a few drinks at weekend) I have now adjusted the settings to lose only half a pound a week and this now gives me 1390. I have already have lost a lb in just over a week. I also feel happier having just that extra few calories a day to play with also.0
-
^ This x 100Since 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.0 -
.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.
then you should not aim for 20% below TDEE instead of 1lb/week so 80% of your TDEE will give you 1067/day, assuming you do no exercise. If you exercise your TDEE will be larger and 80% of that will be more than 10670 -
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.
Apparently when you explain things clearly like this people just ignore and continue to dialogue based on opinion.0 -
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.
God I love this kid!0 -
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.
and for further emphasis
http://www.justinowings.com/understanding-bodyweight-and-glycogen-de/0 -
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).
Are you sure it's an actual decrease in metabolism or is it a decrease in activity which results in a decrease in TDEE? In my book, there's a difference.
ETA: And now I read further into the thread and see that it may actually be related to muscle mass...(which I guess is even more reason to work hard to build and maintain as we get older).0 -
OK--due to so much insistence that noone should eat less than 1200 calories/day and the statement "you have to eat calories to lose calories, I increased my calories to 1200-1500/day and I HAVE BEEN GAINING WEIGHT!! Every one of the pounds I have loss has been a struggle. My intake has been 1000 calories/day--sometimes less--but rarely more. However since I have increased my exercise and effort and weight has come off no faster I decided to try increasing calories. In 2 weeks I have regained 5 pounds. It has never taken much food for me to maintain weight or to gain weight. Portions the rest of my family eats just packs on the pounds for me. I think it is true--some people can gain weight just looking at food and I am one of those people. So back to 1000 calories for me.
5lbs of what? it's just water, there is no way it can be fat, unless you ate 5x3500 = 17500 calories over maintenance.0 -
You know, when they say increase your calories, they mean don't eat bad food, just eat more of good food.... that way you can eat more (literally) and not really be eating anything bad or with empty calories, like chips, candies, or sugar drinks. Just saying 0
-
You know, when they say increase your calories, they mean don't eat bad food, just eat more of good food.... that way you can eat more (literally) and not really be eating anything bad or with empty calories, like chips, candies, or sugar drinks. Just saying
I'm a big proponent of generally eating healthy, nutrient-dense food because it's, well, healthier for us in general...
...but to this comment: No. Just no. No no no.0 -
I am not saying that this will help you. But, I found I was gaining weight because of my carbs. My Fitness Plan recommended I eat 362 carbs a day. I was averaging 237 a day (difference of 125). I have now been averaging 55 to 65 carbs a day and I have lost 17 pounds since doing that.
I am not saying this will work for you. But, it is worth a try. Good luck
Glycogen. Water.
I've been doing the same thing (55-75ish grams) for 6ish months. I've lost 55lbs. I reallllllly doubt I've lost 55lbs of water. After the initial first week or so you're losing fat.0 -
You know, when they say increase your calories, they mean don't eat bad food, just eat more of good food.... that way you can eat more (literally) and not really be eating anything bad or with empty calories, like chips, candies, or sugar drinks. Just saying
I'm a big proponent of generally eating healthy, nutrient-dense food because it's, well, healthier for us in general...
...but to this comment: No. Just no. No no no.
What do you mean, no? I just said DONT eat bad food... I am wondering if you read it wrong?0 -
Your diary says you're actually eating about 700-800 calories.
Just because your goal is set to 1200 doesn't mean you're eating 1200.
Your body may be temporarily reacting to an increase in calories, but making positive change isn't successfully accomplished by doing it for two weeks, freaking the F out, then going back to starving yourself. I can gain almost 5lbs overnight by doing nothing. You really haven't given this change enough time (at least 4-6 weeks) to see a reasonable result. What you're seeing is a physical reaction to change, and the body usually reacts to any change in diet by retaining water.
I ruined my metabolism by doing what you're doing. Two years later, I'm finally getting to the point where I can eat like a normal human being. You can either eat way too little and then have at least two years of work to do on your metabolism, or you could start with a healthy calorie allocation now and not have to deal with this in the future. Guess which one I recommend0 -
Ugh, I am getting so sick of these threads. How about this. Go talk to a doctor or/and a nutritionist/dietician and see what they say. I know what they will say because I've done my research. But obviously, you need to hear it from them that trying to eat a 1000 calorie diet (unless supervised by a doctor) is not good.0
-
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?
I have been dieting since 3/26/2012. My food intake is measured/weighed and if calculations are off it is to the high side. My exercise now consists of 4 days a week following a Leslie Sansone 1 mile DVD using 3 pound hand weights and 6 days a week following a 2 mile Leslie Sansone DVD without weights. Both sessions cause me to sweat (I hate sweating), breathe hard (difficulty talking) and fast HR. I do not "eat back" the calories from exercise.I am 63, very sedentary, 5'2". Altho I was a skinny child (I hated food) and not overweight as a teenager, I have always hated exercise of any kind but I was an avid horseback rider and that kept the weight off. Once married and had kids weight was 180-220 pounds. It was the last 7 years where my weight steadily climbed until I hit a high of 310. My lowest weight was 229. Today I am 231--I have relost 3 pounds of the 5 pounds I gained after increasing calories. This is the first time I have regained lost weight altho there have been many slow spots and plateaus. "".I would think that your lean muscle % is very low"" --Agreed: Flabby with litlte muscle.0 -
I am not saying that this will help you. But, I found I was gaining weight because of my carbs. My Fitness Plan recommended I eat 362 carbs a day. I was averaging 237 a day (difference of 125). I have now been averaging 55 to 65 carbs a day and I have lost 17 pounds since doing that.
I am not saying this will work for you. But, it is worth a try. Good luck
I am trying changing my intake from Lean Cuisines (I like the controlled calories and portions) to "real" meat/poultry/fish and veggies0 -
Your diary says you're actually eating about 700-800 calories.
Just because your goal is set to 1200 doesn't mean you're eating 1200.
Your body may be temporarily reacting to an increase in calories, but making positive change isn't successfully accomplished by doing it for two weeks, freaking the F out, then going back to starving yourself. I can gain almost 5lbs overnight by doing nothing. You really haven't given this change enough time (at least 4-6 weeks) to see a reasonable result. What you're seeing is a physical reaction to change, and the body usually reacts to any change in diet by retaining water.
I ruined my metabolism by doing what you're doing. Two years later, I'm finally getting to the point where I can eat like a normal human being. You can either eat way too little and then have at least two years of work to do on your metabolism, or you could start with a healthy calorie allocation now and not have to deal with this in the future. Guess which one I recommend
Very well put.0 -
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!!!!
Maybe--but I would like to lose the weight in what lifetime I might have left plus have a few years to enjoy it---LOL0 -
You know, when they say increase your calories, they mean don't eat bad food, just eat more of good food.... that way you can eat more (literally) and not really be eating anything bad or with empty calories, like chips, candies, or sugar drinks. Just saying
I'm a big proponent of generally eating healthy, nutrient-dense food because it's, well, healthier for us in general...
...but to this comment: No. Just no. No no no.
Agree--healthy, nutrient-dense better for you but basically a calorie is just a calorie0 -
I am not saying that this will help you. But, I found I was gaining weight because of my carbs. My Fitness Plan recommended I eat 362 carbs a day. I was averaging 237 a day (difference of 125). I have now been averaging 55 to 65 carbs a day and I have lost 17 pounds since doing that.
I am not saying this will work for you. But, it is worth a try. Good luck
Glycogen. Water.
I've been doing the same thing (55-75ish grams) for 6ish months. I've lost 55lbs. I reallllllly doubt I've lost 55lbs of water. After the initial first week or so you're losing fat.
This seems like an intentionally ignorant comment. He's not saying all of his weight loss is due to water loss. He's saying that it's misleading when people are like LOW-CARB IS MAGICAL AS LONG AS YOU EAT LOW-CARB POUNDS WILL FALL OFF NO MATTER HOW MANY CALORIES.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions