Was increasing calories a mistake?

methridg
methridg Posts: 50 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
So I have been reading all over the forums and magazines about calorie intake that is healthy for me. The "roadmap" made sense to me so I calculated everything and found that I should be eating around 1650 calories a day. Now that seemed high so I compromised at 1500. Before that I was doing 1200 calories as MFP suggested.

During my 5 weeks at 1200, I lost 10 pounds. Since changing to 1500, which has now been 3 weeks, I have lost 1.5 pounds.

Should I have stayed at 1200??

I workout 5-6 times a week doing P90X so there is a ton of activity (at least more than ever before) so I know getting enough calories is important. But why did my weight loss slow so dramatically. I am still quite over-weight as I need about 45 more pounds to lose to be in my healthy/goal weight.

Any ideas?
«1

Replies

  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    Couple things...it can take a couple of weeks just for your metabolism to re-boot.

    Also, it is going to be slower. The 1,200 calorie goal is roughly 2Lbs per week loss. A 1,500 calorie goal is going to be closer to 1 Lb per week loss goal...so 1.5 Lbs in 3 weeks makes some sense.

    Also, it's not going to be linear. I have weeks that I don't lose anything...then bang, I'll drop 2 Lbs...then .5 Lbs...then nothing...then 1.5 Lbs, etc. I've even had weeks where I was slightly higher than my official weigh in the week before (water retention, not fat) It's just not linear and the sooner you can wrap your head around that, the better off you'll be mentally.

    Finally, focus on the process and not so much the results...if you focus on the process and doing things the right way, the results will come.
  • ladyraven68
    ladyraven68 Posts: 2,003 Member
    You need to concentrate on the quality of the loss too, take measurements along the way.

    Have a look at this, particularly the little table showing the difference between losing 3500 calories of fat v muscle. Faster weight loss isn't always better weight loss.

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html
  • Duck_Puddle
    Duck_Puddle Posts: 3,237 Member
    Were you eating 1200 or netting 1200? Meaning were you eating your exercise calories when you were at 1200?
  • BCSMama
    BCSMama Posts: 348
    I agree, at 1200 and a bigger loss, you may have been loosing more muscle. We all know muscle weighs more than fat, so if you're loosing muscle, it's going to look like a bigger loss than if you're just loosing fat. I know I'd much rather see a smaller loss on the scale, but be able to eat more and know that the loss I am seeing is more fat loss than muscle loss. You also likely need to give body more time to adjust to the changes before it releases the weight. Finally, if you are that active, you may need even more calories than you are consuming now. When you used the roadmap, did you calculate in these intense workouts?
  • CM9178
    CM9178 Posts: 1,251 Member
    It is going to naturally be slower weight loss, because it is less of a reduction in calories, but, eating at the lower number, you would most likely lose muscle as well. So in the long run, lose it slower at the higher calorie number and hold on to that muscle.
  • methridg
    methridg Posts: 50 Member
    Were you eating 1200 or netting 1200? Meaning were you eating your exercise calories when you were at 1200?

    No I never eat my exercise calories. Or at least almost never.
  • methridg
    methridg Posts: 50 Member
    I agree, at 1200 and a bigger loss, you may have been loosing more muscle. We all know muscle weighs more than fat, so if you're loosing muscle, it's going to look like a bigger loss than if you're just loosing fat. I know I'd much rather see a smaller loss on the scale, but be able to eat more and know that the loss I am seeing is more fat loss than muscle loss. You also likely need to give body more time to adjust to the changes before it releases the weight. Finally, if you are that active, you may need even more calories than you are consuming now. When you used the roadmap, did you calculate in these intense workouts?

    Yes I was including the workouts and it gave me 1640 but I just wasnt comfortable at that amount.

    Maybe I just need to give it a couple more weeks... I know I dont want really fast loss because that could create "skinny fat" down the road and its not necessarily sustainable. I just expected a little more progress.

    I take measurements on Sunday for my day 60 of P90X, maybe I will have better results there.
  • akaMrsmojo
    akaMrsmojo Posts: 762 Member
    You may have slowed your metabolism. You were net a lot less than 1200. It will take time for your body to adjust.

    1.5 is a great loss. Throw the scale out the door and be patient.
  • llkilgore
    llkilgore Posts: 1,169 Member
    It is going to naturally be slower weight loss, because it is less of a reduction in calories, but, eating at the lower number, you would most likely lose muscle as well. So in the long run, lose it slower at the higher calorie number and hold on to that muscle.

    Actually in the long run it may average out to be faster if holding on to muscle helps her to avoid a plateau. An aggressively large, muscle chewing calorie deficit doesn't leave you with a lot of room to maneuver when your metabolic rate drops to meet it.
  • 88meli88
    88meli88 Posts: 238 Member
    hiya, am in same boat. started out on 1200 cals lost 2 lbs per week, but wisened up quickly and moved to 1600. now am losing at 1 lb per week. i get super impatient w this especially after a week of great workouts, but it has been totally constant loss....slow, but over time adds up....i sometimes consider dropping my calories and then i say nah...for all the reasons mentioned
  • GauchoMark
    GauchoMark Posts: 1,804 Member
    I'm not trying to be mean, but there are so many things wrong with your post I think my head might explode!

    Ok, now that I got that out of the way, let me actually try to be useful!

    1) You can't really compare your first few weeks of a new diet to any other timeframe. You are almost always going to lose big during those few weeks when you start eating less and eating cleaner. Then, even if you had stayed at 1200 you would start slowing down. So, you are trying to compare apples and oranges.

    2) at 1500 calories, you are losing 0.5 lb/wk. Since you are using the roadmap, I assume you went with the 20% reduction so your TDEE is 1875 cal/day? If so, then 0.5 lb/wk is actually right on track (in the ballpark). Theoretically, you would lose 0.75 lb/wk, but 0.5 lb/wk is close enough that I'd say you are on track.

    3) Did you include your exercise routine when you did the roadmap calculations? IE, you told it that your exercise 1-3 hours a week or whatever. If so, you shouldn't eat back your exercise because it is already included. If you told it you are sedentary, then you should (and technically you aren't following the roadmap at that point).

    4) Can you lose weight faster by eating less? Yes. Will it be healthy? no. Will it be the type of weight you want to lose? no. Will it get you the body you picture in your mind that you want to look? probably not.

    In a nutshell, here is the deal. The holy grail of "losing weight", is really losing FAT without losing MUSCLE and doing it fairly quickly. The reason this should be EVERYONE's goal when losing weight is because the more muscle you have, the more calories you need ("faster" metabolism). It isn't really faster, per se, your body just needs more calories to maintain the muscle. When you are significantly overweight, you actually have a pretty good amount of muscle underneath (takes a lot of muscle to move the weight all day). If you can preserve that muscle for the entirety of your weight loss, you will be leaps and bounds above the average person's physique. So, the way to preserve that muscle is to make sure you are eating plenty of protein (1 g/lb LBM or so), lifting weight helps, and keeping your net calories and essential nutrients high enough to sustain your lean body mass.

    Sounds easy enough, right? Well, honestly, it is. But, you have to get YOUR mind wrapped around eating the right things and the fact that quicker isn't necessarily better. Like LadyRaven68 said, QUALITY weight loss is what you're after and that takes some time.

    In the long run, if you try to lose too quickly, you will lose too much muscle, then have to build that back at the end. Building muscle takes even longer than losing fat, so you are better off to keep the muscle you have.
  • ajhugz
    ajhugz Posts: 452 Member
    DId you change what you were eating when you added the extra calories? If the extra calories weren't coming from healthy food that might be the issue. If you weren't starving at 1200 i would go back or try something in the middle like 1350.
  • wmoomoo
    wmoomoo Posts: 159 Member
    Throw that scale away and use measurement. Slow and steady wins the race, so upping your calories but still losing is great.
  • Greenrun99
    Greenrun99 Posts: 2,065 Member
    Doing P90x and not eating back exercise calories.. eating 1200, burning 300-500 a day.. Goodbye Muscle!


    Your probably still under eating for your activity level..
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,428 MFP Moderator
    I think GauchoMark hit on a bunch of the major points (especially comparing the first few weeks vs current rate). But I will say this. Since you are doing P90X, why don't you follow their nutrition plan. I know the roadmap is good, but the below calculator is designed for the program and I would highly suggest using it. The base calorie count for that program is 1800 calories. And no, that isn't a lot of calorie for a program like that.

    So use the calculator, input a custom set up and set your macro's to 40% carbs, 40% protein and 20% fats.


    http://www.teambeachbody.com/eat-smart/nutrition-tools/caloric-needs
  • now_or_never13
    now_or_never13 Posts: 1,575 Member
    It is going to naturally be slower weight loss, because it is less of a reduction in calories, but, eating at the lower number, you would most likely lose muscle as well. So in the long run, lose it slower at the higher calorie number and hold on to that muscle.

    You lose muscle normally at any deficit. You just lose less with a smaller deficit.

    OP, you may of damaged your metabolism a touch since you said you weren't eating your exercise calories back and therefore lost a lot of muscle and were not giving your body enough fuel. Keep NETTING 1500 for at least another few weeks and I'm sure you will see results. Consistantly eating too far under your BMR will hurt your efforts. With your losses at 1200 cals I would imagine a very large portion of those losses were from muscle.
  • kionig
    kionig Posts: 77 Member
    I've had success with IPOARM, also I use the Eating For Future You group, after following the Reset Your Metabolism group. So I went from about 1500 cals a day, to about 2200-2500 cals a day while working out, and, right now that I've been doing NO exercise for 7 months due to health problems, I've been maintaining at about 1800-1900 per day. I am not a professional but, I really don't think you are giving your body enough fuel, without fuel the body holds onto what it is getting. Plus, what are you eating, is it clean food or still alot of processed foods.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Are you using a food scale to measure food intake and are you recording everything such as condiments, beverages, that pat of butter, the piece of candy you may have snuck in, etc? (just listing examples, not implying things).
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    During my 5 weeks at 1200, I lost 10 pounds. Since changing to 1500, which has now been 3 weeks, I have lost 1.5 pounds.

    Should I have stayed at 1200??

    Well 10 pounds in 5 weeks is a bit much.

    1.5 pounds in 3 weeks is a bit low.

    The obvious solution is somewhere in the middle: try 1350.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    I'm not trying to be mean, but there are so many things wrong with your post I think my head might explode!

    Ok, now that I got that out of the way, let me actually try to be useful!

    1) You can't really compare your first few weeks of a new diet to any other timeframe. You are almost always going to lose big during those few weeks when you start eating less and eating cleaner. Then, even if you had stayed at 1200 you would start slowing down. So, you are trying to compare apples and oranges.

    2) at 1500 calories, you are losing 0.5 lb/wk. Since you are using the roadmap, I assume you went with the 20% reduction so your TDEE is 1875 cal/day? If so, then 0.5 lb/wk is actually right on track (in the ballpark). Theoretically, you would lose 0.75 lb/wk, but 0.5 lb/wk is close enough that I'd say you are on track.

    3) Did you include your exercise routine when you did the roadmap calculations? IE, you told it that your exercise 1-3 hours a week or whatever. If so, you shouldn't eat back your exercise because it is already included. If you told it you are sedentary, then you should (and technically you aren't following the roadmap at that point).

    4) Can you lose weight faster by eating less? Yes. Will it be healthy? no. Will it be the type of weight you want to lose? no. Will it get you the body you picture in your mind that you want to look? probably not.

    In a nutshell, here is the deal. The holy grail of "losing weight", is really losing FAT without losing MUSCLE and doing it fairly quickly. The reason this should be EVERYONE's goal when losing weight is because the more muscle you have, the more calories you need ("faster" metabolism). It isn't really faster, per se, your body just needs more calories to maintain the muscle. When you are significantly overweight, you actually have a pretty good amount of muscle underneath (takes a lot of muscle to move the weight all day). If you can preserve that muscle for the entirety of your weight loss, you will be leaps and bounds above the average person's physique. So, the way to preserve that muscle is to make sure you are eating plenty of protein (1 g/lb LBM or so), lifting weight helps, and keeping your net calories and essential nutrients high enough to sustain your lean body mass.

    Sounds easy enough, right? Well, honestly, it is. But, you have to get YOUR mind wrapped around eating the right things and the fact that quicker isn't necessarily better. Like LadyRaven68 said, QUALITY weight loss is what you're after and that takes some time.

    In the long run, if you try to lose too quickly, you will lose too much muscle, then have to build that back at the end. Building muscle takes even longer than losing fat, so you are better off to keep the muscle you have.

    Fantastic post!
  • kisses4dylan
    kisses4dylan Posts: 46 Member
    This! Love it!
  • rodow
    rodow Posts: 26

    In a nutshell, here is the deal. The holy grail of "losing weight", is really losing FAT without losing MUSCLE and doing it fairly quickly. The reason this should be EVERYONE's goal when losing weight is because the more muscle you have, the more calories you need ("faster" metabolism). It isn't really faster, per se, your body just needs more calories to maintain the muscle. When you are significantly overweight, you actually have a pretty good amount of muscle underneath (takes a lot of muscle to move the weight all day). If you can preserve that muscle for the entirety of your weight loss, you will be leaps and bounds above the average person's physique. So, the way to preserve that muscle is to make sure you are eating plenty of protein (1 g/lb LBM or so), lifting weight helps, and keeping your net calories and essential nutrients high enough to sustain your lean body mass.

    Sounds easy enough, right? Well, honestly, it is. But, you have to get YOUR mind wrapped around eating the right things and the fact that quicker isn't necessarily better. Like LadyRaven68 said, QUALITY weight loss is what you're after and that takes some time.

    In the long run, if you try to lose too quickly, you will lose too much muscle, then have to build that back at the end. Building muscle takes even longer than losing fat, so you are better off to keep the muscle you have.

    Awesome. I just saved this clip to Evernote so I won't lose it.
  • methridg
    methridg Posts: 50 Member
    I'm not trying to be mean, but there are so many things wrong with your post I think my head might explode!

    Ok, now that I got that out of the way, let me actually try to be useful!

    1) You can't really compare your first few weeks of a new diet to any other timeframe. You are almost always going to lose big during those few weeks when you start eating less and eating cleaner. Then, even if you had stayed at 1200 you would start slowing down. So, you are trying to compare apples and oranges.

    2) at 1500 calories, you are losing 0.5 lb/wk. Since you are using the roadmap, I assume you went with the 20% reduction so your TDEE is 1875 cal/day? If so, then 0.5 lb/wk is actually right on track (in the ballpark). Theoretically, you would lose 0.75 lb/wk, but 0.5 lb/wk is close enough that I'd say you are on track.

    3) Did you include your exercise routine when you did the roadmap calculations? IE, you told it that your exercise 1-3 hours a week or whatever. If so, you shouldn't eat back your exercise because it is already included. If you told it you are sedentary, then you should (and technically you aren't following the roadmap at that point).

    4) Can you lose weight faster by eating less? Yes. Will it be healthy? no. Will it be the type of weight you want to lose? no. Will it get you the body you picture in your mind that you want to look? probably not.

    In a nutshell, here is the deal. The holy grail of "losing weight", is really losing FAT without losing MUSCLE and doing it fairly quickly. The reason this should be EVERYONE's goal when losing weight is because the more muscle you have, the more calories you need ("faster" metabolism). It isn't really faster, per se, your body just needs more calories to maintain the muscle. When you are significantly overweight, you actually have a pretty good amount of muscle underneath (takes a lot of muscle to move the weight all day). If you can preserve that muscle for the entirety of your weight loss, you will be leaps and bounds above the average person's physique. So, the way to preserve that muscle is to make sure you are eating plenty of protein (1 g/lb LBM or so), lifting weight helps, and keeping your net calories and essential nutrients high enough to sustain your lean body mass.

    Sounds easy enough, right? Well, honestly, it is. But, you have to get YOUR mind wrapped around eating the right things and the fact that quicker isn't necessarily better. Like LadyRaven68 said, QUALITY weight loss is what you're after and that takes some time.

    In the long run, if you try to lose too quickly, you will lose too much muscle, then have to build that back at the end. Building muscle takes even longer than losing fat, so you are better off to keep the muscle you have.


    Well since I am new to eating better and working out then I guess there would be "so much wrong with my post".

    That said, I do appreciate the informative post. It makes a lot of sense to me.
  • duckiec
    duckiec Posts: 241 Member
    No ideas, but just wanted to say this is EXACTLY where I am today, too. Confused as all get out, and trying to work through it to determine a plan.

    I tried asking about it but didn't phrase it right- your answers were a lot more informative. So thanks to you for posting, and everybody else for your helpful info.
  • CM9178
    CM9178 Posts: 1,251 Member
    It is going to naturally be slower weight loss, because it is less of a reduction in calories, but, eating at the lower number, you would most likely lose muscle as well. So in the long run, lose it slower at the higher calorie number and hold on to that muscle.

    You lose muscle normally at any deficit. You just lose less with a smaller deficit.

    OP, you may of damaged your metabolism a touch since you said you weren't eating your exercise calories back and therefore lost a lot of muscle and were not giving your body enough fuel. Keep NETTING 1500 for at least another few weeks and I'm sure you will see results. Consistantly eating too far under your BMR will hurt your efforts. With your losses at 1200 cals I would imagine a very large portion of those losses were from muscle.
    I understand you lose muscle at any deficit, I just didn't say "less". And I also don't agree that she would've already damaged her metabolism by eating so low.. she hasn't been doing it long enough.
  • Naomi_84
    Naomi_84 Posts: 197 Member
    I was in the same boat as you, increased my calories again to 1700 last week and have started losing weight again. I'm finding it hard to eat that much after months on between 1200-1400 a day but I'm certainly enjoying eating more healthy fats and tons of protein.

    Height 5ft 1"
    Current weight 172 lbs
    Goal weight 120-130 lbs
  • RetiredAndLovingIt
    RetiredAndLovingIt Posts: 1,395 Member
    bump
  • rosiereally2
    rosiereally2 Posts: 539 Member
    I too baby stepped my may up to the Roadmap's recommended calories because I was afraid to take the plunge. It can be hard to wrap your head around eating more and still losing. But I'm glad I made the change, and I think you will be, too, if you give it time.

    Since increasing my calories by more than 600 calories ~7 weeks ago, I have lost "only" 5 lbs on the scale. BUT, I have lost 14 lbs of body fat, and gained 9 lbs of lean muscle.

    And that's the whole point of the program: retaining your lean muscle mass while shrinking your body. The scale does not tell the full picture. You should be measuring yourself regularly, and charting those changes as you go. When you start seeing that body fat drop percentage, you'll be so glad you gave Dan's Roadmap a try.

    Feel free to add me! My diary is open to friends. I'm a fairly shoddy eater, but the math still works. The FREEDOM that those extra calories gives has made me a lot more cheerful. I was miserable on 1200 cals, and it seemed that all I thought about was food.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Since increasing my calories by more than 600 calories ~7 weeks ago, I have lost "only" 5 lbs on the scale. BUT, I have lost 14 lbs of body fat, and gained 9 lbs of lean muscle.

    That seems extraordinarily unlikely. Where did you get those numbers?
  • slynnalex
    slynnalex Posts: 38 Member
    How long will it take for my metabolism to right itself after eating too little? I've been faithfully following the MFP calorie recommendation since Aug 2012 and have lost ~15lbs since then. I plateaued and was looking at posts to understand whether my intake was on target @ 1340, I'm 5'9" and have a low activity level. After reading the 'holy grail' post of how to calculate calories and working all of that out I found that the recommended calories for me is about 300 more than I've been eating. I'm struggling to understand what I should do. I have about 15lbs to my goal weight.

Categories