"You are not eating enough"
Options
Replies
-
Most real data points out that adaptive metabolism (IE what MOST people think is starvation mode) is <5%, and that's after MONTHS of eating at a severe deficit.
I think this is the take-away point for basically all the threads having to do with this. We're talking about low percentage points of metabolic slowing, which ends up being nothing compared to what can be attributed to the decrease in body weight. In all practical reality, the adaptive thermogenesis isn't likely to do much to the deficit, let alone somehow swing it into a surplus.0 -
Boy, I've posted this several times in the last couple of days:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/975025-in-place-of-a-road-map-short-n-sweet?hl=roadmap+short+and+sweet&page=1#posts-14891590
Read the first post of this thread, as it explains the TDEE-20% method of weight loss. Trust me, it really works!!! It will give you more calories to eat & makes sure you get adequate protein. If your protein intake is high enough & you add in some resistance training, you'll burn fat without burning a lot of muscle. I've lost 57 pounds & only 10% of that weight loss has been lean muscle mass. Your protein intake should be AT LEAST 1 gm/pound of lean body mass or alternatively 0.8 gm/pound of weight. For most women that is 100-125 grams of protein/day as a MINIMUM. I'm now 160 pound & 5-8 and eat at least 135 grams of protein/day. In fact, on Sunday I ate 205 grams of protein! If you start burning through your muscle mass, you will slow your calorie burn (TDEE), as muscle burns more calories than fat. When all you're left with is fat, everything slows done. Hence the need to conserve muscle!
Once you figure out your calorie requirement, DO NOT eat under that goal & expect to lose weight. Eating below you BMR (basal metabolic rate) is always wrong, as your BMR only accounts for basic body functions for survival. Your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) is what you burn in a day. If you eat at TDEE, you should maintain your weight. If you eat at a deficit to your TDEE, you will lose weight, hence the idea of TDEE-20%. As you get closer to your goal, your deficit should get smaller. Eating at a deficit of >20% should ONLY be done under the guidance of a physician! And as a physician myself, I will add that most physician do not have adequate training in nutrition & weight loss. You need to be under the care of a physician who specializes in weight loss, such as a bariatric physician in conjunction with a well trained dietician.
One other point, a weight loss rate of 1 pound/week is ideal & sustainable. In the very beginning you may lose more due to water loss, but pushing for greater weight loss (unless you are morbidly obese & under a doctor's care) is not advisable or sustainable.0 -
Boy, I've posted this several times in the last couple of days:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/975025-in-place-of-a-road-map-short-n-sweet?hl=roadmap+short+and+sweet&page=1#posts-14891590
Read the first post of this thread, as it explains the TDEE-20% method of weight loss. Trust me, it really works!!! It will give you more calories to eat & makes sure you get adequate protein. If your protein intake is high enough & you add in some resistance training, you'll burn fat without burning a lot of muscle. I've lost 57 pounds & only 10% of that weight loss has been lean muscle mass. Your protein intake should be AT LEAST 1 gm/pound of lean body mass or alternatively 0.8 gm/pound of weight. For most women that is 100-125 grams of protein/day as a MINIMUM. I'm now 160 pound & 5-8 and eat at least 135 grams of protein/day. In fact, on Sunday I ate 205 grams of protein! If you start burning through your muscle mass, you will slow your calorie burn (TDEE), as muscle burns more calories than fat. When all you're left with is fat, everything slows done. Hence the need to conserve muscle!
Once you figure out your calorie requirement, DO NOT eat under that goal & expect to lose weight. Eating below you BMR (basal metabolic rate) is always wrong, as your BMR only accounts for basic body functions for survival. Your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) is what you burn in a day. If you eat at TDEE, you should maintain your weight. If you eat at a deficit to your TDEE, you will lose weight, hence the idea of TDEE-20%. As you get closer to your goal, your deficit should get smaller. Eating at a deficit of >20% should ONLY be done under the guidance of a physician! And as a physician myself, I will add that most physician do not have adequate training in nutrition & weight loss. You need to be under the care of a physician who specializes in weight loss, such as a bariatric physician in conjunction with a well trained dietician.
One other point, a weight loss rate of 1 pound/week is ideal & sustainable. In the very beginning you may lose more due to water loss, but pushing for greater weight loss (unless you are morbidly obese & under a doctor's care) is not advisable or sustainable.
Thanks for the write up "doc". But I was really just trying to figure out why all of these people comment that "You arent eating enough" when someone pops in stating they are gaining weight on a low cal diet.0 -
Most real data points out that adaptive metabolism (IE what MOST people think is starvation mode) is <5%, and that's after MONTHS of eating at a severe deficit.
I think this is the take-away point for basically all the threads having to do with this. We're talking about low percentage points of metabolic slowing, which ends up being nothing compared to what can be attributed to the decrease in body weight. In all practical reality, the adaptive thermogenesis isn't likely to do much to the deficit, let alone somehow swing it into a surplus.
Yeah, but it seems many people are convinced if you eat 1200 calories a day for a week you will go into some uncharted state of existence where you will actually start gaining weight.. which I find ridiculous. (BTW- Im not eating anywhere as low as 1200.. this wasnt a search for why I am gaining.. I was trying to figure out why "You need to eat more" seems such a prevalent answer in so many threads)
0 -
Most real data points out that adaptive metabolism (IE what MOST people think is starvation mode) is <5%, and that's after MONTHS of eating at a severe deficit.
I think this is the take-away point for basically all the threads having to do with this. We're talking about low percentage points of metabolic slowing, which ends up being nothing compared to what can be attributed to the decrease in body weight. In all practical reality, the adaptive thermogenesis isn't likely to do much to the deficit, let alone somehow swing it into a surplus.
Yeah, but it seems many people are convinced if you eat 1200 calories a day for a week you will go into some uncharted state of existence where you will actually start gaining weight.. which I find ridiculous. (BTW- Im not eating anywhere as low as 1200.. this wasnt a search for why I am gaining.. I was trying to figure out why "You need to eat more" seems such a prevalent answer in so many threads)
I agree. And I think the answer to the bold is that people are just quick to fire off an answer without considering context and gathering the right amount of information before commenting. My experience so far is that most people in this situation eat a lot more than they claim.0 -
I'm confused. I was one of those people frustrated with the 1200 calorie MFP recommendation. I wasn't gaining weight, but I wasn't losing either, and I was extremely fatigued. I went with the TDEE -20% recommendation, and changed my macros to 40 carb/30 protein/30 fats. My BMR was 1600 and TDEE -20% is 2000 (roughly). I increased my daily calories to 1600, and eat back some of my workout calories (not to exceed 2000). I didn't go straight to 2000 daily, because it makes me nervous.
So, am I wrong? Should I be eating only 1200 calories?0 -
Most real data points out that adaptive metabolism (IE what MOST people think is starvation mode) is <5%, and that's after MONTHS of eating at a severe deficit.
I think this is the take-away point for basically all the threads having to do with this. We're talking about low percentage points of metabolic slowing, which ends up being nothing compared to what can be attributed to the decrease in body weight. In all practical reality, the adaptive thermogenesis isn't likely to do much to the deficit, let alone somehow swing it into a surplus.
Yeah, but it seems many people are convinced if you eat 1200 calories a day for a week you will go into some uncharted state of existence where you will actually start gaining weight.. which I find ridiculous. (BTW- Im not eating anywhere as low as 1200.. this wasnt a search for why I am gaining.. I was trying to figure out why "You need to eat more" seems such a prevalent answer in so many threads)
I agree. And I think the answer to the bold is that people are just quick to fire off an answer without considering context and gathering the right amount of information before commenting. My experience so far is that most people in this situation eat a lot more than they claim.
Agreed.
You need to eat more may well be a valid answer for someone trying to be healthy, gain weight, perform at a high level, etc. But I don't see how it's ever the answer to the "why am I not losing" threads.0 -
Eating too little for too long supposedly can cause damage to your body. The response is that your body is not getting enough food, so it holds on to everything, never letting go. So, you are starving your body, so to speak. That is why you stop losing. When you increase calories, it can take some time before it lets go, because it has to repair. I've heard that it can take up to 4 months, but at some point, your body will feel nourished, and will begin to let go of the waste and you will start to lose again. But, it is not quite as simple as I just wrote. That's like the 3rd grade version. It is very complex. The best way to go about it, is slowly increase over a long period of time, like maybe 100 calories per week, until you get up to where you should be. This way, you're not adding additional stress into your already damaged system. By the time you get you calories up, the body may be ready, and you'll see your weight start to go down again.
This is what happened to me. It took about three months of eating at maintenance (about 2200 calories) to reset my metabolism and now I lose pretty steadily (but slowly) at 1950. Check out this thread, it's what changed everything for me.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/974889-in-place-of-a-road-map-short-n-sweet0 -
bump0
-
You should see your doctor. Seriously, don't use a forum. Don't rely on non professionals. I was having problems being tired and gaining weight- thinking it was starvation. Everyone on this site insisted it was starvation and OMG WHAT ARE YOU DOING?
They were completely wrong. 1. Surprise, I now have a huge factor for why those things were happening and it was not starvation. A doctor would know this and could determine it for you. 2. It depends on your height and how you respond to a certain level of calorie intake. Yes, there is a guideline- but it's that. That is what I was informed of at my diabetic education course at my hospital.0 -
I'm confused. I was one of those people frustrated with the 1200 calorie MFP recommendation. I wasn't gaining weight, but I wasn't losing either, and I was extremely fatigued. I went with the TDEE -20% recommendation, and changed my macros to 40 carb/30 protein/30 fats. My BMR was 1600 and TDEE -20% is 2000 (roughly). I increased my daily calories to 1600, and eat back some of my workout calories (not to exceed 2000). I didn't go straight to 2000 daily, because it makes me nervous.
So, am I wrong? Should I be eating only 1200 calories?
It's likely that fluid retention masked any actual loss. People become absolutely unglued when they see X weight for something like 3 days in a row. IE you were still losing, but the scale didn't move. This happens quite a bit!
I think part of my ancestry includes water buffalo or camel, I hang onto water for absurdly long amounts of time. Typically it takes me between 3-6 weeks to see any significant scale change, despite having everything squared away.0 -
Your MFP recommendation and TDEE - 20% shouldn't be 800 calories apart. That would mean you are doing 800-1000 calories worth of exercise daily that you are not accounting for using the MFP method.I'm confused. I was one of those people frustrated with the 1200 calorie MFP recommendation. I wasn't gaining weight, but I wasn't losing either, and I was extremely fatigued. I went with the TDEE -20% recommendation, and changed my macros to 40 carb/30 protein/30 fats. My BMR was 1600 and TDEE -20% is 2000 (roughly). I increased my daily calories to 1600, and eat back some of my workout calories (not to exceed 2000). I didn't go straight to 2000 daily, because it makes me nervous.
So, am I wrong? Should I be eating only 1200 calories?
TDEE - 20% corresponds to about 0.5-1lb/week of weight loss. Did you set up MFP to 'lose 2 lb/week' or over-estimate your exercise level for TDEE calculations?0 -
The simple reality is this: Sometimes.
Adaptive thermogenesis is a real thing, but most people here spouting off about you're eating too little don't have enough information up front to diagnosis it as that.
The truth is... most often, it's a) double dipping exercise calories doing tdee, b) not weighing food and 'eyeballing', or c) using the raw numbers from machines and eating back too much stuff.
Shrug. YMMV.0 -
My personal experience with this is that it can certainly happen that you gain weight on 1200 calories. It happened to me. I had limited my intake of calories to somewhere around 1200 (sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit less) for over 6 years. I maintained on that amount of calories while doing Zumba 3 days per week, weighlifting and walking (I live in the mountains so not easy walking) 5 days per week. I am in my 50s and in 2006 I lost 54 pounds in 6 months. Anyway, recently I fell off a cliff so to speak and realized that I could no longer exist the way I had been and I came back here and asked for the amount of calories I should need to maintain my current weight. When I got that number, which is about 1700 calories on the days I don't exercise, I starting eating that many. After 2 weeks, my jeans are all loose and my energy level is through the roof. I still have to force myself to add extra calories on the days I work out but I am telling you, it is worth it for me!
It makes no sense/a lot of sense to me. I have been blogging about it on my page. I no longer go to bed feeling guilty about a cracker or a jelly bean - berating myself for a glass of wine at dinner (even though I was still under my 1200 calories!) or any of the other horrible side effects of slow starvation and I now go to Zumba with a bounce in my step, a smile on my face and my body feeling happy.
So, yes, you can be eating too little to lose weight.0 -
I have to ask this question of people that have been here a long time. I see in thread after thread. Poster says they are gaining weight.. but only eat 1200 cals a day (or some other variation of low calories). Then we get a run of people telling them they arent eating enough. Is this truly a symptom of not eating enough?.. you GAIN weight? I guess I cant wrap my head around it.
I suppose I can see in a few extreme cases where if you have eaten 800 calories for a year THEN move to 1200 , you might gain weight initially, but I am seeing overweight people "diagnosed" with not eating enough. I can see cautioning people that eventually not eating enough will cause them weight loss problems.. but I would think those cases are few and far between..and it would take a prolonged lack of calories to even produces this kind of phenomenon... am I missing something?
What gives..
Please dont bombard me with snarky comments.. Im really trying to understand the prevalence of "not eating enough". :-)
*Runs around chanting: You're not eating enough! You're not eating enough!*
Really, it's about BMR - Basal Metabolic Rate, you need to eat more than that, and that includes your activity. Soooooooooooooo many people set themselves as 'sedentary' when they're really lightly active. But even sedentary is 1.2x your BMR.
Then the other thingie is: people want to lose 2 lbs a week, put themselves as sedentary (when they're not), get the number 1200 from the MFP calculation, AND THEN do not eat back exercise calories. Boo!
Also, I'm losing weight more steadily at 2000 calories per day then I was at 1600. 1600 was actually below my bmr, which is currently, 1745.
Also, do you like falcons? Your name is a reference to a falcon who has had enough to eat and does not want to hunt.
I like falcons . . .
Nice Falcon let's little falcon know, "you're not eating enough!"0 -
Every time someone says that they eat a 1000 -1200 cals and work out and don't lose any weight, I just want to sigh. It happens at least twice in every 24h period. Only today was a woman who said something along that line, but then she said she wasn't weighing, she used measuring cups for things like nuts, so who knows what her calories in and out are actually like.
One reason why people who up their calories actually lose more weight could be that they have more overall energy and thus actually work out more vigorously, have overall more non-essential movement in their day (fidgeting etc), walk faster etc etc.
Sometimes I just want to post this articles and say 'Are you sure?'
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/0 -
I think that "You are not eating enough" is bull, How in the hell does it make sense that you have to eat more to lose weight? Simple math tells me if you burn 3000 calories a day and you eat 1000 calories you are -2000 calories, Negative calories used from stored fats for energy (because that is what fat is for). I don't understand why people say eat more to lose more weight...0
-
"starvation mode" is some kind of mfp-related broscience - god knows who started it. remember auschwitz? now those people were in starvation mode, and not some girl eating 1200 cals in hopes of fitting into new jeans. come on.
however, a lot of people that have problems losing are pushing themselves to eat a very restricted low-cal diet. many fail, which is totally understandable. but that's mainly due to not accurately tracking their foods, and having little binges every now and then. and also when you eat that little, you usually don't have much energy to exercise. exercising will make it so much easier to stay on track and lose weight.
from what i've seen on here, the people eating at a slight/resonable caloric deficit get the best and most lasting results. so there is something to eating more to lose more.0 -
Basically you have a BMR - the amount of calories a day your body needs to live. If you consume less than your BMR, your body will start conserving energy thus lowering your BMR (and damaging your body in the process). At that point, the same calories you were consuming becomes less of a defict and can actually become a positive number.
In a nutshell.
I'm sticking this on my fridge...keep it simple....! :happy:0 -
don't put this on your fridge, it is false information. There is a lot of false information in this thread. Your BMR is *not* the number of calories you need to eat in a day to live. Consuming more or less than this number will absolutely not damage your body. This is a perfect example of how real, good advice gets bastardized into "I thought that's what I read somewhere so I'll repeat it as fact".Basically you have a BMR - the amount of calories a day your body needs to live. If you consume less than your BMR, your body will start conserving energy thus lowering your BMR (and damaging your body in the process). At that point, the same calories you were consuming becomes less of a defict and can actually become a positive number.
In a nutshell.
I'm sticking this on my fridge...keep it simple....! :happy:
Your BMR is the number of calories your body will burn on a completely sedentary day. It does not mean anything more than that. If you do not eat enough calories, your body will consume its energy stores. Fat, LBM, etc. If you burn more calories than your BMR in a day (almost everyone trying to lose weight will), then it will do the exact same thing for those extra needed calories. The number of calories you consume in a day should be based on your nutritional needs, not your BMR. They are two completely separate and unrelated things.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 989 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions