To the mean people of MFP... You can say "I told you so"

Options
13567

Replies

  • Ywecker
    Ywecker Posts: 4
    Options
    Plateaus are an inevitable part of the weight loss process. Although it sounds counter-intuitive, you have to eat more calories to kick start your metabolism again once you hit the plateau. The other comments re: caloric math are spot on, especially when exercising.
  • AlongCame_Molly
    AlongCame_Molly Posts: 2,835 Member
    Options
    good-job.gif
  • _HeartsOnFire_
    _HeartsOnFire_ Posts: 5,304 Member
    Options
    If you aren't giving your body what it needs to function then it will hold onto what it has halting weight loss. If you give it what it needs and continue working out you'll still actually be at a deficit and be able to lose weight. Oh my. I know it doesn't seem logical when all you hear is to lose weight you have to eat less and move move, but really, you still need to eat more and give your body the proper fuel to function.

    If someone was eating 1200 calories a day and burning say 300, that would leave them at 700 net. 1200 - 500 = 700. 700 is not enough fuel for the body to continue to function properly.

    But if someone is eating 1900 calories a day and burning 500 they are eating what they need for their body to function and are at a deficit. 1900 - 500 = 1400. Less than what they ate = deficit.

    She is obviously at a deficit or how would she be losing weight...so yeah it does add up.

    1500 = no deficit. One week later 2300 = deficit. That math doesn't work.

    Our bodies can't hold onto fat while we eat a calorie deficit. If one eats a very low calorie diet for a prolonged period of time, it is possible that their BMR would lower to the point that what was once was a deficit is no longer a deficit. Eating more can correct this. BUT it will not correct in 1 week. There will be an initial weight gain.

    It's more likely that either the OP is actually creating a bigger deficit through exercise, or she was under-estimating her calories before she upped them.

    She was eating LESS than what her body needs to function. She was eating 1200-1500 a day AND STILL WORKING OUT CREATING A DEFICIT but her body needed more fuel than what she was giving it so it held on to everything it had instead of losing weight.

    It's simple math. 1500-500 = 1000 or 1200-500 = 700. Your body needs at least 1200 calories just to function.

    So, you are suggesting that we don't lose weight on deficit, if the deficit is too large?

    NO. What I am saying is that if you eat below what your body needs to function then you won't lose weight. You may at first but it will stop.

    Why would it stop if I am in a deficit?

    I repeat...It's simple math. 1500-500 = 1000 or 1200-500 = 700. Your body needs at least 1200 calories just to function.

    Your body needs 1200 calories just to function...
  • Denjo060
    Denjo060 Posts: 1,008
    Options
    Im going to have to read this when I get home Thanks
  • yoovie
    yoovie Posts: 17,121 Member
    Options
    airhumps post

    this makes me happy
  • Nhendrickson86
    Nhendrickson86 Posts: 33 Member
    Options
    Thanks for sharing this.
  • gogordon40
    gogordon40 Posts: 1
    Options
    Yes, tending to go to extremes and starving yourself but not losing weight...it seems to be counter-intuitive. I want to lose 45 lbs. but I want to do it in a week! I have to realize it's going to be slow. 1 lb./week is what it takes. In reality, it takes all that time to truly understand how to manage it for the long haul. It's practice!
  • lgreen37
    lgreen37 Posts: 196 Member
    Options
    Thank you for the post - I really appreciate this - I am going to study it.
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,229 Member
    Options
    :drinker:

    Congrats on the loss!

    Yeah, that whole cortisol/grehlin/leptin-thing really can become a thorn in your side after awhile.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,868 Member
    Options
    Wish I had the balls to do this. I'm just never sure of my numbers.. Lol!
    Yeah. 2,300 calories is a lot! Plus, the amount of food that I would have to eat...I wouldn't be able to.

    The number itself is not the point. You have to understand what your body needs calorie wise to perform all of it's functions...everyone's requirements are going to be different. You can't just start eating 2300 calories and expect the same results when you don't understand what your body needs.

    You burn XXXX calories in a given day...this includes everything from those calories required just to keep your lungs and heart pumping to your day to day hum drum and your exercise. I'll use my numbers as an example....

    I need roughly 2700 calories to maintain...roughly 1850 of that requirement simply goes to basic bodily functions...just being alive. Roughly 500 calories go towards my NEAT...my day to day hum drum of cooking, cleaning, going to work, fixing this and that at the house, chasing the kids around, etc. Finally, about 350 - 400 calories are burned from exercise. So...1850 + 500 + 350 = 2,700 calories...this is my maintenance number.

    To lose I need to consume below this number...i.e. have a deficit of calories from maintenance. To lose about 1 Lb per week I would need to eat around 2,200 calories. For someone who exercises far more than I do and burns, say, 600 calories per workout...they could lose 1 Lb per week eating nearly 2,500 calories because they have a significantly higher EAT (Exercise Activity Thermogenesis)

    It's not magic...it's just math.
  • oc1timoco
    oc1timoco Posts: 272 Member
    Options
    Thanks
  • yoovie
    yoovie Posts: 17,121 Member
    Options
    Yes, tending to go to extremes and starving yourself but not losing weight...it seems to be counter-intuitive. I want to lose 45 lbs. but I want to do it in a week! I have to realize it's going to be slow. 1 lb./week is what it takes. In reality, it takes all that time to truly understand how to manage it for the long haul. It's practice!

    dont set yourself up for failure expecting to lose a pound a week for 45 weeks though. doesnt work like that.
  • Muddy_Yogi
    Muddy_Yogi Posts: 1,459 Member
    Options
    OP Keep up the good work! Your body is thanking you buy giving you results!
  • BrainyBurro
    BrainyBurro Posts: 6,129 Member
    Options
    mean people???

    larrydavid-seinfeld.gif
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    If you aren't giving your body what it needs to function then it will hold onto what it has halting weight loss. If you give it what it needs and continue working out you'll still actually be at a deficit and be able to lose weight. Oh my. I know it doesn't seem logical when all you hear is to lose weight you have to eat less and move move, but really, you still need to eat more and give your body the proper fuel to function.

    If someone was eating 1200 calories a day and burning say 300, that would leave them at 700 net. 1200 - 500 = 700. 700 is not enough fuel for the body to continue to function properly.

    But if someone is eating 1900 calories a day and burning 500 they are eating what they need for their body to function and are at a deficit. 1900 - 500 = 1400. Less than what they ate = deficit.

    She is obviously at a deficit or how would she be losing weight...so yeah it does add up.

    1500 = no deficit. One week later 2300 = deficit. That math doesn't work.

    Our bodies can't hold onto fat while we eat a calorie deficit. If one eats a very low calorie diet for a prolonged period of time, it is possible that their BMR would lower to the point that what was once was a deficit is no longer a deficit. Eating more can correct this. BUT it will not correct in 1 week. There will be an initial weight gain.

    It's more likely that either the OP is actually creating a bigger deficit through exercise, or she was under-estimating her calories before she upped them.

    She was eating LESS than what her body needs to function. She was eating 1200-1500 a day AND STILL WORKING OUT CREATING A DEFICIT but her body needed more fuel than what she was giving it so it held on to everything it had instead of losing weight.

    It's simple math. 1500-500 = 1000 or 1200-500 = 700. Your body needs at least 1200 calories just to function.

    So, you are suggesting that we don't lose weight on deficit, if the deficit is too large?

    NO. What I am saying is that if you eat below what your body needs to function then you won't lose weight. You may at first but it will stop.

    Why would it stop if I am in a deficit?

    I repeat...It's simple math. 1500-500 = 1000 or 1200-500 = 700. Your body needs at least 1200 calories just to function.

    Your body needs 1200 calories just to function...

    Well, first of all that's simply not true. BMR varies from person to person and is generally higher than 1200. But, luckily, we have fat stores and all those calories don't have to come from food. Otherwise, the OP's body would have ceased to function a while ago. As would everyone else eating < 1200, including weight loss surgery patients.

    But none of that has anything to do with why one wouldn't lose weight while on a deficit. I realize you are just repeating things you've read on MFP, but you don't seem to have fully grasped the concepts.
  • _HeartsOnFire_
    _HeartsOnFire_ Posts: 5,304 Member
    Options

    The number itself is not the point. You have to understand what your body needs calorie wise to perform all of it's functions...everyone's requirements are going to be different. You can't just start eating 2300 calories and expect the same results when you don't understand what your body needs.

    You burn XXXX calories in a given day...this includes everything from those calories required just to keep your lungs and heart pumping to your day to day hum drum and your exercise. I'll use my numbers as an example....

    I need roughly 2700 calories to maintain...roughly 1850 of that requirement simply goes to basic bodily functions...just being alive. Roughly 500 calories go towards my NEAT...my day to day hum drum of cooking, cleaning, going to work, fixing this and that at the house, chasing the kids around, etc. Finally, about 350 - 400 calories are burned from exercise. So...1850 + 500 + 350 = 2,700 calories...this is my maintenance number.

    To lose I need to consume below this number...i.e. have a deficit of calories from maintenance. To lose about 1 Lb per week I would need to eat around 2,200 calories. For someone who exercises far more than I do and burns, say, 600 calories per workout...they could lose 1 Lb per week eating nearly 2,500 calories because they have a significantly higher EAT (Exercise Activity Thermogenesis)

    It's not magic...it's just math.

    505cba97afa96f7a59001243.gif
  • escloflowneCHANGED
    escloflowneCHANGED Posts: 3,038 Member
    Options
    Well I am trying to "up" my calories to be around 1450 (have some trouble the past few weeks being consistent) .

    I guess I'm reluctant to fully commit because I usually only see people who claim success with this method after 3 or 4 weeks but I never see posts from people who have had long term success with this ( 30 or more lbs or more than a yr).

    75lbs and was at 91lbs but gained a bit of muscle back before cutting again!
  • mrsduke2924
    mrsduke2924 Posts: 104 Member
    Options
    wow - great job, congratulations!

    I think I am hitting a "plateau" around the same place you did - I am trying to up my calories away from 1200 (where I started convinced I knew it all lol)

    I do believe creating a deficit is what counts, with some excercise to get healthier not just thinner - so I am aiming to give my long suffering body what it needs to do what I ask it to and keep up my excercise and the slow but steady progress of shifting my fat. It will take time but we'll get there!

    Thanks for the read- great knowing I'm not alone :happy:
  • Maia_Maker
    Maia_Maker Posts: 18
    Options
    bumping to read later...thanks!
  • _HeartsOnFire_
    _HeartsOnFire_ Posts: 5,304 Member
    Options

    Well, first of all that's simply not true. BMR varies from person to person and is generally higher than 1200. But, luckily, we have fat stores and all those calories don't have to come from food. Otherwise, the OP's body would have ceased to function a while ago. As would everyone else eating < 1200, including weight loss surgery patients.

    But none of that has anything to do with why one wouldn't lose weight while on a deficit. I realize you are just repeating things you've read on MFP, but you don't seem to have fully grasped the concepts.

    I'm not just repeating things I've read. I've LIVED it. Been there done that kind of mistakes. Most people with eating disorders are proof that under 1200 is pretty much too low...if they keep at it their bodies will shut down. Sure can people eat under 1200 for a period of time, is it healthy or sustainable? No.

    I am no longer going to debate this with you because I am not looking to derail the OP's thread.


    OP - You are doing fabulously. Keep it up!

Categories