Eating less cals, gained weight?

Options
2»

Replies

  • Mokey41
    Mokey41 Posts: 5,769 Member
    Options
    I'm 56 now, lost 30 lbs at 53 in 6 months by managing calories with very little intentional exercise. Your metabolism doesn't die with menopause. It's usually that we slow down, don't move as much, eat more and get lazy.

    Not sure about hormone replacements and weight gain but I think that would be contradictory of the metabolism tanking statement since the pills are supposed to make you not have the effects of menopause.

    I didn't take any hormone replacements because I watched my mother suffer through breast cancer exacerbated by estrogen replacements. Did you know that taking the replacements is only prolonging menopause? When my mom was diagnosed they immediately took her off the hormone replacements and she had to go through the hot flashes, etc while undergoing cancer surgery and treatments. I decided right then and there to just tough it out and be done with it.
  • HeavyHilda
    HeavyHilda Posts: 25
    Options
    Wow! Many disagreements here.:huh:

    Only things I wish to add:

    1) I am a vegetarian (since 1979) with the exception of a few kosher fish. I will not be eating any meat other than the cold water fish. period.

    2) I am aware my diary is not open, thank you.


    My question was answered and I truly appreciate it. As stated above, I will cut my calories and measure food.

    Thank you all that took the time to reply, will get some exercise at the firing range today -


    Hope everyone has a wonderful weekend! :flowerforyou:
  • LittleSister
    LittleSister Posts: 207 Member
    Options
    URGH!!!!!

    This thing is so frustrating, and it's so hard to buy.

    There are people all over the world starving to death - their metabolisms have shut down, yet they continue to emaciate. Many of them ARE eating, but just insufficient calories.

    Why is it that only people who are TRYING to lose weight experience this phenomenon?

    It does not make scientific sense. It's a physical impossibility. It's supposed to be math. Fewer calories in, more stored energy (fat) burned by the body.

    The only way I can make sense of it is that there's this weird range in which your metabolism does slow down to even slower than required by your reduced caloric intake. So if you drop down to, oh, say under 1,000 cals a day, you'd eventually start to lose weight again. However, your health would decline and you'd feel like crap.

    From my observations, it seems that anything in the 1,000 - 1,200 range causes that weird "eat less, not losing weight" And that range is varies greatly among people - for some people, the range might be 900 - 1100 and for other, it could be 1100 - 1300. You might have found your range.

    And the reason I believe this seeming impossibility is because I've experienced it myself. Oh yeah, don't let my ticker fool you - I've lost 70 pounds before, and gained it all back. And what really annoyed me was that sometimes I could shake myself off a weight loss plateau by eating more. Baffled the heck out of me. But whaddya gonna do . . .

    No, you ARE confused. Either you were not tracking your calories accurately or you were over estimating calorie burns. There is no metabolic 'shut-down' that magically happens at 1000-1200 calorie intakes (or whatever range you are imagining). That is why it seems illogical to you. Because it IS illogical.

    What you have to do is count accurately. Or as accurately as you can. Keep track of losses or gains, and figure out where to go from there. If you are not losing weight, you are eating maintenance. Gaining, over maintenance. Losing, under maintenance.

    Well, I'm starting over anyway - - drifted away for 4 years, gained all my weight back & and some, so now I have a chance to try it again. Counting as accurately as I can.

    Funny you should tell me I'm confused - when I was here 4 years ago I took your position and argued with about 10 people. I said there's just no way this can happen - it's math. Fewer calories means losing weight, more calories means gaining weight. Oh my, everyone jumped ALL OVER ME - where were you when I needed you?
  • LittleSister
    LittleSister Posts: 207 Member
    Options
    The only way I can make sense of it is that there's this weird range in which your metabolism does slow down to even slower than required by your reduced caloric intake.

    You should have stopped at "It does not make scientific sense."

    Because that's correct.

    What you suggest above doesn't exist.

    The message is good, the tone is off.
  • LittleSister
    LittleSister Posts: 207 Member
    Options
    Well, apparently, the thinking has changed in the dieting milieu since I was here last. The metabolism slowdown seems to be myth. I googled it.

    For those of you who provided a friendly correction, thanks.

    For those of you who are snarky, pffffffff!
  • smc864
    smc864 Posts: 570 Member
    Options
    URGH!!!!!

    This thing is so frustrating, and it's so hard to buy.

    There are people all over the world starving to death - their metabolisms have shut down, yet they continue to emaciate. Many of them ARE eating, but just insufficient calories.

    Why is it that only people who are TRYING to lose weight experience this phenomenon?

    It does not make scientific sense. It's a physical impossibility. It's supposed to be math. Fewer calories in, more stored energy (fat) burned by the body.

    The only way I can make sense of it is that there's this weird range in which your metabolism does slow down to even slower than required by your reduced caloric intake. So if you drop down to, oh, say under 1,000 cals a day, you'd eventually start to lose weight again. However, your health would decline and you'd feel like crap.

    From my observations, it seems that anything in the 1,000 - 1,200 range causes that weird "eat less, not losing weight" And that range is varies greatly among people - for some people, the range might be 900 - 1100 and for other, it could be 1100 - 1300. You might have found your range.

    And the reason I believe this seeming impossibility is because I've experienced it myself. Oh yeah, don't let my ticker fool you - I've lost 70 pounds before, and gained it all back. And what really annoyed me was that sometimes I could shake myself off a weight loss plateau by eating more. Baffled the heck out of me. But whaddya gonna do . . .

    tumblr_ma10m5nkdX1qe8h94_zps4f2ff7b7.gif
  • smc864
    smc864 Posts: 570 Member
    Options
    I'm not trying to disagree with the above posts and I don't have a great controlled study link for you to check out, but I did want to share my experience.
    I started MFP set at 1200 calories per day and was not eating my exercise calories back, giving me a net intake of around 900-1000 calories. Over about a month I gained three pounds. I did not contribute that to fluid retention over that long a period.
    I upped my target to 1400 calories (basing that on my BMR) and began eating my exercise calories back. In the last eight months I have lost 25 pounds.
    Take from it what you will and good luck with your efforts.

    You have to understand how ridiculous that is right?

    In the beginning you were eating more than you accounted for or overestimated burns. Period. By sharing your story you can negatively impact others. This is how the whole "eat more to weigh less" bs is perpetuated.

    Reality: eating more will not make you lose more weight than eating less. :explode:

    *head explodes*
  • fruttibiscotti
    fruttibiscotti Posts: 986 Member
    Options
    That's because a calorie is not a calorie. A snickers bar and a piece of steak can have the same amount of calories - but, what happens in your body when you eat them is completely different from a biochemistry point of view. I'm not suggesting you are eating junk food like snicker bars, but same metaphor applies with a bowl of fruit versus a piece of steak of same caloric level.

    Google this "a calorie is not a calorie". And you will discover what I mean.

    Good luck.
  • smc864
    smc864 Posts: 570 Member
    Options
    That's because a calorie is not a calorie. A snickers bar and a piece of steak can have the same amount of calories - but, what happens in your body when you eat them is completely different from a biochemistry point of view. I'm not suggesting you are eating junk food like snicker bars, but same metaphor applies with a bowl of fruit versus a piece of steak of same caloric level.

    Google this "a calorie is not a calorie". And you will discover what I mean.

    Good luck.

    A calorie is a calorie. It is a unit of measurement.

    And of course you cannot compare steak, fruit, and a snickers bar... they have completely different macronutrient levels.

    Although I do think eating whole foods is beneficial for weight loss, a calorie is still a calorie.
  • QuietBloom
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member
    Options
    I'm not trying to disagree with the above posts and I don't have a great controlled study link for you to check out, but I did want to share my experience.
    I started MFP set at 1200 calories per day and was not eating my exercise calories back, giving me a net intake of around 900-1000 calories. Over about a month I gained three pounds. I did not contribute that to fluid retention over that long a period.
    I upped my target to 1400 calories (basing that on my BMR) and began eating my exercise calories back. In the last eight months I have lost 25 pounds.
    Take from it what you will and good luck with your efforts.

    You have to understand how ridiculous that is right?

    In the beginning you were eating more than you accounted for or overestimated burns. Period. By sharing your story you can negatively impact others. This is how the whole "eat more to weigh less" bs is perpetuated.

    Reality: eating more will not make you lose more weight than eating less. :explode:

    *head explodes*

    She did say she started an exercise program at the same time, and this was over a period of a month. She could have been retaining water in her muscles. But seriously - you really can't eat MORE and lose MORE weight. You can eat less, lose more. Eat more, lose less. Eat more again and maintain. Or overeat and gain weight. It's not rocket science.

    Excuse the yelling ladies, we get really tired of having to explain this over and over again. :flowerforyou:
  • smc864
    smc864 Posts: 570 Member
    Options
    I'm not trying to disagree with the above posts and I don't have a great controlled study link for you to check out, but I did want to share my experience.
    I started MFP set at 1200 calories per day and was not eating my exercise calories back, giving me a net intake of around 900-1000 calories. Over about a month I gained three pounds. I did not contribute that to fluid retention over that long a period.
    I upped my target to 1400 calories (basing that on my BMR) and began eating my exercise calories back. In the last eight months I have lost 25 pounds.
    Take from it what you will and good luck with your efforts.

    You have to understand how ridiculous that is right?

    In the beginning you were eating more than you accounted for or overestimated burns. Period. By sharing your story you can negatively impact others. This is how the whole "eat more to weigh less" bs is perpetuated.

    Reality: eating more will not make you lose more weight than eating less. :explode:

    *head explodes*

    She did say she started an exercise program at the same time, and this was over a period of a month. She could have been retaining water in her muscles. But seriously - you really can't eat MORE and lose MORE weight. You can eat less, lose more. Eat more, lose less. Eat more again and maintain. Or overeat and gain weight. It's not rocket science.

    Excuse the yelling ladies, we get really tired of having to explain this over and over again. :flowerforyou:

    Thank you for remaining calm. Sometimes I'm unable to do so. :heart: :flowerforyou:
  • QuietBloom
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member
    Options

    Thank you for remaining calm. Sometimes I'm unable to do so. :heart: :flowerforyou:

    No problem. Maybe you can have my back the next time *I* blow my top? :laugh:
  • smc864
    smc864 Posts: 570 Member
    Options

    No problem. Maybe you can have my back the next time *I* blow my top? :laugh:

    :laugh:

    Definitely!
  • HeavyHilda
    HeavyHilda Posts: 25
    Options
    Is there any polite way to close this thread? I'm new here and not sure how to do it or if it is possible.

    Thank you.
  • smc864
    smc864 Posts: 570 Member
    Options
    Is there any polite way to close this thread? I'm new here and not sure how to do it or if it is possible.

    Thank you.

    You can't delete it yourself but you can contact the moderators and ask them to do it for you. I would suggest just letting the thread die... By the end of the day, as long as no one posts anymore on the thread it probably won't be seen again. Please don't take what I or anyone else says personal. I wish you the best of luck.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    Is there any polite way to close this thread? I'm new here and not sure how to do it or if it is possible.

    Thank you.

    If I click on my name at the top of the page where it says 'hi', it goes to my profile where there is a 'recent activity' section that shows threads I've posted in. If you hover over it, there is a 'remove' option to the right of each. I haven't done it but I wonder if you did, if the thread would be deleted? I've seen them go missing here plenty so I have a feeling it's an easy thing to do.
  • ILiftHeavyAcrylics
    ILiftHeavyAcrylics Posts: 27,732 Member
    Options
    Well, apparently, the thinking has changed in the dieting milieu since I was here last. The metabolism slowdown seems to be myth. I googled it.

    For those of you who provided a friendly correction, thanks.

    For those of you who are snarky, pffffffff!

    When I came here in February of 2011 the common forum wisdom was starvation mode. There were even a bunch of stickies about it (they may still be there). Since then there's been a gradual shift in thinking. But there are still plenty of arguments about it.
  • Mouse_Potato
    Mouse_Potato Posts: 1,503 Member
    Options
    I think everyone else has pretty much covered the nutrition aspect, but I did want to add that exercise is one of the best things you can do to alleviate your Fibromyalgia symptoms. I was diagnosed in 1999 and have watched the changes in my body ever since - how it reacts to different foods, activity levels, stress, etc.. I find the more sedentary I am the more pain I have. When I am active my symptoms all but disappear. Just a little food for thought! :flowerforyou:
  • Mr_Excitement
    Mr_Excitement Posts: 833 Member
    Options
    Is there any polite way to close this thread? I'm new here and not sure how to do it or if it is possible.

    Thank you.

    Unfortunately, no. :D

    Fortunately, you got your answer and can confidently go on with life. This thread is now a Fight Club.
  • ILiftHeavyAcrylics
    ILiftHeavyAcrylics Posts: 27,732 Member
    Options
    I think everyone else has pretty much covered the nutrition aspect, but I did want to add that exercise is one of the best things you can do to alleviate your Fibromyalgia symptoms. I was diagnosed in 1999 and have watched the changes in my body ever since - how it reacts to different foods, activity levels, stress, etc.. I find the more sedentary I am the more pain I have. When I am active my symptoms all but disappear. Just a little food for thought! :flowerforyou:

    For me there's a sweet spot regarding exercise. If I don't do enough I get a lot more pain, but if I do too much I also get a lot more pain. It's taken a bit of practice to figure out the right level.

Categories