starting slow metabolic rate after months of low cal intake

Saraha1984 · February 2014

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone had any advice on kick starting your metabolism. I was following a healthy, yet low calorie diet since October 2013 and unknown to me at the time I was often consuming less than 1,000 cals per day. This has basically led to a complete weight loss stand still at this point even though I exercise three times per week. By doing what I thought was the right thing at the time, I have managed to put my body into starvation mode which is obviously one of the worst things I could possibly do!

So my question is this, how do I get back on track and start my metabolism off again? I'm not 100% sure how many cals I should be having per day (at the moment it's about 1200) and do I need to replace the calories I've used after exercise so I don't leave a huge deficit? I'm 168lb at the moment and want to lose 28lb in the next 8 months which I think is an achievable and realistic goal for healthy weight loss.

Any help would be really appreciated as I'm new to My Fitness Pal and calorie counting in general (I've always done the SW diet but have struggled this time as I moved to Australia - hence the reason I avoided some foods as I didn't know the syn value and haven't been eating enough!)

My diary is open (although I've only just joined) and any advice on what to eat or avoid and exercise or tips to get things moving again would be fantastic!

Thanks!

hiyomi · February 2014

30 pounds in 8 months?! Gurl, up those calories!!!! Try for 1500-1700 a day instead!

Dewymorning · February 2014

You can use http://iifym.com/tdee-calculator/ to work out how many calories your body needs to maintain its weight normally (called TDEE)

Then reduce that number by about 20%, and that is a good place to start. You can enter your 3 times a week exercise in too, that way you don't need to worry about calculating your exercise calories.

Make sure you weigh your food to ensure you are eating the amount you think you are.

If you are eating too little and exercising you could be putting your body under chronic stress, which can slow down weight loss.

David_AUS · February 2014

Hi Saraha - this is my advice. Get a good meal or two into you. Have a day of high calories - when I mean high something like 1,700 - 2,000 or so calories (if you can balance out the F/C/P as a guide overall but don't worry too much for this day). Your body will thank you for it and it see this as break in the drought - The major hormone you are triggering here is Leptin - it will increase dramatically in a short period and will help with fat burning. You can just go back to "standard calories" - IE: the level you have decided to stick to for a normal day or you can do a fast by delaying your meal to later the following day ( and eat a normal dinner so this would be like 1/3 of the calories for the following day ) and then the day after go to your normal plan indicatively 1,600 cal. As I said just what I would do.

Exercise wise - really whatever you want to do. Cardio with strength training - whether this is gym work or "body weight" exercises or dancing or skiing or snow boarding or surfing or kite boarding or jogging the options are vast and various. The only exercise that probably won't help much is your thumb on the TV remote control.

mulecanter · February 2014

I'm sorry, your story doesn't add up. Someone who is 168 pounds and truly eating a 1000 calories a day will lose weight. This is why prisoners in concentration camps get skinny. By your logic their slow metabolism should sustain them. I think you need to revisit your calorie intake log and your exercise log. I think you are not accurate in your measurements. The physics involved require that when you burn more than you take in your mass will decrease. Unless you are on 24-hour a day bed rest your calorie expenditures are far above 1000. You are obviously new to calorie counting. Get a scale and try it--you will see results.

Saraha1984 · February 2014

Hi mule canter,

Thanks for your reply, I forgot to mention that if already lost over 25lb so far since October and I agree, sometimes I haven't counted the odd cheeky glass of wine but on some days I've been so busy I've only eaten around 900 calories which I think has helped stuff up my metabolism and my weight has seemed to plateau.

I've only recently started to exercise too (last four weeks) so maybe this might have something to do with it too?

Thanks!

Sarah

reneemosley · February 2014

I will only share my experience with you. I lost a significant amount of weight on a VLC diet. After a year I stopped losing. I ran 15 miles a week minimum and my numbers would have me losing alot fast, but I didn't. Infact I had not lost in over 4 months, but I did not give up. I am methodical about weighing and measuring my food. I choose mostly whole organic and healthy foods.

A month ago on advice of a nutritionist I increased my calories by a few hundred a day and increased my protein intake. In the first two weeks I gained and lost 5 lbs.I have been on a steady losing streak since.

I guess what I'm trying to say is you are not broken. There is an easy recovery if you are patient. Don't beleive all that you hear, try and see what works for you and your body. The only right answer is what works for your body because not all bodies are created equal, contrary to popular belief.

reneemosley · February 2014

Mulecanter
I think you are not accurate in your assumptions. Living proof here.

Saraha1984 · February 2014

Thanks everyone for your replies, there is some really good advice that I'll start putting into practice!

Thanks again!

Mr_Knight · February 2014

...I was often consuming less than 1,000 cals per day. This has basically led to a complete weight loss stand still....

I know it's not going to be what you want to hear, but those two sentences are incompatible with each other.

You were almost certainly eating more than you thought, the first step should be to figure out what went wrong in the tracking.

SLLRunner · February 2014

I'm sorry, your story doesn't add up. Someone who is 168 pounds and truly eating a 1000 calories a day will lose weight. This is why prisoners in concentration camps get skinny. By your logic their slow metabolism should sustain them. I think you need to revisit your calorie intake log and your exercise log. I think you are not accurate in your measurements. The physics involved require that when you burn more than you take in your mass will decrease. Unless you are on 24-hour a day bed rest your calorie expenditures are far above 1000. You are obviously new to calorie counting. Get a scale and try it--you will see results.

I agree.

OP, at 168 pounds there is no way you were in starvation mode. Log all your food and exercise, stay within you calorie goals, and you will lose weight.

SLLRunner · February 2014

Mulecanter
I think you are not accurate in your assumptions. Living proof here.

If he's inaccurate, then so is half the posters here with their replies. Eating more simply fuels you body properly, it does not help you lose weight. Eating less than you burn is how you lose weight.

steve0820 · February 2014

Mulecanter
I think you are not accurate in your assumptions. Living proof here.

If he's inaccurate, then so is half the posters here with their replies. Eating more simply fuels you body properly, it does not help you lose weight. Eating less than you burn is how you lose weight.

Eating more does a lot more then simply fuel your body, it does help with weight loss. Keeps your body burning and working like a well oiled machine.
I really don't like hearing constantly, just "eat under your calories, and you'll loose weight", there are many factors that can make or break that concept.

DamePiglet · February 2014

Mulecanter
I think you are not accurate in your assumptions. Living proof here.

If he's inaccurate, then so is half the posters here with their replies. Eating more simply fuels you body properly, it does not help you lose weight. Eating less than you burn is how you lose weight.

Eating more does a lot more then simply fuel your body, it does help with weight loss. Keeps your body burning and working like a well oiled machine.
I really don't like hearing constantly, just "eat under your calories, and you'll loose weight", there are many factors that can make or break that concept.

He actually said "eating more simply fuels your body PROPERLY"... Meaning nutrition.
Calories matter for weight loss, nutrition for health & well-being.

SLLRunner · February 2014

Mulecanter
I think you are not accurate in your assumptions. Living proof here.

If he's inaccurate, then so is half the posters here with their replies. Eating more simply fuels you body properly, it does not help you lose weight. Eating less than you burn is how you lose weight.

Eating more does a lot more then simply fuel your body, it does help with weight loss. Keeps your body burning and working like a well oiled machine.
I really don't like hearing constantly, just "eat under your calories, and you'll loose weight", there are many factors that can make or break that concept.

He actually said "eating more simply fuels your body PROPERLY"... Meaning nutrition.
Calories matter for weight loss, nutrition for health & well-being.

Exactly. Weight loss is calories in/calories out.

If eating more helped us lose weight then we would not have an overweight society because...well...we all love to eat! :bigsmile:

Toblave · February 2014

I've found this helpful.

http://www.leighpeele.com/starvation-mode

eddiesmith1 · February 2014

Hi mule canter,

Thanks for your reply, I forgot to mention that if already lost over 25lb so far since October and I agree, sometimes I haven't counted the odd cheeky glass of wine but on some days I've been so busy I've only eaten around 900 calories which I think has helped stuff up my metabolism and my weight has seemed to plateau.

I've only recently started to exercise too (last four weeks) so maybe this might have something to do with it too?

Thanks!

Sarah

It may well be that you are converting some loss to muscle while losing the fat at the moment. muscle weighs more so it can look like you've stalled . Measurements are also an indicator. . As Mule Canter pointed out there is no way to stall at sub 1000 calories (if they are sodium rich maybe there is water retention hiding the loss as well - without an open diary it's going to be difficult to see any issues like this )

Toblave · February 2014

Hi mule canter,

Thanks for your reply, I forgot to mention that if already lost over 25lb so far since October and I agree, sometimes I haven't counted the odd cheeky glass of wine but on some days I've been so busy I've only eaten around 900 calories which I think has helped stuff up my metabolism and my weight has seemed to plateau.

I've only recently started to exercise too (last four weeks) so maybe this might have something to do with it too?

Thanks!

Sarah

It may well be that you are converting some loss to muscle while losing the fat at the moment. muscle weighs more so it can look like you've stalled . Measurements are also an indicator. . As Mule Canter pointed out there is no way to stall at sub 1000 calories (if they are sodium rich maybe there is water retention hiding the loss as well - without an open diary it's going to be difficult to see any issues like this )

A pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat. Unless the OP is lifting regularly and getting newbie gains, then this is unlikely.

ETA: In any event, no muscle gains are going to occur at that large of a deficit.

SLLRunner · February 2014

I've found this helpful.

http://www.leighpeele.com/starvation-mode

Well, aside from the fact that the first thing you see at that site is her books and "become a client", that woman is grossly misinformed on what starvation mode really is. Overweight people don't go into starvation mode, and it's not based on the amount of calories your eat.

THIS is starvation: http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/6/1347.full

F2.medium.gif

Toblave · February 2014

I've found this helpful.

http://www.leighpeele.com/starvation-mode

Well, aside from the fact that the first thing you see at that site is her books and "become a client", that woman is grossly misinformed on what starvation mode really is. Overweight people don't go into starvation mode, and it's not based on the amount of calories your eat.

THIS is starvation: http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/6/1347.full

Well no they don't go into "starvation mode" in the sense that you see in the pics you've posted but they do have metabolic adaptations that make weight loss more difficult after prolonged deficits which can cause plateaus. And given that her research has between 200 and 300 research and study citations validating her article and book, I lend her opinion weight. (pun intended)

reneemosley · February 2014

Mulecanter
I think you are not accurate in your assumptions. Living proof here.

If he's inaccurate, then so is half the posters here with their replies. Eating more simply fuels you body properly, it does not help you lose weight. Eating less than you burn is how you lose weight.

I actually agree with you....half of the posters are not correct in every situation of weight loss. Simply eating less than you burn does not work in every situation. It certainly works at first but the body adapts. There is more than one simple direction when losing weight. There are many things to consider over and above "just eat less". I can't tell you what OP is or is not doing but I can tell you from personal experience it is not "just eat less" 100% of the time. You must consider other factors. I'm not saying eat more and lose weight, I'm saying don't automatically assume if weight loss has stalled or is slow the dieter is just eating too much, there are other factors to consider.

SLLRunner · February 2014

I've found this helpful.

http://www.leighpeele.com/starvation-mode

Well, aside from the fact that the first thing you see at that site is her books and "become a client", that woman is grossly misinformed on what starvation mode really is. Overweight people don't go into starvation mode, and it's not based on the amount of calories your eat.

THIS is starvation: http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/6/1347.full

Well no they don't go into "starvation mode" in the sense that you see in the pics you've posted but they do have metabolic adaptations that make weight loss more difficult after prolonged deficits which can cause plateaus. And given that her research has between 200 and 300 research and study citations validating her article and book, I lend her opinion weight. (pun intended)

What you describe is not starvation mode. She's got that site to sell her books, not to circulate correct information.

SLLRunner · February 2014

Mulecanter
I think you are not accurate in your assumptions. Living proof here.

If he's inaccurate, then so is half the posters here with their replies. Eating more simply fuels you body properly, it does not help you lose weight. Eating less than you burn is how you lose weight.

I actually agree with you....half of the posters are not correct in every situation of weight loss. Simply eating less than you burn does not work in every situation. It certainly works at first but the body adapts. There is more than one simple direction when losing weight. There are many things to consider over and above "just eat less". I can't tell you what OP is or is not doing but I can tell you from personal experience it is not "just eat less" 100% of the time. You must consider other factors. I'm not saying eat more and lose weight, I'm saying don't automatically assume if weight loss has stalled or is slow the dieter is just eating too much, there are other factors to consider.

The most common cause of weight gain is due to eating too much, which most often results from underestimating calorie intake and overestimating exercise burns. Eating more is to fuel your body properly, but you still have to stay within a certain calorie goal to lose. If it were true that eating more makes us lose weight, then we'd all be eating more and losing weight instead of the opposite.

So, no those people who say to properly calculate those calories, the result being to eat less, are not wrong. They are actually right on.

Toblave · February 2014

Did you read the article? I think you're getting to hung up on the phrase "starvation mode." You are correct, what she describes is not "starvation mode" , she uses the term in the colloquial fashion; as it's often used when referring to when dieting and such. Of course she has the site to sell her book and her services, she is a personal trainer and author, but that doesn't discredit her assertions.

She asserts that long periods of deficits (especially larger ones) can have negative impacts on metabolism due to physiological adaptions because the human body doesn't know the difference between dieting down for weight loss and times of low food availability.

As for the book, she states at the end of the article that all you need to know is actually in the article itself unless you're interested in all of the whys and wherefores.

Mr_Knight · February 2014

I really don't like hearing constantly, just "eat under your calories, and you'll loose weight", there are many factors that can make or break that concept.

Great, the special snowflakes are back.

There are exactly Zero factors that can break that concept.

Toblave · February 2014

I really don't like hearing constantly, just "eat under your calories, and you'll loose weight", there are many factors that can make or break that concept.

Great, the special snowflakes are back.

There are exactly Zero factors that can break that concept.

To lose weight you have to have a deficit. High carb, low carb or whatever else there is are a means of generating a deficit. There's no way around it.

SLLRunner · February 2014

I really don't like hearing constantly, just "eat under your calories, and you'll loose weight", there are many factors that can make or break that concept.

Great, the special snowflakes are back.

There are exactly Zero factors that can break that concept.

To lose weight you have to have a deficit. High carb, low carb or whatever else there is are a means of generating a deficit. There's no way around it.

You're right, you do have to have a deficit to lose weight, but it's not about high carbs or low carbs, it's about eating less than you burn. There are people who successfully lose weight every day who eat whatever they've always eaten, they just eat less, and they pay no attention to carbs or fat or anything else but how much food they take in.

Eat less than you burn and you will lose weight. Eat more than you burn and you will gain weight.

I know because I gained 30 pounds back weight lifting and running three times a week. Believe me, it wasn't muscle, it was fat and I gained it from eating way more calories than I burned.

Glad that fat 30 pounds plus nine more is gone now that I've chosen to eat less than I burn.

SideSteel · February 2014

OP:

Track meticulously for two weeks, using a food scale and logging absolutely every bite. I guarantee you two things will happen:

1). Weight loss.
2). You will be very hungry.

You are probably not continuously (key word) eating 1000-1200 cals. You might be on some days followed by much higher days due to lack of adherence or tracking inaccuracies.

starting slow metabolic rate after months of low cal intake

Replies

Categories