Upped my calories and not losing, but gaining????!
Options
Replies
-
1. get and use a kitchen scale.
2. see #1
Once you've done this, *then* figure out the rest.0 -
Ate more calories
Gained weight
Was shocked and appalled.
MFP always delivers.0 -
Okay, this is my final post on this topic since my experience with upping my calories is clearly wrong and defies science (although I still stand by the fact that eating below your BMR can slow your metabolism if you do it for too long) and obviously I must've been doing something wrong in the first place when I wasn't losing weight by eating 1,200 calories a day.
<snip>
0 -
1. get and use a kitchen scale.
2. see #1
Once you've done this, *then* figure out the rest.
I've been trying to figure out how to contribute to this thread without overcomplicating the issue further than it already has been. This sums it up perfectly.0 -
Ate more calories
Gained weight
Was shocked and appalled.
MFP always delivers.
It's true. I was having a bad day, toothache and no appetite, but as always I'm able to chuckle and relax a bit.
MFP, what would I do without you?0 -
Ate more calories
Gained weight
Was shocked and appalled.
MFP always delivers.
You forgot the opposite
Ate Low calories (1200)
Upped calories
Lost weight
Defies science...0 -
Ate more calories
Gained weight
Was shocked and appalled.
MFP always delivers.
You forgot the opposite
Ate Low calories (1200)
Didn't lose
Upped calories
Lost weight
Defies science...
Fix't. The bold is an important distinction before 'ate low, was unhappy, upped calories, happy, losing weight' and 'lol, I'm speshul!'0 -
Ate more calories
Gained weight
Was shocked and appalled.
MFP always delivers.
You forgot the opposite
Ate Low calories (1200)
Didn't lose
Upped calories
Lost weight
Defies science...
Fix't. The bold is an important distinction before 'ate low, was unhappy, upped calories, happy, losing weight' and 'lol, I'm speshul!'
Yes that was an important part...
Thank you very much...0 -
-
lower your calories to 1350....0
-
I am also 5'2"; 37 and 129 pounds. I am currently losing on 1450 net, around 1950 gross. I do not use MFP's setting. I will starve to death or kill someone trying to eat 1200 a day. I used the Scooby site to figure my calorie goals (on sedentary so I can eat my exercise calories back) and with a 10% calorie reduction since I don't have an awful lot to lose. I have a desk job, do 30 day shred and walk 2 miles everyday. I have input my calories and weight into a spread sheet for the past year to find out what works for me. As long as I net under 1600, I lose. Good luck!0
-
lower your calories to 1350....
Random number is random.0 -
It is not your experience that defies science. It is your interpretation of the result and your assumptions about what caused what to happen that are at fault.Okay, this is my final post on this topic since my experience with upping my calories is clearly wrong and defies science0 -
Just curious, I haven't read all the pages, but, has anyone actually figured out what the maintenance calories for the OP actually are? (However, I'm sure the TL;DR version is something like this:
Person A:"OP you don't need to eat more you need to eat less to lose!!"
Person B: "How do you know?? She can eat more and lose!!!"
Person A:"That's stupid!"
Random Person (first post):"OH yeah?? Well, you're a doo doo head!"
Person A:"Oh yeah??? Well I'm rubber and you're glue and what you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!!!!"
Theoretically, if the OP's maintenance calories are say, 2000 cals a day, and she is eating 1200 cals a day, and then at some point, UPS her calories to 1800...isn't she still UNDER her maintenance calories and therefore, by magic and wizardry, she will still lose weight, even though she upped her calories...or at least that's what math and science and stuff says....but seriously...who can actually trust math and science????
Accurately measuring calorie intake (by weighing and measuring portions, not just eyeballing them), and accurately measuring calorie output (as best as possible, and being consistent with whatever method you decide to use) and burning more calories than you take in *usually results in weight loss.
*Special Snowflakes are exempt from real world data and therefore, this information does not apply
Throwing out numbers like 1200 and 1830 really don't mean much to those of us who don't have the full picture.
Oh yeah...before I forget, obligatory gif insertion in 3...2...1...
0 -
-
Just curious, I haven't read all the pages, but, has anyone actually figured out what the maintenance calories for the OP actually are? (However, I'm sure the TL;DR version is something like this:
Person A:"OP you don't need to eat more you need to eat less to lose!!"
Person B: "How do you know?? She can eat more and lose!!!"
Person A:"That's stupid!"
Random Person (first post):"OH yeah?? Well, you're a doo doo head!"
Person A:"Oh yeah??? Well I'm rubber and you're glue and what you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!!!!"
Theoretically, if the OP's maintenance calories are say, 2000 cals a day, and she is eating 1200 cals a day, and then at some point, UPS her calories to 1800...isn't she still UNDER her maintenance calories and therefore, by magic and wizardry, she will still lose weight, even though she upped her calories...or at least that's what math and science and stuff says....but seriously...who can actually trust math and science????
Accurately measuring calorie intake (by weighing and measuring portions, not just eyeballing them), and accurately measuring calorie output (as best as possible, and being consistent with whatever method you decide to use) and burning more calories than you take in *usually results in weight loss.
*Special Snowflakes are exempt from real world data and therefore, this information does not apply
Throwing out numbers like 1200 and 1830 really don't mean much to those of us who don't have the full picture.
Oh yeah...before I forget, obligatory gif insertion in 3...2...1...
She didn't post her age, so I couldn't run it accurately. But I did mention a while back that her diary shows she was NETTING 1800 when she upped her calories, which is likely the cause of the weight gain instead but that got lost...0 -
Mmm, I love the smell of dumpster fire in the morning!
OP! Can you lose on more than 1200? Probably. Can you lose at 1800? Probably. But who the hell knows, what with you not accurately logging your food. Your 1200 may have been 1800 and your 1800 might be 2600.
Eating more to weigh less: IS NOT about eating more than your TDEE or whatever. It's about going from some low number to a higher number in hopes that energy and adherence will benefit. I went from sub 1200 to around 1800 (goal is 1870 these days) and have lost 'more' at the higher number, but not because I'm some kinda special snowflake (I wish), but because at 1200 I was sluggish, unhappy, and couldn't give my all to..well anything, plus I'd break my diet often to pig out because I was starving. Now I'm full of energy, have no issue sticking to my goal, and keep a high activity level/higher TDEE.
Ate more, weigh less, no science was harmed. Adherence is maintained, mental health is maintained, weight loss is easy. That's not to say I didn't lose at a lower number. I lost. I lost fast, like a champ. And then ate it all back in cupcakes (also like a champ)
OP, scale. Split the difference, eat around 1500. See how it goes for a month, report back. Easy.
/thread0 -
Just curious, I haven't read all the pages, but, has anyone actually figured out what the maintenance calories for the OP actually are? (However, I'm sure the TL;DR version is something like this:
Person A:"OP you don't need to eat more you need to eat less to lose!!"
Person B: "How do you know?? She can eat more and lose!!!"
Person A:"That's stupid!"
Random Person (first post):"OH yeah?? Well, you're a doo doo head!"
Person A:"Oh yeah??? Well I'm rubber and you're glue and what you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!!!!"
Theoretically, if the OP's maintenance calories are say, 2000 cals a day, and she is eating 1200 cals a day, and then at some point, UPS her calories to 1800...isn't she still UNDER her maintenance calories and therefore, by magic and wizardry, she will still lose weight, even though she upped her calories...or at least that's what math and science and stuff says....but seriously...who can actually trust math and science????
Accurately measuring calorie intake (by weighing and measuring portions, not just eyeballing them), and accurately measuring calorie output (as best as possible, and being consistent with whatever method you decide to use) and burning more calories than you take in *usually results in weight loss.
*Special Snowflakes are exempt from real world data and therefore, this information does not apply
Throwing out numbers like 1200 and 1830 really don't mean much to those of us who don't have the full picture.
Oh yeah...before I forget, obligatory gif insertion in 3...2...1...
You must be Canadian this gif just screams Canada...
TL;DR version
As for the OP her issue was she listened to people telling her to up her calories because she wasn't losing logging 1200 calories...
As I said earlier...eat more to lose more weight is the new starvation mode here in the forums.
OP was unhappy that she is now "logging" 1800 calories and gaining weight..
there were a few that told her to get a kitchen scale and she agreed that is what she needed to do...
and to be frank that should have been the end of it...log accurately with a kitchen scale and correct entries and be at a reasonable deficet means weight loss...but then this magical snowflake appeared to defend
logging 1200
not losing
upped logged calories
lost weight
defies science.0 -
"You are not special. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else."
I'm just surprised on one went there yet. But really, I agree with this post:I've come to the conclusion no matter what you do on here, It's wrong. You eat less everyone tells you to eat more. You eat more everyone tells you your eating to much. High reps low weight they say high weights low reps. Do high weight low reps then your suppose to be doing low weights high reps. It sucks.
Just do what works for you. If you were losing at 1,200 and you weren't hungry, tired or weak then do it. Just listen to your body. Give it more when you need more. As long as your eating the right foods, getting enough water, sleep and some exercise your golden.
I was having the same problem, eating 1200 calories a day and exercising 5 to 6 days a week and not loosing. I got both types of advice, you are not accurately logging and eating too much, and you are eating too little and you are going into starvation mode. I have since bought a food scale and heart rate monitor and have calculated my TDEE and macros. I am going to try that route for a while and see how it goes.0 -
Gaining weight may reflect water storage or inflammation (or de novo lipogenesis - fat gain). Weight does not necessarily mean you're gaining fat. That being said, I'd invite you to consider how many carbohydrates you're eating. As long as you have glucose in your blood, you won't burn fat.
Your base metabolic rate will dictate how much food you need, but if your liver is never initializing fat metabolism because of excess carbohydrates (or protein consumption), you won't burn fat.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 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
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions