Wow...been doing it all wrong...

Isabeauseawolf
Isabeauseawolf Posts: 10 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Back in July 13, I posted here about what my ideal calories per day were and, after using the calculators, it was decided that between 1500-1700 was what I needed to focus on...

I honestly don't know what happened but, somewhere along the line, I went back to the bare minimum of 1200 calories (I think it was in a 'I'm not losing anything!' moment) but, I was eating 1200 calories and THEN subtracting exercise!

So, on most days, I was only averaging net calories between 700-900 calories and thought I was doing well! :(

My weight (obviously) hasn't moved much in months now and I decided to take a night off training to re-visit the post from July and then it clicked that my net calories needs to be my goal calories and that I am eating WAY to little for my workout needs.

Just goes to show that no matter how much you know about becoming and staying healthy, your emotions can take over very quickly. My 'depression' over not losing anything led me to starve myself essentially, thinking I was doing the right thing.

Let's see how things go now I am eating right and exercising the way I enjoy without sending my body into starvation mode!

Replies

  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,151 Member
    I'm with you, did the exact same thing, thus people saying "if you're at a deficit you will lose" got annoying! That statement didn't account for all the water retention from increased exercise, so you feel like you're spinning your wheels.
  • Isabeauseawolf
    Isabeauseawolf Posts: 10 Member
    Exactly :( It started to get me really down because I was doing everything I thought was right. I actually stopped weighing myself for a month and then BAM! Same weight! Nothing to show for all the 'good' work I was doing.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,267 Member
    Sorry Ladies if you were truely in a deficit (regardless of the amount of the deficit) you would lose weight.

    It doesn't matter if you exercise that is for health and fitness...

    If at sub 1200 calories or even 1200 (logged) and you weren't losing you were eating more than you thought.

    Water retention only lasts so long...

    The key is to be accurate with your logging...which means weighing solids, measuring liquids and choosing the correct entries...because yes MFP has incorrect entries.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1234699-logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide?hl=Logging+accurately
  • Isabeauseawolf
    Isabeauseawolf Posts: 10 Member
    ... okay. I accept what you're saying however, I am very strict in my logging of my food. Yes, there are days like Monday this week when a cupcake was had in support of the RSPCA cupcake drive at work and I felt terrible that day because I ended up, after exercise, with 1260 calories. I felt like I had failed.

    So if I am logging my food strictly, can you explain why I wouldn't be losing weight when I am only consuming 700-900 calories a day and exercising 5-6 days per week (cardio and weight training)?

    For the record, I do weigh all of my food out in it's raw form before cooking. I have only recently started a new nutrition program but I was not eating dinner because it took me over the 1200 calorie limit...
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,431 MFP Moderator
    Sorry Ladies if you were truely in a deficit (regardless of the amount of the deficit) you would lose weight.

    It doesn't matter if you exercise that is for health and fitness...

    If at sub 1200 calories or even 1200 (logged) and you weren't losing you were eating more than you thought.

    Water retention only lasts so long...

    The key is to be accurate with your logging...which means weighing solids, measuring liquids and choosing the correct entries...because yes MFP has incorrect entries.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1234699-logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide?hl=Logging+accurately

    While inaccuracies are generally one of the major factors of not losing, hormones can cause water retention and depending how long you have been eating very low calories, metabolic adaptation can occur. In all honesty, we really need more information.

    OP, do you use a food scale? Can you open your diary? What are your stats and do you have any medical conditions.

    For the most part, people need to eat more than 1200 calories, which the exception of sedentary short women and those with medical conditions that affect metabolism. It's potential, that if you are logging correctly, exercise and not losing at 1200 calories or less, there could be other factors.

    While this isn't a very popular answer lately, personally, i have worked with many people where I increased calories from 1200 and they started losing weight. It's possible it was because they improved logging accuracy or something else, but anecdotal evidence suggest a reasonable calorie deficit can be more effective long term than a large deficit.
  • Isabeauseawolf
    Isabeauseawolf Posts: 10 Member
    LOL, I am 5 feet nothing (153cms tall) and I do weight training 4-5 times a week and cardio on my 'off' days.

    Like I said, I was setting 1200 as my goal and then deducting exercise. My Dr told me that if I eat too few calories, it can actually work against me by causing metabolic damage, which is what I was getting at and I think mirrors what you were saying about water retention as well.

    I'll see how I go with the increased calories/food. Obviously, eating the right foods is essential but, for example, here is an 'average' day for me:

    Wednesday

    • 3 egg white/1 yolk omelet • 1 piece wholemeal toast

    • Protein bar or 6-8 almonds or an apple

    • 100g grilled chicken breast (uncooked weight) • 1-2 cups steamed green vegetables • ½ cup of steamed brown rice

    • Protein shake with water before training

    • Casein shake with milk ½ cup blueberries and a tablespoon of honey after training

    • 150g grilled fish (uncooked weight) • 1-2 cups steamed green vegetables

    All of the foods are strictly measured, raw for the meats...
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,267 Member
    Sorry Ladies if you were truely in a deficit (regardless of the amount of the deficit) you would lose weight.

    It doesn't matter if you exercise that is for health and fitness...

    If at sub 1200 calories or even 1200 (logged) and you weren't losing you were eating more than you thought.

    Water retention only lasts so long...

    The key is to be accurate with your logging...which means weighing solids, measuring liquids and choosing the correct entries...because yes MFP has incorrect entries.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1234699-logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide?hl=Logging+accurately

    While inaccuracies are generally one of the major factors of not losing, hormones can cause water retention and depending how long you have been eating very low calories, metabolic adaptation can occur. In all honesty, we really need more information.

    OP, do you use a food scale? Can you open your diary? What are your stats and do you have any medical conditions.

    For the most part, people need to eat more than 1200 calories, which the exception of sedentary short women and those with medical conditions that affect metabolism. It's potential, that if you are logging correctly, exercise and not losing at 1200 calories or less, there could be other factors.

    While this isn't a very popular answer lately, personally, i have worked with many people where I increased calories from 1200 and they started losing weight. It's possible it was because they improved logging accuracy or something else, but anecdotal evidence suggest a reasonable calorie deficit can be more effective long term than a large deficit.

    Yes I agree with this as well. Cortisol levels raise due to stress which causes water retention which causes women usually to stress more as they aren't losing then bam...cortisol levels are up again/more...

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html#more-9313
    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/of-whooshes-and-squishy-fat.html

    I should have dropped these in on my first post.

    The bolded part strikes me as definately a factor. I think when people go from 1200 to say 1400 or even 1600 they have a tendancy to be more careful with logging as the fear is that is too much.

    Metabolic damage does take some time to happen...

    Eating the right foods helps with energy and health but for weight loss eh...

    I also think people change stuff up to quickly and too often...if they don't see weight loss in 2 weeks they change something when they really just need to be patient esp if they are sure of their logging and as sure as they can be with their burns.

    Depending on your weight even at 5 ft nada you could with your activity level eat a lot more...remember the key here is to eat as much as you can and still lose the weight you want...not starve and punish yourself for being over weight...
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Isa- When your doctor mentioned not eating enough, was that because you told him you were only 'eating' 700-900 when that was your 'net calories'? I'd be surprised they'd be worried about metabolic effects of 1200 on someone 5' and obese.

    When I started exercising and weight training years ago, I plateaued for a few MONTHS, I think from water issues. Then my weight loss kind of caught up and I lost 5 lbs. quickly. That was my last 5 lbs. to lose, too, though, so maybe that's more common.

    I think some people might feel a lot more patient at intake levels over 1200, and that can help a lot.

    Good luck!
  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,724 Member
    Sorry Ladies if you were truely in a deficit (regardless of the amount of the deficit) you would lose weight.

    It doesn't matter if you exercise that is for health and fitness...

    If at sub 1200 calories or even 1200 (logged) and you weren't losing you were eating more than you thought.

    Water retention only lasts so long...

    The key is to be accurate with your logging...which means weighing solids, measuring liquids and choosing the correct entries...because yes MFP has incorrect entries.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1234699-logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide?hl=Logging+accurately

    While inaccuracies are generally one of the major factors of not losing, hormones can cause water retention and depending how long you have been eating very low calories, metabolic adaptation can occur. In all honesty, we really need more information.

    OP, do you use a food scale? Can you open your diary? What are your stats and do you have any medical conditions.

    For the most part, people need to eat more than 1200 calories, which the exception of sedentary short women and those with medical conditions that affect metabolism. It's potential, that if you are logging correctly, exercise and not losing at 1200 calories or less, there could be other factors.

    While this isn't a very popular answer lately, personally, i have worked with many people where I increased calories from 1200 and they started losing weight. It's possible it was because they improved logging accuracy or something else, but anecdotal evidence suggest a reasonable calorie deficit can be more effective long term than a large deficit.

    Yes I agree with this as well. Cortisol levels raise due to stress which causes water retention which causes women usually to stress more as they aren't losing then bam...cortisol levels are up again/more...

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html#more-9313
    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/of-whooshes-and-squishy-fat.html

    I should have dropped these in on my first post.

    The bolded part strikes me as definately a factor. I think when people go from 1200 to say 1400 or even 1600 they have a tendancy to be more careful with logging as the fear is that is too much.

    Metabolic damage does take some time to happen...

    Eating the right foods helps with energy and health but for weight loss eh...

    I also think people change stuff up to quickly and too often...if they don't see weight loss in 2 weeks they change something when they really just need to be patient esp if they are sure of their logging and as sure as they can be with their burns.

    Depending on your weight even at 5 ft nada you could with your activity level eat a lot more...remember the key here is to eat as much as you can and still lose the weight you want...not starve and punish yourself for being over weight...

    I agree about switching things up too often when sometimes you just have to keep it up and trust the process. If I had switched things up this week I would be all, six pounds lost in one week, must be my latest tweaks! NOT

Categories