Calorie Intake?

Perhaps you just need to give it some time for your body to adjust? I'd try the 1500 for a few weeks to see what happens.

I'm 5'3"/130 lbs/29 years old and generally eat 1900 (also quite active)... as long as I am consistent with that number (or even a little over on the weekends, within reason), I lose weight. I am really happy using the TDEE calculation.

I'm so with you... Cannot find my "sweet spot". Right now I am eating net 1250 & losing maybe 1 pound per month when the calculations say it should be 1 pound per week. Scared to up it & scared to reduce it, lol... Good luck, I am interested in your responses here. Feel free to friend me. :happy:

Hi there, I am having a hard time understanding how many calories to eat. For about a year I ate 1000 calories a day, worked out 5 days a week, started doing bootcamp, stopped getting my period and then started to gain weight.

So I sought out a dietitian. She was horrified at my low calories, lectured me on BMR and TDEE and that I was putting my body in starvation mode. So I gradually upped my calories to 1300, lost about 2lbs but never lost another ounce in the last 4 months.

So I went back to her, she said it's STILL not enough. My BMR is apparently 2100. Knowing my anxieties, she suggested I start with netting 1500 calories.

I did, but then I stepped on the scale this week and saw that I gained MORE weight.

I am beyond frustrated. Everything I read, all the advice of professionals, suggests I need to net at a minimum of 1500 calories (most suggest I should eat around 1800 with how active I am) Yet, when I eat more, I gain weight.

My hormones, thyroid have all been checked and all came back normal.

Anyone else experience this?

April;

All those "medical professionals" have, for over 40 years now, parroted the low fat / high carb mantra in spite of what is now overwhelming evidence that it's simply WRONG.

"Anyone else experience this?" - you bet, thousands have!
Some recognize that the company line advice (check with your doc / dietitian) is much like beating your head against a wall - feels SO good when you STOP.

Others don their Scarlett O'Hara mask, bury their heads in the sand and refuse to consider anything which challenges (based on the science) what they "know" (most of which is based not on actual research but what others have told them or they "heard".

If "- 500 from your TDEE...." and the ever present "a cal is a cal..." dogma really was that simple wouldn't EVERYBODY find weight loss a simple process and we'd ALL be slim, trim, and beautiful?

Couldn't agree more with the previous poster who said that it's about WHAT you eat - NOT how many cals (Yes, cals do "matter" but macros matter MORE - both for weight loss and even more importantly, long term well being.

A quick look at your diary leads me to think that you've tried to incorporate many of the things you've "heard" are healthy and will promote weight loss. (An apple a day / low fat / etc). Unlike others who will be quick to challenge your "willpower", ability to accurately track calorie intake, or motivation, I'd suggest that you should try to focus on ONE specific "plan" and see how that works for you. Give it a fair chance (at least a few months) and then decide.

You already know what hasn't been working and that the "dietitian" hasn't a clue.

Do your own research and learn WHY something other than the "company line" might just be what is best for you.

My suggestion would be to start here, you'll find a wealth of information, links to actual "science", and an open minded group of individuals willing and able to point you in the right direction without judgement - IF you decide it's a path you'd like to pursue.

You will need to copy/paste the link since MFP is sort of funky about what they allow to link.
http://tinyurl.com/kqluv2o

Best of luck finding what will work for YOU.

Regardless of what some expert might say, if you are not losing weight after several months on however many calories you are eating and these are being accurately logged, you will need to drop that number a bit to start losing again. Nothing in a textbook trumps what your body is actually doing.

After eating so few calories for such a long time, you might need to reset your metabolism, as your body is so used to functioning at such a level. Try looking into it, see how it works out for you.

Or sometimes, when I hit a plateau, I go crazy at an all you can eat, mcdonalds, burger king, the works for a full week straight! I'll put on maybe 2 lbs, but then my body will kick start back into losing weight again. Or you could try carb cycling, I've heard positive things from it, or maybe try keto dieting for awhile?

Use the IIFMM calculator that Issac gave you. Right on the money. Eat enough and keep up with the healthy foods. Get in exercise 4x a week and don't eat your cals back since you are using the outside calculator. Watch your macros and your cals and get enough. I have been using this and it does work!

^^This

Use the IIFMM calculator that Issac gave you. Right on the money. Eat enough and keep up with the healthy foods. Get in exercise 4x a week and don't eat your cals back since you are using the outside calculator. Watch your macros and your cals and get enough. I have been using this and it does work!

FiF;

Sorry but NO calculator is "right on the money" (Not saying that it wasn't for you - assume it was but that doesn't mean it is for everyone).

Which IIFMM calculator?
Just ran my numbers through it for kicks.
Mifflin = 1569/1883
Harris = 1603/1924
Katch = 1691/2029

So which one is "right on the money"?

The "best" of them are + or - 14% off. So 2029 MIGHT be 2313 or it MIGHT be 1745 - which is it?

It would be wonderful if all these "guesstimates" were 100% accurate and all answers could be as simple as CICO and could be provided in 140 character twits but it's just not that simple.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/40/1/168.short

Deansdad, not going to get in a debate here. There are a number of tools out there to calculate goals. You are right, there will be variance. The OP is looking for some help on the topic of cal goals. My "right on the money" is not talking about accuracy, but that the people encouraging this girl who is looking for help are giving her good advice on looking for a good tool for calorie and macro goals. There is not a magic bullet but many people use IIFYM and do very well.

nicklaunch91 wrote:

After eating so few calories for such a long time, you might need to reset your metabolism, as your body is so used to functioning at such a level. Try looking into it, see how it works out for you.

I agree with all this. I'll use my history as an example.

All my weight gain is due to the steroids I have to take for lupus. And I can say with 100% conviction that it is NOT always calories in/calories out. There are sometimes extenuating circumstances which makes that simple formula simply not work.

The first time I gained weight due to steroids, I was 12. My parents fed me a very healthy diet of lean meats, vegetables and by the slimness and health of the rest of my family, people always assumed that I was sneaking food. (With steroids, you can eat nothing and gain ridiculous amounts of weight.) And to prove to all these people that I wasn't overeating, I decided to eat as little as possible. The only thing I ate was the dinner my parents fed me, which was very sensible. The rest of the day, I ate nothing. I couldn't stand the thought of people thinking I had gotten myself that way by eating too much, because it wasn't true. I lost about 5lbs, and was thrilled to be in the 170's instead of 180's.

But then I just stopped losing weight. Because I was so young and didn't know any better, I just kept restricting my calories until I was in starvation mode. It was only like a year and a half later, when I fainted on the street, did I start eating normally. The weight didn't melt off, BUT--and this is a huge but--it did gradually come off over the next four years at which point I finally reached my pre-steroid weight. (And if I never went back on steroids, I do believe I'd still be there now.)

Of course, that's an extreme example, but the point is the same in principal: When you kill your metabolism, it will sometimes take it a very long time to start up. In fact, you might gain some weight back when you first start eating a healthy amount of calories. BUT, then that weight you gained back will start to just melt off. And you'll be like "Why is this happening all the sudden? I'm not doing anything differently!" But the answer is: your metabolism says "I'M ALIVEEEE!!" When it kicks back to life, normal weight loss techniques will start working more like they're supposed to, which is why it's very important to get back to those normal calories.

And the above experience wasn't a one-off thing: Right now, I'm recovering from another round of an extremely high dose of steroids. When I was on said steroids, I wasn't eating. I was starving. My stomach hurt too bad to eat, my lupus pain was so severe I felt like throwing up all the time. I was in sheer hell. I was lucky to get 600 calories a day--max. So that time, the starvation was totally against my will. And while starving, I literally gained 150lbs. (Again, like I said, it's not always calories in/calories out.) Steroids make you gain weight--so does starvation mode. The starvation mode amplified the steroid gain.

When I finally started getting my calories up to a normal range (I try to get a minimum of 1500, but that's only because of my illness forcing me to be sometimes sedentary), at first I gained like 20lbs I lost back. It was scary. But now I'm back down smaller than I was when I rebounded.

All of this is just to say that two times I under-ate for different reasons and both times, I had a rebound and then the weight literally started melting off once my body adjusted to healthy calorie intake. Now that I've experienced this twice, I will know that if I ever have to be on steroids again, getting my calories back up to where they should be is EXACTLY what I have to do to lose weight, even if I rebound at first.

Doesn't matter if you eat clean, calories in calories out.

I could lose weight eating McDonalds if I was a in a deficit... maybe you should see a nutritionist if nothing is working?

I respectfully disagree with this^

But I don't think you stated totally incorrect facts:

Can you gain weight if you "eat clean" but load up on fruits and nuts simultaneously? Absolutely. The carbs, however clean they may be, must be low if the fat is high to keep insulin low if significant weight loss is desired. Or, keep fat low with high levels of low glycemic carbs - this is less preferred b/c of higher inflammatory effects of insulin. Basically, a hunter gatherer diet was usually the former.

Can you eat "dirty" and lose weight? Absolutely. You see these people all the time. I also see them all the time in the health care world when things spiral out of control. Depends on several metabolic factors, including genetics.

The real questions are: Does weight loss mirror health? Does fitness even mirror health? Not exactly.

There are many methods of weight loss and even fitness, but only a few of these actually take health into account. There is a reason that even you calories-in calories-out crowd use the terms "clean" and "dirty". You all know the implications whether consciously or subconsciously.

Weight gain or loss is calories vs out, period. All your talk about low glycemic carbs has been deemed bunk. Insulin, while a storage hormone, isn't only responsible for fat storage. And many protein sources have been proven to illicit an insulin response comparable to carbohydrates. Furthermore, studies have proven that when calories and macros are constant, there is no significant difference in weight loss between a low GI vs high GI diet.

I do agree that a balanced diet with an eye on moderation is the most optimal for health purposes, but no one in the CICO circle looks at food as clean or dirty. Micronutrient dense whole foods should be a focus, but incorporating moderate amounts of foods absent of nutrients isn't automatically a health risk. Labeling foods as clean or dirty can lead to an unhealthy relationship with food.

Doesn't matter if you eat clean, calories in calories out.

I could lose weight eating McDonalds if I was a in a deficit... maybe you should see a nutritionist if nothing is working?

I respectfully disagree with this^

But I don't think you stated totally incorrect facts:

Can you gain weight if you "eat clean" but load up on fruits and nuts simultaneously? Absolutely. The carbs, however clean they may be, must be low if the fat is high to keep insulin low if significant weight loss is desired. Or, keep fat low with high levels of low glycemic carbs - this is less preferred b/c of higher inflammatory effects of insulin. Basically, a hunter gatherer diet was usually the former.

Can you eat "dirty" and lose weight? Absolutely. You see these people all the time. I also see them all the time in the health care world when things spiral out of control. Depends on several metabolic factors, including genetics.

The real questions are: Does weight loss mirror health? Does fitness even mirror health? Not exactly.

There are many methods of weight loss and even fitness, but only a few of these actually take health into account. There is a reason that even you calories-in calories-out crowd use the terms "clean" and "dirty". You all know the implications whether consciously or subconsciously.

Weight gain or loss is calories vs out, period. All your talk about low glycemic carbs has been deemed bunk. Insulin, while a storage hormone, isn't only responsible for fat storage. And many protein sources have been proven to illicit an insulin response comparable to carbohydrates. Furthermore, studies have proven that when calories and macros are constant, there is no significant difference in weight loss between a low GI vs high GI diet.

I do agree that a balanced diet with an eye on moderation is the most optimal for health purposes, but no one in the CICO circle looks at food as clean or dirty. Micronutrient dense whole foods should be a focus, but incorporating moderate amounts of foods absent of nutrients isn't automatically a health risk. Labeling foods as clean or dirty can lead to an unhealthy relationship with food.

Agree 100%^

http://iifym.com/tdee-calculator/

-500 from your TDEE, eat at that number. You'll lose 1lb a week.

Eat your exercise calories back.

I've been trying hard to figure out this TDEE #. -500 makes this wayyy more realistic. Only why does eating my exercise cals back make me sooo nervous? lol Thanks for the info tho!! :flowerforyou:

April;



If "- 500 from your TDEE...." and the ever present "a cal is a cal..." dogma really was that simple wouldn't EVERYBODY find weight loss a simple process and we'd ALL be slim, trim, and beautiful?

[/quote]

They all would be slim,trim,and beautiful if they ate -500 from TDEE but people don't do this or have any clue TDEE exists
[/quote]

As Isaac stated, most people don't look into lifestyle changes such as tracking or determining estimated caloric burn. Most people would rather spend money on "magic pills" or believe that only eating certain foods have a magical fat burn effect. Cico is a scientific fact. You can't avoid the law of thermodynamics just because you don't believe it.