Lightbulb moment!* PLEASE LET ME HAVE YOUR VIEWS
Replies
-
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »You don't lose weight by eating more. Though people seem to love this idea that you can have a slow metabolism, the professionals who who test metabolisms rarely see a case were someone really has a slow metabolism.
The OP isn't talking about eating more than her tdee - she's talking about eating at a smaller deficit than she has been - to compensate for the fact she is more active than she thought she was.
-
OP - You would lose weight more quickly if you keep the higher deficit (assuming you have enough weight to lose to do this healthily). But as you're already saying you feel run down from eating the lower amount then bumping your calories up, feeling healthier, and losing at a nice steady rate sounds good to me.
It appeared to me that she was also saying that she hasn't been losing weight recently. The other problems aside, if you aren't losing weight and you start eating more calories, you gain weight.There appear to be many theories that contradict that thinking TimothyFish, clearly you feel it is quite cut and dry. It would have been more helfpul if you could quantify your statements instead of just putting them out there. But hey... each to their own.
It is simple enough to understand. It takes energy to carry out our activities. According to FitBit, it is taking about 2000 calories for you to carry out your daily activities. That energy doesn't just appear out of thin air. You are either going to get it from the food you eat, or from fat that you stored previously. The less food you eat, the more energy your body has to get from fat. One pound of fat provides 3500 calories of energy. So every time you use 3500 more calories than what you have gotten from food, you lose a pound.
Thanks.0 -
-
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »You don't lose weight by eating more. Though people seem to love this idea that you can have a slow metabolism, the professionals who who test metabolisms rarely see a case were someone really has a slow metabolism.
The OP isn't talking about eating more than her tdee - she's talking about eating at a smaller deficit than she has been - to compensate for the fact she is more active than she thought she was.
-
OP - You would lose weight more quickly if you keep the higher deficit (assuming you have enough weight to lose to do this healthily). But as you're already saying you feel run down from eating the lower amount then bumping your calories up, feeling healthier, and losing at a nice steady rate sounds good to me.
It appeared to me that she was also saying that she hasn't been losing weight recently. The other problems aside, if you aren't losing weight and you start eating more calories, you gain weight.There appear to be many theories that contradict that thinking TimothyFish, clearly you feel it is quite cut and dry. It would have been more helfpul if you could quantify your statements instead of just putting them out there. But hey... each to their own.
It is simple enough to understand. It takes energy to carry out our activities. According to FitBit, it is taking about 2000 calories for you to carry out your daily activities. That energy doesn't just appear out of thin air. You are either going to get it from the food you eat, or from fat that you stored previously. The less food you eat, the more energy your body has to get from fat. One pound of fat provides 3500 calories of energy. So every time you use 3500 more calories than what you have gotten from food, you lose a pound.
Thanks.
Oh, TimothyFish. So helpful. Thank you for stating the obvious. However, OP's original question had to do with feeling fatigued and suffering from a loss of energy on a 1,200 calorie per day limit, and then increasing to a 1,600 calorie per day limit to beat the fatigue. As long as she's still under her calorie deficit, she should still lose weight, and will no longer suffer from fatigue. In fact, she'll lose weight much more effectively, as eating at a lower calorie deficit will cause her to lose lean muscle mass in the long run.0 -
Here's my .02:
You lost weight on 1200. For many reasons.
You got a fitbit. You probably started walking more when you did.
If it were *me* I'd eat up to that 500 calorie deficit and with those 300 calories I'd eat a ton of nutrient dense vegetables (to give you energy). Give it a couple of weeks, and then tweak as necessary.
I don't spend a lot of time on macros, I more tend to focus on micros, but I'd probably aim for a 40/30/30 split, personally.
I would eat *as much as I can* while losing, not as little. I'd also know that as I lose, that number is going to go down a bit.0 -
I haven't read other's comments so if this has already been said... but, yes, this happened to me, I didn't stall, I was just miserable and weak. I upped my cals each week by 50 so I didn't have a big gain that would throw me off. As it's been said on mfp, it's not a race, .5 to 1 pound a week is fine by me as long as I feel better. So worth it. Good luck.0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »You don't lose weight by eating more. Though people seem to love this idea that you can have a slow metabolism, the professionals who who test metabolisms rarely see a case were someone really has a slow metabolism.
The OP isn't talking about eating more than her tdee - she's talking about eating at a smaller deficit than she has been - to compensate for the fact she is more active than she thought she was.
-
OP - You would lose weight more quickly if you keep the higher deficit (assuming you have enough weight to lose to do this healthily). But as you're already saying you feel run down from eating the lower amount then bumping your calories up, feeling healthier, and losing at a nice steady rate sounds good to me.
It appeared to me that she was also saying that she hasn't been losing weight recently. The other problems aside, if you aren't losing weight and you start eating more calories, you gain weight.There appear to be many theories that contradict that thinking TimothyFish, clearly you feel it is quite cut and dry. It would have been more helfpul if you could quantify your statements instead of just putting them out there. But hey... each to their own.
It is simple enough to understand. It takes energy to carry out our activities. According to FitBit, it is taking about 2000 calories for you to carry out your daily activities. That energy doesn't just appear out of thin air. You are either going to get it from the food you eat, or from fat that you stored previously. The less food you eat, the more energy your body has to get from fat. One pound of fat provides 3500 calories of energy. So every time you use 3500 more calories than what you have gotten from food, you lose a pound.
Thanks.
Oh, TimothyFish. So helpful. Thank you...
You're welcome.
0 -
I doubt you damaged your metabolism, so I wouldn't worry about that. You were losing well until recently, and a stall on occasion is normal.
However, I also think that Sabine's point about Fitbits often leading to more activity is correct, and that it's great to be able to lose on more if you can (and it sounds like you probably can). I also think that there are reasons why people might not lose as well from time to time that aren't clearly explained, and sometimes feeling less energy related to less activity throughout the day in a non-measured way. And sometimes when we've been doing this for a while we get tired of logging and start doing it in a sloppier way, which often contributes to stalls--not at all assuming this is you, but it was me last month.
So if I were you I'd try something like 1500-1600 but also make sure that I logged really carefully and strictly and maybe--if it appeals to you--refocus on adding nutrient dense foods that might help with energy (again, not assuming this is something different than what you currently do). See how it goes for 2-3 weeks and then reevaluate. If you are losing, fabulous. If not, maybe add a week or two or take a diet break or maybe drop the calories a bit, you can decide if it happens.
For what it's worth, I've found 1600/week a good number for me.
Sometimes it helps me to take the focus off the calorie counting bit of it, if I am feeling a bit burnt out (as I was in December) by thinking about the nutrition bit and changing things up. I did this in early January (still going on), and while my calories haven't really changed I'm logging better and feeling more into it overall, which helps with energy and sticking to my calories. I'm also trying to push myself to increase from 1600 to 1700, which I'm struggling with.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »You don't lose weight by eating more. Though people seem to love this idea that you can have a slow metabolism, the professionals who who test metabolisms rarely see a case were someone really has a slow metabolism.
Nonsense. If you aren't eating enough to sustain your activity level many things happen. Your weight loss stalls, you don't feel well, you don't focus as well, you aren't as mentally sharp. Increase your calories, gradually is a GREAT idea, and I can almost promise that everything will get better and you will FEEL better almost immediately. Everyone is different, but my doc said 1200 is simply to stay alive until help arrives.0 -
A Flex is a pretty rough estimate of your burn. If you were eating 1200 for months and losing 1.25lbs/week on average you KNOW your actual burn is around 625 calories over your eating level. If your logging is dead on, you eat around 1200 and burn around 1825. A Flex tends to overestimate burns since it can catch arm/hand movements and count that as walking. Plus you could be more active, like some mentioned. (And if you're a lot more active, you could be retaining water, offsetting fat loss on the scale.) Or you could be burning around what the Flex says and misestimating your intake by several hundred. We all do.
I think eating 1500-1600 is a great idea to end your diet fatigue and maybe break your plateau but I don't think you damaged your metabolism. And I think if you lost 1.25 lbs/week on average at 1200, you should eventually lose well under one lb. or so per week at 1500. But don't think '1200 is dangerous and makes me plateau, I need at least 1500 to lose', because the odds of that are pretty unlikely. You can probably go higher and then go back lower later if you miss the faster losses and figure out you have a cold or something.
Good luck!0 -
Yes it is simple but it's important not to over simplify. The complete equation is calories in minus calories out.TimothyFish wrote: »
It is simple enough to understand. It takes energy to carry out our activities. According to FitBit, it is taking about 2000 calories for you to carry out your daily activities. That energy doesn't just appear out of thin air. You are either going to get it from the food you eat, or from fat that you stored previously. The less food you eat, the more energy your body has to get from fat. One pound of fat provides 3500 calories of energy. So every time you use 3500 more calories than what you have gotten from food, you lose a pound.
Your simplified explanation that eating more cannot result in weight loss assumes that calories out is independent of calories in. This is simply not the case. It is a fact that your body has to expend energy processing food so eating more food will cause your calories out to increase.
The question of course is how much will your calories out increase? And that is a challenging question with no simple answer. In this case you have a person who has been eating at a small deficit for 6 months or so. How exactly will her body react to a short term increase in calories? Difficult to predict though there is plenty of anecdotal "plateau busting" evidence to suggest that her calories out might actually get a significant short term boost resulting in weight loss. Especially if increasing her calories makes her feel more energetic which might in turn lead to more activity.0 -
It is possible to feel good while losing weight. If you aren't feeling good, something needs to change. That could be eating more calories, focusing on more nutrient dense foods or different macro ratios, getting more sleep, and/or seeing a doctor to make sure nothing else is going on.
If you can eat more and still lose, generally that is a good idea. Just note that when you up your calories your body is likely to gain some water weight so don't be alarmed if weight goes up at first. I would give it a good two weeks at the new level to see what happens.
The thing about eating more food is that if you have more energy during the day you will often end up burning more through the day - better work outs, more movement throughout the day, etc. I think that's part of why increasing calories can often precipitate weight loss.0 -
Thank you everyone, this has really helped. Today I am within my MFP limits, although I have logged my supper and not yet eaten it. And I still have a good 20 minute walk with the dog to do tonight. So all is looking good.
Your advice and guidance will be noted and digested later this evening, when I have time to focus properly.
0 -
I think that if you have no energy and are on the verge of illness (or at least feeling like it) that is your body trying to tell you something. And I wouldn't listen too much to people who say that the bigger the calories deficit the better. Yes, you may lose weight more slowly but in order to be sustainable you need to have energy. When I don't get enough food, I am less motivated to keep my body moving. Which seems counterproductive doesn't it?0
-
There is a reason why the leaner you get, the smaller the recommended deficit and rate of loss. It's because there's a limit to how much of a deficit your fat stores can compensate for, long-term, without obvious effects like fatigue.
I ran into similar problems, but in the healthy weight range. First I was good with a 500 cal deficit. Eventually I needed to drop that to 250 to feel like I wasn't dragging, and finally down to 125 for the last few pounds. I also noticed that the more active I became, the more sensitive I was to higher deficits. On the plus side, I found that eating an extra 100 cals made a surprisingly big difference in a day or two.
I'd recommend a gradual calorie increase. Stop increasing when you're feeling good again and see how that goes for a while.
0 -
Lack of energy can be caused by other things besides calorie reduction.0
-
I started reading some of the posts, but couldn't wait to get to the end to share my story!! I was in the exact same boat as you. I lived (or tried to live) on a 1200 calorie/day diet for awhile, and then the scale stalled (and quite frankly I was miserable). I thought I was doing everything right! I was so confused. After talking to a reputable trainer, I increased my calories to 1500-1600 and I am able to sustain this a lot better. When I added the extra calories, the scale didn't move for a little while, then suddenly BAM, it started going down again. Just wanted to let you know, there is hope at the end of the tunnel...Good luck to you!! Keep at it, you're doing the right things...0
-
If you're going to eat 1200 calories (and, as someone else said, if you've been losing about a pound a week than 1200 calories is a reasonable goal assuming you're logging correctly), you really do have to make sure that they are 1200 calories of nutrient dense and well-balanced food. 1200 calories a day doesn't leave a lot of room for snacks or for food that's not packed with stuff your body needs.
I lost very successfully on 1200 and have maintained as successfully on about 1600/day for a couple of years now. However, because I do have a pretty low target, I try to make sure absolutely everything I eat is what I need - good protein, enough fat, lots and lots of vegetables, and very little in the way of processed carbs and added sugar because those things come at the expense of the things my body really needs. I'll always choose the omelette over the bagel even at the same number of calories because I know eggs are going to do a better job keeping my energy up than bread is, you know? If I'm going to have a treat like chocolate, I stick to a portion under 100 calories because otherwise that chocolate means I can't eat something else I'm going to get more nutrition out of.
ETA: I also take vitamins now - B complex, Calcium-Magnesium-D, a fish oil, and iron - and that's boosted my energy too although I don't know how much of that is placebo effect.0 -
People who fast often report more energy on fasting days.TimothyFish wrote: »Lack of energy can be caused by other things besides calorie reduction.
Here's a nutrition professor who says if your diet is making you tired be sure it's got sufficient carbs, iron and fiber and you're not going too long between meals/snacks.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/19/health/tired-dragging-diet-change/0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions