Should I increase my calories?
Claairey1992
Posts: 90 Member
Hi guys
I started losing weight almost 2 years ago now. I have lost 59lbs since then and have always stuck to eating 1200 calories a day (apart from the days I exercise where I eat more) but my weight loss has drastically slowed down recently and im not sure if I should be increasing my calorie intake???
Any advice would be appreciated!
Thanks
xx
I started losing weight almost 2 years ago now. I have lost 59lbs since then and have always stuck to eating 1200 calories a day (apart from the days I exercise where I eat more) but my weight loss has drastically slowed down recently and im not sure if I should be increasing my calorie intake???
Any advice would be appreciated!
Thanks
xx 0
Replies
-
Oh meant to say I'm aiming to lose another 29lbs in total!0
-
You are eating at maintenance, so adding more calories is not going to help you. Do you use a food scale?0
-
Yip I weigh out all my food .. But I'm sorry I have to totally disagree, eating 1200 is not eating at maintenance level! My TDEE is like 1700!queenliz99 wrote: »You are eating at maintenance, so adding more calories is not going to help you. Do you use a food scale?
0 -
You are consuming more calories than you think.0
-
What does "drastically slowed down" mean to you? Weight loss should slow down as you get closer to your goal. If you're set to "lose two pounds a week," change it to one.0
-
Since you aren't losing, that means you are eating at maintenance. It is up to you to figure out why you are eating at maintenance when you think you aren't. It could be due to inaccurate calorie counts. It could be that your activity level doesn't burn as many calories as you might expect.0
-
Timorous_Beastie wrote: »What does "drastically slowed down" mean to you? Weight loss should slow down as you get closer to your goal. If you're set to "lose two pounds a week," change it to one.
Yes - please answer this. If you're still losing weight you aren't in maintenance (as you seem to realise unlike others)
0 -
how long have you stalled? weight loss is not linear. what you view as stalling might not be that at all, unless it's been a long time. back when I was losing weight, I could go a few weeks without a net loss other than the natural ups and downs, and then suddenly a few pounds would drop off at once.
also, how much do you weigh and what is your goal weight? how tall are you?0 -
By what fundamental misunderstanding of physics and reality do folks think eating more will result in greater weight loss?
I've been here since 1 Jan, and seen it every day. Multiple times a day. Every. Day.
You're bailing out a boat that is slowly filling up with water and sinking... or maybe you're just keeping up with the water flowing in and barely staying afloat ... and you think making the hole on the deck BIGGER (?!?) and letting more water come in at a faster rate will keep the boat from sinking ? Really?
smh ...
0 -
SergeantSausage wrote: »By what fundamental misunderstanding of physics and reality do folks think eating more will result in greater weight loss?
I've been here since 1 Jan, and seen it every day. Multiple times a day. Every. Day.
You're bailing out a boat that is slowly filling up with water and sinking... or maybe you're just keeping up with the water flowing in and barely staying afloat ... and you think making the hole on the deck BIGGER (?!?) and letting more water come in at a faster rate will keep the boat from sinking ? Really?
smh ...
This was a hugely wide held belief a few years ago on myfitnesspal by many of the long time posters. I'm glad to see that it isn't really an accepted belief anymore overall.0 -
I had a quick look in your diary and can instantly see one issue - you need to WEIGH the mayonnaise - a tablespoon can't give you an accurate amount and that stuff can add loads of calories measured wrong.
No more tablespoons unless it is actual liquid - weigh everything including nutella
Also are you really only eating 20g of tuna - that's what, a tablespoon. Are you sure that is correct?
0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »Timorous_Beastie wrote: »What does "drastically slowed down" mean to you? Weight loss should slow down as you get closer to your goal. If you're set to "lose two pounds a week," change it to one.
Yes - please answer this. If you're still losing weight you aren't in maintenance (as you seem to realise unlike others)
I agree with this^^. You're not eating at maintenance if you are still losing. Sounds like you have been doing this for a while, 2 years, so you must have been doing something right.
Are you using TDEE or MFP? You mention eating back exercise calories but also mention TDEE. If you're using TDEE, you should not be eating your maintenance calories. But I also wouldn't want to see you eating less than 1200.
I would recommend you check the EM2WL group. They may have some good suggestions.
0 -
oooh, I just realized she said "drastically slowed down", not "stalled". Yeah, I need to know what that means.0
-
-
I agree with others that you are likely eating more than you think. That being said, I think your goal is still too low. I suggest that you start weighing EVERYTHING (only measuring liquids such as water, juice, milk, oil if you'd like) and once you get into that habit of logging everything properly, slowly work your way up to your estimated maintenance calories and take a break! After losing so much, I think that you deserve a break. I'd suggest going for a month but that's your call. After your break this will give you a chance to decide how drastic of a calorie deficit you want to create.
And re: the break, if you still lose while eating your estimated maintenance then add another 100 to your net goal (custom goal) because losing = not eating at maintenance.
I personally DO believe that people who have too low of a net (or gross) goal should increase their goal. Whether that translates into better weight loss depends on the person... if eating more means you have more energy and you are actually moving around more, you might find that you start losing a bit better or at the same rate you were losing at previously. Or if it just makes you feel better period without increasing losses then it will at least make the rest of your dieting journey more manageable. I am taking a quasi-break by eating at my goal weight/BF maintenance calories, which are also ~0.5lb/week weight loss for me; My decided range is 2100-2200 calories. I'm also not weighing myself for psychological purposes. So I'm increasisng calories for mental and physical reasons.0 -
SergeantSausage wrote: »By what fundamental misunderstanding of physics and reality do folks think eating more will result in greater weight loss?
I've been here since 1 Jan, and seen it every day. Multiple times a day. Every. Day.
You're bailing out a boat that is slowly filling up with water and sinking... or maybe you're just keeping up with the water flowing in and barely staying afloat ... and you think making the hole on the deck BIGGER (?!?) and letting more water come in at a faster rate will keep the boat from sinking ? Really?
smh ...
This was a hugely wide held belief a few years ago on myfitnesspal by many of the long time posters. I'm glad to see that it isn't really an accepted belief anymore overall.
No it wasn't....
You and others just have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of eating more and still losing weight...you still have to be in a deficit of energy...anyone who knows anything knows that you have to be in a deficit.
I don't know any veteran posters who actually know what they're talking about actually talk about starvations mode and upping your calories if you're not losing...if you're not losing you're not in an energy deficit, whether you think you are or not.
OP, if you're not losing, you're eating more than you think you are or you're not burning as much as you think you're burning...something is off in your equation or your estimations. Also, slowing down is normal as you get closer to your goal...as you shrink, so does deficit because you don't require as many calories to maintain...so naturally, things would slow down.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »By what fundamental misunderstanding of physics and reality do folks think eating more will result in greater weight loss?
I've been here since 1 Jan, and seen it every day. Multiple times a day. Every. Day.
You're bailing out a boat that is slowly filling up with water and sinking... or maybe you're just keeping up with the water flowing in and barely staying afloat ... and you think making the hole on the deck BIGGER (?!?) and letting more water come in at a faster rate will keep the boat from sinking ? Really?
smh ...
This was a hugely wide held belief a few years ago on myfitnesspal by many of the long time posters. I'm glad to see that it isn't really an accepted belief anymore overall.
No it wasn't....
You and others just have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of eating more and still losing weight...you still have to be in a deficit of energy...anyone who knows anything knows that you have to be in a deficit.
I don't know any veteran posters who actually know what they're talking about actually talk about starvations mode and upping your calories if you're not losing...if you're not losing you're not in an energy deficit, whether you think you are or not.
what? I understand the idea of eating just under maintenance to lose weight. I'm not an idiot. I DID notice a lot more people who claimed that starvation mode was real back then though. Maybe they weren't veteran posters. I don't remember exactly who said it, but it was a huge amount of posters and nobody really seemed to disagree with them.0 -
I followed the 1200 calorie net diet back then and got a lot of grief for it and was told I would gain it all back or stall. Well, here we are 2 years later and it's still all off. I've been in maintenance for almost 2 years. It works.0
-
From what you wrote, I guess you're eating at 1200 calories except days when you workout, on which you count by the TDEE method, right? Don't lower your calories beyond 1200 because that's just going to cause problems for you later on if you stall on your weight loss again and run out of options to prompt it forward (lowering even more you cals would be unsustainable, and you would later gain back weight).
There are several things to take into account: Are you drinking enough water? Do you measure out and count sauces, etc? TOM? Are you weighing yourself at the same time, same clothes..?
Lastly, the last pounds are the hardest to get rid of, and take the longest time too. So it's pretty normal to get 'stalled' at a determined weight, only to see it suddenly fall off, but you must stay CONSTANT. If you're doing it right, the results will come.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »By what fundamental misunderstanding of physics and reality do folks think eating more will result in greater weight loss?
I've been here since 1 Jan, and seen it every day. Multiple times a day. Every. Day.
You're bailing out a boat that is slowly filling up with water and sinking... or maybe you're just keeping up with the water flowing in and barely staying afloat ... and you think making the hole on the deck BIGGER (?!?) and letting more water come in at a faster rate will keep the boat from sinking ? Really?
smh ...
This was a hugely wide held belief a few years ago on myfitnesspal by many of the long time posters. I'm glad to see that it isn't really an accepted belief anymore overall.
No it wasn't....
You and others just have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of eating more and still losing weight...you still have to be in a deficit of energy...anyone who knows anything knows that you have to be in a deficit.
I don't know any veteran posters who actually know what they're talking about actually talk about starvations mode and upping your calories if you're not losing...if you're not losing you're not in an energy deficit, whether you think you are or not.
what? I understand the idea of eating just under maintenance to lose weight. I'm not an idiot. I DID notice a lot more people who claimed that starvation mode was real back then though. Maybe they weren't veteran posters. I don't remember exactly who said it, but it was a huge amount of posters and nobody really seemed to disagree with them.
There are still a huge amount of posters who believe in "starvation mode" and post such nonsense...they tend to be fairly new members and full of all kinds of other bro-science as well...0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »By what fundamental misunderstanding of physics and reality do folks think eating more will result in greater weight loss?
I've been here since 1 Jan, and seen it every day. Multiple times a day. Every. Day.
You're bailing out a boat that is slowly filling up with water and sinking... or maybe you're just keeping up with the water flowing in and barely staying afloat ... and you think making the hole on the deck BIGGER (?!?) and letting more water come in at a faster rate will keep the boat from sinking ? Really?
smh ...
This was a hugely wide held belief a few years ago on myfitnesspal by many of the long time posters. I'm glad to see that it isn't really an accepted belief anymore overall.
No it wasn't....
You and others just have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of eating more and still losing weight...you still have to be in a deficit of energy...anyone who knows anything knows that you have to be in a deficit.
I don't know any veteran posters who actually know what they're talking about actually talk about starvations mode and upping your calories if you're not losing...if you're not losing you're not in an energy deficit, whether you think you are or not.
what? I understand the idea of eating just under maintenance to lose weight. I'm not an idiot. I DID notice a lot more people who claimed that starvation mode was real back then though. Maybe they weren't veteran posters. I don't remember exactly who said it, but it was a huge amount of posters and nobody really seemed to disagree with them.
There are still a huge amount of posters who believe in "starvation mode" and post such nonsense...they tend to be fairly new members and full of all kinds of other bro-science as well...
well, then they seem to be told they are wrong more often now than they used to be or at least from what I've noticed.0 -
Okay I'm not loving people's tones on here. Before I reply to anything, we're supposed to be building each other up .. Not knocking each other down. Think it's important to bear that one in mind!
Firstly, when I say "drastically slowed down" I mean I'm losing a pound per week which for me is slow! You guys are gonna just have to trust me on that one, I know my metabolism & my body & usually when im eating at such a deficit I lose more.
I absolutely believe you can be eating too little for your body to lose weight. It's a proven fact. If you eat too little your body goes in to starvation mode & clings on to every calorie you put in to it. I actually cant believe some of you guys think I'm eating at maintenance at 1200 calories!!!!! Blows my mind. Let me give you some perspective, im a waitress who, depending on the shift, walks 10-11km per day burning over 2500 calories ... There's absolutely NO WAY 1200 is my maintenance! And also im still losing, so if it was my maintenance why would I be doing so?!? I think you guys need to be careful of the advice you give. You are making very big assumptions about me & my lifestyle from one post and that can be dangerous!
I've been on here for nearly 2 years & ive lost 59lbs .. I don't need to be told simple things like weighing my food etc! I know all this! Also, EVERYONE underestimates calories unconsciously .. It's a fact, any dietician would tell you so! but see even if I was eating 100 calories over per day (which I am NOT btw!!!) that's only 700 calories in a week, there's 3500 calories in a pound, is it seriously going to be making that much of a difference?
I CANNOT eat any less than I am right now, it's an actual impossibility and it baffles me that some of you are telling me to do so!
I do take breaks when dieting, I only started back on here again at the start of january as I had a 3 month break before that.0 -
I followed the 1200 calorie net diet back then and got a lot of grief for it and was told I would gain it all back or stall. Well, here we are 2 years later and it's still all off. I've been in maintenance for almost 2 years. It works.
And unfortunately this is not how it works for many people who undergo drastic diet changes because they only maintain their changes while dieting. Then start over-eating again when in maintenance. This is why lots of us caution people who post about low calorie goals. Plus it's not really the best option for one's health regardless of weight management goals.0 -
If you're losing 1lb/week, that's a normal healthy rate and doesn't mean you've stalled.
It's normal to be losing at a faster pace when you're bigger, and for that pace to slow down once you're smaller. On a percentage of body weight basis, you're probably losing steadily.
I say keep doing what you're doing.0 -
You are over estimating your calorie burns
0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »You are over estimating your calorie burns
No I'm not .. I have a heart rate monitor plus even if I am I very rarely eat back all my exercise calories!!0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »You are over estimating your calorie burns
This. And no one has a poor tone toward you. They are simply having a discussion, one that has been had time and time again.
And for what it's worth, a pound a week is great.0 -
If you're losing 1lb/week, that's a normal healthy rate and doesn't mean you've stalled.
It's normal to be losing at a faster pace when you're bigger, and for that pace to slow down once you're smaller. On a percentage of body weight basis, you're probably losing steadily.
I say keep doing what you're doing.
Thanks for the encouragement 0 -
HRM are not accurate either. And should be used when exercising like running etc.0
-
Claairey1992 wrote: »Okay I'm not loving people's tones on here. Before I reply to anything, we're supposed to be building each other up .. Not knocking each other down. Think it's important to bear that one in mind!
BZZZZZZT! Wrong answer, thanks for playing. See Don on your way out for your parting consolation gift ...
We are here, most of us, to lose weight. (Some to maintain (some to gain/bulk))
To do this successfully, there is no room - NO ROOM - in this house for Shenanigans including (but not limited to) BroScience, Superstition, Old Wives Tails, WooWoo, or FatLogic, Magic Beans, Silver Bullets, Snake oil, or just Plain Old Fashioned Ignorance And Stupidity.
This is not about hurting someone's pwecious feewings and feeling warm and fuzzy.
Eating to little to lose weight is ... for lack of a better phrase ... Horse Sh|t, straight from the factory that produces it and you are doing a The Entire World a disservice by promoting and spreading Pure Shenanigans.I absolutely believe you can be eating too little for your body to lose weight.
Lots of folks believe in Leprechauns, Unicorns, and Invisible Magic Sky Faeries that grant wishes ... but that doesn't make 'em real, now does it?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