I'm gaining at 1300 :(
Replies
-
yopeeps025 wrote: »Eattheiron wrote: »Metabolic damage from a constant state of caloric restriction is a possibility, try reverse dieting to bring your metabolism up and then resuming a slow restriction. Some people cut out 500c from maintenance when 100 works just aswell and you have 400 to play with.
500x30=/=100x30 one month cut right? Also metabolic damage, what do you call constant state? (how long)
Not quite as everbody is different but the point was your body isnt a calculator 1 and 1 doesnt always equal 2. 500c cut to fast signals your body to HOLD all fat as it genuinely thinks your starving to death. Lets assume you lose 5lbs from this, if you had gone down slower aka 100c every 3 weeks instead of 5 lbs then a plateau you would lose a solid 1-2 lbs a week which equals more lost, long term and easier imo.
Metabolic damage although controversial at this time has seen alot of research for it especially from Layne Norton, multiple months of constant caloric restriction can effectively stop your metabolism from cutting weight. Going lower gives no results, increase excercise gives no results and increasing calories leads to a gain in weight (most dont want that lol)
0 -
Eattheiron wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »Eattheiron wrote: »Metabolic damage from a constant state of caloric restriction is a possibility, try reverse dieting to bring your metabolism up and then resuming a slow restriction. Some people cut out 500c from maintenance when 100 works just aswell and you have 400 to play with.
500x30=/=100x30 one month cut right? Also metabolic damage, what do you call constant state? (how long)
Not quite as everbody is different but the point was your body isnt a calculator 1 and 1 doesnt always equal 2. 500c cut to fast signals your body to HOLD all fat as it genuinely thinks your starving to death. Lets assume you lose 5lbs from this, if you had gone down slower aka 100c every 3 weeks instead of 5 lbs then a plateau you would lose a solid 1-2 lbs a week which equals more lost, long term and easier imo.
Metabolic damage although controversial at this time has seen alot of research for it especially from Layne Norton, multiple months of constant caloric restriction can effectively stop your metabolism from cutting weight. Going lower gives no results, increase excercise gives no results and increasing calories leads to a gain in weight (most dont want that lol)
So you assume metabolic damage to OP when OP said nothing about logging calories? Even if OP logs foods does OP use a food scale? Lets are questions that OP would have to answer before I can assume she is eating 1300 calories.
Also I'm lost on your example but I think I kind of get what you are saying.
0 -
Eattheiron wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »Eattheiron wrote: »Metabolic damage from a constant state of caloric restriction is a possibility, try reverse dieting to bring your metabolism up and then resuming a slow restriction. Some people cut out 500c from maintenance when 100 works just aswell and you have 400 to play with.
500x30=/=100x30 one month cut right? Also metabolic damage, what do you call constant state? (how long)
Not quite as everbody is different but the point was your body isnt a calculator 1 and 1 doesnt always equal 2. 500c cut to fast signals your body to HOLD all fat as it genuinely thinks your starving to death. Lets assume you lose 5lbs from this, if you had gone down slower aka 100c every 3 weeks instead of 5 lbs then a plateau you would lose a solid 1-2 lbs a week which equals more lost, long term and easier imo.
Metabolic damage although controversial at this time has seen alot of research for it especially from Layne Norton, multiple months of constant caloric restriction can effectively stop your metabolism from cutting weight. Going lower gives no results, increase excercise gives no results and increasing calories leads to a gain in weight (most dont want that lol)
sorry but the bolded makes no sense. Are you trying to say that a 500 calorie deficit is going to result in someone going into starvation mode?
First, starvation mode is a myth.
Second, to suffer metabolic damage you would have to chronically under eat for a long time. Chronically under eat = under 1000 calories a day for extended period.
I went from a bulk to a cut two months ago, and I did not ease into it. I just cut 500 calories and have been losing about a pound a week since then...
I may be misunderstanding you though, so feel free to clarify...
0 -
Eattheiron wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »Eattheiron wrote: »Metabolic damage from a constant state of caloric restriction is a possibility, try reverse dieting to bring your metabolism up and then resuming a slow restriction. Some people cut out 500c from maintenance when 100 works just aswell and you have 400 to play with.
500x30=/=100x30 one month cut right? Also metabolic damage, what do you call constant state? (how long)
Not quite as everbody is different but the point was your body isnt a calculator 1 and 1 doesnt always equal 2. 500c cut to fast signals your body to HOLD all fat as it genuinely thinks your starving to death. Lets assume you lose 5lbs from this, if you had gone down slower aka 100c every 3 weeks instead of 5 lbs then a plateau you would lose a solid 1-2 lbs a week which equals more lost, long term and easier imo.
Metabolic damage although controversial at this time has seen alot of research for it especially from Layne Norton, multiple months of constant caloric restriction can effectively stop your metabolism from cutting weight. Going lower gives no results, increase excercise gives no results and increasing calories leads to a gain in weight (most dont want that lol)
sorry but the bolded makes no sense. Are you trying to say that a 500 calorie deficit is going to result in someone going into starvation mode?
First, starvation mode is a myth.
Second, to suffer metabolic damage you would have to chronically under eat for a long time. Chronically under eat = under 1000 calories a day for extended period.
I went from a bulk to a cut two months ago, and I did not ease into it. I just cut 500 calories and have been losing about a pound a week since then...
I may be misunderstanding you though, so feel free to clarify...
Basically what I interpet from this example is with larger deficit a stall would happen quicker than a smaller deficit which is true. Now how he gets losing more weight overall because of a smaller deficit that makes no sense.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
atypicalsmith wrote: »5'4" and you're concerned about being over 103 lbs.? You need to see a doctor.
Agreed.0 -
In my opinion 103 5"4' is on the skinny side. But aside from that you asked how you could be gaining. When I started tracking I would put in for example chicken; didn't specify if it was baked fried boiled? What part of the chicken chicken breast drumstick thigh. The amount of food (ounces, grams) And the seasonings marinades sauces....all those things can add alarming amounts of cals.0
-
-
This content has been removed.
-
*unsubscribe*
I swear people create threads like this as flame bait...
In fact, the phrases "metabolic slowdown" "metabolic damage" "starvation mode" are guaranteed to start an argument.
*hatches evil plan*
1 -
Everyone saying I didn't count it right: I'm obsessed with calorie counting I literally know the calories of everything. I only drink water, I watch portion sizes and won't eat anything I don't know the calories of. I think it's because of when I lost 15 pounds, 113 to 98, now it's 104, I didn't eat enough. I think it's water weight maybe. But seriously I don't count it wrong.
Are you avoiding the ED question on purpose? I'm not judging you. Trust me, I have been there. But, I do hope that you are working with someone to get better.
0 -
-
Everyone saying I didn't count it right: I'm obsessed with calorie counting I literally know the calories of everything. I only drink water, I watch portion sizes and won't eat anything I don't know the calories of. I think it's because of when I lost 15 pounds, 113 to 98, now it's 104, I didn't eat enough. I think it's water weight maybe. But seriously I don't count it wrong.
Where do you want to be? How much do you want to weigh? And why? Are you some sort of athlete?0 -
arditarose wrote: »You are probably eating more than you think. You are underweight though...perhaps it should not be a huge concern?A 20 year old at 5'4 and 104 pounds should not be so concerned with gaining weight. You are underweight. Please see a medical and or psychological professional. My ED spidey sense is up here.
At 5'4" and 104 pounds her BMI is 17.7, which is not much lower than the normal range which starts at 18.5. I cannot agree with the recommendations to not worry about it or to seek professional help.
If you are working out you may be putting on muscle mass which is more dense than fat and will increase your weight. If this isn't the case, you either aren't tracking everything, eating to much junk, or it may even be that you are not taking in enough calories.
Agreed she probably needs professional help, in the sense to sort out any disordered eating issues.
If you don't know anything about eating disorders, please refrain from giving advice to an underweight young adult, because you are doing more harm than good.
0 -
Everyone saying I didn't count it right: I'm obsessed with calorie counting I literally know the calories of everything. I only drink water, I watch portion sizes and won't eat anything I don't know the calories of. I think it's because of when I lost 15 pounds, 113 to 98, now it's 104, I didn't eat enough. I think it's water weight maybe. But seriously I don't count it wrong.
The scale goes up and down throughout the day and over the course of the month. One of the signs that someone needs professional help is becoming very distressed over those ups and downs. I really encourage you to speak with your doctor or a therapist about this.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I was 103 on Wednesday morning.. I purposely ate 3000 calories for 5 days to gain now reining back into maintenence and hopefully maintain I think I am looking abit healthier.. are you sure you are logging correctly I have mine set at very active to maintain but did actually change it to gain.. I will actually lose weight on 2000 I am shorter than you 5ft 2 and want to look good not skeletal..0
-
Start using weights. You can be 103 and still be "fat" and "flabby". They are called "skinny-fat". Once you start using weights, you will gain muscle. Muscle is better than fat, no matter how much you weigh (with-in reason). :-)-1
-
surfteam1689 wrote: »Start using weights. You can be 103 and still be "fat" and "flabby". They are called "skinny-fat". Once you start using weights, you will gain muscle. Muscle is better than fat, no matter how much you weigh (with-in reason). :-)
Never appropriate to refer to a young adult of BMI 17.1 as possibly fat or flabby.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
How??? How do you do those things and not die with the little amount you're eating? If your metabolism was functioning properly you should probably be closer to 2000 calories at the very least with that kind of activity level - probably even more than that.
Eat Moar! Your sports will improve dramatically, and you'll feel better for it!0 -
This content has been removed.
-
OP - do you use a food scale, yes or no??0
-
I'm not doing the math or using any calculations or formulas but 1300 calories does not seem appropriate for someone with that much activity level and that weight. It may not be healthy in the long run.0
-
nancyjay__ wrote: »I'm not doing the math or using any calculations or formulas but 1300 calories does not seem appropriate for someone with that much activity level and that weight. It may not be healthy in the long run.
It's obviously not appropriate. Her BMR alone is 1314.
0 -
surfteam1689 wrote: »Start using weights. You can be 103 and still be "fat" and "flabby". They are called "skinny-fat". Once you start using weights, you will gain muscle. Muscle is better than fat, no matter how much you weigh (with-in reason). :-)
You need to stop giving advice about things you know nothing about. Granted, I'm all for lifting weights but telling someone with a clear ED that they can still be "fat" and "flabby" at 103 pounds (laughable, BTW at 5'4) is being purposefully obtuse.0 -
You are underweight sweetie... Let yourself gain to at least around 110. You do not want to look skeletal. You will look very healthy and attractive with a little more weight on you. I'm just under 5'3 and have a small frame, and I have a good idea of what 103 would be for someone 5'4. Do not listen to any previous posts that say 103 is ok because it's "close" to the lowest BMI... The lowest BMI is the absolute absolute lowest anyone should be. Being underweight can have many more health problems than being overweight!! If you gain to around 110-125 or so, you will be able to eat more calories, maintain the weight, and you'll look great!!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions