Did upping your calorie allowance help you lose weight faster?
Options
Replies
-
Maybe not faster, but definately more sustainable. I'm losing size still, the scale moves slow (which is fine with me), i also add exercise and now recently added 4x/wk lifting 1.5 hours/sessions. It's still calories in/calories out, for me that is.
that.
im losing at the same rate eating between 1500 and 1800 (sometimes eating back exercise calories, sometimes not, just depending on how i FEEL), then i was at 1200 and eating back ALL my exercise calories (cause i was a hungry raving *kitten*) LOL0 -
jessmillross wrote: »Having been on the minimum allowance of 1200 for a few months I have not lost as much weight as I thought I would and this has slowed even more recently.
Peeked at the last five days. Only two of them were around 1200, and one was at 1900 and another at 2600. This is not really what's generally meant by "1200 cal/day".
Haven't looked at the entries yet...
0 -
jessmillross wrote: »Having been on the minimum allowance of 1200 for a few months I have not lost as much weight as I thought I would and this has slowed even more recently.
Peeked at the last five days. Only two of them were around 1200, and one was at 1900 and another at 2600. This is not really what's generally meant by "1200 cal/day".
Haven't looked at the entries yet...
those pesky details.....
LOLOLOL 0 -
jessmillross wrote: »Having been on the minimum allowance of 1200 for a few months I have not lost as much weight as I thought I would and this has slowed even more recently.
Peeked at the last five days. Only two of them were around 1200, and one was at 1900 and another at 2600. This is not really what's generally meant by "1200 cal/day".
Haven't looked at the entries yet...
Yeah this week is kind of embarrassing XD
But I have more good days than bad ones I think is my problem. Ok perhaps I shouldn't be expecting the 2lbs a week but I keep hitting a wall where I'll make a loss and then I'll gain it again the next day and it sticks there.
Then I get annoyed and think if it's not gonna work then I'll just eat what I want and stop bothering.
Then I remind myself that being like that is what got me here in the first place And to stick with it.0 -
Um. No. But it helped me clear my mind, lift more weight, and be less hangry. Naturally, adding calories made me lose weight more slowly. Science.0
-
arditarose wrote: »Um. No. But it helped me clear my mind, lift more weight, and be less hangry. Naturally, adding calories made me lose weight more slowly. Science.
Perhaps "faster" was the wrong word to use. "More effectively" would have been better.0 -
jessmillross wrote: »jessmillross wrote: »Having been on the minimum allowance of 1200 for a few months I have not lost as much weight as I thought I would and this has slowed even more recently.
Peeked at the last five days. Only two of them were around 1200, and one was at 1900 and another at 2600. This is not really what's generally meant by "1200 cal/day".
Haven't looked at the entries yet...
Yeah this week is kind of embarrassing XD
But I have more good days than bad ones I think is my problem. Ok perhaps I shouldn't be expecting the 2lbs a week but I keep hitting a wall where I'll make a loss and then I'll gain it again the next day and it sticks there.
Then I get annoyed and think if it's not gonna work then I'll just eat what I want and stop bothering.
Then I remind myself that being like that is what got me here in the first place And to stick with it.
If it's messing with your head it might be better to switch to 1 lb/week and see if you can be really consistent. I started at 1250, but eventually found I did better at 1400, as I was feeling deprived on days on which I had no exercise calories.
I'd also look at your goals page, as even at 1200 you probably aren't predicted to lose 2 lbs/week, given your current weight, and that might be why you are ending up feeling disappointed with your results.0 -
jessmillross wrote: »arditarose wrote: »Um. No. But it helped me clear my mind, lift more weight, and be less hangry. Naturally, adding calories made me lose weight more slowly. Science.
Perhaps "faster" was the wrong word to use. "More effectively" would have been better.
Ah. Not for me, because I can be a crap logger. I like to take extra licks. And when the deficit is small, there is not much room for error.-1 -
jessmillross wrote: »arditarose wrote: »Um. No. But it helped me clear my mind, lift more weight, and be less hangry. Naturally, adding calories made me lose weight more slowly. Science.
Perhaps "faster" was the wrong word to use. "More effectively" would have been better.
It really depends. If you keep going out and going over once or twice a week, you're better off keeping a bigger deficit, honestly. It's all about averages. My guess is that your average is closer to 1400 than 1200 already... so if you increase your calories but still keep having higher calorie days, it's not going to help you at all.0 -
It was more effective for me to keep a bigger deficit and be done with it, rather than drag it out.jessmillross wrote: »arditarose wrote: »Um. No. But it helped me clear my mind, lift more weight, and be less hangry. Naturally, adding calories made me lose weight more slowly. Science.
Perhaps "faster" was the wrong word to use. "More effectively" would have been better.
Not every hare takes a nap and lets the tortoise win.
0 -
jessmillross wrote: »arditarose wrote: »Um. No. But it helped me clear my mind, lift more weight, and be less hangry. Naturally, adding calories made me lose weight more slowly. Science.
Perhaps "faster" was the wrong word to use. "More effectively" would have been better.
It really depends. If you keep going out and going over once or twice a week, you're better off keeping a bigger deficit, honestly. It's all about averages. My guess is that your average is closer to 1400 than 1200 already... so if you increase your calories but still keep having higher calorie days, it's not going to help you at all.
This. I increased my calories but had high days, and lost soooo slowly. Now I dropped down to 1400 for a few days a week to even out my weekly deficit. I'm trying to get into maintenance now and I eat so many calories on Saturday I still have to do this.0 -
callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »Maybe not faster, but definately more sustainable. I'm losing size still, the scale moves slow (which is fine with me), i also add exercise and now recently added 4x/wk lifting 1.5 hours/sessions. It's still calories in/calories out, for me that is.
that.
im losing at the same rate eating between 1500 and 1800 (sometimes eating back exercise calories, sometimes not, just depending on how i FEEL), then i was at 1200 and eating back ALL my exercise calories (cause i was a hungry raving *kitten*) LOL
0 -
I do better when I up my calories because I'm a hangry witch on 1,200 calories and much more likely to have a 3,000 calorie weekend day when I'm restricting that much, thus knocking out all of the work I did while miserable all week. I ate half a pizza today and a giant piece of lasagna and I'm just a little over my calories. Having the freedom to do that makes this process more sustainable to me.0
-
My calorie allowance had dropped from 1250 to 1200 because of the amount of weight I lost. I was losing really quickly ... much faster than expected (I set my goal at 0.5 kg/week but was losing 1.3 kg/week). But I was having a bit of trouble keeping the calories under 1200. So, I manually upped it back to 1250. I'm losing weight a little bit slower now, but those extra 50 cal are a little more manageable for me.0
-
jessmillross wrote: »Then I get annoyed and think if it's not gonna work then I'll just eat what I want and stop bothering.
There is a nice term called "compliance". A slower weight loss increases the likelihood of compliance.
If you get off track often you might be better off to stay on track at a smaller deficit.
0 -
you have evidence that if a person is not complying with a relatively aggressive goal you will ensure better compliance by making the goal more aggressive?
Or are you referring to the people who succeed in an aggressive goal being more likely to persevere (which I would agree with you on).0 -
you have evidence that if a person is not complying with a relatively aggressive goal you will ensure better compliance by making the goal more aggressive?
Or are you referring to the people who succeed in an aggressive goal being more likely to persevere (which I would agree with you on).
Nobody is more likely to persevere - not the tortoises, not the hares, not the eliminators, not the moderationists. Study after study has shown that people fail at weight loss (and weight maintenance) at the same rate, regardless of approach.
About the only consistency is that people who are physically active (90 minutes brisk daily walking, or equiv.) tend to have lower body fat %age.
0 -
you have evidence that if a person is not complying with a relatively aggressive goal you will ensure better compliance by making the goal more aggressive?
Or are you referring to the people who succeed in an aggressive goal being more likely to persevere (which I would agree with you on).
Nobody is more likely to persevere - not the tortoises, not the hares, not the eliminators, not the moderationists. Study after study has shown that people fail at weight loss (and weight maintenance) at the same rate, regardless of approach.
About the only consistency is that people who are physically active tend to have lower body fat %age.
All righty then! Great news. OP. You're destined to fail. Woohoo!
(So really since we know that, what is it 90? More than that? Will fail to achieve and maintain weight loss long term.... why are we bothering? or posting?)
And let us all now all wonder for the purpose of another pointless discussion: do they have less body fat % because they are active or are they active because they have a lower body fat %?
Oh the joy of forums.0 -
you have evidence that if a person is not complying with a relatively aggressive goal you will ensure better compliance by making the goal more aggressive?
Or are you referring to the people who succeed in an aggressive goal being more likely to persevere (which I would agree with you on).
Nobody is more likely to persevere - not the tortoises, not the hares, not the eliminators, not the moderationists. Study after study has shown that people fail at weight loss (and weight maintenance) at the same rate, regardless of approach.
About the only consistency is that people who are physically active tend to have lower body fat %age.
All righty then! Great news. OP. You're destined to fail. Woohoo!
(So really since we know that, what is it 90? More than that? Will fail to achieve and maintain weight loss long term.... why are we bothering? or posting?)
"We" already know this, yet you claimed the opposite just two posts ago.
Joy of forums, indeed....And let us all now all wonder for the purpose of another pointless discussion: do they have less body fat % because they are active or are they active because they have a lower body fat %?
The former - because they are active.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions