eating more to lose more

Options
gingerbreadbeans
gingerbreadbeans Posts: 19 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
It's a phrase I'm sceptical of but now that I'm 2 weeks from my "used to be" goal-date and am no longer losing (and my weighing etc is accurate) on netting 1000 calories ot less, who has had success with this?

I'm talking that I've been doing 1000 calories or less for 2-3 years not 2-3 weeks and I don't think I should be dropping lower...

Did you gradually build up? Or jump straight up 200 or so to see results?

Did anyone do it and not see results and get them in another way?

Thanks in advance :)
«1

Replies

  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    What are your stats?

    Have you reread calorie counting 101

    Nobody should be netting 1000 calories ...it's too low ...
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    Options
    gingerbreadbeans wrote: »
    It's a phrase I'm sceptical of but now that I'm 2 weeks from my "used to be" goal-date and am no longer losing (and my weighing etc is accurate) on netting 1000 calories ot less, who has had success with this?

    I'm talking that I've been doing 1000 calories or less for 2-3 years not 2-3 weeks and I don't think I should be dropping lower...

    Did you gradually build up? Or jump straight up 200 or so to see results?

    Did anyone do it and not see results and get them in another way?

    Thanks in advance :)

    Do you weigh everything you eat with scales?
  • gingerbreadbeans
    gingerbreadbeans Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    Yeah I reread which is why I'm totally up for eating more haha . I'm just not sure whether to jump right up to 1300 and increase slowly or increase slowly from 1100 upwards

    I do a lot of running / weight lifting and of course there's a lot of stuff out there on the starvation "myth" too, to complicate everything!

    I have 15lbs or so to lose (mostly from an injury lay off of 4 months). BMR is around 1300-1350 and maintenance probably 1500-1600.
  • gingerbreadbeans
    gingerbreadbeans Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    gingerbreadbeans wrote: »
    It's a phrase I'm sceptical of but now that I'm 2 weeks from my "used to be" goal-date and am no longer losing (and my weighing etc is accurate) on netting 1000 calories ot less, who has had success with this?

    I'm talking that I've been doing 1000 calories or less for 2-3 years not 2-3 weeks and I don't think I should be dropping lower...

    Did you gradually build up? Or jump straight up 200 or so to see results?

    Did anyone do it and not see results and get them in another way?

    Thanks in advance :)

    Do you weigh everything you eat with scales?

    Yep, weigh everything and calculate exercise :)
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    gingerbreadbeans wrote: »
    Yeah I reread which is why I'm totally up for eating more haha . I'm just not sure whether to jump right up to 1300 and increase slowly or increase slowly from 1100 upwards

    I do a lot of running / weight lifting and of course there's a lot of stuff out there on the starvation "myth" too, to complicate everything!

    I have 15lbs or so to lose (mostly from an injury lay off of 4 months). BMR is around 1300-1350 and maintenance probably 1500-1600.

    What's your age, height and current weight? That TDEE is very low for an active person (mine is 2300+ for example)

    How are you estimating exercise burns

    Jump up 200 for a few weeks, your weight will increase with water weight then it will stabilise and drop again over time, do not panic and think that is your TDEE ...then jump another few hundred and repeat
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    All I can say is that I admire your willpower! ! I can't stick to 1000 calories for 2-3 days in a row, let a lone 2-3 years :noway:

    I'm curious about why you think you must eat such drastically low calories everyday?? You must be an incredibly short, thin person....
  • gingerbreadbeans
    gingerbreadbeans Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    I used to be a fairly light runner but within healthy BMI so about 119lbs for 5 ft 5. At the moment I'm about 135.

    That maintenance would be without exercise - I prefer to calculate that separately and add exercise calories on - just works with my training

    Sorry for posting multiple times - stupid phone! And thanks for all your replies so far :)
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,564 Member
    Options
    How much are you calculating for exercise? Are you sure you're not overestimating it?
  • gingerbreadbeans
    gingerbreadbeans Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    no i think it's usually pretty accurate - i use a Garmin HRM for my runs, weight lifting etc and there's usually some spare anyway
  • malibu927
    malibu927 Posts: 17,565 Member
    Options
    gingerbreadbeans wrote: »
    no i think it's usually pretty accurate - i use a Garmin HRM for my runs, weight lifting etc and there's usually some spare anyway

    HRMs are extremely inaccurate for lifting. They're only meant for steady-state cardio.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    The idea is to eat more than bare minimum to lose weight.

    You still eat less than you burn, just not as much as you possibly can.

    So instead of eating say 50% what your body would burn, you eat say 20%.
    Your body will thank you by hopefully working with you, not against you.
    You likely have no idea how many improvements you've been missing from your exercise by eating so low.

    Or instead of 1000 cal deficit when this close, get reasonable, unstress your body, and work your way up to a 250 cal deficit.

    Eat 100 extra daily for a week at a time.

    You will gain water weight - your glucose stores in the muscles are probably at such a small level compared to what the body wants, you'll add those on first.
    Same water weight you'd gain going to maintenance eating. Plus increased LBM, and increased metabolism, so all positives.

    Ditto to manually logging Strength Training in MFP, it's going to be smaller than inflated HRM calorie burn, but it's true too.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    If you are not adequately fuelling your training then your training is not effective

    I think you have the right idea to increase your calories ...but you must not falter at a slight weight gain when and as you do, because that is to be expected as your glycogen restores and brings the associated water weight

    You should easily be losing weight at 1600 calories so have that as a target and work up to it by adding 100-200 calories per day for a couple of weeks until your weight stabilises then doing it again

    You will end up with far more effective training

    And your HRM does not estimate calorie burn for anything other than steady state cardio ...anything else you should take less then 50% of the figures for

    Are you sure you're sedentary ..it only takes about 5000 steps to reach lightly active / active ..I work a desk job but an hour or so targeteted walking at lunchtime and after work pulls my steps up to active (10K +) and increases my TDEE from sedentary by about 400 calories
  • gingerbreadbeans
    gingerbreadbeans Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    heybales wrote: »
    The idea is to eat more than bare minimum to lose weight.

    You still eat less than you burn, just not as much as you possibly can.

    So instead of eating say 50% what your body would burn, you eat say 20%.
    Your body will thank you by hopefully working with you, not against you.
    You likely have no idea how many improvements you've been missing from your exercise by eating so low.

    Or instead of 1000 cal deficit when this close, get reasonable, unstress your body, and work your way up to a 250 cal deficit.

    Eat 100 extra daily for a week at a time.

    You will gain water weight - your glucose stores in the muscles are probably at such a small level compared to what the body wants, you'll add those on first.
    Same water weight you'd gain going to maintenance eating. Plus increased LBM, and increased metabolism, so all positives.

    Ditto to manually logging Strength Training in MFP, it's going to be smaller than inflated HRM calorie burn, but it's true too.

    Thanks for this!!

    My HRM for weights are usually pretty low unless I add in cardio-resistance like weighted step ups, skipping etc so I don't think it is inaccurate...i've lost before using it this way and it works for sprints etc too. I'm usually conservative with the burn, not going by the numbers exactly
  • gingerbreadbeans
    gingerbreadbeans Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    If you are not adequately fuelling your training then your training is not effective

    I think you have the right idea to increase your calories ...but you must not falter at a slight weight gain when and as you do, because that is to be expected as your glycogen restores and brings the associated water weight

    You should easily be losing weight at 1600 calories so have that as a target and work up to it by adding 100-200 calories per day for a couple of weeks until your weight stabilises then doing it again

    You will end up with far more effective training

    And your HRM does not estimate calorie burn for anything other than steady state cardio ...anything else you should take less then 50% of the figures for

    Are you sure you're sedentary ..it only takes about 5000 steps to reach lightly active / active ..I work a desk job but an hour or so targeteted walking at lunchtime and after work pulls my steps up to active (10K +) and increases my TDEE from sedentary by about 400 calories

    Thanks for the advice, makes sense and I'll give it a go!!
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,268 Member
    Options
    I think opening your diary would be a great benefit.

    To be eating 1000 calories for 2-3 and not losing seems a bit off...unless there is a medical condition.

    I expect you are mislogging somewhere...
  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,151 Member
    Options
    Can you open your diary?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    edited May 2015
    Options
    gingerbreadbeans wrote: »
    heybales wrote: »
    The idea is to eat more than bare minimum to lose weight.

    You still eat less than you burn, just not as much as you possibly can.

    So instead of eating say 50% what your body would burn, you eat say 20%.
    Your body will thank you by hopefully working with you, not against you.
    You likely have no idea how many improvements you've been missing from your exercise by eating so low.

    Or instead of 1000 cal deficit when this close, get reasonable, unstress your body, and work your way up to a 250 cal deficit.

    Eat 100 extra daily for a week at a time.

    You will gain water weight - your glucose stores in the muscles are probably at such a small level compared to what the body wants, you'll add those on first.
    Same water weight you'd gain going to maintenance eating. Plus increased LBM, and increased metabolism, so all positives.

    Ditto to manually logging Strength Training in MFP, it's going to be smaller than inflated HRM calorie burn, but it's true too.

    Thanks for this!!

    My HRM for weights are usually pretty low unless I add in cardio-resistance like weighted step ups, skipping etc so I don't think it is inaccurate...i've lost before using it this way and it works for sprints etc too. I'm usually conservative with the burn, not going by the numbers exactly

    If you are using one of the Garmin Forerunners 910XT & 310XT & 610 & 410 & 210 & 110, 405CX, Edges 800 & 500, then indeed it'll be better for lifting weights than other HRM's.

    Those use Firstbeat algorithms which notice your breathing rate and decide if this is indeed aerobic high HR, or anaerobic high HR. So indeed better.

    Only kicker is, confirm you answered the question in Profile setup regarding being lifetime athlete. You may not think you are, and that was bad terminology pulled right from the study they used for that option, but you are.
  • 999tigger
    999tigger Posts: 5,235 Member
    Options
    Eating 1000 calories which is way too low, but then you drop in it doesnt include exercise calories, which make a difference.

    Open your diary and id still start on the basis you are eating more than you think. You should be eating more on a nutrution basis and still losing, but theres insufficient and confusing information.
  • gingerbreadbeans
    gingerbreadbeans Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    heybales wrote: »
    gingerbreadbeans wrote: »
    heybales wrote: »
    The idea is to eat more than bare minimum to lose weight.

    You still eat less than you burn, just not as much as you possibly can.

    So instead of eating say 50% what your body would burn, you eat say 20%.
    Your body will thank you by hopefully working with you, not against you.
    You likely have no idea how many improvements you've been missing from your exercise by eating so low.

    Or instead of 1000 cal deficit when this close, get reasonable, unstress your body, and work your way up to a 250 cal deficit.

    Eat 100 extra daily for a week at a time.

    You will gain water weight - your glucose stores in the muscles are probably at such a small level compared to what the body wants, you'll add those on first.
    Same water weight you'd gain going to maintenance eating. Plus increased LBM, and increased metabolism, so all positives.

    Ditto to manually logging Strength Training in MFP, it's going to be smaller than inflated HRM calorie burn, but it's true too.

    Thanks for this!!

    My HRM for weights are usually pretty low unless I add in cardio-resistance like weighted step ups, skipping etc so I don't think it is inaccurate...i've lost before using it this way and it works for sprints etc too. I'm usually conservative with the burn, not going by the numbers exactly

    If you are using one of the Garmin Forerunners 910XT & 310XT & 610 & 410 & 210 & 110, 405CX, Edges 800 & 500, then indeed it'll be better for lifting weights than other HRM's.

    Those use Firstbeat algorithms which notice your breathing rate and decide if this is indeed aerobic high HR, or anaerobic high HR. So indeed better.

    Only kicker is, confirm you answered the question in Profile setup regarding being lifetime athlete. You may not think you are, and that was bad terminology pulled right from the study they used for that option, but you are.

    Ah interesting - yeah I have a forerunner 610 and it's always been pretty reliable but obviously there's always some discrepancies in these sort of calculations! Thanks for the info though :)
  • gingerbreadbeans
    gingerbreadbeans Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    999tigger wrote: »
    Eating 1000 calories which is way too low, but then you drop in it doesnt include exercise calories, which make a difference.

    Open your diary and id still start on the basis you are eating more than you think. You should be eating more on a nutrution basis and still losing, but theres insufficient and confusing information.

    I'm netting 1000, not eating 1000. I could eat 1800 depending on how much I exercise but my training might add up to,900 cals so I'd only net 900 overall.

    I might be eating more but there's always room for that in my weekly average. I'm pretty strict with my diet and input everything, all weighed. I know it could happen though but over time this long, I'm willing to try something else

Categories