not eating enough?

When mfp calculates your deficit it is without exercise included. It is not recommended to eat under 1200 net so that may mean eating back some excercise cals to get you back to net.
You shouldn't make it usual to eat under your net too often.
I usually go by my weekly calories so some days I go a bit lower but when I do have some big meals during the week I have my exercise cals to fall back on.

I get that some times too, just try to get over 1000 , even if those extra calories to get to 1000 are from a drink or a sweet....

Try eating nuts etc. A handful really adds up and will help you reach your calorie goal. You don't want to consistently be under 1200, under 1000 is really bad in terms of health, and long term success.

Not eating enough calories can actually stunt your weight loss. I see posts all the time that people often don't reach their regular calorie goal and they never eat their extra calories burned through irregular exercise. When you first started, were you exercising at the same level you are now? When you filled out your profile did you correctly choose your activity level? When you don't eat enough and go into a big calorie deficit, the body, in particular the thyroid, will start shutting down weight loss by lowering your metabolism. Your body will stop burning fat and start trying to burn muscle (it will want to save the fats). With the info you've given above, you only ate a bit over 3/4ths of your daily calories and that's not enough, hence the warning. Being that far under every so often isn't a huge deal, but on a daily basis it can really hinder your weight loss. I struggle with this very thing, I think many do.

lsutiger2112 wrote: »

This is the article I had read on not getting enough calories to diet successfully. I know it's been mentioned on shows like the Biggest Loser as well when people aren't losing what they appear they should be based on their workouts and scheduled diets.

http://www.coachcalorie.com/not-eating-enough-calories-to-lose-weight/

I started looking around because I've been dieting for 3 weeks now using MFP and started off great, but the last week and a half the weight loss has just stopped. This coincided with me really adding in more exercise which at the end of the day is creating a greater overall calorie deficit. I've been consistently 300-400 calories below my calorie goal of 1960, but I feel I'm actually eating often, just not high calorie items, chicken, turkey etc.

This just doesn't make sense. If someone has undereaten for most of their life, they simply aren't going to have excess weight to lose. Energy doesn't work that way. It would be wonderful if this was the case, as it would provide a solution to the problem of world hunger.

The author asserts that the majority of problems people having losing weight come from not eating enough. But this doesn't match what we know of how energy works and it doesn't match the experiences of countless people using this website.

When we are gaining weight, it is because we are consuming more than we are burning. When we aren't losing weight, it's because we aren't in a deficit. The author is right that we should aim to eat as much as we can and still lose weight, but his reasoning is incorrect.

A week and a half is too early to begin guessing why your weight loss has "stopped," but one factor to consider is that if you add more exercise, your muscles will often retain water to help you recover. This is perfectly normal for people who are new to exercise or increasing the intensity of their exercise. It doesn't mean that you aren't losing weight because your deficit is too large.

I'm pretty new here. Don't know if this is the right thread but I can't figure out what to eat during the day. I'm eating the same thing over and over. It's getting old. We do different dinners everyday except one. I ten to get that message a lot. Any suggestions? Add me as a friend.

lsutiger2112 wrote: »

I truly don't know what is right or what is wrong about that article. The reason I looked it up was because I remembered that very thing being discussed by the Biggest loser trainers when one of the contestants wasn't losing enough weight based on their output. The article does reflect what they were saying on the show.

I would suggest that, in general, "The Biggest Loser" is a poor source of weight loss information.

In addition to being focused on rapid weight loss (which can cause health issues), former contestants have a very poor rate of long-term success. And the books I've read by trainers on the show (Bob Harper and Gillian Michaels) have contained a lot of myths about weight loss or unnecessary restrictions.