Switching from Low Calorie to IIFYM

To clarify though, my BMR may be 1350, but my TDEE is 2144 including my workouts. So 1930 would give me 200 calorie deficit a day and while this is a smaller calorie deficit than when I was eating 1400 calories, I'm also hoping to start toning as opposed to just weight loss.

From what I have read, is it possible that my issue is I am not eating enough at 1400 so increasing to what the IIFYM system suggests would solve that, help me build muscle, and have a small calorie deficit?

When I have spoken to nutritionists in the past when I was eating 1200 calories a day and in the gym for 2+ hours, they said was that I was essentially starving myself and so my body was hoarding the food I was eating when I had my cheat meals or ate over 1200 every once in a while. I wasn't losing weight because I was starving myself.

cityruss wrote: »

The main IIFYM site, which i assume you used, site just spews out one size fits all numbers just like every other 'calculator'.

- Pick a reasonoble calorie goal.
- Pick macronutrients to suit.
- Fill your calories and macronutrient goals however you see fit.

Adjust these goals according to real world data and results.

Actually, I did do my research for IIFYM on bb.com. While I did use the IIFYM TDEE formula initially, I decided to go elsewhere when I saw how high they put my TDEE at. I actually did research on TDEE formulas and how different sites/calculations/formulas work and what they actually mean. As a result, I compiled my own observations and plugged them into multiple sites and selected the one that made most sense based on my weight loss journey so far. So while I thank you for your vote of confidence, I actually did my research on that portion to get my BMR (bodpod) and TDEE.

I think my misconception came from what, as you all pointed out, that "nutritionist" told me and the possibility that with IIFYM I could eat that much and still lose weight. It all makes sense now though, and I appreciate the help and re-direction. I will calculate my macros with my 1400 calorie goal and go from there. I am still not comfortable lowering my calories anymore than they are lowered. I may end up just ignoring macros in the end again anyways, just wanted some perspectives on different options. Thanks all!

ummijaaz560 wrote: »

Your problems would be solved if you would eat back some of your exercise calories.

You get more food and more fuel for your body.
You say you dont want to eat below your bmr?

Depending on how many exercise calories you burn you could essentially be eating below your Bmr by your net deficit created.

The human body is amazing, look up Adaptive Thermogenesis.

Good luck.

That makes sense. I eat 1400 calories flat even on the days that I exercise. I do not eat back my exercise calories. You're saying that increasing my intake on the days I exercise may help weight loss in the end? That was what I was kinda getting at in my original post, that I wasn't fueling my body correctly and that was making it harder to lose the weight. Is that right? I think you would be correct in saying that I technically am eating below my BMR if I exercise and eat only 1400 calories if my BMR is 1350. Any suggestions on how to improve that?

I will look up adaptive thermogenesis. Thanks!

@VintageFeline

This ( and basically the whole article it was in: linked below) is what I was referring to when I was speaking of starvation mode in my earlier posts:

"So, like many, I thought with my online tracking system thru MyFitnessPal.com, that I should listen to it's "recommendations" (and many docs say this too), to restrict not only portion size but amount of calorie intake to 1200 a day. The problem is that many of us require 1500 or more a day to simply live, to keep our heart beating, to make the brain work - at minimum we need 1500 or more given to us if we were lying in a coma in the hospital.

Given that fact, what we are told with 1200 cal / day is simply false and very detrimental to our body. Some call it "starvation mode" but a more accurate description would be "nutrient deficient." The body looks at that 1200 calories and says, ok, I need (in my case to get specific) 1529 a day to keep you living and breathing and you are giving me 1200, a 300 deficit.

So, in order to keep you living and breathing, again, body NOT caring about weight loss, the body will slow or stop some other systems (metabolism being the 1st it stops) and hang on to those 1200 calories b/c all it knows is that you are under-feeding it and so it must "hoard" that 1200, store it as fat and keep you alive. You essentially are stopping the metabolic process to a halt when you under eat.

So, now that has me eating 20% under 2116 to lose (1693) but ABOVE my BMR so that my body learns I am not starving it, that it should not "hoard" the calories and keep the fat and eventually the body will release the fat.

Many people looking to lose weight fall into this trap where they have eaten so little for so long that the body has to re-learn and reset the metabolism - in fact, some believe a true "reset" would be to eat at the TDEE # (2116) for 6 weeks or so and only THEN drop off a %.

Either way, knowing this exact # will surely get you to where you want to be - it's just that your body trying to survive may take a few weeks to understand you are not going to deprive it any more and it CAN let go of the fat as it understands it will always be fed and nourished to the point it is not panicked and storing it all.............make sense?

I may have 4 weeks yet for my body to truly learn and let go of the fat and to burn all the time. It is hard b/c you want it NOW but gaining weight took a while and so will losing it. In fact, some have a slight gain while the metabolism is resetting so be warned, do not panic, it means the body is changing the way you need it to change to burn fat."

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/931670/bmr-and-tdee-explained-for-those-needing-a-guide/p1

What do you think?