Increasing calories helped--thanks!
Options
Replies
-
lightenup2016 wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »lightenup2016 wrote: »As she said, if she was "eating more than she thought" at what she says was 1100 calories, wouldn't she still be eating even more at what she says is 1600?
Not necessarily. We don't know, for example that she's eating exactly the same foods. Maybe, at the lower calorie count, she used a "diet" bread that reported a lot less calories on the label than were actually in a slice. Stuff like that. And a higher goal makes many people less likely to subconsciously "cheat the count" by licking spoons, not log cooking spray, etc.
That said, I am very happy that the OP made this change and that she's seeing the results she was working hard for. Personally, I cannot imagine living on 1100 (or even 1200) calories/day. I am always amazed when people say they can live on so little.
I'm sorry, I don't see how some variance in bread slices (or just about any other food), could account for 1000 calories per day. If she's now losing a lb a week eating what she says is 500 calories more, but everyone claims she must have been eating more than she thought, wouldn't she have to have previously been 1000 calories off per day (eating 2100 calories instead of 1100)? I just got a food scale a week ago, and if anything I had previously been overestimating my calories, not underestimating. And seriously, a few grams off here and there? I've seen maybe about a 30 calorie difference over a range of items, nowhere near 1000. Besides, she feels better and has more energy--I think she MIGHT just be able to tell that she's actually eating more than before.
I generally hold to the CICO rule, but I think it's highly likely that other factors come into play with weight loss. Why can't people open their minds and listen to others' experiences? Learn from them, don't dismiss them.
More energy probably has the op burning more. Eating 500 calories more isn't going to magically cause you to lose weight if nothing else changes. It's mathematically impossible unless the weight is water, etc. I am still guess it's water as fluid retention is a pita.
Oh and I do have lots of experience with chronic undereating. I ate 500 a day for several months and exercised. Yes my metabolism slowed but I still lost over 2 lbs a week.4 -
lightenup2016 wrote: »I've seen maybe about a 30 calorie difference over a range of items, nowhere near 1000. Besides, she feels better and has more energy--I think she MIGHT just be able to tell that she's actually eating more than before.
Whereas, only weeks ago, a scale showed me that a bag was lying about the calories in its bread by 75 calories/slice (or 150 cals/"serving").
I currently feel better and have more energy than I did six months ago. I'm definitely eating less. But I'm eating *better*. I was only offering the general possibility that switching from a really restrictive diet (which might include a lot of "diet" foods) to a less restrictive diet (which, among other things, might include more healthy fats) could do that. I also think that some of the extra "deficit" has come from feeling better and increasing NEAT.
I am not saying that this specifically applies to the OP, but it could apply to other people in the same situation - which was why I thought it worth mentioning.2 -
I'm familiar with how science works, my PhD is in Molecular Biology. The OP never said nothing else changed, nor did I imply that. The fact is that she is eating more and now losing weight, and she was simply thanking people for their suggestion to increase calories. Why does it matter WHY the increase helped? It could be loss of water weight, it could be increase in energy, it could be a boost in metabolism, or more likely all of these. But when I hear these stories, and read the responses in which people state that "it just doesn't work that way", and "you were eating more than you thought" (but magically now at 1600 calories her logging is spot on?!?) the implication is that the OP is ridiculously ignorant and completely unable to manage or understand any of the numbers, theories, or logistics of weight loss. And I don't think that gives these forums a very supportive feel.
12 -
lightenup2016 wrote: »I'm familiar with how science works, my PhD is in Molecular Biology. The OP never said nothing else changed, nor did I imply that. The fact is that she is eating more and now losing weight, and she was simply thanking people for their suggestion to increase calories. Why does it matter WHY the increase helped? It could be loss of water weight, it could be increase in energy, it could be a boost in metabolism, or more likely all of these. But when I hear these stories, and read the responses in which people state that "it just doesn't work that way", and "you were eating more than you thought" (but magically now at 1600 calories her logging is spot on?!?) the implication is that the OP is ridiculously ignorant and completely unable to manage or understand any of the numbers, theories, or logistics of weight loss. And I don't think that gives these forums a very supportive feel.
Could it be that you are missing the point? People are saying that your weight loss doesn't stall at 1100 calories, then start up again when you up your calories by 400/500 calories. The OP indicated that it was the increase in calories that caused the weight loss, which is scientifically impossible.6 -
lightenup2016 wrote: »I'm familiar with how science works, my PhD is in Molecular Biology. The OP never said nothing else changed, nor did I imply that. The fact is that she is eating more and now losing weight, and she was simply thanking people for their suggestion to increase calories. Why does it matter WHY the increase helped? It could be loss of water weight, it could be increase in energy, it could be a boost in metabolism, or more likely all of these. But when I hear these stories, and read the responses in which people state that "it just doesn't work that way", and "you were eating more than you thought" (but magically now at 1600 calories her logging is spot on?!?) the implication is that the OP is ridiculously ignorant and completely unable to manage or understand any of the numbers, theories, or logistics of weight loss. And I don't think that gives these forums a very supportive feel.lightenup2016 wrote: »I'm familiar with how science works, my PhD is in Molecular Biology. The OP never said nothing else changed, nor did I imply that. The fact is that she is eating more and now losing weight, and she was simply thanking people for their suggestion to increase calories. Why does it matter WHY the increase helped? It could be loss of water weight, it could be increase in energy, it could be a boost in metabolism, or more likely all of these. But when I hear these stories, and read the responses in which people state that "it just doesn't work that way", and "you were eating more than you thought" (but magically now at 1600 calories her logging is spot on?!?) the implication is that the OP is ridiculously ignorant and completely unable to manage or understand any of the numbers, theories, or logistics of weight loss. And I don't think that gives these forums a very supportive feel.
Could it be that you are missing the point? People are saying that your weight loss doesn't stall at 1100 calories, then start up again when you up your calories by 400/500 calories. The OP indicated that it was the increase in calories that caused the weight loss, which is scientifically impossible.
An increase in calories CAN cause weight loss, by any of the reasons stated above (water loss, increased NEAT, etc). Have you read about the Minnesota Starvation Experiment? Once the half-starved men had their calories increased again (under a controlled environment), many continued to lose weight. During the starvation period, any time they had a "refeed" they also lost weight. Likely water weight, but weight nonetheless. So when someone says they've lost weight from increasing calories, I don't care if it's water loss or weight loss due to increased calories out (NEAT), they've still lost weight.7 -
lightenup2016 wrote: »lightenup2016 wrote: »I'm familiar with how science works, my PhD is in Molecular Biology. The OP never said nothing else changed, nor did I imply that. The fact is that she is eating more and now losing weight, and she was simply thanking people for their suggestion to increase calories. Why does it matter WHY the increase helped? It could be loss of water weight, it could be increase in energy, it could be a boost in metabolism, or more likely all of these. But when I hear these stories, and read the responses in which people state that "it just doesn't work that way", and "you were eating more than you thought" (but magically now at 1600 calories her logging is spot on?!?) the implication is that the OP is ridiculously ignorant and completely unable to manage or understand any of the numbers, theories, or logistics of weight loss. And I don't think that gives these forums a very supportive feel.lightenup2016 wrote: »I'm familiar with how science works, my PhD is in Molecular Biology. The OP never said nothing else changed, nor did I imply that. The fact is that she is eating more and now losing weight, and she was simply thanking people for their suggestion to increase calories. Why does it matter WHY the increase helped? It could be loss of water weight, it could be increase in energy, it could be a boost in metabolism, or more likely all of these. But when I hear these stories, and read the responses in which people state that "it just doesn't work that way", and "you were eating more than you thought" (but magically now at 1600 calories her logging is spot on?!?) the implication is that the OP is ridiculously ignorant and completely unable to manage or understand any of the numbers, theories, or logistics of weight loss. And I don't think that gives these forums a very supportive feel.
Could it be that you are missing the point? People are saying that your weight loss doesn't stall at 1100 calories, then start up again when you up your calories by 400/500 calories. The OP indicated that it was the increase in calories that caused the weight loss, which is scientifically impossible.
An increase in calories CAN cause weight loss, by any of the reasons stated above (water loss, increased NEAT, etc). Have you read about the Minnesota Starvation Experiment? Once the half-starved men had their calories increased again (under a controlled environment), many continued to lose weight. During the starvation period, any time they had a "refeed" they also lost weight. Likely water weight, but weight nonetheless. So when someone says they've lost weight from increasing calories, I don't care if it's water loss or weight loss due to increased calories out (NEAT), they've still lost weight.
Those men were emaciated and had lost excess body fat and muscle by the time their calories were increased. And, they were literally starving. That hardly compares to a 200 pound woman, or even the ordinary dieter. Someone who is of normal weight or more will not be literally starving, as those in the starvation experiment.8 -
They were semi-starved, eating 1500 calories a day and doing exercise, which could correspond to a female eating 1100 calories and exercising. Regardless, I imagine a very thin woman eating 1100 calories coming on here and saying she lost weight when she upped her calories, would still be greeted with messages stating that she had been "eating more than she thought" before that, because "it just doesn't work that way." But in fact, it can happen that way. Yes I do agree that CICO is generally how it works, but there are other factors that can be affected by an increase in calories, and this can indirectly cause weight loss.
We could go back and forth for a while here. Maybe we just agree to disagree? I'd put a smiley emoji but that always cuts my message short!7 -
A couple of months ago I started on the journey to become healthier by tracking calories and increasing exercise. The first 2 weeks I lost 10lbs then nothing. I apparently hit a wall but held out hope I was doing the right things. My caloric intake was around 1100 calories each day, which apparently was my norm because I didn't really change much...just tracked. My macros looked good and I continued to eat whole foods.
After feeling depressed and frustrated, I noticed I was incredibly forgetful and having a difficult time concentrating. So I turned to this forum to see if anyone else experienced this. And that's when I discovered I wasn't eating enough and apparently haven't been for years despite weighing over 200lbs.
So I took the trusting plunge and increased my calories to 1600 per day...mostly. I gotta be honest, most days I choked down as much as I could and still only reached 1500 calories.
But it worked! I have lost 8lbs since then and feel happier, less forgetful, and have an easier time concentrating. My energy has also picked up a bit.
So thank you to all the wise souls who shared their wisdom about metabolism and who shared deeper insights than the standard "calories in/calories out" advice so common on some forums. Looking at me no one would ever guess it possible that I was a chronic under-eater so I am incredibly grateful for those of you who have shared such helpful information! THANK YOU!!
Congratulations at finding your sweet spot where you can achieve a good CI<CO balance, it's hardest to hit at supremely low calories as your CO is affected and your nutritional balance
I haven't read thread
I'm pretty sure it's become a you can't increase calories to lose more conversation...true in isolation, but accurate logging of calories in and fuelling for greater activity can adjust the difference between CI and CO ...and time is always a great "perception of plateau" dismisser
Anyway this is a positive result ..I tried to find your previous thread but like many it's been deleted, which is a shame7 -
Wow... I am so incredibly happy that I didn't read many of these comments back when I was under eating and needing more nutrients to fuel my workouts lol! I understand that weight loss is a topic that often resembles ideology so I get it...we know what we know and 'believe' what we know is generalizable to everyone. I mostly was hoping that some of the well informed folks who provided rich depth in their understanding of metabolism would know that it was their wisdom, judgement-free, thoughtful information that helped steer me away from the very unhealthy track I was on in being under nourished. Their insights helped tremendously because for the first time I didn't feel pressured into cutting even more calories. A pressure that is too deeply ingrained in our culture, especially the weight loss culture.
So I guess all I would hope to convey to anyone reading this thread is that metabolism is not static and involves more complex elements than cutting calories to dangerously low levels. If you have spent 5 weeks like I did eating 1000-1100 calories per day, exercising 6 days a week for a minimum of 45 minutes and maximum of 90 minutes, and if you are still not losing weight, are feeling unable to concentrate well and leaning towards new symptoms of depression, please reexamine how you are approaching your journey and consider increasing your calories. You deserve to be healthy AS you go, not just after you reach that magic number on the scale that tells you that you have made it!
And finally, I never said I ended up 200 lbs from under eating. What I said was that I have been under eating for years, which is true, after I gained the weight. I suffered many, many, many health problems after pregnancy that resulted in multiple surgeries and long term immobility. I have been (mostly) better for the past 3 years but haven't led an active lifestyle until this year after my last health issue was resolved (finally!). So probably I stayed at 215 lbs while chronically under eating because I wasn't getting any exercise (as in very, very little walking around the house). So please understand, implying that I was dishonest with myself about my caloric intake may resolve ones own beliefs about weight loss, but it isn't grounded in the reality of my experience, is saturated in false assumptions, and perpetuates ideas that influence people like myself to eat too little, which is not healthy. If I were dishonest with myself (as a few have implied) then whatever mistakes or 'cheating' that I would presumably be perpetuating would have carried over to the new 1600 calorie daily intake, which apparently it's not. I also reduced my workouts to 3 days per week instead of 5-6, but did add HIIT which I am sure has also helped. But one shouldn't do HIIT without sufficient nutrients to repair anyways in my view. So while calories in/calories out may be the general "rule" of science, there are always additional factors to be considered and no one in their right mind should be promoting consumption of less than 1200 calories per day. It's just not safe for prolonged periods of time, especially if one is also including work outs into the mix. I don't need to lose all my weight in 2 months. I need to find health as I go, which should help me to eventually reach a healthier weight. Yes, I care about what I weigh, but I care about my physical and emotional health more... I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
My apology for any tone of disappointment you may be hearing from me here. My original post was to share my joy and gratitude for those who helped me view nutrition in a healthier manner, views that have helped me both physically and psychologically. I never post. Ever. Not until yesterday. And probably I won't again. I am incredibly anxious to post this so probably won't check back to read any responses that may result. I appreciate the bravery of those who posted questions that resulted in feedback that helped me so much (clearly I don't have such bravery yet...one day maybe). And I also appreciate everyone's good will in commenting here (I believe everyone had good motives), but I am disappointed in some of the judgments. Not angry, just disappointed.
And I am hopeful that someone reading this will seek out more information about how to lose weight in a healthier way. If you are hitting a wall and no one seems to believe your self assessed daily caloric intake or activity level, keep looking for answers until you find some that help you achieve health. Better to go slow and get it right than to under nourish your body, which needs nutrients to get you to where you want to ultimately be. And let's be honest...a 200lb person typically expends more than 2000 calories per day so 1600 is nothing to laugh at and will still help one lose weight.
Love to you all and best wishes for the journey you are traveling, in all the glorious and diverse ways you are experiencing your journeys!
TLDR, no person maintains 200 lbs on 1100 calories a day for 5 weeks regardless of their activity level (not counting temporary water retention due to increased cortisol), period. What you are proposing is akin to claiming it's possible to fly to the moon with nothing more than a gallon of petrol for fuel, it's physically impossible. You were not eating 1100 calories a day, you are not a special snowflake who defies the laws of thermodynamics.6 -
lightenup2016 wrote: »lightenup2016 wrote: »I'm familiar with how science works, my PhD is in Molecular Biology. The OP never said nothing else changed, nor did I imply that. The fact is that she is eating more and now losing weight, and she was simply thanking people for their suggestion to increase calories. Why does it matter WHY the increase helped? It could be loss of water weight, it could be increase in energy, it could be a boost in metabolism, or more likely all of these. But when I hear these stories, and read the responses in which people state that "it just doesn't work that way", and "you were eating more than you thought" (but magically now at 1600 calories her logging is spot on?!?) the implication is that the OP is ridiculously ignorant and completely unable to manage or understand any of the numbers, theories, or logistics of weight loss. And I don't think that gives these forums a very supportive feel.lightenup2016 wrote: »I'm familiar with how science works, my PhD is in Molecular Biology. The OP never said nothing else changed, nor did I imply that. The fact is that she is eating more and now losing weight, and she was simply thanking people for their suggestion to increase calories. Why does it matter WHY the increase helped? It could be loss of water weight, it could be increase in energy, it could be a boost in metabolism, or more likely all of these. But when I hear these stories, and read the responses in which people state that "it just doesn't work that way", and "you were eating more than you thought" (but magically now at 1600 calories her logging is spot on?!?) the implication is that the OP is ridiculously ignorant and completely unable to manage or understand any of the numbers, theories, or logistics of weight loss. And I don't think that gives these forums a very supportive feel.
Could it be that you are missing the point? People are saying that your weight loss doesn't stall at 1100 calories, then start up again when you up your calories by 400/500 calories. The OP indicated that it was the increase in calories that caused the weight loss, which is scientifically impossible.
An increase in calories CAN cause weight loss, by any of the reasons stated above (water loss, increased NEAT, etc). Have you read about the Minnesota Starvation Experiment? Once the half-starved men had their calories increased again (under a controlled environment), many continued to lose weight. During the starvation period, any time they had a "refeed" they also lost weight. Likely water weight, but weight nonetheless. So when someone says they've lost weight from increasing calories, I don't care if it's water loss or weight loss due to increased calories out (NEAT), they've still lost weight.
Water weight matters as much as the weight of the clothes you wear. It has nothing to do with energetic tissue in your body. Which you should know as a biologist.4 -
A couple of months ago I started on the journey to become healthier by tracking calories and increasing exercise. The first 2 weeks I lost 10lbs then nothing. I apparently hit a wall but held out hope I was doing the right things. My caloric intake was around 1100 calories each day, which apparently was my norm because I didn't really change much...just tracked. My macros looked good and I continued to eat whole foods.
After feeling depressed and frustrated, I noticed I was incredibly forgetful and having a difficult time concentrating. So I turned to this forum to see if anyone else experienced this. And that's when I discovered I wasn't eating enough and apparently haven't been for years despite weighing over 200lbs.
So I took the trusting plunge and increased my calories to 1600 per day...mostly. I gotta be honest, most days I choked down as much as I could and still only reached 1500 calories.
But it worked! I have lost 8lbs since then and feel happier, less forgetful, and have an easier time concentrating. My energy has also picked up a bit.
So thank you to all the wise souls who shared their wisdom about metabolism and who shared deeper insights than the standard "calories in/calories out" advice so common on some forums. Looking at me no one would ever guess it possible that I was a chronic under-eater so I am incredibly grateful for those of you who have shared such helpful information! THANK YOU!!
I did the same thing where I lost a few pounds on 1200 calories initially and suddenly hit a wall. I think that there is a percentage of people this happens to. My energy levels went very low, I had chronic fatigue, and depression when I was on a very low calorie diet for an extended time.
I felt so much better once I adjusted closer to TDEE. Energy levels went up. I want to move around more now. It took about 3-4 months for me to heal, however some people may need more or less. My body can survive on very low calories, but I want to thrive-- not just survive and push to get through the day. I was between a rock and a hard place-- afraid to go lower than 1200 calories. I was very miserable eating 1200 calories and was maintaining despite strict logging and weighing but afraid I would gain weight if I ate more.
Now I CAN eat more, plus I have energy and strength. People who say this doesn't happen simply have never lived through it.
I am healthier. Whereas before I thought I was broken somehow and different because others apparently didn't have to go through it, and they were vehement that there is no such thing. I say thank you to those who mentioned reverse dieting and showing me how to find my actual TDEE. I saw what mine should be and got brave enough to slowly start adding calories to work towards it, and my energy levels and metabolism started raising. I want to preserve my health so that I can have an active life as I get older.
8 -
I did the same thing where I lost a few pounds on 1200 calories initially and suddenly hit a wall. I think that there is a percentage of people this happens to. My energy levels went very low, I had chronic fatigue, and depression when I was on a very low calorie diet for an extended time.
I felt so much better once I adjusted closer to TDEE. Energy levels went up. I want to move around more now. It took about 3-4 months for me to heal, however some people may need more or less. My body can survive on very low calories, but I want to thrive-- not just survive and push to get through the day. I was between a rock and a hard place-- afraid to go lower than 1200 calories. I was very miserable eating 1200 calories and was maintaining despite strict logging and weighing but afraid I would gain weight if I ate more.
Now I CAN eat more, plus I have energy and strength. People who say this doesn't happen simply have never lived through it.
I am healthier. Whereas before I thought I was broken somehow and different because others apparently didn't have to go through it, and they were vehement that there is no such thing. I say thank you to those who mentioned reverse dieting and showing me how to find my actual TDEE. I saw what mine should be and got brave enough to slowly start adding calories to work towards it, and my energy levels and metabolism started raising. I want to preserve my health so that I can have an active life as I get older.
A lot of us HAVE been through it, and realized that blaming a lack of weight loss because of eating too little is just an excuse. I used to think my "stalls" were for this very reason too, until I learned to recognize water retention and normal fluctuations (or just plain lax on logging) and continue forward.
1200 calories is too low for a lot of people to be able to work with, and that's okay. You can still lose weight by eating more, albeit at a slower rate. I'm sure you DID feel better and I'm sure you DID have more energy. That's always the goal- no one says you have to eat the bare minimum of calories in order to continue losing. I don't think anyone is advocating for that.
If people haven't read these threads, they should:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/761810/the-starvation-mode-myth-again/p1
The Minnesota Starvation Experiment was mentioned- just to note that while these *starving* men's metabolism decreased, it still was not enough to stop weight loss. If you're eating, say <800 calories per day for an extended period of time, you might see a rate of 2.25-2.5 lbs per week lost instead of a predicted 3 lbs. If you're eating at 1,200 or above you aren't going to notice much of a difference from predicted.
Weight loss is never going to stall overall.
People put way too much stock in their "metabolism slowing" and don't recognize things like normal fluctuations and water retention which can be a killer to motivation if you don't pay attention to when they're happening.
Water retention was a huge one for me at first. I was very frustrated when the scale wouldn't even budge (or worse, go up) despite tracking my eating, until I realized what part water retention plays. Now I can easily say "well, it's that time of the month" or "I did eat quite a bit of salty food yesterday" or "that makes sense, I did just start a new exercise regimen". It always evens out in the end.
If fighting against misinformation is unfriendly, then I'll have to accept that. If it weren't for people being firm against the nonsense on these boards, I wouldn't have had nearly the success I've found. I love MyFitnessPal because people largely reject the fad nonsense and stick to the hard evidence over anecdotes and emotions.9 -
Hello OP! It sounds like we've been having similar issues.
I lost 70 pounds over 9 months almost 2 years ago and then over the course of a year I gained most of that back when I fell into a period of major depression. But a little over a month ago I decided to start losing weight again.
The first 2 weeks I lost about 10 pounds. The next week I lost about 2 more. It was about this time that I started really counting calories and exercising 5 times a week. Before then I had just been eating healthier(I was probably eating around 1700 or so a day) and exercising 3 times a week.
So 2 weeks ago I began counting calories (I have a food scale and I am great about measuring) and eating around 1400 calories a day. I also upped my workouts to 5 times a week,burning between 500 to 600 calories per workout. Now according to CICO I should have been losing a good amount the past 2 weeks yes?
But I haven't lost a single pound, not for 2 weeks. Someone who weighs as much as I do (260) shouldn't be hitting a plateau so early on. I even bought a new scale because I was convinced my scale was broken. I have been flabbergasted trying to figure it out.
I've been searching around on here and on other open forums out there and it seems like this is actually a common problem. Now I'm not an expert and I don't know exactkt why this happens. But it seems like if you work out too much and also diet extensively, it is possible to not lose any weight.
But now that I think about it, when I lost 70 pounds over 9 months almost 2 years ago, I started out only exercising once or twice a week and very gradually increased to 5 times a week exercising and I never experienced this issue then. I'm going to try something similar to what the OP did and I'm going to increase my calories to 1500 and decrease my workouts to 3 times a week for a while. And I'm confident that will restart my weight loss.
Yes I know it makes no sense, but I'm sure some one smarter than me could probably explain this phenomenon. There's more to weight loss than CICO.
(Edit: I should also mention that I have not been eating back my exercise calories, truly just eating 1400 a day)1 -
Hello OP! It sounds like we've been having similar issues.
I lost 70 pounds over 9 months almost 2 years ago and then over the course of a year I gained most of that back when I fell into a period of major depression. But a little over a month ago I decided to start losing weight again.
The first 2 weeks I lost about 10 pounds. The next week I lost about 2 more. It was about this time that I started really counting calories and exercising 5 times a week. Before then I had just been eating healthier(I was probably eating around 1700 or so a day) and exercising 3 times a week.
So 2 weeks ago I began counting calories (I have a food scale and I am great about measuring) and eating around 1400 calories a day. I also upped my workouts to 5 times a week,burning between 500 to 600 calories per workout. Now according to CICO I should have been losing a good amount the past 2 weeks yes?
But I haven't lost a single pound, not for 2 weeks. Someone who weighs as much as I do (260) shouldn't be hitting a plateau so early on. I even bought a new scale because I was convinced my scale was broken. I have been flabbergasted trying to figure it out.
I've been searching around on here and on other open forums out there and it seems like this is actually a common problem. Now I'm not an expert and I don't know exactkt why this happens. But it seems like if you work out too much and also diet extensively, it is possible to not lose any weight.
But now that I think about it, when I lost 70 pounds over 9 months almost 2 years ago, I started out only exercising once or twice a week and very gradually increased to 5 times a week exercising and I never experienced this issue then. I'm going to try something similar to what the OP did and I'm going to increase my calories to 1500 and decrease my workouts to 3 times a week for a while. And I'm confident that will restart my weight loss.
Yes I know it makes no sense, but I'm sure some one smarter than me and all the smart *kitten* on this thread could probably explain this phenomenon. There's more to weight loss than CICO.
(Edit: I should also mention that I have not been eating back my exercise calories, truly just eating 1400 a day)
You've read around and not read why this would / may / could happen ? It's been talked about ad nauseum
You think calling people names because they have more experience or knowledge than you is the way to work out what's happening
You want help or knowledge? Insulting people is not a great way to get either8 -
singingflutelady wrote: »lightenup2016 wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »lightenup2016 wrote: »As she said, if she was "eating more than she thought" at what she says was 1100 calories, wouldn't she still be eating even more at what she says is 1600?
Not necessarily. We don't know, for example that she's eating exactly the same foods. Maybe, at the lower calorie count, she used a "diet" bread that reported a lot less calories on the label than were actually in a slice. Stuff like that. And a higher goal makes many people less likely to subconsciously "cheat the count" by licking spoons, not log cooking spray, etc.
That said, I am very happy that the OP made this change and that she's seeing the results she was working hard for. Personally, I cannot imagine living on 1100 (or even 1200) calories/day. I am always amazed when people say they can live on so little.
I'm sorry, I don't see how some variance in bread slices (or just about any other food), could account for 1000 calories per day. If she's now losing a lb a week eating what she says is 500 calories more, but everyone claims she must have been eating more than she thought, wouldn't she have to have previously been 1000 calories off per day (eating 2100 calories instead of 1100)? I just got a food scale a week ago, and if anything I had previously been overestimating my calories, not underestimating. And seriously, a few grams off here and there? I've seen maybe about a 30 calorie difference over a range of items, nowhere near 1000. Besides, she feels better and has more energy--I think she MIGHT just be able to tell that she's actually eating more than before.
I generally hold to the CICO rule, but I think it's highly likely that other factors come into play with weight loss. Why can't people open their minds and listen to others' experiences? Learn from them, don't dismiss them.
More energy probably has the op burning more. Eating 500 calories more isn't going to magically cause you to lose weight if nothing else changes. It's mathematically impossible unless the weight is water, etc. I am still guess it's water as fluid retention is a pita.
Oh and I do have lots of experience with chronic undereating. I ate 500 a day for several months and exercised. Yes my metabolism slowed but I still lost over 2 lbs a week.
Yes. The body slows down to compensate for low calories. This does impact CICO as it adds another variable. People seem to think it is simple addition and subtraction. But it is more like algebra with multiplication, addition, subtraction, division, variables, etc.
People are at various stages of health, metabolic syndromes, stress, age, etc. Fortunately I only hit the border of overweight when I had previously gotten up to my highest of 25 BMI (overweight) and got fed up. My body has a system of checks and balances, so I've never gotten obese. Now I'm back down in the Normal BMI range (23-24 range) and am successful keeping weight off.
Would I like to lose a couple more pounds? Sure. I would love to get a 22 BMI. But I'm not going to give myself a big deficit ever again to get there. Now I'm working on using exercise and weights to increase muscle and up metabolism . People need to figure out what works best for them and change things up if something isn't working.
5 -
Hello OP! It sounds like we've been having similar issues.
I lost 70 pounds over 9 months almost 2 years ago and then over the course of a year I gained most of that back when I fell into a period of major depression. But a little over a month ago I decided to start losing weight again.
The first 2 weeks I lost about 10 pounds. The next week I lost about 2 more. It was about this time that I started really counting calories and exercising 5 times a week. Before then I had just been eating healthier(I was probably eating around 1700 or so a day) and exercising 3 times a week.
So 2 weeks ago I began counting calories (I have a food scale and I am great about measuring) and eating around 1400 calories a day. I also upped my workouts to 5 times a week,burning between 500 to 600 calories per workout. Now according to CICO I should have been losing a good amount the past 2 weeks yes?
But I haven't lost a single pound, not for 2 weeks. Someone who weighs as much as I do (260) shouldn't be hitting a plateau so early on. I even bought a new scale because I was convinced my scale was broken. I have been flabbergasted trying to figure it out.
I've been searching around on here and on other open forums out there and it seems like this is actually a common problem. Now I'm not an expert and I don't know exactkt why this happens. But it seems like if you work out too much and also diet extensively, it is possible to not lose any weight.
But now that I think about it, when I lost 70 pounds over 9 months almost 2 years ago, I started out only exercising once or twice a week and very gradually increased to 5 times a week exercising and I never experienced this issue then. I'm going to try something similar to what the OP did and I'm going to increase my calories to 1500 and decrease my workouts to 3 times a week for a while. And I'm confident that will restart my weight loss.
Yes I know it makes no sense, but I'm sure some one smarter than me and all the smart *kitten* on this thread could probably explain this phenomenon. There's more to weight loss than CICO.
(Edit: I should also mention that I have not been eating back my exercise calories, truly just eating 1400 a day)
If you've read as much as you've said you've read, then you wouldn't be resorting to name calling.
You'd also realize CICO encompasses what you're experiencing.
Everyone who claims that CICO doesn't work doesn't understand what CICO means.5 -
I think a lot of people are experiencing troubles but are afraid to post because they see how others are treated and are not believed.10
-
-
snickerscharlie wrote: »
I do not believe I deny the "laws of CICO".1 -
I think a lot of people are experiencing troubles but are afraid to post because they see how others are treated and are not believed.
I think when people post woo and fads they cloud the water and make others confused; they feed into the multimillion dollar health & fitness industry by promoting tabloid style extrapolations that are not firmly grounded in actual science; they take everyone to the lowest common denominator of celebrity endorsed derpitude and reality TV. They make people yo-yo and fail,
When other people confirm that it really isn't that complicated, that majoring in the minors or believing the latest B-list celeb sponsored nonsense is detrimental they do us all an amazing service
The core science behind weight loss is simple, there are many interesting theories and many have infinitesimal impacts on overall weight loss, but that's where some like to live
That derp and misunderstanding kept me fat and unhealthy and wishing for 3 decades
CICO focus make me slim and fit in under a year and has kept me here for almost 2
I know who I'm most grateful to and it isn't those who spread incorrect unfounded information around
5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions