Resetting metabolism
Options
JaydedMiss
Posts: 4,286 Member
Anyone else ever done this? Im curious the best way to do it.
I think iv been eating way to few calories for to long and weight hasnt changed in months (I lost 50 pounds within 4 months been at 180 for 2 months now)
Research has told me I should focus on getting my body to burn more calories again before ill lose more weight.
By adding more calories. Not sure if I should do that all at once like bump my calories to 1500-1800 from the 1000-1200 for a few weeks? or months O.O? And should i add more exercise when i do that? Im constantly eating its just i eat majority low calorie vegetables and lean meat so i struggle to get the calories in XD
Thoughts please anything helps
I think iv been eating way to few calories for to long and weight hasnt changed in months (I lost 50 pounds within 4 months been at 180 for 2 months now)
Research has told me I should focus on getting my body to burn more calories again before ill lose more weight.
By adding more calories. Not sure if I should do that all at once like bump my calories to 1500-1800 from the 1000-1200 for a few weeks? or months O.O? And should i add more exercise when i do that? Im constantly eating its just i eat majority low calorie vegetables and lean meat so i struggle to get the calories in XD
Thoughts please anything helps
1
Replies
-
Do you weigh all solids and semi-solids and measure all liquids? If not then you probably want to start there as your stated intake, regardless of possible metabolic slow down due to low intake, would still result in losses as it's alarmingly low.
1 -
I weigh everything i went from 230 to 180 and i go at the 1200 calorie base limit which i knew was far t olow for my weight, I just didnt realize how bad that was until now XD1
-
And I often eat under 1200 which im not the proudest of but I eat constantly if hungry, Never really struggled with overeating I feel fine, Just heard a few videos talk about my body adjusting to the low low calories and holding onto fat for dear life and want to break that as healthy as possible XD0
-
You may need to take a diet break but what you're hinting at is "starvation mode" and isn't a thing. Adaptive thermogenesis is, down regulating of bodily processes to conserve energy. But as I said, you'd still be losing weight as the effect isn't so large as to stop your metabolism entirely.
If you open your diary folks can take a look and offer other suggestions too.7 -
Are you still able to breathe? Do you feel satisfied after eating or still hungry and extremely low of energy, losing masses of hair, losing weight at places where you don't store fat? Do you manage to pee and poop? I'm only asking because all those any many other things are part of 'metabolism'. It's rather unlikely that one part of this complex mechanism breaks down but the rest still works. Seriously, your metabolism doesn't need 'resetting'. It stops when you're dead but doesn't really change otherwise.5
-
JaydedMiss wrote: »And I often eat under 1200 which im not the proudest of but I eat constantly if hungry, Never really struggled with overeating I feel fine, Just heard a few videos talk about my body adjusting to the low low calories and holding onto fat for dear life and want to break that as healthy as possible XD
Those times are offsetting your low days more than you think.
The metabolic adaptation you're thinking of doesn't exist in the way you've been led to believe. Just get that nonsense out of your head now.
Eating more will not "reset" your metabolism. Your metabolism isn't damaged by eating too few calories.
What's happening is that your body has adapted to dieting and some hormone levels are depleted. You can fix this by eating at maintenance (taking a diet break) for a couple of weeks and not stressing about all of this. You'll see a slight uptick on the scale. That will be your glycogen stores replenishing. Don't sweat it, it's not fat gain.
After that time period, go back to eating at deficit. The scale should start moving again.
12 -
Cool that last one was what i was wondering thanks
By the way when i say i eat constantly its things like cucumbers that have like no calories in bulk to just get rid of the cravings to overeat XD I always stay under my calories 1 -
JaydedMiss wrote: »Cool that last one was what i was wondering thanks By the way when i say i eat constantly its things like cucumbers that have like no calories in bulk to just get rid of the cravings to overeat XD I always stay under my calories
everything has calories(except water).being under once in awhile is ok but you are supposed to eat to your calorie amounts.and eat back at least some of your exercise calories.0 -
maybe is not the calories in food. Maybe is what you're eating, try eating unprocessed food for a month or a week maybe that will help
has nothing to do with weight loss unless she has a health issue due to something in processed foods. for most its all about calories in vs calories out7 -
yeah and i dont eat processed foods often0
-
Are you still able to breathe? Do you feel satisfied after eating or still hungry and extremely low of energy, losing masses of hair, losing weight at places where you don't store fat? Do you manage to pee and poop? I'm only asking because all those any many other things are part of 'metabolism'. It's rather unlikely that one part of this complex mechanism breaks down but the rest still works. Seriously, your metabolism doesn't need 'resetting'. It stops when you're dead but doesn't really change otherwise.
Nice attitude.
Some people have a down regulation of metabolic rate and should incr their intake. Keep in mind, OP is eating 1200/day. Not exactly long term nutrition in anyone's book.
OP, look up reverse dieting and understand that it takes twice the amount of time to reverse diet and keep the weight off, as it did to take it off.
Best of luck.1 -
Weight loss is about calories, not about the food one chooses to eat.maybe is not the calories in food. Maybe is what you're eating, try eating unprocessed food for a month or a week maybe that will help
I eat processed food as well as unprocessed and have lost almost 100lbs. @hangyeeee5 -
JaydedMiss wrote: »Cool that last one was what i was wondering thanks By the way when i say i eat constantly its things like cucumbers that have like no calories in bulk to just get rid of the cravings to overeat XD I always stay under my calories
Great job on the weight loss!
If you are not losing weight now you don't always stay under your calories, you are eating at maintenance. I suggest you continue eating at maintenance for awhile, log all your foods and make sure your CICO is as tight as you can get it. Then, adjust to lose about a pound a week is you have more than 25 left, a half pound if you have less.0 -
A quick few thoughts about reverse diets since Dan mentioned them.
A lot of people misunderstand the mechanics of what they're meant to do since, in my experience, they're not explained very clearly.
A lot of people who don't need to be eating at 1200 calories start off dieting at 1200 calories. Over time, their bodies adjust to eating at that level. Their energy levels plummet and several key hormones drop. They often stall out in weight loss.
What a lot of people come away from reading about reverse dieting end up believing is that they need to eat more to begin losing weight again.
That's not how weight loss works. That's not how reverse dieting works.
Reverse dieting is a controlled readdition of caloric intake, that over time will also bring up your energy levels which will increase either your NEAT (Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis) or your exercise performance. There's a net effect on calories in/out with reverse dieting, because the increase in calories in results in an increase in calories out.
What a reverse diet does is resets the level at which a dieter needs to be dieting and exercising. If you were dieting and performing at a sub-optimal rate at 1200, you can potentially reverse diet (if you meet the criteria) up to a higher calorie level and perform more optimally during exercise and move more during the day (you likely won't be aware of this) and lose weight on more calories.
It's not a magic bullet to eat more and lose weight.7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »A quick few thoughts about reverse diets since Dan mentioned them.
A lot of people misunderstand the mechanics of what they're meant to do since, in my experience, they're not explained very clearly.
A lot of people who don't need to be eating at 1200 calories start off dieting at 1200 calories. Over time, their bodies adjust to eating at that level. Their energy levels plummet and several key hormones drop. They often stall out in weight loss.
What a lot of people come away from reading about reverse dieting end up believing is that they need to eat more to begin losing weight again.
That's not how weight loss works. That's not how reverse dieting works.
Reverse dieting is a controlled readdition of caloric intake, that over time will also bring up your energy levels which will increase either your NEAT (Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis) or your exercise performance. There's a net effect on calories in/out with reverse dieting, because the increase in calories in results in an increase in calories out.
What a reverse diet does is resets the level at which a dieter needs to be dieting and exercising. If you were dieting and performing at a sub-optimal rate at 1200, you can potentially reverse diet (if you meet the criteria) up to a higher calorie level and perform more optimally during exercise and move more during the day (you likely won't be aware of this) and lose weight on more calories.
It's not a magic bullet to eat more and lose weight.
Reverse diets are a bit of an old thing now. Most of the well known "experts" (Layne Norton etc), have come to the realization that one does not need to slowly reverse to maintenance. Just eat at maintenance (-10% if you have been dieting for a long time), and be done with it.6 -
trigden1991 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »A quick few thoughts about reverse diets since Dan mentioned them.
A lot of people misunderstand the mechanics of what they're meant to do since, in my experience, they're not explained very clearly.
A lot of people who don't need to be eating at 1200 calories start off dieting at 1200 calories. Over time, their bodies adjust to eating at that level. Their energy levels plummet and several key hormones drop. They often stall out in weight loss.
What a lot of people come away from reading about reverse dieting end up believing is that they need to eat more to begin losing weight again.
That's not how weight loss works. That's not how reverse dieting works.
Reverse dieting is a controlled readdition of caloric intake, that over time will also bring up your energy levels which will increase either your NEAT (Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis) or your exercise performance. There's a net effect on calories in/out with reverse dieting, because the increase in calories in results in an increase in calories out.
What a reverse diet does is resets the level at which a dieter needs to be dieting and exercising. If you were dieting and performing at a sub-optimal rate at 1200, you can potentially reverse diet (if you meet the criteria) up to a higher calorie level and perform more optimally during exercise and move more during the day (you likely won't be aware of this) and lose weight on more calories.
It's not a magic bullet to eat more and lose weight.
Reverse diets are a bit of an old thing now. Most of the well known "experts" (Layne Norton etc), have come to the realization that one does not need to slowly reverse to maintenance. Just eat at maintenance (-10% if you have been dieting for a long time), and be done with it.
Yeah, I know. There are people that are afraid of the scale jump from glycogen replenishment, so they can do the reverse diet thing.
There are also people who can do what I suggested who have been dieting at too aggressive a deficit.
I've just seen too many posts on this forum about "metabolic damage" and people who think they started losing more because they ate more and wanted to explain how the whole process of reverse dieting worked when you were using it in the context of still being in a deficit.3 -
Do you have access to a body composition scale? Your body fat percentage is where the truth lies, the scale lies to us everytime we get on it.2
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »A quick few thoughts about reverse diets since Dan mentioned them.
A lot of people misunderstand the mechanics of what they're meant to do since, in my experience, they're not explained very clearly.
A lot of people who don't need to be eating at 1200 calories start off dieting at 1200 calories. Over time, their bodies adjust to eating at that level. Their energy levels plummet and several key hormones drop. They often stall out in weight loss.
What a lot of people come away from reading about reverse dieting end up believing is that they need to eat more to begin losing weight again.
That's not how weight loss works. That's not how reverse dieting works.
Reverse dieting is a controlled readdition of caloric intake, that over time will also bring up your energy levels which will increase either your NEAT (Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis) or your exercise performance. There's a net effect on calories in/out with reverse dieting, because the increase in calories in results in an increase in calories out.
What a reverse diet does is resets the level at which a dieter needs to be dieting and exercising. If you were dieting and performing at a sub-optimal rate at 1200, you can potentially reverse diet (if you meet the criteria) up to a higher calorie level and perform more optimally during exercise and move more during the day (you likely won't be aware of this) and lose weight on more calories.
It's not a magic bullet to eat more and lose weight.
Reverse diets are a bit of an old thing now. Most of the well known "experts" (Layne Norton etc), have come to the realization that one does not need to slowly reverse to maintenance. Just eat at maintenance (-10% if you have been dieting for a long time), and be done with it.
Yeah, I know. There are people that are afraid of the scale jump from glycogen replenishment, so they can do the reverse diet thing.
There are also people who can do what I suggested who have been dieting at too aggressive a deficit.
I've just seen too many posts on this forum about "metabolic damage" and people who think they started losing more because they ate more and wanted to explain how the whole process of reverse dieting worked when you were using it in the context of still being in a deficit.
Well there are people who do eat more and lose more but it's largely in part to subsequent increases in EE and compliance and provides for a more balanced approach. The issue with people thinking eating more will always results in slow weight loss is it assumes that TDEE is constant, which it is not. I went from 1800 to 2300 and saw those more consistent results. That additional 500 calories could have helped me increase NEAT, TEA and potentially RMR but since I haven't had a scan, it's harder to prove the later.
Side note, I do think diet breaks (controlled one) can be particularly healthy, especially from a psychological perspective.7
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
- 391 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions