Why am I gaining weight on 1200 calories?
Replies
-
With so little to lose, you should only be aiming for; ½ pound a week loss!2
-
It's not my opinion; it's suggested in countless articles by experts.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Sounds like you are gaining muscle weight- which is a good thing. If lifting is a key part of your routine I would focus on body composition rather than the weigjt on the scale. Are your clothes looser? That is a good sign you are losing fat weight but gaining muscle which will help you torch more calories moving forwards.
Sorry, you can't gain muscle that fast and on 1200 calories.2 -
Everything can sound plausible "in theory" and in a society that LOVES FOOD and wants a convenient excuse for weight gain, it's no wonder why so many cling to the "starvation mode" myth. When I'm not losing weight while eating over 2000 calories a day I would love to blame it on my body too.
In practice, this myth was put to the test and in reality it was dispelled by overwhelming scientific evidence based on real life experimentation
Read:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/10/hunger.aspx3 -
As a rough estimate, a calorie level of 1200 should move you towards 120 lbs. At your current weight, that will happen slowly. If you underestimate your calories by 100, you may not lose any weight. 1200 is the standard minimum, but your doctor may ok a different calorie level. I have a 4 foot tall friend who only needs about 900 calories per day.1
-
At 5'5" I was fortunate to reach 120 pounds over a period of four to five months. It is a slow but steady process and it takes perseverance and patience but it is worth it.0
-
-
It's not my opinion; it's suggested in countless articles by experts.
Do you have any of these countless expert articles saying that you can gain weight in a deficit? Because think about it: if you could gain or maintain weight eating at a deficit, there wouldn't be people starving to death.
Also, it helps when you quote who you are responding to. You can hit the 'Quote' link in the post you want to respond to and then start typing at the bottom of the quoted text1 -
Well you either have a serious medical condition that can not be diagnosed on a message board or you are not actually eating 1200 consistently.
NVM, it's only been 2 weeks. Maybe you need to pee? idk.3 -
Fwiw, today's MFP blog post may be helpful.
http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/4-signs-youre-eating-little-trying-lose-weight/2 -
When I first started trying to lose, I gained a few pounds and it took weeks for it to go away. I think the new exercise routine is what did it.
In the long run it is better to exercise for your health, happiness, and (of course) so you can eat a bit more. But it is also an extra variable that can make the weight loss process a little more unpredictable0 -
Yes, I messed up and should have hit her quote button! Thanks! I think there is some type of confusion on something I wrote. I never stated that people can gain weight in a deficit. I was referring to something else and did not hit the quote button like I should have, no big deal. Obviously, if we create a deficit, over time we will lose weight, not gain it.0
-
Fwiw, today's MFP blog post may be helpful.
http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/4-signs-youre-eating-little-trying-lose-weight/
Thanks! Yes #4 is the point I was trying to make all along.1 -
Fwiw, today's MFP blog post may be helpful.
http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/4-signs-youre-eating-little-trying-lose-weight/
Thanks! Yes #4 is the point I was trying to make all along.0 -
and that normal reading comprehension of what @susb wrote:Because I feel her intake is too low for a person her age. It can temporarily slow down her metabolism . Patience is huge when losing weight. Temporary factors such as water intake, periods and even going to the bathroom can make a difference on the face of the scale.
I don't know about you; but when I see "temporarily slow down her metabolism" I translate "temporarily demonstrate smaller than expected TDEE"... which just happens to coincide with a restricted definition of adaptive thermogenesis. Why restricted? Because AT's definition does not indicate if this is a temporary condition or not, in fact persistence of adaptation is one of the issues that are not clearly resolved.
So either the "starvation mode does not exist" mantra, when someone is clearly talking about adaptive thermogenesis, is just that... a mantra uttered out of force of habit that has nothing to do with the post in question; or it is an argument that adaptive thermogenesis doesn't exist.
Since 13.33% of the threads in the stickied http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10300319/most-helpful-posts-general-diet-and-weight-loss-help-must-reads post deal with the issue of adaptive thermogenesis, and since we have, presumably, all read those threads and the peer reviewed papers they reference, I think that we can probably all agree that a whole whack of scientists have written papers that indicate that adaptive thermogenesis does seem to exist under certain conditions.
Regardless of whether it has affected us personally or not.2 -
I'm 26. 5'4" and began at 131lbs one month ago. I work a sedentary job. For the past month, I have been eating 1200 calories per day (weighing/measuring all food with my scale and pre-packing all food for work). In the past two weeks, I have been to the gym 7 times lifting heavy weights with 4 times doing cardio, not changing my caloric intake. I just weighted myself at 139lbs!!! I have NEVER weighed this much before! What is the deal?!0
-
I don't know about you; but when I see "temporarily slow down her metabolism" I translate "temporarily demonstrate smaller than expected TDEE"... which just happens to coincide with a restricted definition of adaptive thermogenesis. Why restricted? Because AT's definition does not indicate if this is a temporary condition or not, in fact persistence of adaptation is one of the issues that are not clearly resolved.
I didn't read her post that way at all. I read it as "Oh my gosh you are slowing down your metabolism by eating too little". That's the way it came across. Adaptive thermogenesis IS normal. And expected. It's what happens when you get smaller. So to make this statement that sounds like something "bad" is happening, when that something happens to be a normal and expected effect, well it sounds incorrect to me.
0 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »I don't know about you; but when I see "temporarily slow down her metabolism" I translate "temporarily demonstrate smaller than expected TDEE"... which just happens to coincide with a restricted definition of adaptive thermogenesis. Why restricted? Because AT's definition does not indicate if this is a temporary condition or not, in fact persistence of adaptation is one of the issues that are not clearly resolved.
I didn't read her post that way at all. I read it as "Oh my gosh you are slowing down your metabolism by eating too little". That's the way it came across. Adaptive thermogenesis IS normal. And expected. It's what happens when you get smaller. So to make this statement that sounds like something "bad" is happening, when that something happens to be a normal and expected effect, well it sounds incorrect to me.
A reduction in TDEE ***BEYOND*** what is explained by loss of weight (and more specifically lean mass) IS the definition of adaptive thermogenesis in the context we are discussing.
Adaptive Thermogenesis with Weight Loss in Humans M.J. Muller € 1 and A. Bosy-Westphal:
Adaptive thermogenesis (AT) with weight loss refers to underfeeding-associated fall in resting and nonresting energy expenditure (REE, non-REE); this is independent of body weight and body composition. In humans, the existence of AT was inconsistently shown and its clinical significance has been questioned
ETA: I chose that definition because it is the correct one in the context we are discussing. I've deliberately included the next sentence
Even though this particular paper does go on to find evidence of AT, I am not hiding that it is a subject that not everyone agrees with.
My opinion is that starting weight, method of weight loss, genetics, and previous history all contribute to whether AT comes into play or not.2 -
cayordogfood wrote: »I'm 26. 5'4" and began at 131lbs one month ago. I work a sedentary job. For the past month, I have been eating 1200 calories per day (weighing/measuring all food with my scale and pre-packing all food for work). In the past two weeks, I have been to the gym 7 times lifting heavy weights with 4 times doing cardio, not changing my caloric intake. I just weighted myself at 139lbs!!! I have NEVER weighed this much before! What is the deal?!
No, I dont get what you're saying at all..5 -
Didn't mean for anyone to get upset. I was simply offering my opinion and advice which is based on many experts who state that 1,200 is the minimum a woman should consider when creating a deficit unless a Dr. suggests otherwise.
I used myself as an example. I no longer burn calories like I did in my 20's. I created a deficit and try to stay in the 1,200 area each day. It is the correct area for me, at my age, in order to lose a pound a week by cutting close 500 calories plus each day, in addition to exercise. In order to maintain my weight, I have to stay in the area of 1,600 each day. Not much wiggle room.
A much younger person can simply cut 500 from an average 2,000 caloric intake to lose a pound of weight in a week in most cases.
As most of you know, it's all about he math.
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »cayordogfood wrote: »I'm 26. 5'4" and began at 131lbs one month ago. I work a sedentary job. For the past month, I have been eating 1200 calories per day (weighing/measuring all food with my scale and pre-packing all food for work). In the past two weeks, I have been to the gym 7 times lifting heavy weights with 4 times doing cardio, not changing my caloric intake. I just weighted myself at 139lbs!!! I have NEVER weighed this much before! What is the deal?!
No, I dont get what you're saying at all..
That's the longest run on sentence I have ever seen. I didn't get it either.4 -
Christine_72 wrote: »cayordogfood wrote: »I'm 26. 5'4" and began at 131lbs one month ago. I work a sedentary job. For the past month, I have been eating 1200 calories per day (weighing/measuring all food with my scale and pre-packing all food for work). In the past two weeks, I have been to the gym 7 times lifting heavy weights with 4 times doing cardio, not changing my caloric intake. I just weighted myself at 139lbs!!! I have NEVER weighed this much before! What is the deal?!
No, I dont get what you're saying at all..
That's the longest run on sentence I have ever seen. I didn't get it either.
I do think that they suggested to make sure it isn't pregnancy. Which can occasionally happen even while on BC.
0 -
Are you sure your scales are calibrated/accurate?
Weighing at the same time of day on the same scales in similar clothing/nude is best for accuracy.
Many like to weigh first thing in the morning after a wee.
While water retention is one explaination, but consider if the scales are off, or your using different ones, or weighing under different circumstances then the difference may not be as drastic a gain as you're thinking.0 -
-
@nikkibay8 I'd do my weigh in once per week on the same day first thing when you wake up in the morning with no clothes on. Also, if you are doing heavy weight lifting you are more than likely gaining muscle.0
-
Jen_HealthCoach wrote: »@nikkibay8 I'd do my weigh in once per week on the same day first thing when you wake up in the morning with no clothes on. Also, if you are doing heavy weight lifting you are more than likely gaining muscle.
on 1200 calories its highly unlikely.0 -
You're probably not eating enough for the amount of excercise you're getting. Your body will think you're starving and go into a starvation mode to protect you. 1,200 calories is low for a young woman. I am 62 and that is the area I am in to create a deficit.
Please ignore the above - it's nonsense
0 -
In the past two weeks, I have been to the gym 7 times lifting heavy weights with 4 times doing cardio,Sounds like you are gaining muscle weight- which is a good thing. If lifting is a key part of your routine I would focus on body composition rather than the weigjt on the scale. Are your clothes loser? That is a good sign you are losing fat weight but gaining muscle which will help you torch more calories moving forwards.
Muscle weight? She's been to the gym 7 times in 2 weeks... .Muscleflex79 wrote: »Sounds like you are gaining muscle weight- which is a good thing. If lifting is a key part of your routine I would focus on body composition rather than the weigjt on the scale. Are your clothes looser? That is a good sign you are losing fat weight but gaining muscle which will help you torch more calories moving forwards.
LOL...you think she gained over 5lbs of muscle in SEVEN total workouts??? if so, she needs to tell us all her secret!!0 -
Thank you, everyone, for your replies!! I wasn't expecting so many answers. There seems to be a common agreement that it is water retention from my new workouts. This is good news!1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions