Will upping my calories help me lose weight?
Replies
-
leanneconnolly975 wrote: »So let me state this. At some point, when you want to maintain, you'd have to increase calories. Secondly, there are a lot of factors that can influence total daily energy expenditure (TDEE). Someone blindly saying, that answer is never to eat more calories is wrong. There are a variety of factors that can influence TDEE and it's components. Severely cutting calories, while having an active job and exercising is most likely not doing you any favors and more than likely doing more harm. And while there are not a ton of studies around the topic, some of the experts like Lyle McDonald, Layne Norton, etc.. can see improvements in metabolic efficiency with their clients by removing them from a large deficit, such as in the below post: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html .
Many people look at TDEE as a static number. But it's not. In fact, it's highly variable because it not only includes metabolism (BMR), but calories burned through exericse (TEA), daily activities (NEAT) and calories burnt during digestion (TEF). As you already noted, you are often exhausted which is one indicator that you are not receiving adequate nutrients. This in turn would suppress calories burnt from TEA and NEAT; eating low calories would also decrease TEF.
So what I am getting at, if you feel that you have addressed logging accuracy and consistency, I would recommend increasing calories by another 300 to 500 calories and monitoring progress over 4 to 6 weeks (know that if you increase carbs as will replenish glycogen/water, so you might show a few lbs on the scale within the first week or two... this is why you need to evaluate over a prolonged period to do an accurate assessment). I went from 1800 to 2300 and saw more consistent increases. I attribute it to greater compliance, ability to push harder in workouts and increases to daily activity increase my TDEE a lot.
Considering all things, most women I know (especially those exercising) see good loss around 1600 to 2000 calories (some even more). So it's not too unreasonable to have a starting point at the lower end of that. Whats the worst thing that could happen, you gain a few lbs and you will have had a good diet break.
Thank you
I'd go with this. Having had an Eating Disorder in my younger years (BMI 11) i also find it very hard to loose weight now. For me lowering my calories too much and over-exercising results in water retention, pain, misery and eventually uncontrollable binge eating. By trying to loose weight in this way I caused unneccesarry misery. Go to your doctor, get all your blood tests and hormones checked (i had low vitamin D, increasing levels helped me in many ways). Remember weight loss is about overall health, you should feel better on loosing weight and adopting a healthy lifestyle not worse. It took me years to work this out!2 -
If you're currently at maintenance, adding 500 calories a day is a great way to gain 1 pound per week. I would reassess whether you're actually eating 1200 calories a day or you're eating more and unaware of it. A lot of people severely underestimate how much they eat.8
-
So many fat people out there. If only they were eating more...15
-
gebeziseva wrote: »So many fat people out there. If only they were eating more...
love this!!3 -
gebeziseva wrote: »So many fat people out there. If only they were eating more...
Exactly3 -
I was at a stall because I was eating to few calories. I upped my calories by changing my activity level from sedentary to lightly active and I'm suddenly losing again. So it is actually possible to lose weight by eating more calories. Just because 1200 calories woulda for one person, doesn't mean it works for all.2
-
carriebeary8 wrote: »I was at a stall because I was eating to few calories. I upped my calories by changing my activity level from sedentary to lightly active and I'm suddenly losing again. So it is actually possible to lose weight by eating more calories. Just because 1200 calories woulda for one person, doesn't mean it works for all.
lol - nope. if only that were the solution just think of all the thrilled people that could eat MORE to lose!8 -
Muscleflex79 wrote: »carriebeary8 wrote: »I was at a stall because I was eating to few calories. I upped my calories by changing my activity level from sedentary to lightly active and I'm suddenly losing again. So it is actually possible to lose weight by eating more calories. Just because 1200 calories woulda for one person, doesn't mean it works for all.
lol - nope. if only that were the solution just think of all the thrilled people that could eat MORE to lose!
Then you should probably not listen to folks like Layne Norton or Lyle McDonald because many of their clients are also experiencing similar things.
Also, if you want to see the explanation, I already provided it above. EE is not linear and many things influence EE. Highly suppressed calories can also lead to direct or transient reductions in NEAT, TEA and TEF; also, long periods of times dieting will cause reductions basal metabolic functions.
Edit: Apparently, it's way to early to write coherently.10 -
It sounds to me like you should see a dr about possible health issues preventing you from losing weight. Sorry but at 1200 calories and all of the activity that you get, you should be losing weight, even if you are underestimating calorie counts here and there, like everyone here thinks you are doing. Just my opinion.0
-
Muscleflex79 wrote: »carriebeary8 wrote: »I was at a stall because I was eating to few calories. I upped my calories by changing my activity level from sedentary to lightly active and I'm suddenly losing again. So it is actually possible to lose weight by eating more calories. Just because 1200 calories woulda for one person, doesn't mean it works for all.
lol - nope. if only that were the solution just think of all the thrilled people that could eat MORE to lose!
Then you should probably not listen to folks like Layne Norton or Lyle McDonald because many of their clients are also experiencing similar things.
Also, if you want to see the explanation, I already provided it above. EE is not linear and many things influence EE. Highly suppressed calories can also lead to direct or transient reductions in NEAT, TEA and TEF; also, long periods of times dieting will cause reductions basal metabolic functions.
Edit: Apparently, it's way to early to write coherently.
I also subscribe to the eat more, have more energy, do more theory - when I started working with my RD, they upped my calories (from about 1500 to 2100) - I had more energy, which meant my workouts improved, I was recovering better and could do more. I'm down 12lbs since November, and they have periodically adjusted my calories up (I'm at between 2300 and 2500 now and weight stable)6 -
One of my best friends and I are the opposite sides of this argument.
We're both about 5' 5" and 60-62kg or so, so very comparable in size with the OP.
My friend
- Has had eating issues for years and years. Will often eat nothing all day then eat a ton of chocolate and drink wine in the evening. Struggles to eat healthily or regularly. Sees food as the enemy. Believes she should be on a horrendous calorie restriction of 1,200 or similar and often is (although sometimes it's formed entirely of chocolate and gin!).
- Exercises to excess, mostly long distance cycling, with some core workouts, and a small amount of weights.
- Has a little "pot belly" of stubborn stomach fat that she can't shift, and makes her really unhappy.
Me
- Dieted to oblivion to get to racing weight (48.5kg) as a cox'n in my early 20s, including a brush with bulimia and a 7 year battle back to a healthy mindset. Have crash dieted to racing weight since, but not since 2011.
- A bit OCD and very willing to follow a food and exercise plan, as long as it's set by someone else.
- Followed The Body Coach 90 day plan a few years ago, and discovered that HIIT is basically a disaster zone for me. My body responded super badly to 5 sessions a week for a long period of time (more than the 3 months). Ended up seriously scrawny and not looking good.
- Working with a PT since August last year, weight training 3 times a week with incidental cardio (I walk a lot) and eating 1,850 calories on a rest day and 2,000 on a training day. I track my macros.
- I now have 17% body fat, a nice flat stomach, and toned shoulders but am not scrawny. I am SUPER happy with how I look. (My boyfriend called me "buff" the other day!!)
So for me, I totally needed to up my calories, fuel my body appropriately, and hit the weights often enough to make a difference, but not so often that I end up wiped out.
It hurts me to see my friend failing to lose her tummy under such a deficit, but I haven't managed to convince her that she may do better by changing her approach to nutrition.
To the OP - see a qualified trainer. Explain what you've been doing, how your numbers have been stacking up (both nutrient intake and exercise output), and listen to what they say.
The right macros and the right training programme could change things totally, although you may have to be prepared for the first few weeks to feel like you're going backwards before you go forwards. More exercise/less food isn't always better for your body, and maybe you've just hit that point.
Some people never find it (all the "just eat less and you'll lose!" people), and I guess they're lucky, but bodies are very, very complicated and individual things. You only get one, so it's worth spending the time and effort (and a little money) to figure out an approach that truly works for you.3 -
deannalfisher wrote: »Muscleflex79 wrote: »carriebeary8 wrote: »I was at a stall because I was eating to few calories. I upped my calories by changing my activity level from sedentary to lightly active and I'm suddenly losing again. So it is actually possible to lose weight by eating more calories. Just because 1200 calories woulda for one person, doesn't mean it works for all.
lol - nope. if only that were the solution just think of all the thrilled people that could eat MORE to lose!
Then you should probably not listen to folks like Layne Norton or Lyle McDonald because many of their clients are also experiencing similar things.
Also, if you want to see the explanation, I already provided it above. EE is not linear and many things influence EE. Highly suppressed calories can also lead to direct or transient reductions in NEAT, TEA and TEF; also, long periods of times dieting will cause reductions basal metabolic functions.
Edit: Apparently, it's way to early to write coherently.
I also subscribe to the eat more, have more energy, do more theory - when I started working with my RD, they upped my calories (from about 1500 to 2100) - I had more energy, which meant my workouts improved, I was recovering better and could do more. I'm down 12lbs since November, and they have periodically adjusted my calories up (I'm at between 2300 and 2500 now and weight stable)
That is awesome. I can't even tell you how many people I have designed plans for and have worked with that have responded much better to higher calories.2 -
That is awesome. I can't even tell you how many people I have designed plans for and have worked with that have responded much better to higher calories.
The hardest thing for me was leaving what I thought I knew about performance nutrition at the door, and trying it!
It's working super well for me too, but it can be difficult to let go of the more deep rooted idea that lower calories are better. It's basically relinquishing control of your body to someone else, who says "eat this, do that". It can be a scary thing to do, and I'm eternally thankful that I've found a trainer I trust enough to hand that control over to.
After years of trying, my way clearly wasn't getting me the results I wanted, so I didn't feel like I had anything to lose. I guess that made it easier for me to follow almost blindly, but I don't think this aspect of nutrition/training should be underestimated. I've heard so many clients chat back to their trainers, and clearly the trust isn't there. My favourite one was in my hotel gym in Dubai earlier this year, which is also an normal gym:
Client: How many reps?
Trainer: 12 (presumably with a rep/set plan in mind)
Client: I'll do 5.
I bet that client goes complaining in a few weeks or months that they're not getting results
Right, I'm driveling now. Back to work really. But just wanted to wholeheartedly agree!0 -
deannalfisher wrote: »Muscleflex79 wrote: »carriebeary8 wrote: »I was at a stall because I was eating to few calories. I upped my calories by changing my activity level from sedentary to lightly active and I'm suddenly losing again. So it is actually possible to lose weight by eating more calories. Just because 1200 calories woulda for one person, doesn't mean it works for all.
lol - nope. if only that were the solution just think of all the thrilled people that could eat MORE to lose!
Then you should probably not listen to folks like Layne Norton or Lyle McDonald because many of their clients are also experiencing similar things.
Also, if you want to see the explanation, I already provided it above. EE is not linear and many things influence EE. Highly suppressed calories can also lead to direct or transient reductions in NEAT, TEA and TEF; also, long periods of times dieting will cause reductions basal metabolic functions.
Edit: Apparently, it's way to early to write coherently.
I also subscribe to the eat more, have more energy, do more theory - when I started working with my RD, they upped my calories (from about 1500 to 2100) - I had more energy, which meant my workouts improved, I was recovering better and could do more. I'm down 12lbs since November, and they have periodically adjusted my calories up (I'm at between 2300 and 2500 now and weight stable)
That is awesome. I can't even tell you how many people I have designed plans for and have worked with that have responded much better to higher calories.
This is good stuff. Most of the time, I can appreciate the simplicity of CICO. For weight only, and for most situations it works just fine. The problem is twofold:
1. The body is not that simple. Calorie intake can be complicated when you are trying to do competing things. Losing fat and (for most) building or at least maintaining muscle. Building or maintaining muscle takes energy. Burning fat takes energy. Settling on the optimal deficit for achieving your goals depends on how you can do the things you want to do. For exercise and metabolism, many folks need a smaller deficit in order to gain the benefit of exercise. Many do not. I've found that early on, my -1000 was working fine. Now, several months in, and with regular exercise, I may need to reduce my deficit so that I can achieve my exercise goals.
2. Measuring those things, for most of us comes down to estimates. Our TDEE, BMR, etc. are based on algorithms for probably 95% percent of us. Just because 8 different TDEE calculators spit out an estimated number of approximately 3100 (for me) doesn't mean that number is right for me. It turns out that it was a pretty good estimate. That's what my fitbit has told me and that's what my weight loss results show.
So we base our plan on estimates. We base our results on simplified measurements (the scale for most of us), which don't really do a good job of confirming health. We have to interpret the number right?
We can get pretty close in measuring our caloric intake, but the only way to really know our burn is to watch it over a long period of time. Even then, however, your body is undergoing changes. If you are just losing weight, your TDEE drops over that time, so the underlying components that influence it change. Your body composition changes over time and changes occur constantly.
I would also add that your workouts most likely vary in intensity based largely on whatever energy you have available for them. So it's not possible to know whether you burn the same amount for the same exercise. Too many variables. For example, I take several 2+ mile walks per day in the midst of my job or lunch or whatever. Two weeks ago it was 55F and breezy. Today it'll be 80F for my first walk and pushing 90F on the second. I'm not sure how substantial that is, except for one thing: it helps me appreciate the complexity of the how this process works.
CICO as a blanket statement is mostly good - and it's simple. It works this way for a good reason and has worked for me so far. But the underlying factors in the simple equation are far from simple. If the OP increases her calories and then works out with more vigor because the energy is there, it may be better for her.
If I was in that situation I would consider giving that a shot, but in truth I'd still be careful. It's still CICO, but the increase in CI may ultimately help increase the CO a bit more because of the potential increased intensity and/or duration of activity.2 -
deannalfisher wrote: »Muscleflex79 wrote: »carriebeary8 wrote: »I was at a stall because I was eating to few calories. I upped my calories by changing my activity level from sedentary to lightly active and I'm suddenly losing again. So it is actually possible to lose weight by eating more calories. Just because 1200 calories woulda for one person, doesn't mean it works for all.
lol - nope. if only that were the solution just think of all the thrilled people that could eat MORE to lose!
Then you should probably not listen to folks like Layne Norton or Lyle McDonald because many of their clients are also experiencing similar things.
Also, if you want to see the explanation, I already provided it above. EE is not linear and many things influence EE. Highly suppressed calories can also lead to direct or transient reductions in NEAT, TEA and TEF; also, long periods of times dieting will cause reductions basal metabolic functions.
Edit: Apparently, it's way to early to write coherently.
I also subscribe to the eat more, have more energy, do more theory - when I started working with my RD, they upped my calories (from about 1500 to 2100) - I had more energy, which meant my workouts improved, I was recovering better and could do more. I'm down 12lbs since November, and they have periodically adjusted my calories up (I'm at between 2300 and 2500 now and weight stable)
That is awesome. I can't even tell you how many people I have designed plans for and have worked with that have responded much better to higher calories.
working with these guys really made me forget everything I had every been told - and its interesting watching newer people to the program who struggle with this (and the guy in charge will tell you if he thinks you aren't doing the program).0 -
Muscleflex79 wrote: »carriebeary8 wrote: »I was at a stall because I was eating to few calories. I upped my calories by changing my activity level from sedentary to lightly active and I'm suddenly losing again. So it is actually possible to lose weight by eating more calories. Just because 1200 calories woulda for one person, doesn't mean it works for all.
lol - nope. if only that were the solution just think of all the thrilled people that could eat MORE to lose!
Then you should probably not listen to folks like Layne Norton or Lyle McDonald because many of their clients are also experiencing similar things.
Also, if you want to see the explanation, I already provided it above. EE is not linear and many things influence EE. Highly suppressed calories can also lead to direct or transient reductions in NEAT, TEA and TEF; also, long periods of times dieting will cause reductions basal metabolic functions.
Edit: Apparently, it's way to early to write coherently.
Yeah, consistently low calories isn't fun. Once I plateaued for weight loss, I simply increased calories for the weekend to maintenance level. Low calories for the week. Then I started lifting much heavier weights ( just 3 days a week) and that seemed to help me lose weight faster than ever before. I think it's much more enjoyable too, since a diet should be something you can do forever, not some crash diet. Another way is just increasing calories on workout days, and lower calories on rest days (assuming the standard 3 days a week exercise that many seem to do).
The main thing was just increasing energy expenditure, with heavy lifting.0 -
If your body is not getting enough calories, it will think it's being starved and hold on to fat.0
-
-
heiliskrimsli wrote: »
Ok.0 -
leanneconnolly975 wrote: »I'm 5"5 140lbs, my job is active (on my feet 9hours a day) I go to the gym and strength train 5-6 times a week for 30-40 minutes. I eat 1200 and drink loads of water, I have yet to lose any weight ( 3 months in)
I've read that sometimes upping your calories will cause weight loss but I'm scared I'll just end up putting on more weight
Where did you get 1200 calories @leanneconnolly975 ? According to sailrabbit.com your bmr is 1340. Tdee is 2345. A moderate deficit would be 2095.
I would first start by eating that amount (or change mfp to the most active setting, 1/2 to 1 pound a week, and eat about half of your exercise calories) and work on being extremely accurate with your tracking.1 -
-
0
-
I wouldn't stress it. You oversimplified things a bit. Your body won't technically hold onto fat by eating very low calories but it will down regulate metabolism and a host of other things to make your body more efficient so you burn less calories. It's why anorexics don't die within weeks of being one.Muscleflex79 wrote: »
Such a bad example. It's just as bad as people comparing doughnuts vs broccoli and asking what is better for you.2 -
I would recommend looking into the following group. 1200 calories/day used to work for me for years when I would yoyo diet, but then my body started rebelling and holding onto the weight. Nothing I did would make my weight budge. I educated myself more and realized that I was eating too little. I've started eating about 2100 calories (40/30/30 macros) and kept lifting weights as I had already been doing. I gained a couple of pounds during the first month but now I have started dropping the weight. I am FINALLY satisfied and have not binged at all as I previously had occasionally with the 1200 calorie diet. It's not just as simple as calories in and calories out. Our bodies are complicated and we still have a lot to learn about metabolism and hormones, etc... Check this out! Stop being hungry!
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/3817-eat-more-2-weigh-less0 -
Hey! I'm no expert but I'm also a 5.5 active girl, I went from 156 to 125 in about six months.
I lost weight pretty consistently on 1200 until I was about 140 pounds and then I just suddenly stopped losing weight. I didn't lose any weight for about a month despite meticulously measuring every morsel I ate and upping my exercise.
I was exhausted and fed up. After reading an article, I upped my calories to 1450 a day, and the next week I lost a kilo! I then consistently lost until recently. Of course it's easy to say that eight loss is simply calories in vs. calories out and therefore the only way to go is down, but I truly believe it's more complicated than that. It may be that by upping my calories, I had more energy to move around more. Or maybe it lessened my stress. But for me, upping the calories really worked!
Listen to your body, if it's telling you 1200 is not enough, it's not enough. Bring them up by about 100 a week and see how you feel. Eat clean and work hard
Good luck!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
- 426 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