Not eating enough, lesson learned
Replies
-
Unless there's some new method I don't know about, calorie use is measured by hooking people up to monitoring equipment, usually to measure oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production. It's also possible to measure it by determining the heat produced by the body, which requires that they be put in a special chamber. But it's just not feasible to confine people to a heat-monitoring chamber or have them wear a face mask and breath monitor for a few weeks while you collect data on how many calories they're using on an average day. And even if you did, it would change the way they carry out their daily activities so much that the results wouldn't be accurate.if you can measure CO at any point of time you can continue measuring it the same way. This is no different than saying we can't measure CI because foods have a 20% error or what have you.
Usually the way calorie usage or needs are estimated for a long period of time is to work backwards by looking at how many calories someone took in and how much fat they lost or gained. But basically all that's good for is determining how many calories someone used, not why they used that many.
0 -
It is possible for people to gain weight at times, as OP said, even while reducing calorie intake. It doesn't mean they gained fat.
Three of us (OP, a second poster, and me) reported similar experiences. If you believe CICO is valid, then it's not fewer calories that leads to fat loss - it's a bigger deficit. If for some reason CO decreased at the same time CI did, that would explain why we either weren't losing fat, or why we were only losing very slowly.Well, i think I found out why I was not losing and even gaining at times, I was not eating enough. I was eating 1000 calories below the highest weight loss setting in my fitness pall. For weeks I was not losing weight and I had no idea why i lost a lot when I starting cutting lower but it stalled. So, I am trying to eat my full recommended intake and after eating so few calories it feels indulgent lol. It worked and am losing weight gain, I guess I was curing to low and my body felt like it was starving.
Lesson learned.
To the OP and the rest who have a similar experience...sorry but the bolded parts are just not possible with the science we have now and have had for centuries...aka people actually starving...
YOu can't stall or gain on a calorie deficit unless it is "water weight" brought on by sodium, increased exercise or cortisol (stress hormone.)
It can appear that by eating more you are losing faster but in reality you have relieved your body of water weight by getting rid of the low calorie stresses...new exercise is no longer new and you have more energy to exercise maybe just a bit more or move just a bit more.
Even in this OP it states "I lost a lot when I started cutting even lower" which makes sense...the stall makes sense too...cortisol...water retention...
Other factors come into play as well...when you first start counting calories without being accurate by using a food scale and "guesstimating" you typically are eating more than you think...then you cut even lower and start losing but easily go back ot the bad estimates...then as you increase your calories you subconsiously choose smaller portions so in fact when you were logging 1200 your were probably eating closer to 1600-1800 and then as you start logging 1600 you are actually 1200-1400...which is one scenario.
Another scenario is that you are eating too little and are tired and not moving as much as you think...your hungry...your body is stressed and you start holding onto water weight.
Just to respond to things others have said, none of us said were anorexic or actually starving, just that we were eating very low calorie diets. The results in extreme cases don't necessarily predict what is likely to happen in more moderate circumstances. And none of us said we were getting fatter on fewer calories. I can't speak for the other two, but the theories about me actually eating more than I thought I was, or it all being water weight are wrong. I was keeping track of my eating the same way before as I am now, and I was on a much more restrictive diet then than I am now. During the 6 months I was losing weight extremely slowly, it definitely wasn't water weight. And I didn't lose 30 pounds of water weight since then.
The most scientific approach, it seems to me, would be to accept the data we have, instead of rejecting the data because it doesn't fit our hypothesis.
Actually the OP did...the quote was "not losing and even gaining at times, I was not eating enough"
Which I addressed as not being valid.
The consensus of anecdotal experience is that weight loss isn't linear, regular, or predictable. Many people on this site alone have reported that their weight loss stalled while they were maintaining a deficit. There are potentially all kinds of reasons why it might do that, but I have no reason to doubt that it really happens.As for stalling on a deficit which is what I said wasn't valid...you can't. If you are in a deficit you won't stall.
No one is disputing CICO. The question is whether you can eat less and not lose weight, and that's definitely possible. Reducing CI may not result in fat loss if CO also goes down. Similarly, you can increase CI and still lose weight (or even lose more weight), if CO goes up more. While we know a few things that can cause CO to go up or down, we don't know everything. It's also not feasible to measure CO in someone long-term.CICO is valid proven by science and centuries of starvation...I never once said it was "fewer calories"
I indicated what could cause you to think you could eat more and lose weight but it still doesn't invalidate CICO....
...okay since you want to get into the minutiae of it all here we go.
The OP said they gained due to not eating enough...false. Period. End of discussion. No mention in the OP of gaining fat or water weight...they said gained due to not eating enough.
A stall is defined as not losing weight for at least 6 weeks at which point you can say "i've stalled" 1 week is not a stall. Gaining 1 lb losing 1/2lb is not a stall.
You will not stall if you are in a deficit. Period. end of discussion.
Now you can go a week or two without losing yes...but that is not a stall that is a scenario where weight loss is not linear but if you are in a deficit you will lose.
And no the question was not can you eat less and not lose weight. The op was about not eating enough food and not losing then even gaining then eating more and then losing...and that by increasing their calories they broke "a plateau" "a stall" or "starvation mode" scenario which based on science is not valid.
You are muddying the waters with your interpretation and the straw man argument you are putting forth.3 -
If you believe CICO is valid, then it's not fewer calories that leads to fat loss - it's a bigger deficit. If for some reason CO decreased at the same time CI did, that would explain why we either weren't losing fat, or why we were only losing very slowly.
While I do not feel that adaptive thermogenesis is the answer to everything, I also don't understand why it is so readily dismissed as either flat out impossible or always inconsequential by a number of frequent posters.
In any case, the thread reference is sitting in the middle of the most helpful posts links at the beginning of this forum section: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1
I don't think it's impossible...improbable for sure considering all things that would come first.
We all (we being those who have lost weight) have succumb to Adaptive thermogenesis in some degree...that is fact but that can be countered as well with movement and muscle increase....
I think that by introducing those words it gives people another excuse as to why they "can't" lose ...akin to "well it's my metabolism" when in fact it's as simple as not logging accurately and consistently.1 -
All this crap about 'science' guess what- nutritional science is a load of crap too, 20 years ago we were all eating margarine and going on low fat diets. They still don't know what genetic factors are in play here, listen to your body.1
-
All this crap about 'science' guess what- nutritional science is a load of crap too, 20 years ago we were all eating margarine and going on low fat diets. They still don't know what genetic factors are in play here, listen to your body.
*listen to your body*? uhmmmm... thats an plan to lose weight?4 -
save0
-
Tomk652015 wrote: »All this crap about 'science' guess what- nutritional science is a load of crap too, 20 years ago we were all eating margarine and going on low fat diets. They still don't know what genetic factors are in play here, listen to your body.
*listen to your body*? uhmmmm... thats an plan to lose weight?
Hah. Most people are on here because they "listened to their body" for waaaay to long.
8 -
I agree with Christine_72 ... it's the larger deficit that helps me lose the weight, not necessarily eating low calories. And I too wish I could eat more and lose more, but without the "deficit" this doesn't work for me.1
-
All this crap about 'science' guess what- nutritional science is a load of crap too, 20 years ago we were all eating margarine and going on low fat diets. They still don't know what genetic factors are in play here, listen to your body.
actually that wasn't nutritional science that was the diet and fitness industry selling you crap.
5 -
One theory I read was that when people are eating so little that they don't feel well it decreases both unconscious energy use (fidgeting, using your hands while speaking, jumping because you're excited) and slows down your overall energy so conscious work-outs just aren't as vigorous--even if they feel like they are. You also don't sleep well when you're super hungry. So possibly if someone is eating (not stranded on an island without food) the same amount as before, but it results in decreased movement, poor sleep, etc, then maybe that would explain the experience?3
-
nevadavis1 wrote: »One theory I read was that when people are eating so little that they don't feel well it decreases both unconscious energy use (fidgeting, using your hands while speaking, jumping because you're excited) and slows down your overall energy so conscious work-outs just aren't as vigorous--even if they feel like they are. You also don't sleep well when you're super hungry. So possibly if someone is eating (not stranded on an island without food) the same amount as before, but it results in decreased movement, poor sleep, etc, then maybe that would explain the experience?
but by this logic...they eat more and can move more...so technically they aren't in any bigger of a deficit then before hence the weight loss shouldn't increase...
For example...eating 1k...burning 900 100 calorie deficit....eating 1500...moving more burning 1400...still 100 calorie deficit.0 -
nevadavis1 wrote: »One theory I read was that when people are eating so little that they don't feel well it decreases both unconscious energy use (fidgeting, using your hands while speaking, jumping because you're excited) and slows down your overall energy so conscious work-outs just aren't as vigorous--even if they feel like they are. You also don't sleep well when you're super hungry. So possibly if someone is eating (not stranded on an island without food) the same amount as before, but it results in decreased movement, poor sleep, etc, then maybe that would explain the experience?
This is what I think. Kind of off topic to this thread but I can maintain on a lower amount (1300-1500) but also (2100-2500) doing the same "structured" exercises per week. I do not put in as much effort though and thus I suspect I do not burn half as much. I slouch when walking, don't engage my core, etc. My HR doesn't get as high and I just struggle through to finish. I also noticed all the unconscious bits add up too. When I eat the higher amount (which I prefer to maintain on) I didn't even realize I would park farther away, dance more, move more, take the extra 4 flights of stairs because I forgot something instead of just saying oh well I forgot it, etc. I was mind boggled when I first discovered my two maintenance, but once I got a fitness tracker and really tried to pay attention to my unconscious movements and extra exercise, it really made sense. The brain also uses a LOT of calories and I found I could function a lot better in my studies and on the job because my mind was just on top of it.
I know many people with anorexia who DID damage their metabolisms from years of under eating to the point where they maintained on 600-1200 calories a day. But the thing is most anorexics get to an anorexic weight before this happens because it takes years and years of your body gradually shutting down vital components such as hormone production, collagen production, periods, maintaining a higher body temperature, and so on. But there is a limit and most anorexics who die or keep getting thinner just keep eating less and less below their lessened total caloric burn.4 -
If you believe CICO is valid, then it's not fewer calories that leads to fat loss - it's a bigger deficit. If for some reason CO decreased at the same time CI did, that would explain why we either weren't losing fat, or why we were only losing very slowly.
While I do not feel that adaptive thermogenesis is the answer to everything, I also don't understand why it is so readily dismissed as either flat out impossible or always inconsequential by a number of frequent posters.
In any case, the thread reference is sitting in the middle of the most helpful posts links at the beginning of this forum section: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1
Broadly, I agree that adaptive thermogenesis (AT hereafter) can be under-appreciated and under-cited here, but one doesn't want AT to be a conceptual life-raft for those whose thinking is ranging into the depths of "starvation mode".
That said, NEAT is really important, a bigger deal than exercise for most of us, and it's super easy to overlook gradual changes in that realm, as well as subtle changes in exercise intensity. If NEAT is winding down a bit, one's "noticing circuitry" may not be at peak performance.
Sometimes I try to get people who are stalled at low calories to examine their NEAT critically, but it's hard to get that idea across, especially to someone who's already committed to a competing, more facile theory.
I even suspect that - for some people if not all - there's a knee in the curve . . . a slope change/ inflection point where a hundred or two calories more food will perk NEAT up enough to significantly increase a slow loss rate that was masked temporarily by routine fluctuation (sodium, carbs, muscle repair, TOM, etc.) and seem to jump start loss again.
So, yeah, AT is a thing, but it's complicated. It's not going to explain actual gain on lower calories. So, with an OP who talked about sometimes gaining on the low calories, and certain they had stalled, I wouldn't go to that explanation first. The reasons have more to do with ideas about effective communication than about scientific precision. Maybe that's bad strategy - insulting, even? - dunno.
4 -
All this crap about 'science' guess what- nutritional science is a load of crap too, 20 years ago we were all eating margarine and going on low fat diets. They still don't know what genetic factors are in play here, listen to your body.
My body lies to me alllll the time. It Just wants all the ice cream and wine.2 -
So, yeah, AT is a thing, but it's complicated. It's not going to explain actual gain on lower calories. So, with an OP who talked about sometimes gaining on the low calories, and certain they had stalled, I wouldn't go to that explanation first. The reasons have more to do with ideas about effective communication than about scientific precision. Maybe that's bad strategy - insulting, even? - dunno.
The thing is Ann that the world is a strange place:
Daily Energy Intake and Resting Metabolic Rate Before and After a 15-week Weight-reducing Program in a Woman Resistant to Weight Loss
Variable Before After
Body weight (kg) 79.7 81.8
Energy intake (kcal/day) 2358 1870
Resting metabolic rate (kcal/day) 1479 927
And yes, I would challenge the body weight measurement personally on the basis of establishing how it was measured. But we are talking 15 weeks. And a reduction of more than 500 kcal in resting rate.
So is this likely, or the first zebra that you hear? maybe not. But it is not necessarily an alligator sounding like a zebra... or whatever mixed metaphor anyone would like to insert.
There are a lot of people on MFP who have dieted a substantial portion of their lives and are essentially inactive and operating at a very "hunkered down" state. And not losing in spite of only eating very little. Or who go balls to the wall and exercise 90 hours a day while chewing gum instead of eating food. And not losing.
So is AT the first thing to look at? NO
Most frequently the issue is correctly logging and interpreting one's weight.
Then correctly estimating and logging food and drink intake.
THEN exercise and/or activity logging errors.
The you have the variety of something else health related happening (edema, constipation, what have you)
But, when looking at a very sharp decrease in calories (large deficit) even for a short period of time, or looking at a very long period of dieting... yes, AT, in my opinion, is definitely a thing.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/567126_42 -
Parts of this argument seem very silly to me - the anti starvation mode crowd is attacking a straw man. No one has suggested that concentration camp victims or anorexics - people who are literally starving - don't lose weight. Literally no one has ever said that, so arguing against it is pointless. What has been said is that calorie restriction triggers the body to use the remaining calories more efficiently, which is not only true but well proven by hundreds of well conducted studies over decades in dozens of different countries. No, I will not look them up for you, do it yourself. You know how to use Google. Try googling the recent follow up study on the people who were on the Biggest Loser.
Approximately 75% of daily energy expenditure comes from non-exercise related activity and from resting metabolic rate. Both of these are reduced over the long term by calorie restriction. Not reduced to zero, people - if you eat little enough you will continue to lose weight - but nevertheless reduced. The TDEE for someone who has a reduced metabolism and reduced non-exercise activity is lower than that of someone who does not, therefore that person needs fewer calories to maintain weight.3 -
What actually probably happened was that when you shrunk your deficit by eating more food your cortisol levels decreased (calorie deficits cause stress in the body which increases cortisol levels, cortisol tends to make you hold on to water) and you "wooshed".. losing that water weight you were holding.1
-
jseams1234 wrote: »Hah. Most people are on here because they "listened to their body" for waaaay to long.
Actually the problem is that they didn't pay any attention to their body at all. They only "listened" to their habit of wanting to feel full all the time. If they had truly listened to their body, weight, paid attention to clothes fitting tighter, then they would not be here.3 -
My body told me it was hot. I bought it ice cream. My body told me it was tired. I gave it a snack. My body told me it was sore. I stopped moving as much. My body told me it was sick. My doctor told me weight loss was the treatment. My body has shut up and started working out.6
-
There are a lot of people on MFP who have dieted a substantial portion of their lives and are essentially inactive and operating at a very "hunkered down" state. And not losing in spite of only eating very little. Or who go balls to the wall and exercise 90 hours a day while chewing gum instead of eating food. And not losing.
I have NOT dieted a substantial portion of my life, and have been active with purposeful exercise (running and regular gym workouts) for nearly 35 years now. I have always, all my life, operated in a very "hunkered down state", as you say. Nothing I did, no continuous dieting. So if I have "adapted", it's a mystery to me how or why. Some of us just operate a little differently than others.1 -
Congrats on the fact that you started losing again! All this fighting is silly to me. Regardless of how it happened, or how you believe it happened, I'm happy for you. Keep doing what works for you!
0 -
I can definitely relate to undereating = under moving/lack of energy. I have days where i feel like I'm walking in quick sand, i'm grumpy and hungry, and just couldn't be bothered doing anything more than sitting on the couch all day. When these days happen i can guarantee that I've under eaten a day or two before, and low and behold, when i check my diary from the previous day i have way too many green calories left. All it takes is a day or two of not eating enough and I hit the wall hard!
So in that sense, when i eat more, i lose more simply because i'm fueling my body properly and i have the energy to exercise and do my normal everyday activities with gusto as opposed to moving at a snails pace and doing as little as possible.6 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Parts of this argument seem very silly to me - the anti starvation mode crowd is attacking a straw man. No one has suggested that concentration camp victims or anorexics - people who are literally starving - don't lose weight. Literally no one has ever said that, so arguing against it is pointless. What has been said is that calorie restriction triggers the body to use the remaining calories more efficiently, which is not only true but well proven by hundreds of well conducted studies over decades in dozens of different countries. No, I will not look them up for you, do it yourself. You know how to use Google. Try googling the recent follow up study on the people who were on the Biggest Loser.
Approximately 75% of daily energy expenditure comes from non-exercise related activity and from resting metabolic rate. Both of these are reduced over the long term by calorie restriction. Not reduced to zero, people - if you eat little enough you will continue to lose weight - but nevertheless reduced. The TDEE for someone who has a reduced metabolism and reduced non-exercise activity is lower than that of someone who does not, therefore that person needs fewer calories to maintain weight.
I'm part of the "anti starvation mode crowd" and absolutely believe that adaptive thermogenesis is a real phenomenon (but not the same thing as what's commonly meant by "starvation mode"). I also understand the point about hormones & diet breaks.
I also acknowledge that I've never seen anyone say that literally starving people don't lose weight, in so many words. However, I have seen people say here on occasion (not rare) assert that they've cut calories to an ultra low level, and have stopped losing weight, or are starting to gain, because they're in "starvation mode" and their body is "holding onto fat". The logical implication of this is that starving people won't lose weight. Chronically underfed people starve, eventually, at any significant calorie deficit that lasts long enough. They need not be eating zero.
Yes, as calories are reduced to an extreme, weight loss at X extremely low calories may slow, but it isn't going to stop.
Most of the "anti starvation mode crowd", IME, will advocate that someone who believes they're in "starvation mode" should adopt a nutritious way of eating that gives them sufficient calories for moderate, sustainable weight loss, and keeps their day to day energy at a reasonable level, plus fuels a reasonable amount of healthy exercise (if theyre able to exercise) . . . possibly after taking a diet break.
4 -
huh?? you don't gain / stay at the same weight from eating too little. plus you were probably eating more than you think1
-
All this crap about 'science' guess what- nutritional science is a load of crap too, 20 years ago we were all eating margarine and going on low fat diets. They still don't know what genetic factors are in play here, listen to your body.
Basically no one went on low fat diets. Not any more people than go on low carb diets today.0 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Parts of this argument seem very silly to me - the anti starvation mode crowd is attacking a straw man. No one has suggested that concentration camp victims or anorexics - people who are literally starving - don't lose weight. Literally no one has ever said that, so arguing against it is pointless. What has been said is that calorie restriction triggers the body to use the remaining calories more efficiently, which is not only true but well proven by hundreds of well conducted studies over decades in dozens of different countries. No, I will not look them up for you, do it yourself. You know how to use Google. Try googling the recent follow up study on the people who were on the Biggest Loser.
Approximately 75% of daily energy expenditure comes from non-exercise related activity and from resting metabolic rate. Both of these are reduced over the long term by calorie restriction. Not reduced to zero, people - if you eat little enough you will continue to lose weight - but nevertheless reduced. The TDEE for someone who has a reduced metabolism and reduced non-exercise activity is lower than that of someone who does not, therefore that person needs fewer calories to maintain weight.
It's the logical conclusion of "I'm eating too little so I can't lose weight".0 -
Honestly if you were really eating 1,000 calories you would be losing weight. Oftentimes people underestimate the calories they eat if they're going off of food labels which can underestimate by 20% possibly even more.
The best way to track intake is by using a food scale. Telling yourself oh I'm not losing weight on 1,000 Calories so I'll eat more to lose weight doesn't make sense. If you're really eating 1,000 calories you would've been at a high deficit.
I'm glad you're increasing your calories but I think you were most likely eating more calories than you though. And perhaps you started to track it better when you increased your calories thus causing you to lose weight just a guess.
But anyway good luck!1 -
stevencloser wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »Parts of this argument seem very silly to me - the anti starvation mode crowd is attacking a straw man. No one has suggested that concentration camp victims or anorexics - people who are literally starving - don't lose weight. Literally no one has ever said that, so arguing against it is pointless. What has been said is that calorie restriction triggers the body to use the remaining calories more efficiently, which is not only true but well proven by hundreds of well conducted studies over decades in dozens of different countries. No, I will not look them up for you, do it yourself. You know how to use Google. Try googling the recent follow up study on the people who were on the Biggest Loser.
Approximately 75% of daily energy expenditure comes from non-exercise related activity and from resting metabolic rate. Both of these are reduced over the long term by calorie restriction. Not reduced to zero, people - if you eat little enough you will continue to lose weight - but nevertheless reduced. The TDEE for someone who has a reduced metabolism and reduced non-exercise activity is lower than that of someone who does not, therefore that person needs fewer calories to maintain weight.
It's the logical conclusion of "I'm eating too little so I can't lose weight".
No, it's really not. Bodily functions don't plot nicely in straight lines. Eating vitamin A is necessary for health, so eating ten thousand percent of the daily allowance of vitamin A will make me immortal! Not a true statement, nor a statement logically implied by the first statement. Restricting calories severely does reduce metabolism, which makes it harder to lose weight eating the same amount of calories. There are two ways to balance the CICO equation - change the calories in, or change the calories out.
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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