I always thought weight gain was a result of to many calories & not enough exercise !

carolannemckay wrote: »

I am on a lot of sites & people say they DO NOT EAT & still gain weight ? It could be true to an extent. If your thyroid is a problem your BMR is slower & burning calories is also effected. Anyway, I think the people trying to sell this get slim fast programs must be misleading desperate to lose weight people

I can personally rationalize 4 servings of peanut butter down to one...but I'm not sure anyone here will debate that excessive calories = weight gain...that's just me though.

I didn't get to 400lbs because of my thyroid.. it was fried chicken, code red, and funyuns...

carolannemckay wrote: »

I am on a lot of sites & people say they DO NOT EAT & still gain weight ? It could be true to an extent. If your thyroid is a problem your BMR is slower & burning calories is also effected. Anyway, I think the people trying to sell this get slim fast programs must be misleading desperate to lose weight people

No. Your thyroid modulates metabolism by a very small degree ~5% from all objective evidence.

Hormones are free cycling, so thinking of your body as a volume of water the primary driver is your volume. Many previously thought that weight gain was caused by diminished hormones, but it becoming more likely that thyroid issues are down stream of weight gain. If you are overweight you are putting an incredible amount of stress on the endocrine system and having the associated glands doubling efforts to try to maintain hormonal balance.

I had a total thyroidectomy in 2000 - gained and lost weight at a rate similar to everyone else before and after managing caloric intake and output.

carolannemckay wrote: »

I am on a lot of sites & people say they DO NOT EAT & still gain weight ? It could be true to an extent. If your thyroid is a problem your BMR is slower & burning calories is also effected. Anyway, I think the people trying to sell this get slim fast programs must be misleading desperate to lose weight people

It also depends on what they eat as well. - hamburger and a Coke/Pepsi it may not seem as much, but at 700 calories per meal could add up.

As others have said, people don't really understand how many calories they consume. I cannot count the amount of times someone has said they are overweight/obese and cannot manage to shift their weight even though they "barely" eat or are gaining weight despite barely eating. What is actually happening is:

1. They're right; they aren't eating much. However, they're consuming hundreds of calories worth of soda, juice, shakes, and/or Starbucks drinks in addition to what they do eat. (Anyone remember that thread where the person got a Starbucks drink but replaced the milk with heavy cream and the drink was estimated to be like 1200 calories?)
2. To them, "barely eat" means they don't sit down to an official breakfast, lunch, and dinner. However, they snack a lot throughout the day and don't realize how much they actually eat by having a handful of candy here and some chips there, etc.
3. They severely underestimate their calorie consumption. So many places online I have read people stating they ate some insanely low amount of calories for a month and didn't lose weight. They're not counting properly, they're forgetting about the days they binged after restricting too much, they're not counting that free for all "cheat" meal weekly, etc.

The bottom line is that unless someone is using a food scale for everything, they cannot be taken at their word when they make claims such as this. CICO works for everyone.

All my life I have been a non eater. I eat once maybe twice a day. Alot of the time I dont remember to eat until 6-7 at night. I never really paid attention to my eating as I had always been skinny. Suddenly in my mid 30's I statred gaining a little here and there. Today I am 70 lbs over weight. Most of it in my stomach. Talked with my doctor and started a diet. 1200 calories a day with exercise. I was shocked at how hard it was to reach 1200 calories. I had a hard time eating that much. Two months later I still had not lost any weight. Went back to the doctor. He said my body was in starvation mode. Storing all fat. Thats why I gained in the first place. If you do not feed your body enough it will store in fat what it needs to survive. He took me up to 1600 calories a day. Good grief, I almost couldnt eat that much. I felt way over stuffed all the time. Eventually I became used to the amount of food I had to eat and I also finally lost 3 lbs. Shortly there after i threw my back out due to too much exercise and was laid up. I regained the weight and an extra 10 lbs. I am now used to eating more. I will be starting back up with my diet soon. But I just wanted to say that it is possible to gain weight without eating a ton of calories. It happens when you dont eat enough over long periods of time and your body begins to store fat. So NO not everyone is eating to much.

rena49202 wrote: »

He said my body was in starvation mode. Storing all fat. Thats why I gained in the first place. If you do not feed your body enough it will store in fat what it needs to survive.... But I just wanted to say that it is possible to gain weight without eating a ton of calories. It happens when you dont eat enough over long periods of time and your body begins to store fat. So NO not everyone is eating to much.

This is not possible. If your BMR is, say, 1200, and you move at all, how is it possible to both fuel all the functions that you need to and store fat?

Also, why does this never happen to people who starve to death?

rena49202 wrote: »

All my life I have been a non eater. I eat once maybe twice a day. Alot of the time I dont remember to eat until 6-7 at night. I never really paid attention to my eating as I had always been skinny. Suddenly in my mid 30's I statred gaining a little here and there. Today I am 70 lbs over weight. Most of it in my stomach. Talked with my doctor and started a diet. 1200 calories a day with exercise. I was shocked at how hard it was to reach 1200 calories. I had a hard time eating that much. Two months later I still had not lost any weight. Went back to the doctor. He said my body was in starvation mode. Storing all fat. Thats why I gained in the first place. If you do not feed your body enough it will store in fat what it needs to survive. He took me up to 1600 calories a day. Good grief, I almost couldnt eat that much. I felt way over stuffed all the time. Eventually I became used to the amount of food I had to eat and I also finally lost 3 lbs. Shortly there after i threw my back out due to too much exercise and was laid up. I regained the weight and an extra 10 lbs. I am now used to eating more. I will be starting back up with my diet soon. But I just wanted to say that it is possible to gain weight without eating a ton of calories. It happens when you dont eat enough over long periods of time and your body begins to store fat. So NO not everyone is eating to much.

So much of this just isn't true.

Your doctor is wrong. And how do you think people actually starve to death?

Hi Everyone!

In rena49202’s defense, and oh I’m sure people will woo me on this (and that’s totally fine)... Yes, it HAS in fact been told to people that if they don’t eat enough calories their bodies go into “starvation mode” and store as fat.

NOW, to debate whether or not this is accurate, makes sense or is logical (biological, physiological, etc.), THAT is another story. But I found the poster to be totally believable as it was told. Because it in fact had been told to me a long time ago. So I didn’t see it as tolling at all.

I also agree with Glassyo that many new members (ME included) have a LOT to learn, so I hope this a good place to gather good information as well as kind support from others.

I turned 50 today, and SO MUCH of fitness and nutrition has changed since I was in my 20’s & 30’s and really actively into fitness. Terms that I see used today in this forum were not mainstream or widely used back in my day. It’s a struggle to figure it all out, especially if one’s fallen out of shape over a length of time. (I wish to lose around 40 lbs.) And also because there’s conflicting, contradictory information (or simply varying opinions) on the Internet. It’s hard to know what’s right, or the right way to approach getting in shape.

But, I’ve been checking around this app, and logging my food and I’m down 3.8 lbs. I also exercise (weights and cardio, not on the same day). So I’m going to keep it up and see how it goes.

Anyway, I look forward to learning a lot from my food diary, the blog, and this community/friends.

Wishing everyone a peaceful day!

I think sometimes new dieters think of 1200 calories as an abstract concept and not something that should be meticulously tracked to be accurate. They have a mental idea of how much food that is end up wondering why it doesn't work. I also wonder about those who feel "stuffed" all day on 1200 calories.

Panini911 wrote: »

DKLI wrote: »

I think sometimes new dieters think of 1200 calories as an abstract concept and not something that should be meticulously tracked to be accurate. They have a mental idea of how much food that is end up wondering why it doesn't work. I also wonder about those who feel "stuffed" all day on 1200 calories.

I think that low ball number is often used BECAUSE people greatly underestimate their calories.

Feeling stuffed at under 1200 puzzles me but when some people start a diet they are fine under eating for awhile not feeling "hungry". Excitement of a new plan especially if there is quick water drop making scale go down. Some people may not be big eaters (gained the weight eating little food quantity wise but food high in calories). So maybe when they go to so called "diet food" which is lower in cal/fat it's more in quantity than they can handle being smaller quantity eaters.

but yes i think most are not calculating their intake properly.

When I stopped guesstimating my caloric intake and weighing and measuring everything, I was shocked to say the least. I was guessing at ~2k calories per day, but was eating closer to 26-28 most days. That 6-8 hundred calorie difference is a full meal to folks in the know here, but for me it was simply double servings of peanut butter, olive oil, butter etc...it doesn't take much.

For what it's worth, even hovering at maintenance I'm still not happy about it, so I let myself have "those days"

Worth it, but certainly not something I would do consistently unless I want to regain that weight.

Evamutt wrote: »

before mfp, I ate a meal once a day & took green beans & tuna for lunch to work. Rarely had any snacks, rarely ate anything out, no candy bars, no soda, no bread. Made mostly sauted chicken with veggies & cream cheese on top of rice for dinner, drank lots of coffee & was 50lbs over weight for 20yrs. Lost 50 lbs by eating more often & just more food

You may have lost weight by eating more food, but your total calorie consumption was without a doubt less. Your whole post is confusing and really doesn't make sense. You didn't eat just once a day if you had lunch and dinner. That's two meals right there. You say you rarely snacked, but you didn't say what you snacked on when you did. You could very easily be adding enough calories on snacks alone to go over maintenance. Also, your sauteed chicken, veggies and rice for dinner could very easily have been a high calorie meal depending on whatever oils/butter you sauteed everything in. Cream cheese can also be calorie dense and I would imagine if you were to guess at how many calories your cream cheese and rice contained, you would be severely underestimating.

psychod787 wrote: »

Panini911 wrote: »

DKLI wrote: »

I think sometimes new dieters think of 1200 calories as an abstract concept and not something that should be meticulously tracked to be accurate. They have a mental idea of how much food that is end up wondering why it doesn't work. I also wonder about those who feel "stuffed" all day on 1200 calories.

I think that low ball number is often used BECAUSE people greatly underestimate their calories.

Feeling stuffed at under 1200 puzzles me but when some people start a diet they are fine under eating for awhile not feeling "hungry". Excitement of a new plan especially if there is quick water drop making scale go down. Some people may not be big eaters (gained the weight eating little food quantity wise but food high in calories). So maybe when they go to so called "diet food" which is lower in cal/fat it's more in quantity than they can handle being smaller quantity eaters.

but yes i think most are not calculating their intake properly.

It's a funny thing about not feeling hungry on low calories. Why as a 400lbs man did I not experience much hunger until i went lower than a certain weight? I went on a high protein, lower fat, high fruit and vegetable diet. I had hunger issues at the start for about 5 days. Then.... nothing...NOTHING... I underrate by up to 2000 calories a day. Not recommending this btw. When I started weighing and measuring my food is when I am pretty certain I was eating less than 2000 calories a day with a tdee estimate of over 4000? I did not get hunger until I went under 210lbs. Why? Bf set point? Why not until I hit that weight? I was eating more, but same diet style? It's a freaking mystery to me.

Because as a 400 pound man you had a lot more fat stores to tap into so you were able to sustain a larger deficit. The more body fat you have, the larger the deficit your body can sustain as it will tap into those fat stores.

I am 110 pounds now but started out at 139 with a high BF%. Because of my body fat percentage, I was able to get away with 1200 to 1400 calories gross, not net, for a few months without feeling tired despite being highly active. I dropped 20 pounds within my first two months even though it's not advisable to do so for someone at my starting weight. Now at 110 pounds, I need to eat 2000 to 2400 calories gross on average to maintain. If I even tried to eat 1200 to 1400 calories, I would gnaw my arm off. I usually eat that many calories by lunchtime and my body will surely let me know if I haven't.