Question about calories being too low and not losing weight

2»

Replies

  • sarabushby
    sarabushby Posts: 782 Member
    It is also quite common for people to genuinely believe they’re ‘only eating 1200 calories a day’ but actually once a week or more they have a blow out and don’t record a meal or maybe a whole day, the additional calories consumed from that one day can be enough, combined with inaccurate data entries on other days or logging lapses, to offset the week’s deficit.

    My maintenance is currently set at 1570, assuming I was ‘only eating 1200 a day!’ then that’s 370 calories a day deficit, enough for a healthy .5-1lb a week loss.

    But … say allow 100 calories for logging inaccuracy (which is really nothing) and then add in just one ‘splurge meal/drinks’ at 1870 calories and boom suddenly I’m back to maintenance and not losing anything.

    In my opinion that’s a really conservative example, many people have days or meals missing in their diaries and there’s so so many bad data entries on here that it’s very easy to think you’re doing everything right but actually not make progress.
  • Buckeyebabe7l7
    Buckeyebabe7l7 Posts: 851 Member
    edited April 22
    sarabushby wrote: »
    It is also quite common for people to genuinely believe they’re ‘only eating 1200 calories a day’ but actually once a week or more they have a blow out and don’t record a meal or maybe a whole day, the additional calories consumed from that one day can be enough, combined with inaccurate data entries on other days or logging lapses, to offset the week’s deficit.

    My maintenance is currently set at 1570, assuming I was ‘only eating 1200 a day!’ then that’s 370 calories a day deficit, enough for a healthy .5-1lb a week loss.

    But … say allow 100 calories for logging inaccuracy (which is really nothing) and then add in just one ‘splurge meal/drinks’ at 1870 calories and boom suddenly I’m back to maintenance and not losing anything.

    In my opinion that’s a really conservative example, many people have days or meals missing in their diaries and there’s so so many bad data entries on here that it’s very easy to think you’re doing everything right but actually not make progress.

    Thank you for your response.

    I did address that in an earlier comment. I am sure you missed it. That is a common occurrence and a valid concern.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 8,412 Member
    Duration also plays a role. Many people who come here eat very little for a week, then step on the scale expecting a huge drop, and found they gained weight. Which, provided their calorie tracking is accurate is likely water retention from new exercise, a certain spot in the menstrual cycle or anything else that causes this and will mask weight loss.
  • Buckeyebabe7l7
    Buckeyebabe7l7 Posts: 851 Member
    yirara wrote: »
    Duration also plays a role. Many people who come here eat very little for a week, then step on the scale expecting a huge drop, and found they gained weight. Which, provided their calorie tracking is accurate is likely water retention from new exercise, a certain spot in the menstrual cycle or anything else that causes this and will mask weight loss.

    That is true. But I was speaking to the posts where people have been on a longer duration of little to no weight loss and posters were suggesting too low calorie deficit. But thank you for your input.
  • Buckeyebabe7l7
    Buckeyebabe7l7 Posts: 851 Member
    edited April 22
    Lordy, I feel like a complete dummy because I finally saw the link I was provided was there all the time in the "must read" section of Health and Weight Loss. I will say I find this site a bit hard to navigate but I am getting older and I know what that does because I have seen it. I guess I have graduated from middle age to old. Although, it was tucked into a lot of other topics...does that count? :D
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,352 Member
    edited April 22
    Yeah, I think the participants in Keys Minnesota study were men only of healthy body and weight, which makes a difference, a big difference in this context where any complications are manifested pretty much from the beginning.

    Apparently the Minnesota participants ate 1600-1800 calories a day after an introductory period of consuming 3000 calories for 12 weeks. They were also committed to 22 miles of walking or running a week and that period was for 24 weeks. Their RMR resting metabolic rate was reduced by 40%.

    https://dieteticallyspeaking.com/the-minnesota-starvation-experiment/

    Anyway, if we look at the biggest losers who were over 300lbs when they started they still had a reduction in their resting metabolic rate close to 25% and that was an average so many were higher. Exercise was in the 4 to 6 hours a day range and it was pretty intensive with less than a hour of weights, so mostly cardio. Can't remember how many calories they were eating but it was around 1200 and very low fat, I think around 10%. Most of the participants have never regained all of their metabolism back after all this time.

  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,489 Member
    Also, I think sometimes people who are new on this site may just have trouble with all the shorthand we use and/or they may mix up the terms we use. For instance, I don't really think this means what you think it means:
    Buckeyebabe7l7 wrote: »
    yirara wrote: »
    Duration also plays a role. Many people who come here eat very little for a week, then step on the scale expecting a huge drop, and found they gained weight. Which, provided their calorie tracking is accurate is likely water retention from new exercise, a certain spot in the menstrual cycle or anything else that causes this and will mask weight loss.

    That is true. But I was speaking to the posts where people have been on a longer duration of little to no weight loss and posters were suggesting too low calorie deficit. But thank you for your input.

    So in general, read through the answers in a thread (all of them) and the "advice" is pretty standard unless there are people who still believe in diet myths. I mean, there are always new members who jump in with their misguided beliefs about starvation mode.

    Ya have to kind of learn to separate the chaff from the grain. There are a core group of regular posters and you'll get reasonable answers from all of them, but it is a forum with lots of new people on their phones giving one-sentence replies that are out of left field.

  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,489 Member
    edited April 22
    oh, and here's the Refeed and Diet Breaks thread:
    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1

    You'll see that linked a lot, because weight loss stalls during long-duration weight loss are so common. The first thing people think to do is eat less, and that's almost never the answer. We kind of go down a check list of questions when they have this problem, and then try to troubleshoot with them.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,161 Member
    sarabushby wrote: »
    It is also quite common for people to genuinely believe they’re ‘only eating 1200 calories a day’ but actually once a week or more they have a blow out and don’t record a meal or maybe a whole day, the additional calories consumed from that one day can be enough, combined with inaccurate data entries on other days or logging lapses, to offset the week’s deficit.

    My maintenance is currently set at 1570, assuming I was ‘only eating 1200 a day!’ then that’s 370 calories a day deficit, enough for a healthy .5-1lb a week loss.

    But … say allow 100 calories for logging inaccuracy (which is really nothing) and then add in just one ‘splurge meal/drinks’ at 1870 calories and boom suddenly I’m back to maintenance and not losing anything.

    In my opinion that’s a really conservative example, many people have days or meals missing in their diaries and there’s so so many bad data entries on here that it’s very easy to think you’re doing everything right but actually not make progress.

    Yes, we do see many posts here like that - low calories most of the week and one cheat day or meal (often not logged.)

    Here's another scenario:

    https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/1200-calorie-diet/

    p0no25g5x3zy.png

    And another one from the same page:

    fqmktf5zvz93.png

    That last is why I always want to look at someone's food diary before offering advice. The problem is often found in the food diary.
  • Retroguy2000
    Retroguy2000 Posts: 997 Member
    edited April 22
    Two of the common posts around here are:

    1) "I'm in a deficit of X, I'm not losing, what the hell?" Usually a new poster, they are informed they are not in a deficit, their tracking is way off, and they are typically never heard from again.

    2) "Been doing this a long time, down to 1200, not losing any more."

    These ones I give the benefit of the doubt to and assume they are tracking correctly. It's certainly possible they are not.

    What next, go to 1,000? 900? That's absurd. It's physically and mentally draining. It's potentially harmful, and definitely unsustainable. They shouldn't need to be this low to get results. What's probably happening is similar to that Biggest Loser study, which is probably an extreme example of body adaptation, where e.g. one guy was found to require consuming 800 fewer daily calories than people his weight would be expected to maintain at, just to avoid gaining fat.

    The best thing therefore is take a break. If they've been doing this for a few months, take a two week diet break back to where maintenance should be. Or start reverse dieting if needed to get back to maintenance at a slower pace. Most weight gain in this process should be water, and that's fine. Then they'll be in a much better position to resume dieting.
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 1,106 Member
    Retroguy2000 wrote: »



    2) "Been doing this a long time, down to 1200, not losing any more."

    These ones I give the benefit of the doubt to and assume they are tracking correctly. It's certainly possible they are not.
    unless they’re a very small woman that isnt carrying much fat they are not.

  • Lietchi
    Lietchi Posts: 5,543 Member
    Retroguy2000 wrote: »
    Two of the common posts around here are:

    1) "I'm in a deficit of X, I'm not losing, what the hell?" Usually a new poster, they are informed they are not in a deficit, their tracking is way off, and they are typically never heard from again.

    2) "Been doing this a long time, down to 1200, not losing any more."

    These ones I give the benefit of the doubt to and assume they are tracking correctly. It's certainly possible they are not.

    What next, go to 1,000? 900? That's absurd. It's physically and mentally draining. It's potentially harmful, and definitely unsustainable. They shouldn't need to be this low to get results. What's probably happening is similar to that Biggest Loser study, which is probably an extreme example of body adaptation, where e.g. one guy was found to require consuming 800 fewer daily calories than people his weight would be expected to maintain at, just to avoid gaining fat.

    The best thing therefore is take a break. If they've been doing this for a few months, take a two week diet break back to where maintenance should be. Or start reverse dieting if needed to get back to maintenance at a slower pace. Most weight gain in this process should be water, and that's fine. Then they'll be in a much better position to resume dieting.

    Or they are in a deficit but have gone all gung ho with exercise and are retaining water.

Categories