Advice

Hach8214 · February 9

My maintenence calorie intake was calculated at 2100 due to physical work and activity, MFP put me down to 1772 to lose 1lb a week, however because I have been doing OMAD for over a year, I reduced this to 1200.

I am only losing half a pound a week if that, despite being health 90% of the time and being in a 1000 calorie deficit each day.

I am always under this, I am active with work and go on the treadmill when I'm not working.

What am I doing wrong? Surely I should be losing more?

I am 5ft 8, weigh 157lbs and my BMI is 23.8, I can only go down to 140lbs for my height, this is my target weight.

xbowhunter · February 9

Usually after several weeks and not losing the desired weight you are probably underestimating calories. Take a serious look at food intake and you may see you are eating more calories than you think.

yirara · February 9

Considering your current weight you should not really be losing much faster than half a pound per week to be honest. Thus even though you're likely eating a lot more than you think you're fine here.

Hach8214 · February 9

I don't eat more than I log, I only drink, coffee, tea and water throughout the day and limit my milk intake.
I actually eat more now I'm logging and I do struggle.
I did think half a pound was probably OK, just wondered if I needed to eat more to shock my body.
I usually fast for 23+ hours and I can't eat much in one meal.
I have a protien or fibre snack while dinner is cooking, then after ill have a yoghurt 200g with natural honey 1tbs for pudding, sometimes I change that and have 72g of cake just to get the calories, not often though. A meal for me would be 120g sweet potato, tin of tuna, 30g cheese, 55g cucumber, 28g red onion, 30g salad cream, half a tin of beans.
I weigh everything and scan my barcodes in.
I will continue on 1200, and maybe up the exercise and do some strength training.

AnnPT77 · February 9

I agree that half a pound a week would be a good rate, at your current size. Fast weight loss isn't healthful. You might be able to afford a little faster loss without too much risk, but 2 pounds a week really isn't a great plan IMO.

As far as what could be wrong:

You don't mention how long you've been logging at 1200. If it's less than 4-6 weeks, that's not long enough to know the actual effect. If you have menstrual cycles, I'd suggest you compare body weight at the same relative point in at least two different cycles.

In shorter time spans, routine daily multi-pound fluctuations in water weight can mislead the body weight scale. That's extra true if exercise has increased recently, because we need to retain extra water to help with muscle repair. In addition, eating too-low calories can itself trigger extra water retention, because fast fat loss attempts are a stress on the body, and that stress increases water retention.

I'd strongly advise against trying to manipulate water retention. Water weight shifts are part of how a healthy body stays healthy, and our bodies know what they're doing. I don't think we want to try to game that. Better to understand and expect it.

You say your calorie needs were calculated at 2100, which doesn't seem crazy for your reported stats. But it's not really a calculation, it's an estimate. Specifically, it's the research-estimated average calorie needs for people with the same small set of data values you put into the "calculator".

Each of us is an individual, and we can vary from average. Most people are close to average (small standard deviation, tall narrow bell curve). But a few will be surprisingly far off, either higher or lower. MFP and my good brand/model fitness tracker - one that others here report is accurate for them - are 25-30% off in estimating my calorie needs, as compared with 8+ years of logging experience. That's rare, but it can happen.

Another possibility is logging errors. That's not a diss: Most of us who've done this for a while have had face-palm moments when we discovered we were making systematic errors that mattered. Logging can be a surprisingly subtle skill. If you're willing to make your food diary MFP-public and say so here, maybe some of the MFP old hands could take a look at make suggestions. (That's an offer, not a demand. If you don't want to do it, that's totally fine.)

Also, are you logging and eating back exercise calories, as per MFP instructions? If so, how many calories do you estimate for an exercise session, and what is the exercise type/intensity/duration?

I'm curious what you meant by "despite being health 90% of the time"? I'm thinking there's a typo in there, so I'm wonder what you intended, and what the other 10% is. Depending on details that could be relevant.

I'm a little confused, too, by "however because I have been doing OMAD for over a year, I reduced this to 1200." Are you thinking that because you've been at reduced calories via OMAD (whether counting them or not) you would need fewer calories? Certainly timing of eating doesn't have any major effect on weight gain/loss, so I'm not sure how to interpret that.

Coincidentally, I joined MFP at about your current weight (154, which was part way through my weight loss). I also targeted 1200, which is rational based on my data (I'm old, shorter than you, sedentary outside of intentional exercise). I accidentally lost too fast at first because of MFP incorrectly estimating my calorie needs. Everything was great at first, I felt fine, energetic, not hungry . . . until I suddenly hit a wall. I got weak, fatigued. Even though I corrected quickly, it took multiple weeks to recover back to normal energy and strength. A few weeks later, there may've been some hair breakage/thinning (that's usually a delayed effect). No one needs any of that. I was lucky there wasn't anything worse, because there can be muscle loss, gallbladder issue, and more/worse.

That's my basis for encouraging you to avoid trying for 2 pounds a week at your current weight. Your call, though, depending on your tolerance for health risk.

I don't know whether that's helpful or not, but if you want more specific advice, we would need more details.

Best wishes!

PAV8888 · February 9

Sounds like you have been doing OMAD for a while now.... about a year sounds fair?
Sounds like you have been losing weight... about a year now if I understand correctly.
Sounds like you are at normal weight levels now, below BMI 24
Sounds like for some reason you have decided that you should be aiming closer to the bottom of normal weight as your goal, at around BMI 21 because "I can only go down to 140lbs for my height, this is my target weight"

You would have to confirm the inferences.

First of all: I can only go down to xxx for my height leaves something of a question in my brain. People tend to want to achieve health. people tend to want to move more or look in a certain way or "lose that fluff there". I just have a weird feeling about someone looking for a number on a display as a reasonable well thought out goal.

Moreover. Normal weight is normal weight. There are many interpretations of what it means. One side of normal weight is NOT more normal than the other. All that the normal weight range says is that MOST 5ft 8" people who are healthy weigh between xxx and yyy. It does not say that Samantha will be healthy because she weighs xxx or yyy. And it most certainly does not say that Samantha will be healthier at xxx or xxx. JUST that IF Samantha is healthy she more often than not will be found to have a weight between xxx and yyy. Changing the number between xxx and yyy may or may not be making you healthier but it has no meaning other than by itself.

Continuing.
--You should most certainly NOT be trying to lose weight fast while at a normal weight.
--Why would you be trying to accelerate your weight loss as opposed to flattening your weight loss as you approach your target?
--Are you getting sick or injured more often? Feeling run down or lack of energy at times? Or are you feeling energized? Are you feeling cold if you are not moving more so than you used to? Has your heart rate slowed down considerably? Does it speed up if and when you eat more than 1200 and closer to 2000 Cal? Do you ever do so? Do your nails ever grow appreciably a day or two after you have an "overeating" episode above the 1200 or do you never do that?

Maybe you want to save on your grocery bill and eating less will help with that. But my personal long term goal has been and continues to be to manage my weight while eating the most amount of calories than I can as opposed to trying to manage my weight by eating the least amount of calories that I can... even if it increases my grocery bill!

ddsb1111 · February 9

Congrats on being at a healthy weight. Losing the last bit needs to be slower, at .5 lbs a week, so you’re on target.

You’re not eating at a 1000 cal deficit, which is a great thing! You are eating at a 250 cal deficit per day which is perfect. Keep doing what you’re doing until you reach your goal.

The question is, will only adding a couple hundred calories doing what your doing be sufficient for you forever? Because that’s what maintenance means. You need to find a lifestyle you can do forever. What does that mean for you?

Corina1143 · February 9

I dont know, but it sounds wrong to me. I'm 74, female, sedentary, don't exercise much, weigh about 175. I'm losing about 2 pounds a month on 1400 calories. Bmi is 26.?.

Have you seen a Doctor lately? Everything ok?
How long have you been doing this?
Have you tried eating a little more to feel more energetic?

I'm so impatient to lose faster. But 1450 or so is my tdee at my ideal weight. As an experiment I'm doing about that now, partly to see how I'll handle maintenance, partly because I get so hungry when I cut calories more, and partly because I have no energy when I eat less.

Hach8214 · February 9

I was losing weight at 1772 calories doing OMAD, amd in a year I have lost 33 lbs.

Because I have a very active job, I tried to eat that amount, however I struggled.

I decided to lower calorie intake to 1200 as that's a recommendation for OMAD as it's more manageable, between 1200-1500 is adequate and I wanted to lose the last lbs quicker.

My goal weight is 140lbs as I feel i would benefit a leaner frame as my body shape is suited to that, meaning I do not look healthy at a higher weight, even though I am not overweight.

I have been on 1200 calories for 35 days so maybe I need more time.

I do not eat the exercise calories back, I always eat 1200 or under, it's mainly under.

As regards to my meals, 90% of the time I eat healthy, some days I will have the odd piece of cake and more carbs all within my 1200.

For example yesterday I had my main meal from greggs, I had a tuna crunch baguette and I fancied a Belgian bun, then today I felt guilty about that so I did a 27 hour fast and today I had a protien meal 526 calories, a protein mouse and a protein snack 30g of mixed nuts and chickpeas, only had 906 calories today.

I have a hereditary disease that affects my muscles and nerves ( CMT ) I don't suffer with any major problems, however I do experience cramps so being a lower weight will benefit my health more.

Because of my condition I have had full blood work, heart checked, lungs and I am regularly checked, all is fine on that side, I don't smoke or drink so quite healthy in that aspect.

I was told that to maintain I need to be eating 2100, and I barley get 1200 now, so I assumed that meant 1000 calorie deficit.

I have been eating one meal a day for 15months, it's easier on 1200, this is something I love and will continue forever, I feel amazing, sleep better, great skin, insulin sensitive, BP great, BPM resting good, and have loads of energy, the benefits are brilliant.

ddsb1111 · February 9

Hach8214 wrote: »

I was losing weight at 1772 calories doing OMAD, amd in a year I have lost 33 lbs.

Because I have a very active job, I tried to eat that amount, however I struggled.

I decided to lower calorie intake to 1200 as that's a recommendation for OMAD as it's more manageable, between 1200-1500 is adequate and I wanted to lose the last lbs quicker.

My goal weight is 140lbs as I feel i would benefit a leaner frame as my body shape is suited to that, meaning I do not look healthy at a higher weight, even though I am not overweight.

I have been on 1200 calories for 35 days so maybe I need more time.

I do not eat the exercise calories back, I always eat 1200 or under, it's mainly under.

As regards to my meals, 90% of the time I eat healthy, some days I will have the odd piece of cake and more carbs all within my 1200.

For example yesterday I had my main meal from greggs, I had a tuna crunch baguette and I fancied a Belgian bun, then today I felt guilty about that so I did a 27 hour fast and today I had a protien meal 526 calories, a protein mouse and a protein snack 30g of mixed nuts and chickpeas, only had 906 calories today.

I have a hereditary disease that affects my muscles and nerves ( CMT ) I don't suffer with any major problems, however I do experience cramps so being a lower weight will benefit my health more.

Because of my condition I have had full blood work, heart checked, lungs and I am regularly checked, all is fine on that side, I don't smoke or drink so quite healthy in that aspect.

Can you show me where 1200 is recommended for OMAD? Asking as another OMADer.

AnnPT77 · February 9

Hach8214 wrote: »

I was losing weight at 1772 calories doing OMAD, amd in a year I have lost 33 lbs.

Because I have a very active job, I tried to eat that amount, however I struggled.

I decided to lower calorie intake to 1200 as that's a recommendation for OMAD as it's more manageable, between 1200-1500 is adequate and I wanted to lose the last lbs quicker.

My goal weight is 140lbs as I feel i would benefit a leaner frame as my body shape is suited to that, meaning I do not look healthy at a higher weight, even though I am not overweight.

I have been on 1200 calories for 35 days so maybe I need more time.

I do not eat the exercise calories back, I always eat 1200 or under, it's mainly under.

As regards to my meals, 90% of the time I eat healthy, some days I will have the odd piece of cake and more carbs all within my 1200.

For example yesterday I had my main meal from greggs, I had a tuna crunch baguette and I fancied a Belgian bun, then today I felt guilty about that so I did a 27 hour fast and today I had a protien meal 526 calories, a protein mouse and a protein snack 30g of mixed nuts and chickpeas, only had 906 calories today.

I have a hereditary disease that affects my muscles and nerves ( CMT ) I don't suffer with any major problems, however I do experience cramps so being a lower weight will benefit my health more.

Because of my condition I have had full blood work, heart checked, lungs and I am regularly checked, all is fine on that side, I don't smoke or drink so quite healthy in that aspect.

I was told that to maintain I need to be eating 2100, and I barley get 1200 now, so I assumed that meant 1000 calorie deficit.

I have been eating one meal a day for 15months, it's easier on 1200, this is something I love and will continue forever, I feel amazing, sleep better, great skin, insulin sensitive, sleep better and have loads of energy.

If you actually averaged 1772 calories for a year, and lost 33 pounds, the implication is that your maintenance calories were 2088. (About 3500 calories in a pound of body fat, times 33 = 115,500 calories worth of fat loss approximately; divide that result by 365 to estimate your daily deficit, yielding 316 calories approximately. Add that to 1772 calories eaten daily, get 2088 maintenance estimate.) Obviously, that's rough; but it suggests the maintenance calorie estimate you got was quite possibly in the ballpark.

I won't argue with your target BMI, since I prefer to be BMI 21-point-something myself, though I'm more like 22 right now.

I still think eating 1200 is not a great plan with so little left to lose, but that's my opinion, and it's your body and your health so your call. (No snark intended there at all. Sincere.)

Eating 90% healthy is fine IMO. Since your calorie goal is so low, I hope you've set protein/fats goals in grams for yourself. Getting adequate nutrition on very low calories isn't necessarily just a matter of standard percentages. At your size, I'd be aiming for at least 100g protein minimum daily, and maybe 50-60g fat. Protein notion is based on:

https://examine.com/protein-intake-calculator/
https://examine.com/guides/protein-intake/

I admit, the idea of feeling guilty for eating a bun, then fasting longer and eating less today as . . . compensation? . . . doesn't sound ideal. Food is not a sin that requires expiation, even if over goal calories, and it sounds like you may not even have been over goal? Balancing nutrition, calories and pleasure is legit. 906 calories is very low.

Overall, this is all your decisions. If you've only lost about half a pound a week for 35 days, you're still presumably about 2.5 pounds down. It's possible there's water retention in the picture. Low calories can increase stress and add water weight, like I said. Certainly I wouldn't suggest lowering calories further.

Best wishes!

PAV8888 · February 10

I am a bit more negative than Ann about your choices because I have "opinions" about should be rational priorities when people engage in weight loss.

And I have the vanity to believe that occasionally I may bring up something that makes someone say "hmm" and then that leads them to think and ponder and, perhaps, to make decisions that help them obtain better outcomes for themselves down the road.

You are 33lbs down and into the normal/healthy weight range. That's the first and most major win.

Protecting this win comes before pushing for more success. Most people who lose large amounts of weight regain it in short order. Are your current actions enhancing your ability to retain your weight loss into maintenance?

You are enhancing your chances of maintaining your lowered weight by trying to increase your rate of loss after you're already at a healthy weight?

Is your choice of speeding things up perhaps because you're starting to feel "tired" of all the effort you're putting in and you want to get to where you dream to be a bit faster so that you no longer have to do what you're doing?

You are saying that OMAD is for life; but, you are also saying that you have to eat "1200" because that's what you can comfortably fit in OMAD.

So think of the implication of what you're saying.

You are trying to shoehorn your energy intake into what you can fit into your OMAD choice of eating based on the types of foods you're consuming.

I mean that IS what you're saying, right?

I am more comfortable eating 1200 in one meal because otherwise I am presumably too full and uncomfortable, etc. So yeah, I am going to lose more weight now. But I am also going to continue doing OMAD at maintenance (as you said above).

So... where will you get the magical wherewithal to increase calories when you're at maintenance then without changing OMAD or the content mix of your OMAD?

The corollary here is that you will either have to reduce your activity to somehow come closer and have the totality of your activity conform to your intake. Or you will have to change your method of intake at maintenance anyway to accommodate a higher intake of calories in spite of saying that you don't plan to and that it may be too hard to do now.

The BASE OF THE PYRAMID is the NUMBER OF CALORIES. The number has to be right regardless of the greatness of the mix or the perfection of your eating window.

Therefore you're saying that your method of caloric management can't work at maintenance if you are truly stating that your primary reason for reducing current intake is not a desire for speed but rather your inability to comfortably eat more.

Intake has to be within bounds to where you are at and what you want to achieve. At or around maintenance to maintain. Up or down from that to gain or lose. Within parameters your body will elastically try to accommodate things. Slow down a bit speed up a bit forgive one extra or one less meal.

But systemically you will trend up or down or your intake or activity will end up conforming to one another through the mechanism of injury and slower recoveries/more sleep/tiredness if nothing else.

I am not saying you can't or won't lose weight. But I am saying that your narrative has a logical hole in it from my perspective:
A- I am doing OMAD and I am doing it for life
B- I cannot adjust OMAD to above 1200 and
C- I am a very active person who is spending 2000.

Of course you can adjust OMAD by making different food choices. And of course you can eat before or after and not do the OMAD you're doing today. And of course you can be less or more active too.

So I would urge you to primarily consider what will help you retain your weight loss.

Probably to continue to focus on weight loss if that's what you want for now but do worry more about finding what is going to be sustainable for you for the next 5 years and not just for the next 5 kilos.

Yes, I do believe you need to eat more than 1200. Probably at the very least at least the amount that you've been eating all along while you've been losing weight. Not to "shock" your body. But because you should not be increasing your deficit to begin with and because sliding into maintenance after some additional losses and at a level where current activity and intake merge and staying at that merge for a long time period (months/years) is as good a method as any to start having a successful maintenance.

Hach8214 · February 10

Thank you for the replies.

I never thought about maintenence after, this worries me now.

I googled calories for OMAD and it popped up with 1200-1500 as a recommendation as too much in a meal can lead to binging.

I suppose after I reach my goal weight, I was 140lbs 10 years ago I felt great at that weight, I could bump up my calories to 1300, or go back to 20/4 fasting and have 1500.

I can't manage more than 1200 in an hour, I could if my eating window was 4 hours

I drink 2 litres of water a day.

How would I know if I'm retaining water? I do not look swollen or puffy.

I am never low on energy, I feel so much better since doing OMAD, alot has improved.

I was hoping to be my goal weight sooner because of the deficit, I am still happy losing half a pound a week i was just worried I was doing something wrong as I assumed a faster loss of a 1lb a week.

I'm not feeling stressed or tired, Over Christmas I ate normal Xmas day and I felt incredibly bloated, I felt unwell eating throughout the day, so OMAD is definitely suited to me, I'm happier eating this way.

I do realise that 906 calories is low, however I mainly get 1200, I just wasn't hungry yesterday as I have a sore throat, and it was a day off from work, I relaxed and didn't spend much energy.

Thank you all for the advice, you've given me alot to think about.

sollyn23l2 · February 10

Hach8214 wrote: »

Thank you for the replies.

I never thought about maintenence after, this worries me now.

I googled calories for OMAD and it popped up with 1200-1500 as a recommendation as too much in a meal can lead to binging.

I suppose after I reach my goal weight, I was 140lbs 10 years ago I felt great at that weight, I could bump up my calories to 1300, or go back to 20/4 fasting and have 1500.

I can't manage more than 1200 in an hour, I could if my eating window was 4 hours

I drink 2 litres of water a day.

How would I know if I'm retaining water? I do not look swollen or puffy.

I am never low on energy, I feel so much better since doing OMAD, alot has improved.

I was hoping to be my goal weight sooner because of the deficit, I am still happy losing half a pound a week i was just worried I was doing something wrong as I assumed a faster loss of a 1lb a week.

I'm not feeling stressed or tired, Over Christmas I ate normal Xmas day and I felt incredibly bloated, I felt unwell eating throughout the day, so OMAD is definitely suited to me, I'm happier eating this way.

I do realise that 906 calories is low, however I mainly get 1200, I just wasn't hungry yesterday as I have a sore throat, and it was a day off from work, I relaxed and didn't spend much energy.

Thank you all for the advice, you've given me alot to think about.

Why not keep the intermittent fasting, but extend your eating window enough to have 2 meals instead of just just one (maybe a 4 or 6 hour eating window?

neanderthin · February 10

Hach8214 wrote: »

Thank you for the replies.

I never thought about maintenence after, this worries me now.

I googled calories for OMAD and it popped up with 1200-1500 as a recommendation as too much in a meal can lead to binging.

I suppose after I reach my goal weight, I was 140lbs 10 years ago I felt great at that weight, I could bump up my calories to 1300, or go back to 20/4 fasting and have 1500.

I can't manage more than 1200 in an hour, I could if my eating window was 4 hours

I drink 2 litres of water a day.

How would I know if I'm retaining water? I do not look swollen or puffy.

I am never low on energy, I feel so much better since doing OMAD, alot has improved.

I was hoping to be my goal weight sooner because of the deficit, I am still happy losing half a pound a week i was just worried I was doing something wrong as I assumed a faster loss of a 1lb a week.

I'm not feeling stressed or tired, Over Christmas I ate normal Xmas day and I felt incredibly bloated, I felt unwell eating throughout the day, so OMAD is definitely suited to me, I'm happier eating this way.

I do realise that 906 calories is low, however I mainly get 1200, I just wasn't hungry yesterday as I have a sore throat, and it was a day off from work, I relaxed and didn't spend much energy.

Thank you all for the advice, you've given me alot to think about.

Yeah, you could eat more in an hour you just need to mix around your food choices, it's actually pretty easy.

Also, as in the actual definitions and science that underpins intermittent fasting as in, "time restricted eating" (TRE) it has nothing to do with either the amount of food a person eats or what they eat, period, and if your finding a site that's telling you to eat 1200 calories and prefaces or mentions that with the possibility of binging then I suspect it's a site more about weight loss and uses TRE for weight loss, not uncommon but totally wrong.

It's not uncommon and actually expected if someone isn't eating for 23 hours out of a day that they won't get bloated and feel better in general and if you feel unwell experience bloated from eating over the course of a normal day it probably has to do with your gut health, food selections and elevated blood glucose.

As fat as diet is concerned I like lower to low carb of whole foods for satiation, steady blood sugar that facilitates a steady mood and totally eliminated my gut problems that included bloating, gas, constipation etc so basically no bloating, so if your normal diet consists of a lot of processed foods and carbs you might think of changing that up by including more protein and see how that effects your mood and bloating.

I would try and split your OMAD with a snack, it really doesn't matter how many calories you have it could be 200-500 calories and even if it's within say a 6 hour window, referred to as 18:6 or the 4 hours you mentioned and going any longer is pretty much a moot point, in other words it's not really doing anything beneficial. I can see the alure of feeling great as opposed to feeling otherwise but going that extreme is well, extreme and for the vast majority very difficult to maintain in life in general.

ddsb1111 · February 10

I googled calories for OMAD and it popped up with 1200-1500 as a recommendation as too much in a meal can lead to binging.

Sorry, but this doesn’t make any sense. I don’t blame you for being confused! There’s a lot of woo out there. It would be nice if calories were based on the size of the meals, but unfortunately that’s not the case. Think butter and olive oil and you’re almost halfway there.

I suppose after I reach my goal weight, I was 140lbs 10 years ago I felt great at that weight, I could bump up my calories to 1300, or go back to 20/4 fasting and have 1500.

What are your stats, did I miss that? I too have a fairly low RMR and TDEE so I get it.

I can't manage more than 1200 in an hour, I could if my eating window was 4 hours

You could either increase your calories in that meal with higher caloric options, or like the previous commenter said, extend your window. OMAD (for dieting) is only a tool to minimize opportunities to eat. It has no magical properties. It comes down to how many calories you eat in a day, no matter how big or small your window.

I was hoping to be my goal weight sooner because of the deficit, I am still happy losing half a pound a week i was just worried I was doing something wrong as I assumed a faster loss of a 1lb a week.

Please don’t take this wrong but you are not eating in a 1000 calorie deficit daily, even if it feels like it. If you’re losing .5 lb a week you’re in a 250 calorie deficit per day. This is perfect! I’ll touch on this more later. But, first let me provide an example-

My husband and I did a 3 month weight loss challenge. We both did and still do OMAD. We were INCREDIBLY STRICT. Like, you would think we were doing a fitness competition, we had everything down to the gram. And I barely lost more than .5 lbs a week. Yes, it was TOUGH! But I didn’t expect to lose more than that because that’s how it is when you don’t have much to lose. Reframe your thinking, and accept that losing isn’t quick and easy, but it’s the price you pay for wanting certain things to be a certain way. It sounds like you understand that part now, which will give you peace of mind as you move forward. Blame the media for letting us think we can lose 10 lbs a month lol.

The last thing I want to address is maintenance. What you do now will directly affect how you maintain for the rest of your life. I promise it’s not as scary as it sounds 😊. You should be teaching yourself what your new lifestyle looks like, with a few hundred calories less. That way when you get to maintenance you do the exact same thing with slightly more calories. If what you’re doing isn’t something you ‘want’ to do forever, then this isn’t the right lifestyle for you. This is why it’s imperative to know what your maintenance calories really are, not what you think they are. Personally, I don’t want to go through life thinking “I can’t eat anything. I have to practically starve to lose weight. There’s something wrong with me!” when that’s not true even a little bit. It’s not helpful or kind to myself. Show yourself grace, and be flexible. The goal is to find what works best for you now and in the future.

Hach8214 · February 10

Thanks again for the replies.

I am quite strict most days and do aim to have high protien and fats, it's just difficult to squeeze big meals in.

The only reason I thought I was in a 1000 calorie deficit was because according to a calorie calculator, my age, height, weight and fitness gave me 2100 to maintain and suggested 1772 to lose a 1lb a week, I did this on 20/4 and lost 33lbs in a year, I wasn't as strict either, so I ate the correct portions, weighed everything and just ate what I fancied in those 4 hours, meaning I sometimes had pasta, potatoes and ate hummus everyday. I ate like this for half a year and then went to 23/1 OMAD.

I joined MFP to try and lose more as I started to maintain that weight, and this calculated the same 1772 to lose, I knew it wouldn't so dropped down to 1200, still doing OMAD and I have lost 2lbs in 35 days. I roughly get 1000 calories each day, so if my maintenence is 2100 and I eat 1000 I assumed that meant 1000 calorie deficit, im pleased to be informed this isn't the case as that's why I was worried about losing so slow.

I'm happy to keep doing this and eventually go back to 20/4 with a bigger eating window I can get much more protien.

If I have chicken, tuna, broccoli, olive oil, bacon on my chicken with some cheese a d even creme frias I am so full! And the calories are low. I try to eat calorie dense foods and fats, however it's not easy to do everyday.

I eat at the same time every day, give or take, after a very long day at work ( own business ) market trader, its 3am wake up and home at 4pm, we set up metal framework, unload and load the lorry ( it's very physical, I don't have time to prepare a high protien meal always.

Today I had a ham, cheese and cucumber wrap, a protien mouse and a fibre snack pot of chickpeas, and wasabi dried peas.
1006 calories and this is including the semi skimmed milk.i drink with my coffee and 2 cough drops lol

Just did TDDE and it says 2,210

I'm 5ft 8, weight 157lbs and very active, my BMR is 1452ish if i rember correctly, and i did this RMR again and it states 1,817, my BMI is 23.8
The calculators are all different.

PAV8888 · February 10

Short term long term

Short term you can mask loss because of "water" retention.

Short term can be a month. Can even be two. Won't be 12

A bad plan is still a bad plan.

Increasing deficits to 50% of TDEE within normal weight range and after an extended loss? Before I believe that to be a good plan I would like to see peer reviewed literature offering support for the idea

You can always do what you were doing to lose to date. Only decrease those calories by a little bit. Not a lot.

Yes, your grocery budget gets to save money now. But you don't gain virtue by contemplating with loving admiration how little you got away with eating!

To me not feeling the need to eat the calories one would expect to need to within a standard deviation or two would be cause for concern as to the why (error in measurement? some other mechanism or process in play? How will this affect me down the pike?) not necessarily immediate celebration.

But that's me. 🤷‍♂️

I do wish you success and finding your way forward!

kshama2001 · February 10

Hach8214 wrote: »

My maintenence calorie intake was calculated at 2100 due to physical work and activity, MFP put me down to 1772 to lose 1lb a week, however because I have been doing OMAD for over a year, I reduced this to 1200.

I am only losing half a pound a week if that, despite being health 90% of the time and being in a 1000 calorie deficit each day.

I am always under this, I am active with work and go on the treadmill when I'm not working.

What am I doing wrong? Surely I should be losing more?

I am 5ft 8, weigh 157lbs and my BMI is 23.8, I can only go down to 140lbs for my height, this is my target weight.

With only 17 pounds to lose, I agree with the others that losing a half pound per week is optimal.

You're doing that; great. But why aren't you losing two pounds a week?

The answer is usually some combination of logging errors and/or water retention. I see your diary is open. I'm not at my best today; maybe someone else will take a look and spot something.

I missed how long you've been eating at 1200 calories and only losing a half pound per week. If for only a few weeks, it's likely water retention, especially if you are a woman with menstrual cycles. Some of us also retain water at ovulation.

AnnPT77 · February 10

Just to underscore: Your actual weight loss rate, averaged over many weeks, is the best gauge of your actual deficit. Averaging a pound a week indicates a 500 calorie average daily deficit. Half a pound a week, 250 calorie daily deficit, and so forth. Calculators (and fitness trackers) just give statistical estimates. Our results come close to a measurement of calorie needs.

As a bonus, using actual results as a guide automatically adjusts somewhat for any patterns of inaccuracy in logging, if there are any.

However, human bodies are dynamic. Calorie intake can change calorie expenditure. One possibility in that realm is that under-fueling (too low calories) can reduce calorie needs, so that we need to eat less to accomplish any given weight-change result. This is not a good thing, because it implies that our body is down-regulating useful body processes to conserve energy: Immune system, muscle maintenance, hair and nails growth, spontaneous movement, etc.

That is not "starvation mode" where the body "holds onto fat" no matter how low the calorie intake. That's a myth.

It's adaptive thermogenesis, and unhealthful slowing of metabolic processes in response to what the body interprets as famine. It won't stop weight loss, just make it slower than one might expect based on estimates or even past experience.

Too-low calories will also limit athletic performance, impair recovery, limit ability to add strength/muscle (which is already slow at best in a calorie deficit), increase risk of muscle loss, potentially increase risk of disease/health conditions for a variety of reasons, make it difficult to optimize nutrition, among other negative effects.

This is IMO sobering, not a thing that will certainly happen, but in the realm of possibility:

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10761904/under-1200-for-weight-loss/p1

Personally, I figure that the person who loses weight at a satisfying rate eating more calories is winning: More calories losing at a satisfying rate means better performance, higher energy level, better health, better appearance. Personally, I want those things. YMMV.

It's just my opinion, but I feel like you're in a place where it would be reasonable to consider the tradeoff between whatever benefits you perceive from 23/1 OMAD vs. the benefits of something like 20/4 that would let you bump up calories and nutrition to more optimal levels. It's your call, though, obviously.

Best wishes, whatever you decide.

AnnPT77 · February 10

Hach8214 wrote: »

Thank you for the replies.

I never thought about maintenence after, this worries me now.

I googled calories for OMAD and it popped up with 1200-1500 as a recommendation as too much in a meal can lead to binging.

I suppose after I reach my goal weight, I was 140lbs 10 years ago I felt great at that weight, I could bump up my calories to 1300, or go back to 20/4 fasting and have 1500.

I can't manage more than 1200 in an hour, I could if my eating window was 4 hours

I drink 2 litres of water a day.

If your urine is pale yellow (kind of straw color), you're adequately hydrated. It can be OK if it's light but bright yellow (kind of fluorescent yellow hue), because getting more than needed of certain water-soluble vitamins will trigger the bright color, but it's harmless. If your urine is dark yellow to brownish, you're under-hydrated. It doesn't need to be much more technical than that. (Some other urine colors are possible, including green or red. If you have something unusual like that, it may be OK - triggered by food or medications - or not OK. Look it up, talk to your doctor.)

There's no universally correct amount of water intake.

How would I know if I'm retaining water? I do not look swollen or puffy.

I hate to say it, but I know I'm retaining water because the scale goes up a few pounds or stays up a few pounds when there's no calorie intake or activity change that would explain that effect. If there's really, really a lot I may see a little puffiness, but not usually anything visible. It can be internal, it can be spread over a large area of the body - hard to see/feel.

You might like reading this thread, if you haven't (especially the article linked in the first post):

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10683010/the-weird-and-highly-annoying-world-of-scale-fluctuations/p1

That explains a lot of the things that can trigger water retention increases.

Don't try "hacks" to get rid of water retention. It's a bad plan. Your body knows what it's doing. We can be up to 60%+ water. That creates conditions for big shifts from day to day.

I am never low on energy, I feel so much better since doing OMAD, alot has improved.

Negative effects of too-low calories can be surprisingly subtle and gradual. I'm not saying you have those effects, but it's possible for there to be some impact without realizing it. There can also be a honeymoon phase after going to the low calories where energy seems to increase. I'm not saying you have that effect either. I have no way of knowing.

I'm absolutely 100% not trying to talk you out of TRE. TRE is fine, certainly compatible with good health, maybe even health-enhancing (though I personally feel like the research isn't in on all of the implications). Other things besides eating timing are important for or compatible with good health, too; and we each need to find our own best balance.

I was hoping to be my goal weight sooner because of the deficit, I am still happy losing half a pound a week i was just worried I was doing something wrong as I assumed a faster loss of a 1lb a week.

I'm not feeling stressed or tired, Over Christmas I ate normal Xmas day and I felt incredibly bloated, I felt unwell eating throughout the day, so OMAD is definitely suited to me, I'm happier eating this way.

I do realise that 906 calories is low, however I mainly get 1200, I just wasn't hungry yesterday as I have a sore throat, and it was a day off from work, I relaxed and didn't spend much energy.

Thank you all for the advice, you've given me alot to think about.

Hang in there, keep thinking, keep adjusting tactics as you learn.

Best wishes!

ddsb1111 · February 11

Some basic but important math 🤓

3,500 calories = 1 lb per week
1750 calories = 1/2 lb per week

3500/7 days a week = 500 calories deficit per day

1750/7 days a week= 250 calories deficit per day

If your maintenance is 2100 calories then…

2100 - 500 = 1600 calories per day to lose 1 lb a week.

If you are losing .5 lb a week then…

2100 - 250 = 1850 calories per day to lose .5 lb a week.

Either you are eating 1850 calories per day or your maintenance calories are much lower than you think.

You mentioned you eat 1200 calories per day and you are losing .5 lbs a week. That puts your maintenance at…

1200 + 250 = 1450 calories per day

I wrote all this out because someone told you a 328 calorie daily deficit would make you lose 1 lb per week and that’s really off. And it’s clear that either your maintenance calories are incorrect or you’re eating more calories than you think. The only way to know for sure is:

- consistently weighing and logging everything you consume with calories
- monitoring for 4-6 weeks
- tracking your weight at the same time several times a week to check the trend

It’s entirely up to you if you want the accurate calories or if you’re comfortable winging it using an IF window. No judgement either way, I don’t weigh much anymore myself. A lot of people eyeball their portions and it can work fine. Just know it’s there when you start hitting a wall and want to understand why you’re gaining and how to fix it. Okay, I’ll leave you alone now, poor thing ☺️

Harriet9748 · February 12

Perhaps your metabolism has become efficient at omad and thus conserves energy. I would consider spreading your calories over the day

yirara · February 12

Harriet9748 wrote: »

Perhaps your metabolism has become efficient at omad and thus conserves energy. I would consider spreading your calories over the day

You mean that the brain, all the organs functioning would suddenly need less energy? What about moving around? No sorry, this is not how this works.

Lietchi · February 12

yirara wrote: »

Harriet9748 wrote: »

Perhaps your metabolism has become efficient at omad and thus conserves energy. I would consider spreading your calories over the day

You mean that the brain, all the organs functioning would suddenly need less energy? What about moving around? No sorry, this is not how this works.

Well, I would nuance this, because it is quite possible to slow your metabolism by not eating enough energy: slower hair and nail growth, slightly lower body temperature, and perhaps other subtle changes. Also: not consuming enough energy can lead a person to be less active (less movement throughout the day, less fidgeting,...). Not to the point of 'your body will hold onto all bodyfat' of course (the more common starvation mode myth) but it could still have an impact.

AnnPT77 · February 12

Lietchi wrote: »

yirara wrote: »

Harriet9748 wrote: »

Perhaps your metabolism has become efficient at omad and thus conserves energy. I would consider spreading your calories over the day

You mean that the brain, all the organs functioning would suddenly need less energy? What about moving around? No sorry, this is not how this works.

Well, I would nuance this, because it is quite possible to slow your metabolism by not eating enough energy: slower hair and nail growth, slightly lower body temperature, and perhaps other subtle changes. Also: not consuming enough energy can lead a person to be less active (less movement throughout the day, less fidgeting,...). Not to the point of 'your body will hold onto all bodyfat' of course (the more common starvation mode myth) but it could still have an impact.

I agree, and that's totally relevant to the OP's situation currently.

But @yirara was responding to a claim that OMAD may make the body "more efficient" to the point of requiring fewer calories to operate when eating OMAD vs. some less TRE-type schedule.

I've never seen anything that would support that idea. In fact, some adherents say that OMAD makes them feel more energetic, and some advocates suggest it promotes fat-burning, which might imply the opposite. (I haven't made a deep dive, but any research I've stumbled over suggests OMAD is more or less neutral with respect to calorie needs. )

Yeah, silly-low calories, OMAD or otherwise, can trigger lower calorie needs. I wouldn't call that "more efficient metabolism" exactly, because the mechanisms are IMO a kick in the teeth of good health. But down-regulated calorie needs, potentially, yeah.

PAV8888 · February 12

I've also got some personal questions as to whether omad is optimal for protein intake.

Between the time it takes to digest a large meal and "natural" differences in fully digesting food and especially a larger bolus I'm fairly sure the protein intake is spread out much more than the single intake event suggests.

But depending on timing and type of exercise and recovery I'm not sure TRE/OMAD is truly just as good a way as any to intake your protein.

As it doesn't affect me since I don't train enough and do not practice TRE for sufficient hours or OMAD almost ever other than after AYCE brunch exceeding 2 days worth of calories and not digested fully till well into the night, I can't say I've looked through the literature on this and I'm willing to posit that the consensus is that it won't be causing terrible trouble else TRE would have less of a following.

Advice

Answers

Categories