Is my metabolism just screwed?

So i have been on a yoyo rollercoaster of a ride diet since i was 18, so 7 yrs i have either been under eating or over eating. To lose 1 pound a week MFP says i need to eat less than 1330 calories a day. which i usually eat just that much. to maintain weight it says i can eat something like 1700 calories a day without exercising. my question is, on the days i even eat 1500 calories i start gaining weight like crazy!! whats up with this? will i never be able to eat a normal amount ever again without gainging weight? i cant live anymore only eating 1300 calories it is killing me and driving me crazy! but i dont want to gain weight just by adding 200 calories a day i know it sounds crazy but it is what happens. i gained a pound this week just by eating 1400 calories im so confused help!

Replies

  • when are you eating the majority of your calories and what kinds of foods are you eating.
  • jsapninz
    jsapninz Posts: 909 Member
    First of all, don't judge ANY lost unless you have been doing if for a few weeks. You really can't tell what you are losing/gaining until you see a trend. If you honestly have tried to eat 1330 consistently for a few weeks and are gaining weight, that does mean your BMR is slower than normal.The BMR that estimators give you is ALWAYS just an average. An average means about half the people's BMR is higher than this, half are lower.

    It appears yours may be lower than the average for your weight, height, and age. Not a big deal, it happens!! One of my MFP buddies was having trouble not gaining on her goal and she got her BMR tested and it was 200 cals a day slower than what the average was. It just means your body is more efficient than others or perhaps has less muscle and more fat (muscle resting eats more energy than fat). Don't fret!! This is something you can work with!

    If I were you, I would drop my goal to 1200. I know this is low, however alot of women, especially when they are healthy weight and shorter need to float around the 1200 net. However, if you want to eat more calories than this you totally can (and should!) you just use exercise to get to your goal! For example, you eat 1,400 cals a day and burn off 200 in exercise (WITH a HRM, not some average estimator), you have gotten to your 1200 net.

    Don't fret, this is common.
  • Cindym82
    Cindym82 Posts: 1,245 Member
    When you up your calories at first you might see a gain in the first week or two, or just stay the same.....after a month it starts to fall off. Your body gets scared that youre going to stop feeding it so thats why it does that
  • AFitJamie
    AFitJamie Posts: 172 Member
    A few things to start:

    You say 'on the days I eat...I start gaining' I'm assuming you are not weighing daily, but, hopefully talking about weight trending over a period of a week or two... Or more... Our bodies have a tremendous 'swing' in weight dependent of water retention and waste. If you up your calories and see a swing on a day or two, that can simply be more water and likely more waste in your system... Don't worry about that, worry about longer trends. And maybe a week isn't really long enough - also, perhaps take some measurements to add a different assessment tool in, the scale isn't all that helpful at times depending on foods eaten, sodium intake and water retention and a woman's cycle causing water retention shifts. You've been here a while, so you may know all of this, but I do believe you will be able to up calories slowly to a maintenance level; give it some time to adapt. If you are transitioning now to maintenance, then go slow and if you happen to add a pound or two, that's ok, you know how to get rid of it now as well .

    I'm always quick to say that I'm not an expert, but it does seem there is a predominant amount of evidence that suggests that if you truly have been eating very low calorie intake for an extended period, your body adapts to that low intake by lowering your metabolic rate. To improve this, you do need to gently eat a bit more over time so your metabolism adjusts and you keep a healthy deficit, not an excessive one. Any given calorie number isn't really all that meaningful - people with more weight and more muscle will need higher calories, others will need lower because of their build and daily activity.


    More than anything, know that there are a lot of people here to support you as you work through this!
  • jsapninz
    jsapninz Posts: 909 Member
    I'm always quick to say that I'm not an expert, but it does seem there is a predominant amount of evidence that suggests that if you truly have been eating very low calorie intake for an extended period, your body adapts to that low intake by lowering your metabolic rate. To improve this, you do need to gently eat a bit more over time so your metabolism adjusts and you keep a healthy deficit, not an excessive one.

    1,330 calories is NOT a "very low calorie intake." That would be something like 500 or 800 cal for a healthy weight, short female.
  • AFitJamie
    AFitJamie Posts: 172 Member
    I'm always quick to say that I'm not an expert, but it does seem there is a predominant amount of evidence that suggests that if you truly have been eating very low calorie intake for an extended period, your body adapts to that low intake by lowering your metabolic rate. To improve this, you do need to gently eat a bit more over time so your metabolism adjusts and you keep a healthy deficit, not an excessive one.

    1,330 calories is NOT a "very low calorie intake." That would be something like 500 or 800 cal for a healthy weight, short female.

    Based on her weight that I see on her calorie counter, I would generally agree that it likely isn't a low calorie intake, but we can't generalize to easily... I don't know her daily workout routines, or if she is eating them back or like many on here not doing so....if she is burning 750 calories a day working out then 1300 isn't ok. I believe I suggested 'if you truly have been' by way of indicating that she needs to ascertain this. Nobody can say 'x' number of calories is right, or ok, without full information.

    Edit: spelling/typo