it would be interesting to have a poll and see if anyone actually did start losing after increasing calories. I read it suggested all the time here on 3FC, but I never see any one ever commenting that it worked for them.
http://www.3fatchicks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=152559 I admit it. i thought you were crazy. outta your gourd, nutso, just plain WRONG.
but you weren't.
and i am sooooo feaking glad i listened. albeit with great reservations, fear and a general " fine, i will prove she is wrong" attitude.
That's just the one I remember off the top of my head because it's so recent and because my name was in the subject. And there were multiple threads telling her she wasn't eating enough and needed to eat more.
There are others that I remember people coming back and saying "wow it worked" but I don't remember them off the top of my head.
As a side note, I think it's very deceptive to say that starvation diets do not slow the rate of weight loss for anorexics. There's really no proof at all of that. Metabolism can be slowed, but it can't be stopped. Many anorexics do NOT start out eating 200 calories a day, they get there because they get frustrated that their weight loss has stalled or stopped at a higher rate of calories. The weight loss stops, so they cut their food even more drastically. In having dealt with a few anorexics when I was working in the social service field, it wasn't amazing to me that some anorexics starve to death, it was amazing that some were able to survive as long as they did on the few calories they've been consuming for years.
I'm also one who started losing better when eating more. Though for me, what I was eating was also a very big factor. I have insulin resistance, and my doctor recommended low carb, because it seems to be more effective for weight loss for insulin resistant folks. I was reluctant, and to be honest didn't give it a lot of thought, because I wasn't very keen on low carb diets. I thought they were very unhealthy, for all the stereotypical reasons. It wasn't until another doctor recommended the same thing, she herself having lost nearly 100 lbs on a modified Atkins (a little lower in fat and a lot higher in nonstarchy veggies) that I considered it for myself.
I found as a result of my own food logs that on 1800 calories of high carb foods, I struggled to lose much of anything (which at my size, seemed virtually impossible. I probably wouldn't have believed it, if it weren't me). However on 1800 calories and even more of low carb eating, the weight came off much, much faster. In fact, it comes off pretty quickly if I eat very low carb, but I feel sick at that rate. The weight comes off fast, but I feel dizzy and nauseous. So I try to find the balance of eating just enough carbs that I can lose weight consistently while feeling good. I'm still having trouble finding the balance, but I'm working on it, and succeeding.
It definitely is possible for weight to stall on a ridiculously low level of calories. 1800 calories for someone my size, that's purely ridiculous, and before it happened to me, I would have told you it was impossible. I never, ever was a person who claimed that I was fat, despite eating like a bird (unless maybe you're talking about a vulture).
Now when someone tells me they're not losing on 1200 calories, I believe them, because if my weight could stall at 1800, I surely can see someone 100 lbs lighter than me stalling at 1200.
We had an Irish man, ih8diets was his username, I think--he was stalled and trying to eat less and less. He was afraid to increase calories, but gosh, he was a 6 foot male! He increased his calories and yes, he dropped more weight (and not muscle).
(goes and looks around) Yes, here he is! These are his before and after photos:
I don't remember names very well, but it would be interesting to have a poll and see if anyone actually did start losing after increasing calories. I read it suggested all the time here on 3FC, but I never see any one ever commenting that it worked for them.
Really??? I'll have to try to remember to look for links when I get home. There have been a number just recently.
Glory87's goal story is another perfect example of the "Raise calories, lose weight" experience.
Yep, it was definitely my experience. I started in July 2004 at around 200 lbs and eating between 1400 – 1600 calories a day. I lost weight regularly and steadily (1-2 lbs a week) until late February 2005. I hit 140 lbs and hit a complete brick wall.
I know – the very first step is to look clearly, honestly and openly at every calorie put in my mouth (bites/tastes/licks/drinks etc). I tracked very carefully for months. I increased the intensity and duration of my workouts, I decreased calories from 1400 to 1200 (which was hard for me) - I did everything I could think of to restart my weight gain. I was really really anxious to see under 140 on the scale (the 130s were a distant college memory!).
And I want to repeat again – I used Fitday, I was a very careful calorie counter at that point, nearly to the point of obsession. I had already lost 60 lbs, I was GOOD at counting calories!
Around May, I was pretty depressed that I couldn’t seem to lose anymore weight. But then, I had an amazing thought. I wasn’t losing weight, but I wasn’t GAINING weight either. For the first time in my life – I was maintaining a weight loss (never in my life had I kept even one pound off for longer than a month).
I realized that at 5’7” and 140 lbs, I looked fabulous. I was a size 8/10 and felt and looked wonderful. I decided if my body was done at 140, I would be done at 140. I slowly and painstakingly began the very scary process of increasing my calories to a maintenance level. I did this very slowly, 100 calories every couple of weeks.
I ended up eating around 1800 calories a day with one nice treat meal a week. I was exercising 3-5 times a week (doing 45 minute aerobic videos). I settled into maintenance, bought some fabulous clothes and just concentrated on ENJOYING my new slender pretty body.
In July 2005, the scale dropped to 138 lbs. While I was eating 1800 calories a day. 400 calories more than I ate to lose my first 60 lbs. It was a wonderful mystery! In November 2005, I returned from a 4 week business trip to Singapore/Japan/Australia and the scale said 135. I wasn’t counting during that trip, I ate a ton of offplan food and I lost weight (I credit the huge amounts of walking in Tokyo – thank you TOKYO).
I was blissfully happy since 135 was my original goal weight. I didn’t change a THING. I kept eating around 1800 calories a day (with a weekly treat meal) and by February 2006, I weighed 127 lbs. I have stayed around 130 lbs ever since, still eating around 1800 calories a day (with a weekly treat meal).
So, I’m not a doctor, registered dietician or nutritionist. I only have my own anecdotal experience to draw from. Something happened – after eating low calories from July – February – my body STOPPED losing weight. Brick wall from February 2005 – July 2005. And I personally resent the implication that it was because I wasn’t a careful and honest counter – that was my first response! I only lost weight when I started eating more. I also credit my increased healthy fat intake – one of the ways I increased my calories to maintenance level was to add full fat salad dressing, peanut butter and nuts to my diet.
To me, it makes perfect sense that if the body feels threatened by low calories it reacts by throwing up protection – conserving fat, reducing metabolism, cannibalizing muscle (since muscle needs more calories to just exist). One of the big things that helped me was realizing my body just wants me to be healthy. My body doesn’t understand deliberately restricting available calories – it is programmed to stuff itself in times of plenty and conserve resources in times of famine. My body has no idea I have a fully loaded Safeway 3 minutes from my house and a checkbook in my purse. After I started eating a little more (but NOTE 1800 calories is still slightly UNDER maintenance calories for me), my body was like – okay, we got a good harvest, I can let these extra hips go, we don’t need them!
Of course, the body can’t fight off starvation FOREVER. If you don’t eat enough, anybody will eventually starve and die. The body does what it can, for as long as it can and I think it’s pretty nifty (albeit annoying when you want to lose extra weight). Anorexics, people in poor countries, people in prison camps – they do die. The “starvation effect” won’t save them if they can’t get access to the calories they need to live.
It definitely is possible for weight to stall on a ridiculously low level of calories. 1800 calories for someone my size, that's purely ridiculous, and before it happened to me, I would have told you it was impossible.
Kaplods, I have read many, many of your posts (which I always Love by the way - you should be a counsellor) and I do think that you have a point.
Maybe it is because it never happens to me, and that is why I do not believe it. If I am honest with myself, there is always a reason why I do not loose.
And I still don't believe it. If you eat 1,200 cals a day and exercise 5 times a week, and do not loose 1 single pound in weeks?? No, still don't believe it - Loose only a few few pounds in weeks - yes, I will believe that.
If you eat 800 cals a day for a month. A whole month, and not loose a pound?? - No, I am very, very sceptical.
That being said -
1. - I am not a doctor at all, and I may be TOTALLY wrong. My view is only based on my personal experiences and everthing I have read. And if I am wrong, very sorry to all the clever chickies here.
2. - I am not talking about 1 or 2 weeks. I am talking about posts were people state that they have been doing it for weeks on end, and still do not loose a single pound. I do believe in slow weight loss, but I do not believe in no weight loss if you are above 200 pounds and do exercise 5 times a week.
3. - Congrats on your weight loss to 140lbs. Please note that I am not talking about people with low weights and BMIs. 1,200 cals can be a maintenance weight for somebody that weighs 140 lbs. One of my friends moms are very skinny - and almost eats nothing to maintain that weight. I am talking about people that weigh over 200 lbs, only has lost around 10 lbs and then is 'stuck'.
Last edited by Findmyself; 10-02-2008 at 07:12 PM.
So your position is: Because it hasn't happened to me then I don't believe it, I refuse to believe it, and I'll apologize in advance for calling all of you who say you personally experienced this phenomenon liars?
Ooooo-kay.
Obviously this conversation just hit a brick wall.
.
Last edited by PhotoChick; 10-02-2008 at 07:23 PM.
So your position is: Because it hasn't happened to me then I don't believe it, I refuse to believe it, and I'll apologize in advance for calling all of you who say you personally experienced this phenomenon liars?
Ooooo-kay.
Obviously this conversation just hit a brick wall.
.
I am very sorry if I stepped on some toes in this thread. I will make some closing comments, and will be out of here for today.
All I say is I believe in the 'calories in, calories out phenomenon'.
I haven't ever seen any research done where people stop losing weight on 1,200 cals plus exercise a day as there is always a calorie deficit at that amount of calories with a person that is over 200 lbs.
If anybody has specific controlled environment research results on this, please post a link. I would love to read it - That will convince me.
I believe that there is people on here that has stalled for a week or two - which I believe 100%, and congrats to you for sticking to your plan.
Again, especially to Photochick, sorry for stepping on toes.
Snoozles, I was a counselor. I've got my masters' degree in psychology, but have been disabled with fibromyalgia, and other health issues for three years.
For me, I didn't go weeks without losing - I would gain a pound one week, lose two pounds the next, gained three pounds the next. And as for exercise, when I cut calories too strictly, I was too bone-tired to exercise, and even if I did - I still slept more and felt less energy to do the things I wanted to do. While I could force myself to do some exercise, there was no way for me to force myself to be as active on 800 or 1200 calories as I could be on 1800 calories or more.
A person's body has many tricks to postpone starvation during famine - and that's what too few calories simulate. In the wild, if food is scarce, animals do what they can, instinctively to conserves energy. Sleep more, move less. Our biologies still work like our primitive ancestors and other wild animals, never passing up a meal, because they didn't know when the next was coming. They didn't exercise, they worked hard to get their food.
When food was scarce, they worked harder to find it, or conserved energy by doing as little as possible during lean times of the year. It's why some animals like bears hibernate during the winter, and why some (humans included) have traditionally gathered food for the winter - during lean times, eat less, move less, sleep more.
Believe it, don't believe it. It won't matter a bit until it happens to you.
I think the biggest problem with refusing to believe it, is that firstly it's an insult and an accusation to those who have experienced it. You've called us who have experienced it liars, and the polite apology on the slight chance we're not, doesn't make it any less insulting. But, much worse, not believing it makes crash dieting that much more tempting... after all what can it REALLY hurt? Dry skin, hair loss, malnutrition, muscle loss, gallstones, kidney damage, heart damage.... what does any of it matter if I can lose weight faster? Sadly, it's a common viewpoint among many struggling to lose weight. It's a viewpoint I held during many times in my life. I knew I could be doing damage, but I didn't fully realize the implications. Even now I wonder how many of my health problems were caused or worsened by not only the weight, but by the stress of crash dieting itself.
So you may be "right" in that a person would inevitably lose weight on fewer calories if they sustained the same level of activity as they did on more calories - but the argument is moot if it is impossible for a person to have enough energy to sustain the same level of activity, which I believe to be the case. On 1800 calories you can and will do more than you will on 1200 calories, and you won't even realize where the differences are. Would you really notice sleeping 45 minutes less or walking 10% faster or doing 10% more? For most people, I think the answer is no. They have as much energy as they have, and they don't even question why or how it's different than the days and weeks before.
In a sense the comparison cannot help but be apples and oranges, as there's no way for someone to sustain the same energy and activity level at 500 calories as they could on 1800. It doesn't happen. You'll sleep more, be drowsier, walk slower, think slower.....
Raising calories to a reasonable level is necessary for so many reasons. And for weight loss, the best reason is that it so often works. It really doesn't matter why it works (whether a person is "really" losing more because they're getting more restful sleep and have more energy to accomplish more, or whether eating more makes them less likely to binge and eat calories they weren't counting).
Snoozles, I was a counselor. I've got my masters' degree in psychology, but have been disabled with fibromyalgia, and other health issues for three years.
I just googled fibromyalgia... I am so sorry, it sounds like a terrible thing to go through. But by the way, you really did pick the right career!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaplods
I think the biggest problem with refusing to believe it, is that firstly it's an insult and an accusation to those who have experienced it. You've called us who have experienced it liars, and the polite apology on the slight chance we're not, doesn't make it any less insulting.
I reread my posts and I have stated things to strongly. I didn't mean to call everybody liars that experienced it. I have been wrong many times before, and this may be the case here.
Maybe I didn't step on toes, but crushed some toes...
Surprisingly perhaps, but I really am not concerned with why reducing calories causes weight loss stalls for some people, and in particular, myself. It does, and the why and how doesn't concern me all that much. If it's denial or self-delusion, I don't even care about that.
It doesn't matter to me whether it is because the person is binging and not counting the binge calories - or whether it's because a person becomes less able and willing to exercise - or whether it's because of metabolism actually slowing down, or the body burning muscle more than fat.... it just doesn't matter. It's a phenomenon that occurs, and because it happens, it needs to be acknowledged.
My concern isn't that I be believed, for my sake. Call me a liar, think I'm full of bullpoop, for me, it doesn't matter. I've found what is working for me, and what other people think of it wouldn't matter to me, except....
I don't want anyone to go through what I have, if I can help it. I firmly believe that crash dieting has caused me a great deal of misery - damaging my health, and encouraging more weight gain than weight loss. Whether it was caused by metabolic decline or uncontrolled binge eating - I don't care. It happened, and it happens to many people. Crash dieting is not sustainable, and encourages disordered eating, and disordered thinking.
Because I strongly suspect that the years of abuse of my body through crash and yoyo dieting have caused, triggered, and/or worsened my health issues, I would like to prevent it from happening to others. If it weren't for the thought that I might spare someone from going through what I have, I wouldn't care a whit whethere I was believed or not.
All I can say about the dangers of crash dieting - believe them or not, but don't do it. "The less I eat, the better," is not true, for oh so many reasons.
Even if it didn't slow down weight loss, there are so many wonderful reasons for not attempting it. Use whatever you reason you want, but lose weight sensibly. You will regret it far less, than trying to do it the "fast" way only to find out there are unforeseen consequences, some of which you may never truly appreciate. You don't know what damage you could be doing to yourself. I didn't.
There is no way to know for sure whether any individual member is telling the truth or not. Some stories may be totally false! And so yes, it's good to be skeptical if things don't add up... But it's not good to call people liars, because we just don't know!
Yes, it's hard to believe that someone weighing 200 pounds is unable to lose, or loses very slowly, at 1200 calories. But someone weighing 200 pounds who is eating only 1200 calories and exercising vigorously 6 days a week is not eating enough, and eventually the plan will probably crash.
Think about it. At my current weight, if I tried to go for even a 1-mile walk while carrying two 25-pound bags of dogfood strapped to my body, well, I'm not sure I could make it, and I'm pretty fit! But that was the reality of life for me at my highest weight. I had those "bags of dogfood" everywhere I went, all the time. And to carry that much weight requires calories.
The FAQ Sticky in the Calorie Counters forum suggests that someone weighing 155 to 199 pounds start at 1600 calories per day and then evaluate how that's going after 1 week, then adjust up or down in 100-cal increments.
Whether anyone believes what someone else says is beside the point--we each have to find our own way to lose and be healthy at the same time. Usually 3FC members do question someone who says they can't lose weight, just to make sure they are tracking things--but it's not unheard of for folks to have this difficulty.
