Boy do I feel stupid. I've been having a lot of trouble with my weight loss lately, and true, some of it's because I've been counting my calories for half a year now and my body's not as receptive to my weight loss plan.

But today I sat down and really took a look at what I've been eating since I started the diet. I added up all my calories for each month to see if anything has changed, and it has! That's for sure.

In December I lost about 1.5 pounds less than I usually do, which was really frustrating. Turns out, that over the course of the month, I had eaten about 5,500 more calories than I had in previous months! It wasn't my metabolism, it was my food plan.
My averages:
Sept 1364
Oct 1491
Nov 1566
Dec 1665
Jan 1646

I mean, wow! I was always aiming at making 1500 my central number, and I'm no where near it.( September is low, because I had just started dieting and I was ambitious. )



I generally eat anywhere from 1300-1700 calories, shifting as often as possible. However, in the last couple of months, I'd gotten in the habit of leaning on the heavier end of the range, and it really added up!


So be careful, please! I know that a lot of calorie counters aim for a range rather than a certain number, and I still believe this is a good thing. But be careful! Those extra calories can really add up.

I would recommend taking a minute to average your calories for the week, and make sure it's right where you want it to be.

Has anyone else had an experience like this?

I'm not sure having a range is necessarily a mistake. It really depends on how you look at it, and on factors such as priorities, goals, and preferences. Was it really a mistake to lose a pound and a half less in December than you would have if you'd stuck with the lower end of your range? You've answered that question for yourself as a yes, but I think the answer is truly very individual.

Generally, the lower end is going to result in faster results, but is speed the only consideration? Considering all of the holiday food celebrations that can go on during December (even if we're not technically celebrating, other folks celebrations can affect the foods we face), losing 1.5 lbs less than other months, seems like a giant success to me, rather than a mistake (my perception of course). I gained 4 lbs in December, and considered that a tremendous success, because I've never gained so little during the winter holidays. I have lost 2 of those lbs already and have 2 more to go.

For me, I've chosen a range for motivational reasons. If I am hungry and have only a single calorie goal, eating over my goal is demotivating as I'm "breaking the rules." Allowing myself a range, I inevitably lose slower than if I picked a lower range, or a lower target with no range, but the range is there to keep me on plan. Losing a little slower is preferable to me than than giving up entirely at the frustration of not being able to stay in range.

It's all a matter of perspective.

Kaplods, I'm not saying it's a mistake to have a range! In fact, what I said is:

"I know that a lot of calorie counters aim for a range rather than a certain number, and I still believe this is a good thing. But be careful!"

As calorie counters, we choose a range surrounding a middle number that would be best for our own goals. I'm just warning that its easy for your average calories per day to get away from that middle number, so that you end up eating more than you intended.

"Calorie creep" is really common and easy to fall into. That's why I like to look at the averages for each week and each month, so I don't get this unpleasant surprise very often.

I do sometimes stray upward by choice, but that's a different matter.

I'm glad you figured this out!

Jay

I understand what your saying, but perhaps I am looking at the purpose of my range a little differently. I'm not trying to cycle calories, or average a specific calorie level, rather I'm trying to eat the minimum that keeps me satisfied, and I've chosen a range to accomodate days where I might be hungrier than others.

I guess it boils down to what you truly consider your target, and why you've chosen as you have. Is your target a specific number, or is it to a range of acceptable consequences? For me, eating every day at my max calories would be just as acceptable as eating every day at my minimum, and just as legitimate, although my results would of course vary depending on whether I was at the low, middle, or high end of that range, but I've taken that into account.

It all depends on your expectations, interpretations, and goals.

ALMOST FORGOT TO SAY
I would like to add as a calorie counter ~Thanks for the information
I appreaciate Helpful things people place up here to help us and this is great for us newer members especially.

I am an avid calorie counter and also aim for a range. I log everything I eat in my purchased Fitday PC software and have done so for years, before that I kept paper journals or logged on spreadsheets I created, all with an eye to automatically averaging for time periods ranging from days to a week to years, etc., like Fitday PC does. Your post is dead on for me, without all that logging I'd be eating many more calories than I do. There's no substitute for real data.

Re calorie creep, it's important to not be fooled by manufacturers either. A prime example is a popular brand of "butter spray" that says on the label it has zero calories per serving, which is correct under U.S. labeling laws that say you have to accumulate a certain percentage of a calorie before you are required to call it a calorie on the label. That regular sized bottle actually has 900 calories for the product if you'd pour it on your food, which I've been known to do, so that can add up, even if you just overuse it a little.

Same with granulated artificial sweeteners, although not to that degree. A box of Splenda has something like 100 calories, but it is zero calories on the label, which is ok as one wouldn't necessarily eat a box of it, but it can add up over time. One still saves calories using this stuff, but still ...

Kaplods, I know what you are saying and I agree with you also. That's the way I look at the range.