Not Enough Calories? Slow Progress...

daiseeangel · #1 (**permalink**) February 8th, 2007, 06:04 AM

Hi!

First off, thanks for all of the great support and advice all of you give!! I feel like I have already learned so much about weight loss!!

I have been exercising everyday and watching what I eat, but my progress has been very slow. I think I have figured out that I am not consuming enough calories, but I just wanted to run it by all of you for more opinions.

I am 5'7" and weigh 199.0. I only lost .08 pounds this week, and I have worked my butt off! I have only been eating 1100 - 1200 calories and tried not to "snack", and I think that is exactly my problem. I used to think the less you eat, the more you lose, but from all the reading I have done here, I am learning that I am wrong!

So do you think that if I bump my calories up to around 1400 by adding a snack mid morning and before the gym that it would help jump start my weight loss?

Thank you in advance!!

hombom · #2 (**permalink**) February 8th, 2007, 06:40 AM

I think you are not eating enough...my trainer says average should be 1600 caloreis a day...if you don't eat enough it will slow your metabolism, and will prevent you from seeing results...

tonymcclellan · #3 (**permalink**) February 8th, 2007, 07:20 AM

Ya, 1100 is too low for anyone. From your name I am guessing you are a female, so I think the move to 1400 is a step in the right direction. I would then again increase to a cushion range of 1500-1800. Leeway is a nice thing to have when eating, because we dont always eat the same things everyday.

What do you do for exercise? You say you exercise everyday, which is not always good.

daiseeangel · #4 (**permalink**) February 8th, 2007, 07:58 AM

Thank you for both for responding!!

Yes, I am female... sorry for not specifying!

I had a feeling it was the whole calorie thing that was hurting me. I guess I just don't know what is too few calories vs. too many. I know I need to bump them up, but I don't want to overdo it either.

I am at the gym at least 5 times a week. I do cardio on the elliptical and treadmill... I do 45 minutes between both of them, and I have been gradually increasing my speeds and inclines. When I first started, on the treadmill I was at a 3.0 speed with a 3.0 incline, and now I am at a 3.8 speed with an 8.0 incline. It's about the same increase on the elliptical.

I also use a weighted ab machine, and I do 100 with 60 pounds of weight.

When I am not at the gym, I take the dog for a walk / jog (I am not a good runner, but I try!) or jump rope.

I am welcome to any and all suggestions. Thank you so much!!

Oh yeah... Tony - if I increase to 1400, how long should I do that before going up to the 1500 / 1800 you suggested?

Thanks again!!!

tonymcclellan · #5 (**permalink**) February 8th, 2007, 08:05 AM

A safe time frame is about two weeks.

Are you doing the 45 minute sessions back to back?

I would decrease the incline on the treadmill, and increase the speed. Im imagining a 8 incline and am picturing the belt being almost vertical lol.

daiseeangel · #6 (**permalink**) February 8th, 2007, 08:13 AM

I am doing 45 minutes on them together, as in 25 mins. on one and 20 mins. on another!

Ok, so lessen the incline and up the speed.. I will try that! Sometimes it does feel vertical... like I am about to fly off the back of it!

How does the rest of my working out sound? Too much? Not enough? Is 45 mins. altogether enough on the treadmill and elliptical?

So for 2 weeks I eat 1400, then move up to 1500-1800. How long do I stay with that?

Thank you so much for helping me out. I am trying really hard, but I just have so much to learn!!!

tonymcclellan · #7 (**permalink**) February 8th, 2007, 10:38 AM

How long have you been doing this exercise routine? It may be time for a week off.

Have a look at post #2 in this thread: http://weight-loss.fitness.com/harsh...tart-hiit.html

This is a great variation to the cardio you're doing. I would recommend training with weights, ditching the current ab routine. You build muscle mass (not bulky muscles but replace body fat with muscle) and you'll be leaner and burn more calories throughout the day.

daiseeangel · #8 (**permalink**) February 8th, 2007, 10:43 AM

thanks again...

i'm embarrassed to ask, but what does HIIT stand for?

i'll take a guess... high intesity interval training? just a random guess.

daiseeangel · #9 (**permalink**) February 8th, 2007, 11:31 AM

ok, i feel dumb now. i just read the entire thread, and i know that my guess was right... high intensity interval training. should have read that before asking!

tony, thank you so much for your insight and suggesting this. i had never even heard of it!! it sounds like something that i definitely need to be trying. i am all about pushing myself, and this sounds like a great way to do it!

tonymcclellan · #10 (**permalink**) February 8th, 2007, 06:08 PM

Thats why Im (and others) are here. Good luck.

Steve · #11 (**permalink**) February 9th, 2007, 05:51 AM

To the OP, a good round number to base your maintenance caloric intake off of is 15 calories per pound of body weight. That said, your maintenance would be somewhere around 3000 calories per day.

Quite simply, you are starving yourself. Not to death, but enough to have your body make the necessary adaptations to seriously slow tissue loss.

You said, you thought the less you eat, the more you lose. In a way, you are correct when you first start dieting. Your body is still in a position to shed the tissue.

However, as you keep starving yourself, your body, based on its various physiological survival mechanisms, adapts to hold onto its energy stores (tissue) for further starvation. Basically, your body says, "Wow, it appears that there is going to be a continued shortage of food, so I better hold onto what I have in terms of stored energy, muscle and fat, with all my might."

This, in a nutshell, is the starvation response put extremely simply. A caloric deficit will ALWAYS lead to tissue loss. However, once the starvation response occurs, depending on what level of severity it is at, you may not even be able to detect the tissue loss.

Does this make sense?

I think many around here who realize that they have been restricting cals by too much have this false sense of belief that by upping their calories, they will experience weight loss again. I wouldn't bank on this concept though. The idea of upping calories once again is not to trigger weight loss. It is to "reset" you body and its various hormones so that your metabolism will be reignited, so to say, and you can begin losing weight at a normal, healthy deficit.

So the upping of calories by itself is not what triggers weight loss. It is the through the resetting of one's body that you are able to again lose weight at a normal rate.

Sure, some people actually lose weight while upping calories, but this is not the norm. For most, for this to occur, it takes great program design and adherence.