| Diet Forums : Fitness (Library) | Report Violation · Tag It! |
| Upping the exercise without upping calorie intake= weight gain? | ||
| May 16 2008 14:13 | ||
Lately I've been spending crazy amounts of time on my recumbent bike, burning an average of 900-1200 calories daily while eating an average of 1500 calories. A month ago I was only exercising an average of 500 calories per day while eating 1400 calories. I was losing about 0.8pds per week. Now in the past week I have watched the scale climb up by almost a pound per day! Is it because my body is in starvation mode? I have a hard time imagining it! Also, I must admit, I have eaten out 4 times in the past 10 days, most of the time keeping it within my daily limit of 1500, but emptier calories than the high veg/lower fat way I eat at home. I normally only eat out once per week and have a low cal/fat meal. These other times have included a Big Mac, fried clams, french fries, a DQ Blizzard... Would I do better to cut way down on the exercise and eat less to get back to a weight loss mode than to keep on the path I'm currently on? Or should I keep the exercise (which I really like) and up my intake to 1900 or so? And would I really lose at that intake? In the past 2 weeks I've gained back 4 of the 7 pounds lost :( About me- 32y/o, 5'6", SW- 126, todays weight- 123.6 |
||
| Page 1 of 1 | Post Reply | |
| #1 | May 16 2008 15:21 | |
|
Figure out how many calories you burn each day in total, not just how many calories you burn on the exercise bike. |
||
| #2 | May 16 2008 15:35 | |
|
I wonder if my experience will help - I started to cycle to work, on top of my regular running and weights programme. To my great suprise, my weight loss slowed up quite a lot. The extra exercise put my deficit over 1000 cals per day. I have had to eat back calories - keeping my deficit at about 500 - 700 cals per day, to get back to my 1 - 2lbs loss per week. I'm loving the extra exercise though!! Hope that helps, Ax |
||
| #3 | May 16 2008 15:40 | |
| Although.....you are pretty much at an ideal weight - do you really need to be doing that much on the bike??? | ||
| #4 | May 16 2008 19:15 | |
|
Flogging- I've never calculated that sort of thing...do you mean like when I do laundry, walk upstairs, etc? Aside from the bike, I'm quite sedentary. Just another SAHM that does SAHM things... Ax- to answer your question, no, I really don't need to bike that much!! :D But, I do that much because my laptop is set up right beside the bike, so I bike whilst online, as well as reading or watching tv. I love doing it, would like to continue, but I don't want to put the weight back on that I'd lost. I'd rather go back to a sendentary lifestyle, eat less, and go back to slowly losing than exercise and gain. Did you have a hard time telling yourself that it was okay to eat so much and still lose? Did you believe yourself before the results started paying off? How many more calories did you have to eat to keep your deficit in check? |
||
| #5 | May 16 2008 19:43 | |
|
im a runner and do about 40 miles a week. that is a whole lot of calories burned. i look at the exercise as my ticket to treat myself. have ice-cream on a hot day, go to happy hour and things like that. also, the other thing about gaining weight when starting to work out a lot more is that you a)gain muscle b)drink more water. if you are in fact gaining muscle, it will not be a steady increase. you will gain a few pounds and thats it. if its water-weight, then its no big deal. lastly, make sure you weight yourself at the same time and try and do it weekly, rather than daily. you will actually get a more accurate reading that way in terms of whether you are gaining or loosing weight. |
||
| #6 | May 16 2008 20:14 | |
|
Actually, I wonder if part of my problem is that I'm not drinking enough water- for all of the peddling I do, I only drink maybe 4 glasses of water a day...I know, not nearly enough. I know that causes dehydration, but could it also explain weight gain? |
||
| #7 | May 16 2008 20:31 | |
Original Post by queenmedia: He means what is your total caloric burn, at the end of an average day - that will tell you what your deficit is. If you used to eat 1400 and lost 0.8 lb/week, that would imply (although it's never exact), that you had a 400 cal deficit (so you were burning about 1800 total, we might assume - but if you figure out your burn from a normal day, plus exercise, that would confirm those numbers). If you have increased the amount you burn while biking from 500 to 900-1200, you are now burning between 2200-2500 (still on the same assumptions). If you are still only eating 1400, your deficit is going to be between 800 and 1100, which is probably too large - they recommend a deficit no more than 1000, and I know that for myself, I can't keep a deficit of more than about 500/day, or else my weight loss slows, and I'm 135. |
||
| #8 | May 16 2008 20:47 | |
|
There is such a thing as starvation mode. When you eat too little and do too much at the gym, your body will take everything it gets for calories and throw them into fat.. Then it essentially "lives" on your muscles. You're reversing everything. On the days you workout hard you MUST consume more calories. |
||
| #9 | May 16 2008 21:14 | |
|
Hi Queenmedia, to answer your questions - I had to eat back about 200 - 300 cals per day - it's a few snacks, an extra banana at breakfast - it doesn't feel like pigging out. It depends on the day and my activity level. The important thing for me is to keep my deficit at 500 - 700 cals, how much I have to eat to do that depends on my activity level for the day. I do this by setting my activity level to sedentary and adding in my day's exercise. I then subtract 700, and that's what I eat. If you love it, I think you should continue to do it - just eat enough to keep your deficit healthy, and at a level that works for you! Happy cycling, Ax |
||
| #10 | May 16 2008 22:56 | |
|
Thanks for the help everyone! I haven't biked all day and have felt weird- like somethings missing! In my effort to get back to losing, I had even decided this morning that I should stop exercising and just eat my normal amount (it's been tried and true for my weight loss), but I "cheated" and mowed the lawn, went for a walk with my kids, and hopped on my real bike and pedaled around the yard for a few minutes. By continuing with the exercise, I will truly enjoy eating more because I love to eat! (I'm a "live to eat", not "eat to live" emotional eater) but it's hard to whip my brain into submission that eating more is a good thing and will help me lose. Again, thanks! You all are proof of what makes CC a great community :) |
||
| #11 | May 17 2008 14:30 | |
|
I would maybe try cutting down on the fast food and see if that works. You may be gaining weight (or not losing as much ) because of your increased sodium intake. If that doesn't work though, go back to the tried and true method that had been working previously. Hope it works :) |
||
| #12 | May 18 2008 01:32 | |
|
The starvation mode thing is one of my pet peaves. Why does lapband and gastric bypass work. It's because it limits your food intake. I don't mean to sound heartless but if you don't believe me head over to Africa and see how limited food intake affects their weight. That's REAL starvation mode. Just use your common sense. If you eat less calories than you burn you WILL lose weight. It is simple physics. I'm now stepping off the Soap Box..... |
||
| #13 | May 18 2008 01:59 | |
|
I think it is just a matter of how much weight you will lose in a given amount of time. Sure you may lose, but with a lot more effort and while messing up your metabolism. |
||
| #14 | May 18 2008 14:44 | |
|
Losing weight is a matter of calories in vs. calories out. However, if you restrict too much and you trip some of the famine response mechanisms in your body and enter conservation mode - the upshoot is that you lose less than the equation says you 'should' because the "Calories Out" part has been changed on you while you weren't looking. Your body downregulates the activity of the mitochondria, essentially slowing your metabolism to match your intake. Which is why for the most part it's easier to lose fat by only limiting calorie intake a little, and increasing activity level instead. The shorthand description of famine response mode or conservation mode as starvation mode is slightly inaccurate, but as a shorthand description of the phenomenon it's close enough for government work. And the way to deal with famine response is to give your body some more calories to work with - increasing intake slightly will lead to your body upregulating metabolic activity again, thus restoring the "calories out" part of the equation to where it's normally at. Though there's also the plateau effect. What's causing it we have no compelling explanation for, but that it's real there's no doubt about: "The "plateau effect" has been known about for some time and weight management consultants recommend longer exercise times, higher intensity or cross training to combat it," Dr King said.That said- the likely culprit is fast food sodium. Water retention happens, and while only people with actual kidney conditions or hypertension need to be concerned about sodium (your kidneys can handle 30-50 grams a day, normally) it's both annoying and discouraging to anyone on a diet. |
||
| #15 | May 18 2008 18:47 | |
|
deja vu
|
||
| #16 | May 19 2008 20:20 | |
|
The recent splurge of fast food must've been partially to blame- at home I never add salt to dishes that I make, and add less than recommended when I bake. I currently have high-normal BP (130ish over 85ish), so I try to be careful with the sodium intake. My BP problems are due largely to genetics rather than diet or weight though- my 2 oldest children were induced 4&5 weeks early due to my hypertension and pregnancy complications as a result. The good news is that my weight has started coming back down (have dropped 2 pounds since I originally posted). Although I'm not due for TTOM for another 10 days, I have been spotting...(tmi?)... I'm going back to biking, but might not bike so much, we'll see :) |
||
| Page 1 of 1 | Post Reply | |