active network espn
Community: Exchange advice in the forums and read running commentary Resources: Personal running log, calculators, links and other tools for runners News: Running news from around the world Training: Articles and advice about fitness, race training and injury prevention Races/Results: Find upcoming races and past results Home: The Cool Running homepage
Cool Running homepage  Search Cool Running Community
Click to view Cooper476's profile Rookie 3 posts since
Aug 18, 2006

Aug 21, 2006 10:32 PM

Metabolism bottoming out . . . at 2000 cal/day??

I recently lost about 50 lbs by sticking to a strict 1200 cal/day diet. Then I hit a plateau, and everyone said it was because I was eating too little. I took some time off from the diet and started running. Now I run a mile 5 days a week, combined with strength training, and the occasional 5k.

So I decided to start the diet back up. I tried 1200 again: lost a few pounds, then hit the plateau. Figuring that I was eating too little, I raised the bar to 1800. Lost a few pounds, hit the plateau. So then I went to 2000 calories a day, same story.

Should I really be eating more than 2000 a day?? This week I'm trying 2500 just to see what happens, but I feel like I'm eating way to much to lose weight.

I'm 25, a man, 5'11", 218 lbs. Thanks!
Click to view Ariann092's profile Legend 681 posts since
Jan 4, 2005
1. Aug 21, 2006 11:04 PM in response to: Cooper476
As a caveat, I don't believe in starvation mode - I think there are usually other reasons people don't lose weight when they restrict calories significantly (i.e. they naturally move less and burn far fewer calories per day, they choose more processed foods that are higher in sodium and wind up retaining a lot of water, etc.).

However, a man of your age and weight could probably eat 3000 calories a day and still lose weight. At about 220 your basal metabolism (what you'd burn just laying around all day) is probably in the 2000 calorie or higher range. Add to that your regular daily movement and your exercise and you could certainly be up beyond 3000. Which is not to say that's what you should eat - 2500 would certainly get you to your goal weight faster if that's what matters most to you.

The plateaus you mention could be caused by several things. I often find that I'll lose two pounds seemingly overnight and then stay the same for two weeks - this is simply a matter of your body moving water around at different rates, it doesn't mean you don't still have a caloric deficit. The bigger picture (by which I mean months and years, not days) is more important - and your big pictures is pretty great considering you've lost 50 pounds already!
Click to view teetime's profile Legend 459 posts since
Aug 17, 2002
2. Aug 21, 2006 11:29 PM in response to: Cooper476
Little Hijack<

Ariann - Question for you and others who don't believe that restriction of calories leads to metabolic slowing ... what do you think about the commonly stated idea that breakfast is important because it gets your metabolism going for the day?

Note, I fully realize that breakfast might be a great idea for many reasons, even if it has no effect on metabolism.

I'm not asking to challenge you but simply curious ... I've seen the same people argue that there is no starvation mode but that you need breakfast to get your metabolism going in the morning (never made sense to me why one would be possible and not the other).
Click to view Ariann092's profile Legend 681 posts since
Jan 4, 2005
3. Aug 21, 2006 11:38 PM in response to: Cooper476
You don't need to "jump-start" your metabolism - your metabolism is based on activity and body composition and not a whole heck of a lot else. However, included in "activity" is digesting food, which is obviously stimulated by eating, so that's one explanation for the "breakfast jumpstarts your metabolism" claim - however, the calories used to burn food are much less than contained in the food itself in 99.999% of cases, so this is kind of a silly way to "jump-start" the metabolism. The other thing is that people who don't eat regularly and fast for extended periods of time (like from dinner to lunch the next day) naturally move their bodies less, and therefore get less activity and use less energy (i.e. their metabolisms are lower). Getting less activity can be as simple as fidgeting less, parking the car closer to the office, getting up fewer times to use the bathroom or deliver things, etc., which accounts for a lot of calories burned in most people.

I do think breakfast is extremely important because it changes how much energy you have earlier in the day and makes you a more productive and alert person and keeps your blood sugar more stable so you don't wind up eating a bunch of junk later on out of starvation. Also, people often eat the healthiest things at breakfast - fruit, whole grains, and the like, so it'd be a shame to lose that opportunity.
Click to view bigapplepie's profile We're Not Worthy 2,636 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
4. Aug 22, 2006 10:51 AM in response to: Cooper476
Cooper,

Keep tinkering with your diet until you start to see the benefits. Your body tends to adapt to a particular diet.

You may want to "refeed" for a week. Eat healthily but increase the number of calories considerably. This is a well established practice recommended by nutritionists. It sort of "reboots" your metabolism.

You may also want to change the balance of nutrients. Increasing healthy fats for instance form almonds or olive oil, or your exercise program, increasing the amount of cross-training.

Worse comes to worse, there are plenty of good books on the subject (and plenty of bad ones) plus you could always work with a nutritionist.

I was plateaued on 168 pounds for 8 months during my 35 pound weight-loss over two years. I just kept sticking to my eating plan. Eventually the other 14 pounds just melted away.

Just keep in mind your long-term goals rather than worrying about quick-fixes.

Good luck!

------------------
Me[/URL" target="_blank">