GeorgeBMac

+1

Plus: If you are only taking in 1200 calories and still gaining weight (especially with exercise), then your metabolism is simply not burning enough at rest... So, look for ways to increase your metabolism. There are a ton of magical, fad ways of doing that. But there are two that are generally accepted and recommended:

1) Replace the coffee with breakfast -- particularly a high fiber one. That will get your metabolism going in the morning (rather than the coffee which fills you up but does nothing for your metabolism). Then, follow breakfast with regular meals to keep your metabolism burning. In other words: when your marvelous body is feeling starved for nutrients, it stops burning them by shutting down its metabolism. So, start the metabolism going with a high fiber breakfast (the fiber doesn't help the metabolism, but it does help your digestive system process stuff for the rest of the day) -- and then keep it going with regular, small meals throughout the day.

2) Increase your muscle mass with strength training. Muscles burn far more calories both working and at rest than fat. Cycling is mostly all aerobic and it will build a few isolated muscles -- but mostly it is aerobic and does not build much muscle mass. The increased muscle mass you get from strength training will burn calories even while you are watching TV...

Metabolism, Metabolism, Metabolism....

True, as others have pointed out certain medications and hypothyroidism can slow it down your metabolism and cause weight gain. Other things can as well (such as liver failure or heart failure). But those are exceptions. Assuming that all is well, then it is up to you to build up your metabolism.

It is counter intuitive that you can lose weight by eating more. But eating more is NOT the point or the purpose. The purpose is to keep your metabolism burning at a normal to high rate. It is why kids tend to be very thin and not need a coat in the cold -- their metabolism is burning so high it burns off the fat and keeps them warm. You can't shave years off of your life to get back to that -- but you CAN boost your metabolism.

Fat Boy

George and I rarely agree, but I'll gladly give him a +1 on that post.

bmontgomery87

x2.
everyone on here typically finds something to argue about, but I think George summed things up nicely.

camelopardalis

This statement is so logical that one is bound to readily accept it. However, in my case, a can of diet soda (nutrasweet) will sate my hunger for two or three inactive hours. And it's not the water content either because plain water does not have the same effect. What poisons are in that can that have that effect?

TexMac

I use my FITNESS PAL app and its really helpful, monitors your calorie intake and breaks them down to %

Carbonfiberboy 

Caffeine, which is not a poison. Try a cup of black coffee. Will probably have the same effect without the weird stuff in soda.

Carbonfiberboy 

Going back to the OP, something is very wrong. Tindo doesn't say how long it has taken him or her to gain back those 13 lbs. However, we can do some simple calculations:
15 miles/day ("at least") is about 600 calories. The brain, just by itself, burns ~400 calories/day. That leaves 210 calories left over for all other metabolism. Further, 13 lbs if it were fat, will contain 45,500 calories.

So this is all massively impossible. There are no scenarios where this is possible. Doesn't matter what or when he or she was eating. So either this is a Ryian F model post, or the OP is facing a medical emergency because this weight, as it cannot be fat or muscle, must be fluid being retained in some manner like kwashiorkor, a severe disease of malnutrition involving extreme fluid retention:
Kwashiorkor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
IOW, unless you are a troll, get thee to a ER stat!

Tindo

The weight gain happened over a two week period. I went from 164 to 177 pounds but after looking at my diet q bit more closely i found i was eating a massive amount of sodium so i cut my sodium intake and increased my calories to 1205 net and things seem to be working out

nkfrench 

OP, congrats on the weight loss. 1200 kcals is very restrictive.
I have weight swings of about 9# based on fiber/fluids and retention. After a hard bikeride I may either be lighter (dehydration) or heavier (fluid retention from muscle damage).
Generally your weight loss will include a considerable amount of muscle mass since you do not need all your previous musculature to move your lighter body around for daily activities. There was probably some muscle cannibalization to provide energy. That will lower your resting metabolic rate. I suggest that you incorporate some weight lifting to maintain and rebuild some muscle mass .: increase metabolic rate.

How many meals do you have each day? If you can spread your calorie intake more evenly across the day, it might help increase your metabolism. A 4pm very light snack can help.

Are you sedentary when you're not exercising? I have a desk job and some days I never get out of my chair midday, eating lunch at my desk; and I end up shivering in a 73F office. It's worthwhile to take a few breaks for a very short but brisk walk and stairclimbing during the day to get your metabolism going a little faster.

Caffeine is a stimulant and some studies show it allows people to preferentially burn fat at a slightly higher exercise intensity (preserving glycogen). It is good in moderation.

I am using myfitnesspal to track my calories and exercise but their calculations are suspect. I had a metabolic assessment done (breathed through a tube for a while to measure O2 uptake) and it was about 200 kcals lower than myfitnesspal calculated. Also, my heartrate monitor calculations indicate that I burn substantially fewer calories while bicycling than most internet calculators determine. Despite the limitations, it is a very useful too. YMMV.

Fat Boy

That was the impression I got. You didn't put on 13 pounds of fat in 2 weeks, especially not when you're severely restricting calories.

You have to get over this 1200 calorie thing. It's too low. I'm assuming you're trying to 'get healthy'. Well, starving yourself is not healthy (or sustainable). Eat good food. Eat an appropriate volume of it. We don't know your height, but it's going to be 1800-2200 calories.

Lift some weights. Continue with your riding as your low-level cardio. By all means, get good sleep. All of these things will help you lean out (which may be more important to you than simply losing weight). If you were 170 pounds and 10% body fat, I doubt if you'd be too disappointed with looks, health or athletic performance.

butlerkid

tbsp equals 1 TEASPOON.....not a tablespoon. There are 3 TEASPOONS in one tablespoon!!!!!!!

Sounds like your calorie calcuations are way off......

Spld cyclist

By net calories, do you mean you're taking in about 1805 total (1205 base + 600 from the bike ride), or are you still working with 1205 minus the amount from the bike ride? Or maybe something else? If you're getting about 1800 total, you're probably on the lower end of what might be an acceptable range (as Fatboy noted earlier).

Spld cyclist

No, the abbreviation for teaspoon is tsp. Tablespoon is Tbsp. The calculation sounds ok to me.

butlerkid

My error.....I missed the "b" in the abbreviation.

wolfchild

Just curious. How tall are you ??

Tindo

To answer a few questions... firstly i'm 5'8" and yes i have a desk job so after exercise i am sedimentary for most of the day and yes i do mean 1205 calories above what i burn off during exercise so that is about 1805 per day except on the days i dont ride then i just stay at 1205 but those are really rare for me since i cant seem to sit still for more then a 12 hour period lol

BigAura

Finally post 41:

Carbonfiberboy 

This still doesn't make any sense. 13 lbs? So now it's I ride every day and really eat 1805? Or I don't ride every day and eat whatever? Extra salt will only put on about 5 lbs. max:
Common Water Retention Causes
Yeah, he should worry. Kidney failure? If we take 5 away that still leaves 8 lbs. of whatever, which if fat would be 28000 calories in 2 weeks or an excess of 2000 calories/day. Makes no sense at all. If he's cut back his salt now, he should pee out all the excess water in 2 days.

bmontgomery87

1205 is just way too low.

I used to cut weight at 2000-2300 calories a day, with a desk job. And I'm 165 pounds.
Stay active. Start lifting weights. Find time to ride more.

Starving yourself and being sedentary is no way to be healthy or lose weight.

Machka 

1. You are not dregs, silt, sludge, etc. ... even though you may feel that way after being sedentary most of the day.

2. There is increasing evidence that a sedentary lifestyle is very bad for our health. Even if we're active 1 hour in a day, we're inactive for 23. So the recommendation is that we be active all day long.

Get up once an hour and go for a quick walk, jog up and down the stairs for a few minutes, stretch, move. Stand as much as possible, if you must remain in one spot. So when you go to staff meetings, be one of the ones standing around the back of the room. Go for a long walk at lunch. Do something active after work as often as possible ... 5 or 6 or even 7 evenings a week. Go for a walk, go for a bicycle ride, go to the gym and take a spinning class, jog on the treadmill, use the rowing machine and/or lift weights. At home get up during commercial breaks and do housework, lift weights, walk up and down the stairs ...

So whatever amount of calories you're really eating (1800 is OK if you are active every day; you don't want to go much higher than that if your aim is to lose weight), become more active.

GeorgeBMac

Be careful using "net calories"... I have found from personal experience that exercise calories are not the same as dietary calories. That is: that 3,500 calories burned does not lose a pound, but 3,500 consumed does put on a pound.

I suspect that the difference may be that many of the calculators include BMR (basal metabolic rate) calories in their calculation of 'exercise calories'. The calculator I use from Digifit shows both "(total) calories" as well as "Fat Calories". Fat calories are usually about 1/4 or 1/3 of the total.

I suspect that the "fat calories" are the more relevant number to look at, but I have not been able to find much information about it -- aside from Digifit's explanation that at lower levels of exertion, the body tends to use fat as it's source of energy but at higher levels of exertion it resorts to burning carbs...

Machka 

One of the main differences between exercise calories and consumption calories are perception.

Many people over-estimate the amount they burn, and under-estimate the amount the eat.

And while the number of calories in food seems to be fairly accurate, how much we burn when we exercise is not very accurate. Every calculator will come up with a different number (slightly different or significantly different) for how much a person burned during 1 hour of exercise.

So the amount burned is open to interpretation. In this case, Tindo thinks he is burning 600 calories during whatever exercise he does. Is he really? Maybe. But maybe not. If he is cycling 1 hour, chances are he is not burning 600 calories ... chances are it is 500 calories or maybe even 400 calories.

The revelation that he is sedentary, doesn't exercise every day, and is gaining some weight indicates to me that he needs to up his activity level.

Null66

I use a garmin 500...
Went on nice ride with out Heart rate monitor.
next week
Went on harder ride (3x the climb) same distance and average speed.

Garmin reported the easy ride as using twice the calories!

I've been told that the calorie estimate would get more accurate with a power meter, but that's not going to be in the budget for quite some time...

But long story short, calorie estimates are for the birds.... Or rather likely worthless except for comparing workout to workout on same machine, but NOT as an estimate for calories...

Fat Boy

I agree. 1 hour at 13 mph isn't going to burn 600 calories unless you're pulling a wagon full of bricks and a parachute. If you're using numbers off a Garmin, go for about 1/2 of what it says.

As far as 'exercise' calories vs. 'food' calories, I think it comes to the measurement method. Using a power meter makes the number work out quite well in my experience. Estimators can be wildly wrong.

I'm a little worried about the OP's calorie measurement. While I think his intake is too low, I also think that his tendency to measure within 5 calories is a level of neurosis that is not even close to healthy or warranted. Even if you weighed and measured everything, you're probably going to be +/- 10% just due to inconsistencies between the food you're eating and the food that was tested. I also think that prepackaged food is often 'rated' lower than what it actually is. Regardless, there's really no way (or need) to accurately measure calorie intake to 4 significant figures.

Wesley36

While technically true, this implies that there is some degree of accuracy with calorie estimation that does not involve a power meter (ie HR). HR-based calorie estimation is based upon so many dodgy assumptions that it is not just basically meaningless, it is totally meaningless. In fact, it is worse, because it appears to actually be measuring something, when it has only taken a stab in the dark and given a nice valid looking number.