Weight Loss
Moderators: coach_k, spoiled_candy, Mollybygolly, devilish_patsy, nycgirl


LOCKED TOPIC

eating nothing and gaining weight?


Quote  |  Reply

How can you put on weight if you're not eating anything? Trying to lose but literally there are days when coffee, sugar free squash and diet drinks are the only intake and I've put on weight? I have definitely included all of the calories I have throughout the day so how is this possible?

Edited Feb 06 2012 20:03 by coach_k
Reason: Locked pending review
21 Replies (last)

You're starving your self so your body is desperately trying to hold on to whatever the hell it can. 

If ever there was an argument for actually eating - this is it. 

How about treating your body with a little respect and giving it the food it needs to function and survive?

bnar
Feb 03 2012 08:27
Member posts
Send message
#2  
Quote  |  Reply

well , not eating a thing will surly make you gain weight .. because if you kept on doing that your body will save everything u eat as a fat .. think of a kid who doesn't eat anything and when his mom gives him something to eat he will save it , your body is doing the same .. it will eat your muscles and save fats , so better eat healthy foods instead of eating nothing ..  

Original Post by veganshizz:

How can you put on weight if you're not eating anything? Trying to lose but literally there are days when coffee, sugar free squash and diet drinks are the only intake and I've put on weight? I have definitely included all of the calories I have throughout the day so how is this possible?

Why are you eating nothing? Your other posts state that you have undereaten for many years, and were asking about getting out of starvation mode last summer, yet here you are eating nothing... Are you still 59kg and 164cms? (BMI 21.9 - i.e lower end of normal 19-25 range) If so, then you don't need to lose weight in the first place. Styarving yourself will just screw up your metabolism further still, and you'll pay for it in later years in osteoporosis, weakened auto-immune system, weakened heart, etc.

I would recommend seeing a properly qualified dietician for advice on where to start with getting back to a proper, healthy diet (by which I mean intake, not weight loss diet!!)

Any time you put mass into your body, you can "gain." if you did not intake ANYTHING (no water, no diet drinks, no 'sugar free squash' -- what is that, by the way?) the e scale would go down. It would have to. Even if one's metabolism slows down a lot, if you're alive, you're body is using energy. These are just chemical reactions.

But if you take stuff in, your body doesn't have to 'put it out' immediately. This isn't gaining weight, it is just weighing yourself when you still have 'stuff' in your system.

That being said, you shouldn't be eating 0 calories. It's stupid.
Thanks for the replies, helpful advice!

I know it's stupid, I was just wondering how it was actually possible to gain weight when the calorie intake must be much lower than the basal metabolic rate. So if it is because of mass of what is ingested, theoretically it should show as a loss on the scales if you hadn't drank all day? Why then would I not be losing weight whatsoever?

Sugar free squash is sugar free fruit flavoured cordial that you add to water (perhaps it's a British name for it?)

I am still the same height/weight and I know that it is a healthy weight, but I look much better and am more confident and happy when my BMI is around 18.5-20 (still in the healthy range, just lower in the healthy range) which is where I'd like to be at.

Posting Guidelines

Calorie Count's mission is to promote healthy and sustainable weight management. Please help our moderators follow this vision and respect the following guidelines.

  • Promotion of starvation diets or habits that exhibit signs of an eating disorder ("pro-ana", "pro-mia", etc.) is prohibited.
If you don't take in ANYTHING, including liquid, all day, and you stand on the scale naked (or in the exact same attire) in the AM and PM you will weigh the same or less -- or you have a broken scale. There is no way one can make energy from nothing (and as fat mass is just stored energy ...) or, maybe there is a way, but it has not yet been demonstrated in our physical world.

But, again, don't take in 0 calories. It is unsustainable and dangerous, and if it is purely for the sake of science: there is your answer. Now go make yourself a sandwich.
Original Post by veganshizz:

How can you put on weight if you're not eating anything? Trying to lose but literally there are days when coffee, sugar free squash and diet drinks are the only intake and I've put on weight? I have definitely included all of the calories I have throughout the day so how is this possible?


I would talk to your doctor and think of having a thyroid test. I once went 2 full days without eating (I was upset, not intentionally dieting) and told my doctor I'd lost 6 pounds. He nodded and said that sounded about right..but of course water is to blame for most, if not all of the loss.

He said eating nothing *should* make you lose weight, and that it's the normal outcome of it.

You may have a thyroid issue..never hurts to check.

 

Original Post by amethystgirl:

Posting Guidelines

Calorie Count's mission is to promote healthy and sustainable weight management. Please help our moderators follow this vision and respect the following guidelines.

  • Promotion of starvation diets or habits that exhibit signs of an eating disorder ("pro-ana", "pro-mia", etc.) is prohibited.

Thats a little cruel to post it like that. The OP has a problem that others are pointing to as a problem. The OP is not in voilation as they are not trying to get others to follow this starvation diet, they are asking questions out of concern. Get a heart and HELP these people don't try to report them and make them out to be a problem. Geez...

The OP is only concerned that she is not losing weight. As far as I can tell, she shows no concern that she is starving herself, and (based on mrswilson's post) this isn't new.

I fail to see how re-posting the posting guidelines is cruel.*

*ETA: But I'm sure if a mod disagrees, they will delete my post.

She's not concerned about her health from not eating; she's concerned that her ridiculous plan isn't working.  She's not trying to get help to be healthier.  

Original Post by smashley23:

She's not concerned about her health from not eating; she's concerned that her ridiculous plan isn't working.  She's not trying to get help to be healthier.  

Which is why a suggestion to go see a doctor for some tests was not a bad one. She should have her thyroid checked, along with her general health, and I'm sure the doctor would be happy to sit and discuss her eating habits with her. They may not be experts in nutrition, but should be able to explain what her calorie goals should be, and what if any damage they've found through her tests.

 

I'm just sick of people acting like they know everything on here. I mean truly speaking unless you are a phd or college educated nutritionalist I recommend not telling people what they are doing is wrong. I know one poster who was so discouraged by the likes of amethystgirl, Smashley, and Tina they considered dropping off of this site all together. She is a large woman eating 1500 cal a day and  being told her deficits are too high and she is losing too fast etc etc. BALONEY!  It's been proven starvation mode is a myth. Yes Scientifically proven but I never saw anyone of the starvation mode enthusiests commenting on that thread. They were no where to be seen when sound medical study showed that the metabolic reaction to 'starvation mode' was only a 100k cal swing from normal metabolism. The  only time starvation mode applies is when the dieter is a yo-yo dieter who has lost much of their muscle mass from dieting inaccurately a great number of times and they have a greater than 50% body fat percentage. This is the ONLY situation it applies to and not the average fat person that needs to lose 80-100 lbs and hasn't been on a real 'diet' in 7-10 years.

Do you really want to be arguing about this on a thread where the OP, who has a history of undereating, is talking about literally ingesting zero calories for entire days? Really? Really??

I don't know which woman you are accusing me (or smashley, or tina, or someone else who is "like" us) of trying to run off this site.  But I wonder about you getting so up in arms that we are trying to get the OP to understand that she needs to stop starving herself (not starvation mode, but literally starving herself), when I've seen posts like this one from you:

Original Post by brian702lose:

You need to eat atleast your BMR or more regardless or you will eventually DIE!

That's a little extreme, don't you think? Especially from a person who doesn't even believe in starvation mode (which frankly I haven't brought up in my posts for several years now, because I think it is completely misunderstood, and it ends up sidetracking people like you into worthless arguments that in no way help the OP of the thread that it ends up in).

If you believe that re-posting the posting guidelines on this thread, where the OP shows no indication of understanding that starving herself is bad, despite several people pointing it out, is cruel... I think you might need to take a deep breath and see if maybe there isn't something else that's bothering you.

While I do believe there is a definate distinction between starvation mode and starving I'm just frustrated with everyone on here. Sorry to take it out directly at you but it seems that many people are all secretively phd's.  What I find even funnier is that the real phd's on here never say eating below 1200 calories is a good idea but they never also say eating 1200 calories is a bad idea. That is the medically prescribed diet. 1200 calories.

Original poster- I believe you really need to eat some nutritous food. I find it impossible to believe you are not eating anything and gaining weight (assuming you are weighing the same time everyday)  How long have you been eating absolutely nothing?  Do you think that is sustainable?

 

 

Sorry to have caused this much hassle, I am in no way shape or form endorsing EDs. I am trying to get back to eating normally, but am also concerned about gaining weight. I would never encourage anyone to put themselves through something like that.

As someone who has undereaten but not been losing weight, I am trying to readjust myself to eating more normally but it is not as simple as 'just eating more' as I am happier, more confident and a more sociable person when I feel happier with my body shape, which happens to be a few kg lighter than I am at the moment. I am trying to do this for my both my physical and mental wellbeing and strike the right balance.

I am merely asking is there any PHYSICAL reason why the old 'fewer calories in more exercise = weight loss' formula hasn't worked, out of curiosity as it seems biologically impossible so I wondered if the body could use something other than fat or in some way use energy from elsewhere without losing weight. Thyroid would make sense, so I will look into that, thankyou

Do you drink alcohol?  The body burns it before Anything else. Eat much sugar? Same concepts

#18  
Quote  |  Reply
This is so true,add no less than 1200 calories and u will lose. I'v seen it in my Tops weight group, soon as they add more food they start losing. Good luck'
Original Post by brian702lose:

While I do believe there is a definate distinction between starvation mode and starving I'm just frustrated with everyone on here. Sorry to take it out directly at you but it seems that many people are all secretively phd's.  What I find even funnier is that the real phd's on here never say eating below 1200 calories is a good idea but they never also say eating 1200 calories is a bad idea. That is the medically prescribed diet. 1200 calories.

Original poster- I believe you really need to eat some nutritous food. I find it impossible to believe you are not eating anything and gaining weight (assuming you are weighing the same time everyday)  How long have you been eating absolutely nothing?  Do you think that is sustainable?

1200 kcal is not the medically prescribed diet and I have no idea where you got that notion from, it's the minimum intake to achieve adequate nutrition for a short, sedentary elderly woman. For men, the minimum intake is 1500kcal and only if you're short, sedentary and elderly. For teens like the OP the minimum intake is 1500kcal for females, 1800kcal for boys. Can you now knock it off with recommending that teenage girls start to under-eat?

 I've explained this to you several times, the term is not starvation mode, it's adaptive thermogenesis, and the major part of metabolic slowdown in response to inadequate calorie intake is not the BMR measurements you're hung up on but the extreme reduction in voluntary and involuntary movement collectively described as Non-Exercise Associated Thermogenesis or NEAT for short that can reduce calorie output to an extreme degree. Oh, and your preception that there's only about a hundred kcal difference is just like your perception that 1200kcal is the medically recommended intake, mistaken: the largest drop in metabolic activity on record is in fact recorded at 44%.

 And just a cursory look at a few studies like Meta-analysis of resting metabolic rate in formerly obese subjects, a more recent review of Biology's response to dieting: the impetus for weight regain, plus a closer look at Adaptive reduction in basal metabolic rate in response to food deprivation in humans: a role for feedback signals from fat stores  should be sufficient to make you stop talking about adaptive thermogenesis like it doesn't exist or isn't a significant component in both difficulties losing and maintaining weight.

 Bet you didn't even read the paper on the biological limit for fat transfer, otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument about not having too much of a calorie deficit again :

A limit on the maximum energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia is deduced from experimental data of underfed subjects maintaining moderate activity levels and is found to have a value of (290±25) kJ/kg d. A dietary restriction which exceeds the limited capability of the fat store to compensate for the energy deficiency results in an immediate decrease in the fat free mass (FFM).

S.S. Alpert Journal of Theoretical Biology Volume 233, Issue 1, 7 March 2005, Pages 1-13

You keep trying to invent new reasons why the biological speed limit doesn't apply to you or to anyone else, when this is the theoretical maximum and in practice you'll observe losses of muscle mass at deficits of only 10kcal/d/lbs fat mass without supporting exercise and significant losses even with sufficient supporting exercise from around 20kcal/d/lbs fat mass.

Perfectly said, melkor.

OP, eat something. No seriously. I've been where you are. Living off of diet drinks and water. Want to know what happened when I started eating again? Well, suffice it to say I plumped up like the girl from willy wonka.

21 Replies (last)
Advertisement
Advertisement