At my wits end, really need some advice.

Options
1234568»

Replies

  • JessHealthKick
    JessHealthKick Posts: 800 Member
    Options
    ...following from the arguments about increasing or decreasing.

    Well can't it be agreed that having a NET under BMR is a bad thing? From what the OP says, given the measurements are correct, they are netting about 1200 - unless you have a very very slow metabolism or thyroid problem, that is under their natural BMR.
  • Ashleyxjamie
    Ashleyxjamie Posts: 223 Member
    Options
    How can you gain 5 pounds a week if you eat 2400? if you eat that much depending on your weight and height, and if you exercise, you will still have a deficit. my TDEE shows I can eat 2600 to maintain my weight or 2077 to lose one pound a week. I've been eating around 1800-2000 a day and working my butt off and it's working for me!
    ^ Thank you for speaking some sense! :flowerforyou: it would take a surplus of 2500 calories a day to gain that kind of weight which for a female would be around 5000ish calories every day after exercise...

    aww a flower :) and you are welcome!!! It makes no sense to gain 5 pounds unless they eat 3500 calories OVER their TDEE to gain even ONE pound. so for 5 pounds its 17500 OVER their TDEE in one week??? Unless they drink about a gallon of canola oil I think they are in the clear of gaining that quickly :wink: :laugh:
  • stellafgus
    stellafgus Posts: 29 Member
    Options
    Hi I was just wondering how you found out how many calories to eat with Weight Watchers?
  • 55in13
    55in13 Posts: 1,091 Member
    Options
    ...following from the arguments about increasing or decreasing.

    Well can't it be agreed that having a NET under BMR is a bad thing? From what the OP says, given the measurements are correct, they are netting about 1200 - unless you have a very very slow metabolism or thyroid problem, that is under their natural BMR.

    Can we agree that having a true net under true BMR will always result in weight loss? The main reason I debate the issue is that it gives people a crutch to explain away lack of progress by not taking responsibility. Without this irrational notion, people would get called out for posting numbers than make no sense. If the OP was eating below BMR, there would be loss of weight.

    EDIT - I am not saying that would be a healthy rate of weight loss, just that there would be weight loss. The body can't run on air and water.
  • chatogal
    chatogal Posts: 436 Member
    Options
    Hi just logging in with what I have learned. I am 71 yrs old, started at 265 lbs am now at 232.6 lbs.

    1. If you put all of your data into My Fitness Pal it will tell you how many calories you should eat.
    Your data must include your height, weight, and level of activity - sedentary, moderate activity, active.
    2. If you eat only those calories and exercise you will lose weight.
    3. If you eat those calories plus all the calories you have burned off exercising your weight loss will be less.
    4. You will have periods of time where you will not lose weight - I went 3 weeks with no change.
    That is your bodies way to adjust to your previous weight loss.
    It seems we ladies have bodies that need time to adjust before weight loss can continue.
    I don't know about men. It is kind of like when you read something then take time to assimilate it.
    Your body has lost weight and then takes time to tell all your body components you are ok.
    Then you will start to lose again.
    5. Once you are on maintenance you can exercise so you can eat more calories -
    but if you want to lose you don't eat those calories you burned exercising.
    EXAMPLE:
    Say you are to eat 1500 calories according to My Fitness Pal and are moderately active and you burn 500 calories exercising.
    Now if you eat only 1500 calories you and not exercise you will loose very mildly. Maybe 1/8 lb to 1/2 lb a week.
    Now if you eat only 1500 calories and burn 500 calories you may lose up to 1 1/2 lbs or more a week.
    As long as your are eating the 1500 calories you are getting all the nutrition you need - you do not have to worry about your health.
    But you will still have a week or two with no weight loss but will fine on week three and four you may loose 3 lbs. It will all even out.
    Your reasons for exercising are multiple. 1. To get healthier 2. To lose weight 3. To maintain weight while eating more (this is for maintenance only)

    There will be times while you are dieting that you will exercise because you ate more - say at a dinner out and that is ok sometimes. But for regular weight loss that should not be the rule but the exception.

    I do hope this helps you. I have found it to work for me quite well.

    Remember when you are exercising you are not burning off vitamins, protein, and minerals, you are burning off fat. Your body will maintain the vitamins, protein, and minerals that keep you healthy.

    While trying to loose do not consider exercise as a way to eat more. It is a way to lose more. Again once you are on maintenance you will find if you want to eat more than the allowed maintenance calories you will need to burn them with exercise.

    Don't give up, Keep on keeping on and you will succeed.
    Wilmakt

    I like this....simple, to the point and with common sense thrown in....wtg :-)
  • danimalkeys
    danimalkeys Posts: 982 Member
    Options
    Oh no, the dreaded plateau...
    Also never happens in clinical settings. People with normal to high BF% eating at a substantial calorie deficit do not plateau. They continue losing weight until they get to a below normal BF% (like the MN study participants) and then crazy stuff does happen or they increase their intake or they decrease their burn. There are a few elephants in the room that we often all too politely ignore...
    Go tell this guy he needs to lower his calories then :)

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1007865-not-sure-what-i-am-doing-wrong

    I don't think there is a problem with people lowering their calories to around a 1000 calorie deficit, it's when people on here are litteraly on a 1500+ deficit that I think they should eat a little more, the OP is 5'7 at 13 stone so should not be eating ridiculously low calories...

    An anonymous post by someone who joined that day, did not fill out the profile and never posted in any other thread besides that one? That's your evidence? I hope you don't use the internet for investment advice. You take too much at face value from postings. You used the word "literally" to describe the information you have surmised about deficits people are eating at.

    Says they joined January, not today. You have not filled out your profile. And I've seen you've commented on many posts just like that one saying it is not proof of anything. It certainly works for a strangely large amount of people, especially ones that have been eating very low calories. Please stop trying to sound so clever in front of everyone with your facts and go and tell more teenage girls to lower their calories to 1200 :)

    I said they joined "that day" meaning the day of their one and only post which you linked to and it was in January. Joined that day, made that post, followed up in it a couple of times and never posted anything else since. It looks very much like that "person" was an ID created solely for the purpose of making a post like that. I do not know that for sure, but this topic is hotly debated and it is more than a little suspicious that someone would post only that and never anything else.

    No, I haven't bothered with a full profile here. I started out using the logging here late last year but quickly abandoned it, finding other things that are working better for me. But I have continued tracking weight and following some discussions and participating in others. It does irk me that this baseless idea of "eat more to lose" is bandied about so much and that people like yourself even ask me to stop using facts to try to sound clever.

    I don't suggest that everyone lower their calories to 1200. I do tell people who say they are physically active and restricting their calories but not losing weight to try restricting further because in all likelihood their figures are wrong and their deficit is non existant or very small. The law of thermodynamics is just a theory, kinda like gravity, but I think it does apply to everyone. And yes I may sound like a broken record but there is not a single medically verified case of someone increasing calories and losing more weight. Pointing to posts as suspect as the one you linked really makes me wonder what the motive of the disinformation campaign is. Very strange.

    55in13, how long have you been on your weight loss venture? How long has it taken you to drop your nearly 50lbs? 6 months, a year, 2 years?

    I lost 50lbs in 6 months, without counting or weighing anything, just using portion control- I basically ate half what I used to. I cut out snacks and a lot of carbs like pasta and bread. The weight melted off, along with 8 inches off my waist, and as I came to fine out later, a lot of muscle mass. I hit my goal of 50lbs, decided to keep going and lose another 25 but my weight loss completely stopped, and I actually put about 5lbs back on, even eating at a deficit. So, like so many other people, I figured I needed to eat even less and exercise more. I did this for another 6 months. It didn't work, my weight stayed the same. So in February, I decided to eat more, going from 1700 to 2400 calories a day. I still haven't lost any more weight, but I have not gained any, and even better, I'm not tired, light headed and hungry all the time like I was when I was eating 1700 calories. I figured out the so called "bro science" to at least get an idea of how much I should be eating at a minimum, and figured out TDEE to see what I at least should try to stay under. It's pretty simple, but it's more than "eat less than you burn and you'll lose weight" because at some point your body adjusts to that and the loss stops.

    My point is- that people do plateau, and sometimes it's very difficult to break through. Maybe, if your weight loss timeline is like mine was, you just haven't seen it yet?
  • 55in13
    55in13 Posts: 1,091 Member
    Options
    My recent loss has been fairly quick, but please do not try to base the credibility of science on my personal experience, even though it is consistent with it. I am debating a notion that isn't supported by science and has not been observed in any documented medical studies.
  • danimalkeys
    danimalkeys Posts: 982 Member
    Options
    My recent loss has been fairly quick, but please do not try to base the credibility of science on my personal experience, even though it is consistent with it. I am debating a notion that isn't supported by science and has not been observed in any documented medical studies.

    I'm just saying- you might think you have it all figured out because it's working for you right now, but like many, myself included, who lost a lot of weight fast, they soon find out that it doesn't always continue with that same ease. That's where a lot of people who are using the eat more and other alternative methods end up going when they find out the big calorie deficit method isn't good for long term loss or as a sustainable lifestyle once you have lost the weight. What will you do when you reach your goal, to maintain your weight?
  • 55in13
    55in13 Posts: 1,091 Member
    Options
    My recent loss has been fairly quick, but please do not try to base the credibility of science on my personal experience, even though it is consistent with it. I am debating a notion that isn't supported by science and has not been observed in any documented medical studies.

    I'm just saying- you might think you have it all figured out because it's working for you right now, but like many, myself included, who lost a lot of weight fast, they soon find out that it doesn't always continue with that same ease. That's where a lot of people who are using the eat more and other alternative methods end up going when they find out the big calorie deficit method isn't good for long term loss or as a sustainable lifestyle once you have lost the weight. What will you do when you reach your goal, to maintain your weight?

    Good question; I am wrestling with that one myself. The first time I got overweight was almost 30 years ago. It was at a small startup where I worked long hours for a big guy and started eating like he did - donuts in the morning, monstrous lunch burgers, chips and soft drinks through the day, pizza and beer at night. I went from about 160 to 200 in about 8 months. I freaked when they had to move the big weight on the tri beam at a doctor's appointment. I bought my first scale and the next morning I weighed in at 197 and started an insane diet. I lost 42 pounds in 2 months (ahh, to be 25 again :bigsmile: ). I stayed under 175 for about 15 years after that and then started letting it creep up. A couple of years ago at 220 I decided to attack it in stages and lost back to 200 but then let it creep back up and past 220 to 225. I am not sure what is making this time seem different; maybe my kids being old enough to understand and tell me it's important to them that I be healthy or maybe closing in on retirement (still a few years out) and wanting to be active. But something is very different. I am more driven to do this than I have been since that first time.

    So, maintenance... I still have a few pounds to lose to get there but I am trying to adjust some already. I would like to say that I will eat just right and everything will be wonderful, but the more likely answer is that I will be a short string yoyo. That's a dangerous answer but it is likely to be accurate. I am planning to go below my goal by a few pounds and do plan to try to maintain by eating right. The most obvious first step to me is to eat a little more early in the day. I eat a fairly normal dinner now after eating a very light breakfast and light lunch. I think the daytime snacks have to be gone forever. That has been easier to do for me than it seems to be for most people.