Why is it so hard for me to loose wait but not --> them? Help pls!
Replies
-
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/expert-answers/fast-weight-loss/faq-20058289If you lose a lot of weight very quickly, you may not lose as much fat as you would with a more modest rate of weight loss. Instead, you might lose water weight or even lean tissue, since it's hard to burn that many fat calories in a short period.
Aim to lose .5 lb. per week for every 25 lbs. you're overweight, and conserve lean body mass with body weight exercises &/or lifting.0 -
editorgrrl wrote: »http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/expert-answers/fast-weight-loss/faq-20058289If you lose a lot of weight very quickly, you may not lose as much fat as you would with a more modest rate of weight loss. Instead, you might lose water weight or even lean tissue, since it's hard to burn that many fat calories in a short period.
Aim to lose .5 lb. per week for every 25 lbs. you're overweight, and conserve lean body mass with body weight exercises &/or lifting.
That seems so low!! lol I know I have to just relax.
0 -
Fitness is an intensely personal issue. Don't ever compare yourself to others, unless it is in a positive reference and you draw strength from it.
As far a rapid weight loss goes, think about all the studies showing that rapid weight loss increase the chance of returning weight gain. Also there's the issue of skin elasticity. Your body can easily handle losing 1lb/week, but any more than that is pushing it and there are multiple adverse effects of losing more than this.
I thought skin elasticity was really more an issue of genetics.
What effects? I always heard up to 2 lbs was safe?
Genetics plays a factor, but everyone's skin cells replicate at pretty much the same rate.
It's the factor of body mass and by no means a precise equation. For someone my size (starting weight of 277) 2lbs is realistic and achievable as a 2lb loss is 0.7% of my body weight. For you a 2lb loss is 1.6%.
While it takes the same amount of caloric output to burn this weight, it is going to be much more difficult for maintain a 7k/week deficit.0 -
OP is working their butt off and losing 2 pounds per week and is still not happy.....
0 -
Fitness is an intensely personal issue. Don't ever compare yourself to others, unless it is in a positive reference and you draw strength from it.
As far a rapid weight loss goes, think about all the studies showing that rapid weight loss increase the chance of returning weight gain. Also there's the issue of skin elasticity. Your body can easily handle losing 1lb/week, but any more than that is pushing it and there are multiple adverse effects of losing more than this.
I thought skin elasticity was really more an issue of genetics.
What effects? I always heard up to 2 lbs was safe?
Genetics plays a factor, but everyone's skin cells replicate at pretty much the same rate.
It's the factor of body mass and by no means a precise equation. For someone my size (starting weight of 277) 2lbs is realistic and achievable as a 2lb loss is 0.7% of my body weight. For you a 2lb loss is 1.6%.
While it takes the same amount of caloric output to burn this weight, it is going to be much more difficult for maintain a 7k/week deficit.
Gawd yes!! I'm wearing a weight belt now to try and get the same type of walking workout I used to. Everything has to be so much more intense now to drop anything! I keep having to add to my workouts to try and keep up.
0 -
OP is working their butt off and losing 2 pounds per week and is still not happy.....
I'm not loosing 2 lbs a week all the time.. Way less so now than before. Some weeks I'm working my behind off and GAINING weight.. boo.
If I was loosing 2 lbs a week all the time every week without fail, I probably wouldn't be so annoyed with myself for not loosing 5-10 lbs like I see others do lol.
I just need to take the advice of relax the f down.
0 -
OP - do you eat back 100% of your exercise calories?
how long have you been dieting for on 1200?
No. I try and keep a 500 cal deficit. It is easier to do with fitbit and mfp. It calculates it for me.
1200? most of my life. I'm 4 feet 10.5 inches and so I can't keep up with most adult's food portions. I'm more the height of the average grade 6er lol. - Seriously though, no joke.
I try not to "diet". I'm trying to eat better and get an eating lifestyle I can keep up with after I drop the weight. I try to work out to drop the weight, not eat less.
so you have been eating 1200 calories for how long?
Sorry, for a very long time.
Unless I binged at night with chips and chocolates
which in the winter I often do. When I started counting calories, about 5 years ago, I counted the amount I was eating a day. It was usually around 12-1400 cal a day. ( unless I had chips and chocolates, which I never calculated for obvious reasons
So I can only guess at how long I've eating 1200 cals. typically. the biggest change I have made in the last 3 months is I no longer eat junk food, unless cake a b-day parties or a bbq here and there ( maybe once a week to once every 2 weeks ) - but even then I usually always add it to my calorie intake for the day. I eat much better foods and so eat way more during my day to equal 1200 a day. I try very hard to not go under 1200 which is HARD for me now. I'm never hungry and the moment I am, I eat ( usually fruit or proteins like almonds and cheese)
OP - it sounds like you have been crash dieting for a long time. I would suggest a diet break and eat at maintenance level for about two months, and then slowly cut back down to a deficit.
Also, if you have not been eating back exercise calories then you have been netting below 1200 calories for a long time, and you are probably suffering from adaptive thermogenesis....0 -
Fitness is an intensely personal issue. Don't ever compare yourself to others, unless it is in a positive reference and you draw strength from it.
As far a rapid weight loss goes, think about all the studies showing that rapid weight loss increase the chance of returning weight gain. Also there's the issue of skin elasticity. Your body can easily handle losing 1lb/week, but any more than that is pushing it and there are multiple adverse effects of losing more than this.
I thought skin elasticity was really more an issue of genetics.
What effects? I always heard up to 2 lbs was safe?
Genetics plays a factor, but everyone's skin cells replicate at pretty much the same rate.
It's the factor of body mass and by no means a precise equation. For someone my size (starting weight of 277) 2lbs is realistic and achievable as a 2lb loss is 0.7% of my body weight. For you a 2lb loss is 1.6%.
While it takes the same amount of caloric output to burn this weight, it is going to be much more difficult for maintain a 7k/week deficit.
Gawd yes!! I'm wearing a weight belt now to try and get the same type of walking workout I used to. Everything has to be so much more intense now to drop anything! I keep having to add to my workouts to try and keep up.
One of my old motivators liked to use car analogies in explaining CICO. Think Prius vs. Titan - while both can move the same distance and relatively similar speeds, it takes considerably more fuel to move the mass of the Titan. Same with energy output - the Prius is going to have to move much longer and work harder to burn the same amount of fuel.
Awesome that you are lifting! I work out with an IFBB and she has two pics - one at 109 when she was killing herself with cardio and another at 119 a year after she started lifting. People get so focused on weight they forget to notice other gains in themselves. Gotta spin positive!
0 -
OP is working their butt off and losing 2 pounds per week and is still not happy.....
I'm not loosing 2 lbs a week all the time.. Way less so now than before. Some weeks I'm working my behind off and GAINING weight.. boo.
If I was loosing 2 lbs a week all the time every week without fail, I probably wouldn't be so annoyed with myself for not loosing 5-10 lbs like I see others do lol.
I just need to take the advice of relax the f down.
Then you are completely normal. When you are close to goal, then 1/2 or 1 pound a week is good. The weeks you show a gain might correspond with water retention.
0 -
OP - it sounds like you have been crash dieting for a long time. I would suggest a diet break and eat at maintenance level for about two months, and then slowly cut back down to a deficit.
Also, if you have not been eating back exercise calories then you have been netting below 1200 calories for a long time, and you are probably suffering from adaptive thermogenesis....
Really? Hmm.. I always tried to stay away from "dieting" and just try and maintain healthy eating habits.
Adaptive Thermogenesis? going to have to look that up.
0 -
One of my old motivators liked to use car analogies in explaining CICO. Think Prius vs. Titan - while both can move the same distance and relatively similar speeds, it takes considerably more fuel to move the mass of the Titan. Same with energy output - the Prius is going to have to move much longer and work harder to burn the same amount of fuel.
Awesome that you are lifting! I work out with an IFBB and she has two pics - one at 109 when she was killing herself with cardio and another at 119 a year after she started lifting. People get so focused on weight they forget to notice other gains in themselves. Gotta spin positive!
i've seen pics like that. They have "helped" to keep my mind off the scale, but I often think of them for very fit people. Hence why my goals are 105 lean or 110-115 toned.
I never think of it for when you are overweight ( which I currently am).
0 -
OP - it sounds like you have been crash dieting for a long time. I would suggest a diet break and eat at maintenance level for about two months, and then slowly cut back down to a deficit.
Also, if you have not been eating back exercise calories then you have been netting below 1200 calories for a long time, and you are probably suffering from adaptive thermogenesis....
Really? Hmm.. I always tried to stay away from "dieting" and just try and maintain healthy eating habits.
Adaptive Thermogenesis? going to have to look that up.
it is when you eat an insanely low number of calories over a prolonged time and your metabolism slows down to account for the lower calorie intake. Please note this is NOT starvation mode.
When this happens it can reset your maintenance and deficit intake to a lower number. when this happens it is recommended the one take a diet break and slowly increase calories to maintenance, and then stay there for x amount of time and then slowly cut back down.0 -
OP - it sounds like you have been crash dieting for a long time. I would suggest a diet break and eat at maintenance level for about two months, and then slowly cut back down to a deficit.
Also, if you have not been eating back exercise calories then you have been netting below 1200 calories for a long time, and you are probably suffering from adaptive thermogenesis....
Really? Hmm.. I always tried to stay away from "dieting" and just try and maintain healthy eating habits.
Adaptive Thermogenesis? going to have to look that up.
it is when you eat an insanely low number of calories over a prolonged time and your metabolism slows down to account for the lower calorie intake. Please note this is NOT starvation mode.
When this happens it can reset your maintenance and deficit intake to a lower number. when this happens it is recommended the one take a diet break and slowly increase calories to maintenance, and then stay there for x amount of time and then slowly cut back down.
How long and by how much? Does it depend on my height and weight?
0 -
editorgrrl wrote: »The less you have to lose, the more slowly it comes off. That's just the way the human body works. Undereating will not get you to goal any more quickly.
Connect your accounts at http://www.myfitnesspal.com/fitbit
Set your goal to .5 lb. per week for every 25 lbs. you're overweight. (The smaller deficit will help you transition to maintenance.) http://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/change_goals_guided
Enable negative calorie adjustments: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/diary_settings
Follow your MFP calorie goal, eating back your adjustments. And be patient!
You can learn more in the Fitbit Users group: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/1290-fitbit-users
^^^^ This is great advice.
As you have already said. Don't compare yourself to others and settle the f....down...lol
The last 10-20 pds are slow to leave and time consuming. Maybe switch groups to ones that are less than 25pds to lose. You may find some good hints here also.
Best of Luck to you.0 -
They work harder. Or else they're starting fatter.
I started here at only 147.2. But I've run a deficit of about a thousand calories a day.
I've eaten 1200 calories a day or so.
I've walked 15,000 to 30,000 steps most days, averaging 20,000.
I've worked out of top of that most days.
I'm now down 9lbs since early June.
That's the highest safe weight loss possible where I was starting.
If I were 200lbs or 300lbs, I would have lost 2 to 4 times that much on the same regimen.0 -
OP - it sounds like you have been crash dieting for a long time. I would suggest a diet break and eat at maintenance level for about two months, and then slowly cut back down to a deficit.
Also, if you have not been eating back exercise calories then you have been netting below 1200 calories for a long time, and you are probably suffering from adaptive thermogenesis....
Really? Hmm.. I always tried to stay away from "dieting" and just try and maintain healthy eating habits.
Adaptive Thermogenesis? going to have to look that up.
it is when you eat an insanely low number of calories over a prolonged time and your metabolism slows down to account for the lower calorie intake. Please note this is NOT starvation mode.
When this happens it can reset your maintenance and deficit intake to a lower number. when this happens it is recommended the one take a diet break and slowly increase calories to maintenance, and then stay there for x amount of time and then slowly cut back down.
How long and by how much? Does it depend on my height and weight?
most recommend about a month or two ....not really dependent on height/weight.0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »They work harder. Or else they're starting fatter.
I started here at only 147.2. But I've run a deficit of about a thousand calories a day.
I've eaten 1200 calories a day or so.
I've walked 15,000 to 30,000 steps most days, averaging 20,000.
I've worked out of top of that most days.
I'm now down 9lbs since early June.
That's the highest safe weight loss possible where I was starting.
If I were 200lbs or 300lbs, I would have lost 2 to 4 times that much on the same regimen.
I hate saying "fatter" but I think this is closer to the truth
I hate saying that.
I see how little they work out because we state everything we do and eat. They cheat often.. and you know what. .. as I am writing this.. im JEALOUS.. that is what it's coming down town.
this ugliness is me.. being jealous... I'm jealous that they aren't working as hard and get to eat more and still drop the weight.. and that's sad of me.. I need to curb that right now. I have no right to feel this way when they are prob. strugging.. I know they are, they say so.. they say how guilty they feel that they aren't doing as much as they wish they were or ate that cake etc. and that's sad of me that I'm jealous when I still see them dropping the weight.. I'm happy for them! I am, and I cheer them on.. but deep down.. it's ugliness. boo on me!
but hey.. I can see it now.. and I can work on changing that about me and changing how I view my efforts. right? lol trying to see the silver lining to this realisation.
0 -
OP - it sounds like you have been crash dieting for a long time. I would suggest a diet break and eat at maintenance level for about two months, and then slowly cut back down to a deficit.
Also, if you have not been eating back exercise calories then you have been netting below 1200 calories for a long time, and you are probably suffering from adaptive thermogenesis....
Really? Hmm.. I always tried to stay away from "dieting" and just try and maintain healthy eating habits.
Adaptive Thermogenesis? going to have to look that up.
it is when you eat an insanely low number of calories over a prolonged time and your metabolism slows down to account for the lower calorie intake. Please note this is NOT starvation mode.
When this happens it can reset your maintenance and deficit intake to a lower number. when this happens it is recommended the one take a diet break and slowly increase calories to maintenance, and then stay there for x amount of time and then slowly cut back down.
How long and by how much? Does it depend on my height and weight?
most recommend about a month or two ....not really dependent on height/weight.
I'm 4 feet 10.5 inchs, 125 lbs, BMI 26.1
0 -
OP - it sounds like you have been crash dieting for a long time. I would suggest a diet break and eat at maintenance level for about two months, and then slowly cut back down to a deficit.
Also, if you have not been eating back exercise calories then you have been netting below 1200 calories for a long time, and you are probably suffering from adaptive thermogenesis....
Really? Hmm.. I always tried to stay away from "dieting" and just try and maintain healthy eating habits.
Adaptive Thermogenesis? going to have to look that up.
it is when you eat an insanely low number of calories over a prolonged time and your metabolism slows down to account for the lower calorie intake. Please note this is NOT starvation mode.
When this happens it can reset your maintenance and deficit intake to a lower number. when this happens it is recommended the one take a diet break and slowly increase calories to maintenance, and then stay there for x amount of time and then slowly cut back down.
How long and by how much? Does it depend on my height and weight?
most recommend about a month or two ....not really dependent on height/weight.
Most of the studies an adaptive thermogenesis are REALLY flawed even when the data is accurate.
Here's a favorite:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3173112
ZERO differences in BMR. Differences in metabolism from activity. Okay. Soooo...
Well, then we find out that people who are/were obese burn something like 200-400 calories less per day BECAUSE THEY MOVE LESS when their weights are reduced, while "naturally lean people" maintain the burn advantage even when they put on weight from a high-calorie diet, even when leading the same lifestyle on paper. Naturally lean people tend to be fidgeters, pacers, walkers, bouncers.
Completely makes up for the apparent differences.
Might be more real differences with true starvation, but according to her, she's been on a LCD, not a VLCD. So she hasn't been in the danger zone.
I can see the same things at play between my kids and the neighbors' overweight kids. My kids turn TV watching into a cardio session. Neighbors' kids spend most of a neighborhood pick-up basketball game walking or standingg. Feed them the same foods, and my kids will keep much lower body weights as maintenance even if they're put through the exact same daily routine. Even if they're made to run the same distance, the neighbors' kids shuffle and plod, and mine jump around like jackrabbits on uppers.
AT, if it exists at all (other than "some people move less when they don't have to, and starving people move a LOT less"), has a VERY mild effect and can't account for what she's describing. Not even close.
Sadly, I'm a shuffler. My FitBit tells me so. I have to exercise a ton just to break out of sedentary!0 -
OP - it sounds like you have been crash dieting for a long time. I would suggest a diet break and eat at maintenance level for about two months, and then slowly cut back down to a deficit.
Also, if you have not been eating back exercise calories then you have been netting below 1200 calories for a long time, and you are probably suffering from adaptive thermogenesis....
Really? Hmm.. I always tried to stay away from "dieting" and just try and maintain healthy eating habits.
Adaptive Thermogenesis? going to have to look that up.
it is when you eat an insanely low number of calories over a prolonged time and your metabolism slows down to account for the lower calorie intake. Please note this is NOT starvation mode.
When this happens it can reset your maintenance and deficit intake to a lower number. when this happens it is recommended the one take a diet break and slowly increase calories to maintenance, and then stay there for x amount of time and then slowly cut back down.
How long and by how much? Does it depend on my height and weight?
most recommend about a month or two ....not really dependent on height/weight.
I'm 4 feet 10.5 inchs, 125 lbs, BMI 26.1
If you're that short, your BMR is below 1,200. You're NOT eating anything like "an insanely low number of calories."
Sorry to tell you, but I think the most that's reasonable to lose at your weight, despite your BMI, is about a pound a week. Even 2 would be quite hard (and keep up your muscle density).0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »They work harder. Or else they're starting fatter.
I started here at only 147.2. But I've run a deficit of about a thousand calories a day.
I've eaten 1200 calories a day or so.
I've walked 15,000 to 30,000 steps most days, averaging 20,000.
I've worked out of top of that most days.
I'm now down 9lbs since early June.
That's the highest safe weight loss possible where I was starting.
If I were 200lbs or 300lbs, I would have lost 2 to 4 times that much on the same regimen.
I hate saying "fatter" but I think this is closer to the truth I hate saying that.
I see how little they work out because we state everything we do and eat. They cheat often.. and you know what. .. as I am writing this.. im JEALOUS.. that is what it's coming down town.
this ugliness is me.. being jealous... I'm jealous that they aren't working as hard and get to eat more and still drop the weight.. and that's sad of me.. I need to curb that right now. I have no right to feel this way when they are prob. strugging.. I know they are, they say so.. they say how guilty they feel that they aren't doing as much as they wish they were or ate that cake etc. and that's sad of me that I'm jealous when I still see them dropping the weight.. I'm happy for them! I am, and I cheer them on.. but deep down.. it's ugliness. boo on me!
but hey.. I can see it now.. and I can work on changing that about me and changing how I view my efforts. right? lol trying to see the silver lining to this realisation.
Honey, they're also almost all 5" to a FOOT taller than you. LOL. That's also a big factor for you! You're short. You're going to lose more slowly than someone my height with the same BMI.
The NICE thing, though, is that you have WAY fewer pounds to lose per point BMI!
You'll likely never be able to eat more than 1600 calories a day with a lightly active lifestyle. 2000 if you're like SUPER agressively athletic.0 -
As an example, your healthy weight range is 90.1-121.7lbs. That's a 31.8lbs range.
Mine, at 5'6", is 114.6-154.9. That's a 40.3lbs range.
I'd have to lose 40lbs to look as slim as you would losing 32.0 -
And if any musclehead guy comes in and tells you to "recomp," I will kick them in the shins for you. A lot of the guys have no frame of reference for the weights of smaller women.0
-
When you measure yourself against someone else's yardstick, you're always going to come up short.0
-
I just want to chime in and add, on the subject of weight loss not being linear: do you chart or graph your weight? I weigh daily, first thing in the AM and track/chart it in Excel. Some weeks, I show a gain of a lb or two, and then the next week (like last week), I show a loss of like 7 lbs. I compare a "weigh in day" weekly weight loss (this Monday's weight minus last Monday's weight) against a weekly average weight loss (the average of this week's daily weight minus the average of last week's daily weight). When I feel really down because it's a gain week, I run an average loss - mine is 2 lbs per week on the dot - on average. Charting is really insightful and helps you see trends like weight gain during PMS time or AF or other oddities - like I tend to lose in big drops and then dip slightly up following each big drop; then I kind of maintain until the next drop occurs. It's really cool to see a downward linear trend over time too.
Of course - this is all if you can weigh every day and track without freaking out!
0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »And if any musclehead guy comes in and tells you to "recomp," I will kick them in the shins for you. A lot of the guys have no frame of reference for the weights of smaller women.
I'm 5'2", 118 lbs., and I think OP needs to recomp. In other words, change her focus from getting smaller to getting stronger.
One year ago today, I was 124.4 lbs. So when I say "be patient," I know what I'm talking about!
Trying to lose 2 lb. per week at our size is masochistic.0 -
editorgrrl wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »And if any musclehead guy comes in and tells you to "recomp," I will kick them in the shins for you. A lot of the guys have no frame of reference for the weights of smaller women.
I'm 5'2", 118 lbs., and I think OP needs to recomp. In other words, change her focus from getting smaller to getting stronger.
One year ago today, I was 124.4 lbs. So when I say "be patient," I know what I'm talking about!
Trying to lose 2 lb. per week at our size is masochistic.
She's medically overweight. She doesn't need to stay the same weight. She needs to lose weight.
You're STILL 3" taller than the OP. That's like me telling a woman at 5'9" that she's too fat to recomp at 150lbs because I'm too fat at 140.
There is zero medical reason that people need to aim to lose less than a pound a week at average body fat percentages and normal weight ranges. There's zero evidence, too, that obese people put on VLCD versus even LCD versus restricted but not LCDs maintain/continue to lose more poorly. (VLCD are not, of course, appropriate for anyone who is of a healthy weight.)0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »
OP - it sounds like you have been crash dieting for a long time. I would suggest a diet break and eat at maintenance level for about two months, and then slowly cut back down to a deficit.
Also, if you have not been eating back exercise calories then you have been netting below 1200 calories for a long time, and you are probably suffering from adaptive thermogenesis....
Really? Hmm.. I always tried to stay away from "dieting" and just try and maintain healthy eating habits.
Adaptive Thermogenesis? going to have to look that up.
it is when you eat an insanely low number of calories over a prolonged time and your metabolism slows down to account for the lower calorie intake. Please note this is NOT starvation mode.
When this happens it can reset your maintenance and deficit intake to a lower number. when this happens it is recommended the one take a diet break and slowly increase calories to maintenance, and then stay there for x amount of time and then slowly cut back down.
How long and by how much? Does it depend on my height and weight?
most recommend about a month or two ....not really dependent on height/weight.
Most of the studies an adaptive thermogenesis are REALLY flawed even when the data is accurate.
Here's a favorite:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3173112
ZERO differences in BMR. Differences in metabolism from activity. Okay. Soooo...
Well, then we find out that people who are/were obese burn something like 200-400 calories less per day BECAUSE THEY MOVE LESS when their weights are reduced, while "naturally lean people" maintain the burn advantage even when they put on weight from a high-calorie diet, even when leading the same lifestyle on paper. Naturally lean people tend to be fidgeters, pacers, walkers, bouncers.
Completely makes up for the apparent differences.
Might be more real differences with true starvation, but according to her, she's been on a LCD, not a VLCD. So she hasn't been in the danger zone.
I can see the same things at play between my kids and the neighbors' overweight kids. My kids turn TV watching into a cardio session. Neighbors' kids spend most of a neighborhood pick-up basketball game walking or standingg. Feed them the same foods, and my kids will keep much lower body weights as maintenance even if they're put through the exact same daily routine. Even if they're made to run the same distance, the neighbors' kids shuffle and plod, and mine jump around like jackrabbits on uppers.
AT, if it exists at all (other than "some people move less when they don't have to, and starving people move a LOT less"), has a VERY mild effect and can't account for what she's describing. Not even close.
Sadly, I'm a shuffler. My FitBit tells me so. I have to exercise a ton just to break out of sedentary!
I based my recommendation that she has ben eating at 1200, or below, for six years...
I am assuming that she is using a food scale for all solids, logging everything, and using correct DB entries, which she is adamant that she is.
0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »And if any musclehead guy comes in and tells you to "recomp," I will kick them in the shins for you. A lot of the guys have no frame of reference for the weights of smaller women.
so anyone recommending a recomp is a "musclehead"??
As OP is probably new to lifting, she would probably benefit from a heavy lifting program with some nice newbie gains and eating at, or below, maintenance.
I am not sure why you would knock that.0 -
I'm 4'11" so I feel your pain there! I was stuck for a long time. I was at 134 pounds and now I'm at 118. I'd like to see 110 again!! Add me, maybe we can help eachother stay accountable!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions