1300 calories and no weight loss in 10 days what am idoing wrong

13567

Replies

  • Colorscheme
    Colorscheme Posts: 1,179 Member
    1. How are you logging your food? are you weighing it?
    2. How are you logging exercise? are you using a fitness tracker or using manual entries?
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,267 Member
    axelanderson35 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    axelanderson35 wrote: »
    It's also important what KIND of calories you're eating. The body is not a simple calorie in/calorie out arithmetic equation.

    for weight loss yes it is...

    macros are for health calories for weight.

    I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. In a great many studies, low-carbohydrate diets have been shown to be more effective (sometimes MUCH more effective) for losing weight than other diets. There is a mechanism for this, as well. Dietary carbohydrate drives serum glucose. Serum glucose triggers insulin production. Insulin is our bodies' main hormone for the regulation of the flow of fatty acids into and out of fat cells. In short, more carbs means more insulin. More insulin means less fat loss.

    Don't take my word for it. I encourage you to examine the literature. The studies below are a good start.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341711
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637
    http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(02)40206-5/abstract?cc=y=
    http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2002-021480
    http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=217514
    http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=717451
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538279/
    http://www.andjrnl.org/article/S0002-8223(05)01151-X/abstract

    @thorsmom01 already said what I needed to but...

    your links

    do not make me believe that macros matter for weight loss over calories. Most compared LC vs LF...both of which require lower calories to lose weight.

    As I said macros for health...calories for weight loss.
  • groetzinger659
    groetzinger659 Posts: 47 Member
    agree ^^^^ I would think every calorie right now counts to help nourish your baby. You could work on doing what I call-choose foods that have more value-I know for me-I struggle with junk food that is fried or fatty-I don't really like sweets-so I have been trying to replace one food with something else in that similar type that will satisfy my snack urge and keep me full.

    Hopefully your doctor can give you some pointers to help you reach your goals.
  • alone_aqua
    alone_aqua Posts: 28 Member
    You definitely need to be more patient. Also, if you were eating 3,000 per day and are now eating less than half your body could be in shock. 3,000 calories is a LOT, maybe cutting less and exercising more is ideal until you've seen some results. If you're already down to 1,300 there's not much else to cut...
  • axelanderson35
    axelanderson35 Posts: 5 Member
    thorsmom01 wrote: »
    axelanderson35 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    axelanderson35 wrote: »
    It's also important what KIND of calories you're eating. The body is not a simple calorie in/calorie out arithmetic equation.

    for weight loss yes it is...

    macros are for health calories for weight.

    I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. In a great many studies, low-carbohydrate diets have been shown to be more effective (sometimes MUCH more effective) for losing weight than other diets. There is a mechanism for this, as well. Dietary carbohydrate drives serum glucose. Serum glucose triggers insulin production. Insulin is our bodies' main hormone for the regulation of the flow of fatty acids into and out of fat cells. In short, more carbs means more insulin. More insulin means less fat loss.

    Don't take my word for it. I encourage you to examine the literature. The studies below are a good start.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341711
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637
    http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(02)40206-5/abstract?cc=y=
    http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2002-021480
    http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=217514
    http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=717451
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538279/
    http://www.andjrnl.org/article/S0002-8223(05)01151-X/abstract

    For any diet or way of eating- one must be at a caloric deficit. Its that simple. If you like low carb, go for it. But it's not necessary for people to eat low carb to lose weight.

    I really hate to press my point because you seem so sure you know the right answer, but there's good evidence that your assertion is incorrect. Fat loss, metabolically speaking, is anything but simple, and more and more, it seems not to conform to the somewhat reductionist calorie-in-calorie-out model.

    This study, for example, compared rates of weight loss for three diets: a calorie-restricted low-fat diet, a calorie-restricted Mediterranean-style diet, and a NON-calorie-restricted low-carbohydrate diet. Even though the low-carb dieters were not restricting their calorie intake at all, they still lost more weight than either of the other calorie-restricted diets. Also, the subjects on the Mediterranean-style diet lost more weight than those on the low-fat diet, even though they were both supposedly restricting calorie intake to the same amount.

    Clearly, there's something more going on with weight loss than total energy balance. And, given that low-carb diets are more effective for weight loss (as the eight (!) studies I linked to above show), I think even you would have to consider the possibility that macronutrient composition of the diet may have something to do with the matter.
  • caesarguerra78
    caesarguerra78 Posts: 1 Member
    If you were eating 3000 calories a day, and then dropped to 1300 a day, your body may have adjusted to this drastic drop in calories by adjusting your metabolism. If you are not eating enough to get your bodies basic caloric needs met your body will adjust accordingly. Especially if you are doing any sort of exercise.
  • TheLegendaryBrandonHarris
    TheLegendaryBrandonHarris Posts: 502 Member
    "For any diet or way of eating- one must be at a caloric deficit. Its that simple."

    She's right.
  • Gootee0406
    Gootee0406 Posts: 4 Member
    I have started to see a weight loss doctor who says if you spread it forget it, no oil what so ever, only 1 fruit a day. I can only eat lean protein, green non starchy veggies. I am not allowed to have anything crunchy no cereal or snack like foods. Look at the type of calories you are eating. I am new to this myself, just wanted to offer what I have learned about my eating.
  • axelanderson35
    axelanderson35 Posts: 5 Member
    ketorach wrote: »
    axelanderson35 wrote: »
    thorsmom01 wrote: »
    axelanderson35 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    axelanderson35 wrote: »
    It's also important what KIND of calories you're eating. The body is not a simple calorie in/calorie out arithmetic equation.

    for weight loss yes it is...

    macros are for health calories for weight.

    I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. In a great many studies, low-carbohydrate diets have been shown to be more effective (sometimes MUCH more effective) for losing weight than other diets. There is a mechanism for this, as well. Dietary carbohydrate drives serum glucose. Serum glucose triggers insulin production. Insulin is our bodies' main hormone for the regulation of the flow of fatty acids into and out of fat cells. In short, more carbs means more insulin. More insulin means less fat loss.

    Don't take my word for it. I encourage you to examine the literature. The studies below are a good start.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341711
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637
    http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(02)40206-5/abstract?cc=y=
    http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2002-021480
    http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=217514
    http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=717451
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538279/
    http://www.andjrnl.org/article/S0002-8223(05)01151-X/abstract

    For any diet or way of eating- one must be at a caloric deficit. Its that simple. If you like low carb, go for it. But it's not necessary for people to eat low carb to lose weight.

    I really hate to press my point because you seem so sure you know the right answer, but there's good evidence that your assertion is incorrect. Fat loss, metabolically speaking, is anything but simple, and more and more, it seems not to conform to the somewhat reductionist calorie-in-calorie-out model.

    This study, for example, compared rates of weight loss for three diets: a calorie-restricted low-fat diet, a calorie-restricted Mediterranean-style diet, and a NON-calorie-restricted low-carbohydrate diet. Even though the low-carb dieters were not restricting their calorie intake at all, they still lost more weight than either of the other calorie-restricted diets. Also, the subjects on the Mediterranean-style diet lost more weight than those on the low-fat diet, even though they were both supposedly restricting calorie intake to the same amount.

    Clearly, there's something more going on with weight loss than total energy balance. And, given that low-carb diets are more effective for weight loss (as the eight (!) studies I linked to above show), I think even you would have to consider the possibility that macronutrient composition of the diet may have something to do with the matter.
    I'd bet my weight in dollars that, while the low-carb dieters were not calorie restricted by the study, they *naturally* calorie restricted due to feelings of satiety, and thus lost more weight and fat.

    Anyway, we digress. I don't think this has anything to do with the OP's problem.

    Is it a digression? Possibly. But, I bring it up because it may be part of OP's problem if 90% of her calories are coming from carbohydrate. It's difficult to get energy out of fat cells when your blood is full of insulin and LPL. This is why we do ketogenic diets. (It's nice to know I'm not the only one here.) They facilitate fat loss by removing the hormonal barriers to fatty acids crossing through the adipocyte membranes so they can be used as fuel.

    On an unrelated note, I also worry about a nursing mother consciously calorie restricting. I don't have any studies to back this up, but I suspect that it's not ideal for women to be chronically hungry while pregnant or nursing...
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    I didn't lose for 5-6 weeks when I started. A combination of adjusting to tracking accurately, exercising intensely, probably coinciding with shark week and my camel like ability to retain water for no apparent reason on top of the aforementioned and it masked my losses for weeks. Then I had a whoosh. 1 year later that's the pattern of my losses, mostly whooshes and apparent stalls. Average it all out and I am right on target.

    You still need to answer if you are weighing all solids on a scale and measuring all liquids? And if you are breastfeeding your calorie needs will be higher as others have pointed out.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    axelanderson35 wrote: »
    ketorach wrote: »
    axelanderson35 wrote: »
    thorsmom01 wrote: »
    axelanderson35 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    axelanderson35 wrote: »
    It's also important what KIND of calories you're eating. The body is not a simple calorie in/calorie out arithmetic equation.

    for weight loss yes it is...

    macros are for health calories for weight.

    I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. In a great many studies, low-carbohydrate diets have been shown to be more effective (sometimes MUCH more effective) for losing weight than other diets. There is a mechanism for this, as well. Dietary carbohydrate drives serum glucose. Serum glucose triggers insulin production. Insulin is our bodies' main hormone for the regulation of the flow of fatty acids into and out of fat cells. In short, more carbs means more insulin. More insulin means less fat loss.

    Don't take my word for it. I encourage you to examine the literature. The studies below are a good start.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341711
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637
    http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(02)40206-5/abstract?cc=y=
    http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2002-021480
    http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=217514
    http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=717451
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538279/
    http://www.andjrnl.org/article/S0002-8223(05)01151-X/abstract

    For any diet or way of eating- one must be at a caloric deficit. Its that simple. If you like low carb, go for it. But it's not necessary for people to eat low carb to lose weight.

    I really hate to press my point because you seem so sure you know the right answer, but there's good evidence that your assertion is incorrect. Fat loss, metabolically speaking, is anything but simple, and more and more, it seems not to conform to the somewhat reductionist calorie-in-calorie-out model.

    This study, for example, compared rates of weight loss for three diets: a calorie-restricted low-fat diet, a calorie-restricted Mediterranean-style diet, and a NON-calorie-restricted low-carbohydrate diet. Even though the low-carb dieters were not restricting their calorie intake at all, they still lost more weight than either of the other calorie-restricted diets. Also, the subjects on the Mediterranean-style diet lost more weight than those on the low-fat diet, even though they were both supposedly restricting calorie intake to the same amount.

    Clearly, there's something more going on with weight loss than total energy balance. And, given that low-carb diets are more effective for weight loss (as the eight (!) studies I linked to above show), I think even you would have to consider the possibility that macronutrient composition of the diet may have something to do with the matter.
    I'd bet my weight in dollars that, while the low-carb dieters were not calorie restricted by the study, they *naturally* calorie restricted due to feelings of satiety, and thus lost more weight and fat.

    Anyway, we digress. I don't think this has anything to do with the OP's problem.

    Is it a digression? Possibly. But, I bring it up because it may be part of OP's problem if 90% of her calories are coming from carbohydrate.

    But we have no reason to believe that that's so (I think the problem with that would be (a) not good for muscle maintenance, and (b) most people wouldn't be able to stay within their calories -- as OP believes she is not having a problem with staying within, I doubt she is struggling with that). Also, if you have a net calorie deficit, you burn more fat than you add--have to in order to fuel your activities and bodily functions.

    Also, you seem to believe that one can lose on higher calories with low carb, and that's not so. People who lose on low carb cut back on calories, either because they cut out foods they tended to overeat or (often) because they feel more easily satiated (often this is because they up protein a bit, but keto itself seems to cut appetite for many -- I think lowering carbs can be useful to experiment with along with a variety of other things if one has a problem with appetite on a deficit, but many of us never did).

    Agreed that a nursing mom should not cut calories too dramatically (although losing weight when nursing is fine for most), but choosing counting calories vs. keto/low carb doesn't affect that (you can have a moderate and overly aggressive deficit on both and always need a deficit to lose).

    You also suggest that counting calories means that someone is hungry, and so course that's not at all true.

    Anyway, I believe the low carb thing is off topic, but this is a useful link discussing one of those studies that I think put them in perspective:

    http://www.weightymatters.ca/2014/09/what-i-learned-by-actually-reading-that.html

    Read the whole, but the conclusion is nice:
    So for me this study's overarching take home messages are firstly that our overly saturated-fat phobic national dietary guidelines that still steer people to diets consisting of 55% carbohydrates probably aren't necessary. Secondly, it would seem that for individuals, if you're not planning on tracking calories, having a daily meal replacement while reducing carbs somewhat may well be a viable way to go for a modest amount of weight loss, and perhaps more importantly, for improvements in many metabolic parameters. And thirdly, if the aforementioned approach only leads you to lose a little bit of weight (remember, in this study the average loss for the so-called low-carb dieters after a full year of dieting was only 11.7lbs) I'd encourage you to start keeping a food diary (with more on that from me here), to ensure you include protein with every meal and snack, to markedly reduce liquid calories, to make a concentrated effort to include more produce than products and to re-relegate restaurant meals to special occasions only.

    Lastly, it's important to note that if the question is whether you personally should go low-carb, low-fat, or in-between this study certainly doesn't answer that. Ultimately the best diet for you is the one you actually enjoy enough to keep living with, as merely tolerable diets won't last, and any and all can work so long as you enjoy them enough to sustain them as seen in this meta-analysis published yesterday in JAMA.

    Putting this all another way it's important not to forget that one person's best diet is undoubtedly another person's worst, and that folks who are stuck dogmatically promoting only one "best" diet can be safely ignored.

    Here's a link about a study that went the other way, also: http://www.weightymatters.ca/2015/08/guest-post-dr-kevin-hall-asks-is.html
  • ValerieMartini2Olives
    ValerieMartini2Olives Posts: 3,024 Member
    Just how much weight do you expect to lose in 10 days?
  • axelanderson35
    axelanderson35 Posts: 5 Member
    ReaderGirl3 wrote: »
    axelanderson35 wrote: »
    thorsmom01 wrote: »
    axelanderson35 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    axelanderson35 wrote: »
    It's also important what KIND of calories you're eating. The body is not a simple calorie in/calorie out arithmetic equation.

    for weight loss yes it is...

    macros are for health calories for weight.

    I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. In a great many studies, low-carbohydrate diets have been shown to be more effective (sometimes MUCH more effective) for losing weight than other diets. There is a mechanism for this, as well. Dietary carbohydrate drives serum glucose. Serum glucose triggers insulin production. Insulin is our bodies' main hormone for the regulation of the flow of fatty acids into and out of fat cells. In short, more carbs means more insulin. More insulin means less fat loss.

    Don't take my word for it. I encourage you to examine the literature. The studies below are a good start.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341711
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637
    http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(02)40206-5/abstract?cc=y=
    http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2002-021480
    http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=217514
    http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=717451
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538279/
    http://www.andjrnl.org/article/S0002-8223(05)01151-X/abstract

    For any diet or way of eating- one must be at a caloric deficit. Its that simple. If you like low carb, go for it. But it's not necessary for people to eat low carb to lose weight.

    I really hate to press my point because you seem so sure you know the right answer, but there's good evidence that your assertion is incorrect. Fat loss, metabolically speaking, is anything but simple, and more and more, it seems not to conform to the somewhat reductionist calorie-in-calorie-out model.

    This study, for example, compared rates of weight loss for three diets: a calorie-restricted low-fat diet, a calorie-restricted Mediterranean-style diet, and a NON-calorie-restricted low-carbohydrate diet. Even though the low-carb dieters were not restricting their calorie intake at all, they still lost more weight than either of the other calorie-restricted diets. Also, the subjects on the Mediterranean-style diet lost more weight than those on the low-fat diet, even though they were both supposedly restricting calorie intake to the same amount.

    Clearly, there's something more going on with weight loss than total energy balance. And, given that low-carb diets are more effective for weight loss (as the eight (!) studies I linked to above show), I think even you would have to consider the possibility that macronutrient composition of the diet may have something to do with the matter.

    So how do you account for those of us who could care less about macros makeup and only focus on calories? I lost over 50lbs, improved my health and most importantly have been maintaining the loss/good health for 3 years now. The ONLY thing I've focused on is my calorie intake. I still eat all the foods I like (fast food several times a week, sugary foods, enough diet soda to float a boat etc etc, along with things like veggies, whole grains, fish, etc). Don't have a clue what my macros are (probably all over the place though). And I'm not a special snowflake (though I've had a few low carbers tell me that because I defy their weight loss 'logic' :p ).

    This site if full of people who have focused on calories/CICO and have had great success with their goals.

    I suppose I'll wind this up, because this thread isn't the place for a debate about low-carb diets. However, I can account for your weight loss quite easily in the context of the carbohydrate>insulin>fat storage hypothesis. Calorie-restricted diets are also carbohydrate-restricted diets. If you're eating 1,200 calories of carbohydrate out of a 2,400-calorie total before you start a diet, then you reduce calorie intake by one third, chances are you're going to restrict carbohydrate by at least 400 calories per day. If you consciously eat more fat, as on a Mediterranean-style diet, you may restrict carbohydrate calories by even more. This, in turn, reduces serum insulin levels, and therefore Lipoprotein Lipase levels, and allows fatty acids to flow out of the adipocytes more freely than when carbohydrate consumption was higher.

    I'll conclude by saying that my posts here are intended to help the OP with her weight loss goals. And, I hope, I've provided others with sufficient evidence to warrant considering that the calories-in-calories-out model is, though not technically incorrect, at least incomplete.
  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    edited April 2016
    Ariellebruno wrote: »
    Could it because I eat late? Not bad food but say 900 calories is from 9-5 and the last 300 are always late after the kids fall asleep
    Not at all. All that matters i you're consuming more calories than your body needs to maintain weight.
    groetzinger659 wrote: »
    also don't skip breakfast. I gained most my weight by not eating at proper times. I used to hold off eating until noon. And now I force myself to eat small meals through out the morning-by the afternoon-I am not as hungry and don't need to stuff my face.

    I haven't lost weight BUT I have stayed at the same weight for 2 months-but I only started logging my food the past week. And see where I could have made better choices. But I definitely consume more than 2000 calories a day. I workout hard daily with weights. In the past walking or cardio hasn't really helped me. Once I started lifting heavier weights-everything else falls into place. I am still at the beginning like you but I love how I feel like accomplishing something when I push myself to go higher on my reps and weights. I use tools around the house as I don't have any weights but soon I have to go to the gym-I am running out of heavy things to lift.

    Don't give up. We all are in the same boat.
    No, no no. There is no such thing as 'proper times' when it comes to eating. For example, does it matter to a car if you fill up the tank all in one go, or a few times in a day?
    No.

    One can only gain if they eat more than they need to maintain. That's it.

    Calories are fuel to us. Some people even eat one meal with all their calories.

    Also, exercise isn't for weight loss, a calorie deficit is.
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Ariellebruno wrote: »
    I log every single thing I eat

    but do you log is accurately using a food scale and correct entries....

    regardless if this is just from April 1 (moving more) your log says 11lbs down so the new exercise is probably causing fluid retention along with TOM.
    Please OP, answer this. Are you using a food scale for everything that you eat?


  • coachmike24fit
    coachmike24fit Posts: 18 Member
    share food log
  • MommyL2015
    MommyL2015 Posts: 1,411 Member


    I eat a ton of carbs. And quite a lot of them things like pizza, bread, pasta, ice cream, and I have had zero problems losing weight because I know how many calories I need to eat to lose at a healthy rate and I weigh my food to ensure the portions I am eating are accurate.

    OP said 10 days. 10 days isn't long enough. If she's accurate with her calorie counts, time will tell. If she continues having problems losing weight after a couple of weeks, she's eating too much, no matter what it is.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    axelanderson35 wrote: »
    ReaderGirl3 wrote: »
    axelanderson35 wrote: »
    thorsmom01 wrote: »
    axelanderson35 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    axelanderson35 wrote: »
    It's also important what KIND of calories you're eating. The body is not a simple calorie in/calorie out arithmetic equation.

    for weight loss yes it is...

    macros are for health calories for weight.

    I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. In a great many studies, low-carbohydrate diets have been shown to be more effective (sometimes MUCH more effective) for losing weight than other diets. There is a mechanism for this, as well. Dietary carbohydrate drives serum glucose. Serum glucose triggers insulin production. Insulin is our bodies' main hormone for the regulation of the flow of fatty acids into and out of fat cells. In short, more carbs means more insulin. More insulin means less fat loss.

    Don't take my word for it. I encourage you to examine the literature. The studies below are a good start.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341711
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637
    http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(02)40206-5/abstract?cc=y=
    http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2002-021480
    http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=217514
    http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=717451
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538279/
    http://www.andjrnl.org/article/S0002-8223(05)01151-X/abstract

    For any diet or way of eating- one must be at a caloric deficit. Its that simple. If you like low carb, go for it. But it's not necessary for people to eat low carb to lose weight.

    I really hate to press my point because you seem so sure you know the right answer, but there's good evidence that your assertion is incorrect. Fat loss, metabolically speaking, is anything but simple, and more and more, it seems not to conform to the somewhat reductionist calorie-in-calorie-out model.

    This study, for example, compared rates of weight loss for three diets: a calorie-restricted low-fat diet, a calorie-restricted Mediterranean-style diet, and a NON-calorie-restricted low-carbohydrate diet. Even though the low-carb dieters were not restricting their calorie intake at all, they still lost more weight than either of the other calorie-restricted diets. Also, the subjects on the Mediterranean-style diet lost more weight than those on the low-fat diet, even though they were both supposedly restricting calorie intake to the same amount.

    Clearly, there's something more going on with weight loss than total energy balance. And, given that low-carb diets are more effective for weight loss (as the eight (!) studies I linked to above show), I think even you would have to consider the possibility that macronutrient composition of the diet may have something to do with the matter.

    So how do you account for those of us who could care less about macros makeup and only focus on calories? I lost over 50lbs, improved my health and most importantly have been maintaining the loss/good health for 3 years now. The ONLY thing I've focused on is my calorie intake. I still eat all the foods I like (fast food several times a week, sugary foods, enough diet soda to float a boat etc etc, along with things like veggies, whole grains, fish, etc). Don't have a clue what my macros are (probably all over the place though). And I'm not a special snowflake (though I've had a few low carbers tell me that because I defy their weight loss 'logic' :p ).

    This site if full of people who have focused on calories/CICO and have had great success with their goals.

    I suppose I'll wind this up, because this thread isn't the place for a debate about low-carb diets. However, I can account for your weight loss quite easily in the context of the carbohydrate>insulin>fat storage hypothesis. Calorie-restricted diets are also carbohydrate-restricted diets. If you're eating 1,200 calories of carbohydrate out of a 2,400-calorie total before you start a diet, then you reduce calorie intake by one third, chances are you're going to restrict carbohydrate by at least 400 calories per day. If you consciously eat more fat, as on a Mediterranean-style diet, you may restrict carbohydrate calories by even more. This, in turn, reduces serum insulin levels, and therefore Lipoprotein Lipase levels, and allows fatty acids to flow out of the adipocytes more freely than when carbohydrate consumption was higher.

    I'll conclude by saying that my posts here are intended to help the OP with her weight loss goals. And, I hope, I've provided others with sufficient evidence to warrant considering that the calories-in-calories-out model is, though not technically incorrect, at least incomplete.

    Carbohydrates make up about 60% of my diet, this was true for the entire time I was losing weight. While I ate fewer carbohydrates than I did before I began losing weight (because I ate fewer calories overall), the proportion stayed pretty much the same.
  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    axelanderson35 wrote: »
    ketorach wrote: »
    axelanderson35 wrote: »
    thorsmom01 wrote: »
    axelanderson35 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    axelanderson35 wrote: »
    It's also important what KIND of calories you're eating. The body is not a simple calorie in/calorie out arithmetic equation.

    for weight loss yes it is...

    macros are for health calories for weight.

    I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. In a great many studies, low-carbohydrate diets have been shown to be more effective (sometimes MUCH more effective) for losing weight than other diets. There is a mechanism for this, as well. Dietary carbohydrate drives serum glucose. Serum glucose triggers insulin production. Insulin is our bodies' main hormone for the regulation of the flow of fatty acids into and out of fat cells. In short, more carbs means more insulin. More insulin means less fat loss.

    Don't take my word for it. I encourage you to examine the literature. The studies below are a good start.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341711
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637
    http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(02)40206-5/abstract?cc=y=
    http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2002-021480
    http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=217514
    http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=717451
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538279/
    http://www.andjrnl.org/article/S0002-8223(05)01151-X/abstract

    For any diet or way of eating- one must be at a caloric deficit. Its that simple. If you like low carb, go for it. But it's not necessary for people to eat low carb to lose weight.

    I really hate to press my point because you seem so sure you know the right answer, but there's good evidence that your assertion is incorrect. Fat loss, metabolically speaking, is anything but simple, and more and more, it seems not to conform to the somewhat reductionist calorie-in-calorie-out model.

    This study, for example, compared rates of weight loss for three diets: a calorie-restricted low-fat diet, a calorie-restricted Mediterranean-style diet, and a NON-calorie-restricted low-carbohydrate diet. Even though the low-carb dieters were not restricting their calorie intake at all, they still lost more weight than either of the other calorie-restricted diets. Also, the subjects on the Mediterranean-style diet lost more weight than those on the low-fat diet, even though they were both supposedly restricting calorie intake to the same amount.

    Clearly, there's something more going on with weight loss than total energy balance. And, given that low-carb diets are more effective for weight loss (as the eight (!) studies I linked to above show), I think even you would have to consider the possibility that macronutrient composition of the diet may have something to do with the matter.
    I'd bet my weight in dollars that, while the low-carb dieters were not calorie restricted by the study, they *naturally* calorie restricted due to feelings of satiety, and thus lost more weight and fat.

    Anyway, we digress. I don't think this has anything to do with the OP's problem.

    Is it a digression? Possibly. But, I bring it up because it may be part of OP's problem if 90% of her calories are coming from carbohydrate. It's difficult to get energy out of fat cells when your blood is full of insulin and LPL. This is why we do ketogenic diets. (It's nice to know I'm not the only one here.) They facilitate fat loss by removing the hormonal barriers to fatty acids crossing through the adipocyte membranes so they can be used as fuel.

    On an unrelated note, I also worry about a nursing mother consciously calorie restricting. I don't have any studies to back this up, but I suspect that it's not ideal for women to be chronically hungry while pregnant or nursing...
    My carbs are currently high...I've lost over 80lbs.
    I've also done low carb/keto and stuck to the same calorie number.
    I lost at the exact same rate as high carb.
    Am I a special snowflake?
  • Roshni006
    Roshni006 Posts: 85 Member
    I'm facing the same problem. 15 days, I've been under my calorie goal and the scale hasn't budged a bit! No idea what's going wrong.
  • JustMissTracy
    JustMissTracy Posts: 6,338 Member
    angela3356 wrote: »
    Ariellebruno wrote: »
    I won't go above 1300. Usually I'm at 1200-1250. Yesterday after I logged my 60 minute hike it told me to eat 1600 calories I ate 1350

    granted, none of us here are experts, and everyone will have their own opinion/answer, BUT did you think that maybe you aren't eating ENOUGH? If you aren't giving your body enough fuel it'll hold on to what it's already got to support itself. Think of your body like a car-you need ALL of the fluids PLUS the maintenance to make it run properly.

    This is wrong. Your body won't hold onto anything...if she's not losing weight, she's eating more than she's burning. Either Calories In is incorrect/loose...or Calories Out is overestimated.
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    Reiterating get a food scale and use it
  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    @Ariellebruno do you weigh all the foods that you eat with a food scale?
    Do you use cups/spoons?
    Do you measure all liquids?

    Are you choosing correct entries.

    Also, new exercise + time of the month = fluid retention. Throw in a little salty snacks, and you get more fluid retention. It's normal and will go away.
  • JustMissTracy
    JustMissTracy Posts: 6,338 Member
    Gootee0406 wrote: »
    I have started to see a weight loss doctor who says if you spread it forget it, no oil what so ever, only 1 fruit a day. I can only eat lean protein, green non starchy veggies. I am not allowed to have anything crunchy no cereal or snack like foods. Look at the type of calories you are eating. I am new to this myself, just wanted to offer what I have learned about my eating.

    This makes me sad. You are depriving yourself unnecessarily. Burn more calories than you eat....eat what you want, every day, but burn more than what you eat, and you'll lose weight. You can have peanut butter, margarine, miracle whip, icecream, chocolate, cookies.....why deprive yourself?
  • Ninkyou
    Ninkyou Posts: 6,666 Member
    First, we're talking about a period of ten day. TEN. That's not enough time to determine success of failure. You said you started April 1st, so what happened in those first 8 days?? Did you lose weight? Remember that weight loss isn't linear. There's ups, downs and all arounds. Give it 4-6 weeks before freaking out about no weight loss.

    Second, I'll echo, if you're not already, weigh your food with a digital food scale, in grams. Otherwise, you're eating more (calories) than you think.
  • treebee5
    treebee5 Posts: 10 Member
    Are you drinking diet soda or flavored waters that have a lot of sodium? I drank so much water this last week I felt like I was trying to drown my internal organs. Drinking water really does make a difference, it's especially noticeable in the beginning.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories