1300 calories and no weight loss in 10 days what am idoing wrong
Options
Replies
-
Thank y'all I found a digital food scale on Amazon I'll research what I'm doing, wish me luck. And thanks for all the craziness on this thread, I thought I'd get a few responses1
-
I ate between 1000-1200 calories daily (measuring and logging everything), and was exercising 4-5 days a week for 5 weeks and only lost 2 pounds. I was convinced that I must have something wrong with me. I came across an article regarding Basal Metabolic Rates and realized that I was basically starving myself, so my body was holding on to everything it could. Once I upped my caloric intake to around 1700 (which I calculated on shapeup.org), I lost 2 pounds that week, and have continued to slowly lose since.0
-
bramirez1977 wrote: »I ate between 1000-1200 calories daily (measuring and logging everything), and was exercising 4-5 days a week for 5 weeks and only lost 2 pounds. I was convinced that I must have something wrong with me. I came across an article regarding Basal Metabolic Rates and realized that I was basically starving myself, so my body was holding on to everything it could. Once I upped my caloric intake to around 1700 (which I calculated on shapeup.org), I lost 2 pounds that week, and have continued to slowly lose since.
No. Starvation mode does not exist.3 -
.
0 -
Please don't kick kittens. ;-)ArielleMarieB wrote: »
yea but 10 days eating amazing and working out hard you would typically at least expect a pound or two. Something. I feel like almost 2 weeks of nothing when you're trying to kick *kitten* is dishearteningThe scale and patience are your only 2 issues.
I'll say it again, it's ONLY been 10 days.
0 -
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.
Nope, this is impossible
http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/why-undereating-wont-actually-help-you-lose-weight/
Here's an article right from MFP0 -
angela3356 wrote: »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.
Nope, this is impossible
http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/why-undereating-wont-actually-help-you-lose-weight/
Here's an article right from MFP
That article says nothing about your body "holding onto what it already has".
It does state your metabolism will slow (true to an extent, but not enough to make you hold onto fat)
It also states your body will start breaking down muscle and organs as well as fat (also true)
directly from the blog you linked to:To meet basic energy needs, your body ramps up breakdown of muscles and organs in addition to fat.
Body breaking down those things for energy would result in weight loss.0 -
Wow, judging from the 6 pages of comments, I think that you have struck a common nerve. Hang in there! You're doing all the right things and you will see results. Personally, I need to see some signs of success in order to stay motivated, so I really appreciate your frustration. Try, try, try to take a long term view - - because, really, you haven't even finished your second week. You could experiment with the exercise part of the equation...like change up the type of exercise, or the time of day, or mix in some double workout days. Everyone has been where you are, so take the advice here that makes the best sense to you and keep looking forward.0
-
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.
Meal timing, as long as daily calories are kept the same makes no difference for weight loss. It can make a difference for people sticking to their calorie goals, but in and of itself it does not make a difference. If a person eats more later if they don't eat first thing in the day, thus going over their calorie goal, then they should eat shortly after waking. Others find if they eat shortly after waking, they will keep eating all day and go over their calories. They are often better served by not eating until noon or later so they can stay within their calorie goal. I am of the later group. If I eat right away after getting up I am hungry all day, not to mention I like bigger meals, so if I put off eating until later in the day I can have bigger meals and enjoy them and feel satisfied. I have a friend here who would be miserable doing that and eats every 3 hours or so. That sort of plan would make me miserable and always hungry. It is all about maintaining a calorie deficit. If one is counting calories, meal timing or frequency does not affect weight loss.2 -
-
Someone needs to sticky "Starvation Mode Is Not Real". I know it's in one of the sticky threads, but obviously no one reads it. I have only been on this message board a short time, but if I had a dime for every time some ignorant person has said "oh you might not be eating enough and probably in starvation mode!" I could retire!3
-
Someone needs to sticky "Starvation Mode Is Not Real". I have only been on this message board a short time, but if I had a dime for every time some ignorant person has said "oh you might not be eating enough and probably in starvation mode!" I could retire!
There are two stickies about it already. No one reads the stickies anymore.0 -
Someone needs to sticky "Starvation Mode Is Not Real". I know it's in one of the sticky threads, but obviously no one reads it. I have only been on this message board a short time, but if I had a dime for every time some ignorant person has said "oh you might not be eating enough and probably in starvation mode!" I could retire!
I know right! it comes up at least 5 times a day
0 -
bramirez1977 wrote: »I ate between 1000-1200 calories daily (measuring and logging everything), and was exercising 4-5 days a week for 5 weeks and only lost 2 pounds. I was convinced that I must have something wrong with me. I came across an article regarding Basal Metabolic Rates and realized that I was basically starving myself, so my body was holding on to everything it could. Once I upped my caloric intake to around 1700 (which I calculated on shapeup.org), I lost 2 pounds that week, and have continued to slowly lose since.
more misinformation...
and its your first post.
There is no starvation mode, your body will not hold on to everything it could. You can starve yourself to death.1 -
I know a lot of people keep giving you advice but i've not seen anyone ask this: do you measure yourself? A new workout can cause you to lose inches without the scale budging. And it can add as a second aid. If both inches and scale doesn't move then its a problem in your diet.
So i'd recomend you start measuring too. There was a month i fluctuated between 5 pounds, i would of lost my mind wondering what i was doing wrong if i hadn't measured myself! It took a whole month to permentaly drop those 5 pounds! And i had just started my weight loss.0 -
Hmmm. My view is that the body adjusts to a lower intake of calories quite quickly, and it would be a surprise if it didn't because it doesn't know how much food it is going to get tomorrow. The problem with this site's calculations is that they are very inflexible.
When I started I put my goal as losing 2lbs a week, which was the maximum weight loss available in the software and probably the maximum target while remaining healthy. I also added the least active option because I wanted to make sure that the calculations would not include daily routine exercise I might not be able to complete.
For me, this translated into 1650 calories per day. I have been weighing everything and filling in all the meal/snack boxes accurately for the whole of June (when I started) and have been well below 1650 on most of those days (including one day when I had to lie to the computer and add one biscuit which I had not eaten because my total was less than 1200 and it would not save it - telling me under 1200 was dangerous to my health).
I lost almost a stone (14lbs) in three weeks, but since then my weight loss has stalled for the last ten days. My theory is that 1650 is now too high for a daily total, and have tried to get it to recalculate me down to 1400 (which now I have got used to, and cut out, the high calorie foods is very achievable for me), but I can't change my target below 1600 - which at least is a step in the right direction.
I don't care what the theory says about 2500 calories for men and 2000 for women, it all depends on metabolism. I used to work with a person who had been diagnosed with an overactive thyroid and he was told he could eat almost as many calories as he liked. In addition to normal meals he used to eat three chocolate bars per day which were at least 250 calories each, and regularly munched through four cheese sandwiches; he remained as thin as a rake.
And if I was cheating myself there would be no point in me writing all this, so despite the charts I am going to do a month on 1400 calories a day and see if I can restart the weight loss. If this works and there is another stall later in the month, I will drop to 1300.0 -
ArielleMarieB 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
It's not about the time you eat. How do you measure your healthy food? Portion sizes can be pretty shocking.0 -
JonnyJonny5555 wrote: »Hmmm. My view is that the body adjusts to a lower intake of calories quite quickly, and it would be a surprise if it didn't because it doesn't know how much food it is going to get tomorrow. The problem with this site's calculations is that they are very inflexible.
When I started I put my goal as losing 2lbs a week, which was the maximum weight loss available in the software and probably the maximum target while remaining healthy. I also added the least active option because I wanted to make sure that the calculations would not include daily routine exercise I might not be able to complete.
For me, this translated into 1650 calories per day. I have been weighing everything and filling in all the meal/snack boxes accurately for the whole of June (when I started) and have been well below 1650 on most of those days (including one day when I had to lie to the computer and add one biscuit which I had not eaten because my total was less than 1200 and it would not save it - telling me under 1200 was dangerous to my health).
I lost almost a stone (14lbs) in three weeks, but since then my weight loss has stalled for the last ten days. My theory is that 1650 is now too high for a daily total, and have tried to get it to recalculate me down to 1400 (which now I have got used to, and cut out, the high calorie foods is very achievable for me), but I can't change my target below 1600 - which at least is a step in the right direction.
I don't care what the theory says about 2500 calories for men and 2000 for women, it all depends on metabolism. I used to work with a person who had been diagnosed with an overactive thyroid and he was told he could eat almost as many calories as he liked. In addition to normal meals he used to eat three chocolate bars per day which were at least 250 calories each, and regularly munched through four cheese sandwiches; he remained as thin as a rake.
And if I was cheating myself there would be no point in me writing all this, so despite the charts I am going to do a month on 1400 calories a day and see if I can restart the weight loss. If this works and there is another stall later in the month, I will drop to 1300.
Maybe you should start your own thread and ask questions so we can target our replies.
However, I would bet money that if you're weighing your food as accurately as you can, you are not at maintenance at 1650 calories. I don't know your current weight and height, but 99.99% of males would lose weight at that level of intake.
1400 total calories is too low for a man, in my opinion. I urge you to give us more information in a new thread. And I urge you to not eat under 1500 calories per day unless you're under the care of a medical professional.0 -
JonnyJonny5555 wrote: »Hmmm. My view is that the body adjusts to a lower intake of calories quite quickly, and it would be a surprise if it didn't because it doesn't know how much food it is going to get tomorrow. The problem with this site's calculations is that they are very inflexible.
When I started I put my goal as losing 2lbs a week, which was the maximum weight loss available in the software and probably the maximum target while remaining healthy. I also added the least active option because I wanted to make sure that the calculations would not include daily routine exercise I might not be able to complete.
For me, this translated into 1650 calories per day. I have been weighing everything and filling in all the meal/snack boxes accurately for the whole of June (when I started) and have been well below 1650 on most of those days (including one day when I had to lie to the computer and add one biscuit which I had not eaten because my total was less than 1200 and it would not save it - telling me under 1200 was dangerous to my health).
I lost almost a stone (14lbs) in three weeks, but since then my weight loss has stalled for the last ten days. My theory is that 1650 is now too high for a daily total, and have tried to get it to recalculate me down to 1400 (which now I have got used to, and cut out, the high calorie foods is very achievable for me), but I can't change my target below 1600 - which at least is a step in the right direction.
I don't care what the theory says about 2500 calories for men and 2000 for women, it all depends on metabolism. I used to work with a person who had been diagnosed with an overactive thyroid and he was told he could eat almost as many calories as he liked. In addition to normal meals he used to eat three chocolate bars per day which were at least 250 calories each, and regularly munched through four cheese sandwiches; he remained as thin as a rake.
And if I was cheating myself there would be no point in me writing all this, so despite the charts I am going to do a month on 1400 calories a day and see if I can restart the weight loss. If this works and there is another stall later in the month, I will drop to 1300.
Ten days without losing is normal. You won't lose every day/week. And the site will not let you change your goal to 1400 because it is below the recommended minimum intake. As long as you're weighing and logging everything and using the correct entries, all you can do is be patient. If it doesn't get going in another couple weeks while you're doing this, then it's time to see a doctor to check for any potential medical issues.0 -
TheLegendaryBrandonHarris wrote: »---This thread pretty much has it all. Only thing missing is the "you are working out now and muscle weighs more than fat" argument.---
Oh, I thought we covered that!
When you work out, your fat cells go into a Metamorphosis Phase and then they turn into muscle cells, which weigh 27% more. But as a woman, you have to be careful---it's very easy for women to accidentally go from a 'curvy' to a 'bodybuilder' physique. It's probably best if women don't even stand close to the free weights.
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
▪︎▪︎▪︎
It's difficult for women to attain a "Body Builder's Physique." Ask any woman who competes in the Body Building World what she has to go through to gain all that extra muscle.
▪︎▪︎▪︎
It involves eating "Clean" as well as eating much more protein than in a normal diet. There's also the HOURS spent in the Gym every single day targeting specific muscle groups in an effort to sculpt their physiques.
▪︎▪︎▪︎
Please stop spreading "Old Wives Tales" that scare women away from going to the gym.
Strength Training is an important part of any well rounded Fitness Plan for both Men and Women.0
https://youtu.be/JVjWPclrWVY
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions