If calories in vs. calories out is what matters, why no weight loss?
Replies
-
misschellechelle wrote: »You're eating 1200 calories a day, but exercising 2200-2300? I really hope those numbers are incorrect. You're not giving your body enough fuel and nutrients and in the long run, doing yourself more harm than good. If you do that daily, you'll lose lean body mass--not the weight you want to see come off.
That being said, if those numbers were happening you would be losing weight. I just want to address the idea of being in the red by the end of the day--it's not healthy.
2200-2300 is my total calories burned for the day INCLUDING exercise.
If you are 1k below maintenance everyday based on your log and you have 5lbs left to lose how are you standing? I am not joking...
at 1200 gross calories I would be falling down due to hunger.
My only question is this...are you choosing correct entries when logging...weighing and logging are important but if the entries aren't correct you are doing it all for nothing.2 -
misschellechelle wrote: »You're eating 1200 calories a day, but exercising 2200-2300? I really hope those numbers are incorrect. You're not giving your body enough fuel and nutrients and in the long run, doing yourself more harm than good. If you do that daily, you'll lose lean body mass--not the weight you want to see come off.
That being said, if those numbers were happening you would be losing weight. I just want to address the idea of being in the red by the end of the day--it's not healthy.
2200-2300 is my total calories burned for the day INCLUDING exercise.
If you are 1k below maintenance everyday based on your log and you have 5lbs left to lose how are you standing? I am not joking...
at 1200 gross calories I would be falling down due to hunger.
My only question is this...are you choosing correct entries when logging...weighing and logging are important but if the entries aren't correct you are doing it all for nothing.
Ditto.0 -
AmberSpamber wrote: »When I plateau, it is usually cause I am not eating enough calories. When I increase it by 100, my weight starts dropping again. Just a suggestion- I see you have many, but that is what works for me
eating more food is never the answer to "why can't I lose weight"
The observation I would make is that when I was netting about 1600 cals I was pretty listless, I'd choose to email ather than walk up three flights of stairs and talking face to face, stuff like that. The low fueling was manifesting as generally being less active, except in intentional exercise. When I did raise my goal to about 1900 per day I was quickly back to my old self and moving around a lot more.
Eating more was a solution to the problem of being significantly underfueled, which led me to lose again. I'm under no illusions about what the problem was, and eating more wasn't in itself the solution, but it certainly contributed to not feeling like cr*p all the time.2 -
I would give this a read. http://www.prevention.com/weight-loss/weight-loss-tips/how-shift-your-set-point-weight
This article also provides more information: http://www.bidmc.org/YourHealth/BIDMCInteractive/BreakThroughYourSetPoint/WeekOneTheScienceofSetPoint.aspx0 -
Sometimes women with little to lose only do so once a month - after their menstrual cycle.
See also this video, which is long; I watched it while doing yoga warmups:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6846ZTBu08k&index=4&list=PLUXvX9BaxgqG9yO5XWB3gA_QshvrrcjVr 1 -
Any device that uses algorithms based on averages of the population are going to be inaccurate for some and not for others. Not sure why this is shocking.
Well when you get a fitbit you should do the following:
-input height
-input weight
-input age
-input stride length
-put the fitbit on the non dominant wrist and also make sure the settings on the app reflect that
I wonder if maybe too many people are putting it on their dominant wrist and the fitbit records steps when it's not supposed to because of that.3 -
misschellechelle wrote: »RoseTheWarrior wrote: »Since you've mentioned that you weigh and log everything, I would ask how often you wor out? Are you giving yourself rest days? Also please realize that the last 5 lbs will be the hardest to lose. You'll have to be incredibly patient.
I workout 6 days a week. I lift weights, do circuit training, and a mix of HIIT and speed walking. I do take a rest day for recovery.
Are you lifting heavy and have you been taking progress pictures? One can look better at a higher weight:
http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2011/07/21/meet-staci-your-new-powerlifting-super-hero/0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »AmberSpamber wrote: »When I plateau, it is usually cause I am not eating enough calories. When I increase it by 100, my weight starts dropping again. Just a suggestion- I see you have many, but that is what works for me
eating more food is never the answer to "why can't I lose weight"
The observation I would make is that when I was netting about 1600 cals I was pretty listless, I'd choose to email ather than walk up three flights of stairs and talking face to face, stuff like that. The low fueling was manifesting as generally being less active, except in intentional exercise. When I did raise my goal to about 1900 per day I was quickly back to my old self and moving around a lot more.
Eating more was a solution to the problem of being significantly underfueled, which led me to lose again. I'm under no illusions about what the problem was, and eating more wasn't in itself the solution, but it certainly contributed to not feeling like cr*p all the time.
I saw similar results and have worked with a lot of people with similar results. I struggle with weight loss at 1800 calories but at 2300 to 2500 calories i have had no issues.
I would suggest to the OP to increase to probably 1600 but also look at the entries to ensure they are correct. I recently scanned a package for seasoning that came up at 250 calories for the whole thing.... the actual calories for the entire package was 75. So even scanned entries can be wrong.0 -
so some women here lose more weight when they start eating more calories than before then. Wow!
revolution time? or what is next?1 -
so some women here lose more weight when they start eating more calories than before then. Wow!
revolution time? or what is next?
It's more than just an increase usually.
Low calories -> low energy levels -> moving less & lower intensity workouts -> burning less from decreased movement
Add a few calories
More calories -> more energy -> moving more & being able to push harder during workouts -> burning more calories
Granted it only works for people who increase activity and intensity in workouts. Some people even increase the accuracy of their logging when they increase. I've noticed a similar effect in myself. Days my calories are low I tend to end up napping mid day and I'm less likely to find myself wanting a nap if my calories are higher.
For me low translates to under 1700 and high while still in a deficit is in the 1800 - 2000 range. My maintenance though is 2200-2300 on average.
Edit: I however do recommend that people check their logging as the first culprit. I don't tend to suggest eating more, because I feel if it's the problem you would notice the fatigue and being less fidgety (or at least I hope a person would).0 -
Sorry to get everyone all riled up, its just reading these boards the general theme is calories in calories out only when that's just simply not true. When people say they want to lose weight, most people actually want to lose weight and body fat. I don't think anyone will be happy losing 40 or 50 pounds and still having that 40 inch waist. And I get it that it really is calories in calories out but this is for a lifestyle change not for just a number on the scale to move and that's what cico will do, make a number move. But when you actually focus on what you eat is when your body changes and you start to look how you want to look. One person said generic protein shakes, those generic protein shakes are the building blocks of muscle which contain amino acids and are a complete protein unlike that Twinkie diet everyone loves to cite. If me telling someone to have a protein shake and chicken breast over a Twinkie is making me the bad guy, so be it, but I'm sure one person will read it and it will change their diet and their life.2
-
Macros mattered for me. I had a bad plateau for a couple of months and yes I weighed everything and I exercised and I did weights and I did cardio.. Changed my macros lower carbs higher fat higher protein & the scale finally started to move. It's individual0
-
Tweak your macros. Probably need more fat. Too little screws with your hormones.0
-
To counter the macro tweakers. CICO worked perfectly for me all the way to goal. The only time I plateaued was when I thought I could cheat the system and not log so accurately cause of all that hard gym stuff and I could sneak this and that. My 38 inch waist also shrank to 28 inch without caring much about macros so I'm not sure what sources gataman has. Perhaps some starvation study folk had huge waists or something ? Eh gataman ?1
-
To counter the macro tweakers. CICO worked perfectly for me all the way to goal. The only time I plateaued was when I thought I could cheat the system and not log so accurately cause of all that hard gym stuff and I could sneak this and that. My 38 inch waist also shrank to 28 inch without caring much about macros so I'm not sure what sources gataman has. Perhaps some starvation study folk had huge waists or something ? Eh gataman ?
CICO isn't working for the OP.0 -
ArmyofAdrian wrote: »To counter the macro tweakers. CICO worked perfectly for me all the way to goal. The only time I plateaued was when I thought I could cheat the system and not log so accurately cause of all that hard gym stuff and I could sneak this and that. My 38 inch waist also shrank to 28 inch without caring much about macros so I'm not sure what sources gataman has. Perhaps some starvation study folk had huge waists or something ? Eh gataman ?
CICO isn't working for the OP.
Too much magic ?2 -
ArmyofAdrian wrote: »To counter the macro tweakers. CICO worked perfectly for me all the way to goal. The only time I plateaued was when I thought I could cheat the system and not log so accurately cause of all that hard gym stuff and I could sneak this and that. My 38 inch waist also shrank to 28 inch without caring much about macros so I'm not sure what sources gataman has. Perhaps some starvation study folk had huge waists or something ? Eh gataman ?
CICO isn't working for the OP.
Something isn't working, and from whats been described it looks like the CO side of the equation is the most likely culprit.0 -
ArmyofAdrian wrote: »To counter the macro tweakers. CICO worked perfectly for me all the way to goal. The only time I plateaued was when I thought I could cheat the system and not log so accurately cause of all that hard gym stuff and I could sneak this and that. My 38 inch waist also shrank to 28 inch without caring much about macros so I'm not sure what sources gataman has. Perhaps some starvation study folk had huge waists or something ? Eh gataman ?
CICO isn't working for the OP.
If the universe is still working, CICO is working.12 -
gataman3000 wrote: »Sorry to get everyone all riled up, its just reading these boards the general theme is calories in calories out only when that's just simply not true. When people say they want to lose weight, most people actually want to lose weight and body fat. I don't think anyone will be happy losing 40 or 50 pounds and still having that 40 inch waist. And I get it that it really is calories in calories out but this is for a lifestyle change not for just a number on the scale to move and that's what cico will do, make a number move. But when you actually focus on what you eat is when your body changes and you start to look how you want to look. One person said generic protein shakes, those generic protein shakes are the building blocks of muscle which contain amino acids and are a complete protein unlike that Twinkie diet everyone loves to cite. If me telling someone to have a protein shake and chicken breast over a Twinkie is making me the bad guy, so be it, but I'm sure one person will read it and it will change their diet and their life.
I wonder where you think the 40-50 Pound Loss would come from If not mostly fat.
Also more protein on top of what is needed will do absolutely nothing.4 -
ArmyofAdrian wrote: »To counter the macro tweakers. CICO worked perfectly for me all the way to goal. The only time I plateaued was when I thought I could cheat the system and not log so accurately cause of all that hard gym stuff and I could sneak this and that. My 38 inch waist also shrank to 28 inch without caring much about macros so I'm not sure what sources gataman has. Perhaps some starvation study folk had huge waists or something ? Eh gataman ?
CICO isn't working for the OP.
I think its more accurate to say calorie counting isn't working for the OP rather than the energy balance equation (CICO).2 -
RoseTheWarrior wrote: »I suggest additional rest days. Like two on one off. Perhaps you're overtraining and that's leading to water retention?
No. She's not overtraining.
I'm going to venture a guess that there may be an issue with the calorie burn estimate. That's a large daily calorie burn and since OP is small it is even larger relative to her size.
I'm also curious whether OP has been doing regular body fat and waist measurements. Water retention can easily mask weight loss. My scale weight easily fluctuates from up to 5 pounds a day.0 -
Macros mattered for me. I had a bad plateau for a couple of months and yes I weighed everything and I exercised and I did weights and I did cardio.. Changed my macros lower carbs higher fat higher protein & the scale finally started to move. It's individual
If calories are equal, cutting carbs and increasing fat would lead to decreases in glycogen and water weight storage. It's way low carb dieters (especially those who immediately jump into one) can see huge weight loss.2 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »AmberSpamber wrote: »When I plateau, it is usually cause I am not eating enough calories. When I increase it by 100, my weight starts dropping again. Just a suggestion- I see you have many, but that is what works for me
eating more food is never the answer to "why can't I lose weight"
The observation I would make is that when I was netting about 1600 cals I was pretty listless, I'd choose to email ather than walk up three flights of stairs and talking face to face, stuff like that. The low fueling was manifesting as generally being less active, except in intentional exercise. When I did raise my goal to about 1900 per day I was quickly back to my old self and moving around a lot more.
Eating more was a solution to the problem of being significantly underfueled, which led me to lose again. I'm under no illusions about what the problem was, and eating more wasn't in itself the solution, but it certainly contributed to not feeling like cr*p all the time.
Agreed with this but chances are most people are not really under eating for their activity....they are under estimating CI part of the equation hence my statement...
I mean lets be frank here...mos there who say they eat 1200 are probably eating closer to 1500-1600.1 -
gataman3000 wrote: »Sorry to get everyone all riled up, its just reading these boards the general theme is calories in calories out only when that's just simply not true. When people say they want to lose weight, most people actually want to lose weight and body fat. I don't think anyone will be happy losing 40 or 50 pounds and still having that 40 inch waist. And I get it that it really is calories in calories out but this is for a lifestyle change not for just a number on the scale to move and that's what cico will do, make a number move. But when you actually focus on what you eat is when your body changes and you start to look how you want to look. One person said generic protein shakes, those generic protein shakes are the building blocks of muscle which contain amino acids and are a complete protein unlike that Twinkie diet everyone loves to cite. If me telling someone to have a protein shake and chicken breast over a Twinkie is making me the bad guy, so be it, but I'm sure one person will read it and it will change their diet and their life.
No one on this board is saying macros don't matter... they just don't matter for weight loss. They matter for satiety, energy, muscle retention, hormone regulation and so much more. And in the end, it won't matter what your macros are, if you don't have calories under controlled.
Second, CICO is not a diet, way or eat or anything other than an energy balance equation. One that is the basis for every single diet. Total Daily Energy Expended (TDEE) = basal metabolic rate (BMR)+ Thermal Effect of Food (TEF) + Thermal Effect of Activity (TEA) + Non-Excercise Activity Thermogenesis (NEAT). TDEE = maintenance calories or average calories out. If you cannot eat below that, you will not lose weight regardless of macro composition. You will not gain weight, if you cannot eat more than that.9 -
There are so many inane myths out there when it comes to weight loss no wonder people get so confused.
- Yes, increasing your calories may give you more energy which causes you to move more, but you didn't lose weight because you increased your calories; you lost weight because you increased your level of activity. When you give credit to the calories themselves, it fuels the notion that eat more = lose more which is just untrue. Say you started moving more at 1500 calories per week so you lost half of a pound, if you would have started moving more on 1200, you would have probably lost one pound instead of half of one. No, starvation mode was not and will never be a factor for you.
- Decreasing your carbs only "gets the scale moving" because you're depleting your glycogen stores. You'll see an initial loss due to water weight, but it's not fat loss. If you keep seeing losses after the fact, it's either because you're still depleting your glycogen stores and it will eventually taper off or seeing the initial water weight loss actually put a fire under your butt and in turn you became more active, accurate with logging, or some combination of the two. Macros do not affect weight loss itself, period.
The dispute of CICO is absolutely ridiculous because the body functions on calories. I'm tired of reading about toxins, GMOs, organic food, diet pills and teas, metabolism boosters, etc. You can't say CICO doesn't work because you're not losing weight with it. Either your calorie counting/logging is off, you overestimate your exercise burns, or your CO part of the equation differs from the norm. Just because MFP says you can eat x amount doesn't always make it true. If I said I wanted to lose 0.5 pounds per week or 2 pounds per week, MFP would still give me the baseline of 1200 calories because it won't go below 1200. I wish people would research, read, and use logic and reasoning skills before expecting miracles. People can read up on starvation mode, ten ways to banish belly fat, or five ways to boost metabolism but they can't take a few moments to educate themselves on BMR, TDEE, and CICO. Come on now.26 -
There are so many inane myths out there when it comes to weight loss no wonder people get so confused.
- Yes, increasing your calories may give you more energy which causes you to move more, but you didn't lose weight because you increased your calories; you lost weight because you increased your level of activity. When you give credit to the calories themselves, it fuels the notion that eat more = lose more which is just untrue. Say you started moving more at 1500 calories per week so you lost half of a pound, if you would have started moving more on 1200, you would have probably lost one pound instead of half of one. No, starvation mode was not and will never be a factor for you.
- Decreasing your carbs only "gets the scale moving" because you're depleting your glycogen stores. You'll see an initial loss due to water weight, but it's not fat loss. If you keep seeing losses after the fact, it's either because you're still depleting your glycogen stores and it will eventually taper off or seeing the initial water weight loss actually put a fire under your butt and in turn you became more active, accurate with logging, or some combination of the two. Macros do not affect weight loss itself, period.
The dispute of CICO is absolutely ridiculous because the body functions on calories. I'm tired of reading about toxins, GMOs, organic food, diet pills and teas, metabolism boosters, etc. You can't say CICO doesn't work because you're not losing weight with it. Either your calorie counting/logging is off, you overestimate your exercise burns, or your CO part of the equation differs from the norm. Just because MFP says you can eat x amount doesn't always make it true. If I said I wanted to lose 0.5 pounds per week or 2 pounds per week, MFP would still give me the baseline of 1200 calories because it won't go below 1200. I wish people would research, read, and use logic and reasoning skills before expecting miracles. People can read up on starvation mode, ten ways to banish belly fat, or five ways to boost metabolism but they can't take a few moments to educate themselves on BMR, TDEE, and CICO. Come on now.
So much awesome in this post .3 -
Simple question, are all of you saying that if 2 people who start at the same weight want to lose 30 pounds at 1800 calories a day, one has a balanced diet of protein, carbs and fats but the others has twinkies and snickers that at the end they will look exactly the same?0
-
misschellechelle wrote: »I am trying to lose my last 5-7 pounds. I weigh all of my food and log absolutely everything! I also wear a fitbit to get a general idea of calories burned.
Last week, I was 7,000 calories under maintenance for the week. I eat 1200 calories a day and end up burning about 2100-2300 calories a day. When I weighed in, no weight loss! I have been at this plateau for about a month. I have switched up my workouts and been especially mindful of my eating.
Any advice?
This is why I hate fitbits . You should only be tracking calories from actual exercise, IE lifting weights, running, jogging, cycling ... you know stuff that makes you sweat.
Don't eat back calories from walking around all day, and they don't count towards a loss or negative calories as whatever you currently do your body has already adjusted to.1 -
gataman3000 wrote: »Simple question, are all of you saying that if 2 people who start at the same weight want to lose 30 pounds at 1800 calories a day, one has a balanced diet of protein, carbs and fats but the others has twinkies and snickers that at the end they will look exactly the same?
Oh good, you didn't actually read what people were posting. No one said that.4 -
gataman3000 wrote: »Simple question, are all of you saying that if 2 people who start at the same weight want to lose 30 pounds at 1800 calories a day, one has a balanced diet of protein, carbs and fats but the others has twinkies and snickers that at the end they will look exactly the same?
There will be a lot of variables, but if two people both maintain a 500 calorie deficit, then the should pretty much have the same results, regardless of which type of diet they choose.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions