Y am I not losing weight?
Replies
-
U R E ting 2 much to lose weight, ez game. Probably overestimating your calorie burn 2.6
-
85Cardinals wrote: »U R E ting 2 much to lose weight, ez game.
Yes, she literally is.
She thought that if she excersized it off that she could eat more but that is not the case at all.
0 -
pumpkinRIP02 wrote: »The calories plus what it says 2 eat from exercising, but I don't eat it all. I leave 200 to 400 left every time, sometimes more. I don't have a scale I use the bar codes and measuring spoons and stuff. I am 5ft 4 in Age 28
You aren't supposed to eat the Exercised off calories back on!
You actually just doubled you're calorie intake by doing that!
Wrong!!! I did and lost 121 pounds!!20 -
Okay but tell me this.
Are you still losing weight right now?
What are your current eating habits like?0 -
pumpkinRIP02 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »85Cardinals wrote: »U R E ting 2 much to lose weight, ez game.
OMG stop lol It makes my brain hurt trying to read in "text talk"
She said that the other girl is Eating too many calories.
Which she is right.
The girl ate her 1,200 than excersize thinking she could eat the eat the the excersized off calories minus 200-400 calories and lose weight but that is not true.
The way that MFP is designed, yes, you are supposed to eat back the exercise calories. People say 50-75% of them, because the program tends to overestimate. The reason for eating some of these back is to fuel the workouts and provide the nutrition needed to maintain healthy body functioning. Eating 1200 calories and then working out without eating some of that back, would create a steep deficit that won't be supported long-term.12 -
pumpkinRIP02 wrote: »Okay but tell me this.
Are you still losing weight right now?
What are your current eating habits like?
I am maintaining now for almost 2 years now.18 -
pumpkinRIP02 wrote: »The calories plus what it says 2 eat from exercising, but I don't eat it all. I leave 200 to 400 left every time, sometimes more. I don't have a scale I use the bar codes and measuring spoons and stuff. I am 5ft 4 in Age 28
You aren't supposed to eat the Exercised off calories back on!
You actually just doubled you're calorie intake by doing that!
Actually you are supposed to eat the calories from exercise. MFP is designed to eat them back. I have had no issues with consistent weight loss (still losing) and I eat back exercise calories. Lost about 43 lbs so far.5 -
pumpkinRIP02 wrote: »Okay but tell me this.
Are you still losing weight right now?
What are your current eating habits like?
I am maintaining now for almost 2 years now.
Maintaining is okay.
I want to try and help you lose the weight that you need to get to goal though so we need to figure out what is going on.
0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »The way that MFP is designed, yes, you are supposed to eat back the exercise calories. People say 50-75% of them, because the program tends to overestimate. The reason for eating some of these back is to fuel the workouts and provide the nutrition needed to maintain healthy body functioning. Eating 1200 calories and then working out without eating some of that back, would create a steep deficit that won't be supported long-term.
My dietary aid would kill if she knew a diet program actually told you to do that!
0 -
pumpkinRIP02 wrote: »pumpkinRIP02 wrote: »Okay but tell me this.
Are you still losing weight right now?
What are your current eating habits like?
I am maintaining now for almost 2 years now.
Maintaining is okay.
I want to try and help you lose the weight that you need to get to goal though so we need to figure out what is going on.
I don't need your help!!! As I said I reached my goal weight almost 2 years ago!!!32 -
pumpkinRIP02 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »The way that MFP is designed, yes, you are supposed to eat back the exercise calories. People say 50-75% of them, because the program tends to overestimate. The reason for eating some of these back is to fuel the workouts and provide the nutrition needed to maintain healthy body functioning. Eating 1200 calories and then working out without eating some of that back, would create a steep deficit that won't be supported long-term.
My dietary aid would kill if she knew a diet program actually told you to do that!
So you are saying that if my calorie goal is 1200 and then I exercise burning 1000 calories making my net intake 200 calories , is healthy??16 -
pumpkinRIP02 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »The way that MFP is designed, yes, you are supposed to eat back the exercise calories. People say 50-75% of them, because the program tends to overestimate. The reason for eating some of these back is to fuel the workouts and provide the nutrition needed to maintain healthy body functioning. Eating 1200 calories and then working out without eating some of that back, would create a steep deficit that won't be supported long-term.
My dietary aid would kill if she knew a diet program actually told you to do that!
I don't know who your dietary aid is, but it sounds sketchy to me.16 -
My head exploded 2 pages ago.29
-
pumpkinRIP02 wrote: »pumpkinRIP02 wrote: »Okay but tell me this.
Are you still losing weight right now?
What are your current eating habits like?
I am maintaining now for almost 2 years now.
Maintaining is okay.
I want to try and help you lose the weight that you need to get to goal though so we need to figure out what is going on.
shes at her goal weight.which is why she is maintaining her weight. she doesnt want to lose anymore weight,nothing is going on. she is where she wants/needs to be.2 -
pumpkinRIP02 wrote: »The calories plus what it says 2 eat from exercising, but I don't eat it all. I leave 200 to 400 left every time, sometimes more. I don't have a scale I use the bar codes and measuring spoons and stuff. I am 5ft 4 in Age 28
You aren't supposed to eat the Exercised off calories back on!
You actually just doubled you're calorie intake by doing that!
yes, MFP gives you a deficit built in to lose weight. any exercise you do results in a bigger deficit,which is why its recommended to eat back some of the exercise calories,you will still be in a deficit and lose weight,if your deficit is too big you risk malnutrition and other issues2 -
I was having the same issue myself, and lost nothing for 2 months. Now I use MFP, try to accurately weigh everything after purchasing a food scale. I also added in a work-out DVD plus walking. After two weeks, my measurements have not budged, but I finally lost 3lbs. I also increased my water consumption to more than to more than 72oz per day. I am new to all this and still learning. Keep up the good work!! I typically do not eat my exercise calories....and am focusing on over-all good health. I do not eat out.
2 -
Yeah.....
So anyway, the reason this is all confusing and people have different experiences is because the formula doesn't work for everyone. The math is different for some of us than others. And there's new science behind it, too. When you lose weight at any point, rapidly, your body actually slows down your metabolism at your lesser weight. It spikes your hunger and cravings to get you to eat to go back up to your previous weight.
I'm suggesting that there may be more to it than your carbs, food scale, caloric intake, although those are valid things you should tweak and pay attention to, because tightening up those things will actually help you figure out if you have a slow metabolism. You may have to eat less and burn more than MFP or anyone here tells you to. (or, another underlying condition; so talk to your doctor and not a bunch of opinionated people on the internet)
A study was just done on Biggest Loser contestants. One of the guys who lost a ton of weight has to eat 800 calories LESS than someone else his exact (over)weight who has NOT dieted because of the changes to his metabolism.Researchers knew that just about anyone who deliberately loses weight — even if they start at a normal weight or even underweight — will have a slower metabolism when the diet ends. So they were not surprised to see that “The Biggest Loser” contestants had slow metabolisms when the show ended.
What shocked the researchers was what happened next: As the years went by and the numbers on the scale climbed, the contestants’ metabolisms did not recover. They became even slower, and the pounds kept piling on. It was as if their bodies were intensifying their effort to pull the contestants back to their original weight.
Mr. Cahill was one of the worst off. As he regained more than 100 pounds, his metabolism slowed so much that, just to maintain his current weight of 295 pounds, he now has to eat 800 calories a day less than a typical man his size. Anything more turns to fat.
Source http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html?_r=00 -
This thread wins hands down for the largest amount of crappy information shoved into 2 pages.
Srsly, fml, kwim?59 -
Thanks for not being the exception!1
-
ardrasdesign wrote: »You are likely not eating enough. Your body wants to hang on to what you got. I eat 1500 as a base amount. That is the amount to maintain the blood bone and lean tissue in my body. Then I add for my exercise. Sometimes I stop loosing. I only have 15 to 20 lbs to lose. I am at a plateau myself. Don't do it to lose. Do it to have some fun. Set little goals and don't quit. It takes a long time and being consistent. Good Luck. Don't eat carbs. Try a majority of your calories as fat and protein.I had the same problem until I read that if you eat too FEW calories for you body your body thinks you are starving and conserves - burns muscle instead of fat even. I had my calorie goal set at 1200 - tried bumping it up to 1400 (even though that seems counterproductive) - upped my cardio exercise 30 minutes per day - tried to get as close as possible to eating 1400 calories (I eat extremely healthy so its hard for me to eat so much sometimes) and... like magic I started losing .04 to .05 ounces per day!
Neither of these is true. Get a scale and weigh your food accurately. Don't completely rely on the calories that MapMyFitness gives you. I use MapMyHike and it gives me an insane amount of calories for my hikes so I don't eat back more than 25-30% of those in addition to my 1200 calories that MFP gives me. Down 32 pounds since January although the first couple months I too was just using measuring cups and spoons. I got a scale and it's fun to use it and compare labels on foods to actual weight in grams. It helps me make a conscious effort to be precise in calorie counts.8 -
deluxmary2000 wrote: »This thread wins hands down for the largest amount of crappy information shoved into 2 pages.
Srsly, fml, kwim?
Make it stop!13 -
I am having the same issue as well for some reason I keep eating over my calories. I did this once before and it helped but for some reason its not working as well. It seems like Im starving all the time.1
-
Wow, this thread went all kinds of wrong real fast. OP, if you're still around, once you get a scale and start weighing everything and are sure of your calorie intake (the first and easiest thing to try), you may just have to be a bit more patient. It takes me 5+ weeks in a consistent deficit to starting losing weight. I don't know why, it just is. It does catch up and tracks according to schedule but I guess I'm just a slow starter!
6 -
Yeah.....
So anyway, the reason this is all confusing and people have different experiences is because the formula doesn't work for everyone. The math is different for some of us than others. And there's new science behind it, too. When you lose weight at any point, rapidly, your body actually slows down your metabolism at your lesser weight. It spikes your hunger and cravings to get you to eat to go back up to your previous weight.
I'm suggesting that there may be more to it than your carbs, food scale, caloric intake, although those are valid things you should tweak and pay attention to, because tightening up those things will actually help you figure out if you have a slow metabolism. You may have to eat less and burn more than MFP or anyone here tells you to. (or, another underlying condition; so talk to your doctor and not a bunch of opinionated people on the internet)
A study was just done on Biggest Loser contestants. One of the guys who lost a ton of weight has to eat 800 calories LESS than someone else his exact (over)weight who has NOT dieted because of the changes to his metabolism.Researchers knew that just about anyone who deliberately loses weight — even if they start at a normal weight or even underweight — will have a slower metabolism when the diet ends. So they were not surprised to see that “The Biggest Loser” contestants had slow metabolisms when the show ended.
What shocked the researchers was what happened next: As the years went by and the numbers on the scale climbed, the contestants’ metabolisms did not recover. They became even slower, and the pounds kept piling on. It was as if their bodies were intensifying their effort to pull the contestants back to their original weight.
Mr. Cahill was one of the worst off. As he regained more than 100 pounds, his metabolism slowed so much that, just to maintain his current weight of 295 pounds, he now has to eat 800 calories a day less than a typical man his size. Anything more turns to fat.
Source http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html?_r=0
You might want to take a look at this:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10384484/james-krieger-on-the-biggest-loser-study-thats-going-around/p1
And maybe do a search for ninerbuff's post about that study as well.
What do you mean by "the formula"? Do you mean the numbers that MFP or similar will spit out when you tell it you want to lose weight? That's an estimate. There's no way such calculators can be completely precise for every single individual. For some people that estimate will be spot on. For others, they may have to raise or lower calories, depending on results. It's not because "the formula" doesn't work. People have to use common sense. If one is logging accurately (meaning entering correct portions of food as well as choosing correct entries) and being as honest as they can about daily activity level and exercise, then you're one who will just have to adjust based on real-world results. But it's unlikely that the estimate is going to be hundreds of calories off for the average person if they are being really honest. The first step should be to look at logging before trying to jump to "my metabolism is slow!"25 -
Yeah.....
So anyway, the reason this is all confusing and people have different experiences is because the formula doesn't work for everyone. The math is different for some of us than others. And there's new science behind it, too. When you lose weight at any point, rapidly, your body actually slows down your metabolism at your lesser weight. It spikes your hunger and cravings to get you to eat to go back up to your previous weight.
I'm suggesting that there may be more to it than your carbs, food scale, caloric intake, although those are valid things you should tweak and pay attention to, because tightening up those things will actually help you figure out if you have a slow metabolism. You may have to eat less and burn more than MFP or anyone here tells you to. (or, another underlying condition; so talk to your doctor and not a bunch of opinionated people on the internet)
A study was just done on Biggest Loser contestants. One of the guys who lost a ton of weight has to eat 800 calories LESS than someone else his exact (over)weight who has NOT dieted because of the changes to his metabolism.Researchers knew that just about anyone who deliberately loses weight — even if they start at a normal weight or even underweight — will have a slower metabolism when the diet ends. So they were not surprised to see that “The Biggest Loser” contestants had slow metabolisms when the show ended.
What shocked the researchers was what happened next: As the years went by and the numbers on the scale climbed, the contestants’ metabolisms did not recover. They became even slower, and the pounds kept piling on. It was as if their bodies were intensifying their effort to pull the contestants back to their original weight.
Mr. Cahill was one of the worst off. As he regained more than 100 pounds, his metabolism slowed so much that, just to maintain his current weight of 295 pounds, he now has to eat 800 calories a day less than a typical man his size. Anything more turns to fat.
Source http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html?_r=0
You might want to take a look at this:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10384484/james-krieger-on-the-biggest-loser-study-thats-going-around/p1
And maybe do a search for ninerbuff's post about that study as well.
What do you mean by "the formula"? Do you mean the numbers that MFP or similar will spit out when you tell it you want to lose weight? That's an estimate. There's no way such calculators can be completely precise for every single individual. For some people that estimate will be spot on. For others, they may have to raise or lower calories, depending on results. It's not because "the formula" doesn't work. People have to use common sense. If one is logging accurately (meaning entering correct portions of food as well as choosing correct entries) and being as honest as they can about daily activity level and exercise, then you're one who will just have to adjust based on real-world results. But it's unlikely that the estimate is going to be hundreds of calories off for the average person if they are being really honest. The first step should be to look at logging before trying to jump to "my metabolism is slow!"
This^^^3 -
Yeah.....
So anyway, the reason this is all confusing and people have different experiences is because the formula doesn't work for everyone. The math is different for some of us than others. And there's new science behind it, too. When you lose weight at any point, rapidly, your body actually slows down your metabolism at your lesser weight. It spikes your hunger and cravings to get you to eat to go back up to your previous weight.
I'm suggesting that there may be more to it than your carbs, food scale, caloric intake, although those are valid things you should tweak and pay attention to, because tightening up those things will actually help you figure out if you have a slow metabolism. You may have to eat less and burn more than MFP or anyone here tells you to. (or, another underlying condition; so talk to your doctor and not a bunch of opinionated people on the internet)
A study was just done on Biggest Loser contestants. One of the guys who lost a ton of weight has to eat 800 calories LESS than someone else his exact (over)weight who has NOT dieted because of the changes to his metabolism.Researchers knew that just about anyone who deliberately loses weight — even if they start at a normal weight or even underweight — will have a slower metabolism when the diet ends. So they were not surprised to see that “The Biggest Loser” contestants had slow metabolisms when the show ended.
What shocked the researchers was what happened next: As the years went by and the numbers on the scale climbed, the contestants’ metabolisms did not recover. They became even slower, and the pounds kept piling on. It was as if their bodies were intensifying their effort to pull the contestants back to their original weight.
Mr. Cahill was one of the worst off. As he regained more than 100 pounds, his metabolism slowed so much that, just to maintain his current weight of 295 pounds, he now has to eat 800 calories a day less than a typical man his size. Anything more turns to fat.
Source http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html?_r=0
No. This is an article/study about people who lose weight using absurd, extreme, unhealthy strategies. It is not the case that everyone's metabolism slows down.
Go read this forum thread: community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10383705/nyt-aint-got-nothing-on-us-maintainers-roll-call/p1.
Then read this study, paying special attention to the (CR+EX) arm of the study: journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0004377
There are also some well-thought-out critiques of the BL study, suggesting that it might not show what it purports to show. One is in this forum thread: community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10384484/james-krieger-on-the-biggest-loser-study-thats-going-around/p1
I lost over a third of my body weight in the past year. I can maintain while eating more calories than MFP (or the other online calculators) estimate for my age (60), weight (119) and activity level.
We are not doomed to metabolic slowdown, nor are we fated to regain.
It's true that some people require fewer calories than the calculators suggest, while some require more. The difference, in the absence of a medical condition, is typically not huge. Underestimating eating (by not weighing food, say) and overestimating exercise are far more likely explanations of not losing weight.
(Edited to add link to the Krieger thread).18 -
pumpkinRIP02 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »85Cardinals wrote: »U R E ting 2 much to lose weight, ez game.
OMG stop lol It makes my brain hurt trying to read in "text talk"
She said that the other girl is Eating too many calories.
Which she is right.
The girl ate her 1,200 than excersize thinking she could eat the eat the the excersized off calories minus 200-400 calories and lose weight but that is not true.
Actually it is true. She ate 1200. Burned maybe 100, giving her a net of 1100. She could eat back the 100 to get back to 1200. That's the point - that's how you use MFP as it is intended.
However... she thinks she burned over 500 calories and is eating 100 to 300 back. And is probably eating a lot more than 1200 calories if she doesn't measure properly or gives herself free-bees (including veggies and fruits maybe).0 -
Just to reiterate:
1. If it's been less than 3 weeks or so, don't sweat it! Normal fluctuations happen and unfortunately sometimes we stall for a week or two even when we're doing everything right. Give your body some time to catch up with the changes you're making.
2. If you aren't already, be sure that you're logging everything. Sometimes people forget about things like veggies, drinks, cooking oils, and condiments. For some people these can add up to enough to halt your weight loss progress.
3. Consider buying a food scale if you don't already have one. They're about $10-$20 dollars in the US and easily found at places like Amazon, Target, and Walmart. Measuring cups and spoons are great, but they do come with some degree of inaccuracy. A food scale will be more accurate, and for some people it makes a big difference.
4. Logging accurately also means choosing accurate entries in the database. There are a lot of user-entered entries that are off. Double-check that you're using good entries and/or using the recipe builder instead of someone else's homemade entries.
5. Recalculate your goals if you haven't lately. As you lose weight your body requires fewer calories to run. Be sure you update your goals every ten pounds or so.
6. If you're eating back your exercise calories and you're relying on gym machine readouts or MFP's estimates, it might be best to eat back just 50-75% of those. Certain activities tend to be overestimated. If you're using an HRM or activity tracker, it might be a good idea to look into their accuracy and be sure that yours is calibrated properly.
7. If you're taking any cheat days that go over your calorie limits, it might be best to cut them out for a few weeks and see what happens. Some people go way over their calorie needs without realizing it when they don't track.
8. If you weigh yourself frequently, consider using a program like trendweight to even out the fluctuations. You could be losing weight but just don't see it because of the daily ups and downs.
9. Some people just burn fewer calories than the calculators predict. If you continue to have problems after 4-6 weeks, then it might be worth a trip to the doctor or a registered dietitian who can give you more specific advice.13 -
Use the equation weight in pounds * distance walk in miles * 0.3 for your walks and you will see that your calories for your walks are probably gross overestimates.0
-
So I guess I'm a weird anomaly but I haven't weighed a gram of my food and I've lost 1lb/week or more since starting MFP in January. I've now lost 20lbs.
I'm 5'3" and I started at 154 and I'm now at 134. I don't even have measuring cups. I'm working overseas and I eat in a work cafeteria for every meal so I can't make my own food. I do the best I can estimating. I don't own a fitbit and I use the calorie burn that Runkeeper gives me or that the spin bike reads after putting in my weight and age. I always give myself an "error cushion" and only eat back about half of my exercise calories. I don't eat in restaurants because there aren't any where I am. I only drink water and one cup of coffee a day.
It is possible without a food scale but you have to be as honest as you can and overestimate what you are eating.10
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K 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