MFP puts me on 1200 cals but not losing weight...

Options
1235»

Replies

  • can111
    can111 Posts: 63 Member
    Options
    I agree with another comment -- can you find some time to up your activity minutes? I too work at a desk job every day. I try to walk during lunch a couple times per week. Some girls here walk up and down the stairs (4 story building). Then I try to walk the dogs at home or take a bike ride after work. I shoot for 30 - 60 minutes per day. At our age (ahem) it is sooo hard to lose. For me, it is a combo of the exercise and good nutrition in my calorie range (try to stick around 1300 per day). I've also greatly reduced my white flour and white sugar consumption. If I stick to it, i can lose about .8 - 1 pound per week. Best of luck!!
  • Thomaskerrya
    Thomaskerrya Posts: 34 Member
    Options
    I had so many responses ready for this morning for all you lovely people - then I got on the scales (I do daily) and they've suddenly dropped 1.6lb!! I ate an extra 150/200 calories yesterday - fatty calories because my daughter bought 20% mince instead of my normal 5%. Whether that made the difference or what I don't know but I am happier! I will try an extra few calories for a few days and closely monitor the data entries too, as suggested by many. See how it goes.

    I didn't realise a week isn't a plateau, more of a blip, and someone coined it - yes I am impatient! But I do want this long term so am prepared to take it one day at a time and stick with it.

    Actually yesterday was the first day in weeks that I was actually hungry. Maybe my metabolism has kicked back in?

    My workouts are high resistance, even tho only on a cross trainer - but I've had to slow down for a couple of days because something hurts. I am getting over a bad rotator cuff injury so am somewhat limited in ability at the moment.

    Btw, I am indeed a she, and I love you all, those with amazing advice, comforting support and even the slightly crazy (or not) opinions! Thank you all x
  • DebSozo
    DebSozo Posts: 2,578 Member
    Options
    That is great news! Thanks for getting back to us ThomasKerrya
    :)
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    Options
    Thomaskerrya wrote: »
    I had so many responses ready for this morning for all you lovely people - then I got on the scales (I do daily) and they've suddenly dropped 1.6lb!! I ate an extra 150/200 calories yesterday - fatty calories because my daughter bought 20% mince instead of my normal 5%. Whether that made the difference or what I don't know but I am happier! I will try an extra few calories for a few days and closely monitor the data entries too, as suggested by many. See how it goes.

    I didn't realise a week isn't a plateau, more of a blip, and someone coined it - yes I am impatient! But I do want this long term so am prepared to take it one day at a time and stick with it.

    Actually yesterday was the first day in weeks that I was actually hungry. Maybe my metabolism has kicked back in?

    My workouts are high resistance, even tho only on a cross trainer - but I've had to slow down for a couple of days because something hurts. I am getting over a bad rotator cuff injury so am somewhat limited in ability at the moment.

    Btw, I am indeed a she, and I love you all, those with amazing advice, comforting support and even the slightly crazy (or not) opinions! Thank you all x

    I am really glad things worked out for you, but.....

    What you are describing sounds like natural fluctuation, which is consistently at play in our weight loss efforts.

    Metabolism does not kick in our out, that's just not the way it works. And, eating more does not cause weight loss.

    :)
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    Options
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
    DebSozo wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    DebSozo wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    DebSozo wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    DebSozo wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    DebSozo wrote: »
    Thomaskerrya wrote: »
    I don't cheat - even eating out I make it fit! Been on this diet a couple of months, but have yo-to dieted for years :( and have been exercising since day one (or this diet) plateau has been over a week now. I am more tired some days, thought it was the exercise but **maybe it's not enough nutrition? My weight always drops off the first few weeks then it seems to stall, and I haven't been dedicated enough to really monitor and work out what my body is telling me, so yet again the cycle is repeating itself. (Just slower than it did before I turned 40!)

    **Try to up your fat macro percentage a bit (ex. eat oily fish like grilled salmon and/or put avocado on your salad) for a meal every so often. It is worth a try and works for some people for blasting a stall.

    How is upping a macro suppose to help with weight loss?

    I would love for him to try it tonight and report back so you can find out.

    who is him? and one night doesn't make a different and you suggested it so do you not know?

    I poo pooed it too until I tried it when I was on a couple plateaus during active weight loss on a LCLF diet. It works. It won't hurt to do it for couple days. I'm not saying to try something hazardous, BTW. He mentioned that he is on a low fat diet, and he wondered if it could be that he needs nutrients.

    macros are irrelevant for weight loss...and each gram of fat has 9calories vs 4 for protein or carbs...however fat is good for keeping you feeling fuller longer as is protein.

    The OP is a woman btw.

    Changing macros doesn't help with weight loss...only being in a deficit helps.

    Macros and types of foods do matter with body biochemistry, however. Digestion of macros impact hormones and metabolism. I don't refute CICO, BTW, and biochemistry and thermodynsmics do coexist.

    as I said Protein and fats keep you feeling fuller longer and that can account for eating less food if you feel full...

    but macros for actual weight loss are irrelevant and the fact that people lose weight doing all sort of "diets" is proof of that. IE HFLC or Southbeach or 17 day diet...but the fact is this...as long as you are in a calorie deficit regardless of how the macros fall you will lose weight...how you eat can affect how you feel, energy levels etc but not weight loss...hence the statement Calories for weight loss, macros for nutrition and health, exercise for fitness and health.

    and if you are going to claim they are please produce the peer reviewed studies backing that up.
    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/

    Macros aren't irrelevant but they are of relatively small relevance for most people if they meet basic requirements.
    Losing LBM will impact long term weight loss, reduced pituitary or thyroid function will impact weight loss, etc... but there are a variety of diets and a variety of macro ranges that can be used safely and successfully.

    Macros are most likely more important in satiety and weight variance - how that affects people mentally in terms of consistency shouldn't be discounted.

    The leaner a person is, the more important macros become.

    but changing macros up does not change the CICO equation...note I did say fats/proteins help keep you feeling fuller longer etc but in the primary world of weight loss (not fat loss/body comp etc) macros are not relevant for weight loss...there are secondary items not to be discounted later...

    but lets be frank most who want to lose weight could care less about body comp and nutrition all they want is the scale number to go down.

    Long term, changing macros does exactly change calorie burned.

    If you eat a low protein diet that then results in LBM loss will, in turn, drive down TDEE by 7 to 21 cals per lb lost of lbm. That's up to a free meal a month for each lb of lbm lost.

    If you eat a low fat diet and drive thyroid temp regulation down (up to about a 100 cals a day) guess what happens over a month?

    Macros matter, it is just that we can override that by focusing on calories, they matter a lot less than calories.

    In a diet that is consistent and varied and nutrient rich - they matter even less.

    For the OP - it would seem that your fat requirements are a little low (0.35 g / lb of body weight being the standard minimum recommendation) but it is difficult to tell because frankly, your logging is inconsistent and incomplete (like mine :wink:) but I'd focus on the logging first before making too major changes in diet.


    Of course macros matter, but not as to weight loss. They matter for nutritional purposes and energy level, but you can't just up the fat and/or lower the carbs and keep the calories the same and expect weight loss. ;) Just to clarify: we're not talking water loss, but fat.

    Obviously, this OP is impatient (it's only been a week of no weight loss) and she's eating too much if the weight stall is happening for longer periods.

    But that isn't what I wrote.

    but that is what this part of the discussion is about...a person suggested changing the fat macro to help weight loss...I said it won't matter....you jumped in with what you said.

    This, hence my response.

    @EvgeniZyntx, are we misunderstanding?

Categories