Increased excercise stalled my weighloss!? Help
Replies
-
wandajnevills wrote: »An extremely important thing to remember is that muscle is very dense and weighs a lot more than fat. That means 5 pounds of muscle is a fraction of the size of 5 pounds of fat. 5 measly pounds of fat is literally bigger than a football. Fat is fluffy. You could be losing fat and gaining muscle and maintaining the same weight. You could even be gaining weight and getting thinner if you're building muscle. You should go by your size, measurements, how your clothes fit and how you look in the mirror more than the scale if you're exercising a lot.
Side note: Another great thing about muscle is that the more of it you have, the more calories you burn, even at rest.
A woman doing everything right (progressive lifting program and a surplus) is lucky to gain 1-2 pounds a month. The OP doesn't even fit into that category. Muscle gain is not happening fast enough to offset fat loss.9 -
wandajnevills wrote: »wandajnevills wrote: »An extremely important thing to remember is that muscle is very dense and weighs a lot more than fat. That means 5 pounds of muscle is a fraction of the size of 5 pounds of fat. 5 measly pounds of fat is literally bigger than a football. Fat is fluffy. You could be losing fat and gaining muscle and maintaining the same weight. You could even be gaining weight and getting thinner if you're building muscle. You should go by your size, measurements, how your clothes fit and how you look in the mirror more than the scale if you're exercising a lot.
Side note: Another great thing about muscle is that the more of it you have, the more calories you burn, even at rest.
As has already been pointed out in this thread, a female eating 1300 calories and doing only cardio will not be building muscle. It is extremely difficult for a woman to build appreciable muscle mass. In ideal conditions with a proper lifting program and calorie surplus, a woman can really only gain .5-1lb of lean mass per month.
I know when I was sick and stopped working out for three months i gained zero pounds in the first months but got noticeably fatter, and all l normally do is the elliptical. It is possible to build muscle doing "cardio" especially if you had very little muscle to begin with.
How did you measure your muscle loss and gain?2 -
I say stick with it for now, you've added a lot of exercise and new exercise means your muscles are working harder and having to repair and strengthen, which means they retain a lot of water. A LOT.
Usually people say water weight due to new exercise will go after a few days to a week, BUT something about the way you say "walk jog run" makes me think you are actually on a steep learning curve with this exercise and that as your fitness increases you are probably increasing the intensity without realising it - shorter walks, longer runs.
If that is the case, your muscles will still be adapting to new levels of intensity and will still be retaining water to repair and strengthen themselves. That can be a very considerable amount of water. I've personally seen 6-7lb gains from new exercise, I've seen others on here quote as much as 10lb in exercise related water weight. And if you're heavier, there will be more water retained. So EASILY enough to mask 2 weeks' weight loss.
So I say stick with it, I think what you're doing is amazing, and I'm betting on good results in time. For now, keep logging, keep working out, and keep the faith!3 -
Sounds normal, you just have a little water weight gain. Your muscles just have to adjust to the new level of training. Just make sure you eat more to fuel the activity and drink plenty of water, but don't eat all the calories back until you see how accurate the burn estimates are. Weight loss will eventually resume, probably with a whoosh.1
-
wandajnevills wrote: »Do you measure your food intake using a food scale? tracking food in a diary here or elsewhere? Exercise is awesome, but if we're eating at maintenance calories or a surplus, we're not going to lose any weight.
True about eating less calories than we expend, but weighing food doesn't give us any idea of its caloric content. Green beans weigh a lot more than whipped cream, but it's the whipped cream that's going to pack in mass calories. In fact, the fattiest foods are the lightest by weight. Oils (fat) float to the surface of water because they're light. You'd have to eat 5 pounds of green beans to get the same amount of calories as virtually zero pounds of whipped cream.
I don't mean to sound rude when I ask this... but are you familiar with how nutrition labels work?
I'll explain in case you're not sure how and why we weigh food.
Food has a certain amount of calories in a serving. You are correct in saying that some foods weigh less than others, but what you've misunderstood is WHY we weigh it. If we know that, for example, Food A has 30 calories per 100 grams, it's simple math to figure out how much we're eating. 200 grams gives us 60 calores, 300 grams gives us 90 calories, and so forth. But we don't know the gram component (the servings) unless we weigh it.
We're weighing it because mass is the most accurate measurement we can use for solid foods. It's the same idea behind using measuring cups for liquids. We don't use measuring cups for solids because it's really not very accurate (although I am still guilty of using them sometimes).10 -
wandajnevills wrote: »wandajnevills wrote: »An extremely important thing to remember is that muscle is very dense and weighs a lot more than fat. That means 5 pounds of muscle is a fraction of the size of 5 pounds of fat. 5 measly pounds of fat is literally bigger than a football. Fat is fluffy. You could be losing fat and gaining muscle and maintaining the same weight. You could even be gaining weight and getting thinner if you're building muscle. You should go by your size, measurements, how your clothes fit and how you look in the mirror more than the scale if you're exercising a lot.
Side note: Another great thing about muscle is that the more of it you have, the more calories you burn, even at rest.
As has already been pointed out in this thread, a female eating 1300 calories and doing only cardio will not be building muscle. It is extremely difficult for a woman to build appreciable muscle mass. In ideal conditions with a proper lifting program and calorie surplus, a woman can really only gain .5-1lb of lean mass per month.
I know when I was sick and stopped working out for three months i gained zero pounds in the first months but got noticeably fatter, and all l normally do is the elliptical. It is possible to build muscle doing "cardio" especially if you had very little muscle to begin with.
highly doubtful..
how are you measuring these gains and losses in muscle?0 -
Wicked_Seraph wrote: »wandajnevills wrote: »Do you measure your food intake using a food scale? tracking food in a diary here or elsewhere? Exercise is awesome, but if we're eating at maintenance calories or a surplus, we're not going to lose any weight.
True about eating less calories than we expend, but weighing food doesn't give us any idea of its caloric content. Green beans weigh a lot more than whipped cream, but it's the whipped cream that's going to pack in mass calories. In fact, the fattiest foods are the lightest by weight. Oils (fat) float to the surface of water because they're light. You'd have to eat 5 pounds of green beans to get the same amount of calories as virtually zero pounds of whipped cream.
I don't mean to sound rude when I ask this... but are you familiar with how nutrition labels work?
I'll explain in case you're not sure how and why we weigh food.
Food has a certain amount of calories in a serving. You are correct in saying that some foods weigh less than others, but what you've misunderstood is WHY we weigh it. If we know that, for example, Food A has 30 calories per 100 grams, it's simple math to figure out how much we're eating. 200 grams gives us 60 calores, 300 grams gives us 90 calories, and so forth. But we don't know the gram component (the servings) unless we weigh it.
We're weighing it because mass is the most accurate measurement we can use for solid foods. It's the same idea behind using measuring cups for liquids. We don't use measuring cups for solids because it's really not very accurate (although I am still guilty of using them sometimes).
Yes actually weighing foid sounded ridiculous. I'm not familiar with labels that measure serving sizes by weight. I've never seen that. LOL. So thanks for helping it make sense. I've heard of people literally weighing everything they eat and weighing what comes out. Thank God that's not what's happening here.0 -
wandajnevills wrote: »Do you measure your food intake using a food scale? tracking food in a diary here or elsewhere? Exercise is awesome, but if we're eating at maintenance calories or a surplus, we're not going to lose any weight.
True about eating less calories than we expend, but weighing food doesn't give us any idea of its caloric content. Green beans weigh a lot more than whipped cream, but it's the whipped cream that's going to pack in mass calories. In fact, the fattiest foods are the lightest by weight. Oils (fat) float to the surface of water because they're light. You'd have to eat 5 pounds of green beans to get the same amount of calories as virtually zero pounds of whipped cream.
I can't even with this. Oil doesn't float, it separates because it doesn't mix with water. Weighing foods tells you how much of that food you are eating and calories are calculated for the weight associated with those calories.
What are they teaching in schools these days!?
2 weeks when you've added new exercise isn't the time to worry. Especially given your height and weight and calorie goal, you're probably eating a little too little to hit needed nutrition needs (this won't stall weight loss but is detrimental to overall health).5 -
the amount of horrible information in this thread is alarming...13
-
wandajnevills wrote: »wandajnevills wrote: »An extremely important thing to remember is that muscle is very dense and weighs a lot more than fat. That means 5 pounds of muscle is a fraction of the size of 5 pounds of fat. 5 measly pounds of fat is literally bigger than a football. Fat is fluffy. You could be losing fat and gaining muscle and maintaining the same weight. You could even be gaining weight and getting thinner if you're building muscle. You should go by your size, measurements, how your clothes fit and how you look in the mirror more than the scale if you're exercising a lot.
Side note: Another great thing about muscle is that the more of it you have, the more calories you burn, even at rest.
As has already been pointed out in this thread, a female eating 1300 calories and doing only cardio will not be building muscle. It is extremely difficult for a woman to build appreciable muscle mass. In ideal conditions with a proper lifting program and calorie surplus, a woman can really only gain .5-1lb of lean mass per month.
I know when I was sick and stopped working out for three months i gained zero pounds in the first months but got noticeably fatter, and all l normally do is the elliptical. It is possible to build muscle doing "cardio" especially if you had very little muscle to begin with.
highly doubtful..
how are you measuring these gains and losses in muscle?
I'm not. I'm saying I was noticeably fatter and not gaining weight, clothesgot too tight... Elliptical, treadmills etc on high resistance can build muscle. If she's walking up hills she could be building muscle, especially if it's a 2 hour walk.0 -
wandajnevills wrote: »wandajnevills wrote: »wandajnevills wrote: »An extremely important thing to remember is that muscle is very dense and weighs a lot more than fat. That means 5 pounds of muscle is a fraction of the size of 5 pounds of fat. 5 measly pounds of fat is literally bigger than a football. Fat is fluffy. You could be losing fat and gaining muscle and maintaining the same weight. You could even be gaining weight and getting thinner if you're building muscle. You should go by your size, measurements, how your clothes fit and how you look in the mirror more than the scale if you're exercising a lot.
Side note: Another great thing about muscle is that the more of it you have, the more calories you burn, even at rest.
As has already been pointed out in this thread, a female eating 1300 calories and doing only cardio will not be building muscle. It is extremely difficult for a woman to build appreciable muscle mass. In ideal conditions with a proper lifting program and calorie surplus, a woman can really only gain .5-1lb of lean mass per month.
I know when I was sick and stopped working out for three months i gained zero pounds in the first months but got noticeably fatter, and all l normally do is the elliptical. It is possible to build muscle doing "cardio" especially if you had very little muscle to begin with.
highly doubtful..
how are you measuring these gains and losses in muscle?
I'm not. I'm saying I was noticeably fatter and not gaining weight, clothesgot too tight... Elliptical, treadmills etc on high resistance can build muscle. If she's walking up hills she could be building muscle, especially if it's a 2 hour walk.
so you have no measure to back up what you are saying?2 -
wandajnevills wrote: »wandajnevills wrote: »wandajnevills wrote: »An extremely important thing to remember is that muscle is very dense and weighs a lot more than fat. That means 5 pounds of muscle is a fraction of the size of 5 pounds of fat. 5 measly pounds of fat is literally bigger than a football. Fat is fluffy. You could be losing fat and gaining muscle and maintaining the same weight. You could even be gaining weight and getting thinner if you're building muscle. You should go by your size, measurements, how your clothes fit and how you look in the mirror more than the scale if you're exercising a lot.
Side note: Another great thing about muscle is that the more of it you have, the more calories you burn, even at rest.
As has already been pointed out in this thread, a female eating 1300 calories and doing only cardio will not be building muscle. It is extremely difficult for a woman to build appreciable muscle mass. In ideal conditions with a proper lifting program and calorie surplus, a woman can really only gain .5-1lb of lean mass per month.
I know when I was sick and stopped working out for three months i gained zero pounds in the first months but got noticeably fatter, and all l normally do is the elliptical. It is possible to build muscle doing "cardio" especially if you had very little muscle to begin with.
highly doubtful..
how are you measuring these gains and losses in muscle?
I'm not. I'm saying I was noticeably fatter and not gaining weight, clothesgot too tight... Elliptical, treadmills etc on high resistance can build muscle. If she's walking up hills she could be building muscle, especially if it's a 2 hour walk.
Okay, I'll play. How much muscle can she be building in a deficit in two weeks?2 -
wandajnevills wrote: »Wicked_Seraph wrote: »wandajnevills wrote: »Do you measure your food intake using a food scale? tracking food in a diary here or elsewhere? Exercise is awesome, but if we're eating at maintenance calories or a surplus, we're not going to lose any weight.
True about eating less calories than we expend, but weighing food doesn't give us any idea of its caloric content. Green beans weigh a lot more than whipped cream, but it's the whipped cream that's going to pack in mass calories. In fact, the fattiest foods are the lightest by weight. Oils (fat) float to the surface of water because they're light. You'd have to eat 5 pounds of green beans to get the same amount of calories as virtually zero pounds of whipped cream.
I don't mean to sound rude when I ask this... but are you familiar with how nutrition labels work?
I'll explain in case you're not sure how and why we weigh food.
Food has a certain amount of calories in a serving. You are correct in saying that some foods weigh less than others, but what you've misunderstood is WHY we weigh it. If we know that, for example, Food A has 30 calories per 100 grams, it's simple math to figure out how much we're eating. 200 grams gives us 60 calores, 300 grams gives us 90 calories, and so forth. But we don't know the gram component (the servings) unless we weigh it.
We're weighing it because mass is the most accurate measurement we can use for solid foods. It's the same idea behind using measuring cups for liquids. We don't use measuring cups for solids because it's really not very accurate (although I am still guilty of using them sometimes).
Yes actually weighing foid sounded ridiculous. I'm not familiar with labels that measure serving sizes by weight. I've never seen that. LOL. So thanks for helping it make sense. I've heard of people literally weighing everything they eat and weighing what comes out. Thank God that's not what's happening here.
There are many people on MFP who use a food scale to accurately calculate their food intake. I don't understand how that is so unbelievable to you.7 -
wandajnevills wrote: »Wicked_Seraph wrote: »wandajnevills wrote: »Do you measure your food intake using a food scale? tracking food in a diary here or elsewhere? Exercise is awesome, but if we're eating at maintenance calories or a surplus, we're not going to lose any weight.
True about eating less calories than we expend, but weighing food doesn't give us any idea of its caloric content. Green beans weigh a lot more than whipped cream, but it's the whipped cream that's going to pack in mass calories. In fact, the fattiest foods are the lightest by weight. Oils (fat) float to the surface of water because they're light. You'd have to eat 5 pounds of green beans to get the same amount of calories as virtually zero pounds of whipped cream.
I don't mean to sound rude when I ask this... but are you familiar with how nutrition labels work?
I'll explain in case you're not sure how and why we weigh food.
Food has a certain amount of calories in a serving. You are correct in saying that some foods weigh less than others, but what you've misunderstood is WHY we weigh it. If we know that, for example, Food A has 30 calories per 100 grams, it's simple math to figure out how much we're eating. 200 grams gives us 60 calores, 300 grams gives us 90 calories, and so forth. But we don't know the gram component (the servings) unless we weigh it.
We're weighing it because mass is the most accurate measurement we can use for solid foods. It's the same idea behind using measuring cups for liquids. We don't use measuring cups for solids because it's really not very accurate (although I am still guilty of using them sometimes).
Yes actually weighing foid sounded ridiculous. I'm not familiar with labels that measure serving sizes by weight. I've never seen that. LOL. So thanks for helping it make sense. I've heard of people literally weighing everything they eat and weighing what comes out. Thank God that's not what's happening here.
Are you in the US? If so, your labels will have weight. It's in the "serving size" line. For example, the box of cookies on my desk has this for serving size "1 cookie (38 g)." The grams is the company's estimate of what one cookie weighs, the calorie counts are for that exact weight. But the weight of the actual cookie may vary, so I would weigh it to make sure I'm not consuming more than I think I am.4 -
If you're only eating 1200 calories a day AND exercising, then your NET CALORIES are likely around 600. That's WAY too low. Your body's metabolic rate will adjust for that, meaning it will burn less calories at rest.
Under eating isn't ideal to lose weight.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1 -
wandajnevills wrote: »Wicked_Seraph wrote: »wandajnevills wrote: »Do you measure your food intake using a food scale? tracking food in a diary here or elsewhere? Exercise is awesome, but if we're eating at maintenance calories or a surplus, we're not going to lose any weight.
True about eating less calories than we expend, but weighing food doesn't give us any idea of its caloric content. Green beans weigh a lot more than whipped cream, but it's the whipped cream that's going to pack in mass calories. In fact, the fattiest foods are the lightest by weight. Oils (fat) float to the surface of water because they're light. You'd have to eat 5 pounds of green beans to get the same amount of calories as virtually zero pounds of whipped cream.
I don't mean to sound rude when I ask this... but are you familiar with how nutrition labels work?
I'll explain in case you're not sure how and why we weigh food.
Food has a certain amount of calories in a serving. You are correct in saying that some foods weigh less than others, but what you've misunderstood is WHY we weigh it. If we know that, for example, Food A has 30 calories per 100 grams, it's simple math to figure out how much we're eating. 200 grams gives us 60 calores, 300 grams gives us 90 calories, and so forth. But we don't know the gram component (the servings) unless we weigh it.
We're weighing it because mass is the most accurate measurement we can use for solid foods. It's the same idea behind using measuring cups for liquids. We don't use measuring cups for solids because it's really not very accurate (although I am still guilty of using them sometimes).
Yes actually weighing foid sounded ridiculous. I'm not familiar with labels that measure serving sizes by weight. I've never seen that. LOL. So thanks for helping it make sense. I've heard of people literally weighing everything they eat and weighing what comes out. Thank God that's not what's happening here.
There are many people on MFP who use a food scale to accurately calculate their food intake. I don't understand how that is so unbelievable to you.
I'm not sure why you still don't understand when I just explained that have never seen a food label that quantifies a serving size by weight. Personally I can't imagine being that meticulous about it, but now that it's been explained I understand why some people would do it, which is why I said "thank you" for explaining it. Now what I don't understand at this point is why you're continuing to be so condescending and pretentious.0 -
Measurements are by weight... They're all measured out in milligrams and grams... Those are weight measurements. It's by FDA regulations
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm064877.htm
What is the net quantity of contents and how is it expressed?
Answer: The net quantity of contents (net quantity statement) is the statement on the label which provides the amount of food in the container or package. It must be espressed in weight, measure or numeric count. Generally, if the food is solid, semisolid or viscous, it should be expressed in terms of weight. If the food is a liquid, it should be expressed in fluid measure (e.g., fl oz). 21 CFR 101.105(a)(b)(c)
The original method used to determine the number of kcals in a given food directly measured the energy it produced.The food was placed in a sealed container surrounded by water--an apparatus known as a bomb calorimeter. The food was completely burned and the resulting rise in water temperature was measured. This method is not frequently used today.
The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA) currently dictates what information is presented on food labels. The NLEA requires that the Calorie level placed on a packaged food be calculated from food components. According to the National Data Lab (NDL), most of the calorie values in the USDA and industry food tables are based on an indirect calorie estimation made using the so-called Atwater system. In this system, calories are not determined directly by burning the foods. Instead, the total caloric value is calculated by adding up the calories provided by the energy-containing nutrients: protein, carbohydrate, fat and alcohol. Because carbohydrates contain some fiber that is not digested and utilized by the body, the fiber component is usually subtracted from the total carbohydrate before calculating the calories.
The Atwater system uses the average values of 4 Kcal/g for protein, 4 Kcal/g for carbohydrate, and 9 Kcal/g for fat. Alcohol is calculated at 7 Kcal/g. (These numbers were originally determined by burning and then averaging.) Thus the label on an energy bar that contains 10 g of protein, 20 g of carbohydrate and 9 g of fat would read 201 kcals or Calories.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-food-manufacturers/2 -
Correction, I never *noticed* it was on the labels. I literally never noticed, or I completely disregarded, that the weight was listed in parentheses until it was pointed out in this thread. I'd be miserable having to measure my food so closely. I just round up with calories in and round down with calories burned.0
-
wandajnevills wrote: »Correction, I never *noticed* it was on the labels. I literally never noticed, or I completely disregarded, that the weight was listed in parentheses until it was pointed out in this thread. I'd be miserable having to measure my food so closely. I just round up with calories in and round down with calories burned.
Different strokes. Takes me seconds to weigh things then I have no guess work and accurate data to work with.6 -
VintageFeline wrote: »wandajnevills wrote: »Correction, I never *noticed* it was on the labels. I literally never noticed, or I completely disregarded, that the weight was listed in parentheses until it was pointed out in this thread. I'd be miserable having to measure my food so closely. I just round up with calories in and round down with calories burned.
Different strokes. Takes me seconds to weigh things then I have no guess work and accurate data to work with.
Yeah, totally. I have ADD, so for me it's more boring details to keep track of versus actually having the time. Maybe if I was stuck being unable to manage my weight I'd try it, but I can manage my weight fine with ballparking my calories when I'm not compulsive/binge eating so I that's good enough for me.0 -
I am loving this thread for entertainment value14
-
New exercise or increased intensity in exercise, etc causes water retention to aid in repair of your muscles...you are likely holding onto more water than you were before. It should regulate as your body becomes more accustomed to the activity.wandajnevills wrote: »Do you measure your food intake using a food scale? tracking food in a diary here or elsewhere? Exercise is awesome, but if we're eating at maintenance calories or a surplus, we're not going to lose any weight.
True about eating less calories than we expend, but weighing food doesn't give us any idea of its caloric content. Green beans weigh a lot more than whipped cream, but it's the whipped cream that's going to pack in mass calories. In fact, the fattiest foods are the lightest by weight. Oils (fat) float to the surface of water because they're light. You'd have to eat 5 pounds of green beans to get the same amount of calories as virtually zero pounds of whipped cream.
if you weight out 6 ounces of chicken breast, you can look that up to know what the calorie content is...just as one example. It's a way to be more precise in logging...if you didn't weigh that chicken out, how do you know what you've selected from the database is accurate. This is also why nutritional labels usually provide serving size by weight.2 -
laurasprogress wrote: »I weigh what needs to be weighted and scan in the rest. It is all logged here. I stick to between 1200 and 1300 calories a day. It seems like simple math of course but why isn't the scale moving? Am I retaining water? It's sure discouraging
Whenever I stalled it was because of too much sodium and not enough water. I never seen too much exercise causing a stall. I'm not sure if that's possible.
I've seen body builders who gained weight from exercise but they were fit to begin with and wanted to bulk up
But I echo everyone here...weigh everything if you haven't done so yet. When you have a lot of weight to lose you're not going to gain more muscle weight than what you lost.0 -
CharleezAngel1 wrote: »A lot of times when you're eating so low calorie, your body will hang on to the weight, especially when you're exercising so much. I'd say increase your calories or look at cutting back on the activity. Personally, I'd go for the calorie increase. There's lots of data out there to support this if you do some digging.
Yeah, I don't believe that. Otherwise there would be a lotta fat people in 3rd world nations
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »New exercise or increased intensity in exercise, etc causes water retention to aid in repair of your muscles...you are likely holding onto more water than you were before. It should regulate as your body becomes more accustomed to the activity.wandajnevills wrote: »Do you measure your food intake using a food scale? tracking food in a diary here or elsewhere? Exercise is awesome, but if we're eating at maintenance calories or a surplus, we're not going to lose any weight.
True about eating less calories than we expend, but weighing food doesn't give us any idea of its caloric content. Green beans weigh a lot more than whipped cream, but it's the whipped cream that's going to pack in mass calories. In fact, the fattiest foods are the lightest by weight. Oils (fat) float to the surface of water because they're light. You'd have to eat 5 pounds of green beans to get the same amount of calories as virtually zero pounds of whipped cream.
if you weight out 6 ounces of chicken breast, you can look that up to know what the calorie content is...just as one example. It's a way to be more precise in logging...if you didn't weigh that chicken out, how do you know what you've selected from the database is accurate. This is also why nutritional labels usually provide serving size by weight.
Yes, thank you. That was the missing link that made it finally make sense; weighing to look up the precise caloric value, vs weight being equivalent to calories.0 -
wandajnevills wrote: »wandajnevills wrote: »An extremely important thing to remember is that muscle is very dense and weighs a lot more than fat. That means 5 pounds of muscle is a fraction of the size of 5 pounds of fat. 5 measly pounds of fat is literally bigger than a football. Fat is fluffy. You could be losing fat and gaining muscle and maintaining the same weight. You could even be gaining weight and getting thinner if you're building muscle. You should go by your size, measurements, how your clothes fit and how you look in the mirror more than the scale if you're exercising a lot.
Side note: Another great thing about muscle is that the more of it you have, the more calories you burn, even at rest.
As has already been pointed out in this thread, a female eating 1300 calories and doing only cardio will not be building muscle. It is extremely difficult for a woman to build appreciable muscle mass. In ideal conditions with a proper lifting program and calorie surplus, a woman can really only gain .5-1lb of lean mass per month.
I know when I was sick and stopped working out for three months i gained zero pounds in the first months but got noticeably fatter, and all l normally do is the elliptical. It is possible to build muscle doing "cardio" especially if you had very little muscle to begin with.
Lose fat, yes. But for a female on a deficit, doing only cardio, no, it's not possible for them to make noticeable gains in muscle mass. They might get a little stronger, but increasing muscle strength and increasing muscle mass are two different things.3 -
NSAIDS like Advil can cause you to retain water weight. Adding exercise can make you sore which can make you take medication which can make you retain water. That may be part of it. Give it some time. Track religiously.1
-
Every time I up my exercise level I retain about 5 lbs of water weight. Muscles retain water when they repair. It is probably masking your losses. It will settle down eventually. Probably in another week or two3
-
You mention that you don't need to weigh everything. Well. Yes, you do. It is entirely possible that you are eating more than you think.1
-
wandajnevills wrote: »wandajnevills wrote: »Wicked_Seraph wrote: »wandajnevills wrote: »Do you measure your food intake using a food scale? tracking food in a diary here or elsewhere? Exercise is awesome, but if we're eating at maintenance calories or a surplus, we're not going to lose any weight.
True about eating less calories than we expend, but weighing food doesn't give us any idea of its caloric content. Green beans weigh a lot more than whipped cream, but it's the whipped cream that's going to pack in mass calories. In fact, the fattiest foods are the lightest by weight. Oils (fat) float to the surface of water because they're light. You'd have to eat 5 pounds of green beans to get the same amount of calories as virtually zero pounds of whipped cream.
I don't mean to sound rude when I ask this... but are you familiar with how nutrition labels work?
I'll explain in case you're not sure how and why we weigh food.
Food has a certain amount of calories in a serving. You are correct in saying that some foods weigh less than others, but what you've misunderstood is WHY we weigh it. If we know that, for example, Food A has 30 calories per 100 grams, it's simple math to figure out how much we're eating. 200 grams gives us 60 calores, 300 grams gives us 90 calories, and so forth. But we don't know the gram component (the servings) unless we weigh it.
We're weighing it because mass is the most accurate measurement we can use for solid foods. It's the same idea behind using measuring cups for liquids. We don't use measuring cups for solids because it's really not very accurate (although I am still guilty of using them sometimes).
Yes actually weighing foid sounded ridiculous. I'm not familiar with labels that measure serving sizes by weight. I've never seen that. LOL. So thanks for helping it make sense. I've heard of people literally weighing everything they eat and weighing what comes out. Thank God that's not what's happening here.
There are many people on MFP who use a food scale to accurately calculate their food intake. I don't understand how that is so unbelievable to you.
I'm not sure why you still don't understand when I just explained that have never seen a food label that quantifies a serving size by weight. Personally I can't imagine being that meticulous about it, but now that it's been explained I understand why some people would do it, which is why I said "thank you" for explaining it. Now what I don't understand at this point is why you're continuing to be so condescending and pretentious.
So what do food labels where you are from use? Every label I have seen has weight as at least part of the description of the serving size since volume measures like milliliters for solids are very inaccurate as are things like pieces of a product since they are not consistent. The annoying thing for me in Canada is how things that are packed as a liquid like ice cream, do not show weight but volume as the serving size measure, but that is the only sort of instances where weight is not included.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions