Despite diet & exercise I KEEP GAINING WEIGHT! Please help!

Options
124

Replies

  • Raptor2763
    Raptor2763 Posts: 387 Member
    Options
    Two questions: (1) what's your water intake like? (2) what's the timing and portion sizes of your meals like? You MAY be putting your body into starvation mode, if you're running too much of a calorie deficit.
  • cwang125
    cwang125 Posts: 76 Member
    Options
    CICO is the simplification of the energy equation but in reality it looks more like this:

    w7hyelbztr5k.png
  • hmltwin
    hmltwin Posts: 116 Member
    Options
    While I didn't gain as dramatically as you have, I have experience with gaining weight while dieting and exercising. At the time, I only had a cup of coffee for breakfast (the same cup of coffee I've always had) and I didn't change how I ate dinner (to the best of my knowledge). I decreased my lunch - eating more healthy things (fruit, veggies, yogurt), rather than chips, cookies and a sandwich - and gained 20 pounds. I went back to my old diet and the weight gain stopped, but I didn't lose either.

    More recently, I began exercising quite a bit more and I've been more accurately keeping track of my calories. I've also been eating breakfast (more than coffee) and a reasonable lunch. This time, I've been able to lose 30 pounds, putting me down 10 pounds from what I was when I first tried dieting.

    I know there will be people here who will say that I must have been eating more than I realized. I have no answer for them. I didn't keep records about my food intake at that time. All I can say is that I know I was eating less at lunch. I wasn't one of those people who sat down and said, "I'm eating healthy. That means I can have tons of healthy food." I'd have about 1 stalk of celery chopped up and half a cup of grapes or cherries, with my 100 calorie yogurt. Does that really have more calories than a ham and cheese sandwich, 3 oreos and a bag of chips?

    Anyway, getting back to the point: I'm not going to tell you to eat more. I will say that you should make sure you eat breakfast in the morning (it'll take away from what you can eat later in the day, but it might help in other ways). I'd also make sure to be careful and accurate with logging what you're eating and your exercise. See if that helps you in anyway.

    At the same time... I'd get a second opinion from the doctor - possibly from a different doctor. There may be something medical going on.
  • esjones12
    esjones12 Posts: 1,363 Member
    Options
    5 pounds a week for 6 months? I'd be knocking down lots of doctors doors.....you'd have to consume SO many extra calories to do that.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,996 Member
    Options
    jennifershoo wrote: »
    You're 46...Perhaps pre-menopause? I'd go see an endocrinologist to have all my hormones checked up.

    Peri-menopause alone won't cause this. There are many of us here peri- and post- menopause who lose weight just fine.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,996 Member
    Options
    Mentali wrote: »
    marm1962 wrote: »
    ElizabethOakes2 wrote: »
    Just as an adjunct here- Before my thyroid problem was properly diagnosed, I was gaining weight (about 2 pounds a week) on a strict doctor supervised 1100 calorie a day diet and a highly active lifestyle. It CAN happen. And the standard thyroid test didn't show a problem, it was the full thyroid work-up that finally revealed the thyroid problem.

    That being said, the first thing to look at is your logging. Are you weighing/measuring and are you using accurate entries in the database? If your logging is solid, don't eat back ALL of your exercise calories. Aim for half or even a quarter. Many trackers and activity lists overestimate calories burned for some people.
    If your logging is tight and you aren't overestimating your calories, get the back to the doctor and demand to be either have more tests or to be referred to you someone who give you a second opinion.

    Right! I used to get sooo sick and tired of reading the CICO thing that I stopped reading the forum messages. Sometimes medical problems are hidden. I tried losing 50 lbs for the past 10+ years and ending up gaining 20 more over that same time frame...because I would give up and eat what I wanted, but everytime I put myself on a deficit (and yes all was weighed) I would not be able to lose a single pound...UNTIL recently and what a god send that doctor was, in the past 2 months I have lost 11 lbs. My problem? I had Lyme disease and it will mess with everything from head to toe in your system including your metabolism.

    I don't know, for every one of you with a legitimate medical condition, there are at least 5 people that say things like "I never weigh my food because I just know what a proper portion is, I must have a medical condition that causes me not to lose weight" or "I burn 2000 calories a day exercising according to GlitchyFitnessBand and eat them all back, why am I gaining weight?" or "I eat perfect to lose half a pound 5 days of the week and then stop logging on weekends, why am I not losing weight?"

    I'd guess that for every one person with a legitimate medical condition there are thousands who are not losing weight because they are miscalculating their Calories In or Calories Out.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,996 Member
    Options
    Raptor2763 wrote: »
    Two questions: (1) what's your water intake like? (2) what's the timing and portion sizes of your meals like? You MAY be putting your body into starvation mode, if you're running too much of a calorie deficit.

    Dieters don't stop losing weight due to "starvation mode", let alone gain weight:

    http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    edited June 2016
    Options
    I think it's a rant. The OP has never returned. Right? Or did I miss it?

    ETA: Just double checked, never returned. I'm staying with rant :)
  • wilsoncl6
    wilsoncl6 Posts: 1,280 Member
    Options
    For a lot of people that may gain weight when eating less and lose weight when eating more, it's more about providing your body with enough energy to support your level of activity. Eat less, you'll end up doing less. Eat more, you'll typically end up able to do more. The weight loss experience may have resulted from having more energy to use and just being able to be more active throughout the day. You can't put more calories in your body than you burn and lose weight, it just doesn't happen unless your sick and your body is using the calories for other things abover standard repair and support. OP, if you're positive you've been eating exaclty the way you were while losing weight (same exact foods and portion sizes) and gaining 5 lbs a week, you may have a medical problem or are taking medications that may cause weight gain or something unrelated to your food intake. That's a lot of weight to gain over a short period of time without actually increasing your food intake. I've randomly gained up to 8 lbs in one week but that was due to eating a high sodium diet. I dropped that and more in a week of intense exercise and drinking tons of water.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    Options
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    CiaraCatch wrote: »
    Mavrick_RN wrote: »
    Just a reminder: muscle is NOT heavier than fat. That is a fact.

    Yes, it is. When we say one substance is heavier than another, the assumption is that we're talking about equal volumes, otherwise it's meaningless. In the same way that lead is heavier than cheese, muscle is heavier than fat.

    Huh?

    Muscle is more dense and takes up less space than fat, but a pound is a pound no matter how you weigh it.

    When ever any substance is said to weigh more than something else it is always a given that we are talking about the same cubic volume. You never see anyone arguing, "No, Lead is not heavier than feathers. A pound of lead is the same as a pound of feathers." Of course a pound is a pound, but we are talking about the same volume! You compare the same volume. YES, muscle (the same volume by default) is indeed heavier than fat. I will never understand why it is only these two items that anyone ever refuses to compare at the same cubic volume. Everything else they do.

    But....here is an OP saying she's gained 35 pounds, and another poster comes in and says:
    Also if you are exercising it could be muscle weight which is heavier than fat...

    But my comments about weight and volume was in response to this:
    Mavrick_RN wrote: »
    Just a reminder: muscle is NOT heavier than fat. That is a fact.

    I wasn't addressing the '35 pounds' comment specifically, however, If you took measurements of yourself, say one year apart, and you had the exact same measurements, but weighed say 5 pounds more, than yes, that would probably be due to muscle gain. That is not what my statement was addressing though. All I was arguing was that the statement that 'it is an absolute fact that muscle isn't heavier than fat', without regards to volume, is erroneous. It's a misconception that has gone on for far too long because people continue to ignore the basis for comparison. Which is identical volumes.

    I understand, but the response of the poster you quoted said appeared to be in response to the poster who said the weight gain could be muscle.

    Ahhh.... a bit of the 'quote inception' going on. lol. As you were.
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    CiaraCatch wrote: »
    Mavrick_RN wrote: »
    Just a reminder: muscle is NOT heavier than fat. That is a fact.

    Yes, it is. When we say one substance is heavier than another, the assumption is that we're talking about equal volumes, otherwise it's meaningless. In the same way that lead is heavier than cheese, muscle is heavier than fat.

    Huh?

    Muscle is more dense and takes up less space than fat, but a pound is a pound no matter how you weigh it.

    When ever any substance is said to weigh more than something else it is always a given that we are talking about the same cubic volume. You never see anyone arguing, "No, Lead is not heavier than feathers. A pound of lead is the same as a pound of feathers." Of course a pound is a pound, but we are talking about the same volume! You compare the same volume. YES, muscle (the same volume by default) is indeed heavier than fat. I will never understand why it is only these two items that anyone ever refuses to compare at the same cubic volume. Everything else they do.

    But....here is an OP saying she's gained 35 pounds, and another poster comes in and says:
    Also if you are exercising it could be muscle weight which is heavier than fat...

    But my comments about weight and volume was in response to this:
    Mavrick_RN wrote: »
    Just a reminder: muscle is NOT heavier than fat. That is a fact.

    I wasn't addressing the '35 pounds' comment specifically, however, If you took measurements of yourself, say one year apart, and you had the exact same measurements, but weighed say 5 pounds more, than yes, that would probably be due to muscle gain. That is not what my statement was addressing though. All I was arguing was that the statement that 'it is an absolute fact that muscle isn't heavier than fat', without regards to volume, is erroneous. It's a misconception that has gone on for far too long because people continue to ignore the basis for comparison. Which is identical volumes.

    I understand, but the response of the poster you quoted said appeared to be in response to the poster who said the weight gain could be muscle.

    Ahhh.... a bit of the 'quote inception' going on. lol. As you were.

  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    Options
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    CiaraCatch wrote: »
    Mavrick_RN wrote: »
    Just a reminder: muscle is NOT heavier than fat. That is a fact.

    Yes, it is. When we say one substance is heavier than another, the assumption is that we're talking about equal volumes, otherwise it's meaningless. In the same way that lead is heavier than cheese, muscle is heavier than fat.

    Huh?

    Muscle is more dense and takes up less space than fat, but a pound is a pound no matter how you weigh it.

    When ever any substance is said to weigh more than something else it is always a given that we are talking about the same cubic volume. You never see anyone arguing, "No, Lead is not heavier than feathers. A pound of lead is the same as a pound of feathers." Of course a pound is a pound, but we are talking about the same volume! You compare the same volume. YES, muscle (the same volume by default) is indeed heavier than fat. I will never understand why it is only these two items that anyone ever refuses to compare at the same cubic volume. Everything else they do.

    But....here is an OP saying she's gained 35 pounds, and another poster comes in and says:
    Also if you are exercising it could be muscle weight which is heavier than fat...

    But my comments about weight and volume was in response to this:
    Mavrick_RN wrote: »
    Just a reminder: muscle is NOT heavier than fat. That is a fact.

    I wasn't addressing the '35 pounds' comment specifically, however, If you took measurements of yourself, say one year apart, and you had the exact same measurements, but weighed say 5 pounds more, than yes, that would probably be due to muscle gain. That is not what my statement was addressing though. All I was arguing was that the statement that 'it is an absolute fact that muscle isn't heavier than fat', without regards to volume, is erroneous. It's a misconception that has gone on for far too long because people continue to ignore the basis for comparison. Which is identical volumes.

    I understand, but the response of the poster you quoted said appeared to be in response to the poster who said the weight gain could be muscle.

    Ahhh.... a bit of the 'quote inception' going on. lol. As you were.

    I'm not sure what you mean by this remark. As you were. ;)
  • Happysoul0317
    Happysoul0317 Posts: 119 Member
    Options
    I heard that regular thyroid tests do not test the functionality of your parathyroid which, if not functioning properly, can cause weight gain. I'm having mine checked Tuesday. I'm in the same boat. Also I have a huge cyst on an ovary which is screwing with my horomones also causing unintentional weight gain. Love being a woman...
  • Mentali
    Mentali Posts: 352 Member
    Options
    hmltwin wrote: »
    While I didn't gain as dramatically as you have, I have experience with gaining weight while dieting and exercising. At the time, I only had a cup of coffee for breakfast (the same cup of coffee I've always had) and I didn't change how I ate dinner (to the best of my knowledge). I decreased my lunch - eating more healthy things (fruit, veggies, yogurt), rather than chips, cookies and a sandwich - and gained 20 pounds. I went back to my old diet and the weight gain stopped, but I didn't lose either.

    More recently, I began exercising quite a bit more and I've been more accurately keeping track of my calories. I've also been eating breakfast (more than coffee) and a reasonable lunch. This time, I've been able to lose 30 pounds, putting me down 10 pounds from what I was when I first tried dieting.

    I know there will be people here who will say that I must have been eating more than I realized. I have no answer for them. I didn't keep records about my food intake at that time. All I can say is that I know I was eating less at lunch. I wasn't one of those people who sat down and said, "I'm eating healthy. That means I can have tons of healthy food." I'd have about 1 stalk of celery chopped up and half a cup of grapes or cherries, with my 100 calorie yogurt. Does that really have more calories than a ham and cheese sandwich, 3 oreos and a bag of chips?

    Anyway, getting back to the point: I'm not going to tell you to eat more. I will say that you should make sure you eat breakfast in the morning (it'll take away from what you can eat later in the day, but it might help in other ways). I'd also make sure to be careful and accurate with logging what you're eating and your exercise. See if that helps you in anyway.

    At the same time... I'd get a second opinion from the doctor - possibly from a different doctor. There may be something medical going on.

    It would be unbelievably easy for you to make up 300-400 calories without even knowing it at dinnertime, if you're not closely measuring your portions. An extra splash of olive oil can easily add 50 calories alone, or half a tablespoon of butter, or an extra ounce of dry pasta is 100 calories, or an extra half cup of steamed corn with no toppings is nearly 100 calories....the list goes on and on. It's not about saying "I ate less at lunch so I can eat more at dinner", it's about how easy it is to add extra calories when you're not approximating and if you're hungrier, you'll naturally get a bigger portion unless you're actively working against it. A little extra food there, a negligible amount of extra topping there, an extra serving of healthy vegetables, half a scoop of ice cream, a can of Coke....it's so easy to make up the caloric difference and then some when you're not paying attention.
  • vingogly
    vingogly Posts: 1,785 Member
    Options
    CiaraCatch wrote: »
    Both are true. By your reckoning we can never, ever say that any one substance is heavier than another, which limits us somewhat.

    Weight is indeed weight, and is independent of the size of an object. The physics definition is: W = m X g, where m = mass (an object's resistance to acceleration) and g = the force of gravity. That's why a 100kg person on Earth would only weigh 16.5kg on the Moon, and 38kg on Mars. Density is defined as mass per unit volume, or informally weight per unit volume.

    That's the formal definition which anyone can look up in a high school physics textbook. Not that clarifying things matters, because by next week there will be two or three threads on here arguing the same thing over again. The interwebs have no memory. :smiley:

Categories