Stuck...am I not eating enough?
Options
Replies
-
diannethegeek wrote: »hypodonthaveme wrote: »It could be due to water healing your muscles due to the strength training. That being said, I would go to a Dr for a check up. Maybe there is something that just isn't quite right. It wouldn't hurt any. Tell the Dr what you do and what you eat and how long you've been stuck. You may find an answer. You may not.
Water retention from the strength training should even out after a few weeks and the OP hasn't lost in 10 months.
True, but if she keeps switching her exercise routine like she said, that could cause her to keep retaining water. I know - for me - that whenever I change some details regarding my programming, I see a spike in weight that drops down after a week or two.
That said, I'd bet that the answer is somewhere in the above chart.1 -
I think you should eat a little more- maybe 200-300 calories more. My body sounds similar to yours in which once I lost 50 lbs, everything came to a halt for 7/8 months. For some reason with my body, I can eat about 1500 calories or less for about 3 days, then I'll have to eat about 1700-1800 in order for me to lose weight. I have to do that every 3-4 days, then go back to 1500. It sounds weird, but it works for me. Try that for a week or two and see what happens. I know some people will disagree and argue with me, but by me doing that, I lost 3.5 lbs just last week. Everybody doesn't lose weight in the same manner and the trick is knowing what works for you. Whenever your weight starts to dip, go back over the last 3-4 days to see what you ate, what your workouts look like etc. to see what works. Also, try decreasing your cardio for a few days, and just walk at a normal pace. Switch things up a bit and see what happens.5
-
First I recommend getting your metabolic numbers done so you can see where your body fat and muscle mass are. I am in the best shape of my life and weigh more than when I was in my 20s. It's not about the weight, it's about your size... right? And I also believe from what you posted that you aren't eating enough. I've coached many people who weren't losing and based on their food log and exercise had them eat more and they started losing again.1
-
I think you should eat a little more- maybe 200-300 calories more. My body sounds similar to yours in which once I lost 50 lbs, everything came to a halt for 7/8 months. For some reason with my body, I can eat about 1500 calories or less for about 3 days, then I'll have to eat about 1700-1800 in order for me to lose weight. I have to do that every 3-4 days, then go back to 1500. It sounds weird, but it works for me. Try that for a week or two and see what happens. I know some people will disagree and argue with me, but by me doing that, I lost 3.5 lbs just last week. Everybody doesn't lose weight in the same manner and the trick is knowing what works for you. Whenever your weight starts to dip, go back over the last 3-4 days to see what you ate, what your workouts look like etc. to see what works. Also, try decreasing your cardio for a few days, and just walk at a normal pace. Switch things up a bit and see what happens.
Great advice.0 -
As you lose weight your body requires fewer calories to maintain that weight. You need to continue to cut calories as you drop pounds in order to maintain the same rate of loss. Most plateaus are due to this, you eventually hit your maintenance calories for your current weight, so you stop losing.
It is calories in vs. calories out. Eating more will not make you lose more weight.5 -
I'm your height and now 10lbs lighter. Without going and looking I'd say and hour of steady state cardio would get me 500 calories, maybe a little more. So your 700 could well be inflated. Use some of that time for strength training and it will be less.
What is your current gross and net calorie intake?0 -
Like has been said, eating more will not make you lose weight. Your current problem lies in eating too much for your activity level to lose weight.
That said, realize that logging your food, using an HRM, calculating your BMR/TDEE are ALL estimations. These estimations are very error prone. So, it doesn't really matter what the "number" is. If you have truly been diligent in logging your food, exercise, and weight for a month or two, you have all the data you need figure out how many calories your body needs to maintain weight (plateau). Now you just need to drop a little more calories and wait a month or so and see if that worked.
If I had to guess, I would say that the HRM is lying to you. Even though they are more accurate, they are not perfect either. Also, they are giving you a total calories burned, so you have to subtract your bmr rate from it. For example, if your BMR is 1800 calories/day, that is 75 cal/hour that you burn not doing anything. If you burn 700 calories/hour on your HRM, you should log 625. Otherwise, you are double dipping.
So, my suggestion would be to drop your calories by about 250, only eat back about 1/2 of your exercise calories for now, and make sure you continue to log accurately.5 -
Also, I meant to say - if you have been dieting for a while, it probably wouldn't hurt to take a week off and eat a little above maintenance calories. Just for 1 week though!2
-
coachsaralee wrote: »I think you should eat a little more- maybe 200-300 calories more. My body sounds similar to yours in which once I lost 50 lbs, everything came to a halt for 7/8 months. For some reason with my body, I can eat about 1500 calories or less for about 3 days, then I'll have to eat about 1700-1800 in order for me to lose weight. I have to do that every 3-4 days, then go back to 1500. It sounds weird, but it works for me. Try that for a week or two and see what happens. I know some people will disagree and argue with me, but by me doing that, I lost 3.5 lbs just last week. Everybody doesn't lose weight in the same manner and the trick is knowing what works for you. Whenever your weight starts to dip, go back over the last 3-4 days to see what you ate, what your workouts look like etc. to see what works. Also, try decreasing your cardio for a few days, and just walk at a normal pace. Switch things up a bit and see what happens.
Great advice.
no, it is not.8 -
KatieJane83 wrote: »Are you using TDEE method or mfp method to get to 2000? Are you eating 1500 net or gross?
700 is a high burn, not realistic in my opinion unless you are exercising for 2 hours. If you are eating back those calories, you are over eating.
The other obvious answer is that you have some logging errors you don't realize and are eating more than you think you are. Do you eat out often? Weigh and measure every food that goes in your mouth and into recipes?
700 doesn't have to be unrealistic, I usually get around 600-ish from an hour of intense cardio, according to my heart rate monitor. But this will be dependent on the person's gender/height/weight/age/etc, and the actual amount of effort and level of intensity of the cardio.
However, I am concerned about this estimate based on the fact that it seems like most of the OP's workout seems to consist of strength training. You burn a lot fewer calories doing strength training, and heart rate monitors do not give you an accurate burn for that type of exercise.
So maybe just consider lowering the estimated calories burned you input, or eating just a portion of those calories back.
based on the fact that OP is not losing, I think it is safe to assume that her burns are off. If she thinks she is burning 700 and is only burning half of that and works out three times a week that means she is consuming an extra 1000 calories a week ...1 -
Some of the Polar HRM's have a strength training mode. I think it is considered more accurate, but the number of calories burned during strength training is pretty fuzzy in general due to recovery calories. I usually don't count strength training calories unless I am trying to gain.1
-
I agree that it's very unlikely that you're burning 700 calories from your workouts. I burn that with 1.5 hour of pretty intense cardio, for example (basically uphill walking - I only burn 450 calories on the bike in that time)... and strength training really doesn't burn as many calories.
I'm 5'5" as well and I lost the weight eating 1600-1700 but I was weighing everything, using accurate entries (that might be one of your issues too), working out one hour a day (mostly cardio) while being fairly active as well (I'm a SAHM, I rarely sit more than one hour at a time).
Bottom line, decrease your calories by 100 or 200 or be more accurate with your logging.3 -
It's extremely unlikely that you're burning 700 calories from Zumba unless you're doing it for 2 hours straight.3
-
sheenabyrd wrote: »I do measure/weigh my food and I wear a polar HR monitor to track each workout, so I can get an accurate calorie burn. I use that number when calculating my food. I've mixed up my workouts, taken time off, upped my calorie intake by 10% and then reduced, and switched up my workouts but nothing seems to work. I'm trying to be patient but it's frustrating. I keep thinking there's got to be something wrong with what I'm doing because I should be seeing results.
If your polar is as "accurate" as my fitbit then you are most certainly overestimating your burn and underestimating your calories in. I eat a max of 50% of my fitbit calories back, if i calculated my food off of what my fitbit says my TDEE is, i would gain weight.
1 -
How much are you still looking to lose? If it's already been said, I missed it; sorry. I ask because, as a female, you're going to have a little bit of belly fat unless you're severely dehydrated. Women just store more fat than men. I'm not talking rolls or anything, I know plenty of healthy girls with very flat stomachs, but I also have a vendetta against the unrealistic body images a lot of the fitness community propagates. Unless you're training for a bodybuilding competition or similar, it's rare to see a 6-pack on women. It's also very unhealthy. That little bit of padding keeps the core systems running at an optimal rate. When I was at a very low BF level, I lost circulation constantly, my hair fell out in clumps, I passed out (twice), my skin cracked and bled, I basically felt like death 24/7.
And we can't forget, a pound of muscle looks a hell of a lot smaller than a pound of fat. If you're doing those hardcore regimes regularly, you've got a lot of heavy muscle on you. So it's not about weight there, it's about tone and inches.
Lastly, your body WILL adapt to a lower calorie intake and become more efficient at using them. Basically, you burn fewer even doing your usual routine. A HRM can't really account for that, because all it does is count the BPMs.1 -
beetle_stomper wrote: »How much are you still looking to lose? If it's already been said, I missed it; sorry. I ask because, as a female, you're going to have a little bit of belly fat unless you're severely dehydrated. Women just store more fat than men. I'm not talking rolls or anything, I know plenty of healthy girls with very flat stomachs, but I also have a vendetta against the unrealistic body images a lot of the fitness community propagates. Unless you're training for a bodybuilding competition or similar, it's rare to see a 6-pack on women. It's also very unhealthy. That little bit of padding keeps the core systems running at an optimal rate. When I was at a very low BF level, I lost circulation constantly, my hair fell out in clumps, I passed out (twice), my skin cracked and bled, I basically felt like death 24/7.
And we can't forget, a pound of muscle looks a hell of a lot smaller than a pound of fat. If you're doing those hardcore regimes regularly, you've got a lot of heavy muscle on you. So it's not about weight there, it's about tone and inches.
Lastly, your body WILL adapt to a lower calorie intake and become more efficient at using them. Basically, you burn fewer even doing your usual routine. A HRM can't really account for that, because all it does is count the BPMs.
she's 5'5" and 181lbs - I didn't see anywhere she talked about needing a 6 pack. She still has weight to lose to be in a healthy range.1 -
beetle_stomper wrote: »How much are you still looking to lose? If it's already been said, I missed it; sorry. I ask because, as a female, you're going to have a little bit of belly fat unless you're severely dehydrated. Women just store more fat than men. I'm not talking rolls or anything, I know plenty of healthy girls with very flat stomachs, but I also have a vendetta against the unrealistic body images a lot of the fitness community propagates. Unless you're training for a bodybuilding competition or similar, it's rare to see a 6-pack on women. It's also very unhealthy. That little bit of padding keeps the core systems running at an optimal rate. When I was at a very low BF level, I lost circulation constantly, my hair fell out in clumps, I passed out (twice), my skin cracked and bled, I basically felt like death 24/7.
And we can't forget, a pound of muscle looks a hell of a lot smaller than a pound of fat. If you're doing those hardcore regimes regularly, you've got a lot of heavy muscle on you. So it's not about weight there, it's about tone and inches.
Lastly, your body WILL adapt to a lower calorie intake and become more efficient at using them. Basically, you burn fewer even doing your usual routine. A HRM can't really account for that, because all it does is count the BPMs.
Really about the 6 packs...I know lots of women with them who just are living life.
It is not unhealthy as long as you are eating enough and if you were low BF and hair was falling out etc you weren't eating enough and you were unhealthy...6 -
As others have said, a plateau never means eat more.
You basically have been eating maintenance calories and obviously more than you think you are.
Tighten up the logging, use a food scale, don't eat back too many exercise calories and you'll soon be on a losing streak once more.0 -
beetle_stomper wrote: »How much are you still looking to lose? If it's already been said, I missed it; sorry. I ask because, as a female, you're going to have a little bit of belly fat unless you're severely dehydrated. Women just store more fat than men. I'm not talking rolls or anything, I know plenty of healthy girls with very flat stomachs, but I also have a vendetta against the unrealistic body images a lot of the fitness community propagates. Unless you're training for a bodybuilding competition or similar, it's rare to see a 6-pack on women. It's also very unhealthy. That little bit of padding keeps the core systems running at an optimal rate. When I was at a very low BF level, I lost circulation constantly, my hair fell out in clumps, I passed out (twice), my skin cracked and bled, I basically felt like death 24/7.
And we can't forget, a pound of muscle looks a hell of a lot smaller than a pound of fat. If you're doing those hardcore regimes regularly, you've got a lot of heavy muscle on you. So it's not about weight there, it's about tone and inches.
Lastly, your body WILL adapt to a lower calorie intake and become more efficient at using them. Basically, you burn fewer even doing your usual routine. A HRM can't really account for that, because all it does is count the BPMs.
how in the world would you think a six pack on a woman is not healthy?????7 -
beetle_stomper wrote: »How much are you still looking to lose? If it's already been said, I missed it; sorry. I ask because, as a female, you're going to have a little bit of belly fat unless you're severely dehydrated. Women just store more fat than men. I'm not talking rolls or anything, I know plenty of healthy girls with very flat stomachs, but I also have a vendetta against the unrealistic body images a lot of the fitness community propagates. Unless you're training for a bodybuilding competition or similar, it's rare to see a 6-pack on women. It's also very unhealthy. That little bit of padding keeps the core systems running at an optimal rate. When I was at a very low BF level, I lost circulation constantly, my hair fell out in clumps, I passed out (twice), my skin cracked and bled, I basically felt like death 24/7.
And we can't forget, a pound of muscle looks a hell of a lot smaller than a pound of fat. If you're doing those hardcore regimes regularly, you've got a lot of heavy muscle on you. So it's not about weight there, it's about tone and inches.
Lastly, your body WILL adapt to a lower calorie intake and become more efficient at using them. Basically, you burn fewer even doing your usual routine. A HRM can't really account for that, because all it does is count the BPMs.
how in the world would you think a six pack on a woman is not healthy?????
cause she had one and wasn't healthy...ie hair falling out, fainting, skin to dry cracking and bleeding...sounds like malnutrition to me....5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 982 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions