Eating 1200 calories but no weight loss. HELP!?
Replies
-
You'll need an electronic scale; the old fashioned spring type ones are a disaster. I got mine for 15 bux on Amazon. It takes batteries.0
-
VividVegan wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »brichards_ wrote: »Please consider trying a high carb low fat vegan diet. It does wonders!
I find when people are less pushy about their agenda they can endear themselves to others and inspire people to change. Best of luck changing the world.
What's wrong with a high carb, low fat vegan diet? Hmm... lol
There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. The poster I was responding to has been dropping this recommendation in nearly every single post she makes, regardless of circumstances or what the OP is asking. She is also making some pretty wild, unsubstantiated claims. All of which come across as being pushy and unproductive.
There are several vegan members here that I highly respect and feel that they are supportive and informative without feeling the need to make will claims. When people come across as being pushy, communication is frequently shut down, because their message gets lost in the zealotry. It's a shame, because there could be some great open conversations being had, and there have been a few. It would be nice if the conversations could be more fact based and presented in a less judgmental manner.6 -
Nope. It doesn't work that way....ericatoday wrote: »When working out like that you shouldnt be eating 1200 calories. Your body is holding on to all of those calories. I started losing when i upped my calorie intake from 1200 to 1450
4 -
VividVegan wrote: »What's wrong with a high carb, low fat vegan diet? Hmm... lol
Nothing at all if you don't mind the increased likelihood of having your gallbladder removed someday due to gallstones secondary to iatrogenic cholestasis. Due to the low fat diet, of course.
Oh, and as a woman the increased chances of experiencing hormonal based health issues. Due to the low fat diet, yet again.
I'm sensing a pattern here...
3 -
0 -
What level of fat consumption is too low for men?grinning_chick wrote: »Nothing at all if you don't mind the increased likelihood of having your gallbladder removed someday due to gallstones secondary to iatrogenic cholestasis. Due to the low fat diet, of course.
Oh, and as a woman the increased chances of experiencing hormonal based health issues. Due to the low fat diet, yet again.
I'm sensing a pattern here...
What level of fat consumption is too low for women?
At what level of (lack of) fat consumption do the risks you describe increase significantly?
Honest question as there are extremely few clear-cut fat recommendations beyond eat x % of your calories from fat that I can find.
0 -
@SadDolt
How are these personal characteristics you chose to bring up relevant to the point @SophieSmall95 is making, i.e. that:it's not just people with muscle mass. according to bmi 140 would be a healthy weight for me but at 150 i was still very overweight. people should stop acting like they're doctors
So at 150 you are "still very overweight".SophieSmall95 wrote: »But there is not much in the way of evidence to suggest [BMI] is not a good indicator of health for the underweight. In short, you should try not to be in the underweight section of the BMI scale because it does statistically increase your chance of certain illnesses. Since OP is aiming to get into the underweight section your rhetoric that it is not accurate is not relevant.
And 140 is, presumably, the top end of your "normal" weight.
Which makes you probably around 5ft 4", possibly 5ft 3".
Which makes your underweight range somewhere around 110 to 105lbs.
What exactly does your experience of yourself at 150lbs have to do with your experience of yourself at potentially 105lbs?
Do you know whether @SophieSmall95 is a doctor?
Are you one?
Would her being a doctor make her correct statements any more correct?
If you are one, would your incorrect objections become any less incorrect?
P.S.
Since it sounds like you may be aiming at "104lbs" as your target, which based on your objections may be in the underweight range, why don't you go run a www.smartbmicalculator.com profile for yourself. And consider what the calculator recommends to you.
You may also want to consider that statistically women with a BMI <20 have more fertility and hormonal issues than women with a BMI between 20 and 25. Yes, this includes "normal" weight women with a BMI of 18.5 to 20.
And, lastly, you may want to consider than the amount of muscle mass that you have may be just as important as your actual weight number in helping you achieve the "look" you may be after.
because you shouldn't assume what is or isn't a healthy weight for someone based on a calculator online. it's ignorant and insulting.
''And 140 is, presumably, the top end of your "normal" weight.
Which makes you probably around 5ft 4", possibly 5ft 3".
Which makes your underweight range somewhere around 110 to 105lbs.
What exactly does your experience of yourself at 150lbs have to do with your experience of yourself at potentially 105lbs''
i was using myself as an example because people like you assume someone is ''underweight'' at 105 by using BMI. when clearly BMI is inaccurate since it's stating that 140 is a normal weight for my height, when i was very overweight still. so using BMI to determine what is or isn't healthy is stupid. people should lose weight and see what works/looks good on them. just like they should not go by work out ''calories burned'' calculators.
''have more fertility and hormonal issues than women with a BMI between 20 and 25''
that's rich since you can also google stories of pregnant underweight women with eating disorders. i don't go by ''most likely'' i go by facts. so check yours0 -
i was using myself as an example because people like you assume someone is ''underweight'' at 105 by using BMI. when clearly BMI is inaccurate since it's stating that 140 is a normal weight for my height, when i was very overweight still. so using BMI to determine what is or isn't healthy is stupid. people should lose weight and see what works/looks good on them. just like they should not go by work out ''calories burned'' calculators.
i don't go by ''most likely'' i go by facts. so check yours
There are three options:
A. Your lean mass is "normal" for your weight.
B. Your lean mass is "excessive" for your weight (think gym rat on steroids)
C. Your lean mass is "too little" for your weight (think skinny fat person)
A => BMI can be used to correctly predict your body fat %, amount of lean mass, and health risks
B1 (high) => BMI calls you overweight when in fact you may not be in terms of body fat % and lean mass. Your health risk are closer to a normal weight person's than an overweight person's.
B2 (low) => BMI calls you normal weight when in fact you may already have a body fat % that is typically associated with an underweight person. Your health risks may be closer to an underweight person's than a normal weight person's even though you appear to be buff, lean, and strong.
C1 (high) => BMI calls you normal weight when in fact you have a body fat % that is typically associated with an overweight person. Your health risks may be closer to an overweight person's than a normal weight person's.
C2 (low) => BMI calls you underweight when in fact you have the body fat % that is typically associated with a normal weight person. Your health risks are... see below!
You keep saying that BMI is useless for everyone based on your self perception (whether correct or erroneous is not something I can evaluate) that you are at C1 today.
Good for you. You've identified yourself as C1. This means that you have less lean mass and more body fat than what is typically associated with a person of your weight.
Since I do not know your current fat to lean mass loss ratio I have no way of knowing how further weight loss will affect your body composition. Your ratio of lean mass to fat may change either for the better or for the worse as you continue to lose weight.
But, if we assume that you arrive at your BMI of 19 and continue to be "fatter for your weight than BMI would predict", which is what your posts imply, you will arrive at a BMI of 19 as a C2.
And as a C2 your fat percentage is not the problem since it is a normal fat %.
What is the problem is that your lean mass is too low.
In order to hit a BMI of 19 under the C2 condition you are at levels of lean mass that are compatible with a diagnosis of pre-sarcopenia or sarcopenia.
Which is why people are usually told to recomp as opposed to continue to try and lose weight when their BMI starts becoming quite low.
The above analysis applies to non special snowflakes.3 -
i was using myself as an example because people like you assume someone is ''underweight'' at 105 by using BMI. when clearly BMI is inaccurate since it's stating that 140 is a normal weight for my height, when i was very overweight still. so using BMI to determine what is or isn't healthy is stupid. people should lose weight and see what works/looks good on them. just like they should not go by work out ''calories burned'' calculators.
i don't go by ''most likely'' i go by facts. so check yours
There are three options:
A. Your lean mass is "normal" for your weight.
B. Your lean mass is "excessive" for your weight (think gym rat on steroids)
C. Your lean mass is "too little" for your weight (think skinny fat person)
A => BMI can be used to correctly predict your body fat %, amount of lean mass, and health risks
B1 (high) => BMI calls you overweight when in fact you may not be in terms of body fat % and lean mass. Your health risk are closer to a normal weight person's than an overweight person's.
B2 (low) => BMI calls you normal weight when in fact you may already have a body fat % that is typically associated with an underweight person. Your health risks may be closer to an underweight person's than a normal weight person's even though you appear to be buff, lean, and strong.
C1 (high) => BMI calls you normal weight when in fact you have a body fat % that is typically associated with an overweight person. Your health risks may be closer to an overweight person's than a normal weight person's.
C2 (low) => BMI calls you underweight when in fact you have the body fat % that is typically associated with a normal weight person. Your health risks are... see below!
You keep saying that BMI is useless for everyone based on your self perception (whether correct or erroneous is not something I can evaluate) that you are at C1 today.
Good for you. You've identified yourself as C1. This means that you have less lean mass and more body fat than what is typically associated with a person of your weight.
Since I do not know your current fat to lean mass loss ratio I have no way of knowing how further weight loss will affect your body composition. Your ratio of lean mass to fat may change either for the better or for the worse as you continue to lose weight.
But, if we assume that you arrive at your BMI of 19 and continue to be "fatter for your weight than BMI would predict", which is what your posts imply, you will arrive at a BMI of 19 as a C2.
And as a C2 your fat percentage is not the problem since it is a normal fat %.
What is the problem is that your lean mass is too low.
In order to hit a BMI of 19 under the C2 condition you are at levels of lean mass that are compatible with a diagnosis of pre-sarcopenia or sarcopenia.
Which is why people are usually told to recomp as opposed to continue to try and lose weight when their BMI starts becoming quite low.
The above analysis applies to non special snowflakes.
''BMI can be used to correctly predict your body fat %, amount of lean mass, and health risks''
after that statement you can no longer be taken seriously.
''You keep saying that BMI is useless for everyone based on your self perception (whether correct or erroneous is not something I can evaluate) that you are at C1 today''
my own experience and seeing other women who are my height and between 100 and 110 pounds on mybodygallery. not everyone looks like a skeleton at 110 pounds, or like models. blocking you. bye bye
0 -
cerise_noir wrote: »
Nope. It doesn't work that way....ericatoday wrote: »When working out like that you shouldnt be eating 1200 calories. Your body is holding on to all of those calories. I started losing when i upped my calorie intake from 1200 to 1450
I lost 30lbs eating between 1200-1290 calories a day while working out 3-5X a week.
0 -
cerise_noir wrote: »
Nope. It doesn't work that way....ericatoday wrote: »When working out like that you shouldnt be eating 1200 calories. Your body is holding on to all of those calories. I started losing when i upped my calorie intake from 1200 to 1450
I lost 30lbs eating between 1200-1290 calories a day while working out 3-5X a week.
She was referring to the bolded part about the body storing calories when eating 1200 and working out. The pervasive "starvation mode" myth.1 -
my own experience and seeing other women who are my height and between 100 and 110 pounds on mybodygallery. not everyone looks like a skeleton at 110 pounds, or like models. blocking you. bye bye
@SadDolt
Interesting that you're simultaneously arguing that body composition matters more than weight at the high end of normal BMI and that it doesn't matter at the low end of normal BMI.
Also.. glad you're handling this so maturely.
2 -
i was using myself as an example because people like you assume someone is ''underweight'' at 105 by using BMI. when clearly BMI is inaccurate since it's stating that 140 is a normal weight for my height, when i was very overweight still. so using BMI to determine what is or isn't healthy is stupid. people should lose weight and see what works/looks good on them. just like they should not go by work out ''calories burned'' calculators.
i don't go by ''most likely'' i go by facts. so check yours
There are three options:
A. Your lean mass is "normal" for your weight.
B. Your lean mass is "excessive" for your weight (think gym rat on steroids)
C. Your lean mass is "too little" for your weight (think skinny fat person)
A => BMI can be used to correctly predict your body fat %, amount of lean mass, and health risks
B1 (high) => BMI calls you overweight when in fact you may not be in terms of body fat % and lean mass. Your health risk are closer to a normal weight person's than an overweight person's.
B2 (low) => BMI calls you normal weight when in fact you may already have a body fat % that is typically associated with an underweight person. Your health risks may be closer to an underweight person's than a normal weight person's even though you appear to be buff, lean, and strong.
C1 (high) => BMI calls you normal weight when in fact you have a body fat % that is typically associated with an overweight person. Your health risks may be closer to an overweight person's than a normal weight person's.
C2 (low) => BMI calls you underweight when in fact you have the body fat % that is typically associated with a normal weight person. Your health risks are... see below!
You keep saying that BMI is useless for everyone based on your self perception (whether correct or erroneous is not something I can evaluate) that you are at C1 today.
Good for you. You've identified yourself as C1. This means that you have less lean mass and more body fat than what is typically associated with a person of your weight.
Since I do not know your current fat to lean mass loss ratio I have no way of knowing how further weight loss will affect your body composition. Your ratio of lean mass to fat may change either for the better or for the worse as you continue to lose weight.
But, if we assume that you arrive at your BMI of 19 and continue to be "fatter for your weight than BMI would predict", which is what your posts imply, you will arrive at a BMI of 19 as a C2.
And as a C2 your fat percentage is not the problem since it is a normal fat %.
What is the problem is that your lean mass is too low.
In order to hit a BMI of 19 under the C2 condition you are at levels of lean mass that are compatible with a diagnosis of pre-sarcopenia or sarcopenia.
Which is why people are usually told to recomp as opposed to continue to try and lose weight when their BMI starts becoming quite low.
The above analysis applies to non special snowflakes.
''BMI can be used to correctly predict your body fat %, amount of lean mass, and health risks''
after that statement you can no longer be taken seriously.
''You keep saying that BMI is useless for everyone based on your self perception (whether correct or erroneous is not something I can evaluate) that you are at C1 today''
my own experience and seeing other women who are my height and between 100 and 110 pounds on mybodygallery. not everyone looks like a skeleton at 110 pounds, or like models. blocking you. bye bye
It's amazing how different peoples perceptions are, as i think the complete opposite.
2 -
You might not be eating enough during your main meals breakfast, lunch and dinner. When you don't eat enough our bodies produce insulin and if we don't have enough food to break down that's your problem. Insulin makes us fat. If eat a healthy meal then snack 2 hours after on something small like a lil yogurt with a few raw nuts. Unless you are really working out and building muscle remember muscle weighs more fat!!0
-
mariesilva726 wrote: »You might not be eating enough during your main meals breakfast, lunch and dinner. When you don't eat enough our bodies produce insulin and if we don't have enough food to break down that's your problem. Insulin makes us fat. If eat a healthy meal then snack 2 hours after on something small like a lil yogurt with a few raw nuts. Unless you are really working out and building muscle remember muscle weighs more fat!!
What? insulin is a response to food. If you don't eat, you can't spike insulin. That makes no sense. Insulin does not make us fat either, too many calories does. Also no, muscle and fat weigh the same. Muscle just takes up less space.5 -
my own experience and seeing other women who are my height and between 100 and 110 pounds on mybodygallery. not everyone looks like a skeleton at 110 pounds, or like models. blocking you. bye bye
@SadDolt
Interesting that you're simultaneously arguing that body composition matters more than weight at the high end of normal BMI and that it doesn't matter at the low end of normal BMI.
Also.. glad you're handling this so maturely.
I think it depends on which fun house mirror you are looking in. I didn't want to believe that I looked as big as I did at 220lb and 5'2." BMI was bogus, and I don't actually look my weight because I'm very muscular. Sadness ensued when reality hit, but then the realization that I had control developed.5
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