Cycling+Walking but Not loosing weight
Replies
-
Of course they would be super underweight. It's not like if I don't eat 1200 calories today that my body says, "Well, tomorrow, I am going to only use 1000 calories to do what normally takes me 1800 calories to do." Body type, length of calorie reduction, age, weight, activity level...all of these are factors. But to say it isn't real b/c anorexics are not fat is ridiculous.
There are plenty of scientific studies that support the view that the body will adjust it's metabolism based on long, sustained lowered caloric intake. Might not be the same for everyone...and I'm also not supporting a ridiculous extreme fringe argument that you can 'train' your body to live off zero calories a day if you just cut calories a little at a time over a long period! But there have been scientific studies to support that the body does adjust to lower caloric intake, at least up to a point.
But that's not starvation mode! Adaptive thermogenesis, or metabolic slow down, yes, is a thing. For it to have a significant impact takes a prolonged amount of time, we don't even know how long OP has been doing what she claims she is. So to trot out "starvation mode" to someone who isn't losing is the vast majority of the time totally unhelpful and not what is happening.3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »So to trot out "starvation mode" to someone who isn't losing is the vast majority of the time totally unhelpful and not what is happening.
Bingo!
However, at this point, I fear we have scared the OP off of the thread with all the information everyone has been providing.
I still want to hear how hard she is riding for those 3 to 4 times per week.
0 -
Hi
I am a 46 year old women.Who is 1.53m tall.I do cycling for about 40-60 minutes 3 times a week.Sometimes 4 times a week.And everyday I try to walk 7200 steps.I only eat 1077 cal per day.That is my recommended value on the calculators.But I do not loose any weight.I just stay on the same weight.
Any suggestions will be appreciated.
Thanks
1) You can lose weight with exercise, but you have to exercise a lot to do it.
2) 1077 cal is too low. But I suspect that you may be eating more than that.
Are you weighing and measuring your food ... and logging meticulously?
0 -
Hi
I am a 46 year old women.Who is 1.53m tall.I do cycling for about 40-60 minutes 3 times a week.Sometimes 4 times a week.And everyday I try to walk 7200 steps.I only eat 1077 cal per day.That is my recommended value on the calculators.But I do not loose any weight.I just stay on the same weight.
Any suggestions will be appreciated.
Thanks
My situation is exactly the same as yours
I will be trying the "egg fast" recommended by one of the myfitnesspal members to break the weight loss plateau and speed up weight loss
Wow, please stop with the fad crap, and stop recommending it to everyone even though you've been kindly informed that it's not the way to go. . You've been given excellent advice in all your posts, but you choose to listen to the sarcasm and fads?
Egg fast.... enjoy your solidarity due to scarring everyone for life with your horrid egg farts. @nupururja0 -
Wow this was not the reaction i was hoping for.Really harsh comments.I have started over with everything,including my cal intake and exercise.I will give it a few weeks to see how it goes.0
-
Just because you are exercising doesn't automatically mean you'll lose weight. You need to be eating less calories than you burn. Also make sure you weigh and log everything you eat and cook with, including any oils you might use for cooking, sauces etc.0
-
queenliz99 wrote: »How much do you weigh? How long have you been exercising?
OP, I am quoting myself. Trying to help you!!0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Starvation mode isn't a thing. If they were eating less than they burn they would be losing weight. Full stop.
Well...you can have your opinion if starvation mode isn't a thing. I prefer to listen to medical scientific research that says otherwise.
no it doesn't2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »no it doesn't
Yes it does. And unlike 99% of the people on here, I will post references to SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PAPERS that support my statement.
The Biology of Human Starvation, Keys et al., 1950, Univ. of Minnesota Press
Adaptive reduction in basal metabolic rate in response to food deprivation in humans: a role for feedback signals from fat stores, Dulloo, Jaquet, 1998, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Check out this link for more info if you're interested...
http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archives/2007/11/is-starvation-mode-a-myth-no-its-very-real-and-here-is-the-proof.php
0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »First....less than 1200 calories a day puts the body in starvation mode....which is no good.
https://authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode/
Second, you are probably not accurately counting calories, either eating or burning.
http://www.burnthefatinnercircle.com/members/Guesstimating-Calories-Burned-Doesnt-Work.cfm
Starvation mode isn't a thing. If they were eating less than they burn they would be losing weight. Full stop.
The second part is nail on head.
Starvation response is real but only happens when you get down below about 4% BF for both men and women and adaptive thermogenesis is real too but will hardly stop you from losing weight, it makes your body more fuel efficient but not by a huge amount. These posts are always hard because OPs will insist they are accurately recording their CI and CO but most other posters will say no way, but it usually comes down to forgetting to log food, over logging activities (e.g. house work and driving etc) and not weighing food so underestimating how much they actually have consumed. I think most of us have been there so I can sympathize but it really is a matter of accuracy and not thinking to yourself, "I'll just log this latter".0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Of course they would be super underweight. It's not like if I don't eat 1200 calories today that my body says, "Well, tomorrow, I am going to only use 1000 calories to do what normally takes me 1800 calories to do." Body type, length of calorie reduction, age, weight, activity level...all of these are factors. But to say it isn't real b/c anorexics are not fat is ridiculous.
There are plenty of scientific studies that support the view that the body will adjust it's metabolism based on long, sustained lowered caloric intake. Might not be the same for everyone...and I'm also not supporting a ridiculous extreme fringe argument that you can 'train' your body to live off zero calories a day if you just cut calories a little at a time over a long period! But there have been scientific studies to support that the body does adjust to lower caloric intake, at least up to a point.
But that's not starvation mode! Adaptive thermogenesis, or metabolic slow down, yes, is a thing. For it to have a significant impact takes a prolonged amount of time, we don't even know how long OP has been doing what she claims she is. So to trot out "starvation mode" to someone who isn't losing is the vast majority of the time totally unhelpful and not what is happening.
"Starvation mode" is not a real term but people usually imply it's some magical state where your body can conserve all calories consumed and maybe even generate energy from nothing. So that definitely does not exist.1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »no it doesn't
Yes it does. And unlike 99% of the people on here, I will post references to SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PAPERS that support my statement.
The Biology of Human Starvation, Keys et al., 1950, Univ. of Minnesota Press
Adaptive reduction in basal metabolic rate in response to food deprivation in humans: a role for feedback signals from fat stores, Dulloo, Jaquet, 1998, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Check out this link for more info if you're interested...
http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archives/2007/11/is-starvation-mode-a-myth-no-its-very-real-and-here-is-the-proof.php
Adaptive thermogenesis is not the same thing as starvation mode. Yes your metabolism lowers a bit but not by massive amounts. Plus blogs are not good scientific proof, especially blogs from people trying to sell products2 -
singingflutelady wrote: »
So much this.VintageFeline wrote: »no it doesn't
Yes it does. And unlike 99% of the people on here, I will post references to SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PAPERS that support my statement.
The Biology of Human Starvation, Keys et al., 1950, Univ. of Minnesota Press
Adaptive reduction in basal metabolic rate in response to food deprivation in humans: a role for feedback signals from fat stores, Dulloo, Jaquet, 1998, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Check out this link for more info if you're interested...
http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archives/2007/11/is-starvation-mode-a-myth-no-its-very-real-and-here-is-the-proof.php
Adaptive thermogenesis is not the same thing as starvation mode. Yes your metabolism lowers a bit but not by massive amounts. Plus blogs are not good scientific proof, especially blogs from people trying to sell products
1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »no it doesn't
Yes it does. And unlike 99% of the people on here, I will post references to SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PAPERS that support my statement.
The Biology of Human Starvation, Keys et al., 1950, Univ. of Minnesota Press
Adaptive reduction in basal metabolic rate in response to food deprivation in humans: a role for feedback signals from fat stores, Dulloo, Jaquet, 1998, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Check out this link for more info if you're interested...
http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archives/2007/11/is-starvation-mode-a-myth-no-its-very-real-and-here-is-the-proof.php
I think the point she was making was that it's unhelpful to claim that the starvation response shows up just because you lose a bit of weight. It takes an massive amount of weight loss, to the point of near death, before it kicks in and even then people still lost weight in the Minnesota study, they just lost much more slowly. Adaptive thermogenesis is much less pervasive and can happen at any weight due to a prolonged caloric deficit but isn't nearly as drastic.3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Starvation mode isn't a thing. If they were eating less than they burn they would be losing weight. Full stop.
Well...you can have your opinion if starvation mode isn't a thing. I prefer to listen to medical scientific research that says otherwise.
No, science says that starvation mode isn't a thing.
2 -
Speaking in terms of efficiency, it is a combination of both. That is just lazy thinking and oversimplification.red99ryder wrote: »My doctor told me you get fit in the gym and loose weight at the dinner table. .
Good luck
That train of thought implies that just eating correctly would build muscle, improve your blood pressure & heart rate, help balance your endocrine system and do a host of other things.
Especially since he didn't bother to define "fit".
Catchy, oversimplified 5 second sound-bite medical advice. Like we don't get enough of that on TV shows.
No need to understand the real problem or big picture, just repeat it until it is accepted as being "true".
That kind of thinking is why doctors measure your "BMI" instead of body fat percentage.
You can get and answer that is simple and fast.
It doesn't matter how wrong and meaningless it often is.
Just eating less might make you lose weight but that can be muscle / lean body mass just as often as fat.
If you think that is ideal then you are way off base.
I doubt anyone who thinks the process through logically and realizes the repercussions would be just as happy to lose muscle as they would fat.
Why? Because there are several repercussions off the top of my head and they are all bad.
It is virtually impossible to out-train a bad diet, but not exercising enough leads to other problems aside from weight gain.
The two components work in synergy. Proper exercise is muscle sparing, but dieting alone is usually catabolic - it eats muscle.
** HFLC diets may be an exception to the catabolic state, the research is still ongoing, but no one said anything about ketogenic here.
Unless your doctor is a nutritionist and in as good or better shape than the most "fit" people offering advice here, you might want to consider the points of view from people who have actually done the work instead of someone ..
.. who slept through that part of med school a few decades ago..
.. and was being taught from a textbook written the decade previously..
A doctor is not a nutritionist or fitness expert just because he cut up a bunch of cadavers.
Exercising into deficit is proven to work and is usually far healthier for you than eating at a calorie restriction that bounces between "malnourished" and "eating disorder".
Sorry for the rant.
Obligatory:
0 -
MissusMoon wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Starvation mode isn't a thing. If they were eating less than they burn they would be losing weight. Full stop.
Well...you can have your opinion if starvation mode isn't a thing. I prefer to listen to medical scientific research that says otherwise.
No, science says that starvation mode isn't a thing.
Exactly.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions