Ideas about why I am not losing weight?
Options
Replies
-
I'm probably going to suggest what would be considered by some here as unconventional advice but I would eat less carbs. I looked at some of your entries and your carbs were high. I know the conventional wisdom is to eat more complex carbs and lower fat but I can say from personal experience, I have had better results in losing fat by eating more fat and less carbs. I have been following an LCHF lifestyle now for close to a year and have had great results. Results include (but not limited to):
Increase in HDL, decrease in Trigs, fatty liver enzymes lowered from high end and weight loss of 16kg without much effort.
Could I also suggest slightly less cardio and a little more resistance exercises? Doesn't have to include lifting weights, can just be body weight.
Also, your protein could be a little on the high side, but I guess it is better to have slightly more protein than not enough.
I also use Intermittent Fasting to help too.
If theres ideas are of interest you only need to search LCHF and the first site found should be the one you want. Has become very popular lately since it has helped many people. Would post the link but I have been hounded by people for doing so in the past, you know, since it is different advice from what people usually suggest.1 -
@SLLRunner
Syntha-6: When I scan the barcode, that is the listing that pops up. I previously admitted that I had not been weighing protein powder but would do so in the future.
PBFit: I weigh the powder here, the verified entry is in TBSP. I weigh half a serving and enter it as 1 TBSP.
Chicken: I weigh the chicken when raw and used the first verified entry that appeared for boneless skinless thighs. I am guessing this is one of the areas I will have to cross check USDA numbers.
Edit: Regarding sleep. I have tried everything you have mentioned in a couple sleep studies I participated in. They don't work for me (I still practice the recommended behaviors, however)
Maybe walking more will help, although when I was thin a couple years ago and worked out quiet a bit (military) I still had trouble sleeping more than 5 hours. I will definitely start moving more as is being widely suggested 
Were you by any chance evaluated for obstructive sleep apnea? ( I was surprised to discover that I had a severe case of it, that it was the underlying cause of my insomnia, and that once addressed, the difference in my energy level was astonishing. I became much more active during the day, and the increased activity made weight loss easier for me.) Just a thought.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
40 days isn't anywhere near enough to cause any sort of metabolic adaptation. Nowhere near. She'd have to be eating at severe restriction for months and months. None of what you're saying applies to the OP.
Even at that, recent analysis of the data on metabolic adaptation is showing it to be more a matter of decreased movement than anything else. Also, as dieting goes on, there is a sort of relaxing of compliance that seems to take place. A lot of what seems to be plateauing of weight loss due to "adaptation" is really due to non-compliance.
Read some of Lyle McDonald's writings on metabolic adaptation if you want further explanation of what I'm on about.
Also, regarding your fascination with hydration (I'm a big fan myself), I'm not entirely certain that concentration camp victims were adequately hydrated. That didn't seem to inhibit their fat loss on severe caloric restriction.
"Metabolic adaptation" is not like flipping an on/off switch. There are many different biochemical factors in metabolic rate and the effects of metabolic adaptations are likely somewhat gradual, which is to say that they can and do occur to varying degrees over time depending on a number of factors. Months and months are not required to START seeing adaptations, but may be required to reach the LIMIT of adaptation. That being said, no amount of metabolic adaptation in and of itself will completely overcome a legitimate sustained caloric deficit, just like no amount of dehydration short of causing death can in and of itself completely halt fat loss.
I would be willing to bet that inadequately hydrated concentration camp victims would indeed have had their fat metabolisms slowed (not halted, but slowed), and as such, they would also likely have experienced faster loss of lean muscle tissue. I could be wrong, and I am not in a position to study those circumstances first hand (nor would I want to).
I obviously don't know the original poster, so I can only speculate as to what MIGHT be CONTRIBUTING FACTORS in what they are experiencing. It could well just be a case of under reporting caloric intake, but I get the impression that unless they are sleep-eating she likely isn't off on her estimates by enough to fully account for her stagnant scale weight.
If we take her at her word that she is meticulous about recording everything and is reasonably accurate regarding actual quantities of the things she consumes, then my best GUESS is that insufficient hydration, some metabolic adaptation, and elevated cortisol levels ALL play a role. I don't think any one of them by itself is enough to account for the scale weight, and I'm not even sure all three together could account for it (but if they are factors at all, there are likely still others, such as insufficient sleep). If I am wrong about hydration, there is nothing wrong with drinking a bit more water (unless she is already drinking way too much); if I am wrong about metabolic adaptation, there is nothing wrong with very occasionally having a couple of larger meals (unless they trigger extended bouts of binge eating); if I am wrong about cortisol levels, there is nothing wrong with taking steps to reduce stress.
0 -
I'm probably going to suggest what would be considered by some here as unconventional advice but I would eat less carbs. I looked at some of your entries and your carbs were high. I know the conventional wisdom is to eat more complex carbs and lower fat but I can say from personal experience, I have had better results in losing fat by eating more fat and less carbs. I have been following an LCHF lifestyle now for close to a year and have had great results. Results include (but not limited to):
Increase in HDL, decrease in Trigs, fatty liver enzymes lowered from high end and weight loss of 16kg without much effort.
Could I also suggest slightly less cardio and a little more resistance exercises? Doesn't have to include lifting weights, can just be body weight.
Also, your protein could be a little on the high side, but I guess it is better to have slightly more protein than not enough.
I also use Intermittent Fasting to help too.
If theres ideas are of interest you only need to search LCHF and the first site found should be the one you want. Has become very popular lately since it has helped many people. Would post the link but I have been hounded by people for doing so in the past, you know, since it is different advice from what people usually suggest.
LCHF is not for everyone. all that matters for most healthy people is CICO. it doesnt matter if carbs are high or not,if you are in a true deficit you will lose weight(again unless you have health issues,which is case could cause weight loss to slow down or not happen).just because this worked for you and improved your health markers doesnt mean it will for others.people like me who have FH(familial hypercholesterolemia) cannot do keto/LCHF due to the high fat.4 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »LCHF is not for everyone. all that matters for most healthy people is CICO. it doesnt matter if carbs are high or not,if you are in a true deficit you will lose weight(again unless you have health issues,which is case could cause weight loss to slow down or not happen).just because this worked for you and improved your health markers doesnt mean it will for others.people like me who have FH(familial hypercholesterolemia) cannot do keto/LCHF due to the high fat.
Where did I suggest it was for everyone? I was merely offering an alternative to what would normally be the same CICO answers.
I pointed out quite clearly that it worked for me and if the OP wanted to try it the could simply search for it. I only pointed out that my health markers improved because everyone is usually fat phobic and thinks that by following a diet higher in fat will mean their health will get worse. Well for most this isn't an issue and granted, in your situation it may be due to your FH.
LCHF isn't for everyone just like CICO isn't for me, but it is still an option if the OP wanted to try it. Don't be so quick to discredit because it isn't for you.0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »LCHF is not for everyone. all that matters for most healthy people is CICO. it doesnt matter if carbs are high or not,if you are in a true deficit you will lose weight(again unless you have health issues,which is case could cause weight loss to slow down or not happen).just because this worked for you and improved your health markers doesnt mean it will for others.people like me who have FH(familial hypercholesterolemia) cannot do keto/LCHF due to the high fat.
Where did I suggest it was for everyone? I was merely offering an alternative to what would normally be the same CICO answers.
I pointed out quite clearly that it worked for me and if the OP wanted to try it the could simply search for it. I only pointed out that my health markers improved because everyone is usually fat phobic and thinks that by following a diet higher in fat will mean their health will get worse. Well for most this isn't an issue and granted, in your situation it may be due to your FH.
LCHF isn't for everyone just like CICO isn't for me, but it is still an option if the OP wanted to try it. Don't be so quick to discredit because it isn't for you.
LCHF is a way to CICO......5 -
@SLLRunner
Syntha-6: When I scan the barcode, that is the listing that pops up. I previously admitted that I had not been weighing protein powder but would do so in the future.
PBFit: I weigh the powder here, the verified entry is in TBSP. I weigh half a serving and enter it as 1 TBSP.
Chicken: I weigh the chicken when raw and used the first verified entry that appeared for boneless skinless thighs. I am guessing this is one of the areas I will have to cross check USDA numbers.
Edit: Regarding sleep. I have tried everything you have mentioned in a couple sleep studies I participated in. They don't work for me (I still practice the recommended behaviors, however) Maybe walking more will help, although when I was thin a couple years ago and worked out quiet a bit (military) I still had trouble sleeping more than 5 hours. I will definitely start moving more as is being widely suggested
Instead of doing this, on the website search for the food. It is possible there will be a gram entry. It will remove the ambiguity of whether you are weighing or not.1 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »LCHF is not for everyone. all that matters for most healthy people is CICO. it doesnt matter if carbs are high or not,if you are in a true deficit you will lose weight(again unless you have health issues,which is case could cause weight loss to slow down or not happen).just because this worked for you and improved your health markers doesnt mean it will for others.people like me who have FH(familial hypercholesterolemia) cannot do keto/LCHF due to the high fat.
Where did I suggest it was for everyone? I was merely offering an alternative to what would normally be the same CICO answers.
I pointed out quite clearly that it worked for me and if the OP wanted to try it the could simply search for it. I only pointed out that my health markers improved because everyone is usually fat phobic and thinks that by following a diet higher in fat will mean their health will get worse. Well for most this isn't an issue and granted, in your situation it may be due to your FH.
LCHF isn't for everyone just like CICO isn't for me, but it is still an option if the OP wanted to try it. Don't be so quick to discredit because it isn't for you.
I never discredited it at all but even LCHF if you are not in a deficit you wont lose weight. if someone else wants to eat that way its fine and their choice never said it wasnt but you were saying the OPS carbs and possible protein were too high and you suggested they eat less carbs. so I just said carbs had nothing to do with it(unless the OP is IR,diabetic,has PCOS or other health issues that is) its still about CICO, if you eat too much no matter what way of eating you choose, you will gain weight.. There is no magical way of eating it still boils down to one thing,That was all I was saying. Im glad LCHF worked for you but just stated that it doesnt work for everyone and some think that if they do LCHF no matter what they will lose and become fat burning machines. you would be shocked at what some people will believe when it comes to weight loss.0 -
cerise_noir wrote: »LCHF is a way to CICO......
Just without the need to weigh / count calories (usually depending on the person). Much easier IMO0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »LCHF is not for everyone. all that matters for most healthy people is CICO. it doesnt matter if carbs are high or not,if you are in a true deficit you will lose weight(again unless you have health issues,which is case could cause weight loss to slow down or not happen).just because this worked for you and improved your health markers doesnt mean it will for others.people like me who have FH(familial hypercholesterolemia) cannot do keto/LCHF due to the high fat.
Where did I suggest it was for everyone? I was merely offering an alternative to what would normally be the same CICO answers.
I pointed out quite clearly that it worked for me and if the OP wanted to try it the could simply search for it. I only pointed out that my health markers improved because everyone is usually fat phobic and thinks that by following a diet higher in fat will mean their health will get worse. Well for most this isn't an issue and granted, in your situation it may be due to your FH.
LCHF isn't for everyone just like CICO isn't for me, but it is still an option if the OP wanted to try it. Don't be so quick to discredit because it isn't for you.
Setting aside medical issues that need attention, CICO is a requirement to getting desired weight management results:
To lose weight, you must eat less calories than you burn.
To gain weight, you must eat more calories than you burn.
To maintain weight, you eat about the same amount of calories as you burn.
Type of diet is preference only, as is how you create and maintain the required calorie deficit to lose weight.
1 -
cerise_noir wrote: »LCHF is a way to CICO......
Just without the need to weigh / count calories (usually depending on the person). Much easier IMO
So, you just choose not to literally count calories. That's wonderful. 3 -
All this mumbo jumbo aside, you're not eating enough. Not nearly enough.
I have been on and off diets all my life (and hope now to finally make a lifestyle change) and I can tell you when I cut my calories too short I don't lose weight. I can eat very, very clean and work out everyday, but if I go below 1500 calories I do not lose weight.
I will tell you the honest truth too once you up your eating after all this low calorie restriction you are going to gain weight. You've messed with your body's BMR and there will be consequences. Honestly, if I were you, I'd give the whole thing up for a week or two and then start fresh eating a healthy amount of calories because your body needs to reset. Either way it goes you should see a small gain then followed by steady losses.
Also, if you can work out on only the few amount of calories you are allowing yourself you are not working out hard enough. Several years ago I got the bright idea to restrict myself to 1300 calories a day (most days far, far below that) and go to the gym 4-5 times a week working out at moderate intensity. My body literally gave up on me and I blacked out while at the gym. I also felt weak and light headed a great deal of the time.2 -
cerise_noir wrote: »LCHF is a way to CICO......
Just without the need to weigh / count calories (usually depending on the person). Much easier IMO
Umm, no. You still need to weigh and count calories to accurately implement CICO. It doesn't matter how your macros are balanced or what types of food you eat. No weighing or calorie counting and it's all just guessing and keeping your fingers crossed that your guess was good enough. Unnecessary stress IMO.2 -
OP, sorry but what you say is simply not possible. You might as well claim you are flying. You do not maintain this kind of weight with what you eat, and fine tuning 3 grams here and 4 grams there will change nothing. And there is no medical condition affecting metabolism that can make you maintain this weight with these calories, not even if you are in a coma. So, the only reasonable conclusion, and I am not intending to offend, is you are either consciously or subconsciously, lying. If you are really lying, as in eating 3000 calories and claiming otherwise and knowing you are lying, I cannot see the purpose, so I am guessing this is not so. So, for whatever reason, you are somehow lying to yourself. You need more than 2000 calories to maintain this weight, and saying this is not what you are eating simply defies science and logic. So, maybe you are snacking in between and prefer to ignore it, maybe you are using a food scale that is not measuring what you think it does (i.e. mixing lbs with kilos), you are reading completely wrong data (e.g. confusing the serving calories with the 100 gram calories on packages) etc.
The only alternative would be something very wrong with your body, like massive water retention or a huge tumor etc, but again I am pretty sure you would have noticed.7 -
After many years of trying to lose weight this is what I learned, don't try to lose weight, it may seem weird but it is true. If you focus on getting fitter and eating healthy the weight will fall off anyway and even when you go through weight loss plateaus you will realise that still be performing better. Put your faith in your performance not the scales that way you will not become unmotivated during plateaus.
Anyway here are some tips for getting past a weight loss plateau
Increase/decrease intensity/duration
increase/decrease days trained
Increase/decrease calorie intake
Change cardio exercises
Introduce weight training0 -
I am 5'6, 230lbs, 35yrs old. I have been meticulous for the last 45 days about logging everything I eat. I weigh solids and measure liquids. (I even log my vitamins) I ride my bike 4.5-5 miles 5 days a week (logged through MapMyFitness) and do cardio exercises (T25 videos) 3-5 days a week. My calorie goal is 1100 a day, leaning towards more protein. I usually have between 90-100g protein (especially the days I do cardio). I feel stronger during the workouts, particularly this past week. I can do some of the ab exercises I could not do at the beginning, for example.
So it's been 45 days, and.. nothing. No change in weight. I don't feel fatigued or hungry at the end of the day. I don't want to give up, but I am just baffled why I am not losing. My diary is open also if anyone has suggestions.
I was in your boat for the longest time. Getting the weight-loss ball rolling is hard to do. Don't get discouraged. I would double down on your record keeping, to make sure you are actually recording things properly. Getting a food scale might be a good call.
Losing weight comes down to the calories in being less than the calories out. But there is a nuance to that. That is your METABOLISM. If you take in very small amounts of calories, you're body will compensate for that and slow down your metabolism, negating your efforts. One way around this is to carb-cycle. That is to eat low carbs for a few days then have a sort of "carb refeed day." This will ensure your metabolism keeps burning away. One alternative would be to try a supplement, a guy just started a thread on that here so you can check that out if you want to go that route.-1 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »LCHF is not for everyone. all that matters for most healthy people is CICO. it doesnt matter if carbs are high or not,if you are in a true deficit you will lose weight(again unless you have health issues,which is case could cause weight loss to slow down or not happen).just because this worked for you and improved your health markers doesnt mean it will for others.people like me who have FH(familial hypercholesterolemia) cannot do keto/LCHF due to the high fat.
Where did I suggest it was for everyone? I was merely offering an alternative to what would normally be the same CICO answers.
I pointed out quite clearly that it worked for me and if the OP wanted to try it the could simply search for it. I only pointed out that my health markers improved because everyone is usually fat phobic and thinks that by following a diet higher in fat will mean their health will get worse. Well for most this isn't an issue and granted, in your situation it may be due to your FH.
LCHF isn't for everyone just like CICO isn't for me, but it is still an option if the OP wanted to try it. Don't be so quick to discredit because it isn't for you.
I think you might be confusing CICO with something it isn't. CICO is merely energy balance, not anything about macros.
Anyone losing weight is operating within the bounds of CICO. It's simply a statement of energy intake vs. expenditure.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
40 days isn't anywhere near enough to cause any sort of metabolic adaptation. Nowhere near. She'd have to be eating at severe restriction for months and months. None of what you're saying applies to the OP.
Even at that, recent analysis of the data on metabolic adaptation is showing it to be more a matter of decreased movement than anything else. Also, as dieting goes on, there is a sort of relaxing of compliance that seems to take place. A lot of what seems to be plateauing of weight loss due to "adaptation" is really due to non-compliance.
Read some of Lyle McDonald's writings on metabolic adaptation if you want further explanation of what I'm on about.
Also, regarding your fascination with hydration (I'm a big fan myself), I'm not entirely certain that concentration camp victims were adequately hydrated. That didn't seem to inhibit their fat loss on severe caloric restriction.
"Metabolic adaptation" is not like flipping an on/off switch. There are many different biochemical factors in metabolic rate and the effects of metabolic adaptations are likely somewhat gradual, which is to say that they can and do occur to varying degrees over time depending on a number of factors. Months and months are not required to START seeing adaptations, but may be required to reach the LIMIT of adaptation. That being said, no amount of metabolic adaptation in and of itself will completely overcome a legitimate sustained caloric deficit, just like no amount of dehydration short of causing death can in and of itself completely halt fat loss.
I would be willing to bet that inadequately hydrated concentration camp victims would indeed have had their fat metabolisms slowed (not halted, but slowed), and as such, they would also likely have experienced faster loss of lean muscle tissue. I could be wrong, and I am not in a position to study those circumstances first hand (nor would I want to).
I obviously don't know the original poster, so I can only speculate as to what MIGHT be CONTRIBUTING FACTORS in what they are experiencing. It could well just be a case of under reporting caloric intake, but I get the impression that unless they are sleep-eating she likely isn't off on her estimates by enough to fully account for her stagnant scale weight.
If we take her at her word that she is meticulous about recording everything and is reasonably accurate regarding actual quantities of the things she consumes, then my best GUESS is that insufficient hydration, some metabolic adaptation, and elevated cortisol levels ALL play a role. I don't think any one of them by itself is enough to account for the scale weight, and I'm not even sure all three together could account for it (but if they are factors at all, there are likely still others, such as insufficient sleep). If I am wrong about hydration, there is nothing wrong with drinking a bit more water (unless she is already drinking way too much); if I am wrong about metabolic adaptation, there is nothing wrong with very occasionally having a couple of larger meals (unless they trigger extended bouts of binge eating); if I am wrong about cortisol levels, there is nothing wrong with taking steps to reduce stress.
I'll give you credit, you can talk a good game, but you still don't understand metabolic adaptation.
Kudos to you for stringing words together well.4 -
cerise_noir wrote: »LCHF is a way to CICO......
Just without the need to weigh / count calories (usually depending on the person). Much easier IMO
Calorie counting isn't CICO.3 -
All this mumbo jumbo aside, you're not eating enough. Not nearly enough.
I have been on and off diets all my life (and hope now to finally make a lifestyle change) and I can tell you when I cut my calories too short I don't lose weight. I can eat very, very clean and work out everyday, but if I go below 1500 calories I do not lose weight.
I will tell you the honest truth too once you up your eating after all this low calorie restriction you are going to gain weight. You've messed with your body's BMR and there will be consequences. Honestly, if I were you, I'd give the whole thing up for a week or two and then start fresh eating a healthy amount of calories because your body needs to reset. Either way it goes you should see a small gain then followed by steady losses.
Also, if you can work out on only the few amount of calories you are allowing yourself you are not working out hard enough. Several years ago I got the bright idea to restrict myself to 1300 calories a day (most days far, far below that) and go to the gym 4-5 times a week working out at moderate intensity. My body literally gave up on me and I blacked out while at the gym. I also felt weak and light headed a great deal of the time.
Eh... you can't "reset" your body, it doesn't need resetting.
She's already been advised to up her calories AND activity because the way this works is that when you increase the calories and activity together the net effect is essentially the same sort of deficit, but the metabolic impact on your hormone levels isn't as drastic.
This is what you think you're getting at here, but aren't quite nailing.4
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
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions