Why is my weight loss unsuccessful
Options
Replies
-
I'm so grateful to have found a coach/trainer here on Mfp that doesn't subscribe to a one size fits all. He works with me and my particular "hangups" adapting with ease.
You know who you are:)5 -
^^^if this is for me, I don't understand, I was agreeing with you and Gottaburn!0
-
Ah see it now. Lol.0
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »wanderingartistry wrote: »My friend actually lost when she increased her calorie intake. Not drastically.
Your body may be in starvation mode from too few calories. That doesn't sound like 200 calories to me. Assuming you're making something like a 4 eggwhite omlette (80 calories), 5 oz of veggies like brocoli and cauliflower (which have...50 calories per cup or something, if even), and 6 oz of chicken breast throughout the day (about 250 calories), it sounds like you're not getting enough.
I have heard you need to eat your weight x 10 to get even the maintenance amount of calories you need to function. That seems like a place to start.
If it appears your lose weight when increasing calories it's either (1) you're eating less than you burn but you just don't realize it or (2) natural weight fluctuation.
Starvation mode is a myth as to us ordinary dieters.
Eating 10X your weight to get to maintenance is silly. My weight fluctuates between 140 and 145 lbs, so by your theory my maintenance would be between 1400 and 1450 calories. Just for your information, I would lose big time on that because my maintenance without exercise is approximately 1930 calories.
This happens often when you increase calories due to an increase in energy...when I went to maintenance, by my data and doing the math, it looked like it would be around 2,400 calories and I was all kinds of sad. As I upped calories though, I had more energy...I found that my training improved and I could go harder/longer...I found myself more fidgety...had a hard time sitting still for t.v. shows, movies, sporting events, etc...
My weight loss had slowed to a trickle when I went to maintenance and then as I upped my calories it picked back up again and I lost a few more pounds...I'm pretty sure it was due to the increase in movement that coincided with an increase in calories...I leveled off and put on a few pounds of glycogen weight when I got to around 3,000 calories.
This was who I wrote The Roadmap back in 2012. Groups like Eat More 2 Weigh Less and IPOARM push people to eat the most they can while maintaining weight loss. The higher the quality of food, the higher quality of fat loss.
I love these stories.
I remember the Roadmap
...I started in the fall 2012.
That's what started this Madness.
We used to have a private group with people dedicated to running numbers and macros.
It works though!
How is it madness if it works?
Why do you seem hellbent on creating a dichotomy where there really doesn't need to be one?
I get that you're with PN now, and you like to appeal to your classes in psychology as well for informing your new stance, but for some of us, psychology is exactly why numbers are comforting.
There's room at this whole weight loss table for eyeballers and slice of bread weighers alike.
What concerns me is that you, someone who is supposedly trying to present themselves as a "coach", thinks that there's just one approach that's right. You can seriously sit there with a straight face and say that one size fits all when it comes to this whole deal?
Really?
I think I'd personally prefer to have a coach who recognized that people are coming from different places, are overweight due to different factors, and have different personality types that respond to different approaches.
I'd also appreciate having a coach who didn't feel the need to insult different approaches than his pet one at every turn.
You've actually missed my entire point from waaaay up!
Counting calories, weighing food, assigning points, or hand portion control doesn't matter if the underlying issues aren't fixed.
That's usually the issue right?
Look at serial starters.
They don't fix the underlying issues.
When did insult any approach?
Plenty of ways to lose weight. I'm simply trying to tell people that:
1) don't cut calories too low
2) don't exercise too the extreme
3) fix sleep and stress
99% of my posts over the past 5 years have had the same message.
As a side note, I bend over backwards for my group and retain over 90% of my clients once they've reached their initial goals because of how I coach.
Anyway. Look at my posts both under this name and helloitsdan, and you'll see a common theme.
Don't eat too little, relax, and let the weight loss happen.
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »wanderingartistry wrote: »My friend actually lost when she increased her calorie intake. Not drastically.
Your body may be in starvation mode from too few calories. That doesn't sound like 200 calories to me. Assuming you're making something like a 4 eggwhite omlette (80 calories), 5 oz of veggies like brocoli and cauliflower (which have...50 calories per cup or something, if even), and 6 oz of chicken breast throughout the day (about 250 calories), it sounds like you're not getting enough.
I have heard you need to eat your weight x 10 to get even the maintenance amount of calories you need to function. That seems like a place to start.
If it appears your lose weight when increasing calories it's either (1) you're eating less than you burn but you just don't realize it or (2) natural weight fluctuation.
Starvation mode is a myth as to us ordinary dieters.
Eating 10X your weight to get to maintenance is silly. My weight fluctuates between 140 and 145 lbs, so by your theory my maintenance would be between 1400 and 1450 calories. Just for your information, I would lose big time on that because my maintenance without exercise is approximately 1930 calories.
This happens often when you increase calories due to an increase in energy...when I went to maintenance, by my data and doing the math, it looked like it would be around 2,400 calories and I was all kinds of sad. As I upped calories though, I had more energy...I found that my training improved and I could go harder/longer...I found myself more fidgety...had a hard time sitting still for t.v. shows, movies, sporting events, etc...
My weight loss had slowed to a trickle when I went to maintenance and then as I upped my calories it picked back up again and I lost a few more pounds...I'm pretty sure it was due to the increase in movement that coincided with an increase in calories...I leveled off and put on a few pounds of glycogen weight when I got to around 3,000 calories.
I understand. With more movement at upped calories, you ended up burning enough calorie to lose weight.0 -
Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »wanderingartistry wrote: »My friend actually lost when she increased her calorie intake. Not drastically.
Your body may be in starvation mode from too few calories. That doesn't sound like 200 calories to me. Assuming you're making something like a 4 eggwhite omlette (80 calories), 5 oz of veggies like brocoli and cauliflower (which have...50 calories per cup or something, if even), and 6 oz of chicken breast throughout the day (about 250 calories), it sounds like you're not getting enough.
I have heard you need to eat your weight x 10 to get even the maintenance amount of calories you need to function. That seems like a place to start.
If it appears your lose weight when increasing calories it's either (1) you're eating less than you burn but you just don't realize it or (2) natural weight fluctuation.
Starvation mode is a myth as to us ordinary dieters.
Eating 10X your weight to get to maintenance is silly. My weight fluctuates between 140 and 145 lbs, so by your theory my maintenance would be between 1400 and 1450 calories. Just for your information, I would lose big time on that because my maintenance without exercise is approximately 1930 calories.
This happens often when you increase calories due to an increase in energy...when I went to maintenance, by my data and doing the math, it looked like it would be around 2,400 calories and I was all kinds of sad. As I upped calories though, I had more energy...I found that my training improved and I could go harder/longer...I found myself more fidgety...had a hard time sitting still for t.v. shows, movies, sporting events, etc...
My weight loss had slowed to a trickle when I went to maintenance and then as I upped my calories it picked back up again and I lost a few more pounds...I'm pretty sure it was due to the increase in movement that coincided with an increase in calories...I leveled off and put on a few pounds of glycogen weight when I got to around 3,000 calories.
This was who I wrote The Roadmap back in 2012. Groups like Eat More 2 Weigh Less and IPOARM push people to eat the most they can while maintaining weight loss. The higher the quality of food, the higher quality of fat loss.
I love these stories.
I remember the Roadmap ...I started in the fall 2012.
That's what started this Madness.
We used to have a private group with people dedicated to running numbers and macros.
It works though!
How is it madness if it works?
Why do you seem hellbent on creating a dichotomy where there really doesn't need to be one?
I get that you're with PN now, and you like to appeal to your classes in psychology as well for informing your new stance, but for some of us, psychology is exactly why numbers are comforting.
There's room at this whole weight loss table for eyeballers and slice of bread weighers alike.
What concerns me is that you, someone who is supposedly trying to present themselves as a "coach", thinks that there's just one approach that's right. You can seriously sit there with a straight face and say that one size fits all when it comes to this whole deal?
Really?
I think I'd personally prefer to have a coach who recognized that people are coming from different places, are overweight due to different factors, and have different personality types that respond to different approaches.
I'd also appreciate having a coach who didn't feel the need to insult different approaches than his pet one at every turn.
You've actually missed my entire point from waaaay up!
Counting calories, weighing food, assigning points, or hand portion control doesn't matter if the underlying issues aren't fixed.
That's usually the issue right?
Look at serial starters.
They don't fix the underlying issues.
When did insult any approach?
Plenty of ways to lose weight. I'm simply trying to tell people that:
1) don't cut calories too low
2) don't exercise too the extreme
3) fix sleep and stress
99% of my posts over the past 5 years have had the same message.
As a side note, I bend over backwards for my group and retain over 90% of my clients once they've reached their initial goals because of how I coach.
Anyway. Look at my posts both under this name and helloitsdan, and you'll see a common theme.
Don't eat too little, relax, and let the weight loss happen.
"Forest for the trees, forest for the trees"
That's insulting. You are constantly down talking people who are giving detailed information for fine tuning weight loss.
7 -
Try changing up your diet. I had the same issue when I started. Wasn't eating enough for the exercise I was doing. You should eat at least 50% of your exercise calories. Try the Keto diet. It's great for a quick start diet. You eat much more calories but it's all protein and fat. Just reduce ur carbs and eat in the morning. Once u go into ketosis the weight will come off quickly. I don't weigh or measure anything and I lost 10lbs in one week and I started at 175lbs.0
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »wanderingartistry wrote: »My friend actually lost when she increased her calorie intake. Not drastically.
Your body may be in starvation mode from too few calories. That doesn't sound like 200 calories to me. Assuming you're making something like a 4 eggwhite omlette (80 calories), 5 oz of veggies like brocoli and cauliflower (which have...50 calories per cup or something, if even), and 6 oz of chicken breast throughout the day (about 250 calories), it sounds like you're not getting enough.
I have heard you need to eat your weight x 10 to get even the maintenance amount of calories you need to function. That seems like a place to start.
If it appears your lose weight when increasing calories it's either (1) you're eating less than you burn but you just don't realize it or (2) natural weight fluctuation.
Starvation mode is a myth as to us ordinary dieters.
Eating 10X your weight to get to maintenance is silly. My weight fluctuates between 140 and 145 lbs, so by your theory my maintenance would be between 1400 and 1450 calories. Just for your information, I would lose big time on that because my maintenance without exercise is approximately 1930 calories.
This happens often when you increase calories due to an increase in energy...when I went to maintenance, by my data and doing the math, it looked like it would be around 2,400 calories and I was all kinds of sad. As I upped calories though, I had more energy...I found that my training improved and I could go harder/longer...I found myself more fidgety...had a hard time sitting still for t.v. shows, movies, sporting events, etc...
My weight loss had slowed to a trickle when I went to maintenance and then as I upped my calories it picked back up again and I lost a few more pounds...I'm pretty sure it was due to the increase in movement that coincided with an increase in calories...I leveled off and put on a few pounds of glycogen weight when I got to around 3,000 calories.
This was who I wrote The Roadmap back in 2012. Groups like Eat More 2 Weigh Less and IPOARM push people to eat the most they can while maintaining weight loss. The higher the quality of food, the higher quality of fat loss.
I love these stories.
I remember the Roadmap ...I started in the fall 2012.
That's what started this Madness.
We used to have a private group with people dedicated to running numbers and macros.
It works though!
How is it madness if it works?
Why do you seem hellbent on creating a dichotomy where there really doesn't need to be one?
I get that you're with PN now, and you like to appeal to your classes in psychology as well for informing your new stance, but for some of us, psychology is exactly why numbers are comforting.
There's room at this whole weight loss table for eyeballers and slice of bread weighers alike.
What concerns me is that you, someone who is supposedly trying to present themselves as a "coach", thinks that there's just one approach that's right. You can seriously sit there with a straight face and say that one size fits all when it comes to this whole deal?
Really?
I think I'd personally prefer to have a coach who recognized that people are coming from different places, are overweight due to different factors, and have different personality types that respond to different approaches.
I'd also appreciate having a coach who didn't feel the need to insult different approaches than his pet one at every turn.
You've actually missed my entire point from waaaay up!
Counting calories, weighing food, assigning points, or hand portion control doesn't matter if the underlying issues aren't fixed.
That's usually the issue right?
Look at serial starters.
They don't fix the underlying issues.
When did insult any approach?
Plenty of ways to lose weight. I'm simply trying to tell people that:
1) don't cut calories too low
2) don't exercise too the extreme
3) fix sleep and stress
99% of my posts over the past 5 years have had the same message.
As a side note, I bend over backwards for my group and retain over 90% of my clients once they've reached their initial goals because of how I coach.
Anyway. Look at my posts both under this name and helloitsdan, and you'll see a common theme.
Don't eat too little, relax, and let the weight loss happen.
"Forest for the trees, forest for the trees"
That's insulting. You are constantly down talking people who are giving detailed information for fine tuning weight loss.
What makes it that way for you?
Most people don't need fine tuning.
When you work with clients with eating disorders and you see similar activity on the forums, you should preach simplicity. And OP I'm in now way insinuating. However the issue isn't how I preach simplicity. The real issue is how people insist that other members must weigh food. It adds an extra element to an already complex change. She just started.
If I had to weigh every morsel going into my mouth, I'd have never lost my weight.
Hey how about this! We all eat approximately the same 15 things per week. How about measuring it out once and seeing what it looks like, then knowing that a certain meal we eat is XYZ calories +/-. I haven't calculated my dinner from last night but I can tell you it's appx 400kcal with just the right macro breakdown.
Here's the real issue. When you add extra habits to someone who's already challenged with changing, their chance of success plummets!
1 habit change is around 80% successful.
2 habit changes is around 30%.
3 is at about 8%.
Then yoyo dieting and fat regain but it's Android so now we're looking at higher blood pressure and heart issues.
I know you'll want to argue with me because you seem to believe I'm coming in here to insult people but understand I'm speaking from a position as a professional with experience in fat loss with general population clients. Some with eating disorders (referred out for therapy) where I have to teach them how to eat without calculating calories and worrying about all the *kitten* minutiae that sends them spiraling.
So for this new person who's been dieting down for two weeks and hasn't seen the results, she just needs to wait. Not add extra things to worry about like the weight of tuna in water or a slice of bread.
TL/DR
Do the least amount of change that offers the most reward.
Fix sleep
Reduce stress
Eat wholesome food
Move more
Everything else is forest for the trees1 -
You just appealed to your own authority and lost me.
Our eyeballs deceive us.
Here's my experience. Look, I can ramble too.
I eyeballed my portions too. My eyes deceive me.
That's why weighing helped me and was useful.
For some people it's helpful if they can't rely on their eyes. It's not forest for the trees, it's helpful in creating a real calorie deficit. ESPECIALLY if they're on the margins with creating a deficit.
The OP might or might not have fallen into this category, but when the scale isn't moving, you need to look at why the scale isn't moving. The usual answer is that a person is eating too much.
I fixed my sleep. I lowered my stress. I was eating wholesome food. I started moving more.
I still ate too damned much because I was grossly underestimating my intake.
Trees man. I really like trees. Trees got me where I want to be.
Looking at forests for 40 years kept me fat.20 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »You just appealed to your own authority and lost me.
Our eyeballs deceive us.
Here's my experience. Look, I can ramble too.
I eyeballed my portions too. My eyes deceive me.
That's why weighing helped me and was useful.
For some people it's helpful if they can't rely on their eyes. It's not forest for the trees, it's helpful in creating a real calorie deficit. ESPECIALLY if they're on the margins with creating a deficit.
The OP might or might not have fallen into this category, but when the scale isn't moving, you need to look at why the scale isn't moving. The usual answer is that a person is eating too much.
I fixed my sleep. I lowered my stress. I was eating wholesome food. I started moving more.
I still ate too damned much because I was grossly underestimating my intake.
Trees man. I really like trees. Trees got me where I want to be.
Looking at forests for 40 years kept me fat.
Great response. I can dig it completely.
I don't want people to think I'm popping on here to poopoo their techniques for fat loss. With 1000 different diets, anyone can lose weight.
Consistency over time will show results.
She just hasn't given it enough time.
Congrats on your success BTW.
I love being in my 40s but looking like I'm 30!0 -
It's only been two weeks ...2
-
heelie1996 wrote: »Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »you are likely eating more then 1200 calories.
no......shes not
How can you know?
7 -
One thing I noticed is that the calorie intake you log is often well under 1000 calories. Could it be that with all your exercise, your body may be getting so little fuel that it is in in starvation mode and actually hoarding the food and fat? Our starting weights were roughly the same, but I weigh carefully for the most part and try to stay right around 1200 calories. I actually raised my goal to 1300 calories so I wouldn't feel bad when going slightly over the 1200 mark. Most days I hit 1200 give or take 30 or so calories either way, with minimum exercise. Everyone is different, but that is working for me.
If you don't lose weight because starvation mode, then how do people die of starvation???6 -
Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »wanderingartistry wrote: »My friend actually lost when she increased her calorie intake. Not drastically.
Your body may be in starvation mode from too few calories. That doesn't sound like 200 calories to me. Assuming you're making something like a 4 eggwhite omlette (80 calories), 5 oz of veggies like brocoli and cauliflower (which have...50 calories per cup or something, if even), and 6 oz of chicken breast throughout the day (about 250 calories), it sounds like you're not getting enough.
I have heard you need to eat your weight x 10 to get even the maintenance amount of calories you need to function. That seems like a place to start.
If it appears your lose weight when increasing calories it's either (1) you're eating less than you burn but you just don't realize it or (2) natural weight fluctuation.
Starvation mode is a myth as to us ordinary dieters.
Eating 10X your weight to get to maintenance is silly. My weight fluctuates between 140 and 145 lbs, so by your theory my maintenance would be between 1400 and 1450 calories. Just for your information, I would lose big time on that because my maintenance without exercise is approximately 1930 calories.
This happens often when you increase calories due to an increase in energy...when I went to maintenance, by my data and doing the math, it looked like it would be around 2,400 calories and I was all kinds of sad. As I upped calories though, I had more energy...I found that my training improved and I could go harder/longer...I found myself more fidgety...had a hard time sitting still for t.v. shows, movies, sporting events, etc...
My weight loss had slowed to a trickle when I went to maintenance and then as I upped my calories it picked back up again and I lost a few more pounds...I'm pretty sure it was due to the increase in movement that coincided with an increase in calories...I leveled off and put on a few pounds of glycogen weight when I got to around 3,000 calories.
This was who I wrote The Roadmap back in 2012. Groups like Eat More 2 Weigh Less and IPOARM push people to eat the most they can while maintaining weight loss. The higher the quality of food, the higher quality of fat loss.
I love these stories.
I remember the Roadmap ...I started in the fall 2012.
That's what started this Madness.
We used to have a private group with people dedicated to running numbers and macros.
It works though!
How is it madness if it works?
Why do you seem hellbent on creating a dichotomy where there really doesn't need to be one?
I get that you're with PN now, and you like to appeal to your classes in psychology as well for informing your new stance, but for some of us, psychology is exactly why numbers are comforting.
There's room at this whole weight loss table for eyeballers and slice of bread weighers alike.
What concerns me is that you, someone who is supposedly trying to present themselves as a "coach", thinks that there's just one approach that's right. You can seriously sit there with a straight face and say that one size fits all when it comes to this whole deal?
Really?
I think I'd personally prefer to have a coach who recognized that people are coming from different places, are overweight due to different factors, and have different personality types that respond to different approaches.
I'd also appreciate having a coach who didn't feel the need to insult different approaches than his pet one at every turn.
You've actually missed my entire point from waaaay up!
Counting calories, weighing food, assigning points, or hand portion control doesn't matter if the underlying issues aren't fixed.
That's usually the issue right?
Look at serial starters.
They don't fix the underlying issues.
When did insult any approach?
Plenty of ways to lose weight. I'm simply trying to tell people that:
1) don't cut calories too low
2) don't exercise too the extreme
3) fix sleep and stress
99% of my posts over the past 5 years have had the same message.
As a side note, I bend over backwards for my group and retain over 90% of my clients once they've reached their initial goals because of how I coach.
Anyway. Look at my posts both under this name and helloitsdan, and you'll see a common theme.
Don't eat too little, relax, and let the weight loss happen.
I see what you are trying to do here - look beyond the symptoms of overeating and identifying root causes.
Good process for everyone to go through - implementing a "Five Why" approach to problem identification and implementing a solution.0 -
heelie1996 wrote: »Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »you are likely eating more then 1200 calories.
no......shes not
That's a pretty definitive answer. What are you basing that on?3 -
Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »@KT6377 Can you please link to me this study? Because Starvation mode other then lean muscle loss resulting in Lower BMR based from VLCD is the only thing i have ever heard of.. starvation mode where the body holds onto fat has only ever been proven as a myth.
Here's the first but you'll need access to an academic research database to read the full article (you might have access to one if you are a student):
http://www.jdcjournal.com/article/1056-8727(94)00077-8/pdf
Same deal here:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080620195455.htm
While i cant read the first one, the second one uses a lot of words like "Might".. which kind of leads me to believe that this is mostly just a theory. In the two years ive been on this site, so far you are the first person to ever bring up this point of view in regards to 'starvation mode.'.. but i suppose i could of just missed some people mentioning it.. i am not here 24/7
Most academic, peer reviewed articles use that language. Most science is speculation at best and for every piece of research published there is another one trying to disprove it. That's what doing research is all about
No - an emphatic no.
Academic, peer reviewed articles use specific verbiage. Pseudo-science, junk science use vague, non-specific terms to justify positions that are not supported by evidence. "Might" is an automatic disqualifier and is considered "weasel wording".
The word 'might' is very frequently used in academic writing to imply that there is a relationship between two factors but the cause of the relationship is not 100% conclusive. When 'might' is used in this sense it implies that additional research is needed to fully support the hypothesis. It does not in any way indicate that the article is 'junk science'. If you need more examples of the word 'might' being used in scientific research I'm more than happy to provide them for you. If all research findings published were 100% conclusive there would be nothing left to write about.
I eagerly await examples.
I even have a board certified endocrinologist on my team who can explain these examples to this lowly microbiologist.
8 -
kathykrupa297 wrote: »Try changing up your diet. I had the same issue when I started. Wasn't eating enough for the exercise I was doing. You should eat at least 50% of your exercise calories. Try the Keto diet. It's great for a quick start diet. You eat much more calories but it's all protein and fat. Just reduce ur carbs and eat in the morning. Once u go into ketosis the weight will come off quickly. I don't weigh or measure anything and I lost 10lbs in one week and I started at 175lbs.
most of that was water weight due to sodium and glycogen being depleted from your body.as for keto its not a magical way to weight loss,its a way of eating and you can still gain weight if you eat over your TDEE(maintenance).2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 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
- 990 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions