Hit a wall
Options
Replies
-
ProdigiousDigit wrote: »Surprised no one has mentioned it yet. Exercise.
One of the great things about exercise is the realization that even when you plateau on the scale, it's likely the result of replacing fat with muscle.
Amplifying your activity level will put you in charge of your scale rather than the other way around.
I've dropped 27 lbs in 40 days without weighing a thing. The bar code reader on MFP mobile is a god send.
No. You cannot gain muscle while eating at a deficit, other than under a few very specific circumstances, and even then that growth period doesn't last very long. You will get stronger, but you're not making massive (or likely any, actually) gains in terms of growth, and especially not if you're female. Building muscle just isn't that easy. 'Oh you must have built muscle' is one of the worst cop out excuses there is to why the scale isn't budging, and may well prevent the person from looking for the actual reason.
Exercise is great, but you still have to eat less than you burn if you want to lose weight.
And BTW, 27lb in 40 days is far too fast. You'll be losing muscle at that rate.6 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »ProdigiousDigit wrote: »Surprised no one has mentioned it yet. Exercise.
One of the great things about exercise is the realization that even when you plateau on the scale, it's likely the result of replacing fat with muscle.
Amplifying your activity level will put you in charge of your scale rather than the other way around.
I've dropped 27 lbs in 40 days without weighing a thing. The bar code reader on MFP mobile is a god send.
No. You cannot gain muscle while eating at a deficit, other than under a few very specific circumstances, and even then that growth period doesn't last very long. You will get stronger, but you're not making massive (or likely any, actually) gains in terms of growth, and especially not if you're female. Building muscle just isn't that easy. 'Oh you must have built muscle' is one of the worst cop out excuses there is to why the scale isn't budging, and may well prevent the person from looking for the actual reason.
Exercise is great, but you still have to eat less than you burn if you want to lose weight.
And BTW, 27lb in 40 days is far too fast. You'll be losing muscle at that rate.
Not sure I understand "eating at a deficit" in this context. If I go from burning 1000/cals a day to 3000 while eating more & better food, where's the deficit? Also, I disagree that going from 325 to 298 in five weeks is too fast. From 175 to 148 sure, but at plus three bills, it's as easy as, "I'll just have water please".
Honest question, thanks for the time.1 -
ProdigiousDigit wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »ProdigiousDigit wrote: »Surprised no one has mentioned it yet. Exercise.
One of the great things about exercise is the realization that even when you plateau on the scale, it's likely the result of replacing fat with muscle.
Amplifying your activity level will put you in charge of your scale rather than the other way around.
I've dropped 27 lbs in 40 days without weighing a thing. The bar code reader on MFP mobile is a god send.
No. You cannot gain muscle while eating at a deficit, other than under a few very specific circumstances, and even then that growth period doesn't last very long. You will get stronger, but you're not making massive (or likely any, actually) gains in terms of growth, and especially not if you're female. Building muscle just isn't that easy. 'Oh you must have built muscle' is one of the worst cop out excuses there is to why the scale isn't budging, and may well prevent the person from looking for the actual reason.
Exercise is great, but you still have to eat less than you burn if you want to lose weight.
And BTW, 27lb in 40 days is far too fast. You'll be losing muscle at that rate.
Not sure I understand "eating at a deficit" in this context. If I go from burning 1000/cals a day to 3000 while eating more & better food, where's the deficit?
Honest question, thanks for the time.
To lose weight you need to eat fewer calories than you burn - calories in vs calories out. That fewer calories is the deficit. IE, I have a sedentary TDEE of ~1650, I would have to do a massive amount of exercise to burn an additional 2000 cals (which I often do, and more, on day hikes). Because I'm a smart cookie, and don't want to jeopardise my lean body mass, I have a 500 calorie deficit in order to lose 1 lb per week. If I sit on my butt all day, I get to eat 1150 cals (actually, 1200, because I'm a good girl and follow MFP's minimum), if I've climbed mountains, I get to eat 3150 cals. My deficit is 500 either way. If I'm maintaining my weight, I eat the lot.2 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »ProdigiousDigit wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »ProdigiousDigit wrote: »Surprised no one has mentioned it yet. Exercise.
One of the great things about exercise is the realization that even when you plateau on the scale, it's likely the result of replacing fat with muscle.
Amplifying your activity level will put you in charge of your scale rather than the other way around.
I've dropped 27 lbs in 40 days without weighing a thing. The bar code reader on MFP mobile is a god send.
No. You cannot gain muscle while eating at a deficit, other than under a few very specific circumstances, and even then that growth period doesn't last very long. You will get stronger, but you're not making massive (or likely any, actually) gains in terms of growth, and especially not if you're female. Building muscle just isn't that easy. 'Oh you must have built muscle' is one of the worst cop out excuses there is to why the scale isn't budging, and may well prevent the person from looking for the actual reason.
Exercise is great, but you still have to eat less than you burn if you want to lose weight.
And BTW, 27lb in 40 days is far too fast. You'll be losing muscle at that rate.
Not sure I understand "eating at a deficit" in this context. If I go from burning 1000/cals a day to 3000 while eating more & better food, where's the deficit?
Honest question, thanks for the time.
To lose weight you need to eat fewer calories than you burn - calories in vs calories out. That fewer calories is the deficit. IE, I have a sedentary TDEE of ~1650, I would have to do a massive amount of exercise to burn an additional 2000 cals (which I often do, and more, on day hikes). Because I'm a smart cookie, and don't want to jeopardise my lean body mass, I have a 500 calorie deficit in order to lose 1 lb per week. If I sit on my butt all day, I get to eat 1150 cals (actually, 1200, because I'm a good girl and follow MFP's minimum), if I've climbed mountains, I get to eat 3150 cals. My deficit is 500 either way. If I'm maintaining my weight, I eat the lot.
I get it. What I think got lost in translation somewhere is that I started eating what a normal person should for my height & target weight on August 1st, while adding 18k steps and 100 sit ups each day to my routine. ...and Voila!!0 -
ProdigiousDigit wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »ProdigiousDigit wrote: »Surprised no one has mentioned it yet. Exercise.
One of the great things about exercise is the realization that even when you plateau on the scale, it's likely the result of replacing fat with muscle.
Amplifying your activity level will put you in charge of your scale rather than the other way around.
I've dropped 27 lbs in 40 days without weighing a thing. The bar code reader on MFP mobile is a god send.
No. You cannot gain muscle while eating at a deficit, other than under a few very specific circumstances, and even then that growth period doesn't last very long. You will get stronger, but you're not making massive (or likely any, actually) gains in terms of growth, and especially not if you're female. Building muscle just isn't that easy. 'Oh you must have built muscle' is one of the worst cop out excuses there is to why the scale isn't budging, and may well prevent the person from looking for the actual reason.
Exercise is great, but you still have to eat less than you burn if you want to lose weight.
And BTW, 27lb in 40 days is far too fast. You'll be losing muscle at that rate.
Not sure I understand "eating at a deficit" in this context. If I go from burning 1000/cals a day to 3000 while eating more & better food, where's the deficit? Also, I disagree that going from 325 to 298 in five weeks is too fast. From 175 to 148 sure, but at plus three bills, it's as easy as, "I'll just have water please".
Honest question, thanks for the time.
If my math is right, that's more than five pounds a week. A safe rate of loss is generally considered to be no more than 1% of your body weight per week unless you're under a doctor's supervision, so for that to be appropriate you should weigh more than 500 lbs.2 -
ProdigiousDigit wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »ProdigiousDigit wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »ProdigiousDigit wrote: »Surprised no one has mentioned it yet. Exercise.
One of the great things about exercise is the realization that even when you plateau on the scale, it's likely the result of replacing fat with muscle.
Amplifying your activity level will put you in charge of your scale rather than the other way around.
I've dropped 27 lbs in 40 days without weighing a thing. The bar code reader on MFP mobile is a god send.
No. You cannot gain muscle while eating at a deficit, other than under a few very specific circumstances, and even then that growth period doesn't last very long. You will get stronger, but you're not making massive (or likely any, actually) gains in terms of growth, and especially not if you're female. Building muscle just isn't that easy. 'Oh you must have built muscle' is one of the worst cop out excuses there is to why the scale isn't budging, and may well prevent the person from looking for the actual reason.
Exercise is great, but you still have to eat less than you burn if you want to lose weight.
And BTW, 27lb in 40 days is far too fast. You'll be losing muscle at that rate.
Not sure I understand "eating at a deficit" in this context. If I go from burning 1000/cals a day to 3000 while eating more & better food, where's the deficit?
Honest question, thanks for the time.
To lose weight you need to eat fewer calories than you burn - calories in vs calories out. That fewer calories is the deficit. IE, I have a sedentary TDEE of ~1650, I would have to do a massive amount of exercise to burn an additional 2000 cals (which I often do, and more, on day hikes). Because I'm a smart cookie, and don't want to jeopardise my lean body mass, I have a 500 calorie deficit in order to lose 1 lb per week. If I sit on my butt all day, I get to eat 1150 cals (actually, 1200, because I'm a good girl and follow MFP's minimum), if I've climbed mountains, I get to eat 3150 cals. My deficit is 500 either way. If I'm maintaining my weight, I eat the lot.
I get it. What I think got lost in translation somewhere is that I started eating what a normal person should for my height & target weight on August 1st, while adding 18k steps and 100 sit ups each day to my routine. ...and Voila!!
You're creating a deficit via exercise. Still won't build muscle.
I missed your edit re rate of loss. I'd still say it's too fast, though you likely lost a large amount of water weight. If your losses haven't slowed to 2lb per week, you need to eat more.
And maybe do some other bodyweight exercises rather than just sit ups
. If you lose eating at a reasonable deficit (and a 2lb loss per week for you at this stage is fine, but eventually that will need to drop 1lb per week) and do some resistance training (bodyweight is fine) as you go, you will look a lot better for it at the end of the process 
. 1 -
rheddmobile wrote: »ProdigiousDigit wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »ProdigiousDigit wrote: »Surprised no one has mentioned it yet. Exercise.
One of the great things about exercise is the realization that even when you plateau on the scale, it's likely the result of replacing fat with muscle.
Amplifying your activity level will put you in charge of your scale rather than the other way around.
I've dropped 27 lbs in 40 days without weighing a thing. The bar code reader on MFP mobile is a god send.
No. You cannot gain muscle while eating at a deficit, other than under a few very specific circumstances, and even then that growth period doesn't last very long. You will get stronger, but you're not making massive (or likely any, actually) gains in terms of growth, and especially not if you're female. Building muscle just isn't that easy. 'Oh you must have built muscle' is one of the worst cop out excuses there is to why the scale isn't budging, and may well prevent the person from looking for the actual reason.
Exercise is great, but you still have to eat less than you burn if you want to lose weight.
And BTW, 27lb in 40 days is far too fast. You'll be losing muscle at that rate.
Not sure I understand "eating at a deficit" in this context. If I go from burning 1000/cals a day to 3000 while eating more & better food, where's the deficit? Also, I disagree that going from 325 to 298 in five weeks is too fast. From 175 to 148 sure, but at plus three bills, it's as easy as, "I'll just have water please".
Honest question, thanks for the time.
If my math is right, that's more than five pounds a week. A safe rate of loss is generally considered to be no more than 1% of your body weight per week unless you're under a doctor's supervision, so for that to be appropriate you should weigh more than 500 lbs.
4.5 lbs/wk vs 3.25 lbs/wk (1%). My dad is an 82 year old retired surgeon who would say this is all mumbo jumbo. He's been eating chili out of the can and smoking a pack of cigarettes every week since like 1961. I'll take my chances.5 -
Oh, also, you are in one of those specific circumstances where you can probably make some muscle gains (both new to resistance training and obese). Take advantage of it. You need to train progressively though, don't just do the same thing day in and day out. As soon as something becomes easy (and if you can do 100 sit ups, you're there already on those), you need to add more resistance.1
-
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Oh, also, you are in one of those specific circumstances where you can probably make some muscle gains (both new to resistance training and obese). Take advantage of it. You need to train progressively though, don't just do the same thing day in and day out. As soon as something becomes easy (and if you can do 100 sit ups, you're there already on those), you need to add more resistance.
Thank you, Nony Mouse. I appreciate the advice. I played sports at both the varsity and collegiate level. (tennis & rowing crew). I spent a 1000 hours on an erg machine sophomore year. I'm just listening to my body again.0 -
ProdigiousDigit wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Oh, also, you are in one of those specific circumstances where you can probably make some muscle gains (both new to resistance training and obese). Take advantage of it. You need to train progressively though, don't just do the same thing day in and day out. As soon as something becomes easy (and if you can do 100 sit ups, you're there already on those), you need to add more resistance.
Thank you, Nony Mouse. I appreciate the advice. I played sports at both the varsity and collegiate level. (tennis & rowing crew). I spent a 1000 hours on an erg machine sophomore year. I'm just listening to my body again.
Well, please feed it properly too. And do slow the weight loss to 2lb per week. You honestly will lose way too much lean body mass otherwise. You want to look good, right? Also, much easier to preserve the muscle you have as much as possible then build on it, than have to rebuild from a lower level. 3 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »ProdigiousDigit wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »ProdigiousDigit wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »ProdigiousDigit wrote: »Surprised no one has mentioned it yet. Exercise.
One of the great things about exercise is the realization that even when you plateau on the scale, it's likely the result of replacing fat with muscle.
Amplifying your activity level will put you in charge of your scale rather than the other way around.
I've dropped 27 lbs in 40 days without weighing a thing. The bar code reader on MFP mobile is a god send.
No. You cannot gain muscle while eating at a deficit, other than under a few very specific circumstances, and even then that growth period doesn't last very long. You will get stronger, but you're not making massive (or likely any, actually) gains in terms of growth, and especially not if you're female. Building muscle just isn't that easy. 'Oh you must have built muscle' is one of the worst cop out excuses there is to why the scale isn't budging, and may well prevent the person from looking for the actual reason.
Exercise is great, but you still have to eat less than you burn if you want to lose weight.
And BTW, 27lb in 40 days is far too fast. You'll be losing muscle at that rate.
Not sure I understand "eating at a deficit" in this context. If I go from burning 1000/cals a day to 3000 while eating more & better food, where's the deficit?
Honest question, thanks for the time.
To lose weight you need to eat fewer calories than you burn - calories in vs calories out. That fewer calories is the deficit. IE, I have a sedentary TDEE of ~1650, I would have to do a massive amount of exercise to burn an additional 2000 cals (which I often do, and more, on day hikes). Because I'm a smart cookie, and don't want to jeopardise my lean body mass, I have a 500 calorie deficit in order to lose 1 lb per week. If I sit on my butt all day, I get to eat 1150 cals (actually, 1200, because I'm a good girl and follow MFP's minimum), if I've climbed mountains, I get to eat 3150 cals. My deficit is 500 either way. If I'm maintaining my weight, I eat the lot.
I get it. What I think got lost in translation somewhere is that I started eating what a normal person should for my height & target weight on August 1st, while adding 18k steps and 100 sit ups each day to my routine. ...and Voila!!
You're creating a deficit via exercise. Still won't build muscle.
I missed your edit re rate of loss. I'd still say it's too fast, though you likely lost a large amount of water weight. If your losses haven't slowed to 2lb per week, you need to eat more.
And maybe do some other bodyweight exercises rather than just sit ups. If you lose eating at a reasonable deficit (and a 2lb loss per week for you at this stage is fine, but eventually that will need to drop 1lb per week) and do some resistance training (bodyweight is fine) as you go, you will look a lot better for it at the end of the process .
Sage advice. I'm not on a trend that I would consider long term and I do not expect to maintain this kind of freefall. I feel bad about hijacking this thread and have been trying to keep my posts short. It's not just sit ups. Cherry pickers, windmills, jumping jacks, lunges, etc.1 -
ProdigiousDigit wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »ProdigiousDigit wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »ProdigiousDigit wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »ProdigiousDigit wrote: »Surprised no one has mentioned it yet. Exercise.
One of the great things about exercise is the realization that even when you plateau on the scale, it's likely the result of replacing fat with muscle.
Amplifying your activity level will put you in charge of your scale rather than the other way around.
I've dropped 27 lbs in 40 days without weighing a thing. The bar code reader on MFP mobile is a god send.
No. You cannot gain muscle while eating at a deficit, other than under a few very specific circumstances, and even then that growth period doesn't last very long. You will get stronger, but you're not making massive (or likely any, actually) gains in terms of growth, and especially not if you're female. Building muscle just isn't that easy. 'Oh you must have built muscle' is one of the worst cop out excuses there is to why the scale isn't budging, and may well prevent the person from looking for the actual reason.
Exercise is great, but you still have to eat less than you burn if you want to lose weight.
And BTW, 27lb in 40 days is far too fast. You'll be losing muscle at that rate.
Not sure I understand "eating at a deficit" in this context. If I go from burning 1000/cals a day to 3000 while eating more & better food, where's the deficit?
Honest question, thanks for the time.
To lose weight you need to eat fewer calories than you burn - calories in vs calories out. That fewer calories is the deficit. IE, I have a sedentary TDEE of ~1650, I would have to do a massive amount of exercise to burn an additional 2000 cals (which I often do, and more, on day hikes). Because I'm a smart cookie, and don't want to jeopardise my lean body mass, I have a 500 calorie deficit in order to lose 1 lb per week. If I sit on my butt all day, I get to eat 1150 cals (actually, 1200, because I'm a good girl and follow MFP's minimum), if I've climbed mountains, I get to eat 3150 cals. My deficit is 500 either way. If I'm maintaining my weight, I eat the lot.
I get it. What I think got lost in translation somewhere is that I started eating what a normal person should for my height & target weight on August 1st, while adding 18k steps and 100 sit ups each day to my routine. ...and Voila!!
You're creating a deficit via exercise. Still won't build muscle.
I missed your edit re rate of loss. I'd still say it's too fast, though you likely lost a large amount of water weight. If your losses haven't slowed to 2lb per week, you need to eat more.
And maybe do some other bodyweight exercises rather than just sit ups. If you lose eating at a reasonable deficit (and a 2lb loss per week for you at this stage is fine, but eventually that will need to drop 1lb per week) and do some resistance training (bodyweight is fine) as you go, you will look a lot better for it at the end of the process .
Sage advice. I'm not on a trend that I would consider long term and I do not expect to maintain this kind of freefall. I feel bad about hijacking this thread and have been trying to keep my posts short. It's not just sit ups. Cherry pickers, windmills, jumping jacks, lunges, etc.
Okay. Well, start your own thread if you have any more questions 1 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »ProdigiousDigit wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »ProdigiousDigit wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »ProdigiousDigit wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »ProdigiousDigit wrote: »Surprised no one has mentioned it yet. Exercise.
One of the great things about exercise is the realization that even when you plateau on the scale, it's likely the result of replacing fat with muscle.
Amplifying your activity level will put you in charge of your scale rather than the other way around.
I've dropped 27 lbs in 40 days without weighing a thing. The bar code reader on MFP mobile is a god send.
No. You cannot gain muscle while eating at a deficit, other than under a few very specific circumstances, and even then that growth period doesn't last very long. You will get stronger, but you're not making massive (or likely any, actually) gains in terms of growth, and especially not if you're female. Building muscle just isn't that easy. 'Oh you must have built muscle' is one of the worst cop out excuses there is to why the scale isn't budging, and may well prevent the person from looking for the actual reason.
Exercise is great, but you still have to eat less than you burn if you want to lose weight.
And BTW, 27lb in 40 days is far too fast. You'll be losing muscle at that rate.
Not sure I understand "eating at a deficit" in this context. If I go from burning 1000/cals a day to 3000 while eating more & better food, where's the deficit?
Honest question, thanks for the time.
To lose weight you need to eat fewer calories than you burn - calories in vs calories out. That fewer calories is the deficit. IE, I have a sedentary TDEE of ~1650, I would have to do a massive amount of exercise to burn an additional 2000 cals (which I often do, and more, on day hikes). Because I'm a smart cookie, and don't want to jeopardise my lean body mass, I have a 500 calorie deficit in order to lose 1 lb per week. If I sit on my butt all day, I get to eat 1150 cals (actually, 1200, because I'm a good girl and follow MFP's minimum), if I've climbed mountains, I get to eat 3150 cals. My deficit is 500 either way. If I'm maintaining my weight, I eat the lot.
I get it. What I think got lost in translation somewhere is that I started eating what a normal person should for my height & target weight on August 1st, while adding 18k steps and 100 sit ups each day to my routine. ...and Voila!!
You're creating a deficit via exercise. Still won't build muscle.
I missed your edit re rate of loss. I'd still say it's too fast, though you likely lost a large amount of water weight. If your losses haven't slowed to 2lb per week, you need to eat more.
And maybe do some other bodyweight exercises rather than just sit ups. If you lose eating at a reasonable deficit (and a 2lb loss per week for you at this stage is fine, but eventually that will need to drop 1lb per week) and do some resistance training (bodyweight is fine) as you go, you will look a lot better for it at the end of the process .
Sage advice. I'm not on a trend that I would consider long term and I do not expect to maintain this kind of freefall. I feel bad about hijacking this thread and have been trying to keep my posts short. It's not just sit ups. Cherry pickers, windmills, jumping jacks, lunges, etc.
Okay. Well, start your own thread if you have any more questions
Best,
Ben1 -
sandeegriffin wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »Are you weighing and logging your foods and staying below your calorie allotment? Nothing else matters. Your body will lose weight just as quickly if you eat nothing but twinkies, if you eat below your calorie needs and stay in a caloric deficit. If you eat the finest clean no carb foods in the world and work out until you can't stand up, you will not lose weight if you eat too many calories.
I don't weigh my good as I have no method to. I measure with cups or spoons depending on the serving size. For example on the bag of SunChips it will say 15 chips is one serving. I will count out 15 whole chips. It may seem like a stupid idea to you but it works for me. I don't log anymore and just try and guess. Other posters have said the same thing. Logging helps. Thank you for responding. I'll start fresh on logging.
Guesstimating often works well at the beginning of weight loss when you have more to lose. As you get closer to goal, you need to be more accurate in order to keep losing. There is a much smaller margin of error. What might have worked initially might not work so well for you now. I agree that you should tighten up your measurements with a food scale and careful logging and see if you start losing again. 1 -
Why can't y'all leave me alone please? First off I AM listening, second off I am NOT being adamant! Please people get off my back!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