Weight loss math doesn't work, so confused!
Replies
-
BitofaState wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »
By your own explanation, your body will still lose weight while it's starving, but at some point it will turn to getting energy from muscle instead of fat because fat is necessary for organs like the brain. We all want to lose fat, not muscle, but even if our body thinks it's starving and turms to muscle, we will Still. Lose. Weight.
If. We. Are. In. A. Calorific. Deficit.
You assume that the metabolic adaptation will never fully counter the calorie restriction - the study quoted showed that the adaptation was maintained even in those that regained weight - i.e. went into a calorie surplus.
The body is a very complex organism and a simple mechanistic approach (calories in - calories out) based on estimates of both of those factors will not be true for the whole population, for some folks "starvation mode" is actually "a thing".
The same numbers may not apply to the entire population but the equation always stays the same. As you mentioned in a previous comment those who have starved to death retained some but not substantial body fat. But again you're talking about people that were severely malnourished to the point that their bodies couldn't keep them alive. That's a far cry from your body not dropping weight at say 200 lbs on a diet of 1000 calories, the laws of thermodynamics still apply.
There's no way that your body, knowing it needs some type of fuel to keep you alive wouldn't use your fat stores for their intended purpose.
As @WinoGelato asked how do you explain those that starve to death?
5 -
stanmann571 wrote: »lisaquelleington wrote: »Weigh is. FORCE, loser. Weight loss occurscin WATER OR ON THE MOON. FORCES HAVE NOTHINGVTO DO WITH CALORIES, A TOTALKY ABSTRACT MADE UP UNIT FIR A MADECUP ABSTRACT PROPERTY WE ASSIGH AND INVENTEE CALLED ENERGY.
In English, we use weight loss as a euphemism for fat loss. It's an accepted convention. Further, calories have a provable and direct impact on overall weight loss as well as BF loss.
Also, Try spell check and finding your shift button.
Wait, shouty guy was here? I missed that!!!!10 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
So how do people actually starve to death, if what you are saying is true?
by remaining in a calorie deficit, although the lack of essential nutrients is probably more influential, hence "rabbit starvation" where there are available calories but a lack of nutrients.
It's also why you have some folks with significant malnutrition problems even when they are in a calories surplus when living on low cost, high calorie, low nutrition diets. Oh and some extreme forms of paleo (eat your greens folks!)11 -
jocelynmoore08 wrote: »Thank you aeloine! These graphs are really helpful to see how large the swings are. I was starting to get frustrated by the scale after only 2 weeks. Now I know I need to collate data for much longer before I start to be able to create a downward trend. Thanks for sharing
@jocelynmoore08 here's my ALL time graph (3+ years). The day to day above looks like it's all over the place but it evens out. Hang in there!
EDIT: Obviously I didn't want to GAIN. I just wasn't committed to losing for a couple of years. The down trend started around April of last year.
Yep, gains can happen if you lose focus and no longer care about controlling your diet. I'm only just starting to get my downward trend back after several months of gain. Here is my graph since I started using trendweight (my actual starting weight was much higher). Only to show that scale fluctuations are normal, and that even if you regain, you learn from it and move on.
4 -
BitofaState wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
So how do people actually starve to death, if what you are saying is true?
by remaining in a calorie deficit, although the lack of essential nutrients is probably more influential, hence "rabbit starvation" where there are available calories but a lack of nutrients.
It's also why you have some folks with significant malnutrition problems even when they are in a calories surplus when living on low cost, high calorie, low nutrition diets. Oh and some extreme forms of paleo (eat your greens folks!)
So by your own admission you can still lose weight if a deficit is present. If there's no deficit you won't lose weight.
And what does Protein Poisoning have to do with what you're saying? Even if a person failed to get adequate fat in their diets if they were still in a deficit they would lose weight. Mark Haub already proved this by going on a Twinkie diet, it's not nutritionally sound but that's not what he was trying to prove. He was trying to prove that calories are what matter for weight loss.3 -
Aw, I missed a Shouty appearance?9
-
KellyPoetry wrote: »odonrom1946 wrote: »Can somebody with some experience please explain weight loss math to me. My BMI is 1560, I'm eating just under 1200 calories a day, I walk 15000 steps. My total calorie burn is approximately 2400 to 2700, my goal is to lose 2 pounds per week, but I just seem to stick at one number and not move. I eat clean, no processed food, drink plenty of water and get eight hours every night. I feel like I'm checking all the boxes . I do feel great, and I feel like I look better but I can't get past numbers.can someone please explain what I need to do to make the pounds go.
Hey girl, seems like all the fitness you are doing could be adding lean muscle .... it sounds like your Body comp measurements are probably leaner and the SCALE *is not* always the best way to track success! Especially if your goal is to get lean muscle.
Whats your stats and goals? Also... Are you eating enough to sustain your macros!? Under 1200 seems low....
PS.. I watched a great YouTube vid, by Jen Heward on the importance of not restricting when very active in fitness.
Nobody is building muscle at that high of a deficit17 -
dinadyna21 wrote: »
So by your own admission you can still lose weight if a deficit is present. If there's no deficit you won't lose weight.
And what does Protein Poisoning have to do with what you're saying? Even if a person failed to get adequate fat in their diets if they were still in a deficit they would lose weight. Mark Haub already proved this by going on a Twinkie diet, it's not nutritionally sound but that's not what he was trying to prove. He was trying to prove that calories are what matter for weight loss.
Of course you lose weight if a deficit is present, the issue is how you create a deficit if your in metabolic adaptation.
The protein poisoning issue is actually a lack of essential micronutrients so if they are in a surplus they still suffer from malnutrition and starve.
Calories matter, but so does micronutrients, if he continued on the same diet at maintainence levels then he would end up with issues related to malnutrition, something seen quite often in even overweight folks on poor nutrition, calorie rich diets.8 -
BitofaState wrote: »dinadyna21 wrote: »
So by your own admission you can still lose weight if a deficit is present. If there's no deficit you won't lose weight.
And what does Protein Poisoning have to do with what you're saying? Even if a person failed to get adequate fat in their diets if they were still in a deficit they would lose weight. Mark Haub already proved this by going on a Twinkie diet, it's not nutritionally sound but that's not what he was trying to prove. He was trying to prove that calories are what matter for weight loss.
Of course you lose weight if a deficit is present, the issue is how you create a deficit if your in metabolic adaptation.
The protein poisoning issue is actually a lack of essential micronutrients so if they are in a surplus they still suffer from malnutrition and starve.
Calories matter, but so does micronutrients, if he continued on the same diet at maintainence levels then he would end up with issues related to malnutrition, something seen quite often in even overweight folks on poor nutrition, calorie rich diets.
I don’t see how any of this applies to OP - who lost 9 lbs in a month, is very active, who says she eats clean and no processed foods, etc.10 -
Hi- it's me.. The OP. it's amazing how 4 pages of discussion can do everything from debate to preach to accuse but fail to answer my question. I now know (thank you Google) that to lose 2lb/week. need a7000 cal deficit. Very difficult when my BMR is only 1500 - I'm also guessing my Fitbit is grossly exaggerating my calories burned. (Yes I am active but not hyperdrive active) 1200 calories is actually a good about of food (when it's not boxed or packaged) I'm almost 50 and know my body.. I'm good and in no threat of ever starving lol! Thank you to the posters that see through all of the noise to support me and encourage. I appreciate it.13
-
odonrom1946 wrote: »Hi- it's me.. The OP. it's amazing how 4 pages of discussion can do everything from debate to preach to accuse but fail to answer my question. I now know (thank you Google) that to lose 2lb/week. need a7000 cal deficit. Very difficult when my BMR is only 1500 - I'm also guessing my Fitbit is grossly exaggerating my calories burned. (Yes I am active but not hyperdrive active) 1200 calories is actually a good about of food (when it's not boxed or packaged) I'm almost 50 and know my body.. I'm good and in no threat of ever starving lol! Thank you to the posters that see through all of the noise to support me and encourage. I appreciate it.
People have offered you advice but it just keeps going round and round, since there isn't enough information to actually understand what you are asking.
What are your maintenance calories or your TDEE for your current weight? That will determine where to start with the math. I don't think you have indicated that in this thread. My BMR is 1576 and I'm 52. However, if I weighed less, (I'm currently at 199 or were taller it would be different). I'm losing 1 lb. per week eating 1500-1600 calories plus all my exercise calories. My TDEE or maintenance calories are around 2000-2100. I was losing 2 lbs. per week when I was heavier, but couldn't sustain it past a 25 lb. loss. My SW was 237.
I give my stats only for example. Each body is different but there are averages/estimates. I work out about 400 minutes per week and that includes walking, zumba and in the summer/early fall, swimming. According to calculations I would have to eat 1000 calories more or less to burn a pound of fat per week. I tried 1200 for about 4 days and it didn't work for me because I was too hungry. You said it's working for you as far as hunger and energy level, which if we are similar weight and height (I have no idea) you should be losing. So something is not right. That could be your logging, it could be that you are already close to an ideal weight with a low BMI, but you haven't given enough information.
You seem to think that people were preaching and accusing, but we were only reacting to the information that you gave. If you want to get "better" answers, you need to give more specific information, IMO.10 -
odonrom1946 wrote: »Hi- it's me.. The OP. it's amazing how 4 pages of discussion can do everything from debate to preach to accuse but fail to answer my question. I now know (thank you Google) that to lose 2lb/week. need a7000 cal deficit. Very difficult when my BMR is only 1500 - I'm also guessing my Fitbit is grossly exaggerating my calories burned. (Yes I am active but not hyperdrive active) 1200 calories is actually a good about of food (when it's not boxed or packaged) I'm almost 50 and know my body.. I'm good and in no threat of ever starving lol! Thank you to the posters that see through all of the noise to support me and encourage. I appreciate it.
The thread got a little derailed but you got some good information about your expectations of Steadily losing 2 lbs per week being unrealistic and that goal being too aggressive for the amount of weight you have to lose. Also, you’re operating under a major misconception if you think you need to take a deficit from your BMR. Your deficit comes from your TDEE, and your FitBit should give you an approximation of that. What does it say your total calorie burn is? Why do you think it is incorrect?
I’m 5’2, 118 lbs, and average about 12-15 k steps/day and my FitBit says my TDEE is around 2100-2200 cals (which my results say that’s accurate). To lose first 1 lb/week and then 0.5 lbs/week I ate between 1600-1900 calories including the exercise adjustments from FitBit. Your numbers don’t seem that far off, yet you are eating less than 1200 calories (although I think someone pointed out up thread you may not be weighing your food so you may actually be eating more).
1200 is the bare minimum recommended for women and it’s not necessary to eat that low in order to lose when someone is as active as you are.17 -
lucerorojo wrote: »odonrom1946 wrote: »Hi- it's me.. The OP. it's amazing how 4 pages of discussion can do everything from debate to preach to accuse but fail to answer my question. I now know (thank you Google) that to lose 2lb/week. need a7000 cal deficit. Very difficult when my BMR is only 1500 - I'm also guessing my Fitbit is grossly exaggerating my calories burned. (Yes I am active but not hyperdrive active) 1200 calories is actually a good about of food (when it's not boxed or packaged) I'm almost 50 and know my body.. I'm good and in no threat of ever starving lol! Thank you to the posters that see through all of the noise to support me and encourage. I appreciate it.
People have offered you advice but it just keeps going round and round, since there isn't enough information to actually understand what you are asking.
What are your maintenance calories or your TDEE for your current weight? That will determine where to start with the math. I don't think you have indicated that in this thread. My BMR is 1576 and I'm 52. However, if I weighed less, (I'm currently at 199 or were taller it would be different). I'm losing 1 lb. per week eating 1500-1600 calories plus all my exercise calories. My TDEE or maintenance calories are around 2000-2100. I was losing 2 lbs. per week when I was heavier, but couldn't sustain it past a 25 lb. loss. My SW was 237.
I give my stats only for example. Each body is different but there are averages/estimates. I work out about 400 minutes per week and that includes walking, zumba and in the summer/early fall, swimming. According to calculations I would have to eat 1000 calories more or less to burn a pound of fat per week. I tried 1200 for about 4 days and it didn't work for me because I was too hungry. You said it's working for you as far as hunger and energy level, which if we are similar weight and height (I have no idea) you should be losing. So something is not right. That could be your logging, it could be that you are already close to an ideal weight with a low BMI, but you haven't given enough information.
You seem to think that people were preaching and accusing, but we were only reacting to the information that you gave. If you want to get "better" answers, you need to give more specific information, IMO.
Oops I'm responding to my own post because it's too late to edit. It should read "I would have to eat only 1000 calories per day to lose 2 lbs. per week". (2000 TDEE - 1000 deficit).1 -
odonrom1946 wrote: »Hi- it's me.. The OP. it's amazing how 4 pages of discussion can do everything from debate to preach to accuse but fail to answer my question. I now know (thank you Google) that to lose 2lb/week. need a7000 cal deficit. Very difficult when my BMR is only 1500 - I'm also guessing my Fitbit is grossly exaggerating my calories burned. (Yes I am active but not hyperdrive active) 1200 calories is actually a good about of food (when it's not boxed or packaged) I'm almost 50 and know my body.. I'm good and in no threat of ever starving lol! Thank you to the posters that see through all of the noise to support me and encourage. I appreciate it.
1) 7000 calories a week so 1000 per day.
2) you realise that it is not healthy or really possible without near full starvation to achieve your desired goal. A slower rate of loss is required OR you increase your TDEE with exercise. Its entirely up to you.10 -
May I ask: Have you had your thyroid function checked within the last year? In addition to all the other changes with evolving (cause that's what I call aging and I'm sticking to it) the efficiency of our thyroid can deplete with age. Mine is at the lowest end of normal, which doesn't mean I have a clinical thyroid deficiency, but with a tiny thyroid booster (a little medication), I feel better and I seem to be able to eat more normally and lose weight.
Also, do you know what your lean muscle mass is or percent bodyfat? I went through almost a year of sinus infections, which meant that my head throbbed too much for me to do more than work and exist. In a year, I went from 18% BF to 25% BF. The 1,700 to 1,900 calories a day I ate to lose weight became 1,700 to 1,900 calories per day which put 10 lbs on me in the last year.
4 -
I really don’t understand why people are suggesting OP needs to have thyroid checked, may have metabolic adaptation, etc. She lost 9 lbs in a month and then things slowed down. This is totally normal, and in fact her rate of loss and her deficit is way too aggressive for what her goals are.18
-
Your BMI is not 1560. That’s not possible. BMI numbers are less than 100. Please review the basics of weight loss and get back to us using correct term or explain what you mean.7
-
-
Fyi : I am done with pompous *kitten* that just want to make people feel bad about themselves. I'm sorry you feel the need to hide behind your computer to talk down to people. My fault for thinking"community" was community. I'm out.14
-
odonrom1946 wrote: »Can somebody with some experience please explain weight loss math to me. My BMI is 1560, I'm eating just under 1200 calories a day, I walk 15000 steps. My total calorie burn is approximately 2400 to 2700, my goal is to lose 2 pounds per week, but I just seem to stick at one number and not move. I eat clean, no processed food, drink plenty of water and get eight hours every night. I feel like I'm checking all the boxes . I do feel great, and I feel like I look better but I can't get past numbers.can someone please explain what I need to do to make the pounds go.
I doubt that your "BMI" (body mass index) is that high. You would be long gone if it was
. I think that you are referring to your BMR (Basic Metabolic Rate.
"Basal metabolic rate (BMR) is the amount of energy expended while at rest. Use this calculator to find out your BMR, determine your caloric needs, and lose or gain weight." https://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/bmr_calculator.htm
Body mass index (BMI) is a measure of body fat based on height and weight that applies to adult men and women.
I would suggest that you re-calculate your BMI and BMR in order to get the right information.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions