Stuck at the same weight for 2 weeks despite calorie counting everything

ntflo

My base calorie rate to maintain my weight is ~2500 cal/day. I set MFP to lose 2 lbs/week, so it put me on 1900/day. I don't exercise and picked the lowest exercise setting in MFP, so there's no extra allowance of calories.

I've been following this religiously for 3 weeks, I'm actually averaging 1800/week. After a promising 1st week, my weight has been stuck on 310 for the past 14 days.

From day 1 I bought a kitchen scale and don't eat anything at home without weighing it. About 3 times a week I eat out, but only in fast-food chains with predictable calorie counts like McDonalds and Subway. For the latter I make sure I add the sauce calories separately. When I eat out, if there's a contradiction between MFP, the restaurant's website, or the in-restaurant calorie counts, like is the case for Subway, I log the highest calorie value.

Basically I'm doing everything by the book. I thought this was an exact science? If so, why aren't I at 306, or at least 308 if you want to consider fluctuations in water weight, bowel movements, etc. It's discouraging to be eating at -700 cals daily only to stay the same weight.

I'm not following any meal plans, I optimized for logging convenience/exactitude.

I set my diary to public, not sure if you guys can see it. What's the deal here?

sijomial

"I thought this was an exact science?"

No weight loss doesn't work that way.
You don't lose just fat and the 3,500 per pound of weight loss makes that assumption.
Water, connective tissue and muscle has different caloric values by weight.

Your weight also fluctuates for reasons outside of fat loss. I can gain 5lbs in a day if I eat a salty meal but staying within my calories. Your sodium intake is very high which can skew results.
You also don't seem to be logging any drinks? No calorie containing drinks being consumed?

But 3 weeks simply isn't enough time to see a trend, you need to adjust your expectations and elongate your timeframes. Your first "promising" week wouldn't have been all fat (some water, maybe less food in your digestive tract), you will have lost fat in weeks 2 and 3 if you genuinely were in a caloric deficit but water fluctuations can mask that. Give it more time.

ntflo

No calories in drinks, except the milk I log. I just drink water, black coffee and the occasional Coke Zero.

I'll give it 2 more weeks at least. I just thought perhaps I was wrong to trust McDonalds and Subway about the calories in their sandwiches. My first week I never ate out, everything went on the scale in my kitchen, but it's inconvenient.

I'll stay flexible (eating out every other day) for another 2 weeks, if I'm not 305 or better by then, I'll go back to eating in for another 2 weeks. And if that doesn't work, then I guess I'll look for a plan B.

penguinmama87

ntflo wrote: »

No calories in drinks, except the milk I log. I just drink water, black coffee and the occasional Coke Zero.

I'll give it 2 more weeks at least. I just thought perhaps I was wrong to trust McDonalds and Subway about the calories in their sandwiches. My first week I never ate out, everything went on the scale in my kitchen, but it's inconvenient.

I'll stay flexible (eating out every other day) for another 2 weeks, if I'm not 305 or better by then, I'll go back to eating in for another 2 weeks. And if that doesn't work, then I guess I'll look for a plan B.

Yes, there can unfortunately be a LOT of variation in portion sizes, even for restaurants that have fairly strictly defined standards for such things. Are there things you could do to make eating in more convenient as a regular option?

AnnPT77

I fear you have some misunderstandings of the process. These may not prevent you losing weight (unless they make you give up in frustration), but I think they may make the process more stressful than necessary. Specific comments below.

ntflo wrote: »

My base calorie rate to maintain my weight is ~2500 cal/day. I set MFP to lose 2 lbs/week, so it put me on 1900/day. I don't exercise and picked the lowest exercise setting in MFP, so there's no extra allowance of calories.

It requires a 1000-calorie daily deficit to lose 2 pounds a week (in theory). What you're describing is about a 600 calorie deficit, which would be a theoretical loss of 1.2 pounds per week.

The MFP activity settings aren't "exercise settings". They're meant to be set based on your daily life *not* including intentional exercise. Then, when you do exercise, you log that in your diary, and eat those calories, too. (MFP works differently from some other sites in this respect.) I do understand that you're not currently exercising.

If you don't want to do it the "MFP way" with exercise logged separately, it would be a better idea to get an estimate from a reasonable TDEE calculator, such as this one:

https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/

TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) calculators average in your exercise plans to give you a constant calorie goal every day. Either method can work, but under the covers they use different activity multipliers (even for the same text description), so it's better to use the estimator (so-called calculator) that is based on the method you want to use.

You should set your activity level (using any of these methods) realistically, IMO, rather than making every "make my goal lower" decision you can make along the way (like picking the lowest activity level, if that's not accurate for you). That approach, lowballing everything, can make the process unsustainable, even create health risk (if at an extreme). Losing any meaningful amount of weight is a process that will take many weeks to many months, perhaps even years. That puts a premium on making one's approach sustainable, and keeping it health-promoting.

I've been following this religiously for 3 weeks, I'm actually averaging 1800/week. After a promising 1st week, my weight has been stuck on 310 for the past 14 days.

At your current weight, it should be OK to lose at your goal of 2 pounds a week, but again, 1800 would theoretically be 1.4 pounds per week, if your maintenance calories are in reality 2500.

Note that all so-called "calculators" are actually estimators. Individual humans differ. The calculators spit out what amounts to a population average calorie need for a particular set of demographic details (weight, height, age, etc.). Most people are close to average (plus or minus a couple of hundred calories or so). A few are a bit further off, either high or low. A very rare few are quite surprisingly far off from the averages.

Part of successful calorie counting, in my view, is running a good experiment up front, to try to get a handle on how average we are individually. The easiest way to do that is to track carefully for 4-6 weeks, then compare expected loss to actual loss per week, averaged over that period. If the first couple of weeks look wildly different from later weeks, ignore those and use later weeks. (The initial period probably has higher chances of water weight and digestive contents anomalies, so not very clean fat-loss data.) Women (which I understand you aren't) should use whole menstrual cycles if they have cycles, comparing body weights at the same relative point in two or more different cycles.

If a person constantly changes their routine based on a week or two of personal data, they will never get a decent experience-based estimate of their personal calorie needs. That's unhelpful. (Personally, I also think it's stressful.)

From day 1 I bought a kitchen scale and don't eat anything at home without weighing it. About 3 times a week I eat out, but only in fast-food chains with predictable calorie counts like McDonalds and Subway. For the latter I make sure I add the sauce calories separately. When I eat out, if there's a contradiction between MFP, the restaurant's website, or the in-restaurant calorie counts, like is the case for Subway, I log the highest calorie value.

Basically I'm doing everything by the book. I thought this was an exact science? If so, why aren't I at 306, or at least 308 if you want to consider fluctuations in water weight, bowel movements, etc. It's discouraging to be eating at -700 cals daily only to stay the same weight.

This is *not* an exact science. It's sort of a fun science-fair experiment for grown-ups, using estimates of every single relevant variable, figuring out how to improve the probable accuracy of those estimates, and adjusting the plan based on results.

Tactics like weighing food reduce the sources of variability in estimates, increasing chances of success when those more precise values are used, but they don't make it "an exact science". Humans are dynamic systems. Calories eaten actually can affect calories burned, among other sources of variation. One apple is sweeter than the next, even if both weigh 125g. One day we do a lot of chores around the house, burning more calories; another day we veg out on the couch, and burn fewer.

Water weight and digestive contents shifts are pretty fast, and relatively big. Fat losses - at anything short of starvation intake - is very gradual, much smaller magnitude: It shows up in multi-week trends, at best. (How many weeks varies somewhat with actual loss rate, something a person only is roughly estimating until they dial in their personal, experience-based calorie needs estimate.) Muscle mass changes, absent some serious health conditions, show up over many months to years.

This is a good read, in case you haven't run across it yet:

https://physiqonomics.com/the-weird-and-highly-annoying-world-of-scale-weight-and-fluctuations

The good news on this "not exact, rather estimates" front is that the estimates can be plenty close enough to be successful, on average over time, in a huge range of cases (different lifestyles, methods).

One side comment: Some people seem to lose weight in a "stalls and whooshes" fashion, sticking around a given weight for days up to a small number of weeks, then suddenly dropping multiple pounds on the scale overnight. I was not one of those, but you might be. That's also something you can figure out about yourself, if you hang in there patiently. Even people who don't "stall and whoosh" long term sometimes seem to experience fast loss the first week or two, then stabilize for a week or two, before settling into what will become their consistent pattern. (Other people may experience other patterns in the first month-ish that won't continue; this is just one possibility. But it's common that the first weeks may be weird.)

I'm not following any meal plans, I optimized for logging convenience/exactitude.

I set my diary to public, not sure if you guys can see it. What's the deal here?

I don't see anything startling (i.e., obviously erroneous) in your diary, but I eat very differently than you do, so it's possible that things might not jump out at me. Others might have more insight. (Note: I don't intend any implication that you should eat more like me. I think your "optimized for convenience/exactitude" is fine, if it suits you - probably better than a force-fit cookie-cutter meal plan. I optimized more for satiation/nutrition/happiness primarily, but not everyone has the same priorities, and I don't think those specifics much matter . . . personalization of strategies does, though, IMO.)

I don't think that using chain restaurant estimates for 3 meals a week has any significant probability of derailing your estimating efforts. It should be fine. I probably did it close to that often during weight loss. (Bona fides for giving advice: Lost about 1/3 of my body weight back in 2015-16 after decades of overweight/obesity, have maintained a healthy weight for the 5+ years since.)

A side note: Stress can increase water retention, be counterproductive. It's useful to avoid or manage it if possible. Note that all-source physical and psychological stress are cumulative, and that calorie deficit is a physical stress. At extremes, water weight from stress and other sources can mask meaningful fat loss for a surprisingly long time.

Right now, my advice to you would be to hang in there, be consistent in your routine for another few weeks, then consider adjusting based on average results.

Best wishes!

springlering62

sijomial wrote: »

"I thought this was an exact science?"

No weight loss doesn't work that way.

Boy, howdy, ain’t that the truth.

You need to give it four to six weeks. Your brain is adjusting to one thing, but your whole body, a collection of cells, is having to accustom to another. The first few weeks are mind/ body chaos. Give it a chance.

And when you do start losing, understand that your weight does not drop in a straight line. When you’re in maintenance, you’re not on a golden plateau.

Things are always in flux. You ate salt. You’re constipated. You got sore doing a new workout (water retention). You had a beer. Went out to dinner with friends. You ate a whole bag of delicious crispy Sardinian croccanti crackers Sunday. (No wait, that was me….)

Your body does not exist in a perfect vacuum or as an example of an exact science, and you’ll set yourself up for failure if you think so.

Give yourself grace, patience, and the opportunity to learn new things about the amazing vessel that is your body.

If you’re weighing accurately and logging honestly, weight loss will come, though it may feel fitful and when you least expect.

ehju0901

This thread is full of great insight! I'm currently at a plateau for a few weeks now and am currently just sticking to my diet as best I can. I'm confident results will show up eventually! Breaking the 240 lb mark will feel so satisfying once it happens lol.

goal06082021

Trust the process. I am one of the stall-and-whooshers that Ann mentioned - I'll show no or minimal loss, or even a small gain, for 2-3 weeks and then suddenly WHOOSH I'm down 3 pounds the next week, despite doing the same thing every week (weigh all my food, use accurate database entries, etc etc etc).

callsitlikeiseeit

wilson10102018

Not to despair. This is science, not mumbo jumbo.

If you count the calories correctly you will lose the weight. Be patient. At 300 ponds you can have 25 pounds of stuff in your digestive track. Eventually, it will all sort out.

westrich20940

ntflo wrote: »

No calories in drinks, except the milk I log. I just drink water, black coffee and the occasional Coke Zero.

I'll give it 2 more weeks at least. I just thought perhaps I was wrong to trust McDonalds and Subway about the calories in their sandwiches. My first week I never ate out, everything went on the scale in my kitchen, but it's inconvenient.

I'll stay flexible (eating out every other day) for another 2 weeks, if I'm not 305 or better by then, I'll go back to eating in for another 2 weeks. And if that doesn't work, then I guess I'll look for a plan B.

I'm just going to chime in as a former fast food worker (Dairy Queen)...the nutritional information for fast food restaurants is based on the actual recipes for those foods. For example: if you looked up how many calories are in a small Reese's Cup Blizzard -- you'll get a number but that's ONLY IF the person who made it actually used the amount of ice cream and toppings that is in the OFFICIAL RECIPE. It's not like they're gonna put 2 extra scoops in without your knowledge (although I was 'nice' to people who were nice to me)....but a rounded scoop is significantly more candy than a level scoop (which is the recipe). Not to mention the weight difference between filling the ice cream to the top of the container or over (since the ice cream can be a bit over)....so I mean, I wouldn't necessarily religiously trust the nutrition info on fast food websites....

EDIT: to add....I also found through my weight loss that it's not very effective to weigh yourself every 2 weeks. I think it usually just adds to discouragement or anxiety over the scale not going down when high levels of weight fluctuation are normal. I actually started only weighing myself like once per month for that reason. Mentally it was better for me. And you have to look at your trend over time.