I'm obese but active - cut calories or bump calories?
Options
Replies
-
Thanks for all the replies! Wow, first time posting and it's heartening to see how many people are willing to offer advice.
Just a side note on the comments about logging everything. Other than those days where it's obvious I didn't log anything, so the days with only around 500 calories, that IS all I've eaten. I have a very weird work schedule, of 2 12hr day shifts followed by 2 12 hour night shifts, followed by 4 days off. I won't really eat after midnight, because it upsets my stomach. So I will work 6pm-6am, I will have dinner at 7pm, maybe a snack around 11, then I won't eat the rest of my work shift, go home, sleep till 230 pm, Have a meal around 330, another meal around 730, snack around 11. That is how those days are so few calories. On the change-over between days to nights, I'm up for 24 hours straight, so unfortunately I eat more to stay awake and alert. And lord help me if I'm eating out somewhere. Still not quite able to make the healthiest choices. Or at least, what i think sounds healthy is a calorie bomb, ugh.
My plateau actually started when I started working this crazy schedule of 4on/4off. This schedule is beginning to mess with my system, so I think when I'll be able to get back to regular shifts and eating healthy options at regular times I'll notice a difference.
Thanks again!!
IN this case - log everying - don't skip days and maybe try to eat an average of 1350 cals a day over the week - it may work out that just by your work patterns you are eating a type of 5:2 fasting.
Try that for a few weeks - 4 really and see what happens - but you have to log and weight EVERYTHING :laugh: no cheating now
Oh and please ignore all the advice about not eating bread, added sugar, eating palm sugar etc etc. it all boils down to the number of calories you eat.
If you want to do strengh training that would be excellent - it's great for helping you keep your muscle while losing fat - but if you start you could retain water for a while throwing off the scale, make sure you take measurements and photos as well.
This thread is great for information:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1175494-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants :drinker:0 -
Definitely go for the strength training. Strength training helps boost your metabolism.
I just want to second this! I hit a plateau with my weight loss at 135 (I'm less than an inch taller than you). Back in June I started strength training 3x per week. It helped me bust through that plateau (I didn't change anything else...) and I was able to drop 20 pounds by October. Just keep doing whatever you're doing... and add in some strength training if it suits you... remember, slow and steady wins the race...0 -
Info - I'm 4'11, 155lbs...I want to lose another 20 lb...I'm currently trying to keep my calories under 1350 net, but i'm not seeing any real change on the scale.
Here's the thing. At that height and weight, you are most likely at approximately 50% body fat. This puts your BMR at 1100ish and your non-exercise TDEE at 1300ish.
The exercise you describe is going to burn very few calories.
Putting it all together, the reason you are seeing minimal progress at 1350 calories is that you are eating too much for your activity level. If you want to lose weight, then either burn a lot more at current intake, or eat less.
Except that this is incorrect. I plugged in her numbers to fat2fit bmr calculator, using the 50% body fat which is probably too high, and got this. Your BMR estimate was close, but her sedentary TDEE is higher than 1350.
Activity Level Daily Calories
Sedentary (little or no exercise, desk job) 1787
Lightly Active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/wk) 2047
Moderately Active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/wk) 2308
Very Active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/wk) 2569
Extremely Active (hard daily exercise/sports & physical job or 2X day training, i.e marathon, contest etc.) 2829
So she doesn't have to drop her calories from 1350 to lose.0 -
I'd suggest lifting weights and bumping up calories. weight lifting will help you lose inches which you'll SEE in the mirror rather than on the scale.
While I agree that lifting is always a good idea, 4'11" and 150# is significantly overweight and focusing on lifting and completely ignoring the scale isn't a good idea.
I agree with SideSteel, 1350 might not be a bad net number for your size but chances are you aren't actually staying under this number. Track consistently and use a food scale for a month or so before reevaluating calorie intake.0 -
I'd suggest lifting weights and bumping up calories. weight lifting will help you lose inches which you'll SEE in the mirror rather than on the scale.
While I agree that lifting is always a good idea, 4'11" and 150# is significantly overweight and focusing on lifting and completely ignoring the scale isn't a good idea.
No one is saying to "ignore" the scale. Adding weight lifting to what she is already doing could help *move* the scale much faster than focusing on counting calories alone. (This was my personal experience, so there is no reason why it wouldn't work for someone else.)0 -
^ THISI think you would be best off taking the next two weeks and focus on logging everything, using a food scale when you are able to, and really get a good handle on intake accuracy with your logging.
You have several missing days, and several incomplete days where you've not logged everything. This makes it more difficult to make accurate assessments about energy intake.
Once you do this you should get a better idea of what's happening and how to fix it.0 -
And also ^THIS. If you can convert some of the weight to lean muscle, it will actually help you burn more calories even when you're being sedentary. Muscle is "greedier" with energy consumption...your body might have to cut into those fat stores to keep 'em fueled. :laugh:I'd suggest lifting weights and bumping up calories. weight lifting will help you lose inches which you'll SEE in the mirror rather than on the scale.
While I agree that lifting is always a good idea, 4'11" and 150# is significantly overweight and focusing on lifting and completely ignoring the scale isn't a good idea.
No one is saying to "ignore" the scale. Adding weight lifting to what she is already doing could help *move* the scale much faster than focusing on counting calories alone. (This was my personal experience, so there is no reason why it wouldn't work for someone else.)0 -
A pound of muscle, which a dieting woman wouldn't gain, only burns around 6 calories a day. It's a myth that its significantly more metabolically active, though a pervasive one.
And also ^THIS. If you can convert some of the weight to lean muscle, it will actually help you burn more calories even when you're being sedentary. Muscle is "greedier" with energy consumption...your body might have to cut into those fat stores to keep 'em fueled. :laugh:I'd suggest lifting weights and bumping up calories. weight lifting will help you lose inches which you'll SEE in the mirror rather than on the scale.
While I agree that lifting is always a good idea, 4'11" and 150# is significantly overweight and focusing on lifting and completely ignoring the scale isn't a good idea.
No one is saying to "ignore" the scale. Adding weight lifting to what she is already doing could help *move* the scale much faster than focusing on counting calories alone. (This was my personal experience, so there is no reason why it wouldn't work for someone else.)
And the post above about "this is how it worked for me so there is no reason why it wouldn't work for someone else"... one anecdote is not very predictive. Or maybe you were joking.0 -
A pound of muscle, which a dieting woman wouldn't gain, only burns around 6 calories a day. It's a myth that its significantly more metabolically active, though a pervasive one.
And also ^THIS. If you can convert some of the weight to lean muscle, it will actually help you burn more calories even when you're being sedentary. Muscle is "greedier" with energy consumption...your body might have to cut into those fat stores to keep 'em fueled. :laugh:I'd suggest lifting weights and bumping up calories. weight lifting will help you lose inches which you'll SEE in the mirror rather than on the scale.
While I agree that lifting is always a good idea, 4'11" and 150# is significantly overweight and focusing on lifting and completely ignoring the scale isn't a good idea.
No one is saying to "ignore" the scale. Adding weight lifting to what she is already doing could help *move* the scale much faster than focusing on counting calories alone. (This was my personal experience, so there is no reason why it wouldn't work for someone else.)
And the post above about "this is how it worked for me so there is no reason why it wouldn't work for someone else"... one anecdote is not very predictive. Or maybe you were joking.
Why would I be joking? Please explain to me why it wouldn't work. I'm not the only one. I simply shared my own experience since I am very close to the OP's height. I'm really not sure why you feel the need to argue with me on this.0 -
A pound of muscle, which a dieting woman wouldn't gain, only burns around 6 calories a day. It's a myth that its significantly more metabolically active, though a pervasive one.
And also ^THIS. If you can convert some of the weight to lean muscle, it will actually help you burn more calories even when you're being sedentary. Muscle is "greedier" with energy consumption...your body might have to cut into those fat stores to keep 'em fueled. :laugh:I'd suggest lifting weights and bumping up calories. weight lifting will help you lose inches which you'll SEE in the mirror rather than on the scale.
While I agree that lifting is always a good idea, 4'11" and 150# is significantly overweight and focusing on lifting and completely ignoring the scale isn't a good idea.
No one is saying to "ignore" the scale. Adding weight lifting to what she is already doing could help *move* the scale much faster than focusing on counting calories alone. (This was my personal experience, so there is no reason why it wouldn't work for someone else.)
And the post above about "this is how it worked for me so there is no reason why it wouldn't work for someone else"... one anecdote is not very predictive. Or maybe you were joking.
Why would I be joking? Please explain to me why it wouldn't work. I'm not the only one. I simply shared my own experience since I am very close to the OP's height. I'm really not sure why you feel the need to argue with me on this.
The point is that the amount of extra calories burned by muscle va fat is miniscule.0 -
Info - I'm 4'11, 155lbs...I want to lose another 20 lb...I'm currently trying to keep my calories under 1350 net, but i'm not seeing any real change on the scale.
Here's the thing. At that height and weight, you are most likely at approximately 50% body fat. This puts your BMR at 1100ish and your non-exercise TDEE at 1300ish.
The exercise you describe is going to burn very few calories.
Putting it all together, the reason you are seeing minimal progress at 1350 calories is that you are eating too much for your activity level. If you want to lose weight, then either burn a lot more at current intake, or eat less.
Except that this is incorrect. I plugged in her numbers to fat2fit bmr calculator, using the 50% body fat which is probably too high, and got this. Your BMR estimate was close, but her sedentary TDEE is higher than 1350.
The calculator at that site does not take into account LBM in its TDEE calculations. Use the one at IIFYM.com instead.0 -
I'm really not arguing with you on this. I'm thrilled someone her height with good results weighed in. It's just not scientifically possible you added so much muscle you burn more now. And it's illogical to think anything that worked for you should automatically work for everyone, or even everyone their height, even IF you knew what helped your weight loss, which is nearly impossible to pinpoint.
A pound of muscle, which a dieting woman wouldn't gain, only burns around 6 calories a day. It's a myth that its significantly more metabolically active, though a pervasive one.
And also ^THIS. If you can convert some of the weight to lean muscle, it will actually help you burn more calories even when you're being sedentary. Muscle is "greedier" with energy consumption...your body might have to cut into those fat stores to keep 'em fueled. :laugh:I'd suggest lifting weights and bumping up calories. weight lifting will help you lose inches which you'll SEE in the mirror rather than on the scale.
While I agree that lifting is always a good idea, 4'11" and 150# is significantly overweight and focusing on lifting and completely ignoring the scale isn't a good idea.
No one is saying to "ignore" the scale. Adding weight lifting to what she is already doing could help *move* the scale much faster than focusing on counting calories alone. (This was my personal experience, so there is no reason why it wouldn't work for someone else.)
And the post above about "this is how it worked for me so there is no reason why it wouldn't work for someone else"... one anecdote is not very predictive. Or maybe you were joking.
Why would I be joking? Please explain to me why it wouldn't work. I'm not the only one. I simply shared my own experience since I am very close to the OP's height. I'm really not sure why you feel the need to argue with me on this.
I agree with you that adding strength training is a good rec for everyone but for other reasons.0 -
I'm really not arguing with you on this. I'm thrilled someone her height with good results weighed in. It's just not scientifically possible you added so much muscle you burn more now. And it's illogical to think anything that worked for you should automatically work for everyone, or even everyone their height, even IF you knew what helped your weight loss, which is nearly impossible to pinpoint.
A pound of muscle, which a dieting woman wouldn't gain, only burns around 6 calories a day. It's a myth that its significantly more metabolically active, though a pervasive one.
And also ^THIS. If you can convert some of the weight to lean muscle, it will actually help you burn more calories even when you're being sedentary. Muscle is "greedier" with energy consumption...your body might have to cut into those fat stores to keep 'em fueled. :laugh:I'd suggest lifting weights and bumping up calories. weight lifting will help you lose inches which you'll SEE in the mirror rather than on the scale.
While I agree that lifting is always a good idea, 4'11" and 150# is significantly overweight and focusing on lifting and completely ignoring the scale isn't a good idea.
No one is saying to "ignore" the scale. Adding weight lifting to what she is already doing could help *move* the scale much faster than focusing on counting calories alone. (This was my personal experience, so there is no reason why it wouldn't work for someone else.)
And the post above about "this is how it worked for me so there is no reason why it wouldn't work for someone else"... one anecdote is not very predictive. Or maybe you were joking.
Why would I be joking? Please explain to me why it wouldn't work. I'm not the only one. I simply shared my own experience since I am very close to the OP's height. I'm really not sure why you feel the need to argue with me on this.
Please quote me directly where I said I added "so much muscle" that I now burn more. I don't ever recall saying that, nor does it sound like something I would say, so I am really interested to see where I actually wrote that. I ate at a calorie deficit, did cardio 5 times per week, and added strength training 3-4 times per week - once I added the strength training, I busted through a plateau. Clearly it just meant that I was burning more calories (NOT that I "added so much muscle blah blah blah"). Therefore, BURNING MORE CALORIES THAN I WAS CONSUMING WORKED FOR ME AS IT HAS ALSO WORKED FOR COUNTLESS PEOPLE ON THIS SITE. IT IS THE ENTIRE BASIS OF THIS SITE. WHY WOULD IT NOT WORK FOR THE OP??? Please tell me, do you consider science illogical?0 -
A pound of muscle, which a dieting woman wouldn't gain, only burns around 6 calories a day. It's a myth that its significantly more metabolically active, though a pervasive one.
And also ^THIS. If you can convert some of the weight to lean muscle, it will actually help you burn more calories even when you're being sedentary. Muscle is "greedier" with energy consumption...your body might have to cut into those fat stores to keep 'em fueled. :laugh:I'd suggest lifting weights and bumping up calories. weight lifting will help you lose inches which you'll SEE in the mirror rather than on the scale.
While I agree that lifting is always a good idea, 4'11" and 150# is significantly overweight and focusing on lifting and completely ignoring the scale isn't a good idea.
No one is saying to "ignore" the scale. Adding weight lifting to what she is already doing could help *move* the scale much faster than focusing on counting calories alone. (This was my personal experience, so there is no reason why it wouldn't work for someone else.)
And the post above about "this is how it worked for me so there is no reason why it wouldn't work for someone else"... one anecdote is not very predictive. Or maybe you were joking.
Why would I be joking? Please explain to me why it wouldn't work. I'm not the only one. I simply shared my own experience since I am very close to the OP's height. I'm really not sure why you feel the need to argue with me on this.
The point is that the amount of extra calories burned by muscle va fat is miniscule.
I'm really not sure how adding strength training could HURT along with a calorie deficit... and I NEVER mentioned building muscle to burn fat. This thread is like the twilight zone.0
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
- 991 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions