What am I doing wrong? (I would love a second set of eyes!)
Options
Replies
-
ok first of all WHY ARE YOU TRAINING FOR SO LONG!?!?
It's about intensity and not so much about time! don't do so much alltogether! do one thing (maybe even 2) one day and then the other thing the next day!
thats number 1
2.- check out that watch of yours, something's not right
3. I would seriously recommend adding some more protein to your diet and not so many carbs, carbs make you hungry-er, increases glucose levels on blood and tho it seems like it fulls you! IT'S A TRAP! find some high protein alternatives, those are much better for the hunger and the body
4. try to swich up your work out routine every once in a while or your body will adapt and then there will be no more weightloss0 -
Wow, your pic doesn't look like 200+ pounds.
I have kinda turned into a myopic LCHF person, so when I look at your diary and see the fruit, rice, bread, potatoes - typically 200+g carbs per day, I assume you develop hunger between meals so you eat all those "healthy fruits and whole grains" as snacks.
It doesn't work. All the carbs count to increase blood sugar and increase insulin which crushes blood sugar and drives hunger later. All carbs increase blood sugar and can increase systemic inflammation. So cutting sugars and carbs may improve your RA.
Also your diet in the past week tends to be low-fat. You need fat and protein to satisfy appetite and suppress later hunger so you can stop snacking. I'd eat more deli-meats (no sugar cures!) and less protein-shake.
Drinking lots of water is good too. I never touch the stuff myself.
Maybe you should write to all the professional sportsmen and women in the world and tell them they are all wrong.
Perhaps you could become a coach with all your insights about how their diets are unhealthy for them with all those awful carbs.
OP is probably burning 1500-1800 a day on those three hour sessions. She could easily inhale 400g on top of her 1500 calories and still lose fat.
She is probably on a plateau with her fat cells and muscles holding on to water. I always get them on a cut for the first few weeks, I trust my numbers and eventually it whooshes off.
If you are going to do that much exercise you MUST be accurate with your measuring and burn numbers. Weight gain can happen if one overestimates exercise calories and is sloppy with food weighing and injury and lean body catabolism (muscle get burned for fuel) can happen if you do the opposite.
Also, hunger is normal. Get over it.0 -
I would say that there's a bit of truth in several posts here. At least for me. Don't over train. You should be able to get all you need in 45 minutes if you increase the intensity. Lift heavy, lift hard, and sprint. Yes, I would agree that the LCHF way of eating is WAY better. The research is decades old, not skewed by special interest groups, and at the very least, your brain (made entirely of fat and fueled by cholesterol) will thank you later by not developing dementia. I turned the food pyramid upside down and lost 30 pounds so far in 6 weeks. To answer the common retorts, have you ever seen a professional athlete OUT of their prime? Walking time bombs. There are a lot of opinions and success stories on either side of that argument though... Best advice, as mentioned before, INTENSITY!0
-
Hi,
I don't know what you are eating, but I do know what works for me. Vegetables, vegetables, vegetables! I start my day with a smoothie made up of a leafy green (spinach, kale, collards...), another vegetable (cucumber, carrot, celery...) and fruits (which I keep to 2 or 3 because of the sugar). I switch it up between berries, citrus, pineapple etc. I also use New Zealand Whey Protein powder and hemp hearts or flax seeds to make a whole meal.
Have you thought of checking out the glycemic index of your foods? Some foods break down quickly while others keep you feeling full longer.0 -
ok first of all WHY ARE YOU TRAINING FOR SO LONG!?!?
It's about intensity and not so much about time! don't do so much alltogether! do one thing (maybe even 2) one day and then the other thing the next day!
thats number 1
Well, the easiest answer is ... Because I enjoy it.
I never, EVER would have said that two months ago ... But well, I started with spin class, then wanted to add Zumba ... Then group power ... Then group active ... Then yoga, of course ... So I then I wanted to do them all.
And as long as I have the time (summers off) and energy and am not hurting myself ... Then why is it a bad thing?
My main concern with this thread is nutrition. I know I'm getting enough exercise, and I don't think I'm doing too much. I listen to my body, and if I'm super tired or having trouble working as hard as normal, then intake a day off, or skip a class or two. So the issue has to either be 1) I'm eating too much and don't know it, 2) my body is in a plateau from the new routine (which I learned from all of you helpful folks!), 3) the elusive "starvation mode" is true - something I was skeptical of from the beginning, but hey, I love a sounding board from peers, or 4) something else is wrong and I'm too much of a newbie to know what it is, which is why I posted here.
I really do appreciate everyone's advice. I've even learned things I didn't know, and have already ordered a food scale 0 -
Don't worry about the "ranting" if you have ever had a weight problem you know how frustrating things can be.
I am a 55yr old Scottish mum who lives is Australia. HELLO!! (GDAY MATE!) I have always had to watch what goes "down the shute" as my mother-in-law would say. I have religiousy excercised regularly and tried to keep the "munchies" at bay. I have stayed within a few pounds of my ideal weight ( give or take a FEW blow-outs) for over 30 years so Hopefully I might be able to shed some light on what you are going thru.
You need to CALM down and stop stressing. If you are excercising for up to 2- 3 hours a day it sounds like you are obviously trying very hard. Have you ever heard of INTERVAL TRAINING?? Check this out online. The idea is you work for short bursts at a VERY HIGH intensity. If you try this then you would only have to spend a fraction of your time in the gym. doing 1 hour a day intense exercise should be more than enough. If the weather is lovely go for a brisk walk at lunch-time. Great for the spirits. Your weight will start to come off. You just have to keep plodding on. Remember muscle does weigh more than fat so as your body adjusts to your new GOOD habits then you will see results. Don't be so impatient. Think about how long it took to pile on the pounds. AND REMEMBER IT IS NOT LIKE THE TV SHOWS.........WHERE ALL THEY ARE DOING IS SPENDING TIME EXERCISING ALL DAY TO PUT ON CAMERA. Most of us have a life and a job and family.
KEEP GOING AND DON'T BE SO HARD ON YOURSELF
P.S. IF YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR FOOD GO AND SEE A NUTRITIONIST. AT LEAST THEY ARE TRAINED AND KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT FOOD............GOOD LUCK X
Crissie:flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: :happy: ::flowerforyou:
0 -
I would say that there's a bit of truth in several posts here. At least for me. Don't over train. You should be able to get all you need in 45 minutes if you increase the intensity. Lift heavy, lift hard, and sprint. Yes, I would agree that the LCHF way of eating is WAY better. The research is decades old, not skewed by special interest groups, and at the very least, your brain (made entirely of fat and fueled by cholesterol) will thank you later by not developing dementia. I turned the food pyramid upside down and lost 30 pounds so far in 6 weeks. To answer the common retorts, have you ever seen a professional athlete OUT of their prime? Walking time bombs. There are a lot of opinions and success stories on either side of that argument though... Best advice, as mentioned before, INTENSITY!
Best advice, calorie deficit. However you go about it OP. What activity you do, even if it's none at all, doesn't matter, you just need deficit.
Lots of statements here that are backed up with no evidence at all. Here are some other anecdotals.
I've lost fat by pottering around in deficit.
I've overtrained and lost fat and muscle in deficit.
I agree that adequate protein, fat and carb at maintenance is WAY better than the other diets I've done. The research is decades old, I think, whatever, anyway..
I know LOADS of old codgers without dementia who eat carbs, booze, sugar, ok.
30 pounds in 6 weeks is going to be a lot of water, glycogen, food and waste in gut, and lean body mass. Somewhere in there, some fat, but what a shame to sacrifice all the useful stuff alongside. The idea is to lose FAT. I'm not happy if I lose more than one third of a pound a week.
That's my opinion. You can call me wrong if you like, but I've lost 10% body fat and am in the top 1% of fitness in my age catagory.
I am however very interested in how sports people fare after their careers, so if you have any interesting links that prove a problem with carb fuelling I would be very grateful.0 -
"So the issue has to either be 1) I'm eating too much and don't know it, 2) my body is in a plateau from the new routine..."
It's #2. I'd bet anything.
You lost a lot of weight quickly and then hit the gym HARD. Your body is probably retaining a lot of water and there is probably a giant whoosh of weight loss right around the corner.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/of-whooshes-and-squishy-fat.html
I lost 40 lbs. on WW once and then decided to take up exercise, daily. I plateaued for a couple months. Then I dropped like 5 lbs. Then 5 more.
Are you in WW meetings or online? If you're paying them, you should ask their advice, too.
Good luck!0 -
Have you taken your own measurements? Sometimes it's hard to see a loss on the scale due to a number of factors, but pay attention to your measurements. Get a tape measure and track your arms, bust, waist, hips and thighs. I bet you'll love what you'll see.
If you're working out 2-3 hours a day, I don't think 1500 calories is enough. You should be upping your protein intake to around 100 g/day and probably closer to 1700-1800 calories. I lost about 50 lbs on WW a few years ago. Love the Core program.0 -
<snip> "starvation mode: myth or fact?" <snip> On one hand, it makes sense. Your body needs calories to operate. On the others, even people with eating disorders or who are actually starving DO lose weight.
Hmm look at it this way. Yes, your body needs CALORIES to operate. You burn more CALORIES by exercising. You have calories in bodyfat as well as in food. So by eating some food and metabolizing bodyfat as needed, your system is getting all the CALORIES it needs to operate. The number of calories you're getting is not really an issue for health.
You get NUTRIENTS (macronutrients and micronutrients) mostly from food. Don't eat enough food, risk not getting enough NUTRIENTS. Your body has minimum nutrient needs that aren't really about calories, and regardless of the amount of exercise you're getting. This is the real justification for all the talk about people eating at least 1200 calories a day: it's not because that's a magic number, it's because that number, with a proper macro ratio, tends to help people meet those minimum nutrient requirements. From the research I have seen, lots of exercise (particularly cardio) does not SUBSTANTIALLY increase your body's need for specific micronutrients except maybe electrolytes (which don't have to be attached to calories). There is a VERY MODERATE demand for increased macros (carbohydrates and protein to sustain blood sugar and muscle retention), but not on a burn 1 calorie :: 1 eat one calorie ratio.
In theory, burning more calories with cardio exercise does not create a need for a ton more food, as if there were a ratio of calories ingested / calories burned to sustain weightloss for some magical reason. While it is a VERY GOOD IDEA to eat a bit more food -- particularly more nutrient dense food -- when adding more exercise (more protein and maybe more carbs though I'm sure I'll get yelled at by a low carb zealot for saying so) there's no particular need to match your increased caloric intake 1::1 with your increased caloric burn. A lot of people just eat back about half of their estimated burn and call it a day. Some people, less than that.
That all being said, your nutrition looks okay. 1500 calories is not a lot for someone at your weight (I weigh a bit more, FWIW), nor is it dangerously too little for someone exercising a lot. It will have no effect on your progress aside from contributing to the size of your caloric deficit. If your mouth and appetite seem happy at 1500 calories, there's no reason not to stick to that. If you were eating many fewer calories I would recommend more for nutrition for someone your height and weight, but not for "starvation mode." If you're happy at that level, it's not so low that you shouldn't stick with it.
The reason you are not losing a lot is NOT related to your eating too little and entering "starvation mode." It's probably the other reasons that have been posted in this thread. Also, check out my ticker :-) When I was about 3 months in I had similar questions and issues ("OMG the math! According to the math my calorie deficit should have translated to X pounds lost but no. Am I eating too little? Am derailing my progress?"), but just staying the course was enough to break through. I think my body was reacting to all the new exercise after a previously sedentary lifestyle with some inflammation / water retention but that settled down and WHOOSH. Full disclosure: I'm about your size and I do eat more than you, at 1900 cal / day, and like you I exercise quite a lot (one hour a day low intensity i.e. walking; one hour a day varying moderate to high intensity: swimming intervals, resistance cardio, and strength training). But then I'm STILL losing at an average of about 2 lbs a week. But that's me, not you.0 -
I just read an article about using measuring spoons and cups. I always use a knife to scrape off extra but did you know that some servings are not really as stated? Take Quaker Oats .. it states that a serving is a 1/2 cup or 40 g. I weighed it and a level 1/2 cup weighs out at 52g. That is a 1 1/2 tablespoon difference, so from now on I am weighing everything.0
-
HRMs do not accurately estimate caloric burns for intervals such as most spin classes nor for Zumba, Body Pump, lifting, pilates, yoga, etc. The formulas used are based upon steady state cardio ... steady running, constant effort cycling,etc. HRM or not, you are overestimating your burns.0
-
30 pounds in 6 weeks is going to be a lot of water, glycogen, food and waste in gut, and lean body mass. Somewhere in there, some fat, but what a shame to sacrifice all the useful stuff alongside. The idea is to lose FAT. I'm not happy if I lose more than one third of a pound a week.
I started at 292. I switched to LCHF, consume a gallon of water a day, and do strength training 3 times a week. At what point do results fly in the face of opinion? At 12 pounds lost, it was water weight. At 20? Low-fat dieters said "water weight." Now at 30, "water weight." I wonder, will still be water weight once I get down to 210? First couple of weeks I lost strength and stamina. I'm now able to lift heavier than when I started. Though I haven't had my body fat percentage tested, I can assure you that lean body mass has not gone down. When you're a 1-percenter, you simply don't posses more than 1/3 pound per week to lose.0 -
Good for you. Great post. I've always wanted to type something like that up here (why 1200 is a useful, universal because it's about the NUTRIENTS not the calories) but never have. You said it perfectly.
<snip> "starvation mode: myth or fact?" <snip> On one hand, it makes sense. Your body needs calories to operate. On the others, even people with eating disorders or who are actually starving DO lose weight.
Hmm look at it this way. Yes, your body needs CALORIES to operate. You burn more CALORIES by exercising. You have calories in bodyfat as well as in food. So by eating some food and metabolizing bodyfat as needed, your system is getting all the CALORIES it needs to operate. The number of calories you're getting is not really an issue for health.
You get NUTRIENTS (macronutrients and micronutrients) mostly from food. Don't eat enough food, risk not getting enough NUTRIENTS. Your body has minimum nutrient needs that aren't really about calories, and regardless of the amount of exercise you're getting. This is the real justification for all the talk about people eating at least 1200 calories a day: it's not because that's a magic number, it's because that number, with a proper macro ratio, tends to help people meet those minimum nutrient requirements. From the research I have seen, lots of exercise (particularly cardio) does not SUBSTANTIALLY increase your body's need for specific micronutrients except maybe electrolytes (which don't have to be attached to calories). There is a VERY MODERATE demand for increased macros (carbohydrates and protein to sustain blood sugar and muscle retention), but not on a burn 1 calorie :: 1 eat one calorie ratio.
In theory, burning more calories with cardio exercise does not create a need for a ton more food, as if there were a ratio of calories ingested / calories burned to sustain weightloss for some magical reason. While it is a VERY GOOD IDEA to eat a bit more food -- particularly more nutrient dense food -- when adding more exercise (more protein and maybe more carbs though I'm sure I'll get yelled at by a low carb zealot for saying so) there's no particular need to match your increased caloric intake 1::1 with your increased caloric burn. A lot of people just eat back about half of their estimated burn and call it a day. Some people, less than that.
That all being said, your nutrition looks okay. 1500 calories is not a lot for someone at your weight (I weigh a bit more, FWIW), nor is it dangerously too little for someone exercising a lot. It will have no effect on your progress aside from contributing to the size of your caloric deficit. If your mouth and appetite seem happy at 1500 calories, there's no reason not to stick to that. If you were eating many fewer calories I would recommend more for nutrition for someone your height and weight, but not for "starvation mode." If you're happy at that level, it's not so low that you shouldn't stick with it.
The reason you are not losing a lot is NOT related to your eating too little and entering "starvation mode." It's probably the other reasons that have been posted in this thread. Also, check out my ticker :-) When I was about 3 months in I had similar questions and issues ("OMG the math! According to the math my calorie deficit should have translated to X pounds lost but no. Am I eating too little? Am derailing my progress?"), but just staying the course was enough to break through. I think my body was reacting to all the new exercise after a previously sedentary lifestyle with some inflammation / water retention but that settled down and WHOOSH. Full disclosure: I'm about your size and I do eat more than you, at 1900 cal / day, and like you I exercise quite a lot (one hour a day low intensity i.e. walking; one hour a day varying moderate to high intensity: swimming intervals, resistance cardio, and strength training). But then I'm STILL losing at an average of about 2 lbs a week. But that's me, not you.0 -
30 pounds in 6 weeks is going to be a lot of water, glycogen, food and waste in gut, and lean body mass. Somewhere in there, some fat, but what a shame to sacrifice all the useful stuff alongside. The idea is to lose FAT. I'm not happy if I lose more than one third of a pound a week.
I started at 292. I switched to LCHF, consume a gallon of water a day, and do strength training 3 times a week. At what point do results fly in the face of opinion? At 12 pounds lost, it was water weight. At 20? Low-fat dieters said "water weight." Now at 30, "water weight." I wonder, will still be water weight once I get down to 210? First couple of weeks I lost strength and stamina. I'm now able to lift heavier than when I started. Though I haven't had my body fat percentage tested, I can assure you that lean body mass has not gone down. When you're a 1-percenter, you simply don't posses more than 1/3 pound per week to lose.
You can assure people that your rapid weight loss didn't cost you any lean mass? Really? Is that based upon the lack of testing before starting coupled with the lack of testing now?
Please be honest with yourself and us ... you have no clue if your lean mass is down or not. You don't know what it was before you started dieting and don't know what it is now therefore there is no comparative basis.0 -
I think that weight watchers is a great tool for starting out, but I dont feel its greatfor the long term. You'd be better off logging your calories and checking your macros. If you are exercising that much every day, you aren't eating nearly enough. I am 5'6" 25 y.o and I aim for 2000 calories per day and burn about 1200+ calories a week in cardio. I based my estimation of my TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) .Also, don't use your hrm for strength training because it grossly over estimates calories burnt for strength. Hrms are only meant for cardio.0
-
If someone is working out 2-3 hours a day and they are over 200 pounds, they need 2000+ calories. Eating more can cause fat loss. I don't care what anyone says. I've seen it with my own eyes numerous times. Just because the body might not burn that many calories during working out, the stress on the body to recover from such workouts requires energy as well. It's not always about the calorie burn.0
-
30 pounds in 6 weeks is going to be a lot of water, glycogen, food and waste in gut, and lean body mass. Somewhere in there, some fat, but what a shame to sacrifice all the useful stuff alongside. The idea is to lose FAT. I'm not happy if I lose more than one third of a pound a week.
I started at 292. I switched to LCHF, consume a gallon of water a day, and do strength training 3 times a week. At what point do results fly in the face of opinion? At 12 pounds lost, it was water weight. At 20? Low-fat dieters said "water weight." Now at 30, "water weight." I wonder, will still be water weight once I get down to 210? First couple of weeks I lost strength and stamina. I'm now able to lift heavier than when I started. Though I haven't had my body fat percentage tested, I can assure you that lean body mass has not gone down. When you're a 1-percenter, you simply don't posses more than 1/3 pound per week to lose.
You can assure people that your rapid weight loss didn't cost you any lean mass? Really? Is that based upon the lack of testing before starting coupled with the lack of testing now?
Please be honest with yourself and us ... you have no clue if your lean mass is down or not. You don't know what it was before you started dieting and don't know what it is now therefore there is no comparative basis.
Do you mean in the same way the assumption is that it IS lean body mass loss just by reading a post? Fact is, if a person is building strength, they are also building muscle, which is lean body mass.
Sorry, OP, for your thread getting hijacked. The honest truth is don't believe anything anyone says here unless you have researched it yourself and confirmed it to be true. You will find those that will bash every different sort of diet/lifestyle that exists. There as many opinions on weight loss as there are methods for achieving it. If you're looking for solid answers, research every opinion for yourself, find like minded people to help keep you motivated, and be strict with what you decide. In the quest to overcome obesity, there are no cheat days!0 -
30 pounds in 6 weeks is going to be a lot of water, glycogen, food and waste in gut, and lean body mass. Somewhere in there, some fat, but what a shame to sacrifice all the useful stuff alongside. The idea is to lose FAT. I'm not happy if I lose more than one third of a pound a week.
I started at 292. I switched to LCHF, consume a gallon of water a day, and do strength training 3 times a week. At what point do results fly in the face of opinion? At 12 pounds lost, it was water weight. At 20? Low-fat dieters said "water weight." Now at 30, "water weight." I wonder, will still be water weight once I get down to 210? First couple of weeks I lost strength and stamina. I'm now able to lift heavier than when I started. Though I haven't had my body fat percentage tested, I can assure you that lean body mass has not gone down. When you're a 1-percenter, you simply don't posses more than 1/3 pound per week to lose.
You can assure people that your rapid weight loss didn't cost you any lean mass? Really? Is that based upon the lack of testing before starting coupled with the lack of testing now?
Please be honest with yourself and us ... you have no clue if your lean mass is down or not. You don't know what it was before you started dieting and don't know what it is now therefore there is no comparative basis.
Do you mean in the same way the assumption is that it IS lean body mass loss just by reading a post? Fact is, if a person is building strength, they are also building muscle, which is lean body mass.
Sorry, OP, for your thread getting hijacked. The honest truth is don't believe anything anyone says here unless you have researched it yourself and confirmed it to be true. You will find those that will bash every different sort of diet/lifestyle that exists. There as many opinions on weight loss as there are methods for achieving it. If you're looking for solid answers, research every opinion for yourself, find like minded people to help keep you motivated, and be strict with what you decide. In the quest to overcome obesity, there are no cheat days!
Again, the 'fact is' you cannot build muscle mass without an excess calorie intake beyond your maintenance needs, unless you are in newbie gain territory, a brand new lifter. Even then you are really just strengthening muscles. Your fat and water loss will reveal the muscles underneath when in deficit.
Also, there are numerous posters here that are experts, it just takes a while to find them. You'll know who they are.0 -
Thanks for the tips! Is there anyway to ensure my HRM's accuracy?
And I've already ordered a food scale ... So that will be a new experience for the better!
And yes, I was completely sedentary (besides my job) before I started exercising. But to clarify, I'm not losing inches either. Well, baaaaarely. I forgot to measure my hips this morning and found that I've lost half and inch there and around my chest .... But my waist, arms, and thighs are still the same from roughly 4 weeks ago. That's really what's bothering me, more so than the lack of weight loss on the scale. The past 3 weeks I've really increased my weight and strength training (increased ... Lol ... From nothing!) and I thought I'd for sure see a difference in measurements (although I can see and feel the muscle growing and defining in both my arms and legs).
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is
And it sounds like you have been eating at about 50% deficit considering I'm betting calorie burn is overestimated (HRM calorie burn not valid for lifting anyway) and food logging is over estimated, balancing each other out.
At least it sounds like body hasn't totally stopped making improvements while burning off some fat (but not adding new muscle at that big a deficit, just making it stronger).
25% deficit for obese folks in study caused a drop of metabolic rate of 20-25%. True, it didn't wipe out all their deficit and they still lost slower - but who really wants to eat 500 calories even less to get some weight loss, and maintenance 500 lower than possible could really suck and not be adhered too.
Add to that the loss of muscle mass you've caused (oh yeah) and you are probably 35-40% lower.
Include the bodies response of moving you less daily, now you've likely wiped out your deficit that could have been in place. That's where you burn 300 in a workout, but body makes you more lazy by not burning 300 calories - net effect is no extra burn actually.
Body adapted to protect itself.
Notice it's not the eating level - it's the amount of deficit.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-6162510
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions