What am I doing wrong? (I would love a second set of eyes!)

heybales

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.

You think you can only gain strength by adding new muscle mass, as in the case of OP starting a routine?

That's cute.

Might want to research Central Nervous System (CNS) improvements in lifting.

You might be amazed the strength improvements possible without adding any new muscle mass.

Now, LBM can go up, because more stored carbs to use that existing muscle more are attached with water - and since that is all Non-Fat Mass, that means it's all Lean Body Mass. But not muscle mass.

But guess what looks bigger with water in it? Without one bit of new muscle fiber!

heybales

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.

Now where is that stupid Like icon!

And I'll bet someone 200 lbs is burning decent during a workout, even what may be an easy one to others. 4 mph walk for 1 hr is over 450 cal for that weight.

heybales

<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.

That would be great if all that was true. Some is, most isn't with current (last 10 yrs) studies.

Research regarding the feedback loops in the body when you burn off fat and even when you have a big deficit says otherwise though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i_cmltmQ6A

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss

WalkingAlong

Also, there are numerous posters here that are experts, it just takes a while to find them. You'll know who they are.

The self-proclaimed experts are mostly the bossy ones who are certain they know the one and only correct way to lose weight, I think.

Usually they will insult and ridicule you for your ignorance if you follow a different plan.

They have very high post counts because they've been reciting the same advice 30 times a day for years, believing that makes it more true. They link back to long MFP threads as 'evidence', because long threads mean more truth, also. They may even link to one study that supports their position. Usually there are as many studies that support the opposite position.

evileen99

I'm a little late to the party, but yes, 600 calories an hour seems greatly overestimated. That's 10 calories a minute, which is what you burn running (not a slow jog, but actual running) or jumping rope. There is no way you could keep up that intensity for 2 hours. So I'm guessing that you're way overestimating your calorie burns, along with some water retention.

CharlyG42

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.

Love what you've written, this is the best thing that Ive read so far in on this question!

TrailRunnermn

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.

Now where is that stupid Like icon!

And I'll bet someone 200 lbs is burning decent during a workout, even what may be an easy one to others. 4 mph walk for 1 hr is over 450 cal for that weight.

I'm guessing you still believe that the Law of Thermodynamics applies to humans? Humans aren't machines. Machines don't have hormones or complex systems that can't be fully understood.

Francl27

I don't think it matters one bit whether the calorie burn is too much or not. With 1500 calories a day, she wouldn't even need to exercise to lose weight.

OP, please eat more. And slow down the exercise... stick to one thing a day, just rotate between what you like. All you're going to do is burn your muscle mass. I'd say one of your classes and 2000 calories a day and you'd still lose weight nicely.

jollyjoe321

I'd keep measurements of myself such as waist etc. The scales give an indication, but it's how the weight is distributed that makes the key difference!

TrailRunnermn

I don't think it matters one bit whether the calorie burn is too much or not. With 1500 calories a day, she wouldn't even need to exercise to lose weight.

OP, please eat more. And slow down the exercise... stick to one thing a day, just rotate between what you like. All you're going to do is burn your muscle mass. I'd say one of your classes and 2000 calories a day and you'd still lose weight nicely.

Best advice so far.

ElisetheQ

I don't think it matters one bit whether the calorie burn is too much or not. With 1500 calories a day, she wouldn't even need to exercise to lose weight.

OP, please eat more. And slow down the exercise... stick to one thing a day, just rotate between what you like. All you're going to do is burn your muscle mass. I'd say one of your classes and 2000 calories a day and you'd still lose weight nicely.

Best advice so far.

You know, I was just thinking about how I was losing weight on about 1500, what my points allow for a day ... And even if my HRM is incorrect, I would still be burning more than 500 cals a day on exercise ... Maybe I do need to eat more, as counterintuitive as it seems! (Sorry guys, my brain is just so hot-wife's to think that less food-more weight loss).

Thanks everyone for taking your time to comment and answer my questions and give advice. I think I have a better expectation... And game plan.

heybales

I'm a little late to the party, but yes, 600 calories an hour seems greatly overestimated. That's 10 calories a minute, which is what you burn running (not a slow jog, but actual running) or jumping rope. There is no way you could keep up that intensity for 2 hours. So I'm guessing that you're way overestimating your calorie burns, along with some water retention.

Not actually for a 200 lb person - that's not impossible at all.

That would be running 4.5 mph level per hour to burn about 680. That's 13:30/mile pace.

That's pretty slow if any decent aspect of being in shape. Make it different workouts so it's not just pounding from running, like some spin bike at same level of effort and such, easily do that for 2 hrs.

So hardly out of the realm possibility.

Just so you know. Perhaps you were commenting on OP and what seems to be a level of poor fitness. Because those that are fit, 10 cal/min isn't much really, especially since you can get in to cardio/aerobic shape much faster than lose weight.

heybales

I don't think it matters one bit whether the calorie burn is too much or not. With 1500 calories a day, she wouldn't even need to exercise to lose weight.

OP, please eat more. And slow down the exercise... stick to one thing a day, just rotate between what you like. All you're going to do is burn your muscle mass. I'd say one of your classes and 2000 calories a day and you'd still lose weight nicely.

Best advice so far.

You know, I was just thinking about how I was losing weight on about 1500, what my points allow for a day ... And even if my HRM is incorrect, I would still be burning more than 500 cals a day on exercise ... Maybe I do need to eat more, as counterintuitive as it seems! (Sorry guys, my brain is just so hot-wife's to think that less food-more weight loss).

Thanks everyone for taking your time to comment and answer my questions and give advice. I think I have a better expectation... And game plan.

Indeed, all you need to do is eat less than you burn to lose weight.

Sadly bigger is not better or faster weight loss.

And too many start from the ground up, minimum safety levels, rather than top down.

So it may indeed be eating more than bare minimum, but it's still eating less than you burn.

Guess which side of the range allows for better improvements from the exercise?