Why isn't calorie counting working for me?

scintillaa

You have some very good suggestions here for eating well, and as you say, building muscle is essential for all of us for making it easier to acquire or maintain a healthy weight.

But 1200 is not the lowest number of calories to support our life systems for everyone. At 130 lbs, my BMR is below 1200. At my goal weight (115-120) my BMR is around 1100.

Now, at the op's weight, you are right, 1200 is probably the lowest she should go. Even for a net goal.

But be careful making blanket statements. .

I just wanted to put in this comment for others reading the thread, so they would know to investigate the facts. I spent 3 years trying to listen to people tell me that I should be basing my intake on a much higher BMR, and I gained 20 lbs. yes, there are plenty of people who would be starving themselves if they based their net goal on 1200. But there are plenty of us who have lower body weights and thus lower BMRs and who therefore have to use smaller numbers. And my goal weight is actually in the middle of healthy range for my height and frame, so I am not being drastic here.

I agree with you, that it isn't good to make blanket statements. But if she is already walking 10K, steps which is a moderate activity level and limiting her consumption to a meager 1200 calories per day, there is something else going on with her body. With all my exercise, I just about hit 10K steps a day (I have a bodymedia too, its good advice, they're $99 right now...a great investment--my calories are tracked through myfitnesspal), sometimes a little higher. Yes, I do a half hour of strength training every other day, but I am losing between 1 and 3 pounds per week and eat close to 2200 calories per day, now.

Now, I'm heavier than her by about 20 or so pounds, but I've been put on a 1200 calorie per day diet too -- and I did the same thing she did. I worked out every day diligently. And yes, the weight came off -- very slowly. maybe a pound every other week or so...with lots of plateaus in between, but eventually, I was able to starve myself thin. I was hungry constantly, I had no energy (which means I had to force myself to work out, by sheer strength of will), and I was constantly irritable and my immune system was in the toilet. When I FINALLY made it down to my goal weight, I brought my calories back up to what the BMR formula said would be necessary to maintain my weight, I gained back every single pound + an extra 5 or 10 for my efforts, which sucks...and trying to just starve myself thin again didn't work as well the next time I tried it.

The major benefit of the diet i described in my previous post being: I am never hungry between meals (If I am, I can eat without feeling guilty about it), I have a ton of energy (more than enough to get through my work out, work, and the housework as needed), and I am eating legitimately delicious food...So sticking to this diet is easy.

I realize everyone is different, but I just gave her the advice that worked for me when I was at my own wits end. At the very least, you can banish boneless-skinless chicken breast forever!

kikisf

My great-grandmother used to say eat like a queen for breakfast, princess for lunch and a pauper for supper.

So you may want to consider distributing your calories to be more earlier in the day.

The last 10 is always hard to lose. Good Luck!! You can do it!

jayeffbee41

Thanks everyone. I'm a bit upset that by using myfitnesspal's recommended settings I have possibly been eating too little which had it gone on long term without me questioning it could have caused me health problems Thanks to those that believed I had been tracking properly and for the advice on nutirition which I do a lot of anyway but will make some further adjustments. I know that my BMR is 1600 cals/day so have set to that and adjusted the macros for fat loss (per another site) as 20% carbs/35% fat/45% protein. I am aware that I need to up the exercise but am recovering from an injury from a car accident in April so am building up slowly. I am coming to terms with the fact that it may be slower than 1lb a week so thanks to everyone for pointing that out and for telling me to be patient. I've had a few days off tracking but will get back to it tomorrow after weighing first thing!

kimny72

Thanks everyone. I'm a bit upset that by using myfitnesspal's recommended settings I have possibly been eating too little which had it gone on long term without me questioning it could have caused me health problems Thanks to those that believed I had been tracking properly and for the advice on nutirition which I do a lot of anyway but will make some further adjustments. I know that my BMR is 1600 cals/day so have set to that and adjusted the macros for fat loss (per another site) as 20% carbs/35% fat/45% protein. I am aware that I need to up the exercise but am recovering from an injury from a car accident in April so am building up slowly. I am coming to terms with the fact that it may be slower than 1lb a week so thanks to everyone for pointing that out and for telling me to be patient. I've had a few days off tracking but will get back to it tomorrow after weighing first thing!

Don't worry too much... two weeks is not long enough to hit the panic button either way. Even if you were eating too few calories, it simply isn't long enough to have done anything major. Patience will be your best friend for losing 10 pounds - if you do it in a healthy manner it goes slooooooooooowwww :laugh:

And just so you don't take it personally, the reason people assumed you weren't logging properly is because when a new person posts a question like yours, 99.9% of the time when they open their diary they are not logging properly. Once you have been poking around on the forums for a few weeks you will see that for yourself! Anyway, glad you got good info, and good luck!

WalkingAlong

It looks like ONE person in the thread with no prior posts who didn't even look at your diary told you you might not be eating enough (or enough fats), and that's your take home message-- that MFP's 1200 rec is hurting you, even though you're averaging more like 1400-1500?

independant2406

2 weeks isn't long though (I know it feels frustrating not seeing movement on the scale). You may be losing inches in body size and not know it. Did you happen to take measurements when you started MFP? Keep sticking with what your doing your doing great! Sometimes the scale just takes a while to show it.

Also, just a thought. If you haven't had a checkup done in a while go to your primary doc and have some blood work done. Along with the usual things they check (cholesterol etc) Ask them to check your blood sugar and thyroid just to make sure everything is healthy and not fighting against all your hard work. Issues with thyroid and or blood sugars/insulin resistance can make it harder to lose the lbs and contributes to initial weight gain sometimes. Can't hurt if your due for a check anyway

radmack

How did you set your activity level on mfp? Sedentary, mod active, active? The reason I ask is that I have seen some people with sedentary desk jobs set themselves to moderately active then eat back their exercise calories which they have already counted when setting their activity level.

Desk jobs are killers on the amount of calories you can consume each day and lose weight!

tigerblue

You have some very good suggestions here for eating well, and as you say, building muscle is essential for all of us for making it easier to acquire or maintain a healthy weight.

But 1200 is not the lowest number of calories to support our life systems for everyone. At 130 lbs, my BMR is below 1200. At my goal weight (115-120) my BMR is around 1100.

Now, at the op's weight, you are right, 1200 is probably the lowest she should go. Even for a net goal.

But be careful making blanket statements. .

I just wanted to put in this comment for others reading the thread, so they would know to investigate the facts. I spent 3 years trying to listen to people tell me that I should be basing my intake on a much higher BMR, and I gained 20 lbs. yes, there are plenty of people who would be starving themselves if they based their net goal on 1200. But there are plenty of us who have lower body weights and thus lower BMRs and who therefore have to use smaller numbers. And my goal weight is actually in the middle of healthy range for my height and frame, so I am not being drastic here.

I agree with you, that it isn't good to make blanket statements. But if she is already walking 10K, steps which is a moderate activity level and limiting her consumption to a meager 1200 calories per day, there is something else going on with her body. With all my exercise, I just about hit 10K steps a day (I have a bodymedia too, its good advice, they're $99 right now...a great investment--my calories are tracked through myfitnesspal), sometimes a little higher. Yes, I do a half hour of strength training every other day, but I am losing between 1 and 3 pounds per week and eat close to 2200 calories per day, now.

Now, I'm heavier than her by about 20 or so pounds, but I've been put on a 1200 calorie per day diet too -- and I did the same thing she did. I worked out every day diligently. And yes, the weight came off -- very slowly. maybe a pound every other week or so...with lots of plateaus in between, but eventually, I was able to starve myself thin. I was hungry constantly, I had no energy (which means I had to force myself to work out, by sheer strength of will), and I was constantly irritable and my immune system was in the toilet. When I FINALLY made it down to my goal weight, I brought my calories back up to what the BMR formula said would be necessary to maintain my weight, I gained back every single pound + an extra 5 or 10 for my efforts, which sucks...and trying to just starve myself thin again didn't work as well the next time I tried it.

The major benefit of the diet i described in my previous post being: I am never hungry between meals (If I am, I can eat without feeling guilty about it), I have a ton of energy (more than enough to get through my work out, work, and the housework as needed), and I am eating legitimately delicious food...So sticking to this diet is easy.

I realize everyone is different, but I just gave her the advice that worked for me when I was at my own wits end. At the very least, you can banish boneless-skinless chicken breast forever!

If you weigh 20 lbs more than OP, that puts you about 168. Then of course you would lose eating at 1800 and exercising. You likely have a deficit of at least 250.

At the OPs weight, 1800 is not far from maintenance, and if there are any inaccuracies in logging food, then it is easy for the deficit to disappear. I expect all of us have a certain amount of error in reporting, unless we are eating all pre packaged food, and then we are still at the mercy of manufacturers. So, OP, I am not accusing you of not being careful, I am just being realistic. None of us is perfect. I figure that if I am measuring and weighing, I probably get within 10% one way or the other! and then I watch my results for verification.

At my weight (129) and activity level, 1800 would be just a bit over maintenance and I would gain slowly.

At a lower weight, say 115-120, maintenance with light exercise would be closer to 1600. So your bodyweight quickly changes the equation.

Again, just pointing this out so that folks, including the OP, don't assume that everyone can lose at 1800, or any given number.

Generally speaking, if you are gaining, it is because you are eating at a surplus for your activity level and body size/weight. (If you are staying the same then you ARE eating at maintenance.). It will be up to each individual to figure out if the surplus is from under reporting intake, or over reporting exercise, or something else. (This would be where medical or hormonal (!!) issues might come in that affect metabolism).

I am sharing this to save someone the grief of my 3 year struggle. For three years all I wanted to listen to was the folks that were saying, "you need to eat more to reset your metabolism. You need to eat more and then you will lose. . . The result of all that was a 20 lb gain. There were a few voices along the way that said the things that I just said. Things such as-if you are not losing, then you ARE at maintenance, check your accuracy, if you are gaining, then you are eating too much, etc. of course I liked the eat more messages better.

Now, I have finally gone back to MFP's recommendations ( and the numbers I get from TDEE calculators when I am REALLY honest about activity level), and I am finally losing again.

BigGuy47

2 weeks isn't long though

Agreed. Give it six weeks or more.

Be patient, stay consistent with diet and exercise. If you're still not losing after six weeks then you can make small adjustments to your net calories by eating a bit less or exercising a bit more. Give it another six weeks. RInse and repeat until you find an accurate calorie target for your activity level.

Patience.

MelRC117

I love how everyone on this forum automatically assumed that you simply weren't REALLY sticking to your calorie goal. I have other theories. You're eating too few calories, you're not eating enough fat and you might be dumping too much sugar into your bloodstream.
First off 1200 Calories is the minimum amount of calories a person burns per day in order to stay alive (keep your heart pumping, your organs functioning). When the idea of bringing someone down to that many calories, it was called a starvation diet. Because that was what it was. Starvation. When you bring your body down to that level, your body does a few things. You might lose 1 pound quickly while you're body adjusts, but ultimately what you're body will do, is bring down your body temperature, make you lethargic and try to conserve as much energy (fat) as it can, because you are now starving. Instead, it will start to cannibalize your muscle mass, which it figures is preferable to burning your fat stores, because your fat stores are both valuable (they are actually what feed your organs) and they require less calories to maintain. And as a result of this, your body now burns less calories while at rest because there is less muscle mass to maintain. So now, you have more fat, and fat is what feeds your organs. So your fat is not letting the nutrition in the fat cells at a rate that can feed your body at the rate it needs. So you're double starving. Outside to make yourself thin, and inside your body isn't releasing what nutrients you do take in. In fact, its slowing down the rate that its burning your fat, and using your insulin to feed your cells what little you are eating , which also adds more fat to your fat cells. While this would be great if you were a hunter gatherer who could only eat every few days, as a modern human, this sucks.

So, try this instead - first you want to prevent your insulin from wreaking havoc on your fat cells. You do this in two ways. first - cut down on your consumption of carbohydrates. A good general rule is to keep carbohydrate consumption to less than 100 carbs per day. but UP your calorie consumption to 1500 or 1800 (better)

Easiest way to do this:

First:

keep your cardio where it is -- about 30 minutes per day should be fine


Things to Eliminate:
Cut out starch and sugar (wheat, potatoes - including those chips, starchy vegetables, and fruits like bananas, peaches, and apples, also cut out LOW FAT dairy) --- this does include alcohol. Which your body will burn instead of your fat every time. Once glass of wine on the weekends won't kill you, but it will slow your weight loss.

Include
Eat as many other salad vegetables as you want. Some of my favorites are Eggplant, broccoli, cauliflower, spinach, zucchini, cucumbers, spaghetti squash, tomatoes

Include:
Whole fat dairy products - whole fat dairy is a good source of protein and fat. This will fill you up longer, give you more energy and prevent the lactose (milk sugar) from wreaking havoc on your bloodstream. Include, whole milk yogurt, Whole fat cheeses (like mozzarella - NOT PART SKIM) ,Heavy cream (or heavy whipping cream -- I like to make my own whipped cream, but you can buy sugar free heavy whipped cream also), full fat sour cream, whole milk ricotta cheese, and real butter.

Include
Eggs - Do NOT seperate the egg from the egg white. Eat them whole.

Include
Full Fat Meat- Caveat - Do not go for lean meats. Trust me. This will make you starve. Examples: Chicken with the skin ON, Sirloin steak, Lamb chops, lam shoulder chops, Pork. Try to limit your consumption of protein to about 1 gram per kilogram of your body weight. This to will keep you full. Fish is also a good option, but a bit expensive. My favorites are Cod, Flounder, Scallops and Lobster.

Include:
Berries - Berries are great for that sugar fix. Limit yourself to maybe 10 strawberries, or a half cup of blueberries - Try to always eat these with a source of fat, such as heavy whipped cream or cheese.
Nuts - My personal favorite are macadamias. Limit yourself to about 1 to 2 ounces per day.

Include:
Fats
Olive Oil, Coconut Oil, Walnut Oil, Real mayonnaise (go for organic here, avoid soy products), Avocado, Butter - I eat half an avocado per day

I usually eat about 75 total carbohydrates- and about 45 to 50 net carbs (net carbs= Total carbs - Fiber - sugar alcohols)per day, which and am losing about 1 to 3 pounds per week.

Typical daily meal plan for me:
2 Egg (full fat) omelet with butter and broccoli and cheddar

Lunch: (I make this on the weekend, pop pre-portions into the freezer and then to take with me to work)
Skinnytaste.com Crockpot picadillo -( you can find this recipe online. I made only a few modifications: I use full fat ground lamb instead of lean beef, we use two whole tomatoes instead of one tomato and tomato sauce, and we don't drain the fat after cooking the meat -- If you don't have a crockpot, you can make it on the stove -- this is under the name Cuban Picadillo on Skinnytaste.com)) -- With 1 half avocado and 2 tbsp of full fat organic sour cream(not for health reasons, organic dairy products usually last longer in the fridge) - this is what I like, but there are plenty of other ways to go. Basically, you want some kind of fatty meat, with some vegetables.

Snack: 1 ounce of nuts or 2 hardboiled eggs

Dinner: 1 serving of full fat meat: Chicken Thighs (skin on) marinated in olive oil, lemon juice, and a variety of spices (look up recipes online for baked chicken thighs OR Sirloin Steak, OR Lamb Shoulder Chops (cheaper than lamb chops) OR Cod, Flounder - Seasoned with butter, olive oil and a mix of spices -- Try to limit this to 4 ounces

Two Large portions of vegetables: I personally like eggplant and zucchini. My fiance likes Sauteed spinach (in olive oil) and cauliflower.

Dessert: 1/2 cup blueberries with 1/2 cup strawberries and 1/4 cup whipped heavy cream.

Now AFTER the first 4 days of eating like this:

Change your exercise.There's an adjustment period where you will feel like complete crap for about 3 days --- you'll have no energy and be hungry. After this, if you can ride it out, You will have a huge burst of energy)

Keep your cardio where it is. 30 minutes of walking per day is just fine.

You need to build some muscle. I suggest downloading the 7 minute workout app. If you wanted to be a body builder, this wouldn't be the app for you, but it will help you counteract the damage you've done by starving yourself. It really is only 7 minutes(I personally call it the worst 7 minutes of my day, but it works) -- start doing it every other day.

I know it sounds counter intuitive. But I swear, I've lost 17 lbs this way in the last few months.

This won't matter if she eats over her calories. End of story.

scintillaa

If her basal metabolic rate is 1600 cals, theoretically, she should only have to cut about 250 calories per day and burn off another 250 per day (if you're just recovering from a car accident, you might want to invest in one session with a trainer or physical therapist to help you find exercises you can do) with exercise in order to lose 1 pound per week. But, its just not as simple as that. First of all, BMI and BMR does not take into account Muscle mass. Nor does it take into account that when you cut your calories to lose weight, the first thing that goes (after water weight) IS your muscle mass...and that slows your metabolic rate even further, beyond the fact that her organs will be doing everything they can to preserve their fat. I've heard people say calories in-calories out for years. But the scientific evidence actually shows quite the contrary. In studies where they fed genetically thin people 10000 calories per day for months, they hardly gained any weight at all. The weight they did gain was lost as soon as they returned to eating an unregulated amount of food. In studies where scientist severely restricted calories on patients, they did lose some weight initially, but no where near as much the scientists had originally expected. The patients were completely miserable, had low energy,completely focused on food, and once they were allowed to eat as much as they wanted again, they of course gained back all of the weight they had initially lost in a much shorter period of time.

The calories in - calories out hypothesis sounds like good science, but in reality, its just not that simple. What your body does with the calories is far more important. Example, your body uses 30% more energy to burn protein than fat. But try living on protein alone. You'll never be able to do it. Eating fat, fills you up faster and has an appetite suppressing effect - the fat from dietary sources is also broken down to secrete essential hormones, such as human growth hormone, estrogen and testosterone. A study performed by food manufactures was performed in which each individual was given a fatty solution to consume and told to eat as much as it took to feel satisfied. Each participant stopped relatively quickly. After some time, The fatty solution was then diluted with simple carbohydrates and the participants were asked to consume again until they felt satisfied. The results: the participants consumed almost the same exact amount of fat, however, they consumed far more calories--they simply consumed as much of the mixture as it took for them to eat the same amount of fat.

Carbohydrates are broken down into a few different categories: Simple and Complex. Simple carbohydrates are often called refined carbohydrates, because they rarely occur in nature. Examples: white sugar, bread, cake, skim milk, orange juice. Complex carbohydrates are unprocessed carbohydrates from natural sources, where the carbohydrate is wrapped in fiber and other nutrients. Fiber is a carbohydrate, but it is not digestible by the body. This slows the digestion of the carbohydrates, which is why most people report feeling more full when they eat whole vegetables (cooking vegetables -in any way - reduces the amount of fiber in vegetables). But your body still turns all of the digestible carbohydrates into sugar, which will do a lot of things, but it will primarily stimulate your pancreas to secrete insulin. Insulin is needed to digest carbohydrates and has a few general functions, it will feed the cells in your body in the absence of dietary fat, stimulate the creation of glycogen (which is stored in your liver--this is also what is known as water weight), it will stimulate your body to convert sugar to fat (in order to bring your blood sugar down), and it will prevent your body from releasing fat from your fat cells. When you have a glucose burning metabolism, when your blood sugar begins to dip, your body will start burning calories to maintain its function, but will also stimulate grehlin, the hunger horomone.

Bottom line: If you want to lose 1 pound per week, keeping your calories a 250 under your BMR. Walk off an additional 250 (that's about a half hour of brisk walking), and try to spend about 15 minutes every other day building a little muscle. Try to limit your carbohydrate total carbohydrate intake to about 100 per day and try to get at least 25-35 grams of fiber. Do not limit your intake of fat. In other words, whole fat dairy products, whole fat meats and meat products, nuts and seeds.

My starting weight was 168 - my current weight is 150.4. I am now losing about 1 to 2 pounds per week.

psuLemon

If her basal metabolic rate is 1600 cals, theoretically, she should only have to cut about 250 calories per day and burn off another 250 per day (if you're just recovering from a car accident, you might want to invest in one session with a trainer or physical therapist to help you find exercises you can do) with exercise in order to lose 1 pound per week. But, its just not as simple as that. First of all, BMI and BMR does not take into account Muscle mass. Nor does it take into account that when you cut your calories to lose weight, the first thing that goes (after water weight) IS your muscle mass...and that slows your metabolic rate even further, beyond the fact that her organs will be doing everything they can to preserve their fat. I've heard people say calories in-calories out for years. But the scientific evidence actually shows quite the contrary. In studies where they fed genetically thin people 10000 calories per day for months, they hardly gained any weight at all. The weight they did gain was lost as soon as they returned to eating an unregulated amount of food. In studies where scientist severely restricted calories on patients, they did lose some weight initially, but no where near as much the scientists had originally expected. The patients were completely miserable, had low energy,completely focused on food, and once they were allowed to eat as much as they wanted again, they of course gained back all of the weight they had initially lost in a much shorter period of time.

The calories in - calories out hypothesis sounds like good science, but in reality, its just not that simple. What your body does with the calories is far more important. Example, your body uses 30% more energy to burn protein than fat. But try living on protein alone. You'll never be able to do it. Eating fat, fills you up faster and has an appetite suppressing effect - the fat from dietary sources is also broken down to secrete essential hormones, such as human growth hormone, estrogen and testosterone. A study performed by food manufactures was performed in which each individual was given a fatty solution to consume and told to eat as much as it took to feel satisfied. Each participant stopped relatively quickly. After some time, The fatty solution was then diluted with simple carbohydrates and the participants were asked to consume again until they felt satisfied. The results: the participants consumed almost the same exact amount of fat, however, they consumed far more calories--they simply consumed as much of the mixture as it took for them to eat the same amount of fat.

Carbohydrates are broken down into a few different categories: Simple and Complex. Simple carbohydrates are often called refined carbohydrates, because they rarely occur in nature. Examples: white sugar, bread, cake, skim milk, orange juice. Complex carbohydrates are unprocessed carbohydrates from natural sources, where the carbohydrate is wrapped in fiber and other nutrients. Fiber is a carbohydrate, but it is not digestible by the body. This slows the digestion of the carbohydrates, which is why most people report feeling more full when they eat whole vegetables (cooking vegetables -in any way - reduces the amount of fiber in vegetables). But your body still turns all of the digestible carbohydrates into sugar, which will do a lot of things, but it will primarily stimulate your pancreas to secrete insulin. Insulin is needed to digest carbohydrates and has a few general functions, it will feed the cells in your body in the absence of dietary fat, stimulate the creation of glycogen (which is stored in your liver--this is also what is known as water weight), it will stimulate your body to convert sugar to fat (in order to bring your blood sugar down), and it will prevent your body from releasing fat from your fat cells. When you have a glucose burning metabolism, when your blood sugar begins to dip, your body will start burning calories to maintain its function, but will also stimulate grehlin, the hunger horomone.

Bottom line: If you want to lose 1 pound per week, keeping your calories a 250 under your BMR. Walk off an additional 250 (that's about a half hour of brisk walking), and try to spend about 15 minutes every other day building a little muscle. Try to limit your carbohydrate total carbohydrate intake to about 100 per day and try to get at least 25-35 grams of fiber. Do not limit your intake of fat. In other words, whole fat dairy products, whole fat meats and meat products, nuts and seeds.

My starting weight was 168 - my current weight is 150.4. I am now losing about 1 to 2 pounds per week.

First, BMR does take into consideration body composition... BMI does not.Also, you do not form a deficit based on your BMR, you do it based on your TDEE or total daily energy expended. For many, they eat between their TDEE and BMR. You also have to consider, she is estimating BMR unless she had metabolic testing we don't know about.

And i would love to see these studies you keep referring to, so if you can provide that, it would be appreciated. And also, if a person is in a calorie deficit, it's very very difficult to build new muscle mass. Even if you have a progressive weight training program, have a small deficit and eat adequate protein, the average person doesn't build any new muscle outside of noob gains or people who are obese. What WT does is allow for the person to help maintain their muscle mass.

meridianova

If you get desperate/frustrated enough I'm a pretty big fan of the BodyMedia arm band. It costs about $150 new, and a $7/month subscription fee. You wear it 23/7 and it tells you 95%< accuracy how many calories you're burning. It'll automatically adjust your calories on MFP. If you don't want to eat them all back you can set your net calories lower (i.e. 1000). I wear mine every day. Not only does it make it easier to tell how many calories you're really burning and what your personal metabolism is (it tracks more than just motion, but also body temperature!) but you can sync it with Everymove and Earndit as well as Walgreens for free stuff! The more you move, the more points you rack up and the more stuff you earn!

Best of luck!

Ditto to this. Had bodymedia for over 18 months and it's changed my life. I love it and it's so worth the investment.

But be careful--it is not accurate for everyone! Mine reports burns about 700 calories too high. It resulted in a 10 lb weight gain for me. I know now that it is only 69% accurate for me, so although I do wear it and compare numbers from day to day and to make sure that I keep my activity up, (I know what an active day looks like for me on the Bodymedia now), I do not connect it to MFP. I use 69% of it's monthly average burns to set my goals on MFP.

crap. i've been on the lookout for a good monitor, and got all excited when i heard it would determine your actual burn rate. is there a reason it would be that inaccurate?

OP, you're not the only one who struggles with calorie counting. i'm only losing at about 75% of what i should be based on calculated TDEE and caloric deficits, and nowhere near the speed that others at my weight have lost.

meridianova

Even if you have a progressive weight training program, have a small deficit and eat adequate protein, the average person doesn't build any new muscle outside of noob gains or people who are obese. What WT does is allow for the person to help maintain their muscle mass.

can you explain this to me further? are you saying that people who are obese and are in a caloric deficit will still be able to build muscle because the deficit is made up from the excess fat they're already carrying?

psuLemon

Even if you have a progressive weight training program, have a small deficit and eat adequate protein, the average person doesn't build any new muscle outside of noob gains or people who are obese. What WT does is allow for the person to help maintain their muscle mass.

can you explain this to me further? are you saying that people who are obese and are in a caloric deficit will still be able to build muscle because the deficit is made up from the excess fat they're already carrying?

Here are some good articles that address it far better than I ever could :laugh:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html/

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/447514-athletes-can-gain-muscle-while-losing-fat-on-deficit-diet

scintillaa

If her basal metabolic rate is 1600 cals, theoretically, she should only have to cut about 250 calories per day and burn off another 250 per day (if you're just recovering from a car accident, you might want to invest in one session with a trainer or physical therapist to help you find exercises you can do) with exercise in order to lose 1 pound per week. But, its just not as simple as that. First of all, BMI and BMR does not take into account Muscle mass. Nor does it take into account that when you cut your calories to lose weight, the first thing that goes (after water weight) IS your muscle mass...and that slows your metabolic rate even further, beyond the fact that her organs will be doing everything they can to preserve their fat. I've heard people say calories in-calories out for years. But the scientific evidence actually shows quite the contrary. In studies where they fed genetically thin people 10000 calories per day for months, they hardly gained any weight at all. The weight they did gain was lost as soon as they returned to eating an unregulated amount of food. In studies where scientist severely restricted calories on patients, they did lose some weight initially, but no where near as much the scientists had originally expected. The patients were completely miserable, had low energy,completely focused on food, and once they were allowed to eat as much as they wanted again, they of course gained back all of the weight they had initially lost in a much shorter period of time.

The calories in - calories out hypothesis sounds like good science, but in reality, its just not that simple. What your body does with the calories is far more important. Example, your body uses 30% more energy to burn protein than fat. But try living on protein alone. You'll never be able to do it. Eating fat, fills you up faster and has an appetite suppressing effect - the fat from dietary sources is also broken down to secrete essential hormones, such as human growth hormone, estrogen and testosterone. A study performed by food manufactures was performed in which each individual was given a fatty solution to consume and told to eat as much as it took to feel satisfied. Each participant stopped relatively quickly. After some time, The fatty solution was then diluted with simple carbohydrates and the participants were asked to consume again until they felt satisfied. The results: the participants consumed almost the same exact amount of fat, however, they consumed far more calories--they simply consumed as much of the mixture as it took for them to eat the same amount of fat.

Carbohydrates are broken down into a few different categories: Simple and Complex. Simple carbohydrates are often called refined carbohydrates, because they rarely occur in nature. Examples: white sugar, bread, cake, skim milk, orange juice. Complex carbohydrates are unprocessed carbohydrates from natural sources, where the carbohydrate is wrapped in fiber and other nutrients. Fiber is a carbohydrate, but it is not digestible by the body. This slows the digestion of the carbohydrates, which is why most people report feeling more full when they eat whole vegetables (cooking vegetables -in any way - reduces the amount of fiber in vegetables). But your body still turns all of the digestible carbohydrates into sugar, which will do a lot of things, but it will primarily stimulate your pancreas to secrete insulin. Insulin is needed to digest carbohydrates and has a few general functions, it will feed the cells in your body in the absence of dietary fat, stimulate the creation of glycogen (which is stored in your liver--this is also what is known as water weight), it will stimulate your body to convert sugar to fat (in order to bring your blood sugar down), and it will prevent your body from releasing fat from your fat cells. When you have a glucose burning metabolism, when your blood sugar begins to dip, your body will start burning calories to maintain its function, but will also stimulate grehlin, the hunger horomone.

Bottom line: If you want to lose 1 pound per week, keeping your calories a 250 under your BMR. Walk off an additional 250 (that's about a half hour of brisk walking), and try to spend about 15 minutes every other day building a little muscle. Try to limit your carbohydrate total carbohydrate intake to about 100 per day and try to get at least 25-35 grams of fiber. Do not limit your intake of fat. In other words, whole fat dairy products, whole fat meats and meat products, nuts and seeds.

My starting weight was 168 - my current weight is 150.4. I am now losing about 1 to 2 pounds per week.

First, BMR does take into consideration body composition... BMI does not.Also, you do not form a deficit based on your BMR, you do it based on your TDEE or total daily energy expended. For many, they eat between their TDEE and BMR. You also have to consider, she is estimating BMR unless she had metabolic testing we don't know about.

And i would love to see these studies you keep referring to, so if you can provide that, it would be appreciated. And also, if a person is in a calorie deficit, it's very very difficult to build new muscle mass. Even if you have a progressive weight training program, have a small deficit and eat adequate protein, the average person doesn't build any new muscle outside of noob gains or people who are obese. What WT does is allow for the person to help maintain their muscle mass.

Ethan Sims et al conducted a study in 1968 using prison in-mates as volunteers who were over-fed, often up to 10,000 calories per day, in an attempt to gain between 20 and 25% of their original body weight. Most of the men gained a few pounds initially, but then found it difficult to continue gaining. Just as the subjects in the Minnesota study experienced metabolic changes to compensate for the decrease in calories, so did the volunteers in the prison study in order to defer weight gain. The starved subjects developed hypometabolism in an effort to conserve energy and thus use calories more efficiently, while the prisoners who were over-fed developed hypermetabolism in order to more rapidly expend the excess energy. It was found that these men perspired profusely and complained of body heat. This is a process known as “diet-induced thermogenesis”. The subjects had many complaints of physical discomfort as a result of the intense caloric intake and also experienced psychological problems. Once the experiment was over the volunteers lost weight rapidly and virtually re-established their pre-experiment weight levels without effort.

The Other study I was referring to is actually a rather famous study conducted by Ansel Keys called the minnesota Starvation Experiment. That one can be found on Wikipedia.

psuLemon

Ethan Sims et al conducted a study in 1968 using prison in-mates as volunteers who were over-fed, often up to 10,000 calories per day, in an attempt to gain between 20 and 25% of their original body weight. Most of the men gained a few pounds initially, but then found it difficult to continue gaining. Just as the subjects in the Minnesota study experienced metabolic changes to compensate for the decrease in calories, so did the volunteers in the prison study in order to defer weight gain. The starved subjects developed hypometabolism in an effort to conserve energy and thus use calories more efficiently, while the prisoners who were over-fed developed hypermetabolism in order to more rapidly expend the excess energy. It was found that these men perspired profusely and complained of body heat. This is a process known as “diet-induced thermogenesis”. The subjects had many complaints of physical discomfort as a result of the intense caloric intake and also experienced psychological problems. Once the experiment was over the volunteers lost weight rapidly and virtually re-established their pre-experiment weight levels without effort.

The Other study I was referring to is actually a rather famous study conducted by Ansel Keys called the minnesota Starvation Experiment. That one can be found on Wikipedia.

Links to the first one?

jrodri0105

Thanks everyone. I'm a bit upset that by using myfitnesspal's recommended settings I have possibly been eating too little which had it gone on long term without me questioning it could have caused me health problems Thanks to those that believed I had been tracking properly and for the advice on nutirition which I do a lot of anyway but will make some further adjustments. I know that my BMR is 1600 cals/day so have set to that and adjusted the macros for fat loss (per another site) as 20% carbs/35% fat/45% protein. I am aware that I need to up the exercise but am recovering from an injury from a car accident in April so am building up slowly. I am coming to terms with the fact that it may be slower than 1lb a week so thanks to everyone for pointing that out and for telling me to be patient. I've had a few days off tracking but will get back to it tomorrow after weighing first thing!

Stop eating back your exercise calories thats the problem. The calories estimated for walking are highly inaccurate. Stick to eating 1200-1600. & this starvation thing is so bogus. The people in Africa are the ones who are in "starvation mode"

Mr_Knight

The Other study I was referring to is actually a rather famous study conducted by Ansel Keys called the minnesota Starvation Experiment. That one can be found on Wikipedia.

This is what the people in that study looked like. Until you're actually skinny, "starvation mode" is irrelevant.

babedow77

If you get desperate/frustrated enough I'm a pretty big fan of the BodyMedia arm band. It costs about $150 new, and a $7/month subscription fee. You wear it 23/7 and it tells you 95%< accuracy how many calories you're burning. It'll automatically adjust your calories on MFP. If you don't want to eat them all back you can set your net calories lower (i.e. 1000). I wear mine every day. Not only does it make it easier to tell how many calories you're really burning and what your personal metabolism is (it tracks more than just motion, but also body temperature!) but you can sync it with Everymove and Earndit as well as Walgreens for free stuff! The more you move, the more points you rack up and the more stuff you earn!

Best of luck!

I'm curious. How do you earn items? I have fitbit, will this work the same way? How does it work with Walgreens?