Why isn't calorie counting working for me?

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?