WHY AM I NOT LOSING??? :(

devins13

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html

Hey! I was saving that reference as my trump card! Way to ruin it for me

A kinesiologist trying to sell books... Pardon me for being a bit skeptical.

Jorra

Why exercise then? What is the net benefit?

Conditioning your body to work more efficiently and to be healthier.

SarabellPlus3

Re: exercise. Who said this? I read it here: "if you want to look better in your clothes, diet. If you want to look better naked, workout."
Eating back calories- exercise can matter as much as diet in weight loss. It depends how you want to run it. You can build your day anyway you choose to create a deficit. I like to build my day with a cal deficit, then burn a ton of calories, and eat them. I have the same deficit 'you' do, only I get to enjoy more food, and I get a stronger, healthier body out of it. You have to put out more cals than you take in-- and exercise, movement, that's what the 'put out' part MEANS, so no pretending it's useless, not for me!

ArroganceInStep

A kinesiologist trying to sell books... Pardon me for being a bit skeptical.

Still waiting on your research

jacksonpt

He didn't say to stop eating. I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that if you're on a calorie deficit of 1200 calorie limit, you're going to lose weight if your body was accustomed to 2000+ calories. However, it does not warrant eating back all the calories you just burned. How is your body supposed to tap into its own resources if you're putting back in what you just burned off?

Again, it's simple math.

ok... so she's eating 1200 calories. She then exercises and burns 400. Now what? Now she's netting 800. Is that ok? That's what we've been saying from the beginning. 1200 net calories may be fine for her, but she's not NETTING 1200... she's eating 1200 then exercising and burning, so she's netting something below that. That's the point we are making... eat them back so you get back to the 1200. No one is telling her to eat back to 2000 net calories.

Who are we to tell her what her goal should and shouldn't be? Whatever gets her to be healthy, whatever gets her to lose unnecessary weight should be what she focuses on. If looking good is what her ultimate goal is, then so be it. More power to her!

ok, then I'll stop worrying about people with eating disorders because they want to look better.

Sure, in most cases you're right... whatever it takes to get someone to be HEALTHY. But again, that's the point we are making... netting 800 or 900 calories isn't healthy for most people. Since we don't know the OP, and there was relatively little info given, we assume she is an average person as far as these things go.

SergeantSunshine_reused

Again, it's simple math.

I don't think you understand the math behind mfp then

jacksonpt

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html

Hey! I was saving that reference as my trump card! Way to ruin it for me

A kinesiologist trying to sell books... Pardon me for being a bit skeptical.

Yea, books... never any good info in those, is there. Stupid dictionaries/encyclopedias/etc.

Espressocycle

People have posted before and after pics witht he 30-day shred here before, and some of them got noticably ripped. So if you are indeed losing inches, it's muscle, because a pound of muscle takes up less space than a pound of fat. Inches are really all that mater, in fact.

ArroganceInStep

Diet & Exercise go hand-in-hand. Exercise fuels weight loss and diet helps the body to continue to lose. I can't believe there are people on this message board telling people that you don't need to exercise to lose weight.

I don't come here for unhealthy thinking. Cocaine also helps you lose weight, should I start the cocaine diet? Starving yourself also helps you lose weight. Should I become anorexic? This is not healthy thinking.

I agree with you 100%. I was certainly not saying that doing 0 exercise was a good thing, just that you didn't need it to lose weight. It was a response to the question of what the net benefit of exercise is, my point was that it was much more than weight loss. Apologies if I wasn't clear on that.

He didn't say to stop eating. I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that if you're on a calorie deficit of 1200 calorie limit, you're going to lose weight if your body was accustomed to 2000+ calories. However, it does not warrant eating back all the calories you just burned. How is your body supposed to tap into its own resources if you're putting back in what you just burned off?

Again, it's simple math.

You're right, it is simple math. The problem is that the variables are hard to determine. Our argument (well my argument at least) is not that you don't need a deficit to lose weight (you do). MFP already incorporates a deficit into the target calorie count, so the act of not eating back your exercise calories increases your deficit to a level that could be unhealthy. That is assuming perfect accuracy on MFP's part when calculating your BMR and equally perfect accuracy on the user's part when logging their intake cals (both of which tend to be off quite a bit). Will not eating your calories back kill you? Probably not. But if you get to the extreme case where you have a 1200 calorie diet which already includes a massive deficit and you put in an intense 1000 calorie workout without taking anything in to counter that hit, there could be some serious physiological consequences. At the same time, I mentioned an extreme case. If you don't eat back every single calorie from a workout you won't suddenly go into starvation mode and put on 1000 lbs either, knowing what the numbers mean is important though.

_tiifyjo_

Why do you put on weight when you start exercising?
It is often seen that you put on weight in the beginning when you start exercising. And it can be demotivating if one of your exercise goals is to lose weight. If your weight is increased it is seldom because you put on fat, but far more often because you accumulate more carbohydrates (sugar) in your body in the beginning. For each gram of sugar you accumulate three grams of water. That can mean a total weight increase of one kilo. In addition, more water can be accumulated because your muscles are exercised and get a little "worn". When your muscles are sore it will increase fluid accumulation. Also, your body will start producing more blood very quickly to meet the increased exercise requirements. And you may quickly put on 1-2 litres of blood if you go from inactive to active. Only after about 6-8 weeks of regular exercising will your muscles start developing due to the increased loads. If you do hard workout, you may put on quite a few kilos of muscle mass over the following weeks and months. If you exercise moderately, the muscle build-up will usually stop after 3-4 months. If you exercise lightly, the muscle build-up will stop again quite soon, and the muscle mass will be maintained through exercising.

That is a quote from a website. I have also been told by doctors that for about the first months any weight lost is water weight, not fat. You will usually lose/gain the same 5 to 10 pounds for about 3 months as you build muscle and lose fat. I know that when I did JM 30 DS I had to add in extra cardio to see pounds lost, but I lost inches. I am doing the 30 DS again right now, L1 D8, and for the first 5 days I just did the DS workout and lost 1.5" from hips, .5" from waist, .25" from butt... then I added in extra cardio with it and lost 1.5 pounds in two days.

juleseybaby

with the shred you are losing inches, plus you are toning and developing muscle. Remember, muscle weighs more than fat Keep at it and don't give up; the pounds will eventually come off as well! Good job so far!

*sigh* muscle does not weigh more than fat. 5 lbs of muscle and 5 lbs of fat are both 5 lbs.

Muscle is DENSER than fat, so the same volume of muscle will weigh more than the same volume of fat.

Edited to add: 5 pounds is 5 pounds is 5 pounds... I agree with what this person posted - muscle is dense. Check out that pic. You could add 2 or more of the muscle replicas in the same space as one of the fat replicas.

To the OP... break out that tape measure!! I bet you are ROCKIN'!

oaken

I don't think you understand the math behind mfp then

There is no difference between the math of MFP and the math of weight loss. Calories in, Calories out. Calories out have to be more than calories in. BMR?

I understand what you and jack are saying regarding calories - we are on the same page, so I'm not sure what all the fighting is about. If she burns 200 calories in the gym, does she really need to eat that back? No. Is that deficit going to put her in the hospital? No. If she burned 800 calories in the gym and did not replenish that, then yeah, that kind of daily practice will likely make her sick. So I'm not disagreeing with anybody saying she shouldn't be eating back her calories. What I'm saying is calories in, calories out. Allow your body to use its own fuel that is has stored.

ok, then I'll stop worrying about people with eating disorders because they want to look better.

You know that's not healthy. She's working her plan, she's losing the weight (or at least trying) why knock her for the reasons she wants to lose the weight? She's doing it properly, she's doing it healthily. I don't think knocking someone down for their reasons is supportive at all. If she wants to lose weight because she wants to be sexy for her boyfriend/husband, is that wrong? Who are we to say? That is my point.

devins13

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html

Hey! I was saving that reference as my trump card! Way to ruin it for me

A kinesiologist trying to sell books... Pardon me for being a bit skeptical.

Yea, books... never any good info in those, is there. Stupid dictionaries/encyclopedias/etc.

Do kinesiologists even study chemistry..biology...physics...? He references a single case study and then speculates on what might be going on. Did you even read the last two paragraphs in that article? He basically admits he doesn't have a clue. And this is the solid research that supports your position?

Here are the last two paragraphs of that article:

"So that’s that, a look at one of the oddities of fat loss, the situation where the combination of excessive caloric deficits and excessive amounts of activity seem to hurt rather than help fat loss, along with some gross speculation (and just enough research to make it sound like I know what I’m talking about) on what may be going on.

In a practical sense, of course, most of the background isn’t that relevant. The simple facts for the majority of folks is this: you can either cut calories hard OR do large amounts of activity. But you can’t do both. Well you can do both, you just probably shouldn’t under most circumstances."

summalovaable

Again, it's simple math.

I don't think you understand the math behind mfp then

Sadly, you're right. The math behind it is very simple. What you seem to fail to realize is that our bodies aren't mathematical formulas, we can't simply plug in a few variables and get the results we need. Please don't misunderstand, im double majoring in math and science and I can say i honestly LOVE math. But the body isn't just simple math, which is why math students arent required to take biology and why as a doctor you don't technically need more than first year calculus.... the body doesnt work as simple math. Its complex and ever changing, and there are far too many variables out there for it to ever be considered simple.

Also, simple math = encouragement of eating disorders. Its simple math, so this way of thinking should be completely fine, right?

dlyeates

I gained 3 lbs when I started the 30 DS and I was DEPRESSED. I was sore, could barely move, needed to take hot showers to function after working out and I GAINED WEIGHT?!?!?! WTH!?!? I almost gave up on it. I only lost about 3-4 lbs when I did the shred which was very upsetting but I also lost 4 inches in my lower stomach. That made it all better!!!

I would definitely recommend making your diary public. I learned that if I wasn't eating my exercise calories back I wasn't losing weight. It didn't make sense to me. I was finally able to eat quality food in decent portions so I wasn't starving and staying under 1200 calories and I wasn't losing?!?! But when I started eating back my exercise calories (I still maintain a deficit usually of around 100 calories because I'll take a taste of my husband's soda/beer, not measure my salad dressing exactly, etc) I found that I was losing weight again. There is science behind that about starvation mode and stuff but I don't understand all of that sometimes. I just know it worked for me.

I would also recommend eating more whole foods and less processed foods. I'm not perfect at it (ie Trader Joe's meals for lunch but as a working mom it's a necessary evil and they have less crap in them) but I try to eat less pre-packaged stuff. It's made a difference for me!!!

Good luck and if you want another friend you can add me!!!

devins13

A kinesiologist trying to sell books... Pardon me for being a bit skeptical.

Still waiting on your research

I already posted a link. Thermodynamics is at the absolute core of this debate - and it's not my research. There's no need to introduce any more voodoo pseudoscience into this discussion.

In general, I'd say rationalization gets most people into this mess. And it's that same misguided rationalization that prevents them from getting out of it. People just need to harden the *kitten* up. Mental games will sabotage the effort much faster than anything else.

dls06

Get yourself a food scale. You'll be shocked to see how small a true portion is. Could be 2-3x's less then you think. Believe it!

dkueter94

I did change my goal weekly weight loss to be 1 lb rather then 2. Also, I AM eating SOME of my exercise calories back, but not all. I'm not limiting myself to 1200 calories total after a workout. Thank you for all your help and support!!!!! I will keep working at this and try focusing on the inches lost (when I measure again THERE BETTER BE SOME!) and looking better in my clothes! That Jillian sure is a tough trainer but gives you quite the workout. I know I'm sure dripping with sweat after each workout! I REALLY hate level 2 of the shred but I'm gonna stick with it! I'm determined to get back into my cute clothes that are wasting SO much space in my closet! I want that great body back!!!!

armaretta

A lot of people will say starvation mode is a myth. This is true and false.

I think the confusion comes from the misinterpretation of the condition. You aren't starving, but you aren't losing either. If you don't fuel your body enough, you'll subconsciously slow yourself down. you won't fidget, you'll sleep less efficiently, you'll get tired more easily, or not be able to work out as hard. This leads to an overall slowing of the metabolism and burning fewer calories, thus no weight loss. Your body can run on 800 cals/day, but it will force you to slow down eventually or start sacrificing muscle mass. The less muscle you have, the fewer calories you will burn, so your body might make this tradeoff.

It's more than just simply calories in and calories out. Your body is an amazing machine that will try to adapt to what you put it through, but there is a point that it will give. This is why starvation will make you lose weight eventually, but I think everyone can agree that this is not healthy.

MFP already creates a deficit based on your lifestyle WITHOUT any extra exercise. If you exercise, you need to eat more, or your body will eventually slow itself down to compensate. You can lose weight without exercise, but much of that will be muscle mass. you don't want that, so you exercise to try to retain that sexy muscle mass, AND have the bonus of eating more on the MFP program!

I was just like the OP once. I didn't ever eat my exercise calories. I lost... at first. Then I would plateau. I got tired, grumpy, and was NOT losing anymore. Then I ate more. I gained a little for a week or two, then I starting dropping consistently again, and felt better to boot! Go ahead and eat your exercise calories. Your body will thank you.

FYI don't look at my diary for guidance on that. My diary is set to maintenance and I use another device to track my calories burned everyday, so my diary will show my true deficit, rather than the rough estimated deficit from MFP.

ArroganceInStep

Do kinesiologists even study chemistry..biology...physics...? He references a single case study and then speculates on what might be going on. Did you even read the last two paragraphs in that article? He basically admits he doesn't have a clue. And this is the solid research that supports your position?

I'm at work so I don't have time for an exhaustive study. Here's what a quick search yielded:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20746251/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330360304/abstract;jsessionid=64F038F526CBB4401545101DAE8B8AD5.d03t03
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/297/9/986

From what I gathered based on those (not the best sources granted, but better than ___________ which is what you've listed) calorie restriction is good for you, but in moderation. Extreme restriction (as would be the case with a low calorie diet that already incorporates a deficit coupled with rigorous exercise) can be hazardous to your health.

Edit to incorporate your comment while I was typing this: I never argued that calories in must be less than calories out to generate weight loss. The argument is that extreme deficits are dangerous and ultimately cause more problems than the weight loss generated by them. It's not just a matter of sacking up and pushing harder, you still need to provide your body with a base level of nutrition for it to operate properly. Not doing so will diminish your performance and ultimately hinder your progress.