GAINING with scrict diet and workouts!!

shantillylace81

Not muscle, that takes months to build Try to boost your metabolism with some greens. On top of that I am eating healthy I am also taking fish oil+calcium+c vitamin supplements and because I don't eat enough protein I also use protein powder mixed in water.

Avoiding sugar, salt and carbohydrate. I pretty much moderated what I eat. If you are interested check my site: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Cooking-ideasHomemade-Healthy-Foods/179121125503371

I am lost food wise and I need a boost to get me out of my plateu. I have been bouncing around the 150's for months now and want to get down to my goal of 135..I will check out your website.

TMcBooty

I am having the same problem. I have been working out and sticking to the plan for 3 weeks with only a few slip ups. I have been told by several trainers that when you start working out your body holds on to water weight. I highly doubt you are gaining pounds of muscle in such a short time, especially being a woman. I have been told to stick with it and my body will adjust and drop the water weight, and the pounds will begin to drop off after my body adjusts. I understand your frustration. It's hard to eat healthy and work out and have to wait along time to see results WHILE seeing the scale go UP instead of down. It feels hopeless. Try to give it more time!

Just about every day I saw you had around 700 calories left over. You have to eat to lose weight

seansquared

I am a 6 ft male at 170 lbs, if I tell MFP that I want to lose 2 lbs a week, it will set me at 1,200 calories as well. the point? you are probably set to lose too much based on your current weight.

this ^^

which was my point exactly. start with 1lb per week weight loss.

The problem here in my opinion is the MFP calculator, not the 2lbs per week loss. It is simply a bad tool. If you want real calculations, you should learn the Katch-McArdle method of calculating weight loss/gain needs and use that.

seansquared

Just want to be clear to the whole community here that this is false. Muscle growth can and frequently does occur in as little as 24-hours. Men especially can put on several pounds of muscle in a single month, particularly when we are still new to lifting. For women, 2lbs a month is not an unrealistic goal.

And just to be more clear, you can't gain muscle on a caloric deficit. And even with the best workout, when you gain weight to gain muscle, you tend to add a bit of fat as well.

Spot on. Good point considering the original context of the thread, too!

seansquared

I don't think tall or heavy people should be accusing a petite woman of not eating enough at 1200 calories a day-- we small women don't need as many calories as the rest of you. I've experimented with different calorie amounts and the ONLY way I can lose is if I stick to a strict 1200 calorie diet.

To that end, I have to ask whether you're actually limiting yourself to 1200 calories every or whether you're going "just a little" bit over most of the time. I was frustrated by my lack of progress, until I realized going over by 50-100 calories a day really adds up. The weeks I never go above 1200 are the weeks the scale goes down.

Your height has nothing to do with your lean body mass. It may change your *appearance* - i.e. 200lbs looks very different on someone 5'0" than someone 6'6" - but it does not by itself affect your LBM.

If you are 180, you are 180, period, and need to eat against 180 (not "against 180 and also against being 5 feet tall") to lose weight.

Sweet_Potato

The problem here in my opinion is the MFP calculator, not the 2lbs per week loss. It is simply a bad tool. If you want real calculations, you should learn the Katch-McArdle method of calculating weight loss/gain needs and use that.

I am 2 inches shorter than the OP, and according to Katch-McArdle I should be eating only 1078 calories a day for weight loss.

Jeff92se

The caclulators take HEIGHT into the daily calorie allotments. So height must play a factor.

monicalynne68

Keep working on it. Add a few more calories. Also get a fat analysis. It will tell you you're fat percentage. Go by those numbers, not the numbers on the scale. The scale doesn't give you the whole picture. It measures everything, fat, muscle, food, liquid. everything. You want to focus on lowering your fat percentage. Don't be a slave to the scale

ShapeUpSidney

I wouldn't pay any attention to a 2 lb gain this week. If you gain 2 more NEXT week, then I'd worry. I can fluctuate by 2lbs in a single day depending on a variety of factors. Make sure you weigh yourself under the SAME conditions every single week.

em9371

Hey Guys: I have asked a smiliar question and not had anyone reply----I am eating 1300-1500 cals, working out 3-4 times a week for an hour each session. I am extremely good about logging and drinking my water. I am targeting 100 gms protein and eating really good food but feel bloaty and puffy. I am not losing anywhere close to the amount MFP says I will if I follow the plan even though I am following the plan. What gives? appreciate any input

you are eating too little.
i weigh less than you @ 221lbs but i eat more and am losing consistently (23lbs in 13 weeks)
MFP gives me 2160 to maintain, 1660 to lose 1lb week / 1200 to lose 1.9lb week (it wont give you a goal below 1200 net as this is unhealthy). i usually eat around 1700-1800, net around 1300 after exercise, i do not feel like i am on a diet, im not always hungry, it is a healtlhy lifestyle rather than a 'diet' and therefore is easier to maintain long term.
i dont know what exercise you do but say you burn 500 each time, you should eat this amount back to ensure your net calories do not fall below your MFP goal.the reason for this is MFP already includes the deficit for your selected goal in your calorie allowance, so exercise will make your deficit too much for your body to cope with and it will hang onto spare fat and you will not lose.

TDEE is total daily energy expenditure
BMR (mine is 1727) x activity level (1.25 for sedentary) = cals required to maintain your weight (assuming no exercise) 2158
add exercise cals burned (say 500) = 2658 total cals burned per day
to lose 1 pound of fat you need to reduce 3500 cals per week / 500 per day. = eat 2158
to lose 2 pounds reduce by 7000/500 = eat 1658
you dont eat back exercise cals this way as they are already included in the 'calories out' calculation.
hope this helps x

Jeff92se

My weight can fluctuate 2lbs on the same day.

shannypoo21

I have a similiar problem. I think I will be eating my exercise calories and see what difference it makes.

seansquared

The caclulators take HEIGHT into the daily calorie allotments. So height must play a factor.

The calculator is wrong is my point. Height plays no factor.

(In all reality, differences in skeletal size and done density play a ridiculously tiny factor, which is why we just say "it plays no factor")

seansquared

My weight can fluctuate 2lbs on the same day.

I sure hope so - you have to eat and drink after all!

One big key here is always weigh yourself first thing in the morning either nude or in the same PJs, always after evacuation (#1, #2, both, whatever :P)

Never weigh yourself at any other time or in any other clothes unless you (1) know the exact weight of food and liquid you've consumed so far in the day (minus evacuation) and (2) know the exact weight of the clothes you're wearing.

Jeff92se

My weight can fluctuate 2lbs on the same day.

I sure hope so - you have to eat and drink after all!

One big key here is always weigh yourself first thing in the morning either nude or in the same PJs, always after evacuation (#1, #2, both, whatever :P)

Never weigh yourself at any other time or in any other clothes unless you (1) know the exact weight of food and liquid you've consumed so far in the day (minus evacuation) and (2) know the exact weight of the clothes you're wearing.

I already know this. Thanks. Point being 2lbs of gain might not be actual weight. Could be a host of things as you've mentioned.

seansquared

The problem here in my opinion is the MFP calculator, not the 2lbs per week loss. It is simply a bad tool. If you want real calculations, you should learn the Katch-McArdle method of calculating weight loss/gain needs and use that.

I am 2 inches shorter than the OP, and according to Katch-McArdle I should be eating only 1078 calories a day for weight loss.

This is because your weight is already so low. Katch-McArdle is just math - it doesn't take into account the concept of "not eating less than 1200 calories to avoid starvation". On the other hand at 115lbs, 1200 calories likely isn't starvation for you, more likely that's 800.

It also has nothing to do with your height. If you were 6 feet tall instead of 5 feet tall, you'd still be the same LBM. You might have an extra pound of organ weight. Big whoop

heybales

Hey Guys: I have asked a smiliar question and not had anyone reply----I am eating 1300-1500 cals, working out 3-4 times a week for an hour each session. I am extremely good about logging and drinking my water. I am targeting 100 gms protein and eating really good food but feel bloaty and puffy. I am not losing anywhere close to the amount MFP says I will if I follow the plan even though I am following the plan. What gives? appreciate any input

You appear to have daily deficits not only from exercise, but also whatever MFP suggested as deficit for your weight loss goal.

You'll notice you are green to go for eating more calories on your workout days, because MFP has kept the same 500-1000 cal deficit built in.

So you are eating 1300-1500 as safe margin probably because you heard of problems eating under 1200 calories, and you want to do it safely.
But when you throw in your exercise, you are hitting many days at 800 net calories for the day. That's just not enough to repair muscles and keep a healthy metabolism.

Jeff92se

You have more skin, bone, fluids etc. etc. etc as you get taller...

ShapeUpSidney

You have more skin, bone, fluids etc. etc. etc as you get taller...

not to an extent that it significantly affects your metabolic needs

seansquared

You have more skin, bone, fluids etc. etc. etc as you get taller...

The delta is so meaningless as to be discounted.

Weight, bodyfat%, and estimated activity level are all you need for KMA (Katch-McArdle) and it's widely considered the best calculation method.

Jeff92se

A 7ft person is going to have more height related mass than a 4ft 9 person.

The way that this differs is that you need your lean body mass for the Katch-McGardle forumula. LBM is actually a very difficult calculation to get accurately.

heybales

And just to be more clear, you can't gain muscle on a caloric deficit. And even with the best workout, when you gain weight to gain muscle, you tend to add a bit of fat as well.

Spot on. Good point considering the original context of the thread, too!

Absolutely false.

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

psuLemon

A 7ft person is going to have more height related mass than a 4ft 9 person.

The way that this differs is that you need your lean body mass for the Katch-McGardle forumula. LBM is actually a very difficult calculation to get accurately.

Yea, but keep in mind that KMA has two major components, weight and body fat. My friend is 6'6" and has the same weight and body fat as me and I am 5'11" but yet we have the same BMR. The difference comes when you talk appearance. I look more muscular than my friend as his weight is more distributed. We still eat the same amount of calories and burn about the same.

ShapeUpSidney

The delta is so meaningless as to be discounted.

Jeff wants to believe the diff is significant, but it isn't. For example, a person my height and body weight has about 4.34 liters of blood. Add 10 inches of height, and that SAME person only has 4.39 liters of blood. Height actually has very little to do with your metabolic needs. Basically, the difference in caloric needs is so small that it falls within the "margin of error" that the KMA method provides.

Jeff92se

KMA requires a bodyfat % in it's caluculations. I'm not stating anything other than this. Because it requires a BF% and because BF%s are difficult to get accurate, the end calculation will be hard to judge.

Now OTHER caluclations that estimate BMR etc.. can also be equally as inaccurate.

heybales

Jeff92se and Seansquared.

You are both right!

Most sites that calculate BMR know you would not have your lean body mass or % Fat known.

So height is used to get a very rough value for what your LBM would be from tables based on others your size. If you fall in the bell curve, great for you. If you don't, oops.
Not really too far off BMI trying to supply a single figure for a meaningless measurement for a specific person.

But, it's as accurate as you can get.

But the K-M formula removes some inaccuracy if you know your fat % to a good estimate.

Of course, if you are estimating that per calculators of measuring wrists, forearmes, thighs, ect, you could be way off too.

That's why it could be at least more accurate to get fat % estimates from several sites using several different methods, besides scale or caliper or bodpod, ect, and enter them all into K-M formula, and see where they avg.

But considering how many probably won't do that, these other BMR sites gotta calculate their own LBM based on tables, and you'll get better accuracy in those tables if height is included.

ShapeUpSidney

KMA requires a bodyfat % in it's caluculations. I'm not stating anything other than this. Because it requires a BF% and because BF%s are difficult to get accurate, the end calculation will be hard to judge.

Now OTHER caluclations that estimate BMR etc.. can also be equally as inaccurate.

True, there is uncertainty introduced by the measurement, as well as the uncertainty inherent in the model. I haven't seen a comparison that took this into account. Does anyone know the uncertainty associated with different body fat measurements? I could run some numbers...

I know ECHO MRI is probably the most accurate method. Anyone have accuracy and precision data for the caliper method?

Jeff92se

You have to get a fairly technical and expensive BF done to do a good KM calculation. I'm not willing to spend the $50 to do that all the time.

Perhaps I'll get it done once at the end of my goals for giggles.

heybales

Just thought of another example regarding trying to find your own fat % - using a scale that will tell you that.

Now all the scale does is get a resistance figure.

It now takes that to the tables. So hopefully the scale asked for as much info as possible, so that more accurate tables could be used.

It probably asked for at least gender. Big difference in genders obviously.

Then it should have asked for height. If it doesn't, that is a huge source of error if you think of impedence going up and down the legs.

I had one ask for neck and waist size, because the tables/formula were that narrowed down on samlpe tests that were done.

These BMR sites could start asking for some of the common measurements and do their own body fat % calculation.

But honestly, how many people are going to measure and enter that info? Or just search for another BMR site to enter gender, age, weight, and height?

psuLemon

And just to be more clear, you can't gain muscle on a caloric deficit. And even with the best workout, when you gain weight to gain muscle, you tend to add a bit of fat as well.

Spot on. Good point considering the original context of the thread, too!

Absolutely false.

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

Thats a really cool study. Thanks for providing that. I would like to note that the people in the study that didn't lose lbm all have very low caloric deficits (unlike this case). So using this study and applying to the facts of this thread, I forsee it very unlikely that the 2 lbs was muscle, especially considering she seems to have a high caloric deficit.