what am I doing wrong??????????????

jodygirl56

my doctor started me out on 2000 calories a day, so i don't think your calories are too high...i would look into your sodium intake, that can keep fluids on you and of course the magic weapon seems to be drink lots and lots of water. and of course muscle weighs more than fat

stumblinthrulife

Perhaps you could try opening your mind a little first, and the rest would follow?

I eat very well, thank you. Mostly fresh foods, very little processed. I don't need books and websites to tell me that. I just used to eat too much. Counting calories brought that into line, and I've lost 40 pounds. Counting calories sure isn't the last word in nutrition, but without some method of matching what you eat to what you burn, weight loss is a crap shoot. If you already happily eat a healthy amount of food (I won't say calories) to maintain your weight, then kudos to you. But not everyone does, and they need a method of moderating their intake. Calorie counting is about the easiest way to do that until you get a really good handle on the calorie densities of various foods.

But therein lies the rub. Have you ever stopped to ask yourself how hundreds of generations of humans, pre-1950, managed to stay so generally fit, so non-diabetic, so simply healthy, without ever consciously taking note of how much and/or how often they were eating, much less not even knowing what the concept of a calorie was?

I'm not arguing that calories-in, calories-out doesn't "work". Heck, it may be all you need to keep your weight down. But how naturally sustainable is it and what is it actually doing for your metabolic health, versus maybe taking a look at the makeup of *what* your eating? What would happen if you filled yourself so full of high quality, horomonally friendly food that you were simply too full to eat any more? Might it just be that instead of counting calories, you could just eat when you're hungry and eat until your full? I think you may find that to be the case if you gave it a shot.

I did give it a shot.

I got fat. Obese in fact.

That's why I'm here. Not everyone needs to count calories to keep their intake in check. I do. Please don't deign to tell me otherwise, because you do not know me.

bpotts44

Perhaps you could try opening your mind a little first, and the rest would follow?

I eat very well, thank you. Mostly fresh foods, very little processed. I don't need books and websites to tell me that. I just used to eat too much. Counting calories brought that into line, and I've lost 40 pounds. Counting calories sure isn't the last word in nutrition, but without some method of matching what you eat to what you burn, weight loss is a crap shoot. If you already happily eat a healthy amount of food (I won't say calories) to maintain your weight, then kudos to you. But not everyone does, and they need a method of moderating their intake. Calorie counting is about the easiest way to do that until you get a really good handle on the calorie densities of various foods.

But therein lies the rub. Have you ever stopped to ask yourself how hundreds of generations of humans, pre-1950, managed to stay so generally fit, so non-diabetic, so simply healthy, without ever consciously taking note of how much and/or how often they were eating, much less not even knowing what the concept of a calorie was?

I'm not arguing that calories-in, calories-out doesn't "work". Heck, it may be all you need to keep your weight down. But how naturally sustainable is it and what is it actually doing for your metabolic health, versus maybe taking a look at the makeup of *what* your eating? What would happen if you filled yourself so full of high quality, horomonally friendly food that you were simply too full to eat any more? Might it just be that instead of counting calories, you could just eat when you're hungry and eat until your full? I think you may find that to be the case if you gave it a shot.

People used to be much more active and there wasn't a plethora of calorie dense processed foods. This is how most of us got fat. Even if you are eating "all the right things" its still useful to count calories so that you know what you're doing to yourself. What is your motivation to come on a calorie counting website and bash calorie counting?

stumblinthrulife

We are completely derailing this poor individual's thread. I suggest that if we want to continue this matter, you start a new thread for your reading materials and we discuss there.

arlenem1974

I would check your salt intake to. That would have a negitave affect on the scale if its more then the reccomended 2500mg per day.

tripful

We are completely derailing this poor individual's thread. I suggest that if we want to continue this matter, you start a new thread for your reading materials and we discuss there.

Fully admitted, I agree, and I apologize for coming out guns-a-blazing. I'm passionate for advocating new ways forward that could maybe help break through new barriers, but points well taken, though, and I apologize for stepping on toes with my intensity. Bottom line, it's great to be a part of any group who is as interested as you all are about bringing our health into good consciousness. I salute you guys for the progress you've made so far, and I appreciate your leniency with my misplaced aggressiveness. MFP is obviously a better community to have people such as yourselves and wonderful food diary tool, I think we can all agree on that.

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

It comes down to calories in vs calories out.

Then, please, with all due respect, start by watching SlimIsSimple.org (a completely free, public-service driven video, not trying to sell you anything) and see why if we held what the calorie deficit/surplus theory of weight gain and weight loss to the test, would mean that the typical American, who is consuming an average of 300 calories more per day now than he/she did 40 years ago (statistical fact, very Google-friendly and you can pick your reference of choice) should weigh over 1,000 pounds each, calculated on the same math you refer to. And we obviously that is not the case, so something doesn't add up. In this case, it's calorie counting.

Please don't hijack the OPs thread. It's good forum etiquette to start your own.

tripful

Please don't hijack the OPs thread. It's good forum etiquette to start your own.

My apologies, as noted above as well. Tail firmly between legs. I do humbly take note.

To add some value back to the thread, perhaps the OP could change up her workouts to include more isolation-based low-resistance weight training as a way to trade in fat for muscle and bolster her resting metabolic rate. Then I would suggest perhaps trying one new food every day (or every week) that was a bit more fresh and natural, and try to make it a complete substitute for something that would be dry and boxed/bagged. Hopefully, those couple of suggestions can help.

There were go. My apologies once again. Just looking to help, and yes, my way is not the only way, that is for sure.

moosegt35

If your pants are no longer tight, then you have lost. You lost inches. Which is better for measuring success than pounds anyway.

Agree, but also 1800 might be too high. Try to net 1200 on exercise days and 1500 on the other days

That's Bass Ackwards, you want to eat a few more calories on exercise days.

moosegt35

It comes down to calories in vs calories out. Try Shapesense.com s website to approximate your Daily Caloric Expenditure caluculator. For every 3500 calorie deficit your body experiences, you lose a pound. Then add in you excercise calories too. Make sure to use a heart rate monitor to tell you how many calories you burn during excerise. Machine's can be way off if they aren't basing it on heartrate.

So, for example my BMR is 1800 a day for a sedantary lifestyle. That is how many calories my body needs to function, digest food, and the little bit of moving I do during the day. If I only eat 1200 calories I am at a 600 cal deficit so far for the day. If I work out and burn 400 calories I am now at a 1000 cal deficit. It is a lot about the math.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Are you seriously suggesting eating at BMR minus 1,000? If so then, I'm sorry, but your metabolism is going to end up shot. Sure, the weight will drop off initially (amazing how losing lean tissue can make the scale go in the right direction) then you will plateau and every time you try to eat normally the scale will shoot up. You will be skinny fat and have messed your body up big time.

Never, never eat below your BMR - it is the first rule of losing fat not muscle. Your BMR is what your body needs to be in a comatose state - eat any less than that and your body will look inward for energy - and not to using fat for energy. Eat between your BMR and your TDEE (preferably around TDEE minus 20%) and you will have slow, steady fat loss.

It's a lot about the biology... *

* And, yes, I've studied human biology at university so I do know what I'm talking about.

Care to elaborate on the BMR and TDEE thing? My goal ins 1400 cals per day and I sometimes get up to 1700 or 1800 if I eat out or work out a lot. I usually lift 4 times a week for 30 minutes and play basketball 1-2 times a week for cardio. My TDEE is 3052 and BMR is around 2300-2400 depending on the calculator. I am quite sure I would gain weight like crazy if I ate between those numbers. I have lost 44 pounds and has taken close to a year with the way I have been going at it.

bpotts44

It comes down to calories in vs calories out. Try Shapesense.com s website to approximate your Daily Caloric Expenditure caluculator. For every 3500 calorie deficit your body experiences, you lose a pound. Then add in you excercise calories too. Make sure to use a heart rate monitor to tell you how many calories you burn during excerise. Machine's can be way off if they aren't basing it on heartrate.

So, for example my BMR is 1800 a day for a sedantary lifestyle. That is how many calories my body needs to function, digest food, and the little bit of moving I do during the day. If I only eat 1200 calories I am at a 600 cal deficit so far for the day. If I work out and burn 400 calories I am now at a 1000 cal deficit. It is a lot about the math.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Are you seriously suggesting eating at BMR minus 1,000? If so then, I'm sorry, but your metabolism is going to end up shot. Sure, the weight will drop off initially (amazing how losing lean tissue can make the scale go in the right direction) then you will plateau and every time you try to eat normally the scale will shoot up. You will be skinny fat and have messed your body up big time.

Never, never eat below your BMR - it is the first rule of losing fat not muscle. Your BMR is what your body needs to be in a comatose state - eat any less than that and your body will look inward for energy - and not to using fat for energy. Eat between your BMR and your TDEE (preferably around TDEE minus 20%) and you will have slow, steady fat loss.

It's a lot about the biology... *

* And, yes, I've studied human biology at university so I do know what I'm talking about.

Care to elaborate on the BMR and TDEE thing? My goal ins 1400 cals per day and I sometimes get up to 1700 or 1800 if I eat out or work out a lot. I usually lift 4 times a week for 30 minutes and play basketball 1-2 times a week for cardio. My TDEE is 3052 and BMR is around 2300-2400 depending on the calculator. I am quite sure I would gain weight like crazy if I ate between those numbers. I have lost 44 pounds and has taken close to a year with the way I have been going at it.

BMR is Basal Metabolic Rate basically the amount of calories you would burn in a coma state
TDEE is Total Daily Energy Expenditure the amount of calories you burn in a day.

500 calories equals 1 lb per week. So if you want to lose 1 lb per week you would eat your TDEE - 500. Remember the calculators are not exact. You can access a spreadsheet to calculate here:

http://www.homefitnessextreme.com/nutrition/advanced-nutrition-plan/

1400 sounds low, but it is a myth that you cannot eat below your BMR. For people who are small and relatively inactive it is fine to eat below your BMR. You just shouldn't go below 1200 total calories per day.

SRH7

It comes down to calories in vs calories out. Try Shapesense.com s website to approximate your Daily Caloric Expenditure caluculator. For every 3500 calorie deficit your body experiences, you lose a pound. Then add in you excercise calories too. Make sure to use a heart rate monitor to tell you how many calories you burn during excerise. Machine's can be way off if they aren't basing it on heartrate.

So, for example my BMR is 1800 a day for a sedantary lifestyle. That is how many calories my body needs to function, digest food, and the little bit of moving I do during the day. If I only eat 1200 calories I am at a 600 cal deficit so far for the day. If I work out and burn 400 calories I am now at a 1000 cal deficit. It is a lot about the math.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Are you seriously suggesting eating at BMR minus 1,000? If so then, I'm sorry, but your metabolism is going to end up shot. Sure, the weight will drop off initially (amazing how losing lean tissue can make the scale go in the right direction) then you will plateau and every time you try to eat normally the scale will shoot up. You will be skinny fat and have messed your body up big time.

Never, never eat below your BMR - it is the first rule of losing fat not muscle. Your BMR is what your body needs to be in a comatose state - eat any less than that and your body will look inward for energy - and not to using fat for energy. Eat between your BMR and your TDEE (preferably around TDEE minus 20%) and you will have slow, steady fat loss.

It's a lot about the biology... *

* And, yes, I've studied human biology at university so I do know what I'm talking about.

Care to elaborate on the BMR and TDEE thing? My goal ins 1400 cals per day and I sometimes get up to 1700 or 1800 if I eat out or work out a lot. I usually lift 4 times a week for 30 minutes and play basketball 1-2 times a week for cardio. My TDEE is 3052 and BMR is around 2300-2400 depending on the calculator. I am quite sure I would gain weight like crazy if I ate between those numbers. I have lost 44 pounds and has taken close to a year with the way I have been going at it.

This is a good explanation: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12

taso42

I see lots of quick adds for one thing. You need to hunker down and start eating consistently and logging as accurately as possible. I also highly recommend going with a TDEE-based approach.

See http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets
and/or http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12

Sarauk2sf

1800 is a lot of calories... you should try 1600 and it should be protein heavy, low sugars... its normal to not lose weight as it starts redistributing to different areas of your body... concentrate on inches and stick with it. mix up the bike with jogging or running if you can.

Look at her ticker.

BrownEyeAngel

I am doing a 1200 calories a day and weight seems to fall off easy.

julie781

I would talk to your doctor. There may be something else going on that preventing you from losing.

Sarauk2sf

You have a bunch of quick adds. Start logging your food properly. Weigh and measure everything.

SRH7

You have a bunch of quick adds. Start logging your food properly. Weigh and measure everything.

Agreed. A cheap set of kitchen scales is the best investment you will make. So easy to over and under estimate.