Daily 600 net calories, no weight lost. What's wrong?

1356

Replies

  • Susay2942
    Susay2942 Posts: 211 Member
    bump
  • CrazyTrackLady
    CrazyTrackLady Posts: 1,337 Member
    I sense the OP wouldn't raise her caloric intake if God Himself told her to. The weight issue runs deeper than a few calories.
  • eyeshuh
    eyeshuh Posts: 333
    600 NET = starving yourself. 900 NET = still starving yourself. Just because you don't feel starving doesn't mean you aren't starving your body. You will probably start losing weight with that small step up, but it will still mostly be lean body mass and not fat. Do you want to look good or do you want to be a jiggly mass of unattractive jello?

    I am at a healthy BMI and I am still losing weight eating anywhere from 1800-2400 calories and day and getting a NET of *no less* than 1200, though I aim for a NET of more like 1350 (sometimes it's hard to guess with my Fitbit).

    Instead of assuming that no one knew what you meant, which they all did, try clicking some of those extremely helpful links and educating yourself on healthy weight loss.
  • BrownEyeAngel
    BrownEyeAngel Posts: 331 Member
    Increase your calorie intake more.
  • amysteri
    amysteri Posts: 197 Member
    @eyeshuh --- glad you had that link to the roadmap that's incredibly helpful!

    @guitarjerry --- great clarification on the whole tdee and bmr!

    (there are great things and tips one learns when one joins a discussion) :flowerforyou:
  • LoosingMyLast15
    LoosingMyLast15 Posts: 1,457 Member
    Whilst I understand that eating not enough is as bad as eating too much this is hard.. my calorie ddaily allowance is 1100, for example yesterday i burnt 1450 cals leaving me 399 net calories. i had eaten enough and cannot eat just because the calories are there to be consumed, just cannot eat if not hungry am sure thats not hjealthy either. weekly according to fitness pal i need to burn 3500 cals or there about, generally i do about 5000 or more in exercise. my calories do vary but not extensivly, maybe i go over on a saturday but 300 cals to 1500 or so but thats not bad, yet no weight loss now. just plateued...getting dispondant now as i work hard at keeping fit and healthyish.
    Any ideas?

    what in the world did you do to burn 1450 calories? i ran 5.5 miles on sunday and only burn 575 calories.
  • witchy_wife
    witchy_wife Posts: 792 Member
    600 NET = starving yourself. 900 NET = still starving yourself. Just because you don't feel starving doesn't mean you aren't starving your body. You will probably start losing weight with that small step up, but it will still mostly be lean body mass and not fat. Do you want to look good or do you want to be a jiggly mass of unattractive jello?

    I am at a healthy BMI and I am still losing weight eating anywhere from 1800-2400 calories and day and getting a NET of *no less* than 1200, though I aim for a NET of more like 1350 (sometimes it's hard to guess with my Fitbit).

    Instead of assuming that no one knew what you meant, which they all did, try clicking some of those extremely helpful links and educating yourself on healthy weight loss.

    I just wanted to quote this to say I definitely agree with that first bit, you do not have to feel hungry for you body to be starving and not getting the nutrients it needs.

    Read some of the links provided please and up your calories. There are healthy ways to add calories to your diet if you are not hungry and can't eat much more food. A small handful of nuts, a splash of olive oil / coconut oil on your salad, plenty of ways.
  • okeedokee5
    okeedokee5 Posts: 46 Member
    Few things...

    It's not all simple as calories in/ calories out. At some point, your body needs to protect itself and store energy just in case it needs it (like if you have to run away from a chasing bear). Therefore, if you're taking in minimal calories, your body is gonna hold on to each and every last one of them for dear life because it can't afford to lose any.

    At the VERY least, figure out your BMR. This will tell you how many calories your body needs just to FUNCTION. Like, breathe, keep organs going, blink, etc etc. If you had to be in a coma, this is the amount of calories the hospital would give you to keep your body alive. You need to eat this amount. At least.

    Then, for fun, look into that In Place of a Road Map link that people have already sent you. You can find out your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure)... this is how many calories your body burns with exercise included. Do a 20% deficit from your TDEE, and you'll achieve fat loss while getting to eat more food. When you eat more, your body doesn't need to panic and hold on to the calories, so it will release them... and ta-da!

    And if you haven't already, get a heart rate monitor or fitbit or the like to find out how many calories you're actually burning. I used to go by the numbers on the machines and thought I was easily burning 1000+ calories during gym visits. Turns out, not so much. 1450 is a lot of exercise calories to burn in a day.
  • Lupercalia
    Lupercalia Posts: 1,857 Member
    Just eat. 600 NET calories/day is not anywhere near enough to sustain a human. My dog ate more calories than that, ffs!

    I eat 1800-2000+/day and am steadily losing body fat and maintaining muscle, which I'm guessing is what you'd like to do...maintain muscle. It's kind of bizarre when someone says they don't care about holding on to whatever muscle they can and only care about the number on the scale...and I'm assuming that's not your aim.

    Check out that IPOARM (in place of a road map) thread you've been linked to and give it a try. It really does work.
  • cls_333
    cls_333 Posts: 206 Member
    Whilst I understand that eating not enough is as bad as eating too much this is hard.. my calorie ddaily allowance is 1100, for example yesterday i burnt 1450 cals leaving me 399 net calories. i had eaten enough and cannot eat just because the calories are there to be consumed, just cannot eat if not hungry am sure thats not hjealthy either. weekly according to fitness pal i need to burn 3500 cals or there about, generally i do about 5000 or more in exercise. my calories do vary but not extensivly, maybe i go over on a saturday but 300 cals to 1500 or so but thats not bad, yet no weight loss now. just plateued...getting dispondant now as i work hard at keeping fit and healthyish.
    Any ideas?
    I'm not sure you have the concept down of being "fit and healthyish." Your body needs fuel and good whole foods to be fit & healthy. You need to change your weight loss to 1/2 lb per week, eat what MFP projects for you ***PLUS*** anything you burn during exercise. If you do this, you WILL lose the weight, be healthy, and likely keep it off. What you're doing now is a recipe for disaster. Good luck, I hope you can listen to what people here are telling you, because until you believe it, you will struggle.
  • deksgrl
    deksgrl Posts: 7,237 Member
    You want to hear from people who only need to lose 10-15 pounds. Okay.

    When I got here I needed to lose 20 pounds. MFP said "eat 1200 cals a day". I did. I lost 4 pounds and then it stopped. And I was starving. So then I ate 1400 cals a day. And nothing happened. Then I found this:

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

    And I started eating 1700 cals a day. And the weight started coming off again. Now I have 8 pounds to go, and I started lifting heavy to bring my body fat % down. Now I eat 1800-2000 calories a day.
  • savithny
    savithny Posts: 1,200 Member
    You know what is weird about these entries? About 12 years ago I was put on a 480-calorie diet by Weight Loss Clinics plus I was walking a lot and exercising at the gym about every other day. The weight peeled off me like nobody's business! It was astonishing.

    Of course I gained the weight back within the year.

    Still, if starvation mode is such a big fat hairy problem, then why in the world did I lose weight so fast on the WLC diet?

    I'm probably paying for it now. Can the effects of messing with your metabolism like that last this long?


    The people who like to debunk "starvation mode" usually point out that "if it were true, famine victims wouldn't die! No one would starve to death! " They're missing the point.

    The original "starvation mode" experiment found drops of up to 40% in resting metabolism. Lets use that number, just for giggles.

    Lets say you're a small woman. Your BMR is 1400.
    If you really do drop your metabolism 40% through abuse, your new BMR is ... 840.
    At 480 calories a day, that would still be a deficit of 360, before any exercise calories.

    But if you didn't create such a metabolic slowdown, you could eat more food and lose the same amount of weight.
  • Mainebikerchick
    Mainebikerchick Posts: 1,573 Member
    You're not eating enough and your body is angry about it.

    ^^ THIS!! She's pretty friggin' smart about this stuff!
  • BoomstickChick
    BoomstickChick Posts: 428 Member
    You're not eating enough and your body is angry about it.

    Seems legit.
  • CallMeCupcakeDammit
    CallMeCupcakeDammit Posts: 9,377 Member
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing

    Yes! Read this!


    (Thanks :P)

    I just came back to post this link, guess I don't have to! :)
  • LessMe2B
    LessMe2B Posts: 316
    You cannot live eating that little. Right now your organs are struggling to operate properly and any weight you lose is likely lean body mass. Eat more. Calculate your BMR and TDEE
    [/quote]


    ^^^THIS^^^^
  • AlongCame_Molly
    AlongCame_Molly Posts: 2,835 Member
    I sense the OP wouldn't raise her caloric intake if God Himself told her to. The weight issue runs deeper than a few calories.

    YUP
  • MightyDomo
    MightyDomo Posts: 1,265 Member
    Not eating enough for your body to function means that your body starts to consume the lean muscles and healthy fat storages on your body. Just remember that some of those lean muscles make up your heart, and some of that healthy fat protects it.

    Eating enough so that your body doesn't turn to survival mode (not starvation) and start eating that lean muscle and healthy fat that you already have in your body and start storing fats when you start eating enough. BMR is what I use as a minimum and everyday at the absolute least have a net of 1200 calories, although I did have trouble noticing when I didn't hit at least 1200 net. So I have figured out a better system to keep my net in the right zone while keeping a good deficit to net a healthy level of weight loss (1-2lbs per week).

    Don't starve your body, you will honestly regret it in the end.
  • elleloch
    elleloch Posts: 739 Member
    Honey you need to be netting at LEAST twice as many calories as you are now. Eat your food. The end.
  • akaMrsmojo
    akaMrsmojo Posts: 762 Member
    Thank you for all your comments, but I would like to specify few more things.
    1) I am not eating only 600 calories/day. That number is a "net". I am eating 3 meals per day and a snack. I sleep well and feel great. I am not starving myself.
    2) I am already in my "healthy weight" zone. I do understand that above normal BMI will require more daily calorie.

    After reading your posts, I decided to increase my daily intake by 200-300 calories, this will add me another meals and I will now eat 4-5 meals per day. I like my exercise, it is difficult to think that i would reduce it. After all, 3lbs in 1 month is not bad at all at this point. I just need to be consistent and patient.

    I am interested to hear more from people that are now in their healthy weight zone, but wants to lose an other 10-15lbs.

    Thanks again!

    I am in that healthy weight zone. My BMI is normal. First off, I eat 1911 calories a day based on my TDEE. My goal is .5 a week. The less weight you have to lose the longer it takes. There is no reason to net below your BMR unless your goal is to damage your metabolism. 2 pounds a week is too much for someone at a normal weight. Listen to the people here, eat more.
  • Ready2Rock206
    Ready2Rock206 Posts: 9,487 Member
    I sense the OP wouldn't raise her caloric intake if God Himself told her to. The weight issue runs deeper than a few calories.

    So true. But if we told her to reduce to 300-400 she'd do it in a heartbeat.
  • MsPudding
    MsPudding Posts: 562 Member
    tumblr_ltl6tlWcVx1qkunqjo1_500.png
  • toxic86
    toxic86 Posts: 1
    You havent lost any weight because you burned off fat and gained muscle in its place thats why you lost an inch in your waist because muscle takes up less room then fat. Also there is nothing wrong with having 600 NET calories because its the calorie total AFTER exercise was incorporated... Your not in starvation mode your not sensative to carbohydrates your doing everything right.. Focus on fat loss which is what makes us fat in the first place and not the scale.. The scale is the worst way to measure weightloss because it doesnt take in to account any muscle that you gain which pretty much led you to make this post. Your welcome.
  • fuzzymop55
    fuzzymop55 Posts: 70 Member
    I was probably doing this and my body stalled for 19 days. Then I went and ate about 2000 calories and took a break from the gym for a few days. Sometimes your body needs a break. I eat 1200-1400 a day depending on where I'm at, but if you are exercising that much a day you should eat a little more. Try not to net under 800.
  • professorRAT
    professorRAT Posts: 690 Member
    You havent lost any weight because you burned off fat and gained muscle in its place thats why you lost an inch in your waist because muscle takes up less room then fat. Also there is nothing wrong with having 600 NET calories because its the calorie total AFTER exercise was incorporated... Your not in starvation mode your not sensative to carbohydrates your doing everything right.. Focus on fat loss which is what makes us fat in the first place and not the scale.. The scale is the worst way to measure weightloss because it doesnt take in to account any muscle that you gain which pretty much led you to make this post. Your welcome.

    There is so much wrong with this post. You need to learn how MFP defines net calories. There is plenty wrong with having 600 net calories if she included a deficit in her target (which she did). In addition, this is an OLD thread and the OP has already made changes to her approach. Necromancy is bad, m'kay?
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • leahartmann
    leahartmann Posts: 415
    You havent lost any weight because you burned off fat and gained muscle in its place thats why you lost an inch in your waist because muscle takes up less room then fat. Also there is nothing wrong with having 600 NET calories because its the calorie total AFTER exercise was incorporated... Your not in starvation mode your not sensative to carbohydrates your doing everything right.. Focus on fat loss which is what makes us fat in the first place and not the scale.. The scale is the worst way to measure weightloss because it doesnt take in to account any muscle that you gain which pretty much led you to make this post. Your welcome.
    Excuse me, what? There´s nothing wrong with having 600 NET calories? Oh boy.... As one said, you should eat MINIMUM the double. The 1200 NET calories is a minimum and I agree, you should be eating way more. I´m slowly- 50 calories a week- working my way up from 1200- 17-1800 calories. Eat back your exercise calories. This is important: EAT MORE!

    Oh, just noticed now how old the thread is. I hope she got it. :flowerforyou:
  • AbsoluteNG
    AbsoluteNG Posts: 1,079 Member
    If you don't eat 1200 calories, you will die.
  • whitecapwendy
    whitecapwendy Posts: 287 Member
    Let me attempt to elucidate on what everyone is trying to tell you.

    First off, weight loss isn't just about the numbers. There are other factors to consider. The body is designed to protect itself from the damage of starvation (no, I'm not referring to starvation mode). These mechanisms are generally triggered by extreme calorie deficits for long periods of time. This is true for everyone. People who are starting at only an overweight BMI have a tendency to trigger these mechanisms much sooner than someone with an obese BMI.

    What happens is that the body will generate hormones that will either make you feel hungry all the time, forcing you to eat more, or will cause you to burn calories more efficiently, thus reducing your body's caloric requirements to meet your caloric intake.

    I strongly advise that you reconsider your calorie goal settings. For someone at your BMI, 2 lbs a week is really much more than your body can handle. You are creating an energy demand that is too great for it to fulfill with your current calorie intake and rapid fat loss isn't biologically allowed by your DNA. What I mean is that it will not draw upon only fat stores. It will begin to draw energy from other available tissues. After fat, it draws upon muscles, but it could potentially draw upon organ tissue as well, if the calorie deficit continues for too long.

    this
  • Velum_cado
    Velum_cado Posts: 1,608 Member
    This is awesome.

Categories