Daily 600 net calories, no weight lost. What's wrong?
Replies
-
thats a great read... ... really puts thngs intuo perspective. thanks for posting.0
-
What did you wind up doing?0
-
e0
-
What did you wind up doing?Actually this is an old post and this OP has increased her calories and found her sweet spot since then.0
-
Did anyone suggest eating more yet?0
-
If you're only netting 600 calories a day, you're not eating NEARLY enough. Your body is freaking out because of it.0
-
EAT EAT EAT EAT. More. Please.0
-
Did anyone suggest eating more yet?
bwahahahaha0 -
You're not eating enough and your body is angry about it.
winner winner chicken dinner....and yes OP, you should eat the chicken dinner...lol0 -
You're not eating enough and your body is angry about it.
^ this.
Read: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12
Eat.
^^ 100% second this0 -
If you read her profile now, it looks like she decided to follow most people's advice and has increased her calories.0
-
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?
Yep. Starvation is never good. It's kind of the antithesis of survival, of life itself. You lost weight because you were starving. Your body needed food aka energy to make sure all of your organs could continue working. Since you didn't provide it with enough food aka energy, your body literally ate itself, which is why you lost weight.
I'm really sorry that you were put on such a diet. The thing with weight loss is whatever you do to lose the weight must be what you can do for the rest of your life to keep the weight off aka lifestyle change.0 -
This may seem counter-intuitive, but try NOT exercising so much! Try Googling "exercise less to lose weight"...or any search phrase to that effect. You will find a number of recent studies indicating that burning calories through strenuous exercise to lose weight is counterproductive.
Depending on your metabolism and genetic make-up, rigorous exercise may be doing two things:
1. Increasing your hunger.
2. Decreasing your metabolism.
I had the same problem for quite some time; assiduously monitoring calories, and exercising religiously to burn calorie intake...and did not lose weight. I didn't start losing until I actually significantly scaled back my exercise regimen.
Good luck to you!
I never even considered this before! I just Googled what you suggested, and I'm intrigued. Maybe working out too much has been my problem with not losing much weight. In the past, I upped my calories (as practically everyone on this site suggests), and I gained weight. Very interesting stuff. I will look into it more. Thanks for providing NEW information!!0 -
Hello, I am 5'4" and 145lbs. I am eating in average between 1000-1200 calories/day with 25% fat, 30% protein and 45% carbs of healthy organic food and exercise daily to spend 500-700 calories. My weekly average is 600 net calories per day. My metabolism burns 1600 calories per day. Based on those numbers, I should lose 2lbs per week. (1000 calories x 7 /3500 = 2lbs)
What I am doing wrong? My only result so far is 1" lost on my waist. My goal is to BOTH lose fat and lose weight.
I would appreciate your help!
Thanks0 -
I totally agree with you!
Also - did you notice that his formula for weight loss was this:
"to see results that make sense and that one would expect of someone who is active (30-60 minutes five or more days per week) and consuming a caloric intake of 1300-1500 calories per day."
That's pretty much contradictory to most of the advice given the OP - which is eat, eat, eat.0 -
I'm confused. I read that your net should be as close to 0 as possible without it going into minus numbers?0
-
I'm confused. I read that your net should be as close to 0 as possible without it going into minus numbers?
Totally wrong. Your net should be equal to your goal - something over 1200 -definitely not zero! How's your body supposed to function on zero calories?!0 -
I'm confused. I read that your net should be as close to 0 as possible without it going into minus numbers?
The number at the bottom of your diary should be as close to zero as possible - as in you are eating what you 'should' be eating.0 -
Waahh I don't get this. For my number to be 0 I'd have to be exercising off the 12-1300 cals i eat a day!0
-
Waahh I don't get this. For my number to be 0 I'd have to be exercising off the 12-1300 cals i eat a day!
Your net calories need to match your goal. For example:
Goal: 1200
Exercise: 200
Total Intake: 1400
Net: 1200 (amount of calories your body gets to use to function outside of exercise)
If your net is 0, your body would definitely not have adequate fuel.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions