What am I doing wrong?!

Options
2

Replies

  • NathanFronk
    NathanFronk Posts: 137 Member
    Options
    Because she is a young woman who is 5'5 and she is not extremely overweight. She shouldn't be eating so little and exercising so hard. By doing that, she is creating too much cortisol and upsetting other hormonal balances. She needs to be taking a smaller calorie deficit and giving it time.

    The reason I disagree with you is not because I'm not a cat person, your profile picture is that of an obese cat, or because you said she's "eating so little and exercising so hard" as though we were living on another planet where that was a bad thing. It's because 1200 calories is sufficient, she's not starving (obviously or she'd be losing weight) and whatever negative effects there are from heightened levels of cortisol are outweighed by the benefits of being in great shape.

    *eyeroll* You can be in great shape and eat more than a bird and lose weight.

    I'm not sure what your point is. If it's just a statement unrelated to this conversation I absolutely agree with you. One can be in great shape, eat more than a bird, and lose weight.

    But that wasn't the issue. We were talking about what she should do to kick start her weight loss again. I only pointed out that people tend to say, "eat more" when these types of threads materialize out of the World Wide Web ether. I firmly believe eating more is not necessarily the best advice.

    1200 is the minimum you should eat, recommended by this site and by health professionals, unless in some cases for very obese people when recommended by doctors for health reasons (which the OP is clearly not), so why would you recommend someone to eat less than that?

    In fact, to use this site properly, you eat the recommended calories PLUS exercise calories, because this is a NEAT based method, not a TDEE method. Since the OP is apparently not eating that amount, again, why would you recommend she eat less? It is common for people to come here and not set up the tool properly and under-eat because of it. This is most likely one of those cases.

    Okay. I don't want to be misinterpreted. I do not advise anyone to eat 17 calories a day for life. One, it is very hard to find foods that are easily portioned out to exactly 17 calories--it must be hard because if it were easy everyone would do it. But the main reason I don't advise it is because, like you said, it would not be healthy.

    Let's clear some things up:

    1: Your comments are necessarily based on the premise that the OP is accurately keeping track of each calorie she takes in while simultaneously not overestimating the calories she burns. This would be great if the ALL THE EVIDENCE points to this being a false premise. Again, and since you like to tell me what doctors and scientists "know" to be right, there exists a simple scientifically accepted truth: fewer calories in than calories out = weight loss. She is not losing weight. Therefore, I say eat fewer calories or workout more not because I advocate only eating 17 calories, but because of the simpler, more believable assumption that her food and exercise diaries are incomplete.

    2: Fasting for a day will not hurt her. Even if she were to not eat anything for two days, she'd live and be fine (presuming there are not some other factors, but let's assume she is reasonably healthy and human). A short fast may kick start her weight loss and so long as the average over a week of calories consumed is 1200/day, she'd be peachy. Recap: starve yourself, just not for a month and you should be fine.
  • __Di__
    __Di__ Posts: 1,631 Member
    Options
    Why does it seem like whenever someone has this type of post that there are always people whose answer is "eat more!"?

    How about eating less?

    Eating less or exercising MORE at still 1200 calorie intake will force your body to start using the resources it has, and then once it does ramp back to 1200. At the OP's exercise level, 1200 is perfectly safe and all that is needed.

    Eat more is such an easy answer to believe, because it's the one that is easiest, fun, and what we want to hear.

    Maybe I'd go with Eat More Protein but keep calories the same. But that's the only type of "eat more" you should be doing.

    P.s. Please no one say anything about a body going into "starvation mode," you're watching too many infomercials. It's a simple calculation: calories in minus calories out. If there is a deficit you will lose weight. If you have a deficit and are not losing, you are miscalculating one number or the other, or both. On Naked and Afraid, Discovery's survival show the participants went 21 days with only a snake and a turtle to eat. The girl who wasn't fat to begin with lost 23 pounds. Her body did not, "miraculously stop using its stored resources" until she ate more.

    People say "eat more" even if they haven't seen said diary :(

    That's all you see on this site now "eat more" - well that and "starvation mode", "lift heavy" and "your body will store fat if you don't eat enough"

    Damn well does my head in.
  • hyinkm
    hyinkm Posts: 4 Member
    Options
    When you don't eat and starve your body it doesn't eat fat first it will eat muscle which is what you want/need to stay healthy and in shape? Not sure what why you would recommend fasting. It would be like throwing all the workouts you've been doing out the drain and if she does lose weight she wont have a toned body she would have saggy skin.....
  • erikkmcvay
    erikkmcvay Posts: 238 Member
    Options
    A couple of thoughts:

    1. Three weeks without losing a pound is frustrating, and I won't belittle that. BUT it's actually not that long. Seriously. I know it stinks, but hang in there. You could be surprised to see a "sudden" change in another two weeks. It has happened to me like that; I'm sticking to my meal and exercise plan with perfect consistency for months, but during some periods there's no weight change at all, and other periods it looks like I'm losing a dangerous-looking 3 or 4 pounds a week.

    2. Oftentimes, the scale is simply not your friend. Your body is made up of different compounds that have different densities / weights. What happens a lot during extended plateaux is that your body composition is shifting from low-density (high volume) compounds (like fat!) to high-density compounds (lean muscle mass, denser bones). It sounds to me VERY MUCH as if a lot of your exercise (strength training and yoga especially) is going to be adding density to your muscles and bones: this is a good thing! Your scale could show no change at all for a while while you're actually whittling down your flesh substantially.

    3. So track your measurements too!

    Excellent post!
  • NathanFronk
    NathanFronk Posts: 137 Member
    Options
    When you don't eat and starve your body it doesn't eat fat first it will eat muscle which is what you want/need to stay healthy and in shape? Not sure what why you would recommend fasting. It would be like throwing all the workouts you've been doing out the drain and if she does lose weight she wont have a toned body she would have saggy skin.....

    Unbelievable. This is fat-think at it's best. "I don't want to skip three meals in a row because even though I need to lose 20-400 pounds, my body might burn some muscle." Truly the type of rationalization that has gotten the best of all us at one point or another, which is why were are here. But now that we are here (though where else could we be but where we are), let's rise above the urge to think like fat people and join the throngs of the healthy and the thin.
  • ladynocturne
    ladynocturne Posts: 865 Member
    Options
    If maintaining a reasonable caloric deficit, maintaining as much lean muscle mass as possible, and making it to my goal is "thinking like a fat person" then I don't want to "think like a thin person".
  • mandasalem
    mandasalem Posts: 346 Member
    Options
    The other issue with forcing your calories down and down and down is a practical one-- are you going to be able to sustain that forever? Or are you going to overcompensate the minute you can eat at a "normal" level again? It's a lifestyle, not a diet.
  • NathanFronk
    NathanFronk Posts: 137 Member
    Options
    Again and for the last time, because this thread is worn thin.

    I suggested an average of 1200 calories/day on AVERAGE. One day of limiting calories below that number is not the beginning of a downward spiral that inexorably leads to Dante's 9th circle from which there will be no return.
  • astrampe
    astrampe Posts: 2,169 Member
    Options
    So funny that the rants against eating more, fueling your body and preserving muscle mas while losing fat comes from people who lost 8 and 13 lbs....:bigsmile:
  • erikkmcvay
    erikkmcvay Posts: 238 Member
    Options
    So funny that the rants against eating more, fueling your body and preserving muscle mas while losing fat comes from people who lost 8 and 13 lbs....:bigsmile:

    *chuckle* but don't always assume someone's tag is accurate. I'm at 50lbs from my start but I started using MFP only 27lbs ago -- though, admittedly my own idea of how to lose weight has changed only slightly since using MFP.
  • Kitship
    Kitship Posts: 579 Member
    Options
    Why does it seem like whenever someone has this type of post that there are always people whose answer is "eat more!"?

    How about eating less?

    Eating less or exercising MORE at still 1200 calorie intake will force your body to start using the resources it has, and then once it does ramp back to 1200. At the OP's exercise level, 1200 is perfectly safe and all that is needed.

    Eat more is such an easy answer to believe, because it's the one that is easiest, fun, and what we want to hear.

    Maybe I'd go with Eat More Protein but keep calories the same. But that's the only type of "eat more" you should be doing.

    P.s. Please no one say anything about a body going into "starvation mode," you're watching too many infomercials. It's a simple calculation: calories in minus calories out. If there is a deficit you will lose weight. If you have a deficit and are not losing, you are miscalculating one number or the other, or both. On Naked and Afraid, Discovery's survival show the participants went 21 days with only a snake and a turtle to eat. The girl who wasn't fat to begin with lost 23 pounds. Her body did not, "miraculously stop using its stored resources" until she ate more.

    This is just plain wrong. At her weight her BMR is way over 1200. Please stop spreading disinformation and sourcing a reality TV show as evidence to support your claim.
  • Leeann1979
    Leeann1979 Posts: 1,090 Member
    Options
    Just always remember muscle weighs more than fat. So you may still be toning down but not losing lbs. Maybe change your exercising. stay away from any strength training and do more fat burning exercises. Also remember if you do starve your body the fat is the last to go. It will eat at your muscle before fat.

    First off, muscle doesn't weigh more than fat. A pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat. Muscle takes up less space than fat does. Muscles burn more calories also. Keep doing strength training. And net more calories.
  • Kitship
    Kitship Posts: 579 Member
    Options
    Recap: starve yourself, just not for a month and you should be fine.

    This line has me thinking that you're just a troll. Starve yourself for ANY amount of time (it doesn't matter if you average 1200 calories a day or not) and you will wreack havoc on your body and your metabolism.
  • mryak750
    mryak750 Posts: 198 Member
    Options
    I agree with nathanfronk....a lot of these comments make no sense
  • jennifershoo
    jennifershoo Posts: 3,198 Member
    Options
    Eat more!!!!!!
  • atlchc8
    atlchc8 Posts: 53 Member
    Options
    Definitely do more cardio, 2 days even at 2 hours is not enough for sustained weight loss. Your body has adjusted to those 2 days of working out. Up it to 3 hours and see if your weight budges. You have PCOS, I had that too and that makes it very difficult to lose weight, you have to go see your doctor to help you.

    Jillian Michael said eating 1200 cals a day is not starving yourself and I eat around 1300 cals a day and work out and I'm not hungry=not starving.
  • AlongCame_Molly
    AlongCame_Molly Posts: 2,835 Member
    Options
    Definitely do more cardio, 2 days even at 2 hours is not enough for sustained weight loss. Your body has adjusted to those 2 days of working out. Up it to 3 hours and see if your weight budges. You have PCOS, I had that too and that makes it very difficult to lose weight, you have to go see your doctor to help you.

    Jillian Michael said eating 1200 cals a day is not starving yourself and I eat around 1300 cals a day and work out and I'm not hungry=not starving.

    This is wrong. So, so, very wrong. Cardio is good for your heart, but is not necessary for weight loss. You do not need to do three hours a day, or two, or even one. I promise. Do it if you enjoy it, and yes it will burn calories, but it will not give you the body your profile says you want with JUST cardio.

    Strength training and heavy lifting, along with a reasonable calorie deficit and a little patience will give you amazing results.
  • __Di__
    __Di__ Posts: 1,631 Member
    Options
    The other issue with forcing your calories down and down and down is a practical one-- are you going to be able to sustain that forever? Or are you going to overcompensate the minute you can eat at a "normal" level again? It's a lifestyle, not a diet.

    You don't have to sustain it forever, if you did you would continually lose weight.
  • __Di__
    __Di__ Posts: 1,631 Member
    Options
    So funny that the rants against eating more, fueling your body and preserving muscle mas while losing fat comes from people who lost 8 and 13 lbs....:bigsmile:

    Don't include me in your little example there, my own ticker is not my full story, at all.

    I have lost in the past 33lb and 41lb all on 1200 calories per day.

    Now why am I trying to lose weight for the third time you may ask, it is quite simple really, I stuffed my face when I reached my goal and put on weight.

    It worked before and it will works again.

    Oh, and I am not starving nor is my metabolism wrecked, nor is my muscle being eaten into.:laugh:
  • _Zardoz_
    _Zardoz_ Posts: 3,987 Member
    Options
    Why does it seem like whenever someone has this type of post that there are always people whose answer is "eat more!"?

    How about eating less?

    Eating less or exercising MORE at still 1200 calorie intake will force your body to start using the resources it has, and then once it does ramp back to 1200. At the OP's exercise level, 1200 is perfectly safe and all that is needed.

    Eat more is such an easy answer to believe, because it's the one that is easiest, fun, and what we want to hear.

    Maybe I'd go with Eat More Protein but keep calories the same. But that's the only type of "eat more" you should be doing.

    P.s. Please no one say anything about a body going into "starvation mode," you're watching too many infomercials. It's a simple calculation: calories in minus calories out. If there is a deficit you will lose weight. If you have a deficit and are not losing, you are miscalculating one number or the other, or both. On Naked and Afraid, Discovery's survival show the participants went 21 days with only a snake and a turtle to eat. The girl who wasn't fat to begin with lost 23 pounds. Her body did not, "miraculously stop using its stored resources" until she ate more.
    Please stop it with this Common sense approach. MFP is no place for it.

Categories