Why am i not losing!!!!!

I messaged you this morning, but I finally got around to reading these responses. I personally definitely do not believe in "starvation mode". When I was at my heavier weight after having my son I joined WW (which I do love), and I was training for half marathons. I ran a lot (though not your 100 miles a month - it was a goal but didn't happen). I was also pretty strict with my diet, and didn't eat any of my "activity points" (didn't eat the calories I burned). I am 5'3" and went down to 102 lbs that way. I upped my calorie intake after that b/c I didn't want to go lower. But the point is - while I don't think that kind of calorie defecit is healthy - I didn't stop losing b/c I was "starving".

I would say make sure your portions/intake are what you think they are. Also, I don't know if you use things like Gatorade, gels, etc but if you do - make sure you are counting those calories too. Some of my runner friends follow WW but never count the points/calories in them while they are racing - you still take in those calories, so count them (not saying you don't - just trying to think of reasons you may be taking in more than you realize). I don't use those products b/c for me they have unpleasant consequences while running but I know a lot of people do.

While I do think weight training is so important - I don't think it will necessarily help you to lose more. Lots and lots of runners are very thin and they....run. They don't change up their routine. Overall though I do think weight training is extremely important for everyone, but that's just a side note.

Also some people mentioned a HRM, and I do think if you don't have one and are running that much - it's a great investment. If I used the estimates for calories burned they seriously overestimate. And calories burned will likely change as you lose weight. For instance, at the last race I wore my HRM for - I ran 13.2 miles (give or take a tenth or so) and I burned just under 1000 calories. Sad day for me.

So that's a long way of saying: Make sure you are tracking accurate serving sizes, make sure you tracking actual excercise calories, and while you DO need a defecit to lose weight - you also do need to give your body some fuel to keep running.

LOL! I'm going to be the odd man out and say you're eating too much... You are not in a deficit. If you are doing that much cardio and not losing weight either you are eating more than you think or burning less than you think.

I am glad I read your post before I put fingers to the key board....lol. I agree with you 100%.
This " you need to eat more to lose " is a myth. If that were true than the tens of thousands of people i dealt with in over 30 plus years in underdeveloped countries that starved to death or almost to death from lack of calories would still all be alive, because " we all know that not eating enough will force the body to hang onto fat ". Not eating enough ( eating at a deficit ) will make the body lose fat and muscle until there is nothing more to lose, then it will affect organ function......and then one dies.
There is however one thing I agree to.....
Many people could eat more and feel better and still lose. Probably due to a smaller calorie deficit they would lose less or slower, but they would lose. But as long as the body is in deficit, the body will lose....a.l.w.a.y.s.

That is the point I have been trying to make! But people think they are right even when it goes against everything that science has proven.

So let me try this one more time.

NO, the OP or anyone else for that matter does not automatically need to eat more calories to lose weight. She and anyone else that is having a problem losing weight need to take a very close look at their intake. They might "think" they are eating whatever amount of calories but most of the time they are not. If the number of calories they are consuming is below their maintenance level there is absolutely no possible way they would not lose weight.

Yes, if that same person is actually eating 800 or 900 or whatever amount it was then absolutely that person needs to eat more. But still keep their intake below their maintenance level in order for weight loss to occur.

So everyone here that has bashed my opinion has automatically assumed that I told someone to eat a ridiculously low amount of calories. No that is not what I am doing. If you would stop and think about it for a few minutes you would realize what I am saying is that this person is not eating the amount of calories she thinks she is or is eating back calories that were not burned in the first place. Either way it is a mathematical error. And either way the first thing that they should do is make absolutely sure the number of calories that has been entered is correct.

@jeffpettis Im running 7 miles daily, thats about 800 calories and eating 1,200 a day?

I'm not disputing the fact that you are burning a lot of calories. Sounds like you are Wonder Woman when it comes to running, but the simple fact is if you are not losing weight you are not in a deficit.

You have made this statement more than once and it may NOT be true. You've made your point.

From what I know about diet and exercise the only conclusion I know of is that you are starving your body.You are running alot which is great and you are eating 1200cal.You should get a doctor to measure you,get your BMI and find what your calorie intake should be.You are running on low fuel and that puts your body in starve mode which causes your body to hold onto that fat and store it.Having one day a week to "pig out" will not only help you lose weight but also keeps you from stressing.Your mother not exercising or dieting and still losing weight is probably from not worrying about it.My mother did this as well but gained it back plus more while I was still losing weight.It is best not to worry and let your body tell you what it needs.Craving a candy bar?Eat a mini and only ONE.That should help you and doing different exercises every two weeks will also help your body.

Here's some reference: when I needed to lose my last 3lbs, my TDEE was 1787. To lose 2lbs a week, I was to eat 1287 per day (500 under TDEE). I was very good at hitting this mark consistently, but for two weeks got stuck. Then I decided to move it to 1lb a week, bringing my calories up to 1537 per day (250 under TDEE). The last three pounds came off in three days and I'm consistently weighing in at my goal weight. This is what we mean by eating more to weigh less.

You can absolutely starve to death. Starving absolutely does not cause you to gain weight. But not eating enough can definitely slow your weight loss enough to appear to be stopped.

If your TDEE was 1787 then you'd have to eat 787 Calories and to lose 1 pound 1287. Losing 1/2 a pound would require 1537.

1200 is way too low for your level of activity! Your body has entered starvation mode and is holding onto fat stores! The more active you are, the more you're meant to eat. Do the calculations again, and be honest. Take the advice this site gives you.

Starvation mode...no. You have to not eat for days and days for your body to do that. It gets thrown around MFP all the time and its simply not accurate. There are other reasons why you might have a "stall out" or stop losing weight but that's not one of them unless your anorexic.

I agree 1200 is too low. I went to see a nutritionist a month ago and he told me women should eat around 1500-1800 calories a day to maintain their weight.

What kind of food are you eating? Are you eating a lot of carbs, fat, sugar, fast food, processed foods?

How many calories do you burn a day? Are they accurate? MFP and machines usually overestimate around 30%. A good HRM is always the way to go.

It takes -3500 calories to lose a pound of fat. That is from your TDEE. So if it were 1500(which is on the low side), your eating 1200 (Im not saying your not but without exercise for example) thats only -300 calories a day. That means it will take you almost 12 days to lose a pound of fat IF you don't slip up. Then you have to consider muscle gain-again, that gets thrown around too much too when someone is up 2-4 lbs overnight and asks about it on a topic....sigh. But you will gain a little bit from muscles over time.

I hope that helps.

@jeffpettis Im running 7 miles daily, thats about 800 calories and eating 1,200 a day?

I'm not disputing the fact that you are burning a lot of calories. Sounds like you are Wonder Woman when it comes to running, but the simple fact is if you are not losing weight you are not in a deficit.

So by your reasoning should the OP try eating 800 calories with all the exercise she is getting? Because it's ONLY ever calories in and calories out. Our bodies are not at all a complex system designed to survive in times of famine. yeah, right, whatever.

I never said the OP should eat that few calories. That is a ridiculous statement.

For weight loss it is calories in - calories out. Period.

So are you suggesting that someone can eat so few calories that they will get to a point that their body will stop using fat for energy? Wait you're probably right, most people who starve to death are obese when they die... :frown:

Frankly, I'm tired of men on MFP that continually tell women who are under-eating that weight loss is ONLY calories in and calories out. Period. There are MORE THINGS GOING ON in our complex bodies, and that over-simplification of a complex system is getting fricken old. By your reasoning people would just be dropping dead of starvation left, right and centre or if they have no or slowed weight loss they are still eating too much no matter what. Our bodies are resilient and there are many biological strategies that prolong our lives, and fat stores, during times of famine. Yes, we will eventually starve and die (pretty sure I said that) but before that happens our body will preserve itself the best it can.

If this person is eating 1200 calories and people like you keep saying "it's ONLY calories in/calories out" you are indeed implying that they need to eat even less. Advice like that has KILLED women (and men) and I'm sick of it.

Just because you have a certain experience and you don't understand someone else's experience, doesn't mean that all other experiences except your own are invalid. You definitely don't know a lot about hormones and how they regulate appetite, metabolism, etc. I'm no expert either (but I devote a hell of a lot of time researching it) but there are many explanations for why someone doesn't lose weight consistently even when under-eating.

@jeffpettis Im running 7 miles daily, thats about 800 calories and eating 1,200 a day?

I'm not disputing the fact that you are burning a lot of calories. Sounds like you are Wonder Woman when it comes to running, but the simple fact is if you are not losing weight you are not in a deficit.

So by your reasoning should the OP try eating 800 calories with all the exercise she is getting? Because it's ONLY ever calories in and calories out. Our bodies are not at all a complex system designed to survive in times of famine. yeah, right, whatever.

I never said the OP should eat that few calories. That is a ridiculous statement.

For weight loss it is calories in - calories out. Period.

So are you suggesting that someone can eat so few calories that they will get to a point that their body will stop using fat for energy? Wait you're probably right, most people who starve to death are obese when they die... :frown:

There is a point with chronic undereating where some fat will be kept, but organs will start to be utilized. Even muscle isn't *completely* starved away when starving for so long.

Granted, OP is probably not at that point, but many people that suddenly undereat + overexercise experience hard-to-lose water retention because the body is trying to repair itself, but with minimal calories to do.

Many, many, many (let me emphasize again) many people can experience small to no loss when experiencing this situation. Calories in vs. calories out is certainly how you lose weight. However, hormones, retention, and other metabolic functions can result in stalls, small losses, and sometimes perceived "gains" (again, from water retention).

OP is not obese. Hence why she can't drop the weight from doing these practices that someone would who was obese. So bringing up, "Everyone's obese when they starve to death" isn't quite a fair analogy here.

@jeffpettis Im running 7 miles daily, thats about 800 calories and eating 1,200 a day?

I'm not disputing the fact that you are burning a lot of calories. Sounds like you are Wonder Woman when it comes to running, but the simple fact is if you are not losing weight you are not in a deficit.

So by your reasoning should the OP try eating 800 calories with all the exercise she is getting? Because it's ONLY ever calories in and calories out. Our bodies are not at all a complex system designed to survive in times of famine. yeah, right, whatever.

I never said the OP should eat that few calories. That is a ridiculous statement.

For weight loss it is calories in - calories out. Period.

So are you suggesting that someone can eat so few calories that they will get to a point that their body will stop using fat for energy? Wait you're probably right, most people who starve to death are obese when they die... :frown:

Frankly, I'm tired of men on MFP that continually tell women who are under-eating that weight loss is ONLY calories in and calories out. Period. There are MORE THINGS GOING ON in our complex bodies, and that over-simplification of a complex system is getting fricken old. By your reasoning people would just be dropping dead of starvation left, right and centre or if they have no or slowed weight loss they are still eating too much no matter what. Our bodies are resilient and there are many biological strategies that prolong our lives, and fat stores, during times of famine. Yes, we will eventually starve and die (pretty sure I said that) but before that happens our body will preserve itself the best it can.

If this person is eating 1200 calories and people like you keep saying "it's ONLY calories in/calories out" you are indeed implying that they need to eat even less. Advice like that has KILLED women (and men) and I'm sick of it.

Just because you have a certain experience and you don't understand someone else's experience, doesn't mean that all other experiences except your own are invalid. You definitely don't know a lot about hormones and how they regulate appetite, metabolism, etc. I'm no expert either (but I devote a hell of a lot of time researching it) but there are many explanations for why someone doesn't lose weight consistently even when under-eating.

wow

No problem - glad it helps! It was not until I found out the 3,500 calorie = 1 lb of fat relationship that it "clicked" for me how a 250 cal/day deficit = 0.5 lb/week, or 500 cal/day deficit = 1 lb/week.

You can also look at your overall week and use that as a benchmark. Say you splurge one day and go 1000 cal over your goal (with a pint of Dulce de Leche maybe... ), if you come in under 250 cal less than your goal on four other days that week, you have mitigated your indulgence.

I forgot to add.... Remember, once we reach our goals, we are all in the same boat for the rest of our lives. We need to keep in balance. If, for example, we allow ourselves to eat 100 calories a day more (NET) than we need, that adds up to about 3,000 extra calories a month – nearly one pound of fat a month. In one year, 100 extra calories a day can produce 10.4 lbs of fat. Another way to look at it is 700 extra calories a week – or about two extra mixed drinks a week. If you enjoy drinking on the weekend like me, eat lighter during the day and make your mixed drinks part of your meal. That empty stomach will help you reach that tipsy level quicker :drinker: .

100 calories a day seems so minor, but it is how we end up creeping up in weight over time without really noticing it. If you find yourself creeping up in weight, look for little things you can cut. Take pride in your accomplishments here and enjoy them for the rest of your life.

OP seems to be a healthy young woman. So, too large of a calorie deficit can backfire. It's not "starvation mode" but a woman's body (if she is at a healthy weight and just looking to lose less then 15 pounds of vanity weight) will hold onto her maternal fat stores if she is at a large calorie deficit. Most people don't realize that a woman's body does not care about the "simple math' of weight loss. Our bodies are a bit more concerned about our ability to sustain another life. OP - I would set your weight loss to .5 to 1 pound a week and eat back most of your exercise calories. Also - since you are running that much be sure to stay well fueled. Training for marathons is not the time to eat low carb!

Calories in vs calories out is lies lies lies, your body is smarter than math and knows what's up with that.

So I assume you have scientific evidence supporting this?

LOL! :laugh: That's a good one. I'll have to remember that one.

Yes. I like this one too. My body is smarter than math. Hmmm. I would say it is the ultimate mathematician myself! Honestly, do people think our body's are supranormal? Paranormal? I just love all the woowoo stuff that goes on in these threads sometimes!!

Here's some reference: when I needed to lose my last 3lbs, my TDEE was 1787. To lose 2lbs a week, I was to eat 1287 per day (500 under TDEE). I was very good at hitting this mark consistently, but for two weeks got stuck. Then I decided to move it to 1lb a week, bringing my calories up to 1537 per day (250 under TDEE). The last three pounds came off in three days and I'm consistently weighing in at my goal weight. This is what we mean by eating more to weigh less.

You can absolutely starve to death. Starving absolutely does not cause you to gain weight. But not eating enough can definitely slow your weight loss enough to appear to be stopped.

If your TDEE was 1787 then you'd have to eat 787 Calories and to lose 1 pound 1287. Losing 1/2 a pound would require 1537.

You're right, I had the pound dropping numbers messed up. My calorie counts were correct, but the 1lb and 1/2lb you corrected was right! My body is not smarter than math...

ETA: And I didn't say it was all fat that was lost those three days. I know it was all water retention, etc. But the scale wasn't moving. The point still stands.

I'm sure this has already been said, but I have to put my two cents in. Your body is holding on to every little calorie it can get, because you're giving it very little calories, and expecting it to perform miracles by putting ridiculous energy demands on it! Look in the forums, or google it, whatever, but my BMR is 1,490. That means if I laid on my butt and did nothing but breathe, I would burn that much. I don't do that, though, I burn 2,500-3,000 every day, by chasing after my 2yo, and working my butt off at home and in the gym. If I asked my body to do what it does, and only feed it 1,200 calories....it would laugh at me, and say FU. Lol.