1200 calories, exercise, but no weight loss!!

*sigh*

Fighting the common misconception of "starvation mode" feels like bailing the titanic w/ a thimble.

That's how it feels trying to help people on MFP.

How much weight have you lost in total and over what period of time?

Over a period of about 2 years I gained 10 lbs. A year ago I decided to start working out and lost 3 lbs between Nov 2012 and Feb 2013. No weight loss since, even though I have increased my workouts!

The only conclusion I can come to is that you have been, and possibly still are, eating much more than you think you are.

Hi,

Basically, it doesn't matter if you are 'overweight' or think you have a lot of fat already- if you exercising intensely and not eating enough you are putting a lot of stress and pressure on your body, with not enough to fuel it.

Your body will react to this stress by holding on to your fat stores to preserve itself - this is why you are not losing weight.

I would suggest going to see an exercise professional and getting your measurements done - BMI, BMR, fat % etc. They will help you work out how many calories you need to eat to maintain or lose weight in a healthy way. You should be able to go to your local gym and see if someone will help you with this.

You should not be afraid you are going to put on weight by eating more than 1200 cals - in fact you will be doing your health and body a favour by eating more. You will start to lose weight if you exercise and eat healthily.

But, if the workouts are stressing my body and I am not giving it enough fuel, shouldn't I be feeling HUNGRY?

Hunger is a fickle thing. Prolonged calorie restriction and stress tend to suppress hunger.

The only conclusion I can come to is that you have been, and possibly still are, eating much more than you think you are.

I agree.

Even if people wanted to argue starvation mode, you would have lost some weight while at your calorie deficit before any of this fat preservation argued began.

The only other possibility I see is a medical condition, in which case you'll have to ask your doctor to run some labs (thyroid, metabolic panel.)

I am disputing that (All who are blanketly saying that eating less can NOT stall your weight) are not correct.

No I can't name the study

We know you can't.

There isn't one.

Try reading the original material and interpreting it yourself instead of relying in some random podcast. If you do, you'll find that the research doesn't say what you think it does.

And I am trying to help the OP by getting actual data from her about her actual intake over time and actual weight. Just tossing out "oh you're in starvation mode, this podcast says so, so you have to eat more or else you won't lose weight" doesn't actually help her.

I can't name the studies (as in plural studies) that cumulatively point to what I wrote about because I can't listen to podcasts here. Taking teeny pieces of information or citing single studies in isolation without any contextual evaluation is what my issue is with the arguments you are putting foward in the first place, all you have done is prove that the only reason you are disregarding a larger amount of evidence is because you are being a pedant about it.

I _have_ read the original material and actually read additional source material which those studies reference, which is why I feel so strongly about it; and am so virulently opposed to your comments and posts which are not really useful, all they are doing are telling others who you believe to be going against your ideas to be incorrect.

Your second and third paragraph are actually paraphrasing exactly what I said in my post - so yeah I agree with you, but I would like to point out that it is what I said in the post you are responding to, so clearly, you have not read it in it's entirety and again you are taking a tiny piece of information, using literal interpretations to try and justify your own belief that there isn't a calorie/exercise combination for anyone that would mean that their weight loss stalls based on it. (eptomising the whole pedantic thing)

You have produced no studies saying this does not happen, so effectively discrediting your own ideas (well done!)

And loads of people plateau when they get nearer and nearer their goals whilst following all the common sense advice - why does this happen - because they are experiencing a stall due to the impact of points number 1-5 from the podcast, which is not actually vague but quite explicit including explaining each point, telling you where the point came from and then summarising said points at the end of the podcast.

For those who don't read or those who don't understand scientific process and for those who may be eating too little or too much, that podcast is a good resource that gives good advice based on a large amount of valid readily available research that can be understood by anyone listening to it. It does not advocate eating in a surplus, and it definitely does not advocate prolonged periods of eating way less calories than your body needs and exercising on top of that.

So it would help anyone with a question in this area of the forum who isn't already comfortable with how all those little factors could impact them. Whether they are over or under logging the same advice would apply.

I can't name the studies (as in plural studies) that cumulatively point to what I wrote about because I can't listen to podcasts

I think you're putting a bit too much trust in whatever this person in the podcast is saying. The list of studies cited by the podcast is right there in your link.

Which one of them supports the idea that it's possible to stop losing weight because your caloric deficit is too high?

(Protip: none of them. 'Starvation mode' being the cause of zero weight change has been repeatedly debunked. It's a nonsense idea.)

Given the contributions to this thread so far, I believe jonnythan.


ETA: And that's despite the fact that I don't like cats.

>> This is nonsense <<

Pretty opinionated for a guy who doesn't know what he's talking about, and offers no proof to the contrary other than his assertion. The fact that protein requires more calories to metabolize is well established:

- http://www.livestrong.com/article/299424-calories-burned-digesting-protein/
- http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/fitness/10-fat-burning-foods-you-should-be-eating.html
- http://www.rd.com/health/fitness/5-fitness-myths-you-need-to-forget/
- Feinman RD, Fine EJ. “A calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics. Nutr J. 2004 Jul 28;3:9. PubMed PMID: 15282028; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC506782.
- Halton TL, Hu FB. The effects of high protein diets on thermogenesis, satiety and weight loss: a critical review. J Am Coll Nutr. 2004 Oct;23(5):373-85. Review. PubMed PMID: 15466943.
- Johnston CS, Day CS, Swan PD. Postprandial thermogenesis is increased 100% on a high-protein, low-fat diet versus a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet in healthy, young women. J Am Coll Nutr. 2002 Feb;21(1):55-61. PubMed PMID: 11838888.

But who are you going to believe, the experts or the guy with a cat on his shoulder?

The difference is simply not significant within the confines of a normal diet. If you ate all your calories from protein vs all your calories from carbs, then there would be a measurable difference. But within reasonable, human macronutrient partitions? Not so much.

You won't suddenly start losing weight by maintaining the same calorie intake but getting an extra 10-15% of your calories from protein.

That's not what I suggested. What I did suggest was that more protein, fiber, and complex carbohydrates and fewer high-glycemic carbohydrates could have a positive metabolic effect, and while that's not a guarantee, it's amply backed by scientific research. But you apparently think that, for weight loss, 1200 calories of chocolate donuts is the same thing as 1200 calories of protein, complex carbohydrates and a moderate amount of healthy fat. So, I guess on that point, we agree to disagree.

Don't eat processed foods, gluten or cheese, look how much sodium you have. I weighted 185 now 120 also with a low thyroid. Get you some fresh veggies and good protein!

Strong first post.

Don't eat processed foods, gluten or cheese, look how much sodium you have. I weighted 185 now 120 also with a low thyroid. Get you some fresh veggies and good protein!

Aren't all those Advocare meal replacements and supplements you're taking, processed?

While I do believe that proteins and possibly certain carbohydrates take more energy to digest, I'm not sure of the actual percentage difference to state whether or not it is even worth mentioning.

The numbers I've seen put TEF at ~5% at one extreme (eating nothing but butter and sugar) to 30% (eating nothing but chewable protein). Using a balanced diet as the baseline, the effect of moving to either extreme is lower than the margin of error in estimating the calories contained in the food or burned in exercise.

It's just not going to be a meaningful issue for someone unless they're living their entire life inside a calorimeter.

There are also complications in that TEF won't be constant in a person over an extended period of time.

>> This is nonsense <<

Pretty opinionated for a guy who doesn't know what he's talking about, and offers no proof to the contrary other than his assertion. The fact that protein requires more calories to metabolize is well established:

- http://www.livestrong.com/article/299424-calories-burned-digesting-protein/
- http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/fitness/10-fat-burning-foods-you-should-be-eating.html
- http://www.rd.com/health/fitness/5-fitness-myths-you-need-to-forget/
- Feinman RD, Fine EJ. “A calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics. Nutr J. 2004 Jul 28;3:9. PubMed PMID: 15282028; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC506782.
- Halton TL, Hu FB. The effects of high protein diets on thermogenesis, satiety and weight loss: a critical review. J Am Coll Nutr. 2004 Oct;23(5):373-85. Review. PubMed PMID: 15466943.
- Johnston CS, Day CS, Swan PD. Postprandial thermogenesis is increased 100% on a high-protein, low-fat diet versus a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet in healthy, young women. J Am Coll Nutr. 2002 Feb;21(1):55-61. PubMed PMID: 11838888.

But who are you going to believe, the experts or the guy with a cat on his shoulder?

The difference is simply not significant within the confines of a normal diet. If you ate all your calories from protein vs all your calories from carbs, then there would be a measurable difference. But within reasonable, human macronutrient partitions? Not so much.

You won't suddenly start losing weight by maintaining the same calorie intake but getting an extra 10-15% of your calories from protein.

That's not what I suggested. What I did suggest was that more protein, fiber, and complex carbohydrates and fewer high-glycemic carbohydrates could have a positive metabolic effect, and while that's not a guarantee, it's amply backed by scientific research. But you apparently think that, for weight loss, 1200 calories of chocolate donuts is the same thing as 1200 calories of protein, complex carbohydrates and a moderate amount of healthy fat. So, I guess on that point, we agree to disagree.

pretty much all of said responses posted equates to this poster not reading the original post correctly, pedantically taking small pieces of the post out of context and way too literally and then shoving it back as erroneous.

So even though all of the posts people are putting forward could be useful for anyone who is struggling to lose, the only thing that said poster has against them is purportedly that he didn't say it.

I guess the actions could imply a troll.

But the OP is also only cherry picking advice that fits with their stated negativity toward eating in general, so anything else would probably not help.

I'm not going to tell you to eat more. I'm going to tell you to accurately track what you eat. And to be patient.

>> This is nonsense <<

Pretty opinionated for a guy who doesn't know what he's talking about, and offers no proof to the contrary other than his assertion. The fact that protein requires more calories to metabolize is well established:

- http://www.livestrong.com/article/299424-calories-burned-digesting-protein/
- http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/fitness/10-fat-burning-foods-you-should-be-eating.html
- http://www.rd.com/health/fitness/5-fitness-myths-you-need-to-forget/
- Feinman RD, Fine EJ. “A calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics. Nutr J. 2004 Jul 28;3:9. PubMed PMID: 15282028; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC506782.
- Halton TL, Hu FB. The effects of high protein diets on thermogenesis, satiety and weight loss: a critical review. J Am Coll Nutr. 2004 Oct;23(5):373-85. Review. PubMed PMID: 15466943.
- Johnston CS, Day CS, Swan PD. Postprandial thermogenesis is increased 100% on a high-protein, low-fat diet versus a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet in healthy, young women. J Am Coll Nutr. 2002 Feb;21(1):55-61. PubMed PMID: 11838888.

But who are you going to believe, the experts or the guy with a cat on his shoulder?

The difference is simply not significant within the confines of a normal diet. If you ate all your calories from protein vs all your calories from carbs, then there would be a measurable difference. But within reasonable, human macronutrient partitions? Not so much.

You won't suddenly start losing weight by maintaining the same calorie intake but getting an extra 10-15% of your calories from protein.

That's not what I suggested. What I did suggest was that more protein, fiber, and complex carbohydrates and fewer high-glycemic carbohydrates could have a positive metabolic effect, and while that's not a guarantee, it's amply backed by scientific research. But you apparently think that, for weight loss, 1200 calories of chocolate donuts is the same thing as 1200 calories of protein, complex carbohydrates and a moderate amount of healthy fat. So, I guess on that point, we agree to disagree.

pretty much all of said responses posted equates to this poster not reading the original post correctly, pedantically taking small pieces of the post out of context and way too literally and then shoving it back as erroneous.

So even though all of the posts people are putting forward could be useful for anyone who is struggling to lose, the only thing that said poster has against them is purportedly that he didn't say it.

I guess the actions could imply a troll.

But the OP is also only cherry picking advice that fits with their stated negativity toward eating in general, so anything else would probably not help.

Is there some kind of personal history between you and jonnythan that I don't know about? You've made what seems to me to be a leap in your analysis of him that isn't likely borne out in just the posts of this thread.

>> This is nonsense <<

Pretty opinionated for a guy who doesn't know what he's talking about, and offers no proof to the contrary other than his assertion. The fact that protein requires more calories to metabolize is well established:

- http://www.livestrong.com/article/299424-calories-burned-digesting-protein/
- http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/fitness/10-fat-burning-foods-you-should-be-eating.html
- http://www.rd.com/health/fitness/5-fitness-myths-you-need-to-forget/
- Feinman RD, Fine EJ. “A calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics. Nutr J. 2004 Jul 28;3:9. PubMed PMID: 15282028; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC506782.
- Halton TL, Hu FB. The effects of high protein diets on thermogenesis, satiety and weight loss: a critical review. J Am Coll Nutr. 2004 Oct;23(5):373-85. Review. PubMed PMID: 15466943.
- Johnston CS, Day CS, Swan PD. Postprandial thermogenesis is increased 100% on a high-protein, low-fat diet versus a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet in healthy, young women. J Am Coll Nutr. 2002 Feb;21(1):55-61. PubMed PMID: 11838888.

But who are you going to believe, the experts or the guy with a cat on his shoulder?

The difference is simply not significant within the confines of a normal diet. If you ate all your calories from protein vs all your calories from carbs, then there would be a measurable difference. But within reasonable, human macronutrient partitions? Not so much.

You won't suddenly start losing weight by maintaining the same calorie intake but getting an extra 10-15% of your calories from protein.

That's not what I suggested. What I did suggest was that more protein, fiber, and complex carbohydrates and fewer high-glycemic carbohydrates could have a positive metabolic effect, and while that's not a guarantee, it's amply backed by scientific research. But you apparently think that, for weight loss, 1200 calories of chocolate donuts is the same thing as 1200 calories of protein, complex carbohydrates and a moderate amount of healthy fat. So, I guess on that point, we agree to disagree.

pretty much all of said responses posted equates to this poster not reading the original post correctly, pedantically taking small pieces of the post out of context and way too literally and then shoving it back as erroneous.

So even though all of the posts people are putting forward could be useful for anyone who is struggling to lose, the only thing that said poster has against them is purportedly that he didn't say it.

I guess the actions could imply a troll.

But the OP is also only cherry picking advice that fits with their stated negativity toward eating in general, so anything else would probably not help.

Well, when discussing science, being pedantic is important. Taking bits of posts and analyzing them is an important part of the process of weight management issues. You can tell someone exactly what to do, but showing them why they need to do it, and subsequently why another thing is wrong or incorrect, is a better method.

And I am pretty sure there has been no trolling in this thread thus far.