You reared your ugly face

So basically, eating more calories didn't work. Hmmm. Gosh, I wonder what it is then? :huh:

I plateaued when I was eating 1600 calories per day. So - eating less didnt work either. thanks for the condescending attitude though

Oh, that one. Just ignore her rude comments.

Oh yes, ignore the people who have actually lost weight, by all means. I know no one likes to be told to eat less to lose weight, but to lose weight, you have to eat less. All the bargaining in the world won't change that. Sorry if I can't wrap up that simple concept with a pretty bow, but the truth isn't pretty. All the cardio, "clean eating", strength training, and calorie counting in the world won't result in weight loss unless you also happen to be creating an appropriate calorie deficit. If you aren't losing weight, you haven't done that. Period. So cut some more calories. Couldn't hurt to try it, could it?

You mentioned you are a numbers freak. With the data you have collected you should be able to easily figure it out and the BMR equation is not needed at your stage of the game.

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly.

Use the data from your accurate logging over the last few months and take a look at what has worked and what hasn't and adjust accordingly. TDEE/BMR/NEAT is not always perfect math. Hormones, salt intake, water, new exercises, upping weights, a million other things can play a part. I use a heart rate monitor to measure calories burned AND a scale to measure about 90-95% of my food but I don't put 100% of my trust in either tool so I don't eat back exercise calories. Good luck to you.

When you do the TDEE method, you aren't supposed to eat you exercise calories back ... When you use MFP w/p any of your own adjustments, then you are supposed to eat them back ...

ETA: From what I skimmed, I didn't think this was made clear ...

Also, online calculators are not exact science. Every body is different. It's a good starting point but if you are not losing, it seems like eating 100 or so less would be the way to go and see from there. As pp mentioned TDEE -20%, you would not eat back exercise, as it's already calculated into your daily intake.

So op you have been told to eat more, eat less, eat more then eat less, mix things up a bit, ignore exercise calories, only eat half back, minus a certain percent of TDEE, ignore bmr calculators, avoid starvation mode

write all these down put them in a bag a pick one out and maybe buy a rabbit's foot for good luck

So basically, eating more calories didn't work. Hmmm. Gosh, I wonder what it is then? :huh:

I plateaued when I was eating 1600 calories per day. So - eating less didnt work either. thanks for the condescending attitude though

Oh, that one. Just ignore her rude comments.

Oh yes, ignore the people who have actually lost weight, by all means. I know no one likes to be told to eat less to lose weight, but to lose weight, you have to eat less. All the bargaining in the world won't change that. Sorry if I can't wrap up that simple concept with a pretty bow, but the truth isn't pretty. All the cardio, "clean eating", strength training, and calorie counting in the world won't result in weight loss unless you also happen to be creating an appropriate calorie deficit. If you aren't losing weight, you haven't done that. Period. So cut some more calories. Couldn't hurt to try it, could it?

Yeah, you're right. I haven't lost any weight at all. You are the expert here.

As you may learn, adherence is a real problem for many people. I would rather see someone on a smaller deficit and making real (even if slow) progress than have them gun for 2lbs per week only to binge/cheat and undo their progress. There is nothing wrong with what OP is doing in having a small deficit, but she clearly needs to adjust and tweak her numbers which is what the advice from knowledgeable and helpful people has been.

Oh, is adherence a problem? Gosh, that’s news to me. :huh:

And you would rather see someone on a smaller deficit making slow progress, and you think THAT’S the solution to adherence. Well, you know what happens when you have a really narrow deficit? You wipe out your margin for error, your “wiggle room”. So you have to be EXACT in your tracking calories, a level of precision that is VERY hard to achieve. And in return you get to lose weight more slowly. And you’re still not eating as much food as you’re used to, so you’re still miserable. And you had to give up all those foods you used to love. Oh, and better get to the gym, so you can eat a measly 200 more calories today! Yeah, not seeing how that’s supposed to motivate people to stick with it, it sounds profoundly disagreeable to me.

Believe it or not, I personally have struggled with adherence myself. Shocking, I know. So I looked at the conventional apocryphal wisdom being bandied about by all and sundry and I thought I’d be realistic and pragmatic this time around. Conventional wisdom dictates that to lose weight I would have to a) begin a rigorous workout regimen to burn those calories!; b) completely overhaul my diet so that I avoided certain foods and started eating other foods, whether I happened to like them or not and c) eat fewer calories overall. Well, I quickly determined that a and b were just not going to happen. If I had all this willpower to spare, I certainly wouldn’t have found myself in need of losing 17 pounds. So, I just did c. And c was all I needed to lose weight. And cue the “you may be skinny but you’re skinny-fat” rhetoric. Whatever. I look hot in my jeans. I don’t give a [REDACTED].

”Eat less" is only slightly better automatic advice than "eat more". The concept of weight loss is remarkably simple as you have figured out and keep touting off. However, the practice can be rather complicated. I believe your delivery also needs some serious work (as demonstrated in this thread) and I still have not witnessed you trying to expand your knowledge. Thanks for continuing to be as aggressive and condescending as possible though, at least you are fairly consistent in that.

Ah, so because I’m not a sweet little sugar pie my advice isn’t valid or valuable? You would do well to learn that listening to people because you like what they say and how they say it is a huge trap. You are better served by listening to people who don’t necessarily tell you what you want to hear. Those people will lead you to asking the right questions and finding out what’s actually true. Of course we all love being told that we are just working so hard and we get a gold star and the reason we don’t lose weight is because we’re working TOO hard and we need to reward ourselves a bit with tasty CALORIES! Mmmm! But as attractive as that advice is, it’s counterproductive, unless the goal is simply to get permission to eat more and not to actually lose weight. I mean, you might not lose weight, but you can still tell all your friends that you did EVERYTHING you could, so the fact that you’re still overweight is totally not your fault. Oh, and can I have more pie?

Eta: and yes, given that OP has not lost weight in all likelihood she does need to "eat less." There is more than one piece to the puzzle though as she has exercise and the calories burned from it to contend with. Oh, and also that adherence thing I mentioned earlier. Not everyone can survive off of mcmuffins and taco bell soft tacos.

Actually, unless they have a gluten allergy, they can survive off McMuffins and Taco Bell soft tacos. I’d throw in some Vitamin Water Zero, just for health and whatnot, but it’s certainly do-able. Why, people do it all the time, or hadn’t you noticed?

If “adherence” is really the issue of the day, then it seems odd that people aren’t saying the exact same thing I’m always saying. It seems odd to me that when people set out to lose weight, they decide to ask their body to do a lot more activity, adjust to a whole new suite of foods, AND do these things with fewer calories than it’s used to. I wisely decided that since I’m not a paragon of willpower, I’d just ask my body to do the same activity it was used to, with many of the same foods it was used to, but with fewer calories than it was used to. And. It. Worked. My approach isn’t for everyone, some people need to make things a lot more difficult and arduous than they have to be, or they have health issues that require certain dietary restrictions and such.

So you also don't spend your life holding a set of scales, doing lunges and eating celery?

Completely and utterly untrue. You still lose weight in starvation mode, muscle weight. ...and you do not go into starvation mode by eating below your BMR. You go into starvation mode by actually starving which is at least below 1000 calories a day. The stuff people believe is insane.

jillian michaels dvd's work for everyone. also her website has loads of helpful info including a very good calorie calculator.