Why still nothing? Help me!

24

Replies

  • petefromguelph
    petefromguelph Posts: 84 Member
    amazing how people come on this board and DEMAND help when there are so many topics devoted to the process. Food scale, logging, too little calories. Why not try searching instead of demanding? Please.
  • petefromguelph
    petefromguelph Posts: 84 Member
    When it recomm1200, then why is 1000 so bad? It's almost the same thing.

    1200 calories is the bare minimum recommended for a sedentary woman and most people should actually be eating more than this. This has less to do with weight loss and more to do with making sure you're getting enough nutrients into your diet. It's harder to get enough protein and fat as well as the various vitamins and minerals your body needs if you're eating at such a low calorie level.

    In addition to be deficient in something, the less you eat the more likely you are to lose lean muscle mass along with the fat. This leads to many dieters being disappointed with their new body shape once they reach their goal weight.

    If you want to lose weight, and be healthy, and look great at the end of the process, then you should be striving to eat as much as possible while losing instead of as little as possible.

    These are three really great posts that I think anyone new to the boards should read:
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1235566-so-you-re-new-here
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1234699-logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080242-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants

    And this helpful and caring poster has done the work for you and posted the links. This is your guide to success. That's it

    (thanks diannethegeek)
  • FireOpalCO
    FireOpalCO Posts: 641 Member
    1,200 is the minimum. Plenty of people on here are working with 1,400 or 1,800 a day. Add in the fact that for many people 1,200 is the NET they ingest (calories ingested - extra calories from exercise) they may have eaten 1,800 in actual food, but subtracting the workout, landed at 1,200.
  • _Calypso_
    _Calypso_ Posts: 1,074 Member
    When it recomm1200, then why is 1000 so bad? It's almost the same thing.

    Almost is not the same. 200 calories can be a small meal or nutritious snack. However, I'm not sure how tall you are, but you say you still have 40lbs or so to lose - that tells me that 1200 cal is too low for you. Even if you are sitting at a desk all day you're BMR is probably around 1400 or so (again depending on how tall you are). Now add exercise to this equation you are netting too low to maintain a healthy life/sustainable life!! Your cheat meals are working against you b/c you eat so little during the week. And after you get to your goal weight will you start eating normal again? If so - I'm certain you will gain weight back!! Then you'll start the vicious cycle all over again.

    You've been given the advice and even other thread links that will give you additional information. This may not be the answers you wanted to hear, but you're the one who asked and we answered.
  • jeffininer
    jeffininer Posts: 204 Member
    I'm amazed at how simple the formula is. Eat less (better choices), exercise, then lose weight. Now, I'm not saying eat less calorie wise, I'm talking about the snacking, picking, eating that adds to your allotted calories for the day. When I REALLY started logging everything that went into my mouth, I was amazed at how many additional calories I added. I thought I did pretty good, until that point. Now I've got it under control. Plus the added benefit of moving my body has given me major progress.

    I looked back through a couple of weeks of your diary. If you are logging accurately, then I see no reason why you shouldn't be losing. Because although your diet is not the best, the calorie intake is low enough that you should lose. And if you have that much weight to lose, then there is no reason why you shouldn't be.

    I'm going to echo everyone else. Make sure you log accurately (amount, weight, EVERYTHING). Beyond that, I'd ask your doctor about reasons why you wouldn't be losing. You have your log of food and exercise, he should be able to help you formulate a plan.
  • ibjent
    ibjent Posts: 23 Member
    bump
  • wilsoje74
    wilsoje74 Posts: 1,720 Member
    When it recomm1200, then why is 1000 so bad? It's almost the same thing.
    a toddler can eat more than 1000 cal. How old are you? You are coming across as very young and naive. Are you looking for quick fix or to be healthy in the right way?
  • knra_grl
    knra_grl Posts: 1,566 Member
    When it recomm1200, then why is 1000 so bad? It's almost the same thing.

    200 calories could be about 5 or 6 cups of raw broccoli, 35 medium celery stalks, 3 cups grapefruit sections with the juice, and the list goes on. Why deprive yourself of healthy food for the sake of 200 calories? Just examples of how much 200 calories would be, I wouldn't eat 35 stalks of celery in a day :laugh:
  • amylg05
    amylg05 Posts: 89 Member
    You didn't eat at all yesterday? o_o hm I don't think that's good for you at all! And honestly I think you will lose more in the long run by upping to at least 1200.
  • Ilikelamps
    Ilikelamps Posts: 482 Member
    UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
  • establishingaplace
    establishingaplace Posts: 301 Member
    Your diary is showing that you're eating 400-600 calories per day. Either you're secretly eating and not logging everything and possibly also bingeing like a madwoman on your cheat day, or there is a medical reason (medication or condition) that you are not losing weight.
  • JoshD8705
    JoshD8705 Posts: 390 Member
    When it recomm1200, then why is 1000 so bad? It's almost the same thing.

    The 1200 is for after workout calories. If you burned 400 calories for a brisk hour walk, you'd eat 1600 calories to be at 1200.
  • Julzanne72
    Julzanne72 Posts: 468 Member
    1200 is what you need to eat and don't work out at all, and you said you are working out as wel, so you should be eating more than 1200, 1000 is not going to cut it. I eat back most of my exercise calories, and have lost 10.5lbs in 5 weeks, you HAVE TO eat!!!
  • ironrat79
    ironrat79 Posts: 273 Member
    You go to the gym 5 days a week and you eat UNDER 1000 calories.

    There is your problem.

    No fuel, no energy. Gotta eat
  • Morgaath
    Morgaath Posts: 679 Member
    When it recomm1200, then why is 1000 so bad? It's almost the same thing.

    You go into the gas station and pay for $12 of gas, as it is enough to get you back and forth from work till next payday. The pump stops at $10.
    Cashier says "why is $10 so bad? It's almost the same thing."

    You buy a dozen bagels for a meeting, and when you get to the office you discover there is only 10 in the box.
    "why is 10 so bad? It's almost the same thing."

    Your paycheck for the week is supposed to be $1200, but when you get it it is only $1000.
    "why is $1000 so bad? It's almost the same thing."
  • holothuroidea
    holothuroidea Posts: 772 Member
    When you're only eating 1200 calories, those last 200 calories are VERY important. That's half a meal if you eat 3 meals a day.

    The recommended amount of calories ALREADY includes the deficit you need to loose weight. That number is a minimum and you should aim to eat at least that many calories. Your body needs nutrients (including calories) to function properly and without them the weight is not going to come off easy. It will be slow and painful.

    In order to properly use MFP you need to eat AT LEAST the recommended amount of calories, and you also need to eat back your exercise calories.
  • Dkelege
    Dkelege Posts: 1 Member
    There have been a lot of good points spread across several posts here that I want to summarize for you.

    1. Logging: I'm going to assume you are logging correctly based on what you said. Weighing food as opposed to measuring is helpful, but not practical for everyone. But, your goal should account for net calories (+food-exercise) not just intake.

    2. Calorie goal and deficit: The people here commenting on your low calorie counts aren't trying to be negative. They're trying to be helpful, and there's a reason the goals are set the way they are. Operating at a deficit that you are, with the exercise that you're doing, means that you will shed muscle as well as fat. The problem is that muscle increases your basal metabolic rate. I agree with other posters that "starvation mode" is a myth, but the result will be the same. You'll lose muscle, your body's calorie burn rate will decrease, you'll lose energy, and your workouts will be less efficient.

    3. Quality of calories: While scientifically, operating at a caloric deficiency will cause you to lose weight, it won't necessarily make you healthier. Instead of just reducing your overall intake, you should actually try to increase your intake of more healthful foods. Getting more nutritious calories will help you to gain muscle and lose fat, making you overall healthier. See Staci for a life story of someone who lost weight the way you're trying to vs. how she succeeded the right way: http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2011/07/21/meet-staci-your-new-powerlifting-super-hero/

    4. Time: Living a healthy life and losing weight is a marathon, not a sprint. You're going to hit plateaus. Your weight will fluctuate based on muscle, fat, water retention, and a variety of other things. If 60 pounds is truly your goal, 2 weeks is a small part of the time it will take overall. Track it, but look at it in overall trends, and don't get discouraged with small setbacks. Being healthy is a lifestyle, not a fad diet. If you live the lifestyle, you will see results in the long term.
  • amieosia
    amieosia Posts: 20
    Thank you for the help, and I really do appreciate it. I apologize if I cpme off as not listening or being thankful. It's really just desperation that I can't put into the right words. Truth be told, I am not eating anything extra, except lots of pickles which have no calories. I'm not counting anything but calories. I realize that it's low, but that's the point. Thanks for the help, sorry to those who found it annoying. Have a good day.
  • wilsoje74
    wilsoje74 Posts: 1,720 Member
    Thank you for the help, and I really do appreciate it. I apologize if I cpme off as not listening or being thankful. It's really just desperation that I can't put into the right words. Truth be told, I am not eating anything extra, except lots of pickles which have no calories. I'm not counting anything but calories. I realize that it's low, but that's the point. Thanks for the help, sorry to those who found it annoying. Have a good day.
    umm his many pickles? Because they do have calories if you are eating "lots" and they have lots if sodium too
  • ErinMcMom
    ErinMcMom Posts: 228 Member
    Thank you for the help, and I really do appreciate it. I apologize if I cpme off as not listening or being thankful. It's really just desperation that I can't put into the right words. Truth be told, I am not eating anything extra, except lots of pickles which have no calories. I'm not counting anything but calories. I realize that it's low, but that's the point. Thanks for the help, sorry to those who found it annoying. Have a good day.

    Pickles have a ton of sodium in them. Sodium causes you to retain water, that might be why you are not seeing much of a loss... you might be retaining a ton of water from all the sodium in your pickles. Log them and check out your sodium intake. Just a few pickles can put you over your sodium limit for the day without even factoring in the rest of the food you eat.
  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    Just FYI. Food labeling laws in the US allow companies to label any food with less than 5 calories as zero calories. Pickles do have calories. And you should be logging them anyway to track the rest of the nutritional information (vitamins, carbs, sodium, etc) This is exactly the kind of thing people mean when they say you aren't logging 100% accurately.
  • BRA_S
    BRA_S Posts: 111 Member
    "usually, which I actually have set at 1500"

    is what you said in your older thread asking for help. Just wondering why you went under 1000?
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Seriously, I don't know what I am doing wrong. I keep my calories under 1000 and go to the gym at least 5 days a week. Scale hasn't moved in 2weeks, and even then I had only lost 10 of the 60 pounds I have to lose.
    Anyone have any insight or suggestions?

    Under 1000 net or gross? Either way, what made you think this was a good idea?

    Also, are you measuring and weighing everything? If not, how sure are you about your estimate?
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    When it recomm1200, then why is 1000 so bad? It's almost the same thing.
    because 1200 is the bare minimum MFP recommends ..and 200 under 1200 is about 15% less than the bare minimum..additionally 200 less = 1400 less calories a week ..so it s not "almost the same thing"

    you should be netting 1200, period.

    However, if you are not losing then you are not accurately measuring or something else is wrong...
  • grubb1019
    grubb1019 Posts: 371 Member
    You are not even reaching 1000 calories on most days and you are exercising, I'm sure your net is in the negative. Do you realize that what you are doing is damaging your health? Starving yourself can result in anemia, lowered immunity, and it can even cause your thyroid to get screwed up.
  • C3001
    C3001 Posts: 28 Member
    Thank you for the help, and I really do appreciate it. I apologize if I cpme off as not listening or being thankful. It's really just desperation that I can't put into the right words. Truth be told, I am not eating anything extra, except lots of pickles which have no calories. I'm not counting anything but calories. I realize that it's low, but that's the point. Thanks for the help, sorry to those who found it annoying. Have a good day.
    umm his many pickles? Because they do have calories if you are eating "lots" and they have lots if sodium too

    Agreed. Pickles have calories and lots of sodium. You are eating extra and you aren't logging accurately. Helpful advise here, follow it and you will see changes in your body.
  • Sharon_C
    Sharon_C Posts: 2,132 Member
    I'm not counting anything but calories. I realize that it's low, but that's the point.

    This is very concerning. Eating less calories than you burn is the point, yes. Eating at such a huge deficit is not the point at all. With this mindset you will lose the weight but its not sustainable and you haven't learned a healthy relationship with food. Eat at a slight deficit (-20% TDEE) and you will still lose weight, just at a slower pace. BUT you will keep it off and you will be much healthier.
  • djflowerz
    djflowerz Posts: 23 Member
    You're not eating enough real food. You have to increase your intake of vegetables along with more unprocessed foods.
  • amieosia
    amieosia Posts: 20
    "usually, which I actually have set at 1500"

    is what you said in your older thread asking for help. Just wondering why you went under 1000?

    Just got frustrated that after 4 months I wasn't getting anywhere. I eat 2 or 3 pickles a day. The sodium water retaining thing DOES make sense now that I think about it....hope I haven't been screwing myself.
    There is a diet for obese people where they restrict calories to under 800, guess I was just trying my own version. I function just fine, I work 2 jobs and raise my 2 kids and also care for my boyfriend who is disabled.
    It sounds lower than I think it is.
  • Nicolee_2014
    Nicolee_2014 Posts: 1,572 Member
    If nothing seems to be happening, maybe seek a professionals opinion? Nutritionist, dietician or maybe get checked out to make sure there isn't a medical issue.

    Keep on going, you will get there :flowerforyou:

Categories