Can't get into first gear. Should I cut the carbs?

Options
13

Replies

  • ChrisM8971
    ChrisM8971 Posts: 1,067 Member
    Options
    Honestly I took a look at his diary and as long as he is tracking everything it looks pretty good to me. Might he be off a little bit? Sure, who isn't that true for...but there is no way he is off by so much that he wouldn't be losing fat. Guy probably maintains at like 2600 and he isn't eating 2600.

    Nope wont make that much difference in general but I always question entries such as "MFP Tuna Recipe" because I think the food choice that we log can play a major part in inaccuracies.

    Everyone starts of differently, mine was a large weight drop in week one followed by fairly consistent drops but others I know lost very little to start with but lost size around the waist. I guess its a wait and see job then
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    Honestly my advice is just to keep it up, trust the system and stop trying to "fix" it until you have been at it for 2 months then you can judge your actual progress. I'd use a tape measurer in addition to the scale and I would stop dropping your calories trying to "fix" what probably isn't broken.

    If you are exercising regularly I would think 1700 total calories is actually a bit low and you might want to go back to your original 2000 but I leave that up to you.
  • volfan22
    volfan22 Posts: 149 Member
    Options
    I too was in the same boat - I went to my doctor and he has told me to cut the carbs after 3pm daily. So - eat carbs (clean) in the morning/lunch - none for supper. Try that and see if you don't see a difference. Good luck!
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    I too was in the same boat - I went to my doctor and he has told me to cut the carbs after 3pm daily. So - eat carbs (clean) in the morning/lunch - none for supper. Try that and see if you don't see a difference. Good luck!

    Same boat huh?

    So what happened to your barbell based power-lifting after you stopped eating carbs after 3pm? Did your 300 pound deadlift suffer at all?

    OP, you are doing a program of progressive load heavy lifting....do not cut carbs, that is ridiculous.
  • ChrisM8971
    ChrisM8971 Posts: 1,067 Member
    Options
    From a quick glance at your diary I think that is some inaccuracy from the entries you are using to log your food. Where possible try and use MFP entries because they are FDA figures.

    If you use a brand and the brand is listed then double check the figures are correct, they may be out of date or have been incorrectly entered by another member

    Don't choose an entry because it is close enough to what you ate

    Also my wife weighs out everything she cooks as one of her ways of supporting me, would your wife be willing to do that?

    It's too much to ask of my wife when she's running around after our 3 year old, and taking care of our fussy 11 month old, along with everything else she does to keep the house running. I'm sure she'd do it, but I would really much rather just overestimate, at worst. Sorry if that sounds like I'm trying to shortcut, or disregard advice, but it's just not something I want to ask of her. We eat something like oven roasted kale or a roasted sweet potato for maybe 3 or 4 of the 21 meals I eat per week, and I assume I'm eating a full tablespoon of oil in those cases. Maybe I'll up that to eating two full tablespoons of oil.

    How can you distinguish the MFP entries? If the nutrition label is consistent with the value I scan from the barcode, isn't it safe to assume that's the correct info, or should I use the MFP entries in those cases, as well?

    Would agree that your wife is quite busy enough without having to weight your food for you

    Never tried the bar code scan, I tend to do it the old fashioned way and check entries against the nutrition labels or enter them myself into my foods

    Have a read of that link I posted as it describes how to distinguish MFP entries but my rule of thumb was always "trust nothing, check everything and if it looks too good to be true it probably is"
  • healthyscratch1978
    healthyscratch1978 Posts: 76
    Options
    Now would you say that something like the MFP Tuna recipe is problematic? The nutritional information & serving size was taken directly from this website.

    http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/2014/06/avocado-tuna-salad/


    It looked like a good way to get some healthy protein, with the avocado and nuts, but you think the info in the article is wrong?
  • ChrisM8971
    ChrisM8971 Posts: 1,067 Member
    Options
    Now would you say that something like the MFP Tuna recipe is problematic? The nutritional information & serving size was taken directly from this website.

    http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/2014/06/avocado-tuna-salad/


    It looked like a good way to get some healthy protein, with the avocado and nuts, but you think the info in the article is wrong?

    That one looks fine, why I question that entry is because in many cases people make a tuna salad, don't build their own recipe because they see an entry like this and think "I can enter that because its got to be close enough".
  • healthyscratch1978
    healthyscratch1978 Posts: 76
    Options
    The only thing absolutely required for fat loss to occur is a calorie deficit. If you are not losing weight you are either eating more than you think or burning less than you think or a combination of both. Either way something is off in the math.

    Contrary to what some have said it does not take 7 or 8 weeks for the body to adjust to a lower calories intake to start losing weight, if it took that long for someone to start losing weight that simply means it took that long for that person to finally eat at a energy deficit. Weight loss is absolutely not linear but it will not take 7 or 8 weeks for the body to start using fat for energy if you are not supplying it by food.

    Also the first thing people do after reading something like this is get mad because they feel their intelligence is being questioned. I am not questioning yours or anyone elses intelligence when it comes to logging your food, but I will refer back to my first statement.

    All that is absolutely required for weight loss to occur is a calorie deficit. If you're not losing you just have to figure out why you are not in a deficit...

    Good luck...

    Thanks for the time & thought you put into this post. I'm guessing that your opinion is that in a world where I actually am logging everything accurately--purely as a hypothetical--the only possible reason I wouldn't be losing fat would be some sort of medical issue?
  • doubleduofa
    doubleduofa Posts: 284 Member
    Options
    I think you should up good fats intake and lower carb intake. Try to keep it under 100g/day. I think your diary looks good otherwise. Lots of protein!

    With estimating (like the oil on kale example you gave), I try to estimate based on my portion - so if I ate half the kale chips, I'd account for 1/2 tbl of olive oil. In recipes (like when I cook veggies), I account for the entire tbl.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    OP honestly even if your logging is slightly off that is not your problem. Your "problem" probably isn't actually a problem. It is probably just that you haven't been at it very long (one month in the grand scheme is nothing) AND you are only using a single measure for progress, scale weight.

    Your body can easily retain +/- 5% of your total bodyweight which means that your weight can fluctuate as much as 10 pounds due to water. If you are losing a steady 1.5 pounds of fat a week after 4 weeks that weight can easily be masked by water retention alone.

    Just keep at it. Get yourself a tape measurer. Trust the system and trust yourself. Ask yourself honestly "if I am eating considerably less and exercising considerably more is there any possibility I am not losing fat?" I think you know the answer and don't let a scale and 4 weeks convince you otherwise.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    The only thing absolutely required for fat loss to occur is a calorie deficit. If you are not losing weight you are either eating more than you think or burning less than you think or a combination of both. Either way something is off in the math.

    Contrary to what some have said it does not take 7 or 8 weeks for the body to adjust to a lower calories intake to start losing weight, if it took that long for someone to start losing weight that simply means it took that long for that person to finally eat at a energy deficit. Weight loss is absolutely not linear but it will not take 7 or 8 weeks for the body to start using fat for energy if you are not supplying it by food.

    Also the first thing people do after reading something like this is get mad because they feel their intelligence is being questioned. I am not questioning yours or anyone elses intelligence when it comes to logging your food, but I will refer back to my first statement.

    All that is absolutely required for weight loss to occur is a calorie deficit. If you're not losing you just have to figure out why you are not in a deficit...

    Good luck...

    Thanks for the time & thought you put into this post. I'm guessing that your opinion is that in a world where I actually am logging everything accurately--purely as a hypothetical--the only possible reason I wouldn't be losing fat would be some sort of medical issue?

    Losing weight does not necessarily equate to fat loss and vise versa especially when you are talking over a short period of time.

    My claim is NOT that you will not lose fat over a 7-8 week period initially, my point was that this fat loss can easily be obscured by water retention due to extra water for the purpose of glycogen storage and repair when you first start up a new exercise routine especially one that is based on progressive overload with heavy weight.

    My guess is you ARE losing fat, it just isn't showing up on the scale yet.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    In full disclosure if you cut carbs you most likely will lose weight...scale weight.

    The reason is because in your muscle the primary energy source is glycogen which comes from carbs and takes a lot of water to solubilize appropriately. When you work your muscle hard your body will store extra glycogen in your muscles along with the water that comes with it causing the muscles to swell a bit and causing your weight to increase with the extra water retention.

    If you cut carbs and continue to work out you will deplete this glycogen reserve, your body will retain less water and you will lose scale weight as a result. Not lose more fat mind you, just water weight.

    As a secondary result of cutting carbs and depleting your glycogen stores you will lose strength and find it increasingly difficult to actually complete your workouts.

    If that is truly what you care about then yeah, cut carbs and continue to work out until you start to fail then stop working out entirely. You will shed lots of pounds...of water. Will this improve your health, fitness, strength or fat loss in any way shape or form? No. All to appease the almighty scale.
  • healthyscratch1978
    healthyscratch1978 Posts: 76
    Options
    OP I haven't read the rest of this thread so not sure if you already were asked this but have you been measuring your waist with a tape measurer or have you noticed any non-scale progress? Pants fit a little looser, belt up a notch...that sort of thing?

    Haven't done the measurement thing yet. My thought process was that because I am currently at a pretty high BF%, the scale should be a good indicator. From reading the responses in this thread, it seems maybe I should add some measurements into my evaluation process.

    My pants might feel a hair looser, but I'm definitely not down a whole belt loop or anything. As I mentioned, my wife has said she can see a difference in my appearance. Not that I don't trust her, but I just want some quantifiable way to judge that.

    I think you might have posted an x-y scatter plot about your initial weight loss. It's not showing up for me, but judging on what you've said, it would have been pretty flat at the beginning.

    Question for you, at 1800 net, how far is that off what the TDEE calculators suggest for steady 1 lb week weight loss? I've been at 1700, but you're 4 inches taller than I am. Is 1700 too high? It doesn't feel like it, that's for sure.

    Yeah I posted an x-y scatter of my weight v time not sure why it doesn't show up for you but basically its dots bouncing around a flat line for about 5 weeks followed by dots bouncing around a steady down-diagonal trend for the next 8 weeks.

    I am taller than you but I am also lighter and I think weight has more to do with your caloric requirements than height. I'm small framed as well so I can actually get very light when i get fit, 3 years ago I was at 155 pounds when I hit 15% bodyfat.

    So I calculate my TDEE as about 2700-2900 area (I work out 6 days a week). With MFP's system I try to net 1800 calories a day which means most days I'm eating 2100. That would mean my deficit was in the 600-800 range which lines up pretty nicely with my weight loss. I very much doubt you need to be eating less than 1700. Also when you say you are eating 1700 do you mean net after eating back exercise calories or do you mean total. If you mean total then 1700 is actually quite low and there is no way you wouldn't lose fat eating that little.

    If I were you I'd think you'd want to be eating about 2000 calories, maybe 1700 net (not total).

    My diary is public by the way, feel free to check it out.

    Yeah, I've been eating 1700 total for the past week. I averaged out over the past 30 days, and I'm at 1820 total/day (started ~1900). I agree it seems low, which is why I started at 1900. Believe me, around 930pm, I start feeling pretty hungry, and realize that my day has been pretty light. Seeing a linear progression with the weights, as I mentioned, though, so I can't complain about lack of energy/power.

    I also averaged out my carbs (did it manually, don't know why MFP doesn't allow you to look at this kind of stuff with their "reports" tool), and although I've had a few days over, I'm about 2 grams/day over, at 172 g--if 170g/day is a solid target for carbs; I generally worry about protein and fat first, and take an IIFYM approach for the carbs. 2 g a day extra in carbs is statistically insignificant, really.

    I'm gonna stick with it. I've lost weight in the past, it's just that I've had to do 6 days a week of weightlifting cardio and <1500 dieting with dumb and inconvenient "clean" eating. Really wanted to avoid that this time around.

    If your line of thinking is correct, and I am losing fat that's being obscured by water weight fluctuations, then I should see some kind of change in the next 3 weeks. Honestly, if I can get the ball rolling, I'm going to experiment with adding 100 cals. Ideally, I'd like to be eating the max amount of calories I can, while at a deficit.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    If your line of thinking is correct, and I am losing fat that's being obscured by water weight fluctuations, then I should see some kind of change in the next 3 weeks. Honestly, if I can get the ball rolling, I'm going to experiment with adding 100 cals. Ideally, I'd like to be eating the max amount of calories I can, while at a deficit.

    Yeah basically. Water retention can only obscure fat loss on the scale for so long. Eventually you lose enough fat that no amount of water retained is going to hide the dip in the scale. I'd just stick with it man and if you haven't lost a pound in 2 months total then yeah okay something is up. Water is more dense than fat though and retained water in your muscle might offset fat loss on the scale but it won't with a tape measurer. Quite possible you have lost an inch around your belly but you won't know if you don't measure.
  • parkscs
    parkscs Posts: 1,639 Member
    Options
    In full disclosure if you cut carbs you most likely will lose weight...scale weight.

    The reason is because in your muscle the primary energy source is glycogen which comes from carbs and takes a lot of water to solubilize appropriately. When you work your muscle hard your body will store extra glycogen in your muscles along with the water that comes with it causing the muscles to swell a bit and causing your weight to increase with the extra water retention.

    If you cut carbs and continue to work out you will deplete this glycogen reserve, your body will retain less water and you will lose scale weight as a result. Not lose more fat mind you, just water weight.

    As a secondary result of cutting carbs and depleting your glycogen stores you will lose strength and find it increasingly difficult to actually complete your workouts.

    If that is truly what you care about then yeah, cut carbs and continue to work out until you start to fail then stop working out entirely. You will shed lots of pounds...of water. Will this improve your health, fitness, strength or fat loss in any way shape or form? No. All to appease the almighty scale.

    That's a very one-sided and overly simplistic view of low carb diets. There are reasons you might want to reduce carbs beyond scale weight (satiation comes to mind) and there are ways to deal with glycogen depletion (TKD and CKD come to mind). If you think people do these diets "all to appease the almighty scale," that says to me you don't know enough about LCD's to really comment on them.
  • IHateThinkingOfAUsername
    IHateThinkingOfAUsername Posts: 568 Member
    Options
    Yes, Barbie, I do weigh the food before I eat it. Don't always do the "grams" conversion for solids, sometimes go by cups, depending on the available units from the food in the database. I could improve there, I guess. It's hard to believe that would be the source of my "failure to launch", though. Considering I'm so far under what my TDEE is saying I need to be at for 1 lb/week loss. Even if I account for some error in logging, which of course everyone has, it's tough to see how that could be more than +/- 150 calories.

    It just occurred to me (and sorry if this has been pointed out already) but I suspect you are probably underestimating your food intake if you are using cooked weights to logged your food calories, since food weighs less (sometimes considerably so) when it's cooked. Nutritional values are normally provided for uncooked food. So if you log a 100g chicken breast, it might really be 150g (or whatever).
  • healthyscratch1978
    healthyscratch1978 Posts: 76
    Options
    It just occurred to me (and sorry if this has been pointed out already) but I suspect you are probably underestimating your food intake if you are using cooked weights to logged your food calories, since food weighs less (sometimes considerably so) when it's cooked. Nutritional values are normally provided for uncooked food. So if you log a 100g chicken breast, it might really be 150g (or whatever).

    Hmmm...yeah, you're right. For stuff like chicken, I do weigh it after it's been cooked. Could probably tighten that up.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    In full disclosure if you cut carbs you most likely will lose weight...scale weight.

    The reason is because in your muscle the primary energy source is glycogen which comes from carbs and takes a lot of water to solubilize appropriately. When you work your muscle hard your body will store extra glycogen in your muscles along with the water that comes with it causing the muscles to swell a bit and causing your weight to increase with the extra water retention.

    If you cut carbs and continue to work out you will deplete this glycogen reserve, your body will retain less water and you will lose scale weight as a result. Not lose more fat mind you, just water weight.

    As a secondary result of cutting carbs and depleting your glycogen stores you will lose strength and find it increasingly difficult to actually complete your workouts.

    If that is truly what you care about then yeah, cut carbs and continue to work out until you start to fail then stop working out entirely. You will shed lots of pounds...of water. Will this improve your health, fitness, strength or fat loss in any way shape or form? No. All to appease the almighty scale.

    That's a very one-sided and overly simplistic view of low carb diets. There are reasons you might want to reduce carbs beyond scale weight (satiation comes to mind) and there are ways to deal with glycogen depletion (TKD and CKD come to mind). If you think people do these diets "all to appease the almighty scale," that says to me you don't know enough about LCD's to really comment on them.

    Yes it was oversimplified but it was also true. If you reduce carbs you will see a quick abrupt but non-meaningful drop in the scale. I'm not saying that is the ONLY reason you would go low carb but I do think people view that as a plus when actually its just loss of water. To have success with low carb AND have energy though you have to go full ketogenic (which basically means cutting out carbs almost entirely) and my understanding of that is only some people can go full ketogenic and still have good energy levels.

    If instead you just reduce carbs all you are going to do is have considerably less energy.

    IMO the reason to change to low carb is if at your current carb intake you are exceeding your calorie goal. If you aren't then there is no reason to take carbs, which supply you with energy, out of your diet.

    I was talking in hyperbole though and yes it is unfair of me to suggest that somehow all low carb dieters are just appeasing the scale that isn't true so I apologize for that. In this guys case though I see no reason for him to reduce his carb intake.
  • jmangini
    jmangini Posts: 166 Member
    Options
    The only thing absolutely required for fat loss to occur is a calorie deficit. If you are not losing weight you are either eating more than you think or burning less than you think or a combination of both. Either way something is off in the math.

    Contrary to what some have said it does not take 7 or 8 weeks for the body to adjust to a lower calories intake to start losing weight, if it took that long for someone to start losing weight that simply means it took that long for that person to finally eat at a energy deficit. Weight loss is absolutely not linear but it will not take 7 or 8 weeks for the body to start using fat for energy if you are not supplying it by food.

    Also the first thing people do after reading something like this is get mad because they feel their intelligence is being questioned. I am not questioning yours or anyone elses intelligence when it comes to logging your food, but I will refer back to my first statement.

    All that is absolutely required for weight loss to occur is a calorie deficit. If you're not losing you just have to figure out why you are not in a deficit...

    Good luck...

    I totally agree with this. Personally, I eat mostly carbs. If you want to gain muscle and have energy, you need to. Some fitness professionals manipulate their carbs, but I assure you, you won't build as much muscle as possible without them. Insulin is an anabolic hormone and many body builders actually eat simple sugars right after their workout for this reason. Losing or gaining weight is all about calories, but if you have bigger goals like building muscle or getting ripped, then you need to pay some attention to your macros. I personally like to get lots of complex carbs and limit my saturated fat intake.
  • jeffpettis
    jeffpettis Posts: 865 Member
    Options
    The only thing absolutely required for fat loss to occur is a calorie deficit. If you are not losing weight you are either eating more than you think or burning less than you think or a combination of both. Either way something is off in the math.

    Contrary to what some have said it does not take 7 or 8 weeks for the body to adjust to a lower calories intake to start losing weight, if it took that long for someone to start losing weight that simply means it took that long for that person to finally eat at a energy deficit. Weight loss is absolutely not linear but it will not take 7 or 8 weeks for the body to start using fat for energy if you are not supplying it by food.

    Also the first thing people do after reading something like this is get mad because they feel their intelligence is being questioned. I am not questioning yours or anyone elses intelligence when it comes to logging your food, but I will refer back to my first statement.

    All that is absolutely required for weight loss to occur is a calorie deficit. If you're not losing you just have to figure out why you are not in a deficit...

    Good luck...

    Thanks for the time & thought you put into this post. I'm guessing that your opinion is that in a world where I actually am logging everything accurately--purely as a hypothetical--the only possible reason I wouldn't be losing fat would be some sort of medical issue?

    There is no one out there that logs everything 100% accurately. Take a look at the food in your cabinet or fridge. Isn't it odd that "almost" every food in there has a calorie amount that is an even number like 100 calories per serving or 230 calories per serving not 126 calories per serving or 211 calories per serving? Think about that for a second.

    My point is even if you are going by what the manufacturer has printed on the label it's still possible to log inaccurately. You just have to make the adjustments based on what your body is doing, and I know for me whether I am bulking or cutting I am not going to wait 7 or 8 weeks for something to happen. I know my body and I know that it responds quicker than that to changes in my diet.

    So to answer your question, no, I wouldn't say that at all. I would still say something is off in the numbers. The number of people that actually have a medical condition that would prevent them from losing weight is very low. The number of people that will fall back on a supposed medical condition because they aren't doing what needs to be done on the other hand is pretty high... :drinker:

Categories