Why Aren't I Losing Anything?

Have you been using a measuring tape??

make sure you drink enough water and watch your sodium intake .. also give it some time, you will get there

Also from looking at your food diary, you need to eat more. I know it sounds backwards, but most days your are barely netting 1000 calories (food eaten less exercise). That's not enough fuel for your body to operate it's normal activities.
AND, two weeks may not be enough time to evaluate. Patience!

Firstly, I think you need to eat more. You are not even getting 1000 calories a day, which means your body will go into starvation mode, and start eating away at muscle and retain the fat because you are not getting enough fuel for the fat you are trying to burn.

Secondly, I would definitely be using rest days. You need to give yourself and your body time to develop, and by going to the gym every single day you aren't allowing your body to recover and develop properly.

And lastly, I think you should give yourself more than 2 weeks to try and gauge and weight/size loss.

xx

Interesting read. Thank you.

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/PNS/PNS54_01/S0029665195000255a.pdf&code=9d7151f1b3d4573be4a6c55bf429b91c

The link doesn't work. Do you recall the name of the article or do you have a working link?

sorry, must be cached, I uploaded it as a pdf (hope it's not illegal to do this)

try this link.

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0BwjKw54QZoQ6MmVhOGYxNTUtMjA5Yy00YTRlLThkOGMtNDQxM2E2MGYxODQz&hl=en&authkey=CNbY7ZsG

Honestly, I don't think you HAVE to be exercising like crazy. I don't think there's any benefit in forcing yourself to go to the gym every day, even when you're sick. That is NOT good for you, especially when you're not eating enough. Plus, that's not a sustainable lifestyle change. You can't keep busting your gut at the gym every day for the rest of your life. If your muscles are that sore, they could be retaining fluid while they heal, causing the number on the scale to stay the same or even go up (not sure if that's the exact scientific explanation, but I know if I've worked out hard and my muscles are sore, my weight is always up the next day)

In regards to calories, trust MFP - you have all the tools you need here. If you've correctly entered your details into MFP (your age, height, weight, and activity level), it will tell you how many calories you should be eating. I've lost almost 5kg (10lbs) just by sticking to my calorie allotment and adding in some additional exercise. I didn't go crazy with the exercise, didn't join a gym, I just started adding in some additional activity, like a workout video one day, a brisk walk the next, Pilates the next etc. I logged the exercise into MFP and I ate most of the calories back, so my NET calories were as close to 1200 as possible. And it worked. If I'm hungry, I eat, especially if I've exercised. If I happen to be at 1300 calories, that's ok, the world won't end. You just have to LISTEN to your body, there is no magic number that will cause the weight to drop off. As a rule, however, you shouldn't go UNDER 1200. That is the minimum recommended amount for women. You don't have to stay that low if it's not enough for you, and you definitely shouldn't go under it.

And most importantly, the scale is not the be all and end all. Your weight can fluctuate during the day due to all sorts of reasons. It's really not the best indicator of your size. As others have said, take measurements, and if people are telling you you're looking more toned, take that compliment! It's an achievement! Hang in there, and think of this as a LONG TERM lifestyle change, not a quick fix. You'll get there!!!

Here's the quote of the conclusion of the study (which summarized a number of other well regarded scientific research projects done on the topic)

In the early stages of starvation an increase in adipose tissue lipolysis (possibly due to a
decrease in plasma insulin) and fat oxidation are key steps which probably then lead to a
reduction in glucose oxidation. However, gluconeogenesis continues to provide glucose
for utilization by neural and other tissues, which does not appear as net whole-body
glucose oxidation. In association with this increase in lipolysis in the early stages of
starvation there is a small rise in resting energy expenditure, but this reverts to a
decreased energy expenditure after 72 h without food.
With more prolonged undernutrition, total energy expenditure falls but the mechan-
isms of this are not fully understood. Although one would expect a reduction in
food-induced thermogenesis in prolonged undernutrition, there is a lack of convincing
evidence that this occurs. It is clear, however, that in more controlled experimental
conditions glucose-induced thermogenesis is diminished in undernutrition. The mechan-
isms underlying this effect and the improved metabolic efficiency during refeeding
remain to be elucidated.

In layman's terms this says. It's well proven that for the first 72 hours the body does not feel the effects of underfeeding or starvation with regards to resting energy expenditure (REE, AKA resting metabolic rate) and in fact both REE and fat burning goes up. After that 72 hour window, the REE drops below normal and adipose fat storage (body fat) goes up as well. This is, as we can well see, starvation mode folks.

In ref to SHBoss's post...
Just clarifying your layman terms of the science quote.

The science in the quote you note talks about increase in lipolysis (ie the breakdown of lipids in fat storage to free fatty acids for use in energy production), but it does not mention an increase in fat storage (reduction in lipolysis or change in biochemical pathways leading to fat storage) following that 72 hrs.

Is that bit not actually in the science quote you gave, as they layman terms quote seems to state that (ie you say fat storage increases). Or am I reading that incorrectly.

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/PNS/PNS54_01/S0029665195000255a.pdf&code=9d7151f1b3d4573be4a6c55bf429b91c

Just to clarify - having read the article to get a broad view of its content - this is primarily about starvation (that is fasting over an extended period of time), rather than the reduction in calories (not nutrition - if the correct food is eaten).

It seems that most often on the forum people refer to starvation mode to people who are on a reduced calorie (but hopefully correct nutrition) food intake.

I am sure you have other (extensive) research for those on a reduced calorie (good nutrition) diet, but I am not sure that one can use an article that is most specifically related to extended fasting or starvation to address people saying they are in "starvation mode" when they are not fasting over an extended time.
Or am I misinterpeting what you have included the article for. Just curious (scientific mind, always curious)

Actually, that summary is a report on multiple different experiments, in which they are clear to point out not only starvation but what they call "underfeeding" as well I.E. caloric deficit. Throughout the study they point out the differing effects of the body after short term moderate and prolonged fasting periods. The only real question they weren't able to give solid evidence for was the question as to why the body changes to a fat conservation metabolism after prolonged periods, although they give a solid hypothesis. Also that the effects take longer in underfeeding to manifest than they do with the total lack of calories (which would make sense).

Case in point, taken from the second section titled "Energy Metabolism in Starvation and Underfeeding"

It is generally believed that resting and total energy expenditure fall in starvation and
underfeeding. Whilst this is undoubtedly true after a few days of undernutrition, it may
not be the case initially. The classical studies of Benedict et al. (1919) revealed a modest
rise in resting energy expenditure in the first 12 d of a prolonged period of underfeeding.
This was followed by the expected fall over the next 30 d. Similarly, the first 2 d of total
starvation are accompanied by increased resting energy expenditure (Mansell et al. 1990;
Webber & Macdonald, 1994), which is likely to be due in part to the energy costs of
gluconeogenesis, ketogenesis and fatty acid-triacylglyceroi recycling. The rates of
gluconeogenesis and fatty acid-triacylglycerol recycling seen after 2-3 d of starvation
could easily account for 5% of resting energy expenditure. As starvation proceeds there
is a fall in resting energy expenditure, such that it is normally below initial values after 4 d
of starvation (for review, see Elia, 1992).

Please note that when they talk of starvation, you have to remember starvation isn't the total lack of incoming
calories, it's an amount of calories insufficient to support the person, thus the effect of starvation
occurs.

you'll notice in the study that they go over both a 0 calorie method, and an underfeeding method. While the timeline for the 2 are different (0 calorie NET is about 72 hours before complete change from fat burning metabolism) to 6 to 12 days for underfeeding. the results are similar in that the body changes from a system that uses fat oxidation as a secondary mechanism (after glycogen burning) for energy, to a mixed system using lean tissue as an alternate, and hormone levels that are attributed to higher fat storage rise in both cases.

I.E. after the threshold is crossed to "starvation mode" the body starts storing more fat and burning more lean tissue (amino acids AKA proteins) to account for a reduction in incoming usable energy and a lowering of the RMR to help compensate. This means that your maintenance calories go down, and the amount of fat you burn goes down, while the amount of protein you burn from lean tissue and ingested protein goes up. If you follow MFP's goals and don't adjust to account for the lower RMR you won't lose what MFP thinks you will as you don't have the same maintenance calories as someone who is at a normal metabolic rate. This can mean the weight loss can appear to be "stalled".
While the normal thought process would most likely be "don't eat as much", the body will continue in this downward sloping RMR, continuing to reduce metabolic rates until a virtual "floor" is hit, where the body just can no longer support any more reduced burn rate, where organ failure can begin (granted, this normally takes months of prolonged severe under eating but still, it's a medical probability). Typically and predictably, this is seen quite often in anorexics who notice first (besides the apparent "wasting" properties) bad skin and teeth, continuing on to gall bladder and renal issues. I'm not sure what the progression is medically speaking, or what the body deems the most "expendable" but skin, hair, teeth, and nails would seem most likely as they are one of the first sets of organs and structures to show severe signs of starvation.

I realize that most of us on MFP don't need to worry about anorexia (with respect to those who've had eating disorders in the past), the basic processes that cause it are still in play in the body when ever we are at a prolonged calorie deficit. The facts presented in this cumulative study seem to support those conclusions. I.E. it's important to keep a close watch on what your energy levels are, how much you are eating RELATIVE to how much you burn during the day (TDEE), and what a realistic goal should be.

I submit that if two woman who were genetically identical (twins for instance), who both were at the approximate same level of weight, lean tissue, and fat percentages (assuming both were at least mildly obese to start); were given the exact same diet and the exact same amount of caloric intake, assuming we could know the "tipping point" for starvation mode and stay out of it, we would, with almost 100% surity, be able to predict the results of both in the following situation:
Woman 1 would do little exercise, basically just maintaining her current activity levels.
Woman 2 would exercise hard, buring between 600 and 1000 calories a day.

No additional calories would be given to woman 2.
I suspect the conclusions would be:
After 2 weeks woman 2 would have lost significantly more weight than woman 1 and her percentages of fat vs. lean tissue loss would be significantly higher.
After 1 month woman 2 would have begun to plateau or would be fully invested in a plateau and would be losing significantly less weight than woman 1, and the fat loss vs lean tissue loss would have somewhat reversed (noting that exercising will stave off some of the muscle catabolism). At the same time woman 1 would have continued to lose weight at a relatively constant rate, with a similar amount of fat vs lean tissue loss as she had during the first few weeks.

The conclusion (assuming the above were the case) is that sure you can exercise while you lose weight, but you need to try to keep that energy balance while you do it. Growing your deficit doesn't necessarily mean more weight loss, and you won't lose the kind of weight you really want, at the levels you are hoping for (I.E. fat loss instead of lean tissue loss).

Well, I can't say I disagree with any of your points kimwig, although I'm fuzzy as to what you mean by "hidden unthought of weight" but I'll assume, and correct me if I'm wrong, you mean waste that isn't passing? Which, usually isn't a problem for most people unless they are constipated. I've had that conversation with 2 Gastroenterology doctors and both have said the same thing to me, I.E. people don't have waste sitting in their colon and intestines unless there's a problem in there, and if there was a problem, they'd know it.
That's kind of besides the point though, as I find giving people advice to eat more fiber is fine in my book, fiber does all kinds of good things in the body so I'm all for it.

I do agree that the term "starvation mode" has some interesting connotations attached to it, ones that I've been trying to straighten out for a long time. The idea (for instance) that you generally stop losing weight while in starvation mode. This is not necessarily (or usually) the case at all, it's more a case that you will lose LESS than you think you should, and much of the loss will be the weight you don't want to lose.

I also don't believe it's as easy as people think to enter starvation mode for those in the overweight (overfat) and obese category. With a lot of extra fat, comes a lot of extra calories available, and someone who is obese will need to create quite a large deficit and keep that deficit quite high in order to dip into that zone (you're talking somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 to 4 lbs a week for those in the obese category). What my main issue is, is people looking to lose 20 or 30 lbs and still trying to lose 2 lbs a week, or someone with a BF% ( a woman in this case) of about 24 or 25% and still trying to lose 2 lbs a week. They're just going to end up losing less weight than they could by eating more, and having a higher (significantly higher in extreme cases) percentage of any weight they do lose be LBM (Lean Body Mass, I.E. muscle, connective tissue...etc).

And of course, my other main issue is the people that look at 1 post with virtually no vitals or lifestyle information talking about a plateau and immediately replying that the person needs to eat more. I find myself talking to my monitor and saying "How do you know?" all the time. Then I catch myself and chuckle. Who cares that she's eating 1200 calories and not eating her exercise calories back. Maybe she's obese, maybe she has type 2 diabetes and has Hashimoto's disease and has a lower than normal metabolic rate, maybe she's 60 years old and her metabolic rate has slowed by 20%. Maybe she's 4'11" tall and has is sedentary and has a TDEE of 1380. We don't know, she didn't tell us any of that, blindly assuming that someone is not eating enough because they aren't eating their exercise calories is just as bad as someone who SHOULD be eating them who isn't, because it perpetuates bad information. Better to ask the right questions then assume things. Things like, what's your body fat %? What's your goal deficit? Do you have any medical conditions? Are you feeling sluggish or tired? .......... These questions at least give you a picture of the person before a theory can be floated.

Bump cause this thread has some really good info in it. :flowerforyou:

2 causes:

1. you are consuming too many calories.
2. too much sodium and/or not enough water.