So confused. Hungry and desperate.
abrown286
Posts: 18
Hi.
I am 5"4 and weigh 204. I am having a few problems with my weight loss. I have been netting less than 1200 calories a day. Usually I around 1000-1200. Problem is, I am still usually knu losing around 1-2 lbs a week. From what I have read and the calculators I have used I should be eating around 1500 but if I can barley lose 2 pounds at less than 1200, how can I lose the same with 300 more a day? I am not super active but not bed ridden. I walk on my treadmill at 3.5 mph around 35-60 minutes 6 days a week. Any advice is appreciated.
I am 5"4 and weigh 204. I am having a few problems with my weight loss. I have been netting less than 1200 calories a day. Usually I around 1000-1200. Problem is, I am still usually knu losing around 1-2 lbs a week. From what I have read and the calculators I have used I should be eating around 1500 but if I can barley lose 2 pounds at less than 1200, how can I lose the same with 300 more a day? I am not super active but not bed ridden. I walk on my treadmill at 3.5 mph around 35-60 minutes 6 days a week. Any advice is appreciated.
0
Replies
-
You are probably eating more than you think. Do you use a food scale? Your diary is closed so it will be hard to give better advice.0
-
^^ that
0 -
I measure everything. It may not be perfectly accurate but it is pretty dang close.0
-
Weigh and measure every bite that goes in your mouth. That's the only way you'll know as close as possible the number of calories you are eating.
I also recommend taking time to lose the weight. If you are full and happy every day, you will stand a better chance of keeping the weight off for good.0 -
OPen up your diary. You're probably logging wrong, i.e. eating more than you think.0
-
I measure everything. It may not be perfectly accurate but it is pretty dang close.
Measuring is a lot different than weighing. Unless you're weighing your food, you're not being as accurate as you could be - and if you're hungry and miserable, it's pretty important to be as accurate as you can be.
MFP's goals are just that - goals. Numbers you want to meet, not come under by several hundred calories.
So try eating 1500 for a few weeks (and get a scale) - see what happens. Eat back at least half of your exercise calories. Try to hit your macros.
0 -
Also you're 200lbs. I'm 162lbs eating ove 2000 calories to lose weight, and when I wasn't including exercise I netted about 1800-something. You're not eating enough.0
-
Hi.
I am 5"4 and weigh 204. I am having a few problems with my weight loss. I have been netting less than 1200 calories a day. Usually I around 1000-1200. Problem is, I am still usually knu losing around 1-2 lbs a week. From what I have read and the calculators I have used I should be eating around 1500 but if I can barley lose 2 pounds at less than 1200, how can I lose the same with 300 more a day? I am not super active but not bed ridden. I walk on my treadmill at 3.5 mph around 35-60 minutes 6 days a week. Any advice is appreciated.
You can't lose the same...you can lose...it'll just be a bit slower and you won't be hungry.
You could also compensate by upping your activity level. I realized long ago that if you want to eat, you gotta move...
0 -
First of all, eating only 1000-1200 calories a day is crazy.... I wouldn't even have the energy to function. I'm 5'2, 117lbs and losing on 1600 calories a day. Eat more! And like others said, make sure you're logging accurately. Finally, give it time.. weight loss is a slow process but if you allow yourself to eat more it won't be so miserable. It doesn't even have to be miserable at all! If you try these things and still aren't losing, I'd suggest getting your thyroid checked..0
-
I started out eating about 1900 calories when i started this year. I've lost 68 pounds. Now I'm at 1700. I can't see myself ever going to as low as 1300. I work out usually 4 to 6 times a week. How often do you work out and how long are you working out?0
-
Start weighing your food, only measure liquids.0
-
Hi.
I am 5"4 and weigh 204. I am having a few problems with my weight loss. I have been netting less than 1200 calories a day. Usually I around 1000-1200. Problem is, I am still usually knu losing around 1-2 lbs a week. From what I have read and the calculators I have used I should be eating around 1500 but if I can barley lose 2 pounds at less than 1200, how can I lose the same with 300 more a day? I am not super active but not bed ridden. I walk on my treadmill at 3.5 mph around 35-60 minutes 6 days a week. Any advice is appreciated.
Is your protein intake high enough. I was coming up short. Protein is best a making us not hungry. Fats seem to help me not be hungry too but then I am on a high fat diet. Eating carbs is the one thing that makes me get hungry because they are like trying to heat the house with wood but only putting kindling in the stove. You feel a flash of heat then you are cold again. Fats and Protein are more like putting in big pieces of wood into the stove for fuel. Now that I am off of carbs (<50 grams a day) I do not get hungry cravings like when I lived on carbs but living on ketones vs carbs/glucose is like that.
Do be careful about not eating enough because 5 out of 6 of us on a deficit diet will regain all we have lost within the next several years if not before. Your daily resting burn rate is likely to be 600 calories lower than when you started your diet. That is why if we go back to our old eating lifestyle we gain all of our weight back and more so fast because we have screwed up our metabolism so much if we cut our daily calories needs by more than 5-10% to lose weight. If you can get outside and walk try that. Just parking in the far corners of parking lots can add miles of walking a month.
When I started walking this last time I needed to rest after about 100 feet so resting is not bad but in time I could go longer without resting. Leaving off everything that has added sugar was key in my case because of the toxic effect sugar has on my joints. Now my feet are not so painful to walk on like when I was on sugar.
Best of luck. Sounds like you have made good progress so just keep moving. Because of all of my past regains I do not plan to lose all of my 75 pounds but drop another 21 pounds which will be 2/3 of my goal because that will get me down to 199 then work to maintain that for one year before I go for 175 pounds. I am too old and with a high Type 2 diabetes risk to ever have another REGAIN. Even if I just get down to 215 from 250 that will be a huge health gain in my case since my lean to fat ratio is already much better which means my fat loss is greater than what the scales have dropped.
0 -
1) eat more. As for not being hungry, it really helps to concentrate on getting your protein, fiber (lots of veggies) and some healthy fats, like olive oil or avocados. For most people starches (bread, potatoes, rice...) and sweets leave them unsatisfied. You can leave room in there for an occasional treat, but if you are having trouble getting full, try not to have starches and sweets at every meal.
2) add some form of resistance training (you can buy resistance bands pretty cheap and they have more variety than just getting one weight of dumbbell, bodyweight exercises are also a good place to start)
3) add some intensity to your workout. Use the interval/HIIT setting on your treadmill0 -
You're not eating enough calories! Your metabolism is basically dead! Your body is going to hold on to every calorie u eat because it doesn't know when you're going to eat next. You need at least 1300 and you should eat 4-6x a day. I personally eat 13-1600 (I'm 5'4ish and 194lbs started at 247.8lbs) sometimes more but I also do low carb. I've lost 53.8lbs as of today, and still going.0
-
ashbanash87 wrote: »You're not eating enough calories! Your metabolism is basically dead! Your body is going to hold on to every calorie u eat because it doesn't know when you're going to eat next. You need at least 1300 and you should eat 4-6x a day. I personally eat 13-1600 (I'm 5'4ish and 194lbs started at 247.8lbs) sometimes more but I also do low carb. I've lost 53.8lbs as of today, and still going.
If her metabolism was dead she would be too
Bodies don't hold on to calories like that - you keep losing weight until you die
Frequency of eating makes no difference
It's more likely she's not logging properly and eating more than she thinks0 -
ashbanash87 wrote: »You're not eating enough calories! Your metabolism is basically dead! Your body is going to hold on to every calorie u eat because it doesn't know when you're going to eat next. You need at least 1300 and you should eat 4-6x a day. I personally eat 13-1600 (I'm 5'4ish and 194lbs started at 247.8lbs) sometimes more but I also do low carb. I've lost 53.8lbs as of today, and still going.
As far as hunger and satiation go, some people do really well with 5-6 small meals a day. But it makes other people feel like gnawing their own arms off. Some people do better eating 2-3 larger meals. Meal timing has no significant effect on weight loss, so this is something that people really should play around with and find what works for them. It sounds like smaller meals worked well for you, but I'd be careful about suggesting that everyone needs to do it.
0 -
ashbanash87 wrote: »You're not eating enough calories! Your metabolism is basically dead! Your body is going to hold on to every calorie u eat because it doesn't know when you're going to eat next. You need at least 1300 and you should eat 4-6x a day. I personally eat 13-1600 (I'm 5'4ish and 194lbs started at 247.8lbs) sometimes more but I also do low carb. I've lost 53.8lbs as of today, and still going.
We humans are on the planet today because our bodies DID develop the ability to "hold on to calories like that" so ashbanash87 is correct in making that statement based on dieting science posted before on this site.
0 -
ashbanash87 wrote: »You're not eating enough calories! Your metabolism is basically dead! Your body is going to hold on to every calorie u eat because it doesn't know when you're going to eat next. You need at least 1300 and you should eat 4-6x a day. I personally eat 13-1600 (I'm 5'4ish and 194lbs started at 247.8lbs) sometimes more but I also do low carb. I've lost 53.8lbs as of today, and still going.
This isn't true at all. I've never, in my life, had a big appetite. I usually consume between 1,000 and 1,200 calories a day (with medical approval) and I'm not starving, my body isn't holding onto fat and I've lost 60.1 pounds so far. The frequency with which you eat doesn't matter at all, either. Please don't spread misinformation like that.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »ashbanash87 wrote: »You're not eating enough calories! Your metabolism is basically dead! Your body is going to hold on to every calorie u eat because it doesn't know when you're going to eat next. You need at least 1300 and you should eat 4-6x a day. I personally eat 13-1600 (I'm 5'4ish and 194lbs started at 247.8lbs) sometimes more but I also do low carb. I've lost 53.8lbs as of today, and still going.
We humans are on the planet today because our bodies DID develop the ability to "hold on to calories like that" so ashbanash87 is correct in making that statement based on dieting science posted before on this site.
So people have never, in the course of history, died from starvation?
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »ashbanash87 wrote: »You're not eating enough calories! Your metabolism is basically dead! Your body is going to hold on to every calorie u eat because it doesn't know when you're going to eat next. You need at least 1300 and you should eat 4-6x a day. I personally eat 13-1600 (I'm 5'4ish and 194lbs started at 247.8lbs) sometimes more but I also do low carb. I've lost 53.8lbs as of today, and still going.
We humans are on the planet today because our bodies DID develop the ability to "hold on to calories like that" so ashbanash87 is correct in making that statement based on dieting science posted before on this site.
Wrong...sigh...you must get tired of people pointing out the vast swathes of humanity who die of starvation
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Bodies don't hold on to calories like that - you keep losing weight until you die
We humans are on the planet today because our bodies DID develop the ability to "hold on to calories like that" so ashbanash87 is correct in making that statement based on dieting science posted before on this site.
Wrong...sigh...you must get tired of people pointing out the vast swathes of humanity who die of starvation
Why would I get tired of people on a web forum like this one making such remarks that has nothing to do with the discussion and makes no point relative to anything. That is the norm and is expected.
0 -
I agree with the person who said you probably need more protein. Protein is key to satisfaction.0
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »We humans are on the planet today because our bodies DID develop the ability to "hold on to calories like that" so ashbanash87 is correct in making that statement based on dieting science posted before on this site.
If energy out exceeds energy in then one will lose weight. The suggestion that an energy deficit might lead to energy being magically retained, or perhaps through solar power, is nonsensical.
But this is the forum of woo, so regrettably many don't believe that the laws of thermodynamics apply.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »We humans are on the planet today because our bodies DID develop the ability to "hold on to calories like that" so ashbanash87 is correct in making that statement based on dieting science posted before on this site.
If energy out exceeds energy in then one will lose weight. The suggestion that an energy deficit might lead to energy being magically retained, or perhaps through solar power, is nonsensical.
But this is the forum of woo, so regrettably many don't believe that the laws of thermodynamics apply.
MeanderingMammal the laws of thermodynamics do apply but is not the factor that controls the weight of meandering mammals. It is some of our 50 hormones and our brains that controls how much we weigh.
When a human mammal goes into deficit eating without fail a normal human mammals metabolism is slow down to prevent starvation at some future point. It is some of our hormones and brain in control of this. On average some research indicates we will start burning 500-600 calories less per day especially if we are under eating by more than 5%-10% of our daily calorie needs.
If meandering mammals could deficit eat without messing with our hormone levels than your position would have some validity.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »burning 500-600 calories less per day
With a corresponding reduction in activity. The energy doesn't magically appear from somewhere else.
Or has someone discovered wind energy collected through the hair follicles
0 -
abrown wrote:I am 5"4 and weigh 204
http://www.shapeup.org/bmi/bmi6.pdfI have been netting less than 1200 calories a day.
Just aim for your TOTAL calories to be 1400 in order to get to 140 lb.
Once you get there, see if you want to go a bit lower, but for an initial goal just aim to get into a healthy BMI range.
(And to maintain weight, nudge the calories up from 10 / lb to closer to 15 / lb, as long as you're still exercising 30 min / day.)
*Most people underestimate what they eat, and most machines overestimate calories burned.
By ignoring exercise cals, those errors more or less cancel out.I am still usually losing around 1-2 lbs a week.I walk on my treadmill at 3.5 mph around 35-60 minutes 6 days a week.
Have you thought about increasing the intensity (incline or speed)?
This has a link to the sexypants thread, as well as other helpful info.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/MKEgal/view/2014-08-10-newbie-help-post-685689
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »burning 500-600 calories less per day
With a corresponding reduction in activity. The energy doesn't magically appear from somewhere else.
Or has someone discovered wind energy collected through the hair follicles
If one gets 24 MPG when driving 70 MPH and when driving down the same road at 55 MPH one gets 27 MPG where does that energy magically appear from?
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »If one gets 24 MPG when driving 70 MPH and when driving down the same road at 55 MPH one gets 27 MPG where does that energy magically appear from?
So you're trying to suggest that there's a viable comparison between an internal combustion engine, and associated vehicle efficiencies, and the chemical transitions in the body?
Really?
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »If one gets 24 MPG when driving 70 MPH and when driving down the same road at 55 MPH one gets 27 MPG where does that energy magically appear from?
So you're trying to suggest that there's a viable comparison between an internal combustion engine, and associated vehicle efficiencies, and the chemical transitions in the body?
Really?
Not sure. All I am saying the same car needs less gallons of fuel to go the same distance when you slow its 'metabolism' down from 70 to 55 MPH.
0 -
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions