WHY IS MY DIET NOT WORKING??????
Replies
-
under 70 is considered hypoglycemic. which can be harmful to your health.you need to monitor daily and eat the proper foods to keep it a certain level. sometimes eating every 3-4 hrs can helpCharlieBeansmom wrote: »
yeah 55 is low. it should be above 70 but not over 150.keithw2013 wrote: »How did you come up with having a blood sugar of 55?
What are you eating and when? Is the only exercise Cardio via treadmill?
I would like to help you.
I checked my blood sugar with a prick.. it said 55...
My blood sugar is always a little under 70... =/ idk why I'm not diabetic tho
0 -
OP: If you not losing more then likely you are not in deficit. As everyone suggested get a food scale and weigh all solid foods and measure liquids. Be accurate with your logging and read the sexy pants thread:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1080242/a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants/p1
Good luck OP.
0 -
BMW is a complete farce. Pay no attention to it. If your goal is to lose fat, eating high fat/moderate protein/ultra low carb is the way to go. Without seeing your exact macros it's tough to say but I would guess you're not eating high enough fats versus proteins and carbs. What are your daily macros?0
-
rainbowbow wrote: »the database isn't always accurate so sometimes I have to guess or makeup my own food.
OP, this is why you aren't losing. You are probably eating more than you think. Enough over 1400 atleast to maintain your weight.
Your BMI is: 32.9
Target weight range: 111.2 lbs - 150.2 lbs
Under weight - 18.5
Healthy 18.5 - 25.0
Overweight 25.0 - 30.0
Obese 30.0 - more
It takes roughly 2,000-2,200 calories to maintain your current weight.
My suggestion to you since you said you're hungry all the time and aren't losing would be to eat MUCH more fruits, vegetables, and lean meats. These can usually be eaten in large quantities and should keep you full without the huge calorie expense. I would get a food scale or start measuring these out.
Start with very simple easy-to-measure foods like vegetables, fruits, and meats where you KNOW for certain how many calories you're eating. Then add in the fancy meals (like japanese and nigerian) once you've got the hang of adding in the ingredients in a recipe. I'd probably also suggest making all your food (just for the sake of knowing whats in it so you can track it accurately).
You can definitely do this! It's all about accuracy, accountability, and consistency!
Thankyou!!0 -
Yes its your Max goal, but you need to set small obtainable goals and work that way. Its going to take time and patience but if you follow the advise of food scale, measure everything, log everything and eating back at least half of your exercise calories you will see progress
0 -
yes,but you dont want it to spike or plummet. you want it to stay in a reasonable range at all times. if it spikes too fast it will lead to a sugar crash.NJGamerChick wrote: »If you're of muscular build, BMI doesn't mean as much because BMI doesn't take into account musculature. Your muscular weight at 5'5" is different than a lanky (of someone with little muscle) weight of 5'5". This was an issue I had years ago when I was lifting and a BMI of around 27 was considered normal for my frame and musculature.
Your blood sugar is of much concern, however. Was your meter calibrated recently? Was it before or after a meal? If after, how long after?
about 1 hour after I had a meal, and I actually had rice, isnt that supposed to spike blood sugar???
0 -
NJGamerChick wrote: »If you're of muscular build, BMI doesn't mean as much because BMI doesn't take into account musculature. Your muscular weight at 5'5" is different than a lanky (of someone with little muscle) weight of 5'5". This was an issue I had years ago when I was lifting and a BMI of around 27 was considered normal for my frame and musculature.
Your blood sugar is of much concern, however. Was your meter calibrated recently? Was it before or after a meal? If after, how long after?
I was very muscular up until this summer lol... I was about 159 pounds of mostly muscle when I was a wrestler. so I dont know if that counts as having a muscular build?????0 -
NJGamerChick wrote: »If you're of muscular build, BMI doesn't mean as much because BMI doesn't take into account musculature. Your muscular weight at 5'5" is different than a lanky (of someone with little muscle) weight of 5'5". This was an issue I had years ago when I was lifting and a BMI of around 27 was considered normal for my frame and musculature.
Your blood sugar is of much concern, however. Was your meter calibrated recently? Was it before or after a meal? If after, how long after?
about 1 hour after I had a meal, and I actually had rice, isnt that supposed to spike blood sugar???
I would ask the doctor about it. That is very low for a typical person one hour after eating. This is how mine was before being diagnosed with insulin resistance.0 -
ttesoroni22 wrote: »BMW is a complete farce. Pay no attention to it. If your goal is to lose fat, eating high fat/moderate protein/ultra low carb is the way to go. Without seeing your exact macros it's tough to say but I would guess you're not eating high enough fats versus proteins and carbs. What are your daily macros?
BMW is a car......do you mean BMI??0 -
ttesoroni22 wrote: »BMW is a complete farce. Pay no attention to it. If your goal is to lose fat, eating high fat/moderate protein/ultra low carb is the way to go. Without seeing your exact macros it's tough to say but I would guess you're not eating high enough fats versus proteins and carbs. What are your daily macros?
BMW is a car......do you mean BMI??
lol you know what they meant...0 -
CharlieBeansmom wrote: »
under 70 is considered hypoglycemic. which can be harmful to your health.you need to monitor daily and eat the proper foods to keep it a certain level. sometimes eating every 3-4 hrs can helpCharlieBeansmom wrote: »
yeah 55 is low. it should be above 70 but not over 150.keithw2013 wrote: »How did you come up with having a blood sugar of 55?
What are you eating and when? Is the only exercise Cardio via treadmill?
I would like to help you.
I checked my blood sugar with a prick.. it said 55...
My blood sugar is always a little under 70... =/ idk why I'm not diabetic tho
yeah I was a bit concerned about that, but Its kinda always been like this even when I was a wrestler0 -
krazyforyou wrote: »Yes its your Max goal, but you need to set small obtainable goals and work that way. Its going to take time and patience but if you follow the advise of food scale, measure everything, log everything and eating back at least half of your exercise calories you will see progress
Understood0 -
time to see the dr about this then. It worries me that its been like this for that long
0 -
NJGamerChick wrote: »If you're of muscular build, BMI doesn't mean as much because BMI doesn't take into account musculature. Your muscular weight at 5'5" is different than a lanky (of someone with little muscle) weight of 5'5". This was an issue I had years ago when I was lifting and a BMI of around 27 was considered normal for my frame and musculature.
Your blood sugar is of much concern, however. Was your meter calibrated recently? Was it before or after a meal? If after, how long after?
I was very muscular up until this lol... I was about 159 pounds of mostly muscle when I was a wrestler. so I dont know if that counts as having a muscular build?????
OP, even if you had the MAXIMUM amount of muscle your body could build (with years of strength training and a calorie surplus) the highest amount of muscle you could have naturally (without taking steroids) would be 135lbs of lean body mass.
This means that even if you were bodybuilder level muscular you would have 63 pounds of body fat. Or a body fat percentage of minimum 31% right now. That would still put you in the "overweight" category.
It's unfair to say that BMI is "doesn't mean much" as the above poster suggests.
0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »If you're of muscular build, BMI doesn't mean as much because BMI doesn't take into account musculature. Your muscular weight at 5'5" is different than a lanky (of someone with little muscle) weight of 5'5". This was an issue I had years ago when I was lifting and a BMI of around 27 was considered normal for my frame and musculature.
Your blood sugar is of much concern, however. Was your meter calibrated recently? Was it before or after a meal? If after, how long after?
I was very muscular up until this lol... I was about 159 pounds of mostly muscle when I was a wrestler. so I dont know if that counts as having a muscular build?????
OP, even if you had the MAXIMUM amount of muscle your body could build (with years of strength training and a calorie surplus) the highest amount of muscle you could have naturally (without taking steroids) would be 135lbs of lean body mass.
This means that even if you were bodybuilder level muscular you would have 63 pounds of body fat. Or a body fat percentage of minimum 31% right now. That would still put you in the "overweight" category.
It's unfair to say that BMI is "doesn't mean much" as the above poster suggests.
Being that the female body should be 21% fat for optimum health and the body has things like organs, 160 isn't unreasonable if 135 lbs of lean muscle is acceptable at her height, especially if one is using BMI as a measure of health, which most people seem to want to do. Oh, and then there is water weight, which could be affecting the OP as well.0 -
CharlieBeansmom wrote: »time to see the dr about this then. It worries me that its been like this for that long
I have another wellness check coming up, I'll state my concerns then, thanks.0 -
NJGamerChick wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »If you're of muscular build, BMI doesn't mean as much because BMI doesn't take into account musculature. Your muscular weight at 5'5" is different than a lanky (of someone with little muscle) weight of 5'5". This was an issue I had years ago when I was lifting and a BMI of around 27 was considered normal for my frame and musculature.
Your blood sugar is of much concern, however. Was your meter calibrated recently? Was it before or after a meal? If after, how long after?
I was very muscular up until this lol... I was about 159 pounds of mostly muscle when I was a wrestler. so I dont know if that counts as having a muscular build?????
OP, even if you had the MAXIMUM amount of muscle your body could build (with years of strength training and a calorie surplus) the highest amount of muscle you could have naturally (without taking steroids) would be 135lbs of lean body mass.
This means that even if you were bodybuilder level muscular you would have 63 pounds of body fat. Or a body fat percentage of minimum 31% right now. That would still put you in the "overweight" category.
It's unfair to say that BMI is "doesn't mean much" as the above poster suggests.
Being that the female body should be 21% fat for optimum health and the body has things like organs, 160 isn't unreasonable if 135 lbs of lean muscle is acceptable at her height, especially if one is using BMI as a measure of health, which most people seem to want to do.
I don't think you understood my post at all. =/0 -
MY FOOD DIARY IS NOW OPEN FOR SCRUTINY
0 -
According to BMI I was overweight at 5'10" 180. With my 15% body fat I was overweight. My point is don't focus on some health organization's arbitrary classification to measure your success. If your goal is to lose fat not just lose weight look into a high fat low carb style diet. Stay active and don't stress over BMI.0
-
rainbowbow wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »If you're of muscular build, BMI doesn't mean as much because BMI doesn't take into account musculature. Your muscular weight at 5'5" is different than a lanky (of someone with little muscle) weight of 5'5". This was an issue I had years ago when I was lifting and a BMI of around 27 was considered normal for my frame and musculature.
Your blood sugar is of much concern, however. Was your meter calibrated recently? Was it before or after a meal? If after, how long after?
I was very muscular up until this lol... I was about 159 pounds of mostly muscle when I was a wrestler. so I dont know if that counts as having a muscular build?????
OP, even if you had the MAXIMUM amount of muscle your body could build (with years of strength training and a calorie surplus) the highest amount of muscle you could have naturally (without taking steroids) would be 135lbs of lean body mass.
This means that even if you were bodybuilder level muscular you would have 63 pounds of body fat. Or a body fat percentage of minimum 31% right now. That would still put you in the "overweight" category.
It's unfair to say that BMI is "doesn't mean much" as the above poster suggests.
Being that the female body should be 21% fat for optimum health and the body has things like organs, 160 isn't unreasonable if 135 lbs of lean muscle is acceptable at her height, especially if one is using BMI as a measure of health, which most people seem to want to do.
I don't think you understood my post at all. =/
I did. My point is that BMI doesn't take into account musculature. Some women are more muscular than others. Bones weigh different amounts, too. To say BMI is an exact science is a farce. My muscular BMI of 25 will be different than some lanky woman's BMI of 25 of the same height. That is what I'm saying. If she is muscular, it is not unheard of a woman tipping into a higher than the calculated normal max BMI and still being of appropriate body fat. That is what I'm saying.0 -
well I can see you arent getting enough protein. too much sodium and a lot of the time you are under 1000 calories.The aramark thing(Im assuming its the college cafeteria?).I dont think the nutrition facts are accurate.(most food packaging isnt) how do they get nutrition info?0
-
NJGamerChick wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »If you're of muscular build, BMI doesn't mean as much because BMI doesn't take into account musculature. Your muscular weight at 5'5" is different than a lanky (of someone with little muscle) weight of 5'5". This was an issue I had years ago when I was lifting and a BMI of around 27 was considered normal for my frame and musculature.
Your blood sugar is of much concern, however. Was your meter calibrated recently? Was it before or after a meal? If after, how long after?
I was very muscular up until this lol... I was about 159 pounds of mostly muscle when I was a wrestler. so I dont know if that counts as having a muscular build?????
OP, even if you had the MAXIMUM amount of muscle your body could build (with years of strength training and a calorie surplus) the highest amount of muscle you could have naturally (without taking steroids) would be 135lbs of lean body mass.
This means that even if you were bodybuilder level muscular you would have 63 pounds of body fat. Or a body fat percentage of minimum 31% right now. That would still put you in the "overweight" category.
It's unfair to say that BMI is "doesn't mean much" as the above poster suggests.
Being that the female body should be 21% fat for optimum health and the body has things like organs, 160 isn't unreasonable if 135 lbs of lean muscle is acceptable at her height, especially if one is using BMI as a measure of health, which most people seem to want to do.
I don't think you understood my post at all. =/
I did. My point is that BMI doesn't take into account musculature. Some women are more muscular than others. Bones weigh different amounts, too. To say BMI is an exact science is a farce. My muscular BMI of 25 will be different than some lanky woman's BMI of 25 of the same height. That is what I'm saying. If she is muscular, it is not unheard of a woman tipping into a higher than the calculated normal max BMI and still being of appropriate body fat. That is what I'm saying.
I've been exposed to calculating BMI in my health and biology classes but I just dont think I'm Obese because my BMI is 30... I don't have nor am i at risk for diabetes, heart disease, or high blood pressure, and many people were shocked to know that I'm 198-200lbs because I just don't look it.0 -
NJGamerChick wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »If you're of muscular build, BMI doesn't mean as much because BMI doesn't take into account musculature. Your muscular weight at 5'5" is different than a lanky (of someone with little muscle) weight of 5'5". This was an issue I had years ago when I was lifting and a BMI of around 27 was considered normal for my frame and musculature.
Your blood sugar is of much concern, however. Was your meter calibrated recently? Was it before or after a meal? If after, how long after?
I was very muscular up until this lol... I was about 159 pounds of mostly muscle when I was a wrestler. so I dont know if that counts as having a muscular build?????
OP, even if you had the MAXIMUM amount of muscle your body could build (with years of strength training and a calorie surplus) the highest amount of muscle you could have naturally (without taking steroids) would be 135lbs of lean body mass.
This means that even if you were bodybuilder level muscular you would have 63 pounds of body fat. Or a body fat percentage of minimum 31% right now. That would still put you in the "overweight" category.
It's unfair to say that BMI is "doesn't mean much" as the above poster suggests.
Being that the female body should be 21% fat for optimum health and the body has things like organs, 160 isn't unreasonable if 135 lbs of lean muscle is acceptable at her height, especially if one is using BMI as a measure of health, which most people seem to want to do.
I don't think you understood my post at all. =/
I did. My point is that BMI doesn't take into account musculature. Some women are more muscular than others. Bones weigh different amounts, too. To say BMI is an exact science is a farce. My muscular BMI of 25 will be different than some lanky woman's BMI of 25 of the same height. That is what I'm saying. If she is muscular, it is not unheard of a woman tipping into a higher than the calculated normal max BMI and still being of appropriate body fat. That is what I'm saying.
What i'm saying is that 135 is the genetic limit a bodybuilder and serious lifter of YEARS can put on without taking steroids. To think that the average person or sports-goer even comes close to reaching their genetic limit is laughable.
My point was that even assuming she was the MOST MUSCULAR she could ever be, she would STILL have over 30% body fat.
I'm not saying BMI is perfect, it's meant to measure trends and a large number of people. But atleast in this case, it most definitely DID measure accurately that OP is considered overweight.
As far as the general population goes, it's safe to say that BMI can generally estimate whether or not someone is over or underweight.
Regardless, as the math i did above, the body fat % (which MUCH more accurately determines whether or not someone is overweight) i stated is a MINIMUM 30% +.
I hope this explains more thoroughly.0 -
you can still be at risk for diabetes overweight or not as there are 2 types.you can still have heart disease or high blood pressure even if you arent overweight. my hubby has high blood pressure and hes not overweight.
0 -
if your blood sugar is that low all the time then you have some kind of issue with insulin.
0 -
CharlieBeansmom wrote: »you can still be at risk for diabetes overweight or not as there are 2 types.you can still have heart disease or high blood pressure even if you arent overweight. my hubby has high blood pressure and hes not overweight.
That's definitely true, although you are most definitely at a higher risk (of type 2). Type 1 diabetes is different completely.
It's also important to note that they recently released a study that suggested even in people who are currently overweight that do NOT have high blood pressure, diabetes, or heart problems and would otherwise be considered "healthy" cannot maintain that level of health longterm.
In other words, you may be overweight or obese for a number of years without showing signs or symptoms of high blood pressure, diabetes, heart attack, stroke, etc. however, long term you most likely WILL develop these problems.
0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »If you're of muscular build, BMI doesn't mean as much because BMI doesn't take into account musculature. Your muscular weight at 5'5" is different than a lanky (of someone with little muscle) weight of 5'5". This was an issue I had years ago when I was lifting and a BMI of around 27 was considered normal for my frame and musculature.
Your blood sugar is of much concern, however. Was your meter calibrated recently? Was it before or after a meal? If after, how long after?
I was very muscular up until this lol... I was about 159 pounds of mostly muscle when I was a wrestler. so I dont know if that counts as having a muscular build?????
OP, even if you had the MAXIMUM amount of muscle your body could build (with years of strength training and a calorie surplus) the highest amount of muscle you could have naturally (without taking steroids) would be 135lbs of lean body mass.
This means that even if you were bodybuilder level muscular you would have 63 pounds of body fat. Or a body fat percentage of minimum 31% right now. That would still put you in the "overweight" category.
It's unfair to say that BMI is "doesn't mean much" as the above poster suggests.
Being that the female body should be 21% fat for optimum health and the body has things like organs, 160 isn't unreasonable if 135 lbs of lean muscle is acceptable at her height, especially if one is using BMI as a measure of health, which most people seem to want to do.
I don't think you understood my post at all. =/
I did. My point is that BMI doesn't take into account musculature. Some women are more muscular than others. Bones weigh different amounts, too. To say BMI is an exact science is a farce. My muscular BMI of 25 will be different than some lanky woman's BMI of 25 of the same height. That is what I'm saying. If she is muscular, it is not unheard of a woman tipping into a higher than the calculated normal max BMI and still being of appropriate body fat. That is what I'm saying.
What i'm saying is that 135 is the genetic limit a bodybuilder and serious lifter of YEARS can put on without taking steroids. To think that the average person or sports-goer even comes close to reaching their genetic limit is laughable.
My point was that even assuming she was the MOST MUSCULAR she could ever be, she would STILL have over 30% body fat.
I'm not saying BMI is perfect, it's meant to measure trends and a large number of people. But atleast in this case, it most definitely DID measure accurately that OP is considered overweight.
As far as the general population goes, it's safe to say that BMI can generally estimate whether or not someone is over or underweight.
Regardless, as the math i did above, the body fat % (which MUCH more accurately determines whether or not someone is overweight) i stated is a MINIMUM 30% +.
I hope this explains more thoroughly.
I'm not arguing about her current state. I'm saying that as she gets back to her muscular build and gets closer to the normal range, BMI becomes a less accurate measure of weight scale. No more, no less. A BMI of 26 or 27 on a very muscular woman could be considered normal. That is, as always, at her and her doctor's discretion, not ours.0 -
oh.I know that because heart problems do run in his family also but I was just saying he has it and isnt overweight. those things can affect even a thinner person.rainbowbow wrote: »CharlieBeansmom wrote: »you can still be at risk for diabetes overweight or not as there are 2 types.you can still have heart disease or high blood pressure even if you arent overweight. my hubby has high blood pressure and hes not overweight.
That's definitely true, although you are most definitely at a higher risk (of type 2). Type 1 diabetes is different completely.
It's also important to note that they recently released a study that suggested even in people who are currently overweight that do NOT have high blood pressure, diabetes, or heart problems and would otherwise be considered "healthy" cannot maintain that level of health longterm.
In other words, you may be overweight or obese for a number of years without showing signs or symptoms of high blood pressure, diabetes, heart attack, stroke, etc. however, long term you most likely WILL develop these problems.
0 -
CharlieBeansmom wrote: »you can still be at risk for diabetes overweight or not as there are 2 types.you can still have heart disease or high blood pressure even if you arent overweight. my hubby has high blood pressure and hes not overweight.
I don't have high blood pressure, I posted my blood pressure. hypertension doesn't run in my family either.0 -
CharlieBeansmom wrote: »if your blood sugar is that low all the time then you have some kind of issue with insulin.
I'll check up on that.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
- 424 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