1030 cal and not losing! why! ?

Options
1235»

Replies

  • 47Jacqueline
    47Jacqueline Posts: 6,993 Member
    Options
    You evidently are not looking for help. Throughout this post you have rejected everyone's input. There are incredibly helpful people taking time to consider the issue you posted and offer thoughtful, experience based suggestions and observances. It's too bad you cannot use this help.
  • zoelouisegriffin
    zoelouisegriffin Posts: 2
    Options
    At your height you should be eating around 1300-1400 calories to lose weight. Not eating enough stops your metabolism from working properly and you will not lose weight.
  • snowflake954
    snowflake954 Posts: 8,400 Member
    Options
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Just gonna say here that if you're metabolism was "efficient", then burning off 1100 calories at 5'2" shouldn't be an issue. Apparently it is since I have 2 friends at work who are 5'1" and eat well over 1500 calories a day and maintain just fine.
    If you've been eating low cal your whole life, then you more than likely have a lower BMR, less lean muscle and any dieting at all slows your metabolic rate significantly. So realistically if you're not losing at all, you're eating more than you need to to support the metabolic needs you currently have. Which means you're not that efficient metabolically or as you think.
    Add in some physical activity even if it's just walking for 30 minutes a day. Also, ensure you're getting enough rest since fat is burned exclusively at rest. Lack of sleep is a big factor for people who don't lose weight.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png

    Thanks for this Niner. I've been on a stall for a year now and I think it's lack of sleep. I will try it and see. :)
  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,150 Member
    Options
    snowflake954 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Just gonna say here that if you're metabolism was "efficient", then burning off 1100 calories at 5'2" shouldn't be an issue. Apparently it is since I have 2 friends at work who are 5'1" and eat well over 1500 calories a day and maintain just fine.
    If you've been eating low cal your whole life, then you more than likely have a lower BMR, less lean muscle and any dieting at all slows your metabolic rate significantly. So realistically if you're not losing at all, you're eating more than you need to to support the metabolic needs you currently have. Which means you're not that efficient metabolically or as you think.
    Add in some physical activity even if it's just walking for 30 minutes a day. Also, ensure you're getting enough rest since fat is burned exclusively at rest. Lack of sleep is a big factor for people who don't lose weight.


    Thanks for this Niner. I've been on a stall for a year now and I think it's lack of sleep. I will try it and see. :)

    Agree with this! One of my biggest stalls came and since I only catch 3-5 hours a night, after exhausting every other reason, this was the culprit.
  • rosebette
    rosebette Posts: 1,659 Member
    Options
    Liftng4Lis wrote: »
    snowflake954 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Just gonna say here that if you're metabolism was "efficient", then burning off 1100 calories at 5'2" shouldn't be an issue. Apparently it is since I have 2 friends at work who are 5'1" and eat well over 1500 calories a day and maintain just fine.
    If you've been eating low cal your whole life, then you more than likely have a lower BMR, less lean muscle and any dieting at all slows your metabolic rate significantly. So realistically if you're not losing at all, you're eating more than you need to to support the metabolic needs you currently have. Which means you're not that efficient metabolically or as you think.
    Add in some physical activity even if it's just walking for 30 minutes a day. Also, ensure you're getting enough rest since fat is burned exclusively at rest. Lack of sleep is a big factor for people who don't lose weight.


    Thanks for this Niner. I've been on a stall for a year now and I think it's lack of sleep. I will try it and see. :)

    Agree with this! One of my biggest stalls came and since I only catch 3-5 hours a night, after exhausting every other reason, this was the culprit.

    Glad to see this post. My husband has cut his eating considerably this year, but is overworking and sleeping only 3-6 hours per night. I keep telling him adequate sleep is as important as diet and exercise.
  • DawnieB1977
    DawnieB1977 Posts: 4,248 Member
    Options
    Liftng4Lis wrote: »
    snowflake954 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Just gonna say here that if you're metabolism was "efficient", then burning off 1100 calories at 5'2" shouldn't be an issue. Apparently it is since I have 2 friends at work who are 5'1" and eat well over 1500 calories a day and maintain just fine.
    If you've been eating low cal your whole life, then you more than likely have a lower BMR, less lean muscle and any dieting at all slows your metabolic rate significantly. So realistically if you're not losing at all, you're eating more than you need to to support the metabolic needs you currently have. Which means you're not that efficient metabolically or as you think.
    Add in some physical activity even if it's just walking for 30 minutes a day. Also, ensure you're getting enough rest since fat is burned exclusively at rest. Lack of sleep is a big factor for people who don't lose weight.


    Thanks for this Niner. I've been on a stall for a year now and I think it's lack of sleep. I will try it and see. :)

    Agree with this! One of my biggest stalls came and since I only catch 3-5 hours a night, after exhausting every other reason, this was the culprit.

    Well, my 9 month old still wakes in the night. Guess I'm screwed then lol.
  • tephanies1234
    tephanies1234 Posts: 299 Member
    Options
    Hamburgtexan wrote: »
    christinev297 wrote: »
    Your diary has a lot of "servings", cups and spoon measurements. Do you use a food scale?
    I went back to see what you meant with "servings" . I only eat homemade food. Soo I weigh all the ingredients the recipe and divide the finished dish into servings. That is how the serving is measured. So I know the calories are accurate.

    That doesn't sound accurate unless what you're making is homogeneous. For example, if you're making something with meat mixed in, how do you know how much meat you ate versus whatever else is mixed in with it?
  • tonyaliastiger
    tonyaliastiger Posts: 1
    Options
    I have like a 1month in. DEficit caloric and still in the same weight i think i calculate bad so can someone help me im still eating. 2340ckal 234c 175p 78fat 5-10' height 210-pound i have 28 years thx..
  • valeriegeib
    valeriegeib Posts: 3
    edited February 2015
    Options
    If your body really doesnt need more than 1200 calories a day, then in the last 10 days you have only burned 2000 calories below your daily need. That doesnt equal a pound unfortunately. It will eventually catch up, but just take longer. I would switch up your exercise. Your body has become used to your running. Do something different. Walk with some intervals of running. Weight training is a good idea but remember as you build muscle,it weighs more than fat. You may see a weight gain initially but it will work in the long run for you. We have to be in this for the long run. My body is very much like yours. If other people ate like I do, they would be really skinny. It is beyond frustrating and maddening and so not fair! But, we have to keep working it regardless or we will gain weight. The only thing that can ever give us more calories is more muscle so just keep at it! You will win!
  • chesao
    chesao Posts: 11 Member
    Options
    tephanies1234 wrote: »

    That doesn't sound accurate unless what you're making is homogeneous. For example, if you're making something with meat mixed in, how do you know how much meat you ate versus whatever else is mixed in with it?

    How does this matter as long as all servings are consumed at some point? I mean, the calorie count might not be exactly on the button for a single day, but if everything is correct in the recipe entry, then over the week (or half a week, or week and a half or whatever) it will balance out once the number of servings made have been logged.

    You can't be exactly sure about what winds up in anything you make in more than one portion - cookies, stir fry, salads, pizza... If avoiding all non-homogenous premade food entirely and making everything that you eat single-serving is what works for you, that's fine, but imo, it doesn't matter if one is on point down to the calorie every single day, because it will (and does) work out in the long run.

    As long as there's no non-random distribution (picking out all of the M&Ms from trail mix and feeding the rest to your boyfriend, for example), then statistically, even group servings should balance out - sometimes you might have a little bit more or a little bit less than you think, but the standard dev should be a fairly normal curve.
  • rachylouise87
    rachylouise87 Posts: 367 Member
    Options
    rosebette wrote: »
    Liftng4Lis wrote: »
    snowflake954 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Just gonna say here that if you're metabolism was "efficient", then burning off 1100 calories at 5'2" shouldn't be an issue. Apparently it is since I have 2 friends at work who are 5'1" and eat well over 1500 calories a day and maintain just fine.
    If you've been eating low cal your whole life, then you more than likely have a lower BMR, less lean muscle and any dieting at all slows your metabolic rate significantly. So realistically if you're not losing at all, you're eating more than you need to to support the metabolic needs you currently have. Which means you're not that efficient metabolically or as you think.
    Add in some physical activity even if it's just walking for 30 minutes a day. Also, ensure you're getting enough rest since fat is burned exclusively at rest. Lack of sleep is a big factor for people who don't lose weight.


    Thanks for this Niner. I've been on a stall for a year now and I think it's lack of sleep. I will try it and see. :)

    Agree with this! One of my biggest stalls came and since I only catch 3-5 hours a night, after exhausting every other reason, this was the culprit.

    Glad to see this post. My husband has cut his eating considerably this year, but is overworking and sleeping only 3-6 hours per night. I keep telling him adequate sleep is as important as diet and exercise.

    lack of sleep is one of the things which contributes to my stalls... i have a 16 month old who shares a room with us so i have to put up but i agree it doesnt help
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    tephanies1234 wrote: »
    Hamburgtexan wrote: »
    christinev297 wrote: »
    Your diary has a lot of "servings", cups and spoon measurements. Do you use a food scale?
    I went back to see what you meant with "servings" . I only eat homemade food. Soo I weigh all the ingredients the recipe and divide the finished dish into servings. That is how the serving is measured. So I know the calories are accurate.

    That doesn't sound accurate unless what you're making is homogeneous. For example, if you're making something with meat mixed in, how do you know how much meat you ate versus whatever else is mixed in with it?
    What difference does it make, if she's the only one eating it? And if she's not, what recipes with meat are there where different servings have vastly different meat amounts? I mean, ones that an experienced food logger would include the meat in the recipe itself?

  • DawnieB1977
    DawnieB1977 Posts: 4,248 Member
    Options
    rachylouise87 wrote: »
    rosebette wrote: »
    Liftng4Lis wrote: »
    snowflake954 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Just gonna say here that if you're metabolism was "efficient", then burning off 1100 calories at 5'2" shouldn't be an issue. Apparently it is since I have 2 friends at work who are 5'1" and eat well over 1500 calories a day and maintain just fine.
    If you've been eating low cal your whole life, then you more than likely have a lower BMR, less lean muscle and any dieting at all slows your metabolic rate significantly. So realistically if you're not losing at all, you're eating more than you need to to support the metabolic needs you currently have. Which means you're not that efficient metabolically or as you think.
    Add in some physical activity even if it's just walking for 30 minutes a day. Also, ensure you're getting enough rest since fat is burned exclusively at rest. Lack of sleep is a big factor for people who don't lose weight.


    Thanks for this Niner. I've been on a stall for a year now and I think it's lack of sleep. I will try it and see. :)

    Agree with this! One of my biggest stalls came and since I only catch 3-5 hours a night, after exhausting every other reason, this was the culprit.

    Glad to see this post. My husband has cut his eating considerably this year, but is overworking and sleeping only 3-6 hours per night. I keep telling him adequate sleep is as important as diet and exercise.

    lack of sleep is one of the things which contributes to my stalls... i have a 16 month old who shares a room with us so i have to put up but i agree it doesnt help

    Yeah, I don't think it helps, although all three of my children have been bad sleepers and I've still lost weight.

    My baby is teething at the moment and I've done hard personal training sessions on 3 hours broken sleep. I definitely find it harder to work out when I'm that exhausted. I still do it though.
  • TickledPinkTeri
    TickledPinkTeri Posts: 6 Member
    Options
    Hamburgtexan wrote: »
    I've been eating quite on target. I've always known that I have a frustratingly efficient metabolism. But I don't understand how I can not be losing weight with what I eat! ?
    I would be thankful for some constructive input! Thanks

  • TickledPinkTeri
    TickledPinkTeri Posts: 6 Member
    edited February 2015
    Options
    Why is it that at 5'4.5" and 220 lbs I was MFP had me at 1200 to loose 2 lbs a week. My trainer said to go between 1200-1500 depending On my exercise. Well not with the update MFP has me at 1030 calories and that's too low. Even MFP says not to go under 1200. What's going on? Anyone else have this issue? Have a great
  • astrose00
    astrose00 Posts: 754 Member
    Options
    Liftng4Lis wrote: »
    snowflake954 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Just gonna say here that if you're metabolism was "efficient", then burning off 1100 calories at 5'2" shouldn't be an issue. Apparently it is since I have 2 friends at work who are 5'1" and eat well over 1500 calories a day and maintain just fine.
    If you've been eating low cal your whole life, then you more than likely have a lower BMR, less lean muscle and any dieting at all slows your metabolic rate significantly. So realistically if you're not losing at all, you're eating more than you need to to support the metabolic needs you currently have. Which means you're not that efficient metabolically or as you think.
    Add in some physical activity even if it's just walking for 30 minutes a day. Also, ensure you're getting enough rest since fat is burned exclusively at rest. Lack of sleep is a big factor for people who don't lose weight.


    Thanks for this Niner. I've been on a stall for a year now and I think it's lack of sleep. I will try it and see. :)

    Agree with this! One of my biggest stalls came and since I only catch 3-5 hours a night, after exhausting every other reason, this was the culprit.

    I think this is my biggest issue as well. On weekends, I get to catch up on sleep and that's when most of good things happen (debloating, weight loss, muscle repair, etc.).
  • astrose00
    astrose00 Posts: 754 Member
    Options
    tephanies1234 wrote: »
    Hamburgtexan wrote: »
    christinev297 wrote: »
    Your diary has a lot of "servings", cups and spoon measurements. Do you use a food scale?
    I went back to see what you meant with "servings" . I only eat homemade food. Soo I weigh all the ingredients the recipe and divide the finished dish into servings. That is how the serving is measured. So I know the calories are accurate.

    That doesn't sound accurate unless what you're making is homogeneous. For example, if you're making something with meat mixed in, how do you know how much meat you ate versus whatever else is mixed in with it?

    This is why I usually make only one or two servings at a time and the food is fairly simple and deconstructed. I weigh my meats before cooking. If I make two servings, I will then weigh the cooked meat and split in half. I stay away from making more than one serving of stews or soups that can't be easily split. BUT I will say that if she is consuming the entire dish within a day or a week, then it should all even itself out over that time period.

    OP seems pretty convincing in that she is measuring correctly. I think the culprit may be the amount of exercise and a slower metabolism, in combination. I think people really overestimate their exercise calories burned. I see some folks log 1700 calories from walking leisurely for 2 hours. I don't think so. I wish, but uh-uh.

Categories