After only 3 weeks, I've dropped an entire pound!!! Woo Hoo!!

If someone isn't eating or fueling his or her body properly or exercising properly, he or she can lose much more muscle than would be wanted or expected...but weight loss is a mixture of fat, muscle, and water. How much fat vs how much muscle is dependent on several factors. This is how people end up "skinny fat," so to speak. These are typically the people who didn't exercise their muscles properly or fuel their bodies properly, so they have very little muscle definition or tone since they lost more of their muscle than they desired.

Water weight can be a big factor that masks fat loss, since hard exercise, salt, more carbs than your body is used to, and a variety of other factors can make you retain water even when you don't feel bloated.

In the end, cico is the only thing that WILL work. but how you choose to get there and the many variables in there are all different (your calories out may be lower or higher than what mfp tells you, you may choose to eat "clean" or eat "junk," you can go low-carb or low-fat o whatever floats your boat.) you just have to find what works for you. And if you are just about in your happy weight range and still dislike the way you look, then a body recomp may be the solution. (Lift heavy weights and fuel your body well, and get the lean look you've been searching for! Etc) lol

Well, to be honest, those numbers and calculators worked for me when I was cutting.
I'm 5'10", started at 279. The way I did it was I put in my stats, but I used "desk job" to set a baseline.
Then when MFP gave me credit for exercise calories, I only ate back half of them.

One possibility is that you are not as active as "moderately active". When I went into maintenance, I did indeed need to consume about 2800 cals to hold weight.

But you're right. The numbers that come out of these tools are only a starting point; they are an average of people with comparable stats, but we all vary around that average. You have to build up a couple weeks to a month of your own data, and adjust from there. It helps if you measure your intake with precision. I didn't lose weight for years. It wasn't until I got a food scale and tracked everything that I ingested, before I was successful at this.

You might try getting your metabolism tested. I had mine tested and the test showed that while the average person with my stats should eat about 1700 cals to lose 2lb/week, I should eat between 1550-1650 because of the slower metabolism... Dont know how accurate that is yet (I am just starting out) but maybe it could help you figure out a better starting point.

purelyprimitives wrote: »

At this rate, I'll reach my goal weight in a mere 30 years!

Seriously though, something is clearly not working. This site recommends that I eat 2080 cals/day to loose approximately 1 pound a week which is reasonable. I'm eating well below this amount and not seeing the expected weight-loss. Yes, I record and weight every single thing.

I joined MFP about a year ago and saw some modest weight loss but then ended up gaining it all back eating the same amount of calories.

For me, counting calories does not work.

If 2080 isn't working, try dropping it down by 100 or 200 calories, give it a couple of weeks and re-evaluate.

britishswenglish wrote: »

Don't focus on the number on the scale - weight loss shows itself in different forms, and there are so many variables that go into weighing yourself that it can affect the number shown. For example, the time of day, what you're wearing, how much water you're retaining, etc. all factor into your current weight. If you're exercising it may be that you're gaining weight in muscle at the same time that you're losing weight in fat.

In a few more weeks try on a piece of clothing you haven't worn in a while and see if it fits a bit looser than before. Take a picture of yourself now and one again in two weeks in the same position and see if you notice a difference. On MFP you can also track body measurements such as arm and neck circumference.

Weight loss is a frustrating process at times, and Calorie counting is not for everyone. The most important thing is changing your eating habits for the better. If you stick with it long enough you'll generally feel healthier, and you'll probably notice a difference in how you feel if you slip back into bad eating habits.

If counting Calories is not your thing you could always try a targeted diet that focuses more on what you eat rather than how much of it you eat.

I am a great example of this. I was sooo disappointed in only a 3 lb. weight loss for July. I went shopping for a few new workout shirts and found that in about 2 months I have gone from a size 3X to a 26-28. I was blown away! I kind of thought my clothes were getting baggy. Now I know why. I weigh myself once a month and I have no body scale at home. I weigh at the gym, or at the docs office. I use the results of my loose clothing as my affirmation I am doing the right thing.

mangrothian wrote: »

This might seem like a weird one to add in, but make sure your scale is 1) electronic & 2) not in need of fresh batteries. Every time my scale's battery level gets low, it tends to not show my losses (or tells me my bf% is at 95 like it did this morning).

Also, check your waist circumference. If you've been exercising, depending on how hard your body will hold onto fluid to protect itself whilst it repairs and strengthens up your joints/muscles/ligaments. Your weight might not go down, but if you're not careful, your pants just might do it spontaneously!

lol I agree completely with this. I haven't lost a pound since I've been focusing on lifting heavier weights, but my body measurements are going down fast.

purelyprimitives wrote: »

flatlndr wrote: »

From your profile, I see your age. Can you provide your height, current weight and target weight, so that we can check your suggested calorie targets? You're profile page says you have 40 lbs to lose, but your "30 year" comment seems to indicate you have more to lose. Your current weight will affect your intake numbers.

For example, if you are 5'10" and your current weight is 300 lbs, this calculator says you should target about 2060 cals per day to lose 1 lb a week, but if your current weight is 225 lbs, the intake target drops to just over 1700. (These figures are for sedentary activity level)

Keep in mind that these are just starting points. After you've been at it for a few weeks - including accurate weighing and logging - you may find you need to tweak your targets slightly.

And as you lose weight, you'll need to make further adjustments.

Sure! I'm 5'7" and as of this morning, I'm 234 pounds (gained 2 since yesterday). I would like to get down to 175 which is still considered 'overweight' for my height but that's my personal target. The '30 year' comment was not meant to be taken seriously .

I just went to the calculator you suggested. Using the 20% calorie reduction and moderately active settings, I need to eat 2785 cals/day (!) to maintain my weight and 2228 to lose. I'm currently averaging about 1000 cals/day LESS and still not losing. Seriously, if I ate 2785 cals/day I would be as big as a house which is why I don't put much stock in these 'calculators'.

Losing weight is much more complicated than simply plugging some number in a calculator which I'm sure you will agree. We've all known someone who eats like a horse and doesn't gain an ounce. So there has to be more to it than simply counting calories. Or, perhaps we all predestined by our genetics to be the weight we are regardless of our best efforts.

The trouble is the calculators are all over the place and some of them don't fit people who have a lot to lose that well. If you use the calculator here: http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/ (same site, but Mifflin-St Jeor, which I think is better when you have lots to lose), you get a significantly lower number. (And remember MFP is WITHOUT exercise, so you'd use the sedentary setting to get your MFP number.)

If you use Katch-McArdle it's even better, usually, but you have to know bodyfat. You can see how much variation there is by playing around with different bodyfat levels. So I wouldn't think it was terrible to have a lower goal, more like 1800, perhaps.

That doesn't solve the problem, as you are logging less than that, but figuring out the way to choose accurate entries is another part of this that I see you are getting some tips on.

purelyprimitives wrote: »

peleroja wrote: »

GeeWillickers wrote: »

You have a lot of homemade meals with calorie totals that are suspect to me based on tracking my own calories for years. Are you weighing every single item going into these recipes?

This. Your "meatloaf sandwich" might be made completely differently than the one you chose out of the database. Unless you're creating your own recipes (easy to do on MFP) or logging each (weighed) ingredient separately, you are not counting your calories accurately at all, which is why you're not losing as much as you expect. It is seriously that simple.

Weigh everything solid on a food scale, measure your liquids (including condiments, cooking oil, beverages, etc.) Don't use "homemade" or generic entries from the database unless you've created them yourself in the recipe builder and you know they're correct. Your sandwich, for example, should be entered using the correct brand and weight of bread, measured condiments, and each ingredient that went into the meatloaf (x ounces of ground beef, x eggs, x grams of breadcrumbs, etc etc.) It's harder at first but becomes very simple with practice.

That's a very good point. We eat very little if any prepackaged foods so most of what I eat is freshly made. I've wondered how accurately some things can truly be measured. For instance, if I grill a 4 oz. fresh hamburger patty on the grill and assuming it has a 15% fat content, some of that fat melts off during the cooking so who know how many calories are actually in the hamburger after it cooked. Do you know what I mean?

The other alternative, of course, if you're not going to count calories properly, is to give yourself a much lower deficit (say, 500 or 750 calories lower) and keep estimating, which should give you the same result.

Looking at your logging, it is very obvious that inaccurate counting is the culprit here, not your genetics or your metabolism.

Well, I'm averaging 1200 cals/day if I drop that by 500 it might be tough .

Keep averaging 1200 calories a day, do some exercise, weigh yourself, and see where that goes. I doubt that you're calculating inaccurately but instead suspect a temporary water gain. And do make sure that your calorie count is accurate. You can do this!

purelyprimitives wrote: »

peleroja wrote: »

GeeWillickers wrote: »

You have a lot of homemade meals with calorie totals that are suspect to me based on tracking my own calories for years. Are you weighing every single item going into these recipes?

This. Your "meatloaf sandwich" might be made completely differently than the one you chose out of the database. Unless you're creating your own recipes (easy to do on MFP) or logging each (weighed) ingredient separately, you are not counting your calories accurately at all, which is why you're not losing as much as you expect. It is seriously that simple.

Weigh everything solid on a food scale, measure your liquids (including condiments, cooking oil, beverages, etc.) Don't use "homemade" or generic entries from the database unless you've created them yourself in the recipe builder and you know they're correct. Your sandwich, for example, should be entered using the correct brand and weight of bread, measured condiments, and each ingredient that went into the meatloaf (x ounces of ground beef, x eggs, x grams of breadcrumbs, etc etc.) It's harder at first but becomes very simple with practice.

That's a very good point. We eat very little if any prepackaged foods so most of what I eat is freshly made. I've wondered how accurately some things can truly be measured. For instance, if I grill a 4 oz. fresh hamburger patty on the grill and assuming it has a 15% fat content, some of that fat melts off during the cooking so who know how many calories are actually in the hamburger after it cooked. Do you know what I mean?

The other alternative, of course, if you're not going to count calories properly, is to give yourself a much lower deficit (say, 500 or 750 calories lower) and keep estimating, which should give you the same result.

Looking at your logging, it is very obvious that inaccurate counting is the culprit here, not your genetics or your metabolism.

Well, I'm averaging 1200 cals/day if I drop that by 500 it might be tough .

Just log the whole thing. And find the calories or fat % on the package...

SingRunTing wrote: »

purelyprimitives wrote: »

peleroja wrote: »

GeeWillickers wrote: »

You have a lot of homemade meals with calorie totals that are suspect to me based on tracking my own calories for years. Are you weighing every single item going into these recipes?

This. Your "meatloaf sandwich" might be made completely differently than the one you chose out of the database. Unless you're creating your own recipes (easy to do on MFP) or logging each (weighed) ingredient separately, you are not counting your calories accurately at all, which is why you're not losing as much as you expect. It is seriously that simple.

Weigh everything solid on a food scale, measure your liquids (including condiments, cooking oil, beverages, etc.) Don't use "homemade" or generic entries from the database unless you've created them yourself in the recipe builder and you know they're correct. Your sandwich, for example, should be entered using the correct brand and weight of bread, measured condiments, and each ingredient that went into the meatloaf (x ounces of ground beef, x eggs, x grams of breadcrumbs, etc etc.) It's harder at first but becomes very simple with practice.

That's a very good point. We eat very little if any prepackaged foods so most of what I eat is freshly made. I've wondered how accurately some things can truly be measured. For instance, if I grill a 4 oz. fresh hamburger patty on the grill and assuming it has a 15% fat content, some of that fat melts off during the cooking so who know how many calories are actually in the hamburger after it cooked. Do you know what I mean?

The other alternative, of course, if you're not going to count calories properly, is to give yourself a much lower deficit (say, 500 or 750 calories lower) and keep estimating, which should give you the same result.

Looking at your logging, it is very obvious that inaccurate counting is the culprit here, not your genetics or your metabolism.

Well, I'm averaging 1200 cals/day if I drop that by 500 it might be tough .

This is what's called "majoring in the minors". Basically meaning that you're technically right, but its not worth worrying about. Yes, food packaging is +/- 10% calories, but it all balances out in the end. This is why logging as accurately as possible is so important. There's already error built into the system, don't compound that error by being lazy in your logging.

What DOES matter is the results that you're getting. If you're not losing at the rate you want, you need to tweak things. Step one is always, tighten up your logging. No point in dropping calories, etc, if your logging isn't right.

This. Because if you're not logging accurately then you are not eating "1200 calories". It could be and likely is much more.

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10012907/logging-accuracy-consistency-and-youre-probably-eating-more-than-you-think/

If you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.

ETA: You might also want to check out this video.