Is it just my age? Too many calories? What gives?

It's not your age, I'm 44 and I'm losing. It MIGHT not be too many calories or carbs, but it could be how you're measuring/counting your calories. It also could be your 2lb goal is too aggressive. Are you using a food scale to measure/weigh all foods and drinks?

Also, it could be unrealistic expectations. In 26 days you've lost 6 lbs, that's good. You need to have patience.

6lb/week is not a realistic goal for anyone.

2lb/week is only a realistic goal for big people (you don't qualify).

1lb/week is probably a realistic fast goal for you, 0.5lb/week would be easier.

If you want to follow the MFP method and want to lose as quickly as possible, set your goal to 1lb/week and lightly active. That should give you ~1315 calories/day and eat back your exercise calories.

The fact that MFP has given you 1200 calories (the lowest it will go for a female) is a good indicator that you're trying to lose too much too quickly. If you only have 15-20 pounds to lose, 2 pounds per week isn't feasible for the long term. Here's a good guideline, including the amount of calories that your daily calorie burn will need to be under how many you eat, in order to reach that goal:

Pound per week goals
75+ lbs set to lose 2 lb range (-1000 calories per day)
Between 40 - 75 lbs set to lose 1.5 lb range (-750 calories per day)
Between 25-40 lbs set to lose 1 lb range (-750 calories per day)
Between 15-25 lbs set to lose 1 -.50 lb range (-500 to -250 calories per day)
Less than 15 lbs set to lose 0.5 lbs range (-250 calories per day)

As you can see, to lose 2 pounds per week you need to be eating 1000 calories per day fewer than your body burns. If you don't have a lot to lose it's pretty hard, if not impossible, to meet the 1000 calorie deficit unless you are spending hours at the gym. What all of this means is that even if you set MFP for 2 pounds per week, if you aren't reaching that 1000 calorie deficit daily you aren't actually going to lose that much because you aren't creating the necessary calorie deficit.

Since you don't want to under-eat so much that you lose excessive amounts of lean muscle mass along with the fat, change your goal to 1 or .5 pound per week, eat a little more and lose pounds in a way that's going to leave you more healthy when you're done.

8.5 lb fat (not water) loss / week requires a daily deficit of greater than 4000 calories. Obviously impossible, regardless of your age and even if you fasted for a week. Whatever you were losing before, it wasn't fat.

2 Lbs per week is extremely aggressive for needing to only lose 15 Lbs or so...2 Lbs per week + is generally reserved for very overweight - obese individuals.

if you lose 6 Lbs in a week, keep in mind that most of that is water and is pretty typical in the beginning, particularly when you substantially cut calories...you drop a lot of glycogen fast.

you are currently at a more modest calorie deficit which is a good thing and will preserve lean mass...this is also why you likely have not seen the big drop in water weight...you aren't severely restricting calories...but you're restricting them enough to basically lose 6 Lbs in just shy of a month...which is well on pace for a bit over 1 Lb per week which is generally considered pretty healthy weight loss.

keep in mind also that it will slow...I did a bulk cycle over the winter and put on 10 Lbs...it took me roughly 3-4 months to take it off...the first month I dropped quick...like 5 Lbs really easy...the remaining 5 Lbs took me about 2.5 months or so.

keep you expectations in check...this isn't "reality" t.v.

shellfab wrote: »

Thanks for your responses. I am measuring and weighing food, so I am getting an accurate count of calories. I know I am not patient, because I have always lost so fast! I did lose 3.4 the first week and then 2.4 the second and 1.2 the third. I guess I am hoping for unrealistic weightloss. I have had 8.5 losses in one week, eating healthy...but that was when I was much younger. I was hoping to start of the school year down 15 lbs. Oh well, at least my arms aren't flabby anymore. I have guns! I will keep doing what I am doing and hopefully I will get there by my February vacation to Florida.

You are losing at an amazing rate giving your starting rate. Any time you lose 8.5 pounds in a week, most of that is going to be water anyway.

Couple of items I noticed from your post.
In the past you said you went low carb. Well in one week, on a low carb diet, most of that 6lbs you lost is water weight. One high carb day can send my weight up 3-4lbs. Only take a few days more of "back on track" to get back down.
5 weeks (~26 days) you've dropped 6lbs. That's not bad at all. It might not be as fast as you want it to but it's steady and, odds are, you're seeing actual fat loss instead of just water weight.
I'd say keep at it.

shellfab wrote: »

Thanks for your responses. I am measuring and weighing food, so I am getting an accurate count of calories. I know I am not patient, because I have always lost so fast! I did lose 3.4 the first week and then 2.4 the second and 1.2 the third. I guess I am hoping for unrealistic weightloss. I have had 8.5 losses in one week, eating healthy...but that was when I was much younger. I was hoping to start of the school year down 15 lbs. Oh well, at least my arms aren't flabby anymore. I have guns! I will keep doing what I am doing and hopefully I will get there by my February vacation to Florida.

It takes a 3500 calorie deficit to lose a pound of fat and it's highly unlikely that you actually ate 11,900 calories fewer than you burned that first week. Much of early weight loss is water and it's typical when someone goes on a diet because the foods that are being eaten change, usually resulting in a smaller sodium intake (and sodium holds water).

Here's the thing... if you've typically lost weight by crash dieting, and you've done it several times during your life, your metabolism is now slower than when you were younger at the same weight. Unless you were strength training in a progressive program of lifting heavy weights as you were dieting, you likely lost a significant amount of muscle mass each time you dropped pounds while eating 1200 calories a day. Each time that happened, your metabolism would be slightly lower the next time you were at that same weight because you lost muscle and replaced it with fat when you regained the weight. Doing this over and over results in a body with a higher body fat percentage that burns less calories as you get older.

shellfab wrote: »

Thanks for your responses. I am measuring and weighing food, so I am getting an accurate count of calories. I know I am not patient, because I have always lost so fast! I did lose 3.4 the first week and then 2.4 the second and 1.2 the third. I guess I am hoping for unrealistic weightloss. I have had 8.5 losses in one week, eating healthy...but that was when I was much younger. I was hoping to start of the school year down 15 lbs. Oh well, at least my arms aren't flabby anymore. I have guns! I will keep doing what I am doing and hopefully I will get there by my February vacation to Florida.

In rsponse to, "I know I am not patient, because I have always lost so fast!"
It seems you have always gained it back, though. Maybe losing fast isn't the goal you want to work towards; maybe losing for good is. If so, then 0.5 pound a week lost is probably ideal. One pound a week is probably doable, but a bit harder to sustain, in my opinion. Six pounds a week? That sounds hellish. No wonder you always gained the weight back; you used unsustainable methods to lose.

In response to, "I guess I am hoping for unrealistic weight loss."
I would have to agree.

Your body is you -- why would you treat yourself poorly by starving yourself (I refuse to believe you lost 8.5 pounds "eating helthy." You may have chosen healthy foods for what little you ate and lost a good chunk of water weight in the process, but you also ate at a severe calorie deficit if even half of that was fat and muscle, and that is not healthy no matter how good the quality of the little food you ate).

Fifteen pounds by February sounds doable. Fifteen pounds by September -- please don't try that.

You haven't 'lost weight successfully many times' if you're here with 20 pounds to lose... again.

What you need to ask yourself is why you gained weight back every time, and figure out what to do in order to avoid gaining the weight back again.

From your post, it would seem it's because you're doing fad diets instead of finding something that you can stick to. Why in the world would you do something like calorie cycling if you have an history of not being able to stick to fad diets in the first place?

Find something sustainable. For most people, calorie cycling isn't it. Eating less of what you normally eat is probably your best bet. Count calories, eat less than you burn, lose weight. Then eat as much as you burn to maintain... not more.

And no, it's not your age. And losing 2 pounds a week is completely unrealistic, try half a pound a week. Plus weight loss isn't linear, some weeks you won't lose, some days you'll gain some water weight.

shellfab wrote: »

Why would you consider calorie cycling a fad diet? It is a calorie deficit with healthy habits.

But it is not working for you. Select .5 pound a week for weight loss, use a food scale, select the right foods from the data base and lift weights add a little cardio. Lots of successful people using this method.

shellfab wrote: »

Good morning all. I have never used the chat feature myself but have read various threads. I am a seasoned "dieter" and have lost weight successfully many times. Weight watchers has always worked for me and I was a lifetime member at one point (I guess I still am..) Anyway, I have done low carb and been successful as well. Last summer I lost about 9 lbs. in a relatively short amount of time doing low carb. Over the past year I have gained again, mainly due to stress and eating garbage.

So, here is my main question. 26 days ago, I started using MFP and an doing an exercise regime. I have never being one to workout in the past. Most of my weightloss was diet alone. I have been doing strength and cardio, working out in some way 4-6 days a week. I have also been calorie cycling. According to the website I found, my cycle is 1486,1486,1208,1783,1486,1337,1635. According to MFP to lose 2 lbs a week I should be eating 1200. I am 5'3", 35 years old, and 150 lbs. I would like to lose 15-20 lbs. So far, during my new routine, I have only lost 6 lbs. I can usually lose this in a week. Is it just my age? Or too many calories? Or the fact that I am eating real food (including carbs?) I am more noticibly toned, so that is nice, but the scale is not moving. In fact, I am up .5 lbs since Monday and yesterday was a low calorie day.

You lost 6 pounds in 26 days?

Congratulations! You're doing everything just right.

First, you're eating at a calorie deficit, which is essential to lose weight.

Secondly, you're doing things that work for you and make your life easier, but which are not essential to weight loss: calorie cycling and exercising.

Have some patience and get used to the fact that weight loss is not linear, weight fluctuates, and you are trying to make lifestyle changes not win a race. The journey is what weight loss is all about, because once you reach goal you still will not be able to eat the way you did before if you want to maintain.

Oh, for God's sake. 35? It's not your age.

SLLRunner wrote: »

I'm going to be a bit of a 's advocate here and suggest that the carb cycling is not a fad but simply a way that some people like to do their individual diet, same as some people like to do low carb or other types of diet. It's just a way people vary their eating.

I just don't get in her post where she advocates carb cycling as magic. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

She's not carb cycling, she's calorie cycling, varying her calories each day. But you're right, nothing faddish about it, just a way some people do their deficit.