What am I doing wrong?
Options
Replies
-
Apologies if it wasn't clear.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think it's fair to say that that's not at all clear from your original post. And a legit 1600 is possibly above her TDEE, depending on her exercise burns.TwentyLosingTwenty wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Underpinning all of that is correct knowledge of how much she's actually eating, though. 1200 is clearly too aggressive but "eat more" in the face of already gaining 10 pounds probably isn't a good first step. I think she first needs to get a really good handle on what she's actually eating and then determine what deficit is feasible from there.TwentyLosingTwenty wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »TwentyLosingTwenty wrote: »I'm 5'1, 121lbs and eat 1200-1400 calories a day! Try 1400-1600 and see if you can lose!
Weigh everything... The only time I will skip weighing is occasionally with a stick of celery, but I tend to over compensate by putting 2 stalks instead of 1!
Being hungry comes with losing weight I'm afraid...
If she's not losing at 1200-1300, she won't lose at 1400-1600.
She's already implied that she's not really sticking to 1200.... She said she's too hungry and binges.
I'm trying to advise if she had a little more food she might be able to resist those binges.
But I'm suggesting "have a bigger calorie budget" not "eat more"???
If 1400 calories was more than she's 'literally' eating then she couldn't have gained weight... 1400 is just more than she's aiming and failing to eat right now...
I doubt it... 1600 isn't above mine when I'm sedentary. As I say I'm her height so it would be a huge surprise to me if with the exercise she's doing she's somehow burning no calories. I'm sure to you TDEE below 1600 seemed possible, but I was just using the knowledge I already had
0 -
I agree with weighing food, too. It's a huge help. I used to just eyeball and measure everything, and it turns out that I was actually eating at maintenance and not losing or gaining. Once I got a food scale and started weighing everything, I started losing again.
Also, I see you mentioned that you're hungry. This can be due to too little calories, as @DeguelloTex pointed out. Less calories does not necessarily mean more...it just means less food=hangry. How many grams of fat, protein and carbs are you eating daily? I find that a high protein high fat diet does the trick for me, but ymmv of course.
Which can happen if food hasn't been weighed. Even pre-packaged 'set weight' food and portions can be off on weight. Weigh everything, even if the serving sizes tell you a serving is a certain weight.... eg, 35 cheesies may not equal to 40g of cheesies.Yep. 1200-1300 is my given goal for losing. Since I'm so damn short I'm supposed to weigh 95-115. Last time I weighed 115 I was 18 years old and worked out five hours a day. Sorry, I just don't have a spare 5 hours now to devote.
I'm 5'3" and 116.5 pounds. I started here at the end of June at 139 pounds. I'm also 30 years old. I workout for a half hour or so most days of the week. I've lost weight on much more than 1,200 calories per day. You don't have to exercise five hours per day or eat "clean". You're not losing weight because you're eating too much. You're eating above your maintenance.0 -
TDEE for 5'1", 160, 34, female, at sedentary, is 1570. There's a certain amount of movement built in to that sedentary number and if someone moves less than the average, even 1570 will overstate TDEE. Even if 1570 is completely accurate, an intake of 1600 is very, very close to TDEE and leaves little room for logging mistakes and the rate of loss will likely be very slow, even if logging is perfect.TwentyLosingTwenty wrote: »
Apologies if it wasn't clear.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think it's fair to say that that's not at all clear from your original post. And a legit 1600 is possibly above her TDEE, depending on her exercise burns.TwentyLosingTwenty wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Underpinning all of that is correct knowledge of how much she's actually eating, though. 1200 is clearly too aggressive but "eat more" in the face of already gaining 10 pounds probably isn't a good first step. I think she first needs to get a really good handle on what she's actually eating and then determine what deficit is feasible from there.TwentyLosingTwenty wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »TwentyLosingTwenty wrote: »I'm 5'1, 121lbs and eat 1200-1400 calories a day! Try 1400-1600 and see if you can lose!
Weigh everything... The only time I will skip weighing is occasionally with a stick of celery, but I tend to over compensate by putting 2 stalks instead of 1!
Being hungry comes with losing weight I'm afraid...
If she's not losing at 1200-1300, she won't lose at 1400-1600.
She's already implied that she's not really sticking to 1200.... She said she's too hungry and binges.
I'm trying to advise if she had a little more food she might be able to resist those binges.
But I'm suggesting "have a bigger calorie budget" not "eat more"???
If 1400 calories was more than she's 'literally' eating then she couldn't have gained weight... 1400 is just more than she's aiming and failing to eat right now...
I doubt it... 1600 isn't above mine when I'm sedentary. As I say I'm her height so it would be a huge surprise to me if with the exercise she's doing she's somehow burning no calories. I'm sure to you TDEE below 1600 seemed possible, but I was just using the knowledge I already had0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
TDEE for 5'1", 160, 34, female, at sedentary, is 1570. There's a certain amount of movement built in to that sedentary number and if someone moves less than the average, even 1570 will overstate TDEE. Even if 1570 is completely accurate, an intake of 1600 is very, very close to TDEE and leaves little room for logging mistakes and the rate of loss will likely be very slow, even if logging is perfect.TwentyLosingTwenty wrote: »
Apologies if it wasn't clear.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think it's fair to say that that's not at all clear from your original post. And a legit 1600 is possibly above her TDEE, depending on her exercise burns.TwentyLosingTwenty wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Underpinning all of that is correct knowledge of how much she's actually eating, though. 1200 is clearly too aggressive but "eat more" in the face of already gaining 10 pounds probably isn't a good first step. I think she first needs to get a really good handle on what she's actually eating and then determine what deficit is feasible from there.TwentyLosingTwenty wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »TwentyLosingTwenty wrote: »I'm 5'1, 121lbs and eat 1200-1400 calories a day! Try 1400-1600 and see if you can lose!
Weigh everything... The only time I will skip weighing is occasionally with a stick of celery, but I tend to over compensate by putting 2 stalks instead of 1!
Being hungry comes with losing weight I'm afraid...
If she's not losing at 1200-1300, she won't lose at 1400-1600.
She's already implied that she's not really sticking to 1200.... She said she's too hungry and binges.
I'm trying to advise if she had a little more food she might be able to resist those binges.
But I'm suggesting "have a bigger calorie budget" not "eat more"???
If 1400 calories was more than she's 'literally' eating then she couldn't have gained weight... 1400 is just more than she's aiming and failing to eat right now...
I doubt it... 1600 isn't above mine when I'm sedentary. As I say I'm her height so it would be a huge surprise to me if with the exercise she's doing she's somehow burning no calories. I'm sure to you TDEE below 1600 seemed possible, but I was just using the knowledge I already had
My mistake! Forgot to consider her age! I'm such a bonehead hahaha! It's just so easy to see stats similar to your own and make dumb assumptions!
I do still think she needs to increase her calorie budget - slow loss is far better than gaining 10lbs remember!0 -
Tighten up your logging. I preplan and pre-log everything the day before so I just use the scale to weigh out the portions I already chose. That also means I know how every meal fits into the overall plan for the day.
I agree about being less aggressive on the weight loss - a smaller deficit that you can actually stick to is better than a bigger one you regularly fail to meet.
None of the clean eating is necessary or relevant to weight loss - it's bad portions, not bad foods that make us overweight. As long as you eat sensibly there's no need to go crazy on clean eating.0 -
I need to lose as fast as possible. I'm 34, and the older I get the harder it's going to be.
I lost 65 pounds over the course of 23 months, starting shortly before I turned 45 and ending when I was 47. My largest rate of loss was 1.1 pounds per week for the first six months.
For the first three weeks, I was hungry a lot of the time: as in, hunger pangs in my belly. After that, the hunger got much more manageable. I don't know whether that was due to psychological adaptation to the effects of a calorie deficit, or to physiological adaptations such as producing more fat-metabolizing enzymes, but whatever the cause, it was a lot easier to stick to my target after that.
I also got used to eating smaller meals. These days my typical breakfast is 200-300 calories; lunch is 300-400. Now that I'm maintaining, I do eat a larger dinner, and usually a late afternoon snack, but I still don't eat much before the evening. When I started, 400 calories wouldn't leave me feeling full, but now they do, especially if there are a lot of veggies.0 -
I need to lose as fast as possible. I'm 34, and the older I get the harder it's going to be.
Well, wanting to lose as fast as possible is going to result in very low calorie goals, which lead to hunger and potential binges. As backwards as it may sound, slower weight loss can actually be FASTER if you're prone to binges when you try to eat 1,200 calories. It's certainly much easier and fun.0 -
OP, for context I am older than you (36), a bit taller than you (5'4), and currently maintaining at 111. I started around 160.
I began at 1,200 because I also put in that I wanted to lose 2 pounds a week. Who wouldn't, right? But I was hungry and I didn't feel very good. I began hanging out on the forums and reading posts by people who had great success and I saw that they all seemed to recommend eating more than I was eating. So I adjusted my weight loss goals and began eating back a portion of my exercise calories (25-75%). The weight continued coming off, just a bit slower. But it felt like an actual way of life that I could sustain instead of a death march. My workouts felt fun and energizing, not like my battery was being drained. I stopped thinking about food all the time. I was hungry right before meals, but not an hour after eating.
If you get a handle on what you're actually consuming (that probably means weighing and logging consistently), you likely will be able to lose weight on more than a goal of 1,200.0 -
Don't overcomplicate this for yourself OP, "clean" eating and skipping fast food and all that are complications you CHOOSE to engage in for HEALTH, not for weight loss. Just get your logging down pat. Make it flawless, even if you blow off trying to meet your goal for a week. Just focus on getting great at logging, using a scale and measuring well, and picking the correct logs in the database. When you get great at that, I'm sure you'll find sticking to whatever caloric deficit (1200/1400) will be much easier. Here's a good starting point for figuring out the logging and making it near-perfect as you can.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1234699/logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1296011/calorie-counting-101/p1
Log well, eat within, then losing weight becomes a math problem. EASY. Then once you're sustainably losing, add in those things that make you feel like you're meeting your HEALTH goals. Skipping fast food, not my cup of coffee, but if you so desire. At the beginning, for the sake of your emotional well being and motivation, I highly suggest just getting the calorie counting right, then you'll be free to focus on health related stuff like macros etc and it will be easy to fit that in, instead of trying to dive head first into it, consider the baby-steps route. It's the happier road.0 -
Well... logging gets easier over time, and it sounds like NOT logging isn't working for you. Do you use the tare function on your scale? When I cook I follow this procedure:
Get a pad of paper and write down all the ingredients I will use
Get out my food scale and a bowl
Put bowl on food scale and turn on
Weigh first ingredient, write down the grams on the ingredients list
Tare the scale (zero out)
Weigh next ingredient, write down the grams
Etc.
Sometimes I'll use more than one bowl... sometimes I'll start cooking before a complete mise en place
Then when I'm done there are two options, I can split into portions (for example, make 4 servings). If I cook quite a lot of one thing, I'll usually weigh the entire end product and then in the recipe I'll do 1 serving for every 100g (so if I had 1,250g of end product I would put 12.5 servings). Then I can just weight out portions just like I would do for a regular item that has a 100g option.
I use this information to create a recipe. In the future I can follow the same recipe or edit it to match differences in how I cook.
Yes, this probably does add about 5 minutes or so of time but to me it's worth it.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »Don't overcomplicate this for yourself OP, "clean" eating and skipping fast food and all that are complications you CHOOSE to engage in for HEALTH, not for weight loss. Just get your logging down pat. Make it flawless, even if you blow off trying to meet your goal for a week. Just focus on getting great at logging, using a scale and measuring well, and picking the correct logs in the database. When you get great at that, I'm sure you'll find sticking to whatever caloric deficit (1200/1400) will be much easier. Here's a good starting point for figuring out the logging and making it near-perfect as you can.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1234699/logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1296011/calorie-counting-101/p1
Log well, eat within, then losing weight becomes a math problem. EASY. Then once you're sustainably losing, add in those things that make you feel like you're meeting your HEALTH goals. Skipping fast food, not my cup of coffee, but if you so desire. At the beginning, for the sake of your emotional well being and motivation, I highly suggest just getting the calorie counting right, then you'll be free to focus on health related stuff like macros etc and it will be easy to fit that in, instead of trying to dive head first into it, consider the baby-steps route. It's the happier road.
Great post. I wish I had seen it described like this when I began using this site.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »Don't overcomplicate this for yourself OP, "clean" eating and skipping fast food and all that are complications you CHOOSE to engage in for HEALTH, not for weight loss. Just get your logging down pat. Make it flawless, even if you blow off trying to meet your goal for a week. Just focus on getting great at logging, using a scale and measuring well, and picking the correct logs in the database. When you get great at that, I'm sure you'll find sticking to whatever caloric deficit (1200/1400) will be much easier. Here's a good starting point for figuring out the logging and making it near-perfect as you can.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1234699/logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1296011/calorie-counting-101/p1
Log well, eat within, then losing weight becomes a math problem. EASY. Then once you're sustainably losing, add in those things that make you feel like you're meeting your HEALTH goals. Skipping fast food, not my cup of coffee, but if you so desire. At the beginning, for the sake of your emotional well being and motivation, I highly suggest just getting the calorie counting right, then you'll be free to focus on health related stuff like macros etc and it will be easy to fit that in, instead of trying to dive head first into it, consider the baby-steps route. It's the happier road.
Great post. I wish I had seen it described like this when I began using this site.
Thank you. I really have NOTHING against choosing to cut foods out or "clean" eating or whatever people feel they want to do. If those things are someone's goals, that's super, I'm there. But it's got to take place in steps, and CICO has to be accomplished first or the rest just compiles to create this monstrosity that scares people off of even trying... I don't want to lose anyone altogether for the sake of some extra greens.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »Don't overcomplicate this for yourself OP, "clean" eating and skipping fast food and all that are complications you CHOOSE to engage in for HEALTH, not for weight loss. Just get your logging down pat. Make it flawless, even if you blow off trying to meet your goal for a week. Just focus on getting great at logging, using a scale and measuring well, and picking the correct logs in the database. When you get great at that, I'm sure you'll find sticking to whatever caloric deficit (1200/1400) will be much easier. Here's a good starting point for figuring out the logging and making it near-perfect as you can.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1234699/logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1296011/calorie-counting-101/p1
Log well, eat within, then losing weight becomes a math problem. EASY. Then once you're sustainably losing, add in those things that make you feel like you're meeting your HEALTH goals. Skipping fast food, not my cup of coffee, but if you so desire. At the beginning, for the sake of your emotional well being and motivation, I highly suggest just getting the calorie counting right, then you'll be free to focus on health related stuff like macros etc and it will be easy to fit that in, instead of trying to dive head first into it, consider the baby-steps route. It's the happier road.
Great post. I wish I had seen it described like this when I began using this site.
Thank you. I really have NOTHING against choosing to cut foods out or "clean" eating or whatever people feel they want to do. If those things are someone's goals, that's super, I'm there. But it's got to take place in steps, and CICO has to be accomplished first or the rest just compiles to create this monstrosity that scares people off of even trying... I don't want to lose anyone altogether for the sake of some extra greens.
Exactly. It's HARD to change everything at once. If your primary goal is weight loss, it just makes sense to first focus on the changes that will help you meet that goal and then begin to work in other goals once you get to habit strength with things like logging and meeting calorie goals.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »Don't overcomplicate this for yourself OP, "clean" eating and skipping fast food and all that are complications you CHOOSE to engage in for HEALTH, not for weight loss. Just get your logging down pat. Make it flawless, even if you blow off trying to meet your goal for a week. Just focus on getting great at logging, using a scale and measuring well, and picking the correct logs in the database. When you get great at that, I'm sure you'll find sticking to whatever caloric deficit (1200/1400) will be much easier. Here's a good starting point for figuring out the logging and making it near-perfect as you can.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1234699/logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1296011/calorie-counting-101/p1
Log well, eat within, then losing weight becomes a math problem. EASY. Then once you're sustainably losing, add in those things that make you feel like you're meeting your HEALTH goals. Skipping fast food, not my cup of coffee, but if you so desire. At the beginning, for the sake of your emotional well being and motivation, I highly suggest just getting the calorie counting right, then you'll be free to focus on health related stuff like macros etc and it will be easy to fit that in, instead of trying to dive head first into it, consider the baby-steps route. It's the happier road.
Great post. I wish I had seen it described like this when I began using this site.
Thank you. I really have NOTHING against choosing to cut foods out or "clean" eating or whatever people feel they want to do. If those things are someone's goals, that's super, I'm there. But it's got to take place in steps, and CICO has to be accomplished first or the rest just compiles to create this monstrosity that scares people off of even trying... I don't want to lose anyone altogether for the sake of some extra greens.
Exactly. It's HARD to change everything at once. If your primary goal is weight loss, it just makes sense to first focus on the changes that will help you meet that goal and then begin to work in other goals once you get to habit strength with things like logging and meeting calorie goals.
Heck if your primary goal is to go win an Olympic Gold Medal and you're overweight you have to start with CICO first... well put0 -
Sorry, but I don't understand all the abbreviations everywhere. Hard to keep up when I don't know what's being said.0
-
Sorry, but I don't understand all the abbreviations everywhere. Hard to keep up when I don't know what's being said.
Which ones don't you understand? We can probably explain. CICO is "Calories in, calories out." It's a shorthand way of describing how we lose weight -- making our calories in less consistently less than our calories out.0 -
And TDEE? What is that?0
-
And TDEE? What is that?
"Total Daily Energy Expenditure." It's a way to describe all the calories you use in a day between sleeping, regular activities (like your job or hobbies), exercise, and what your body burns just by living. If your calories consumed are consistently below your TDEE, you will lose weight.0 -
And TDEE? What is that?
TDEE stands for Total Daily Energy Expenditure. It's the number of calories you would have to consume to just stay at the exact weight you are right now. It takes into account the calories your body needs to run your heart, lungs, organs, digestion. It accounts for the calories that run your daily-activities, like standing up and sitting down and bending over to pick this or that up. AND your exercise, IF you exercise regularly.0 -
girlviernes wrote: »Well... logging gets easier over time, and it sounds like NOT logging isn't working for you. Do you use the tare function on your scale? When I cook I follow this procedure:
Get a pad of paper and write down all the ingredients I will use
Get out my food scale and a bowl
Put bowl on food scale and turn on
Weigh first ingredient, write down the grams on the ingredients list
Tare the scale (zero out)
Weigh next ingredient, write down the grams
Etc.
Sometimes I'll use more than one bowl... sometimes I'll start cooking before a complete mise en place
Then when I'm done there are two options, I can split into portions (for example, make 4 servings). If I cook quite a lot of one thing, I'll usually weigh the entire end product and then in the recipe I'll do 1 serving for every 100g (so if I had 1,250g of end product I would put 12.5 servings). Then I can just weight out portions just like I would do for a regular item that has a 100g option.
I use this information to create a recipe. In the future I can follow the same recipe or edit it to match differences in how I cook.
Yes, this probably does add about 5 minutes or so of time but to me it's worth it.
This is really good advice. I approach it similarly, and it doesn't add much time to the cooking process to note down the numbers and then log everything.
Also, as others have said, logging is a hassle at first as you need to find the correct entries. After you've logged a few days or a week it gets easier and easier.
On the age thing, I'm 45 and started losing at 44, and it wasn't a problem. I think it's MUCH easier to pick a number you can stick with consistently, even if it's a slower loss, than continually failing and getting discouraged, and you get there faster in the long run. And once you start losing it feels great -- you don't have to wait until you get to goal to start feeling the benefits.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 398 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 975 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions