In a deficit but very little weight loss
gettingto65
Posts: 78 Member
Hi,
So I am looking to lose around 60lbs and was aiming for 1500 calories a day which would give me a deficit of 600 a day down from my 2100 TDEE. I've actually been eating closer to 1200/1300 the past few weeks purely out of not being hungry/filling up on low cal veges.
I've even been overestimating my calorie amounts.
In three weeks I've lost 1.1lb.
Where am I going wrong?? I drink 2-3L water daily, eat a lot of veges and not a lot of wheat and have cut down on processed food massively.
I don't intend to eat consistently at 1300 and want to bump it up to 1500 but also don't want to eat when not hungry.
Any tips or suggestions as to why I'm not losing much?
Thanks! X
So I am looking to lose around 60lbs and was aiming for 1500 calories a day which would give me a deficit of 600 a day down from my 2100 TDEE. I've actually been eating closer to 1200/1300 the past few weeks purely out of not being hungry/filling up on low cal veges.
I've even been overestimating my calorie amounts.
In three weeks I've lost 1.1lb.
Where am I going wrong?? I drink 2-3L water daily, eat a lot of veges and not a lot of wheat and have cut down on processed food massively.
I don't intend to eat consistently at 1300 and want to bump it up to 1500 but also don't want to eat when not hungry.
Any tips or suggestions as to why I'm not losing much?
Thanks! X
0
Replies
-
Do you use a food scale? It really, really, really, really helps.0
-
Are you actually weighing your food with a scale? If no, then you may be eating more than you think. Package serving sizes and measuring cups for solids are inaccurate.
If you are, it could be a fluctuation. Weight loss is not linear, and it's pretty common to see people go a few weeks to a month with nothing, then there's a big whoosh of loss. But most the time, this is often due to inaccurate logging without the use of a food scale.0 -
+1 for food scale
0 -
Do everything you can to ensure your intake is correct. Weigh your food, double check MFP entries for accuracy against the USDA website (especially for meats! Can't tell you how many inaccurate entries for chicken there are, had to make my own!)0
-
Food scale, and give it more time. Three weeks isn't long enough.0
-
You don't say what your current weight is, but if your TDEE is 2100, then only eating 1200-1500 calories a day may be your problem. When you eat that much lower than your body needs for an extended period of time, your metabolism can slow down drastically. When that happens, your body hands on to every calorie and it becomes very hard to lose weight. You probably don't want to hear this but you should probably try eating more--at a guess, since again I don't know your weight or activity level--like say 1700 calories a day. At least to start with.
And then you need to be active. Regular activity boosts your metabolism, and many studies show the lifting weights does more than cardio in this respect. You may gain some weight at first, but in the long run, eating no more than 300-400 calories less than your TDEE is a healthier more sustainable approach to weight loss. Good luck!0 -
You don't say what your current weight is, but if your TDEE is 2100, then only eating 1200-1500 calories a day may be your problem. When you eat that much lower than your body needs for an extended period of time, your metabolism can slow down drastically. When that happens, your body hands on to every calorie and it becomes very hard to lose weight. You probably don't want to hear this but you should probably try eating more--at a guess, since again I don't know your weight or activity level--like say 1700 calories a day. At least to start with.
And then you need to be active. Regular activity boosts your metabolism, and many studies show the lifting weights does more than cardio in this respect. You may gain some weight at first, but in the long run, eating no more than 300-400 calories less than your TDEE is a healthier more sustainable approach to weight loss. Good luck!
Wrong. What you are implying is starvation mode, which does not exist. Any slow down of the metabolism is minuscule at best. Meaning it would not be noticed.
0 -
-
You don't say what your current weight is, but if your TDEE is 2100, then only eating 1200-1500 calories a day may be your problem. When you eat that much lower than your body needs for an extended period of time, your metabolism can slow down drastically. When that happens, your body hands on to every calorie and it becomes very hard to lose weight. You probably don't want to hear this but you should probably try eating more--at a guess, since again I don't know your weight or activity level--like say 1700 calories a day. At least to start with.
And then you need to be active. Regular activity boosts your metabolism, and many studies show the lifting weights does more than cardio in this respect. You may gain some weight at first, but in the long run, eating no more than 300-400 calories less than your TDEE is a healthier more sustainable approach to weight loss. Good luck!
no all of this just no0 -
vespiquenn, sorry, but it's a pretty much proven fact that a person's metabolism slows down when they eat drastically fewer calories than their body requires. It's not a healthy or sustainable way of eating.0
-
This is a little misleading; the size of your deficit can be in proportion to your current weight and how much you want to lose (if you have 100 pounds to lose, for example, it's safe to create a bigger deficit than someone who only has 10 pounds to lose). Since the OP is trying to lose 60 pounds, it's fine for her to try to lose one pound a week, which would be a 500-calorie deficit. Her target of a 600-calorie deficit is right in that ballpark, although pushing it to 800-900 (to hit 1200-1300 calories daily) probably isn't a sustainable plan.in the long run, eating no more than 300-400 calories less than your TDEE is a healthier more sustainable approach to weight loss. Good luck!
0 -
vespiquenn, sorry, but it's a pretty much proven fact that a person's metabolism slows down when they eat drastically fewer calories than their body requires. It's not a healthy or sustainable way of eating.
As I explained above, a 600-calorie deficit for this OP isn't drastic. It's not healthy to severely restrict calories over a long period of time, but the OP isn't doing that.0 -
vespiquenn, sorry, but it's a pretty much proven fact that a person's metabolism slows down when they eat drastically fewer calories than their body requires. It's not a healthy or sustainable way of eating.
Sources then please. Because if starvation mode existed, you would not see emancipated people from the holocaust. They were fed, very little of course, but under that logic, their bodies would have held onto any fat they could get. Same could be said about starving children in third world countries. Sad examples, but true. I suggest reading up on some peer reviewed articles, not just the first thing on Google.
0 -
"if starvation mode existed, you would not see emancipated people from the holocaust" -- Um, you do realize that that is a *completely* different situation than a restricted diet, right? That was actual starvation. We're not talking about that. But I think we're done talking since my tolerance for rudeness is right around zero.
Beyond that, I'll simply say again that eating at a drastic caloric deficit is not healthy, not sustainable, and can lead to a metabolism slow down that impedes weight loss. There's no quick fix to losing weight. It takes time, discipline, healthy eating, and exercise.
0 -
"if starvation mode existed, you would not see emancipated people from the holocaust" -- Um, you do realize that that is a *completely* different situation than a restricted diet, right? That was actual starvation. We're not talking about that. But I think we're done talking since my tolerance for rudeness is right around zero.
Beyond that, I'll simply say again that eating at a drastic caloric deficit is not healthy, not sustainable, and can lead to a metabolism slow down that impedes weight loss. There's no quick fix to losing weight. It takes time, discipline, healthy eating, and exercise.
It's not rudeness. It's irritation that someone is providing false information to someone that is seeking useful and scientifically proven facts. Starvation mode has scientifically been disproven. Either way, OP is not over restricting. Over restricting would be under 1200, so your starvation mode point is moot anyways.
0 -
vespiquenn wrote: »Are you actually weighing your food with a scale? If no, then you may be eating more than you think. Package serving sizes and measuring cups for solids are inaccurate.
If you are, it could be a fluctuation. Weight loss is not linear, and it's pretty common to see people go a few weeks to a month with nothing, then there's a big whoosh of loss. But most the time, this is often due to inaccurate logging without the use of a food scale.
This. You are probably eating more than you think or your body is just holding onto some water in your fat cells. Your body can and will reduce metabolism to aid in survival but it certainly is not immediate and is not as drastic as some make it out to be. Long term caloric deficits will cause your sex and thyroid hormones to fall to some degree depending on age and genetics. One easy test is by using a thermometer on someone that has been dieting for a long time and is tired all the time. Odds are, they have low body temps reflecting their slowed metabolisms. Yes, there are natural fluctuations in body temp but when someone consistently gets 93 or 94 degrees, something negative is definitely going on. I have been there, I know.0 -
"if starvation mode existed, you would not see emancipated people from the holocaust" -- Um, you do realize that that is a *completely* different situation than a restricted diet, right? That was actual starvation. We're not talking about that. But I think we're done talking since my tolerance for rudeness is right around zero.
Beyond that, I'll simply say again that eating at a drastic caloric deficit is not healthy, not sustainable, and can lead to a metabolism slow down that impedes weight loss. There's no quick fix to losing weight. It takes time, discipline, healthy eating, and exercise.
I'm curious about your logic of someone eating more would go into "starvation mode" but someone who is actually starving wouldn't?
As far as your second paragraph, a 600 cal deficit is moderate and not drastic, especially for someone needing to lose 60lbs.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions