Calorie Counting/Weight Loss Help for a Beginner

Options
jenniferfultz14
jenniferfultz14 Posts: 3 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I am new to the counting calories game. I got my Fitbit for Christmas and just starting logging my meals and exercise then. My goal is to lose 10-15 pounds.

For exercise I am running 3-4 miles 3 times per week, plus a longer run on Saturdays as well as one day of cross training (following a half marathon training schedule). Looking back over my food log, I'm currently eating about 1,000 calories per day over 3 meals/snacks. Since I'm so new to the calorie counting part of this, I've just been limiting myself to whatever a "serving" is of what I'm eating. For example, I have an English muffin for breakfast with 2 tablespoons of peanut butter (a serving size) and I'm logging those calories. Same goes for my remaining meals for the day.

I'm logging everything I eat, drink and all of my workouts, but I haven't seen any physical change--weight loss or otherwise. It's been about a month so I'm wondering if I'm doing something wrong? I've definitely increase my exercise (by a lot!) and have decreased the actual amount of food I'm taking in so I was figuring I'd see some sort of result by now!

Replies

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    edited January 2016
    Options
    The fact that you mentioned "tablespoons" as a unit of measure makes me think you are not weighing food. Is this the case?

    When I switched to weighing my foods, I found I had been eating much more than I thought I was. For example, what I *thought* was one serving (2 tablespoons) of peanut butter was more like 1.5-2 servings in actual weight. And I was being careful with my measuring! You could be eating much more than 1,000 calories.

    Also, people who are new to exercise often retain water in their muscles while their body gets used to the new level of activity. This could make it look like you haven't lost weight when you have lost some fat.
  • jenniferfultz14
    jenniferfultz14 Posts: 3 Member
    Options
    That is the case that I'm not weighing food. I am measuring with cups/spoons, though as much as possible. I know that my measurements may not be 100% accurate but I wasn't thinking it would be *that* far off.

    I'm nervous about the prospect of weighing everything and how to log it all that way vs. using standard measuring tools. I'm definitely finding that logging food is fairly time consuming and can be tricky to get everything correct so any tips/tricks anyone has would be really helpful!
  • Coley88
    Coley88 Posts: 114 Member
    Options
    jenniferfultz14 wrote: »
    That is the case that I'm not weighing food. I am measuring with cups/spoons, though as much as possible. I know that my measurements may not be 100% accurate but I wasn't thinking it would be *that* far off.

    I'm nervous about the prospect of weighing everything and how to log it all that way vs. using standard measuring tools. I'm definitely finding that logging food is fairly time consuming and can be tricky to get everything correct so any tips/tricks anyone has would be really helpful!

    Buy a digital food scale and weigh everything you eat. You may think logging is time consuming now, but once you get in the habit you will realize it's actually a quick process, only a few minutes out of your entire day. It just takes time to get used to it. Also make sure you are using accurate database entries, avoid things that say generic or homemade.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    I didn't switch to a scale until a couple of months into it and was surprised that I actually found it less of a hassle. I can put things on the scale as a step in my preparation process (while chopping) and don't have to try to estimate or haul out some spoon or cup I wouldn't normally use.

    Logging gets a lot easier/faster in general, as your foods end up in the frequent or recent folders and as you learn to locate the correct entries (for example, the terms to use to bring up the good USDA entries). A helpful thread is here: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1234699/logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide/p1

    Eating 1000 calories per day is too little even without the running (and you need to fuel the running -- I lost a bunch of weight training for a half marathon in 2014, but was eating more like 1600 calories). That said, if you aren't losing you are likely eating more, and getting the logging sorted out is a good first step.

    You can get some water weight gain when increasing exercise.
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    Options
    Eating too little creates faster weight loss, but it comes at a hefty price. A moderate deficit (especially when you are close to goal) helps minimize lean muscle loss. Cardio is great, but strength training is also a good addition to help keep more lean muscle.
  • StaciMarie1974
    StaciMarie1974 Posts: 4,138 Member
    Options
    The logging gets easier with a little time & practice.

    A few thoughts:

    1) Its too soon to panic over not seeing scale results. Changing so much at once could easily lead to water weight which temporarily masks weight loss.

    2) Using a scale on calorie dense items is essential to logging accuracy. No major harm in estimating as you are and judging by results - you could give it a few more weeks.

    3) If you're training for a half marathon, you NEED more than 1000/day calories. Or your training will suffer.

    How much does the Fitbit show you're burning per day, on average? Taking a 600-700 cal deficit from that would be sufficient to aim for 1 pound per week loss with a little buffer. With 10-15 pounds to lose AND training for a half, its probably not in your best interest to cut calories lower than that.
  • Maxematics
    Maxematics Posts: 2,287 Member
    Options
    What is your height/weight? I also run. I'm 5'3" and 113 pounds. If I ate 1000 calories every day for a month, I would not be able to run because I'd have no energy and I'd be dropping weight like crazy. I agree that the food logging is definitely off. I know people say give it time and while I'd normally agree, if you were truly eating 1000 calories per day, especially while running 3 to 4 miles several days per week, you'd definitely see weight loss by now unless you're ultra tiny.
  • almas512
    almas512 Posts: 17 Member
    Options
    Because you're simply malnourished. 1000 calories is way too low so your body holds onto whatever you have. You should up your calories by 6-700. Your metabolism will go back up. U could also zig zag some days eat less some days more.
  • Maxematics
    Maxematics Posts: 2,287 Member
    Options
    almas512 wrote: »
    Because you're simply malnourished. 1000 calories is way too low so your body holds onto whatever you have. You should up your calories by 6-700. Your metabolism will go back up. U could also zig zag some days eat less some days more.

    Wrong. Every post made about seeing no results, someone posts this misinformation. The body doesn't "hold onto" whatever you have. If she were eating that little, she'd see weight loss. Period.
  • jenniferfultz14
    jenniferfultz14 Posts: 3 Member
    Options
    Thank you all for your advice. I'm 5'4" currently at about 140lbs. I wasn't sure if 1,000 calories was to high/low that's just kind of where I've been consistently. Fitbit does give me my daily goal calories (it's saying about 1,400). MFP gives me a little bit more. I don't think I fully understand what a calorie deficit is and how to track that (is the Fitbit goal calories counting that in?)

    I won't argue that my logging is probably off since I'm so new to this, but I do know I'm eating much less than I was (portion-wise) plus I'm working out more. I definitely feel better--I feel stronger already which is great. I was just hoping to see a physical change too :smile:
  • almas512
    almas512 Posts: 17 Member
    Options
    synacious wrote: »
    almas512 wrote: »
    Because you're simply malnourished. 1000 calories is way too low so your body holds onto whatever you have. You should up your calories by 6-700. Your metabolism will go back up. U could also zig zag some days eat less some days more.

    Wrong. Every post made about seeing no results, someone posts this misinformation. The body doesn't "hold onto" whatever you have. If she were eating that little, she'd see weight loss. Period.

    I ate 1000 calories and worked out hard and lost nothing. When I went up to 1500, not only did I overcome the plateau, I even felt better and more energized. The body does indeed slow down metabolism as it gets used to a certain level of cals. Especially low cals.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    Best way to do it is use MFP to set a goal (1 lb/week is fine I think), pick sedentary for activity level, and then link to the Fitbit, which will give you credit for activity beyond sedentary. Your base goal will likely be 1200, but it will end up higher due to movement most days (especially when you run). I did this for a while. The long run day is a nice perk.

    Alternative is to use a TDEE calculation (like here: http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/) to get a target, but then you wouldn't include the Fitbit/exercise calories and would eat about the same every day (that's what my 1600 was).

    I am 5'3 and 125, so feel comfortable saying 1000 is too low with your stats and activity.
  • namelesshere
    namelesshere Posts: 334 Member
    Options
    I couldn't live without my digital food scale! So easy to hit tare and add my portion. Yup, condiments will get you. 2 tbsp. is really a small amount of salad dressing for example. I have found for my large salads I am happier if I let the grams on the scale go up to 2 servings (58) or 4 tbsp. I usually do the grams as tbsp. you have to ask, is that supposed to be heaping? how high? etc.
  • MKEgal
    MKEgal Posts: 3,250 Member
    Options
    You want to lose such a little amount, it's going to be very slow,
    especially if you're already at a healthy weight.

    This calculator from the Baylor College of Medicine will show you the
    calories needed to maintain any weight. For the stats you've given, it says you need 1483 cal/day
    if you are INACTIVE, and your BMI is currently 24.1, which is toward the top end of the healthy range.
    At 130 lb it would be 22.4 which is still fine.



    Here are some posts you might find helpful.
    At least read sexypants.
    Also my blog post (at the bottom), which has links to reliable sites discussing things like
    "what's a healthy weight range for me?"
    "how many calories should I be eating?"
    "what are the healthy % ranges for macronutrients?"

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1080242/a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants

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

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/819925/the-basics-dont-complicate-it/p1

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/872212/youre-probably-eating-more-than-you-think/p1

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/833026/important-posts-to-read/p1


    Goal setting, including weight, calories, and macros
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/MKEgal/view/2014-06-08-setting-goals-667045
  • MKEgal
    MKEgal Posts: 3,250 Member
    edited January 2016
    Options
    almas wrote:
    Because you're simply malnourished. 1000 calories is way too low so your body holds onto whatever you have. You should up your calories by 6-700. Your metabolism will go back up. U could also zig zag some days eat less some days more.
    :/:s:o
    Metabolism does not drop all that much, at least not from short-term undereating.
    (And it's likely she's not actually undereating.)

    Read this. Then read it again. Bookmark it so you can use it to explain to other newbies what "starvation mode" is and is not. What you're thinking it is, it's not.
    http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/

    The body needs energy (calories) to run.
    It prefers to use glucose (blood sugar, easily-available carbs),
    then it prefers to use glycogen (slightly more complex carbs stored in liver & muscles),
    then it prefers to use fat,
    and as a distant 4th it uses protein (muscles).
    {Yes, we're all burning some of those all the time, but that's generally the order they're used.}

    Burning muscle is starvation.
    Part of the reason it's 4th is that it's an inefficient conversion. The body gets more energy per gram of tissue from the other sources.
    Also, it's a hail mary, hoping you will find (and EAT!) food before you lose so much muscle tissue that you can't move, or can't eat, or can't breathe, or your heart stops.
    It takes a long time of eating way below your healthy range to get there.

    The body WILL NOT "hold onto" _any_ calories (fat) if you're eating below maintenance.
    (Use a little common sense.)
    If it did, anorexia wouldn't be deadly.
    Neither would famine.



    pawf2sl1o4ss.jpg

Categories